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.
DTC has suspended all services, except Custody Services, for the below referenced issue. The suspension is effective January 21, 2011.
http://www.dtcc.com/downloads/legal/imp_notices/2011/dtc/ope/0077-11.pdf
==================================================================
Section 4 – Matters Related to Accountants and Financial Statements
Item 4.01 Changes in Registrant’s Certifying Accountant.
(a) On March 17, 2011, following a competitive process undertaken by the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors (the “ Audit Committee ”) of Lighting Science Group Corporation (the “ Company ”), the Audit Committee approved the selection of KPMG LLP (“ KPMG ”) to serve as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for the year ending December 31, 2011. McGladrey & Pullen, LLP (“ McGladrey ”) was notified on March 18, 2011 that it will not be retained as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for the year ending December 31, 2011. McGladrey’s engagement as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm to audit the Company’s consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2010 is unaffected by the selection of KPMG, and McGladrey’s dismissal will become effective upon the completion of McGladrey’s audit of the Company’s consolidated financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2010 and the filing of the related Annual Report and Form 10-K.
The audit reports of McGladrey on the consolidated financial statements of the Company as of and for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008 did not contain any adverse opinion or disclaimer of opinion, nor were the reports qualified or modified as to uncertainty, audit scope or accounting principle.
During the two years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the subsequent interim period through March 18, 2011, there were (i) no disagreements between the Company and McGladrey on any matter of accounting principles or practices, financial statement disclosure, or auditing scope or procedures, which, if not resolved to the satisfaction of McGladrey would have caused McGladrey to make reference thereto in their reports on the consolidated financial statements for such years, and (ii) no “reportable events” as that term is defined in Item 304(a)(1)(v) of Regulation S-K, except as follows:
In connection with the audit of the Company’s consolidated financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, McGladrey reported to the Audit Committee that it concurred with management’s identification of numerous material weaknesses in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. The material weaknesses primarily related to: (i) inadequate controls surrounding the Company’s overall financial reporting and consolidation processes; (ii) limited segregation of duties at the Company; (iii) inadequate controls over inventory accounting; (iv) the lack of methodologies to allow for the capture of certain project-related costs; (v) inadequate entity level controls; and (vi) an overall lack of formal policies and standardized procedures across numerous accounting cycles.
The Company provided McGladrey with a copy of this Form 8-K, and requested McGladrey to furnish it with a letter addressed to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission stating whether it agrees with the above statements. A copy of such letter, dated March 22, 2011, is filed as Exhibit 16 to this Form 8-K.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) On March 17, 2011, the Audit Committee approved the selection of KPMG to serve as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for the year ending December 31, 2011, with the finalization of the engagement terms to be completed prior to March 23, 2011. During the two years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the subsequent interim period through March 22, 2011, the Company has not consulted with KPMG, regarding either (i) the application of accounting principles to a specified transaction, either completed or proposed; or the type of audit opinion that might be rendered on the Company’s consolidated financial statements, and neither a written report was provided to the Company or oral advice was provided that KPMG concluded was an important factor considered by the Company in reaching a decision as to the accounting, auditing or financial reporting issue; or (ii) any matter that was either the subject of a “disagreement,” as that term is defined in Item 304(a)(1)(iv) of Regulation S-K and the related instructions to Item 304 of Regulation S-K, or a “reportable event,” as that term is defined in Item 304(a)(1)(v) of Regulation S-K.
http://investor.lsgc.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1193125-11-73971&CIK=866970
jimtash, you should buy as much as you can. Are you waiting for funds to clear? Hopefully you can get in. It's gonna explode!
You sold your million shares at the ask .0002? Made yourself a $100. LMFAO
Why does RCC have to issue preffered shares without dividend rights? What is he inferring he's going to offer a dividend on a .0001 stock that can barely trade? Is more than half of the Authorized off the shelf? Is there + 5 billion in the OS? There's most certainly 3 billion + whatever he sold for his 50% of the proceeds of the EZEE rip off. This guy will stop at nothing...he's got nothing to lose.
Is the company stating there is a short position? Who is the Chairman of RCC, and what do dividend payments on stock and the tax consequences have to do with RCCH? Newton is posting other company's releases on his $10 a month site? This is beyond ridiculous...
RCC Holdings Corp, Chairman Also Warns Shareholders
http://www.rccholdings.com/
Who is it that made the allegation of a short position in RCCH?
In view of the alleged short interest in the Company's stock and the distortions that a short position might cause in shareholder voting, the Company has issued a super-voting preferred stock. This preferred stock has no dividend rights.
http://www.rccholdings.com/
Is this company currently selling their products to the Chinese? Are they installed and working anywhere in the world? thanks
Anbody know how many shares were issued by RCCH for the leveraged buyout of EZEE Debt? What the price was? When they hit the market?
RCC Holdings Corp acquires Ezee Debt Solutions through a leveraged buyout
http://www.alacrastore.com/deal-snapshot/RCC_Holdings_Corp_acquires_Ezee_Debt_Solutions_through_a_leveraged_buyout-544851
around 235 million fully diluted? perhaps a RS is in the making?
Proposed NASDAQ symbol LSGC The number of shares of our common stock outstanding after this offering is based on 185,260,534 shares outstanding as of September 30, 2010 after giving effect to the “Subsequent Issuances” described under “Capitalization” and excludes: • 12,756,217 shares of common stock issuable upon the exercise of outstanding options under our Amended and Restated Equity-Based Compensation Plan, or the Equity Plan, as of September 30, 2010, with a weighted average exercise price of $1.28 per share; • 176,668 shares of common stock issuable upon the vesting of shares of restricted stock previously awarded under the Equity Plan as of September 30, 2010; • 15,067,115 (which gives effect to the 8,000,000 share increase on February 10, 2011) shares of common stock reserved and available for future issuance under the Equity Plan as of September 30, 2010; and • 14,789,424 shares of common stock, on an as-converted basis, issuable upon the exercise of outstanding warrants to purchase common stock, as of September 30, 2010, with a weighted average exercise price of $5.83 per share.
http://secwatch.com/lscg/s1/ipo-registration/2011/2/10/7563573
I guess you're wondering how a guy who qualifies for a Public Defender is able to finance operations? But that's a whole other story.
Basically, the Company is still in the development stage. Currently using loans from its control shareholder to finance development activities, such as its current pursuit of contracts for International Water Solutions (IWS).
What about this volume and bid? 13 settlment days puts us at next Thursday. 4 more days to put this NSS thing to rest. If this volume and bid are indicative of NSS...the short position is/was at least 500,000,000 shares.
For purposes of Rule 3210, a non-reporting threshold security is any equity
security that is not a reporting security and, for five consecutive settlement days,
has: (1) aggregate fails to deliver at a registered clearing agency of 10,000 shares
or more; and (2) a reported last sale during normal market hours (9:30 a.m. to
4:00 p.m., Eastern Time (ET)) for the security on that settlement day that would
value the aggregate fail to deliver position at $50,000 or more.
http://www.finra.org/web/groups/industry/@ip/@reg/@rulfil/documents/rulefilings/p121521.pdf
frog, what is the volume we're seeing. thanks
Here are the 2 Regdex 504 d filings. There is not a specified number of shares issued. It is a dollar amount...1 million each. Under reg 504 d these restricted shares can only be sold to accreditied investors as stated within the documents. No solicitation can be made to the public. That would be in violation of the rules of exemption.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1421060/999999999707051304/9999999997-07-051304-index.htm
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1143723/999999999708039420/9999999997-08-039420-index.htm
What I will point out is the trade settlement process that seems to be so elusive to some. Posting "day of non-settled trades" has nothing to do with the actual settlement of shares.
T+1
NSCC’s guarantee of settlement generally begins midnight between
T+1 and T+2. At this point, NSCC steps into the middle of a trade
and assumes the role of central counterparty, taking on the buyer’s
credit risk and the seller’s delivery risk. This guarantee eliminates
uncertainty for market participants and inspires public confidence.
T+2
NSCC issues broker/dealers summaries of all compared trades,
including information on the net positions of each security due or
owed for settlement.
T+3
T+3 is settlement – the delivery of securities to net buyers and
payments of money to net sellers. Broker/dealers instruct their settling
banks to send or receive funds (through the Federal Reserve System)
to/from DTC as NSCC’s agent. Securities generally do not change
hands physically. DTC transfers ownership between broker/dealers’
accounts by book-entry electronic movements.
http://www.dtcc.com/downloads/about/Broker_to_Broker_Trade.pdf
Restrictions may also be placed on securities in situations where DTC has been informed by the issuer or its agent, regulators or law enforcement, or has other compliance concerns that its Cede & Co certificate inventory has been compromised due to unauthorized, altered, fraudulent or counterfeit share issuance. If DTC reasonably suspects that all or a portion of its street name holdings are not fungible and freely transferable, it may decide to chill one or more of its services as it deems appropriate.
http://www.dtcc.com/downloads/legal/imp_notices/2010/dtcc/z0025.pdf
As is currently the case for trade-for-trade items, NSCC will not guaranty the settlement of transactions aggregated pursuant to this rule change.
http://www.dtcc.com/downloads/legal/imp_notices/2010/nscc/a6958.pdf
There was no form 10 filed here.
Who has made a request and what was the response? thanks
Looks like out of one side of your mouth you're claiming a valuation of millions in Sep. 2010, and out of the other side you're claiming no interest in that valuation March 2010. I guess if there's no bid the company has no valuation. JMHO
05/24/2010 COURT INITIATED 8715 PRINTED.
05/17/2010 8:30 AM DEPT. R20 PRE-TRIAL DISPOSED TRC
Minutes
MINUTES UPDATED BY RH-RONNA HICKS
-
ELIA V. PIROZZI
CLERK: MF2-MARY FLORES
CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER: DL1-DONNA LAMBERT CSR# DL1-8807
BAILIFF J. HENDRIX
-
APPEARANCES
DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MARBI BURNETTE PRESENT.
DEPUTY PUBLIC DEFENDER NAKIA FLINT PRESENT
DEFENDANT PRESENT NOT IN CUSTODY.
-
PROCEEDINGS
ACTION CAME ON FOR PRETRIAL
-
PLEA BARGAIN AGREEMENT FILED.
-
PAY APPOINTED COUNSEL FEES IN THE AMOUNT OF $100.00 PURSUANT TO PC 987.8(F)
BY 12/31/2010.
-
ON MOTION OF DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CASE IS DISMISSED PURSUANT TO 1385 PC .
-
CUSTODY STATUS
DEFENDANT RELEASED.
============= MINUTE ORDER END ================
Anybody heard about the Great Falls wastewater system mentioned in this September 2010 ETV case study.
Although the Great Falls project did not have major
environmental requirements associated with it, the Indian
reservation wanted the best environmental treatment
system possible. The vendor’s system had documented
performance through ETV verification and was awarded
the project. The vendor also has $9 million worth of new
bids in progress (Smith, 2010a). Additionally, Minnesota
and New Jersey have nondegradation limits similar
to those of Montana, so the verified technology could
be used to meet the requirements in these states as well
(State of Minnesota, 2008; State of New Jersey, 1993).
The vendor reports that the payback period for the cost
of the ETV verification was 11 months (Smith, 2010g)
and that demonstrated technology performance as verified
by the ETV Program has had indirect benefits in
the form of valuation and partnerships. Based on an audit
of company assets by an outside valuation firm, the
vendor reports that the value added to the company as a
result of ETV verification could range from $2 million
or $3 million up to as much as $5 million. The audit
determined that the company’s primary asset was participation
in ETV verification because of the competitive
advantage it provides in states that recognize the ETV
Program (Smith, 2010c). According to the vendor, another
important benefit of ETV verification testing has
been the reputation that it provides with new customers
and partners, allowing the company to compete in a
much broader range of activities than it could have without
ETV verification. The value of these partnerships
is worth much more than the $5 million valuation of
the ETV asset and would not have been available to the
company without the ETV results (Smith, 2010a). The
vendor states that because of the ETV name recogni-
http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r10119/600r10119.pdf
Durk, you've got to Stop visiting the site. You're expectations are consistently coming up Short. Although! I believe this might qualify you as a Short Stopper if you Stop visiting the site of the Shorted Stock! As you stated...80% of the site deals with Shorts and Bashers/Bagholders and Stopping the Shorts through Short Stoppers. Remarkably, Short Stoppers receives 80% of the proceeds for Stopping the Shorts on the Stock. As a Short Stopper you can pear your loss in equity of the Shorted Stock after it has been Stopped by the Short Stoppers!
Do you think Short Stoppers can put a Stop on the DTC from putting a Stop on the Stock? Or do you think Short Stoppers put a Stop to the Shorts and maybe the Shorts Stopped before, or possibly after the DTC Stopped the Stock from being Shorted?
I guess I'm wondering if the Shorts have been successfully Stopped and if it was the Short Stoppers who placed any Stops on the Shorts, or the Stock, and if DTC Stopped the Stock and the Shorts along with the Services for the Stock?
This is definately a question requiring some hard research. I'll contact the RCCH Research Division, and post their response.
EPA 600/R-10/119 | September 2010 | www.epa.gov/ord
At the time of verification (2006), the technology was manufactured by International Wastewater Systems, Inc. In 2007, RCC Holdings Corporation purchased International Wastewater Systems, Inc., renaming the company International Wastewater Systems. In 2009, the company filed paperwork to modify its corporate name to IWS Water Solutions, Inc., but will maintain
use of the name International Wastewater Systems.
EPA’s 2006–2011 Strategic Plan states that the Agency
will continue to encourage state, tribal, and local governments
to adopt voluntary guidelines for managing decentralized
wastewater treatment systems and will use Clean
Water State Revolving Funds to finance systems where
appropriate (U.S. EPA, 2006). The American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) provides an additional
$4 billion for the Clean Water State Revolving
Funds.Twenty percent of each state’s capitalization grant
can support “Green Reserve” projects, which are defined
as green infrastructure, energy efficiency projects, water
efficiency projects, or innovative environmental projects.
Decentralized wastewater treatment systems qualify for
Green Reserve funding in the category of “innovative environmental
projects.” States may use ARRA funding for
solutions to existing deficient or failing onsite systems
(U.S. EPA, 2009a).
The Model 6000 SBR currently is installed at two commercial
sites in Montana—a commercial center at East
Gallatin Airport outside Bozeman and a casino project
on an Indian reservation north of Great Falls (Smith,
2010a). Two additional systems are completing installation
in Montana. One of the systems is being installed
in a 50-home subdivision, and the other will be shared
by a fitness center and a children’s rehabilitation center
(Smith, 2010d). An additional system also was scheduled
be installed in a 30-home subdivision during 2010,but the subdivision project currently is pending funding.
According to the vendor, these projects were
approved solely on the basis of the Model 6000 SBR’s
ability to meet the nondegradation requirements of the
State of Montana, as demonstrated through ETV testing.
Although the Great Falls project did not have major
environmental requirements associated with it, the Indian
reservation wanted the best environmental treatment
system possible. The vendor’s system had documented
performance through ETV verification and was awarded
the project. The vendor also has $9 million worth of new
bids in progress (Smith, 2010a). Additionally, Minnesota
and New Jersey have nondegradation limits similar
to those of Montana, so the verified technology could
be used to meet the requirements in these states as well
The vendor reports that the payback period for the cost
of the ETV verification was 11 months (Smith, 2010g)
and that demonstrated technology performance as verified
by the ETV Program has had indirect benefits in
the form of valuation and partnerships. Based on an audit
of company assets by an outside valuation firm, the
vendor reports that the value added to the company as a
result of ETV verification could range from $2 million
or $3 million up to as much as $5 million. The audit
determined that the company’s primary asset was participation
in ETV verification because of the competitive
advantage it provides in states that recognize the ETV
Program (Smith, 2010c). According to the vendor, another
important benefit of ETV verification testing has
been the reputation that it provides with new customers
and partners, allowing the company to compete in a
much broader range of activities than it could have without
ETV verification. The value of these partnerships
is worth much more than the $5 million valuation of
the ETV asset and would not have been available to the
company without the ETV results (Smith, 2010a). The
vendor states that because of the ETV name recogni-
“It can’t be emphasized enough that ETV
ignited our company and its growth and
continues to be used by us every day in the
expansion of our company. So, in a very
unique way, you can never put a fixed value
on ETV, because it has become a cornerstone
of our company’s existence, and it allows us
to increase in value every day.”
Claude Smith, President,
International Wastewater Systems (Smith, 2010a).
The Chesapeake Bay Program has outlined how EPA
can protect the Bay watershed, including requiring all
newly developed communities and densely populated
areas to use cluster systems employing advanced nitrogen
removal technology (U.S. EPA, 2009b). The new
discharge standards specify total nitrogen levels of not
more than 20 mg/L throughout the Bay watershed and
in some areas no more than 5 mg/L. The Chesapeake
Bay Program specifically cites ETV and several verified
products when discussing available technologies to
meet these new standards (U.S. EPA, 2010c). The verified
technology discussed in this case study meets the
nitrogen recommendations for use in the Chesapeake
Bay watershed.
Smith C. 2010a. E-mail communication. International Wastewater
Systems, Inc. 6 January.
Smith C. 2010b. E-mail communication. International Wastewater
Systems, Inc. 3 March.
Smith C. 2010c. E-mail communication. International Wastewater
Systems, Inc. 27 April.
Smith C. 2010d. E-mail communication. International Wastewater
Systems, Inc. 18 August.
Smith C. 2010e. E-mail communication. International Wastewater
Systems, Inc. 19 August.
Smith C. 2010f. E-mail communication. International Wastewater
Systems, Inc. 7 September.
Smith C. 2010g. E-mail communication. International Wastewater
Systems, Inc. 17 September.
http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r10119/600r10119.pdf
How many more billions you think need to trade before we realy start kickin' in? thanks
It's not that simple. I don't see that mentioned in the RCC statment posted on their website. Although it is difficult to follow the wording...lol
JMO...without DTC privileges.... uhhh...not so good....
DTC Direct Link
DTC Direct Link allows members to move cross-border securities electronically or physically and eliminates the need for CDS customers to maintain a U.S. presence or a third-party arrangement.
The DTC Direct Link service processes Canada-U.S. trades on a trade-for-trade basis only. As Canadian financial institutions generally settle on a trade-for-trade basis, it is the most widely used Canada-U.S. link.
Using DTC Direct Link
Just as CDS is the central depository for Canadian securities, the Depository Trust Company (DTC) is the central depository for U.S. securities that offers custodial and settlement services to its members.
The arrangement requires CDS to sponsor participants for membership in DTC. Sponsored members have full DTC privileges and control over their settlement activities once they transfer their holdings to the DTC nominee name, CEDE & CO.
DTC Direct Link participants must contribute to an all-cash fund administered by DTC to protect customers from defaults on settlement obligations. The minimum initial contribution is $10,000 with additional payment based on participants’ trading activities.
http://www.cds.ca/cdsclearinghome.nsf/Pages/-EN-DTCDirectLink?Open
Date:
January 21, 2011
To:
All Participants
Attention:
Managing Partner/Officer, P&S Manager, Cashier Manager, Data Processing Manager, Fund/SERV Participants
From:
Cashiering
Subject:
CUSIP’s to be exited from CNS and future trades designated trade for trade
Please be advised that effective close of business January 21, 2010, NSCC has exited positions from the Continuous Net Settlement System (CNS) in the following CUSIP’s and future trades will be designated trade for trade.
CUSIP SECURITY NAME
422463109 Heathrow Natural Food and Beverage
749318101 RCC Holdings Inc.
670762202 Perihelion Global Inc. (now known as NY Met Holdings)
682347208 141 Capital Inc.
886352202 TidalWave Holdings Inc.
554187104 Macada Inc.
076012202 Bederra Corp.
37950D103 Z Com Networks Inc. (Global Gateway Media & Communication)
749283206 RBID.com Inc.
78249M603 Russell Industries, Inc.
054617105 Axis Technologies Group, Inc.
89324A109 Trans Global Group Inc.
62847Q109 My Social Income, Inc.
http://www.dtcc.com/downloads/legal/imp_notices/2011/nscc/a7147.pdf
Date:
January 21, 2011
To:
All Participants, Depository Facilities and Pledgee Banks
Category:
Operations
From:
Operations Regulatory Compliance
Attention:
Managing Partners, Officers and Cashiers
Subject:
Suspension of DTC Services
DTC has suspended all services, except Custody Services, for the below referenced issue. The suspension is effective January 21, 2011.
CUSIP SECURITY NAME
054617105 Axis Technologies Group, Inc.
37950D103 Global Gateway Media & Comm (name change from ZCom Networks)
422463109 Heathrow Natural Food and Beverage
554187104 Macada Inc.
670762202 NY Met Holdings (name change from Perihelion Global)
682347208 141 Capital Inc.
749283206 RBID.com Inc.
749318101 RCC Holdings Inc.
78249M603 Russell Industries, Inc.
886352202 TidalWave Holdings Inc.
Questions regarding DTC’s Important Notice should be directed to the Operations Regulatory Compliance Hotline (212) 855-1780.
http://www.dtcc.com/downloads/legal/imp_notices/2011/dtc/ope/0077-11.pdf
In three very short years, audited statements verify that RCC Holdings Corporation (RCCL) has accumulated more than 15.5 billion US dollars.
Wednesday, July 5, 2006 8:53 PM
http://web.archive.org/web/20060710180457/www.rccholdings.com/home.html
==================================================================
RCC HOLDINGS YEAR END 2006 TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS $455,727
http://www.otcmarkets.com/otciq/ajax/showFinancialReportById.pdf?id=10457
I wonder how Gene got TD to reinstate the online selling of stock. Remember that?
What was verified by that manipulation back in 2007? lol
I wonder what RCC's Research Division is digging up?
One of the company's involved, was issued a subpoena from the SEC. Another had an agreement with Gendarme.
Item 7 Other information.
On August 11, 2010, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”)
notified the Company that it is conducting an investigation into the trading of the Company’s
common stock. In conjunction with the investigation, the SEC issued a subpoena to the
Company. The Company is cooperating fully with the SEC’s investigation.
http://www.bederra.com/documents/filings/Bederra%20Corp%202nd%20Qtr%202010%20Report%208.17.2010.pdf
==============================================================
ONCP 141 Capital"On March 15, 2010, the Company entered into a Revolving Credit and Security Agreement with
Gendarme Capital Corporation whereby Gendarme provided the Company up to $20,000 per month
to a maximum of $150,000. The Agreement is secured by 346,566 shares of Series A Convertible
Preferred Stock owned by each of Errol Stone and Paul D. Strickland, Jr. As of June 30, 2010,
$148,000 was outstanding. A default on this debt could trigger Gendarme taking the secured stock
pledged by the Issuer’s management and would result in a change of control of the Company."
http://www.pinkinvesting.com/uploads/reports/pdf/15914/Quarterly_Report___June_30__2010_Disclosure_Statement.pdf
================================================================
RCC has repeatedly claimed that the stock was manipulated. Is the Gendarme allegation part... or all of the claimed manipulation? RCC posted public articles on their website that refer to "cellar boxing". The price fell from .0008 to .0001 during the period that Gendarme alledgedly sold improperly registered shares. Did this alledged action put us in the cellar? You would think that the company should comment on the Gendarme situation, or is it all about bashing the stockbashers and stopping those naked shorts.
My account calculates that value as the bid times the amount of shares...as it should. The value of RCCH is $0
TOTAL VOLUME B/W SEP 08 AND TODAY IS 15 BILLION SHARES. FWIW
So. RCC claimed its' technology was stolen. What's up with that? The "offical iws' site and all. The breakup with Evolutech. Smith selling iws and evolutech on the fulid dynamic site. Newton being removed from the florida filing.
Anybody?
I would say over the past two years we have become increasingly educated as to this investment. And that continues... Yes the same blather has always existed but...the facts have been posted for those who can make simple correlations.
We still gonna need an R/S? Maybe not. Looking real good. Feeling good Louis.