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.
Why not? It's a compelling story and I do believe it's important to provide some counterpoint to the hype.
Yes indeed. RB had to invent new rules to zap my alias and the deactivation is a perfect example of the hypocrisy and childish vindictiveness of the Raging Bull support staff. DueDillinger was originally suspended for posting a link which attributed an article about the acquisition of RB's competitors IHUB and SI. This was called 'spam' even though there was but one post with this content and no apparent intent to advertise or promote those sites. The suspension was served and my alias restored.
A few weeks later, after trying for a month to get RB to change my correspondence address, I contacted eSignal's customer service group whereupon the change was finally effected. I posted my experience on RB's SUGG board, suggesting that frustrated RB users could contact eSignal customerservice@mail.esignal.com--an address which is easily found within the eSignal family of sites. An autoreply is sent when one sends to the CS address at eSignal, and at the bottom of this autoreply is the following paragraph:
P.S.
If we fail to respond in a timely manner or you feel your issue requires a supervisor's assistance to resolve, please email csmanager@mail.esignal.com We are here to help!
A few days after posting the eSignal customer service address on SUGG, I couldn't log in. No notice or warning was received. After writing to RBSupport, I received the following reply which adds a new rule to the TOS:
From : Raging Bull Support {RBSupport@mail.esignal.com}
Sent : Tuesday, September 19, 2006 1:18 PM
To : {duedillinger@hotmail.com}
Subject : Re: Now what?
Hello,
The reason you are having trouble logging into your Raging Bull account is because it has been suspended until 09/25/06. It was suspended for Spam. You CANNOT post other departments email address.
In subsequent correspondence, RBSupport wrote this in a rambling diatribe:
Posting the esignal link is not appropriate. Esignal support is not the same and Raging Bulls support.
The following day this notice was received:
From : Raging Bull Support {customerservice@mail.esignal.com}
Sent : Wednesday, September 20, 2006 6:44 PM
To : {duedillinger@hotmail.com}
Subject : Permanent Suspension from Raging Bull
Your account (DueDillinger) has been permanently deactivated for violating our Terms of Service.
We intend to facilitate a free-flowing forum and have created our Terms of Service to provide a setting that is consistent with the community's standards.
You can view the Terms of Service at the following address:
http://www.esignal.com/disclaimer/default.asp
Thank You,
Raging Bull Support
The irony, of course, is that the deactivation was sent from the very address which was disclaimed by RBSupport.
The reality is that RB is dying and the current support staff are contributing significantly to the decline. I was zapped for daring to offer constructive criticism on a message board that has been long established for that purpose.
I'll keep posting on RB as a 'ghost' whose posts will be deleted every weekday morning. Hopefully, management there will eventually awaken in time to save the site.
Seems you can violate your own rules with impunity, fringe. No matter. Your hackneyed taunts are amusing. I'm not a shareholder of this fecalith, by the way, and I doubt this will return to the OTCBB under Safadi's watch. Too much baggage. He got away with sketchy filings for years gone by, but there are numerous unexplained anomalies that won't get by an auditor.
Have you done a thorough UCC search?
ROTFLMAO!!!
Yves? This is and has always been a fraud, folks.
If I can't call Safadi a 'liar', can I call him a 'clown'?
Just kidding. His letter indicates quite clearly that he hasn't a clue with regard to securities matters. I'll bet if you ask him to define 'toxic' financing he wouldn't be able to give a cogent definition.
Mind your K's and Q's. LOL!
Dream- Sorry for the delay answering your query.
There are a number of exceptions to the requirements for periodic filings. For example, companies with less than $10mm in assets and less than 500 shareholders of record are exempt from filing requirements. A company that is required to file which falls below these thresholds can file a form to exempt itself.
The OTCBB requires that companies quoted there be current in their filings, but the Pink Sheets don't. That's why there is a perponderance of non-filers there.
It's one of the funniest I've ever seen.
This line in particular had me on the floor:
The preferred shares were created few years back to protect against potential hostile take over and to protect the company from the delusion that took place after the PIPE deal.
OT: Today is National POW/MIA Recognition Day...
It's not well-publicized outside of military circles and I believe that we really owe it to these brave souls and their families not to forget.
http://www.pow-miafamilies.org/powmiarecogday.html
OT (Comic relief):
http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/
Last on this, fringe. YOU are not qualified to determine if a comment is libelous. Indeed, you insist on calling it 'slander'. LOL!
Furthermore, the law grants quite a bit of latitude with regard to criticism of a public figure. Raise your own bar. I don't believe that Safadi can or should be trusted--not even a little bit--and after all, that really is the essence of the question here, is it not?
Consider how Safadi, Mataras and Ochoa got involved with Telynx. You do know the story, right?
It's not the rules of the Pink Sheets that determine if Telynx is required to file. The LAW requires it, specifically Section 13 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
http://www.sec.gov/about/laws/sea34.pdf
Telynx shares are registered under Section 12 of that Act and therefore they are presently BREAKING THE LAW by not filing regular quarterly and annual reports.
The SEC chooses how it enforces the law, and currently the Commission gives an informal grace period of about two years before they institute proceedings against a non-filer. Prior to last year, they rarely enforced the filing requirements at all.
I don't think that Telynx qualifies for an exemption from Section 12 because their (quite questionable) 'mandatory' share exchange created too many shareholders of record. The company was thrown off the OTCBB because of their filing delinquency as the OTCBB rules specify that a company must be current with regard to periodic filings.
fringe- Please stop trying to play lawyer. You're not very good at it and indeed, you could use a refresher course in logic, especially the logical fallacies.
Your job as moderator is to keep the discussion civil between posters. You do not get to decide what is 'slander'.
By the way, here's a little mnemonic to help you remember the difference between slander and libel.
Slander is spoken.
It's very simple. What you call 'allegations' are my opinions. I opine, for example, that the 13G filings in 2004 by Mataras and Safadi are false and/or misleading and that it's very likely that HP has had little if any contact with Telynx since their 2004 licensing deal.
You are the one who brought an unqualified rumour to the board when you wrote that HP was 'fronting' Telynx' development based upon an as-yet unspecified statement you thought you heard Safadi tell you on the phone. The burden of proof is on the one who makes the original claim, fringe, not one who doubts it. But don't worry, I'm not giving you an ultimatim to 'prove it'. All I'm saying is that I'm as entitled to suggest that HP is not involved at all now with Telynx as you are entitled to suggest that they are.
Capisce?
Moderator or not, you have no right to decide that issue with an ultimatim. I'm entitled to speculate that HP has had no contact with Telynx, and a negative claim cannot be proven.
Yes, I think that Telynx is a scam and that Safadi is not necessarily the honest fellow you want to believe he is. Can I prove it? No, it's my well-qualified opinion based on close observation, experience and research; but you would prove that IHUB caters to toutish interests by removing my posts because I suggest a scenario with which you disagree.
Safadi can sue me if he thinks I libel him. It's not your job as a moderator to make that judgment.
Well, you could file a FOIA request to find out but I wouldn't think such a trivial question would be worth the hassle. Safadi dodged the bullet with his scant filings, so the spectre of deregistration as a nonfiler is abated.
No Dream, I'm referring to this kind of action:
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2006/34-54439.pdf
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2006/34-54432.pdf
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2006/34-54404.pdf
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2006/34-54403.pdf
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2006/34-54373.pdf
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2006/34-54331.pdf
There's been quite a bit of this in 2006, hence my 'warpath' comment.
The quotation of Telynx on the Pink Sheets grants no immunity from the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, specifically the requirements for making periodic filings under section 12. Based on my close observations of the SEC's litigations, it seems that the threshold for triggering action is two years without filings.
That's not 'moderating', fringe. Censoring would be an apt term. I don't work for you. In fact, I don't work for anyone (except of course Mrs. Dillinger ).
I'm entitled to my speculation even if you would consider it to be 'negative' in nature. I don't believe that penny trash CEOs are a reliable source, and the only ways Safadi could demonstrate an ongoing HP presence would be to a) show the full text of the 2004 agreement; and/or b} provide a contact at HP who would verify in writing the support you are imagining based on Safadi's clever hints.
A CEO's voice on the phone is eminently deniable. 'Oh, you misunderstood what I said. I meant...' You get the picture.
I understand that you don't like my characterization of Safadi, but if you start censoring my posts as you suggest then it would be apparent that you do so out of the fear that I may influence the price somehow. Let me assure you that nothing I write here can do that for the simple reason that the critical mass of participation necessary to do that is not available. Back in 1999 the boards could move prices, but not now and certainly not here.
Sorry Dream for missing your query earlier. I believe Safadi threw the filings together because the SEC is on the warpath against non-filers lately, and I suspect that the Commission may have given Safadi fair warning that Telynx was on the list for deregistration. Frankly, the filings are quite sketchy and incomplete; and they look as if they were done quickly.
With regard to audits, it's important to observe that the so-called audited financials in the most recent filings are incomplete and would be totally unacceptable in a registration filing. Why? The notes to the financials, which are referenced numerous times, are missing. The notes contain the details of transactions, and as we all know, the devil is in the details. LOL!
Again for the record, fringe...
I have no interest in playing with this trash. In general I don't trade pennies much anymore. I will take a flyer once in a while, but this one isn't going anywhere fast.
I use the word 'lie' in a broad sense, fringe. You hear what you want to hear, and any penny trash CEO will play your desire to hear good things for all it's worth.
HP probably has not had any contact with Telynx since the source code was delivered, yet Safadi will dangle their involvement as 'support'. It's not an explicit 'lie', but he's not likely telling the truth either. This is a subtle rhetorical realm, so it's best to avoid getting bogged down with it. The burden of proof is on Safadi to show an ongoing relationship with HP. I believe it's just what I call 'affinity hype'. Toutish thinkers will fill in the blanks with an array of positive conjecture, but it will be based on an unproven and likely false foundation.
Telynx claims compliance with OSS/J, but it doesn't appear to be either certified or qualified.
http://www.tmforum.org/browse.aspx?catID=2897
HP fits to front what?
Do you really believe that HP is doing that? LOL! They bought source code for a legacy product.
Under the terms of the agreement, TLYN will license its netRunner software source code to HP. In turn, HP will provide ongoing software support to Telecom Egypt under a separate agreement. The contract is guaranteed for 2 years and has an additional 5-year optional extension. For its services TLYN would receive $65,000 per year, which would value the contract at $455,000 assuming a 7-year duration.
http://www.telynx.net/7Dec2004.htm
So the relevant questions are 1) will HP relicense the source for another year; amd 2) do you still believe Safadi's lie about HP 'fronting' anything.
As for my opinion of Safadi's film work, have you seen any of his films? Has anyone? LOL! His film company went bust long ago.
The audit was promised long ago, of course. It's an ever moving target. Stick and carrot for the greedy donkeys.
Remember this bs?
http://www.telynx.net/10feb2005.htm
Bah! HP paid $130k for what?
I don't believe it. Let's see the agreement and what exactly HP bought. Safadi will mutter something about non-disclosure and I'll lmao. What is hidden is suspect.
Do you notice the obvious disparity between the numbers and what Safadi/Mataras claimed in their filings? How could they assume $4.8MM of liabilities when the amount is only $754,969 at the end of the first quarter of 2003?
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/852164/000121465906001770/m8286510qsb.txt
Lies upon lies.
I'm not interested in hearing Safadi's hype and lies, fringe. In general, I never bother contacting management of penny trash as long experience has demonstrated that it's a waste of time. They can't tell you anything that isn't public information, and generally they'll lie through their teeth.
When Safadi publishes CURRENT audited financials so we can see where the money is, it may be time to pay attention. Until then it's all fluff.
As for the spec, did you read it? It was obviously written long ago. The industry has moved on significantly and I doubt that anyone would want to piggyback (not a programming term, by the way) on the old kludge.
Safadi's a film producer, and he's not very good at that. What does he know about the production of software? Who exactly is writing new code and where are they? Is this the mythical Israeli development team? LOL!
Something I've never understood is the following:
If Mataras and Safadi personally bought the assets and liabilities of Telynx, then the company no longer owns 'em. It's a shell, and it has no money but the $10 they paid. How does Telynx then have any value? Was there some transaction whereby Safadi/Mataras transferred the assets back in and kept the liabilities? And what about Mataras's preferred shares?
Sorry, but I just don't buy any of it. I'm convinced that this is nothing but a share-printing press hyping incomprehensible technobabble to naive and gullible penny players.
The latest specification is so incredibly BOGUS!!!
http://www.telynx.net/Technical%20Implementation%20ProfileIII.pdf
I don't suppose anyone here noticed that it's a copy of a very old Telynx document written by Scott Munden. It references a 'lab in Texas' and even claims to be 'confidential'.
Only the most gullible will fall for this.
10K
TELNYX, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET
OCTOBER 31, 2003
(UNAUDITED)
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/852164/000121465906001799/f8316110ksb.txt
10K
TELYNX, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET
OCTOBER 31, 2002
(UNAUDITED)
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/852164/000121465906001798/d83162f10ksb.txt
10Q PERIOD ENDED JULY 31, 2004
TELYNX, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET
(UNAUDITED)
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/852164/000121465906001775/s828910qsb.txt
10Q PERIOD ENDED 04/30/04
TELYNX, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET
(UNAUDITED)
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/852164/000121465906001774/d82863f10qsb.txt
10Q PERIOD ENDED 07/31/03
TELYNX, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET
(UNAUDITED)
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/852164/000121465906001772/d82864f10qsb.txt
10K FISCAL YEAR ENDING OCTOBER 31,2004
We have audited the accompanying balance sheet of Telynx, Inc. as of October 31, 2004 and the related statements of operations, shareholders' equity and cash flows for the year then ended.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/852164/000121465906001771/m8286110ksb.txt
One of three annual reports audited. Please note that the essential and oft-referenced notes to the financials are omitted from the filings. This is a serious omission.
The filings are NOT audited, eliaman. No accountant signed off on an audit. There's a ridiculous attorney's letter instead. The SEC doesn't scrutinize these kind of filings very frequently, so they'll probably get away with it.
Can you explain why, since the company's liabilities were reduced to $700k in 2003, Mataras/Safadi claimed to have acquired $4.9MM of liabilities when they bought control for ten bucks in 2004? It's just one of several false and misleading statements that still taints this one.
Did you notice that the filings were made as a shell stock? So much for all the nonsense we've heard for so long about software product.
It looks as if Safadi intends to lose the pretense of a software developer. He has no expertise in that field anyway. IF (a big if) he can get an accountant to sign off on the financials, he can bring the filings current. If he does this, the company will at least be OTCBB eligible again and that would give more value to the shell.
From there, it's the old shell game, but there are numerous questions first. For example, what happened to Mataras' preferred shares? Since he has not revised his 13G, it's reasonable to assume that he still owns 'em.
A state regulator gets it right and nails Geoff Eiten:
...since 2001 Goeffrey Eiten, acting individually and through various companies including National Financial Communications Corp and OTC Research Corp (such entities shall be referred to herin as the "Eiten Entities"), fraudulently and illegally acted as a "finder" brokering sales of securities to investors without being registered as a broker-dealer or a broker-dealer agent and provided investment advice in Massachusetts without being registered as an investment adviser under the Act. In addition, Eiten, through an intricate network of entities and straw accounts created to obscure the true nature of his activities, engaged in widespread "pump and dump" transactions by publicly promoting certain stocks at the same time he was selling them. The Enforcement Section also alleges that Eiten and his entities broadly disseminated false and misleading information and omitted material facts in their illegal efforts to provide investment advice...
Eiten, individually and through the companies he has set up, engages in a far-reaching, systematic and recurring practice of providing biased, conflict-of-interest-laden information to investors under the guise of providing independent and unbiased newsletters and financial advice. Deception is at the core of his business model.
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/sct/sctnat/eiten_complaint.pdf
luv- Cortellazzi doesn't buy shares from his bagholders. He prints shares as he needs 'em. LOL! If you can sell this illiquid fecalith, you're selling to a greater fool.
Don't forget that when you see .0001 on your time+sales display that the trade could be anything from .000051 to .000149 because while there are six digits to the right of the decimal, automated systems can only handle four so the price is rounded. You have to call your broker who must manually enter the price to take advantage of this. Many brokers, especially the online variety, don't want to deal with this so they don't tell you about it.
The decrease happened in 2003. Indeed, that means that Mataras and Safadi lied in their press releases and filings which claimed that they acquired nearly five million in liabilities.
The 10k has a ridiculous attorney's letter in place of an audit.
Most importantly, the filings are made with the notice that the company IS a shell. That means that all the hoopla about the product (software) was shuck and jive.
Safadi's strategy seems to be a vague cleanup of the books and a complete abandonment of the old Telynx business plan. That leaves him with a relatively clean shell--worth about $250k these days.
If so, the poster is probably lying. The OS here is purportedly just under 4BB (that's four billion) shares, and I doubt that an individual posting so ignorantly on a message board holds 8% of this scam.
Of course, tg69, nobody is twisting your arm to buy into this scam. Your own greed and the fantasy of easy money suffices. Cortellazzi has mastered the art of composing tantalizingly almost credible news releases to entice greedy and naive fools into buying his shares, and one has to marvel at the fact that despite two years of lies and false starts there are still new suckers scraping the bottom of the barrel here. Thus my previous comment about Mr. Hannum's all-too-correct dictum which is usually and quite incorrectly attributed to Phineas T. Barnum.
There are many reasons that the SEC 'allows' stocks like CSJJ to scam investors with impunity, but you are the right track by filing a complaint.
The SEC is underfunded and their enforcement division is way overworked. They can't just say that a stock looks like a scam and stop it--they must properly investigate and that takes time and money. With so many scams that they must be selective about which they investigate, and in general the 'squeaky wheel principle' rules. That is, the more complaints they receive about a company, the more likely that they'll allocate the resources for an investigation.
David Hannum was right!
lsmith- Here is an exercise that should help you understand what is going on. Go to the Coastal Holdings website and read each of their press releases. Note the numerous promises and tantalizingly almost credible forward-looking statements. Consider what of all of this has actually come to fruition.
This is nothing but a share-printing scam at best.
CSJJ never made the Efoora investment, lungman.
It was a sham like all the rest of Cortellazzi's tantalizingly almost credible intentions.
Coastal Holdings, Inc. Retracts from the Acquisition of an Equity Interest in Efoora, Inc.
HOUSTON, Dec. 1, 2004 (PRIMEZONE) -- Coastal Holdings, Inc. (Other OTC:CSJJ.PK - News), a leading edge global technology holding company, announced today that it has retracted from its prior decision to acquire an equity interest in Efoora, Inc. Based on further analysis, CSJJ has concluded that at the present time an investment in Efoora is not in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders. The original decision was based on the advice of the Legal Department and failed to take into account pertinent information on Efoora that was exposed to CSJJ by several of its major shareholders....
http://www.coastalholdings.com/new.asp?ID=86
Furthermore, Efoora was a $40MM stock fraud...
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Litigation Release No. 19752 / July 3, 2006
SEC v. Efoora, Inc. Partners Holding, LLC, David S. Grosky and Melvin S. Dokich, Civil Action No. 06 C 3526 (N.D. Ill. filed June 29, 2006)
SEC Charges Efoora, Inc., Its Former CEO and Another Individual for Their Roles in an Unregistered, Fraudulent Offering
On June 29, the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") filed a complaint in the Northern District of Illinois, charging Efoora, Inc., based in Buffalo Grove, David S. Grosky, its former CEO and a resident of Highland Park, and Partners Holding, LLC, a company controlled by Grosky, with participating in an unregistered and fraudulent offering of Efoora stock. The complaint charges another Efoora employee, Melvin S. Dokich, with participating in the unregistered offering and seeks an order requiring two of Grosky's relatives to return money that they received from Partners Holding.
The complaint alleged the following: From at least January 2000 through at least April 2006, Efoora raised approximately $40 million by selling over 100 million shares of its stock to about 5,000 investors. Its offering was not registered with the Commission as required by the federal securities laws. Efoora, through a network of "finders" that included Partners Holding, also solicited investors by making a series of false or misleading statements about Efoora's business, including, among other things, the amount of offering proceeds it paid to its finders and that it would be receiving FDA approval for its HIV Rapid Test and conducting an IPO by certain dates. Partners Holding was not registered as a broker or dealer at the time its salespersons sold shares of Efoora stock. Grosky drafted or approved Efoora's false or misleading offering materials and controls Partners Holding. Grosky and Dokich also improperly sold Efoora stock issued in their names directly to the general public. Grosky received approximately $1 million from Efoora, Partners Holding and investors.
Without admitting or denying the allegations of the complaint, Efoora, Partners Holding, Grosky and Dokich consented to the entry of orders preliminarily enjoining them from violating the registration provisions of the securities laws, Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act"), enjoining Partners Holding from violating the antifraud and broker dealer registration provisions of the securities laws, Sections 17(a) of the Securities Act, Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and enjoining Grosky from aiding and abetting Partners Holding's broker dealer registration violations. The orders also provide for, among other things, a freeze on the assets of Partners Holding and Grosky, a freeze on Efoora's intellectual property assets, and a freeze on certain assets of Grosky's relatives.
Grosky and Dokich were indicted on May 17 in a parallel criminal proceeding. The Commission acknowledges the assistance of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the United States Postal Service, and the Illinois Securities Department.
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2006/lr19752.htm
How do you feel now?
I don't think that lawsuits came along with the acquisition, as the suits would have named Lycos not RB. I don't know of any lawsuits against IDC with regard to RB, do you? A rumour like that should be very easy to confirm or debunk.
IDC paid $30MM for the package that included RB.