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.
Your entire premises begins with, "I believe." Still writing fiction?
What caused "the PPS to rise dramatically without any news?"
"Not surprised at all based on the recent price action."
What about the price action screams "20 million shares just added to the OS count" to you?
The legend of EQ grows: EQ bought on the up swing, held as late after as 02/22, but sold "pretty quickly," implying he didn't lose any money.
A legendary stinker.
Post the link because two days after the 2/20 pump, you said this:
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=173901186
You're going to have to define "pretty quickly." And, you know where to shove your #.
EQ is that you?
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=173888975
Looks to me like you believed the pump. Remember when I said "this aged like mayo in the summer sun"? Oh, good times.
Does one take payment in common shares of an entity one is looking to drive into bankruptcy? Asking for a friend (JT).
Taking payment in Preferred and restricted common shares....
This aged like mayo in the summer sun.
"Trust me, I know better than FINRA"? = EQ's explanation for yesterday's PA and volume.
Increasing one's petulance doesn't incease one's credibility.
Bro, you literally just explained yesterday's volume and PA with nothing but your own opinionated speculation. That's not a reasonable explanation. You would have been more accurate if you said "I don't know."
"real buying as opposed to fake buying" LOL, do you even hear yourself?
Occam's razor, my friend.
If it's not a simple explanation like shorts covering, then explain yesterday's PA and volume on no rumor, no news and after what many here would call an abysmal 10Q.
And while you're at it, please teach us whether "Fife has liens on all assets" includes the patents.
Please, teach me, teacher.
With today's PA, anyone want to argue with me about how there are no shorts in the OTC?
Because if they didn't, they would be admitting the Series A shares have to be cancelled, returned and they wouldn't be there to do what they do... Which, if EQ answered my question re: Does Fife have a lien on the Patents, we'd really start getting into the meat and potatoes. But alas, EQ won't respond to this very simple, basic question.
No facts or law, just sheer speculation. What a joker. Reading this nonsense makes me want to light myself on fire.
If that's the case and people are buying with information not yet disclosed... you know where I'm going with this.
Hey EQ, does Fife have a lien on the NSI patents?
Why won't you acknowledge this question? Why won't you answer? You can dish it, but you can't take it, huh? My fun here is exposing the likes of you.
You didn't get under my skin with your name calling, just your BS passed off as gospel onto unsuspecting board viewers. YOU are actually doing what YOU ACCUSE others of doing. Therapists would call that projecting, but what do I know, I'm just some "Birdbrain," right?
Why don't YOU PROVE something for once. YOU PROVE who owns the Series A and how they acquired control. While you're at it. YOU PROVE that "Fife has liens on all the assets," including the Patents.
If you refuse to answer, you're a fake.
Hey EQ, does Fife have a lien on the NSI patents? Asking for a friend.
"Shover filed a fake lawsuit." What's a fake lawsuit? It seems to me there was a very real outcome, no?
"He was the fall guy." Going from having no common shares to having common shares makes him a "fall guy?" I don't think you know how to use that term properly.
"Steve walker used Shover as the fall guy..." That's a published statement. It better be true. What proof do you have?
"I never called you Birdbrain." Don't make me post the thread where JT refers to MFer (me) and you then replace "MFer" with "Birdbrain." This denial alone proves you are a devious gas lighter. Whoever listens to you should do so with upmost caution and skepticism.
I knew you were struggling with understanding what is / isn't defamation. Thanks for the confirmation.
"And yet, as EQ pointed out, SHMP continues to exercise the voting rights of the Series A...really...Easterling does...cuz he's in control."
EQ didn't point that out, reality did. Should we thank Captain Obvious for the revelation that anyone and everyone can see?
"Anyone idiot can file a lawsuit." So was Shover an idiot?
"After all, you've described that you have an open and shut case against SHMP." I haven't described that I have anything, I've simply provided my two cents as to what the Shover Suit means for NSI.
"Did you even bother to contact the SEC about your allegations that SHMP's filings are false?
Yea...I didn't think so."
Since you didn't wait for an answer and assumed my response (put words in my mouth again), I'm not going to answer yay or nay.
Since there are no shorts in the OTC, someone please explain the price action today.
Because there is nothing else to do. I've thoroughly destroyed his "opinion." That's why I'm "Birdbrain." That's why "I lie." The teacher is a sore loser.
Lots of ad hominem attacks and defamatory statements coming from this account.
Here's a rough question, does Fife's "liens on all the assets" encompass the patents?
I am going to assume when you say "birdbrain" you're referring to me. Please, with your infinite wisdom, explain the difference between a right and a claim.
While you're at it, please also clarify whether "liens on all the assets" includes the patents.
I'm sitting in the front of the class with baited breath.
EQ: "Fife has liens on all assets"
Does this include the patents? Why won't you clarify your statement?
EQ can dish it out, but can't take it. EQ, why won't you answer the question I raised... whether your statement that, "Fife has liens on all assets" of NSI, includes the patents. I wonder why no answer is forthcoming.
"It identifies a fake lawsuit."
Your opinion characterizing the lawsuit isn't relevant. Therefore, setting it aside, what is the basis for the lawsuit?
Why won't you answer the question re: "liens on all asset?" Does that include the patents?
The Series A shares weren't retired, cancelled, returned to the treasury, or whatever other financial term of art you want to use. That's the whole point I am making. Once you accept this, we can actually talk about what that means... like... whether the company validly increased shares...
If one applies my opinion re: the Series A, then the answer to whether the company validly increased shares would be, IMO... No.
The Shover Complaint identifies the mistake. You obviously can't read. I don't need to read to you. Go back to class.
You're conflating issues.
No, I meant void. In law (not SEC land), the correct legal term for a document which no longer has the effect it purports to have is.... void.
Because the underlying agreement between NSI and NSH is void... the legal consequence is the shares should be cancelled or retired or returned or however you want to phrase it in finance land.
Please identify if "liens on all of the assets" covers the Patents.
You guys really like trying to put words in my mouth because to address what I actually said would undermine your narratives. The EQ has no clothes.
If I can file a lawsuit, there must be a "good faith basis" in which to support a lawsuit. Thanks for the implied, tacit vote of approval. Wake me up when you actually think about what you're typing before you type it.
"Each of [my] rantings are proving" you and EQ blow hot air.
"What you're really saying is create a fake lawsuit as a scheme to create free trading stock."
That's not what I said at all.
You didn't answer my question re: "liens on all the assets" covering the patents.
Welcome to class EQ:
"As a general matter, when a contract fails to conform to the agreement between the parties due to the mutual mistake of the parties however induced, or of the mistake of one party and fraud of the other, a court will reform the contract so as to make it conform to the actual agreement between the parties."
https://fhnylaw.com/contract-reformation-mutual-mistake-or-a-scriveners-error/
EVERY jurisdiction in the USA has some semblance of this general rule. To say it's a "synonym for a sham lawsuit" again evidences your ignorance and severe lack of knowledge and experience. Perhaps you're purposefully trying to mischaracterize, to mislead.
Class over.