Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
.006 to .25 was the best it ever did...
So properly it would go something like?
Whomever thinks they will get their SPNGQ investment back from whoever they gave it to after this length of time, especially with the lack of any evidence of a specifically identifiable cause other than a well executed scam of promoting a "worthless non-business" by the principals and officers the investor chose, is laughable.
"Whom" is used when it's an object (after the verb). Who is used when it's the subject (before the verb).
Think of it this way: if you'd use 'he' then you use 'who' - if you'd use 'him' then you use 'whom'.
"Who would like to go?"
"Bob asked whom to the prom?"
"Who went to the prom?"
"File suit against who (sic)? - WRONG - yours
Against whom?" - CORRECT - mine
Gee, whom knew? - WRONG - yours
Or were you quoting from one of Moskowitz's garbled SPNG emails?
"File suit against who [sic]?
Against whom?"
Gee, whom knew?
SPNGQ shares deemed worthless. EOM
Whoever you think are the unicorns that 'cheated you'. The SEC and DOJ aren't gonna do anything for ya - just like they didn't do anything for the CMKX or CRGP bagholders - or SRGE or CYNK or GECC or CSHD or any of a thousand other similar pennyscams to SPNG.
"File suit against who [sic]?"
Against whom? Well, you're the one who claims there are evil NSS unicorns ~OUTT there - so you must have knowledge of who they are - or at lease enough evidence to file against them as John and Jane Does 1-50.
Butt the prollem is you don't have such evidence, just supposition and innuendo, and that don't fly in sustaining a complaint - as Crazy Al Hodges found ~OUTT in CMKX after filing many lawsuits and appeals against the imaginary NSS miscreants.
Oh and there's that pesky statute of limitations too.
If you're believing the SEC and DOJ are gonna gett you anything beyond the restitution order against Mosky and Mett, which you declined to sign onto and thus lost the right to make any claims against those restitution orders, well then I be sorry to tell you that no munny will be forthcoming to SPNG victims via the SEC and DOJ. Crazy Al Hodges (a Pasadena nutjob solo lawyer) tried all that nonsense with CMKX - read about it - it's all on iHub with links to read.
The fact is that for anyone who is nott on the SPNG restitution order for Mosky & Mett, well it's no soup for them.
All the wishful thinking in the world won't change that fact, no matter how much one might wish it weren't so.
And those SPNG shares? Worthless - the corporation is defunct and non-existent and the shares are untradeable.
So there's that too.
Dude, it's OVER. There is no Spongtech anymore. It doesn't exist.
There is no there there. It has no corporate existence.
May as well say "Abe Lincoln should run in the 2016 Rio Olympics marathon."
Too late. It's DEAD, Jim!
(And it was never a viable business at any point, it was just third-tier pennyscammers behind it (M&M, Furth, DeBarge, Hess, Palmer, etc.) and paid promotion of the ticker.)
All of the above cited in the article:
http://thestreetsweeper.org/undersurveillance.html?i=744
Welp, that's pure bullshet - Texas or otherwise - pure bullshet.
So there's that.
Go ahead, pardner - file suit against the windmills you claim - errr ... and the unicorns.
Yappin', yappin', yappin' - if you think you have a real claim -FILE IT.
Otherwise, this unicorn hunting is just white noise, baby.
(Don't worry about that pesky statute of limitations stuff. Draw yer shootin' irons and file a claim - don't forgit to name those dagnabbit flea-bitten galoots.)
http://yosemitesamquotes.com/yosemite-sam-sayings/
“Oooo … get me a a mouth piece … I wanna a hapus corpeas!”
Huh??? What company? What biz?
The one with a product that is essentially the same as several hundred available by many other manufacturers - and literally thousands of others that either failed or withdrew it from production - because it just simply all that wanted?
Of course they didn't have the SpongeBob connection. Oops - turned out SPNG didn't either - remember - that was actually a license that was never really made? (Would have taken money to complete - and wasn't really needed - like everything else in SPNG - just make believe for a while - and lie about the results).
Or maybe the one that didn't pay anyone...and since the product it did have cost more to make than they could sell it for - was a lusa even with no recognized expenses?
Of course you could mean the company whose product - well at least that which wasn't bought by Unkie driving around NJ - was left to linger on the close out shelf? (Who needs management - just give Unkie a bigger car...he can buy more).
No - you must mean the company that had all those sales to those great international 5 customers....OOOps, better not go down that road....like the "company" as something ever intended to be a biz - with a chance of making any money - they didn't exist.
What do you think - the "new" soon to be huge Co should get a storage house with a double garage door? That would be a step up from what it had doing all the biz previously. And you know....that left over inventory that no one wanted (because it cost more to move than it could be sold for) - well it could be put in the dumpsters so much faster with a double door. You would have to pay for the dumpster service though. Paying - not one of the SPNG strong points. Hey - have your new super execs use their salary to do so! Yup that the ticket. And thye can get paid by - selling stock...because there is a strong market for SPNG stock - You would buy more wouldn't you?
SPNFG WAS NEVER A BIZ...IT WASN'T INTENDED TO BE. ITS PRODUCT WAS STOCK IN THE COMPANY. Everything - including the stock - was for show.
Hey - here's an idea - why not have any of the many already existing well run, funded, connected, etc Cos on the HBA product market add this one to their portfolio of products? Just sell the rights to them...or maybe a license deal - thats it - get some $ for each unit they sell!!!!! They must have been lining up at the door to get a piece of the action....
Ya' think - just maybe - its because: Those same existing Cos with the good management you desire (and funding needed) in place already - know the product (and likely have it or something similar in their portfolio's already) and each and every one has no interest in marketing it, anything to do with another soap infused sponge --- because IT IS SHOWN TO BE - time and time again - A LUSA.
Or do you think it is that little issue with - SPNG has no actual anything (as concerns rights to produce) to sell....and certainly nothing to license?
You know - the things that Spongeables - the company that was it's competitor - with a very similar product - actually line of products.In the 2-3$ range. And look ta them now -- the desire for that product made them a huge Co (filling the SPNG void). Actually, that didn't happen...it is still a minor subsidiary of a private LLC - a nice little family biz - when one looks at its entire line of products.
SPNG and its product - as a business - was a complete failure in all ways.
As a fraud - it was a great success, in all ways. Probably because the one thing it had was good (maybe great) management.
Give it a Texas minute, partner.
If necessary, we will tell you "more about how evil the SEC is and how it was their fault for the" lack of enforcement in this case, which has likely caused $390 million in damage to shareholders, just in regards to selling unregistered shares. That doesn't count penalties and interest, and that's assuming that the SEC is correct in making that charge, which they have only partially prosecuted. In addition, that ignores the RegSHO violations, which were a daily occurence for months at a time.
The DOJ is busy, threatening 5600 municipal courts with discrimination suits, because the defendants in some cases are primarily black. Then there's that YUUUGE social issue involving civil rights violations caused by laws that require men to use the mens' restrooms. And let's not forget the inexcusable injustice inflicted upon society by the lack of Section 8 housing in affluent neighborhoods. And how dare we not draft women into combat roles in the US military?
With so much on Loretta Lynch's plate, prosecuting actual violations of law are waiting in line behind prosecutions of perceived violations of law. And there's only 6 months remaining to implement the administration's agenda, before Trump gets elected to tear it all down.
So we have to wait patiently for the naming of dozens of Relief Defendants in the SpongeTech case.
yep, it has been real fun, hasn't it?
say, tell us more about how evil the SEC is and how it was their fault for the downfall of SPNG for charging criminal enterprise SPNG with fraud
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=52394741
LOL. I bought the car-wash sponge yrs ago...and it actually worked...was so sad to see this go all scammy...
SOMEONE IS TRYING TO MAKE BACK SOME SPONGETECH LOSSES.....LOL
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B002RX4FAY/ref=dp_olp_new_mbc?ie=UTF8&condition=new
True, let it go folks..
This might hepp us understand a bit more about the Sisyphean, quixotic quest to find the SPNG NSS unicorn:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect
I imagine this is a silly question, but in what conceivable way are Aubrey McClendon and Lou Pearlman comparable?
Did I mention my involvement in pumping SpongeTech, while I was filing false and misleading facts to the bankruptcy court? Gosh no !! That didn't work out to well for Lou Pearlman, did it? But, at least he's still vertical, isn't he? He's not yet another (fourth?) Aubrey McClendon-type casualty, falling fatal victim to the laser focus of cybersleuths...and gradually, but ultimately, of law enforcement.
No, I didn't mention anything like what you're asking about. There was no reason to do so.
So.....
did you state in your court documents that you were very much involved in the hyping and pumping of the stock of criminal enterprise SPNG with false and misleading facts, while at the same time selling SPNG shares into the market at a substantial profit for you?
or did you conveniently fail to mention this?
Didn't the CMKX CEO flee after being criminally indicted then die mysteriously?
Not really. He was Canadian, and lived in Canada. He just stopped traveling to Las Vegas to avoid arrest. And then years later, he had a massive stroke while undergoing routine hernia surgery. Some found that suspicious, but the DOJ and SEC seem to have confirmed his death.
"Each. And. Every. Time..." that I put forth a Rule 2004 Exam Application in front of the judge, he approved it. This includes the Exam Application for FINRA's Electronic Blue Sheet trading records regarding SpongeTech's stock transactions.
And when we asked him to deny the SEC's Settlement Agreement with the Trustee, that's what he did.
He approved my appointment as the Estate Representative without my even asking for it, but based solely on the Trustee's recommendation, which he made after talking to me about it.
I'm only going to continue gathering official legal information, when and if the time comes to do so. At this time, I don't feel that I need such information. I have enough.
But I'm watching closely. The government can move quickly, as we see with yesterday's Map IV revocation. I don't trust them to ensure that justice is provided for SpongeTech shareholders. I'll feel better once I see dozens of Relief Defendants named.
Didn't the CMKX CEO flee after being criminally indicted then die mysteriously?
And each and every time, the court has shetcanned your bizarre letters. Each. And. Every. Time. Just like Senator Grassley did too.
So there's that.
Let us know if you ever capture one of those wily NSS unicorns.
Butt more illogical, impossible-to-follow-because-they-make-no-sense letters to judges, SEC officials, Senators, and dog catchers ain't gonna do sheet butt entertain us on the SPNG bored (yup, that's spelt correctly).
Really, a couple of letters to Krazy Al Hodges and Bill Frizell will gett these 'hypotheses' (and I am very generous in applying that word to your letters) to the right legal people and will benefit from their vast experience chasing NSS unicorns in the CMKX parallel to the SPNG case. In both cases, the CEO never went to prison or was even found guilty.
So it must be those wily Europeans in Panama. Mebbe the SEC is using Frank Nicolois to string some Spaniards, right?
LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!
When will this sting be reported on inforwars.com or deepcapture.com, those repositories of geniuses?
"Mossack Fonseca was just one of a number of firms in Panama offering such services...The cost of doing business there was quite low, relatively speaking...So what you would have is Panama operating as a conduit to the Swiss banks and the trust companies to set up these facilities for clients around the world."
Sound pretty familiar? It should. We've brought it to the court's attention on multiple occasions. For example:
10-13647-smb Doc 457 Filed 12/04/13 Entered 12/04/13 10:46:15
"IIROC Settlement with Canaccord, and my Dec 2011 Report
Jay Booth
to:
Judge Bernstein
12/03/2013 08:33 PM
Hide Details
From: Jay Booth <jayatthelake2003@yahoo.com>
To: Judge Bernstein <bernstein.chambers@nysb.uscourts.gov>
Dear Judge Bernstein,
I reviewed the Settlement Agreement IIROC reached with Canaccord, and compared the facts presented in the Settlement Agreement to information I provided to the Court in my December 2011 Report of Examination.
The Settlement and my Report both concern issuances to Canaccord that went through Panama, and pose questions as to ownership of some of these shares. Relevant sections from both my Report and the Settlement Agreement follow.
From December 2011 Report of Examination.
"As I recall the SEC Complaint documentation, it referred to both Diomede and Maremmano as close corporations. These companies, according to the WST Transaction Journal, share the same Panama City address as do Ardee Trading Company and Fribourg Enterprises, at 10 Elvira Mendez Street. I previously traced the issuance of some of the shares that went through Panama City to Pike Capital (see example below).
Example
>Cert 4158 was issued to Diomede in the amount of 16,500,000 shares.
>It was canceled into cert 4217 and issued to Canaccord
>Cert 4217 was canceled into Cede cert 4250
>Cert 4250 was purchased/called by Pike Capital
>Cert 4159 was issued to Maremmano. It also went through Canaccord as cert 4220, and is now Outstanding, as Cede cert 4252. I suspect that these Cede shares, which now number 24,150,000 currently holding 160 million shares in cert form, which is about 22 million fewer shares than
reflected on his Form 4. If these shares don't belong to Pike Capital, then they may represent an example of equity assets to the company, held by close corporations. There is a similar example regarding an accumulation of shares into some European accounts, and additional issuances to Diomede and Maremmano, as well.
What this suggests is that the company did, in all likelihood, use foreign clearing firms and close corporations to accumulate shares, and that they took various steps to mask that accumulation. To that end, based on the Broadridge data, there is no accounting for the 22 million shares Pike Capital reported on their Form 4, beyond the 160 million shares for which they hold certs. Neither Pike Capital, Diomede, nor Maremmano show up on the NOBO list. Canaccord Genuity only reflects 237,500 shares on their NOBO list, and 238,440 shares on the Security Position Listing. It would appear that the 22 million shares are either held by a foreign, non-reporting entity, or that these shares are simply not reported by Broadridge.
My notes taken from the Settlement Agreement, which was reached at the end of October, but did not hit the internet message boards until yesterday. These are not verbatim.
from Canaccord Settlement Agreement with IIROC
31. DS was an RR (Registered Rep) at Canaccord's head office in Vancouver. He was the RR responsible for client accounts for six different Panamanian corporations that were beneficially owned by individual Europeans. The New Client Applications Form ("NCAF") for each account indicated that the clients shared the same address which was the Panamanian address for a corporate trust services firm which managed each of the corporate identities...
33. Between April and September 2009, these six Canaccord clients received in share certificates for a total of 194 million shares of an OTCBB company,SpongeTech Delivery Systems, Inc...There were 12 deposits for all 194 million shares.** Almost immediately after they were deposited to the accounts at Canaccord, these shares were then sold for proceeds of just over $15 million...The sale proceeds were then wired to bank accounts in Hungary."
** I previously noted also that there were two additional issuances to Diomede and Marremano, for 3 million shares each, that are still in certificate form as part of the OS, and so were not subject to the IIROC Enforcement Action. I should also add that, as I recall, the corporate trust services form was called Intertrust.
So why bring up old news? Well, the first paragraph is NOT old news. It's from an interview of Bradley Birkenfeld, who seems to think that the CIA may have leaked the Panama Papers.
"Bradley Birkenfeld is the most significant financial whistleblower of all time, so you might think he'd be cheering on the disclosures in the new Panama Papers leaks. But today, Birkenfeld is raising questions about the source of the information that is shaking political regimes around the world."
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/12/swiss-banker-whistleblower-cia-behind-panama-papers.html
Again, it just gets back to the issue of what the government knew, when did they know it, and what did they do about it? Remember also, that we have seen SpongeTech Relief Defendants Cavanagh and Nicolois granted the criminal court's permission to travel to Europe, quite recently for Nicolois.
"And trying to turn the Spongetech scam to questions of racism really is beyond idiotic."
A lot of times my posts are deleted because I am not as PC as required.
I am happy to see you know how to hold the line and if anything - grossly understated how bizarre and wild this thought and thread has become.
As you see I'm thinking we have to let them hold on to that thing about relief defendants. Otherwise, they may just implode or something.
(That it is a developing rarely used concept, almost exclusively done early on to prevent the loss (and complications) of reclaiming assets later (and as everyday ticks by becomes more impossible to do against the actual "network" who more than likely have taken actions to protect themselves, or acted as corporations that also did so, and can certainly make years of objections if it is attempted, etc. as unlikely as happening - or successfully happening - as Spongetech becoming a profitable business enterprise). It is there best hope....not much more than no hope at all...but there best one!
It's hardly a point worth making. When there was an Original Issuance, who got paid for those shares? SpongeTech. The methodology of getting those shares into the market, through their affiliates, doesn't change that. You might just as well argue, then, that the affiliates didn't place those shares in the market, either. They went through clearing firms and brokerages, and through the accounts of members of the SpongeTech stock distribution network.
All of the above entities should be charged with getting those unregistered shares into the market, if the SEC's charges are correct. So far, the only example of comprehensive enforcement was by IIROC.
Short squeeze?
There was never 10's of thousands of "investors" in SPNG...
They handed out shares in football stadiums...
Yet, it is YOU that claimed that only the people/entities that purchased SPNG shares directly from SPNG should be the ones that should be charged.
I'll be more than happy to retract my statement, once I see the dozens of charges filed in the SpongeTech case, that I am patiently waiting to see.
It was the DOJ, the SEC, ICE, DHS, and the IRS who previously commented on the significant harm caused by selling unregistered shares, by some of the very same recidivist offenders who were members of the SpongeTech stock distribution network. The authorities' comments can be found on any of several Press Releases following the sentencing of some of these offenders.
That's just a natural born fact, in black and white, and contained in public records.
I'd dispute that, but either way, it has zero to do with the SPNG scam.
The takeaway is that some of the decisions by Holder and Lynch disregard the law, and their actions are agenda-driven.
As you know, nobody bought directly from SpongeTech. The shares all went through RME.
Of course, just like all retail shareholders did.
Sorry, I'm not getting it.
"Lynch said she’s currently “evaluating discrimination complaints against several court systems,” the New York Post reported.
In the letter, Lynch’s civil-rights team also warns locals that policies that mandate arrests for failures to pay court fines and fees have an adverse “disparate impact” on blacks.
In court systems receiving federal funds, these practices may also violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when they unnecessarily impose disparate harm on the basis of race,” the letter stated, the New York Post reported."
http://www.wnd.com/2016/03/loretta-lynch-presses-courts-to-back-off-criminals/
I think it's idiotic to place 6,500 municipal courts in a situation where they have to worry about discrimanation lawsuits, instead of simply determining whether or not fines have been paid, as Ordered.
This isn't just political commentary here. Holder filed the SpongeTech stock forfeiture motion. He bragged about a related conviction against a defendant that the NY Post identified as a SpongeTech investor. And he was assisted in that effort by the then-US Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Loretta Lynch.
yet many of the entities and individuals that you claim should be charge with selling unregistered SPNG shares also DID NOT BUY DIRECTLY FROM SPNG. They bought from a third party, RME, shares which were already freely trading....
so, again, you should also be charge with the selling of unregistered shares as those that you are claiming should be charged.
Did you buy the stock in question on the open market?
As I told you before, I did not buy discounted shares directly from the company as a member of the SpongeTech stock distribution network. So I don't fall under the same criteria as they do. I fall under the same criteria as the tens of thousands of public investors in this stock.
Hopefully, she's in her last few months as serving as the US Attorney General. And hopefully, again, the next US Attorney General won't be a Democrat from the Eastern or Southern District of New York.
Don't count on any of that.
And trying to turn the Spongetech scam to questions of racism really is beyond idiotic.
huh?
explain why you wouldn't be charged with selling unregistered SPNG shares at a profit, if you fall under the same criteria that you are using for others being charged of the same?
"should YOU also be charged with selling unregistered shares?"
LOL.
No, I shouldn't be charged.
But, there was the small matter of filing an Objection to Attorney General Eric Holder's SpongeTech stock forfeiture motion. Oh, and that other thingy, about asking the Senate Judiciary Committee to deny the appointment of Loretta Lynch as Holder's replacement.
But, from what we see from her, it seems that I may have a racial bias lawsuit I could file, if I was charged. That's assuming that most of these charges are filed against white people. I was really hoping that she wouldn't get political. Hopefully, she's in her last few months as serving as the US Attorney General. And hopefully, again, the next US Attorney General won't be a Democrat from the Eastern or Southern District of New York.
But wait, you also have admitted to buying SPNG shares then selling them into the market at a profit
should YOU also be charged with selling unregistered shares?
All of the stock was sold through RME, to a well-defined SpongeTech stock distribution network.
There was one instance when RME issued a certificate to an investor who was NOT part of the stock distribution network. When Moskowitz realized his mistake, the shares issued to that investor were canceled, and new shares were issued to the investor from the cancellation of a Cede cert, which was beneficially owned by the company (as many such Cede certs are/were).
So again, if the SEC's charges are correct, members of the SpongeTech stock distribution network, who bought shares from the company at prices as low as 10% of the market price, should be disgorged of their profit, regardless of scienter, and they should be charged with selling unregistered shares.
Yes, they no doubt filed the 8-A to cover up what they'd been doing.
As I recall, they'd been issuing tons of stock to an entity they controlled. Presumably they were then selling that stock into the market illegally, using fraudulent opinion letters claiming exemptions for which the stock did not qualify.
These Amendments, going back to March 2007, were filed 10 days after the company was notified that the SEC was progressing to the Formal Investigation level. The Informal Investigation was commenced in May 2009.
"Item 8.01. Other Events
On September 18, 2009, the Company received a formal order of investigation issued by the SEC regarding possible securities laws violations by the Company and/or other persons..."
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000114420409050122/v161351_8k.htm
The Complaint itself was initiated one full year after the Formal Investigation was commenced. The Complaint began as follows:
"1. This case involves a scheme to increase demand illegally for, and profit from, the unregistered sale of publicly-traded stock in Defendant Spongetech Delivery Systems, Inc. ("Spongetech" or the "Company")...
6. Defendants Metter, Moskowitz, and Spongetech illegally distributed approximately 2.5 billion Spongetech shares in unregistered transactions through Defendant RM Enterprises and other affiliates, which acted as conduits for the Defendants to distribute restricted shares in unregistered transactions to the public."
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2010/comp21515.pdf
Registering the stock "as of 28 September 2009" is kinda like closing the barn door after the horses have gotten out, isn't it?
As far as the SEC's charges regarding the sale of "...2.5 billion Spongetech shares in unregistered transactions..," I usually say "if the SEC's charges are correct," when I speak of things like charging those who resold the shares they received. You're not saying that, too, are you? Because my reason for saying that really has nothing to do with these Amended filings.
All of Spongetech's common stock as of 28 September 2009 was registered:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000114420409050269/v161426_8a12g.htm
Obviously, the shares were resold by members of the SpongeTech stock distribution network. Are you saying that they did nothing illegal by selling those shares?
When you discuss this case with your students, does that include the subject of selling unregistered shares? What are your students' views about the lack of US-based prosecutions for this violation?
Selling unregistered stock is not illegal. If a company isn't an SEC filer, all of its stock is unregistered. But if a company sells unregistered stock and does not subsequently register it, or make certain that a legitimate exemption from registration is available, it cannot be RESOLD on the open market.
In a search for a contractor to replace my roof I had 5 estimates provided from 5 different companies. STEVEN MOSKOWITZ of Renovex LLC gave me the best price by over a couple thousand dollars. This was too good to pass on, so I hired Renovex to do the job.
Steve immediately demanded 60% of the cost to be paid upfront. I was hesitant so I told him once the material arrives on site I would give him the 60%. He rudely told me "I am not a bank, and I won't lay out that kind of money." We eventually came to an agreement. The following day, 80% of the material arrived and so I paid him in good faith. That was my second mistake. My first mistake was hiring him in the first place. I was initially promised that the entire job would be completed in 3-5 work days. Over the course of 3 weeks I've heard one excuse after the other. It went from bad weather (which never came) to family emergencies, to sick days (6 in a row, with no communication) This company left my roof unprotected which lead to a semi-major leak in multiple areas of my home. I am currently in the process of filing a claim against his insurance, which I'm beginning to think is fraudulent. I have gotten no where. After over three weeks from the start date they were only competent enough to complete 45% of the job. I had finally had enough of the excuses and contacted Steve. I told him I have no other recourse at this point. I need to hire someone else to complete the job. His response was, "Why didn't you tell me that my workers haven't been there in over 5 days? You are just trying to steal my materials and I will see you in court!" As if I'm responsible for managing his labor force. Save yourself the headache, don't use Renovex LLC for ANYTHING! It was a waste of my time and money in the long run. It was the least professional management I've ever dealt with in my entire life. PLEASE DON'T BE TEMPTED BY THE LOW COST, IT IS A FACADE THAT IS WELL WORTH AVOIDING!
Ross G. and 1 other voted for this review
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |