Friday, 27 March 2009

The Bank Hapoalim Story

Ohh, Johhhnnn. Johhhnn. Where are you John? You remember yesterday when you posted about David Falt having "lost his lawsuit against xG in which he tried to screw shares out of them"? And you remember when I took the opposite view? That it was xG that screwed Falt?

Well look what a few words of Yiddish can get you... The truth is that xG issued certificates to Falt, and others, under the name of xG Technology LLC. They then claimed they had changed their name to xG Technology INC and did the dirty on him and all the others. Here is the truth: as reports - HERE - Roger Branton issued the shares around March 29, 2005. Roger authorized them - 100%. Falt deposited them in the Bank of New York. Later on that year he sold some of them, but when the bank tried to get the certificates xG told them they were Null and Void. xG had stabbed him in the back. Why? Because (reading between the lines) he was disgusted at the way xG were doing business. He was dangerous to them, because he could expose them - so they tried to shut him up by suing him.

All during 2006, claims and counter claims went back and forth between Bank of New York, xG, Bank Hapoalim, Falt and the others, and Roger Branton. He claimed that the certificates HE had signed were null and void because they were issued in xG LLC, when the company was now called xG Inc. Now let's look at the letter John: You'll notice two things. Firstly you'll see that Hapoalim are siding with Falt, they are helping him. He's the one that's been ripped off. Secondly you'll notice that Hapoalim state that xG, their technology, and their principals are DODGY AS FUCK.

And to further prove just how dodgy, nasty, shallow, and vindictive xG are have a look at the two documents beneath it. They were both filed on the 9th November 2006, just four days before the date on the letter from Hapoalim. You'll see that Roger Branton - the same asshole that issued the share certificates - ONLY THEN changes the name from LLC to Inc despite the fact he'd been arguing all year that the name change had already happened! Obviously one suspects that it was only done to deny the sale of the perfectly legal certificates issued. In the writ that followed Hapaolim accused xG of FAILING to inform them of their name change from xG Technology LLC to xG Technology Inc. In fact - as evidenced here - when Falt sold the shares the certificates were perfectly valid

Rick you are a shit.
Roger you are a shit.

John? John? I can't hear you...Speak up....


  1. Waaaaaaaaaaah

  2. How are the ticket sales going Marc?

  3. Beer, you truly are a pathetic drunken crook who doesn't even understand the basics of corporate finance, company law or company restructuring for flotation. You are wrong on all counts.

    xG renamed itself as xG Technology Inc for the purposes of its flotation in November 2006 and this was a completely normal legal process to reflect its public status. ALL legitimate shareholders in the previous company automatically had their holdings converted into shares in the public vehicle - absolutely standard process for companies obtaining a public listing. If Falt had a legitimate stake in xG Technology LLC, it would have been simply IMPOSSIBLE for xG to exclude him as a shareholder in the public company.

    This is not merely my opinion - it is the opinion of the US legal system which had no truck with Falt's absurd claim. He lost his case hands down.

    Frankly, it is both hilarious and embarrassing to see you attempt to portray Falt as some sort of hero but I do recognise you are a desparate man. You try to portray Falt as a honourable man who had exposed corruption but the true facts are clear. They are:

    1. Falt was fired fromn xG Technology.
    2. Falt was fired by ACH who have made it very clear that they viewed him as a dishonest character.
    3. Falt's claim against xG fell flat on its face in the legal system.
    4. If Falt's claim was true it would have meant that he had actually committed a criminal offence himself.
    5. Speaking of criminal behaviour - Falt has been arrested by European police on criminal charges.

    By contrast, despite your and Falt's hysterical whinging, not a single member of the xG management has been arrested, successfully sued or charged with any crime.

    I would like to be able to say - nice try, Beer, but no cigar. Yet it isn't even a nice try. It is your usual pathetic and disingenuous smears to try to influence people who you hope will be overwhelmed by you cutting and pasting a few documents onto a blog site and making up some fairytale to link it all together. Funny, isn't it, that all the real professionals - finance, regulators, legal system and law enforcement - who have looked at these matters in full, informed depth seem to see Falt as the crook and xG as an innocent party? Doesn't suit your purposes that, does it?

  4. You seem to be able to read, but not able to understand. Which makes me think you are being obtuse on purpose. Firstly have a look at the letter: Hapoalims OWN inquiries raised SERIOUS doubts about xG's Technology and Principals - that is extraordinary language from a bank! Truly extraordinary! They are unequivocal on who is to blame: xG Technology LLC.

    If you cannot see he was stitched up you are stupid. If you defend their actions you are a shit like Rick and Roger.

    You say that he did not have legitimate shares - but if you'd bothered to read the story - and not just the xG Press release, you'd see that when he sold the shares xG was still xG LLC. Fact. So his shares were Valid. Hapoalim acknowledge this fact.

    1. "Falt was fired fromn xG Technology." Wrong he resigned from the board.:
    2. "Falt was fired by ACH who have made it very clear that they viewed him as a dishonest character." ACH calling someone dishonest is like Hitler calling someone nasty. And I've got a curious feeling that we will shortly be hearing more about ACH's dodgy dealings. Watch this space.
    3. "Falt's claim against xG fell flat on its face in the legal system." It was a claim and counter claim. The issued a criminal charge, to trump Falt's Civil charge against them. They needed him silenced.
    4. "If Falt's claim was true it would have meant that he had actually committed a criminal offence himself." Umm. You're not making sense. The certificates were valid.
    5. "Speaking of criminal behaviour - Falt has been arrested by European police on criminal charges." This is incorrect. Falt was extradited to Switzerland, and interviewed twice and at length by the Swiss Police, as part of a WIDER investigation. HE WAS NOT CHARGED WITH ANY CRIME. He is under no restriction. His passport wasn't taken. He is at complete liberty.

    And get you: "not a single member of the xG management has been arrested, SUCCESSFULLY sued " My Caps. Because they have been sued haven't they John, and had to cough up out of court. And I'd also like to add - they haven't been arrested YET.

    "Cutting and pasting a few docs" !!! It's an official letter from a bank showing you, and your employers, to be lying thieving bastards. I think you find I get not just the cigar but the whole humidor.

  5. Oh my god you fucking Drunk, shoot yourself.

  6. More lies and evasion from the drunk. Gosh, Beer, I must have really rattled your cage to have you call me a "shit" as well. Temper, temper!

    Hapoalim are hardly an independent party and it doesn't really matter what they tried to argue as the court threw the whole lot out. Funny that you are willing to believe xG lied but can't imagine Hapoalim did DESPITE the court finding for xG. Hapoalim's investigations aren't worth shit and the legal system clearly agreed. And it is interesting that THREE highly respected London Nomads, conducting DD on xG and its principals, fully aware of the historic allegations against xG and iDigi, found the EXACT OPPOSITE of the conflicted Hapoalim.

    IF Falt's shares were valid when he sold them then why has the court found otherwise? Why has Falt been unable to enforce legal ownership of his shares if it is all so cut and dried? Sorry, drunk, you make no sense. Furthermore it has been YOU who has been bleating on about the name change to Inc, not me. If all this took place before the name change it would make no difference so why do you bring it up and try to imply that it was a sly way of evading responsibility rather than a normal legal process for an IPO?

    Let's move on:

    1. You say Falt resigned from xG. Lie! He was fired.
    2. You imply that ACH itself is dodgy. Well what would Falt have had to be like for him to be too crooked even for a dodgy broker. And we have your usual - "you just wait and see what comes out" stuff when you realise you are on the ropes. We have heard that before from you and we have seen diddly squat.

    3. Falt's civil claim against xG was REJECTED by the legal process. There would have been no grounds for CRIMINAL action by anyone against Falt if his civil action had had merit. Your notion that making a criminal complaint against someone would somehow stay a civil process is nonsense. The case was REJECTED completely because it was a nonsense and Falt knew it. And no criminal investigation would proceed against Falt even to the point of arrest unless there was at least a prima facie case against him.

    4. You say the Certificates were valid? So why did the legal system find otherwise? Why has Falt been arrested? It is YOU who is not making sense? You are ALL OVER THE PLACE!

    5. What is incorrect here? People are only arrested on criminal charges. He was arrested in France and extradicted to Switzerland. No mention of xG or the US authorities so why do you assume his arrest was anything to do with xG? Looks to me like the guy just has criminality in his blood and has probably been involved in all manner of scams. Whether or not he has been charged at this time is irrelevant. How many people do you know who are arrested and extradicted? I don't know any. Are we playing the innocent until proven guilty card, drunk? It's not a position you extend to xG is it, despite the fact that not a single director has been arrested, extradicted or charged with ANYTHING - EVER!

    Which brings us to the next point neatly. "SUCCESSFULLY sued." Correct! Unless you want to state that being sued and winning the case makes you guilty. Many businesses are sued - it is a very common fact of corporate life, hence the huge litigation departments in corporate law firms world-wide. The question is was the suit against xG successful? Answer is NO! The judge in the final hearing expressed contempt for the allegations made against xG and sent the case back to arbitration for a negotitated settlement WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT XG HAD WANTED AND OFFERED THE PLAINTIFF IN THE FIRST PLACE WITHOUT ANY NEED FOR AN UNSUCCESSFUL LAWSUIT! xG had fully acknowledged their debt to the Plaintiff, had offered to find a way to repay that debt without taking the easy way out and filing for bankruptcy, but the Plaintiff wanted to steal the xMax technology. Mooers and Branton successfully protected the company's IP and got the outcome they had sought from the very beginning. I think it is pretty clear who the winers were there.

    And what about the Joel Crouch case? We were told by you and your sad cronies that the whole game would be up last September when Crouch took the stand and spilt the beans about xG. WHat happened? Nothing. I understand that the hearing didn't even happen because Crouch didn't show. Perhaps even the most cynical lawyer told him he didn't have a leg to stand on?

    "haven't been arresyted YET". Yeah, yeah,yeah drunk. We have heard this for years now from you and others. 'The investigation continues', 'just wait and see', 'arrests will be coming soon' etc etc. As I said earlier, it's the type of vague future prediction that you come up with when you haven't a leg to stand on.

    Oh, golly, an "official letter from a bank". Well that proves everything then, doesn't it, if it's an "official letter" and "a bank" no less. And as we have seen over the last few months - banks are so incredibly honest and reliable aren't they? They never get things wrong, do they, you arse-wipe drunken crook?

  7. Prescott,

    Do you have any idea to who Falt sold the shares? They must be pretty upset...

  8. Dear John,
    Are you sitting comfortably? There's these things called 'shares'. They are bits of paper with lots of writing on them. When the boss of a company (he'll be the one with the suit and the cigar) gives someone shares sometimes he'll put his signature at the bottom. (That's like writing your name but done all fancy.) In this case the boss was a nasty man who is called Roger. He can write real good, and he wrote his signature at the bottom of the pretty paper. Yes he did. Everyone agrees that he did. He gave the shares to a man called David. It meant that David owned a little bit of the company that the man with the cigar owned.

    Now, concentrate here. Shares can be swapped for 'Money'. Money is the round metally things your mummy might have put in your piggy bank. You probably used this money to buy things like crayons from a man in a shop. You make the man in the shop happy when you do this. :-) How much money you can swap for your shares depends on the how happy the company is making people, or how many round metally things people are giving the company. If the company makes people sad :-( you get less money for your shares. If the company makes people happy :-) you get more money :-O.

    David thought the company would make people sad :-( so he swapped his shares for the nice coins. He might buy you some crayons if you are a very good boy :-). Roger was angry :-# with David about that, but he shouldn't have been because if you give someone shares he can swap it for coins anytime he likes. If you don't want that to happen you shouldn't give them the shares. So Roger being a very naughty boy said that the shares were not 'propper' shares but 'make beleive' shares. David showed Roger his signature at the bottom of the pretty paper, and Roger went all red in the face like he'd been caught pooping in his nappy. Roger was naughty and he knew it.

    Roger said "I didn't mean to give you those shares, and sign my name at the bottom. You must have tricked me."

    "Liar, liar, pants on fire", said David. And he made his face look all mean. He showed the shares to a man in a bowler hat who worked in a money shop called a bank. The man there said that they were real shares. There was Rogers' signature at the bottom of the nice paper. The man in the bowler hat looked all mean too.

    Roger was still being very bad. He wouldn't go on the naughty step or anything. Everytime someone talked about the shares he had signed and authorized he screamed, lay on his tummy and beat his fists on the playground. Very very naughty. By this stage the headmaster had got involved and everything. He called everybody into his study and asked them what was going on.

    Then Roger said "Those shares are make-believe because my company isn't called LLC it's called Inc, so there. Ya boo sucks."

    "Fibber!", said David.
    "Fibber!" said the man in the money shop.

    "'Tis too" said Roger,

    The headmaster said he must show that that was the case, and he must do so by the end of term.. Then Roger did something very very naughty. Four days before the end of term he wrote on the blackboard that his company was called Inc and not ever called LLC. Not never, ever. So, at the end of term the headmaster saw that indeed the company was called Inc after all. So that the shares that Roger had drawn up, authorized, and signed very carefully in his best handwriting, must have been a figment of everybodys' imagination. Roger said it was all David's fault. [See what I did there? Fault/Falt...]

    Unfortunately for Roger the man in the money shop knew the truth, and didn't forget. David didn't forget either, and they both set out to make nasty Roger meet an even nastier man called Bubba. Bubba was very keen to meet Roger. He liked men like him who had never been to Bubba's house before. It meant Bubba would be the first to make him a special friend. Roger would have to wear a dress - it was the rules.

  9. Hi Benny,

    My impression is that they were sold bank to bank. I don't think there was another individual involved.

  10. JP,

    Your last post was absolutely hilarious!

  11. Well, I know for a fact that several investors bought worthless shares. I'll fill you in later.

  12. "Well, I know for a fact that several investors bought worthless shares. I'll fill you in later." Great stuff - look forward to that..!

  13. The very fact that you have had to resort to some preposterous childish fairy-tale manner shows absolutely clearly that you can't respond to the dismantling of your claims that I put forward and have to resort to a transparent pseudo-patronising manner which simply re-iterates your claims with no new information or any type of rebuttal of my points.

    I prefer to make my points in grown-up language. Let me be brief:

    1. this matter went to litigation and the legal system found in favour of xG. Falt lost big time. Perhaps you can explain why, if Falt's shares were valid, he was unable to enforce ownership in a court of law?

    2. You stated in an earlier post that "when he sold the shares xG was still xG LLC". If that was the case, AND THE SHARES WERE VALID, the new owners of the shares would have had them converted into shares in the pulic body, xG Technology Inc. This happened to everyone else who owned VALID shares in the LLC, several of whom I happen to know personally. It is known in corporate finance as restructuring of the share capital for the purposes of flotation. Anyone who owns VALID shares CANNOT be deprived of their stake simply by a company going public and becoming an Inc. If xG had attempted any such thing their Nomads, brokers, lawyers and accountants would have run a mile and Falt would have had absolutely no problem whatsoever in enforcing his claim in court.

    3. You make a big issue of xG becoming an Inc. This is absolutely standard practice upon a company going public. As a listed company xG would no longer be able to remain as an LLC and had to be either a PLC or an Inc. Absolutely standard practice upon flotation. I realise as a drunk and former bullet-dodger corporate finance isn't your strong point but anyone with a rudimentary of the IPO process would understand all this.

    Bottom line, Falt tried to diddle someone by selling them shares he wasn't entitled to sell. He was caught out. He tried to sue xG and lost. I guess you will now be telling us that the US legal system is part of the xG conspiracy?

    Beer, you are truly tedious. Stop making a spectacle of yourself. You are putting forward as your champion a crook and a loser who has been sacked by just about everyone he has worked for, who tried to sell someone shares he wasn't entitled to, whose lawsuit floundered in court as he hadn't a leg to stand on and who has been arrested for questioning about criminal offences. Is this the best you can do?

  14. Hilarious! Wonderful! Magical! Beer, idiot that he is, has given us all the pieces of the puzzle to fill in the story of David Falt. How does this fit the facts?

    Beer tells us that Falt sold his supposedly valid xG shares to a bank – his exact words were “My impression is they were sold to bank” [sic]. Poor David Falt had been fired from xG, fired from ACH, probably couldn’t get a job with anyone else as a result and had a cocaine habit and Alpine climbing hobby to support. So he decides to honour the criminal blood that runs in his veins and engage in a fraud. He sells a bank shares he knows are not valid and makes off with the money. The buyer obviously has a relationship with the Bank Hapoalim branch in Zurich (see address on their letterhead) so we can reasonably assume they are also based in Switzerland. Over two years ago Hapoalim had worries about the seller, Falt, who they stated had “not until now been cooperative.” Hardly a vote of confidence in Beer’s poster boy, is it? It looks, however, like Hapoalim were giving Falt the benefit of the doubt AT THAT TIME and didn’t believe xG’s claim that the shares were “null and void”.

    Fast forward a couple of years and Falt’s claims are put to the test in the US legal system. Result? Falt loses. It is proven that xG had been telling the truth and that Falt had been lying through his teeth. It becomes crystal clear to our Swiss friends that Falt is a crook who has sold them a bunch of “null and void” shares. What do they do? They notify the authorities and a warrant for Falt’s arrest is issued. The rest we know. Falt is arrested in France and where is he extradited to.....Switzerland, of course! Country of residence of the buyers he defrauded and their advisor Bank Hapoalim, who now I imagine have a very different opinion of the respective merits of Falt and xG. Bang goes Beer’s fantasy that it was xG who made a criminal complaint against Falt. No US connection is necessary at all. It was the Swiss victims of Falt’s fraud who involved law enforcement and Falt was scooped in France and handed over to the Swiss police.
    Fit the facts? Fits them like a tailor-made glove.

    Thanks for the information to put it together Beer. Btw, when you were in the army, did you shoot yourself in the foot a lot?

  15. Beer, I love you, I really couldn't have put it all together without you,you arse!

  16. John, I am genuinely curious. How, in this day and age, does one come to be in possession of invalid shares? What form could they possibly be in that a bank couldn't determine their validity? What about Roger's alleged signature?

  17. John,
    I blame myself. I really do. It's obvious you haven't understood so, in the spirit of a good teacher, it must have been that I didn't explain well enough - even with all the dumbing down. And I also blame myself when I thought it was only Marc who was on dope from the moment he got up till he went to bed. Paranoia and delusions are very common side-effects of smoking too much strong weed. Be careful mate - I care. Honest.

    "Falt sold his supposedly valid xG shares to a bank". You Idiot. You double idiot. That was reported in the press. Can't you read Swedish? One day, if you are very good, I might smash your head into the pavement until you can. It's in the article linked to in above post - DUMBO. It also says that he deposited the shares in the Bank of New York, then they ended up at Hapoalim - a bank to bank transaction....

    "Falt’s claims are put to the test in the US legal system. Result? Falt loses." Wrong again Dumbo. You really are making it very easy for me today. The case was "Hapaolim V xG Technology". Can you see Falt's name in the quotes? And I'll come to that case. It's very interesting...

    Lets look at the facts AGAIN but this time in chronological order.

    Fact 1: Roger Branton issued the shares to Falt and four other people around March 29, 2005. They were real, valid shares. Not forgeries. Not bogus. Branton signed them. He and Rick authorized them. Hapoalim confirm this. Hapoalim confirm Falt's name on the certificates, along with the other names. Hapoalim confirm Branton's signiture on the certificates. xG LLC was the name on the certificates. There were no restrictions as to the disposal of these shares. None of the parties involved now dispute this. John - the whole point of shares (as I tried to explain yesterday) is that you can sell them, Falt and the others was perfectly entitled to sell them when they saw fit. I trust you are with me up to this point.

    Fact 2: A few days later in April 2005 Falt deposits the shares at the Bank of New York. They accept the shares as legal, binding, Kosher.

    Fact 3: Sometime later that year Falt leaves xG. It's pointless to argue with you about exactly who left who. I maintain, through multiple excellent sources, that Falt resigned because he was disgusted about the way xG were handling themselves. You are free to believe what they pay you to. That's your job after all. I imagine that harsh words were said on both sides. Around that time he also leaves ACH. Falt was now obviously a threat to both of them as he knew where the skeletons were buried.

    Fact 4: October 2005 - Falt sells some of the shares. Not the whole amount, just some of them. The Bank of New York say it's a legal transaction. Hapoalim, who end up on the other side of the trade, agree.

    Fact 5: Hapoalim, try to get the certificate split to complete the sale. Inexplicably xG refuse. The initial reason they give is the shares don't exist - which was just silly, two banks had confirmed they do, and then there was the awkward fact of Branton's signature on the paperwork.... When they acknowledged that the shares did exist their next lie was to say they were issued against a promissory note. Then they lie again and say that they are now called xG Inc so the shares aren't valid. Then that simply the shares are 'Null and Void' These guys are squirming, but the elephant in the room' throughout all the shenanigans is the certificates with Falts name and Brantons' signature...And ain't it strange that every other director who've all been GIVEN shares in xG have had their share certificated honored...

    Fact 6: 1 January 2006 - BOTH the Bank of New York AND Bank Hapoalim write to XG Technology to pressure them about the
    certificates. Both these institutions are siding with Falt. Both agree that as far as they can see he is the abused party. Legal threats are made from the banks to xG, whose response is to return legal threats, not at the banks, but at Falt.

    Fact 7: Lawyers earn money all through most of 2006.

    Fact 8: 9 November 2006 xG Change from LLC to Inc. They do not inform Hapoalim, despite the ongoing legal process. Presumably this is because they already said to Hapoalim that they are already called Inc. Hapoalim find out from their inquiries they've made about these xG people. They've also found out that they are planning to list.

    Fact 9: 13 November 2006 The letter is sent that I've posted here. Let's remind ourselves what it says because you obviously
    haven't read it properly John:

    *"We have attempted to obtain clarification but he has not been cooperative...We have made inquiries in the United States. These inquiries have raised serious doubts about xG Technology LLC itself and the individuals that stand behind it. It is very difficult to form a definite opinion but we have serious doubts that xG Technology LLC and the technology it claims to own are what they purported to be." They then say they've spoken to the broker and the Nomad about their position with the certificate. The letter is co-signed by the CEO and Head of Controls.*

    The reason they've spoken to the Broker and Nomad is simple. They want these shares recognized in the new company. And by the
    looks of it both seem to agree that Hapoalim had got a point because the IPO is shelved. Yes, this IPO you harp on about just turned out to be an "Introduction" to the market. (Don't bother to argue - it's on the LSE website, as "Not IPO XG TECHNOLOGY INC - Introduction"). They shelved it for two reasons: 1) lack of mugs willing to buy, and 2) the nomad was unwilling to accept later share dilution once these shares were converted. ZERO pounds was raised during this 'Non-IPO'. They changed their IPO into a 'convertable bond' so that the guys who had bought in at pennies in the pound via ACH and Wahlman could get their shares. But I'm digressing...

    Fact 10: 26 January 2007 Bank Hapoalim sues xG Inc for breach of fiduciary duty. The breach was that they i) failed to inform Hapoalim on the name change from XG Technology LLC to XG Technology Inc, and ii) failed to inform them of the introduction of the company on AIM, and iii) they didn't list the David Fält shares in the register. Hapoalim say:

    *"The company and specifically Mooers and Branton have betrayed their trust, breached their Fiduciary duty, withheld the information required and behaved disgracefully and deliberately and willingly infringed the Bank and the applicants' rights".*

    Fact 11: The Judge had to decide, not if the certificates were valid - they were - but if by outrageously not including them in the register did a member of a Limited Liability Company owe a fiduciary duty to a party (Hapoalim) who wasn't in the LLC. The judgement is paraphrased here ( "In a Florida
    case interpreting Delaware law, the Court considered whether LLC managers owed a duty to parties that were not formally designated as LLC members. Under Del. Code Ann. Tit. 6, § 18-1101(c) a LLC may owe a fiduciary duty to “another person that is a party to or otherwise bound by a LLC agreement.” Plaintiffs needed to prove whether the assignee of a LLC member’s securities assumed member status in the LLC. The Court
    held that the allegations failed to allege that the LLC managers owed the assignee a fiduciary duty and therefore failed to state a claim of breach of fiduciary duty."

    So the judgment was *NOT* that the certificates weren't valid. *Not* that Falt/Hapoalim/BNY had done anything wrong, but simply on the legal point that LLC members didn't owe fiduciary duty to non LLC members. But stench of fraud around Rick and Roger got really bad that day. The issue wasn't resolved. These share certificates are still out there.

    Ding. Ding. Round one over.

    Fact 12: Now we are back to the present day, the bell has just struck for round two. It's still unresolved. BUT, if Falt is - as the Swiss Police have determined - innocent, then who is Guilty? There must be these still outstanding share certificates somewhere, along with that sale through two banks. These issues haven't gone away. I can't speculate about the future but it's logical to suggest that if the guilty one isn't Falt, or Hapoalim, then the only people left in the frame are Rick and Roger. I'm sure the next few months will be interesting for us all.

    I'm sure you understand John that I'm not writing this all for you. Nothing personal. You won't read it anyway and you just write what they pay you to write. I write it to correct your errors for Google Search....

  18. Oh my god you fucking moron...I can never smoke enough pot to become as fucked up and brain dead as you, Drunk. You mean back in 2005 before phones, before base stations, this Kike Bank said thing don´t look right? What the fuck were they basing their decisions on?


  19. They just had to look at Rick and Roger's past to easily see that things didn't look right. Now we all know they were right and these two guys and a few more are getting scared. Question is how they will handle their ownership in xG as they should be extremely interested in getting out and away from it. Could it be some obscure off-shore owner shows up holding those shares.....?

    These guys now also know they've taken it too far, people are watching, ACH is gone and trouble are piling up. That's the reason they're hesitating sending out more fake press releases about success and glory - every additional wrong move now will cost them even more.

    I'm curious to know what Hichens and ACH's role in this is but I guess we'll hear more about that soon.

  20. Yep Real Scared, Like the Gooks who lived in Hiroshima and Nagasaki when the bomb was coming down from the sky...I hope some of your family was burnt to a crispy Wonton, Gooky.

  21. Marc, I didn't mean you. You're a nobody and just a tool for these guys. Maybe Swiss authorities chase you for money laundering but that's pretty much it and it's no big sums either. In the bigger picture you're just not of interest.

  22. No, gook, you´re the fucking nobody. You write about me all the time, and I don´t give a fuck about if I´m a nobody, you are scum on the bottom of this nobody´s shoe.

  23. Oh, Gook, you also email this nobody countless times with your meaningless bullshit...I know you want to blow this nobody.
    As a matter of fact, Gook, you are my lapdog.

    Wannabe peasants of the world, UNITE under this blog.
    If it wasn´t such a pathetic statement on the state of humanity, it would be funny.

  25. Marc, your bizarre behaviour only makes sense when one realizes that it is the combined effect of Sociopathy and psychotic schizophrenia from excessive cannabis usage.

    The result is Sold any today? Sold any this week? Sold any ever?

  26. Oh yeah, psychopath sociopath oooo so scary when you have the DTs, you grunt drunk gutless piece of garbage.

  27. Marc, you're just pissed off because you know xG isn't going to happen and you hate everyone who have been correct about every piece of this scam.

    Please keep on hating, it's very entertaining when you dance.

  28. It´s more exciting with my balls on your chin, ask your Mama-San.

  29. Beer, even at a brief glance your arguments are staggeringly qwrong on a wide variety of points. As I am currently in an Internet cafe with limited time I can not respond now but shall certainly do so in due course. Boy, you are gonna look really dumb - even dumber than you already do.

  30. And I am still waiting for your responses to my comments on your ridiculous Rick Mooers CPA and El Con threads. Nothing to say Beer? Or are you just waiting for drunken inspiration to strike?