"Thus all your claims to this end are illogical and rendered mute."
.................................
Not so fast there pal...
1st of all the word is "moot", not "mute". The former means not relevant & the later means no sound...
.
My claims are not "illogjcal" because the only claim I made was that FINRA was a corrupted agency, which I provided a link to some validation of that. Actually it's not even my claim personally, its claimed by others & I posted that. I made no other claims, just suggested possible scenario. Therefore, it is YOUR claim that is wrong, in that regard, thus moot.
As well, nothing I said was "illogical", as you claimed. I did not claim to know the charge & jurisdiction of FINRA. In fact, I knew to begin with that it was possible that it was not the job of, or maybe not included that particular FINRA ruling. I simply (and logically) based my opinion of a possible scenario, on the way the report or the article was worded with particular respect to the points about not charging or dealing with vplm & Kipping. There is a certain confusing aspect to the report/article wherein I couldn't tell if it was a direct FINRA narrative or a 3rd person report, with some 3rd person commentary. As I say, I could see both possibilities from the start. That's why I indeed did not, make any specific "claims" against FINRA (besides the general corruption thing which isn't my claim anyway). Below, I will paste in the parts I'm referring to which are kind of ambiguous. But they will clearly show how one might gather that it is FINRA who is specifically stating (almost going out if their way to) that vplm & Kipping are not investigated or charged (other whatever the wording was but will show below).
..........
"
"With Voip Pal.com, most of the shares were initially issued to an entity controlled by the company's former president, Vancouver resident Richard Kipping. (MR. KIPPING IS NOT A RESPONDENT IN FINRA's CASE , and the regulator has not made any finding against him.)
..........
"The circumstances raised a strong suspicion that Voip Pal.com was "unlawfully distributing securities without registration in a two-step process designed to obscure what was actually happening and who was benefiting from the sales of stock," the decision states."
..........
"Voip Pal.com remains an active company, listing an address in Bellevue, Wash. The stock closed at four cents Monday. The company was not a respondent in the case or in any other action."
......
Furthermore, in rereading the article, I can now see that indeed it is a 3rd party article and not excerpted from the actual narrative of the 111 page decision by FINRA. That wasn't clear to me at first & my comments (not claims) were based on the above excerpts from the article, by me. It does seem strange as well, that if it is true that any possible charges against vplm or Kipping would not be made by or in the jurisdiction of FINRA, that the author of the narrative in the article would see fit to point out that vplm & Kipping were not charged with anything. And THAT is what caused my misconception (not claims). Nevertheless, the author had some reason to do so.
Therefore my above explanation for the ideas I posted as a possibility (not a claim) is most definitely LOGICAL. Maybe not informed enough (obviously) but surely not illogical. Which I submit make THAT claim by you ALSO MOOT.
An additional note... FINRA is an arm of the SEC and the SEC was also mentioned in the article as having been part of the investigation. So there is that also.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
