Hahaha. Idiot oil sleuth still mugging for attention

Love seeing your


name here. Maximum respect to you!

Yes, always


been a gamble...

Best wishes to you Moneytree!

It would have been a


good idea over the past numerous years to have been accumulating shares of empire energy at practically give away prices. When one owns 8 figure millions of shares, there's not a necessity for the share price to rise to dollar range. In fact, 5 CENTS would do one quite well, perhaps able to buy a new car, not a used car, in the parking lot, Acerbic witticisms won't cover the cost of a used car!

When eegc comes back active(which will only take a simple filing of 2 years overdue tax returns), the share price will rise quickly, as most who have wanted to sell, would have sold. It's clear eegc remains alive, evidenced by the fact of filing their Nevada Business licence, less than a month ago.


Phoenix Rising

Every now and then i know its kinda hard to tell, but, they're still alive, and well.


Tooooooooo Funny

It's not over for EEGC.

There are remedies that can be accomplished.

http://www.legalandcompliance.com/securities-resources/bringing-delinquent-exchange-act-reporting-companies-current/

Option C: Terminate Exchange Act Registration by Filing a Form 15 Followed by a Form 10 Registration Statement

If a Company qualifies to do so, they may file a Form 15, terminating its Exchange Act registration and thereby relieving it of the Exchange Act reporting requirements. To qualify to file a Form 15, a Company currently must either have fewer than 300 shareholders, or fewer than 500 shareholders if it has assets of less than $10 million.

Title V of The JOBS Act amends Section 12(g) and Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act as to threshold shareholder requirements and registration and deregistration requirements such that the shareholder threshold before requiring registration and subsequent reporting with the SEC has been increased from 500 to either (a) 2,000 or more, or (b) 500 or more unaccredited shareholders. It is expected that the SEC will implement rules to amend Exchange Act Rule 12g-4 to conform with Section 12(g).

A Form 15 does not technically relieve a Company’s obligation to file past due reports (only future reports); however, in practice the SEC does not generally require such filings.

An Issuer that files a Form 15 may thereafter file a new Form 10 registration statement subjecting it to the Exchange Act reporting requirements going forward. As with all Form 10 registration statements, the Form 10 will include two years of audited financial statements.

OPTION C IS ESPECIALLY ATTRACTIVE TO A COMPANY THAT IS IN EXCESS OF TWO YEARS DELINQUENT IN ITS REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND CANNOT REASONABLY OBTAIN THE RECORDS NECESSARY TO COMPLETE ITS AUDITS FOR THOSE YEARS BEYOND THE TWO-YEAR PERIOD.

Yeah, SW...

Was appealing the judge disallowing SW request for summary judgement for the $3.9 million. SW never followed up on the required paperwork/$$$ needed to appeal. The reason SW didn't follow thru with the appeal is because they knew their case was a loser, and settling with Eegc was the most economical way to go

It's VERY obvious to most

sw believed it…

many years ago, and perhaps again in a day or so….

"empowering" news release any time …

i think that would….

be called in the non believing eegc world as ….an "oil spoof"…


VERY funny

when smart win…


began to withhold the loan $$$ in oct 2008, the share price (.15) halved in one day/a short period of time…the decline of eegc share price over the years is DIRECTLY tied to that event, as the dominoes fell along the way…i.e. license area taken away etc etc…

i would agree …

with that assessment….

famous british

rock star lyric…


"Oh, if we won't give in,
we'll keep living in the past. "

when it comes to eegc…

one can either have a "pronoia imagination", or a "paranoid imagination"….there is NO middle ground…


step up to the plate…


Pronoia….likely to make big cash moving forward from here( whats the hardest part?, getting out the front door( with regard to making first/another buy)

Paranoid(refer to red herring list), win the acerbic witticism contest(no cash in that)…


for those that like Latin-o

la contienda ha terminado = the battle has ended…in eegc favor

and thats the reason…


smart win decided to settle…

Red herring list Revised#1

ill be certain…

to add that one to the red herring list, come early next week…



cause the list of red herrings floated about eegc is getting longer than the much maligned malc news releases..

all of these, WRONG, VERY WRONG

1) summary judgement assured for smart win because the evidentiary proof according to the key plank of the 4 corners of the MOU(maybe its now an IOU, as in apology)/contract….amateur legal expertise proven worthless

2) eegc wouldn't show up for court

3) paul wouldn't show up for court

4) eegc was assured on going bankrupt/out of biz

5) gslm bankrupt(never saw a final statement about this, cause there aint one

5) paul wasn't coming back

6) malc uses trusts to hide money(so it was said, then the statement, "well i really can't prove malc uses trusts…i think he does, but i dont really know"


7) Coming soon

The fact that absolutely nothing has come out indicates that this is a major disaster for EEGC and Malc.

8)
Even worse, perhaps he's had to sign over the rights to both the miraculous Flare Gas Technology AND the Faser Time Machine!


anyone care to add to the vortex of hysteria list of items that never came about regarding eegc demise…surely there are 7 years worth more


better send that 5 cent scotch back….


VERY obviously swinging in EEGC favor

You're right...

I forgot at least one...

In fact there are more than 6 yrs worth...

Eegc will be a Phoenix rising from a near zero share price beat down

yeah well…

its time to start accepting it….

Empire Energy is now free to return to business after having their hands tied for almost 7 years...the case is finally over...a press release is certainly forthcoming…

Link from the Supreme Court of New York

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=Dbgk3FBkqNoWyQZCL3YS9A==&system=prod

nothing means nothing…

a highly…

speculative statement…remaining silent(at least for a period of time) could have been part of the deal

the case was settled…

sure eegc counterclaim is not there, and neither is the $3.9 million sw demanded…

no one but the parties know the details…

whatever, they won't be seeing the judge again

thats the way…..

settlements go….


neither can publicly talk about the details…

the case is over…


smart win dropped the $3.9 million claim too…


case disposed….

in black and white to see...

well then…..

the judge would have said motion granted at the bottom of the doc….

instead he checked the "other" box…cause he didnt need to rule…


in black and white to see

motion rendered moot…

action settled…


case disposed(complete, terminer)

case disposed….

its over…

case settled…

gotta be good, for both….

VERY obvious

Yeah iron trumpet..,

We've heard all the blathering/white noise of the summary judgement in favor of SW was assured "because the evidentiary proof of the four corners of the MOU contract was a key plank( never could determine what all verbosity was about) that so much so, it was without a doubt an assured victory for SW. (As we found out nothing could be further from correct, VERY wrong actually

Then it was Eegc couldn't pay for the trial. VERY VERY wrong again

Then the next vortex of hysteria was that Batista had only been paid to get it up to going to trial. VERY VERY VERY wrong again

It's always something to whip up a frenzy that leads to nothing

Now it's the court case is going bad for Eegc. Sure it is Prob won't be long until SW folds. It's in their body language Anyone can see that

It's VERY obvious

i dont think …


what you said here was 100% correct…

the court case begins…

monday apr 20, 2015…

unless of course there was a settlement recently( rumors floating around about this subject)...


for those that like Latin-o…



que se inicie la contienda = let battle commence.

yes …

the court case will begin monday, unless there is/was a settlement this past week…the case was adjourned on apr 13 until apr 20…


it doesnt matter about the rig at the moment, what matters is who breached the contract, sw or eegc…when its determined that sw was the culprit, perhaps some of the other issues may/will come into play(and definitely will be in play when eegc goes after hunt drilling after the victory over smart win)…

lets see what the judge has said about the case so far


VERBATIM(for those that like latin, it means EXACT WORDING, from the court transcript what the judge…


has said(its in the court report )…no additional words are added(i'm not making up what is outlined below…its only "out of context" if its not in the context one wants to hear/read it…


https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=Z54WlguIRPuDi2b1OftQQQ==


this case is not about EEGC being over the budget…the case is about SW underfunding the agreed upon amount, and by doing so, the judge is allowing the eegc countersuit to continue(because not only is it a fact, its the truth, and the judge believes eegc has a valid point/case….

page 37 lines 14-23 ….look it up if in doubt...

Quote: from the judge(he's saying that the remaining $1.1 million that was underfunded(according to the agreement) that someone owes that money, and in fact SW is could be liable…

Quote:

So, while the plaintiffs argue they are
speculative, I think that this testimony here in this
record here also indicates that at the end of the day
those damages that are being claimed here may not be
speculative. They may be hard dollar amount to when you
stopped the money from corning in right away.
First of all, there are the expenses that
haven't been paid because somebody has got to still pay
them, right? They tendered in bills or invoices to get
paid. They weren't paid.



page 38 lines 10-19
Quote:from the judge


Quote:

but there are real costs
to when there is a construction project and you turn off
the funding source, there are real costs that can be
calculable that are associated with the funding loss.
So, under those circumstances, the damages
claims are not speculative at this point on this record
and that that in and of itself permits me to allow the
defendant's counterclaim for breach of contract to
continue.


unless the judge was being highly deceptive, which i doubt, this is CLEARLY what he said…

Quote: from the judge
Quote:

At the end of the day, it's a matter of
plaintiffs not liking this transaction any more .Going
into it everyone thought they were going to be making a
lot of money which is great but as it went along clearly
the project or the expedition of drilling for oil in
Tasmania looked a little bit bleak and I guess at that
point there is factual issues as to whether or not the
lender wanted to just get out of this deal.
So, under those circumstances, I find there is a
factual issue with respect to the breach of contract and
therefore that branch of plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment on the first cause of action is denied.



page 10-11

quote from the judge…

Quote:

You know, you have the $5 million that's the budget. We know with budgets with construction projects or any projects you go over the budget. So that why does
that necessarily mean that you have to cut off or turn off
the spigot because they had a cost override?
I mean, they bargained for, they got loaned
monies up to $5 million, the MOU. Hang on a second.
Let me just pull it up. Just give me one
second. The MOU says that that's the wrong one.
That's the wrong page. At 3.1 budget approval included
you can't make this stuff any smaller. Included as
schedule 2, GSLM provides a budget hereby acknowledged by
Smart Win showing the plan allocation of funds advanced by
Smart Win in accordance with Clause 2. Any alterations to
the budget must also be approved by Smart Win in writing.
GSLM will provide upon written requests copies of
invoices, contracts and confirmations of payments to
enable Smart Win to verify disbursements are in accordance
with the approved schedule.
Nothing in there that says if you go over the
budget we'll turn off the spigot. Just says we give you
the money, we want documentation to make sure that that's
being paid to the right vendor and proper vendor and it's
within the budget.
MR. OCCHIPINTI: But the note.
THE COURT: But it doesn't say that if you go
over the budget we will turn off the money.



CLEARLY CLEARLY CLEARLY the judge is indicating that SW did not have the right to stop the funding, according to the MOU…it would have been a different story if SW had lived up to their obligation to fund $5 mill…but they did not…

the beginning of the end will start for SW the week of april 13, 2015…its clear from the transcript that the judge has stated what he sees(according to NY law), and its very likely that not only will SW be out the $3.9 mill, but very well could be assessed damages(according to the transcript above…doesn't matter if there is a JV or not , the judge allowed a VERY important counter suit motion to continue…read it for yourself...

you're right on iron trumpet…

tortious business interference(with the bait and switch maneuver of promising to loan $5 million , but ILLEGALLY loaning only $3.9 mill) perfectly describes what smart win did to eegc(…the tables are turning, perhaps as soon as monday…


seems VERY obvious to me...

this is VERY obvious

clipso Friday, 03/20/15 10:42:51 PM
Re: Drunken Sailor post# 39701
Post # of 39886


thats a nice…

fiction story, regarding eegc, and the soon to arrive trial date, apr 13, 2015….not only will paul be there, the flights and hotel rooms of individuals sw might not want to see, have been booked...
[color=red]
reminds me of a time not so long ago, in the days preceding oct 31, 2014…


when it was a assured that sw would win the summary judgement for the $3.9million(so as to not be allowed to be countersued)…more about that in the court transcript, below), according to the key plank, and the evidentiary proof of the 4 corners of the MOU/contract(whatever that means)…

went even farther in the declarations….Paul wouldn't show up for trial(he had been paid only to get it up to the trial…WRONG AGAIN

all of that bravado was proven to be VERY VERY wrong..

in fact, the judge, according to NY law, kicked smart wins proverbial "behind"…

lets review what the judge said, and see why the share price has produced a 7 bagger from the low…would be a reasonable, and accurate, statement to say that anyone who has bought, and held, eegc shares during the past 18-21 months), would be no worse than break even, and 7 times up if bold enough to have bought at the low...

Quote:

clipso Saturday, 12/27/14 07:49:54 AM
Re: None
Post # of 39701


VERBATIM, , Latin, for those that like Latin)from the court transcript what the judge…


has said(its in the court report )…no additional words are added(i'm not making up what is outlined below…its only "out of context" if its not in the context one wants to hear/read it…


https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=Z54WlguIRPuDi2b1OftQQQ==


this case is not about EEGC being over the budget…the case is about SW underfunding the agreed upon amount, and by doing so, the judge is allowing the eegc countersuit to continue(because not only is it a fact, its the truth, and the judge believes eegc has a valid point/case….

page 37 lines 14-23 ….look it up if in doubt...

Quote: from the judge(he's saying that the remaining $1.1 million that was underfunded(according to the agreement) that someone owes that money, and in fact SW is could be liable…

Quote:

So, while the plaintiffs argue they are
speculative, I think that this testimony here in this
record here also indicates that at the end of the day
those damages that are being claimed here may not be
speculative. They may be hard dollar amount to when you
stopped the money from corning in right away.
First of all, there are the expenses that
haven't been paid because somebody has got to still pay
them, right? They tendered in bills or invoices to get
paid. They weren't paid.



page 38 lines 10-19
Quote:from the judge


Quote:

but there are real costs
to when there is a construction project and you turn off
the funding source, there are real costs that can be
calculable that are associated with the funding loss.
So, under those circumstances, the damages
claims are not speculative at this point on this record
and that that in and of itself permits me to allow the
defendant's counterclaim for breach of contract to
continue.


unless the judge was being highly deceptive, which i doubt, this is CLEARLY what he said…

Quote: from the judge
Quote:

At the end of the day, it's a matter of
plaintiffs not liking this transaction any more .Going
into it everyone thought they were going to be making a
lot of money which is great but as it went along clearly
the project or the expedition of drilling for oil in
Tasmania looked a little bit bleak and I guess at that
point there is factual issues as to whether or not the
lender wanted to just get out of this deal.
So, under those circumstances, I find there is a
factual issue with respect to the breach of contract and
therefore that branch of plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment on the first cause of action is DENIED.



page 10-11

quote from the judge…

Quote:

You know, you have the $5 million that's the budget. We know with budgets with construction projects or any projects you go over the budget. So that why does
that necessarily mean that you have to cut off or turn off
the spigot because they had a cost override?
I mean, they bargained for, they got loaned
monies up to $5 million, the MOU. Hang on a second.
Let me just pull it up. Just give me one
second. The MOU says that that's the wrong one.
That's the wrong page. At 3.1 budget approval included
you can't make this stuff any smaller. Included as
schedule 2, GSLM provides a budget hereby acknowledged by
Smart Win showing the plan allocation of funds advanced by
Smart Win in accordance with Clause 2. Any alterations to
the budget must also be approved by Smart Win in writing.
GSLM will provide upon written requests copies of
invoices, contracts and confirmations of payments to
enable Smart Win to verify disbursements are in accordance
with the approved schedule.
Nothing in there that says if you go over the
budget we'll turn off the spigot. Just says we give you
the money, we want documentation to make sure that that's
being paid to the right vendor and proper vendor and it's
within the budget.
MR. OCCHIPINTI: But the note.
THE COURT: But it doesn't say that if you go
over the budget we will turn off the money.



CLEARLY CLEARLY CLEARLY the judge is indicating that SW did not have the right to stop the funding, according to the MOU…it would have been a different story if SW had lived up to their obligation to fund $5 mill…but they did not…

the beginning of the end will start for SW the week of april 13, 2015…its clear from the transcript that the judge has stated what he sees(according to NY law), and its very likely that not only will SW be out the $3.9 mill, but very well could be assessed damages(according to the transcript above…doesn't matter if there is a JV or not , the judge allowed a VERY important counter suit motion to continue…read it for yourself...

no baloney…


just abaloney…


what the judge thinks/said…


Quote: from the judge


At the end of the day, it's a matter of
plaintiffs not liking this transaction any more .[/color]

VERBATIM, from the court transcript, more of what the judge said


has said(its in the court report )…no additional words are added(i'm not making up what is outlined below…its only "out of context" if its not in the context one wants to hear/read it…


https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=Z54WlguIRPuDi2b1OftQQQ==


this case is not about EEGC being over the budget…the case is about SW underfunding the agreed upon amount, and by doing so, the judge is allowing the eegc countersuit to continue(because not only is it a fact, its the truth, and the judge believes eegc has a valid point/case….

page 37 lines 14-23 ….look it up if in doubt...

Quote: from the judge(he's saying that the remaining $1.1 million that was underfunded(according to the agreement) that someone owes that money, and in fact SW is could be liable…

Quote:

So, while the plaintiffs argue they are
speculative, I think that this testimony here in this
record here also indicates that at the end of the day
those damages that are being claimed here may not be
speculative. They may be hard dollar amount to when you
stopped the money from corning in right away.
First of all, there are the expenses that
haven't been paid because somebody has got to still pay
them, right? They tendered in bills or invoices to get
paid. They weren't paid.



page 38 lines 10-19
Quote:from the judge


Quote:

but there are real costs
to when there is a construction project and you turn off
the funding source, there are real costs that can be
calculable that are associated with the funding loss.
So, under those circumstances, the damages
claims are not speculative at this point on this record
and that that in and of itself permits me to allow the
defendant's counterclaim for breach of contract to
continue.


unless the judge was being highly deceptive, which i doubt, this is CLEARLY what he said…

Quote: from the judge
Quote:

At the end of the day, it's a matter of
plaintiffs not liking this transaction any more .Going
into it everyone thought they were going to be making a
lot of money which is great but as it went along clearly
the project or the expedition of drilling for oil in
Tasmania looked a little bit bleak and I guess at that
point there is factual issues as to whether or not the
lender wanted to just get out of this deal.
So, under those circumstances, I find there is a
factual issue with respect to the breach of contract and
therefore that branch of plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment on the first cause of action is DENIEDD.



page 10-11

quote from the judge…

Quote:

You know, you have the $5 million that's the budget. We know with budgets with construction projects or any projects you go over the budget. So that why does
that necessarily mean that you have to cut off or turn off
the spigot because they had a cost override?
I mean, they bargained for, they got loaned
monies up to $5 million, the MOU. Hang on a second.
Let me just pull it up. Just give me one
second. The MOU says that that's the wrong one.
That's the wrong page. At 3.1 budget approval included
you can't make this stuff any smaller. Included as
schedule 2, GSLM provides a budget hereby acknowledged by
Smart Win showing the plan allocation of funds advanced by
Smart Win in accordance with Clause 2. Any alterations to
the budget must also be approved by Smart Win in writing.
GSLM will provide upon written requests copies of
invoices, contracts and confirmations of payments to
enable Smart Win to verify disbursements are in accordance
with the approved schedule.
Nothing in there that says if you go over the
budget we'll turn off the spigot. Just says we give you
the money, we want documentation to make sure that that's
being paid to the right vendor and proper vendor and it's
within the budget.
MR. OCCHIPINTI: But the note.
THE COURT: But it doesn't say that if you go
over the budget we will turn off the money.



CLEARLY CLEARLY CLEARLY the judge is indicating that SW did not have the right to stop the funding, according to the MOU…it would have been a different story if SW had lived up to their obligation to fund $5 mill…but they did not…

the beginning of the end will start for SW the week of april 13, 2015…its clear from the transcript that the judge has stated what he sees(according to NY law), and its very likely that not only will SW be out the $3.9 mill, but very well could be assessed damages(according to the transcript above…doesn't matter if there is a JV or not , the judge allowed a VERY important counter suit motion to continue…read it for yourself...

the fact is…

Quote:

Nobody has ever been able to explain how it was to Smart Win's advantage to hand over the $3.9 million and then call a halt unless they considered Empire had breached the contract at that point.



it doesn't matter why sw did what they did(halt funding ), what matters is what they did was not live up to their obligation to provide $5 million…according to the MOU, crystal clearly SW was legally obligated to provide a $5 million loan, and they did not…according to NY law, that maneuver is against the law, and thats why the judge allowed the eegc breach of contract countersuit to continue…

sw is in in deep sh….

smart win getting rattled/nervous…


they filed 3 motions today…guess the eegc "fluff" witness list got their attention

heard that Occhipinti law firm was changing their name to …


Fingers Crossed Legal and Associates

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=3UNdNQ_PLUS_vlbQP7QxieYUZ0w==

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=pI94uweW85wbIx_PLUS_ZgWYG4Q==

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=EI2jZ4AzzESzMI1sqc4fjw==


for those that like Latin-o…


que se inicie la contienda = let battle commence

the filing contains…

the VERY SAME "foo-foo" that SW submitted on August 29, 2014, their(SW) SECOND request for summary judgement, which was denied, and obliterated by judge oing…

just a lot of fluff precedent cases that will have no bearing on the judges' already on the record comments/questions/opinions…



que se inicie la contienda = let battle commence

smart win's gotta lotta…

"splaining" to do…


https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=kRC0cscIKof0UBW/R5vNZg==


que se inicie la contienda = let battle commence

TRUTH HURTS…


so much for the WRONG speculation that batista hasn't been paid, or won't show at the trial..

EEGC witness list

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=7ng7DVvF4MG7_PLUS_VO/SCtp5w==


que se inicie la contienda = let battle commence.

VERY VERY wrong…

yes it is…