Just so everyone knows (not that they care) I sold all my shares a while ago. Some for a nice profit some for a little loss. It was for a friend... I told them to buy =\

Did anyone have any luck with declaring their losses for taxes without being able to sell?

JOEZ really looks to be setting up nicely here.

mspd broke resistance at $7.88

Thanks - that's ugly. Not aesthetically, technically. I was expecting something more like this:

MSPD up 5% today. It's like an atm.

MSPD - It goes up, down, up, down. It just ran for 3 days and is currently pulling back. Exciting 4G technology, winning awards, buyout candidate, profitability, tight float and predictable patterns.

Lots of good options.

Wasn't there just 11 days of no trades.

"stock becoming wholly worthless".

I think we've established it's worthlessness. If you can't trade it and you can't get the certs... it's worthless.

Attn: Shareholders

As the truth behind Spongetech was revealed, I took the time to research other penny stocks that had a similar following. As you read through the thousands of pages of posts, it is like watching a plane crash in slow motion.

Most eventually sell or simply give up. But, most heart wrenching are the ones that hold on. They believe there is another truth out there even after the stock is completely revoked and the company no longer exists.

If there are any of you out there like this, I suggest letting it go. I once so strongly believed in an epic tale of good vs. evil. Now, I know how lucky I am to have gotten out both emotionally and fiscally before a gain became a loss.

Take care,

Drew

OS of 6 billion... They have to split.

To clarify, if you're saying things from a long time ago (especially as you said "everyone" knew it a long time ago) then you are LATE in saying it. How does that not make sense to you?

Is Shaw really still doin that thing? Please tell me it's a complete joke and there's no one still out there spreading rumors.

Anyone involved in this mess and willing to answer DP's emails is either completely innocent or extraordinarily dumb. We know SM's condition. Is Pike really THAT dumb? I mean... he can spell and formulate proper English sentences.

Thank you DP. Unbelievable - maybe - but it seems like there might be one normal rational human being in the SPNG saga... Dan Pike. I should take his advice concerning dignifying responses, but I just wanted to take the time to thank you for that.

How do you defraud the United States? (just looking for a simple example). And, is that a one-up on what was going on before? I stopped paying attention to the specific charges after it was clear there wasn't anything worth investing in.

Soap that goes in a bucket is better soap. And most any sponge is a better sponge. And soap that goes in a bucket lasts a lot longer and costs a lot less. You can't buy them at stores anywhere, they are manufactured by crooks and the stock left a lot of people hurting very badly. It's not really worth arguing over, the product and company stinks a big one.

Not really.

"HECK of a product" ... I was never really a fan. I was always chasing the (falsified) numbers. I think most here would admit something similar. They tore apart and were very inconsistent in their soap delivery. What's more, the wrong sponge was packaged for quite a while. I still don't know if I used dog soap or tire shiner on my tires. None of that matters now.

The Publix near me always had those SpongeTech chamois. Figured they got a crazy good deal on a ton of them since they were there for a while after all the trouble. Eventually they seemed to run out since the space was taken up by another similar product from a different manufacturer. Well, interestingly enough, the SpongeTech chamois are back. I wish I could be a fly on that box from conception to delivery..... I'm not saying anything here - just an interesting observation. Definitely don't want to come off like I'm saying this is some indication of hope.

Whilst Occam's razor offers rational for deriving ordinary causes, I've developed a new and stunningly accurate principle:

Drew's brush which literally states "Government is dumb".

The theory is most often applied to situations where when the rational cause for an examined effect involves the Government that cause is likely to be the dumbest thing possible.

So, "no" TavyCal that's way too generous.

The Naked Shorts Sellers have insiders in the prison system from top to bottom. There's no way they are going to let him communicate from within the cell.

A Swiss hedge fund might bail him out though.

If they don't plan B is he'll split his 3 billion fat cells 1 for 100, slip through the bars, upgrade over the NASDAQ Small Cap Req. and break free.

I txted him when because we need him to come testify in court. When they hear he said the sponges melted in delivery they will understand what kind of person he is and that the NSS have been puppeteering this from day-one.

Anyways, his response was "soon".

Lastly I asked him if he ever answers anything with "no".

He responded with "no"... which sort of has left be confused about the entire situation...

Isn't Spongetech evicted from their office in New York? The filing said they are several months behind... Being that they are totally bankrupt, unless there's a bunch of volunteer workers meeting at a coffee shop, WHAT exactly is Hays suppose to run and WHERE should he run it from?

So sponge lost dicon, nick, marvel, any active trademarks, a place of business, advertisement, and all cash. Lied in every financial report in the past 2 years, almost every press release and is in bankruptcy?

Um... yeah. Is there anything really left to say about it?

Too bad, NSS would be bucko-rich off this one.

Exactly. That's the lesson here. Investing at .006 ended up being a great idea. Anyone with a 400k shares saw a $2,400 goto $100,000.

Listening to those against SPNG would have resulted in no gain.

Listening to promoters would have resulted in a loss of the gain.

Thoughtful, centered momentum investing would have resulted in massive gains.

Answer this one question: How did Spongetech pay the
15MM ad budget
4MM to Dicon
six digit rent
licensing costs
GetFUGU shares and activation
payroll
luxurious lifestyle
distribution costs
production costs
Warehouse
Share Buyback <- lol.

And more that comes out close to 150MM?

Just answer that.

On of the more famous movie quotes... From the comedy Airplane!

It goes like this:

Rumack: Can you fly this plane, and land it?
Ted Striker: Surely you can't be serious.
Rumack: I am serious... and don't call me Shirley.

I think it's hilarious you didn't know that.

btw - I didn't mean shorts might have created more shares over the 3 billion found by the SEC. I mean there very well could have been more unregistered shares issued by Spongetech than the 3 billion found... But the short thing could be true too... I guess.

A year ago, (when it was really a lot of fun to own shares of this train wreck) I told a few friends that it might make for a pretty interesting short term investment...

Everyone I suggested it to made money (aside from one poor soul who put way to much into it and held who knows how long).

Anyways, they use to tell me "you wouldn't believe it I ran into someone who also owns spongetech"...

The "coincidences" were numerous and I myself had a few encounters (not to mention a so called "friend" of SM himself down here in Fla).

These guys did a remarkable job selling shares! Everyone had a piece of the OS.

Looking back... and thinking about the OS... and the recent DTC events... could 3 billion be low-balling it? It could be more... WAY MORE.

Like they always do, thoughts lead to more thoughts, and I've just now started wondering why in the word Spongetech said what they said in the 10K and 10Q's. Why the numbers they used? Why involve RME in the filings at all if they intended on hiding it?

Why did they "flip the switch" on these unlawful things one day after a few years of honest ownership?

This should be thoroughly studied by:

1: Investors who don't want to be scammed.
2: Companies that want to start a scam.
3: The SEC
4: Psychiatrists interested in the development of cults
5: Momentum players

And yeah, besides the runup to .2851, watching this from the side has been the place to be.

So how do you propose this number was derived (much like the others that have always been right...). By going to Dicon and asking an employee? So someone is so interested in this scam that they arrived at Dicon and actually got someone who knows exactly the figures to open their mouth about the number of products returned. I'm that THAT DUMB.

I don't even know where to start with this...

If this number (500) is accurate... it raises a whole lot of red flags in my mind about how & why anyone here would have access to that sort of information...

This is the last stone uncovered by the SEC - why did someone here know about the legal trouble over a year in advance? How are extremely sensitive numbers like the one below derived (accurately!).

There's another story here, I just hope it comes out.

PR Newswire’s annual membership fee is $195.
(Membership fee is waived for Non Profit organizations)

https://portal.prnewswire.com/SystemAccess/OnlineMembershipFormStep1.aspx

They send through PR Newswire.

No but in retrospect I think the reverse split was a signal. There wasn't one bad bit of news until that happened. It triggered issues with the AS and then just before the split was suppose to happen we had the suspension... Then the lawsuits... Then more lawsuits... Then unable to pay... Then SEC... They told us it was over.

On a side note I'd still like to see who AYME was. People had all kinds of stupid figures for them... But their volume was about 400,000,000 if I remember correctly all on the bid side. They did sit on the ask once or twice for a few minutes... but that's it.

Did someone try and buy back the restricted shares when they knew they were caught and when they couldn't buy them all back they went for the last ditch effort - the split?

I know the SEC has addressed the bulk of it... But I want to know about the side stories... And when the company said "our buybacks have lifted the share price"... did they really buy back just to lay the scam down to level 2? Or was even that MM someone else gobbling up about 100,000,000 shares...

And Pike...

Lots of side stories.

Yeah because people and their firms post any and all privileged information they have for the world to see on a forum. Is this FOR REAL? If it is, my understanding of the world is WAY OFF.

Holding shares that use to be worth .2851 all the way down to .006 is ONE THING.

Believing corporate businessmen use these forums to enlighten shareholders with truth and integrity is another.

I mean, IF it's true then GREAT. But, really? Follow the boards everyday and don't post because it gets removed FOR NO APPARENT REASON?

A lot of longs use to say this... But in each and every case it was a blatant violation of iHub's rules, regulations and terms of service.

Either way, believing this garbage on the chance of a 10x - 100x increase from information that isn't publicly released but rather passed on to you from who knows where (illegal) is mighty BOLD. Doing so after everything that's ever been said has turned out to be a blatant lie is just...

I hope I'm wrong.

You'll forget quickly. Enjoy.

I had bought all or most of my shares before "finding out" any of the lies. A batch of my shares that were bought after this "supposed insider information" went around I promptly sold at exactly the same price as I bought them less than a day later to keep myself free of any illegal trading. After realizing the crap was simply that - crap - I did my own DD and thought maybe there was a chance for the stock despite everything... In the long run I would have made a lot more money than I did here had I not errored on the side of caution... It was at about .041 before the run up to the infamous .2851. It amounted to a lost gain of about $10,000. Oh well... better safe than sorry. I can't believe so many continued to buy after they obviously believed what was being said.

But even worse was Stoxmagic, don't you think?

Audio Interview and full financial reports...

http://www.ing.com/group/showdoc.jsp?htmlid=419558_EN&menopt=ivr|qtr

ING - A profitable Bank that customers love

LONDON (MarketWatch) -- Dutch financial services group ING said Wednesday that it swung to a first-quarter net profit of 1.33 billion euros ($1.69 billion) from a year-earlier loss of 793 million euros as earnings recovered in both its banking and insurance operations. Analysts polled by Dow Jones Newswires had expected a profit of 930 million euros. ING said its banking arm was boosted by stronger savings and mortgage volumes as well as improved margins in retail banking. In insurance the firm said the market recovery had helped reduce the impact of impairments and revaluations and that sales rose nearly 21% from the fourth quarter. "We must remain vigilant as markets are still volatile and the economic recovery could prove fragile, as we have seen in recent weeks with severe market volatility amid concerns about sovereign risk," said CEO Jan Hommen.