Replies to post #101267 on World Surveillance Group Inc (fka WSGI)

[risk_it_us]

A couple of points with that statement:

1) as we've discussed in the past "would have not violated" which means gtem did violate because of its employees.

2) Throwing the blame onto Joe was exactly what I thought would happen

3)Joe either has or will have his day in court as well as his depositions, I can bet never posting here again that when all is said and done that Joe has documents and proof that will hang the very one's that threw all the blame on him. Granted he's as big a part of the scam as the others but the others are part of it as well. We'll see won't we ?

You care to bet with me ? If I'm wrong I'll never post here again but if I'm right YOU never post here again. How confident are you mig ?

[trunkmonk]

ditto

[runandadd]

You two are missing the point. As management, fiduciaries to shareholders, at what level of fraud should Huff and management be held accountable for the fraud of their employees?

[Jetmek_03052]

Yes Miguell,

GTEM is very adept at skirting along the edge of the rules. Who says that you can't entice investors with grand plans and simply fail time and time again? It's not GTEM's fault if the entire world is out to get them, right? They are trying their best, right?

What's a few more million shares to the authorized sharebase, right? Let's just add them in there so the exec's can get paid, right? After all, they are trying their best....it's not their fault if they fail time and time again....right?

We'll just come up with a few more enticing projects that will enthrall the shareholders and we'll make them wait a few more quarters for THOSE results. Then when it becomes apparent that we won't succeed, we will claim the "timing wasn't right", "the market conditions didn't support that project" and we will "sell it" to one of our many subsidiaries.

Then it's "on to the next enthralling project which will make our shareholders rich!".

Along the way, we will simply not pay a few of our partners and vendors. After all, how can they expect US to pay THEM?! We are not making any MONEY. So....we just won't pay them. Sure, they will sue us. But we can hold things up in the court system for YEARS. We may NEVER have to pay.

Mig, your right. There is no SEC rule to prevent this. There is no SEC rule that says an investor can't invest his/her hard earned money in a constantly losing company.

There is no law against being un-intelligent.....

Right?

RIGHT!