Replies to post #16846 on ScripsAmerica Inc. (SCRCQ)

[The Claw]

Nothing said here matters for much longer. The Halt is coming along with a massive class action law suit.

[coolerheadsprevail]

that he believes that every shareholder who owns stock in SCRC does have skin in the game and that no one has a cost basis of 0 even if they owned restricted stock.

SCRC's own SEC filings over the past couple of quarters clearly disclose that 6,000,000 FREE shares of restricted stock were doled out to JOSEPH ZAMPETTI and his fellow criminal core of savvy non-SEC-compliant promoters. I'm not really sure how else to explain that FREE shares = ZERO cost basis... ...and please don't try to spin this off as "Well, I'm sure they bought more with their own money, so in total they have a cost basis above zero", as that is simply being disengenuous...

In my opinion, SCRC has been following through with their forward looking statements

SCRC's most material forward-looking statements involved China, as everyone knows that "China" is always a popular buzzword in the market guaranteed to garner attention from market participants.

Last summer, as part of the P&D, SCRC played its role in providing the fuel necessary for JOSEPH ZAMPETTI and his core gang to pump the hell out of the stock when SCRC issued a PR and presentation trumpeting how it was going to China in JULY-2013 and that RapiMeds would be on store shelves in China by SEP-2013. Did that happen? No.

And, in a disturbing "coincidence", right on the cusp of the restricted stock belonging to JOSEPH ZAMPETTI and his criminal core associates beginning to unlock, SCRC dished out probably the assist-of-the-year late in OCT-2013 by issuing yet another PR announcing that China really was on the cusp of happening and that a team was actually in China, and that the registration process w/the Chinese govt began on 11/1/13 and would take no longer than 60-90 days before RapiMeds would be able to hit the store shelves there again. Did this happen? Again, no. We have since found out that SCRC has NOT even begun the registration process yet and only got approval for piddly Hong Kong.

Any further defense of SCRC as a company who always delivers on its forward-looking statements only serves to generate a loss of credibility.

I am sure there are many penny stocks that pay off convertible notes with revenue or how else would the notes get paid off?

Is this question for real? Any investor who does not know the answer to this question is in way over their heads and has no idea how to play the pennies other than to get played by the pennies.

Companies frequently pay off debt either with new debt or via equity financing. SCRC has stated that they have issued no more debt, so assuming this is not a bald-faced lie, we will eliminate "new debt" as an option. This leaves equity financing. Capital raises can take many forms. For a company as small and irreputable as SCRC, the most likely financing that SCRC found available to it would be some variation of a PIPE.

And, from anectodal evidence from more than one source independently of each other, this is precisely what has occurred. And this would be consistent with the theory that I have been putting forth here ever since SCRC issued that PR declaring that it stopped issuing new notes effective 10/23/13. Cash doesn't grow on trees, and SCRC's revenues are nowhere close to being enough to have not only covered its monthly cash burn since OCT-2013 but also to have paid off all those notes. Remember, the most recent note is the only one where SCRC stated that the money came from revenues -- all the prior note paydown PR's included no such language.

If the 10K discloses what I fear it will disclose, then SCRC truly has climbed into bed with criminals and has sold out 99% of its loyal sharheholders for the benefit of a small select group of shareholders who were invited to purchase restricted stock at insanely low prices that -- even at today's sp level -- would result in over a double already.

If the 10K discloses that this truly occurred, then SCRC and its shareholders would have been better off if SCRC continued to issue new notes. Why? Because these notes convert to shares that only contain a 40% discount. The ridiculously low price that I believe the PIPE's would have been issued at would contain a much steeper discount -- and bigger discount means more shares, and more shares means greater dilutive impact to everyone else.

For those who believe that SCRC is not like other penny stocks, I will grant you that they are different in this regard: SCRC is the first company that I have ever become aware of where the CEO personally emails select shareholders and asks if they would loan the company money in exchange for .05 shares, existing shareholders be damned.

So hypothetically and I ask this question as a hypothetical, as a quid for quo, if you were to lend a company money because you believed in that company and in the CEO, would you not take stock for your loan and for taking that risk would you not feel entitled to receive that stock at some discount off of the market price when you loaned the money or would you say here is money for your company, and by the way, pay me back when you have a chance.

If someone is fortunate enough to be able to participate in dirt-cheap financing from SCRC, then I don't blame them for taking it. But it says something about the state of the company -- and the CEO's own confidence in the future prospects of the company -- if a company has to turn to its own existing shareholder base to raise capital via a series of individual PIPE's that are going to dilute the hell out of other existing shareholders because the discount is so steep. Was the CEO truly unable to get financing elsewhere? Is the state of the company so bad that not even the traditional population of predatory financiers want to touch SCRC? Or is this a sweetheart deal for select promoters?

In any event, the point is that if you loan SCRC money and are issued restricted stock in exchange for this, then you are a financier, no different than any other financier. So then the question becomes this: If you are just a normal joe retail investor, how would you feel if financiers (or anyone else for that matter who has received dilutive stock from the company and is looking to dump it) posed as retail investors on MB's and kept touting how the sp is on the verge of KABOOM time any day now so you better buy-buy-buy RIGHT NOW... ...just so that they could sell you their own shares? If you are blind to this conflict of interest, or you don't believe it exists, or if you simply don't care that it exists, well that is certainly your choice -- but there is a reason the saying exists that a fool and his money are soon parted. And from your historical posts, you have acknowledged that you and many others have parted ways with a lot of money due to SCRC. If you want to know where your money is, ask JOSEPH ZAMPETTI, since it's now in his brokerage account and the accounts of the other select "inner" Core who dumped while telling their naive followers that they held all their shares -- unless of course, they spent it already...

...but in the end, even in your scenario, regardless of the who or why or for how much or at what price, if SCRC entered into any PIPEs, then for every other shareholder out there, that only spells one thing: DILUTION once the restriction comes off these freshly minted shares.