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.
Very well. Apology withdrawn.
My post was not intended to be a sacrilege. It was meant to be an analogous comparison to the absence of proof in audited numbers and the faith needed to stay with it. After 15 years (yes, that's right) it also requires the patience of Jobe. If you're offended, you have my apology.
BTW, were you, by chance, involved in Operation Pegasus (1968)?
I agree with all of these tools you speak of but how do you guesstimate the value of the properties now owned or under contract by GRNO without property tax and assessment info. and how do you even make a determination of the tax base responsibilities? As for the number of barrels estimates, they've been changed by various actors in the play and all I've found are guesstimates on product production, on which I can not rely without those reports that have not yet been submitted and I don't mean the unaudited reports that have been filed.
In fact, all I've seen so far is a new model of what I'd compare to the Jesus Christ business formula, blind trust and faith with the same old story written by a good number of different authors. Why, the cult leader even sports a beard and he has a number of disciples and little to no proof. Sorry, I'm trying to stay on topic, here but the government seems to think that in this case, the separation of church and state should apply. I'm inclined to agree. Sharon D. Mitchell, a lawyer and not (to my knowledge) a C.P.A. is the one in charge of those missing dead sea scrolls. I wish her success in the resurrection.
I'm not sure I understand what you're meaning by "NSS", unless it is naked short sales or naked short squeeze or part of "CNSS" or continuous net settling system.
To my knowledge, there has never been a reverse split or a delisting of GRNO which would prevent a broker trade except for a short (I believe) 10 day period in 1997 or 98 when the SEC suspended trading during investigation of Bill Carraway. Other than that, it's always been listed and an active issue although without much action. I don't know what term would be accurately used to describe the sale of the shell to Peter Margiotta and Frank Pellizzari but I think it was mostly between B.C. and P.M. It was originally on the OTC BB but got bumped to pinks and has been there ever since. I think the co. is trying to climb back out of the pinks and is waiting for the back dated reports. I think that's why it's not up to reporting standards even though it has filed reports since the resurrection.
Significant information, therein. Explains the rules for reporting and non reporting. Very similar to SEC explanation except that, as I recall, SEC says that once the corp becomes reporting, must continue to be reporting for a year as long as it meets those shareholder and capital value tests. It also says that the corp is not required to report after that if it does not meet those tests. As I recall, when GRNO was in the $0.70 0 .50 range it met the cap value test but certainly did not when it fell below it and does not now. There's also a 300 shareholder test level to consider but I have no idea how many shareholders there are.
I would toss in a guess of maybe 100 - 200 but I can't find any current record of the correct number which would probably be a matter of record if the corp were to ever again meet the reporting requirements. Until then, it stays pink.
All day the chart looked as though the volume was covered shorts. I have no way of making that determination until the end of the day. This turned out to be wrong. Volume was 223,475 and the short volume was 152,000. I guess I just don't understand why, with the potential to increase business and to profit these guys have indicated in press releases and audio interviews recently, there should be a constant increase in short volume at .04, unless ...
click on a couple of these http://www.sec.gov/litigation/suspensions.shtml and you will find the companies were suspended for not being current with their reporting obligations as per section 12 referenced and partially copied below.
I read a few of the SEC orders within these files and can see where you might have legitimate concerns in the failure of many of these companies to have filed in years. However, although the case for failure to file has been shown in each of these of relevance, it does not indicate that GRNO should be included in these same categories. GRNO has filed within the last 6 months or so and although that filing is not audited, GRNO has indicated that it is not audited, shown that it is enlisting the help of a competent and professional lawyer with expertise in the very matter of bringing a delinquent filing company up to date with the approval of the S.E.C. The company is showing qualitative results in being on target or better in their predictions and is indicating an increase in business at an international level. It is also doing everything within reason to get those audited reports filed as soon as possible. That does not necessarily mean tomorrow.
If, after knowing of this, you still have concerns over the company's validity, it might be time for you to consider abandoning any financial interest you might have acquired. After having done more due diligence than most investors, as you have previously stated, you should be well aware of the situation at hand and can either resolve to depart for greener pastures or show more patience than you have been accustomed to. In either case, such negative activity as you have displayed is without merit or cause. Consider that this has not been an easy trip for anyone involved and you can just imagine a daily encounter with the separation of the raw slop into useable, salable product of value and that which is left to dispose of in an environmentally acceptable manner. As a boss of mine once told me, sometimes you have to take the bitter with the sweet.
Did you ask your SEC lawyer friend about the status of the Balallan suit?
http://www.formationsdirect.com/companyrestorationprocedure.aspx
You might want to do some due on that one, too.
After reading the link you posted, I see some striking similarities in the schemes used and those that may or may not be used in the manipulation of this company's stock. I have seen no use of botnets or spam emails but pages 8,9 and 10 read out to be looking very familiar. The false letterhead scenario gives me pause when I consider the timeliness of the latest press release and subsequent trading activity.
During the phase of the first GRNO there were no botnets but the promotions were pretty similar with a conspiracy between the owner and a promoter, I believe in Chicago and an unwitting but very willing third party who was pretty much sucked into the frey with the compensation of a computer printer (and it was probably a used printer). The SEC and DOJ handily shut down trading and prosecuted the three of them. The heart of the corp. a piece of equipment promoted to turn waste motor oil into No. 2 diesel oil and some other useful byproducts. The machine never did work although it was made to appear as though it did during demonstrations to investors.
This is not to be confused or associated with the current GRNO which is entirely different
with different people and different business plan. I can't understand, beyond the concept of manipulation, why the stock price, even without release of reports required to advance to a higher echelon stock listing exchange, with announcements most positive, would not increase unless it is being accumulated. But where are those shares coming from?
I don't have to understand it, as long as you understand it. The SEC must have told them exactly what you said it should have told them, really put their collective authoritative foot down because I haven't seen one bogus filing for a really long time. I expect the SEC has been getting their lessons from you.
Per your link: http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/GRNO/company-info
GRNO is traded through OTC Pink, not a national securities exchange as expressed in Section 12(a) (page 109) http://www.sec.gov/about/laws/sea34.pdf which is referred from Section 13(a) (page 120) http://www.sec.gov/about/laws/sea34.pdf, your reference.
http://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/mrotc.shtml Link to OTC Pink
http://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/mrexchanges.shtml Link to National Securities Exchanges
Therefore, the reference you site does not apply to Pink Sheet listings.
Wait one minute. Your initial reference was section 13(a) and not 13. Section 13. refers to Sections 12 and 15(d) which indicate that the rules listed in Section 13 and 130(a) do not apply to pink sheet listings. You're just going to have to be more specific in directive.
Also, in accordance with Section 12 (Page 111) Paragraph D:
(D) The Commission may prescribe, by rule or regulation such
additional procedures or requirements for extending unlisted trad
ing privileges to any security as the Commission deems necessary
or appropriate for the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, the
protection of investors and the public interest, or otherwise in fur
therance of the purposes of this title.
So, Section 12 preempts Section 13 and although, probably does not apply to GRNO in their attempts to become reporting compliant, it specifically states that the S.E.C. may extend privileges if it determines to be necessary. It is apparent that this is what they are doing. I don't have time to read through the entire act just now, even if I seriously doubt there's anything in there that will apply specifically apply to pinks or grno. Your argument has no credence.
Here is 13A in its entirety. I am still unable to find the part that requires full reporting for pinks. If you would show me which paragraph expressly pertains to a requirement of full reporting to avoid suspension of trading, I would really appreciate it. If you require assistance, you might contact that S.E.C. lawyer for a more direct interpretation. Thanks.
SEC. 13A. REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING FOR CERTAIN SECU
RITY-BASED SWAPS.
(a) REQUIRED REPORTING OF SECURITY-BASED SWAPS NOT AC
CEPTED BY ANY CLEARING AGENCY OR DERIVATIVES CLEARING OR
GANIZATION.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Each security-based swap that is not ac
cepted for clearing by any clearing agency or derivatives clear
ing organization shall be reported to—
(A) a security-based swap data repository described in
section 13(n); or
(B) in the case in which there is no security-based
swap data repository that would accept the security-based
swap, to the Commission pursuant to this section within
such time period as the Commission may by rule or regula
tion prescribe.
(2) TRANSITION RULE FOR PREENACTMENT SECURITY-BASED
SWAPS.—
(A) SECURITY-BASED SWAPS ENTERED INTO BEFORE THE
DATE OF ENACTMENT OF THE WALL STREET TRANSPARENCY
AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2010.—Each security-based
swap entered into before the date of enactment of the Wall
Street Transparency and Accountability Act of 2010, the
terms of which have not expired as of the date of enact
ment of that Act, shall be reported to a registered security-
based swap data repository or the Commission by a date
that is not later than—
(i) 30 days after issuance of the interim final rule;
or
(ii) such other period as the Commission deter
mines to be appropriate.
(B) COMMISSION RULEMAKING.—The Commission shall
promulgate an interim final rule within 90 days of the
date of enactment of this section providing for the report
ing of each security-based swap entered into before the
date of enactment as referenced in subparagraph (A).
(C) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The reporting provisions de
scribed in this section shall be effective upon the date of
the enactment of this section.
(3) REPORTING OBLIGATIONS.—
(A) SECURITY-BASED SWAPS IN WHICH ONLY
COUNTERPARTY IS A SECURITY-BASED SWAP DEALER OR
MAJOR SECURITY-BASED SWAP PARTICIPANT.—With respect
1
143 SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 Sec. 13A
to a security-based swap in which only 1 counterparty is
a security-based swap dealer or major security-based swap
participant, the security-based swap dealer or major secu
rity-based swap participant shall report the security-based
swap as required under paragraphs (1) and (2).
(B) SECURITY-BASED SWAPS IN WHICH 1 COUNTERPARTY
IS A SECURITY-BASED SWAP DEALER AND THE OTHER A
MAJOR SECURITY-BASED SWAP PARTICIPANT.—With respect
to a security-based swap in which 1 counterparty is a secu
rity-based swap dealer and the other a major security-
based swap participant, the security-based swap dealer
shall report the security-based swap as required under
paragraphs (1) and (2).
(C) OTHER SECURITY-BASED SWAPS.—With respect to
any other security-based swap not described in subpara
graph (A) or (B), the counterparties to the security-based
swap shall select a counterparty to report the security-
based swap as required under paragraphs (1) and (2).
(b) DUTIES OF CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS.—Any individual or entity
that enters into a security-based swap shall meet each requirement
described in subsection (c) if the individual or entity did not—
(1) clear the security-based swap in accordance with sec
tion 3C(a)(1); or
(2) have the data regarding the security-based swap ac
cepted by a security-based swap data repository in accordance
with rules (including timeframes) adopted by the Commission
under this title.
(c) REQUIREMENTS.—An individual or entity described in sub
section (b) shall—
(1) upon written request from the Commission, provide re
ports regarding the security-based swaps held by the indi
vidual or entity to the Commission in such form and in such
manner as the Commission may request; and
(2) maintain books and records pertaining to the security-
based swaps held by the individual or entity in such form, in
such manner, and for such period as the Commission may re
quire, which shall be open to inspection by—
(A) any representative of the Commission;
(B) an appropriate prudential regulator;
(C) the Commodity Futures Trading Commission;
(D) the Financial Stability Oversight Council; and
(E) the Department of Justice.
(d) IDENTICAL DATA.—In prescribing rules under this section,
the Commission shall require individuals and entities described in
subsection (b) to submit to the Commission a report that contains
data that is not less comprehensive than the data required to be
collected by security-based swap data repositories under this title.
(June 6, 1934, ch. 404, title I, Sec. 13A, as added Pub. L. 111-203,
title VII, Sec. 766(a), July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 1797.)
http://www.otcpinkstocks.com/pink_sheet_stock_what_investor.html
OTCPinkStocks.com What Investors May Want to Know About Pink Sheet Stocks.
There are no minimum quantitative standards, which must be met by an issuer for its securities to be quoted on the Pink Sheets.
Pink Sheet Stock Issuers do not have to be reporting companies with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
Pink Sheet Stock Issuers do not have any ongoing filing or reporting requirements with the SEC or the NASD for quotation in the Pink Sheets.
Investors must contact a broker/dealer to trade Pink Sheet Stock securities. Investors do not have direct access to the Pink Sheet Stock service.
The SEC's Order-Handling Rules which apply to Nasdaq-listed securities do not apply to Pink Sheets securities.
There's more, if you're interested.
Good point, Rocker. Show me an IRS filing for any public corp. I've never seen one publicized. Not even a 501(c)3 is required to do that. To clarify, other than textbook examples (including IRS publications) I don't think I've ever seen (scrutinized) an IRS filing, other than my own. Show me.
At this time, GRNO is a pinksheet listed public corp. What required reporting are you talking about? An attorney who specializes in compilation of past due annual reports has expressed her efforts to bring the corp. up to date with S.E.C. requirements. It's taking longer than anyone would care to wait. It also involves gathering of data of over a decade of not only activity but non-activity of many years, not to mention the "alleged" fraud involved prior to the new and current ownership of the shell of the previous corp. In accordance with accepted rules, a pink listing has no requirements for public reporting other than to the S.E.C., which is in the works. For the current insider people, there is no evidence of deception. Although there has been very little supplied in the way of quantifying, there is good reason to believe that business is increasing and in the international arena, past annuals will be filed to S.E.C., public reports will be filed and the corp. will be able to move from pinks back to OTCBB and if there is increase in sales, revenues and earnings, it just might get to NASDAQ status. No one knows, at this point.
I do believe however, that there is an entity of collaborative proportions engaged in an effort to drive the corp. value worthless. I see no evidence that there are insider stock sales into the market that are intentionally feeding this effort. I think it is a matter of being a victim of circumstance. It appears to me that every buyside transaction that is held in broker account is immediately loaned to short sale. I do wish there was someone in charge of preventing this kind of activity. Be patient.
Show me. Provide a link.
Good find, Nit. International licensing of proprietary tech. is not a bad way to create a revenue stream. Although I'm not ready to call Pete Margiotta the Steve Jobs of reclaimation oil technology, the idea of expanding internationally is creative and encouraging. I was listening to the interview of 8/3/2011 again today. I think there was a quick mention of something involved with that kind of a project but it was quick and it didn't hit home until now. Still waiting patiently for those numbers to file. From there it's a move back to OTCBB.
Good one. Thanks.
Bullish days on bullish news and all this positive electricity are very encouraging, I admit. The one disturbing question I have for today is, with all of this recent bullishness, thinking that such news would motivate a buying spree of near unprecedented numbers. Instead, I went to check regsho for short volume to find that of today's total volume of 619,254, the short volume is 413,100 over last Friday's 5,000 and the previous five trading days short volume of 0. Now, some may try and explain this as being slow in accounting but regsho clears every day, completed in a little over an hour after the close of trading. So, if GRNO is such a bullish prospect, why is there such a short volume and where is it coming from?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_spiral_financing
Waiting patiently for quantified and varified. Enough with rarified.
Luke, you will need to show your work in your math computation. It's making no sense.
7,000 barrels in July, if they sold @ 80.00 per gallon that would be 595,000 dollars in sales for July.
If you do decide to call or otherwise contact Peter or other actual GRNO key execs., you might want to ask about that key piece of equipment they "acquired" for a slop oil mobile processing unit that was reported on in May and whether it was actually "acquired" as stated in the news release or if it was just ordered. If it was actually "acquired" as stated, where is it now and if it is being used in the processing process as intended. If it is being used in the process as intended, is it making a significant difference and can that difference be quantified and if so, what is the difference. If it wasn't actually "acquired" as indicated in the news release but instead, only ordered at that time, has it been received yet? If it hasn't been received yet, has the fabricator of that key part given a time frame by which that part can be expected to be completed, shipped and received? If it has been completed, shipped and/or received, when is the installation of that key component expected to be completed? Once that is completed, how long is it expected to be before the equipment in which it is installed is up and running and on line? If the execs have any or no information in this regard, I'd appreciate it if you would post response.
It's also my understanding that one poster (wookie1) here on this board took it upon himself to communicate with Stephen Taylor of Taylor Capital regarding updates in a number of past due quarterly and annual financial reports. The report (#32705) was that Taylor indicated some of the filings had been filed and the rest were being finished. I'm skeptical because Sharon D. Mitchell did not indicate this in her phone conversation, which I'm sure she would have, had she been so far along in the filing process. I would suggest to Mr. Margiotta that he confer with Mr. Taylor on this to confirm or deny such information. The next step would be contingent on Mr. Margiotta's reply.
DISREGARD PREVIOUS POST-ASKED AND ANSWERED
Re: deitcher Post # 32755 "No. Ms. Mitchell does not sell real estate anywhere."
This web address included the email address for Sharon D. Mitchell as:
Email her at SharonDMac@att.net
http://www.sandtoseaproperties.com/bin/web/real_estate/AR156792/CITY_OVERVIEW/DISPLAY/LI0/LIDTOP125968/AR156792/1310690465.html
The same email is in this web address
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/914257/000143209311000034/filename1.htm
Sharon D. Mitchell, Attorney at Law
57492 Onaga Trail · Yucca Valley, California 92284
1410 Washington Drive · Stafford, Virginia 22554
(248) 515-6035 (Phone) (248) 751-6030 (Facsimile) sharondmac@att.net
This is a genuine conundrum. How is this possible if she does not sell real estate?
Could this be a doppelganger situation? Two lawyers named Sharon D. Mitchell at the same address but one sells real estate and the other one doesn't? What are the chances of that happening again? Is that a feramin playing, that I hear?
deitcher, thank you for taking the initiative to phone Sharon D. Mitchell. You have made my day. I expected to see some sort of financial report sometime this month but I don't expect that to happen, now. That's not for the same reasons I had yesterday which have been based on my incorrect opinion of being just another scam following in the footsteps of B.C. Now, I can justify reforming a positive attitude and opinion of the new GRNO and management and support. This is based on a realistic time frame to complete those past financial reports and that it just takes a lot more time than has been expected.
And my apologies to you, too.
Show me where I said she was not!!! Are you really that stupid or are you just playing too???
I'm sure I'm stupid if I bought into GRNO but I'm not so sure we're speaking the same language. I just can't seem to find where Sharon D. Mitchell said all that you said she said.
From: post# 32720
From the GRNO 8K letterhead:
Quote:
Sharon D. Mitchell, Attorney at Law
57492 Onaga Trail · Yucca Valley, California 92284
1410 Washington Drive · Stafford, Virginia 22554
(248) 515-6035 (Phone) (248) 751-6030 (Facsimile) sharondmac@att.net
"Now why do you insist that some other person, despite having the same name, some legal training, and be from the same area could be this same person, even after her ad says she sells real estate and is not a lawyer and if you need a lawyer, do not bother her because she is not the Sharon D. Mitchell you are looking for?"
Huh?
My guess is, buys are shorts covering at .04 to sell back at .06 or maybe because report filings are expected soon. There have been very few shorts in the last several weeks.
Here is another, a FL Corp with a Canadian Hqtrs.:
https://www.otciq.com/otciq/ajax/showFinancialReportById.pdf?id=47739
Notice the phone number (area code) and just below that and to the left where it says,
"*Admitted in Michigan". This all seems compellingly convincing that the atty. listed here is the same Sharon D. Mitchell professionally connected with GRNO.
And her area of expertise is consistent with that for which GRNO has retained her.
Here is an example, complete with her phone and address.
http://google.brand.edgar-online.com/EFX_dll/EDGARpro.dll?FetchFilingHTML1?ID=6331453&SessionID=aw-eHSCVNX36B47
She is licensed to practice law in at least three states; CA, VA and MI. Take a look at the area code. I say, she is the Sharon D. Mitchell professionally connected with GRNO. What makes you think she is not? Didn't you read her web site front page? Didn't you research her licensing, her phone number? If you run across a Sharon D. Mitchell in IA who is also a lawyer, chances are, she is not the person connected with GRNO. Chances are, the one in Yucca Valley is.
Here's an interesting link, random choice, out of the blue on a serendipitous search for info on Sharon D. Mitchell.
http://articles.directorym.com/About_Divorce_Yucca_Valley_CA-r990881-Yucca_Valley_CA.html
Go to the last name entry in the left column. See the "248" area code. Where is that area code? Detroit? Really? Could that explain why she's licensed to practice law in CA, VA, MI?
She uses her multiple residential addresses as business addresses, too?
Law is a hobby? I found an article the other day on her representing a corporate client in a situation very much the same as the GRNO situation; getting annual and quarterly reports up to date.
You're right. I can see where that interpretation can be made. Pardon my sarcasm. It's unsettling to consider the possibility that if I have slop oil waste oil in quantity to get rid of and have no place for it that won't get me into environmental trouble, I'd be quite happy to pay someone to take it off my hands with the intent of recycling it as a product, even if the intention is only to collect the handling fee and stockpile it until the E.P.A. levees a steep fine for pollution hoarding, distributing the money as salary and filing bankruptcy. Of course, that would never happen.
Paula, (Re: 32701) I have no clue how you were able to infer from my post 32699 that a video of oil-water separation is fake. The green oasis environmental website video doesn't work, for me so I haven't seen it. I doubt if it's fake since, barring some form of emulsifier, oil and water do not mix. In fact, of the two compounds oil at approx. 6 lbs/gallon is liter than water at approx. 8 lbs/gallon. That's why oil floats on top of water. To promote an apparatus that separates oil from water, a function that happens spontaneously in nature, seems a bit bogus to me. So, to answer your question, I am skeptical.
Have you seen the video B.C. put out on his magic box, turning used motor oil into #2 diesel fuel? What do you think of that "technology"? I know I was sold on it. So were many others. This time around, not so fast. And in regard to Sharon D. Mitchell, I still ask what the significance of the relationship with GRNO is. Is she their lawyer first or is she their real estate broker first? I was under the impression that GRNO already had an in house lawyer.
Why is it that Sharon D. Mitchell's interaction with GRNO was so significant? I forgot.
Sharon D. Mitchell, Attorney at Law
57492 Onaga Trail, Yucca Valley, California 92284
1410 Washington Drive • Stafford, Virginia 22554
(248) 515-6035 (Phone) (248) 751-6030 (Facsimile) sharondmac@att.net
Area Code 248 - Detroit (Oakland County) MI
Licensed in CA, VA, MI
http://www.sandtoseaproperties.com/bin/web/real_estate/AR156792/CITY_OVERVIEW/DISPLAY/LI0/LIDTOP125968/AR156792/1310690465.html
Sharon D. Mitchell, Realtor/Senior Sales Associate
Sharon D. Mitchell is an experienced real estate agent based in Yucca Valley. She also is trained as an attorney and is a Marine Corps spouse. She brings extensive experience and integrity to the table, representing sellers and buyers of residential, investment and land properties from Yucca Valley, 29 Palms and Joshua Tree through the Inland Empire, to San Diego County. Email her at SharonDMac@att.net. ??*Though trained as an attorney, Sharon represents her clients as a realtor/agent and not as an attorney. She does not give legal advice. For legal advice, consult your personal attorney or other legal representative.
I'm looking for info on retirement beach front properties that Pete might be buying with his powerball winnings. I'm done with sitting around waiting for financial reports filed by these people. I'm done thinking that these facility properties are anything more than locations to dump waste oil that will never be cleaned up or recycled or sold or anything but sit there. When the pollution fines start showing up the next step is bankruptcy with shareholders holding this bag of slop. That's my opinion. It's not much different than the plan B.C. offered; waiting on the secret part, no audited forms, late on every required form, not one year, not one quarter. The last revenue projection of 4/19/11 was of the Montana facility with $300,000/mo. for May & June - $600,000! The co. can't even provide an update on that projection, let alone a financial report. Just latch on to that skyhook.
can anyone think of a search term that will force ccp or grno to turn up?
The Mounties are on the way! Try that one.
It's the heat.
The "employees" link does mention 250 employees but it has nothing to do with CCP.
It is about IDCC (Interdigital Communications).
I have yet to find an employee link at the CCP website:
http://www.customcarbonprocessing.com/index.html
Maybe there is someone in the Gillette area contracted to visit the mail drop on occasion.
Why would there not be a mention of the facility in Evanston, WY, if it were even remotely connected to GRNO or CCP?
Also, with all of the sites GRNO has announced as being functional, there must be one of those with notoriety at the local level. At least a mention, an ataboy or a good job or a bad job or a no job. Here we are, two weeks into the 2nd half, 2011 and still no financial report, even during typical financial report season. As for make up reports for past years, they've been written off by SEC as undeterminable. I've got that somewhere but can't find it. Of course, if GRNO can't find it, why should I be expected to find it? The shorts volume is being increased almost everyday. There was one day this week when total volume was 110,000 and shorts were 55,000. That tells me that, of the 110,000 shares traded, half were bought to fill the other half that shorted.