Et tu, Brute? You could only support what you just wrote above about public officials if you felt these people were always honest, and infallible. I don't believe you to be that naive, my dear friend.
It's a watchdog group. They may choose what they like to watch and dog, but they cannot act unless they believe that a govt entity has broken a law. I may not align myself with them politically, but I would never endorse any situation that allows publicly elected officials to break the law. Okay, maybe if the lives of thousands of children were at stake, but I'd have to draw the line at the humanitarian disaster level. And like the three laws of robotics, saving one doesn't condone the harm of another (or something to that effect).
If there were no question of legality, GWI wouldn't have the possibility of
meddling.
Not irrelevant, but extreme, I'll grant you. You almost sound like Rand--- move out of my way because there's business to be done.
I think the record will show that they have the right to COG's documents, and that if they believe there is a legal basis for their case--- they are allowed to sue. Has COG questioned their right to bring a suit?
Completely irrelevant. They are an organization that has set their own mandate. They need neither your approval nor mine. They're shining a flashlight in a dark & dirty kitchen to see how many cockroaches might be out. Will they find any?
You tell me. Who has the authority or right to set their mandate.
Next.
You sure about that? Your last crash and burn was impressive.
What they have alleged is clearly stated by GWI spokespeople. If any part of a deal is illegal, it would nullify the entire agreement. Or are you going to claim that Hulsizer would proceed with parts of his agreement stricken?
The clear reality is that they can do so when they feel they are ready. Nothing you've said above precludes them from filing when they're ready.
You've gone out pretty far on this limb-- for a lawyer. The investment community will decide both IF they wish to invest, and the risk level to accept if they do indeed invest.
The statements are not inaccurate. You saying they are inaccurate doesn't make it so.
There are no guarantees in the world of investing. Sometimes people invest a lot of money into things and lose everything.
Obviously, due to this outcome, this is not the most prudent financing choice. The market has spoken. COG must revisit their options and choose the next most prudent course.
And again, GWI has every right to decide their mandate. It's too bad some don't like it, but there you have it. Freedom to pursue your own cause.
No, it is not interference [as Mork has now explained as well]. Everyone has a right to pursue their own business interests within the guidelines of the law. The question is - and remains - whether or not COG's actions would violate Arizona's constitution.
GWI has opined that they would, and if they embarked on this path, the possibility [perhaps even stated as a certainty] would be a lawsuit to contest it on the grounds of constitutionality.
Why would anyone argue about the public's and investment community-at-large's right to know the details?
