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.
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.
what does suspicion mean?.
dictionary: a feeling that someone is possibly guilty of a crime or of doing something wrong
what does possibly mean?
dictionary: —used to say something might happen, exist, or be true but is not certain
post it
they never said Securities FRAUD
Right here in the SEC suspension letter. One MUST first understand the fundamental concept that selling stock on "accuracy and adequacy of information " IS STOCK FRAUD
as in other posts this makes no sense selling stock ON "accuracy and adequacy of information " would not be fraud it would be the lack of "accuracy and adequacy of information "
"]The stock was suspended by the SEC for fraud. That should be proof enough."
Where does it say that?
Does not mean there was either
If comment directed to me....I have said numerous time I am not pumping or "justifying the suspension". I along with everyone else here have no idea why it happened. I have never said they were or were not guilty. Unlike others I can admit I don't know and neither do they.
Where?? Not in your highlight. Better read it again
So if you are saying that "it may or may not" then what is the point of suspending. You can say that sacrificing a chicken "may or may not prevent fraud" and the SEC Statement does not say "may or may not"
Once again not any facts in your statement. You have no idea if I am invested or not. You have no idea if I lost or not. You said that the can only be suspended for fraud. Wrong there are many things to be suspended for.
And the success of a company in now way plays into suspensions. I have told you before find where I have pumped this company or said they did no wrong. What I dispute is your uninformed blanket statements that are not proven in fact. That is what you won't except
Read your following quote. Are you actually saying that it "may" prevent fraud because they can still defraud investors". What does that mean???? Makes no sense whatsoever
"Again, you are misreading and trying to wrongly interpret the statement. They say "may" prevent fraud because trading on the greys the company can still DEFRAUD investors. Therefor they are stating that the SEC suspension and grey market punishment may prevent future fraud & it may not prevent future fraud."
Neither was fraud
See you are basically proving my point. You see there are words that make up these releases.
First example. The SEC suspends trading when "it's of the OPINION". They didnt say facts
Second example "it believes that the public MAY be making investing decisions". Notice the word MAY
Third example. "A suspension MAY prevent potential investors from being victimized by a fraud"
Oh there is that MAY word again. They word it that way for an out if they need one. No cut and dry accusations to have to defend just opinions and mays.
The SEC never mention fraud. We shouldnt go making up things that weren't said
Depends, Where you there
You changed the wording and the timing of the event. Like you say "it's in black and white"
"I cannot find any sec statements that they found fraud and are sanctioning the company." Your right cause there has not been any.
Exactly
You see words have meanings. When you see in the sec release "questions raised" no matter how you want to change English it means "questions raised". "potentially manipulative" is another phrase you are having trouble with. Notice the only part in your post you highlight. The buzz words. See you have to read the whole sentence
Incorrect statement
Link please
Your quote. "I say sterling Scott is just puppet of Weiner David
remember the common stock shares increase on FEBUARY
this guy has 13,006,242 worth of securities
WEINER DAVID is the guy behind Growlife Inc. controling maybe the one who manipulate the stock as well
Growlife Inc. and Weiner David relation article should be out with Bloomberg news within 2~3 weeks"
????? It's way past February and sterling Scott is no longer with growlife
"Please enlighten us all as to why the SEC suspended PHOT since you appear to know why??? LOL".
I don't know why and neither do you. They difference is I'm not making up words that aren't there
Get me started doing what? I read what it said. I am not changing words in the release to suite what I'm saying
SEC SUSPENSION = Guilty. Show SEC link that says that please. Thanks in advance
What part of the SEC suspension = GUILTY OF FRAUD. You keep saying that. Nowhere on the SEC site or press releases does it say that. Just because you keep repeating it does not make it so.
Once again anything but facts. I never said any of that
Wrong again, proves more of what I'm saying than what your are claiming
Should be sticky
Do you know for a fact that they are
Post where sec SAID GUILTY and not questions raised
My post is not about sterling or the pps. If you read it, it is about what the sec said in their only release and about what people are saying that was not there
"The Commission temporarily suspended trading in the securities of PHOT because of questions that have been raised about the accuracy and adequacy of information in the marketplace and potentially manipulative transactions in PHOT’s common stock"
It's says QUESTIONS have been raised. It does not say "The Commission temporarily suspended trading in the securities of PHOT because of PROOF"
And POTENTIALLY manipulative. It does not say proven manipulative
Your comment-"Yes they did, the suspension IS THE DETERMINATION OF PHOT STOCK FRAUD"
So if sec has not mentioned phot since the suspension and they did not say in the above paragraph what you said they did. Then show me where they said " the suspension is the determination of phot stock fraud"
That is not accurate SEC has not mentioned growlife since the suspension
The third party part was announced by growlife in a press release. The SEC never mentioned it. But then
Again the SEC never said a thing. You would think if was untrue the SEC would have slapped growlife or made them retract it
That's not entirely accurate
02/05/2013. Seriously?
Usual hit job every time there is an uptrend
It's seeking alpha. It's not an article it's a hack bashing it because its pps was rising. SA is not good for anything