Then buy. Do you know why this PIPE investor, as he/she refers to himself/herself, posted this about the last hearing? It seems to be at odds with what Huffman filed with the Court.
First the PIPE investor. I put in bold certain comments consistent with Huffman's and the Defendant's recollection.
jrf30
Tuesday, 12/01/15 06:45:42 PM
Re: Renard post# 45207
Post #
45208
of 45216
Answers short, as I'm on a project ... and hopefully a pretty close interpretation of today's events.
Motions by defendant were not discussed today. Judge said defendant could talk to plaintiff's lawyer, but judge did not want to hear them today. The $7 man was angering the judge because he was so unspecific. Things like "they have to give that to me. it is a law." "Really" said the judge? "Please quote me that law". "It is an SEC law" "Really? Again quote me that law" "The law says they have to give it to me" One more time Mr V___, don't tell me it IS a law. I want you to QUOTE me this law, or give me its number, because I know of no law for what you are asking" "Well ... it's a law, and they have to give it to me." was the frustrated response. Answers like that made the judge stop all defendants "motions" and say he was not going to hear them. Here's another one. By the way, I use quotes to show talk and to separate each one, but it may or may not be word for word. hard to get it exact, since I do not have a recording of it. That's why I say in March maybe I'll try to get it recorded on tape if that is legal. smile
"No your honor, it was a pump and dump scheme. His family dumped stock" "And do you have proof of that?" "No, My Kennedy won't give me the proof. But I know it" "HOw?" Just because I know it." "Mr HUffman, the company has to file a form if one of his family members sells stock, do they not?" Yes your honor." "Have there been any filings?" "No your honor, there have been no filings and no selling by any family member." "Okay, so Mr V___, why do you still say his family members have sold stock? " "Because I just know it your honor. I just can't prove it."
Things like that don't go over well with a judge, who stated that "in my courtroom, we follow the rule of law. Not just 'because I say so' statements."
This coming March will be another courtroom event. For contempt AND damages, both in one day.
there is more, but I can't write it now. I also thought it interesting that I think I heard that out of the 40,000 posts (At that time) put on this board over an 8 year period, over 10,000 were by defendant, all put up in a short few month period of time. I forget how many months. Shows how he was going crazy posting. I remember post after post after post by him, answering his own posts and just dominating the board making everyone feel bad if they wanted to invest in this company. Glad he is gone. Anyway, the "motions" were not an issue today, and in march I personally think things are going to go from bad to worse for this person. My guess at this point is a rare JAIL or prison time for this man. Not normal for libel or defamation cases, but I guess that's for the contempt charge. Timeline? March he goes to court. Told jail time coming. April 1 is a bad day, since it is April Fool's day. maybe April 2nd he goes to jail. A fitting day. Celebrate Fool's one day, and put away a fool the next. April 2nd. Hopefully we'll be diving on found treasure by then TOO.
He/she obviously got some insight as to what happened by either Kyle or Craig in reference to a certain law.
The Defendant cited a certain law in this motion.....
https://www.scribd.com/doc/304900741/Motion-f...l-Contempt
But Huffman never mentions anything about an SEC filing when a family member sells. He just says family members aren't getting bottomless convertible notes. I haven't seen that stated anywhere by the Defendant.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/304898954/Motion-f...-Sanctions
This is what the Defendant told the Court in response to the Motion to Quash, which Huffman obviously botched. Bottomless convertibles are never mentioned, though Huffman admits they are issued in the filing above.
9. As the Court is aware, one of the main issues in the case is my contention that the Plaintiff has a longstanding practice of “pumping and dumping”. This has been done for years for the purpose of lining the pockets of family and friends of Seafarer’s CEO, Kyle Kennedy (Insiders), with hundreds of thousands of dollars (or more) at the expense of other shareholders.
13. Plaintiff’s only motive in bringing their Motion to Quash is to try to prevent me from proving what the records from Cleartrust show – a deliberate and classic pump and dump scheme.
14. As noted on the Securities and Exchange Commission website, ““ Pump-and-dump” schemes involve the touting of a company’s stock (typically small, so-called “microcap” companies) through false and misleading statements to the marketplace. These false claims could be made on social media such as Facebook and Twitter, as well as on bulletin boards and chat rooms. Pump-and-dump schemes often occur on the Internet where it is common to see messages posted that urge readers to buy a stock quickly or to sell before the price goes down, or a telemarketer will call using the same sort of pitch. Often the promoters will claim to have “inside” information about an impending development or to use an “infallible” combination of economic and stock market data to pick stocks. In reality, they may be company insiders or paid promoters who stand to gain by selling their shares after the stock price is “pumped” up by the buying frenzy they create. Once these fraudsters “dump” their shares and stop hyping the stock, the price typically falls, and investors lose their money.”
http://www.sec.gov/answers/pumpdump.htm
15. Paragraph 14 above describes the activity that I uncovered and is the reason that Plaintiff is trying to silence me and others.
16. The pumping and dumping is always done with family members, related parties, or insiders. And, as admitted by the Plaintiff in its filing, the Plaintiffs scheme represents “...significant potential dilution to the Company’s current shareholders ...and, it is very possible that such dilution may significantly negatively affect the trading price of the Company’s common stock.
The fact poster like the PIPE investor is suggesting permits are coming, along with other examples of Mary/FBAR said, shows this is a classic pump and dump as the SEC describes.
Should be quite the trial. Especially if/when Mary takes the stand.
First the PIPE investor. I put in bold certain comments consistent with Huffman's and the Defendant's recollection.
jrf30
Tuesday, 12/01/15 06:45:42 PM
Re: Renard post# 45207
Post #
45208
of 45216
Answers short, as I'm on a project ... and hopefully a pretty close interpretation of today's events.
Motions by defendant were not discussed today. Judge said defendant could talk to plaintiff's lawyer, but judge did not want to hear them today. The $7 man was angering the judge because he was so unspecific. Things like "they have to give that to me. it is a law." "Really" said the judge? "Please quote me that law". "It is an SEC law" "Really? Again quote me that law" "The law says they have to give it to me" One more time Mr V___, don't tell me it IS a law. I want you to QUOTE me this law, or give me its number, because I know of no law for what you are asking" "Well ... it's a law, and they have to give it to me." was the frustrated response. Answers like that made the judge stop all defendants "motions" and say he was not going to hear them. Here's another one. By the way, I use quotes to show talk and to separate each one, but it may or may not be word for word. hard to get it exact, since I do not have a recording of it. That's why I say in March maybe I'll try to get it recorded on tape if that is legal. smile
"No your honor, it was a pump and dump scheme. His family dumped stock" "And do you have proof of that?" "No, My Kennedy won't give me the proof. But I know it" "HOw?" Just because I know it." "Mr HUffman, the company has to file a form if one of his family members sells stock, do they not?" Yes your honor." "Have there been any filings?" "No your honor, there have been no filings and no selling by any family member." "Okay, so Mr V___, why do you still say his family members have sold stock? " "Because I just know it your honor. I just can't prove it."
Things like that don't go over well with a judge, who stated that "in my courtroom, we follow the rule of law. Not just 'because I say so' statements."
This coming March will be another courtroom event. For contempt AND damages, both in one day.
there is more, but I can't write it now. I also thought it interesting that I think I heard that out of the 40,000 posts (At that time) put on this board over an 8 year period, over 10,000 were by defendant, all put up in a short few month period of time. I forget how many months. Shows how he was going crazy posting. I remember post after post after post by him, answering his own posts and just dominating the board making everyone feel bad if they wanted to invest in this company. Glad he is gone. Anyway, the "motions" were not an issue today, and in march I personally think things are going to go from bad to worse for this person. My guess at this point is a rare JAIL or prison time for this man. Not normal for libel or defamation cases, but I guess that's for the contempt charge. Timeline? March he goes to court. Told jail time coming. April 1 is a bad day, since it is April Fool's day. maybe April 2nd he goes to jail. A fitting day. Celebrate Fool's one day, and put away a fool the next. April 2nd. Hopefully we'll be diving on found treasure by then TOO.
He/she obviously got some insight as to what happened by either Kyle or Craig in reference to a certain law.
The Defendant cited a certain law in this motion.....
https://www.scribd.com/doc/304900741/Motion-f...l-Contempt
But Huffman never mentions anything about an SEC filing when a family member sells. He just says family members aren't getting bottomless convertible notes. I haven't seen that stated anywhere by the Defendant.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/304898954/Motion-f...-Sanctions
This is what the Defendant told the Court in response to the Motion to Quash, which Huffman obviously botched. Bottomless convertibles are never mentioned, though Huffman admits they are issued in the filing above.
9. As the Court is aware, one of the main issues in the case is my contention that the Plaintiff has a longstanding practice of “pumping and dumping”. This has been done for years for the purpose of lining the pockets of family and friends of Seafarer’s CEO, Kyle Kennedy (Insiders), with hundreds of thousands of dollars (or more) at the expense of other shareholders.
13. Plaintiff’s only motive in bringing their Motion to Quash is to try to prevent me from proving what the records from Cleartrust show – a deliberate and classic pump and dump scheme.
14. As noted on the Securities and Exchange Commission website, ““ Pump-and-dump” schemes involve the touting of a company’s stock (typically small, so-called “microcap” companies) through false and misleading statements to the marketplace. These false claims could be made on social media such as Facebook and Twitter, as well as on bulletin boards and chat rooms. Pump-and-dump schemes often occur on the Internet where it is common to see messages posted that urge readers to buy a stock quickly or to sell before the price goes down, or a telemarketer will call using the same sort of pitch. Often the promoters will claim to have “inside” information about an impending development or to use an “infallible” combination of economic and stock market data to pick stocks. In reality, they may be company insiders or paid promoters who stand to gain by selling their shares after the stock price is “pumped” up by the buying frenzy they create. Once these fraudsters “dump” their shares and stop hyping the stock, the price typically falls, and investors lose their money.”
http://www.sec.gov/answers/pumpdump.htm
15. Paragraph 14 above describes the activity that I uncovered and is the reason that Plaintiff is trying to silence me and others.
16. The pumping and dumping is always done with family members, related parties, or insiders. And, as admitted by the Plaintiff in its filing, the Plaintiffs scheme represents “...significant potential dilution to the Company’s current shareholders ...and, it is very possible that such dilution may significantly negatively affect the trading price of the Company’s common stock.
The fact poster like the PIPE investor is suggesting permits are coming, along with other examples of Mary/FBAR said, shows this is a classic pump and dump as the SEC describes.
Should be quite the trial. Especially if/when Mary takes the stand.
2
2
