I was searching the Internet for something unrelated to the subject of corruption of the courts for the like of corporations and hedge funds when I found this (courtesy of the judiciary system of the state of Utah)
As it appears the Plaintiff there wanted to contest the selling of the company in which he was a shareholder at what he saw as a low price. By just reading this I wondered how could such a claim be derivative and not direct? If the company no longer exist after its selling how could it suffer the injury of the transaction? I continued reading trying to see how could this claimed to be derivative. But instead what I saw was very hard to be avoided seen as a big corruption and/or conspiracy by the court. How could any judge miss that the claim was correctly direct? Not only the judge did not deny the motion arguing that the complaint makes a derivative claim and therefor should be dismissed for such a clearly direct claim but she also ordered a hearing on that. And in case that was not sufficient to scare the plaintiff who was being threatened by the defendant's side that they may argue for a dismissal with prejudice she also made this comment (Again for such a hard to miss direct claim) :
"the Motion to Dismiss is well taken ..So if I were to hear argument, and unless someone changed my mind for me this morning, which certainly could happen, I would be inclined to grant the Motion to Dismiss.”
Are you kidding me???????????
No comments:
Post a Comment