InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 4
Posts 1510
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 08/23/2010

Re: Jayyy post# 6719

Sunday, 08/21/2016 8:49:24 PM

Sunday, August 21, 2016 8:49:24 PM

Post# of 13735
You state "Cathy Lehrman the lawyer won on all counts"

Let's have a link to support that statement please. As I understand it, Renuen didn't have funds to pursue the lawsuit because they went out of business, not that she won. In fact I remember publicly documented evidence
that attorney Lehrman cited above along with her policeman husband were subjects of a RICO action for fabricating complaints against a company she was taking legal action against. Renuen (now out of business) brought a federal lawsuit against attorney Lehrman and her policeman husband for fabricating claims against the company that were traced to his computer at the police station. To be clear, I don't have opinions on whether Renuen for example was a scam or not, and the minute details are not relevant to ROTH. I am however pointing out that I personally give much greater weight in my DD to verifiable information than I do to baseless opinions or worse yet anonymous accusations with an agenda, of which the apparently fabricated Renuen claims could serve as one example.

"She is a great asset for sniffing scams like this one"

I find it interesting that an attorney who fabricated false Internet stories and complaints on a company she was involved in a legal action against is cited as a "great asset". Seems to me that such an action of spreading false information about a company is unethical at best, and likely illegal, particularly given the legal action pending. I do see a parallel between Renuen and ROTH in only one way. That is both have been the subject of an Internet campaign to spread verifiably false information in an attempt to harm the company.

Other than that, my focus is on Sucanon and its documented efficacy. About 3 weeks to go in the current trial.