Patch, if that's what you want to posit, fine by me. Let's do that. You said, "So between this (Feb 09) filing and the next due filing we are led to believe that they bought back nearly 600 million shares from RME and bought Dicon while increasing their paid advertising (new deals and stock promotion contracts)? How did they do that when A/R is used to buy the new inventory and labor to meet next quarter sales? What other “assets” did they have that they could use to buy up shares and buy Dicon?"
600 million RME shares
Dicon
paid advertising
Start with what we know.
1. Paid advertising. Granted, we only had $4.9 million in net income, from our $31 million in revenues after FY09 3Q, as you rightly say. But as the filing indicates, there was a $10.1 million expense paid from the revenues generated for the advertising.
2. Dicon purchase. "...the Company issued an aggregate of 415,327 shares of common stock to RM Enterprises International, Inc., in consideration of the advance to the Company of an aggregate of $4,286,000 by RM Enterprises International..."
And from the February filing, until "the next due filing," we know the company went from $31 million in revenue, up to the $50 million in total revenue they voluntarily reported in the NT-10K. So a $20 million 4th quarter, with an FY09 net income of $11 million.
3. The RME shares. Let's use your 600 million share reduction total. The filing detailing the return and cancellation of 133 million shares. The filing also providing a share price of $0.0184. Applying that PPS to the 467 million shares required to reach your 600 million share total, would represent a cost of $8.6 million. (The filing also indicates a PPS of $0.013. The cost to repurchase the RME shares would only be $6 million if that PPS is the correct one). Entirely feasible that the 4th quarter 09 net, as reported to the SEC, would have provided the funds necessary to repurchase the shares.
And again, we have the capital provided by Pike for the ownership stake he has taken, whether it's the minimum 10% reported on the Form 4's, or whether the percentage is significantly higher.
Unfortunately, David, this is an exercise in futility. You can laugh and ridicule all you want. But the bottom line is your speculation is not materially superior to that of anyone else (with the exception of mine, if that makes you feel better).
I have never said the SEC actions, including the Wells Notice, and the other points you mentioned, were without merit. However, I have learned, in conducting my own investigations for the government, that it's important to remain objective until the investigation is complete. From the moment of your participation here, that has been something you have steadfastly refused to do.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
