Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Quote  |  Bullboard  |  News  |  Opinion  |  Profile  |  Peers  |  Filings  |  Financials  |  Options  |  Price History  |  Ratios  |  Ownership  |  Insiders  |  Valuation

MountainWest Resources Inc. C.MWR



CSE:MWR - Post by User

Post by MTStackon Jun 21, 2023 7:12am
128 Views
Post# 35506623

JT files for reposition 2418

JT files for reposition 2418JGTF, attorney for the plaintiffs … C 2418-2021, to this Court I respectfully state:
 
By the present act, I come to file an appeal of reposition against the resolution of June 12, 2023, that made effective the warning of Article 394 of the CPC, requesting that it be directly accepted, issuing the resolution that revokes it and, instead, issuing the resolution that rejects the request of the defendants regarding the application of the aforementioned warning, for not meeting legal assumptions.
 
I base the present action on the factual and legal background which I shall set out below:
 
  1. The counterparty notes that Stephen Holt evaded answered to 36 of 44 questions.
  2. Then, they list the questions and answers given by my client’s representative, where he presents ignorance of the facts in the way in which the questions were formulated and how they were presented to him through the interpreter.  Those faults cannot be attributed to him, but to the counterparty in the way in which he formulated his questions or in the work done by the interpreter.
  3. What the opposing party should have done was to do in each and every one of the questions, after the answers were given, was to have requested clarifications in addition to the answers he gave, which was not done, with the purpose of making this legal warning effective, being inadmissible.
 
THEREFORE,
 
To this Court:  To file an appeal for reposition against the resolution dated June 12, 2023 …
 
In the unlikely event that the reposition is rejected, I come to file, as a subsidiary, an appeal against the resolution of June 12, 2023, reiterating the arguments of fact and law expressed in the request for reposition. …


<< Previous
Bullboard Posts
Next >>