Replies to post #268745 on Spongetech Delivery Systems, Inc. (fka SPNGQ)

[TheFinalCD]

NO!!! ***CONTROLLED BUY IN*** SORRY

FROM WHAT I GATHER, AND ANYONE THAT KNOWS ME, KNOWS I GATHER
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROLLED BUY-IN

SO THE SQUEEZE IS STILL ON

SPONGEABLES LAWSUIT SHOULD COME TO A HEAD ASAP=8K

PR BLITZ WITH WALMART ACCOUNT,10K,10Q....

SORRY STOX, WE LOVE YOU BUT, I DONT KNOW WHERE YOU ARE GETTING YOUR INFO FROM, BUT I GUESS WHAT I HAVE BEEN HEWARING IS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOU HAVE..WE WILL SOON SEE WHAT RUMOR IS RIGHT!

TOO MANY RUMORS, WE NEED FACTS NOT RUMORS

I ADVISE PEOPLE TO CHEC THE PACER SYSTEMhttp://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/

FOR UPDATES, ON COURT DOC'S IN RELATION TO THE SUIT....WHICH WAS A NO-BRAINER FOR US TO WIN ANYWAY, BUT THE START OF EVERYTHING WE HAVE BEEN LOOKING FOR...


PEACE BE WITH ALL.....


SEE YOU IN MALIBU

WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE


ALSO CHECK EDGAR FOR SPNG FILINGS 8K,10K,10Q
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?company=SPONGETECH&match=&CIK=&filenum=&State=&Country=&SIC=&owner=include&Find=Find+Companies&action=getcompany

[dlewisfl]

stoxmagic: The "undeniable" has already emerged.

SEC Investigation/Trading Suspension for suspected fraud, OTCBB de-listing. Fact, no "twisting of truth". ;-)

IN THE MATTER OF SPONGETECH DELIVERY SYSTEMS, INC.

October 5, 2009

ORDER OF SUSPENSION OF TRADING

File No. 500-1

It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of SpongeTech Delivery Systems, Inc. ("SpongeTech”) because questions have arisen regarding the accuracy of assertions in press releases to investors and in periodic reports filed with the Commission concerning, among other things: (1) the amount of sales and customer orders received by the company; (2) the company’s investment agreements; and (3) the company’s revenues as reported in its financial statements. In addition, SpongeTech has not filed any periodic reports with the Commission since the period ended February 28, 2009.
The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed company.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT, on October 5, 2009 through 11:59 p.m. EDT, on October 16, 2009.

By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy Secretary

[cav]

Stox, from a poster on another board. He disagrees with the buyin. What say you?

"I have been getting a lot of questions lately about another person's postings concerning the existence of a "controlled buy in" for the shorts in accordance with some sort of a predetermined agreement with certain long shareholders and/or the company.

Let me state unequivocably for the record that this is PURE NONSENSE.

First of all it would be illegal for this to occur as it would constitute prima facie stock manipulation and the execution of predetermined trades that were not subject to open market conditions.

And second of all there would be NO REASON WHATSOEVER for the company or any of the major long shareholders to engage in this type of ILLEGAL transaction. It would not be in their best interest, it would not be in the best interest of the company and it would not be in the best interest of its shareholders.

Whoever posted this is devoid of any factual basis for doing such and is also clearly not abreast of what is going on. He/she is just engaging in wild speculation and is either dreaming, high or just plain ignorant.

Just for the record....."

"There is NO CONTROLLED BUY IN either contemplated or occurring.

Period. I am not a part of it and have no intention of being a part of it. MY group owns enough shares by itself to assure that this cannot occur. And I can tell you that other large shareholders feel exactly the same way and are NOT a poart of any such ILLEGAL manipulation.

The notion of this happening is preposterous and has absolutely ZERO basis in fact, much like all of the other silly rumors floating about in cyberspace.

When viewing things such as this merely look at who is doing it and their track record of accuracy.

Stop listening to this kind of garbage. Things will happen in their own due course."

[TheFinalCD]

To: Stoxmagic... I dont know why your post replying to me was deleted, as it was one of the most honest and straight forward so far.... for the record, I have nothing against you, sincerely hope we are on the same team, fighting for the same righteous cause.... so yes I think you are right as far as this is a interactive chat forum, and your honesty was well taken. Thank you for shooting straight from the hip, you could have dodged it and covered it in poetry, but you met it straight on, and for that I thank you. Hopefully we all are seeking truth in this complex matter, and I do believe that we will know one way or another by Christ-mas...and that is NOT a rumor!!!


PM's

SJ...

No argument, whatsoever, on the facts vs. 'rumors' consideration

But having said that we need remind ourselves that these boards are about discussion. Discussion/discourse inclusive of all of personally performed due diligence, speculation, rumor, personal opinion, etc. Sharing, Supporting ona another, Supporting one's own investing/trading interest. Mutual benefit.

My own private sude sources I've talked about. Sharing publically what I'm at liberty to share on the subject. And no. The mentioned agreement **CONTROLLED BUY IN** isn't a graven in stone turn of events. it's simply what I'm, again hearing. And upon rationalizing the possibility of it all, the whole of it all does make sense. Does add up. For reasons indeed dicussed.

******************************************************************
BELOW WE WILL TRY TO SHED SOME LIGHT ON 3 VERY IMPORTANT, AND RELEVANT SUBJECTS, 1. BEING A CONTROLLED BUY-IN/ FORCED SETTLEMENT THEORY, 2. THE PENSLEY AND ABATO OPINION LETTERS SCANDAL, 3. THE SPONGEABLE LAWSUIT PROCEEDINGS.
ALSO A BONUS POST FOUND FROM ANOTHER BOARD
******************************************************************


HERE IS AN INTRIGUING RESPONSE FROM OUR BUDDY AKA ALFIE3155(5)
DOUG FURTH/SIGNATURE FUND(300M SHARES STRONG)



Doug Furths rebuttal to a controlled Buy-In

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_S/threadview?m=tm&bn=100008&tid=40542&mid=40554&tof=-1&rt=2&frt=2&off=1

First of all it would be illegal for this to occur as it would constitute prima facie stock manipulation and the execution of predetermined trades that were not subject to open market conditions.

And second of all there would be NO REASON WHATSOEVER for the company or any of the major long shareholders to engage in this type of ILLEGAL transaction. It would not be in their best interest, it would not be in the best interest of the company and it would not be in the best interest of its shareholders.

Whoever posted this is devoid of any factual basis for doing such and is also clearly not abreast of what is going on. He/she is just engaging in wild speculation and is either dreaming, high or just plain ignorant.

Just for the record.....


Correct. In the event of any "controlled buy in" and other illegal activity there would be MANY legitimate claims against both parties to it, including one from me.

It is NOT happening

There is NO CONTROLLED BUY IN either contemplated or occurring.

Period. I am not a part of it and have no intention of being a part of it. MY group owns enough shares by itself to assure that this cannot occur. And I can tell you that other large shareholders feel exactly the same way and are NOT a poart of any such ILLEGAL manipulation.

The notion of this happening is preposterous and has absolutely ZERO basis in fact, much like all of the other silly rumors floating about in cyberspace.

When viewing things such as this merely look at who is doing it and their track record of accuracy.

Stop listening to this kind of garbage. Things will happen in their own due course.

I have been getting a lot of questions lately about another person's postings concerning the existence of a "controlled buy in" for the shorts in accordance with some sort of a predetermined agreement with certain long shareholders and/or the company.

Let me state unequivocably for the record that this is PURE NONSENSE.


******************************************************************

PENSLEY v. ABATO et al
Plaintiff: JOEL PENSLEY
Defendant: MAUREEN ABATO and OLDE MONMOUTH STOCK TRANSFER CO., INC.

Case Number: 3:2009cv05643
Filed: November 4, 2009

Court: New Jersey District Court
Office: Trenton Office [ Court Info ]
County: Monmouth
Presiding Judge: Judge Joel A. Pisano
Referring Judge: Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Arpert

Nature of Suit: Contract - Other Contract
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Jurisdiction: Diversity
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case
on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New Jersey District

******************************************************************


1.Wondering why, Spongeables is still currently using our trademark for marketing and advertising? http://www.retailmenot.com/view/spongeables.com?utm_source=ask&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=ask%2Bdeals%2Bnaff#1394571

2. Why Michael Popovsky has patents for Soap infused Sponges?http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20090285875


Court Doc’s
http://viewer.zoho.com/docs/cHdbSd
******************************************************************

This here is another intriguing post found on another board!!!

FORGET NSS. That is not the issue of this company. Certainly this
company has been shorted more than almost any other company in the
market for the past 2 years, and the SEC FTD data supports that
position, but who knows how many shorted shares remain in the float? I
don't. The SEC may know, and they MAY be working on that issue as I
wrote in a recent post. But that is not necessary to understand what
management is doing by going dark. Here is what I think management is
thinking right now....

Put yourself in managements' position right now. Assume they have NOT
broken any significant laws. Assume that in their press releases they
have not perjured themselves. I think this is a reasonable assumption
because who perjures themselves with the SEC standing right there
watching?


1) That means when they said the wholesalers exist, the wholesalers
exist.
2) That means they have not sold any shares of their company. (here I
assume that if they did not sell at .20 they certainly would not sell
at .05. It also means they have NOT shorted their own stock.
3) That means they have not DILUTED the share structure.


Now put yourself in their position right now. Your company is on the
gray sheets where no amount of good news other than a clean SEC
investigative report and a clean 10K will exonerate them and allow the
pps to rise. Investors are screaming for you to release the 10K, but
the SEC report is not in. Releasing the 10K without the SEC report
will not get the company off the gray sheets, and so what is the point
in releasing the 10K and 10Q if they are done?


They have continued with business as usual. They signed an important
deal to produce another ICONIC character as a sponge with at least as
good a prospects as SPONGEBOB SQUAREPANTS. I speak here of both
SPIDERMAN and the HULK. Sales for SPONGEBOB are exceeding expectations
and they know it and they know WE know it. Yet, many investors hound
them with telephone calls and emails. They see people giving credence
to the idea that they are crooks. That is spite of the fact that they
have CATEGORICALLY DENIED ANY WRONGDOING. They are working their asses
off and having significant success. Amazon #1 is on the company
WEBSITE.


So put yourself in their shoes. If I was them, and people holding long
were thinking about selling their shares, my attitude would be "WELL
F* THEM.....IF THEY WANT TO SELL THEN THEY SHOULD SELL." Because I
would be buying.

[xDREWx]

stoxmagic,

would you kindly give me your thoughts on the idea that a "controlled buy-in" is illegal, bad for the company, bad for shareholders and not even a real term that relates to stocks or business?

If you google it the first stocks related results are your posts... and soon to be this post.