Page 4 of 7 ... 23456 ...
Results 31 to 40 of 69
  1. buddylee is offline
    Member
    buddylee's Avatar
    Joined: Jan 2009 Location: Shreveport, LA Posts: 74
    04-04-2009, 07:07 PM #31
    I wish you could be the one to deliver it to him Homer.

  2. Brandon Matthews is offline
    Banned
    Brandon Matthews's Avatar
    Joined: Aug 2008 Location: Northeast Posts: 721
    04-04-2009, 07:20 PM #32
    The California Stalking Law Penal Code Section 646.9 has greatly evolved over the past fourteen years and has become more effective in defining and addressing this increasingly common crime. California now has one of the strongest stalking laws in the country. No Longer should victims of stalking be turned away by law enforcement and told, "come back when he actually hurts you." From 1991 through 1993, stalking was a misdemeanor punishable by only one year in county jail when no restraining order was in place. Under the current law, a first-time stalker can be sentenced to a felony charge and sentenced to State Prison for up to three years. If a court or restraining order is in effect, the stalker can be sentenced up to four years in prison or if he has previously been convicted of felony stalking or other related crimes, he could face up to five years in prison.

    Michael has put this woman and her entire family in harms way. As crazy as he seems to be, it would only take one even crazier shareholder to harm this woman.
    Last edited by Brandon Matthews; 04-04-2009 at 07:23 PM.

  3. tim wallick is offline
    Enthusiast
    tim wallick's Avatar
    Joined: Jul 2008 Posts: 204
    04-04-2009, 07:23 PM #33
    so-what if he did break a law by calling.

    one would do well, to understand if it was a simple reduction of head count do to the merger.why would they the company waist the time money and effort to offer them a long term position under contract? then they both just decide to leave shortly after being promoted.

    when it comes to the bean counters whom can be jailed for their actions or in-actions. based on what and when they knew of a issue, along with what action did they take. it does give me a bit of reason for pause when two bail out within a three month time frame.

    unless of course they both figured the company was done going forward, it was a fair paying position. and both had accepted it.
    Last edited by tim wallick; 04-04-2009 at 07:28 PM.

  4. Brandon Matthews is offline
    Banned
    Brandon Matthews's Avatar
    Joined: Aug 2008 Location: Northeast Posts: 721
    04-04-2009, 07:30 PM #34
    Or maybe she's just PREGNANT you stupid #%&^#*'s


    Quote Originally Posted by tim wallick View Post
    so-what if he did break a law by calling.

    one would do well, to understand if it was a simple reduction of head count do to the merger.why would they the company waist the time money and effort to offer them a long term position under contract? then they both just decide to leave shortly after being promoted.

    when it comes to the bean counters whom can be jailed for their actions or in-actions. based on what and when they knew of a issue, along with what action did they take. it does give me a bit of reason for pause when two bail out within a three month time frame.

    unless of course they both figured the company was done going forward, it was a fair paying position. and both had accepted it.

  5. homer985 is offline
    Senior Member
    homer985's Avatar
    Joined: Mar 2008 Posts: 485
    04-04-2009, 07:30 PM #35
    Quote Originally Posted by tim wallick View Post
    so-what if he did break a law by calling.
    No offense, but I do have a problem with the above statement... try filling in the blank:

    so-what if he did break a law by ____________

    The last I checked, this was the USA. We have laws. What other law is this guy going to break in order to achieve his agenda?

    That doesn't bother you? Really?



    ------------

  6. SiriusXMInvestor is offline
    Enthusiast
    SiriusXMInvestor's Avatar
    Joined: Aug 2008 Posts: 227
    04-04-2009, 07:30 PM #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Brandon Matthews View Post
    The California Stalking Law Penal Code Section 646.9 has greatly evolved over the past fourteen years and has become more effective in defining and addressing this increasingly common crime. California now has one of the strongest stalking laws in the country. No Longer should victims of stalking be turned away by law enforcement and told, "come back when he actually hurts you." From 1991 through 1993, stalking was a misdemeanor punishable by only one year in county jail when no restraining order was in place. Under the current law, a first-time stalker can be sentenced to a felony charge and sentenced to State Prison for up to three years. If a court or restraining order is in effect, the stalker can be sentenced up to four years in prison or if he has previously been convicted of felony stalking or other related crimes, he could face up to five years in prison.

    Michael has put this woman and her entire family in harms way. As crazy as he seems to be, it would only take one even crazier shareholder to harm this woman.
    Give me a phucking break. You should spend more time trying to identify the "client" who is phucking the stock price through ISEG.

  7. jmm232 is offline
    Banned
    jmm232's Avatar
    Joined: Apr 2008 Posts: 206
    04-04-2009, 07:44 PM #37
    Maybe the real rason for her leaving was due to some sociapath calling her at work and at home on a constant basis. Based on past knowledge of this group and their actions, there is not a chance in hell they were not harassing this woman. Maybe she figured this was a good way to get away from the situation.

    She needs to take a restraining order out on him ASAP. Something is not right with him.

  8. tim wallick is offline
    Enthusiast
    tim wallick's Avatar
    Joined: Jul 2008 Posts: 204
    04-04-2009, 07:44 PM #38
    Quote Originally Posted by homer985 View Post
    No offense, but I do have a problem with the above statement... try filling in the blank:

    so-what if he did break a law by ____________

    The last I checked, this was the USA. We have laws. What other law is this guy going to break in order to achieve his agenda?

    That doesn't bother you? Really?



    ------------

    what does bother me, is he could be correct. as a shareholder, i do see how his position could cause anger for many people.

  9. Brandon Matthews is offline
    Banned
    Brandon Matthews's Avatar
    Joined: Aug 2008 Location: Northeast Posts: 721
    04-04-2009, 07:44 PM #39
    Quote Originally Posted by SiriusXMInvestor View Post
    Give me a phucking break. You should spend more time trying to identify the "client" who is phucking the stock price through ISEG.
    No. You give me a break. I have received threats from shareholders. What this idiot did was sick every demented gullable shareholder follower of his into going after this woman.

    He might as well have put a contract out on her. This is no freaking joke. He has to be stopped before he really gets someone hurt.

  10. jmm232 is offline
    Banned
    jmm232's Avatar
    Joined: Apr 2008 Posts: 206
    04-04-2009, 07:50 PM #40
    Brandon,

    I hope by "the right people", you also mean Sirius Legal counsel. This Hartleib fool needs to be stopped once and for all. If we wait a little longer, the NAB or hedge fund he is involved with may go under, but why wait.

Page 4 of 7 ... 23456 ...