Re: "News" Verizon calls SFLC bluff

[rjack]

Linonut wrote:
> * rjack peremptorily fired off this memo:

> Then why did they bother?  And, if SFLC was at such a disadvantage, why
> wouldn't big ol' Verizon just go ahead and let little ol' SFLC take its
> beating in court?

Wake up and smell the coffee.

FACT: The SFLC moved to dismiss the action with PREJUDICE against the 
SFLC's own clients... obviously Verizon objected to a dismissal 
*without* prejudice so the *only* way SFLC could extricate Andersen and 
Landley's legal ass was to dismiss *with* PREJUDICE against its own 
clients frivolous case.

FACT: The utter nonsense about settling with *non-defendant* Actiontec 
was face saving spin to cover the fact that Verizon ran the SFLC out of 
court via a dismissal with PREJUDICE.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)

--- "[A] breach by one party does not automatically result in rescission 
of a contract. Id. at 238 ("New York law does not presume the rescission 
or abandonment of a contract and the party asserting rescission or 
abandonment has the burden of proving it")."; Atlantis Information 
Technology, Gmbh v, CA Inc., 2007 WL 1238716 (United States District 
Court for the Eastern District of New York, 2007). ---