Replies to post #225509 on Sulja Bros. Building Supplies, Ltd (SLJB)

[ChannelTrader]

Hog, no offence but it they were already verified and authenticated they would be released by lawyers and would be on the pinks for all to see.

[binzur]

Hey HOG! Please talk to an attorney before you go. I really respect you and don't want to see you sucked in any further.

Go to an attorneys office and have them fax the proof there! What you are trying to do is honorable but you are putting yourself in a terrible legal position. JMHO!

Happy Holidays!
Binzur

[ChannelTrader]

"Board:

What I plan to do in Windsor this trip is work to gain verifiable proof of all PRIOR PRs."


Hog, I thought you were going to see unpublished NEW pr's that are prohibited from being published by lawyers ?

[caycehopeful]

You should not have publicly stated your

intentions beforehand.

Now you will get a call with an excuse why

Steve and Co. can not meet with you and Airys.

Delete the post.

[binzur]

All of this can be accomplished with you sitting in an attorneys office and they fax the information there! That protects you.

You are a sharp guy! What about the PR'd share structure? How do we go from 80 mil in the float in August to 600+mil in 4 months? Have them provide the SEC filings necessary to do that! BTW they don't exist!

[ibreken]

H.O.G., I think you just might get your invitation recinded. They will try to con you, but not answer hard questions like that. They can't in my opinion. Should be interesting. I would also suggest deleting that post not to tip them off, but as insiders are no doubt like a disease on this board it is already too late.

[snow]

Stock HOG

I suggest you devote most attention to the very hard fact: alleged net profit of $ 15 million. How was that achieved? A break-down is desired. How has the money been spent? Evidence that any statement is true is desired. If the number of net profits is totally false that is a very serious matter in my opinion since it is common to make investment decisions based on the profits achived.

[MarionPolk]

A new legal approach.

It is now reasonably certain that virtually all SLJB shares entered the public marketplace as a result of Rule 144 violations. Therefore anyone who has lost money on a stock purchase should be able to sue not only the party who first sold the shares into the public market, but also the broker-dealer who facilitated the sale.

Broker-dealers are subject to the "know your customer" rule, and also are expected to know enough securities law to obtain their securities license. It must have been obvious to the facilitating broker-dealer that any source of hundreds of millions of shares in a "non-reporting" company had to be subject to Rule 144, and had to be violating that rule in dumping the shares on the public.

The SEC has already brought proceedings against at least one broker-dealer who was the source of much of the CMKX "counterfeit shares" that were sold.

The advantage to damaged buyers of SLJB is that while Sulja or the "insiders" may not have adequate discoverable assets to fully cover a judgement, the firms who allowed SLJB shares to illegally enter the public market do have significant assets, and possibly insurance coverage as well.

"Leaders" here ought to be talking to an experienced secutities attorney, as it will take some time and "discovery" to determine the identity of the securities firm or firms instumental in this gross violation of Rule 144.

[DownWithPumpers]

What I plan to do in Windsor this trip is work to gain verifiable proof of all PRIOR PRs. I don't want to see anything relating to the future, as this would be considered insider information. I would like to see correspondence, contracts, etc. If they cannot provide this information, I believe it would be in their best interest to retract the PRs where this is the case.

All material non-public information comes under the insider trading laws. Whether if affects prior lies or future lies is absolutely irrelevant. In fact, if anyone has bothered to notice, most companies only PR things that actually have happened in the real world.

If you're hoping to gain verifiable proof of something that's important (material) it obviously comes under the auspices of the insider trading laws. It is obvious even if hundreds of people here feel very comfortable ignoring it.