|
Post by John Winston Lennon O'Boogie on May 1, 2014 9:07:54 GMT -5
Do you know it as fact that it is "garbage talk" and none of the plaintiffs sold during the "we have won or payment is imminent" phase of updates during the years? b agree with cat,Because if they did, they sure were reacting to different news than we were lead to believe by the esteemed atty. imo There are a few things that have come out that people don't want to talk about: 1) Hodges did a lot of talking during the bivens suit but now, long after the suit he must not? 2) If the plaintiffs sold during the bivins, what gives? Looks shady if true. 3) And let's not forget this doozie: 'Very Tird' aka.....Treffy, one of the plaintiffs said Al said to him......"You worry too much about the shareholders" What the -you know what- is up with THAT?!!!! I want some truth to come out, not fantasy! I was told I was killing hope here? Is this a fantasy board or are we here for the truth? I don't want fantasy. Can't deposit fantasies in my bank!!!! >"< The best thing about a dog is, (HE) can pee on a tree.
|
|
|
Post by e362 on May 1, 2014 9:10:16 GMT -5
Do you know it as fact that it is "garbage talk" and none of the plaintiffs sold during the "we have won or payment is imminent" phase of updates during the years? b agree with cat,Because if they did, they sure were reacting to different news than we were lead to believe by the esteemed atty. imo So what's your point? pr pr, I think it is self explanatory, but,IF the plaintiffs were selling off when AH was telling everyone we had 'won' or payment was 'imminent' it leads one to believe that the plaintiffs either knew AH was less than truthful or the timeframe as imminent was highly optimistic at best. Why else would someone liquidate shares knowing a "stockplay of a lifetime" that has been long waited for was about to pay off? Why accept .0000? when you knew the brinks truck was backing up shortly? Either way, IF they sold off during the hype it is the classic definition of a pump and dump and that makes the conversation relevant, imho. PS, JWLO, I appreciate you answering me as a friend, because I have no reason to view you as other just because I don't always agree with what you say.
|
|
|
Post by John Winston Lennon O'Boogie on May 1, 2014 9:16:20 GMT -5
pr, I think it is self explanatory, but,IF the plaintiffs were selling off when AH was telling everyone we had 'won' or payment was 'imminent' it leads one to believe that the plaintiffs either knew AH was less than truthful or the timeframe as imminent was highly optimistic at best. Why else would someone liquidate shares knowing a "stockplay of a lifetime" that has been long waited for was about to pay off? Why accept .0000? when you knew the brinks truck was backing up shortly? Either way, IF they sold off during the hype it is the classic definition of a pump and dump and that makes the conversation relevant, imho. PS, JWLO, I appreciate you answering me as a friend, because I have no reason to view you as other just because I don't always agree with what you say. I also enjoy and sometimes don't agree with what you say. Your a special person and I like what you bring to the board.. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by marbearcat on May 1, 2014 9:17:41 GMT -5
There are a few things that have come out that people don't want to talk about: 1) Hodges did a lot of talking during the bivens suit but now, long after the suit he must not? 2) If the plaintiffs sold during the bivins, what gives? Looks shady if true. 3) And let's not forget this doozie: 'Very Tird' aka.....Treffy, one of the plaintiffs said Al said to him......"You worry too much about the shareholders" What the -you know what- is up with THAT?!!!! I want some truth to come out, not fantasy! I was told I was killing hope here? Is this a fantasy board or are we here for the truth? I don't want fantasy. Can't deposit fantasies in my bank!!!! >"< The best thing about a dog is, (HE) can pee on a tree. The best thing about a cat is he isn't afraid to rock the boat to ask questions and search for the truth. >"<
|
|
|
Post by Ed Jagacki on May 1, 2014 9:19:49 GMT -5
Yes, Cat - you are the only one here that wants truth.
Let's everybody stand up and give a round of applause!
|
|
|
Post by marbearcat on May 1, 2014 9:24:34 GMT -5
Yes, Cat - you are the only one here that wants truth. Let's everybody stand up and give a round of applause! Not enough looking if you ask me.
|
|
|
Post by John Winston Lennon O'Boogie on May 1, 2014 9:37:40 GMT -5
The best thing about a dog is, (HE) can pee on a tree. The best thing about a cat is he isn't afraid to rock the boat to ask questions and search for the truth. >"< For many years you and more have been standing up and rocking the boat looking for the truth... A question for you... Have you found any at all yet...? And I'm not telling you to stop looking for it, it's just that your not looking in the right places if your looking on these boards..
|
|
|
Post by portrush on May 1, 2014 11:03:13 GMT -5
pr, I think it is self explanatory, but,IF the plaintiffs were selling off when AH was telling everyone we had 'won' or payment was 'imminent' it leads one to believe that the plaintiffs either knew AH was less than truthful or the timeframe as imminent was highly optimistic at best. Why else would someone liquidate shares knowing a "stockplay of a lifetime" that has been long waited for was about to pay off? Why accept .0000? when you knew the brinks truck was backing up shortly? Either way, IF they sold off during the hype it is the classic definition of a pump and dump and that makes the conversation relevant, imho. PS, JWLO, I appreciate you answering me as a friend, because I have no reason to view you as other just because I don't always agree with what you say. I don't see how "pump and dump" applies when a stock was delisted prior. This was delisted long before the Bivens even started. It sounds like sour grapes to me...someone complaining because they now feel stuck like most of us are, waiting for whatever happens to happen. I'm not suggesting you...I'm just saying. I understand the whole concept of "why sell when the Brinks truck is coming?" but when the mortgage is due and you have nothing else--desperate people do desperate things I suppose. I just think digging this up as though its some big "aha" moment is ludicrous. I agree with John, a share is a share if it was bought legally, regardless of whose name owns it, right? Selling them (legally) doesn't affect a company that isn't trading, does it? If John Doe transfers his shares through the TA to Joe Blow, is that illegal? According to SK there are shareholders doing that in enough volume Transfer Online doesn't need to invoice the company any longer...so I assume its above board. I don't think SK would be near any practice that wasn't legit considering the baggage the company is saddled with. One would assume that the law applies equally at all times. While I know several plaintiffs for whom these rumors do not apply, I seem to recall one or two of the initial group who were outspoken about doing so and why. Assuming the law, whatever they did for whatever reason must have been okay to do so. pr
|
|
|
Post by marbearcat on May 1, 2014 11:13:55 GMT -5
pr, I think it is self explanatory, but,IF the plaintiffs were selling off when AH was telling everyone we had 'won' or payment was 'imminent' it leads one to believe that the plaintiffs either knew AH was less than truthful or the timeframe as imminent was highly optimistic at best. Why else would someone liquidate shares knowing a "stockplay of a lifetime" that has been long waited for was about to pay off? Why accept .0000? when you knew the brinks truck was backing up shortly? Either way, IF they sold off during the hype it is the classic definition of a pump and dump and that makes the conversation relevant, imho. PS, JWLO, I appreciate you answering me as a friend, because I have no reason to view you as other just because I don't always agree with what you say. I don't see how "pump and dump" applies when a stock was delisted prior. This was delisted long before the Bivens even started. It sounds like sour grapes to me...someone complaining because they now feel stuck like most of us are, waiting for whatever happens to happen. I'm not suggesting you...I'm just saying. I understand the whole concept of "why sell when the Brinks truck is coming?" but when the mortgage is due and you have nothing else--desperate people do desperate things I suppose. I just think digging this up as though its some big "aha" moment is ludicrous. I agree with John, a share is a share if it was bought legally, regardless of whose name owns it, right? Selling them (legally) doesn't affect a company that isn't trading, does it? If John Doe transfers his shares through the TA to Joe Blow, is that illegal? According to SK there are shareholders doing that in enough volume Transfer Online doesn't need to invoice the company any longer...so I assume its above board. I don't think SK would be near anything that wasn't legit considering the baggage the company is saddled with. One would assume that the law applies equally at all times. While I know several plaintiffs for whom these rumors do not apply, I seem to recall one or two of the initial group who were outspoken about doing so and why. Assuming the law applies equally, whatever they did for whatever reason must have been okay to do so. pr Pump & dump does apply. The "We Won" was the pump, plaintiffs selling would be the dump. How does being revoked stop this from being a possible pump and dump?
|
|
|
Post by portrush on May 1, 2014 11:23:18 GMT -5
I'm not a securities attorney but I would say; no affect on the market. They weren't available on the open market. The value of my shares, your shares, were not impacted because Shareholder 1 sold some shares to Shareholder 2. If rumor and innuendo was the sole cause/effect of your motivation to sell your shares, it's on you--is it not? This just seems like a witch hunt to me without any real substantiation. Knock yourself out.
pr
|
|
|
Post by marbearcat on May 1, 2014 11:25:51 GMT -5
I'm not a securities attorney but I would say, no affect on the market. They weren't available on the open market. The value of my shares, your shares, were not impacted because Shareholder 1 sold some shares to Shareholder 2. If rumor and innuendo was the sole cause/effect of your motivation to sell your shares, it's on you--is it not? pr Ok, now you're just playing with semantics here. When someone mentions pump and dump in this situation, you know what they mean. Or should I just call it a lie and sell? What.........ever.
|
|
|
Post by marbearcat on May 1, 2014 11:28:21 GMT -5
I'm not a securities attorney but I would say; no affect on the market. They weren't available on the open market. The value of my shares, your shares, were not impacted because Shareholder 1 sold some shares to Shareholder 2. If rumor and innuendo was the sole cause/effect of your motivation to sell your shares, it's on you--is it not? This just seems like a witch hunt to me without any real substantiation. Knock yourself out. pr The people who bought those shares, if any were sold, were scammed into buying those shares by the lying of the "We won" But that's ok to you, correct?
|
|
|
Post by portrush on May 1, 2014 11:31:05 GMT -5
I think you're there one playing semantics. I asked how it applies and you answered with your statement of application and a question--which I answered; no affect on the market. I think your application is amiss and I think the resulting opinion is baseless. You're free to think as you wish. Mox Nix to me.
pr
|
|
|
Post by John Winston Lennon O'Boogie on May 1, 2014 11:34:02 GMT -5
I'm not a securities attorney but I would say; no affect on the market. They weren't available on the open market. The value of my shares, your shares, were not impacted because Shareholder 1 sold some shares to Shareholder 2. If rumor and innuendo was the sole cause/effect of your motivation to sell your shares, it's on you--is it not? This just seems like a witch hunt to me without any real substantiation. Knock yourself out. pr The people who bought those shares, if any were sold, were scammed into buying those shares by the lying of the "We won" But that's ok to you, correct? If Hodges and the crew were bad people then DOJ would have put a stop to what they were doing... Just like Delidoggggggggggggg.. IMO
|
|
|
Post by portrush on May 1, 2014 11:36:46 GMT -5
I'm not a securities attorney but I would say; no affect on the market. They weren't available on the open market. The value of my shares, your shares, were not impacted because Shareholder 1 sold some shares to Shareholder 2. If rumor and innuendo was the sole cause/effect of your motivation to sell your shares, it's on you--is it not? This just seems like a witch hunt to me without any real substantiation. Knock yourself out. pr The people who bought those shares, if any were sold, were scammed into buying those shares by the lying of the "We won" But that's ok to you, correct? Sorry, your attempt to convey your opinion as the only one being accurate isn't working--nor is an effort to put words in my mouth. I was clear with what I said. Your statement that "we won" was a lie is your opinion. Your suggestion people were "scammed" (your definition) as a result of their purchasing decisions based on whatever methods they used to make a decision is not only subjective, but also opinion. Did you buy shares based on your reasoning? Did you buy shares from someone other than a regulated brokerage? Were you taken advantage of accordingly? pr
|
|