News Focus
News Focus
icon url

Chili Palmer

04/23/10 6:10 PM

#310713 RE: patchman #310712

The facts are that SPNG was selling/dumping shares to anyone anywhere who would by them.
icon url

Objective One

04/23/10 6:12 PM

#310717 RE: patchman #310712

No sir, your fun will be having to draft letters to respond to your involvement with the SEC being sicked on SPNG. Enjoy being a defendant.
icon url

now invest

04/23/10 6:15 PM

#310722 RE: patchman #310712

IF I were you I wouldn't be suggesting anything to the shareholders at this point... are you trying to get them to sell... by infering you know how the case will turn out??

icon url

overachiever

04/23/10 6:29 PM

#310740 RE: patchman #310712

The SPNG losers are clowns Patch. They are on their last legs and they know it. Their little pump scheme failed miserably today as well.
icon url

ID Supermoney

04/23/10 7:12 PM

#310790 RE: patchman #310712

I wonder how SPNG got the letters from the SEC??

Everything that you write now can be used against you as well!!

SPNG vs PATCH

I wonder who will win!!

spng knew of the complaint letters to the SEC and discussed each one and it's content and the author. They must have had copies of the complaints filed provided by the SEC. I find that part of the suit the most interesting.






ID
icon url

cowtown jay

04/24/10 2:32 AM

#310980 RE: patchman #310712

Hello, David

"...to prove Libel they have to prove that their was a change in perception about the company. Good luck proving that, just look at shareholders to prove otherwise."

The truth is, David, that I'm a shareholder whose perception about the company changed by reading your posts.

A simple fact. Borne out by my posting history. I've previously stated that I look to you as best representing the reasons why I should not use the current PPS circumstance to add to my position. And to this today, I have not accumulated more shares. Your stated goal of educating the dummies evidently meeting with some success.

The point being that I take exception to your statement that shareholders will prove their perceptions were otherwise changed, than by your input. In my case, that simply isn't true.

And I don't think you can have it both ways, David. You can't spend so much time working toward your stated goal of "educating" investors about the perils of investing in scam companies, and then claim that their perceptions were not changed by your input.

jay
icon url

starfire

04/24/10 5:48 AM

#310993 RE: patchman #310712

Most important of all, they have to prove the SEC charges in the wells notice are wrong before they can claim anything.



we will hear a settlement soon! I would think SPNG's lawyer did his homework right before filing. Also SPNG's lawyer is well versed with practising law in US and NY