Re: Blowhard Bradley Kuhn and his fraud

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> "Plaintiffs knew of the underlying transactions in April 2010, yet took
> no action to add or substitute WD at that time—had they
> done so, due process would have required that WD be given notice and an
> opportunity to defend itself against not only the successor liability
> claims, but also against plaintiffs’ underlying copyright claim.
> Plaintiffs chose instead to follow default proceedings against Mora and,
> having made that choice and obtained a monetary judgment and their much
> touted unprecedented injunction, should not be able now to circumvent
> the due process to which WD would have been entitled."
>
> I've been telling all along that the crooks at SFLC shall be disbarred.

You are confusing the defendants' opinion with the court's.  And the
court's opinion again is independent from that of the bar.

In short, you are again wallowing in pittoresque fantasies.

-- 
David Kastrup