Voip Pal Com Inc (VPLM)

[nyt]

That's a good point, because the 2 things the jury found against vplm are very close to fraud.. But that's not the point here. The point is really just semantics I think. If a jury finds "FOR" one side & "AGAINST" the other side, how the hell is that not the same as GUILTY? In other words, if you are charged with something bad, something that is basically ripping shareholders off, and a jury finds that to be the case, then how can you not say the party that has committed these things, is not guilty. If not how, then why? Give me a break...