Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Will you send me an email @Varmit? jessiedesmond@rocketmail.com
My mom is putting together a huge file against Grace to send to the SEC. She would like to talk.
Actually, if there is anyone else who would like to email me - please do. We're tired of this bitch taking more and more and more money.
Why does GRACE GET TO SPEND $1,300,099 .00 on herself from esmt stock proceeds ?????
What a rip off
!!!!!
Does anyone know where she lives?????
I want to ask her face to face wtf ?????
My entire life went down her tube
Old witch !!!!!
If they get away with my money
Scott free I will be livid !!!!!!!
I soaked a fortune in this !
Orders from korea and china
HOW DO WE RECOVER MONEY FROM THIS?????
PLUS DIRTBAG WAINE DRIZIN FROM ESMART WAS THE JERK THATGAVE OURTECH SECRET TO ID SMART ANYWAY
MACY GRACY WENT ALONG WITH IT
WHAT HAPPENED TO ESMART KOREA ????? They have all our money
What about I d smart copying our patent tech ?????
The cards actually work
My daughter had a esmt card in Korea to get into school she teached
It was very impressive so I bought millions.
What happened to smart Korea division they sold millions of cards wares our money ?????
I d smart
SAD SAD SAD MY FRIEND AND I HAVE OVER 2 million shares of esmt
Worthless certs .
When will we ever recover part of this?????
@Borne50
I'm starting a subreddit to encourage others to post any findings on Mary Grace.
Right now, she is starting to scam via Biosensor LLC, based in Hawaii.
She has roughly 13 aliases that she uses.
Expose Mary Grace subreddit
@ GoldenAeirie
AS Uma8,Silverstar and others have mentioned, this has been a scam starting back before 2001. The USPS and others did not stop her, she filed false Billion dollar lawsuit and when opposing parties won, E-Smart had $25k in bank to go after to recoup. It cost over $75k to defend baseless lawsuit and judge was probably in 80's and did not understand anything about purported tech. He simply needed to say, SHOW ME WORKING CARD AND SYSTEM and case and E-Smart would have been done 14 years ago.
In any event, I know people who met with Grace, card was taped together and was not a working model yet they said there were 10k cards coming by end of month. There was another company in Sweden that had US patent for fingerprint match on card, it worked and was in process to license to Grace.
When presented with this fact along with several customers who would purchase including Malaysia, Saudi, S African Pensioners and others, Grace came up with Lawsuit as she could not deliver.
She was called out on request for show and tell in 2001, could not and then the lawsuit for $1 Billion dollars was served obviously for visibility along with major publication parroting Grace's false claims. However, there was no money to recoup and parties did not bother to file counter suit as there was no money nor tech.
Few years later parties realized Grace was raising money. Total amount over past 15 years? Who knows but she had squat!
In final, the tech patent was filed in 90's, tech was completed by Swedish company and E-Smart had zip!
I feel so bad for the investors that were duped but had they read prior blogs on financial post would have realized, JUST SHOW ME and would have been end of story.
I have no clue where all the money went but we have some notion of how a good portion of how Grace lived in luxury, spent extravagantly, gave her son and family money from the court documents and it amounts into multi millions.
There is and was NO investment opportunity her, hype only as Grace could not present ONE working card a decade later after she already said in 2001 she had working cards and system.
I am sure most investors hope she goes to prison for her lies and betrayal of so many hard working people simply trying to make a few bucks.
We traced her over a decade ago to the 70's and in 90's she started Telpac- Chinese Telecom but could never prove any business and then acquired Boppers Holdings and hence, E-Smart, a Nevada Corp.
We see her no different than a Madoff- end of story and she needs to be similarly punished.
The story is much longer but suffice to say, hopefully the Feds can find some of the money if she has not spent it all that was invested in this scam. Next Grace goes away equal to time it took investors to earn money they invested into her lies.
Getting To The Bottom Of Things
I have some family members who were pulled into the investment scheme by Mary Grace. One of those family members pretty much had a break-down that led to shock therapy. The other is in so much denial that this is a bad investment - we need to show him how wrong he is. I mean it's completely sketchy.
My sister and I are collecting files on E-Smart Technologies and Mary Grace.
I'm having trouble finding a lot of information on E-Smart Technologies after 2011, aside from lawsuit postings.
E-Smart, Execs Owe $23M In SEC's 'Epic Doorstop Of A Case'
Law360, New York (January 15, 2016, 5:20 PM ET) -- A federal judge imposed penalties of $23.3 million on smart-card maker e-Smart and others on Thursday in a sprawling U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission suit the judge called an "epic doorstop of a case."
http://www.law360.com/articles/747079/e-smart-execs-owe-23m-in-sec-s-epic-doorstop-of-a-case
SEC' Maher needs to keep up the great job he and others have started!
e-smart was newco out of Boppers Holdings in 2000- We realize there is statute of limitation but there must have been an audit of prior books of 2006 since e-smart was forced to file.
How much has been raised since then and now?
Where did it ALL GO?
Is there a big piggy bank somewhere?
Mary Grace has ruined lives and she needs to be held accountable since inception and not just a few years.
http://www.law360.com/articles/642444/judge-coaxes-sec-to-toss-final-claim-against-e-smart-ceo
In February, while handing the SEC a victory on two counts against Grace for allegedly failing to file ownership statements and aiding in the company’s allegedly lackluster reporting system, Judge Boasberg said the court could not conclude after a “lengthy and contentious” discovery period that Grace knowingly certified SEC filings containing misleading information about e-Smart’s internal controls and omitted information about her personal expenses in violation of Rule 13a-14.
SEC Secures Victory on Fraud Allegations Against Technology Executive
http://bit.ly/1Dul5as
Although the results do not cure any of the hard earned money and possibly life savings lost by investors that were duped, it does provide in a small measure, their day in court.
Does anyone know how the next phase of this works?
When does accounting come in for all the money invested?
What happens to Grace and Saito next?
Earlier;March 30,2015
http://bit.ly/1Dulw4F
JAMES E. BOASBERG, District Judge.
This long-running case features a civil-enforcement action brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission, alleging that e-Smart Technologies, Inc., a public company, was a sham. While it purported to be at the cutting edge of developing and manufacturing a biometric "smart" card, such claims, according to the Commission, were pie in the sky. In fact, pro se Defendants Mary Grace (the company's CEO) and Tamio Saito (its Chief Technology Officer) repeatedly misrepresented the cards' capabilities to investors. This Court, having granted summary judgment to the SEC on most of its claims against Grace, turns now to its allegations concerning Saito.
The Commission moves for summary judgment on both counts asserted against him — namely, that (1) he violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 by making material misrepresentations in connection with the sale of securities, and that (2) he violated Section 16(a) of the Act by failing to file required ownership statements. Saito both opposes and cross-moves for summary judgment on these claims. Resolution of these motions, in turn, requires the Court to rule on the parties' dueling independent motions to exclude the others' expert reports. Having waded through the extensive submissions — including Saito's, which are particularly resistant to sensible interpretation — the Court ultimately believes that the SEC has proven its case. It will thus grant the Commission's Motion for Summary Judgment and deny Saito's.
Kelley Patricia O'Meara bad news
No doubt Ms. O'Meara wishes she NEVER met Mary Grace and worse yet, her so-called investigative reporter status should be should be dropped to bottom of pile of reporters since she is author of this baseless and mostly fabricated July 2003 article in the 'Washington Times Insight On The News" article;
http://www.e-smart.com/press/press7_21_03.html
There are numerous lies by Grace and then parroted by O'Meara, which most were statements were simply fabricated and GRACE DID NOT PREVAIL IN HER BILLION DOLLAR lawsuit, which was never put in company filings or PR. How did Grace's attorney NOT KNOW the technology did not work?
The technology NEVER WAS DEMONSTRATED IN MEETINGS mentioned, the card was simply a 'Mock Up' of what was to be 10,000 cards in a few weeks. No system nor operating program was EVER shown, just a piece of plastic card that did NOTHING!
The US Post office had every right and reason to go after Grace in 2002-03 and unfortunately for the investors who poored millions into a SCAM company after this and as quoted in March 2015 motion by the SEC, 'Pie in the sky"
http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/03/31/E%20SMART.pdf
It is incredulous that according to SEC filings Mary Grace took company funds to spend over $1,114,243 on HOTELS! $409,038 on retail purchases, $356,917 on travel expenses, $300k+ on family, CASH OF $397,501 from cash pulls AND THE LIST GOES on and on!
She had wires sent to her personal accounts of $1,371,456.
So, which investors knew upfront when they purchased this SCAM stock were told that MG would be allowed to do this and where in public filings were these expenses noted?
I am sure we will all see more given the millions investors put into this scam that started over a decade ago.
Saito Get's his bad news
http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/03/31/E%20SMART.pdf
"
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This long-running case features a civil-enforcement action brought by the Securities and
Exchange Commission, alleging that e-Smart Technologies, Inc., a public company, was a sham.
While it purported to be at the cutting edge of developing and manufacturing a biometric “smart”
card, such claims, according to the Commission, were pie in the sky. In fact, pro se Defendants
Mary Grace (the company’s CEO) and Tamio Saito (its Chief Technology Officer) repeatedly
misrepresented the cards’ capabilities to investors. "
Here is company Mary Grace was presented as competition in 2001 that had patents still in existence for same product with a patent. At the time, who cared about NFC that was not put in place until years later and nearly no merchant uses!
This Fingerprints.com company is selling 'MILLIONS' of dollars worth of their product as they actually had it working in 2001 and prior and now companies around the globe are purchasing.
http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-releases/fpc-receives-touch-fingerprint-sensor-order-of-90-msek-497383741.html
Go look at Fingerprint.com's website and look at bottom for smart card with biometric fingerprint- they had patent but expired years ago so what does that say for Mary Grace and e-Smart?
http://www.fingerprints.com/
There are numerous govt entities that were notified but Grace got away with her lies. Amazing over a decade later she could not produce card for SEC or courts. SCAM
So..............
When does Mary Grace and Saito go to prison for stealing everyone's hard earned money?
Anyone have news?
Miffed; suggest you research Kelly O’Meara and further reconsider your comment about her. Years earlier, she was “Investigative Reporter for Washington Post” in which she presented article and picture with insert about “multi-billion dollar deal” ESMT and Mary Grace completed with China in 2000.
Somehow, I cannot see anyone investing billions of dollars without an example of “The Super Smart Card”. It is amazing how O’Meara has not been called into question about her article. I guess reporters can write whatever they want regardless how unfounded.
Later, somewhere around 2006 she is media consultant for Mary Grace? How did this work?
Your comment;
“Accordng to my sources, this Kelly O’Meara won the suit against e-Smart and there is no appeal.”
Somehow, I do not believe after Mary Grace there are not further exposures to be noticed
Mary Grace is nearing the end of her “Civil Suit” and hopefully the criminal case quickly follows.
obviously does not repay the hard earned money invested but hopefully having Grace spend a long prison term helps salve some of the investor wounds.
uma8, you were spot on
E-Smart Execs Can't Shake SEC Fraud Suit Over ID Cards
Law360, New York (March 12, 2014, 6:40 PM ET) -- A Washington, D.C., federal judge on Wednesday refused to dismiss the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's suit alleging senior officers of e-Smart Technologies Inc. defrauded investors by lying about having the technology to uniquely identify users for access to bank accounts.
U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg denied e-Smart CEO Mary Grace's and Chief Technology Officer Tamio Saito's separate motions to dismiss the suit, saying that whether or not the SEC had the facts of the case right, it had adequately pled each element of its...
To view the full article, take a free trial now.
Try Law360 for free for seven days
Already a subscriber? Click here to login
Case Information
Case Title
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. E-SMART TECHNOLOGIES, INC. et al
Case Number
1:11-cv-00895
Court
District Of Columbia
Nature of Suit
Securities/Commodities
Judge
James E. Boasberg
Law360 Coverage
E-Smart Execs Can't Shake SEC Fraud Suit Over ID Cards
ID Co. Exec Sanctioned For Failure To Produce 'Smart Cards'
Date Filed
May 13, 2011
Sections
Securities
Technology
Companies Mentioned
e-Smart Technologies Inc.
Government Agencies Mentioned
Securities and Exchange Commission
Related Articles
ID Co. Exec Sanctioned For Failure To Produce 'Smart Cards'
© Copyright 2014, Portfolio Media, Inc. | Home | About | Contact Us | Site Map | Site Index | Jobs | Careers at Law360 | Mobile | Terms | Privacy Policy
Beta Tools: Track docs | Track attorneys | Track judges
Law360, New York (December 02, 2013, 8:09 PM ET) -- A D.C. federal judge on Monday sanctioned the CEO of e-Smart Technologies Inc., a purported producer of biometric identification cards, in a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission securities fraud suit for defying orders to produce some of the so-called smart cards sought by the commission.
U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg ruled that due to e-Smart head Mary Grace's failure to hand over the smart cards, she will be barred from asserting the smart cards in question contain unique biometric sensors, microprocessors and other features that...
Office of Administrative Law Judges Print This Page Text Size E-mail This Page
DOL Home > OALJ > Administrative Review Board > Barrett v. e-Smart, Technologies, Inc., ARB Nos. 11-088, 12-013, ALJ No. 2010-SOX-31 (ARB Apr. 25, 2013)
USDOL/OALJ Reporter
Barrett v. e-Smart, Technologies, Inc., ARB Nos. 11-088, 12-013, ALJ No. 2010-SOX-31 (ARB Apr. 25, 2013)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Department of Labor Administrative Review Board
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210
ARB CASE NOS. 11-088
12-013
ALJ CASE NO. 2010-SOX-031
DATE: April 25, 2013
In the Matter of:
RICHARD BARRETT,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
e-SMART, TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
RESPONDENT.
BEFORE: THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD
Appearances:
For the Complainant:
Patricia Douglass, Esq., Great Falls, Virginia
For the Respondent:
L. Anthony George, Esq., Michael R. MacPhail, Esq.; Holme Roberts & Owen, LLP; Denver, Colorado
Before: Paul M. Igasaki, Chief Administrative Appeals Judge; E. Cooper Brown, Deputy Chief Administrative Appeals Judge; and Joanne Royce, Administrative Appeals Judge
FINAL DECISION AND ORDER
This case arises under Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX), 18 U.S.C.A. § 1514A (Thomson Reuters 2009). Richard Barrett alleges that his former employer, e-Smart Technologies, Inc. (e-Smart), constructively discharged him from employment because he reported his opposition to the dissemination of what he believed was a misleading Form 10-K annual report that was to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). In a Decision and Order issued September 9, 2011 (D. & O.), the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Page 2]
held that Barrett's internal complaint about the 10-K draft1 was protected activity and contributed to his constructive discharge. In a separate opinion, the ALJ awarded damages and attorney's fees (D. & O. Fees). e-Smart appealed both the ALJ's decision on the merits (ARB No. 11-088) and the ALJ's award of attorney's fees (ARB No. 12-013). We consolidated the appeals for purposes of Administrative Review Board (ARB or Board) review and decision. We find the ALJ's decisions to be thorough, in accordance with law, and well supported by detailed findings of fact. Having reviewed the evidentiary record as a whole, and upon consideration of the parties' briefs on appeal, we summarily affirm both decisions.
Background
e-Smart hired Barrett as a litigation consultant in November 2006. D. & O. at 5-6. Barrett's job was to collect technical evidence to support e-Smart's litigation position against former employees.2 As part of this review, he interviewed current and former employees of e-Smart and surveyed e-Smart's development of smart card technology. Id. at 6. While working as a consultant, Barrett observed the company's financial weakness and inability to pay its employees (including Barrett) in a timely fashion. Id. at 6-7; Hearing Transcript (Tr.) at 283-86.
On May 1, 2007, e-Smart Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and Chief Financial Officer (CFO), Mary Grace, hired Barrett as Chief Operating Officer (COO). D. & O. at 7. Under the agreement, Barrett's salary was $377,000 with a performance bonus of up to 150 percent of base pay in stock options and benefits.
While reviewing e-Smart's operations, Barrett implemented a restructuring of the engineers' salaries. He cut base pay and added performance pay. As a symbol of solidarity, he recommended the same system for his own pay. Under the plan, his new base pay was $245,000. Id. at 9. If the company met certain performance goals, the employees could earn back the difference. Id.
In early July 2007, Grace complimented Barrett on his performance as COO. Id. at 10. On July 30, 2007, Grace asked Barrett to rewrite a portion of e-Smart's 2006 annual 10-K filing with the SEC. Id. at 11. Barrett found many problems with the draft 10-K. He felt the draft contained significant misrepresentations regarding e-Smart's financial position as well as the status of the firm's technological development. On August 12, 2007, he made a series of edits. He disclosed e-Smart's operating loss accumulated since its founding. Barrett also made many edits to the 10-K draft concerning the status of the smart card technology, noting future development goals and toning down the prototype's capabilities. Id. at 12-13.
Because his changes were so significant, e-Smart management hesitated to incorporate them all at once. Id. at 14. Maranda Fritz, outside counsel, was worried that including all of this
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Page 3]
information might make investors feel that past 10-Ks were untruthful. Grace was unwilling to incorporate Barrett's changes. Id. On August 15, 2007, Fritz recommended against disseminating the draft. Barrett responded that he wanted his name taken off the draft. On August 16, 2007, Fritz circulated another draft of the 10-K without many of Barrett's deletions and edits. Id.
Shortly thereafter, "Grace abruptly began a series of actions that led in two months' time to the end of Complainant's employment with e-Smart." Id. On August 22, 2007, Grace announced a staffing change in the parent company, IVI Smart, in which the COO of that company assumed all of Barrett's technology duties at e-Smart. Id. at 15. Just ten days earlier, Grace had assigned Barrett with the tasks that were now being assigned to another. Id. Over the next several weeks, Grace refused many of Barrett's calls and limited their communication to ministerial tasks. Id. at 16-19.
Prior to the 10-K revisions, Barrett had paid himself on the 1st and 15th of each month out of the company's operations account to which he had authorized access. Id. at 8. On August 22, 2007, Russo, e-Smart's in-house accountant, instructed Barrett to close the e-Smart account Barrett had been using to pay for salaries and expenses. Id. at 16. After Barrett closed the account, Grace and e-Smart had to pay Barrett out of another account. Barrett's September 1, 2007 paycheck was a few days late, and his September 15, 2007 check was several days late. Barrett did not receive an October 1 paycheck. Grace claimed this was due to error.
On October 4, 2007, Barrett e-mailed Grace and claimed that he felt he was being forced out of the company and asked for a meeting or further discussion on his separation from the company. Id. at 17. Grace responded with assurances of future communication. CX-23. Grace did not return the call as indicated. Barrett continued his reduced tasks. Barrett did not receive a paycheck on October 15, 2007. Id. at 19. On October 17, 2007, Barrett sent an e-mail to Grace entitled "Resignation" stating that she had constructively discharged him and identifying the factors establishing such discharge. Fritz responded that they were not accepting his resignation and denied the constructive discharge allegation. Fritz responded on Grace's behalf and informed Barrett that his checks were in the mail. Id. e-Smart never sent the checks. Id. at 20.
On January 15, 2008, Barrett mailed a complaint to OSHA, which it received on January 17, 2008. Id.; CX-33. OSHA investigated Barrett's complaint and concluded on February 26, 2010, that e-Smart violated SOX's whistleblower protection provisions. CX-34. OSHA ordered reinstatement, back wages, and a bonus. e-Smart requested a hearing before the Office of Administrative Law Judges. The ALJ assigned to the case held a four-day hearing and ruled in Barrett's favor. The ALJ found that Barrett engaged in protected activity and that the protected activity contributed to his constructive discharge. The ALJ further held that e-Smart failed to prove that it would have constructively discharged Barrett absent Barrett's protected activity. The ALJ awarded damages and attorney's fees. e-Smart appealed to the ARB.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Page 4]
Jurisdiction and Standard of Review
The Secretary of Labor has delegated to the Board her authority to issue final agency decisions under the SOX. Secretary's Order No. 2-2012 (Delegation of Authority and Assignment of Responsibility to the Administrative Review Board), 77 Fed. Reg. 69378 (Nov. 16, 2012). The Board reviews an ALJ's factual findings to determine whether they are supported by substantial evidence.3 The ALJ's legal conclusions are reviewed de novo.4 The Board generally defers to an ALJ's credibility determinations, unless they are "inherently incredible or patently unreasonable."5
Discussion
SOX Section 1514A(a) provides whistleblower protection for employees of publicly traded companies who report certain acts that they reasonably believe to be unlawful. 18 U.S.C.A. § 1514A(a). To prevail in a SOX proceeding, an employee must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he: "(1) engaged in activity or conduct that the SOX protects; (2) the respondent took an unfavorable personnel action against . . . him; and (3) the protected activity was a contributing factor in the adverse personnel action." Sylvester v. Parexel Int'l, ARB No. 07-123, ALJ Nos. 2007-SOX-039, -042; slip op. at 10 (ARB May 25, 2011). If the employee proves these elements, the employer may avoid liability if it can prove "by clear and convincing evidence" that it "would have taken the same unfavorable personnel action in the absence of the [protected] behavior." 29 C.F.R. § 1980.104(c) (2009); see also Harp v. Charter Commc'ns, Inc., 558 F.3d 722, 723 (7th Cir. 2009).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Page 5]
1. Timeliness of Barrett's Complaint with OSHA
When this case arose, an employee alleging retaliation under SOX was required to file his or her complaint with OSHA "not later than 90 days after the date on which the violation occurred."6 The OSHA regulations specified at the time that:
[w]ithin 90 days after an alleged violation of the Act occurs (i.e., when the discriminatory decision has been both made and communicated to the complainant) an employee who believes that he or she has been discriminated against in violation of the Act may file . . . a complaint alleging discrimination . . . .
29 C.F.R. § 1980.103(d).
The ALJ found that constructive discharge occurred on October 20, 2007, or on October 17, 2007, at the earliest. D. & O. at 22. To determine the timeliness of Barrett's complaint, the ALJ obtained the envelope from OSHA in which Barrett had mailed his complaint, which showed a postmark date of January 15.7 Based on the January 15th date, the ALJ found that Barrett timely filed his complaint because the regulations implementing SOX designate the postmark date as the filing date with OSHA when the complaint is submitted by mail. Id. at 22. See 29 C.F.R. § 1980.103(d).
On appeal, e-Smart argues that Barrett's complaint was not timely filed because the substantial evidence of record does not support the ALJ's finding of constructive discharge on October 17 or October 20 and that, to the extent Barrett was constructively discharged (which e-Smart contends is not the case), the "triggering event" that began the running of the 90-day period for the constructive discharge claim occurred on or before October 15. Additionally, e-Smart contends that the appropriate filing date for the OSHA complaint was January 17, 2008, the date OSHA received Barrett's complaint.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Page 6]
Upon review of the evidentiary record, we conclude that the substantial evidence of record supports the ALJ's finding that Barrett's constructive discharge occurred on October 17, 2007. Furthermore, as a matter of law the ALJ was correct in relying upon the January 15, 2008 mailing postmark date as the date upon which Barrett filed his OSHA complaint. Barrett's complaint was thus filed within the ninety-day period required at the time under SOX for filing a whistleblower complaint. Accordingly, we hold that Barrett's complaint was timely filed with OSHA.
2. Protected Activity
The ALJ held that Barrett engaged in protected activity because he reported misstatements and omissions in the 10-K draft that he reasonably believed would mislead investors by distorting the company's current capabilities. D. & O. at 23-30.
On appeal, e-Smart claims that the ALJ erred in finding that Barrett engaged in protected activity. Pet. for Rev. at 5. According to e-Smart, the ALJ's finding that Barrett had an objectively reasonable belief is not supported by substantial evidence. In support, e-Smart gives several reasons why Barrett's reporting was not reasonable. Pet. for Rev. at 5, 6-8. e-Smart further claims that Mr. Saito was the one with the technical ability to evaluate the smart card technology for purposes of the 10-K. e-Smart claims that Barrett had only been working at e-Smart for ninety days but others such as Saito had much more experience working with the e-Smart technology. e-Smart Br. at 9-10.
e-Smart further claims that Barrett's complaints about the 10-K were not protected because they raised concerns about future SOX violations. According to e-Smart, a SOX complainant's beliefs must involve an actual violation occurring at the time the employee raises the concern. Pet. for Rev. at 6.
As to e-Smart's factual objections, we hold that the ALJ's finding of protected activity is supported by substantial evidence. Furthermore, contrary to e-Smart's position, reporting an actual violation is not required. A complainant can engage in protected activity when he reports a belief of a violation that is about to occur or is in the stages of occurring. Sylvester, ARB No. 07-123, slip op. at 16. We find, as did the ALJ, that Barrett engaged in protected activity.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Page 7]
3. Change of Job Duties and Constructive Discharge
Barrett alleged that he suffered several adverse actions including removal of job duties, alienation, and loss of pay. Barrett argued that this amounted to constructive discharge. Barrett also complains of post-discharge retaliation. D. & O. at 20.
The ALJ conducted a thorough analysis of the applicable law and based his finding of constructive discharge on a wide pattern of aggravating events. Id. at 30-37. The ALJ held that several incidents including removal of job duties and failure to reinstate salary alone would not be sufficient to create conditions supporting constructive discharge. But taken together with the failure to pay Barrett timely in September and not at all for the month of October, e-Smart's actions demonstrate a "wider pattern of aggravating factors" which satisfy the constructive-discharge standard. Id. at 32-37.
e-Smart states that all of the events constituting constructive discharge occurred before October 15 and that his complaint was filed more than ninety days thereafter. e-Smart contends that the ALJ erred because a party alleging constructive discharge cannot rely on events that occurred more than ninety days prior to filing the complaint. Pet. for Rev. at 9. e-Smart claims there are several reasons why Barrett did not receive his pay besides constructive discharge: those relating to e-Smart's lack of money and bad working conditions. Pet. for Rev. at 11-12. Further, e-Smart claims that failure to pay alone does not constitute constructive discharge. Pet. for Rev. at 10; e-Smart Br. at 18.
We conclude that the ALJ correctly held that non-discrete conduct outside the statute of limitations can be relied upon when the earlier conduct only became actionable once other conduct occurring within the limitations period occurred. Cf. Nat'l R.R. Pass. Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002).
We affirm the ALJ's finding that e-Smart constructively discharged Barrett. See Brown v. Lockheed Martin Corp., ARB No. 10-050, ALJ No. 2008-SOX-049, slip op. at 10 (ARB Feb. 28, 2011); Wallace v. City of San Diego, 479 F.3d 616 (9th Cir. 2007).
4. Causation
The ALJ held that e-Smart's adverse actions followed closely on his reporting concerns about the 10-K draft.
On appeal, e-Smart claims that the ALJ applied the wrong causation standard. According to e-Smart, the ALJ applied the prima facie inference rather than a standard of proof. Pet. for Rev. at 13-14. In addition, e-Smart argues that the ALJ erred in finding the failure to pay Barrett a factor in establishing retaliatory constructive discharge because other critical workers also were not getting paid. Pet. for Rev. at 12; e-Smart Br. at 18-19; CX-22.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Page 8]
We find that the ALJ's findings of facts are supported by substantial evidence. Within a week of his protected activity, Grace began removing his duties and alienating him. Within a couple more weeks, e-Smart began delaying and withholding payment of wages.
We also conclude that the ALJ correctly applied SOX's "contributing factor" causation standard. While the ALJ may have been loose with the language by incorporating OSHA's prima-facie-case framework,9 the standard that the ALJ actually applied satisfied that required to prove causation before an ALJ.10 It is clear that the ALJ applied a "contributing factor" standard of proof and not merely an inference of causation. The ALJ, for example, did not find that temporal proximity alone satisfied causation. The ALJ held that temporal proximity in conjunction with e-Smart's pretext and behavior with other technology employees shows "that [Barrett's] protected activity was a contributing factor in e-Smart's actions against [him]." D. & O. at 39.
5. Clear and Convincing Affirmative Defense
The ALJ also held that e-Smart failed to show that it would have constructively discharged Barrett in the absence of his protected activity concerning the 10-K filing. The ALJ reasoned that e-Smart put forth weak evidence and failed to call witnesses with first-hand knowledge. e-Smart did not call Grace, Fritz, or Russo – the key e-Smart players with personal knowledge of the relationship between Barrett, e-Smart, and Grace. Id.
On appeal, e-Smart argues that the ALJ improperly drew an adverse inference from e-Smart's failure to offer evidence from the persons most knowledgeable about Barrett's circumstances. Pet. for Rev. at 14-15. The ALJ did not err in drawing a negative inference from Respondent's failure to call critical witnesses within its control. See Underwriters Labs., Inc. v. NLRB, 147 F.3d 1048, 1054 (9th Cir. 1998) ("[W]hen a party fails to call a witness who may reasonably be assumed to be favorably disposed to the party, an adverse inference may be drawn regarding any factual question on which the witness is likely to have knowledge.").
In any event, independently of any adverse inferences, the ALJ found that e-Smart's evidence fell short of its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the adverse actions against Barrett absent his protected activity. The ALJ explained at length why e-Smart's justifications for its adverse actions were lacking in credibility and otherwise insufficient to sustain its burden of showing that it would have taken adverse action in the absence of Barrett's protected activity. D. & O. at 39-42. We uphold those findings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Page 9]
6. Damages
The ALJ awarded back pay and interest in the amount of $1,223,626.15, based on Barrett's entitlement to an annual salary of $377,000. The ALJ also awarded Barrett the option rights to buy 10 million shares of e-Smart common stock with the ability to exercise those options as if his last day of employment were the date of the ALJ's Order, September 9, 2011.11 Id. at 45.
On appeal, e-Smart claims that the ALJ erred in awarding back pay at the higher rate of pay and that Barrett had no contractual or statutory right to the annual rate of $377,000. Pet. for Rev. at 16. e-Smart states that the pay reduction was a discrete discriminatory act that Barrett is barred from challenging because he failed to timely challenge it. Pet. for Rev. at 17. This is a mischaracterization of the issue. The pay reduction was not alleged as a discrete discriminatory act – it was simply a circumstance relevant to determining sufficient damages. The period of ninety days is not relevant for purposes of determining damages for victims of a hostile work environment (or constructive discharge). SOX's make-whole remedy applies to the proven damages for actionable incidents incurred following the protected activity. See Nat'l R.R. Pass. Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 119 (2002) ("timeliness requirement does not dictate the amount of recoverable damages"). The protected activity took place in mid-August. Following this protected activity, a series of escalating non-discrete adverse events occurred, eventually resulting in a cause of action on or around October 17, 2007. When e-Smart took away his duties in retaliation for his internal reports concerning the 10-K draft, it took away Barrett's ability to earn the full salary for which he was initially hired. The ALJ did not err in using Barrett's original salary of $377,000 to effectuate the requisite "make whole" remedy. 18 U.S.C.A. § 1514A(c)(1).
7. Attorney's Fees
The ALJ awarded attorney's fees and costs. e-Smart appeals the ALJ's award of attorney's fees. As noted above, we consolidated the attorney's fees appeal with the merits appeal.
Barrett requested the award of attorney's fees based on an hourly rate of $250.00 per hour. The ALJ applied the Laffey Matrix and awarded Barrett's counsel, Patricia Douglass, Esq., fees and costs in the amount of $94,708.65. Barrett also sought fees in the amount of $32,218.85 for work performed by two other law firms for this case. D. & O. Fees at 1. The ALJ awarded $2,250 in fees to Lisa E. Aguiar, Esq. The ALJ denied fees to the Shartsis Friese law firm. D. & O. Fees at 10.
On appeal, e-Smart claims that Douglass should be denied fees that Barrett has not actually paid. Thus, e-Smart claims that the fees award should be capped at $10,000, which
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Page 10]
corresponds to the amount that Barrett actually paid "out of pocket." e-Smart Fees Br. at 3. e-Smart claims that Douglass failed to present any satisfactory evidence of the prevailing rate in San Francisco for legal services on a SOX whistleblower claim or to show that Douglass had any experience working on SOX whistleblower claims. e-Smart claims that the Ninth Circuit has been critical of using the Laffey Matrix in a market 3,000 miles away from D.C. e-Smart claims that the ALJ erred in awarding the amount of $250 for the entire billing period because Douglass charged only $200 for the first ten months of representation. e-Smart Fees Br. at 4. e-Smart also claims that Douglass's billing invoices are vague and the amount of the award should be reduced to $47,694.50 for the work described with specificity. e-Smart Fees Br. at 5.
Douglass responds that her fee is much less than the rate corresponding to San Francisco. Douglass noted that the San Francisco market has a 35% premium as compared with a 24% premium for the D.C. market (on which the Laffey Matrix is based). Douglass Fee Br. at 2 n.3. Douglass claims that the Supreme Court has not required specific expertise on a particular statute and has considered general expertise on complex litigation sufficient. Douglass Fee Br. at 3. Douglass claimed that the ALJ parsed the fee petition and determined that the claimed work was reasonable and described with reasonable specificity.
We find the ALJ's fee award supported and reasonable. We reject e-Smart's claim that fees should match costs or the rates actually billed to the clients. To the contrary, the hourly rate is determined by reference "to the prevailing market rates in the relevant community." Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 (1984) (rejecting an argument that attorney's fees for nonprofit legal service organizations should be based on cost); Missouri v. Jenkins by Agyei, 491 U.S. 274, 286 (1989). Here, the ALJ found that the forum community was San Francisco. Further, we do not find any lack of specificity in Douglass's billing that requires reducing the hours billed. In Pillow v. Bechtel Constr. Inc., ARB No. 97-040; ALJ No. 1987-ERA-035 (ARB Sept. 11, 1997), we reduced the total hours for lack of specificity. We do not find the same degree of lack of specificity in this case.
8. The Respondent's additional grounds for appeal
e-Smart claims that it should be granted a new hearing based on trial counsel's incompetence. Pet. for Rev. at 17-18. At the hearing, Barrett entered notations on his copy of exhibits and testified from the exhibits with the notations. e-Smart's former attorney failed to promptly identify this conflict to the judge. e-Smart claims that the ALJ erred in refusing to reopen the record and that it failed to get a full deposition in discovery. We review the ALJ's holdings concerning the depositions and the notations under the abuse-of-discretion standard. We feel that the ALJ adequately handled any prejudice concerning the notations on the exhibits. We also find that the ALJ seemed fair in attempting to facilitate the additional deposition of Saito and the inclusion of the full deposition in the record. The ALJ did not abuse his discretion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Page 11]
Conclusion
The ALJ held that e-Smart violated SOX's employee protection provisions when it retaliated against Barrett for engaging in protected activity, and accordingly awarded damages and attorney's fees. We find that the ALJ's factual findings are supported by substantial evidence and that his legal conclusions, except where otherwise noted, are in accordance with applicable law. We thus affirm the ALJ's Decision and Order issued September 9, 2011, awarding Barrett damages. We also affirm the ALJ's Order of November 3, 2011, awarding attorney's fees.
As the prevailing party, Barrett is also entitled to costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, for legal services performed before the ARB. Barrett's attorney shall have 30 days from receipt of this Final Decision and Order in which to file a fully supported attorney's fee petition with the ARB, with simultaneous service on opposing counsel. Thereafter, e-Smart shall have 30 days from their receipt of the fee petition to file a response.
SO ORDERED.
JOANNE ROYCE
Administrative Appeals Judge
PAUL M. IGASAKI
Chief Administrative Appeals Judge
E. COOPER BROWN
Deputy Chief Administrative Appeals Judge
[ENDNOTES]
1 Because e-Smart is a small business, the ALJ noted that the form was 10-KSB. As the ALJ referred to the filing as 10-K, and the parties do not object, we too will refer to the filing as the 10-K.
2 D. & O. at 6. e-Smart was suing its former founders for alleged theft of trade secrets.
3 29 C.F.R. § 1979.110(b). Substantial evidence is "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Clean Harbors Envtl. Servs., Inc. v. Herman, 146 F.3d 12, 21 (1st Cir. 1998) (quoting Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)).
4 Rooks v. Planet Airways, Inc., ARB No. 04-092, ALJ No. 2003-AIR-035, slip op. at 4 (ARB June 29, 2006) (citing Mehan v. Delta Air Lines, ARB No. 03-070, ALJ No. 2003-AIR-004, slip op. at 2 (ARB Feb. 24, 2005); Negron v. Vieques Air Links, Inc., ARB No. 04-021, ALJ No. 2003-AIR-010, slip op. at 4 (ARB Dec. 30, 2004)).
5 Mizusawa v. United Parcel Serv., ARB No. 11-009, ALJ No. 2010-AIR-011, slip op. at 3 (ARB June 15, 2012).
6 18 U.S.C.A. § 1514A(b)(2)(D). Sections 922(c) of the Dodd-Frank Act, P.L. 111-203 (July 21, 2010), amended Section 806 of SOX, 18 U.S.C.A. § 1514A, to lengthen the time for filing a complaint to 180 days.
7 CX-33; CX-144. e-Smart claims that it was error for the ALJ to ask OSHA for the postmarked envelope and that Barrett himself should have entered this into evidence. Pet. for Rev. at 5. The ALJ ruled that there was nothing prejudicial about requesting and admitting the envelope into evidence. D. & O. at 3 n.4. e-Smart claims that the ALJ's advocacy deprived e-Smart of the ability to cross-examine Barrett on the postmarked envelope. Pet. for Rev. at 5. Nothing prevented the Respondent from cross-examining Barrett regarding when he mailed the letter, and we agree with the ALJ that introducing the envelope into evidence did not prejudice the Respondent. Furthermore, the postmarked envelope was a matter of public record of which the ALJ could have taken official notice. 29 C.F.R. § 18.201.
8 The ALJ harmlessly erred in using the "definitively and specifically" test. D. & O. at 25. An employee only needs to show a reasonable belief of a violation to engage in protected activity. Sylvester, ARB No. 07-123, slip op. at 17; Wiest v. Lynch, 710 F.3d 121 (3d Cir. 2013) (giving the ARB's adjudication Chevron deference, citing United States v. Mead Corp. 533 U.S. 218 (2001)). Furthermore, an employee complainant does not need to allege elements of anti-fraud laws such as materiality or scienter. Sylvester, ARB No. 07-123, slip op. at 21.
9 See 29 C.F.R. § 1980.104(e).
10 See Kester v. Carolina Power & Light Co, ARB No. 02-007, ALJ No. 2000-ERA-031, slip op. at 5-8 (ARB Sept. 30, 2003) ("[W]e continue to discourage the unnecessary discussion of whether or not a whistleblower has established a prima facie case when a case has been fully tried.").
11 We deem the Respondent to have waived any objection to the option rights award as it did not challenge this award on appeal. The ALJ's ruling on this matter is final. 29 C.F.R. § 1980.110(a).
Freedom of Information Act | Privacy & Security Statement | Disclaimers | Customer Survey | Important Web Site Notices U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Administrative Law Judges | 800 K St., NW, Washington, DC 20001
www.oalj.dol.gov/ | Telephone: 202-693-7300 | TTY: 1-877-889-5627 | Contact OALJ
According to their June 3 press release,Fingerprint Cards of Sweden's biometric technology will be incorporated in Microsoft's windows 8.1. What's happened to e-Smart's biometric technology? Did the technology fail to withstand the rigors of testing and real world usage?
Looks like the e-Smart Korea website (emartkorea.com)is no longer available. Does anyone know what's going on? The SEC litigation has been quiet and there's been no announcements regarding the pilot programs, etc. Hate to give up.
Uma8: Nothing will ever come of e-Smart Technologies or any company associated with Mary Grace. In typical Mary Grace fashion she filed another piece of lies with the US Dist. Court in DC in the SEC suit. She blames everyone but herself for the failure of e-Smart and begs the judge to give her more time to get an attorney to fight the awful people who are hurting the shareholders. The only thing hurting the shareholders is Mary Grace. The only person to ever be in control of e-Smart is Mary Grace. It is Mary Grace, as CEO, who is responsible for accounting for the hundred million dollars raised. It is Mary Grace, as CEO, who is responsible for filing financial statements for e-Smart. It is Mary Grace, as CEO, who is responsible for communicating with e-Smart Shareholders. Has she done any of this in the last five years? No!!!! Now, it is Mary Grace, the CEO of e-Smart, who is marketing e-Smart's technology in her new private company I Am Holdings LLc. How do e-Smart's shareholders feel about that?! And, the fact that the shareholders can't get any relief in the courts because of her continuing extensions is beyond belief! So much for Sarbanes Oxley. So much for shareholders getting any protection from the SEC. It seems to me that it's time to move to a different federal agency, like the IRS, to see if they can find Mary Grace and get some legitimate accounting of the money raised thru e-Smart. And, while the shareholders wonder what happened to their investment in e-Smart where is Mary Grace? At the Cannes Film Festival!
Looks like they aren't able to settle with the SEC. It's doubtful they'll get very far with a new company without resolving this big issue. I still can't fathom why a nifty biometric card like this isn't already adopted worldwide. For starters, airport security would be far less painful--going through airports won't be such a chore. People might actually look forward to traveling again. Not to mention its usefulness and non-intrusivness as an ID card in every transaction that requires one. There's no longer such a thing as going through life without producing an ID card -- so why not make it a simpler and more efficient process?
Whoopee you obviously are one of the chickens in the coop cheering for Col. Sanders! Not only are you stupid, you are really just passing misinformation, which leads me to conclude that you ARE Mary Grace or one of her ever dwindling idiot followers. Accordng to my sources, this Kelly O'Meara won the suit against e-Smart and there is no appeal. If anyone is hurting the shareholders it is Mary Grace who has failed to file financial statements for the company since 2007. And, if the company hasn't filed any financial statements with the SEC, one has to wonder if the company has paid any federal taxes on the millions it raised during the last six years?! Maybe the IRS could look into this matter and let the shareholders know where the company stands. It is Mary Grace who has refused to communicate with shareholders about the status of the company since 2007 and it is Mary Grace who now is offering e-Smart's technology thru her new private company, I AM Holdings LLC. Whoopee, your response has all the earmarks of a narcissistic sociopath, but we'll leave the diagnosing for the professionals. It boggles the mind that you feel the need to defend Mary Grace...you are an idiot! Really, Whoopee, is this about Mary Grace having difficulty raising more money? Is that why you feel the need to put out false information? Shame on you.
Shareholder Vote!
e-stupid shareholders don't get to vote on much these days. Certainly not the theft of E-stupid technology by Graceless into I am Scam. Let's give all the shareholders a vote!
The new company is named "I Am." Very fitting, given the paranoid megalomania of Graceless. Le't vote on the best name for her new scam. Will it be:
I Am Scam - Direct, and certainly a fitting description for Garceless.
Scam I Am - With apologies to Dr. Seuss. More lyrical, don't you think? But a little less direct. The subtlety may be lost on the dwarfs of I Am Scam.
Shareholders, it's your call. Make your voices heard. I offer 1 million shares of e-stupid to the person who makes the best case for their choice.
Scam dwarfs, you get to vote also. What reference do you prefer?
Whoopee - CuriousKo here. Been away from this forum for several years. Many better things to do. Frankly, anything is more useful than tracking a long-time shyster like Mary Graceless and her thieving dwarfs.
You launched an ad hominem attack against Miffed. Yet, you did not counter her factual statements that ESTT has stolen shareholder money and now Graceless has illegally stolen ESTT technology for the new scam I Am. Embarrassing for you, not for Miffed.
I wonder who you are? Only three choices -
1. A clueless dupe....
2. Mary Graceless the scam artist in person...
3. One of the thieving dwarfs who gets a paycheck from Graceless...
Let's make a few guesses. You are not a clueless dupe, because even the clueless dupes gave up on e-stupid long ago. Review the posts on this board if you doubt my evaluation. Not a single new investor with anything to say about the investment quality of I Am Scam.
You are not Graceless, because her writing is incoherent, lunatic raving. Read the transcripts of her various testimonies if you doubt my assessment. She cannot construct a single, grammatically correct sentence. Too much plastic surgery? Too much alcohol? Too much paranoia? Too many subpeonas? Nah, she's is just a frightened little girl afraid to re-enter the US. Lost her beauty (small loss at best), lost her personal fortune, lost her right to re-enter the US, lost her integrity so long ago she has forgotten the word.
You must be one of the thieving dwarfs on the "I Am Scam" payroll. Lets dig a little deeper on that guess. Graceless has three dwarfs that we know - Tamio Stupido, er... Saito, or Marcello Solliven, or Richard Kim. Graceless may have a few family friends left to post your BS blogs, but likely even her family has deserted her by now.
Are you Tamio Stupido? I doubt it, because Tamio's English grammar is pure comedy la Jackie Chan.
Are you Richard Kim? I doubt it, because Richard has too much integrity (funny word to use with "I Am Scam") to write these posts.
Are you Marcello..... Let's see.
-No integrity, check.
-On the payroll of I Am Scam, check.
-Good English, check.
-Lastly, no self respect, check.
My bet is that you have so little self respect that you cannot identify yourself. Prove me wrong, little dwarf of I Am Scam!
Miffed: I am beginning to wonder if Miffed is Kelly O'Meara. It seems your postings about e-smart mirror the language in the Kelly and Associates vs e-smart technologies shareholders lawsuit: Index No. 31832/10, Civil Court of New York, County of New York: Kelly and Associates, Inc. (sic Kelly O'Meara) Plaintiff vs e-smart Technologies, Inc., Defendant. She is not a shareholder of record and seems to be doing everything she can to hurt the shareholders of e-smart. These postings are obviously designed to further her cause in the lawsuit against the shareholders, which of course is under appeal. Shameful and misleading postings about e-smart and Mary Grace.
From to 2001 to what??? Mary Grace handled the money from 2005 till today. Drizin was effectively gone in May 2006. Rather than talk to early shareholders, why not get Mary Grace to submit the financial statements for e-Smart Technologies from 2007 till today? That sounds like a good way to figure out where the money went. This also happens to be the timeframe that the SEC is looking into. Mary Grace has always been in control. Is Mary Grace dictating your responses because they're really that stupid. Better still, why don't you ask Mary Grace to transfer your e-Smart shares into the new I AM Holdings shares? That way you can stop these ridiculous posts. I know this will be tough for you to understand, but Mary Grace has a fiduciary duty to provide e-Smart's shareholders with financial statements...she has refused to do that for five years! Assuming you really are a shareholder, what part of not providing financial statements is okay with you? STUPID, STUPID STUPID!
Tye16
In 2007 the US Patent Office issued the patents to IVI. From 2001 Drizin and Sarkision did all the offerings and handled the bank accounts, not M Grace. The are the ones who took the moolah. Get your facts right. Check with the early shareholders and you will get the facts right.
Should have added, this company's patent expired around 2002 but is the same as e-smart's.
take a look at their module and it was installed within a card- working and they are still in business.
http://www.fingerprints.com/
Patents Remaining
http://www.fingerprints.com/Technology/Patents.aspx?sc_lang=en
Esmt investors have been tugged along for past 10 years- very sad this company was never audited for it's technology all the while proposing technology.
Mary will have to surface sometime but not sure if the US will go after her if she stays offshore.
Many folkks in the know feel very sad for investors from 2005 to present and the prior were already burned
Whoopee
You obviously have no clue about the past 'shell' scenarios MG hid behind. Telpac and China did not come to shareholder fruition. Then came ESMT and then came lawsuits- MG sued 1 company for $1 Bil to get headlines but ESMT only had $20 k in bank and could never produce card in 2001 although said it was in full production.
The token offered had tape all around it- 10,000 were supposed to be delivered within 30 days but MG/WD could never produce.
This IVI Tech owning the tech never showed its face or corporate position on E-Smart and tech. Someone from this present ESMT needs to track down MG's son, he was fully involved in early years.
There was a patent issued already in US by a Swedish company but ESMT never responded.
5 Years later appears ESMT could not produce card still! yet, still got further investors.
It is obvious Miffed knows nothing about the companies he/she is taking about because the statements are false. Mary Grace has absolutely nothing to do with Telpac. It's probably another Wayne Drizin/Michael Gardiner scam.
Whoopee:
Like I said, you obviously are STUPID. Of course there are shareholders..you know those people who bought and paid for the technology that Mary Grace now is selling thru a private company. e-Smart shareholders have worthless stock certificates, but they still can call themselves shareholders and down the road can take those shares that they hold and bring a law suit against Mary Grace for transferring e-Smart's technology to her private company.
And, Mary Grace is well aware of the numerous e-Smart shareholders who alredy have made statements to the SEC regarding her securities fraud case. You know, the securities fraud case where all her attornies have formally filed to withdraw. So typically a Mary Grace move. Mary Grace thinks this will buy her time and never get to court on that one. WRONGO! You might learn something if you ever bothered to read anything that is actually happening with this company.
Never mind. You're too STUPID.
Miffed: It looks like you have finally admitted there are shareholders in e-Smart and that it is not "just Mary Grace". Thank you for that admission.
Whoopee:
I love your enthusiasm, but you really gotta understand what's going on. Mary Grace has founded a new company called I AM Holdings, LLC (www.iam-holdings.com) where she is selling e-Smart's technology. e-smart is over. Yeah, you're a shareholder and that and $4 will get you a cup of coffee. Unless the shareholders bring suit against Mary Grace/e-Smart to get the technology taken back from I Am Holdings then your shares are worthless. They're worthless anyway. The company has been delisted. First, one has to find out in which foreign country this new company has been formed. The website says there are offices in Korea, China and HongKong. When was the last time e-Smart/Mary Grace communicated with the shareholders of e-Smart? When she did it was to annouce the 20-1 reverse split, which was right before the stock was delisted. Now we find out that Mary Grace has no lawyer representing e-Smart Shareholder's interests in the SEC suit as they have filed a formal withdrawal from the suit. Why? Did Mary Grace forget to pay them? As the CEO of e-Smart she has a responsibility to e-Smart Shareholders to hire a lawyer to protect the company's interests in that suit. Better still, how bout you show us a Corporate address or telephone number for e-Smart Technologies. If you have so much faith in Mary Grace and e-Smart, why do you think that Mary Grace didn't notify e-Smart shareholders that she is selling the technology thru this new company and let them know that she'll make sure that e-Smart shares are convertible to the new IAM Holdings shares??? Really, you gotta wake up and smell the fraud. Did Mary Grace advise e-Smart shareholders that she was at the Paris Cartes show in November selling the same technology as e-Smart? NO!!! Is it a coincidence that Mary, Tamio, Richard Kim and Marcello Soliven are the principles in the new company? Finally, how bout you provide e-Smart's financial statements for the last 5 years. How can you possibly believe in a company that hasn't filed a financial statment? How can you possibly believe that it is still a going concern? If the company doesn't file financial statements with the SEC, how can it possibly file federal tax returns about monies coming into the company and monies going out? If you know all of the above and still believe in e-Smart, you're STUPID.
Hi Miffed: e-Smart is owned by hundreds of shareholders. e-Smart is not just Mary Grace. Yes, many of us shareholders have waited many year, but there are those shareholders of us out there who are still believers and know that great technology takes time to come to fruition. Thanks to all of you shareholders out there who continue to have faith.
Hi all: I am an e-smart technologies shareholder, and I know many, many others who are shareholders. Mary grace is not e-smart technologies, we, the shareholders are. Many have been issued shares while many have also bought shares through E-Trade, Scott Trade and Ameritrade, etc. We are still true believers in the company.
Oh, I see and e-Smart (that is Mary Grace) notified the e-Smart investors that she started this new foreign corporation and all e-Smart shares would be converted to IAM Holdings!? Delusional... What happened to Telpac shareholders when it ended and e-Smart began? Are they still waiting for the conversion? Better still, how about any news at all about e-Smart...not happening! When is it EVER okay for a CEO of a public company to just vanish without so much as a adios to the investors who put up the money to create the product the new company now sells?! Varmit, if you have the inside trac, how bout you tell everyone where this new company is incorporated. Show us some financial statements. Show us some communication with the new investors. More than that, show us earnings. Yeah, and also try and get Mary Grace to surface. Of course, she can always be found at some French film festival hoodoo'n it with the Great and not so great. As far as I can tell, from past "corporate" history, I Am Holdings is another e-Smart...Telpac - money in nothing out and lots of people owed for services rendered. Until Mary Grace makes available financial statements for the money raised, and distributed, for e-Smart over the last five years there is no way that anyone should invest in any new venture associated with her.
ACTUALLYall the tech haters and resistance that esmart has had since day 1 i dont blame the management for switching gears under a new name and going for it
'"I AM """ QUITE SURE they have out smarted the jerks like wayne drizin stealing the tech was far worse that mary grace at least putting an effort into moving forward ,,,,,
we shall see if miss mary grace shares her abundant wealth with her fellow loyal shareholders ,,,,,
we shall see UNTIL THEN " I AM " WAITING AS YOU ALL ARE .....
BETTER THAT GOING BK AND DISSAPPEARING
HEY MIFFED !!! i truely beleive that soon as profits are made the esmart investors will get rewarded for their efforts and waiting ,
when china has 2 billion cards up and running the cash flow will be suffecient to pay us off !!!!!
i really dont think that esmart can just take the i am that we own and go astray , we own that technolgy .....
It appears that Mary Grace is doing what she has historically done - formed a new company - I AM Holdings LLC. It can be found here (www.iam-holdings.com). She and Tamio are selling the technology that e-Smart investors paid for over a 12-year period. The offices of this new company reportedly are in Korea, China and Hong Kong. In the meantime, all of the attorneys representing her, Tamio, e-Smart Technologies, IVI and Intermarket in the SEC suit have made a formal request to withdraw from the case. e-Smart, for all intent and purposes, is gone. No financial statments since 2007, the stock has been delisted and there is no known US corporate office. And, to top it off, judgements have been rendered against e-Smart and nobody gets paid. More importantly, where is Mary Grace???? Anyone investing in I AM Holdings is, well, jumping out of the life boat and getting back on the Titanic. Varmit, if you are sooo sure of e-Smart's success and apparently are somehow receiving information that others aren't aware of, why didn't you alert investors of this newly-formed company, which just happens to be run by the same e-Smart gang? Hell, they didn't even take the time to change the pitch. Take a look. It will nauseat you!
ESMART KOREA ABOUT TO MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT !!!!! BIG CONTRACTS ABOUT TO COMMENCE ... CASH OUT HISTORICAL SHAREHOLDERS .....
LOOKS LIKE THE ESMART DIVVY WILL BE HERE NEXT WEEKS !!!!!!!!!!:):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):
I THINK GOLD HAS A BETTER CHANCE THAN TECH ...... ASK TAIMY SIATO IF HIS THERMAL PRINTER PATENT HAS RUN OUT YET ???????????
wow, another revoked penny stock .. looks like an average day in scammy penny land
good luck!
Tic
toc
WE THAT OWN ESART ALSO OWN THE SUBSIDIARRY ESMART KOREA ..
Don't look now, but any rights shareholders had to part of that subsidiary went out the window when the stock was revoked. Now all you own is shares in a private company that isn't obligated to give you squat. You were spot on when you made the post below.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=72267492
GOING CONCERN ?????? NOPE AND CARE LESS :(:(:(:(:(:
I HAVE MY SHARES AND THIS COMPANY WILL COME BACK WHEN ALL HAS SETTLED
PATENTS ARE PATENTS , STILL HAVE 7 YEARS LEFT ....
TAMMI SAIATTO , FIRST THERMAL / FAX PRINTER !!! NOT BAD
E SMART KOREA DOING HUGE THINGS !!!!!! WE THAT OWN ESART ALSO OWN THE SUBSIDIARRY ESMART KOREA ..
THE WAIT IS SOON 2 BE OVER .... BIG NEWS COMING WITH RESTRUCTURE
CASH $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I see you're not at all familiar with the "going concern" concept or what it means.
Followers
|
11
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
1964
|
Created
|
07/13/01
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderators |
****** Press Releases And News Stories *********
********* SEC SUSPENDS ESMT TRADING - AGAIN 10/17/2008 ***********
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/suspensions/2008/34-58801-o.pdf
************* LAWSUIT AGAINST E-SMART **************************
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=ah9.8aZEHzA0
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/10/29/lawsuit.pdf
ID-SMART caught stealing
http://www.e-smart.com/press/press4_9_08.html
The Charles Black/ Wayne Drizin & E-Smart Technology Huffington Story
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/17/chief-mccain-strategist-w_n_96920.html
http://www.e-smart.com/pressreleases.html#news
************************************************************
####################### ESMT 1 year chart ###################
http://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=webchart&cb=1211388714&symbol=PINK%5EESMT&period=5&size=19
E-Smart is owned by IVI Smart, a privately held company. E-Smart is the licensing agent for IVI products within the United States and Asian Countries. All other sales are part of IVI only, unless otherwise announced, such as Kyrgyzstan.
SEC CLEARS ESMT (The company is currently dealing with an SEC issue of non-compliance due to reporting. E-Smart has filed an appeal and feels confident that the SEC will remove judgment before the end of September.) This has had a strong influence on share price and the wild swings. Also, once revenue is announced, the company feels that this will assist the stock in stabilization.
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/aljdec/id247lae.htm
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/opinions/34-50030.htm
Quarter page down: http://www.sec.gov/news/digest/dig101204.txt
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/opinions/34-50514.htm
ESMT Cleared http://www.sec.gov/litigation/aljdec/id272lam.htm
E-Smart currently has three relationships that are assisting them in penetrating the foreign markets, Samsung, Daewoo and the Information Ministry of China. As many of you that follow this stock are aware, the first attempt at penetrating the China market fell through. I have posted an interesting article on why this occurred.
http://www.e-smart.com/press/press7_21_03.html
Because they have a strong past relationship with China and the current agreement with their IMS, it is my opinion that it is only a matter of time before ESMT announces a newly formed agreement with China.
Web Sites:
United States:
http://www.e-smart.com
South Korea
http://www.esmartkorea.com/english/default.asp
BioSensor Hawaii
http://www.biosensorhawaii.com/
Another issue is that there are very few shares available on the open market. Orders for over one thousand shares or more have taken some stock holders between one to two weeks to fill.
Coroprate Stock Information
Information current as of:
Current Shares issued:
173,042,610 6/30/04
173,272,612 09/30/04
Current Shares in Public Float: under 40 Million
Current Contracts signed or in cooperation agreements:
Kyrgyzstan -
http://www.findbiometrics.com/viewnews.php?id=994
"Student Management Card Project” in Korea -
http://www.planetanalog.com/press_releases/prnewswire/showPressRelease.jhtml?HeadlineId=X218171&....
Current Partnerships:
Samsung - SDS
http://www.contactlessnews.com/news/2004/03/08/esmart-and-samsung-sds-team-to-do-business/
Samsung - S1
http://e-smart.com/press/press2_26_08.html
Daewoo -
Kobile -
http://www.forrelease.com/D20040628/nym114.P1.06282004065741.26913.html
Information Ministry of China
Possible E-Smart Relationships based on News Articles
(These are not confirmed!)
Thank you to board members who share this information!
New technologies:
http://www.e-smart.com/press/press1_8_08.html
Public Speeches
http://www.asiaiccardforum.org/PDF/S1-2.pdf
http://e-smart.com/transcript1207.pdf
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |