|User Name||Thread Name||Subject||Posted|
|GUEST,Lyle||Folk Alliance vs. NAACP (155* d)||RE: Folk Alliance vs. NAACP||15 Aug 01|
I'm bothered by a lot of things in this action, but one thing more than most. It would appear that the $300,000 loss for FA is set in stone. Could ANYONE point out why that is so?? I have never seen a "contract" that couldn't be contested in court. Period. And in this case, it seems there is sufficient justification to contest and win. So why is FA using this as an argument??