Kure Technologies Inc V.KUR.H

RE: RE: Question for Indamoney

[InDaMoney]

Sherbie..

Your perspective is misplaced...

The game here is about using a public vehicle to fleece the Canadian Investing Public. The method in this case involved securing the spectrum to facilitate things.. but UBS could have just as easily used its cash to take another company over.. wireless or not.

The same abuses would have ocurred.. and make no mistake.. the whole set up was an abuse.. the tech consultant fee being the first... and hopefully a forensic audit will shed some light on others.

Gerry was brought on as the "front"... did he come up with the idea to secure the sepctrum? Probably.. He likely picked up on it at a Bell meeting while he was employed there.

The speculation is that bell couldn't take a run at the spectrum in question until after the then future speculated AWS auctions.

You talk of missionaries on assignment.. yet never commit to any details..  you talk in garbled english... deliberately verbose in nature.. often ilegible. Then you claim you are the supplier of whatever theory begins to stick... now I'd be happy to apply credit where it is due but if being asked to clarify a hundred times or more doesn't provoke a clear well articulated response then I'm going to suggest to you there is no credit deserved.

You imply Bell and the gov was in on the deal from the get go..

Are you suggesting that Gerry was diaptched from bell to secure the spectrum? That they found Alex and UBS?

I don't think its that simple..  I think Gerry brioke away and hooked up with Alex perhaps knowing MC would help UBS scre$ Craig and steal control of Look. (Did the proxy irregularity not get noticed in a previous meeting? Could MC or other have known Craig would simply show up and present the same proxy irregularity and they would have a chance to scre$ Craig over??.. or is this crew not that intelligent? Did they intend to be minority shareholders? The theories all break dowbn without a collusion including MC Mr Sherbie.. eitherthat or Craig was in on it scre$ing themselves... UBS would never have made a minority investment in a company with no possible reutrns or management positions they could suck dry.. it had no other positive revenues.. so either they entered into that initiative with the expectations of soemthing beong offered them or they knew they'd get a chance to take it .. ie the perhaps repetitive sloppy way Craig represented its proxies)..

I think that Gerry cut a deal with Bell whereas Bell would supply them with cheap bandwith so they could maintain this "front" that look was a viable enterprise and continue sucking it dry year in year out until it came time to hand the spectrum to bell.. at a deal of course. (keep in mind Look was a failed business model.. its revenue flow couldn't support the true cost structure which was apparantly hidden)

I think bell and Telus and Rogers agreed in advance to not bid up the price.. Obviously rogers benefitted through inukshuk.. how Telus benefitted is puzzling to me.. they were mentioned as owning 6 million shares.. are those shares now in the hands of Mr Sieber?

I think when the time came for look to hand the spectrum to bell that Gerry and his pals initially resisted.. probably hoping for a change in the rules or for someone to actually partner with them and allow them to be part of a billion dollar enterprise etc..  I don't think Gerry and Alex are above scre$wing anyone over personally..

So bell tightens the squeeze..  pushing look towards insolvency.. in fact on paper look was already insolvent.. they may have mislead and perhaps even defrauded shareholders by not counting the monies owed to bell as top level debt and disclosing the real operating costs of the company.. 9it needs to be investigated and at the very least directors sued for their role IMO)

The BOD had a responsibility to avoid allowing the company tio slide into insolvency.. yet they never once adjusted.. as i said.. the Bell debt made look insolvent.. the only thing allowing look to keep operating was an injuction preventing bell from shutting off its services.

Yet bell never filed a lawsuit..  why? Could it be that Bell never wanted to force a court ordered highest bid auction? Could it be that bell still needed Gerry and the gang to lead shareholders to pre-approve a less than palatable deal? Was there a third party trying to get involved?

Managing to suck almost every single dime out of Look over all these years running a company with a clearly failed business model the "gang" finally began the carefully thought out and meticulously crafted hand off process.. a process which i now believe was in the cards from day one ultimately.. wheras they would allow Bell and Rogers to take the spectrum at a fraction of its true value.. in return for bell allowing them to operate and live large for years through their little "discount"... and perhaps even other "considerations" we are as of yet unaware.

I believe that Gerry and crew sucked investors into approving the flawed sales arrangement that included a vote to pre-approve the auction outcome in advance inspite of the fact they had alloted for among other things not necessarily taking the highest bid. (This is in direct conflict with proper conduct by the way.. they have a fiduciary obligation to maximize shareholder value.. not maipulate their own self serving deal)

I believe that Gerry and Gang feel ripped off themselves in soem disturbed sense.... although they have sucked millions out over the years for doing nothing other than running a front company they feel robbed.. i think they perhaps seen the numbers from the spectrum auctions and they forgot they are essentially babysitting.. they fogot that every dollar they suck out of Look was thanks to Bell's little deal... we all know Alex believes UBS is his and everything in it is his and I don't see much difference with Gerry personally.

I believe they feel personally entitled to the spectrum monies...  they feel that if Bell and Rogers didn't hand it to them they will simply take it.. with the help of their  clearly polluted directors. I honestly believe they belong in jail personally. .. just my opinion.

This is simply my opinion Mr Sherbie..   that is how it looks to me..  conjecture.. opinion.. logical deduction..  there is a bit of everything involved... but i have laid it out.. I could tell there was shenanigans at hand by the wording of the sales process..  so obviously the turth is in there somewhere.  You don't go out of your way to do soemthing for no reason.. no good reason perhaps.. but there is always a reason.

The question now is how do we get the full truth.. or at the very least recover shareholder's monies while trying to obtain the truth?.

Unlike your broad ranged and ever changing musings my theory is clear and detailed.

I do think the spectrum sale needs to be investigated.. i do think Gerry and crew mislead investors and i also feel the directors need to be sued and investigated.. in fact i believe the whole "scheme" needs to be investigated. I believe if looked at in its entirety it paints a far different picture than many may have of it.

Bell and Rogers have a lot of weight in this country.. case in point I am aware of a news agency that doesn't go with certain stories at times due to the advertising dollars they bring to the network. Is supect htis practice is quite common amongst them all.

Its not outrageous to speculate that government interests are holding back investigating it all or in the case of the OSC doing anything at all  due to the clout Bell and Rogers representatives wield.. but it is speculation..  and its one thing to suggest insiders behaved a certain way for a prearranged reason but its another to suggest it was all choreographed from the get go to include support form the highest levels of industry and government 

I have asked you repeatedly to back up your musings or at the very least explain them in enough detail that we understand what you are saying.. you never have...  not once... you post these broad ranged conspiracies with little or no details.. you alter them.. enlarge them almost continuously and imply its all done and we can't do anything about it due to the power of those at the top who are involved.

How do you think such nonsense helps investors? Do you think you sound different than any other 'out there' internet conspiracy theorist?

And as i've said.. as a further jab at the victims here you take swipes at me and the process I've put together to help hold this group accountable..

Now you comment on how I'm not al that nice to you.. I once was mr Sherbie.. I used to defend you here.. I used to point out that you were on the rights side of the fence and that you may have helped keep people from "betting the farm" (I chose those words carefully at the time)..

But how on earth is your petty attacks on me and the proces helping shareholders Mr Sherbie? Common sense tells us that getting involved themselves and beginning a process with their own legal representation is the only way shareholders will stand a chance at getting answers.. at least THEIR interests will be properly represented..... yet you attack that process by attacking me personally.. something you only began to do when the ad shareholders paid for began running.

So forgive me if my contempt for you as a person is shining through in my remarks...  i see you as every bit as greasy as I do Gerry and his crew of ripoff artists... which is all they equate to..  none of the paymetns were just.. they were all gouges.. all paid out because Gerry and his gang could get away with it.

And i'll say this one more time.. This "gang" has essentially operated without oversight for many years.. their abuses are flagrant and actually so aggressive they demonstrate an absolute careless disregard for shareholders and the industry and even any possible reperuccsions ... this tells me that a forensic audit will likley turn up far more than some think.. common sense tells us the abuses likely ocurred everywhere these characters had an opportunity to commit them.

It also demonstrates they may be operating in a void.. by that Imean operating with a sense of things which is skewed..  perhaps their legal advice isn't up to snuff.. or its just greed..  but it appears ot me they seem to think they can justify it all..  that tells me they are sitting ducks .. no judge could see this as anything other than completely outrageous.. the wording of baines and Critchley's opeinions on it speak volumes..  I read prety much every article baines writes and I don't think i've everheard of him refer to an abusive situation so strongly..  I have never witnessed a worse case of abuse.. and I go looking for them. 

The Craig lawsuit points towards alleged "gouging" on equipment purchases from the former UBS..  this ocurred many years ago.. lets get the forensic audit going .. lets find every "gouge" .. every "abuse" .. every expense that shouldn't have been claimed and every side deal or shell company and lets collect what we find and lets have it sent to the right authorities... lets go after them for every single instance.

When you can predict a dangerous animal's behavior you don't need to be a rocket scientist to find it or its lair to dispatch with it.. you simply need the will or courage to do it.

There is a pattern of abuses here that predate Gerry... its systemic.. there is collusion with directors..  and it needs to be investigated and perhaps prosecuted nevermind litigated for damages in my ever so humble opinion. 

This new board is either the answer of part of the problem.. There is no in between.

Take Care!

InDaMoney