I can see clearly where the con lies!!
Morgan's first complaint filed!! In paragraph 26, Morgan admits that "A Share Exchange Agreement (reverse merger) was enter between Click Evidence and Roadships." In paragraph 27 he claims that through the exchange Click Evidence received a total number of 1,796,571,029 shares which equated to an "Equity Infusion" of $12,935,531.00 and that is where the justification of the 10% comes in. Now "equity infusion" could be debatable "MAYBE", I can only see this as a straight share exchange agreement.
The basic accounting equation is (Assets + Liabilities = Shareholder EQUITY) So even if it where to be considered an "equity infusion" the monetary value is substantially incorrect. You would need to base it on "Equity" not "Market Value"! Morgan can't really go this route because as of now there is little to no equity in the company. He knows this, that's why he stated his reasoning for billing things out the way he did in his invoice. (FUNNY THING IS, HE NEVER EVEN SUBMITED THE INVOICE IN AS EVIDENCE! THE ONLY THING SUBMITTED INTO EVIDENCE WAS THE CONTRACT) There is another omission that I feel could be substantial.
Anyway back to the shares, like I stated yesterday, several people exchanged their Click shares for Roaships shares. 16 of them in fact, one being Morgan! Now why would the company have to pay a 10% fee for "equity infusion" on other peoples shares? For example I will use California Molecular Electronics Corp. They own 1,000,000 shares. Now if these guys sell their shares, who gets the money? Not TTCM Right? That would mean that once those share were sold, California Molecular receives the "Equity" therefore, IMO those share could not be "equity infusion" it is someone else's equity. Morgan wants Dr. Jon to pay a 10% fee on other peoples shares, well that's not fair! Especially when Morgan is also one of the owners of shares.
