Can't make this stuff up --beyound should be fined In an effort to justify its actions, IBC claims that it did not seek an ex parte TRO, and it was never IBCs intent to issue the TRO without notice to Schrider. See Opp. to Mot. to Dissolve TRO at p. 4, attached hereto as Exhibit 2. In the very next sentence, however, IBC admits this statement is false: IBC filed a request to submit [the TRO Motion] for decision at 12:53 PM and sent a request for rush service to the constable in New Hampshire, where Schrider resides, a half hour later at 1:27 PM. Id. (emphasis added). In other words, IBC filed its motion and asked the Court to rule upon the motion before it even sent the motion to a third party process server for later service on Mr. Schrider. Making matters worse IBC affirmatively misrepresented in its Motion for Expedited Discovery, filed the same day as the TRO Motion, that IBC filed its motion for a temporary restraining order (with notice). See Exhibit 3 at p. 8. As explained above this is not true. Moreover, at the time, IBC possessed Mr. Schriders email address and could have provided immediate and direct notice to him, but just chose not to". ........" When the documents were finally served on Mr. Schrider after expiration of the TRO reveal, they revealed that what IBC claims to be confidential information subject to return was sent to Ucore pursuant to contracts between Ucore and IBC. And those contracts establish that the information belongs to Ucore and that Ucore paid millions of dollars for it". ------- Every case he's filed, wreaks of no evidence ----- https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/pdfserver/YQIUPJQ/117162709/IBC_Advanced_Technologies_v_6th_Wave_Innovations_et_al__utdce-19-00826__0038.0.pdf