News Focus
News Focus
Followers 160
Posts 14046
Boards Moderated 2
Alias Born 02/27/2008

Re: drkazmd65 post# 49321

Monday, 10/24/2011 12:35:22 PM

Monday, October 24, 2011 12:35:22 PM

Post# of 60939
It has ALREADY come out...

The "records" issues, plural ? The management were trying to use management's obstructions to generate a distraction, by posturing they were doing the opposite of what they were doing in fact. And, that is a proof...

They were lying about the "old records" issue. They claimed the "problem" was Dave Williams... when the problem was management's refusal to comply with the law.

We see that SAME pattern in the "new records" issue... where they are AGAIN seen lying... about the FACT that the management (and the lawyers) are wrongly denying board members access to the company's records, which they are required BY LAW to have.

What Peirce said in her filing with the court... is patently untrue... and proven untrue.

The judge took one look at it, in their original ex parte filing... and slapped them down hard... denying their ex parte action.

So, why is there even a case in California... at all... given the judge ALREADY flat out denied the management's bogus ex parte action ?

There is clearly something not right with this management...



Discover What Traders Are Watching

Explore small cap ideas before they hit the headlines.

Join Today