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.
Yes Charles a mess that needs to be fixed yet a few on yahoo just want George to pull $100k out of his a$$ and not get paid for it? You heard me bitch about those "D" shares along with other shareholders so it would seem if money comes or did and the filings are all set to be filed today (or when ever if ever) that someone or some entity other than George will get the remaining "D" shares shares. I doubt George would claim/touch them with a 10 ft pole simply said.
I really believe what needs to be uncovered or talked about now is why George wasn't on that ZOOM meeting now that sincerely sends a signal to us shareholders but perhaps the heavens will open today and somehow we will see all the past due filings updated. Normally trading would start between 15-24 hours after George submits the filings...in short we will see the updated 10-k etc long before we would be able to trade HDVY stock but if that happens a massive stampede in stock movement will occur.
You better bet your a$$ HDC's Attorney knows full well why George wasn't present on the ZOOM call.
Good Sport please always post such things but I won't pull that doc but will keep my document numbers up dated. Being that soon of a reply I'm sure Elise S. Edlin resubmitted her paperwork and she will now help defend Intel. This is just practical to resend and fix the minor problem.
_______________________________________
PACER only charges me a Quarterly fee if I go over $30 buck which is 300 pages "if" I recall.
If one doesn't use PACER it may cost you .50 cent per page which is highway robbery.
Anyone interested in learning just the basics which is all I do just let me know as we can use happy hour here on Fridays 4-5 pm to do PM's.
So did George learn how to stall from Intel or is he sick? Seems his Attorney must have addressed this with the Judge would you not think so?
Maybe George is a day or two away from filing with the SEC...now that would allow some steam out of the pressure cooker.
Digdeeper17....other than the possibility of George having some type of health emergency is there a reason that you can think of for Him and other within the fragile structure to not attend the ZOOM meeting? Could something with Intel be that tempting to disregard attendance? It was this April 25th ZOOM meeting that possibly a NDA might happen involving information from within HDC to possibly disclose to Vennwest?
From reading doc 68 it clearly indicates that yes we had Lee Wedekind - HDC Attorney was on that ZOOM phone call but it also APPEARS that George McGovern, Ed Morrison and William Fromholzer were not present on the Zoom meeting. I sense that the Honorable Linda T. Walker might be a tad disappointed and actually if this is true we as shareholders should be even more disappointed like pi$$ed off, if true.
...as for Vennwest yes Laurie Venning, his officer Regan Ekrem and also Jim Hicks plus Robert Kaufman were on the ZOOM call.
Doc #68 4/25/23 The parties appeared before the Court for a settlement conference.
________Vennwest/HDC______
Court directed Defendants to exchange a list of at least three names of
potential new members to HDC's Board of Directors and produce HDC’s
capital structure and the name of HDC’s share transfer agent by April 28,
2023. Upon receipt of this information, Plaintiff is directed to submit a
proposed settlement offer to Defendants by Friday, May 5, 2023. Defendants
are directed to give best efforts at all times to propose a counter-offer.
Notwithstanding, Defendants are directed to point out what it believes are the
specific deficiencies of Plaintiff’s offer as well as any terminal points.
Defendants’ counsel was also advised that Mr. McGovern and any other
Defendant with the authority to settle this matter are ordered to be present
when the Parties reconvene. The Settlement conference is continued to
May 12, 2023, at 1:30 P.M.
Doc# 68 Vennwest/HDC still not viewable but should be by 3:00 P
Damn....you can now count on this dropping down to around your ankles big time!...maybe as low as your toe nails?
King absolutely NOT referencing the latest involving "Elise S. Edlin is a Partner of Perkins Coie LLP"
WHY? Simply stated if she misses a deadline in filing time verse the court procedures in the case and case timing she MUST then ask JA to please excuse and accept her coming on board to help defend Intel Corporations Interest.
If she "doesn't" miss the deadline which I have no clue what that could be no big deal in correcting her paperwork.
I do feel it was just a mistake due to the many different rules in these courts and the type of court.
no document yet__eom
The Vennwest/HDC document was dated/stamped by the clerk today so we will see it sometime tomorrow.
Technical Requirements
Proposed orders must be PDF files and no security should be applied to the file. It is highly
recommended that proposed orders created using a word processing application such as Word
or WordPerfect be converted to a PDF rather than by scanning a printed copy of a document.
This makes the submissions text-searchable and more legible. Form orders published by the
court must be “flattened” before uploading to lock in information. “Print” to PDF - if your
software does not have this capability, print the order on paper and scan it to make a PDF file.
Good Sport... Texas Court
Now document #58 _ 4 pages
Elise S. Edlin is a Partner of Perkins Coie LLP Law Firm working on behave of Defendant Intel Corporation. She is just filing her paperwork with the Texas Court System involving document #58. https://www.perkinscoie.com/en/professionals/elise-s-edlin/experience.html
Now document #59 _ 1 page
....this is a immediate response from the Texas Court involving document #58 "Deficiency Notice" This was caused by Elise S. Edlin not completing the paperwork properly. Remarks from court operations as follows......Page 3 has nothing on it but a few typewritten items and the proposed order needs to be flattened before being filed. The Motion will be terminated and needs to be refiled in its entirety..
Tata boy....come to daddy, drop down to .50 and say you are sorry for that past RS...then, perhaps I will forgive you and buy more shares.
Stonemoney...I 'll pull that document ASAP but believe it won't be available until Thursday between 10AM - 3PM.
Not sure yet if anyone posted this but this is Intel's latest about the Appeal.
4/10/23 U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, case 23-1727
Filing 1 Appeal docketed. Received: 03/28/2023. [915699] Entry of Appearance is due on 04/24/2023. Certificate of Interest is due on 04/24/2023. Docketing Statement is due on 04/24/2023. Certified List is due on 05/22/2023. [CMH] [Entered: 04/10/2023 03:25 PM]
Who knows but could there be a problem with either Marty or George willingness to sign the necessary Sarbanes-Oxley certification?
....or could there be a problem deep within the wording of a certification from ... Frazier & Deeter, LLC
This is from a past 10-K so read the wording closley........
To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of Health Discovery Corporation
Opinion on the Financial Statements
We have audited the accompanying balance sheets of Health Discovery Corporation (the "Company") as of December 31, 2020 and 2019, and the related statements of operations, changes in stockholders' equity, and cash flows for the years then ended, and the related notes (collectively referred to as the financial statements). In our opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of December 31, 2020 and 2019, and the results of its operations and cash flows for the years then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
Going Concern
The accompanying financial statements have been prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern. As discussed in Note 1 to the financial statements, the Company estimates cash will be depleted in a period less than one year from the date of these financial statements if the Company does not generate sufficient cash to support operations. These factors raise substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern. Management's plans in regard to these matters are also described in Note 1. The financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.
Basis for Opinion
These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company's financial statements based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) ("PCAOB") and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. As part of our audits, we are required to obtain an understanding of internal control over financial reporting but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion.
Our audits included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
Critical Audit Matters
Critical audit matters are matters arising from the current period audit of the financial statements that were communicated or required to be communicated to the audit committee and that: (1) relate to accounts or disclosures that are material to the financial statements and (2) involved our especially challenging, subjective, or complex judgments. We determined that there are no critical audit matters.
We have served as the Company's auditor since 2020, and we previously served as the Company’s auditor from 2014 through 2016.
/s/ Frazier & Deeter, LLC
Tampa, Florida
March 19, 2021
Since our last 10-K filing we had 23 patents and 15 have expired since that time. We now have 8 patents of which 4 are European/Japanese. Maybe Intel might be interested in those foreign patents but as I see things it appears management "prior" George McGovern were just sugar coating all us shareholders that once believed in them. At any rate we still have 4 patents in the US of A that stand tall even if they must lean on a wall for support?
Even though I don't like those series "D" shares, George H. McGovern, our CEO has done more for us than past management.
OK, let us dream a bit? What do you say that as I indicated that Marty Delmonte has made a deal with George and that they have completed past 10-Q filings and that Frazier & Deeter, LLC has completed or is close to completing both 10-K filings.
Look even though Marty resigned he has many years working with George and that to me is hard to keep two that were once close from completing what they had hope to do since involved in HDC many years ago.
They need each other in order to make this work and also need their most recent CPA Firm - Frazier & Deeter, LLC.
I see talk over on Yahoo about a conversion ratio involving Intel shares in exchange for what we are holding? So let us say we have a settlement and the diluted shares come to 800 million and the settlement is for $800,000,000.00. Some were saying that Intel would be forced to pay HDC's legal fees. Now that may be very true but also believe that the Attorney's could receive up to 40% of that settlement.
So, as I see it I would be happy with a straight conversion of each stock I hold for .50 to $1.00 to be converted to Intel stock. I figure in another year or two Intel stock will be worth $50.00 per share....so it would be 31-62 HDC shares for 1 INTC share.
This probably won't matter to this message board but we had 39 days of Fact Discovery left from the old case and JA extended that 21 more days. Yes I mentioned this prior but what I didn't mention was that we had 46 days of Expert Discovery left from the old case and that was extended by 14 days.
re: Yahoo message board by GoodStuff
Can anyone explain why they are still referring to the new case # 6:22-cv-00356 ? The original is 6:20-cv-00666. It says JA is taking it under advisement. Shouldn’t JA have ruled on this before setting the schedule ? THX
_________________________________
GS...no doubt everyone has noticed that and even JA far more than all of us however, for JA to act in a neutral manner he probably needs to be cautious on how to introduce that aspect. I sincerely feel he has already made up his mind to allow HDC to use all evidence dating back to the 6:20-vc-00666 case history especially when considering how JA is using and considering the remaining Fact Discovery time. The case number may remain 6:22-cv--00356 and we should not be concerned as long as we get to use all the past documentations from the original court case and the two plus years of possible liability award.
As I see things investors here may feel that Intel has the upper hand with all this stalling but I tend to differ meaning HDC has also had additional time to work on any weak areas they may see within themselves and also Intel's block walls that are looking weaker as time move along.
Another thingy about the PATB having that final say prior. Yes I doubt the USPTO will have much to say simply because Intel (in my words/thoughts) are done with the USPTO and it is onward to the U.S. Appeals Court which is about the USPTO structure.
Judge Albright will carry the football and body block everyone expect the U.S Appeals Court as they stand taller than JA or the USPTO Director.
Something I don't think anyone here (so far) has thought about, what is going to transpire in recognition and Publicity for the Attorney's and Firm of the winning team
I'm not sure but an earlier post here....... by "Digdeeper17"
Not many warm fuzzies here .. It would appear vennwest is getting what they asked for ...
But what is the timeframe ? Cant be good as it clouds any finalization with Intel ..
Who is .. imo .. still stalling as they realize HDVY remains in a pickle .. I believe 2 months left on this expert exchange ... And poof out o biz .... Is how i read it .. ymmv Which if others have followed the loans means a select few still control the patents (cuz they loaned $$ to HDVY for past several years {see filings} ) And shareholders get nothing ... That would have to be worse case .. And means if hdvy is to continue .. financing using the approx 250 mill mill shares left in the 900 mill authorized and filings must be done pretty quickly here .. Or settlement / buyout ... Terms of which have to be getting worse every day ...
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171594835
_______________________
Then my post ..... the Rule will become effective 60 days following publication of the amendments in the Federal Register. The Rule will have a general compliance date that is nine months after the effective date as well as a compliance date that is two years after the effective date regarding provisions to require an issuer’s financial information for the last two fiscal years to be current and publicly available.....or is June 28, 2023 THE ABSOLUTE DEADLINE?
9/28/21 compliance date starts? <<<<< This is when compliance date stated correct...and if so do we have until 9/28/23 to file the past SEC FILINGS?
Aside from that
07/22/22____ Zero shares traded as seen by us traders.
07/21/22____ 2 million share traded.
07/20/22____ 6 Million shares traded - Was that Citadel trying to unload?
10/19/22____ Jim Murphy resigns.
06/22/22____ Marty Delmonte resigns.
OK... it seems to me that the other that must resign as director would be the CEO's daughter Colleen. That would call for 3 directors to be replaced and hopefully satisfy the concerns within this area.
Comments anyone?
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171598387
All the more reason for HDC to file any time now!!
I've waited a tad over 5 hours for someone else to post this link that was done by "BolliverShagnasty" in the HDVY thread over at Stocktwits.
https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%21AAp6QZmwXxatsYU&id=658845AE0CC93963%2188167&cid=658845AE0CC93963&parId=root&parQt=sharedby&o=OneUp
I did check the website extensively and no doubt Major has a huge reach but I never have liked generic drugs and yes many insurance payers insist generic products period.
I just noted the Fact Discovery started today and is for 60 days. I thought I recalled something I listened to in the last two or three court sessions involving HDC/Intel's Attorneys talking so I listen to the recordings. It seems originally that around 7 months of Fact Discovery was at hand and since JA dismissed the case back due to Alice and her step sister, Intel stated that 39 days where left for Fact Discovery. JA threw out a 60 day number and Intel felt 60 days where still too much but as you see HDC does have 60 days instead of just the 39 that were left.
...so that means we will be able to use the court case documentations from 6:20-cv-0666 I believe?
I do not have the software to convert documents anymore but .....
April 17, 2023 Fact Discovery opens; deadline to serve Initial Disclosures per
Rule 26(a).
May 7, 2023 Deadline for the second of two meet and confers to discuss
narrowing the number of claims asserted and prior art references
at issue to triable limits. If it helps the parties determine these
limits, the parties are encouraged to contact the Court’s law clerk
for an estimate of the amount of trial time anticipated per side.
The parties shall file a Joint Report within 5 business days
regarding the results of the meet and confer.
May 29, 2023 Deadline to serve Final Infringement and Invalidity Contentions.
After this date, leave of Court is required for any amendment to
infringement or invalidity contentions. This deadline does not
relieve the parties of their obligation to seasonably amend if new
information is identified after initial contentions.
June 16, 2023 Close of Fact Discovery.
June 30, 2023 Opening Expert Reports: Plaintiff may serve an infringement
report and a damages report; Defendant may serve an invalidity
report.
July 28, 2023 Rebuttal Expert Reports: Plaintiff may rebut Defendant's
invalidity report; Defendant may rebut Plaintiff's infringement
and damages reports.
August 14, 2023 Close of Expert Discovery.
August 25, 2023 Dispositive motion deadline and Daubert motion deadline.
See General Issues Note #7 regarding providing copies of the
briefing to the Court and the technical advisor (if appointed).
September 8, 2023 Serve Pretrial Disclosures (jury instructions, exhibits lists,
witness lists, discovery and deposition designations).
September 15, 2023 Serve objections to pretrial disclosures/rebuttal disclosures
October 6, 2023 Serve objections to rebuttal disclosures; file Motions in limine.
October 13, 2023 File Joint Pretrial Order and Pretrial Submissions (jury
instructions, exhibits lists, witness lists, discovery and deposition
designations); file oppositions to motions in limine.
October 20, 2023 File Notice of Request for Daily Transcript or Real Time
Reporting. If a daily transcript or real time reporting of court
proceedings is requested for trial, the party or parties making
said request shall file a notice with the Court and email the Court
Reporter, Kristie Davis at kmdaviscsr@yahoo.com.
Deadline to meet and confer regarding remaining objections and
disputes on motions in limine.
October 2, 2023 Parties to jointly email the Court’s law clerk (see OGP at 1) to
confirm their pretrial conference and trial dates.
November 10, 2023. File joint notice identifying remaining objections to pretrial
disclosures and disputes on motions in limine.
November 14, 2023. Final Pretrial Conference. Held in person unless otherwise
requested.
November 27, 2023. Jury Selection/Trial.
You better believe these dates will change again as many twists and turns and unknown things happen from day to day.
Thank you "Good Sport"..I was surprised to see another document this soon and it just looks like the court filed in 4 dates being 10/2, 11/10, 11/14 and Jury selection /Trial on 11/27/23.
I like how the beginning reads more so in this document than from #56 the part where HDC filed a request to use original case number. YES...it is on both but front and center on #57 doc.
On 4/10/23 Texas Court ... The parties shall file a motion to enter an agreed First Amended Scheduling Order. If the parties cannot agree, the parties shall submit a separate join t motion for entry of a First Amended Scheduling Order briefly setting forth their respective positions on items where they cannot agree. Absent agreement of the parties, the plaintiff shall be responsible for the timely submission of this and other joint filings.
_____________________________
4/17/23 Fact Discovery opens; deadline to serve Initial Disclosures per Rule 26(a).
Yes King HDC needs to get current but how?
It make perfect sense that Marty Delmonte must come back into the picture for several reasons. I believe he handled all the affairs involving past 10k filings. The company that HDC used to check through and certify the paperwork to submit to the SEC must be the same identity as before since they have past records involving HDC and of course Marty must have worked with helping with the documents for that firm. Another thought is that since we have seen what Marty has said in his resignation email/phone call I tend to believe that Vennwest would not have a problem with Marty coming back into the picture. I do have concerns that Marty will want (and he should) have some type of guarantee/up front monies and not lip service if he so decided to help HDC/George. Even though Marty should not get involved again he still has a vast history working with George plus a high stake and investment involving every direction that HDC has gone through.
Someone must present a complicated mess of paperwork to whoever might do the audit and the reasoning that Marty should be the one is clear but George may have wrenched the paperwork up too severely that Marty won't help him. Now of course since we had gone through a 10-k problem several years ago is the main reason George should use the same accounting firm.
This is a high order but think about it, some of what I mentioned might be tough but we need some type of positive results in this area....so, could Vennwest actually help HDC and us shareholders?
Just my thoughts but something to think about.
Good Sport...let me first thank you for posting the correct Doc which is "56" as I was totally wrong. I have no clue how I screwed that up but believe a month ago I confused the HDC/Vennwest case with JA court .
I know I owe David 756 over on Stocktwits an apology and if I recall possible GoodStuff over on Yahoo. Not sure if that is you but know I'm sorry as I thought the people behind these two aliases were a day late and a dollar short but it was me that was late, lost and many dollars short.
I'm glad Chazzy is posting....
I just printed out document #56 so no doubt 57 will be next? well depending on how high I can count. At any rate I'm ok with being wrong but I don't really wanna be harsh especially with some of us being here for so many years.
We all have taken a beating and are tired and perhaps I was never smart enough to know when to give up so onward we will go.
We need HDC to become current and no doubt HDC is fully aware that if they get that done the stock price will rise.
Let me go and read doc #56 thank you again.
Good Sport...not sure if anyone is moderating this thread anymore.
As for documents in Texas Court when available look for # 63
Hello Alan....thank you for clarifying about the servers. The article (the little that I read) did seem like they were dropping an area of business that wasn't the main course or didn't make enough money but I did mean as I wrote it I actually thought they were getting out of the server business and no doubt your post clearly sets me straight on what is really happening...thank you as always.
I gather you have seen (possibly) how Intel is whipping HDC again? I can't believe everything that has happen in the life of HDC.
More news....Document filed "today 4/14/23" Texas Court case 6:22-cv-356
Not sure when we will be able to access this since the weekend is here?
Straight from the source, life of an Appeal......
https://cafc.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/Life-of-Appeal.png
https://cafc.uscourts.gov/home/case-information/opinions-orders/
Take it down to .50 cent than it might be worth a handful of my change...I can still feel the blisters from that 1/30 RS months ago. It is amazing someone didn't end up in jail referencing past management.
King...I'm sure you also noticed the 3/28 date with Intel's filing the USPTO. So next on 4/10/23 HDC/Vennwest settlement discussions? So from that we learn the next discussions with Vennwest will be on 4/25/23 and that our Attorneys may discuss certain other areas depending on signing a NDA. Now doesn't that kinda let your mind wonder, wonder if things might be said referencing Intel???.
Stonemoney...I think Intel is just being respectful to send information to the USPTO Director but their real intent is to settle this in the district court of appeals. I think by doing so it may handcuff the USPTO Director and stop Judge Albright from moving forward.
In short I believe we may also see Alice her nasty sister rise from the ashes again
Remember..... "Dissenting Opinion"
It should be noted, however, that the decision was split 2-to-1, where Judge Garth D. Baer broke from the majority in dissent.
Judge Baer argued that “Petitioner explained, with support from its expert … that its proposed addition of Hocking’s vector weight ranking criteria ‘applies a known technique (Hocking’s variable selection) to a known device (Kohavi’s RFE method using Boser’s SVM) which is ready for improvement to yield predictable results.’ ” Intel Corp., IPR2021-00552, Final Written Decision at 41-42 (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)).
Because of this, Judge Baer agreed that the claimed invention ’959 was nothing more than an obvious combination of known techniques applied to a known device, yielding only predictable results and thus obvious under KSR’s framework. Id. at 42.
_________________________
Dr. Dent...look I have no clue about what corporations buy medical stuff from us but look at these products? Do they look worth purchasing? I'm not trying to bad mouth us but I don't know if I would trust some of these items from the way the pictures look? Maybe in a 3rd world country and perhaps people might purchase the cheapest stuff available but I'm shaking my head at viewing some of these items?
https://www.medofficedirect.com/catalog/category/view/s/new-products/id/3/?manufacturer=141