Replies to post #98658 on DD Support Board and Research Team

[janice shell]

The Queen's role in the CMKX story has, of course, always been critical.

[cowtown jay]

Let's just take baby steps here, shajandr.

One of the things I said in my post is that "...proceedings should be commenced toward the stock beneficiaries who illegally profited from the sale of unregistered (SpongeTech) shares..."

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=118275774

Is that what you describe as "silly nonsense?"

If so, then I don't know how you can say "ALL shareholders who were UNJUSTLY ENRICHED by issuance of an ILLEGAL DIVIDEND are subject to a clawback of the unjust enrichment they received. This does not require the recipient to be 'at fault'..."

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=118099160

Now, I know we are talking about two different things (illegal dividends vs the sale of unregistered shares). But, both acts result in unjust enrichment, regardless of scienter.

There is no reason why the SEC should not initiate proceedings against the stock beneficiaries who received and sold unregistered shares of SpongeTech stock. Unless...there is a problem with the actual registration status of the shares that were sold. That's one of the reasons why I am patiently awaiting the results of the litigation against SpongeTech's lawyers.