All Hempton's silly totally not true claims claims were refuted a long time a long time ago and Hempton has NEVER responded or refuted a very clear specific point by point challenge to that fact. The photo's posted in that blog are not what what they purport to be.
Parroting things that show a reckless disregard for the truth won't magically make BS fact.
View all Topics | View all Messages < Newer Topic | Older Topic > Re: Response to John Hempton's Post: facts and questions 27-Apr-11 02:12 pm (continued from previous post)
Fact: You have repeatedly stated that I was taken to a “state-owned enterprise” next door. In other words, you are accusing the government of China of aiding and abetting in a criminal fraud.
Questions: We ask you again, do you have any evidence whatsoever to back up this claim that you would like to share with us? What state-owned enterprise was I taken to? How do you know? Please, I am very curious.
Fact: you sent an email to Ernst and Young and Carlyle Group stating that “I have also copied this to the auditor who are about to sign (or not sign) your audit statement. This email will - like the other emails - not be made public until after the event - but I am friends with a couple of class action lawyers (you know the scummy ambulance chaser types). You I don't think will be a greatdefendant- but E&Y and Carlyle will be. But that can wait until after the blow-up. E&Y are in a fortunate position - they have never signed off any of your previous accounts and hence are at liberty to reject your current account without casting aspersions on previous work.”
Question: Did you think when you sent this letter that it might have induced Carlyle to resign from the board of directors? If not, shouldn’t you have assumed that would be a possibility? Did you think that it might have induced Ernst and Young to not sign off on the audit, or hesitate to sign off on the audit so they would not be sued by, as you wrote in the email, your “friends… a couple of class action lawyers (you know the scummy ambulance chaser types).”?
Analysis and Summary While you repeatedly have claimed that you “staked out China Agritech’s factories” that statement does not actually appear to be true. You in fact, use google translator to try to find the address, had problems finding the address, and have a lawyer that went to the factory of a different company, the “East sincere Machinery Factory” (according to the picture and website from that company: http://www.dfjch.com/info.asp?second_id=... This lawyer supposedly went back to that same address and took a picture with his own cellphone of the East sincere Machinery Factory.
You have repeatedly claimed that I was taken to a Potemkin village and that I was taken to the factory of a Chinese state-owned enterprise. In this statement, it appears that you are accusing the government of China (a state-owned enterprise) of adding and abetting in a criminal fraud. Yet you have provided no evidence to support this claim. If you have evidence to support this claim, other than a lawyer couldn’t translate an address and visited the wrong factory, you are welcome to share this evidence. If not, it appears that your statement shows a reckless disregard for the truth and is defamatory to myself, China Agritech, and the government of China.
You wanted to talk about facts, and I have done just that. I am certainly open to discussing facts and changing my point of view, if you answer my questions convincingly. The ball is in your court.
NASDAQ essentially told CAGC they were lying about why they fired their auditors, Ernst& Young. From the 8K explaining the recent PR:
"In a previously disclosed April 12, 2011 letter to CAGC, NASDAQ stated that it "believe[d] that E&Y was not terminated solely, if at all, due to independence concerns, but rather because of the serious audit issues it raised, coupled with its insistence upon an independent investigation 'to verify certain transactions and balances recorded on the Company's financial statements and records for the year ended December 31, 2010.'"
CAGC would not co-operate with their auditor to get a proper audit done. NASDAQ investigated this transgression, and promptly delisted this POS.
The issues that E&Y wanted to investigate were precisely the issues pointed out to them by Hempton. If CAGC had been innocent, they would have let E&Y conduct the audit and clear them of Hempton's charges. But look at the mess they created for their bagholders.
Now explain that to the morons who are buying this POS on your "professional" SEC registered investment adviser message board touting. Does Seth know what you are doing here, jimmy? Is it ethical, or seemly, for a big time pro like you to tout a POS stock that you made a mistake on to dummies like the clowns who follow your bogus advice on a dumb message board? Think about it, jimmy.
Pretend you didn't read this jimmy. But we all know you don't have the guts or the brains to reply. And you are a hypocrite for ragging on Hempton for not responding to your BS. Spineless little rich boy. (Don't let me provoke you into doing something really stupid, jimmy. LOL!)