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.
This is the most ridiculous shit. One can agree to accept service. Service may be waived. A "mutual mistake" lawsuit generally has both parties working together. This was not unusual, your experience is just lacking. Your ignorance does not equal someone else's nefariousness. Again, bad logic.
The Series A is not a sham. As I've already proven, the SERIES A Preferred Stock was created FOR NSH shareholders AT THE TIME when NSH shareholders were entitled to a majority of NSI's common stock. One cannot "sham" themself. Your position once again evidences ignorance and a severe lack of basic common sense.
AFTER the December 2020 Court Order on the Shover Settlement, IMO, the Series A BECAME void. I would still not agree with the term "sham," but it would be a lot more accurate if you applied it limitedly to the period of time AFTER December 2020.
Also, you didn't answer my question regarding whether you lump the Patents into the phrase "liens against all the assets."
"He has liens against all the assets, which is a very convenient fact that you like to forget."
When you say "all the assets," do you include the patents?
"He has liens against all the assets, which is a very convenient fact that you like to forget."
When you say "all the assets," do you include the patents?
"Very clever dinner. Appetizing food fit neatly into interesting round pie."
"It's a quiche."
"how do you spell?"
"Well you don't spell it, son, you eat it!"
US-11297809-B1; US-10163199-B2; US-20170150701-A1
https://ppubs.uspto.gov/pubwebapp/static/pages/ppubsbasic.html
As far as I can tell, my conclusions and opinions do not require a law degree, legal knowledge, or legal analysis to reach. Nor have I applied any. I've merely recited facts, as they have been stated at some point by NSI, to challenge and contest the conclusions and arguments of others; arguments not supported by the facts or reasonable logical inferences drawn therefrom.
Case in point, I do not need to know what the Nevada law is that EQ believes NSI broke, or even apply it to the facts here, to know that the facts strongly suggest no one was harmed. And, logically, if you aren't harmed, what claim(s) could you have? Practical common sense, that's all one needs.
Frankly, Idk what the answer is. All I know is that IF common shareholders had to vote to create the Series A preferred shares, then ONLY a very small, specific group of NSI common shareholders that owned NSI common shares BEFORE the Series A were created could have standing to bring a claim like what EQ has specified. Naturally, anyone who bought after the Series A were created, with knowledge of its existence, would not have this claim.
Now, you may recall I did a post where I gave a chronology of filings, inclusive of the O/S at particular times during the period 2015 through 2020. From that analysis, you may recall that when NSI purchased NSH's assets for 75,000,000 NSI common shares, at that moment, NSH shareholders became majority shareholders of NSI common shares. And, you may also recall that the O/S did not substantially increase between 2015 and 2018. Therefore, the NSH majority of NSI common shareholders, at the time the Series A Preferred Shares were created, had not been sufficiently diluted to drastically alter NSH Shareholders' percentage ownership of NSI common shares. Moreover, NSI common shareholders at the time required consummation of the NSH Asset purchase to bring NSH's IP into NSI's ownership. Prior to, NSI owned nothing!
In conclusion, with the benefit of hindsight and taking into account then-present conditions, it would be my contention that if given an opportunity to vote for or against Series A Preferred creation / proposal / solution, the outcome would have been no different. More specifically, NSH Shareholders entitled to vote a large percentage of NSI O/S common shares would not have voted against their own self-interests. And further, pre-Series A Preferred NSI common shareholders went from owning NOTHING to owning ALL OF NSH's IP. Whether this transaction constitutes a technical violation of Nevada state law, I don't really care because from what I can tell, at the time, everyone (all NSI common shareholders) benefited. Classic case of no harm, no foul.
"You do realize that those preferred shares were created after the Series A, right?"
Bhahahaha, why do you think I made the post, genius?
You didn't actually answer the question. You just stated your opinion as to what you believe happened.
Shover Order December 2020;
November 22, 2021 - Series E;
https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/0001465470/000165495421012568/shmp_8k.htm
February 23, 2022 - Series F;
https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/0001465470/000165495422002349/shmp_8k.htm
Today - Series G.
What's the consensus on whether NSI management can create preferred classes without a vote of common shareholders?
Oh, I thought they were rhetorical.
"so you didn’t hear about the fire in LaCoste and the $1 million in asset write off that SHMP had to do after the first fire. Not to be confused with the write off after the second fire..." I did. What's your point?
"How did those fiberglass tanks in LaCoste do in that fire ? Did they ever find them ?" I don't know. If they burned and are already replaced, isn't this the essence of a moot point?
"How are those suicide shrimp macerator drain lines to the harvest tank working in the LaCoste facility ?" What?
"The wood barrier fence around the harvest tank ?" and "The use of the perfect bacteria growing wood walkways in LaCoste ?"
You do know they have a thing called pressure treated wood that is made specifically with moisture in mind, right?
"Wanna discuss deferred maintenance in Iowa ?" Sure, let's discuss. That's what I'm here for.
"Shall we continue class ?" Please, I haven't learned anything yet.
"Nothing's come of your opinion." Pray tell which of my "opinions," specifically, I insisted would come of something.
Look at the student trying to distance himself from the teacher.
Probably the same way it worked out for you. Nothing's come of your opinion.
Lol, am I? Because you say so? Bhahahaha You crack me up.
"trying to pump Shrimp stock by posting the bio of Yotta CEO."
In the EQ mind, copy and pasting a bio from a source, about an individual that was, at the time, going to be relevant to NSI, without accompanying personal characterization, commentary, opinion, advocacy, or the like, is "pumping SHMP stock."
I'll give it to you EQ, you got me. I admit it. I am the worst pumper on the face of the earth! Bhahahahaha.
Thanks for disclosing that EQ is just regurgitating your personal opinions.
Bhahahahahahaha
EQ: Two birds, one stone
Bird One: "I am always correct."
Well, are you correct now? Or were you correct then? Since it can't be both, you are NOT ALWAYS CORRECT; and,
Bird two: Which EQ do we believe? EQ Now, or EQ Then? Wanna explain the "POWER11-esque" change of heart? If the tech doesn't work in 2024, please explain why you said it did in 2019? If NSI is so terrible in 2024, what made it so great in 2019? Maybe you didn't know as much then as you do now. Perhaps you spoke out of ignorance then. Why would it be different now? What say you E "Empty-expression" Q?
EQ's Past
I'm getting plenty of laughs watching you look for past posts to try to spin as "wrong" just to make yourself feel good. The extent that you will go to massage your own ego is... hilarious.
Bhahaha look at EQ freaking out. Love to see it.
Grasping for straws, huh?
Go ahead, take past posts out of context instead of proving your slanderous comments. Searching through years of posts and taking them out of context to try to distract from your intellectual beat down seems like the perfect use of your time.
Just means you got nothing else. As you say... just sad.
Ad hominem attacks. The last resort of fools.
Bhahahaha
"what exactly do you know." - Just as much as you and Hystart apparently.
"Instead you try to lie about a court hearing." - There goes that defamation again. Prove I'm lying since that's what you'd have to do in the event I sued you for libel.
"And you refuse to answer questions about the preferred which continues the big lie." - Gaslighting tactics. I've substantively responded, the answers just don't support your narrative.
"However, people see through the sadness." - You should keep that in mind.
No, I don't. That's why I don't make conclusory statements like Hystart, or you. Please, provide the data that supports Hystart's position.
Not once have you actually disproven anything. On numerous occasions I have corrected your sheer speculative, uninformed opinion. You've had time to comment on this thread, but where's your response to my comments re: your September 2023 "analysis" of the Series A Preferred?
Lots of talking, very little walking from the EQ username.
"The Series A shares exist, whether you like it or not."
It's NEVER been about whether I "like it or not." I don't have an opinion one way or another. I've simply stated that I think they shouldn't and don't legally exist on account of the December 2020 Court Order. And frankly, because you're too stubborn to accept the application of legal principles to NSI's reality, IMO you're missing other explanations for why NSI Management has not correctly handled the Series A Preferred Shares.
For instance, we all know the Series A Preferred Shares arise indirectly from final consummation of NSI's purchase of NSH's assets. So I'll now ask you this, what assets did NSH sell?
What happens if NSI Management doesn't wield the Series A (do not give consideration to Series F)? You've made this argument over and over again.... What happens to the assets purchased from NSH if NSI Management cannot exercise the voting rights connected to the Series A? Would Fife make decisions for and on behalf of NSI that are in the best interest of ALL NSI shareholders?
So grow time has an inverse relationship to density? So, if after 24 weeks, NSI is producing smaller than average pacific white shrimp, it would be reasonable to infer that NSI CAN and IS growing in high densities. That means either a few shrimp in a very small container or ALOT of shrimp in a very large container. We know what the locations look like, so let's assume the latter. Does this mean survivability is actually quite high? Lots of reasonable inferences to be drawn; reduced growth rate, presumably due to growth in higher densities; larger containers in Lacoste and Webster City suggest lots of shrimp in large containers. Survivability sounds like a high percentage, or this wouldn't be a problem, right? If survivability was low, then density would be presumed to be less and growth rate not inhibited. Therefore, based on this limited info, drawing reasonble inferenences in reliance on known information and one would have to be hard pressed not to admit that circumstantial evidence supports that the tech works.
With that said, new dilemmas present and must be dealt with. How best to calibrate the system to address the inverse relationship? Are there other technologies which may be added to help address that inverse relationship?
What someone does or doesn't do and what they're legally entitled to do or not do are not mutually inclusive. Same goes for what a legal document says compared to what a legal document was INTENDED to do. A mistake of law is a real thing. That's why parties can come together and seek modification of legal documents in the event of a "mutual mistake" or other similar factual scenario like in the Shover Suit. Seems you think otherwise, JT. IMO, your way of thinking is extremely ignorant and unsophisticated. It ignores all aspects of common law jurisprudence.
From my personal experience, I know sometimes people do things they're not entitled to do, or don't do things they are required to do. That's why most, if not all jurisdictions in this country, have processes and proceedings to secure what's called an injunction, inclusive of specific performance.
Ergo, if you think NSI is doing what they are allowed to do, then I guess there's no problem. If you think NSI is doing something they aren't allowed to do (like me), then there are means and methods to do something about it. IMO, each and every NSI shareholder has their own reasons why they haven't done something about it yet.
The Court's December 2020 Order expressly contradicts this statement. Your opinion does not matter. Facts and the law matter.
I'm still waiting on your scientific explanation.
1. "and beginning on 8/15/2029" - Date is wrong. If it were right, then the Shover case would still be 5 years away; NSH Shareholders' claims for conversion would not have yet accrued. HAHAHAHAHA this alone should tell anyone all they need to know about EQ. Anyway, it's two years from date of creation (2018). Hence why the Shover case was filed in 2020.
2. "These Series A shares were controlled by NSH" - Wrong. There is absolutely no factual or legal merit to this contention. First, NSH has no assets; they sold all their assets to NSI. Second, the Series A expressly states that the Series A Preferred shares are held BY NSI FOR THE BENEFIT OF NSH Shareholders. I can tell EQ has a severe lack of legal knowledge here. This is what's called a fiduciary relationship. Generally, in such circumstances, legal ownership of an asset (Series A shares) is with the Trust, the Trustee, the Fiduciary (NSI). Whereas the beneficiaries (NSH shareholders) merely retain a legal BENEFICIAL interest in the asset controlled by the Trust, Trustee, Fiduciary (75 - 90 million NSI common shares equal to the Series A Shares). The general rule of thumb being that a beneficiary has the right to receive benefits from assets held by another party. Since #2 is 100% wrong, the rest of the analysis fails and thus deserves zero response.
So, looks like you can be and are INcorrect. Oh, and don't embarass yourself trying to refute this post... I already know what you're going to say and it's going to be against legal jurisprudence and run afoul of the Court's December 2020 Order. Stated differently, does this board wish to believe a Federal Judge or a person who has shown a clear lack of understanding of basic legal principles?
I'm sorry, but I've explained ad nauseam. I can't help it's not getting through to you and I'm done teaching.
Your biological explanation makes sense. However, your conclusory application to SHMP, without a shred of data, is anti-intellectual.
Give an explanation, other than a pathogen, as to why biology would work incongruently for the same organisms occupying the same ecosystem. What's your explanation for why baby shrimp placed in a growout tank TOGETHER, at the SAME time, would grow at such considerably different rates?
Happy Holidays, ya filthay animals.
Asked and answered.
Lol I'm talking about how they shouldn't exist and you're talking about how they're not listed as an asset. Are we in the same ballpark?
Maybe they're not listed as an asset becasue then THAT would be a misrepresentation... you know, since they are worthless (according to YOTA).
I guess the December 2022 Court Order doesn't exist.
Looks like Claudine Gay has been here the whole time.
Take it up with Josh, simply applies his logic.
"The proof is that Easterling controls the shares."
Easterling is the CEO of NSI. Therefore, NSI controls the shares. Transitive logic.
"control is effectively ownership"
If NSI controls the shares, then NSI effectively owns the shares. JoshTaeger logic.
Accordingly, by your own logic, you've just proven NSI owns the Preferred Series A. Congratulations.