You can't show probable cause when there isn't any!
That's the problem you have, Jay. You've NO EVIDENCE of any specific colorable claim against any specific entity(ies).
You've produced letters and posts, but all are devoid of the EVIDENCE needed to support any of your, frankly incomprehensible (to me), allegations. This is why the judge kicked the letters to the curb.
The onus is not on me. I see zero evidence of any "naked shorting" nor any evidence of significant actionable malfeasance against the third parties to which RME sold their shares and provided the Bomart/Pensley/etc. opinion letters to provide the delegending and therefore the illegal free trading of the shares. YOU are the one claiming some legal basis for a claim. I see none. Neither did the judge, the SEC, or the bankruptcy trustees.
As I wrote LONG AGO, a bona fide purchaser for value (BFP) which paid RME for the shares and were provided the representation that the shares were freely tradeable and had 144 opinion letters from RME/Moskowitz/Pensley to support the delegending is not liable for their sale of those shares into the market. They are a BFP and are held harmless, as they were entitled to rely on the representations of the company and its allegedly outside legal counsel.
So, here we are 24 hours later from my demand that you provide evidence. You've provided NONE and in fact claimed that "evidence is not necessary".
Well, I'm sorry Jay, but if that's what you have fixed in your mind, you'll never (1) get anywhere with a "going forward" plan, and (2) understand that there is nowhere to go without EVIDENCE.
When you have some sufficient EVIDENCE to support some clearly defined claim against some specific entity, then you'll still be barred by the applicable statutes of limitation, but then at least you'll have some factual basis for the assertion that there is some additional party that could have been sued by the SEC and wasn't specifically for their actions with regard to SPNG.
There is ZERO evidence of any "naked short" position outstanding. NONE. ZIP. NADA. And that didn't cause the collapse of the company even if that unicorn did exist, as the company was built on pure FRAUD - illegal share issuances, illegal delegending opinion letters, and false sales information. The company was not viable - if it were, it would not have had to file Chapter 7 liquidation bankruptcy and one of the several bankruptcy trustees (or any creditor or even a shareholder) would have been able to submit a reorganization Chapter 11 plan to the court.
There was no viable business. It was a charade with Uncle Norman buying sponges from Wal-Marts and SPNG operating at a HUGE loss.
So, in closing, when you have an ability to enunciate a specific legal claim against a specific party and you present evidence to support that claim, then your efforts may at least be worthwhile if only for historical value (as the SOLs have lapsed).
Until then, it's nothing but handwaving.
And that's all it is.
AI
