MBorowski,
The popular opinion on this board is (A)the CEO is lying about the SEC complaining about the pictures, or (B)is only bringing up the pictures because the SEC had much stronger complaints ALONG with the pictures.
IF any of those top two scenarios were true...I'd have to say it's the second scenario I listed. But I'm not convinced yet.
We know that the first scenario would be the result of a man who has just lost his mind and has REALLY gone off the deep end, desperate to throw any kind of attack at the SEC he can based on nothing. He even went as far as to closing his personal blog to make his story more true.
The second scenario, if true, shows that the SEC is focusing on TRIVIAL matters. A picture on the website, a cartoon on his blog, and bio info of the congressman on the website, which listed he wasn't with the company anymore (which I'll admit...now it does make sense to take him off the website). IF the SEC had much stronger evidence that is substantial regarding the company and illegal activity, it seems trivial to go to lengths of pointing out a cartoon on the CEOs blog. It makes no sense. If you go after a murderer because you've identified his weapon, and it's fact he murdered someone...you don't go to extra lengths to point out he has a picture of Scarface framed on his wall posed in a firing stance with bullets pouring out.
Can we all agree on the above? I'm sticking to common sense when I made that post
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
