WHPO3, I have a few observations based on general experience, not specific knowledge of the facts here.

First, I'm not accusing Excel of any knowing misrepresentation. I don't expect him to know much about the realities of corporations (or LLC's), law practice, and liability from the construction trade. That's why I kept asking where the information came from until Pengy finally answered the question.

Second, it would seem to me unlikely to a high degree that Sporkin knows that he is being represented as an "officer," "director," "managing member" or any other control capacity of Elite. (I'm not sure if Elite is a corporation or LLC.) Lawyers and law firms have pretty good defenses to liability when they're just acting as lawyers. That goes out the window once they start managing a client as an officer or director. If a quarter of the things the bashers say about Elite are true (and the fact that the president of its predecessor went to prison for a stock scam is a pretty good indication that what they're saying is true in large part), then Elite is a walking liability bomb unless it has been redeemed and mended its ways. Some here have a religious propensity to credit redemption; I'm not one of them.

Third, if a lawyer has liability, the firm and his partners will pay. Exhibit A: Arthur Anderson. Different profession but same principle. Even if Sporkin didn't have enough sense or experience to avoid a management role with Elite, and he does, his partners would lynch him.

Fourth, it is a not uncommon phenomenon for slimeballs to "rent" the name of reputable lawyers. I'm sure Robert Vesco had prestigious counsel before he skipped. The lawyers may not be and probably are not aware of the way in which the client is using their name.

My conclusion: Elite hired Sporkin as outside counsel, and some flack at Elite made the rest up. Further conclusion: Elite's statements should be scrutinized with skepticism.

Thanks for that illumination Ernie. I am in fact aware that sitting federal judges don't represent IR firms.

Pengy, thanks for clarifying the source of it, which is what I was asking.

Mydogjet, I've seen that post but it doesn't say that any of those people are board members. It also doesn't say what the source of the info is although Elite is the most likely inference. The reason I'm harping on this is that if Elite is exagerrating or misrepresenting this to Excel or others, it's significant. Lawyers are discouraged from being board members of even the most reputable clients because of the conflicts and liability. Any lawyer with a major law firm that would be a board member of Elite would be certifiably insane. I would also be surprised if Sporkin knows someone is representing him as "chief ethics officer" and "general counsel." These are inhouse positions. He is outside counsel. So again I repeat my question: what is the source of this information that he's a board member and an officer.

Excel, you have twice posted on RB (#79613 and 79655) that Sporkin is a board member of Elite. You've been popping over there to throw this out as some sort of defense to the bashers' exigesis of Elite's history of associations with scams. I've asked you three times what the source of this information is and you have yet to respond. It would be remarkable if true: he would be subjecting the entire law firm of Weil, Gotshal & Manges to possible 7 or 8 figure liability for Elite's antics. Again I ask, what is your source for this information ? I'm not asking whether it's true. I think I know the answer to that. I'm asking who told you this.

Familyinvstr, I'm sure you're a nice person, but you don't know how to read public SEC filings. "Promises" and other statements of future intent are "forward looking disclosures," which are held to a very low standard of truthfulness. There just has to be some good faith basis for such statements, even if it's a somewhat farfetched basis. NVEI might get in trouble for saying it intends to put a man on Mars next year, but it won't get in trouble for talking about its hopes of bringing a product to market and signing with a major telco if there's a 2% chance of this happening. This is why you see the standard forward looking disclosure disclaimer attached to such grand future plans. This is also why actual statements of historical facts--contracts in place, successful tests, completed acquisitions, etc.-- which are held to a much higher standard of truthfulness, mean something, and all of the smoke from NVEI's management means little.