Re: The great BusyBox fraud continues

[voodoo]

On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 00:00:31 -0400, RJack wrote:

> On 8/5/2010 9:13 PM, voodoo wrote:
>> On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 18:24:06 -0400, RJack wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/28/2010 8:41 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>>>> SFLC gang 'won' $90,000 + attorneys fees and costs and expenses
>>>> against LONG INSOLVENT AND ASSETS-DISSOLVED DEFENCELESS defendant on
>>>> default.
>>>>
>>>> Congrats to Eben Moglen and his underlings.
>>>>
>>>> LOL.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Uh... PJ over at Groklaw says the default judgment against Western
>>> Digital proves, "Of course, to collect the money, the plaintiffs must
>>
>> that would be westinghouse digital. westinghouse is that company from
>> the last century that makes heavy electric equipment.
>>
>> western digital makes disk drives and is not a part of this issue.
> 
> You are correct. It is Westinghouse Digital. There is certainly strong
> grounds to appeal the default judgment by Westinghouse's successors in
> interest.

How long have they got to start the appeal process?