News Focus
News Focus
icon url

boogaloo

12/23/06 11:36 AM

#224845 RE: S.A.G. #224840

I see what you mean now. But I suspect that a CEO can do and say anything he wants to. Unless the lawyers are the real owners (which means petar and steve have been lying again!), then all they have to do is FIRE the lawyers, tell them to stuff it, and then proceed with their PRs.

This story (that they're feeding you) doesn't seem to pass the smell test, Airys. Why can't they first PROVE this lawyer sitaution? Before you believe what they tell you, it might be a good idea to get proof of their claims. Y'know? There are always way way way too many excuses and riddles. Now they're playing the victim.
icon url

marketmann

12/23/06 11:56 AM

#224873 RE: S.A.G. #224840

are the lawyers part of the scam now?
icon url

Dumotier21

12/23/06 12:10 PM

#224891 RE: S.A.G. #224840

Airys I appreciate your efforts in the past, and I honestly think you and hog are men of integrity. I do believe you have the common shareholders interests in heart (much more so than Petar and SS have).

However your posts today scream panic, and thats not a good image to be projecting. Especially when so many people are looking at you and H.O.G. as role models.

Your claim that the lawyers working for SULJA Bros have an outside agenda does not hold logic to me, and seems to me a conclusion based on fear and emotion and less on logic.

You are in effect saying that Lawyers, who are paid to protect a client, are going to violate the attorney client privelage, and take on a conflict of interest in order to HARM the client they are protecting? I can't think of any Lawyer who would do this without disassociating themselves from the previous client or ending their relationship with them first.

If they didn't they would be Disbarred, and face criminal prosecution. The SEC may be lax in regulating but I garuntee you the BAR association is not. I do not see any lawyer willing to risk his career and his freedom to act as you suggest. Your argument doesn't hold water to me.

I respect your opinion, and I agree with you alot, but right now your not helping the cause.

Just a humble opinion feel free to trash as you wish.
icon url

mastaflash

12/23/06 12:40 PM

#224913 RE: S.A.G. #224840

Maybe I'm missing something, but what is it that gives these lawyers the power to prevent SLJB from putting out PRs making "proof" available to all? I have not come across this situation before...TIA.
icon url

ed53wa

12/23/06 2:23 PM

#224963 RE: S.A.G. #224840

This is ridiculous. all the company needs to do is come clean. The WS article would have meant squat if the AF's appeared as promised. No one has mentioned, as in other stocks, that TDA or Scwab or Etrade has halted buying, precusor to any halt imo. Yes, there are those that will do almost anything to bury this stock. transparency is so obviously key and yet these guys trip over the obvious? wtf
icon url

janice shell

12/23/06 5:00 PM

#225028 RE: S.A.G. #224840

The company DOES NOT want to be silent. They want to speak desperately!!!

Sure. Then why don't they fire the lawyers and get new ones?

I'm not buying this. Not any of it.
icon url

STATX

12/23/06 7:12 PM

#225105 RE: S.A.G. #224840

then don't shun the SEC.. help them ask the questions to focus the lights on the lawyers.. let the SEC manage the kids left alone in the candy store..


<sandbath, IMO, I think some of the lawyers involved have an agenda. I feel that the company has been used by the attorneys in conjunction with another entity to benefit by keeping the stock low and keeping everyone at the company quiet.

The company DOES NOT want to be silent. They want to speak desperately!!!

Everything I say is only my opinion.>