Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 45

Thread: LAWSUIT QUESTION: Re Michael Hartleib

  1. #11
    jmm232 is offline
    Banned
    jmm232's Avatar
    Joined: Apr 2008 Posts: 206
    Pretty good summary of what Hartleib has been involved with. We should probably put together a list of what he has been involved with over the past 2 years at let the facts speak for themselves. Some will see it as a man on a mission. Some will see it as obsession. Others will see it (as I do) as a man with an axe to grind.

    I seem to recall him also claiming as part of the merger vote, not being fully informed because he did not know if existing radios or radios in development had interoperable technology built into them. As if the company was going to provide all shareholders with non-public information and corporate secrets so that a merger vote could be "fully informed".

    He was then involved with and dismissed by the FCC for the same reasons. Many attributed his moves and alignment with the NAB. That is the reason for my questions pertaining to his involvement with the group. His response now documented in case we learn that he has not been truthful with investors.

    I have a very hard time believing that someone who is an investor in this company would choose to do harm to their investment unless something else is involved. His delays have cost the company money at a time they are cutting costs

  2. #12
    jmm232 is offline
    Banned
    jmm232's Avatar
    Joined: Apr 2008 Posts: 206
    And Homer.......

    Have you seen or heard anything about those two tender offerings that occurred for XM bonds following the merger? I find it very odd that it has not been disclosed.

    Are there symbols that they trade under I can look at? Thanks in advance.

    --egiscodr

  3. #13
    hartleib1 is offline
    Enthusiast
    hartleib1's Avatar
    Joined: Mar 2008 Posts: 135
    Nice spin Homer, I have no past litigation with anyone ever. I have filed my first suit against Sirius/ Xm. I have made it clear as to what my agenda is, what is yours? You are in the industry but own no shares of Sirius. You spend many hours on this board as well as others. I have hundreds of shareholders who have joined the fight to prevent management from stealing this company FROM ITS TRUE OWNERS THE SHAREHOLDERS. Keep up the good work and keep the faith .30 cents speaks for itself. You are doing a great job! Give me a call any time. 714-927-5898

  4. #14
    hartleib1 is offline
    Enthusiast
    hartleib1's Avatar
    Joined: Mar 2008 Posts: 135
    Keymark or jmm give me a call at 714-927-5898 or email at savesirius@gmail.com

  5. #15
    cos1000 is offline
    Senior Member
    cos1000's Avatar
    Joined: Mar 2008 Posts: 402
    Here is a question. Why hasn't Michael submitted "Proposals Of Security Holders" under rule 14a-8 to be included in the Preliminary Proxy Statement submitted by the company under rule 14a-6??? I am not a lawyer, but if you or I were involved in ongoing litigation with the company during the merger, during the merger appeal period, and after, wouldn't you follow Proxy Statement Rules and assure that your concerns could be included in a timely filing to the company so that all shareholders would have access to the information when the company files its Proxy Statement.

    Rule 14a-8 provides shareholders who disagree, or agree but want other considerations voted on at the annual meeting, a way to have those issues included in the Proxy Statement.

  6. #16
    spanyo is offline
    Enthusiast
    spanyo's Avatar
    Joined: Jul 2008 Posts: 135
    I wonder if he gets his class action suit together what his cut will be if successful. I suspect it will be MUCH greater than those that join him.

    Although, if this legal action is helping keep the price down right now, I am actually grateful. Because if you REALLY want to make money in this stock, don't sell and get ready to buy more at these fire sale prices.

    Just my humble opinion. Time will tell.
    Last edited by spanyo; 10-25-2008 at 11:43 AM.

  7. #17
    homer985 is offline
    Senior Member
    homer985's Avatar
    Joined: Mar 2008 Posts: 485
    Quote Originally Posted by hartleib1 View Post
    I have filed my first suit against Sirius/ Xm. I have made it clear as to what my agenda is, what is yours?
    Let's see, you've already filed one lawsuit asking that the FCC decision be set aside and have made MULTIPLE filings with the FCC over the last 2 years, including one challenging the decision of the FCC; and also filed several briefs with the Court that was hearing the previous Class Action suit and was instrumental in having it dismissed (against the companies plans).

    Not that I'm saying what you did was right or wrong, but how dare you sit there and try and say that you had no previous litigation involved here. Whether or not it was specifically against the company is irrelevant. The assertion that you did nothing is an insult to the intelligence of those that read this board. Your prior history proceeds you and this involvement (on message boards, with Government agencies and in Courts) will be used to demonstrate your agenda. Whether you believe it or not, you have been involved in one form of litigation or another that was related to this company for over 2 years.

    Quote Originally Posted by hartleib1 View Post
    You are in the industry but own no shares of Sirius.
    I've told you several times not to make assumptions, they will be your downfall. I have never stated whether or not I still own any shares, actually I have somewhere -- but I'm not going to hand that info to you. Regardless, you are and have been assuming my ownership -- that is a big no-no.

    Quote Originally Posted by hartleib1 View Post
    I have hundreds of shareholders who have joined the fight to prevent management from stealing this company FROM ITS TRUE OWNERS THE SHAREHOLDERS.
    Good for you. I hope you make the right moves, because if not... there are several large holders that are watching you closely that do not agree with you or your intentions. If your group goes about it wrong, then you too will end up on the wrong side of the Court... you are not immune to litigation yourself.


    P.S. - The personal attacks are very unbecoming... my posts are not spin, they are the truth of how I feel. While I believe that you believe that you are doing what you think is right -- it doesn't make it right. I disagree with your assumptions, your tactics and believe that you are only looking out for your own self-interests and are using this suit and the other shareholders to drive this interest. Regardless of the stock price, based on what I know -- I find your actions to be despicable and dangerous to this company.


    --------

  8. #18
    vaporgold is offline
    Member
    vaporgold's Avatar
    Joined: Oct 2008 Posts: 57
    Investors…

    All of my communications with Michael Harleib have been in writing. The question I have ask him a couple times is listed below.

    I know some of you have talked to him, can any of you shed any light on where he is going and what his motitives are?

    I just don’t understand at this point what the Jeffery P. Fink connection has to do with the current situation and why Mr. Harlieb continues mentioning him.

    What am I missing here?

    Michael Hartleib

    I have written and asked you before if the Current class action suit will be based on the incomptetance of mangement, and to keep the company from being sold public or private at distressed stock prices.

    You answered by saying based on incomptetent mangement.

    However, you keep sending e- mails for us to harass Jeffery P. Fink, and his current attorney.

    It really is begining to look like you want to tie these two together so you can continue you’re fight with this lawyer and your previous suit.

    As I said in my previous letter to you, that war is over and I would not join the class action suit if that was you’re intent.

    I don’t see the connection with Jeffery P. Fink and the current proposed suit. If there is not one fine, if there is please state it.

    vaporgold

    michael hartleib wrote:
    Try this link for Ruf law’s attorney. http://www.sdma.com/gregory-h-halliday/ Please give him a call or email. He was hired to protect Mr. Fink for his bogus suit!

  9. #19
    jmm232 is offline
    Banned
    jmm232's Avatar
    Joined: Apr 2008 Posts: 206
    I once again have to absolutely agree with you Homer. Michael has a history with this company. Whether it is him filing a suit or being involved in litigation is splitting hairs. It is apparant that the company keps him at arm's length for a reason.

    I can promise him one thing: If his actions cause harm to my investment and the investment of others, I will personally assure you that he will find himself on the other side of the courtroom. Tread very carefully Michael.

  10. #20
    PMO is offline
    Member
    PMO's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2008 Posts: 55
    Homer985, thanks for the additional perspective. It supports my earlier decision to steer clear of joining a lawsuit that I want no part of, even if it has a basis in fact. I am a simple retail level investor/trader and have no desire to make my life more complex than it already is by joining Hartleib's campaign. (No offense Hartleib but Homer985 makes strong counterpoints to your plan.) Also, I started a new thread suggesting that "special" guests on SiriusBuzz should really be special--and focused on SIRI because the stock's plight is issue number one.

  11. Ad Fairy Senior Member
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... 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
  •