NewStream Energy Technologies Group Inc (NSGP)

[whiplash]

Oh, its not naive at all. The mistake is as plain as day in the complaint, its even in the title.

If a CEO is no longer with a company, but the CEO comitted such acts as outlined in the complaint at a past time while he was with the company, you can't charge the company with an offense if the company did not benefit from the offenses and the CEO directed everything be done at the time of the offenses. Its a violation of due process. To do otherwise is like charging you with an offense that was comitted by the guy next door (unless you benefitted). The complaint assumes Hague is still the responsible person at the company thus the use of the AND in the complaint title. Overall, thus the mistake with the company being included. There is no "DOUGLAS D. HAGUE, and )
CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.," there is only Hague. Its very clear in the complaint that nothing was done without Hague directing it be done. There is no "the company" just jumping in and doing anything on its own without direction.

No where in the complaint is it charged that the company benefited. No where in the complaint does it say "the company" just jumped in and did all this without Hague directing it be done.

All actions in the complaint were done as a result of Hague's actions (Douglas too to a certain degree). He is the one alledged in the complaint to have ordered the transfer of certificates, he is the one alleged to have signed the certificates, he is the one alleged to have been involved with the "trust fund", he is the one alleged to have discussed and acted on any payments, Douglas too to a certain degree. Its Hagues signatures that are on everything and nothing happened unless he directed it to be done. thast what the case is about, there is no "the company" did this all on its own with Hague directing it be done.

Once a case is filed, in such a situation, the SEC does not issue a 'retraction'. They drop the improperly included defendant from the case. Dropping a defendant from a case requires adherence to due process, and that takes a little bit to do. Any other releases about that do not happen until after the defendant is dropped from the case.

I'm not defending them, but for cripes sakes, a plain reading of the complaint and its obvious.

I sure hope you don't try to handle your own lawsuit with that concept of "what you think" rather then what actually is.