Tuesday, May 12, 2015

Fee Schedule

ORDER Fee Schedule Here 1465

Adkins Remand Suggestion

Adkins Remand

ORDER Seal Procedures a

ORDER Seal Procedures b

SkunK

18 comments:

nobody123789 said...

We know now what "CleanTech", really means; GERS is being taken to the cleaners by the defendants.

nobody123789 said...

Folks do some arithmetic. According to GERS filings there were 1,874,638,210 common shares as of April 7, 2015. Then, after retiring 1,000,000,000 shares on May 1, 2015, there were 1,465,230,570 common shares outstanding. This means that on April 30, 2015 the OS count was 2,465,230,570. In other words, in 16 trading days the OS count was diluted by 590,592,360 shares or 36,912,022 shares a day. This 37 million share a day dilution represents the amount of shares required to feed the beast YAGI and its assignees. This cannot be continued at zero BID and is a quantitative measure of how soon we will see the Pre 14C filing announcing the next R/S -- soon, very SOON. The beast is hungry for our money.

Anonymous said...

History of Judge Larry J. McKinney's misjudgments and mistakes which led to countless summary judgment reversals.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-12/duke-energy-wins-verdict-reversal-in-epa-lawsuit-over-indiana-power-plants.html

The appeals court also said that U.S. District Judge Larry J. McKinney, who presided over the trial in Indianapolis, improperly admitted expert testimony proffered by the EPA.


http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-court-decisions---sept-4---17-2013/PARAMS/article/32442


Judge Larry McKinney of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted summary judgment in favor of SPX on all claims, but the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed.

http://www.woodmclaw.com/attorney/douglas-b-king

After the defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted, and then reversed on the plaintiff’s appeal to the U.S.C.A. for the 7th Circuit (¶ 23 on the case list of published decisions), the case was remanded for trial to Larry McKinney

http://www.cafcblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Centillion-Data-Sys.-LLC-V.-Qwest-Commc%E2%80%99ns.-Int%E2%80%99l-Inc.1.pdf


Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana in Nos. 04-CV-0073 and 04-
CV-2076, Judge Larry J. McKinney.

"Because we reverse the summary judgment of noninfringement
with respect to eBC, we vacate the district
court’s award of costs to Qwest."

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2013/D04-15/C:12-2255:J:Williams:aut:T:fnOp:N:1118572:S:0



Apr 15, 2013 ... 1:10-cv-00765―Judge Larry J. McKinney erred, ... So we reverse the summary judgment

Anonymous said...

GreenShift Receives Notices of Allowance on Three New Corn Oil Extraction Patents



ALPHARETTA, GA. — GreenShift Corporation (OTCQB:GERS) announced today that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) recently issued Notice of Allowances for the following U.S. Pat. Application Nos.:


•13/450,997 titled “Methods of Processing Ethanol Byproducts and Related Subsystems” (the “’997 Patent Application”) on December 19, 2014;
•13/185,841 titled “Method and Systems for Enhancing Oil Recovery from Ethanol Production Byproducts” (the “’841 Patent Application”) on December 24, 2014; and,
•11/908,891 titled “Methods and Systems for Washing Ethanol Production Byproducts to Improve Oil Recovery” (the “’891 Patent Application”) on December 26, 2014.

The Notices of Allowances for these applications were issued by the USPTO after a review of a recent Summary Judgment decision and other filings by the defendants in an ongoing infringement action against multiple defendants by GS CleanTech Corporation, a subsidiary of GreenShift. Each of the recently allowed patent applications was examined and considered patentable by a different examiner and after each had considered the Summary Judgment decision.

The Summary Judgment issued on October 23, 2014 by the District Court in Indiana and ruled in favor of defendants on their motions for summary judgment alleging that the corn oil extraction patents issued to GS CleanTech were invalid, including US Pat. Nos. 7,601,858 and 8,168,037. As previously announced GreenShift intends to appeal the Summary Judgment decision. Under applicable standards, a patent is not invalid until and unless a final judgment of invalidity is rendered after all available appeals have been exhausted.

“We believe in our intellectual property rights and the system of checks and balances designed to protect those rights, both in the patent office and the courts,” said Kevin Kreisler, GreenShift’s chief executive officer. “We will appeal the Summary Judgment ruling at the appropriate time. In the meantime, we remain focused on growth, innovation and bringing value to our licensees.”


Coverage of Allowed Claims

The allowed ‘997 Patent Application is a continuation application of US Pat. No. 7,601,858, and involves the concentration and mechanical processing of thin stillage to recovery at least a portion of the oil from the concentrate. The ‘891 Patent Application and the ‘841 Patent Application are continuation applications of US Pat. No 8,168,037. The allowed claims in the ‘841 Patent Application cover processes directed to evaporating thin stillage to reduce water content, recovering oil with a horizontal centrifugal three phase decanter, evaporating the concentrate to further reduce its moisture content, and mixing the evaporated concentrate with distillers wet grains. The allowed claims in the ‘891 Patent Application include processes directed to washing whole stillage with thin stillage to increase the oil content of the thin stillage, followed by concentration and recovery of oil.

The Notices of Allowances for these applications were issued by the USPTO after a review of a recent Summary Judgment decision and other filings by the defendants in an ongoing infringement action against multiple defendants by GS CleanTech Corporation, a subsidiary of GreenShift. Each of the recently allowed patent applications was examined and considered patentable by a different examiner and after each had considered the Summary Judgment decision.

nobody123789 said...

Anonymous, if this really goes South I suspect that you will be singing another tune.

I suspect that soon we could see a discovery motion for the roster on anyone ever owning common shares since 2006. The argument will be made that GERS could not have committed its fraud without the direct financial assistance of the common shareholders. If we see this filing, lookout! There is legal precedent to hold the common shareholders financially liable in these situations where there are no resources left in the company to pay the damages and the legal fees. I suspect that many former shareholders would become apoplectic when they receive the summons to show cause why they should not be held liable for their share of the damages. That would be an interesting scenario; new legal fees, and huge damage costs on top of their lost "investment". I have no idea how likely this is, but with the success the defendants are having why wouldn't they push the envelope and see what other riches GERS' folly could generate?

nobody123789 said...

Look, I am not very knowledgeable, muchness and expert in any of this. That said, the unrealistic euphoria must be balanced by the possible dire scenarios that may wait us.

Anonymous said...

New patent issued

Patent Number: 9,012,668


Method and Systems for Enhancing Oil Recovery From Ethanol Production Byproducts

The claims in the ‘668 Patent cover processes directed to evaporating thin stillage to reduce water content, recovering oil with a horizontal centrifugal three phase decanter, evaporating the concentrate to further reduce its moisture content, and mixing the evaporated concentrate with distillers wet grains.

The patent was issued by the USPTO after a review of a recent Summary Judgment decision and other filings by the defendants in an ongoing infringement action against multiple defendants by GS CleanTech Corporation, a subsidiary of GreenShift.


“We believe in our intellectual property rights and the system of checks and balances designed to protect those rights, both in the patent office and the courts,” said Kevin Kreisler, GreenShift’s chief executive officer. “We will appeal the Summary Judgment ruling at the appropriate time. In the meantime, we remain focused on growth, innovation and bringing value to our licensees.”

Anonymous said...

New corn oil patent filed 14/661,369

Anonymous said...

New patent to issue 05/19/2015 Patent number 9034954

Anonymous said...

$130 MILLION in investor losses. GERS is a black hole. A YAGI toxic financing dilution cash cow. No bid, reverse split #6 immanent. An investors hopium laced nightmare.

nobody123789 said...

Anony will be right back with a positive euphoric post. He/she strives to make sure that a "positive post" is the last one posted.

Anonymous said...

New patent issued, patent # 9,012,668

New application filed 14/661,369

New patent to issue 05/19/2015 Patent # 9034954

nobody123789 said...

As I stated; very predictable and indicative of a very lost, confused, and misguided "investor".

Anonymous said...

History of Judge Larry J. McKinney's misjudgments and mistakes which led to countless summary judgment reversals.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-12/duke-energy-wins-verdict-reversal-in-epa-lawsuit-over-indiana-power-plants.html

The appeals court also said that U.S. District Judge Larry J. McKinney, who presided over the trial in Indianapolis, improperly admitted expert testimony proffered by the EPA.


http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-court-decisions---sept-4---17-2013/PARAMS/article/32442


Judge Larry McKinney of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted summary judgment in favor of SPX on all claims, but the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed.

http://www.woodmclaw.com/attorney/douglas-b-king

After the defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted, and then reversed on the plaintiff’s appeal to the U.S.C.A. for the 7th Circuit (¶ 23 on the case list of published decisions), the case was remanded for trial to Larry McKinney

http://www.cafcblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Centillion-Data-Sys.-LLC-V.-Qwest-Commc%E2%80%99ns.-Int%E2%80%99l-Inc.1.pdf


Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana in Nos. 04-CV-0073 and 04-
CV-2076, Judge Larry J. McKinney.

"Because we reverse the summary judgment of noninfringement
with respect to eBC, we vacate the district
court’s award of costs to Qwest."

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2013/D04-15/C:12-2255:J:Williams:aut:T:fnOp:N:1118572:S:0



Apr 15, 2013 ... 1:10-cv-00765―Judge Larry J. McKinney erred, ... So we reverse the summary judgment

Anonymous said...


The Notices of Allowances for these applications were issued by the USPTO after a review of a recent Summary Judgment decision and other filings by the defendants in an ongoing infringement action against multiple defendants by GS CleanTech Corporation, a subsidiary of GreenShift. Each of the recently allowed patent applications was examined and considered patentable by a different examiner and after each had considered the Summary Judgment decision.



•13/450,997 titled “Methods of Processing Ethanol Byproducts and Related Subsystems” (the “’997 Patent Application”) on December 19, 2014;
•13/185,841 titled “Method and Systems for Enhancing Oil Recovery from Ethanol Production Byproducts” (the “’841 Patent Application”) on December 24, 2014; and,
•11/908,891 titled “Methods and Systems for Washing Ethanol Production Byproducts to Improve Oil Recovery” (the “’891 Patent Application”) on December 26, 2014.

Anonymous said...

Those patents will NEVER issue! they are broke you imbecile!

Anonymous said...

History of Judge Larry J. McKinney's misjudgments and mistakes which led to countless summary judgment reversals.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-12/duke-energy-wins-verdict-reversal-in-epa-lawsuit-over-indiana-power-plants.html

The appeals court also said that U.S. District Judge Larry J. McKinney, who presided over the trial in Indianapolis, improperly admitted expert testimony proffered by the EPA.


http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-court-decisions---sept-4---17-2013/PARAMS/article/32442


Judge Larry McKinney of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted summary judgment in favor of SPX on all claims, but the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed.

http://www.woodmclaw.com/attorney/douglas-b-king

After the defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted, and then reversed on the plaintiff’s appeal to the U.S.C.A. for the 7th Circuit (¶ 23 on the case list of published decisions), the case was remanded for trial to Larry McKinney

http://www.cafcblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Centillion-Data-Sys.-LLC-V.-Qwest-Commc%E2%80%99ns.-Int%E2%80%99l-Inc.1.pdf


Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana in Nos. 04-CV-0073 and 04-
CV-2076, Judge Larry J. McKinney.

"Because we reverse the summary judgment of noninfringement
with respect to eBC, we vacate the district
court’s award of costs to Qwest."

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2013/D04-15/C:12-2255:J:Williams:aut:T:fnOp:N:1118572:S:0



Apr 15, 2013 ... 1:10-cv-00765―Judge Larry J. McKinney erred, ... So we reverse the summary judgment

Anonymous said...

McKinney history of reversals. History repeats itself.

 
Free Blog CounterTamron