Replies to post #328431 on Spongetech Delivery Systems, Inc. (fka SPNGQ)

[patchman]

I just don't see how a favorable decision in the criminal case can be reconciled to an unfavorable action in the bankruptcy case.

How about, because they have nothing to do with each other.

A favorable criminal conviction validates that Metter and Moskowitz were running a con and not a company. It means that they stiffed many people for payment and cheated shareholders thru lies.

How that relates to an unfavorable bankruptcy is similarly easy. Companies that come out of bankruptcy do so by providing the courts a business plan that leads to profitability. SPNG no longer has licensing agreements for many of their products. That means the product you think will be a great revenue generator is no longer available. SPNG proved that it could not turn a profit even with great advertising. The SPNG products sold a mere $1 Million out of Dicon's $7 Million. Those sales are insufficient to cover operational costs. Then there is this little thing about shares. SPNG has NO MONEY and thus must borrow to re-start. That comes from somewhere.

In a bankruptcy proceeding, whether the company comes back to life or shuts down, the shareholders are generally screwed. You keep begging the judge to protect the shareholders but you have yet to lay out a rational plan as to how that happens while insuring that everybody ahead of you in the restitution plan is covered.

I actually wished he would have endorsed my letter to Judge Bernstein.

If you want to get endorsements of a document, the document has to stand the test of logic. Simply crying 'protect us' without offering a solution as to how that could possibly happen with the evidence before you is not something to endorse. start with a laid out plan as to how SPNG starts the business back up, what it could sell, and how all of that gets funded and repaid.

[patchman]

Jay, one more issue to address if I may.

How exactly would you like the sharecount issue responded to and by whom?

All your allegations to date, along with the other SPNG's, is that the SEC is hiding everything and covering up the massive NSS. So who does the court go to for this audit of proprietary data that you would believe the results from? I would suggest that it would be the SEC that the court would go to for this information and when the SEC response back is "we investigated and found nothing" I would similarly offer that usch an answer would not satisfy you as a shareholder. Essetially that is the answer you have today and you won't buy it so what would make you buy it 6 months from now when a bankruptcy court reports it to you from an SEC audit?

Would you be satisfied with a response of anything but....There are 6 Billion NSS in the stock?

Please tell me how it all works.