ssc,
You keep repeating “fraud” like it’s a magic word that will retroactively validate your bitterness. It won’t.
Let’s walk through your logic:
You define fraud as “wrongful or criminal deception intended for personal gain.” Okay, great. Now apply that standard fairly. You’ll need to show:
1. Intent,
2. Deception, and
3. Personal gain.
Posting longshot speculation about preferred dividends, squeeze catalysts, or SPVs that never materialized is not deception unless I claimed it was guaranteed and concealed facts to mislead. Spoiler: I didn’t.
You call opinions and speculation 'lies'. That’s just lazy. I’ve always used qualifiers like “IMO,” “possibly,” and “could.” The fact that you lump speculative theories into the category of “fraud” proves you’re not arguing law—you’re venting emotion.
Your gold standard is meaningless. “Is ERHC closer to $0 or $8?” isn’t a measure of truth. It’s just a soundbite. By that logic, anyone holding Amazon at $2 in 2001 was a fraud too.
You dodge the actual burden of proof. You said I lied about Offor being Chairman. I clarified—I referenced how the organizer of the Women in Oil & Gas conference referenced him. After he passed, Peter Ntephe clarified he wasn't Chairman at that time. That’s not deception. That’s reporting what was said, then updating the record when new facts emerge. You don’t get to rewrite that with bad faith summaries.
You keep saying 'look at the posting history'. Fine—do it. Anyone who reads it honestly will see ideas debated, theories floated, and facts corrected when new info came in. What they won’t find is “fraud.”
So let’s recap: If your strongest evidence is that someone made bold predictions that didn’t pan out, welcome to literally every message board in the world.
Take a breath, ssc. Losing money doesn’t mean you’ve been lied to. Sometimes, that’s just what risk looks like. And you were warned about those risks from DAY ONE.
—Krombacher
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
