Replies to post #39558 on Tauriga Sciences Inc (fka TAUG)

[diannedawn]

I would suggest that BSeth do some research...
BEFORE he wastes any more money trying to pursue message board posters
and whining about how UNFAIR it all is.

Seth is trying very hard to build a valuable company long term. And IHUB posters should not constantly project on this message board that his intentions are somehow evil or unethical. That is absolutely despicable to continually suggest something like that.

http://adserv.stocksite.com/images/pubdocs/eade/Order_Striking_Complaint.pdf
Here is a SMALL sample...

"Plaintiff also alleges that he was called a liar"
"The court there found that “the term ‘lying’ applies to a spectrum of untruths including ‘white lies,’ ‘partial truths,’ ‘misinterpretation,’ and ‘deception,” [and] [a]s a result, the statement is no more than nonactionable ‘rhetorical hyperbole, a vigorous epithet used by those who considered [plaintiff’s] position extremely unreasonable.’”

"Plaintiff alleges that he was accused of having “stolen everyone’s (investor’s) money,” that he “was engaging in illegal actions,” that he “stole my money,” that he is a “crook who uses the same system of fraud time after time,” and engages in criminal “pump and dump” scams. Compl. ¶¶ 15, 1718. General allegations that Plaintiff committed crimes, or was engaged in illegal “pump and dump” schemes, taken in the context of anonymous bulletin board postings, cannot reasonably infer actual criminal conduct. Plaintiff’s argument that the phrase “stole my money” is actionable fails to consider the broad context of the bulletin boards in which the statements were made. The statements alleging Plaintiff specifically stole money from one or more Doe Defendants or investors are properly viewed as ones of belief or opinion, not of fact. Thus, they do not readily lend themselves to the interpretation that they are statements of fact about theft, as opposed to statements of opinion, i.e., that the Doe Defendants believed that certain investors, including themselves, were owed amounts from Plaintiff. See Sundance Image Tech., Inc. v. Cone Editions Press, Ltd., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16356 (S.D. Cal. 2007). This conclusion is confirmed when the statements are viewed in the overall context of the publication at issue in this matter. For these reasons, the Court finds that the alleged statements by the Doe Defendants concerning criminal conduct cannot reasonably be construed as other than the authors’ opinions about Plaintiff."

"For all of the reasons set forth in this Order, the Court GRANTS Defendant iHub’s Motion to Strike.

IT IS SO ORDERED"

So if BSeth wants RESPECT, then perhaps he should behave in a respectable manner.

To date, I have seen NOTHING that impresses me.

YUP...that's called an OPINION.
ROTFLMAO

[diannedawn]

And if he thinks plopping down a 25K retainer is all the $$$ he can lose,
perhaps he should read further...
"Outcome: Judgment in favor of Investors Hub. iHub's motion to strike Eade's complaint was granted on 7/12/2011 without leave for him to amend. iHub was awarded $49,000 for legal fees on 9/12/2011, which Eade was ordered to pay within 30 days."

Let me know when the subpoenas are issued...
This should be a HOOT!

[loanranger]

"it's not that all"????

"It's that you make these very one sided "black and white" claims"
False.

"You also continually try to make excuses for Cowan Gunteski, and you state that Tauriga basically was to blame for what happened"
False.

"You also seem to think that there was no malpractice(False.), that Cowan Gunteski acted flawlessly(False.), and somehow Tauriga should have predicted that this disaster was going to happen in late July 2015(that's ALMOST True...Tauriga should have known that there would be problems as a result of engaging Cowan/Meyler one time too many LONG BEFORE LATE JULY 2015. The whole thing was preventable by the TAUG Board of Directors. Cowan didn't hire themselves.)"



"Let's discuss Dilution for a moment --- "
Did that already. I'm satisfied with my response to "Let's not forget nearly 1 billion shares of dilution." Here it is again:
From the latest 10-K:
"The Company issues stock to consultants for various services."
"The Company recognized consulting expense and a corresponding increase to additional paid-in-capital related to stock issued for services."
In the two year period ended March 31, 2017 Tauriga issued 836 million common shares.
Of that 836 million shares, 457 million were issued for services and compensation.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1142790/000149315217007575/form10-k.htm#a_9

For the arithmetically challenged that means that 379 million shares were issued during that period for things OTHER THAN services and compensation. The Statement of Shareholders Equity enumerates those other things which include Issuances of commitment shares, conversions of debentures and accrued interest and Issuances of shares for cash. Blame them ALL on Cowan if you like, but no amount of trickery will turn an amount of shares that couldn't possibly be more than 379 million into "nearly 1 billion shares of dilution".


"We can agree to strongly disagree."
I've been known to do that with people with whom I have an honest disagreement. But when someone totally misrepresents my statements, like this (and there are others)....
"You have repeatedly stated that Cowan Gunteski never did anything wrong"
....the disagreement isn't an honest one and I'm not interested in being placated. I don't reach agreements with prevaricators, even an agreement to disagree.


Tauriga has never operated a successful business, before losing its OTCQB status or since. That's really all shareholders, or the company's Officers and Directors, should care about and I challenge you to find fault with that statement.


ps. "And IHUB posters should not constantly project on this message board that his intentions are somehow evil or unethical."
Fortunately they don't look to you for their marching orders.
The following can only be shown through anecdotal evidence (albeit quite clearly) and it's merely an opinion:
There have been so many notes issued with terms that favored the lenders in the extreme that I find it hard to believe that management has not received some kind of quid pro quo in return. Many a valuable Rolodex listing has been created in exactly such a fashion.