Spongetech Delivery Systems, Inc. (fka SPNGQ)

[hoggey1]

Like I've said spooky, you don't understand the process. Let's say you're right about RME and the 3rd parties. The only way those shares managed to get into circulation was through brokerage firms taking them in on deposit and for eventual sale/distribution onto the public markets.

It would have been virtually impossible for, as you say, "no brokers did anything wrong." For this scheme to work, they would need the help of one or more brokerage firm to take the shares in for deposit and eventually to be distributed into the public markets, thus finding their way into circulation.

So very sorry spooky since that's just not true what you said that "no broker did anything wrong." Either you're completely wrong about this matter, RME, 3rd parties, etc. or you're right but no broker has yet been named for the violation. That would be curious too that no BD would have been named for such by this point in time.

If this happened as you claim, then the broker(s) taking the shares in did in fact incur serious violations because they made it possible for those shares to get into circulation and then for people like myself to purchase them in the public market.

Broker Dealers "are considered the first line of defense when it comes to preventing the illegal distribution of unregistered shares into the public markets." That's a direct quote from FINRA's James S Shorris, FINRA Executive Vice President and Executive Director of Enforcement. He's the authority on this matter - not you.

http://www.finra.org/Newsroom/NewsReleases/2010/P121331

Brokers are required to make sure the shares they take in are good, legally registered shares - especially when dealing with penny stocks like SPNG and indeed, large amounts of penny stock.

Regardless of any opinion letter from an attorney, it's the broker dealers responsibility to check with the SEC to make sure those shares are in fact registered shares. Forget the Transfer Agents responsibility in the matter, the broker is the first line of defense. Yet no BD has been named in complaint - not so far at least or so far as I'm aware.

I suggest you once again, check the facts. Maybe you're right about RME - perhaps we'll see a broker named at a later date for violating the rules requiring they check the shares before allowing them to be illegally distributed into the public market.

Without those broker dealers, the case has serious flaws. And that doesn't even address my other points about the illgotten gains and the banks/financial firms and the Bank Secrecy Act, Anti Money Laundering, Know Your Customer, etc....