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)
Time to put some objectivity in this discussion, now that Slash has exited stage left.
"Appellate court review usually defers to the trial court or jury on factual issues."
"On an appeal from a summary judgment motion the appellate court will independently decide whether the case should have been dismissed or whether it should have been allowed to go to trial."
it is not always true that the appellant is likely to lose. For example, in appeals decided during the 2001-2002 court year: 58 percent of judgments notwithstanding the verdict were reversed; 59 percent of orders granting temporary injunctions were reversed; and 79 percent of no-answer default judgments were reversed. In restricted appeals, the reversal rate was 74 percent
Summary Judgments Summary judgments are proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact.17 Demonstrating the existence of a fact issue provides the most successful route to the reversal of a summary judgment. Of all summary judgment
reversals, 58 percent were attributed to the existence of fact issues. Errors of law also led to a significant number of reversals, accounting for 31 percent of all summary judgments reversed. Examples included incorrect determinations regarding whether a statute was unconstitutional18 and which limitations period applied.19 At the trial court level, summary judgment practice remains highly technical. On appeal, failure to comply with the technicalities will result in reversal. Eleven percent of reversals of summary judgments occurred not because summary judgment could not have been granted in the case, but because of a procedural error.
Each year, the Supreme CVourt receives approximately 9,000–10,000 petitions for certiorari, of which less than 1% (approximately 80–100), are granted plenary review with oral arguments, and an additional 50 to 60 are disposed of without plenary review.[
(During the 1980s and 1990s, the number of cases accepted and decided each term approached 150 per year; more recently, the number of cases granted has averaged well under 100 annually)
You pipe dreamers should buy all you can. You can't lose. I've never seen so many people committed to handing over millions of $ to lawyers and toxic financiers. Good luck after your next reverse split and ensuing price crash. It's only be repeated 6 times. Unbelievable.
Capital Change=shs decreased by 1 for 20 split. Pay date=10-21-03. Capital Change=shs decreased by 1 for 50 split Pay date=12/12/2007. Capital Change=shs decreased by 1 for 10 split Pay date=08/10/2010. Capital Change=shs decreased by 1 for 1000 split Pay date=11/14/2011. Capital Change=shs decreased by 1 for 100 split. Ex-date=04/15/2014.
If you had 1 BILLION shares in 2003, you'd have 1 share today
This ruling will be reversed. The court of appeals will come to the same conclusion as the patent examiner, testing.
ReplyDeleteAnother minute has passed, another sucker is born.
ReplyDeleteAnother minute has passed, another decision reversed. Happens all the time.
ReplyDeleteTime to put some objectivity in this discussion, now that Slash has exited stage left.
ReplyDelete"Appellate court review usually defers to the trial court or jury on factual issues."
"On an appeal from a summary judgment motion the appellate court will independently decide whether the case should have been dismissed or whether it should have been allowed to go to trial."
http://hh-attorney.com/?page_id=59
it
ReplyDeleteis not always true that the appellant is
likely to lose. For example, in appeals
decided during the 2001-2002 court year:
58 percent of judgments notwithstanding
the verdict were reversed; 59 percent
of orders granting temporary injunctions
were reversed; and 79 percent of
no-answer default judgments were
reversed. In restricted appeals, the reversal
rate was 74 percent
Summary Judgments
ReplyDeleteSummary judgments are proper
when there is no genuine issue of material
fact.17 Demonstrating the existence
of a fact issue provides the most successful
route to the reversal of a summary
judgment. Of all summary judgment
reversals, 58 percent were attributed to
ReplyDeletethe existence of fact issues. Errors of
law also led to a significant number of
reversals, accounting for 31 percent of
all summary judgments reversed. Examples
included incorrect determinations
regarding whether a statute was unconstitutional18
and which limitations period
applied.19
At the trial court level, summary
judgment practice remains highly technical.
On appeal, failure to comply with
the technicalities will result in reversal.
Eleven percent of reversals of summary
judgments occurred not because summary
judgment could not have been
granted in the case, but because of a
procedural error.
When this is reversed, ICM will have no recourse. Can't appeal a reversed decision.
ReplyDeleteYes you can -- to the Supreme Court. They may not agree to hear the appeal, but it will fit into the delaying strategy rather nicely.
ReplyDelete100 out of over 10,000 Supreme Court cases are heard. Better stick with Kansas lottery with those odds.
ReplyDeleteYou have no idea what you are talking about. The Supreme Court chooses which cases it hears.
ReplyDeleteEach year, the Supreme CVourt receives approximately 9,000–10,000 petitions for certiorari, of which less than 1% (approximately 80–100), are granted plenary review with oral arguments, and an additional 50 to 60 are disposed of without plenary review.[
ReplyDelete(During the 1980s and 1990s, the number of cases accepted and decided each term approached 150 per year; more recently, the number of cases granted has averaged well under 100 annually)
Less than 1% chance. What sKansas lotto payout anyway?
ReplyDeletetime for some objectivity now that that Nobody is still spouting his garbage and did not leave yet.
ReplyDeleteYou pipe dreamers should buy all you can. You can't lose. I've never seen so many people committed to handing over millions of $ to lawyers and toxic financiers. Good luck after your next reverse split and ensuing price crash. It's only be repeated 6 times. Unbelievable.
ReplyDeleteICM attorney^^
ReplyDeleteCapital Change=shs decreased by 1 for 20 split. Pay date=10-21-03.
ReplyDeleteCapital Change=shs decreased by 1 for 50 split Pay date=12/12/2007.
Capital Change=shs decreased by 1 for 10 split Pay date=08/10/2010.
Capital Change=shs decreased by 1 for 1000 split Pay date=11/14/2011.
Capital Change=shs decreased by 1 for 100 split. Ex-date=04/15/2014.
If you had 1 BILLION shares in 2003, you'd have 1 share today
Next reverse split is right around the corner.
If you had no GS in 2003, you'd have NO CORN OIL today!
ReplyDeleteReverse decision right around the corner.
If you had any money invested in GERS anywhere in that time frame... It's gone.
ReplyDeleteIf you timed the pumps and bailed before the dumps-you made money.
ReplyDelete