Originally Posted by
Regularguy
Come on now you know why Heppner was mentioned. Until recently your boy Pierce was a tad bit compliant. But that's another thread.
How quickly things are forgotten.
You are seriously delusional if you think the UCH legal strategy is based on who they like more. BTW, Heppner wasn't "mentioned" in the 2 letters... They were addressed to him.
We will never know as the company has chosen to not address both MEC's as a single entity in regards to the TRO, and will have to refile with the court if they do decide to pursue perceived violations.
Whatever, I do agree with your post above this one though. Nobody do nuthin dumb, and let the chips fall where they may.