News Focus
News Focus
Followers 1
Posts 110
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 06/05/2025

Re: Hi_Lo post# 61077

Thursday, 06/05/2025 1:41:22 PM

Thursday, June 05, 2025 1:41:22 PM

Post# of 63267
Oh, I’ve been waiting for this for so long. I’ve been following your spam for a year now.

Let’s go.

Yes, it’s my birthday for this account — I’ve literally never needed to post because what I would add was already being said. But this time, I felt the information I found wasn’t being talked about, and it might actually matter. So yeah, how dare I share due diligence.

And how fake of me to post something seemingly super bearish and still express cautious optimism, right?

You keep pointing to the lack of a filing and say it “proves” the deal doesn’t exist. For all we know, it’s still tied up in legal steps — could be NDA restrictions, could be closing out prior debts (like the one I cited), could be paperwork. It might be fake, sure — but if it's real, the silence is likely procedural.

So all your ranting comes down to:

Either the Lionsgate/Starz deal was a lie and they forged a regulatory filing (which would open them to major legal exposure),

Or it's real and they’re navigating post-deal logistics like audits, IP assignments, or regulatory compliance delays.

Either way — we’ll find out. But your nonstop spam doesn’t inform anyone — it just makes it look like you’re getting paid 15¢ a post.

As for “cleaning up messes = lying to shareholders”?
Did you even read the history? The current mess comes from the prior CEO, not Jason Black. He's trying to untangle years of shady asset transfers and litigation. Until proven otherwise, there's no evidence he’s lying — you're just painting it that way for your agenda.

You say I’m skewing things. No — I literally say it could go either way. I’m explaining why some of the delays make sense if the deal is real, and why the silence is frustrating if it’s not. You, on the other hand, say it's definitely a scam and act like the SEC has already ruled it as such. They haven’t.

And that “relief defendant” line you love to spam?
That doesn’t mean guilty — it means the court suspects someone may have received funds linked to wrongdoing. It’s a legal placeholder. Not the smoking gun you’re pretending it is.

So yes, please come back and keep this going — but understand the difference between caution and baseless certainty. I’m here breaking down why it could still resolve. You’re here trying to shout everyone down as if you know how it ends.

One of us is speculating responsibly. The other’s just loud.
Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y