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.
The numbers may be a lie, but I'm pretty sure that
when a person sues, they have to do more than simply
say that the numbers are a lie, but provide some
basis in fact for asserting that they are a lie.
Essentially, the claims in a suit have to meet the
standard that if uncontested by the defendant, they
meet the burden of proof for summary judgment.
Mere allegations are not enough, as though simply
making them now shifts the burden of proof to the
defendant, forcing him to prove the opposite.
Again, I'm not defending PNMS and crew; I'm just
skeptical of claims that any suit is "easy".
Is it really true that once you sue, it is "easy" to
prove fraud? After all, you have to get around the
Business Judgment Rule that sets a rather high bar
(gross negligence or recklessness), and requires that
shareholders - who have the burden of proof - prove
(and not just allege) that the directors breached
their duty of good faith, loyalty, or due care in order
to rebut the presumption in favor of the directors.
However, once that presumption is rebutted, then
the burden shifts to the directors.
Also, when a suit alleges fraud, doesn't it have to
state particulars with some specificity, rather than
make mere general claims with the hope that discovery
(=a good fishing expedition) will then provide
substance to the general claims?
I don't, incidentally, disbelieve that PNMS and the
PDR exchange are a scam. (I got out, at a loss, a
while back.) I'm just wary of claims that any suit
against corporate directors is "easy." It definitely
isn't true that once a person sues a company, the
plaintiff wouldn't have to prove anything. Again,
the plaintiff has to prove breach of fiduciary duty
-- and the Business Judgment Rule allows directors
a LOT of lee-way to make bad, money-losing decisions
(because losing money is part of the risk of being
in business).
Regardless of the above, best wishes to anyone who sues.
[And if I'm dead wrong on any of the above, I'm
sure someone will let me know.]
Ah yes - thanks.
>http://www.bellbuckle.com/
Didn't they used to have a link to 'investor info'
that was just a list of press releases? That seems
to have been removed.
I didn't quickly forget about Jackson Morris,
I sent him e-mail with a pointer to and quote from
your post about your conversation with him.
Post 5596 is my summary of his reply about your post.
Re post 5611 having the link -- Thanks.
Is there a link to that article? And, does the article
only report the fact that there was an allegation/accusation
of wrong-doing, or does it report the fact of a trial
and conviction? Since lawyers are held accountable for
their actions by the state Bar association that they belong
to (in addition to being held accountable as a defendant),
if he was guilty, it's likely that he would have been
sanctioned in some way, with the ultimate penalty being
disbarment. He's obviously an attorney now (although a
disbarred attorney can be re-admitted).
Sanctions against attorneys by Bar-disciplinary committees
are public made public. So ... is there a public record of
him being spanked for misdeeds?
Also, his e-mail address is morris.jackson@rule144solution.com.
He might be willing to answer a polite question on
this matter.
I recently verified that BLLB did indeed hire attorney
Jackson Morris. A little while ago I sent him some
e-mail about the news-release:
http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/080214/0362242.html
He gave me a prompt, polite reply that he was indeed
hired by them to give them "securities advise." He
was not, himself, at liberty to say what sort of advise
he was giving them because he was not "authorized" to
say more than that.
I also gave him a pointer to this ihub posting:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=27415418
that said:
"I personally spoke with Jackson Morris
(alleged SEC special counsel), who stated
the morning of the PR that that was the
first time he had heard of this alleged
move."
His reply to me on that was:
"I was not advised regarding the press release prior
to its distribution. In my view, the engagement of
counsel is not a newsworthy event."
Make of that what you will ... but it seems to me
to say that he was fully aware of having been hired
by them, but was simply not aware that BLLB was
going to issue a press release about it.
Again, I mean no offense, but if you told a lie to
prove someone else a liar, and the rule 'once a liar
always a liar' is a universal truth, that tends to
tarnish your own credibility -- although at a 'gut
level' I know what you are saying.
I own BLLB shares, and have take a bit of a loss,
so credibility of information that may affect any
future decision I make (to hold or sell) is important.
No offense intended, but magicians are professional
liars. Their 'tricks' are really lies, ways to misdirect
their audience from the truth.
Are you saying that you lied (did some 'trick') to
get your information that Rodney lied?
I don't mean to attack you personally, but am only
looking to verify a claim of truth, that the company
is diluting its shares. Claims of fraud/lies should
be supported with evidence presented 'with particularity'
in order to be credible.
'He lied before so he's lying again' has 'gut appeal,'
but it isn't proof.
So, you can't bust him again ... but how did you
do it the first time (so maybe someone else that
they don't know can do it)?
OK, Thanks.
When was that, and how did you find out what the
O/S actually was? Can you 'bust him' again now
(and if not, why not)?
>He lied before and he'll do it again ........
When did he lie before?
What hard evidence is there that shares are being diluted
and that the price drop isn't just panic selling?
>Feb 4, 2008. 1,000,000,000 Billion Shares A/S
It says "The maximum number of shares of Common Stock
that the Corporation is authorized to have outstanding
is 1,000,000,000 shares of Common Stock having a per
value of $.001 per share."
So ... what does that mean? Does it mean that the
company is going to issue more shares (to dilute),
or is that a limit should the stock ever split?
According to Scottrade, there are currently 35.7M
shares outstanding.
>Just got off the phone with Rodney from Bell buckle.
... and?
AWYI - is it a good buy at .005?
After MOVIQ emerges from bankruptcy, will the
shares that anyone buys now still be valid? Or
will they be canceled?
Any thoughts/charts on GSPG?
Thanks - that was interesting.
You write specifically about trading for others as a
broker. Does a person/firm need a license only to make
recommendations and give other types of financial
advice? I have a relative who works for a major
financial advisory firm, and his name doesn't show up
in a broker search, and neither does his firm -- but
then, they aren't brokers [but yes, they are a registered
corporation].
[So far, I don't dispute the significance of there
being no evidence that FHAH is a registered business
in any state.]
Did FHAH claim to be a brokerage firm in need of a
license? Or only a firm that gives advice? (I wasn't
saving pages from www.fairchildholdings.com; the .net
site, that hasn't changed, seems only to say that they
give advice, but it didn't seem to say that they
actually took people's money and traded it for them.)
Could someone please repost the links to the websites
for verifying professional licenses and corporation
status (if corporate status can be verified without
doing state-by-state lookups)? Thanks.
To bellymann and mdavid40 - have you had more contact
with FH&AF? (On 1/25, you both posted and said that
you had been contacted by them. Why did they contact
you?)
>this registration thing getting real old, and very repetetive.
But it's more than fair to ask them 'who are you?' and
what are your credentials? It's part of due diligence.
Now, here's another question for you all ... can you
find corporation registration info for Panamersa (or
under its prior name PayPro)? I looked (in TX - they used
to give this address: 710 Farmers Market Way, Ste 213,
Dallas, TX, 75201-8455), but didn't get a hit in the
database for TX corporations:
http://ecpa.cpa.state.tx.us/coa/Index.html
I also didn't get any hits on a LexisNexis database
search of corporation info that gave me specifics
on corporate registration anywhere for them -- yet
they are/were a real corporation (right?).
>first there was no one named Fairchild, then there was no Fairchild company, then there was no father named Forbes...
There most definitely is at least one David P. Fairchild.
Use www.zabasearch.com and select 'all states.' One of them
lives in CT, which is within driving distance of NYC.
(But I'm not saying that I know it's the president of FH&AF.)
There is also a Forbes L. Fairchild in FL (a state where
people go to retire). However, I'm not sure if the
'date of birth' given matches what I remember was
given for his age (81?) -- but the D.O.B info could be
wrong. Did anyone save the first 'letter from the President'?
So far, however, I haven't seen or found corroborating
evidence of FH&AF being a state-registered company -
but Midas's field trip suggests that they've been around
for at least a year.
>Account: #048-105704-041
vs. what's on the pdrexchange site:
Account Number 048-173363-001
Obviously different.
I wonder if the trustserv folks have an opinion about
the pdrexchange?
>Did you ever see the movie Boiler Room?
No. But I googled it just now to get the jist of it.
>http://www.trustserv.com/Corporate%20Fee%20Schedule.htm
That page has a date (in the content portion) of
16 November, 2006,
but the page info I get back from my browser says it
was last modified May 23, 2007, and expires on Feb 24, 2008
(for whatever that's worth).
The website seems reasonably up to date (with a newsletter
published December 2007)
Their website has a page of corporate officers.
Has anyone contacted any of them to ask about the
sameness of their account numbers and the ones on
the pdrexchage site?
Nevermind - I found it on the pdrexchange FAQ page.
What did they say to your accusation of fraud?
Did you tell them that you were personally defrauded,
so that they'd have reason to keep in contact with you?
How did you get the routing numbers for the
account owned by Fundación Pan America?
What did HSBC say to you when you spoke to them?
And, what all inquiring minds want to know: how do
we all find out what the status is of their investigation?
One more question on the Craigslist ad, on the principle ...
If the assumption is true that FH&AF are scammers,
what's the theory behind putting up an ad for non-scammers
to join as employees to help them run their scam?
[I'm not saying that I've seen any evidence that FH&AF
is a legitimate company, as I haven't found any references
to them in any corporation databases that I have access
to. I'm just saying that it seems odd for scammers to
blatantly advertise for people to join them as co-conspirators,
rather than as mere victims (i.e., 'customers').]
Re the Craiglist ads looking for "closers", they appear to
have been deleted. Did you (or anyone) save the text
from them?
>I had a chance to stop by 245 Park today. ...
Thanks for making the effort to make the visit.
>It has been thoroughly busted as just another scam from those zany, wild and crazy guy grifters, Mike Terrell and Pedro Fiol.
No offense intended, but isn't it true that it will only be
"thoroughly busted" when the bad-guys are all hauled away
and/or both www.pdrexchange.com and www.fairchildholdings.net,
and any follow-on incarnations, disappear from the net?
At the very least, we'd have to hear from some official
police/governing agency that it was a scam, right? Just
saying it is a scam here on IHUB isn't proof.
[That might happen, but I think it's premature to declare
it as having happened.]
No, I don't think anyone hacked the .com site.
They didn't say that, either.
They seem to claim, however, that the .net site
is not theirs. I'm not saying that I know/believe
that claim is true, but that's what I was told.
Given that the original pdrexchange folks forgot
to reserve www.pdrexchange.de, it isn't out of the
realm of possibility to believe that
www.fairchildholdings.com forgot to reserve the
.net equivalent - or let it 'get away' from them
somehow.
If it helps, think of my posts as a way of amusing
myself (playing Devil's advocate).
I think I've already said that I think there is
enough evidence to raise suspicion at a 'probable
cause' level to justify some sort of investigation
(though perhaps not enough for an arrest).
But to prove criminal action in court, you have to
meet a much higher standard of proof. I think
that 'sloppy communication' (and things like it)
might be sufficient to raise a sufficient degree
of doubt.
If I were prosecuting this case, I'd need to know
a LOT more than what has been presented by the harshest
skeptic to have posted.
Another question is, who is authoring and entering their
web-page content? Is it D.P. Fairchild, or some
'computer geek' who thought it was a "Corp." when it
wasn't?
In court, you'd have to prove that 'the bad guys'
don't have any alibi/anyone-else-to-blame. You'd
have to establish who authored the web-content (at
first, when it said "Corp."), and that it wasn't just
a copy-writer's bungle (that was quickly fixed).
Are they shooting themselves in the foot by their
unprofessional bungles? Yes. But bungles alone
are not criminal. (But yes, criminals are often
bunglers ... which is why 'stupid criminal tricks'
are so entertaining.)
>Uh, penny, they supposedly have been in existence for fiftyyears. You don't think they would have decided?
Again, I'm mostly looking at hypothetical explanations.
I'm not arguing what I believe (for sure, or only
strongly suspect).
I don't disagree with this: that David Fairchild owes
his potential clients proof of existence of FH&AF,
being explicit about its organizational form (i.e.,
was it incorporated, or in existence in some other
legal non-incorporated form) and verifiable history.
Keep in mind that I'm not so much defending them as
trying to look at all the angles of defense.
The 'letter from the President' does not actually
use the word "Corporation/Corp'.
I don't know if they intended to incorporate in
NY, and changed their mind (to operate out of
Panama), or that they never intended to incorporate
and either were blatantly misrepresenting themselves
as a "Corp." or their web-content writer mistakenly
used the word "Corp." when they shouldn't have.
[Is that a good excuse? Maybe not ... but hypothetically,
one might argue that it must be proved that whatever
was posted originated from someone with the mindset
to lie, or whether there was just sloppy communication.]
It looks like they have purged the words 'corp'
from their web content (on the .com site).
Incidentally, David told me on the phone that (for
some reason) they didn't have control of the .net site.
(Is that believable? You decide ... but it does
seem that the .net site isn't being 'fixed' the way
the .com site is. Why they would not fix both sites,
and make them identical, is a puzzle of they control
them both.)
Whatever came of some poster's field trip to
245 Park Ave 24th Floor, to check them out?
Re 1-3, what the AG's office said they already knew about ...
what does it mean that 'they already knew about it', other
than someone had complained? Did the AG say anything that
affirmed that they knew that FH&AF is bogus? Mere knowledge
of allegation (reported prior to your call) is not proof
that the claims have merit (i.e., that they have truly
committed a crime).
Re 4) - I admit that I don't know any securities law,
to know for myself whether MT and TR were illegally selling
unregistered securities in Dallas; but if they were,
given that they were doing that fairly openly last
year, why weren't they investigated and arrested last
year? How did they manage to get away clean?
I'm not saying that I'm at all impressed with
the debut of www.fairchildholdings.com, but what
I don't know for a fact is this: whether they
were actually intending to pass themselves off
as a NY corporation and hoped that no one would
check (how likely is that, even for a scammer),
or that being registered in NY was just an option
that they changed their minds on, but they (like
MT and the original debut of the pdrexchange)
got sloppy and let go out the door web-content
that was obsolete [i.e. 'filler content' for
set-up purposes] that they had meant to replace
with what is there now (i.e., their info of
having offices in Panama).
Does it all look suspicious? Sure. But, again,
would it be proof that would stand up in court?
I have my doubts about that (based on what I
know today). However, would it surprise me if you
are 100% correct? No.
If they were indicted to stand trial today, the
prosecution would have to meet the 'beyond a
reasonable doubt' standard, which is pretty high.
I'd say that at best, today, there is only 'probable
cause' to look into the details.