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.
Still, it gives us no idea about the particulars of the lie. Who did ask him to create the websites? Wish they would be directly specific instead of generally specific.
Question is, what part of his story is he admitting lying about.
Thanks puppy, I needed the confirmation, lol.
First the "spanking" was not to you, it was a "Spanking" you gave the Judge. Second, yes I want the SEC to completely investigate whether or not there were any naked shares being played in SPNG. I want them to look into any possible way they could issue naked shares and it not show up in the normal way. While I am not all that knowledgeable in those ways, I have read and heard that many experts say there are absolutely ways that can be done. Once they have finished, I want them to at least inform shareholders that every rock was turned over to find anyone who had a hand in bringing down this Co. If it turns out it was only the insiders, then at least we will know that Justice did their part. I believe that we deserve that, it is what we pay them to do.
Panther get real. When a crime is committed in this Country, whether it be a swindle, a theft, a murder, an assault, or a car wreck, it is up to the agencies that our tax dollars pay for to investigate, to a conclusion. That is the same as if we had said that it isn't up to the SEC or any other Govt entity to have investigated SM for what he did, but that if you thought he was pumping illegal shares into the market, it was up to you to pay for investigating him. Thing I am saying is that, like you thought he was always crooked, we think there are others just as crooked and they have always gotten away with their activities. All they have to do is their job, to a conclusion, and prove the we are either right or wrong. Not just say it's so and then forget it.
Ours was an official motion, yours was a spanking, telling the Judge what he is obligated to do and trying to explain to him what the Law is. No offense, but I was embarassed for you. SPNG probably is a dead duck, and we probably are beating a dead horse, but you have to give us an A for being persistent. I refuse to just take the word of the SEC or any other Govt regulatory agency. I know better, I have been there, done that. They do not play by rules unless they made them up. David, you of all people, no matter what you post here, know that as you battled with them for years.
It might be, or it might be that the Judge is a little infuriated by David telling him what he, as a Judge, must do and what the Law charges him to do. Most Judges probably wouldn't like that too much.
"If your views are in agreement with
mine I would hope the court could request the trustee itemize the amount of past and current billings
applied to this tangent effort by the non-related parties and consider a different means of paying off
those debts that do not require public investment".
Heck, I was just basing it on what David said in his motion. Just appears that the Judge must not have held the same views, that's all.
Darnnit David, I guess the Judge didn't have the same views as you.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/53022885/4-14-11-Sponge-Tech-Doc-267-Memorandum-Endorsed-Order-Re-Email-by-SPNG-v-NY-Post-Defendant-Dave-Patch
MLF, is it your opinion that not much will happen til June 1 or therebouts? I was anticipating a lot to happen this week.
Patch, that is like saying the people of Japan knew they were living in an area of earthquakes and Tsunamis and since they didn't move to higher ground after being made aware, that they deserve no pity. I am not looking for any pity nor are most hopeful shareholders, but I don't believe that we got what we deserve. It doesn't matter whether Blue Chip or Penny stock, there is always the threat of total loss. If it is a case of circumstances due to the overall economy, bad product reviews, poor planning, or other such events, then that is the luck of the draw. Crooked management, possible conduct of crooked brokers or Hedge Funds, and other events that violate laws governing trading, are not reasons for good people who invested in a Co that, up to a point, had a good product and gave no reason for investors to suspect wrongdoing, to qualify for a verdict of total stupidity. There was not much anyone could do by the time that happened and selling was either ridiculous at those prices, or prevented. To still have hope that something better than a total loss might still occur, is only human. Maybe not logical, but remember, Hope is a strong part of the Human Race.
Just a question to those who keep saying there is no NSS in SPNG. Are you saying there is no such thing as NSS anywhere? No NSS in Overstock.com, or CKMX? Or are you just saying that there was no NSS in SPNG due to the purported evidence the SEC has claimed against its Officers? If just not in SPNG, could you answer those who also said none in CKMX? If they said there was none there either, then explain the Govt negotiating in the background to collect fines from those who did the shorting and setting up an escrow to pay shareholders from. Is it possible, just possible, that in addition to M&M being totally crooked in the way they scammed shareholders, that there was also a NSS position that made matters and share price even worse. I think I know how you will answer, but had to ask.
Wow, I guess I must have missed that. On the other hand, I didn't realize that naked shorters or the Broker Dealers who handle their trades reported those transactions to the TA. If they didn't, then I guess the TA would not have it in their records for the SEC to see. But then again, maybe the shorts just forgot to notify the TA and tell them that they just sold 1 billion shares that were not part of the Authorized Shares.
OK Toxic I will give one example of how it COULD work. Just for this example let's assume that there are 3 billion legitimate shares already issued from the Authorized shares. Also, let's assume there are also 1 billion naked shares out there. Assuming also that the powers that be ordered Broker Dealers to force the cover of these naked shares.
Now:
1. The Co increases the Auth Shares to 4 billion and negotiates to issue and sell 1 billion shares to the shorts to enable them to cover. Let's say at $1 per share. The Co just made 1 billion dollars, the shorts eliminate their IOU to the Brokers, and there are now 4 billion shares outstanding.
2. 1 billion dollars divided by 4 billion shares amounts to $.25 per share valuation based on Cash Held by Co.
3 The Co issues a cash dividend of .20 per share which would give shareholders either their investments back or a hefty profit depending on their purchase price. This leaves the Co with $200 million or .05 per share.
4. The Co then does a 100 for 1 reverse split bringing the new Outstanding down to 40 million shares, now valued at $5 per share.
5. The Co could then pay all debts and rebuild the business, or sell it or whatever.
It would work, but I don't expect it to ever happen.
VD, I don't know who the Government is in cahoots with, but to believe that the Govt is in no way corrupt is carrying loyalty a little too far, don't you think. Still the best place in the World to live, but naive I'm not.
Oh, and by the way, there would be no cost to the Government or taxpayers as those numbers are already availeable, right?
SRV, are you telling us that Shareholders do not have a right to the share accounting and structure based on numbers held by the TA and DTCC? Are you saying that the SEC must know those numbers as verified by the TA and DTCC yet they have no obligation, under the circumstances, to reveal those numbers. Are you saying that when they prepared their Complaint that they would not include the actual numbers based on their subpoena of the TA and DTCC (numbers taken directly as a result of the TA and DTCC audits were not a part of the Complaint I saw)? What we are saying is that it is not necessary for us as a group to pay for a forensic accounting when the two Cos charged with that already have the numbers we seek. Show them to us and if there are no shares beyond that which is Authorized, then we are done, end of all this conversation. See, it's easy.
Patch, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that since the SEC case is civil, that it does not trump the BK. The DOJ case while criminal, would not be affected by the BK, but SEC, to my knowledge cannot prosecute criminal fraud, therefore their case is purely civil in nature and can be trumped by BK. I am not an attorney, and neither are you, so it is only my opinion based on that which I read.
Sorry, my bad, I thought it was a PM, but it wasn't.
Patch, I will have to answer your PM publicly. I am not interested only in charges being filed against NSS, I am only interested in the SEC determining in finality whether NSS was a factor. If not, then hey, that's they way it is. If yes, then I want them to cover their shorts. It's that simple. I am smart enough to know that corruption is a part of the World, I can't beat it but I would like to see it sometimes beat by the agencies we pay to beat it for us. Again, very simple.
SRV, I don't doubt that our money is gone and have accepted that. You are right that the SEC says there is no NSS, but anyone who is really honest knows different. Even if there turns out to be no NSS in Spongetech, we know that NSS exists and has done a lot of damage. And, it IS the responsibility of the SEC to vett out the NSS and punish them and then close the loopholes that allow them to flourish. If not, then we might as well eliminate the SEC alltogether, which is not a bad idea. I am sick of watching the Governmental Departments cover for each other. I love this Country, but there are some things that need to be changed, badly.
Alien, I can only imagine the things you might tell a friend or loved one if they were going through an experience that showed that humans are capable of makings mistakes. I was taught that instead of making them feel even more hurtful, that I was to give them support and encouragement. I guess you and I came from a different era. Point is, you can't always be right and everyone else wrong, it goes both ways. That is what Life is all about.
Obviously, you need to hear me Slowly, I am not asking the SEC to do anything other than theri job. If there are, and I say if, any naked shorts who have participated in the downfall of Spongetech, then it is the duty of the SEC to determine that fact and also to bring them to justice. If they would do that, and they apparently have not even tried (Gee, they must have listened to you saying it didn't happen), then steps could be taken for them to cover those naked shares and that would give assets to the Co with which they could pay creditors and possibly shareholders. It is not a hard thing and certainly not too much to ask of our SEC whose Mission Statement says they are charged with protecting the shareholders. Patch, you may be a great guy if you are my neighbor, but please just look at this from an angle of trying to be the savior of shareholders all over the World. We made the decision to invest and we may have made the wrong one, but, geez, don't persecute us, help us get to the bottom of the crime.
Patch, you are surely one who others should listen to. Since this has not gone to trial yet, and might not, I am having a hard time understanding how what you did by blowing a whistle on Spongetech with nothing but your own belief of malfeasance, along with others who likewise had no absolute proof, is any different than "Hopeful Shareholders" are doing by trying to force the absolute proof from coming to the surface. Nobody on the Hopeful side is saying that SM and MM are completely innocent of any wrongdoing, but rather that there are others that are players in this saga and anyone, and I do mean anyone, who would deny that possibility is living in either a dreamworld, or they are determined to bring down a Co and its innocent shareholders regardless of the truth. There have been some who have said that you are not the enemy of shareholders that we have come to believe, and so I agree with Jim54 in that you should be looking for the real truth regardless of who you think might have to pay for it. We pay taxes for the SEC to do a complete job of protecting shareholders and so money or time should not be the concern, doing a job well done should be. Please don't come back with more negative criticism of honest shareholders who may end up indeed, as you have said, losing their investment, we are not the focus of wrongdoing. We just ask that all who have participated in this crime be accounted for and punished.
As soon as I posted this message, volume showed up. Ha.
Is it just me or has there been no volume at all today?
Loan, you may very well be right about that, however, it does make one wonder why the SEC has ignored this up til now. Could be that they never intended this to ever go to trial. What the SEC has always wanted is to prevent those that they are protecting, large Hedge Funds and other naked shorters, along with and maybe more importantly, their own butts, from being exposed for allowing this to ever happen. Now I know you will say there is no such thing as NSS here, and that is your opinion. Mine happens to be different. I will admit though that it is hard if not impossible to beat the ones who invented the game.
This was from the 10K:
NOTE 5 – SHARE STRUCTURE
The current Share Structure of the Company is as follows:
Authorized Shares 175,000,000
Outstanding Shares 82,517,000
Restricted Shares 71,658,626
Free Trading Shares 10,858,374
Not true. A privately owned Co that has no public stock can certainly own another Co that is publicly traded.
Thanks Brad, doesn't seem to be a lot of shorts here.
Tom, is there any idea what the short position is on TMSH. I am new here and don't have near the number of shares many of you do, but would still like to see a big increase in share price. I do believe that for there to be a covering of shorts there needs to be not only a CUSIP change but also a name change, which it seems we now have. Thanks.
Not sure I understand what you mean. When the post came out that Musicman said the Motion had been denied, he was referring to the Motion to approve an auctioneer. That motion was made and denied end of last week, but only showed up on Pacer right before todays Motion to approve the Asset Sale. Per your post, he later said maybe it WAS a new Motion, indicating he wasn't yet aware of todays Motion to Approve Asset Sale. Doesn't matter though, no big deal.
The order they were speaking of that was denied today by the Judge was the Motion requesting an Auctioneer. The denial was posted today on Pacer and what the poster was referring to.
You are showing concern for those who sign the letter, as it will just convince the Judge that actions to shut it down are necessary to protect the investors????? I thought shutting it down was what you wanted. Confusion abounds.
I didn't realize that Drakeford and Drakeford had been accused or convicted of having signed off on a 10K of Spongetechs that was bogus. Only that they had had problems in 2007 and because of that eventually lost their credentials with PCAOB for one year. Can you post the link to the facts as you stated them please. Thanks.
I think there is no doubt he wants a hand in this Company OT.
Exactly OT. The fun is about to begin.
True, thanks for that.
Yep, holding them all for a little while longer anyway. Will be selling to the shorts pretty quick, making my fortune, then going to the beach.