<<<Only California requires that an attorney representing a party in arbitration be licensed in California. But now he's talking about the arbitrators being licensed, which is another thing altogether.>>>
Absolutely, I think this would only apply if the arbitrators were attorneys, but what would be the need.
I've never dealt with NASD (although I do know a couple of members who also happen to be attorneys) but know the rules for AAA. Don't know about Nevada.
<<<BTW I am not particularly interested in all the details of the Wellrich deal because I think there are more fascinating issues, but the question remains, if AZNT didn't hire Wellrich because they weren't broker dealers, why were they giving them stocK, was that just for giggles ? >>>
My main interest is to establish credibility ... also, I'd like to know how Janice managed to get hold of a document that is neither public knowledge, nor generally available to parties other than those with direct involvement in the arbitration.
I doubt that AZNT sent it to her and if Wellrich provided it, there would be difficult times ahead in any attempt to maintain plausible deniability of a relationship between Shell (and others) and Wellrich, or others close to Wellrich.
Oh well, maybe tomorrow ... gotta run, see you later.
Hogger |
