SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Bear Down who wrote (11722)4/24/2013 8:11:38 PM
From: geoffrey Wren  Read Replies (3) of 12465
 
Well, Eade filed out of personal enmity. It was silly of him to do so, as he got his ears pinned back pretty quick. He deserved the criticism that was posted against him. The judge correctly decided it was not a case that deserved costly court time.

Now IHub is going after Eade out of personal enmity (I suppose--I leave it open that it may be that they reasonably believe they can shake some money from the tree). If it is just personal enmity, it is not a case that deserves costly court time. To prove contempt of court for not paying money one has to prove an ability to pay. It does not seem that there is an ability to pay. Unless IHub has evidence of hidden bank accounts or something like that, I foresee that there is a finding of no contempt, or if there is a finding of contempt it produces nothing more than Eade sitting in a jail cell for some number of days.

A pissing contest.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News