InvestorsHub Logo

Seminole Red

10/10/09 10:57 AM

#12343 RE: Phil(Hot Rod Chevy) #12342

alright...take it to the parking lot....lol

wEaReLeGiOn

10/11/09 8:43 AM

#12392 RE: Phil(Hot Rod Chevy) #12342

Phil- Let's at the very least refrain from


Ad hominem overtones, shall we?

Description of Ad Hominem

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument


Specifically- You wrote;

"That doesn't mean it was set up for people like you to try and hang them before the trial."

"I never said the charges against the SEC 8 were without merit, but IMO the people like you that run around accusing Ihub of manipulating penny stocks are the ones chasing your tails."


Even if it were true that I was 'one of these people' it doesn't negate any facts that I've allude to. Since I am not, nor have I ever been one of these people that go around accusing I-hub of manipulating penny stocks, your Ad Hominem accusations attributed to my posting(s) is not only fallacious, but an attempt to disparage and impinge, not to mention mischaracterize my association to the aforementioned group.

Now, having said all of this, and if we read further down in your redress of my post.

Specifically my claim here-

"I can offer evidence by governmental allegation, that Brown manipulated by proxy (directing others) to pump stocks on I-Hub, to which he would be a direct beneficiary."

Your redress to my claim-

"Then do it. You keep saying you can, but so far all you have done is offer lip service."

My evidence as to governmental allegation that Brown manipulated by proxy (directing others) to pump stocks on I-Hub.

j. On or about December 7, 2006, defendant BROWN communicated via instant message with P.D. regarding P.D.'s posting of messages concerning GI-3's stock on IHUB internet message boards.

k. On or about December 7, 2006, defendant BROWN communicated via instant message with P.D. regarding future GH3 press releases.

1. On or about December 7 and 8, 2006, GH3 issued press releases claiming that the company's revenues for 2005 and 2006 exceeded $2.1 million and $3 million,
respectively.

m. On or about December 7, 2006, P.D. communicated via instant message with N.M. asking N.M. to post on internet message boards that there was a "short" in GH3 stock.

n. On or about December 7, 2006, defendant BROWN communicated via instant message with P.D. wherein P.D. told defendant BROWN to have GH3 issue another press release indicating that GH3 had ordered a non-objecting beneficial owners ("NOBO") list from its transfer agent to address unexplained short positions in GH3 stock and suggesting language for that press release.

o. On or about December 8, 2006, GH3 issued a press release about ordering a NOBO list, using some of the language suggested by P.D. in the December 7, 2006 instant message.

p. On or about December 11, 2006, GH3 issued yet another press release anticipating that the company's revenues for 2007 would exceed $6,000,000, a 100% increase over 2006 revenues.

12. From in or about September 2006 through in or about February 2007, in the District of Delaware and elsewhere, MATTHEW BROWN, defendant herein, having devised and intending to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud, as set forth in paragraphs 1 through 10 above, and to obtain money and property by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, promises, and the concealment of material facts, caused the issuance of a false and misleading press release to the general public concerning the purported activities of GH3 regarding a NOBO list for the purposes of executing such scheme and artifice and attempting to do so, and did transmit and cause to be transmitted by means of wire communication in interstate commerce a communication, to wit, a December 7, 2006 communication from screen name "mattbrownfl" to "PDYNK15" to via the instant messaging functionality of America OnLine in furtherance of this scheme and artifice to defraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2.



Phil- If you need me to break down specific sentences among the allegations in the SEC motion, to show you that without a doubt the allegations are that defendant Brown, by proxy (directing others) did cause and contribute in 'pumping a penny stock' on I-Hub, just say the word and I'll underline the parts where I feel you need to direct your attention.
My hope is that you'll stop making your ridiculous assertion.


Thank you :)