DD Support Board and Research Team

[shajandr]

Just received it now. Lemme know when you send schtuff, so I can Czech that boxx. It is a special litter box set upp just for kitties.

As I stated before - these will be ConTorts claims. Tort law is much more useful than sticking to CONtract law.

Most modern legal faculty believe contracts and torts ought to be rolled into one BIGG course for fist-years' then split ~OUTT separate advanced CONtract law and advanced torts classes (as we do it now for all CONtracts and torts classes - basics for first years and then advanced for second and third years).

CONtract disputes inevitably have some tort components to the disputes and the tort claims allow for very nasty and broad discovery and putting together a much more compelling and coherent presentation to the trier-of-fact (whether judge or jury).

NTEK is over-ripe for tort claims. Personally, I would also name individuals - David Foley, Jeffy Foley, Lorraine Cullivan-Foley, Al Stone(d), definitely Aaron Taylor - Aaron Taylor's statements, writings, and excuses are way, waaay across the line for tortious behaviour.

That's just me. nott having seen the underlying CONtracts, butt knowing what I do from the sources I do, I'd name as Defendants: NTEK, UF, Nanotech Media, David Foley, Jeffery Foley, Alan Stone(d), Aaron Taylor, sadly Petey too, and Nanotech Gaming Labs and HighTower as a relief defendant to recoup fraudulently conveyed funds.

I'd start with the tort claims - DECEIT, FRAUD, FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION, NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION, and of course CONVERSION and UNJUST ENRICHMENT.

Then I'd add the obvious breach of CONtract claims.

Part of the relief I would seek is a preliminary injunction freezing NTEK and personal accounts and payroll to the named individuals and request those funds be sequestered in a constructive trust. Especially DaDavey™'s assets. I'd also seek a constructive trust on ALL gross proceeds from any rental income from the content properties. I may or may nott get a preliminary injunction, butt I'd try.

I wood go balls to the wall against these clowns - through the various corp shells and INDIVIDUALLY for the tort claims!

I wood recommend these parties consider using, IMO, the perfect litigator and his team for this matter. They are in a huge firm and they're in Santa Monica. He has tons of BIGG league experience litigating for NBC, numerous tech companies - including the biggest of them, and his areas of expertise are securities law, entertainment IP law, IP law, and he is a balls-~OUTT kickass litigator. I will be suggesting this person to the aggrieved parties when the complaints hit PACER. I may also communicate as 007 with a certain person to have them direct this person's name to the aggrieved parties.

As I wrote before, they also need a good bankruptcy counsel to guard against a flash BK petition and perfect the claims and evidence for fraudulent conveyances, voidable preferences, and voidable transactions. The Santa Monica team has access to top BK partners in another office (it is an AmLaw100 firm - very bigg).

The DISCOVERY taken on NTEK et al. wood create enuff evidence to putt these crooks away for multiple felonies. The entire FINANCIAL RECORDS are key and discoverable! Woot-woot!!! Gold mine right there!!! Plus depos.

Again, gimme a heads upp to Czech that litter boxx for incoming kitty pellets.

Purr-happs that person can cut this entire message and forward to the aggrieved parties. I hope so.

shajandr Monday, <b?07/27/15 11:43:06 PM
Re: Ranchersw post# 317419
Post # 317423 of 318566

I think the "investor update" will be released on PACER.

I wonder if Petey has been advised that he faces personal liability for the any potential tort claims that a contracting party may bring against the company for, inter alia, conversion, deceit, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, etc.

These will nott be simple CONtract disputes nor a simple Chapter 11 bankruptcy (Petey, look up fraudulent conveyance, voidable preference, voidable transaction). Oh no.

The CONtent providers would name both NTEK and the executives as individuals (who would/will) as NAMED PARTIES on the public legal complaint.

Lett me use an illustrative example - a hypo so to speak - CONsider the chainsaw as a metaphor for movies or shows:

Andy owns a chainssaw butt does nott feel like cutting firewood himself, so he leases his chainsaw to Randy who is a firewood cutter. The lease is between Andy and Randy's company, Splinters LLC. The lease CONtract requires Splinters LLC to pay Andy $50 a month and 20 percent of all firewood proceeds produced by the sale of firewood cut with the chainsaw payable on a monthly or quarterly basis.

Splinters LLC pays Andy for one month then stops paying, butt it (and Randy) continues to use the chainsaw to cut and sell firewood, butt doesn't make the payments to Andy. Andy complains and Splinters LLC and Randy tell Andy the company cannot afford to pay because the firewood market is nott as good as projected. Andy wants his money, butt knows if he sends a "cease-and-desist" contract breach notification or hit the courts with a CONtract breach claim, Splinters LLC will claim or counterclaim that Andy has irreparably damaged the business since it relies on the chainsaw for income. Knowing this conundrum facing Andy, Randy and Splinters LLC try to use non-payment as leverage to force a renegotiation, meanwhile paying themselves salaries and also paying for other business, including new transactions to lease other chainsaws from other chainsaw owners. They may also be planning to use a strategic bankruptcy filing (Chapter 11) to stiff Andy and keep the lease and force a renegotiation. They may have created evidence showing this conspiracy to defraud Andy of his rightful payments that are owed. This can even be criminal.

If Andy could get his chainsaw back, he could re-lease the chainsaw to another woodcutter.

So, what result? Well, Andy can sue under the CONtract but can also, or alternatively, sue under tort law. Nott only Splinters LLC, butt also Randy as an individual for his actions. For example, Splinters LLC and Randy have both committed the torts of CONVERSION and or UNJUST ENRICHMENT - using the property rights of another (Andy) to produce financial benefits for themselves (Splinters LLC and Randy) and depriving Randy of his rightful ownership of the chainsaw even after they have breached the contract and failed to return the chainsaw to Andy butt instead kept using it for their own benefit and kept for themselves the firewood sales proceeds while stiffing Andy.

Now, if there is evidence that Splinters LLC, Randy, or other employees willfully deceived Andy about when he would receive his overdue payments, then we gett into the torts of NEGLIGENT MIREPRESENTATION and FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION for stringing Andy along with misrepresentations of payments that did not occur. Then there is the tort of DECEIT as well.

So, nott only is Splinters LLC in trouble and face serious civil liability to Andy, butt so does Randy and other Splinters LLC employees or agents who benefited (think personal salary or commissions) from these torts and non-payments by diverting Andy's money to themselves.

Oh my! Randy's future will be dogged by his name on a tort lawsuit that will forever be discoverable by any future employer or investor. Woe is he who is labeled a tortfeasor by the court in a public filing, for his career dissipation light shall be lit for eternity.

And there is a criminal angle, if this scheme was part of a CONspiracy to defraud Andy by abusing the bankruptcy system.

Butt we'll wait for more on that. DaFoley™ may have a future bunkmate when the NTEK securities fraud litigation hits - and the bunkmate may be there nott for securities fraud, butt for simple fraud on Andy!