InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 322
Posts 19699
Boards Moderated 1
Alias Born 06/01/2007

Re: ChaseDog31 post# 57106

Friday, 11/16/2018 6:24:02 AM

Friday, November 16, 2018 6:24:02 AM

Post# of 79329
Your post makes sense. I cannot fault the logic, but I think your post is based on faulty assumptions.

You are assuming that Clayton is not involved in the scam or that Bland has no continuing leverage over him. And yet all facts point in the other direction.

Why no new lawyer? Why no clarification in PR? Why did Sixty-Six give away their company? Why no transparency on the audit problem that Clayton himself agreed would prevent this from being audited (he agreed when he signed the LOI)? Why does there seem to be a raft of back-channel communications that benefit some at the expense of others?

Yes, we have the heartfelt testimony of Clayton' dad. Is that enough?

I am obviously NOT an investment advisor.