Thank you for your input, re my most recent posts. As much as anything, I was really just trying to assess the strength and the numbers of the direct auto-opposition given the imminent change in CEO, in estimating the degree of bias with which he may have to cope with, regardless of his impeccable qualifications and experience, along with ensuring there was nothing else that you or I should consider in our on going shareholding and or support of STI in the future. A test one could say in an attempt to see who is really on what side and how flexible or otherwise they may be in going forward, although very difficult to assess given the few that post.
Regardless, I think fairly plainly I got the answer and with all due respect, amongst those that negatively posted it was refreshing to see that nothing changes, not a positive statement amongst the negatives in respect to the incoming CEO and the potential promotion of STI?s future, leaving one wondering if they are serious shareholders at all.
Importantly though, one other issue received some further closure and I thank Timely for the direct reference : http://esignal.brand.edgar-online.com/EFX_dll/EDGARpro.dll?FetchFilingHTML1?SessionID=Wo4oWJgCovcqw0V&ID=1080373 The cross filed lawsuits, obviously relate to a stock purchase agreement between MailTV and World Callnet and subsequent clarification agreements, that were never fully completed. I note within the document it specifies that none of the parties to that action (which includes BOONEN as a director of MailTv), in the last five years has been convicted in a criminal proceeding (excluding traffic violations or similar misdemeanors) and have not been a party to a civil proceeding of a judicial or administrative body of competent jurisdiction and as a result of such proceeding was or is subject to a judgment, decree or final order enjoining future violations of, or prohibiting or mandating activities subject to, federal or state securities laws or finding any violation with respect to such laws. I?d say that?s not a bad character reference right there ? It then goes on under Exhibit 4, Recitals, to clearly state both parties (not one), both World Callnet and MailTv, both admit failing to complete the agreed share transaction, both parties believing they had claim against the other. States both parties agree to complete the agreement, withdraw their legal actions, agree to resolve the matter amicably including admitting the directors of MailTv (of which BOONEN is one) to the board of World Callnet. Sounds pretty amicable to me and clearly in itself does not point to anything illegal or sinister. I note the case relates to 1999/2000, over 10 years ago with totally different companies, products and circumstances involved. Perhaps it?s time to bury history and move on. Even playing devils advocate (i.e. adopt the attitude there is something substantial in it), even then it brings me back to the point of our civil rights and the benefit of the doubt. But there obviously are those that apparently don?t agree with that. Let?s hope they are never on a jury and that we are never the accused at that time, least we be convicted without evidence. And please note it is just that, the benefit of the doubt doesn?t mean your not guilty BUT it also doesn?t mean you are. And having experienced at close quarters, (ie. not me nor involving me), the devastating effect false accusations, then not subsequently tried, evidence tested and resolved, but still involving initially lodged claims and large legal bills for same, can have on the mental and physical health, and lifestyle including ability to work and pay the bills, can have on an individual, I do not take lightly the responsibility for suggesting sinister or illegal actions.
This also avoids incarcerating the innocent and again per my recent post if many such normal but managerially lucrative management and board practices were declared illegal, our jails would likely be full to the brim with CEO?s and directors. I might add if BOONEN was really that crooked, and or didn?t have sincere belief in the way forward for STI, why didn?t he/Zodiac and BAIN/Immune Networks keep their right?s to Immunoxel along with the other 24 bio-botanicals licensed to Zodiac and/or Immune Networks V5, just capital raise and develop it under Immune networks itself, worth far more cash to them, or even partner with another company, not being STI. And that?s not the only product Zodiac and other associates/companies could have directed elsewhere, I suggest BONNEN saw STI as the vehicle through which to develop and market all these products. Not supporting the man himself, just the circumstances as seen and investigated to date, just try to keep a balanced business like interpretation on all I see and hear. Feel free to form your own but please with a little more respect for all involved.
As to other matters that may require further explanation, ask the company, take it responsibly to a shareholders meeting but don?t keep re-quoting again and again, without any further information, that have already been dealt with. e.g. Even after very recently posting on STI?s release as to the change in US laws for approvals of bio-botanicals, preventing the earlier expected release of immunoxel and some other bio-botanicals, in late, 2009, early 2010, then making it likely could take several years before release in US and Australia, it get?s thrown back in again to bulk up the argument. Sorry but that is poor forum, else apparently even laws preventing you from marketing products is still not a valid excuse for failure.
Then with respect can?t we do something better than reply with :
?wake up and smell the roses? ?LOL that?s classic?, re-quoting me but without any information or clarification
?On the board Japar? sure sounds like it? : re-quoting me with no information or clarification : Particularly in light in of my posted position as a shareholder, my belief in the ?Team? and ?Products?, my previous forum advise of purchase of more shares just before and at the time of the SPP, and my own previously posts about a lack of clarification of information in releases, and some other matters of discontent including the SPP and advising of sending complaints to re these to STI, leaves me little to justify or explain and wondering about their veracity. Again no insult intended. Please be constructive, contribute something useful, an opinion without basis is not an opinion.
Hence, naturally any suggestion of board affiliations is totally ridiculous and refuted, but mind you if I was rich enough, and in such a position to be able to be a board member of STI, I would consider it a privilege and a very real opportunity to contribute to the betterment of mankind, though what I believe are substantially beneficial and needed medical products, whilst reducing some of the costs associated with the growing health care need, all whilst potentially making substantial amounts of money for STI, it?s associated companies, CEO?s, Directors AND shareholder?s, of which I am one, you bet ya, I?ve love to be one. And guess what if I was a director, I too would help make financial decisions in the best interest of CEO?s, Directors and shareholder?s. Damn, would that make me a crook too? It also makes me wonder if it was all interpreted as a personal attack on some, rather than what was believe to be good advise and trying to promote positive and supportive action for the ailing sp that all including they, complain of.
And then after strongly suggesting sinister actions we get ?The biggest issue is whether the past mistakes were in fact mistakes, or calculated/deliberate actions. I don't have the answer to this, but if you read the online articles, it doesn't paint a rosy picture?. Well, with respect, if you don?t have the answer, I simply suggest you ask yourself, have you in our collective posts, posted in a fair, unbiased, and factual way, Or have you alleged or strongly suggested a factual proven wrong has been committed to support your own bias opinion. Having worked in the law and order area for many years, I?m more than aware of all these conflicts together with the disappointment of not being able prove some matters, so I have no bias here. I?ve seen both sides work and I?ve seen both sides fail.
Regardless these matters are history, stemming from actions over 10 years ago, and there is no comparison between what was then and what is now STI, nor can it be said that the circumstances, at that time namely the ?Team? or ?Products? and potential products and the financial and time intensive implications of those products are anywhere near the same. STI has suffered serious under financing is the single most obvious and largest reason for wallowing behind, closely followed by the huge number of pursuits attempted, (in reality too many), all requiring time and financial support, together with other regulatory delays and SP trashing and hence lousy capital raising to support the necessary development. These are the major factors that have influencing the outcome of most (but perhaps not all), matters that most complain of.
Finally I myself are looking forward to future with continued and improved optimism for an excellent outcome both in the medium and long term especially with highly regarded and experienced incoming CEO, and would like to think if nothing else that shareholder?s would give him and STI the necessary support to help ensure the positive outcomes do occur in timely fashion, and in turn that all serious shareholders make substantial gains on their hard earned money given the ?Products? yet to come. Good luck to all, hopefully we commence a new stage of development, will still take, time, patience and money but the touted outcomes are getting closer.
Posted in the interests of further clarification of matters raised and further understanding of posters position with no intention to offend or dogfight. As always do your own research, make you own decisions and accept responsibility for your profits and your losses.
STI Price at posting:
0.3¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
