Pretty much the same answer as I gave you on Yahoo, Drifter!
>>>First, you ignore a transfer of $400,000 to an unidentifiable company what, now you're a happy boy if RR is Hayton, who stays on to provide consultation? What does HE know about Internet companies?).<<<
What does HE know about the history of the company? Who brought in all of the players? Whose got Newport, Sidney, LA, New York and London, and--given his family was involved in shipping food and cargo into the Middle East--possible Middle East connections? Drifter, do you really know this man you write so negatively about?
Now, if checks are going to be made out to Rolling Rock Capital Corp., with almost complete certitude we can surmise there'll be a Rolling Rock entity existing order to cash those checks, even if you can't find one one yet. (REFERENCE: Who is founder of Zulu and the SEC filing)
>>>(i) the payment IN ADVANCE of $400,000 by a virtually broke company for 1 year's consulting about promo to the financial community by payment in SHARES; (Reference: SEC Filing)
So when exactly will this money translate into cash in his and/or his consulting associate's pocket? Do you know with complete certain that Rolling Rock is or will be a one-person operation?
Besides, a company looking at up to 20 million dollars in funding, with leading edge technology behind it in the ripest market on earth, is not a broke company, even if it's posting losses as most Internet-related companies are doing.
Once again, you only concentrate planting into peoples' imaginations the idea of a stock play, i.e., "financial" part, leaving out the other valuable wording from the filing to which you refer. (REFERENCE: Yes, please do look up that SEC filing for complete wording, not Drifter's partial wording)
>>>(ii) the payment goes to a company whose SEC listed address is a back staircase empty office with "Netmaster" on the door; (Reference: Brady digging)<<<
Here's a good one for ya! Drifter, if you're gonna be working in Florida, you're more than welcome to stay on my property so can accomplish your objective. So what if it's a sweetheart deal? I know you, I trust you and I think you'll do good work while you're there. You're more than welcome to use the premises. (REFERENCE: If I only had a place in Florida! (LOL))
As per Brady's research, the office building is in a prestigious area, has a Palm Desert assessed value of $2,862,580 with an improvement ratio of 69%. It appears some work is needed apparently to the back of the building--do you know the details of all of this? I've seen renovations completed in less than a week--even worked on such projects!
Now, are there other businesses off of this "backway?" Is it a classy and chic, nicely bricked alleyway leading to back? Or do you have to wade through the trash cans, as you seem to imply? Have you ever heard of an office becoming newly occupied where the name of the old entity is replaced by the new entity? Netmaster Acquisition apparently no longer exists. Why do you insist they keep their sign on the door? What's the matter with you? Why not let Rolling Rock have the luxury of time to put it's own name on the door?
Besides, how exactly do you form your opinion? Is it from direct knowledge of the architectural, structural, design and business planning qualifications of Brady's friend? Did Brady's friend see and know everything about everything when he visited? Is there another office from the main stairway, or from another business inside, which leads into this Netmaster office? I don't now, and neither do you! (REFERENCE: Brady's account of ownership of the building and his digging friend and considerations you didn't or wouldn't consider)
Now, here's the nitty-gritty: What do you want for purposes of your anti-Zulu/Hayton complaint: a) that the building be a mess and that you enter past the trash; or b) that the building be too high-class for measly a Rolling Rock consultant(s)? (REFERENCE: Your prejudice)
>>>(iii) there is no sign of the identity of Rolling Rock coming from either the state records or from the company itself (Reference: Many people digging)<<<
We're still waiting on that one, aren't we? Or do you have all of the facts already, Drifter? No, you don't, do you? The fact that they're still digging means we don't know. It means you don't know. But you'd prefer to conclude negatively right now, don't ya? (REFERENCE: Keep digging!)
>>>(iv) oh, and many people wondered why there were many paragraphs of indemnity in the Rolling Rock agreement to protect the officers and directors. (Reference: SEC Filing)<<<
Ask Terry if that stuff is boilerplate legal language. (REFERENCE: What corporate lawyers usually and commonly do)
>>>"...My surmise would be a bald accusation)"<<<
Indeed, I'm seeing another "bald accusation" on your part! (REFERENCE: Your track record for "bald accusations.")
>>>Ask the question Party - Who got the $400,000.00 and where's the value for it? Ask the question. If ...IF ... you are an exposed shareholder, you DESERVE an answer!!<<<
Aleta and others have been wanting Hayton out of the main picture for eight months now. If his designation to a consultant role (the role which I understand he originally only wanted to play) means that the merger will take place, up to 20 million will come in and two Disney execs will take over day-to-day operations--would this be worth $400K? And you have to consider Hayton has shown a talent for attracting top-notched people and business entities into the mix. Why can't he continue to do this? (REFERENCE: SEC filing and background history of executives who've become employed by Zulu)
>>>No, I will NOT go away on this one, except on verifiable facts.<<<
Then why do you have so much valuable time to complain about all of this, HIGHPLANESDRIFER. You just end up making more work for me, which
puts me on double-duty given my personal commitment to my investment and the fact I have transcription, carpentry and other work to do. From a personal perspective, I wish you'd pipe down, 'cause I'm always gonna answer you! (REFERENCE: You accuse, I make you prove it!)
|
