If the plaintiff himself was not part of the conspiracy and not a pro se litigant then it is hard not to see that plaintiff being deceived even by the lawyer representing him because it is very hard to believe that lawyer really missed seeing the claim being direct and cannot be brought derivatively after the selling even assuming there was a derivative standing for the claim before that.
Back to that judge. How could the actions of that judge in stating that she is inclined to grant the motion to dismiss then that she is ready to rule on the motion be seen without considerably significant probability as fraudulent and part of the plan of the defendant's side?
I just wonder about the level of corruption that reaches this audacity of publicly passing on such actions like nothing.
No comments:
Post a Comment