Posted On: 09/28/2016 4:48:41 AM
Post# of 7802
Re: Coat Tail Rider #2901
Ahhh, the dreamer strikes again. You really believe KK Fudd can show the posts were false and then prove damages? And you really think Fudd's co-conspirators are going to take the stand and explain to Judge Stephens why they haven't bought back and drove the share price up? I would certainly love to see that.
Wasn't the mantra that he already lost and they just had to decide the damages? That's what has been posted repeatedly and that's what SFRX even claims in their SEC filings.
On or about October 15, 2014, the Company and Volentine entered into a stipulation whereby Volentine admitted to his tortious conduct, however the stipulated damages agreed to were rejected by the Court, and the Company is proceeding to trial on damages against Volentine in a non-jury trial on December 1, 2015.
See the bottom of page 22 here; https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/11062...-16959.htm
But this is what Judge Stephens explained to "not my first rodeo Huffman" and Fudd in April.
THE COURT: Once again, though, if you prove it's
8 all false, if you prove that the guy -- even if you
9 were able to prove that the guy just sits around and
10 makes stuff up for sport --
11 MR. HUFFMAN: Right.
12 THE COURT: -- if you're able to do that , what's
13 the -- how do you get past the next couple of links
14 that you need in your chain; that is, how do you show
15 it caused any damages and how do you show that --
16 MR. HUFFMAN: Well that's for the finder of fact,
17 in deed, to make that nexus. But we show the postings
18 and you can show that --
19 THE COURT: Well isn't that me ?
20 MR. HUFFMAN: It is.
21 THE COURT: Yeah.
22 MR. HUFFMAN: But we show the -- Judge, I believe
23 the evidence is there. This isn't my first rodeo.
24 THE COURT: Well I'm asking you so let's hear it.
25 MR. HUFFMAN: Okay. So he makes a posting on a
1 Tuesday -- all right? -- or a number of postings,
2 saying that there's insider trading, they're stealing
3 treasure. Because this is a treasure recovery company
4 that's out there on the east coast. Okay?
5 THE COURT: I thought he was saying that there
6 isn't any treasure.
7 MR. HUFFMAN: Exactly. Right. Or he says there
8 isn't any treasure or they're stealing it, or they're
9 giving these fraudulent and security ... and then the
10 next day there's a massive sale. Okay?
11 Or have people available who can come in and
12 testify that would have put money into the company
13 directly, but they read his postings and they did not.
14 We also have people available who said they read
15 his postings. They were shareholders of they company.
16 They sold, thus driving down the price because they
17 sold.
18 THE COURT: But when they found out it was false,
19 did they buy it back and drive the price back up?
20 MR. HUFFMAN: Well, Judge that's not really --
21 THE COURT: No, it is. You've got to understand.
22 You can't show a temporary change in price which --
23 you know, if the price goes down tomorrow because of
24 something that somebody said that was false, the rest
25 of the world realizes it's true the day after
1 tomorrow, the price goes back up, then you don't have
2 any damages --
3 MR. HUFFMAN: Judge, I --
4 THE COURT: -- if that what happens.
5 MR. HUFFMAN: I understand the theory. However,
6 this was an ongoing -- our original lawsuit is an
7 ongoing period of time -- I believe covered a period
8 of six months -- that could show the diminution in the
9 value of the value of the stock price.
10 That continued. Okay? Even during the time of
11 his violation of the order -- okay? -- there was
12 reactions in the market -- okay? -- because of his
13 postings.
14 THE COURT: What I'm trying to tell you is --
15 MR. HUFFMAN: I can also argue res ipsa loquitur.
16 THE COURT: No, you can't. There is -- there is a
17 bunch of people out there -- I used to be one -- who
18 used scientific method to try to evaluate the changes
19 in stock prices as a result of the release of
20 certain kinds of information --
21 MR. HUFFMAN: Right.
22 THE COURT: -- true or false information -- into
23 the marketplace.
24 And there are accepted scientific methods for
25 being able to determine the difference between
1 information release and randomness or temporary blimps
2 based on information being false that everybody pretty
3 quickly figures out is false.
4 MR. HUFFMAN: Right.
5 THE COURT: All the stuff that you showed me in
6 the Complaint originally -- in the original Complaint
7 -- I realize you're talking about different stuff
8 now, but the stuff that was in the Complaint was the
9 kind of information, which if it was false, would
10 usually be found out by the rest of the market to be
11 false and any sort of damage to the stock price that
12 came from that bad information would be -- would be
13 likely to be recovered.
14 MR. HUFFMAN: I would have to disagree with the
15 Court that --
16 THE COURT: Well you might want to read the book I
17 wrote on the subject.
18 MR. HUFFMAN: I will do so.
Now here's the funny part of your post where you really dream big.
Huffman told me that well over a year ago, and Cliff Hunt threatened me earlier this year. All I had to do was make just one more post.......JUST ONE MORE. Of course they were also investigating to see if my post made the stock price drop. Plus some shareholders were going to sue me if I didn't respond properly to Hunt's threat.
Well.......keep dreaming dreamer. But if you all decide to make a move I look forward to meeting you in court. You all can explain to the Judge what's false, the damages caused, and why the market didn't react favorably when it figured out my post were false.
I mean how many times have you posted that I'm wrong?
GL dreamer.
Quote:
Volentine will lose
Wasn't the mantra that he already lost and they just had to decide the damages? That's what has been posted repeatedly and that's what SFRX even claims in their SEC filings.
On or about October 15, 2014, the Company and Volentine entered into a stipulation whereby Volentine admitted to his tortious conduct, however the stipulated damages agreed to were rejected by the Court, and the Company is proceeding to trial on damages against Volentine in a non-jury trial on December 1, 2015.
See the bottom of page 22 here; https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/11062...-16959.htm
But this is what Judge Stephens explained to "not my first rodeo Huffman" and Fudd in April.
THE COURT: Once again, though, if you prove it's
8 all false, if you prove that the guy -- even if you
9 were able to prove that the guy just sits around and
10 makes stuff up for sport --
11 MR. HUFFMAN: Right.
12 THE COURT: -- if you're able to do that , what's
13 the -- how do you get past the next couple of links
14 that you need in your chain; that is, how do you show
15 it caused any damages and how do you show that --
16 MR. HUFFMAN: Well that's for the finder of fact,
17 in deed, to make that nexus. But we show the postings
18 and you can show that --
19 THE COURT: Well isn't that me ?
20 MR. HUFFMAN: It is.
21 THE COURT: Yeah.
22 MR. HUFFMAN: But we show the -- Judge, I believe
23 the evidence is there. This isn't my first rodeo.
24 THE COURT: Well I'm asking you so let's hear it.
25 MR. HUFFMAN: Okay. So he makes a posting on a
1 Tuesday -- all right? -- or a number of postings,
2 saying that there's insider trading, they're stealing
3 treasure. Because this is a treasure recovery company
4 that's out there on the east coast. Okay?
5 THE COURT: I thought he was saying that there
6 isn't any treasure.
7 MR. HUFFMAN: Exactly. Right. Or he says there
8 isn't any treasure or they're stealing it, or they're
9 giving these fraudulent and security ... and then the
10 next day there's a massive sale. Okay?
11 Or have people available who can come in and
12 testify that would have put money into the company
13 directly, but they read his postings and they did not.
14 We also have people available who said they read
15 his postings. They were shareholders of they company.
16 They sold, thus driving down the price because they
17 sold.
18 THE COURT: But when they found out it was false,
19 did they buy it back and drive the price back up?
20 MR. HUFFMAN: Well, Judge that's not really --
21 THE COURT: No, it is. You've got to understand.
22 You can't show a temporary change in price which --
23 you know, if the price goes down tomorrow because of
24 something that somebody said that was false, the rest
25 of the world realizes it's true the day after
1 tomorrow, the price goes back up, then you don't have
2 any damages --
3 MR. HUFFMAN: Judge, I --
4 THE COURT: -- if that what happens.
5 MR. HUFFMAN: I understand the theory. However,
6 this was an ongoing -- our original lawsuit is an
7 ongoing period of time -- I believe covered a period
8 of six months -- that could show the diminution in the
9 value of the value of the stock price.
10 That continued. Okay? Even during the time of
11 his violation of the order -- okay? -- there was
12 reactions in the market -- okay? -- because of his
13 postings.
14 THE COURT: What I'm trying to tell you is --
15 MR. HUFFMAN: I can also argue res ipsa loquitur.
16 THE COURT: No, you can't. There is -- there is a
17 bunch of people out there -- I used to be one -- who
18 used scientific method to try to evaluate the changes
19 in stock prices as a result of the release of
20 certain kinds of information --
21 MR. HUFFMAN: Right.
22 THE COURT: -- true or false information -- into
23 the marketplace.
24 And there are accepted scientific methods for
25 being able to determine the difference between
1 information release and randomness or temporary blimps
2 based on information being false that everybody pretty
3 quickly figures out is false.
4 MR. HUFFMAN: Right.
5 THE COURT: All the stuff that you showed me in
6 the Complaint originally -- in the original Complaint
7 -- I realize you're talking about different stuff
8 now, but the stuff that was in the Complaint was the
9 kind of information, which if it was false, would
10 usually be found out by the rest of the market to be
11 false and any sort of damage to the stock price that
12 came from that bad information would be -- would be
13 likely to be recovered.
14 MR. HUFFMAN: I would have to disagree with the
15 Court that --
16 THE COURT: Well you might want to read the book I
17 wrote on the subject.
18 MR. HUFFMAN: I will do so.
Now here's the funny part of your post where you really dream big.
Quote:
then you will lose.
Huffman told me that well over a year ago, and Cliff Hunt threatened me earlier this year. All I had to do was make just one more post.......JUST ONE MORE. Of course they were also investigating to see if my post made the stock price drop. Plus some shareholders were going to sue me if I didn't respond properly to Hunt's threat.
Well.......keep dreaming dreamer. But if you all decide to make a move I look forward to meeting you in court. You all can explain to the Judge what's false, the damages caused, and why the market didn't react favorably when it figured out my post were false.
I mean how many times have you posted that I'm wrong?
Quote:
Wrong again,
GL dreamer.
(0)
(0)
