News Focus
News Focus
Followers 159
Posts 9700
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 05/17/2010

Re: Pennystomper post# 12094

Wednesday, 04/24/2013 8:44:21 AM

Wednesday, April 24, 2013 8:44:21 AM

Post# of 16191

It's a crime of intent to mislead (1)........because they know they had zero cash revenue (2)........and could not remain a going concern without finding money (3).........Then they say there going to pay .01 div. for the sole reason of selling shares (4)...... Then to cover it all up they added a note in the 10-k that they planned to sell shares....... Will dividend come no!!! Will this fall, yes!!! (5)



(1) To intentionally or frivously mislead
(2) What they had is unimportant; it's what they expect to have at the time stated that is material
(3) This is standard boiler-plate in filings
(4) It is unknown at this time that that was their reason; sole or otherwise
(5) quod erat demonstrandum, or more properly; hoper edei deîxai

I'm not defending them, because at this point in time there is nothing to defend. I see no cause of action until the date has passed with no dividend. Even then it becomes a point of proof of intent. Here's where past actions come in to play to show a patern of deceit.

Don't misunderstand my position. I have a small investment here and in the "sister company" and am cautiously optimistic. It's a long shot. If I make money; great. If I don't; too bad. Either way I am not going to fret and kvetch about it.
Pull your investment or wait for the outcome.


1000 applicants only 2 Awards. AFTC was one of the 2. .

Go AFTC

Discover What Traders Are Watching

Explore small cap ideas before they hit the headlines.

Join Today