"Here's another scenario to consider, concerning DGIV's silence: Various penny stock
promoters, including DGIV's former promoter Liberty Capital, have been charged with
offenses by the SEC. Perhaps, DGIV realized that it was smarter to lay low, and let the
promoters take the heat from the SEC. (This is similar to the CIA's concept of
"plausible deniability".)
Fair enough.
Digitcom did fire Liberty Capital early last summer, that bodes well in my book.
Paul, remember a few months back when you tried to twist around that other promoter suit. You gave the url, (a huge link of some legal document) and so I looked into it... came to the conclusion that it wasn't relevant for numerous reasons. Now, that sec bust you speak of, is that relevant to digitcom? I mean your credibility was bad before, am I to believe it's improved?
Why don't you post the Sec news concerning Liberty Capital? Let's take a look at how it might be relevant. My understanding is that liberty's infraction along with the other's wrongdoings, was for failing to notify potential investors of the compensation Company X was giving to Promoter Y for talking up their stock. For instance, promoter websites which failed to admit such compensation, individual posters on threads, email newsletters, etc. Most of the companies that were busted were pr firms right? Not their clients, their employees so to speak. This is just my take anyways.
Know what's really ironic Paul? This same concept pretty much works for demoting websites such as Stock Detective as well. Individual posters such as yourself are compensated by a PR firm to "bash" a stock (We all know that pr firms short the stock of some of their clients). You'ld think that this is equally illegal, because the demoters are not admitting to their compensation either.
Of course all of this is actually legit if your not receiving compensation from an outside source, meaning, if you buy and sell the stock in question through the open market, and subsequently hype or bash a stock, there's really not much the sec can do about it.
So, here's what it comes down to, if DGIV paid an individual with securities (or cash I guess) to hype this stock, and that individual did not report their compensation within their disclaimer (if they even have one), then that individual is at fault (unless DGIV used coersion to keep said promoter from revealing such info). Part of the role of a pr firm is to increase awareness and essentially promote the stock of a company. The business being promoted pays the pr firm for the service. If while being proactive, the pr firm (or its constituits) do not indicate that they are being paid to promote said stock, then the pr firm is responsible... not the company whose stock was being promoted.
Anyways, this all my understanding of the recent bust. Bring the article on over here Paul, let's take a look at it... doesn't seem relevant to me.
BTW, as a special treat, I left some spelling errors above for you. I've been told that MENSA members can spot a spelling mistake with practically zero effort. I'm hopin' you can find them. As an added inspiration, I've decided to give you one credibility point for each word you locate that is not found it the good ol' dictionary. Good luck!! |
