InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 32
Posts 2667
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 03/20/2014

Re: kbrod1 post# 371276

Thursday, 05/17/2018 11:12:02 AM

Thursday, May 17, 2018 11:12:02 AM

Post# of 380513
But re-using Bridgeport is bright-line fraud.

If a criminal referral for fraud came down after the Gulas data dump, on the basis of Bridgeport not existing and Steve Orifice not signing that document at all, Foley might have been able to claim that he himself was bamboozled by some con man calling himself Steve Orifice.

That's a whole heck of a lot harder to argue after more than a year. We're to believe that never, in over a year of negotiations for $21 million, did it ever occur to Foley to try calling the number that's printed clearly on the Bridgeport letter of intent, and thereby discover that it's disconnected and that Bridgeport does not exist.

So much safer, then, to make up some vague investor company name and don't give people any contact information.

This is a clearer and sharper bit of evidence of fraud than taking photos of empty NP-1 boxes and claiming that 60,000 units were already in the retail chain.