"There is absolutely evidence of naked shorting."
Again, pure baloney - there is zero evidence of naked shorting of SPNG nor of any outstanding naked short position.
Repeating the empty claim of mythical naked shorts simply doesn't make is so and is of no import without any EVIDENCE to show your claim to have any merit.
Brokers may have failed to question the validity of 144 opinion letters, but really that's principally the TA's job, The brokerages compliance departments are at most backups, if that, to the TA - who is the party that actually does the delegending and issued the unlegended free trading shares TO the brokerage on behalf of the shareholder for deposit in their account to trade.
None of that has anything to do with the mythical "naked shorts".
You've provided exactly zero evidence of any significant naked shorting. Now, there is the daily selling of MMs via their house account on behalf of client orders which is then covered by their clients' share blocks on deposit, usually at the end of the trading day in the backoffice and well before delivery date at T+3.
You've not enunciated any "going forward" plan. Nor any evidence showing a specific legal claim that shareholders can raise against any party not already a party to the SEC actions already of record re: SPNG.
Your assertion that: "What our antagonists here fail to admit is that evidence is irrelevant, when it comes to securities fraud cases brought and prosecuted in the Eastern District of New York."
is simply plain wrong. Just blatantly, totally wrong. This is a key issue you seem to have serious difficulty with. Legal claims require evidence. Handwaving doesn't suffice. Not at all.
So other than handwaving and a frankly very pointless letter to Chuck Grassley, what's the plan "going forward" - SPECIFICALLY.
Because despite my asking for this "going forward" plan for well over a year - actually more - there is still none.
And for good reason. There is no evidence and nowhere to go.
