I am reading through some SFRX court docs.......
All I can say is this is "incredible", which Craig A. Huffman, Esquire says I was found to be.
First of all they said in the original complaint that knew first hand people sold as a result of the Defendants postings, but they didn't even submit an affidavit. They said just look at the chart and you can see he's the reason people sold.
ARE YOU KIDDING ME? (SEC is Seafarer Exploration Corp)
They submitted two responses. This is from the second one.
21. All documents which show that Defendants postings lead to the direct sale of millions of shares of SEC.
Response: See the supporting stock charts provided for sales and pricing during the relevant time period.
31. All expert reports which relate in any way to the issues in this case.
Response: There are no experts identified for purposes of trial in this matter at the current time.
And check this one out. They object to what might be considered a material event that would be required to be disclosed publicly, but now they are claiming the proof will be "testimonial in nature".....geez.
22. All documents which show the contracts lost by SEC as a result of Defendants postings.
Objection. This will be testimonial in nature.
This is from the first response. Apparently he's the $16MM man now.
3. Identify each item of expense or damage that are you claiming in connection with each Count of your Complaint.
Loss of shares due to lower stock price caused primarily by the postings of the Defendant. SEAFARER’s common stock traded as high as $0.0245 per share in July 2014, and as low as a recent level of $.006 per share in October 2014. Such decline in price was primarily, or in part due to the postings by Mr. XXXX, which are addressed herein. Calculation of damages caused is based on the amount of shares that were issues which were more at a lower price, than would have been issued at the higher price due to the Defendant’s actions.
Included in the request for production, is the subscription agreements which were done at the lower values of $.007 and $.008 per share were used due to the lower stock price during the period of the Defendants posting. As well conversions based upon lower stock price are included in such calculations as provided in the documents produced.
As well the stock price is reflected upon the produced stock price chart drawn from Yahoo Finance, which shows the weekly stock price, and the lower prices due to the Defendants postings. On July 1, 2014, the share price of the corporation was $0.0245 per share. Due to the postings of the Defendant the stock price to $0.006 per share in October 1, 2014 when the Defendant was still posting libelous matters. Thus Seafarers’ 6,000 shareholders had a loss in value of $15,901,554.00 to their holdings. This is directly attributable to the actions of the Defendant. The number of shares issued on July 1, 2014 was 883,419,726 shares.
5. Identify each item of expense or damage that are you claiming in connection with your Motion.
We are uncertain what motion is being contended. An emergency motion was brought before the Court for sanctions for continued posting by the Defendant.
Loss of stock/share value to the shareholders of the Corporation. As well as provided on the produced share issuance data as addressed in number 3 and 4 above, the amount of shares issued were greater than what would have been needed to be issued at the lower price of $0.0245 per share, due to the Defendants actions and postings. On July 1, 2014, the share price of the corporation was $0.0245 per share. Due to the postings of the Defendant the stock price to $0.006 per share in October 1, 2014 when the Defendant was still posting libelous matters. Thus Seafarers’ 6,000 shareholders had a loss in value of $15,901,554.00 to their holdings. This is directly attributable to the actions of the Defendant.
Notice how they avoid the "contracts" question....
14. Identify all contracts and vendors that have been lost by SEC as a result of the postings of Defendant.
There have not been established vendor losses. However, the company did suffer sales of shares that were sold by shareholders. Additionally, the company had to distribute a vast number of shares which were in addition to what would have had to be issued due to the actions of the Defendant. On July 1, 2014, the share price of the corporation was $0.0245 per share. Due to the postings of the Defendant the stock price to $0.006 per share in October 1, 2014 when the Defendant was still posting libelous matters. Thus, the company had to issue three times more shares than it would have had to issue when the price was higher. As an example, if such share price were at $0.024 per share, and the company were selling restricted shares for $10,000, then the company would issue 408,163 shares. However, due to the price declination due to the Defendant’s postings, when such share price was declined to $0.006 per share, then the company would have to issue 1,666,667 shares. This is a vast amount of dilution to the shareholders of the Company due to the Defendants actions.
15. Describe in detail how you determined that Defendants postings between July 2014 and September 3, 2014 were the cause of any diminution of SEC’s stock value.
Seafarer received numerous enquiries through shareholders, directors, officers and outsiders as to the postings when they occurred. Direct information by at least one and more shareholders stated they were selling their positions or parts of positions due to the allegations being made by the Defendant. This caused pressure on the stock price where there otherwise would not have been sales being made.
16. Is it your contention that Defendants posting from July 2014 to September 3, 2014, were the sole cause of the diminution of SEC’s stock value during that period? If not, describe in detail other factors that caused or contributed to the diminution of SEC’s stock value during that period.
For purposes of our causes of action, and the damages caused, yes, this is our sole contention. We are not aware of any other factors. Any other factors would be affirmative defenses of the Defendant to damages.
What a crock. I would like to know who these "one or more shareholders" are and how many shares they owned. And why is the price EVEN LOWER now? The continued lower stock price suggest Mr. XXXX saved people a lot of money.
This thing has backfired and SFRX and Counsel are too stupid to admit it.
Pride goes before a fall....
