News Focus
News Focus
icon url

serfdom

12/29/06 3:00 PM

#229574 RE: abbam #229563

"This just says that someone filed charges against him...so i don't see the big deal."

LOL! Are you serious????
icon url

THE_YAK

12/29/06 3:00 PM

#229576 RE: abbam #229563

Wessal doenst exist

SLJB is in debt

Middle east deals were fake

Peter and co opened accounts and dumped stock

There are no AF

There were No AF

There were nothing but fake promises and delays


THESE ARE FACTS, YOU WONT FLY ANYWYERE
icon url

yeah_sure

12/29/06 3:01 PM

#229578 RE: abbam #229563

LOL, abbam. No, "somebody" didn't file charges. The OSC filed charges. This is an official government action against fraud, and they never file them until they are assured of winning them.
icon url

Harry von Zell

12/29/06 3:02 PM

#229585 RE: abbam #229563

Man, unbelievable.....
icon url

MarionPolk

12/29/06 3:06 PM

#229600 RE: abbam #229563

9. The shares were received into the Nominee Accounts from Sulja Nevada’s treasury either directly or through Kore. In both circumstances, the trading constituted a distribution which requires in each instance the issuance of a prospectus receipt by the Commission for the securities of Sulja Nevada or a proper exemption under Ontario securities law. No such receipt has been issued nor have the Respondents demonstrated the existence of a proper exemption from the requirement, contrary to section 53 of the Act.

We KNOW no prospectus was ever filed in the US or Canada.

We KNOW the shares are now being publicly traded, so we KNOW there was a violation.

We might not know exactly who is responsible.

I have been posting about Rule 144 violations (US law) for some time now.
icon url

DaFloorGuy

12/29/06 3:07 PM

#229602 RE: abbam #229563

READ the OSC statement. Someone INSIDE has provided them with info. No other way they could make those statements. This means someone will be testifying at that hearing, someone who is willing to tell the truth, someone not gagged. If the company had evidence to clear themselves, they would have made it public. There is no liability in doing so. Not if it's the truth, and supports the statements they have published. But nothing has come from them, they just lawyered-up. That in itself says volumes about whats going on.
icon url

Pennimon

12/29/06 5:40 PM

#230087 RE: abbam #229563

abbam: I believe Party might have mentioned such an action a good while back before re-investigating sljb. That would have been months ago.