Nexus Energy Services Inc (IBGR)

[Peggy]

The ipr Steve Martin(CommonCents) was paid 1000 dollars per month by PHAR.

Why should anyone believe the above quote? Please produce some evidence more believable than an email from Howard or a tweat from his monkey.

He was also given cert. Form shares that are dilutive once sold into the market.

Please provide some proof and details of this as well. Saying it does not make it true. Plus, last time I checked PHAR has approx 1 BILLION shares outstanding at the current time. It would take a heck of a lot of cert form shares to have any dilutive impact on 1 BILLION shares. Even 10 million would be a drop in the ocean of a bucket of 1 BILLLION shares. A bit curious don't you think? I certainly think it is curious. And, if the cert form shares that this former employee was issued were not restricted as appears to be the case, well, the former employee would have been within his or her rights to dispose of said shares at any time. The fact that such an action occurred and allegedly had a negative impact on the value of PHAR stock, well, that's tough, nothing more and certainly not illegal.

But it gets worse. It is completely improper for the actual employer of the employee to diss in public. Have charges been levied or is an officer of PHAR simply sliming the former employee? Well, if charges have been filed, then PHAR just stepped on its poncho by publicly sliming the former employee and jeopardizing any future legal action. That alone could easily be grounds for dismissal of the charges.

Secondly, if charges have not been filed, PHAR's public dissing is actually grounds for a suit by the employee. For that matter, a countersuit could easily be filed even if charges have been filed. And, the last time I checked, any accused individual is presumed innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law. All I can see here is public pilloring of an individual outside our legal system. Probably not a good idea.

In addition, what gives anyone on IHUB the right to spread this improperly disclosed information protected by the Privacy Act? IHUB rules may not prevent personal attacks because of the status of the former employee as an IRP for PHAR. But I can assure anyone who cares to listen that the laws of the United States do afford many protections for the former employee. I would also suggest that anyone who contemplates releasing such information, whether vetted or not, should probably read the full IHUB TOS first. Should charges be levied in this or any case, IHUB is obligated to provide otherwise private contact information if requested by proper authority.

Plus, how would anyone other than an employee of PHAR have access to such information that is clearly protected by the Privacy Act? Such information must be tightly controlled within the company and certainly cannot be released willy nilly outside the company. It is obvious that information protected by the Privacy Act has been improperly released outside of PHAR. The person who released this information is clearly in the wrong as is the outsider ... both may also be subject to additional legal actions because of this.

It would be easy for the former employee to secure legal advice in this matter. I can easily see legal remedies being taken against PHAR, against any officers of PHAR and against any other employee of PHAR who has publicly and without permission, released Privacy Act information to this board and elsewhere. Particularly egregious is the possibility that such information apparently has been released to someone whose only admitted association with PHAR is as a shareholder.

Of course, I have no personal knowledge of anything that actually occurred. But I certainly do not believe most of what I read here since there is no way to vet the information.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond to your post.