Indocan Resources Inc. (IDCN)

[UpstateChris]

I have been out of IDCN for some time and have not followed the action nor this board. Figured out of a sense of morbid curiosity I would check in and see how things are going. It seems nothing has really changed. The dilution, and the denial that dilution occurred, still running rampant.

First, I am completely floored in reading the posts from the Investment Relations Officer. In one he seems to suggest that dilution never even occurred. Yet as it turns out it was a little over a year ago that IDCN more than doubled the float to over 6 Billion yet investors were not told for months.

In another post the IRO suggests that there was a half Billion share discrepancy created when IDCN moved from Nevada. This is confusing for two reasons. First, the move from Nevada was in 2008. This was a move to Montana. Then last year, in an attempt to obfuscate the dilution, the CEO moved the Articles to Wyoming. Having performed similar moves with my own company (private, but still has shares) I am well aware that the CEO declares the number of shares directly on the form - there is no mysterious "transfer". If there was a half Billion error it is known as fraud, not "discrepancy".

In post after post last year the IRO stated he had a signed contract with the CEO that stated there would be no further dilution. Then the OTC Market's Pink Sheet profile was updated and guess what, there was absolutely MASSIVE dilution and a change in state on the Articles to Wyoming, which allows a company to increase their A/S at will to infinity. Two weird things here are that the Pink Sheets update was in fact performed BY the IRO (by his own admission in his posts) so he obviously knew there was dilution or he would not have been able to update Pink Sheets AND this would seem a clear violation of his signed contract. In a recent post he says that due to the move to a new state, no contract, written or verbal, was violated. Wait...what? That's like saying I painted my house, so it is no longer the one I took a mortgage on so I don't need to pay Wells Fargo anymore. Did anyone actually buy in to this? Clearly there either was never a signed contract or behind the scenes there occurred some transaction that resulted in the IRO not being concerned with the contract. If one is to accept the IRO's word for how many shares he owns and at the price he paid than the dilution would have cost him a 6-figure loss. How many people do you know that are dedicated to a company so much that they work, for free apparently, as the Investment Relations Officer even AFTER the company violates a written contract with you and effectively steals over $100,000 from you? Ya, I dont know any either.

Then we have the newest post on the IDCN web site. Even in the iBox here we have a March 22, 2010 posting of how great Hockey Stick looks. The IRO posted that he had first hand knowledge that the gold was being processed and sold around this time and in another post that the gold was so plentiful they had to hire security - yet the CEO on his own web site is now admitting that none of this ever happened and that there was never anything to the Hockey Stick venture. The IRO and the CEO stated that oil was flowing and revenues would be realized in June of 2010 - and now we learn that nothing ever developed from this - never were any wells.

Seriously? You can take the IDCN updates from a year ago and compare them to today - AND - take the IRO's posts from a year ago and compare them to today and they are exactly the opposite. Both individuals are clearly stating that they lied and acting like it is the investor's fault for believing them.

The Investment Relations Officer is still pointing a finger at PeterGriffin for "holding down IDCN". This is beyond humorous, it is pathetic. IDCN is at .0001 because it is a shell with no business now, or ever, owned and operated by 1 man as his personal ATM, with not a single dollar in revenue beyond proceeds of shares in years - if not since its inception, complete with a massive dilution machine that prints shares faster than the Fed is printing dollars.

I truly feel bad for any newcomers that may be lured in here and not have the time to read a year's worth of posts. Hint: You are about to be screwed hard - so just take your money and blow it at a strip club. At least you will get watered down drinks and a semi-good time in exchange.

And on a final note, I have to address the most recent post where information about the registered agent is highly distorted. Keep in mind that the Investment Relations Officer posted that the change in the state of incorporation was NOT because the new new state allows an unlimited Authorized Share count, but rather because the previous registered agent retired, making the change seem harmless.

The registered agent has nothing to do with anything. Our former RA in NV is the largest in the world and still in business.

Incorrect on both counts. The former RA was in Montana, not Nevada. Also, neither the WY, the MT nor the NV RA's used by IDCN were even in the top 4: http://www.registeredagentinfo.com/big-four.html

Liberty Stock Transfer owner, got old and retired, sold their clients off to Continental in NYC.

I am assuming Liberty was the RA in NV which was changed to Montana in 2008. Even if this is correct what does it possibly have to do with the move from MT to WY and the dilution? Also, the entire legal requirement for having a registered agent is because, by law, all corporate entities must have a physical presence in the state of incorporation, then file as a foreign entity in states where they conduct business. In order to legally "sell off client to Continental" which may be based in NYC, Continental would have to have a physical office in the original state, otherwise Liberty is in breach of contract to all of their clients, and all of their clients are now in violation of IRS regulations. So let's assume Continental did things correctly (which I believe they would) than there is absolutely no reason to spend the time and money to move states. This argument doesnt seem to make any sense.

IDCN migrated to WY, IDCN is saving thousands a year on State renewal fees.

I suggest anyone that believes this do some Google searches on incorporating a business. The IRO claims the move was from NV to WY. If this was the case, than the above in inaccurate since it is less expensive to incorporate in NV than WY, even with the share count. The paper trail shows that the move was from MT to WY. In that case there may be a legit cost savings, as MT charges an annual fee based on existing A/S. So when you dilute the stock by a few billion shares, the annual fees increase. So the move would have been to allow additional dilution without incurring additional costs.

I stand corrected, I had said R/A retired.

Huh? This states that the IRO made a mistake and was corrected about the RA retiring, yet 3 lines above the IRO stated that the owner of Liberty retired. Which is it?

This all has nothing to do with the future price of IDCN other than the constant harrassment and demeaning of I/R and MANAGEMENT by certain posters who refuse to get it and stop.

Moving to a state that allows a company to change A/S to any number they want without reporting it and without paying any additional fees absolutely affects future share prices. Investors must factor in, especially with any pink sheet stock, that dilution is a daily possibility. In WY that can be done at will without a paper trail, increasing the risk exponentially. Also, the posters referenced are simply providing the accountability that management and the IRO refuse to do, despite a fiduciary legal requirement to do so.

And they will do anything to discredit or stop any progress of IDCN. WHY?

Like do something the IRO and management will not do - tell the truth? IDCN is holding itself down. Or rather Jeff B., the one and only employee/owner/CEO has never made any attempt to move the price up beyond fake postings on a web site and playing a shell game where he posts positive news about other pink sheet companies with no relations to IDCN but posted to infer that there is a relation.

Are they working for the shorts?

My favorite line.

WTF? I mean really, WTF? The investment relations officer claims to have worked on Wall Street for a major brokerage house and claims to be an active stock promoter and business consultant. Surely he is aware that there is no short selling of IDCN. In fact, less than 1% of pink sheet stocks are available to short, and only a handful of tiny niche brokers whom most people have never heard of allow it. Even then the borrow rates make it completely unattractive. Show a single broker that has shares of IDCN to lend. IDCN hasnt been on the shortable stocks list the entire time I have been involved with it. There is 0 short interest:

http://www.shortsqueeze.com/?symbol=IDCN&submit=Short+Quote%99

Also, shorts make money when a stock goes down. Currently CCME is at the lowest trading level allowed. There is literally no way for a short to make money at this price even if it was possible to short. Even if it were possible (and it is not) to go short on IDCN, the only way to make money would be if IDCN were to go out of business and the stock be shut down with a zero value, in which case teh shorts would never have to buy to cover. Anyone that would know enough to know how to short a pink sheet would know that a PS stock can go on for decades at .0001 with known fraud and zero risk of being shut down. This would be the worst trading idea ever. This comment was just thrown in for the benefit of newbie traders that dont know better and have just heard enough to know that "shorts are evil".

Here is what is generally accepted as the most accurate search tool for shortable US stocks. IDCN aint in the list...

http://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/trading/ViewShortableStocks.php?cntry=usa&tag=United%20States&ib_entity=llc&ln



Sorry for the very long post - it will be my one and only. Hopefully anyone considering taking a position in IDCN will at least take a few hours and go through various posts or PM some of the long term people here (on both sides). I suggest Space as he has been around the longest and does not have an obvious agenda.

Best of Luck!