SFRX ~ The Thing Speaks For Itself Blog Post
Banned OTC attorney Huffman suggested in April before Judge Stephens SFRX could simply blame the Defendant's postings (SFRX always blames something or someone) for the drop in share price and that action would speak for itself. The Judge quickly told OTC banned attorney Huffman....."NO, YOU CAN'T."
The Defendant hasn't been here or elsewhere in nearly 2 years. I think it's obvious KK Fudd is the issue. The market obviously doesn't trust him.
res ipsa loquitur
(rayz ip-sah loh-quit-her) n. Latin for "the thing speaks for itself," a doctrine of law that one is presumed to be negligent if he/she/it had exclusive control of whatever caused the injury even though there is no specific evidence of an act of negligence, and without negligence the accident would not have happened.
18 THE COURT: I'm sure you want to prove the
19 postings, but how are you going to do the hard part?
20 MR. HUFFMAN: Oh, prove the --
21 THE COURT: Yeah. I mean --
22 MR. HUFFMAN: Well, yeah. Well this whole case is
23 about him assuming things. He's taken so many
24 different standings. At first, he said that this was a
25 pump and dump, an insider trading, and now things have
1 dwindled down to, well, the company's not accurate in
2 its press releases.
3 You know, so we have multiple -- I have the CEO, I
4 have the CFO, I have numerous -- I have the auditors
5 available, everyone who can bring in the evidence to
6 contradict everything that he states.
7 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.
19 THE COURT: I don't think you will. I don't think
20 you can find it.
21 MR. HUFFMAN: That sounds vague, Your Honor.
22 THE COURT: I wrote -- I wrote a book in 2000
23 called "The Uncertainty of Legal Rights". It was about
24 how the prices of stocks changed when information about
25 litigation events was released.
1 And there's a lot in there about how the
2 methodology that had been developed to try to deal with
3 -- the biggest problem is that when the market goes up
4 or down, all the stocks go up or down -- right? --
5 and --
6 MR. HUFFMAN: Well that's true. They're external
7 forces.
8 THE COURT: And then there's a lot of other things
9 too, and it's hard to identify any one change in stock
10 as being attributable just to one isolated thing. I'm
11 not saying you can't do it. I'm just saying you can't
12 expect me to assume that.
13 You might have done better in a different county
14 where the person didn't come from that industry, but
15 the -- there's not going to be an assumption that the
16 change in stock price today resulted from an action
17 yesterday.
18 And just to be clear, some of the evidence you
19 were pointing me to is in the right direction. If you
20 have people who actually said I didn't buy the stock --
21 MR. HUFFMAN: Right.
22 THE COURT: -- they're still going to have to
23 answer the question, well when you found out what was
24 said was false, did you buy it then? It was available
25 to you even at an even lower price, so did you buy it
1 then?
2 And then if you show, yeah, they bought it then
3 ... I mean, you -- if you have that kind of evidence,
4 we'll hear it, is what I'm telling you.
5 MR. HUFFMAN: But then you have dilutive effect.
6 Because at a lower price, you -- in order to take in
7 $10,000, for instance, if you're at a penny -- okay? --
8 it's a million shares. If you're at half-a-penny, it's
9 two million shares. So the dilutive effect on the
10 company is also there.
11 But, Judge, obviously Mr. Kennedy can speak
12 because he was -- he started three broker dealers and
13 has been licensed in the security industry. I know he
14 wants to speak. I'm not letting him, but ...
15 THE COURT: And I'll hear from him if it's
16 necessary to hear from him about anything we're doing
17 today. But today, we're focused on something that's a
18 little different.
19 MR. HUFFMAN: Right.
20 THE COURT: I'm just telling you, you can't expect
21 anybody to make the assumption that information
22 released one day causes the stock price the next day
23 without other surrounding information that tends to
24 give that more credence than --
25 MR HUFFMAN: Well I understand --
1 THE COURT: Listen to me. -- because it happened
2 after, it might have happened because of.
3 MR. HUFFMAN: Okay. And I will find the Court's
4 book. Okay?
5 THE COURT: I think I have one here.
Banned OTC attorney Huffman suggested in April before Judge Stephens SFRX could simply blame the Defendant's postings (SFRX always blames something or someone) for the drop in share price and that action would speak for itself. The Judge quickly told OTC banned attorney Huffman....."NO, YOU CAN'T."
The Defendant hasn't been here or elsewhere in nearly 2 years. I think it's obvious KK Fudd is the issue. The market obviously doesn't trust him.
res ipsa loquitur
(rayz ip-sah loh-quit-her) n. Latin for "the thing speaks for itself," a doctrine of law that one is presumed to be negligent if he/she/it had exclusive control of whatever caused the injury even though there is no specific evidence of an act of negligence, and without negligence the accident would not have happened.
18 THE COURT: I'm sure you want to prove the
19 postings, but how are you going to do the hard part?
20 MR. HUFFMAN: Oh, prove the --
21 THE COURT: Yeah. I mean --
22 MR. HUFFMAN: Well, yeah. Well this whole case is
23 about him assuming things. He's taken so many
24 different standings. At first, he said that this was a
25 pump and dump, an insider trading, and now things have
1 dwindled down to, well, the company's not accurate in
2 its press releases.
3 You know, so we have multiple -- I have the CEO, I
4 have the CFO, I have numerous -- I have the auditors
5 available, everyone who can bring in the evidence to
6 contradict everything that he states.
7 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.
19 THE COURT: I don't think you will. I don't think
20 you can find it.
21 MR. HUFFMAN: That sounds vague, Your Honor.
22 THE COURT: I wrote -- I wrote a book in 2000
23 called "The Uncertainty of Legal Rights". It was about
24 how the prices of stocks changed when information about
25 litigation events was released.
1 And there's a lot in there about how the
2 methodology that had been developed to try to deal with
3 -- the biggest problem is that when the market goes up
4 or down, all the stocks go up or down -- right? --
5 and --
6 MR. HUFFMAN: Well that's true. They're external
7 forces.
8 THE COURT: And then there's a lot of other things
9 too, and it's hard to identify any one change in stock
10 as being attributable just to one isolated thing. I'm
11 not saying you can't do it. I'm just saying you can't
12 expect me to assume that.
13 You might have done better in a different county
14 where the person didn't come from that industry, but
15 the -- there's not going to be an assumption that the
16 change in stock price today resulted from an action
17 yesterday.
18 And just to be clear, some of the evidence you
19 were pointing me to is in the right direction. If you
20 have people who actually said I didn't buy the stock --
21 MR. HUFFMAN: Right.
22 THE COURT: -- they're still going to have to
23 answer the question, well when you found out what was
24 said was false, did you buy it then? It was available
25 to you even at an even lower price, so did you buy it
1 then?
2 And then if you show, yeah, they bought it then
3 ... I mean, you -- if you have that kind of evidence,
4 we'll hear it, is what I'm telling you.
5 MR. HUFFMAN: But then you have dilutive effect.
6 Because at a lower price, you -- in order to take in
7 $10,000, for instance, if you're at a penny -- okay? --
8 it's a million shares. If you're at half-a-penny, it's
9 two million shares. So the dilutive effect on the
10 company is also there.
11 But, Judge, obviously Mr. Kennedy can speak
12 because he was -- he started three broker dealers and
13 has been licensed in the security industry. I know he
14 wants to speak. I'm not letting him, but ...
15 THE COURT: And I'll hear from him if it's
16 necessary to hear from him about anything we're doing
17 today. But today, we're focused on something that's a
18 little different.
19 MR. HUFFMAN: Right.
20 THE COURT: I'm just telling you, you can't expect
21 anybody to make the assumption that information
22 released one day causes the stock price the next day
23 without other surrounding information that tends to
24 give that more credence than --
25 MR HUFFMAN: Well I understand --
1 THE COURT: Listen to me. -- because it happened
2 after, it might have happened because of.
3 MR. HUFFMAN: Okay. And I will find the Court's
4 book. Okay?
5 THE COURT: I think I have one here.
