Dear CX from NAM FO
404
Sorry mate, I wasn't clear. Basically the SLS is another issue altogether. So in essence there are three being wrapped in one unholy proposal.
What I was alluding to is that by putting RA65 and a change in COS into one package it will pollute any subsequent challenge regarding RA65.
I don't know who is providing legal advice to CX at this point, JS&M or Deacons but I would suggest an upgrade to someone who doesn't want to live on fees but get solutions.
Sorry mate, I wasn't clear. Basically the SLS is another issue altogether. So in essence there are three being wrapped in one unholy proposal.
What I was alluding to is that by putting RA65 and a change in COS into one package it will pollute any subsequent challenge regarding RA65.
I don't know who is providing legal advice to CX at this point, JS&M or Deacons but I would suggest an upgrade to someone who doesn't want to live on fees but get solutions.
VR-HFX
No problem. As you said having RA65 in with COS08 does pollute any argument one has and if you tried to convince a judge that they should be separate issues all the company will do is argue that RA55 is in COS99 so what is the difference here. It is a very difficult argument to make and one I would say is impossible to win. Crazier things have happened though and I could be wrong.
No problem. As you said having RA65 in with COS08 does pollute any argument one has and if you tried to convince a judge that they should be separate issues all the company will do is argue that RA55 is in COS99 so what is the difference here. It is a very difficult argument to make and one I would say is impossible to win. Crazier things have happened though and I could be wrong.
