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.
I’m pretty sure I’ve explained this to you before, but here it is again… Taieb started as a named defendant in 2019, and then became a cooperating witness, and thereby a co-conspirator by the 1st indictment. His name was replaced by Ruggeri.
As I mentioned in my last post to you (quote below) — this is exactly what has transpired in the Taieb case. Docket 1:19-mj-03192 was marked as terminated on May 16, 2022 — when the indictment was filed:
From my post:
———-First, it clearly states the case was transferred to the grand jury, so technically it’s done. Great, but where is the indictment? Hence why it hasn’t been marked as terminated. Second, just by looking at that number I can tell you it’s a magistrate case, with very limited scope, i.e. bond, probable cause, the criminal transfer. Finally why isn’t #02054 reflected as an “associate case” to 1:21-mj-02340 or vice versa? You’re looking for a solution in need of a problem, and getting hung up on minutia of how different jurisdictions associate cases, and this is why I hesitate to engage down rabbit holes, but for sake of not getting bombarded with more words I wanted to answer. So, in conclusion there will be no more updates there until there’s an indictment and then it’ll be marked as terminated. ———-
About this statement from you:
This led me to look up USA vs Taieb and there was a new filing on 05-13-22 that lists the charges against Taieb (14 page document on Pacer) and the 6 companies in that scheme along with similar information in the previous indictments that occurred in the USA vs Vaccaro case. Who is not listed as one of the 6 companies in this document filed on 05-13-22? CATV.
Why would CATV be listed in a case filed in 2019, involving Taieb? Seriously, let’s stop this back and forth about this nonsense, because there’s nothing that transpired during the government’s investigation which predated the filing of the CATV investigation and affidavit in February 2021 that would be relative to this company, except what transpired LATER and with people directly connected and charged in the big case, allegedly perpetrating another fraud in CATV while under federal indictment, with the knowledge of the CEO. So, until there’s a new indictment you’re looking for something that doesn’t exist.
Having said that, since you’re stuck on this, I will very simply share why I think the two cases are very much adjoined at the hip…
3 of the people implicated in the CATV scheme (that we know of as a matter of fact) are part of the existing “big” case — those people are Dror Svorai, Michael Zoyes, and Yaniv Nahon. The agent overseeing the investigation noted in Svorai’s transcript that there’s a lot more to the case than what’s noted in the affidavit — but let’s put that aside for now…
It’s only logical since these people were already charged as defendant and co-conspirators in the big case, that the new charges against Svorai would be relevant to that case as to intent. I’m not sure if Dominic Falso who was a principle at CATV is also part of the big case as a participant (co-con/nominee), but I do know his relationship with Svorai’s criminal syndicate and Zoyes goes back decades. Let’s not forget Jorge Skolnick, who’s named as “individual #1” in CATV case, who did the books for CATV, also did the books for Svorai’s various scams for decades, as well as a portion of the 6 companies implicated.
Given this very simple explanation, is there a better chance of the cases being tied to the existing case, or not? Maybe — as I said in my last post, I believe it’s being used as leverage. What Svorai does in the big case will indicate how the government will proceed with the new charges. Will there be a new docket #? Likely — depending on how Svorai proceeds in the case in progress (big case) (Ref. Taieb). Cooperate or not. Does it make any difference for all intents and purposes? NO, IT DOES NOT!
Your only concern should be when will the government file an indictment, or better yet — when will Svorai decide to cut a deal. It’s really that simple. If we look at the big picture wide eyed, objectively and in perspective, then it might shine a light on what’s significant, and what’s just a waste of energy.
About this statement:
It is almost like they are completely seperate cases not related to each other. There is also a document indicating Taieb waived his right to prosecution by indictment and consents to prosecution by information ... interesting.
Again, of course they’re separate cases. I don’t get why this is so difficult. Taieb is a cooperating co-conspirator in the big case, he has nothing to do with CATV. He cooperated early on as soon as he was named in 2019. The answer as to why he’s getting a new docket is in your own statement, what you noted as interesting.
He is cooperating and therefore signed this…
” WAIVER OF AN INDICTMENT
I understand that I have been accused of one or more offenses punishable by imprisonment for more than one year. I was advised in open court of my rights and the nature of the proposed charges against me. After receiving this advice, I waive my right to prosecution by indictment and consent to prosecution by information.”
He cut a deal to drop 3 federal charges down to one count of a lesser charge, therefore he’ll be testifying against those named and unnamed in the big case, hence by virtue of his testimony he can not be part of the grand jury case, therefore the single count falls into a new docket. It’s advisable by counsel if there’s a iron clad case against a client, to not waste the government’s resources when there’s a plea deal and show cooperation by foregoing prosecution by indictment with a grand jury. Zoyes will likely have the same fate with his plea deal. Nothing rather interesting, since everyone knew he was cooperating. FYI — this is why it’s filed as Information rather than an Indictment.
I’ve already answered the following:
This further supports that the USA vs Svorai case which is 1:21-mj-02054 ... has never been requested to be transferred or that it is a related case to USA vs Vaccarro, Svorai and 4 others which is Case 1:20-CR-392 as referenced above.
There’s no indictment yet — where are they transferring the case to? Lol you’ve answered your own question by providing a perfect example: Taieb’s indictment.
As for this one:
This is more evidence to prove the USA vs Svorai case is seperate and not related to the USA vs Vaccaro case or the USA vs Taieb case which is being transferred per the court document submitted by AUSA Abreu that the Taieb case is a related case to the USA vs Vaccaro case.
What evidence? The obvious? That CATV isn’t mentioned in an investigation that predated CATV charges, in an indictment filed for someone in a plea deal? Seriously? Your opinion is not evidence, neither is mine. Except you keep wanting to go back and forth about something that has ZERO relevance on the case or outcome. As I’ve mentioned in my last post, for the time being Svorai’s big case is our only window into the CATV outcome, therefore entirely relevant to those paying attention, and in particular OTCM. But, by all means if you have other elusive evidence please point us all to it, as I’m certain both OTCM and Feldenkrais would like to have a look, as his compelling evidence which he submitted months ago has only lead to a downgrade in their current status. Why were they downgraded a month after they filed their financials? Only positive outcome would be that OTCM reviews their latest financial in the 3-5 day review window and restores them to “pink current”. A miracle would be removal of CE before an indictment or anymore information is publicly released by the government, but heck, I’ve seen my share of negligence by OTCM, so it’s not out of the question.
About this:
Surely if the USA vs Svorai case 1:21-mj-02054 was related to the USA vs Vaccaro case as well ... AUSA Abreu would file a document that it is a related case to the court as well ... right? Right???
What document? You seem to be under the impression that a federal criminal investigation, and corresponding law and legal procedure is just willy nilly and they can just file some piece of paper to appease spectators lol, however I believe the document you’re referring to is an indictment.
But, you’re still stuck in the “associate case” loop which means nothing in the grand scheme, UNTIL THERE’S AN INDICTMENT none of this matters.
From my post:
———-You won’t see an associate case (if at all) until there’s an indictment either with a new docket or you’ll see it adjoined to the existing Svorai case. I happen to believe it’s being used for leverage. If Svorai doesn’t cooperate, then he’ll be indicted, potentially risking mandatory prison terms.———-
As for this:
Oh and the court finally denied returning the inflatable so Vaccaro will not get access to the banana stand.
You enjoyed pointing out the one error I made citing the other document I posted that supports the cases are not related in that it was submitted by the defense attorney not the prosecution ... which makes no difference and nonetheless also points out that they are seperate unrelated cases and that claim was not contested by the prosecution. That case was transferred and documented in the court filings as being transferred to Case 1:21-mj-02054. The same case that has the transcripts you posted previously and obviously just as relevant but I digress.
Yet you have posted no proof to support your claim that CATV is the 7th company and been added to the USA vs Svorai case as you have claimed over and over. You still subscribing to that?
I hate to beat a dead horse as you keep wanting to debate things that’s already been debated to death, but I pointed to the fact that the document you provided was from Svorai’s defense attorney and not by the government as you asserted, and the attorney was merely establishing cause for a bail hearing. It reflected ZERO evidence one way or another, as you proclaimed it did. I also explained that technically that docket is terminated, but you insisted otherwise, however the filings are very much relevant, but in your context it was not accurate. There was no glee, just pointing out a fact, and can we stop going in circles, over the same thing — over and over again, for the sake of those having to keep rereading a nonsensical debate, because I’m tapped out.
…And, to wrap this up… YOU have provided no proof that the two cases aren’t adjoined, whereas I’ve provided a coherent opinion above as to why they bear a valid relationship. See, we can both play this silly game, but how is this advancing the conversation or adding any value? I don’t know about you, but I for one don’t have the inclination to engage down an endless loop of irrelevance. In all seriousness — what difference does it make? Does the federal charges currently levied against Svorai involving CATV become any less serious? Does the relevancy of the two cases become any less/more abhorrent in the eyes of a shareholder? Does it have any bearing on the current state of the stock or potentially negative outcome? No, it doesn’t. It’s just a waste of valuable time which adds nothing of value to the conversation.
From my post:
———- For now the CATV case lingers in limbo with Dror Svorai. However he chooses to proceed with his existing indictment will likely determine how the government will proceed with the CATV case, therefore that case is very much relevant to CATV.
Whether there’s a new grand jury or existing grand jury, it makes no difference or has any bearing on the weight of the case that the government is building other than time, but we’ll go with your assertion that there will be a new grand jury separate from the big case — it doesn’t make the big case any less relevant for the foreseeable future until there’s an indictment, as currently that’s where CATV’s fate is determined, and that’s our only window into the progress.
For all we know the grand jury has already indicted and documentation surrounding the indictment is kept under seal, and no one involved may discuss the indictment outside of the grand jury hearings. When the seal is lifted, the indictment can be made public. . Prosecutors may request a sealed/secret indictment if they have a parallel case, or are concerned that target(s) may flee if they become aware that proceedings are set in motion. It’s also possible to ask for one to protect witnesses.
There could be many other witnesses in this case other than the confidential source, that may also be associated with the other case that need to be protected. If a target becomes aware of charges, they may take steps to interfere, like intimidating those witnesses, or maybe changing their story. It’s one of those various strategies that I’ve discussed that the government can deploy to apply pressure, and at the same time protect sources and methods of their investigation. I think somewhere in one of my responses I told you there may be an indictment filed by July (36 months), assuming that’s the earliest date when the grand jury was convened, however the indictment wasn’t filed until a year later, and then a year after that for the superseding indictment. ———-
Just when you think you have seen it all here, then today has to be a real knee slapper. Some Bozo(s) sold 2 10,000 share blocks for a dollar each. I think gumball machines still take coins, so the may need to sell 2500 shares to get some, lol.
If after the two submissions yesterday the OTCM doesnt return $CATV to Pink current, MF should sue them for tortious interference in their business. Time for someone to deal with the star chamber the OTCM has become.
That is an amazing attorney letter. I cannot think of another one I have read that goes into that much detail concerning share ownership of principal shareholders in a company in the OTC. Kudos to MF and AK for putting that together.
Well that attorney letter posted right after the Q1 fins was like one I have never seen in addressing the CE directly. I would imagine they submitted a lot more information on the request for CE removal back in late February but looks to be reinforcing their request for CE removal. Lays out the Series A and preferred shares, who owns them, names, addresses, inisders, references legends, transferability, indicates none have been sold or transferred, no stock promotion has talen place in 2 years on and on.
There are no convertible notes except 1 which is the Cign acquisition. I am not sure what else they could possibly do at this point. I guess we will see soon enough. If OTCM does not relent then the only thing left is the USA vs Svorai case 1:21-mj-02054 and something happening there. And doesnt seem like anything will but there has not been an indictment or a dismissal.
OTCM remains the wildcard as it is up to them whether to remove the CE or not.
So CB ... Have you seen on the USA vs Vaccarro Case 1:20-CR-392 which os associated and includes case19:03190 and 03191 ... a notice was filed on 05-16-22 informing the Court of a related case Unites States vs Taieb 1:22-CR-248 ... and to have it transferred to them pertaining to their case. USA vs Taieb 1:22-CR-248 is associated with the 2017 to 2019 case and lists 19:0392.
This led me to look up USA vs Taieb and there was a new filing on 05-13-22 that lists the charges against Taieb (14 page document on Pacer) and the 6 companies in that scheme along with similar information in the previous indictments that occurred in the USA vs Vaccaro case. Who is not listed as one of the 6 companies in this document filed on 05-13-22? CATV. It is almost like they are completely seperate cases not related to each other. There is also a document indicating Taieb waived his right to prosecution by indictment and consents to prosecution by information ... interesting.
This further supports that the USA vs Svorai case which is 1:21-mj-02054 ... has never been requested to be transferred or that it is a related case to USA vs Vaccarro, Svorai and 4 others which is Case 1:20-CR-392 as referenced above.
This is more evidence to prove the USA vs Svorai case is seperate and not related to the USA vs Vaccaro case or the USA vs Taieb case which is being transferred per the court document submitted by AUSA Abreu that the Taieb case is a related case to the USA vs Vaccaro case.
Surely if the USA vs Svorai case 1:21-mj-02054 was related to the USA vs Vaccaro case as well ... AUSA Abreu would file a document that it is a related case to the court as well ... right? Right???
Oh and the court finally denied returning the inflatable so Vaccaro will not get access to the banana stand.
You enjoyed pointing out the one error I made citing the other document I posted that supports the cases are not related in that it was submitted by the defense attorney not the prosecution ... which makes no difference and nonetheless also points out that they are seperate unrelated cases and that claim was not contested by the prosecution. That case was transferred and documented in the court filings as being transferred to Case 1:21-mj-02054. The same case that has the transcripts you posted previously and obviously just as relevant but I digress.
Yet you have posted no proof to support your claim that CATV is the 7th company and been added to the USA vs Svorai case as you have claimed over and over. You still subscribing to that?
Who is it that has the authority to make the CE removal decision? What sort of documentation must be properly presented? Are we linked specifically to the Svorai case proceedings?
Here is a post from another message board that may be of interest.....
TXTrader3 Bullish 03:09 PM
$CATV I spoke with Steve at OTCM trade desk today and he stated that they've been in contact with CATV and that more info is needed. He recommended putting pressure on the "issuer" aka CATV to assist with expediting this... Don't be lazy investors. Call Hip Wynwood, CIGN (Hempstead, FL), social media...whatever methods possible to speak with MF and encourage efforts to cleat this up....assume nothing and get involved. Don't be a lazy Democrat. ????
@TXTrader3 Is this in reference to the CE?
@byelowsellhi yes.
@TXTrader3 Well then that is amazing news IMO. Thanks for posting!
@byelowsellhi agreed. It provides insight that a decision hasn't been made to not remove it and that it can be resolved.
@TXTrader3 I see it as even more optimistic than that. That they are willing to remove it once they have the requested documentation. I deal with Underwriters in my job, many times they want to approve something, but just need a document to do so. It does not mean they don't like what they see, but it's all about documenting.
@byelowsellhi @TXTrader3 I email Diego and tweet at every account often. Don’t always get a response, but they know my tag by now lol. Let’s hope something moves soon.
@TXTrader3 This is Great News and thanks very much!!!
@TXTrader3 I couldn't get the people that answer the phone at OTCM to say anything close to that... Whatever technique you used, bravo. That being said, if this is indeed the setback in getting this thing resolved, how in the fuck are the CATV team not inquiring about this?! I've been pretty upbeat throughout this entire ordeal, but that lack of attention to detail or lack of persistence to find out why we're still being held hostage is unbelievable.
TXTrader3 @66kv4me I have a knack at breaking through and speaking with people....not bragging but has always been a strong point of mine. Many of my previous ST posts will reveal that (VBHI, PUGE, AABB, etc.). MF needs to be a persistent MF and get the CE off...
taliban_cheese @gtc_ @byelowsellhi @TXTrader3 why wouldn't they want the CE dropped. he is a lawyer paperwork should be easy for him.
gtc_ @taliban_cheese @byelowsellhi @TXTrader3 is this rhetorical? Why would I know this / what about my post made you question me thinking they don’t want the CE off? taliban_cheese05:37 PM @gtc_ @byelowsellhi @TXTrader3 oh it wasn't directed at you per se. I was just complaining out loud.
Dev1250m @TXTrader3 thanks for your efforts gtc_44m ?? I know that feeling, all good!
I can not confirm the information so just rumor but supoosedly the grace period and dark flags were removed ... it says Pink Limited because OTCM has not reviewed the financials ... supposedly a system thing same as the flags that got put on there but as soon as OTCM reviews it .... and assuming there are no issues ... it will flip back to pink current ... I am guessing if there is an issue ... they would need to resubmit but I am hearing they jave not even reviewed the filings ... along with a lot of other Companies.
Again ... cant confirm any of this and dont know too much about this whole thing except if I was any of the 50 companies that crap happened to ... I would be some kind of pissed off.
What are you talking about? A bunch of OTC companies are getting their annual reports viewed for errors, then cleared in a couple of days. Is that the non item you refer to?
Wait, were they always “Pink Limited” with a warning flag that’s on there now? I admit, I don’t look at their OTCM page often, but I think I would’ve noticed the downgrade.
Like so much else of the doom and gloom posted on this board...seems to be all based on shoddy dd.
The issue is with the OTC markets group as explained repeatedly by MF and his lawyers as they try to get the CE removed.....yet in that post all the blame was assigned to CATV and MF.
Complete bs.
There is a huge difference between noticing the negative ratings slapped on CATV by the OTC and waiting for an explanation from MF...and immediately jumping down MF's throat and stating as fact that this was his plan all along...
Obviously with the removal now of the dark /defunct designation and the removal from relegation to the expert market...this was an adminstrative error by the OTC..
But how quick..to jump and blame MF for this.
While I was dismayed based on what I was seeing on the OTC markets group site as it pertains to this stock..I was waiting to see if there would be an explanation from the company.
The removal one day later of the erroneous ratings shows this had absolutely nothing to do with MF or CATV.
LOL..this just shows how fked up OTC markets group regulation is.....
Something MF has been battling against for months and months...
They claim to protect shareholders...
How is frivolously slapping negative ratings on a stock ( dark defunct and about to be relegated to the expert market) with no rhyme or reason responsible and protective of shareholders?
Thanks Zomby ... now that everyone had their fun and got it all of their system ... Good ole OTCM really has it together ... no wonder we cant get an answer on the CE. The DMV has faster processing times
I find this whole situation a little unsavory.....and I don't lose site of the fact that this could also be cooked..and shareholders get screwed yet again...we'll see...
If in fact the shell has been abandoned.....and there is something else going on...when will the company let us know?
And who's to say if there is a new clean shell and ticker that we will be brought along in tact....that's usually not the case...this is the otc..the place where bs rules and sanity and truthfulness doesn't exist for the most part.
I am not feeling very hopeful..but one would think that within the 15 day grace period before CATV is moves to the expert market that MF might have something to communicate with us..
Apparently, MF doesn't know why this was put on the stock. He is checking things out with the OTCM. Probably forgot to dot a t somewhere in the last filing. OTCM is getting out of control.
Speculate all you want..if this shell cannot be cleaned up by removing the CE..then there is no point continuing to use it.
I would avoid jumping to conclusions....
I agree in a lot of cases..going dark is not a good thing... and frankly the grace period is meaningless before moving to the expert market if the shell has been abandoned in order to move the company into another vehicle for public trading....free of all the bs that MF has nothing to do with.
IF and a big IF there is a plan B..which I believe there is...then the fact CATV's shell has been left to die makes sense.
Time will tell....and it shouldn't be too long now.
The term “going dark” refers to the process of voluntarily terminating and/or suspending a public reporting company’s statutory obligations to file periodic reports (i.e., Forms 10-K, 10-Q and 8-K) imposed by Sections 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act, potentially leading to a lack of publically available information for the company – a “dark” company. Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act imposes periodic reporting requirements on any issuer with a class of securities registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act.1 Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act imposes the same periodic reporting requirements as Section 13(a) on any issuer having a registration statement declared effective under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), although the Section 15(d) obligations are suspended during any period that an issuer is subject to Section 13(a).
What Is Defunct? Defunct, in a business context, refers to the condition of a company, whether publicly traded or private, that has gone bankrupt and has ceased to exist. Typically, "defunct" refers to something that is no longer existing, functioning, or in use. It may be used to describe laws and regulations, businesses, organizations, currencies, brands, or practices.
According to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the shares of a defunct company may continue to trade until the company has the shares deregistered or until the stock's registration has been revoked.1?
I will keep it simple for you ... I do not believe the 2 cases are connected. Post proof that they are. You do not have to convene a new Grand Jury as you say. Grand Juries hear many cases which would mean they could hear the USA v Svorai case the USA vs Vaccarro+Svorai+ the others and could hear other cases as well. The fact that the case was bound over to a Grand Jury which seems to be the only thing you have as your basis for the cases being connected ... is not proof that they are.
USA vs Svorai is a seperate case. It is active. It is not terminated. The case involves the events that transpired from October 2020 to Feb 2021.
The USA vs Vaccaro case is regarding the events that happened from 2017 to 2019 involving 6 other companies. None of them are CATV. Svorai is a defendant in that case.
Where is your proof that CATV has been attached to that case?
Show where it states that as you have many times claimed that CATV has been added to that case as the 7th company ... yet there is nothing that states that anywhere. All you have to do is prove that and the disagreement would be squashed.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
