All I'm saying is folks should pay attention to what service they're really paying for. The agreement mentions nothing about NSS, and the judge previously ruled it's not a relevant issue in this particular case. Furthermore, the company itself never presented NSS as an affirmative defense in this proceeding.
Frizzell probably couldn't justify spending $130,000 or whatever so he starts compiling some secret "evidence" using flawed collection methods and not even knowing all the players in this story. He plans to submit this "stuff" in a hearing where NSS was already ruled as not relevant. What exactly is this supposed to accomplish? IMO it's not going to have any effect on the judge's decision about revocation. The SEC attorneys can't do very much when handed a mountain of flawed data. Once the final ruling is made, the current written contract terminates. He can no longer go to others saying he represents 5,300+ investors because he won't have documentation to back this up.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
