Replies to post #233698 on Green Energy Enterprises Inc. (GYOG)

[packerfan9]

Invest by there own recent actions they prove that vote in Sept was bogus. So trying again isn't any less bogus. This is IMO going to be easy for judge to tell both sides Jeff is still CEO. That until valid shareholder vote takes place that is how it will be.

[BLTN]

Investman...your statement puts things in their proper perspective. The 'self-interested' group you speak to wants more shares to flood the market so they can 'get theirs' first. Hopefully, that is indeed what will happen; they get theirs as in just reward, sooner rather than later. GLTU

[crazy horse 0]

Investman432 Kenneth Tomchin Atty for QASP

(Mr. Tomchin is not taking shareholder calls or emails)

My Question is what kind of an atty would not follow the Court's ruling. ?

Officers

James Ray, CEO
Joshua Henderson, President & COO

Directors

James Ray
Joshua Henderson
William Cirmo
QASP's Florida Counsel:

Kenneth Tomchin
(Mr. Tomchin is not taking shareholder calls or emails)

http://www.qasp-thetruth.info/

Technically, there was no shareholders meeting. Certain holders of preferred shares delivered a "written consent" seeking to change the board of directors. However, the Preferred Class didn't have the authority or voting power to actually change directors, therefore the action is moot and meaningless. They have been given clear and irrefutable warning that their actions did not result in a change in directors, however they have proceeded as if it did, including making filings in government offices. These actions are clearly tortious interference, as is the ongoing harassment campaign, defiance of court orders and postings on blogs of all sorts of threats and predictions.

Attempts change the voting rights of shareholders requires the affirmative vote of all the affected classes, therefore any effort to ram through new voting rights to the preferred class (i.e., on an as-converted basis) would be invalidated by any court - and that would be especially true in QASP's case because the actions are being orchestrated by a self-interested group in defiance of court orders, and by people not authorized to take action on behalf of the company.