Judge Denies SCO's Ex Parte Motion to Adjourn

karvind writes "Groklaw has up an article stating that judge Kimball has issued an order regarding SCO's Ex Parte Motion to Adjourn the April 21, 2005 Argument on SCO's Motion to Amend Its Complaint: The Motion is denied. SCO has finally filed its 10Q." From the article: "The court declines to adjourn the hearing. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that SCO's Ex Parte Motion to Adjourn the April 21, 2005 Argument on SCO's Motion to Amend Its Complaint is DENIED. In addition to hearing SCO's Motion to Amend its Complaint and SCO's Motion to Compel the Deposition of Samuel Palmisano at the April 21, 2005 hearing, the parties are hereby NOTIFIED that the court will also hear argument regarding the parties' Proposed Scheduling Orders."

Comments

10Q

[uberdave]

SCO has finally filed its 10Q.

You're Welcome.

May I be the first to say:

[mcc]

...what?

Re:May I be the first to say:

[Shalda]

First, one should RTFA. Having RTFA, I'm really only left with one question: WTF? No, really, WTF? I take a very keen interest in the law and the Supreme court in general, but WTF? I propose the Thunderdome method of judicial reform. Two men enter, one man leaves.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[TedTschopp]

"What" ain't no country I know! Do they speak English in "What?"

But on a side note, I Agree... What?

Re:May I be the first to say:

[sTalking_Goat]

to break it down...

SCO: Hold up your Honor, my bad, thats not the way it happened. What really happened was...

JUDGE: Shut your Pie-Hole SCO. It's too damn late to be changing your story, yet again.

IBM: Oh, SCO you been served.

SCO: Now it's on!

...etc

GAH!

[Derekloffin]

Legal Speak! Can... no... understand... Brain Melting!

IANAL

[pb]

Therefore, I have no idea what you just said.

And, sadly, I read Groklaw too. D'oh!

Here comes the stampede....

[Lew Payne]

Here comes the stampede of SlashDot "laywers"... each with their own [unfounded]
opinion of what the defendants, judge and attorneys handling the case should do.

It's better than subscribing to True Detective!

Unnecessary usages of caps...

[Kethinov]

The lawyerspeak jargon seems to like to USE caps for verbs. Explanations DENIED. This Slashdot comment has so been POSTED. Thank you, thank you, I'll BE here all day...

Would you like some ketchup with your motion?

[lildogie]

Judge Kimball may well ask SCO to eat their motion during oral arguments.

Re:Would you like some ketchup with your motion?

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

I shudder to think what the British members of our audience will think when they see your post.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Explain

[JohnnyGTO]

http://www.google.com/search?lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 &q=IANAL

Re:The McBride Meltdown. aka [SCOOBY DOO defense]

[TimCrider]

I just hope we get to see Darl find out that PJ is really Old Man Jones who used to run the old fairgrounds. And to think... SCO would have gotten away with it, if it wasn't for that meddling PJ.

Re:EXPLANATION HERE

[myowntrueself]

Thank *you*!

I tried putting it through babelfish, but apparently that doesn't work with legalese.

Re:10Q -- HA!

[GrabtharsHammer]

My favourite part of the 10Q filing is in 10Qa, under "Other Assets".

It reads:

Goodwill: --

As in, none left.

Randomly generated by those crazy MIT kids?

[Mustang Matt]

You can't trick me, I saw the research paper generator. I even learned a bit by reading some sample papers, however, this story reaks of randomly generated legal speak.

Re:EXPLANATION HERE

[oGMo]

Hmm, babelfish is a good idea. Perhaps some other language, like German, can clear up matters. Since I don't speak German, though, I'll have to translate it back to English again and see:

The court sinks to shift the audition. Accordingly IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the ex Parte movement SCO's IS REFUSED for shifting April 21, 2005 argument on SCO's Zusatzantrag its objection. Additional to the auxiliary request of the audition SCO's its objection and SCO's signs it, around the joggle of Samuel Palmisano at April 21, 2005 to force audition, the involved ones COMMUNICATED hereby that the court is also concerning the argument the involved one hears, the orders specifying be suggested.

So, the court is sinking to shift an audition. This must mean Battleship, because in Battleship you sink things. That ought to Zusatzantrag SCO's joggle. I'm not sure this is clear enough. Let's get a few more languages' opinions:

As for courthouse? ' Capacity of ? ' Move? ' It goes. As for that following to the , the EX moving SCO' of this Parte of the C$par; It is ordered; April 21st, 2005 years? ' The S SCO' which it moves; Argument; The s-Zusatzantrag is refused objection. SCO' ' In addition to the demand for addition ones of the capacity which you hear; As for S in sign objection and SCO' It does; Is fixing of the contract where the judgment place is proposed or, in the question which everyone's authorized personnel hears discussion theory and thing S April 21 when is, as for you to the power which it should run to 2005 from the Samuel Palmisano densely due to the ? ' Capacity of the , the authorized personnel to transmit.

Aha! With German, French, and Japanese combines, this appears to be a message... from the FUTURE! Unfortunately some information appears to have been lost, but from this it looks like the courthouse is gone ("As for the courthouse? [...] It goes."), perhaps from battleship? 2005 years in the future, on April 21st, SCO has given an order of some kind. An unknown entity, S (or "Thing S"), is involved. It seems a contract is involved, with a theory of some sort, and they're running from Samuel Palmisano (who has perhaps travelled into the future to take care of this). Unfortunately the last line is garbled, or we'd know exactly how many more people SCO intends to transmit from the future.

Stay tuned!