"The so-called Designation does not say anyone was issued the shares."
It's not supposed to.
"The 8K does, but the resolution (RESOLVED) does not."
The 8K IS supposed to.
What resolution? What you are calling the resolution (RESOLVED) is the Certificate of Designation.
"Did you see this? It appears the Former Fab 4 may have gotten 1B shares IN ADDITION to the 60 Preferred shares, but "So" says ClearTrust provided NO paperwork for this 1B issuance linked below. This doesn't appear to be a conversion of the Preferred A, but an additional issuance. How could this have been missed by Sonfield and V-Stock?"
Of course I saw that. The 1B common didn't come from a conversion of the preferred....there seems to be no evidence that there ever was such a conversion.
"Under the agreement said shares are issued but shall be held for purposes of vesting under the control of the corporation with vesting occurring at a rate of 1/60th of such shares per month for a period of 60 months, and such shares will be subject to Rule 144 holding regulations when vested."
You and the CEO and the vaunted barrister and defendant Sonfield have been chasing the wrong billion shares all along. Who knows how much DD Sonfield did? This great awakening that the common shares at issue AREN'T from a conversion of the preferred should have happened when the common certs, the NV file and the quoted 10-K were compared....if they had been compared.
Now, as you can see from the quote, there was a vesting period for the PROPER common that should have resulted in a court case anyway given that the 5 year vesting period was, and is, far from over. Furthermore the shares were supposed to be held by the corporation pending vesting.
"This is a comedy off errors."
It is. With contributions from numerous sources.
If you see fit to secure and post the 4 page designation filed with Nevada, also please consider restoring the Preferred E documents that were removed for some reason. Not only did they have some conflicting terms that made for fun reading, but I'm sure you agree that shareholders should be able to see how Mr. Pierce hijacked their company. Why was it removed in the first place?
ps. "And yes, "So" told me on the morning before WOPR came out, which was the day of the hearing, that Huffman said that filing what they did with the SEC was enough...."
"So" told me.......that Huffman said.
And you are reporting it. It doesn't get any better than that.
"I ated the purple berries"
