pumper_stumper
2日前
It's rare that pink sheet investors can see their mistakes, and I mean THEIR mistakes, not blaming the company! There is hope for you. Good luck!
This from one of the top 20 on my list of ENZC's, as far as disagreeing with me.
"I for one can accept my mistakes and learn from them. Not hard to use these losses to offset current and future gains. Oh....... Touist have gone "all in" lol. Man, I wish the post from what was still up about the empty office space and all lol. Be a man, a learn from your mistake"
pumper_stumper
2日前
You have to understand, they're doing "investigations". This takes time! It's "only" been 1 year and 3 weeks since $SAGA was delisted and $ENZC shareholders started to figure out what the rest of us already knew! It's only been a year plus! They'll get to the bottom of this.... "soon". In the meantime there are sign up sheets, petitions, threats of lawsuits.... but somehow, no actual lawsuits!
Seriously, does anyone watch the financial markets enough to know that TRUE REAL class action shareholders lawsuits, are usually files withing DAYS of an event, not YEARS later?
I always say, although in the pinks I see over and over again shareholders that don't understand the basics of finance, that the understanding level of the legal world by these shareholders, is even lower than their understanding of the financial world! This proves it again!
Its_TradingG
2週前
This statement contains several legal inaccuracies and misleading claims. Let’s break it down piece by piece:
1. “The law firm who took the case is assigning a new contracted partner as of yesterday to the case.”
• Issue: The phrase “contracted partner” is unusual in legal contexts. Partners in law firms are typically full equity or non-equity partners, not contracted.
• Why it matters: If the firm were significantly shifting leadership or outsourcing the case to another attorney, that could signal internal uncertainty about its strength.
2. “A preliminary judicial review had the attorney’s telling us this would be filed as a state-bound Securities Violations case (all charges being of business fraud) because all plaintiffs registered are shareholders.”
• Issue: “Preliminary judicial review” does not exist in this context. Judges don’t review cases before they’re filed.
• Securities violations vs. Business Fraud:
• A securities fraud case must meet specific legal thresholds, such as proving intentional deception that induced shareholders to buy, hold, or sell securities.
• Just being a shareholder doesn’t automatically make a case a securities fraud case—you must show specific fraudulent actions that directly caused financial loss.
• Why it matters: The claim suggests a misinterpretation of how securities fraud cases are classified. If business fraud is the main charge, it might belong under corporate or contract law, not securities law.
3. “That and only that reason has to have the case filed as a securities violations act, with all charges being a fraud charges, and there’s five of those.”
• Issue: This is legally incorrect—a case isn’t forced into securities law just because plaintiffs are shareholders.
• Why it matters: A lawsuit must fit within the legal framework of securities law, meaning it must:
1. Meet SEC Rule 10b-5 standards (misstatements, reliance, causation, damages).
2. Be filed in the correct jurisdiction (state vs. federal court depends on laws violated).
3. Distinguish between securities fraud and corporate fraud.
4. “Anyone who wants to sue Chandra and Adnexus, have instant standing to do so, if they were a shareholder from 5/1/2024 or earlier, ever since the SEC filed against Zhabilov for the $92 million etc. That legally gave everyone the ability to sue them.”
• Issue 1: “Instant standing to sue”
• Being a past shareholder doesn’t automatically grant standing in court.
• Standing requires demonstrating personal harm—simply owning shares isn’t enough.
• If plaintiffs sold before the fraud was publicly revealed, courts may argue no loss was suffered due to fraud.
• Issue 2: “Since the SEC filed… that legally gave everyone the ability to sue.”
• The SEC’s lawsuit does not automatically grant private plaintiffs standing—it enforces federal securities laws, but private claims must prove direct harm and reliance on fraudulent information.
• Courts often dismiss copycat lawsuits that don’t independently prove fraud.
Final Takeaways:
• Misinterpretation of legal procedures: No “preliminary judicial review” determines if a case is state-bound securities fraud.
• Flawed securities fraud claim: Just owning shares doesn’t automatically qualify a lawsuit under securities law.
• Standing is not automatic: The SEC filing against Zhabilov does not guarantee all past shareholders can sue.
If you’re considering involvement, ensure the legal basis is solid—otherwise, the case could face early dismissal for lack of standing or failure to prove fraud.
docsetc
2週前
Hey DRHUMI, these guys will disappear or whine about excuses for Chandra, as soon as we have him served, which won't be long from now. Hope it's on the same day he takes Adnexus public. The law firm said it would be fantastic timing if we're able to do that. I intend to try and get pics of him being served.
The law firm who took the case is assigning a new contracted partner as of yesterday to the case. A preliminary judicial review had the attorney's telling us this would be filed as a state-bound Securities Violations case (all charges being of business fraud) because all plaintiffs registered are shareholders. That and only that reason has to have the case filed as a securities violations act, with all charges being a fraud charges, and there's five of those.
Anyone who wants to sue Chandra and Adnexus, have instant standing to do so, if they were a shareholder from 5/1/2024 or earlier, ever since the SEC filed against Zhabilov for the $92 million etc. That legally gave everyone the ability to sue them.
Talk soon, it's been crazy around here lately.
Terry
Its_TradingG
2週前
Cocksetc why are you on X but conveniently ignoring iHub when it's time to give details about your fake lawsuit? You're too invested in Adnexus, you can't wait for your buddy to go Public so you can secretly invest huh?
#ADNEXUSBIOTECH #Enzolytics #ENZC #CBDW WOW, CBDW liquidating out with a 'sale of assets' to an investment company who specializes in Waste Management. I guess this is poetic justice for such a holding company to maybe do something with Adnexus. 😁— SuperTAbrams (@Supertabra55141) March 19, 2025
Laughing my a$@ off at all these guys BEGGING for an update by Doc, LMAO: So, are all shareholders included in this then? Or? I want to ensure I am included as per my creation of account on your website, etc. however, I have never received any emails or communication regarding this. Should those of us that signed up be receiving updates via email?— ChandraNeeds2Pay (@Needs2Pay) March 6, 2025
price_and_volume
2週前
Lol, my guess is he'll come back.
And he'll tweet or PR or tell docsetc something BULLISH on the phone and you'll all get into a bullish-lather (again), believing this time is different lol, and you'll actually buy more, and then get taken to the cleaners AGAIN.
Because clearly some here can't learn from others, or from their own mistakes. I have never been so bored that I need to hang out on a board of a stock I don't own or wasn't defrauded on, but to each their own I guess. What do you "own"? worthless shares in a fraudulent scam company that you WERE defrauded on.
YOUR POSTS are what keep ME coming back.
Lovin the lolz here.
DRHUMI
3週前
I don't know why you Four think anybody needs your advice. You are probably 1 person with 4 usernames, but 1 or 4 doesn't matter since you are OPFOR for Chandra. There is absolutely zero reason for you to be here unless you are hired for deflection purposes.
If Chandra is smart, with the Jury out on that, he will take over ENZC after everybody there disappears and Harry and his merry band are in the clink for Securities Fraud. That's if he avoids Jail time with a plea to help or whatever. Then he will give shares to everybody that was defrauded, that's the easy way out. That's an acceptable settlement for me, I can't speak for others.
I have never been so bored that I need to hang out on a board of a stock I don't own or wasn't defrauded on, but to each their own I guess.