The Hippy
Well-Known Member
I know there is are maybe a possible million legal pages to describe our case. But I wanted to summarize it as I see it and as simply as possible. Yes I'm biased but find it hard to argue this simple explanation.
Fair access...... this was granted long ago and firm. This doesn't need decided..already done.
High LP prices, does NOT equal fair access. LP's will never be able to supply you with the price it costs you to do it. That's not hard to see with their overheads.
Therefore taking home grows away from people goes against fair access.
So Judge Phellan if you cancel home grows, you go against fair access and what has already been decided.
Any decision to cancel home grows is clearly NOT following what your peers have already decided.
Respectfully I say this needs no consideration beyond that point.
Home grows just need tweaked...not cancelled.
Any other decision other than fixing home grows will be considered as a fixed pre-made Corporate driven mistake.
This is not complicated on the surface. The main point out trumps the others.
Fair access...... this was granted long ago and firm. This doesn't need decided..already done.
High LP prices, does NOT equal fair access. LP's will never be able to supply you with the price it costs you to do it. That's not hard to see with their overheads.
Therefore taking home grows away from people goes against fair access.
So Judge Phellan if you cancel home grows, you go against fair access and what has already been decided.
Any decision to cancel home grows is clearly NOT following what your peers have already decided.
Respectfully I say this needs no consideration beyond that point.
Home grows just need tweaked...not cancelled.
Any other decision other than fixing home grows will be considered as a fixed pre-made Corporate driven mistake.
This is not complicated on the surface. The main point out trumps the others.