LoanStew
Saturday, February 16, 2013 7:34:18 PM
Re: lucky,mydog post# 140289
Post # of 140322
Lucky,
It's gotten to the point where it's almost no longer funny.
SRGE has:
1.Submitted financial reports that were not even signed off by their attorney...Said attorney at time of said filing is now on the lam.
2.Submitted a false PR, to which the SEC agreed and suspended the company.
3.Gagged the T/A.
4.Allowed an IRP to claim the death of their CEO and CFO, with over a week gone by without any commentary.
5.Been proven not to have an office in Dallas.
6.Been proven to have claimed a 5th floor office in Mexico...in a 4 story building.
7.Been proven with video of not having the active mine they claimed.
8.Not had a public comment with a named official for the company speaking in over 6 weeks.
And there's more, but you get the point.
And still there are a chosen, very specific few who continue to promote the company and act like absolutely nothing has gone on that is illegal, immoral, unethical, or all of the above or some combo.
The IRP is MIA...since that damning article on Monday.
In my eyes, if you are continuing to promote this company now, you're part of the original scheme. I'm entitled to feel that way. I've seen no proof that SRGE stock has been or is shorted currently. I HAVE seen proof that SRGE has lied...repeatedly. I've seen more than enough evidence that the four PRs (3 attacking Bandera and the one claiming the "deal") were sent from "throw-away email addresses," and therefore I conclude they were all written by the IRP. I'm waiting for someone at Southridge to step forward and contradict that...IN PUBLIC, WHERE WE ALL CAN SEE AND VERIFY THEM.
If Davies and Johnston's death were a lie, they should have been out on MONDAY saying so. Of course, if they existed at all, they would. Signatures without photo ID...so easy. Wonder if someone's attempting to access the physical copies that were signed. Fingerprints go a long way.
There is every reason to deduce SRGE is a front-line scam, and no reason to believe otherwise.
If the company can provide the real proof, starting with full interviews to the Dallas paper that exposed them, I'll say otherwise.
IMO/FWIW
