Russ, it's not a matter of that.. Maybe you dont know the "story" we were "fed". Allegedly, the Emu (& his co-founder?) paid some 20-25 (the number changes everytime he [Emu] tells it) VoIP/telephony engineers to write the software (patents). Where did he get the $17 mil? Shortly thereafter he allegedly couldn't pay the lights & was forced to sell the patents. (that is such a bullshit story! It doesn't add up. Makes no sense and I've seen documentation to the contrary. The real deal is that they were all friends for a long time before all this & both companies were abject failures & being sued left & right, etc. And they created this whole scheme ahead of time. They pooled their resources & merged. Emu owned the most shares. He came from Vancouver, a place well known to the world, as a place where these pennystock schemes were created. But anyway, that's the story he gave, ie, that he paid about $17mm to 20-25 engineers to create the software. But guess what? I had an official govt doc that was some kind of digi-phony-ca filing. In it, they said they did not want to be in the VoIP business anymore and just wanted to sell the patent apps for cost & get out. I seem to have lost the doc but I'll never forget what it said.. It said the cost of the patents was a number approx $400k & then in a later doc they said the cost was about $450k. I might be a bit off UT the numbers were similar to that. So you have the Emu later telling vplm shareholders that he paid $17mm but before the deal went down, he said in a filing that the cost was in the half million dollar range. It's all bullshit. None of it adds up. Digi-phony-ca was a private company. So he merged w/vplm and saw to it that many PRs were out out with all those lies about how they were gonna integrate the software into their own (rented) VoIP platform & become the king of the hill Voip service provider & be the technical leader of the industry. And immed increase subscribers by millions & immed start collecting upwards of $100mm per year in royalties, blah, blah, blah. So all that was fed to the shareholders & prospectives. This allowed there to be many new shareholders and sold zillions of shares and THEN.....then, the plug was pulled on the whole thing w/o rhyme or reason & no voter input & all of a sudden, they (vplm made up of Digifonica BOD) decided to become the biggest patent troll on the otc and RENEGE on ALL those promises made via PRs for near a 2 yr period. Yeah baby, that's what happened. And digi-phony-ca had stated that they did worldwide (3 cities) testing of the system. But no results were given. That crap about divulging codes & secrets is just that...CRAP! Telling shareholders the results of the testing in no way equates to divulging code & company secrets,lol. Testing results of many products & services are very commonly offered to it just shareholders but customers as well. I have the results of many tests of many products that are listed as footnotes in the literature of many company products. It certainly is done in a way that obviously does not divulge code or secrets.

Has anyone found those durn nodal testing results? They sure are elusive. Or maybe vplm has always seen fit to keep that info secret from the shareholders. Seems prudent & fiduciary, yes/no? After all, what business is it of the shareholders anyway?

You'd think that 8 yrs of the Emu custom anti dilution scheme woulda given it away...

Looks like the Emu went to the b. Madoff school of securities, lolol

"we'll see next week"
"we'll see next month"
"we'll see in the next few months"
So on and so forth....

Lololol lol, hahahahahaha, hehehahahoho..... Arghhhhhhh, I can't breathe...

Let me just say....
If anyone hasn't seen enough in the last 25 yrs (or 10 post trollistical) of vplm history, may I suggest an optometry appointment...

Read my lips....

The patents are worthless, the patents are worthless, the patents are worthless.

The only ppl on this earth who ever were interested in obtaining the patents, were digi-phony-ca & vplm. One says they spent some $17mm for them (yeah, right, I totally believe that...) & the other paid something like $850k plus I forget how many millions of shares. Funny thing is...the 1st thing they did w/them then...was either get rid of them as soon as possible, like they were a hot potato, or TRY to get rid of them (or at least make it APPEAR that way). Pretty strange I'd say. And no one else in the entire world wants them, not to own, not to license, no how, no way. Pretty weird.. (for the uninitiated).

Proven worthless for years & years...

I know, I know, next week...in a few weeks, months or years. Just hang in there with your never ever ending patience & don't forget to be a good, loyal, super long super strong, in emu we trust, "investor".

How can you call that little list nothing more than my opinion??? They are ALL indisputable FACTS, are they not?

Pps is not the whole story. The whole story is the pps after 24 freakin years (or 10 yrs if your prefer post patent troll history). Either way is more than enough time to tell the story, just like how mr market tells the story as well! If that's not enough for ya, add in "breach of fuduciary duty" AND "unjust (personal) enrichment" AGAINST THE EMU, SAWYER, et al, BY A JURY OF THEIR PEERS!! NEED MORE?? How bout NEVER A SINGLE SOLITARY PRODUCT SALE (as a patent troll). Zero licences. Zero settlements. Zero partnerships. Plenty of DOCUMENTED lies via PRs. Zero court wins.

Still need more??

97% loss of value in a 4 year MEGA LOSS TREND.

THERE'S PLENTY MORE BUT IF THAT'S NOT TELLING THE STORY, NOTHING WILL

Vplm...a stock to die for...all that's needed is patience...

I could've told you 10 yrs ago that shareholders are facing 10 yrs of failure and now, I'm telling you all signs point to another 10 yrs. Vplm is the "gluttons for punishment" stock, so strap in kids.

So true. Patience HAS hurt many shareholders for many years & lots of losses. Undeniable truth.

So the bottom line of all this is that since the verdict, certain elements of the pro side have been telling you, unequivocally, that vplm was found to be in the right, in this case and/or, that the judgements were against old bad members of vplm. They were trying to tell you all along, that the guilt was against Kipping & Swan, when in fact the case against them was dismissed & in fact the, the case against vplm, Malak, Sawyer & the rest was found to be against THEM!

In a criminal case, you are found guilty or not guilty. In a civil case you are found liable or not liable. Liable equates to guilty in my book.

And here is the whole thing from the court docs, that somehow got deleted earlier....
..........................

JGJV
MICHAEL E. SMITH, ESQ. 2 Nevada Bar No. 13764
3 LAW OFFICE OF
MICHAEL E. SMITH, ESQ., P.C. 4 1515 E. Tropicana Ave., Suite 530
Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 5 Phone: (702) 895-9111 6 Mob: (702) 900-7607
Fax: (702) 895-6816
7 Email: msmith@nevadalawyers.us
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and
8 Third-Party Defendants/Counterclaimants
9 10
DISTRICT COURT CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
11
12 LOCKSMITH FINANCIAL
CORPORATION, a British Columbia entity; 13 TALISMAN FINANCIAL, INC., a Belize
entity; CACTUS VE1'JTURES, INC., a Belize 14 entity,
15
Plaintiff,
16 vs.
17 VOIP-PAL.COM, INC., a Nevada
18 Corporation; THOMAS E. SAWYER, an
individual, EMIL MALAK, an individual, 19 COLIN TUCKER, an individual, EDWIN
CANDY, an individual, DENNIS CHANG, 20 an individual; MIKE WAGGETT, an
~
individual; PRESIDENTS STOCK
TRANSFER, INC., a British Columbia
21
22 Corporation; DOES I through X, inclusive; and ROE ENTITIES XI through M, inclusive,
23 24 25 VOIP-PAL.COM, INC., a Nevada Corp.;
Defendants.
26 27 28
vs.
Counterclain1ant,
Electronically Filed 9/24/2019 11:46 PM Steven D. Grierson CLERK OF THE COURT
CASE NO.: A-15-717491-C DEPT. NO.: 25
JUDGMENT UPON JURY VERDICT
[J Non-Jury [JJury
DisposedAfter TrialStart DisposedAfter Trtal Start [J Non-Jury Jury
JudamentReached v rdl Re
D Transferred before Trial e ct ached
------------~~=O~~=h=er~·========~~
SEP 3 2019
Case Number: A-15-717491-C
..........................
LOCKSMITH FINANCIAL
CORPORATION, INC., a British Columbia 2 entity; TALISMAN FINANCIAL, INC., a
3 Belize entity; VHB INTERNATIONAL
LTO., a Belize entity; CACTUS
4 VENTURES, INC., a Belize entity
5 6 7 8 9
Counterdefendants.
VOIP-PAL.COM., INC., a Nevada Corp.;
Third-Party Plaintiff,
vs.
TK INVESTMENT, a British Columbia 10 entity; RICHARD G. KIPPING, an individual, TERRY KWAN, an individual; DOES I through X; and ROE ENTITIES XI 12 through M, inclusive,
11
13
Third-Party Defendants.
14 TK INVESTMENT, a British Columbia 15 entity,
16
17 vs.
Third-Party Counterclaimant,
18 VOIP-PAL.COM, INC., a Nevada Corp.,
Third-Party Counterdefendant. 19 1+-----------------~------------~
20 21
JUDGMENT UPON JURY VERDICT
22
WHEREAS, the above entitled matter having come on for trial on 08112119; 08/13119;
23 08/14/19; 08115119; 08/16/19 and 08/19/19, before the Court and ajury, the Honorable Judge Kathleen
24 E. Delaney, presiding, and having been concluded and submitted to the Jury thereafter; Michael E. 25 Smith, Esq. and Randall Tindall, Esq., and Carissa Christensen, Esq., appearing as counsel for the 26 Plaintiffs, Third-Party Defendants, and Third-Party Counterclaimant, and Adam Knecht, Esq., and
27 Kevin Malek, Esq., appearing as counsel for the Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs, and the Jury
28
2
.............................
2 3
LOCKSMITH FINANCIAL CORPORATION, INC., et al. vs. VOIP-PAL.COM, INC., et al. CASE NO.: A-15-717491-C DEPT. NO.: 25
having heard and considered the testimony, evidence, proof and arguments offered by the respective 4 parties and the cause then having been submitted to the Jury for decision, the Jury being fully advised 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18
in the premises; and having duly rendered its verdict, in favor of the above-named Plaintiff Locksmith Financial Corporation, and against the Defendants Emil Malak, Dennis Chang, Thomas Sawyer, Colin Tucker, Edwin Candy, and Mike Waggett on the cause of action of breach of fiduciary duty; and having rendered its verdict in favor of above-named Third-Party Counterclaimant TK Investment, Ltd. and against the Defendant VOIP-Pal.com, Inc. on the claim of unjust enrichment; and having awarded Defendants nothing by way of their counterclaims and third-party claims. NOW, THEREFORE, the Court being fully advised in the premises; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, That Judgment be entered in favor of
Plaintiff Locksmith ·Financial Corporation and against Defendants Emil Malak, Dennis Chang, Thomas Sawyer, Colin Tucker, Edwin Candy, and Mike Waggett, on the claim of Breach of Fiduciary
Duty, in the amount of $355,000.00, plus pre-judgment interest from May 21, 2015 in the amount of
$91 .306.17 (calculation attached as "Exhibit 1").
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, That Judgment is entered in favor the
19 Third-Party Plaintiff TK Investment, Ltd. and against Defendant VOIP-Pal.com, Inc., on the claim of
20 Unjust Enrichment, 1n the amount of $84,000.00, plus pre-judgment interest from January 29, 2019 in 21 the amount of $3,456.53 (calculation attached as "Exhibit 1"). 22 I I I
23 Ill 24 Ill 25 I I I 26 I I I 27 I I I 28
3
.................................
LOCKSMITH FINANCIAL CORPORATION, INC., et al. vs. VOIP-PAL.COM, INC., et al. CASE NO.: A-15-717491-C DEPT. NO.: 25
2 3
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, That judgment is entered in favor of 4 Counterdefendants and Third-Party Defendants, against Counterclaimant and Third-Party Defendant, 5 respectively. 6 7 8 9 10 Submitted by:
d3d DATED this day of
11 LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL E. SMITH, ESQ., P.C. :~~~~
14 Randall Tindall (6522)
1515 E. Tropicana Ave., Ste 530 15 LasVegas,Nevada 89119
16 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Third-Party Defendants
and Third-Party Plaintiff
17 Approved as to form and content by:
18 19 20 21 Kurt R. Bonds (6228)
OR& SANDERS
22 Adam R. Knecht (13166)
6605 Grand Montecito Pkwy 23 Las Vegas, Nevada 89149
24 MALEK MOSS PLLC
25 Kevin N. Malek (pro hac vice)
340 Madison Avenue, FL 19 26 New York, New York 10173
27 Attorneys for Defendant, Counterclaimants and Third-Party Claimants
28
4
............................
2 , _)
4 5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
EXHIBIT 1
?, ~-'
24 25 26 27 28
5
........................
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Period Beginning:
05/2112015 1 07/0112015 01/0112016 07/0112016 01/0112017 07/01/2017 01/01/2018 07/01/2018 I 01/01/2019 07/01120 19j
INTEREST CALCUALTION
Prime
Judgment Interest
Interest
Rate ( 0/o) Rate (Prime + 2°/o)
3.25 5.25 3.25
5.25 3.50 5.50 3.50 5.50 3.75 5.75 4.25 6.25 4.50 6.50 5.00
7.00 5.50 7.50 5.50 7.50 TOTALS:
27 1 Calculated from date of service of summons, May 21, 2015 Calculated from date Counterclaim was filed, January 29, 2019 Calculated through Aug. 16, 2019 date ofjury verdict
28
6
$ Interest on $355,000.00
4,594.54 9,318.75 9,762.50 9,762.50 10,206.25 11,093.75 11,537.50 12,425.00 13,312.50 3,428.42 91,306.17
$ Interest on $84,000.00
2,645.302
811.23 3,456.53
......................

Again, here is the case & the verdict:
(oops, sorry, this is just the complaint filed against vplm. I'll repost the Verdict if I can find it)


Locksmith vs Voip-pal

BCSC Cease trade on VPLM

DTC CHILL OPINION

Update

Locksmith vs Voip-pal

Contact

LOCKSMITH UPDATE'S VOIP-PAL SHAREHOLDERS

ON JUNE 16,2015

LOCKSMITH FINANCIAL CORP.ANNOUNCES THAT ON APRIL 30,2015  A COMPLAINT
WAS FILED AGAINST VOIP-PAL.COM.INC., OTC Pink: VPLM
CASE NO.: A-15-717491-C   DEPT.NO.: I
DISTRICT COURT ,CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA

LOCKSMITH FINANCIAL CORP (Plaintiff)
? vs
 VOIP-PAL.COM.INC , a Nevada corporation
 THOMAS SAWYER, an individual
 EMIL MALAK, an individual
 EDWIN CANDY, an individual 
 COLIN TUCKER , an individual
 DENNIS CHANG, an individual 
 DOES I through X, inclusive
 and ROE ENTITIES XI through M, inclusive
? Defendants



LOCKSMITH FINANCIAL CORP. FILED PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS'S MOTION TO DISMISS and MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

LOCKSMITH FINANCIAL CORP. (Debt Capital,Corporate Finance,Private Placement and Debt Financing for Public Companies-)

COMPLAINT FOR:
?1) Breach of Contract
2) Fraud/ Misrepresentation
?3) Securities Fraud
?4) Breach of Fiduciary Duty
5) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and fair Dealing
?6) Fraudulent Misrepresentation
Arbitration Exemption Requested:
Amount in Controversy Exceeds
                       $50,000.00

?


?2.VOIP-Pal.ComWAS SERVED AT THE OFFICE OF THE RESIDENT AGENT ON MAY 21,2015

1.????EMIL MALAKSERVED MAY 4, 2015
....................................

And here is the Verdict


Jeffcole83 Friday, 08/23/19 11:36:08 AM
Re: None
Post # of 85969 Go
08/19/2019
Verdict (Judicial Officer: Delaney, Kathleen E.)
Debtors: Thomas E Sawyer (Defendant), Emil Malak (Defendant), Colin Tucker
(Defendant), Edwin Candy (Defendant), Dennis Chang (Defendant), Mike Waggett
(Defendant)
Creditors: Locksmith Financial Corporation (Plaintiff)
Judgment: 08/19/2019, Docketed: 08/22/2019
Total Judgment: 355,000.00
Debtors: VOIP-Pal.Com Inc (Third Party Defendant)
Creditors: TK Investment (Third Party Plaintiff)
Judgment: 08/19/2019, Docketed: 08/22/2019

This is excerpted from a govt "legal answers" site. It states:


Who decides guilt in civil cases?
jury
In civil cases the jury decides whether the defendant is liable on the balance of probabilities.


So I think Ive now made a pretty solid case for saying you can be found guilty or not in a civil case. I've also shown its really no more than semantics if the jury & the court does not specifically use the word guilty in their verdict. It is abundantly clear that vplm was charged with or accused of, breach of fiduciary duty & unjust enrichment and the jury found against vplm in that regard. So, I SAY IT IS A MOOT POINT WHETHER THE VERDICT USES THE TERM GUIKTY OR NOT. VPLM WAS FOUND TO BE AT FAULT. AND THE ARGUMENT THAT THE "GUILTY PARTIES" WERE SOME OLD ROGUE MEMBERS, IS SHIT DOWN AS CLEAR AS A BELL, AS THE "DEFENDANTS" WERE CLEARLY NAMED TO BE MALAK & SAWYER, ET AL.

This is from some so called (self nominated) "super lawyers"...

"WHAT IS THE STANDARD OF GUILT IN CIVIL CASES?

Also known as the burden of proof, the standard of guilt is one of the most important parts of criminal and civil law alike. Because of the significant difference in severity of punishments between civil and criminal cases, the standard of guilt varies greatly between these types of cases.

* AGAIN....IF THE TERM GUILT IS USED IN THE CONCEPT OF "STANDARD OF GUILT", THEN IT IS IMPLIED & GOES W/O SAYING THAT THERE IS INDEED GUILTY & NOT GUILTY IN A CIVIL CASE. AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED MY EVALUATION ABOVE IS BULLETPROOF! YOU CANNOT HAVE A "STANDARD OF GUILT" WITHOUT GUILT. SIMPLE.

Let me say this...
There is a "standard of guilt" in civil cases. I did not make that up. So if there is a standard of guilt, albeit a different standard than used in criminal trials, then right there shows you there IS a guilty or not guilty in a civil case.

Boom

That's a good point, because the 2 things the jury found against vplm are very close to fraud.. But that's not the point here. The point is really just semantics I think. If a jury finds "FOR" one side & "AGAINST" the other side, how the hell is that not the same as GUILTY? In other words, if you are charged with something bad, something that is basically ripping shareholders off, and a jury finds that to be the case, then how can you not say the party that has committed these things, is not guilty. If not how, then why? Give me a break...

Also I noticed someone saying there is no "guilty" in a civil case.. That may be just semantics. There are charges made & a jury finds one way or the other. So if the jury "finds in favor of" one side, it means they find against the other side & since the findings are based on very bad, negative things, ie, "breach of fiduciary duty" & "unjust enrichment", as far as I'm concerned, that's guilty of or innocent of. I don't give a damn about the semantics. Any reasonable person can see clearly, that one side was charged w/bad stuff, stuff that rips off the shareholders & then a trial is held & a jury of peers reached a verdict that rules against, in this case, vplm. Sure as hell equates to GUILTY in my way of seeing things, regardless of what they officially call it. I'll look that up, as far as the use of guilty in civil trial. Mind you that the source of this point about the use of the term guilty in civil cases, is the same one who long ago argued that the IPRs were NOT trials held in a court. Again, in that case, I did the research and posted the proof that it was indeed a trial held in a court. As far as I concerned, it's ridiculous to say that vplm, incl Emu, were not guilty of the allegations made against them. See the quote below:

"... and having duly rendered its verdict, in favor of the above-named Plaintiff Locksmith Financial Corporation, and against the Defendants Emil Malak, Dennis Chang, Thomas Sawyer, Colin Tucker, Edwin Candy, and Mike Waggett"

And why do you think he terminated his self constructed sweetheart clause, anti-dilution?

Here is the whole filed case(s). And the Verdict. Sorry for the layout/format issues. I do all this usually just using my phone. All the info is there tho. And it is very very clear who the defendants are & who the plaintiff is and who exactly is named as such & who was found guilty...

"... and having duly rendered its verdict, in favor of the above-named Plaintiff Locksmith Financial Corporation, and against the Defendants Emil Malak, Dennis Chang, Thomas Sawyer, Colin Tucker, Edwin Candy, and Mike Waggett"



I think the above excerpt CLEARLY SHOWS WHERE THE BULLSHIT CAME FROM & WHERE THE TRUTH CAME FROM...

Locksmith vs Voip-pal

BCSC Cease trade on VPLM

DTC CHILL OPINION

Update

Locksmith vs Voip-pal

Contact

LOCKSMITH UPDATE'S VOIP-PAL SHAREHOLDERS

ON JUNE 16,2015

LOCKSMITH FINANCIAL CORP.ANNOUNCES THAT ON APRIL 30,2015  A COMPLAINT
WAS FILED AGAINST VOIP-PAL.COM.INC., OTC Pink: VPLM
CASE NO.: A-15-717491-C   DEPT.NO.: I
DISTRICT COURT ,CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA

LOCKSMITH FINANCIAL CORP (Plaintiff)
? vs
 VOIP-PAL.COM.INC , a Nevada corporation
 THOMAS SAWYER, an individual
 EMIL MALAK, an individual
 EDWIN CANDY, an individual 
 COLIN TUCKER , an individual
 DENNIS CHANG, an individual 
 DOES I through X, inclusive
 and ROE ENTITIES XI through M, inclusive
? Defendants



LOCKSMITH FINANCIAL CORP. FILED PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS'S MOTION TO DISMISS and MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

LOCKSMITH FINANCIAL CORP. (Debt Capital,Corporate Finance,Private Placement and Debt Financing for Public Companies-)

COMPLAINT FOR:
?1) Breach of Contract
2) Fraud/ Misrepresentation
?3) Securities Fraud
?4) Breach of Fiduciary Duty
5) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and fair Dealing
?6) Fraudulent Misrepresentation
Arbitration Exemption Requested:
Amount in Controversy Exceeds
                       $50,000.00

?


?2.VOIP-Pal.ComWAS SERVED AT THE OFFICE OF THE RESIDENT AGENT ON MAY 21,2015

1.????EMIL MALAKSERVED MAY 4, 2015

As to the heat, when regulatory agencies are applying heat, they don't announce it. They have their own seperate rules.

Too funny is right! More of the same fake news bs. The case was supposed to be vplm vs locksmith but that was dismissed & instead it was locksmith vs vplm & the defendants were named. The name at the top of the list was Emu Malak as well as the rest of the motley crew. I will see if I can find the case & post it to BACK UP WHAT I SAY!

Because the heat was on for stealing it in the 1st place via that disgusting so called "anti-dilution clause". Guilty of "breach of fiduciary duty" and "unjust (personal) enrichment", by a jury of peers.....

Nah....he did it from the kindness of his heart, lol

Why not?.....is the question.
Why not, as long as he has his faithful followers believing on him & throwing money at him, why not?

Not a single solitary Voip company on the planet thinks it prudent to settle w/vplm...

Speaks volumes...

Look...if you had the money, would you buy vplm?

Last 6 days closes...

.0179
.0174
.0170
.0165
.0160
.0155

Oh Mama, can this really be the end?
To be stuck inside of voip-pal
With the bogus blues again

When shareholders are left to only hope to get something for all their time & stress (and money) before they die of old age......ya KNOW it's "in the BEST POSITION EVER!!"

Still no settlements. Why not?

No one wants to buy vplm. No one. Not for any price. This has been clearly demonstrated for years. Why would they want to buy it? It's junk.

Would you buy it for 50¢ if you had the money & if so, why?

Allow me to add...

They DO have products, the patents, if you want to call something you can't sell, a "product"...

And they DO have revenue...from selling the only product they ever could...stock shares..

All they had to do was make the decision to become the world class patent troll that they aspire to be but haven't even been able to consummate that task. Then, by default, the patents became THE FRONT (because they are worthless) that drives the sales of shares...fiat printed & sold shares.

So that is their product & that is their revenue...fiat printed & sold cheapo shares.

But that's nothing! There will be many more delays besides that, guaranteed! (I call them "monkey wrenches & have been successfully predicting them, without fail, for yrs). Then there will be all the appeals (that's if vplm lasts that long, ie, if the supporters keep throwing good money after bad at it to keep it going). So when I recently predicted at least another 10 yrs, that was very conservative guess. By the time vplm is done wasting everyone's time & money (not all, the smart ones know how to make a few bucks trading), gasoline cars will be outlawed...

According to what vplm has been GIVING (for up to 25 yrs) & what the avg shareholder has been RECIEVING during this time....
I'd have to say there's a lotta negative karma out there...lol

The market knows a 25 yr old dog like it knows the back of its hand & for good damn reason...it's made up of all the investors & speculators & study's & watchers & experts, etc. It has far more accumulated years info & data than any individual opinions or analysis. It has the maximum knowledge at any given time frame. But a 25 yr time frame or even only 10 yrs, if you wanna look at it that way, means the longer the input, the better the accuracy. No way around it...

Lowest its been in weeks.. Keep that good news & predictions comin' boys. Heleva job! Sure is an education!


Everything I've said, for YEARS, keeps coming true. You'd think someone would listen by now. The dots are all connected just like pieces of a puzzle, ie, not forced or cobbled together. Vplm is a transparent, open book to me.

Court is going to get waaaay interesting...

All the recent cocksure predictions of "to the moon" prices proves who knows what and who doesn't. Those who don't, don't seem to be 'splainin' themselves either. Wonder why? Could it be that they don't realize the true nature of this dog?

Look at it this way... When 35 hundredths of a penny (35 ten thousandths of a dollar) moves you up over 2 percent overall, you know you've reached nirvana/the garden, eh? And all it took was patience to arrive. Shweet! And now that you got there, you own the knowledge that you're "in the best position ever"! That's not luck... That musta taken skill? Well, actually, all you had to do was to listen to an Emu & that which falls not far from the tree... Just like the Optima tax relief commercial says: It was easy, it was just, EASY!

Pardon me for my misspeak... They do indeed sell piles of 2 items...

BS & nearly worthless shares...

Really! More details perhaps?