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.
"But, I care, even if I am the only one that does."
You are the only one.
Crackpot theories are uninteresting.
If you want to chase windmills, then GO DO IT. Posting about it here and elsewhere on iHub isn't gonna do anything.
One, because it's a crackpot theory that's been floated in virtually every pennyscam once they've collapsed.
Two, because there is no EVIDENCE to back up the nonsensical theories.
Third, because of (1) and (2), and for many additional reasons, because nobody gives a shit. If you do, then go gett it yourself.
Nobody else cares about the unicorn theories and the other nonsense.
So there's that.
Good luck - follow Krazy Al Hodges' and Bill Frizell's (from CMKX) footsteps to the court circular file. It's a big waste container with lots of very similar UNSUBSTANTIATED bogus claims made and placed in the huge rubbish container labeled "Pennyscam Fraud Victims Crackpot Theories". Right behind every courthouse.
"Nobody else cares about the unicorn theories and the other nonsense." That includes me.
What I DO care about is seeing that SpongeTech shareholders are extended the full protection of the law.
We had Failures to Deliver everyday, for weeks, resulting in the company being placed on the RegSHO Security Threshold List. That's a fact.
We had billions of unregistered shares illegally sold to the investing public through a well-defined stock distribution ring, according to the SEC's charges. That's also a fact.
You have said those facts are irrelevant, and that nobody cares. I get that.
But, I care, even if I am the only one that does.
I offer the following retort:
actually, wrong
YOU purchased shares that were fraudulent registered then YOU sold them into the market at a profit while pumping the stock with false and misleading information about criminal enterprise SPNG.
Charge those who benefited from ill-gotten gain, and return that money to injured investors.
those would include you.
I want to see RegSHO enforced. I want to see the open market buy-in of shares that were not delivered to the buyers, and I want to sell my shares, at the highest possible price, in that process. I want the protection of the law, as every shareholder is entitled to have. The SEC's trading suspension denies shareholders the protection of the SEC's own RegSHO.
In addition, if unregistered shares were sold to the public, as the SEC has charged, I want the protection of the law in that regard, also. Charge those who benefited from ill-gotten gain, and return that money to injured investors.
It's not a matter of my wanting to sell my shares, but wanting others prosecuted for selling theirs'. I didn't sell unregistered shares that I received from the company at a substantial discount.
Oh....you mean in an article or 2 years ago and just like the many, many they print every day?
Actually, in the real world....the non-delusional one different than you live in, no one really cares enough about you.
Oh...the newspaper didn't really like anything...it has no actual feelings...it is inert. The writer...well what he wrote was just another job for him. One of several he had that week...and hundreds before and since.
It works well for you actually...just like all the other members of the Criminal SPNG distribution network of fraudsters.....all is forgotten and the new take it's place, Your old news.
Time for a new scam.....although I'm thinking SPNG by time and all was just a bit on the lucky side. Now it won't be quite as succesfull. But still profitable!
I'M number ONE!! I'M number ONE!!
I like the way that sounds, 236. And if your guess is right, that I'll be "first in line to be added as a new defendant in the criminal securities fraud case," then I will be rightfully entitled to claim being number ONE.
The NY Post really liked writing about SpongeTech. You know anyone who could scoop them as to my imminent designation as being the number one defendant in upcoming SpongeTech litigation?
"while lots of people did many wrong things with this and didn't come to any justice," (I agree, again), I will continue in my efforts to see that justice is served.
well said
worth another read
my guess is that he is first in line to be added as a new defendant in the criminal securities fraud case
his pump false and misleading statements regarding criminal enterprise SPNG and, my guess, his trading records showing profiting from this scam are in the hands of the DOJ.
one has to wonder how many hundreds, if not thousands of SPNG stockholders, bought more shares of SPNG or failed to sell, based on believing his pump false and misleading statements about SPNG
Since we're bringing up prior posts, I'd like to bring this one of my own up - it remains totally valid and undisputed.
Well said
worth another read
my guess is that the SEC and DOJ are currently examining his trading records of SPNG stock and comparing to his false and misleading statements about SPNG used to artificially inflate the stock price of this criminal enterprise ..
Excellent, excellent point here
Well, I am glad that you agree that you should be added as a defendant in the SPNG criminal fraud case for benefiting from your manipulation in the stock by posted false and misleading bullish statements about criminal enterprise SPNG while selling the stock into the market at various times
thanks for the info
The facts really are:
You keep on asserting things no one else finds either true or relevant.
No matter how much you insist on what you have been trying to believe as an absolute won't and hasn't made it acceptable to anyone - except whatever else exist in that reality you occupy.
You trip over yourself one moment to the next - like wanting to get the stock trading so you can sell it....while wanting to prosecute anyone previously involved because selling it was/is done as a fraud.
You bought a stock and held it is a company that had no real business, no chance of being successful. And you (and it seems you want us all to believe you do everything well knowing what it is) flipped it "in my saying that I flipped the stock a couple of times over the years...." (somehow for years when this really wasn't active to the dupped public for more than months? Sure sounds like your part of the problem makers....), presumably all giving you a substantial (over years, and with your knowledge and expertise) profit....all while making wildly absurd and pumper like claims while doing so -- that defrauded all those following and buying the stock you were selling, not as all knowing as you. And you want to do continue to do it! Gee...last time you couldn't finish your flip and became a bag holder? Please step up to the Bar for sentencing!
You knowingly bought, sold and bought and sold a fraud and of a company that had no chance of ever being an investment, just a scam (you are proud of participating in).
Makes no difference how many shares or any of that....YOU BOUGHT A STOCK IN A WORTHLESS COMPANY....and did everything possible to maximize the loss and pass it on to others too.
Your claims of righteousness ring as hollow as Mosky & Metter....they just do it better and profit from it more. You lie and deceive all, including yourself.
Your findings and claims are rejected by all as inaccurate and untrue....
Your continued rantings keep on coming back to the same place....the actions you claim sound suspeciously criminal - and without any question place you as profiting from being some part of the SPNG distribution network....and what you want to do a continuation of it.
So, while lots of people did many wrong things with this and didn't come to any justice.....you should be proud you are one!
Now be smart enough to stand down and fade away....or don't be surprised if you become the scapegoat and have the attention focused on you.
"falsely claiming that the outstanding shares were about 700 million (very bullish)..."
Falsely claiming the stated OS could be justified? So what part of my analysis is false? I provided my data to the court with the submission of "SpongeTech Share Repurchases: Motive, Method, and Opportunity," (as I recall). It's on Pacer for all to see.
Proof that the stated OS is understated should be very easy to prove. But, when we tried to obtain the NOBO and OBO data by issuing a subpoena to Broadridge, the data they provided was proven false, reporting fewer shareholders than the TA reported.
When I tried to subpoena Penson's Blue Sheets from Apex, they told me they weren't responsible for that. But we know now that that isn't true, and that Apex was fined for Failures to Deliver stemming from Penson.
When I subpoenaed SpongeTech's Blue Sheets from FINRA, I discovered and reported significant and sustained violations of RegSHO in the trading patterns exhibited. That, also, was reported to the court and is available on Pacer.
So when you say, "it was proven that there were 2.0 billion outstanding at the time (very bearish)," where is the proof to substantiate that claim? Why didn't the Trustee just provide that proof by submitting the list of shareholders to the bankruptcy court, as he was required to do?
There is nothing "recent" in my saying that I flipped the stock a couple of times over the years. So no, I don't know of anyone who recently admitted to doing this
I definitely think that people who manipulated the stock, either up or down, deserve to be convicted of that offense. So I continue to await the naming of dozens of Relief Defendants in this case, which won't include me. The opposite is true. If this doesn't happen, I will continue to push for it when the time is right.
Well, one has to just make up 'facts' when needed to fit the their reality.
Or unreality.
huh?
my post?
you mean this one?
"So you agree that you should be formally criminally indicted by the DOJ for YOUR fraudulent actions with regard to SPNG stock? "
Don't forget that I also matched what the TA and SEC reported. And no, that's not enough proof.
I saved a copy of your post.
I'm surprised that you would go there, but I'm not disappointed that you did.
So you agree that you should be formally criminally indicted by the DOJ for YOUR fraudulent actions with regard to SPNG stock?
So the fact that the SPNG transfer agent table showed 2.0 billion shares outstanding around May/June 2009 and the the fact that the SEC stated that there 2.0 billion shares outstanding at the time is not enough proof?
you are killing me here
"I think that both the SEC, and particularly the DOJ, should go after the people that were pumping the stock with false and misleading information on the boards, while at the same time selling shares into the market."
I agree. Absolutely 100%. And I think it would be interesting if former Attorney General Eric Holder still wanted to highlight his conviction in the Axius case after that. Or if the judge in a another related case would feel that the DOJ provided all the information he required in determining sentencing guidelines in regards to the defendant in his case.
And no, it was NOT proven that the OS was 2 billion.
There was the matter of 1 billion of those shares being DWAC'd. Rather odd, don't you think? Especially when there is an issue regarding dual cancellations of some 54 million shares stemming from that, or when there is an issue regarding 1 billion shares being illegally sold by a Transfer Agent in another case, to a major SpongeTech participant.
I think that both the SEC, and particularly the DOJ, should go after the people that were pumping the stock with false and misleading information on the boards, while at the same time selling shares into the market...
you know, like falsely claiming that the outstanding shares were about 700 million (very bullish), when in reality, it was proven that there were 2.0 billion outstanding at the time (very bearish).
know anyone that was doing this and has recently admitted to doing this?
they probably deserve at least a couple of years prison time, don't you think?
First of all, it was attorney Pensley who claimed that opinion letters bearing his name were forged.
But, he received shares as compensation for those opinion letters. He also re-stated his testimony, causing the SEC's lawyer, Jeffrey Tao, to Reply with words to the effect that Pensley, his star witness used to bring charges, could not keep his stories straight.
Pensley still hasn't provided his financials to Judge Irizarry, which she Ordered several years ago, and either he, or his former attorney, seem to be responsible for allowing illegal sales of shares in Proteonomix, after SpongeTech. So his case is still open in regards to SpongeTech.
You asked, "why would any brokerage have done anything when they didn't know that M&M had forged the attorney letter?"
It was easy to see when the shares were issued, and when they were sold. That's why IIROC charged Canaccord for clearing their SpongeTech shares.
i would love to answer your questions but they just don't make sense.
it sounds like you believe there are actual physical shares that are delivered to brokers?
here, i'll try to make this as simple as possible.
step 1: Moskowitz or Metter forge an attorney letter which illegally releases restricted shares for trading.
step 2: M&M sell those shares to what you call "the SpongeTech stock distribution network"
step 3: "the SpongeTech stock distribution network" sells those shares on the open market.
why would any brokerage have done anything when they didn't know that M&M had forged the attorney letter?
Have you even looked at the TA Journal, submitted by the SEC's investigator? Almost every certificate originally issued by the company was subsequently resold by the stock beneficiary.
Are you saying that those shares were resold prior to being delivered to the initial buyers, most of whom were members of the SpongeTech stock distribution network?
Don't you think that the many brokerages involved would have stopped the re-sale of those shares, if delivery hadn't been made to the initial buyers?
Don't you think that's even more likely, since most of these stock beneficiaries received numerous issuances?
cowtown, you continue to completely ignore the fact that SPNG showed up on RegSHO because Moskowitz and Metter illegally dumped billions of shares on the open market.
failures to deliver not found.
We were on RegSHO all the way up until the time that the SEC suspended trading.
How can market participants close out Failures to Deliver, to meet the SEC's RegSHO rules, when trading is suspended by the SEC?
Then we see SRO's join the fray. The DTCC, in our case, issuing a global trading lock. Or Nasdaq, in KBIO's case, issuing a trading halt (which was lifted after KBIO was delisted and demoted to trading now on the OTC).
Speaking as "the great promoter of all things honest and righteous," that's actually a title I would like to see the SEC prove worthy of having. People who bought shares should expect delivery of those shares. It's as simple as that. And there is NO REASON why those shareholders cannot be precisely identified.
nd no, that was not caused by new issuances by the company.
yes it was, and it was even discussed at the time.
NO not a stock play. It was a stock fraud.
And I gather your now stepping back from ever thinking it should trade again...for any reason (other than the complete impossibility of it ever having any value - that is - as a fraud when started and/or as a discovered fraud in the end of an administratively bankrupt C-7).
Of course - as the great promoter of all things honest and righteous.....you wouldn't even suggest that it should be any other way. For any number of reasons, because that would be enticing more victims of making wrong decisions by allowing the fraud to continue.
SPNGQ was a stock play, due to the prolonged presence on the RegSHO Threshold Security Listing. And no, that was not caused by new issuances by the company. Those shares were usually re-sold within days of receipt.
But, you're right in saying that I am committed to exposing as much wrong-doing as I can, if need be. That's not going to change.
I'm still waiting to see dozens of Relief Defendants named in this on-going case. That's how to "address the primary" in this case.
Your response (as linked) was to support that unlocking SPNG would possible AND fair!
That would provide you and others recovery as you sold.
Your responses all over and forever have been that you want it to trade again....but even more incorrectly you feel the business destined for greatness failed because of improper dealings in its stock.....
You've had hundreds of people tell you why your wrong on just about everything and continue to refuse to address the primary:
SPNG was a fraud and never worth anything as a business.
It was a bad investment decision.
As a C-7 stock share of an administratively bankrupt corporation can (and should) never have any real value to anyone again ever.
In the corner - you've now decided all that never happened and it's just you've always been just a defender of what should be fair and the committed exposer of all others have done wrong (so your decision to go long on SPNG isn't a financial error!)
"...why did you even bring it up as a reason you should be allowed to trade SPNG?"
The question was originally brought up by someone else, not me. "Cowtown, what are your thoughts on the ticker symbol being unlocked so those holding shares might be able to trade them again?"
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120562648
I answered by saying, "I'll share the comments of a fellow shareholder, just posted elsewhere."
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120586389
Now consider a comment that I made on the KBIO board. "It's too bad that Nasdaq didn't give the company the 60 days to submit a plan to regain compliance. Maybe shareholders who were forced to sell by the impact of the delisting could have avoided losses they incurred."
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120840496
Underlying these postings, we see some of the same people and issues involved: Ben Brafman; Timothy Sykes; the NY Post; RegSHO Threshold status; Regulatory failure to force buy-ins; injured investors; trading halts; bankruptcies; favorable bankruptcy judicial decisions, etc.
KBIO's Martin Shkreli was able to start a short squeeze. We were not. Nor was Shkreli able to continue the short squeeze. But, it's a dynamic situation, still developing, and still of continued interest to me.
The issue of how injured investors are compensated is also dynamic and developing. It represents a just cause, and it will also remain a continued interest to me.
So as the 2 are completely totally different in just about all ways...why did you even bring it up as a reason you should be allowed to trade SPNG?
As seems to be clear SPNG a completely worthless always a fraud C-11 resolved by a dissolving C-7, KBIO not all...(an operating Co, with assets, and more...)
We know.....you can't accept you made a bad, bad investment decision and lost your entire investment for forever. You need to keep making up hope, like making up SPNG was a great thing destined to make you big $$, that the reason it didn't is because of reasons other people should now make valuable to you.
Next time - short the fraud. Frauds are bad long investments.
So back to the thing you were trying to excuse by bringing up KBIO as what may happen to SPNG - (trade at $40).....what fraud stock, with no assets, completing a C-7 dissolution (other than the dissolving residual) ever traded again? (Actually I'd even let you come up with any that were not fraud and or not just for the original owner, not a creditor that ended up with it).
NONE. Can't happen. Even if the stock, for any number of practical or administrative reasons still could technically exist.
It is worthless to everyone and anyone.
Those "significant and sustained violations of RegSHO" were from unregistered shares hitting the market.
Charges were laid.
shareholders are entitled to nothing.
Lesson learned?
Thought so.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=98104003
20.Defendant Steven Y. Moskowitz is Spongetech’s Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Accounting Officer, and Secretary, and serves as a member of Spongetech’s Board of Directors. Moskowitz is also an officer and director of RM Enterprises. Moskowitz is also an officer, director, or both for a number of companies, including Flo Weinberg, Inc., Tiburon Capital Group, and SEC reporting companies Vanity Events Holding Company, Inc., Map IV Acquisition, Inc., Map VI Acquisition Inc., and Solar Thin Films, Inc. Moskowitz is believed to reside in Flushing, New York.
This rings a bell, but I don't have time to look into right now.
re: Map IV Acquisitions
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2016/34-77260.pdf
Of course I know that day traders were part of that volume, including me.
I also know, actually, WE also know, that a lot of this volume was the result of paid promotional activity.
But, as I submitted to the court, there were also significant and sustained violations of RegSHO concerning short sells of the company's shares. A truly unrelenting onslaught.
Fighting fire with fire?
Regardless, manipulating the stock price, either up or down, is illegal. That happened. Where are the charges? Where is the disgorgement that shareholders are entitled to receive?
Gee, so I guess you have never heard of "flippers" and "day traders" that will trade the same stock many times in ONE DAY?
not surprised
this particularly happens with heavily promoted stocks, which is what criminal enterprise SPNGQ was
Earlier in this thread, another poster said, "It would seem it (KBIO) still trades today for more than SPNG ever did."
I replied by saying, "I doubt that any OTC stock had higher trading volume than SPNGQ." (It was the sentence before the one you decided to quote).
So no, I am not saying that KBIO and SPNGQ were similar in terms of trading volume. I said just about the opposite.
Spngq saw 12 billion shares trade in an eight month period, when the company only had 2 billion shares Authorized and Outstanding. The total average dollar amount traded during this period was $1.25 billion. I agree that SPNGQ was 'YUUUUGE' in trading volume comparison to KBIO.
SPNGQ was the biggest Fraud in the history of the Microcap stocks
are you saying that KBIO is the same?
KBIO (once they emerge from Ch 11, which they likely will) was not raided by its owner.
I doubt that any OTC stock had higher trading volume than SPNGQ.
There is a commonality between SPNGQ and KBIO in terms of people and processes involved, as well as botched Regulation.
No...
An entirely different situation and corporation/business. As well as in an entirely different time and place in its history. Many other reasons why what is happening there cannot and should not be compared to SPNG.
However the 1,000s, no tens of 1,000s -- of other Cos that filed BK because of operational failure (not theft from it) and basically never traded again and certainly every fraud with no assets or business of any nature are.
KBIO now KBIOQ was an actual company that was RAIDED by it owner to cover his losses in other transactions in hedge funds.
It was not simply a worthless fraud from the git-gat.
It would seem it still trades today for more than SPNG ever did.
It happens. KBIO was only 16 cents per share higher than the price SPNG achieved, and THEY went to over $45. I would have had fills on all my standing offers from $4 to $40 per share. Classic, indeed.
Cowtown Classic: SPNG Corporation now worth $180 BILLION!!!!!
$45 share on 4 Billion shares.
" then why can't the shareholders be identified?" "
Why should the list of SPNG shareholders be identified?
Their shares are worth nothing....the companies worth less.
I think the SEC has better things to do than putting together a list of dummies.
Prolly because nobody gives a shit. If you do, then go gett it yourself.
Nobody else cares about the unicorn theories and the other nonsense.
As I said in my post, "If the number of shares Outstanding can be precisely proven, then why can't the shareholders be identified?"
It shouldn't be difficult. It happens everyday. Proxy statements get mailed, etc. Investors can hold their shares in certificate form, if they want to do so. Not so with SpongeTech.
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: |