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.
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.
Oh, excuuuuuuse me. Sorry I haven't been privvy to the paperwork, mainly the bond that was required by the Court being filed. Funny how everyone knows about it being filed, yet I, the Defendant in the case, has recieved neither a copy, nor e-mail or notice of it.
I guess I should do some County Jail time for this huh? Laughable. Contempt? When will the truth matter? When will 4000 plus investors matter? When will this whole charade matter?
Isn't it funny how a so called "order" with a so called "bond" prevents me from speaking when the other side, SFRX, can create fake screen names and continue the hustle with great impunity?
Oh well, I thought that our Forefathers were right. How disillusioned I truly was.
REEF DAWG
PS - Why would anyone in their right mind having all the information posted on this board, for the better part of past 30 years, attempt to invest in sand? Nothing else, and nothing more. Oh I know, as SFRX rightfully stated in their Q report, "to enhance share-holder value."
Wow, how stupid the masses really are.
Now lock me up, shut up and if you want, meet me in a dark alley, but stop taking these people's money.
All in my opinion of course.
Have I got some news. Seems like those that have been posting on here spread some false info on a supposed Bond that SFRX was suppose to file and never did. I checked with the Judicial Assistant Michelle in Judge Nielsen's Office and she confirmed there is no Bond as was required by the Court, so let the truthful information begin again.
The following is my opinion based on recent events and information supplied by Clerks of Courts and the like.
1) Permit or no permit, you can't reach Mag target hits underneath 50 plus feet of sand. Want the Florida Statutes that prohibit it? I'd be happy to post them on here.
2) SFRX and I go to trial in April, no case has been won yet contrary to popular misguided conceptions or postings.
3) Too many newbies on here and it was confirmed through a conversation that Cleartrust is behind it. Just be honest why don't you.
4) Most shares that have been traded on here have been sold by SFRX executives to keep the bills paid.
5) SFRX's CEO doesn't collect a paycheck because the IRS will garnish it. He still owes them over $800,000.00 and counting.
6) SFRX's other Board Member just got busted for his 3rd DUI. He may not be around for the permit being issued as he was charged with a Felony.
7) Federal Agencies to date now looking at SFRX is FBI, IRS, FINRA and the SEC. Gosh, doesn't that make you feel great as an Investor?
I'll post more tomorrow. Just know one thing;
YOU CAN'T CALL KYLE KENNEDY BECAUSE HIS VOICE MAILBOX IS FULL WITH OTHERS ASKING WHERE ALL THEIR MONEY WENT!
This is all my opinion of course based on Public Records.
THIS IS THE CURRENT LEGAL STANDING;
In an injunction of the type Seafarer filed against me, there is a requirement that the party seeking the injunctive relief secure a bond in the amount of $5,000.00. Until that bond is secured, the injunction is not enforcable and will not take effect. As of January 6th, 2011, no bond had been filed with the Court of record in this matter.
As is always the case on here, people would rather stray from the truth than to face it and speak the whole of it.
In paragraph 4 of Judge Richard A. Nielsen's Order of December 14th, 2010, he specifically states that until Seafarer posts the required $5,000.00 bond (which may be increased or decreased by the appropriate filing of the parties) the injunction will not go into effect.
Here is a link to the Hillsborough County Clerk's Website on the case. You can clearly see no Bond has been filed with the Court for this case.
http://publicrecord.hillsclerk.com/oridev/criminal_pack.doc?pcSearchMode=NS&pnPidm=6820470&pcCaseId=10-CA-004674&pnCnt=1&pcFirst=&pcLast=SEAFARER EXPLORATION CORP&pcMi=&pcSuf=&pcId=@6818159&pcByear=&pcPtyp=P001&pcDefStat=Opened&pdInit=02-MAR-10&pcCaseStat=Opened&pcCtyp=IJ&pcLocn=TA&pcPref=&pcWarrant=&pcCaseDscr=INJUNCTION&pcDiv=L&pcCourtType=&pnCaseYrFr=1970&pnCaseYrTo=2010&pcCtypCL=&pcLocnCL=
THE FOLLOWING IS ONLY MY OPINION;
OMG, let the turbidity begin. Seems to me that this company lives on bogus PR's, smoke and mirrors, false promises and a duly authorized petition to seek new frontiers in promises that are nothing more than shallow attempts to boost share value with nothing to hold lasting value. Heck, look at the last few years. Investment to return ratio is more than minus 518 percent. Talk about a bubble that is about to burst. Let's look at just the past year of announcements;
1) Permit in Juno Beach - Hasn't happened as announced and there is a Motion pending with the State Attorney General's Office for the State of Florida that might delay this for up to 3 years or more.
2) Sidkay Holdings Corporation - Nothing to it. Simple rhetoric. A shell corporation at best with no history.
3) Jupiter Inlet Wreck - Again, a dead deal.
4) A.R.S. - On the back burner? OMG, give me a break. SFRX again tried to woo the unsuspecting.
Are people really so utterly dumb that they would take the financials of this company and put them ahead of sound common sense? Or is there a value to a select few who have set up this shell company for other reasons?
The posts of the past few weeks about this company have been, dare I say, pathetic. Unless this company seeds the Juno Wreck Site, no treasure will ever be found.
But, in tune with the rules of this forum, this is only my opinion.
I'll close with just being sure that I have a myriad of new messages to post on here in the next few days that might help those understand with full and complete due dilligence, the impact of their "ill gotten" information from a company that is but a fragrance of solidity.
IMO NOAD, I'm sure a lot of unhappy investors used to call Bernie Madoff and he was more than accomodating in those conversations. And I'll just bet after they got off the phone with Big Ol' Bernie, they had that all over warm and fuzzy feeling.
By the way, IMO, this latest round of large block selling is not end of the year, but is the warm up for a Reverse Split. I couldn't think of a more disgracful tactic to use than this. As it usually does, it will signal a trend of prosperity for a select few but most will find their investments worthless within a very short time frame.
And IMO, on the Juno site, seems to me, no matter the cost, they should abandon the site and move on. But at this point, I think the ego of their CEO is preventing the best medicine and due course of action to sustain the life of the company.
NOAD, I post on here to make people aware of things. A good friend of mine bought SFRX hook, line and sinker for over $100,000.00, and on Feburary 8th of this year, felt more than duped, he felt like he had been ripped off. 6 days later, on February 14th of this year, he comitted suicide. THAT'S WHY I POST TIRELESSLY!
ARS worked on the Juno Wreck Site in the 1988 and didn't the find anything. Now SFRX is teaming up with ARS down in the D.R.? If the Juno Beach Wreck has treasure on it, why didn't ARS find it back in the 80's? And why, if they are teaming up with SFRX now, aren't they going back to the Juno Beach Wreck to haul up the whimsical "mother lode?"
It's wholly inaccurate to use my statement of August 2008 and compare it to all that is known about the Juno Wreck now. Which includes it being the staging of the Jupiter Wreck and nothing more.
NOAD, one of the things I have not posted on here is the fact that I believe, to this day, after finding out certain things last year while still with SFRX, that Jud has hidden a number of things from people. And maybe, just maybe, the fraud is not with SFRX, but with Mr. Laird.
Just my opinion.
Here is the information on Jud Laird and Tulco Resources, Ltd.
LAIRD, JUD
603 E. COMMERCE WAY
#11
JUPITER FL 33458 US
IMO, Jud will not sell his interest in the Juno Wreck site regardless of his beliefs. It's a nest egg of his to sell agreements at $20,000.00 anually for whoever has interest to work the site at their expense. So, it doesn't matter whether there is treasure or not, he's selling "what if's" and "maybe's," and a CVM Survey that is outdated and entirely inaccurate.
Additionally, 10% of the Juno Wreck Site is still owned by contract by yet another party out of Ft. Lauderdale.
I agree NOAD. The IHub Mod Squad monitors this Board anyways.
My vote is for no Moderator.
Hopefully someone who is not directly connected to or taking directions from SFRX. So far, with only one exception, every Mod on here has been attached to SFRX from the inside.
You are incorrect X156. Seafarer has not won, and there is another hearing scheduled in January of multiple counts of perjury against SFRX's CEO, CFO and Mr. T. Law II. In fact, there are depositions scheduled for tomorrow.
Besides, no one side wins until a Jury renders a verdict. The trial date is scheduled for April of next year.
Please, be accurate if you're going to post something about me.
IMO NOAD, most of the posters on here that are pro SFRX are directly connected from the inside to SFRX, Cleartrust Transfer Agency, Infrax and Pangenex Corp. They are not merely investors. They are a group that works from the inside out, not the outside in.
A buzz phrase that is used often by shell companies that appear to be above board only to be stripped later for all their worth is;
"designed to enhance shareholder value"
IMO, it's unfortunate that in most cases, that value is shared between a select group of individuals who have made a profession out of absorbing shell companies, only to drain them of their penny stock worth, leaving thousands of other shareholders high and dry with little or nothing to show for their investment. But, because it's penny stocks, few ever challenge the schemes because for most, their investments were "pocket change." But, don't let that fool you, pocket change times thousands of investors equals huge overnight profits for the key people running the stratgies.
SFRX has taken over SidKay Holdings in Jupiter, Florida which they will be taking public. SidKay has never had one single transaction since it was registered with the State of Florida in the late 90's.
IMO, additonally, the mere fact that Infrax Systems gave SidKay $10,000.00 for a promotion is "poppycock." There was no real money that changed hands, only shares to the inside. Additionally, Infrax is connected to SFRX directly. IMO, it was one shell, paying another shell, under control of the same names playing a "smoke and mirrors" game to fluff up confidence.
NOAD, I appreciate your grounded and well thought out replies to my questions.
NOAD, I have a couple of questions that maybe you could answer.
1) How does any current technology and/or equipment allowed by the State B.A.R. and the D.E.P. move 50 to 80 feet of overburden? And further, did you know that the both vessels that SFRX has cannot move more than 23 feet of sand in a water depth of 12 or less feet in standing current? So, how are they going to move the other, at minumum, 33 feet of sand?
2) If SFRX cannot name the wreck and nothing to date has ever been found to indicate the type of ship it was, how can anyone fairly or responsibly say there is gold on the Juno site?
3) How can anyone define the Juno Wreck as its own? Meaning, isn't it possible that the Juno Wreck is actually just portions and trailings of the Jupiter Wreck?
4) There is only ballast scatterings at best on the Juno Wreck, no ballast pile or field has ever been found again pointing to the fact that the Juno Wreck in all possibilities "troughed" out as it started to fail in the storm.
IMO, the questions above are a fraction of D.D. which to this date, has never been fairly done by SFRX and mere ramblings and rumor have been put in its place by third parties to include this board.
Is this the metals that you're referring to? It's serviceware. NOT GOLD! Here's the link.
http://www.arsdr.com/?page_id=72
Get real people!
There is much to tell, but I'm waiting on a meeting schedule for December 1st to conclude.
IMO, it will finally put to rest all the criss cross information on this and many, many other sites, sources and forums that revolve around both those who support and those who do not support SFRX.
And yes, it is from a credible third party government source.
Here's one of SFRX's typical releases. Notice the date, which is prior to the actual Permit expiration date of November 4th, 2009.
LEGAL TREASURE
Thursday, July 16, 2009 9:49:10 AM
Seafarer Exploration Corp. (OTCBB:SFRX) announced that its wholly owned subsidiary Seafarer Exploration, Inc. (Seafarer) has successfully renewed its Agreement (the Agreement) with the State of Florida's Division of Historical Resources (the Division) and Tulco Resources, Ltd.
Nothing that was stated by SFRX was true. Nothing. And, it seems to me, that anything else stated or released would hold the same credibility, ZERO!
Thanks BasserDan. At times, I feel a little behind in this whole stock thing. I'm a quick study though.
Oh C'Mon NOAD, stop playing Hollywood on here. Please, refrain from the dramatics. I merely was surprised at what I saw. Knowing all that I do about SFRX, it seemed to be a far stretch is all.
AM I SEEING THE ASK PRICE RIGHT?
2 cents a share? I'm no stock wizard, but IMO, how on God's green earth can you expect that? The only thing I can figure is someone is positioning it to take a loss and jam up the price per share.
Maybe there is a fund/group that has committed to SFRX once the share price hits a certain level?
C'Mon people, help me understand this one.
Kind of strange, I posted this message at 7:56Am(EST) and the ask was 2 cents, then after posting my message, behold, it changes to 1 cent not a minute after I posted my message.
At least I had time to update my posting.
Well NOAD, that was certainly the case here. But, at times through all of this, I've had to admit being wrong. This was one of those times. Although, I will always be honest enough to admit it.
Seems odd though, in going through the case material, either Tulco is flat out misleading people, or as a co-petitioner, and third party to the action, he's silent in the matter brought in this case.
I did notice, that Tulco's legal counsel wasn't listed as a recipient for any copies of the material. So, that might explain it.
This is really interesting reading though. I'm going to have to make some coffee and go through it all.
Thank you x156. I have to say, in all honesty, the information given to me by the B.A.R.'s administrative assistant and the information from Tulco Resources, LTD. yesterday was inaccurate.
But, I want to thank you x156 for the website information. It's something that I have been needing. I'm always one speaking the praises of accurate information, so this lends itself well to that.
You're correct capted. That survey was done with the dowsing rods on May 1st, 2009 and completed on May 13th, 2009. SFRX's CEO paid $5,000.00 of investor's money for that survey, much to the dismay of many who were working with SFRX at the time.
When the maps for the survey were sent to me, I took the crew out, our large vessel the Iron Maiden and tried to dig the area that was marked to contain gold. It was one of two areas so noted on the survey map and report.
In my professional and expert opinion, the overburden was so deep, we couldn't reach hard pan. My estimates for the depth of that sand are in excess of 50 plus feet. We were able to dig less than 20 feet of sand.
As far as the technology goes, it's very simple;
Anyone that has technology that can find gold and gems would be finding it themselves and not renting themselves out to other exploration companies for mere chump change.
I removed nothing today BlSer. You're are mistaken. If something was removed today, then it was IHub themselves.
On March 2nd, 2010, not (24) hours after I filed on March 1st, 2010 (2) lawsuits against SFRX in Martin County, Florida, SFRX filed a lawsuit against me. SFRX's lawsuit was a mirror image of the allegations set forth in my complaints. Further, and more importantly, the lawsuit that was filed by SFRX was a suit initiated by SFRX's CEO and sworn to in an Affidavit.
In fact, much of the suit filed by SFRX was a "cut and paste" job and hastily patched together which is shown by slanted copy marks and repetitive, out of place paragraphs.
When a suit is sworn to in affidavit form, it basically is saying the lawyer is filing it, but only because he has been retained to and his client has sworn to what is contained in it. That way, if it is deemed frivolous, it cannot come back to the lawyer in a negative way.
On November 15th, 2010, a Motion for Sanctions, a Motion for Multiple Counts of Perjury and an Objection of Hearing was filed against SFRX's current CEO, their former CFO and an Office Clerk for SFRX's legal counsel. This is in reference to Case No. 10-CA-004674 and the supporting phone records and documents were entered as evidence supporting such.
On November 17th, 2010, a formal complaint was filed against SFRX's legal counsel in reference to Case No. 10-CA-004674 with the Florida Bar Association for unethical threats based on a (2) page letter in which the legal counsel threatened the Defendant's Fiancé with harassment and further, in an unbalanced and outrageous way, threatened to haul in the Defendant's pet dog into a deposition every (6) months to inquire where the Defendant's "lunch money" is so that they could take it and ruin the Defendant's entire financial life, now and in the future.
In addition to the charges and allegations brought forward against SFRX and their legal counsel, they predetermined the outcome of an ongoing case and mapped out a vengeful course of non stop harassment, unethical legal stalking, unfair collection tactics and unwarranted threats.
The same legal counsel for SFRX in 2005, was admonished by the Florida Supreme Court (200510320) for similar behavior which is recorded in the following link for your review.
http://www.floridabar.org/DIVADM/ME/MPDisAct.nsf/DisActFS?OpenFrameSet&Frame=DisActToC&Src=%2FDIVADM%2FME%2FMPDisAct.nsf%2FdaToc!OpenForm%26AutoFramed%26MFL%3DCraig%2520Anthony%2520Huffman%26ICN%3D200510320%26DAD%3DAdmonishment
Well Blser, your former post mentioned a prior post of mine that was inaccurate. Again, there are no current charges or allegations. The complaint that you speak of is a mirror of a complaint that I filed against SFRX in February of this year. It is a CYBER SLAPP suit. Nothing in it is genuine and the wording, charges, allegations in it are my own filed against SFRX. What you're seeing there is a trick of litigation.
Here, let me make this simple;
SFRX's CEO said, "well if he can sue us, just copy his suits, fill our stuff into the blanks and file it back on him."
So again BlSer, there are no current allegations or charges against me. It's all mere legal fluff meant to silence me with my own ammunition.
I'm sorry Blser, but I haven't a clue what you're referring to.
I spoke of the Juno Wreck Site, not to the joint venture. I spoke to the past and current arrangement and facts on the East Coast operations for SFRX.
There are no current charges or allegations as has been incorrectly stated against me, my company or those associates of mine.
IMO, it is a shame that things have to be invented in order to further one's own agenda.
An important correction is needed here. I contacted the B.A.R. today in Tallahassee, and they said there is in fact, NO HEARING on December 20th, 2010 as has been stated on this board. Further, I contacted the Admiralty Claim holder's company and they confirmed this fact. It was stated though, that the so called "hearing" is nothing more than an informal meeting. Nothing more and nothing less.
IMO, a venture, that is publically traded, has the absolute responsibility to make investors aware of all known and pertinent facts relating to its offerings. If it fails to disclose certain proven negatives, it has failed its duties of full and honest disclosure, and more importantly, failed its investors.
There is no technology that can get through 30, 50 or up to 80 feet of overburden. Even if there was, Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code would not permit it, nor would Palm Beach County, the B.A.R., the Army Corp of Engineers and the Department of Environmental Protection. So regardless, even if there was treasure on the Juno Site, they, (SFRX) would not and could not reach it legally.
In the Juno site's 30 plus year history, and all the companies and individuals who have researched it, explored it, surveyed it and tried salvaged from it, no cannons have ever been found, no coins have ever been found, no second or more anchors have ever been found or anything of intrinsic value. Some of the industry's foremost experts have all come to the same conclusion;
The Juno Wreck was in all probability, either a supply ship carrying nothing of value, or is a distant portion of the Jupiter Wreck Site and not a full shipwreck to begin with.
I'll have news tomorrow or Friday that should shed some light on SFRX's current and ongoing affairs.
IMO, it would be inappropriate to announce on this Public Board certain events without having the ability for those who follow this board to look them up and verify them.
More to come...
Another dismal Quarterly filing by SFRX. 10-Q filed on 11/15/2010.
Here is the link to the complete filing;
http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/displayfilinginfo.aspx?filingid=7560343&tabindex=2&type=html
Here is a section that I find of interest and so should any investor or potential investor.
Item 2. Management’s Discussion And Analysis Of Financial Condition And Results Of Operations - continued
In addition to the operations expenses, a publicly traded company also incurs the significant recurring corporate expenses related to maintaining publicly traded status, which include, but are not limited to accounting, legal, audit, executive, administrative, corporate communications, rent, telephones, etc. The recurring expenses associated with being a publicly traded company are very burdensome on smaller companies such as Seafarer. This lack of liquidity creates a very risky situation for the Company in terms of its ability to continue operating. which in turn makes owning shares of the Company’s commons stock extremely risky and highly speculative. The Company’s lack of liquidity may cause the Company to have to cease operations at any time which would likely result in a complete loss of all capital invested in or loaned to the Company to date.
Due to the fact that the Company does not generate any revenues and does not expect to generate revenues for the foreseeable future the Company must rely on outside equity and debt funding. The combination of the ongoing operational, even during times when there is little or no exploration or salvage activities taking place, and corporate expenses as well as the need for outside financing creates a very risky situation for the Company. This working capital shortfall and lack of access to cash to fund corporate activities is extremely risky and may force the Company to cease its operations which would very likely result in a complete loss of all capital invested in or loaned to the Company to date.
The Company is presently seeking additional financing. We expect to expend our available cash in less than one month from November 16, 2010, based on our historical rate of expenditures. The Company depends upon activities such as subsequent offerings of our common stock or debt financing in order to operate and grow the business. The Company has no specific plans for selling its common stock and no arrangements for debt financing. There can be no assurance the Company will be successful in raising additional capital. There may be other risks and circumstances that management may be unable to predict.
The Company’s ability to obtain additional financing will be subject to a variety of uncertainties. These conditions raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. The inability to raise additional funds on terms favorable to the Company, or at all, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations. If the Company is unable to obtain additional capital, it will be forced to scale back planned expenditures, which would adversely affect its business and financial condition.
Notes payable and convertible notes payable, in default
At September 30, 2010, the Company had convertible notes payable, notes payable and stockholder loans of $175,600, of which $134300 were in default.
Should be an interesting day today on SFRX.
By the way, IMO, when a hefty amount of stocks have been sold, it is because SFRX's CEO was selling batches of them to cover operating costs. So, I don't think I agree with the assessment that has the "flat lining" being a positive factor. When I was employed by SFRX, this was a common occurrence during times when our costs were not being covered by internal investor capital.
My post specifically says "SFRX's Attorney's Office in Tampa." It did not mention a certain lawyer or lawyers. IMO, it would be highly inappropriate here on IHub to mention specific names, or to advertise for a Law Firm in a direct or indirect way.