Stephen P. Lamb, Esquire
Andre Bouchard, Esquire
A.Richard Winchester, Esquire
Christopher A. Selzer, Esquire
Re: Siga Technologies, Inc. v. Pharmathene, Inc., No. 314, 2012
The Court has directed me to advise the parties, that due to the Chief Justice’s illness on
January 10, 2013 he was unable to be present at the oral argument in the above captioned
matter. The Chief Justice reviewed the audio of the oral argument in this matter on March 5,
2013. Therefore, the above matter will now be considered submitted for decision as of
Tuesday, March 5, 2013.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Cathy L. Howard
EFiled: Apr 10 2013 02:29PM EDT
Filing ID 51717264
YOU Lazy good for nothing M*&&^% sob, piece of #$%$ ..... 2 months after. Legal f*&^^^% fiction of having been submitted 2 months. Who the *&&^% needs a chief justice.
Let me get this straight, this ONLY makes sense if there had been other cases delayed. Here the same cast of clowns have been pumping out decisions. So now they want to make it into some kind of sickness.... and listen to it 2 months after it was argued?
Total lie and fudging of the record. Of course they can fast track it. Every few days, we see a decision. Last week, they pumped out a case actually argued on March 5. LIE LIE LIE .....
We are having difficultly coming to a conclusion on your case and matter. It may come down to who is willing to grease our palms the most. Please submit your best and final offer to us next Friday, at 1am, in the alley behind the court building, and give it to the man dressed in white wingtip shoes....
The letter looks legit. I agree w/Drod, this thing stinks yet again. The letter was stamped Apr 10 but it says the Chief Justice didn't listen to the oral arguments until March 5. So why wait MORE THAN A MONTH LATER to issue the letter saying to consider the oral arguments as submitted on March 5. Also, this was to be heard en banc meaning all 5 justices were to hear the oral arguments. If this Chief Justice Steele was out sick, then why did they still conduct the oral arguments on Jan 10 and not reschedule it until it could really be heard en banc?! I guess if one justice is not there in person but listens to a tape of it TWO MONTHS LATER then for them it still counts as en banc - that doesn't sound on the up and up to me. Sorry, just wanted to vent - I have tons of paper losses and even bought some April $4 calls stupidly thinking this thing was going to get resolved by April 10. So now I'll have some real losses too. What an idiot I am, thinking that somehow the DE Supreme Court would actually deliver some justice, when really they're just as shady as Chancery.
Scary Drod, but it sure looks like that's what happened with Parsons, maybe these guys are on the take too. I see you got three thumbs down, probably Parsons, Richman and Moch. How about that CMRX, I hear they have a drug to cure smallpox and are excellent protesters!