Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 45

Thread: LAWSUIT QUESTION: Re Michael Hartleib

  1. #1
    jmm232 is offline
    Banned
    jmm232's Avatar
    Joined: Apr 2008 Posts: 206

    LAWSUIT QUESTION: Re Michael Hartleib

    In the sense of FAIR DISCLOSURE, Michael.....

    Do you have any affiliation with the NAB (National Association of Broadcasters), sponsorship by the NAB, or any communication with the NAB?

    Who is funding this effort?

    Until everyone hears your response, they should not consider this "lawsuit" or consider you trustworthy. IMO, you also damaged the value of my investment.

  2. #2
    Greenland is offline
    Enthusiast
    Greenland's Avatar
    Joined: Jul 2008 Location: nation's capitol Posts: 119

    yeah man

    what's up with that ?

  3. #3
    TSavery is offline
    Head Honcho
    TSavery's Avatar
    Joined: Jun 2007 Posts: 524

    answers

    Having spoken to Michael many times, I will give what I feel are the answers to your questions:


    "Do you have any affiliation with the NAB (National Association of Broadcasters), sponsorship by the NAB, or any communication with the NAB?"

    To my knowledge Mr. Hartleib has no affiliation with the NAB, nor is he sponsored by the NAB. I do know that he has "had communication" with the NAB, as have I. However, I have seen nothing to indicate that the NAB is sponsoring or directing his efforts.

    "Who is funding this effort?"

    To my knowledge, Mr. Hartleib has been funding all of this by himself.

    "Until everyone hears your response, they should not consider this "lawsuit" or consider you trustworthy. IMO, you also damaged the value of my investment."

    There is a fine line here. I am not saying that I agree with Mr. Hartleibs actions in the past, or current course of action. The stock has not performed well. However, I do not see a direct correlation between what Mr. Hartleib has done and the performance of the stock price. In as much as shareholders still have some recourse should some of what Mr. Hartleib alleges is true, he did everyone a favor. Had the class action suit against the company been allowed to happen, shareholders would have no recourse whatsoever at this point.

    I will say that it is my opinion that Mr. hartleib has taken steps that most would not have taken, and in some ways has clouded the issues surrounding the merger, etc.
    Tyler Savery
    Satellite Standard Founder

  4. #4
    jmm232 is offline
    Banned
    jmm232's Avatar
    Joined: Apr 2008 Posts: 206
    I appreciate your responses Tyler, but my question are directed at Mr Hartleib specifically. He has thus far dodged them.

  5. #5
    deewcom is offline
    Enthusiast
    deewcom's Avatar
    Joined: Jul 2008 Posts: 166
    What recourse do we have now? A class action suit works fine for the lawyers, but lousy for the plaintiffs - even if we win. So really, what recourse do we have as individuals or as a class?

  6. #6
    deewcom is offline
    Enthusiast
    deewcom's Avatar
    Joined: Jul 2008 Posts: 166
    In as much as shareholders still have some recourse should some of what Mr. Hartleib alleges is true, he did everyone a favor. Had the class action suit against the company been allowed to happen, shareholders would have no recourse whatsoever at this point.

    Tyler, what is your view on this? Did Mel attempt to shield himself from potential future lawsuits from shareholders by staging straw-man class action suits against his own company using his own key players and attorneys?

  7. #7
    hartleib1 is offline
    Enthusiast
    hartleib1's Avatar
    Joined: Mar 2008 Posts: 135
    I do not have ties to anyone and have not ask for or taken any money. I have done most of the drafts and legal briefs and then hired counsel. To move forward as a group we will need to retain a big name firm and our group will provide funds. Savesirius@gmail.com. If you wish to speak with me feel free at 714-927-5898
    Last edited by hartleib1; 10-24-2008 at 01:35 AM.

  8. #8
    Keysmark is offline
    Enthusiast
    Keysmark's Avatar
    Joined: Dec 2007 Posts: 180
    Tyler,

    Why are you speaking for Mr. Hartleib?

    So now I must ask you. Other than attempting to present all viewpoints, what is you association with Mr. Hartlieb? Are you a part of his suit and actions against SIRI? What do you have to gain from his success?

    Why are you championing his cause so strongly? It seems to me that you have gone far beyond merely allowing him to present his point of view!

    Mr. Hartleib's is acting only in his own self interest. His actions, by his own admission, are designed to get HIS money back.

    I believe that Mr. Hartleib's actions have caused, and are continuing to cause, harm to Sirius and my investment.

    Keysmark
    Last edited by Keysmark; 10-24-2008 at 08:17 AM.

  9. #9
    jmm232 is offline
    Banned
    jmm232's Avatar
    Joined: Apr 2008 Posts: 206
    Thank you for your response Michael.
    I will not be calling at this time, because I am not sure I agree with the premise of your suit. Just remember that as a shareholder, you are not going to be privy to every decision made within the company. IMO, this is a bunch of sour grapes. You have no way of proving that your scenario with Sirius letting XM fall would have worked out. Pure speculation.

  10. #10
    homer985 is offline
    Senior Member
    homer985's Avatar
    Joined: Mar 2008 Posts: 485
    Quote Originally Posted by jmm232 View Post
    IMO, this is a bunch of sour grapes. You have no way of proving that your scenario with Sirius letting XM fall would have worked out. Pure speculation.
    Exactly. Going back a couple years ago, it was obvious that all Hartleib wanted to see was XM "destroyed" by having them "turn on" the interopability aspect (which doesn't exist). He's said this on more than one occasion. He wanted to see XM destroyed and have Sirius take their subs -- and when they didn't do this and instead did a 50/50 merger... he felt betrayed. Ever since then he's spent every waking moment trying to prove that they lied and/or dreamnt up several conspiracy theories.

    This lawsuit is not something new -- this is a quest that Hartleib has been after for 2 years. Most of you new here may not realize this... but his speculations and accusations have been ongoing for a long time. This lawsuit is now just sour grapes, as you say.

    EXAMPLE
    There was a period of several months that Hartleib claimed that the shareholder vote on the merger was never passed by shareholders, that Sirius lied in the filings about the vote count (a completely unfounded claim); when Sirius finally published the results in their Annual Report (like they always do for shareholder votes), Hartleib claimed they were altered. Based on what? He even went on to contact an audit firm to investigate the vote. Why? Because he doesn't believe that shareholders would actually vote for the merger... and that was over a year ago.

    EXAMPLE 2
    One of his new claims is that Karmazin purposely tanked Sirius so that he and Leon Black could take the company private... "like Karmazin did with Infinity". Of course, as I have demonstrated, it has been proven that this claim that Karmazin did this previously is completely untrue. This is another speculatory claim made by him that is unfounded -- and borders on a libelous statement, in fact.

    Yet Hartleib wonders why Sirius puts up road blocks in his way? Because he's been nothing but a pain in their ass for over 2 years... and they obviously knew that he was setting them up for a lawsuit -- and so they handled him carefully and made it difficult for him. Why make it easy for a shareholder, who's never going to be happy with the answer -- when all they're going to do is sue them in the end?

    I'm with you, this is nothing but sour grapes -- over the fact that they didn't "destroy" XM. IMHO, his interests are purely selfish, disguised as one that is "seeking the truth", when all he wants is his money back and XM "destroyed".

    Problem for Hartleib? I hope he realizes that it is more than likely that all of his posting history on the many different message boards has been collected over the years. They no doubt know more about him, than he realizes.

    So why is he seeking you for his lawsuit? Because he's been roadblocked and if he filed another lawsuit against them, his prior history of litigation against the company will be used against him. So now he's using YOU to form a new group, to continue on what he's started... going with the strength in numbers concept.

    Just be careful in any shareholder group that you "officially" join... especially when you have a loose cannon at the helm. The last thing you want is to get dragged in to court too... but on the "defense" side.


    ------
    Last edited by homer985; 10-24-2008 at 11:42 PM.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •