Spongetech Delivery Systems, Inc. (fka SPNGQ)

[patchman]

bwog,

You are not reading what I stated. You are using assumptions, I am using facts.

Follow this link to the SpongeTech Lawsuit and read Page 6 and 7. In the suit, Spongetech is admitting that all the funds for GFGU came from RME.

http://investigatethesec.com/drupal-5.5/files/SPNG%20getfugu%20lawsuit.pdf

You should likewise follow this link for a copy of a Transfer Agent report on the share structure in late June.

http://investigatethesec.com/drupal-5.5/files/Forged%20Documents.pdf

So these are not assumptions but data that supports this theory. Historical practices likewise support this theory as SPNG (in 2009 filings) have documented that the business burn rate vastly exceeds profits. They borrowed nearly $12 Million (at nearly a billion share dilution) thru February 2009 despite these great profits. Nothing significant changed since then that would say that this practice would be altered. Even their theoretical $70 Million in booked orders would not have supported the June - September cash burn based on lead times in production, sales and accounts receivable delays.

The A/S does not move around this frequently for no reason. If the O/S is staying the same there is no treason to spend the money constantly moving the A/S. Not recognizing this is simply being naive.