I am the SkunKhunter. I hunt down SkunK stocks. Those are stocks that have been beat down past any reasonable justification. I try to ride the stock up as market forces eventually right the ship of PPS. A SkunK is not a herd animal. He is a scavenger who knows that arriving before the herd means big profits and clean shoes. This is the journey of the GreenShift Corporation. Updated weekly between COB Friday and Sunday evening. (Disclaimers on Bottom of Site)
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
NonInfringement Summary Judgement Request - and updates
I believe that the earliest that we will hear anything on the MDL SJ will be sometime between Thanksgiving and Christmas. Frankly, through all of the delays, motions, delays, more motions I have lost track. Perhaps somebody can provide a more authoritative date to expect this ruling.
"... Cardinal Ethanol contends such deviation cannot extend to encompass oil with the level of contaminants exiting Cardinal Ethanol's centrifuges."
Do they not scribble all over the top of their own argument here? Is it "oil" despite a level of contaminants? If it is not, then why do they call it "oil."
I think 87% is "substantially oil" and that an honest man would realize that.
Wasn't the delayed summary judgement today?
ReplyDeleteI believe that the earliest that we will hear anything on the MDL SJ will be sometime between Thanksgiving and Christmas. Frankly, through all of the delays, motions, delays, more motions I have lost track. Perhaps somebody can provide a more authoritative date to expect this ruling.
ReplyDeleten0b0dy cryin gagaint hahah like baby
ReplyDelete"... Cardinal Ethanol contends such deviation cannot extend to encompass oil with the level of contaminants exiting Cardinal Ethanol's centrifuges."
ReplyDeleteDo they not scribble all over the top of their own argument here? Is it "oil" despite a level of contaminants? If it is not, then why do they call it "oil."
I think 87% is "substantially oil" and that an honest man would realize that.
I see two more apparent acknowledgments :
ReplyDelete"In the case of Defendant Cardinal Ethanol, the oil exiting the centrifuge has a relatively large amount of contaminants in the oil stream."
"Because the oil recovered by Cardinal Ethanol has a very large percentage of contaminants, ... ."
If they call it "oil" regardless of contaminants, which they do, whats the point of revisiting the so-called modifier "substantially" ?
And one more time, in their conclusion:
ReplyDelete" [ ] and that so defined does not encompass the oil that exits the centrifuges of Cardinal Ethanol."
How they can say that they do not use a centrifuge to extract "oil" is beyond me.
And one more time, in their conclusion:
ReplyDelete" [ ] and that so defined does not encompass the oil that exits the centrifuges of Cardinal Ethanol."
How they can say that they do not use a centrifuge to extract "oil" is beyond me.
Maybe when they say the word "oil" in a high sweeky voice it means something different than when said in a low barratone.
ReplyDeletelying, theiving, cheating rats!
will the fedentants have to sue icm to get their indemnificatin money ?
ReplyDelete