Reading comprehension is becoming a lost art in our modern society.
The fact that anyone, at this point, after the documentation that has been released to date, could state that "Dean did nothing Illegal!!!" in bold, with exclamation points, is one of the most laughable statements that has EVER been posted on this board.
I don't need to list all the blatantly illegal acts our former CEO had his hands all over to make my point--all I need is one.
Did you miss the Corporate Air Repair contract in 04/2010 in which Dean Bradley owned 1/3, Joshua Henderson owned 1/3, and Quasar owned 1/3? Combine this contract with the Press Release that was released on 5/06/2010 in which Corporate Air Repair was listed as a WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY!
Maybe you should re-read an actual forward looking statement: "This press release contains "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and such forward-looking statements are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. You are cautioned that such statements are subject to a multitude of risks and uncertainties that could cause future circumstances, events, or results to differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements as a result of various factors, and other risks. You should consider these factors in evaluating the forward-looking statements included herein, and not place undue reliance on such statements. The forward-looking statements in this release are made as of the date hereof and Quasar Aerospace Industries, Inc. under take no obligation to update such statements."
Forward looking statements do not cover outright lies and/or fraud and/ or blatant self-dealings. They are also forward looking statements, meaning they deal with events that are in the future, so that if something doesn't happen, it is then covered by the forward looking statement. This is not to include a gross misrepresentation of a contract that has already been signed. It WAS NOT a wholly owned subsidiary, and yet they lied to the public in order to sell shares. Somebody who has always cried out that this is a "share selling scam" is now taking the position that nothing illegal was done????????????? Who are you trying to protect? Hmmmmm...
DO NOT BOTHER WITH A RESPONSE--- I ONLY DEAL WITH THE TRUTH