You wrote:
"One question probably never asked Sam was how and why and who faked that employment notice for Strat that generated a mini run here awhile back. In my opinion any ethical CEO would have given investors some sort of explanation as to who those cons were and just what did Sam find out about that lie.It can be traced and should have been."
Wrong. That question WAS asked. And he is under no obgligation to give an explanation and it has nothing to do with ethics. He put something up on the website (shocking I know) refuting it. Could it have been traced? Maybe. Maybe not. In either case, he didn't want to go through the time, hassle and expense to do it especially if it would be a road that lead to nowhere. I can tell you that in the beginning, I felt the same way as you, until one of the websites that I own came under the same kind of attack. He knows full well pinkys like his are ripe for games.
and you wrote:
"But it was wrong and a lie involving Strat and hurtful to his reputation looking for investment capital.It appears controversy and false information follows this CEO so no wonder he has problems finding money to do what needs to be done to succeed.The cease and desist order by Sam was not enough in my book.It involved the flow of a lot of money over a lie at the time here."
C'mon Tek, one thing has nothing to do with the other. Money will be lent according to what they can show TODAY as far as profits, payback ability, timelines etc. A money guy isn't going to look at a fraud website put up by some European punk or a cavorting with Frank Love or MRS or care about past relationships if the business model he is looking at is solid and verifiable.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
