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.
Now for the second. After claiming the case was "moot" because Madison resigned, Marco told the Court to dismiss the action as moot and for lack of jurisdiction. Now read Madison's flip flop (compare the last post with this one):
I. ARGUMENTS
A. THE PLAINTIFF IS STILL THE RES HOLDER AND THE CLAIM IS NOT MOOT.
1. Plaintiff is in possession of the certified shareholders list and transfer log. Without these, transfer would be impossible with the DTC. Therefore, Plaintiff still maintains the res of the instant litigation.
2. 28 U.S.C. §1335 requires that the Plaintiff have at least the possibility to have the res delivered. If Defendant CHAVARRIA or Defendant NETCO INVESTMENTS, Inc. (“NETCO”), once proper authority is established, paid the Plaintiff the sums owed to it, then the Plaintiff may be reengaged and facilitate transfer. Thus, Plaintiff maintains the ability to perform the service, which technically isn’t a res but for instant purposes will not be presently contested, with reservation of all rights respectively, and thus in arguendo maintains the res.
3. However, Plaintiff has a lawful lien on said certified shareholder list and transfer log (“Transfer Documents”), and cannot break title thereof by transferring it to a non-registered transfer agent even if one of the non-Intervenor Defendants established authority, paid the sums outstanding, and requested the Transfer Documents.
4. Not withstanding the aforementioned, Plaintiff would very much not like to be a res holder in the instant litigation and highly encourages an adjudication in the instant litigation. To that end, Plaintiff acknowledges this Honorable Court’s authority to Order the Plaintiff to ship the Transfer Documents to whomever it may direct upon receipt of the sums owed.
5. To that end, Plaintiff would respectfully add a friendly amendment to Defendant CHAVARRIA’s motion to dismiss by requesting that the Transfer Documents be escrowed with this Honorable Court for Delivery Versus Payment (“DVP”) of sums owed and thus inexorably remove the res from the Plaintiff.
B. ADVERSE CLAIMS STILL ABOUND.
6. The purpose of an Interpleader, in sum and substance, is to resolve an inherent conflict and remedy what appears to be amiss. Resolving any conflict of a proper chain of authority in Defendant NCVT can only be in the best interest of the company registrant NCVT, all parties to the instant litigation, and the SHAREHOLDERS.
7. The Plaintiff is not in possession of any shareholder votes appointing Defendant CHAVARRIA to the Board of Directors, nor any of Mr. CHAVARRIA’s representatives. As such a clear title cannot be established, and the SHAREHOLDERS have thus been disenfranchised. Plaintiff, strictly speaking, has no fiduciary obligation to NCVT shareholders, and as such is technically speaking out of turn, but respectfully reminds this Honorable Court that all SHAREHOLDERS are potentially adverse claimants if they have been deprived of a vote.
8. Moreover, the Intervenors are adverse claimants, as their convertible instruments, albeit currently contested by Defendant CHAVARRIA, fully diluted may constitute a bid for majority interest. Also, in the same vein, there are apparently other classes of securities, preferred classes (See Schedule 14C, filed with the SEC on November 3rd, 2004), which are also adverse claimants, although Plaintiff does not transfer any preferred classes as there is no public market for them. Lastly, the absence of a voice for Defendant NETCO, does not equate to legitimacy for transfer of authority.
9. If Defendant CHAVARRIA can produce the conversion of the Cognovit Note and a vote of the shareholders, complete with proof of mailing proxy material, it may be that could alleviate potential adverse claimants as prior notification; but such adjudication would be up to this Honorable Court, respectfully.
C. THE COURT STILL HAS JURISDICTION.
10. 28 U.S.C. §1367 permits the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. §1367 provides, in relevant part:
(a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) . . ., in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. Such supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties.1
11. Some courts have, however, permitted intervention by such non-indispensable parties and retained jurisdiction over the controversy on the ground that the claim or defense of the intervenor is 'ancillary' to the main action and that its inclusion does not destroy the jurisdiction formerly founded upon diversity of Citizenship. In Wichita R. & Light Co. v. Public Utility Commission, 260 U.S. 48, 43 S.Ct. 51, 67 L.Ed. 124, the Supreme Court held that diversity jurisdiction continued in spite of intervention by a party defendant of the same state as plaintiff. The intervention in that case, however, although not technically an intervention as of right was something very analogous to it.2
12. Defendant CHAVARRIA admits in his motion to dismiss that the Intervenors claims are ancillary.3
1 Colonial Pen Insurance Company v. American Centennial Insurance Co., et al 92 Civ. 3791; 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17552, 8 (S.D.N.Y., 1992, RPP)
2 Curtis v. American Book Company; 137 F. Supp. 950, 952 (S.D.N.Y. 1955, Walsh)
3 See Defendant CHAVARRIA’s motion to dismiss III. Discussion, C. [lacking independent jurisdiction]
13. Plaintiff respectfully asserts that the instant litigation should be adjudicated while all parties are joined in this Honorable Court. Otherwise it is Plaintiff’s fear that the instant litigation will spark ancillary litigations in a myriad of jurisdictions.
II. CONCLUSION.
14. Plaintiff has done his job by bringing together all those stakeholders, or averred stakeholders, in the current matter. Plaintiff has no interest in who prevails, if indeed anyone could be said to prevail from this. Plaintiff beseeches this Honorable Court to escrow the Transfer Documents DVP for the sums owed to it, and discharge Plaintiff. But for the Plaintiff being entitled to the just fees owed to it by the registrant NCVT, Plaintiff would attempt to withdraw the entire litigation and let parties with a vested interest in the outcome spend their money in litigation.
15. In summation, PLEASE DISCHARGE PLAINTIFF.
Dated: Carle Place, New York
May 21st, 2007
Respectfully Submitted,
MARSHAL SHICHTMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
__________________________________
Marshal Shichtman, Esq. (MDS 4012)
Attorney
I don't have time today to get into a debate. I would like everyone to first read this and see if it sounds familiar:
I. PROCEDURAL POSTURE
1. Plaintiff MADISON STOCK TRANSFER, INC. moved this Honorable Court August 15th, 2006 in an Interpleader action requesting a stay on new issuances of the securities of Defendant NETCO INVESTMENTS, INC. and the determination and adjudication of proper authority to Defendant NETCO INVESTMENTS, INC. as brought into issue by Defendant CHAVARRIA by operation of a purported Cognovit Note. This Honorable Court granted a Temporary Restraining Order on new issuances regarding Defendant NETCO INVESTMENTS, INC. in conjunction with the Cognovit Note pending plenary adjudication on September 6th, 2006.
2. Defendant NETCO sought to remove a judgment filed in the State of Pennsylvania regarding the legitimacy of the Cognovit Note into the jurisdiction of the E.D.N.Y, on or about August 23rd, 2006. Defendant CHAVARRIA filed a motion for remand on or about August 23rd, 2006.
3. Defendant CHAVARRIA moved this Honorable Court on or about August 25th, to disqualify Attorney for Plaintiff MADISON STOCK TRANSFER, INC. and Attorney for Defendant NETCO INVESTMENTS, INC. This motion is still pending.
4. Defendant CHAVARRIA then made the instant motion for Summary Judgment, on or about August 30th, 2006.
5. On or about September 15th, 2006 Third Parties AJW PARTNERS, L.L.C., NEW MILLENNIUM CAPTIAL PARTNERS II, L.L.C., AJW OFFSHORE, LTD, and AJW QUALIFIED PARTNERS, L.L.C. (“Third Parties”) sought to Intervene in the instant litigation.
II. BACKGROUND
6. Defendant CHAVARRIA has presented a Cognovit Note to the Plaintiff, but no request for issuance of the shares purported to be vested by the Cognovit Note. Said Cognovit Note (the “Note”) purports to grant a majority interest in Defendant NETCO INVESTMENTS, INC., act as a change of control of the Netco Investments, Inc. as a public company (sometimes referred to in that capacity as Issuer or Registrant), and seeks to void certain contracts with a consultant Mr. Paul Taylor and a Mr. Corey Ribitsky.
7. Defendant CHAVARRIA sought, and still seeks, to exert his dominance over the Registrant by vesting himself as majority shareholder. However, Plaintiff received no instructions from the then known management of the validity of the transaction. Plaintiff neither received the requisite corporate resolutions that would authenticate such transfer.
8. Plaintiff then instigated an action for interpleader because it was unclear the chain of corporate command and whom Plaintiff should be taking instructions from. Moreover, if Plaintiff were to issue the shares to Defendant NETCO, Plaintiff could incur liability from Defendant CHAVARRIA, and vise versa.
9. AFTER the instigation of the litigation, Defendant CHAVARRIA exhibited a certificate of amendment to the articles of incorporation of Netco Investments, Inc., dated July 17th, 2006, and filed with the secretary of State of the State of Texas, the res of incorporation for Netco, on August 16th, 2006. Defendant CHAVARRIA at no time presented these documents to Plaintiff. A copy of said certificate of amendment is exhibited as Exhibit A in the Declaration of Marshal Shichtman, Esq., attorney for Plaintiff, dated September 19th, 2006.
10. In the interim, no shares have been issued to Defendant CHAVARRIA.
11. Plaintiff then withdrew as the Registrants transfer agent on September 11th, 2006. See Declaration Exhibit B Plaintiff withdrew as transfer agent for several reasons: the Registrant Netco is behind in its payment approximately $16,430.35 as of March 2006, plus fees incurred since March 2006 and legal fees from the instant interpleader pursuant to the indemnification in its contract. See Exhibit C Plaintiff is not comfortable with Defendant CHAVARRIA filing on behalf of the corporation as majority holder and officer with a single share being issued to him nor any supporting corporate resolutions.
III. STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
12. A motion for summary judgment is properly granted only if the court determines that no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. FRCP-56(c); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. 477 U.S. 242, 250, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202, 106 S. Ct. 2505 (1986). The party seeking judgment bears the burden of demonstrating that no issue of fact exists. McLee v. Chrysler Corp. 109 F.3d 130, 134 (2d Cir. 1997) . However, when the nonmoving party fails to make a showing on an essential elements of its case with respect to which it bears the burden of proof, summary judgment will be granted. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265, 106 S. Ct. 2548 (1986). The party resisting summary judgment must not only show a disputed issue of fact, but it must also be a material fact in light of substantive law. Only disputed facts that "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 242. GAIL ZUCKERMAN, v. VOLUME SERVICES AMERICA, INC., et al., 304 F. Supp. 2d 365, 368 (E.D.N.Y. 2004, LDW)
IV. ARGUMENTS
A. THE LITIGATION IS NOW MOOT.
13. Plaintiff has withdrawn as transfer agent from Registrant Netco, and therefore has no more vested interest and no standing.
B. REMOVAL AND REMAND OF THE PENNSYLVANIA JUDGMENT.
14. “Its is well settled that the Federal Courts may exercise their equity powers so as to set aside, enjoin enforcement of, or ignore a State Court judgment obtained by fraud.” Servidone Construction Corp. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. and First Bank National Association v. Servidone et al v. Barr et al, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6695, 6 (N.D.N.Y. 1993, NPM) citing Griffith v. Bank of New York, 147 F.2d 899, 901 (2nd Cir, 1945) cert denied 325 U.S. 874, 65 S. Ct. 1414 (1945) in a case regarding an interpleader action and a confession of judgment.
15. “Under 28 U.S.C. §1335 [Interpleader], a District Court has jurisdiction over a civil action involving adverse claims to money or property worth $500 or more so long as at least two of the adverse claimants are of diverse citizenship and are claiming or may claim to be entitled to such money or property.” Ashton, Steel and Chemical Bank, as executors of the estate of Raymond I. Paul v. The Josephine Bay Paul and C. Michael Paul Foundation, Inc., Miller, et al 918 F2d 1065,1068 (2nd Cir Ct. App 1990) In aid of such jurisdiction, the District Court has authority under 28 U.S.C. §2361. Id
16. This Honorable Court has authority to examine the Pennsylvania confession of judgment, should it so choose. However, Plaintiff has no opinion regarding the judgment , and/or the subsequent removal thereof. If the Pennsylvania judgment is good with this Honorable Court, then it is good with the Plaintiff. Likewise, if is not, then that is fine too. All Plaintiff asked for was a proper determination of the authority of Defendant CHAVARRIA, or lack thereof. But again, this is moot as the Plaintiff has resigned as the Registrant’s transfer agent.
C. THIS HONORABLE COURT SHOULD DISCHARGE PLAINTIFF WITHOUT LIABILITY.
17. Defendant CHAVARRIA has, in a way, furnished Plaintiff with filings from the Texas Secretary of State declaring Defendant CHAVARRIA as majority holder in Registrant NETCO. As such, Defendant CHAVARRIA has completed his duty to furnish documentation for authority.
18. It is not Plaintiff’s duty, nor has Plaintiff the authority to question the legitimacy of said documents. However, Plaintiff cannot reconcile how Defendant CHAVARRIA filed such documents without owning a single share on the books and records of Registrant Netco. As such Plaintiff has filed the instant interpleader. While Plaintiff may not have the authority to call into question the documents, which it finds dubious, it does have the power not to have anything to do with it, and has hence forth withdrawn as transfer agent of Registrant Netco.
19. Plaintiff acted in good faith when dubious documents and conflicting interests presented themselves and instituted an interpleader. More dubious documents presented themselves, and Plaintiff has now decided that it is time to step away before any smell permeates.
20. THEREFORE, Plaintiff should be discharged because it is no longer the transfer agent for the Registrant and does not object to the instant motion for Summary Judgment. Moreover, Plaintiff should be awarded attorneys fees and costs from the instant litigation Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Brody, 35 Misc. 2d 384, 228 N.Y.S. 2d 312 (Sup. Ct. Albany County, 1962) and Registrant Netco must indemnify Plaintiff pursuant to the terms of its agreement with Registrant.
V. CONCLUSION
21. THEREFORE, Plaintiff has no opinion and no objection to Defendant CHAVARRIA’s motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff should be fully discharged with costs and attorney fees.
[signature page to follow]
Dated: Carle Place, New York
September 19th, 2006
Respectfully Submitted,
MARSHAL SHICHTMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
__________________________________
Marshal Shichtman, Esq. (MDS 4012)
Attorney for Plaintiff Madison Stock Transfer, Inc.
One Old Country Road, Suite 498
Carle Place, New York 11514
Tel (516) 741-5222, Fax (516) 741-5212
And as my last post for the night:
From: "Keaveney, John" <John.Keaveney@nasd.com>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 17:35:25 -0400
Subject: From the NASD regarding Netco Investments, Inc.
To: rodrigocalderonaraya@gmail.com
Dear Rodrigo Calderon Araya,
The NASD is a self-regulatory organization in the securities industry.
We are responsible for the surveillance of the securities markets and
enforcement of our rules and federal securities laws. In order to
carry out our responsibilities, the Market Regulation Department of
NASD is reviewing the trading of Netco Investments, Inc. (NTCV) common
shares. We are interested in speaking with you about Netco
Investments, Inc. Any information collected during our review will
kept private and nonpublic. I would appreciate it if you would
contact me via this e-mail address or at the undersigned telephone
number: 240-386-5717.
John T. Keaveney
Regulatory Analyst
NASD Market Regulation Investigations
9509 Key West Avenue I Rockville, MD 20850
phone 240.386.5717 I fax 240.386.5137
john.keaveney@nasd.com I www.nasd.com
This email, including attachments, may include confidential and/or
proprietary information, and may be used only by the person or entity
to which it is addressed. If the reader of this email is not the
intended recipient or his or her authorized agent, the reader is
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
email is prohibited. If you have received this email in error,
please notify the sender by replying to this message and delete this
email immediately.
Old friends:
From: frank cornacchi [mailto:achef1@shaw.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 5:50 PM
To: calderon rodrigo
Subject:
Dear sir
Let me ask you a question?Why did you send a press release by way of a free web site that anyone can say what they wish. You mentor to facts are not fact but a basher that is to blame for netco down fall.Please in future use a news lease company.
If you so desire facts call
1 416 628 6268
-----
From: frank cornacchi <achef1@shaw.ca>
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 13:24:38 -0400
Subject:
To: "Rodrigo Calderón A." <rodrigocalderonaraya@gmail.com>
I as I have stated I do a lot of digging and I would like to get on a
real PT move.Between you and me IPCY ( not by PT) was one I should
watch.My connection feels it may see some new highs. Its to bad you
are not connected with this venture.
Again Thank you
Frank
I don't know who you are or what your motives are, so I'm not going to let the cat out of the bag before the publicly filed response.
It was after I discovered what was going on.
That's up to Mal to disclose.
From: Michael Ajzenman <msti@verizon.net >
Date: Feb 23, 2006 9:21 AM
Subject: RE: NIR Group
To: Rodrigo Calderon <rodrigocalderonaraya@gmail.com>
Please review your old legal filing this debt does appear on them beginning in 3/02. Please advise of company counsel.
Please note all representations made are premised upon information currently in the possession of Madison Stock Transfer Inc. and all statements expressed are limited to the time and scope of the request. Statements made are based upon actual knowledge and no representations are made upon knowledge, if any, based upon a constructive or implied basis. Please take further note that Madison Stock Transfer Inc., assumes no duty to supplement any statements made based upon subsequent information received by the Madison Stock Transfer Inc. and the recipient should not expect any such supplements.
Please take further note that Madison Stock Transfer Inc. is not making any solicitation or offer in this correspondence
Michael Ajzenman, President
Madison Stock Transfer Inc.
PO box 145
Brooklyn, NY 11229-0145
msti@verizon.net
tel: 718-627-4453
fax: 718-627-6341
This electronic mail communication is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and contains privileged and/or confidential information.
If you receive this communication in error,
please advise us by return e-mail or call us immediately at (718) 627-4453 and delete this communication and all copies and attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Thank you.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rodrigo Calderon [mailto:rodrigocalderonaraya@gmail.com]
Sent: 02/23/2006 9:45 AM
To: msti@verizon.net
Subject: NIR Group
Dear Mr. Ajzenman:
I am in receipt of a facsimile communication to me dated February 22, 2006,
from a company known as the NIR Group. The company directed that its debt
be converted into stock. Netco Investments (NTCV) is a Texas corporation
traded on the Pink Sheets. NIR Group sought shares to be converted of Netco
Investments, a Washington company based in Vancouver, British Columbia. As
such, under no circumstances are you to issue NTCV shares to satisfy this
request. Rather, the request should be directed to Mr. Michael Jackson,
President of Netco Investments of Vancouver, British Columbia.
I note that you are the only person I issued the fax number 604-XXXXXXX(EDITED BY RCA) to.
This is not the general business fax number for Netco Investments (Texas).
As such, if there is a query in the future, please direct the investor to
my email address.
Under no circumstances are you to act on conversion requests with respect to
Netco Investments (Washington) unless your firm also acts as transfer agent
for that company, which is not affiliated with Netco Investments (Texas).
If you believe that a fraud has occurred, or that there may be other
erroneous transactions, please advise me at once. Otherwise, I will assume
I received the fax in error.
Finally, I am still waiting for the documents I requested. This is an
extremely urgent matter. The information I relayed to you is proprietary
and not to be disclosed to persons who may utilize the data to negatively
affect Netco's shareholders and operations.
R. Calderon Araya
President
Netco Investments (Texas)
This email contains confidential information intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named above and may contain information that is legally privileged. If you are not the addressee, or the person responsible for delivering it to the addressee, you are hereby notified that reading, disseminating, distributing or copying this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake, please immediately notify us by replying to the message and delete the original message
Last request to convert, this one was refused. My name started being forged.
From: Paul Taylor <Ptaylor07@adelphia.net>
Date: Feb 8, 2006 9:49 AM
Subject:
To: rodrigocalderonaraya@gmail.com
Paul Taylor
ptaylor07@adelphia.net
tel:
(310) 492 5203
SCHEDULE A
NOTICE OF CONVERSION
(To be executed by the Registered Holder)
The undersigned hereby irrevocably elects to convert $1600 of Convertible Debenture Note – into 800,000 shares of common stock, par value $0.0001 per share ("NTVC - Common Stock"), of Netco Investments Inc., a Texas corporation (the "NTVC ") according to the conditions of the conversion rights of the Convertible Debenture Note – May 15th 2003.
If securities are to be issued in the name of a person other than the undersigned, the undersigned will pay all transfer taxes payable with respect thereto and is delivering herewith such certificates. No fee will be charged to the Holder for any conversion, except for transfer taxes, if any.
The Issuer shall electronically transmit the Common Stock issuable pursuant to this Notice of Conversion to the account of the undersigned or its nominee with DTC through its Deposit Withdrawal Agent Commission system (“DWAC Transfer").
Name of DTC Prime Broker: N/A
Account Number: N/A
In lieu of receiving shares of Common Stock issuable pursuant to this Notice of Conversion by way of a DWAC Transfer, the undersigned hereby requests that the Issuer issue a certificate or certificates for the number of shares of Common Stock set forth below (which numbers are based on the Holder's calculations hereto) in the name(s) specified immediately below or, if additional space is necessary, on an attachment hereto:
Paul Taylor
Address on file 400,000
NETCO LTD 400,000
(Red Sea)
The undersigned represents and warrants that all offers and sales by the undersigned of the securities issuable to the undersigned upon conversion of the Preferred Stock shall be made
pursuant to Rule 144 of the securities under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Act"), or pursuant to an exemption from registration under the Act.
The Issuer shall issue and deliver shares of Common Stock to an overnight courier not later than three business days following receipt of this Conversion notice.
Date of Issue May 15th 2003
Date of Conversion: 2/7/2006
Principle to be converted pursuant to
This Conversion – $1600
Number of Shares of Common Stock to be issued pursuant to
Conversion –
Formula = $1600 x 0.002 = 800,000
Rodrigo Calderon Araya
President
Date :
HOLDER ______________________
Paul Taylor
2/7/2006
He knew where it was supposed to go and he knew why. He knew that he/Netco owed Mal (Petitioning Creditor) money. He hand wrote an instruction to send the cert. to him instead of to her.
Subject: go see
Author: Paul Taylor <Ptaylor07@adelphia.net>
Date: 2nd February 2006 4:53:34 pm
Oscar Herrera
RedSea MANAGEMENT LIMITED
Tel: +506-2586464
Fax +506-2586060
N.America Toll Free 800-498-5052
www.redseamanagement.com <http://www.redseamanagement.com/>
go see him
Paul Taylor
<mailto:ptaylor07@adelphia.net> ptaylor07@adelphia.net
tel:
(310) 492 5203
I didn't know what an RB was at the time.
Scary, I didn't dare.
Subject: Set up
Author: Paul Taylor <Ptaylor07@adelphia.net>
Date: 2nd February 2006 4:49:22 pm
You need to go see Oscar @ Red Sea
Call me
Paul Taylor
<mailto:ptaylor07@adelphia.net> ptaylor07@adelphia.net
tel:
(310) 492 5203
This wasn't a mistake.
Subject: ?
Author: Paul Taylor <Ptaylor07@adelphia.net>
Date: 2nd February 2006 4:47:56 pm
I have a duszak cert here by mistake .where does it go ?
Paul Taylor
<mailto:ptaylor07@adelphia.net> ptaylor07@adelphia.net
tel:
(310) 492 5203
If there was a market there'd have been no need for all the reverse splits.
Who knows, it was Paul's call.
Paul's paranoia started sinking in.
Subject: ?
Author: Paul Taylor <Ptaylor07@adelphia.net>
Date: 2nd February 2006 4:46:57 pm
You want to explain your call to Mike ?
And not a return of my call
Paul Taylor
<mailto:ptaylor07@adelphia.net> ptaylor07@adelphia.net
tel:
(310) 492 5203
He's not.
What should his affidavit say?
I'm sure if you specify what subject it should be on, he can post a 28 USC 1746 declaration with a digital signature. You can then cut and paste it and call him in.
Subject: RE: NETCO
Author: Paul Taylor <Ptaylor07@adelphia.net>
Date: 14th January 2006 2:59:05 pm
Look at this --- this call came in 4 minutes pre F B I call
Jan 13, 2006 04:36 PM 12212384100 00:01:00 XXXXXXXXXXXX
_______________________by moving one digit - it the same as:
Jan 13, 2006 04:40 PM 12123841000 00:01:00 XXXXXXXXXXXX
In my opinion someone is playing with us - not the F B I
____________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
Recent calling activity for phone number: 1-(305)-433-4252(Fax)
1-(310)-492-5203 1-(802)-518-1002 02084326075(Virtual)
Received Calls
Date Time From Duration (hh:mm:ss)
Jan 13, 2006 04:40 PM 12123841000 00:01:00 XXXXXXXXXXXX
Jan 13, 2006 04:38 PM 13104925203 00:01:00
Jan 13, 2006 04:36 PM 12212384100 00:01:00 XXXXXXXXXXXX
Jan 13, 2006 02:56 PM 17186274453 00:01:00
Jan 13, 2006 02:12 PM 17186274453 00:01:00
Jan 12, 2006 02:56 PM 17186274453 00:07:00
Jan 12, 2006 02:31 PM 17186274453 00:02:00
Jan 11, 2006 10:37 AM 14102663886 00:01:00
Jan 10, 2006 05:30 PM 14102663886 00:02:00
Jan 10, 2006 03:34 PM 17186274453 00:01:00
------------------------------------
Paul Taylor
ptaylor07@adelphia.net
tel: (310) 492 5203
------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: lugocalderon@racsa.co.cr [mailto:lugocalderon@racsa.co.cr]
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 11:51 AM
To: Paul Taylor
Subject: RE: NETCO
I can't tell, incoming calls from the outside doesn't register in the phone
system.
Here EvenNeve. Why don't you do something for the shareholders.
From: Paul Taylor [mailto:Ptaylor07@adelphia.net]
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 9:50 PM
To: 'Rodrigo Calderon'
Subject: NETCO
Rod,
I am alarmed sufficiently by both of the calls that I think that we prepare to resign.
You are not in harms way – I believe that the call was made about a CCDE investment or investor.
CCDE is acting strangely, and I smell odd occurrences in that deal.
In any case –its is my suggestion that you consider resigning from Netco –I will speak to the parties that will
take control eventually.
Best
Paul Taylor
ptaylor07@adelphia.net
tel:
(310) 492 5203
Add me to your address book...
Want a signature like this?
Paul Taylor sucks on a bottle of scotch as he laughs at us and hits the sell key. IMMN, MSGM, RHNA, RHMX, CCDX, CCDE...
I don't have any evidence in that regard. I know the threat was made, and then it was carried out.
I didn't know it was Paul's nominee corps. I thought they were bona fide transactions, justifiably relying on Paul.
Self loathing, eyy?
You mean I should have followed this advice? Nah, I thought it would be in the best interests of the investors to stick around.
Subject: SHIT HAPPENING...
Author: "Brian R. Niessen" <brian.niessen@curocorp.com>
Date: 7th February 2006 10:07:57 am
<html>
<body>
I caught wind of some shit happening on Telatinos, etc.<br><br>
With your new "gov't job" you probably don't want to be caught
up in that shit...<br><br>
You're call, but I recommend u resign soonest.<br><br>
PS. JVC-DV Cam and Power Supply please... <br><br>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<div align="center"><font size=1 color="#0000FF">The content of the above
message is protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or is for
settlement purposes only. <br>
In the event you received the message in error, we request that you
delete it and contact us to notify of the error.<br>
</font></div>
</body>
</html>
I actually thought the shares given to me (there were shares given to me and shares secretly given to Red Sea in my name) would go up in value and that in several years, I'd have a reward for my work for the company. I didn't know it was a printing press or that you were printing and printing and that's what made the shares go down.
I think I have no shares presently except the one on file with Red Sea.
I was supposed to receive a salary of about $2500 per month. What I received were excuses and a few hundred dollars here and there. At least Arnoldo was on a pay per signature basis. He was a bit smarter, didn't know what he was signing.
I never had a reason too. I was busy designing a business plan for Global Interactive.
I'd like to smack you, if you'll allow me. That'll be nice. I sent you a puppy book, I hope you enjoyed it.
Any conversion to me was restricted.
Paul, you know the conversions you issued to the petitioning creditors, a couple thousand dollars worth of stock. When you see the records you'll see they remain. Conversion to Abilene, shares remain on account. They weren't dumped. Shares for Mal Duszak were never delivered, right Paul?
Most communication went through Niessen who Paul took advantage of.
Nope, I learned about this board after my release of information on allstocks.
FAX MEMO
DATE: February 23, 2006
FROM: Rodrigo Calderon Araya (on behalf of Netco Investments (Texas))
SJO 1035-10443
3537 N.W. 82nd Avenue
Miami, FL 33122
TO: Corey Ribotsky
The N.R.I. Group, Inc.
Fax: 1.718.627.6341
cc: Madison Transfer fax: 1.718.627.6341
RE: Conversion of Netco Investments, Inc. (Washington)
I am in receipt of a facsimile communication from your office. At this time, I cannot direct Netco Investments (Texas) or the transfer agent to act on the request received from you.
First, I would require evidence of the indenture note and a clear explanation as to how Netco Investments, Inc., a Texas corporation, is liable in any way for the debts of (or is even affiliated with) Netco Investments, Inc., a Washington corporation managed by Michael Jackson. (In fact, the telephone number listed on the fax cover sheet appears to be Mr. Jackson’s cellular telephone).
Second, if the indebtedness is valid, I would require a corporate resolution from each company executed by its authorized officer and attested by the secretary of the company. In addition, the request should bear the company’s raised seal. In the event a raised seal is not available, I would require notarized versions of the documents in question. If you are the authorized officer of the requesting entities (as “manager”), I would need evidence of said appointment and an explanation of your capacity.
Third, due to anomalies that exist with respect to the company’s records and those on file with the transfer agent, facsimile documents will not be accepted under any circumstances. You may me mail the documents by courier or ordinary mail to the above address and I will proceed with the verification process.
I apologize for any inconvenience that this may have caused you or your clients. However, I am certain that you aware of the potential liabilities that may occur in the event we, or our transfer agent, erroneously issue shares to your clients.
<<THIS CONSTITUTES THE END OF THE COMMUNICATION>>
I don't know their relationship. I've never been friends with either.
I was just hired in 2005. Kept asking you for the records, Paul, and kept giving you business proposals. Secured you a provisional SMS license, things like that. But all you cared about was conversions.
Basic business, yes, recordkeeping, yes, stock symbols, no. I tried to learn what was going on, but Madison Transfer Agency stonewalled me. You know that. I'd inquire, they'd call you. I said not to call you, they called you. I think that as a regulated entity, they're the ones that need to go down Corey's death spiral.
Only you my friend.
Ya, KM is Marco. Marco's me. I'm Mal Duszak. Mal Duszak is Corey. Corey is Edward Hayter.
Major Damage doesn't like me? He only doesn't like me when he's in Columbia. When we meet up in Panama he's got a different tune since he needs an interpreter at the bank.
Maybe I'm liable for breach of fiduciary duty -- but not fraud. So sue me. Step right up.
It took a while to figure out what was going on. At first I thought these were legit. transactions. They didn't teach us pump and dump 101 in Costa Rican business school.
Is it a violation of the TOU to repeat this one? It's a classic, I'm surprised Corey isn't upset about it. Maybe Corey's on the wrong team.
From: Paul Taylor [mailto:Ptaylor07@adelphia.net]
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 12:41 PM
To: 'Rodrigo Calderon A.'
Subject: FW: a dish served cold
FYI
Here’s the plot
Don’t share
Paul Taylor
ptaylor07@adelphia.net
tel:
fax:
(310) 492 5203
(310) 510-6831
From: Paul Taylor [mailto:Ptaylor07@adelphia.net]
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 1:39 PM
To: 'Shichtm@aol.com'
Subject: a dish served cold
Ok , follow me here
Corey wants paper – but not control
So here’s the plan.
12,795,410 -- issued and out now
2 sets of old preferred that my clients own = 61,000,000 shares today
Therefore – 73,795,000 ( None of the new common can be sold – its all still 144)
One more swift ATM – say 10% / 2 --- 3.68M + 3.68M
Now its @ 81,174, 951
Now we ‘extinguish” the debs with say 50,000,000 shares – 144
Let Corey worry about opinions
THEN !!! SUDDENLY
The Preferred shareholders REVOLT !!!
They resign – all of them
They surrender the 61,000,000 new 144 they got and shred them
Oh oh – now Coreys 50,000,000 controls the deal …
Does that work for you ?
Paul Taylor
ptaylor07@adelphia.net
tel:
fax:
(310) 492 5203
(310) 510-6831
Add me to your address book...
what do i want? nada.