Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that the

Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that the individuals who have popped up on message boards recently to consistently post negative commentary about HDC have nothing to do with those who have organized a complaint process against the company. Obviously, it would seem rather odd, wouldn’t it, that such posters suddenly came out of the woodwork (with timing that coincides very well with the complaint filings) for the sole purpose of disparaging the company and the current team, yet have nothing to do with the work of the plaintiffs?
Regardless of how ‘oddly coincidental’ it might seem, and regardless of the fact that they have gone so far as to change their alias on multiple occasions, let’s run with the premise that they have nothing to do with the actions of those initiating the complaint, and assume that these individuals are just people with no other purpose in life than to agitate others. If that’s the case, then logic suggests that there is only one poster who popped up lately that we should question. That poster, of course, is James.
We know that James hasn’t been around for very long, yet he or she was able to post a very well-organized site through which the plaintiffs were able to download copies of the complaint documents (which otherwise cost $0.50 per page to download), post one of the plaintiff’s letter, and create folders under which shareholders can access and download a number of documents, including such things as phone calls and even letters between attorneys. This is extremely well-organized, and as I previously noted, I believed the individual who posted this ‘site’ was the very individual who should have jointly signed the letter and, if I was correct, it serves to reveal that he is quite under-handed and deceptive.
With that in mind, let’s follow this line of thinking, and assume that I’m, once again, incorrect in my assumption. In other words, let’s assume that it isn’t the other plaintiff who presented as James. Well, if it wasn’t him, then who was it? We know it wasn’t just a “techie” that was hired to help the plaintiffs, since this individual posted information a number of days before posting the ‘site’, which included the following: “So like I stated before we have everything to gain from full disclosure and nothing to lose, regardless of what anyone deems the motive is. I know all I want is for this company to finally make some money for all of us.” In other words, the fact that there is a STRONG chance this individual isn’t Quirk should be extremely alarming to all of us, since it serves to validate my ongoing argument that this entire process runs much deeper than Bear and Quirk. And, it further validates that someone other than them is funding this process.
For what it’s worth, all shareholders should go back to that post on Yahoo and thoroughly review all documents that can be downloaded. You can click on various sections across the top, which clearly reveal that this is, as I’ve previously mentioned, well-orchestrated. And, with that in mind, all we need to do is look northward, since the reference in the complaint about Vennwest Global Technology Ltd, which is located in Canada, speaks volumes. Our main man Mr. Kowbel, who is from Canada, is back in action, and poor little Cindy is playing the front. What she doesn’t know, of course, is that she’s a pawn.