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.
How do you know it is the same guy? Is there only
one "Ron Touchard" in the entire USA?
I'm not saying it can't be the same guy, but I'm
only asking how you established that they are the
same. For instance, did you find the text of
the complaint that gives the defendant's full legal
name (as Ronald C. Touchard), or that gives his
current address, which matches whatever R.C.T.'s
address is?
Re: United States of America v. Ron Touchard
Is that "Ron Touchard" the same person as
"Ronald C Touchard" of Nutripure Beverages?
kjones, snickolas, & mbrown all @nutripurebeverages.com
appear to be valid e-mail addresses (according to an
e-mail verifier). I didn't get valid confirmations on
my guesses for the other two.
Are there any free L2 providers?
No action on this stock. Is it a scam?
Newbie question: how is a third MM on ASK proof
of printing shares? (I understand it as circumstantial
evidence; but how is it absolute proof?)
Re Pawson resting in peace ... he doesn't show up (as deceased) in the Social Security Death Index (last updated 8-15-2008).
I'm kind of a newbie to Cal-Bay. Why do people say he is dead?
And, what evidence is there that he is still involved with
Cal-Bay?
If a party didn't show up in court, it might have been because they weren't properly served notice of the case. That seems to be what that quote was saying (re "illegal process on a vacated office"). I'm not 100% sure, but I think that a default judgment (rendered when a party doesn't show up) can be overturned on such matters as insufficient service of process.
I followed those links to the District Court site, re
the case of Granite Pointe v Cal-Bay. The chart of case
activity says that on 3/27/2008 an 'order of dismissal
without prejudice' was filed, and that prior to that
on 3/20/2008 there was a voluntary motion by the
plaintiff to dismiss. The order 'without prejudice'
means that the case can be brought up again; but for
now it sounds as though that particular case was dropped,
with any prior judgments negated.
Have I read that right?
You posted this:
>Change of Heart in the last 24 hours talking with Ted and all >your DD. Bashers we are not ... soothsayers we are. Sorry for >your loss. 98 out of 100 of these are scams.
"We" made it sound like you. I followed the links
back to what Jinvest posted, and found no post by
him that said he spoke with Ted.
Jinvest posted this:
>giamatto, When you talk to Ted give us
>an update. And in details please. I tried
>talking to him Wednesday, and he would
>not tell me what is going on. I have
>talked to him a few times since March,
>but this time around he would not talk
>to me much at all. GO...NUBV...
So, according to this, he did NOT talk to Ted.
In pennyland, dashed hopes are common. But so is bashing.
You implied that you were personally given facts by Ted,
but when asked what they are, you now offer none and
tell me to get them from KJ.
Now someone else has posted e-mail she received from
Ted [revealing her real name and e-mail address, a
trustworthy sign] that says, essentially, that your
claims are false.
Not that the posted e-mail couldn't be wrong (lies
from the source), but at least it is more verifiable
than what you offer.
I've canceled my sell order (for whatever that's worth).
Yes, I am new to NUBV. Why is he giving you insider
information on trouble NUBV is having, and what,
specifically, is that trouble? [Why stop at saying
they are in trouble without saying what that
trouble is?]
Thanks.
Who is "Ted", and can you be specific on your facts?
>Change of Heart in the last 24 hours talking with Ted
Thanks for the reply. So - SWVC is diluting? Why?
Also, what is "coversion"? Thanks in advance.
Hi - I don't own this stock, but I've been watching
it (because it gets so much traffic on IHUB) for a
while. As popular as it seems to be with those who
own stock in it, why has this stock been on a steady
slide towards .0001 since November? I hate to seem
like a basher, but what's going to stop this stock
from hitting .0001?
Do you have an opinion on this stock? Is it a scam? Or possibly worth some risk (like the Ibox hints at)?
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.