Replies to post #327863 on Spongetech Delivery Systems Inc (fka SPNGQ)

[Xenophon]

Here's what is known for sure: there are at least 2,999,984,950 shares registered and outstanding in the public market as free trading shares, there may be more shares issued which are unregistered but issued in certificate form by OTHER than the transfer agent (e.g., Moskowitz - perhaps using forged signatures and seal). Such further shares above the last KNOWN authorized level (3 BILLION) might not be valid shares for at least one of two reasons - (1) not authorized, (2) authorized pursuant to an inchoate increase in A/S done secretly by special non-public meeting using the Class B supervoting shares held by Mosky and Mett for majority of vote needed to authorize a share increase, but the further share might have been not properly issued via TA.

Or there may be MORE than 3 BILLION valid issued shares if there was a secret ballot/special meeting to raise the A/S using the Class B supervotes to carry the proposal and if the additional shares were issued directly by the company and NOT via the TA (unusual, but not impossible).


Bottom line: AT LEAST 3 BILLION VALID SPNG SHARES ARE ISSUED, MAYBE MORE.

[cowtown jay]

David, is the testimony provided "true and complete?"

You told me to lay out my issue, and there it is (for now).

A broker, who evidently received one of the four Pensley opinion letters written between March - June, 2007, noticed a difference in the typeface when receiving another Pensley opinion letter two years later.

"84; Although the forged letters contain the same substantive text and false representations as the four previous Pensley letters, they also contain dates and names of the beneficiaries in a different font type and size than Pensley used in the prior letters."

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2010/comp21515.pdf

And from that, we have the TA and Pensley writing to the SEC, and the subsequent discovery that SpongeTech illegally dumped 2.5 billion shares, largely by forging Pensley opinion letters to the Transfer Agent.

Does that testimony meet the standard of being "true and complete?"

Pensley's own lawyer has since told the SEC that Pensley mis-spoke. And we now know how the SEC feels about that, especially since Pensley repeated his testimony on more than once occasion. So allow me to believe that it is prudent to examine alternative explanations for what transpired.

Let us first consider the time this came about. May/June 2009. SpongeTech reaching their all-time high of $0.2851 on June 12th, when an astounding 550 million shares trade in that single day.

Two weeks later, we have SpongeTech's share issuance log leaked, somehow, from the TA. On June 26th, the share issuance log is posted on the angelfire website, complete with transactions made that very same day. I will refrain from providing a link in order to comply with Ihub's TOU, but google search "spongetech share issuance" and the link can be found in the search results.

And almost exactly at the point where that leaked share issuance log is posted on the web, we have the SEC zeroing in on those very same certs to identify specific instances where SpongeTech allegedly executed the dump.

"95. For example, on or about June 24, 2009, Moskowitz instructed
Worldwide Stock to issue 34,000,000 restricted Spongetech shares to RM Enterprises in Share Certificate No. 3864. On that same day, Moskowitz used Halperin's letter and instructed Worldwide Stock to remove restrictive legends from the shares and transfer
them to Diomede Corp. and Maremmano Corp."

(same link as above)

It just doesn't make sense, David, that as soon as Pensley and Olde Monmouth are out of harm's way, the TA list gets leaked at the very same time as SpongeTech allegedly begins to illegally dump shares.

Were we on the RegSho threshhold list then?