News Focus
News Focus
icon url

Its_TradingG

04/17/25 10:46 AM

#201372 RE: docsetc #201371

This post from docsetc on the Enzolytics (ENZC) i-Hub board is loaded with misrepresentations, speculation presented as fact, and some flat-out misinformation. Let’s break it down piece by piece:

1. “There are many other charges of fraud we’re leveling at CCC and Harry.”

Reality:
• “We’re leveling” means private individuals or investors are making allegations, not formal charges.
• The SEC is the only party that can file official charges of securities fraud, and so far, only Harry Zhabilov (the former Chief Science Officer) has been named in SEC litigation.
• No official charges exist against Charles Cotropia (CCC) or any other executives as of now.

2. “The SEC gave EVERY ENZC investor ever, full standing against the four main principles at the time when they filed for $92 million against Zhabilov.”

Reality:
• This is false.
• The SEC does not “give standing” to shareholders to sue individuals just by filing a civil case.
• Standing is a legal concept that must be determined by a court in a civil case — not implied or “granted” through SEC action.
• The SEC’s lawsuit is a regulatory enforcement action, not a class action suit on behalf of shareholders.

3. “That several folks here think they know any legal stuff… is dumbfounding.”

Irony Alert:
• The poster accuses others of legal ignorance, but then goes on to misrepresent legal concepts like “standing,” “charges,” and “immunity.”

4. “The ENZC stock price will continue to freeze or sink…”

Speculation:
• This is just personal opinion, not a factual statement.
• While ENZC stock is under pressure due to the SEC action and general concerns around transparency and operations, no one can predict stock movement with certainty.

5. “Charles’ statements… 5-labs… SPAC… we have a direct statement from Zhabilov himself.”

Red Flags:
• If they have a “direct statement from Zhabilov,” where is it? If it’s not part of the SEC filing or public record, it’s hearsay.
• Mentioning “SPAC deal” and “5-labs” without providing documentation makes it impossible to verify.
• Saying “he had to sign it or not” implies insider knowledge of internal board decisions, which the poster likely does not have unless it was leaked (which raises its own legal issues).

6. “You have full standing in any court…”

Again — completely false.
• Courts determine standing, and you must show injury, causation, and redressability in any shareholder suit.
• The SEC action does not automatically enable every shareholder to file a winning civil suit.

7. “CCC dropped a dime on Harry and got limited immunity…”

Speculative conspiracy theory:
• The SEC does not publicly disclose if someone received immunity unless it’s part of a cooperation agreement in a case — which hasn’t been filed publicly regarding CCC.
• No current filings show that CCC (Charles Cotropia) has been charged or named in any enforcement action.
• Claiming “limited immunity” without documentation is pure speculation.

8. “Each member of our group already has a copy of our firm’s letter of engagement…”

Still means nothing unless a case is filed.
• Anyone can get a lawyer to draft a letter of engagement. It doesn’t mean a case has merit, and it certainly doesn’t make their claims factual.

Conclusion:

This post is a mix of opinion, unsubstantiated rumors, and legal misunderstandings, presented in a way that sounds authoritative to mislead retail investors. No court or regulatory authority has charged anyone beyond Zhabilov. Until actual filings or documents are produced, this is just another FUD-laced rant with conspiracy vibes.
icon url

pumper_stumper

04/17/25 11:11 AM

#201373 RE: docsetc #201371

Your poor level of understanding of the legal world is even lower than your understanding of the investing world, which was shown in how you couldn't see this scam years ago. And yes that is a low bar.

There is so much misunderstanding, and wrong assumptions in your post here that I could post 2 pages correcting your ridiculous words. I will just post a portion here.

You have a damn brother who is a lawyer, and you supposedly have been speaking to law firms for months, yet you ignorantly (proper use of the word, unlike you) use the word "charges" which is a term used in a criminal case, not a civil case, which you are threatening to file here. What are you going so say in response to this factual statement? How is possible that anyone 7 months into a legal case, working with several firms as you claim, still can show get something as simple as this so wrong? What childish names will you call me for pointing our your gross ignorance of the MOST BASIC legal concepts?

The idea that an SEC case about an insider selling restricted shares giving you "standing" for case of business fraud against the company, is like saying is someone is charged with failing to honor a contract, that it gives standing for others to sue that person for slander, or something unrelated as this. No! If you could comprehend the simple English in the SEC case, there is nothing claimed about wrongdoings by the company itself, or its IP, or the SAGA deal as being part of it. And so unlike what you believe (which means nothing) or what you were told my your 3rd rate "legal advisors", this does not give you "standing" in a entirely different case. Again, file the damn case and let the judge tell you that after you spent $20k in legal fees. I'm at least telling that here, for free! Thank me!

So, what can you do? Simple, do what you said you would be doing for 7 damn months now. File a damn lawsuit! Don't talk about it, don't threaten to file one, don't create stupid websites with advertising malware on it for shareholder to "upload evidence", don't post your one step forward two steps back "progress" on this board, don't talk about your ignorant views on "standing" here, INSTEAD 7 MONTHS LATER, JUST FILE THE DAMN LAWSUIT!

We're days away from our counsel's first act on CCC and I'll start sending out copies of the docs showing what is going on. Each member of our group already has the copy of our firm's letter of engagement on this case, and will have more shortly.



Please stop with this transparent weak posturing! Do you realize this is no different that what the ENZC execs did? "Days away" and "shortly" mean nothing. It's a threat which is open ended in a poor attempt to sound tough. How about for once in your life, post a damn date when something is going to be done that can be verified, and DO IT!?

Oooh, you're "sending copies" OMG! The case is practically won now! lol Sending to whom and how? Is this going out to the defendants? Like your poorly written ranting pre-pre lawsuit threat letter that never got delivery receipt? Are you going to send copies like that? Or is it just more empty posturing?

Every time you come here with your pathetic updates, it just makes you look more and more foolish!
icon url

rocco12

04/17/25 3:18 PM

#201384 RE: docsetc #201371

docsect... when you say every member of our group has the copy of our firm's letter of engagment on this case.... who does that include? Because i signed up to be included in the lawsuit a long time ago but haven't heard anything. Is this something i need to pull off Superior Intellect? Because i have tried to sign up at this page (superior intellect) plenty of times and it still wont work
icon url

pumper_stumper

04/20/26 7:51 AM

#202268 RE: docsetc #201371

One year ago @docsetc

About a year ago Terry ranted, yet again, rambling on. It's long but it's fun reading, a YEAR later!

In this rant Terry posted pure ignorance of the case when he said:

Since the company operations were also part of the charges against Zhabilov, not just personal sales,



You don't need to an attorney to understand this. Anyone reading the case who can comprehend, would understand that this case is ONLY about his personal sales, and NOT about the company operations. A year later, maybe this is finally clear to Terry (who still has not posted, anywhere, in months, even about the case settlement)


We're days away from our counsel's first act on CCC and I'll start sending out copies of the docs showing what is going on. Each member of our group already has the copy of our firm's letter of engagement on this case, and will have more shortly.



As I said many times, Terry is to the legal world what ENZC was to the drug industry. False empty vague promises that are fiction. And, I LOVE that he uses "we" instead of I.

Terry, I miss you! Please come back!