This from another board was interesting: From

This from another board was interesting:

Quote:

---

From the SFRX 10Q - Quarter ending June 2014 : page 38

Quote:
Some discovery had progressed to the point that Seafarer had, on September 25, 2013, filed a Motion to File Counterclaims and Third-Party Complaint (“Motion for Leave to File Counterclaim”) along with a proposed Counterclaim. Such counterclaims were filed in December 2013. Included in the counterclaim was an allegation of conspiracy between Eldred and Sean Murphy for the publication of false information which Seafarer sued Murphy for and received a judgment for libel against Murphy on April 1, 2011 for $5,080,000


There appears to be a link between the only shareholder of record that has not had their restrictive legend removed and a individual that was sued by the company for liable and slander which the company won.

The following was posted on this board

Quote:

buccaneer1961 Member Level Wednesday, 09/17/14 10:56:52 AM
Re: jmb015 post# 37434
Post # of 37460
wow..could it be that shadiness runs in the family?? and ones actually support them til they get burned? then around the campfire they talk how they will win money from a gentleman stating the truth...ya,lets shut him up...as they take another drink?? loosers!! shady trash!! that's exactly the conclusion ones can come up with after all that im sure...too much contraversey...its said he takes no salary but how does that property of his gets paid for? is there a wash cycle that ends with him? very interesting,i wonder when those restricted shares are givin,if only the ones in the inner circle of favors get cleared by his family so they can get money while the others get nothing but starve...this would make an interesting script...im interested and now so curious and really must know! any/all info is welcome


As I understand it from my DD, there is only one shareholder of restricted stock of record that has not had their restrictive legend removed when it was requested. There are multiple SEC violations which do not allow the company to legally remove the restrictive legend. (Full Text of this is found on page 38 of the 2014 10Q)

Why would that fact not be included in the post above?

---

So what this post and filed paperwork is saying is that the last time someone (Murphy) was this aggressive with their attack on Seafarer it was because that person (Murphy) was linked to someone (Eldred) who was suing, and is now being sued by, Seafarer and KK. And Murphy was just a patsy who was used for someone else's goals. Wow. Talk about shady deals! And Seafarer won that case big time. Even without collecting money, at least everyone knows the truth about Murphy now.

Looks like it might be happening again.