SEC Plays Twenty(Two) Questions with AEHI- What Are They?

Yesterday's Idaho Mistakesman article on the SEC's action to halt AEHI trading had an interesting statement attributed to AEHI CEO Don Gillispie:

"Gillispie said the SEC sent him a letter asking him to answer 22 questions. He said he was confident he could answer them to the commission’s satisfaction."

Will the SEC make those questions public?  How about Alternate Energy Holdings' "we're an open book" CEO Don Gillispie? 

Twenty-two questions.  That seems like a lot of questions, and they are apparently serious enough that the SEC acted to halt trading to, in their own words, "serve the public interest and protect investors."

AEHI, on their stock-pumping Facebook page, wrote this late in the day of the suspension: (actually almost 1AM the 15th):

"We will be issuing a press release on this soon, but we are waiting to see what we get from the SEC once we are able to speak to them." 
[Waiting to see what we get from the SEC?  You already know- Don talked to the Mistakesman reporter that day and stated the SEC had 22 questions.  And what's up with the "once we are able to speak to them?"- nice try at buying time while you cook up a cover story to keep the daytraders calm.]

"First, it is important to note that there is no accusation of wrongdoing by the SEC."
[This takes the cake for misleading statements. Here is what the SEC itelf says on its webpage about temporary trading suspensions:]
 
"Why would the SEC take such action when it knows it will hurt current shareholders?
Because a suspension often causes a dramatic decline in the price of the security, the SEC suspends trading only when it believes the public may be making investment decisions based on false or misleading information. Suspensions give notice to current and potential investors that we have serious concerns about a company. A suspension may prevent potential investors from being victimized by a fraud."
 
[Does anything in that paragraph above even hint or imply that "...there is no accusation of wrongoing by the SEC"?  Just the opposite.]
 
"...[name of online entity we like to whine about] has recruited enough like-minded people to send in a host of bogus complaints (based on his online written accusations).
 
Now we have the SEC that is asking questions that seem to mirror those complaints.
[I thought you were "waiting to see what we get from the SEC"?  Now you know what the questions are and to you, they match concerns raised here and elsewhere? Which is it, Don?  And if the complaints were 'bogus', why would the SEC take the drastic step of suspending trading?]

"While many [Namely, the US Securities and Exchange Commission] see this as a negative, I look to the positive. We are an open book. [Then tell us what the 22 questions are] We have been a fully-reporting company since becoming public and we look forward to answering any official questions. "[You keep saying that, but when people ask those questions, you give evasive and misleading asnwers when you aren't questioning the motives of the inquirer.  Try answering them honestly the first time, and the SEC won't have to resort to the drastic step of a trading suspenstion to get you to do what you ought to have done in the first place.]
"Why? Because once completed, which according to the SEC should be done in two weeks, we believe we will have satisfied every question and with enough proof to put these issues to bed permanently." [Again, why should it take the drastic action of Federal Regulators to make you be the "open book" you repeatedly claim to be? And what's with the "we believe"?  That's the kind of wishy-washy, hedging language you use when you really aren't sure how things are going to turn out.]
 
The next day, AEHI published a press release on the stock-pumping Facebook page.  Unlike the press release that went out everywhere else, this one has an interesting preface, aimed at something pointed out on this blog:
 
"Below is our news release about the temporary suspension of trading. As an aside we would like to point out our funding commitment with Roswell Capital Partners is still valid (http://tinyurl.com/roswellaehi). Roswell has now waived the section of the contract that indicates we can’t have a series of consecutive days in which we are not actively trading."
 
Really? Note to AEHI shills and media whores: Show your work, via an 8-K, or a copy of the modified contract specifically waiving that clause, and AEHI Truth will gladly post it.  But not before.  And has Roswell agreed to waive all the other apparent triggers as well? Invest(igat)ors want to know.
 
And then there is this little gem, appended to the bottom of the statement:
 
"The words "believe," "expect," "anticipate," "project," "target," "optimistic," "intend," "aim," "will" or similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. Such statements include, among others, those concerning our expected financial performance and strategic and operational plans, as well as all assumptions, expectations, predictions, intentions or beliefs about future events, including our ability to list on a national securities exchange. These statements are based on the beliefs of our management as well as assumptions made by and information currently available to us and reflect our current view concerning future events. As such, they are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause our results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements.
 
Essentially- "We intentionally hedge our statements so we can't be held to them," and "your results may vary."
 
Well put, Don.