Monday, June 29, 2015

Orders and Requests

Order Updates 1507

GERS Request

Adkins Denied

Order

SkunK


35 comments:

nobody123789 said...

It will be GERSD tomorrow. Know what the "D" stands for? Dropping like a rock. And you will not be able to sell the new shares for several weeks yet until your spanking new GERSD shares have been delivered. Guess who will have millions of these shares to dump, staring tomorrow? One hint, starts with "Y".

nobody123789 said...

20 x 50 x 10 x 1000 x 100 x 100 = 100 billion!. In other words you would have had to owned 100 billion shares on October 20, 2003 to own 1 share tomorrow. Think about that for a while!

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.

New patents issued June 2015

New patent issued, patent # 9,012,668

New patent issued Patent # 9034954

New patent issued patent # 9044702

New application filed 14/661,369

Anonymous said...

Hey regurgitation machine. You're about to lose another 50% of your "investment" quick, fast and in a hurry... courtesy reverse split #6 and YAGI. GERS is broke... as you will be if you don't learn something soon.

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

nobody123789 said...

Current PPS : 0.0013 down 87% in one day and YAGI has not started dumping yet. Triple zeros again in a month?

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.

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.

New patents issued June 2015

New patent issued, patent # 9,012,668

New patent issued Patent # 9034954

New patent issued patent # 9044702

New application filed 14/661,369

Anonymous said...

Why the post split spike of 650%? Investors coming in? Court action will start getting interesting. That coupled with all the new patents will ring the register in the next few months/years...

Anonymous said...

Come on, really? Nobody is that gullible... GERS is a black hole. Do your research.

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...

hod 2 cents

nobody123789 said...

Are you trying to mislead people intentionally? If you are, you are failing at that as well.

$0.018 8 OTO 15:14:09
$0.009 4 OTO 12:35:59
$0.018 4 OTO 11:29:06
$0.009 2 OTO 10:16:14
$0.014 6 OTO 10:13:20

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.

New patents issued June 2015

New patent issued, patent # 9,012,668

New patent issued Patent # 9034954

New patent issued patent # 9044702

New application filed 14/661,369

nobody123789 said...

$0.0088 150,000 OTO 16:03:22
$0.009 150,000 OTO 14:52:27

Looks like YAGI got some GERSD shares delivered just before close. So the dumping begins -- wait until tomorrow. By the way, that is the equivalent of 30,000,000 before the R/S.

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...


(GERSD) -Other OTC  Watchlist


0.0150 Up 0.0060(66.67%) 9:30AM EDT

Anonymous said...


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

Anonymous said...

up 66% on 1,500 shares LOL... You guys are a joke. GERS is a 6 time reverse splitting black hole.

nobody123789 said...

Let him or her be. He/she is clearly clinging to their lost money as a baby clings to its "bankee". These outbursts are simply an expression of grief that they have no one else in their lonely lives to ventilate with. We need to be careful here, this grief mechanism may be the only action that stands between sanity and insanity or worse. I have been around this stock long enough to know, and I mean know, of one individual who placed everything they had on GERS about eight years ago. This resulted in losing his house, family, and then alcoholism leading to his suicide. Let them be.

Anonymous said...

... 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.

Anonymous said...

... 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.

New patents issued June 2015

New patent issued, patent # 9,012,668

New patent issued Patent # 9034954

New patent issued patent # 9044702

New application filed 14/661,369

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...

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

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

Anonymous said...

This person that continues to post the patents and information on the judge will go away soon. It will be a minor note in a little known paper about a suicide that nobody will care about. Unless he is of a certain race, then GERS will be for blame.

Anonymous said...

Skunk,

Can you block the person that continually posts the patents and judge information over and over? I come to this site for information and do not appreciate this type of postings over and over again. It is causing the credibility of this site to lose respect. I previously looked at it often. Now maybe once a month. This is really annoying to have to go through the same postings over and over again just to get a few real information posts.

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.

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.

New patents issued June 2015

New patent issued, patent # 9,012,668

New patent issued Patent # 9034954

New patent issued patent # 9044702

New application filed 14/661,369

Anonymous said...

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.

New patents issued June 2015

New patent issued, patent # 9,012,668

New patent issued Patent # 9034954

New patent issued patent # 9044702

New application filed 14/661,369

Anonymous said...

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

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

Anonymous said...

Kevin - how was your weekend?

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...

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

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

 
Free Blog CounterTamron