ScripsAmerica Inc. (SCRCQ)

[coolerheadsprevail]

your calls for a detailed defense to your baseless and malicious allegations of criminal wrongdoing on this public message board will continue to be met with simple denials.

All I have ever asked for was a simple explanation, a simple example, of why/how you believe that my interpretation of Section 17(b) is incorrect and what you believe the correct interpretation is. Hardly an overly burdensome or unreasonable request of someone who keeps telling me that my interpretation is grossly incorrect n'est pas?

The only fora that I can foresee where details will be shared will be between Sean and his prospective counsel in a libel per se lawsuit filed against the vicious offenders and the litigation that would ensue if such a lawsuit is filed.

Good luck with that one...

There have been no announcements by the applicable government agencies of an investigation, no charges, no convictions, and no penalties against a single individual against whom you have been making these false allegations over the past eight months. And your attempt to analogize this to the thief who got away in the dark of the night, never to be caught, would be much different if that thief truly committed the crime and his identify and crimes were posted on a public message board for over eight months. He would be investigated, he would be charged, and he would likely cut a plea agreement or be convicted and punished accordingly. This has not been the case here because nobody has violated 17(b).

So, once again, it appears that the suggestion is that an act is only criminal if there is an arrest and conviction.

You do realize that even before the recession, over 2/3rds of SEC enforcement actions were backlogged over 2-3 years waiting in the queue? And with the budget cuts that have ravaged govt at all levels since the recession took hold, this backlog has grown to over 5 years?

And as an unfortunate "assist" to SEC violators, SCOTUS issued a ruling in 2013 that effectively put a 5-year limitation on the SEC to prosecute its enforcement actions in the hopes of spurring the SEC to act more quickly -- a seemingly impossible task seeing as the SEC continued to have more and more of its resources stripped away.

Will the SEC get around to the SCRC complaint in time to comply with this statute of limitations? Will the SCRC even deem the amounts involved in the SCRC complaint to be material enough relative to other complaints competing for its attention? I have no idea.

It is no different than the way that many local law enforcement jurisdictions no longer "actively enforce" many lesser crimes simply due to lack of resources. And this has resulted in an increase in these crimes as perpetrators now know that the police no longer are paying attention to them.

BUT, it changes NOTHING about whether an act is still criminal, a violation of laws, or despicable.

And to suggest that the absence of any conviction at this time conclusively means that "therefore no crime has been committed and no laws have been broken" is simply another sad attempt to defend the indefensible. Tell that to the millions of victims of "cold cases" around the country.

BUT, the silver lining to the SCOTUS ruling is that they DID leave it open for the SEC to (1) Force the return of illegal profits after five years even though they may be precluded from filing charges against the perpetrators, and (2) Pursue financial penalties even after five years when they can demonstrate that violators have taken steps to conceal their illegal conduct.

So yes, there is still reason for violators of SEC laws to continue looking over their shoulders for the rest of their lives...

By the way, your citations to the various stock promoters websites for their allegedly compliant stock promoter disclaimers do not satisfy your often-cited rule.

What in the world does this statement even mean? I provided links to the Section 17(b)-compliant disclosurs that they provided front and center right here on iHub for public consumption. Disclosing their status in their profiles is one of the many ways that I had mentioned numerous times that Investor Relations Professionals can comply with Section 17(b). Money Runners oftentimes even makes disclosures within each post on top of having this overall profile-level disclaimer.

And my point in highlighting Money Runners and Stock Legends was simply to highlight two of the many many professional IR services firms out there that legitimately tout stocks in a manner that is compliant with SEC laws -- and to contrast them to the amateur hour non-compliant MO undertaken by JOSEPH ZAMPETTI, SEAN FITZGIBBONS, and their fellow core associates that SCRC disclosed as having compensated to provide "investor relations related consulting services".

And if you are truly taking the side of the MR team in connection with their activities that clearly led to the massive dump last summer, you are not being objective.

Where are you interpreting that I am "taking sides"? I don't even know "what sides" you are talking about. I have stated repeatedly that I believe there is value and a place for legitimate SEC-compliant promotion. So if that is the "side" you are referring to, then "YES", I would most certainly take that "side" over the "side" that represents the non-compliant behavior of JOSEPH ZAMPETTI, SEAN FITZGIBBONS, et al.

And if the attempt here is to once again try to pin the blame on Money Runners for the P&D last summer, once again, the historical facts bear out quite clearly that JOSEPH ZAMPETTI and his core associates were engaged by SCRC beginning on 5/1/13 and received their final payment of FREE shares in mid-JUL-2013. There is plenty of documented evidence (MB posts, emails, texts, phone records, etc) of the nature and magnitude of the "investor relations related consulting services" that JOSEPH ZAMPETTI et al provided to SCRC during this period. Money Runners saw what was going on and simply piled on -- but, unbeknownst to JOSEPH ZAMPETTI et al, only for a couple of days. To suggest that the pumping and promotion by JOSEPH ZAMPETTI et al did nothing as the sp rose during all this time and that it was all Money Runners' fault is both disingenuous and laughable. Once JOSEPH ZAMPETTI saw that Money Runners was piling on, JOSEPH ZAMPETTI et al began increasing their touts to proclaim that SCRC was going to hit $4.00. And, like clockwork, the inevitable "D" side of the P&D reared its ugly head and wiped nearly everyone out who either drank the kool-aid and bought in at high prices as well as those who heeded JOSEPH ZAMPETTI et al's call to "Hold all your shares! Do NOT sell or trade!".