Kenco,i'm not so sure you are best served by not demonstrating where you bought your shares... as a matter of fact?
glaszman, your assuming that the "trouble makers" if indeed there even are any outside of the original settled case that this eminates from, play ball, odds are that if they were savy enough to pull off what is alledged, they are savy enough to get the case dismissed in the first place, thus leaving the "innocents" with a headache, this was filed as a way to wittle down the share and investor count by intimidating people into giving up their claim on the equity, that agreement that the plaintiff is offering is absolute proof of that, in my opinion, seriously though, anyone that actually answered without challenging the jurisdiction, or the whole case on its merits, has severely compremised their legal rights and placed themselves in legal peril.
dismissed or not? the affadavits are being collected...
and are there already even if the lawsuit is dismissed in toto by the judge
i want to be in the pile of proven innocence..it's that simple...
you are assuming automatically that Megas is trying to screw his shareholders.. he could have done that with an RS and been on his merry friggin way...
the intimidation going on here is NOT from Megas it's from the brokers who have had our money for two years and don't seem inclined to give it back...
if the lawyers are worthy? they have another lawsuit ready to go to Federal Court... i grew up around lawyers, the good ones really are about upholding the law..
so answer this: what are YOU willing to do to get this trading again (or get our money back) if you really think Megas is just about taking back peoples shares....
your statement about "absolute proof" forces me to re-evaluate my opinion of your legal acumen... everybody in the legal community knows there is NO SUCH THING as "absolute proof"...
that term is reserved for closing arguments where emotional harps are being plucked...
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
