Firstly, I want to address SSC's response and clarify a few things. It’s clear that there are differing perspectives on this board, and while I have taken a step back from frequent posting, I feel it's important to respond to accusations of dishonesty directly.
Regarding the SEC vs. Romeril case: My reference was intended to highlight that gag orders can exist in corporate contexts, and while SSC is correct that this specific case involves a settlement, my broader point was about the potential for legal situations to limit disclosures in some cases. I understand that this may not perfectly align with ERHC’s case or the expectations around SEC filings, but it wasn't meant to be deceitful. My apologies if the link was not clear or if it was misinterpreted. My aim was to provide a broader view of legal frameworks and not to claim that this case directly mirrors ERHC’s situation.
As for the second link—regarding Tullos—it seems there was a mix-up, and I appreciate the callout. I will review it, and if an error occurred, I’ll own that and correct it. It's important to me that my references are accurate, and I take full responsibility for any oversight here.
Additionally, it’s crucial to highlight that the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between ERHC and Starcrest lends more credence to the possibility of a merger or deeper partnership. Starcrest’s ties to the Chrome Group, which specializes in refinery operations, strongly suggest that the groundwork for expansion beyond upstream exploration is being laid. This connection, along with Peter Ntephe’s recent refinery-focused presentations, indicates a strategic alignment that may be in the works. While SSC is correct that there has been no formal merger announcement, it is entirely plausible that such developments are underway but simply not yet disclosed.
Now, to address the issue of judicial orders affecting SEC filings, there are real-world examples where a court order has temporarily restrained companies from disclosing information, even overriding SEC reporting requirements. Here are some valid links to cases where a judge’s restraining order has superseded SEC reporting obligations:
Edit - I tried clicking on these links and they don't seem to work. Apologies. I'll try to figure out a way to get links that work.
These links provide examples where legal situations limited disclosures, and while each case is unique, they help illustrate the broader point about how court orders can impact what a company is able to share with the public, including the SEC.
To be clear, I'm not here to deceive anyone. My intention has always been to offer insights and possibilities based on available information. While SSC and others may disagree, I welcome healthy skepticism. However, I do stand by my previous point: the true outcome of ERHC’s story will unfold with time, and no amount of back-and-forth debate will change that.
In the meantime, if SSC or anyone else can point to specific, verifiable instances where a company in a similar situation (upstream exploration, facing unique challenges) handled things differently, I’m open to learning. The stock market is a complex environment, and we’re all navigating it with the information we have.
As for taking a step back from posting—it’s not about “running away” from the conversation or abandoning my stance. I’ve shared what I believe needs to be shared, and at this point, it's about waiting for the actual outcomes to play out.
SSC, I respect your passion for the truth, and I invite everyone else on this board to continue digging, questioning, and seeking clarity. The truth will reveal itself in due time, and I’m confident we’ll all see where things truly stand.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
