Ok, GO MOSH, you goaded me into a response. As long as you keep lying, I will keep responding. Here are the facts:
1. Ron Popeil wrote to me and asked if I would help provide input to a letter he was writing to the Court. I wrote a long piece regarding how the settlement did not meet factors involved in a typical fairness determination for a settlement. Ron said that it was great and forwarded it to you. You wrote to me and said that it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. That was our first contact. You initiated contact with me, not the reverse.
2. After that, you repeatedly solicited my input for strategy going forward, toward your stated goal of blocking the settlement. You included me in many group emails for this purpose. You even asked me whether I would be willing to share my ideas with your group's Oklahoma counsel. I said that I would. The counsel never called.
3. Ron took my proposed letter, with my permission, and basically copied it and submitted it to the court. Several others in your group used parts of my letter.
4. You asked for my input regarding potential class action attorneys and factors they might consider. I told you to contact a Texas attorney as I am not a Texas attorney (as I have posted on the board on countless occasions). Later, you asked me for input for a potential amendment of the trust. I did not respond.
5. You repeatedly solicited many people, on the board and off, asking for money to hire an attorney to block the settlement. You also said that you had strategies that were being developed to do this, and you offered to share some of your strategies with persons who sent in money. As I previously stated, I refused to do this.
6. My question to you was natural, if you had proclaimed your strategy was to block the settlement, and you solicited money from unitholders to do this, why then did the attorney you hired roll over and APPROVE the settlement in Court? At this point, you hid behind the supposed attorney-client privilege and refused to answer. You have never, to my knowledge, provided an answer to this question. I guess the people who actually sent you money based upon your representations have a bigger beef with you on this.
7. Mr. Abrams did not, in my estimation, achieve any significant benefit for the unitholders, by reducing the outrageous fee amount sought of 8.75 million to the slightly less outrageous amount of 7.75 million (with 150k of that million diverted to repay attorneys fees allegedly incurred by your "Group"). Indeed, it outwardly appears that obtaining repayment of your group's attorneys fees may have been the primary goal here (but I am of course speculating on this).
8. If you had a problem with my humorous attempts to stop Fluffy from making constant misstatements about the MOSH case and situation on another board, you should have told me. Of course, why should you even care? Sounds like you are grasping at straws on that one.
Contrary to you, I have no group or circle, so you are again off-base. Nor do I have an agenda to do anything other than try to have the truth come about what I speculate are underground MOSH assets that may be worth more than the paltry amount of the settlement. At a minimum, it seems logical that the parties would not have fought so hard and so long if the wells are all "dry holes", doesn't it?
You are advised to cease from making any further false statements about me, as you are exposing yourself to a claim of libel.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
