|
|
Post by hunter3 on Feb 12, 2013 6:33:21 GMT -6
so we should be looking for saturday??? lol
|
|
|
|
Post by korlagz on Feb 13, 2013 13:02:29 GMT -6
what year???
|
|
|
|
Post by hunter3 on Feb 17, 2013 19:26:01 GMT -6
if he paid for cmkx then who received that money and why didn't we the shareholders get it???
|
|
|
|
Post by portrush on Feb 18, 2013 11:24:45 GMT -6
By: showmethemoney  In short, the court didn't rule in Al's favor because there isn't existing case law that would allow him to use a Biven's-based case for a Fifth Amendment issue (e.g. Due Process/ Takings Clause) as the Bivens has heretofore has only been used in Fourth Amendment "Illegal Search and Seizure" crimes committed by government employees. The lower courts will not want to take a lead on this, and instead will wait to see if the Supreme Court is willing to rule on such an important decision. AIMO, - Show Good point. The Court, in essence ruled that because there was no precedent, it could not rule in our favor. And this is very likely why the Court stated that we might well find a different take at the next level. The questions remain, will there be a need to proceed to the next level--and what will one do if there is? Meaning, simply, if it moves to the next level it could take quite some time to be heard. pr |
|
|
|
Post by stockrocker on Feb 22, 2013 21:12:05 GMT -6
me too, me too, me too ;>))
Jim/SR
|
|
|
|
Post by hunter3 on Feb 22, 2013 21:12:59 GMT -6
here waiting with you........
|
|
