Replies to post #345734 on Spongetech Delivery Systems, Inc. (fka SPNGQ)

[underdog150]

SPNG was on the Reg Sho list for many weeks prior to the suspension, then suddenly dropped off the list soon after it was suspended.
It was played up all summer of 2009 that there was a huge short by being on that list.
Sad some still believe it.
-----------------
"why was SpongeTech one of the 95 companies affected by a one week lift of their global trading locks, which was done to allow for the clean-up of "Aged Fails" in August 2011?"

1. Where did you come up with this claim? Source and link please.

2. The 2+ Billion unregistered shares that Mosky ordered the TA to issue and used fake 'David Bomart" 144 letters to allow to be sold - well, the SEC suspended trading on SPNG because it became difficult if nott nearly impossible to identify WHICH of the 2+ Billion shares that were being traded were ILLEGAL shares that were nott registered and nott entitled to a 144 exemption. Further trading of those ILLEGAL shares would simply harm even MORE potential buyers - who would be unknowingly purchasing ILLEGAL, UNREGISTERED shares which could nott legally be traded. Thus, purchases that were made butt for which the shares had nott yet been transferred (delivered) by the backoffices could nott receive shares once the SEC suspended trading and DTCC global lock.

After 12 months (of the global freeze), all 2+ Billion shares, even though unregistered were at least theoretically eligible for a 144 or other exemption due to fulfilling a 12 month holding period. So, it was then at least arguably legal to allow the books to be squared and all pending (butt frozen) transfers. That would at least be one way to 'clean up the books'.

However, I'd like to see your evidence of this 'clean up' in any case. Butt #2 is a presumptive explanation if it did indeed occur as you claim.

And in any case, your claim directly conflicts with the claim of 'naked shorts' in SPNG. Unless you are mischaracterizing 'naked shorts' as being the parties that ILLEGALLY SOLD UNREGISTERED, BUTT ISSUED SPNG shares into the market - in which case your claim is directly attributable to Moskowitz, who authorized the issuance of well over 2 Billion shares and who supplied illegitimate 144 opinion letters to the TA. Butt that is NOTT 'naked shorting'.

And that is what we have all been stating since Day One of Mosky's and Metter's arrests. They sold unregistered shares illegally into the market.

There is zero evidence of any 'naked shorting' of SPNG. No such evidence is provided in ANY of your letters to DaJudge nor in any of the posts on iHub. None

[cowtown jay]

You keep saying that you've read everything that I submitted to the judges, but you may have missed a couple.

"Please note also that I referenced a temporary lift of a global trading lock that had been placed on SpongeTech's stock. This, too, was a DTC action, as was their announcement of the conversion of accounts from Ridge Clearing to Penson.

The temporary lift of the global trading lock was to allow broker/dealers to clean up "Aged Fails." It was announced on August 5, 2011, in Release #B0846-l l."

Case 1:10-cr-00600-DLI Document 377 Filed 06/18/14 Page 7 of 27 PageID #: 2241

From the DTC's Notice

#: B0846-11
Date: August 5, 2011
To: All Participants
Category: Settlement
From: Settlement Department
Attention: Settlement Manager/Managing Director/Cashier

Subject: Clean up of Aged Fails in Select Globally Locked CUSIPs

DTC will support a program to facilitate the industry's clean up of aged fails in select globally locked securities. This notice details the information necessary for firms to participate in this program, which is scheduled to occur during the period August 15, 2011 through August 19, 2011.

(SpongeTech was number 50 on their list).

And who better to fulfill a fictitious need for opinion letters, than a fictitious lawyer? Bomart may have been the right man for the job.