Quote from: SebastianJu on July 16, 2015, 11:32:06 AM

Quote from: RoadStress on July 15, 2015, 08:08:32 PM

A company paid for a service. A judge will never rule against this unless there is a clear and open direct relationship to siphon money. Otherwise a judge can't do shit about a service paid by a company. Stop invoking the judge! It's becoming simply retard at this point and it shows that you simply don't have any other arguments. From my point of view HF could've paid cyphedoc 30k BTC. It would mean shit in front of a judge. There is no law to restrict services payments!

Why should a judge not rule against a payment? The lawyers only have to proof that the company paying that much funds was clearly not in the best interest of the company. I mean if this behaviour would be safe then you could simply create a scam company, collect funds, pay 10% to a contractor who saves your money and with the rest of the money you fake a wrong going real business. Would be a smart and not avoidable way to earn scammywise.

So i really think judges can go against that.

RoadStress, for once, is correct (*looks out window to check for flying pigs*).

SJ, you have no clue about how this works. Not trying to slam you, but your opinion is flat out wrong.

If you'd listen to the hearing, you would get it.

Sorry if the spoken English is hard to understand. Perhaps a transcript will become available.

If it helps, the part where your arguments are literally laughed at and mocked begins at 2:37.

TL;DR Katten (HF's lawyers) have no solid evidence and don't believe they need any. So, for now, they lose.