Replies to post #74080 on Seafarer Exploration Corp (SFRX)

[hedge_fun]

Judge Stephens told SFRX that in order…….

to win their case they would need to provide witnesses who sold their stock based on the defendants postings, and then the witnesses would need to explain why they didn’t buy back at lower prices when they realized the postings were false.

The lawsuit is almost 10 years old, and SFRX has yet to go to trial. They also haven’t provided a list of witnesses that could testify as Judge Stephens directed.

BTW, the defendant has counsel, and has had counsel since June 2021, as well as given SFRX notice of availability.

The defendant rightly explained to the giddy shareholders here that SFRX only had an Exploration Permit at Melbourne, not a Recovery Permit as SFRX claimed they had.

For a year SFRX filed with the SEC claiming they had a Recovery Permit at Melbourne, which wasn’t true. Then they claimed it was a Dig and ID Permit.

Thanks to me they finally got it right and correctly said it was an Exploration Permit, with a Dig and ID amendment.

Glad I could help, along with Mary from the FBAR. She explained to Kyle there were only two types of permits the FBAR issued.