Xun Energy, Inc. (fka XNRG)

[Huggy Bear]

Oh, but Kerry Thacker is performing IR services for XNRG on other forums.

For those of you who are indeed shareholders (unlike this individual) and require accurate information, please do not hesitate to email me or post a question to the company forum.

Which begs the question, if Thacker is providing IR services for XNRG and the IR and Marketing contract as per the Section 3(a)(10) exemption is in effect, are the contractors for CM Research LLC also providing their detailed services such as message board promotion?

I believe they are, en masse. But they do not disclose that they expect to be compensated for these services, which is a clear violation of Section 17(b) as per this precedent set in 2000 and other cases that establish the practical applications of SEC code.

The respondent's failure to disclose this remuneration was fraudulent, and in violation of Section 17(b) of the Securities Act, which makes it unlawful for any person to tout stocks for consideration without fully disclosing the consideration.

In or about late November or early December 2000, Black had a discussion with the individual who owns and operates Fleming Financial. The discussion concerned strategies for promoting the stock of SNLV. Black agreed to post messages touting SNLV's stock on the Internet as a means of promoting SNLV. Black was promised a bonus of thousands of SNLV shares in exchange for his efforts to promote the stock

Section 17(b) of the Securities Act makes it unlawful for any person to tout a stock without disclosing the nature and substance of any consideration, whether present or future, direct or indirect, received from an issuer, underwriter or dealer. The respondent violated Section 17(b) by touting SNLV on Raging Bull without disclosing the fact that he was promised compensation for doing so. See In the Matter of David A. Wood, Jr. et al., 68 SEC Docket 631 (Oct. 27,1998) (respondent violated Section 17(b) by posting messages on Internet message board touting company without disclosing compensation received); In the Matter of Eugene B. Martineau, 68 SEC Docket 629 (Oct. 27, 1998) (respondent violated Section 17(b) by posting messages on Internet message board touting company without disclosing expected compensation). Black committed or caused violations of Section 17(b) by failing to disclose the agreement to receive, indirectly from the issuer, compensation for touting SNLV stock.

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/33-7885.htm

Regarding the hijacking of the Section 3(a)(10) exemption used in this instance to pay CM Research, Vencedor for wells not drilled, and Mikolaczk another 387K for nebulous services provided in the three months directly before he became CEO, here is another good read. I certainly find Mikolaczk suing his own company for another 387K claiming he worked over 2x a normal 40 hour week for three straight months, highly suspicious. In May 2011 alone he claimed to have worked 415 hrs., well over 160 hrs., to the tune of $ 350 per hour that the public should pay for via the issuance of more shares.

http://www.securitieslawyer101.com/2013/section-3-a-10/

In my opinion the strategized sham "lawsuit" resulting in a rubber stamped sham "settlement" to try and get the public to pay over 2M for what amounts to illegal promotion and invalid debts is fraudulent.

The hijacking of the 3(a)(10) exemption is fraudulent. The illegal promotion comprises securities fraud, as already well established.

For fans of asking questions on the XNRG company forum someone ask Mikolaczk or Thacker if they sought a "no-action" review by the SEC before having a judge rubber stamp the "settlement". I bet the answer is no, and I bet the question would be ignored. Of course all parties told the judge in the proceeding the settlement was fair in their opinion, they all stand to benefit greatly from the selling of unregistered shares to the public to satisfy these "debts" owed.

But was it fair to the shareholders?

Were shareholders contacted about this lawsuit and settlement before the matter was whisked through the judicial review process?

It is not the judge's responsibility to decide if the settlement was fair to existing shareholders or if the debts were valid.

But the SEC can sort all that out. And they do not take kindly to people hijacking exemptions for their personal gain.

I do not think Thacker is well versed in matters of SEC law, or law in general. She does not even know the difference between slander and libel when she accuses folks of defamation.

A IR and marketing firm that engages in illegal promotion accusing critics of breaking the law. Threats. And spying on critics, putting their personal information on the net.

Classic. All this points to fraud trying vainly to be covered up, not legitimate big business.