Dave,
Your post that this is in response to is far more reasonable than your previous one. The facts are that Bill says that he has documentation to justify the company's news releases, of which I have verified several myself. Another issue is that although many shareholders had taken the opportunity to personally verify GRNO's technology and physical progress in Charleston, SEC representatives have yet to do the same. (according to the company).
Furthermore, the trading halt was signed by the "Internet Fraud" section by one, John D. Stark, although the stated reason for the investigation was stated as concerns about commercial viability, Bo O'Brien... etc. I personally contacted EVSI about the RecOil deal, which was verified by Jerry Evans the day of their press release.
Basically, the same process that the SEC should have followed... verify the source documentation of the press releases. If they had subpoenaed this information back on March 18th, it is logical to assume that it should not have taken 4 months to verify these. Of course, we are assuming that they subpoenaed these documents early in the investigation rather than "chasing" other possibilities, to include "pump and dump" scenarios, insider trading by internet chatters, newsletters... etc.
Personally, I have reason to suspect that the focus of this investigation has centered around the internet discussion of this company and only later focused on the supporting documentation for the company's news releases. Of course, the FOIA request for the ROI should reveal the investigatory chronology and sequence of subpoenaes that were issued and when.
Should be interesting reading.
Regarding,
Ron |
