Joined: 2-May-2003 Posts: 2097
From: Rocket City, USA
Quote:
You have not learned a thing from the previous legal ruling. (pdf 38: page7, lines 11-14)
Confused judge ?. Good one. Hyperion's lawyer must be a legal hypnotist.
Thanks for proving my point, look at footnote 4, (on that same page) now find the unsigned document that the judge is talking about that discusses a 25K buyback clause and is included with McEwens testimony as Exhibit G. Exhibit G doesnt mention 25K or buyback at all its the Arctic PDA agreement. See the judge is confused, do you understand now? He has confused Exhibit F which is signed by both parties and discusses sale of the OS to Itec for 25K, and which both parties have included identical copies of, with the Arctic PDA agreement, which doesnt discuss buyback at all, and which we have a signed two party version (provided by Hyperion) and an unsigned three party version (provided by AI). He says his basis for not granting the injunction is that he cant prove Hyperion accepted the transfer because of the discrepancy between the documents, but there are no discrepancies between AI and Hyperion on the Itec agreement, they both submitted the same document. -Tig
_________________ We played the first thing that came to our heads, it just happened to be the best song in the world.