hp_fa
Veteran
- Feb 19, 2004
- 3,290
- 178
OK, does someone want to tell me that I am full of hose dung now about the theory that USAPA is trying to spend AOL into the ground?
After Judge Wake made his comment in open court on July 7th, specifically that:
"We're dealing with a history of proven pervasive violation of duty, and therefore, it's necessary for the Court to come up with a rule, with a remedy that will restore the neutral and even-handed motivations to the process and, in particular, to the ratification process.
Now, I haven't heard anything that would change my mind to the question."
Today USAPA filed DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF, AND RENEWED MOTION FOR, JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, PURSUANT TO RULE 50( B ). That's right boys and girls, they think they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law after the jury trial, but more specifically after Judge Wake's comments two days before they filed their motion.
Does anyone sense a disconnect anywhere?
After Judge Wake made his comment in open court on July 7th, specifically that:
"We're dealing with a history of proven pervasive violation of duty, and therefore, it's necessary for the Court to come up with a rule, with a remedy that will restore the neutral and even-handed motivations to the process and, in particular, to the ratification process.
Now, I haven't heard anything that would change my mind to the question."
Today USAPA filed DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF, AND RENEWED MOTION FOR, JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, PURSUANT TO RULE 50( B ). That's right boys and girls, they think they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law after the jury trial, but more specifically after Judge Wake's comments two days before they filed their motion.
Does anyone sense a disconnect anywhere?