re: Randolph Duke taking it to the next level.

8 pages is far too much attention for one silly obsessed twat.

quote:

---

I honestly think it is more a fascination with THIS level of obsession, or at least that is my take.

---

This.

And I will add that all of his rants amount to exactly DICK. Nothing will change. He is just trying to discredit and smear A&M. It's funny as hell how committed he is.


This thread does need an anchor, I agree.

This is what Randolph Duke's page looks like on Wikipedia:

quote:

---

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used mainly for trolling, disruption or harassment. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

---

edit: it's actually a sock named Randolph Dook.

Okay. Since we're doing one more.



Satterfield v. Monsanto Co., 88 F.Supp.2d 288 (S.D.N.Y.2000)

88 F.Supp.2d 288

Charles M. Satterfield, III


Mr. Satterfield claims that the defendants
tortiously converted his property by refusing to
turn over stock in the defendant companies to
which he is entitled because of his ancestors'
ownership of stock in a predecessor company
which became, by mergers, part of defendant
corporations. He claims that this refusal
constitutes a breach of defendants' fiduciary
duties and of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, that defendants made fraudulent
representations to him regarding his present
right to their stock, and that they conspired to
deprive him of his stock interest. Finally, he
demands punitive damages, as well as attorney's
fees and costs.

In 1924 plaintiff's great-grandfather, Daniel
Oldroyd ("Oldroyd"), purchased 50 shares of $1
par value stock in the E.L. Smith Oil Company...

**************

Since Oldroyd's heirs never had a sufficient
ownership interest to amount to one share of
Lion Oil stock (since their scrip, if they had
obtained it, would be unaffected by the two-forone
stock splits), they never became entitled to
be issued a single share of Monsanto stock.

Mr. Satterfield points to a footnote in the
Lion Oil proxy statement describing the
Monsanto merger, which states that "... 3,336
shares of common stock of [Monsanto] will be
reserved for issuance of shares of a former
subsidiary of Lion." Pl.'s Ex. 1 at Bates No.
0018.

But plaintiff gains no advantage from that [footnote]
provision because (accepting, as both parties do,
that the "former subsidiary" is Smith Oil), his
ancestors never assembled sufficient scrip to
obtain either a Lion Oil or a Monsanto share.

************

Sound familiar???


Satterfield LOVES to make arguments that gain him NO ADVANTAGE!!! This lawsuit SCREAMS of this dude's insanity and gives me a greater understanding as to why this dude thinks he is a lawyer.

In what State does he claim to be a lawyer? I found no Charles Satterfield in Texas.