Replies to post #19497 on Bourque Industries Inc (BORK)

[abcde2]

Using your own words you think BAM lent Bourque 474K and that was the justification for printing 113 Million shares including the other 20 something Million shares from the other entities---is that correct? Was an audit ever done ?

Now---the 113 Million shares had a market value under the symbol BORK in the middle of 2011 if you use 3 dollars as an example of 339 Million dollars---is that correct?

Since you found that entry you are checking----and i do not profess to be an expert either but can you now show me how the 474K was spent and allocate it against the fact that the ending cash balance for those 3 consecutive quarters of operation always ended at a negligible number and shortly under 1 thousand dollars thereafter in each quarter going forward?

Do you see what i mean?

Had the company, when their share price on the pinks was 3 dollars or more and trading large volume been able to use their public entity to create script where do you think they would be today?

who were these 75 people and it is not disclosed on OTC Markets yet JBIT was. Do you have this list and for Basalt and Bourque Alloys as well?

[abcde2]

At the same time BAM lent Bourque 400K you will see that Bourque Alloys and JB received loans from Bourque went up by that same amount and thus all loans and borrowings canceled one another out---that is purely my interpretation. Loans from one went up and borrowings from the other 2 also went up by the same amount. Net result is zero and the cash balances remained a constant negligibale all during 2011 and 2012 was quite similar.

Following the trail of cash balances is all you can go by when they are not fully reporting to show effective outlows and inflows.

[gotmilk]

"... the Company (BORK) received loans of $474,500 and $15,000 respectively from BAM"

"That's the accounting for a very large protion of those BAM proceeds and where the money $$$ came from for the building lease and fit out with equipment and supplies."

So slick let me understand, BAM loaned BORK the cash it received from the offering, then having zero cash assets it asked BORK to purchase BAM. GOT IT?

Prior to September 26, 2011 Bourque Alloys Manufacturing, Inc. was controlled by John M. Bourque

Please cross-reference the following two public posts, authored by Edge1 and located on IH's Bourque Industries, Inc. (BORK) board, to the information appended that was obtained thru the empowerment of the interacted sanction of John M. Bourque.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edge1
July 28, 2011
Something has been bothering me that maybe someone here can help me with. BAM was created to manufacture. My understanding is that the offering has not closed or been fully executed. Why did BORK release the PR talking about leasing manufacture space, and I believe even had a grand opening if BAM is the manufacturer? Also, in JohnII's post he states they are ready to go in as little as 2 weeks at the site. What and who bought the equipment? Or leased it? Is BORK or BAM funding this? If it is BAM then PRs by BORK are deceiving. Mixing of funds is a big mess and smart businesses avoid this. If BORK could fund this then why need BAM?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edge1
July 28, 2011
Lines should not cross for starters. If they do then you do not have solid enough processes and procedures to prevent it. Your simplification as to how large corporations operate is not off really, but in your example the top corporations is getting the money kicked to them and then dropping it back down for budgeting. This is not the case YET between BORK and BAM. They are separate entities. BORK has no rights to BAM as of now. They should be operated as such and intermingling could trigger legal action. I work for a Fortune250 company so I understand how these work. It makes a lot of sense and is good business to form separate corporations within your parent company. But these are usually formed with the corporation being the wholly owned (unless a joint venture project). This formation seperately then we "promise" to join them later is not standard at all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 25, 2011 - Things are going to happen soon, trust me.
May 25, 2011 - Buy all the BORK you can now, and later buy more.
May 31, 2011 - Hold on to your BORK shares. I would say buy BORK now.
June 03, 2011 - Buy BORK stock, and you can take that to the bank.
July 15, 2011 - Whatever I talk about is gospel.
Aug 09, 2011 - Today is an opportunity to buy buy buy BORK.
Aug 10, 2011 - Time to Buy, Buy, Buy BORK. You will not regret it.
Aug 18, 2011 - I say buy, buy, buy BORK, and if you can not, hold strong.
Aug 18, 2011 - Today is another opportunity to buy and hold BORK.
Aug 18, 2011 - Have a great day and buy buy more BORK.
Sept 04, 2011 - Buy BORK within the next 45 days at the most.
Sept 04, 2011 - If I were you, I would BUY BUY BUY BORK.
Sept 14, 2011 - I'm telling it like it is, no Hype with an honest assessment.

[gotmilk]

slick, You don't GET IT that Bourque Alloys Manufacturing was created as a private company by John Bourque and associates, having existence only on paper with BAM shares created out of thin air with John Bourque assigning half to himself, this at a cost of a few thousand dollars for legal fees to register the company.

This private company called Bourque Alloys Manufacturing that has zero cash reserves, zero revenue, and zero ability to manufacture anything since it exist only as a name on a piece of paper, nothing else as in structure, equipment, raw material, and most likely not even a Porta Potty rental since the owners have other day jobs with facilities.

Someone suggested that BAM held license rights BI did not have, and I suggest that there is no papers filed by Kryron Global that terminated BI's existing license rights obtained from the Global merger and transfered them to BAM.

BUT it really matters NOT since the 09/29/2011 Acquisitions were a "Packaged Deal" where Bourque Industries upon acquiring Kryron Global held all Kryron-related patents which consolidated all facets of Kryron technology into Bourque Industries of sales, distribution, manufacturing, future product development, and intellectual property comprising all global Kryron patents and licensing rights.

So again, Bourque Alloys Manufacturing had no manufacturing infrastructure, and it held no intellectual property and/or licensing rights of a critical nature but absent from Bourque Industries ability from making, using, selling or offering for sale Kryron-related products.

Lets see, BI purchased BAM that only held a loan to BI of $325,000 for 92,000,000 BORKs, which was BI selling its company owned BORKs for $0.0035 each, that when BORK pps was over $2.50 and I'm sure Ironridge or any other sleezy thing would have given BI a better deal.

Bottom Line: This "packaged deal" was fraud.