Kure Technologies Inc V.KUR.H

RE: RE: RE: inda

[InDaMoney]

6180,

Why is it those looking to fleece the sheep always use people without a clue to spread their propoganda? And defend their actions and inactions?

UBS is indeed a shareholder of Look.. without Look UBS is just another empty shell on the venture board. Everything UBS has is through look. Your heors took control of UBS to stop the abuses at Look and turf the crew...  they accomplished one part of that equation.

They failed to stop yet another theft of shareholder's monies.. and these are thefts..  you wake up not enttitled.. you decide you are.. you and your friends justify it in your own minds then you take what you now claim you are entitled to.. its theft..  they have the ability to take it.. not the right... there is a difference.

I doubt the new BOD will invite the RCMP in to do anything about any of the abuses..  it would conflict with their agenda.. which IMO is to help the "gang" abscond and disappear safely...  they have demonstrated nothing to show their agenda is anything but and I would argue demonstrated sheer negligence by allowing those whom the whole industry knew would STEAL what they could to remain at look without an injunction preventing them from taking ny monies.

You seems to not have any experience or knowledgw ith regards to injunctions..  if this is coming from your friends now in Chargeof Look and UBS I willsuggest to you they playng you like a fiddle.. if this is coming from their legal counsel I will suggest to you  an upgrade is in order.

As a shareholder you or I or anyone else can walk into a court room and ask a judge to protect your, mine and everyone elses collective interests. It would have taken a few bucks... and a few brain cells.. nothing more.. its doen all the time. The existing BOD could have fought it.. but on what grounds?

Think about it..

An injunction asking a failed group about to be sued to not steal any more money upon leaving?  What would their argument against it be?

"Your honor... the rest got $21+ million and I got nothing ... its not fair.. i helped them steal theirs.. now I don't get any?"

Why you argue what is common practice is puzzling to me..

The truth here is your crew could have had them all tied up and then turfed months back.. they didn't choose to use the courts then .. and they continue not to.. I think we all know why Mr 6180.

Your crew won't be holding anyone accountable.. I doubt they will go near a forensic audit.. if they do i doubt they'll use a seasoned pro..  Yes I am insinuatin at best your crew will put on a weak show..  I'm calling them nothing more than actors playing a part.

You and the village idiot gijane seems to think losing 5% of remaining cash value to a last theft is fair..  neither of you are outraged..  that simply exposes you Mr 6180..  You are happy the plan is coming together..  Your loyaty has never changed as I've always maintained.. just your tune has.

And I'm not sure what jane is going on about.. the stacking of Looks BOD with directors... its a shell..  it needs a trustee not a pack of directors..  I will suggest to you that such apparant 'stupidity' isn't accidental.. its part of a scheme yet to be exposed.

In regards to your condescending tone regarding the principal regulator.. 

You don't have the experience or ability to understand how things are played out in this uindustry... nevermind see why "we".. myself, Critchley, Baines and several others are targeting the OSC.

Do you know how a regulator is chosen, determined? Yet you comment anyways?

I'll give you a brief run down..

In Canada there exists currently 13 different overlapping jurisdications of regulators..  Each jurisdiction has provicial or territorital concerns with regards to issuers and issuances. The regulator in any of those regions has regulatory control over its jurisdiction and by default any issuer trading or issuing equities inside its jurisdiction... It can also target companies simply residing inside its jurisidction but primarily operating outside its juridiction.

Due to the overlaps and cases where a company may for example reside in Ontario but conduct all its business and issuances in Quebec for example the regulators allow a sort of hand-off of primary or principal regulatory oversight to the regulator with the largest interest... this process has bcome bastardized over th eyears to allow the issuer such as UBS to choose its principal regulator.. for example.. UBS asked that its principal regulator be changed to the OSC fromt he BCSC at one stage...  it wa a half page letter hidden amongst thousands fo filings.. not only did I miss it (inspiteof actually having it in the pile) the BCSC never even realised they were no longer principal for months while interacting with them.

In the case of UBS it was previously a resurce shell etc.. so changing to the OSC considering it resided there wasn't surprising.. but those of us digginginto it it at the time seen a more self serving reason to change..  we believe it had more to do with certain rules at the time.

So they do change principal regulators..  for all sort of reasons.. but what does it mean?

What it means is absolutely nothing!

A company can't remove its obligation to conform to a jurisdictions rules without ceasing to operate as an issuer within that jurisdiction. Thats why you see "not for sale or resale in the united states" or "not for US citizens" or " citizens of quebec aren't eligible" etc on some public filings.. the ssuer is choosing not to comply with the rules in that jurisdiction.  

But an existing issuer such as Look operating and trading and issuing shares and debt inside Ontario can't choose to not be held accountable to ontario's rules and regs. They can't..

The OSC can choose to hand the principal or lead to responibilities to BC or another jurisdiction .. they can choose to do nothing..  but look is very much under the jurisdictional hammer of the OSC.

The reason baines, Critchley and myself are calling out the OSC is because we know they are copping out.

The Ontario Securities Commission is one big fraud Mr 180.. they are the province of Ontario's GOVERNMENT regulator..   yet they are allowing its citizens to be ripped off because Look chooses Quebec as its principal regulator? Does that make rational sense to you mr 6180? 

The OSC is a fraud.. its as simple as that.. they aren't here to protect.. they aren't even here to mandate rules and regs..  they are here to put on an appearance of regulatory oversight.. its a show..  its theater.. 

The reaon why things are so predictable to me and others who see right through this sham of an industry is becase we undesrtand how this game is played.. 

Just as you claim to be utterly ignorant of the power of and applied use of an injunction.. the OSC claims to not have jurisdiction.. it all an act...  not only do they have jurisdiction.. they have a public interest mandate to act.. i would argue they should be sued for failing the residents of Ontario.
 
Your crew is negligent of protecting shareholders interests and as a result damages of $1.6 million have been incurred by shareholders. Argue until you're blue in the face all you like 6180..  its a fact. and if they go onto do nothing and if shareholders finally do get their act together and hold them accountable it will be part of a damages claim.

Your new crew are the ones being watched 6180.. 
 
Take Care!

InDaMoney