ROTFLMAO... a farsighted financial genius, I tell

ROTFLMAO... a farsighted financial genius, I tell ya!....

Plaintiff=SE, Defendant=JB

[22] However, what was not disclosed to Justice Matheson is that the Plaintiff’s employment with the Defendant was terminated allegedly with cause in October 2008 and that the Plaintiff then owed the Defendant approximately $129,000 in outstanding loans at the time of her termination for which demand for payment was being made in March 2009 by the Defendant.

[23] Most significantly, the Defendant in his affidavit in that action confirmed that there was in fact a settlement reached in June 2009 between him and the Plaintiff whereby the Plaintiff was to receive 300,000 shares in the Nevada company which was a full and final settlement of any claim she had as an employee or shareholder of the Ontario company and any potential claim she may fabricate as against the Defendant personally. He also stated that at the time of the settlement and generally throughout his relationship with her, the Plaintiff had a lawyer or accountant and other professionals advising her. 2013 ONSC 1210 (CanLII)

[24] That signed two–page settlement document, being exhibit M of his affidavit purports to be signed by the Plaintiff on June 25, 2009. That document makes it very clear that the Plaintiff had an option to make one of two choices when dealing with the shares of the Nevada company. The first was for her to take ownership of 7,775,000 shares of non-eligible restricted stock of the Nevada company apparently with certain sale restrictions which could affect their value. It was clear in the document itself that the Defendant recommended that the Plaintiff exercise her option to obtain these shares as had her independent financial advisor, a Mr. Larry Maxwell.

[25] The settlement agreement’s other option was for the Plaintiff to own 300,000 free trading shares of the Nevada company through a purchase of stock from a third-party which stock would have no restrictions and could freely be sold.

[26] What is most significant is that the Plaintiff in her affidavit before Justice Matheson on December 20, 2012 said nothing about this settlement agreement which appears clearly to be the reason why she received the 300,000 non-restricted shares in the Nevada company and which the court was advised she sold shortly after that receiving anywhere between $.50 to $2.00 per share.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

WOWZERS... not taking RESPONSIBILITY for personal actions and decisions...  and professionally advising unsuspecting paying clients? WOWZER.. leaves a body speechless & utterly flabbergasted! LOL