Kraig Biocraft Laboratories Inc (KBLB)

[arachnodude]

Mojo, you’re mixing up “opinion,” “fact,” and “false factual assertions” like they’re interchangeable — they’re not.

Let’s clear this up:

**1. “Scumbag,” “liar,” “fraud” = opinion.

“Fake factories,” “nonexistent product,” “fabricated production numbers” = factual claims.**
One set is name-calling.
The other is asserting concrete events that can be proven true or false.

Defamation cases don’t hinge on adjectives — they hinge on false statements presented as fact.

**2. Public figure status doesn’t give immunity.

It just raises the bar to “actual malice.”

** And guess what qualifies as actual malice?

Repeating claims you know are false

Ignoring corrections with deliberate intent

Amplifying falsehoods to damage reputation or valuation


You don’t get to yell “opinion!” when you’re presenting misinformation as verified fact.

3. “Nonexistent product” is not an opinion.

It’s provably false.
The company has literally shown the material, shipped it, filmed it, lab-tested it, and reported it in filings.

Claiming something exists vs. doesn’t exist is binary.

One party is lying.

And it isn’t the company.

4. “Fake factories” is not an opinion either.

It’s a verifiable factual claim — and provably false.
Facilities exist, operated, were relocated, and have been inspected, documented, and disclosed in filings.

You don’t get to “opinion” your way out of that one.

5. Market manipulation does NOT require trading profits.

FINRA and the SEC classify “information-based manipulation” as manipulation on its own.

Profit just enhances sentencing.

Intent + repeated misinformation in an investor forum = enough for an investigation.

You don’t need a trade blotter to trigger scrutiny.

You just need a pattern of falsehoods tied to market impact.

We’ve got patterns.
Plural.

6. “It’s just a chat room” is not a legal shield.

Investor forums have been used as exhibits in dozens of SEC cases.

Courts don’t care if the lies were posted from a Bloomberg terminal or a basement on an iPad.

**7. “It’s all opinion unless proven otherwise.”

Wrong.

Claims can be defamatory even if unproven if made with reckless disregard for truth.

And repeating false statements after correction is the textbook definition of reckless disregard.

**8. “You could be sued too.”

Cute attempt at a reversal, but no.
Correcting false claims = protected.
Documenting progress = protected.
Calling out misinformation = protected.

What’s not protected?

Presenting false statements as fact
+
doing it repeatedly
+
doing it in a financial context
+
with intent to damage reputation or valuation.

That’s not opinion.
That’s not skepticism.
That’s not debate.

That’s a liability.

And deep down, you already know that.