I thought it was a meeting and that Stwart, phycially, "stormed out of the room." ????????????????

I did call my Senator's office, and they thought it might
be genuine, because they had asked the SEC (another person at the SEC) to contact me, I plan to go to the Senator's
branch office, near me, to speak with her assistant in more
detail.

I received a phone call from one Phillip Neri, who said he
was with the SEC and had been asked to contact me by my
Senator's office.

Strangely he didn't know the sex of my Senator, he didn't,
he said, know the reason for the Global Lock, he told me the
SEC had no power over the DTCC, he told me to contact
my state's security office (I told him I had, and they referred
me to the SEC, as it was a "federal Matter"] at which point
he said I should get an attorney.

He didn't know of any meeting which had taken place with a
member of the SEC and DTCC present with our Ceo. I offered
to send him more information, but he declined to give huis snail mail, email, or phone.

I guess his calling me to say hello/goodbye, was to satisfy
my Senator's office that he had "contacted" me?

Of course, I will take this up with the Senator's office.
I want something in writing with a signature from the SEC,
and I want written answers from the DTCC, as well. Otherwise,
we are back to square zero. no contact, no comment from the SEC or DTCC:

after four years, this is old.

Thanks AllezIOM, good little note on when DTCC was aware
of fake certs. will file.

We have yet to received the DTC's explanation for the global
freeze in writing from SEC via the SFC. If you, Kruy, have a copy
of such a written statement from the DTC, let's have it.
otherwise, you are posting nonsense .

oP9171787 - iT'S GUESS THAT A LAWYER I RETAIN WILL NOT
KEEP ME INFORMED OF PROGRESS? What would I be paying a lawyer for , if not updates and progress. Your assertion that my
lawyer would not keep me informed is nonsense.

Previously, when Megas retained legal help, we found ourselves in a quiet period, with no idea what was happening.
Hopefully, if we retain a lawyer ourselves, we will have
a far better idea what is transpiring.

2late, like Vulcan I want certain conditions before I
run or assist the dividend plan. I want a lawyer on OUR
RETAINER to approve the plan. then I will be happy to
contribute. Are you willing to help us retain a lawyer? Thus
far only 1% of our fighting best shareholders are. That's
not enough to get out of a mudpuddle. What say?

Noquit, my aim is to get the DTCC in writing on their reason
for the global lock. That is what I hope and expect the SFC
to obtain via the SEC inquiry. SOMETHING IN WRITING. Not
a closed door attempt at blackmail. something we can, if
we garner enough for a retainer, TAKE TO COURT.

We are so clearly out millions with nothing to show for it
but shares frozen in time. This is clearly an attempt to
run away with our money and I, for one, am going tofight.

Will you commit .00032 per share to the fund, please?

op, we have to realize it's \August. nss and ftds are no
sexy topics, compared to health care/economy/ and the War.
all this causes delays in our cause, although our cause is
directly connected to the economy, and we have to keep making that case.

Meanwhile, August - senators are at home arguing health
care, Attaway is on vacation (to our advantage, trying to get
organized) and Megas is in touch, but busy (after all, since we are not subject to imminent delisting, after 4 years there is no panic about all this, currently)....expect
little until Sept, imho.

allezION and 2 late

allexiom thanks for encouragement

2late: if we are able to get a lawyer, that will be one
of the avenues (IRS) we might suggest to him, and get his
response. I think it's a good one. Thanks forsuggestion.

Right, the SEC is stalling stalling stalling. I am pushing
pushing pushing for a WRITTEN DTCC response to the global
freeze. no direction,YET, of course. But will keep board informed.

And just what was that ONE direction, Kruy?

Thanks, latestart. Can you pledge an amount, or email
me same for privacy? (Arkait@aol.com )

tia

My congressperson's office indicates to me that the SEC
is not finished with its investigation. That implies no
final response has been made. period. stop jumping the gun.

Vulcan, if you want our shareholders lawyer escrow fund
contribution from you of $151, dependant on a PR from Megas,
I have no problem with that. When the PR comes, I will
take it as a signal that you will contribute? Otherwise,
if Megas does not want to pay for a PR to satisfy you,
I will consider you out of the pool.

I repeat, Kruy, tell us what response the SFC got, that
you alone are pivvy to,OK? I say you are bluffing, because
Snowe's office has not indicated any final response from SEC
regarding.

Prove otherwise.

lluvbs: couldn't have put it better.
Kruy is a bluff, when it comes to his knowing what the SFC
has/is doing. and what information they have received from
the SEC or DTCC. All that is not complete. Kruy acts as
though it's all wrapped up, but offers no proof or statement
from anybody.

"Iluvbbs Date: Sunday, August 23, 2009 12:46:56 AM
In reply to: kruy who wrote msg# 121922 Post # of 121944

Kruy, you wrote: Again, the SFC is "satisfied" with the SEC/DTCC response as to their stance regarding BCIT"

yet, you provide absolutely nothing, nada, as to a link to the SFC written statement.

Your ALWAYS here fighting for the opposition about how this is all some sort of scam and it is all TM's fault BUT for all your words & retoric, you usually provide absolutely NOTHING except more WORDS to attempt to back up your claims.

So how about some sort of written SFC "statement" that was written fairly recently showing US all as to their LATEST conclusions. "

kruy spinning again..... you write:

"So you are saying Sen Snowe knows about the SFC investigation and the results and is doing her own investigation regarding BCIT??? ...and for what reason??.."hoodwinked"??...by who?? "

There are no RESULTS, in this investigation, yet. I never
said Senator Snowe knows about "results" Your choice of
word, is also absurd. We are not after "results" at this
initial salvo, but rather sworn
public statements regarding the global lock and the source
of the excessive shares sold by brokers and happily
settled by them with DTCC complicity , while the SEC, tbe same
SEC that gave Madoff his "Madoff exception" may I remind you,
investigates interminably anything for which they want no
result.

If you know results, you should confide same, as mobody
else but you seems to be in front of Senators, Megas,
and the SFC. But you bluff, of course.

Egor:
PRs enough have been issued to clarify the impasse. Emails
cost a lot less and are more up to date. I see nothing wrong
with using emails.

Megas has many times made it clear what's wrong: the global lock. How much money do you want the company to borrow to talk
toitself?

Furthermore, Thomas Megas doesn't take us inside his lawyer's offices, because
we don't pay for it, he does. If, as I am urging, WE paid
for it, things would be more week to week, to calm folks down,
here.



How much per share are you willing to pay to effect a legal
maneuver with a lawyer answerable to the shareholders?

And what answer did the SFC get from the SEC and DTCC? You
seem to know it has been issued?

As for Snowe, the Senator's a woman not a man, and yes, SHE
is aware others on the SFC are investigating, as well. But
hopefully, since she was mentored by the Queen of integrity,
former Senator Marguerite Chase Smith of Maine, who called
McCarthy for what he was, earlier than anyone and was
notable for not being hookwinked.

Who said $500 each !!!! Average holder of 400,000 shares
would only be asked to contribute .00032 of that or $128.

$500 would represent holdings of one and a half million
shares. I doubt many would hold that!

Tried, gotno reply from Michaud, just canned releases.

Moneymade, you wrote:

"Calm down Steve....I know it's frustrating and the fact that Megas has not said one GD flippin word to the BCIT shareholders in 4yrs is really pathetic."

This is so rude and so untrue. He has been directly or
indirectly in contact all along. Including this month.
The situation is, there may be legal ways to maneuver, further,
and these are being considered and attempted while you sit
here and deride everyone for trying.

How about pledging money
for a lawyer, instead of insulting our CEO? All you want is civil war within BCIT, when our problems lie outside.
I suspect your motives, that you have shares in any amount
that hurts, or I question your logic or committment to any
legal avenue except to attack Megas.

we are not the only company in the US market to be]
naked short sold and then symied behind a complicit corruptSEC.

Snowe is waiting on the SEC, as per yesterday's email.

Moneymade, suing the brokers is probably the best direction
for our anger. However, I'd rather hear it from a lawyer
we've hired to represent us, than from any other person.

What say, do you own shares? Are you willing to let us
get a lawyer and heed hid advice?

Vulcan, We can't sue the DTCC easily, nor the SEC, and
if anyone contemplates suing Megas, they are really daft -
cutting off their nose depite their face, on that latter
idea.

Megas is possibly awaiting OMX and a possible move to it.
I know, if I were he, I would be very discouraged and angry.

Meanwhile, as shareholders, we need legal guidance to decide
our best course of action against the brokers and DTCC and
to get the SEC to enforce the law 203(B). That is why Iam asking folks to pledge a meager amount (.00032/share of their
holdings) here, so we can afford to get legally involved,
and not be left out of the loop by the SEC or Megas. I am
tired of being a passive victim with no legal representation.

Are you in for getting us a lawyer, or not?

Charles, I agree, we have two avenues of oversight: congressional and the press. We are looking into that, press, as part of our
"campaign" to right matters, here. Some press is captured
and bought off, however. Right now, August, it is hard
to get traction on press matters. I plan to contact NY TImes,
and possibly Vanity Fair, but frankly, am awaiting
committment from Megas. Without that, I am , instead,
pursuing congressional oversight with my Senator Snowe,
who is on Senate Finance Committee, and trying to line up
legal help and advice, as you know, on this board.

According to MY senator's office, the SEC is still investigating BCIT, so please give me more concrete evidence
you know otherwise?

Mretgnol, I trust Megas version of the DTCC meeting and
DTCC statements, if only because it corresponds perfectly
with the DTCC's actions. How to get going is to go after
the brokers for certs, perhaps. But I would rather have a lawyer advising us, in cooperation with Megas, what should be our most effective course of action, rather than someone
who wants to fight the brokers And fight Megas at the same time, which is very counter productive, imho.

Thanks Chas56789, taking the time to complain to FINRA.

and I agree with Moneymade that we need focus upon whom to
attack, and it is not the DTCC directly. We probably have to
goad the SEC to get the DTCC to fly right.

Better yet, let a lawyer decide various courses of action we could take, and select the most vulnerable (brokers, perhaps).

meanwnile, i hope the Senate Finance Committee will get
somewhere with the SEC, and in turn, the DTCC. it is a
hard thing to get an SRO to be accountable. indeed indeed.

lluvbbs, while i appreciate your openness to an escrow/legal
fund with Attaway, i have learned the hard way not to get
a lawyer involved until you have lined up wherefrom are coming the funds promised to
hire him/her.

We are just getting the list of those willing
to hire a lawyer, now. The list is about 1% of those
we hope to interest. A ways to go... I welcome anybody
to email me, if they prefer, with a pledge of .00032/share,
to get added to list. once we reach effective size, will
contact Attaway, assuming Megas has not made a move, first -
which would be to the good, either way.

ditch, the idea of shareholders taking legal reins is just
that, an idea. it entirely depends on other fronts' success,
whether we will need to do that. but meanwhile, it doesn't
hurt to imagine what the group will be comprised of (How
many shareholders are willing to contribute a little.
so i am keep a count.(and once it hits critical mass, i will
so inform the board, gladly. right now it's quite meager, and may grow to require a post card push...we'll see).

meanwhile, hoping other avenue will
prove fruitful, like Megas committing to further legal action, or our state authorities on securities, or our Senators (I got a follow up, just
today, from Olympia Snowe's office, assuring me the SEC
says they are still investigating "MY Case" with BCIT.

That's a laugh, really, but I plan to persist, as I pointed
out to Snowe, this is a very serious matter, not just some
pinky bs . and i hope i was convincing.

2LATE, SOUNDS LIKE MEGAS IS OPEN, BUT WANTS A QUORUM OF
SHAREHOLDERS TO APPROVE BEFOREHAND. I need to add, we
need a top rated securities lawyer to weigh in on this, first.
I also think a lawyer may have a priority attack, we should
heed, like simply getting the DTCC tolift global lock or
allow us to transfer to OMX, or wait for OMX to open, or, or,
let a lawyer comment on all this before we do anything.

My summary: we need a lawyer who will work for US.

Egor: We are after the DTCC's global lock and the brokers who
sold naked short shares. I am sure Megas did not issue shares during the subject period in 2005, when Megas was doing all he could to get the stock halted
But Attaway can easily, up front, tell us, if he is being
retained by Megas. If not, we can proceed, with or without
Megas, imho. I don't see the risk, since we are not suing
Megas.

Right now, August, everything is dead. Attaway is on vacation,
Megas is on vacation, congress is on vacation....
goodtime for us to get our act together, imho.

AllezIOM, correct. We may not need 200 contributions.
We can stop when we have $20K or $25K, as I see it.
All shareholders will benefit, but punitivedamages may
give escrow shareholders a better cut, perhaps, since it
will have been they initiated the action. Let Attaway
suggest what's fair, and let all participants agree on
what non-participants would receive of punitive damages.
I want to be fair.

Also, don't count out Megas entirely,either. And treat him
with the respect his efforts in the past deserve, please.

Kramrer, that's a lot. 100 like you and we are there, already. Thanks. My share count brings me to a small $103 contribution, which is very little considering the time I have
spent while the Gordeon Knot has been around our necks.

BigMoneyAtl: A post card deadline may be imposed simply by whether Attaway is
available by time we get verbal committments equal to at least 100 shareholders. Or Megas may move before we are organized
to do so. After four years, and after delisting was removed,
we have a little time imho to get numbers we need,with
above two exceptions.

Thanks Kramer, on your honor just .00032 per share, or
less if you can't afford it. Our goal is $20K. No need to
contribute just commit, at this point. We need a decent
proportion of shareholders before actual money escrow is
set up. It is my belief Megas will help us, if we show
initiative. But I am not speaking for him on this account,
let me state clearly.

2late, appreciate your ideas/efforts, but don't you think
we would be better off with a lawyer deciding whether a
dividend maneuver would be productive? And first, we
need a lawyer, one who will answer to US, and communicate
with US, and get the DTCC's answers to US. no more back
room deals.. i think it will make a world of difference, but
the shareholders have to care enough to pay a retainer,
and we need a committment from the lawyer that he will work
on contingency and what his percentage of what success
will be, up front.

I like the idea of suing, just like Overstock did, the
brokers we think are short. But let our lawyer put things in perspective, and first things first: like getting off the
delisting list and 2) getting DTCC to tell when the global
lock needs to be removed and under what conditions and 3)
let the lawyer suggest the steps, from here on and we can
have input into lawyer's course of action, which as
orphaned shareholders, we've not enjoyed sufficiently all these long years.