You make assumptions that are clearly insuperable, such as that anything @justinsunsteemit says has any relation to what actually happened. You also make statements that are factually incorrect, such as that statements in writing from Stinc aren't extant, or matters of record.

Since the inception of the ninjamine, @dantheman, @ned, and Stinc have made representations as to the use of the stake they possessed, and these statements bind them to the restrictions they avowed.

Those statements were relied on by subsequent investors, and constitute contractual obligations on the part of @dantheman, @ned, and Stinc. Whether @ned told @justinsunsteemit is revealed in the purchase and sale documents executed at the time of sale - not by @justinsunsteemit's verbal allegations.

Do reconsider your account of the meeting, and I will bother to listen to the rest of your video when you do make one that is based on factual legal relevance.

Thanks!