RE:RE:RE:Dear FWDearest Pat,
Firstly, calm yourself down son, where we come from, life's too short for us old timers to get too uptight like you. Nutthin you, us, nor many others have written is Defamation if its true/factual and proveable. Familiarize yourself with definition son - you must reach all five test points to be defamation for libel, slander, ect - we double checked for you in Canada son and its the same as here...no judge would support you, truth is, these things actually happened that are everyone's talking about and concerned over, and if anyone has a "damages suit" - it probably the bloody shareholders of VRB! So don't go there buddy haha. You didn't lose your shirt like the shareholders have (so far).
Unilateral decision on share 10:1 rollback, thereby crushing shareholders, with no news, no funding, no programs in place, letting price drift down to 12 cents on 100 shares volume for the day?
Not true? Partner, we are on the same page trust me...and anyone could force a forensic audit on these massive "consuting fees" during the 10 month halt they racked up, and see if we got "fair value" for them? All this stuff is easy in cross examination in a court setting if need be like shooting ducks in an old barrel...who disagrees? Speak up and explain to Pat lol.
Shareholders deserve justice son. What's your point/agenda? We are not clear on where you are coming from nor what you are up to haha.
Secondly, if you are "involved" as you just suggested lol let's see what you've done kiddo!
Lastly, we are not on "Mr. Bakker's side", but truth is he was CEO for many years, has all the best VRB contacts and knowledge, although nothing materially may have advanced yet except the resource report and some VEPT Patents were secured, he recently had explained to many he was on the verge of some major deals in "Canada" so why did the board not entertain his presentation of them? Is that alone not breach of fiduciary duty? Look what happened to twitter's board when they tried to block Musk's generous offer? They were strongly urged by their team of lawyers "they would be in a World of Fiduciary breach hell if they did"...and quickly did the right thing... Bakker said he was "very close to the major shareholders".. let's hold him to that. Its his fiduciary duty to take a stand.
Prove otherwise, and we gladly retract any statements partner.
Another question: Is this $2 million "loan to pay off another loan" they announced recently going through and is it just an attempt at taking control as corporate raiders? Please advise?
Does anyone have ANY info they can provide us to clarify? Can anyone please explain who has talked to this board recently since the Bakker ousting and lawsuit has been launched by the baord against the CEO?
Why hasn't Bakker launched a proxy battle against the board that ousted him if he has in fact been ousted, and now being sued by his own board, and why would they sue him AND keep him on the board at the same time? Unless he doesn't have the shareholder support he says he does and agin they just want to milk him? Shareholders have a right to an explanation - VRB gets wierder by the day to us?
And the allegations of this takeover - are they true? Its all crazy making, with no facts, no news to verify. These are fair questions, true statements, not defamation.
We, like the thousands of VRB shareholders just want to see our investments returned.
Finally, are you invested still in VRB stock Pat? We want to see you and Bakker "do the right thing" for us shareholders who trusted him and you with our investments and believed his/your representations. That's all buddy. Waiting for your answer.
Vanadium batteries should have be running the US and Canada by now...its a trajedy what's happened. Prove us wrong VRB. All the best partner.
FW