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.
dragon, seems many here have a VERY short memory
re: "...I said no such thing..."
------------------
Posted by: maninfla
In reply to: dragon52 who wrote msg# 19168 Date:1/12/2006 8:08:50 PM
Post #of 19184
re: "...you missed the boat period..."
can you guarantee that?
----
Posted by: dragon52
In reply to: maninfla who wrote msg# 19171 Date:1/12/2006 8:09:27 PM
Post #of 19184
absolutely... eom
Rascia, sure...
applying a more "reasonable", but still very generous $10M market cap, that would bring SP down to .0137
$10M divided by 729M shares = .0137
dragon, really?...
well then why dont i "loan" you $10K that you can "invest" here, and just give me a promissory note for $20K in 6 months
since you can "guarantee" results you should make out like a bandit
re: "...you missed the boat period..."
can you guarantee that?
i did
dragon52, as i posted on RB...
no one is disputing the potential value of the divi shares, only there relative worth to the current share structure and SP
could be worth a buck, could RS twice again [like they recently did, 2 x 1 for 100] and be worth very little
its just a matter for discussion, evaluation and projection..ya know...DD...what these boards are supposed to be about...not ongoing personal attacks such as yours
i wonder who paid them the $2500 for this "report" dated dec 7
"...$2,500 was received from a non-affiliated third party...."
timmage, unfortunately that is potentially the short-sighted interpretation...
...because IF holding BKMP for the divi causes a loss for some, the shares are no longer "free", are they?
the "unfortunate" part of the already high OS of SNYY is
that it puts market cap at current SP and OS at $947M
d'oh!
do you think there will be a "correction" in SP?
--------------
with a generous market cap of $10M, [AND not even taking into consideration the new divi shares], that puts SP of SNYY at .0137
shortchange, very interesting...see previous post, thanks. eom.
shortchange, also, if your info is correct
then the figures on the Q [100-500M] cant be correct, as you are quoting over that stated OS
and if only 1.5B of BKMP are OS, AND if only the float get the divi, then a minimum of 250M shares of SNYY are required for the divi
[if on the supposed total OS of 2.5B, then over 400M of SNYY]
shortchange, your info may be accurate, but do you have a link to the source?
OT: tighter, and a much "cleaner" feel with the bar. eom.
OT: trained all my life...and those type grips have been around as long, lol
but a dedicated site for performance grips?
shortchange, re: SNYY
AS, unlimited [as per wyoming inc]
AS, 100M or 500M? [as per financial report, 09/30/05]
OS, 1,678,318 as of 09/30/05 [as per financial report]
**however, under "subsequent events", it states a 10 for 1 FS took place on sept 30, so the OS just after the Q was 10X the above, or 16,783,180 as of 10/01/05??
but how many shares are/will be needed for the divi?
references:
https://www.otcstockinfo.com/repository/650880/650880_FR8.pdf
http://soswy.state.wy.us/Corp_Search_Main.asp
a TB project...
http://lynxpt.com/
OT: kudos to TB for his timely and open response to a sensitive email/subject
exactly. eom
From: "Tracey S. Baron" <traceybaron@comcast.net>
Date: 12 Jan 13:45 (PST)
To: <maninfla@ragingbull.com>
Cc: "'David Keaveney'" <davidk@motorsportsemporium.com>
Subject: Reply to question of MW and John Flanders
Shareholder -
Yes, this is the same person as in mentioned in the SEC complaint you sent me. David and I were aware of this situation and knew that it was nothing to be concerned at the time he was brought on board. John WAS a registered representative who made an introduction between two parties who weren't properly licensed to enter into Reg. D Private Placement transactions. John is NO LONGER in the securities business and is a long time friend and colleague of David Keaveney, so we knew about his character and his abilities as a great salesman and having a masterful marketing mind - I have said before we were lucky our paths crossed when they did. That is all that MSEP is willing to comment about this issue. Any future comment about John outside of the scope of his job will not be answered. When we start announcing sales, past issues of John (for that matter) will not be brought up any further. The bottom line is that the top three (or majority of the shareholders) of this company agreed that this guy (John) is the perfect man to sell GS610 brake fluid, and when you listen to him rollout his business plan; you immediately know why we are honored to have him on our team. It is unfair to judge him on his first 30 days on the job, which came during the holiday season, it is nearly impossible to develop new relationships during that month, for anybody. How John will be judged will be by his performance in January and going forward, and we all have no doubt that he (and we) will be successful.
As for the MW situation, the next court date is January 20th, and please keep in mind, we are the Plaintiffs in this scenario, not the Defendants, we expect, or should I say, we are confident that we will prevail in these proceedings, but we can not and will not discuss this matter any further until after a court decision has been made. As you know, any good attorney would tell you not to discuss a lawsuit in any private or public forum prior to going to trial.
I know that I am not divulging a lot of particulars in answering your email; we are just protecting all of the shareholders best interest. For example, if we are working on a big contract and we disclose the particulars prior to it getting inked, we can't afford to take the chance of a shareholder calling to try and get his or her own information and ruining the deal. We will announce all information as soon as we possibly can. We are building something good here at MSEP, we (John, David and I) have all been successful in the past and there is no reason that we won't be successful in the future. We don't run our business thinking about our stock price, there are too many things that are out of our control, what we can do is build the business, the stock price will take care of itself. The proof that we are successful will be in the form of sales of GS610 and in the rolling out of new businesses out of Quadriga, where we are striving to build quality brand name recognition to our products.
Regards,
Tracey S. Baron
1025 NW Couch #1316
Portland, OR 97209
(503) 805-0918 phone number
(866) 859-8077 fax number
are your shorts dry?...
another stellar day!!...
but "no worries, mate"
"...Going to see a bounce here..."
"...Moving easily..."
"...Ridiculous shake..."
"...Moving here at EOD..."
"...Some buying here..."
"...Someone is nibbling..."
"...MM's bringing it down to get shares..."
"...MSEP HUGE BLOCKS!!!!..."
appears technical and psychological "double bottom support" blown out...could continue down to test triple zeros
[personal buy target possibility: break of 52 wk low]
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=8978443
american heritage stock transfer website...
all the contact and relevant info needed
http://www.americanhst.com/contactamericanhst.aspx
-------------
still no response to emails or phone calls
OT: Thexpress2002, fair enough...
...and good luck with that
...and regardless that "what you dont care to hear" is ultimately correct
OT: Thexpress2002, wanted to get your thoughts
do you believe that if someone keeps repeating the same thing over and over and over and over again, that sooner or later they may be "right", even though the stock they were talking about had lost most of its value...and then all of a sudden they would be "brilliant"
it sounded peachy-keen
canofwhupassdotcom, is that what i said?
i stated one should not take anothers statements [hear-say] as fact/gospel without links/references, and even then without confirming the info themselves
you have just exemplified another common practice...mis-stating/mis-quoting/mis-interpreting what another has stated/posted
jonah_dexx, i would advise to never believe ANYONE [including myself] unless third party links and references are provided...and even then only after one confirms the info themselves
i have stated the above more than once
OT; VIKING
re: my earlier GZFX opinions/comments and direction of SP
any questions?
my point then and still is that sub .01 was/is predictable...if not permanently at least on a dip
and this gem seems to be faring as expected as well
jonah_dexx, sure...
NEVER BELIEVE A WORD THAT IS TOLD YOU BY ANY COMPANY OFFICER OF ANY COMPANY
its amazing when i bring up issues [and well before they are "common knowledge"] i get slammed up and down
but when others "all of a sudden" become enlightened...
a pretty good dated, compensated report
http://www.fortunemarket.net/investment/fcdh.php
anyone know if TOU rules/regs have been changed?
...particularly regarding personal attacks?
just curious as dozens of direct, OT, personal attacks remain on a board i post...and as a matter of fact, the moderators themselves engage in the attacks, which are now outnumbering posts about the stock itself
TIA
bmarley5780, perhaps i missed it...
was there an announcement of this [or associated companies] running a SB ad?
TIA
lasombra, as you know, there was no bigger critic or individual that did more DD of this stock since day one...and those concerns were obviously well founded
as to wishes/hopes/expectations of a "rally" from here [.0000 x .0001 at the time], they are not based on anything material that i can share
keep in mind that a "rally" is relative to each individuals position, entry points, and exit targets
hey!, this "gem" is up 100% already, lol...that alone would be considered a "rally" by most people
i wouldnt bet the farm, but as with most ANY stock at these levels [and ones in which i focus], risk/reward is palatable
[holding approx. $5K worth]
braden, thanks for the "report"
i will email baron to ask if their john flanders is this john flanders:
SEC SUES MORGAN SPAULDING OVER PENNY STOCK FRAUDS AGAINST FOREIGN INVESTORS
By Stephanie Ayres
5 July 2005
Dallas, Texas
An SEC complaint filed on June 20 alleged that Texas-based Morgan Spaulding Inc. was used by its principal Jackie Gross along with another Texas company, Telvest Communications LLC, also allegedly controlled by Gross, to defraud foreign investors with sales of some $15 million of unregistered penny stock shares between 2001 and 2003.
The stocks were directly sold to the foreign investors by brokers working from offshore boiler rooms in Spain and Australia, some of whom reportedly claimed to work for Morgan Spaulding. One offshore brokerage, J.P. Madison, was said to have represented itself as the European representative for Morgan Spaulding.
According to the SEC complaint, these and other brokers received between 55% and 70% of the stock sales price as commissions, which were not disclosed in the confirmation statements prepared for the investors by Telvest.
Also named as a defendant was John Flanders, a broker with Scottsdale Capital Advisors in Arizona. Flanders is accused of helping Gross and Telvest locate penny stock issuers whose shares could be sold in the scheme. He reportedly received about $200,000 of finders fees for these efforts
http://home.att.net/~fcwriter/news59.htm
-----------------------
SEC SUES TEXAS BROKER-DEALER MORGAN SPAULDING, INC., ITS PRINCIPAL JACKIE
GROSS AND TELVEST COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, FOR SECURITIES FRAUD; SEC ALSO SUES
TELVEST AND JOHN FLANDERS AS UNREGISTERED BROKER-DEALERS
On June 20, the Commission filed a civil injunctive action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas against Jackie
Gross and two entities he owned and controlled, including Morgan
Spaulding, Inc., a defunct Texas-based broker-dealer. The Commission’s
complaint alleges that these defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme
to distribute nearly $15 million in stock issued pursuant to Regulation
S, a section of the federal securities laws that permits companies to
sell unregistered shares to overseas investors. The complaint seeks
disgorgement of the defendants’ ill-gotten gains, civil penalties, and
permanent injunctions against future violations of certain of the
antifraud and broker-dealer registration provisions of the federal
securities laws. The complaint also charges Telvest Communications, a
Texas company that Gross controlled and Arizona-based broker John
Flanders with acting as unregistered broker-dealers in connection with
the fraudulent transactions.
The Commission’s complaint alleges that from approximately late 2001
through September 30, 2003, Gross, along with Telvest and his wholly
owned entity Morgan Spaulding, facilitated the sale of nearly $15
million in unregistered shares of U.S.-based companies to overseas
investors by, among other things, deceiving the investors into believing
that nearly all of the stock purchase price would be remitted to the
companies issuing shares. In fact, only approximately 30 to 45 percent
of the invested proceeds actually made it to the issuers. The rest went
to Gross, Morgan Spaulding and Telvest; to overseas brokerage firms as
undisclosed commissions; and as “finder fees” to promoters including
defendant John Flanders. The complaint alleges that Telvest and
Flanders acted as unregistered broker-dealers in connection with the
fraudulent stock sales.
The Commission’s complaint charges Gross, Morgan Spaulding and Telvest
with violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities
Act), Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange
Act) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Telvest and Flanders are charged with
violating Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act. Gross is also charged with
Telvest’s and Morgan Spaulding’s violations of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and for Telvest’s violation of
Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act, as a control person under Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act. [SEC v. Jackie Gross, et al., Civil Action
No. 3:05CV1251(N), USDC, N.D. Tex.] (LR-19275)
http://www.sec.gov/news/digest/dig062005.txt
RU, thank you, wasnt that easy, lol
and even though you still didnt include that the TA stated "as of jan 11, 2006" in this post, i am sure that everyone knows that thats what you meant??
subject/debate closed [unless conflicting info comes directly from communication with the TA]
good luck to all
RU, lets put this to bed once and for all
and i wont ask again
what you didnt answer last night was this question:
did the TA state those were the figures as of jan 11, 2006?
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=9224823
thanks for your response
uwlungman, if those are current numbers
shouldnt it read "as of 01/11/06"?
all the hubbub last night was simply because i asked for clarification on that detail...and it was never answered/avoided
if one asks for share structure, and the response is "OS is xyz as of oct 26, 2005", that is a world of difference from stating "OS is xyz as of jan 11, 2006"
is that difficult to understand or an unreasonable request?
A quite current tie between Winick and the DoM?
Check KCHG opinion letter from Weed last May re 144 stock then free trading.
Pearl Asia Foundation and Adatom listed along with Winick etc.
https://www.otcstockinfo.com/repository/653368/653368_FR6.pdf
TBAH Winick 40 million shares = 13%
SDOI Sandoil, Winick 66 million shares = 14% t/a American Heritage, Kolt Curry.
NLFS NewLife, not much info, again t/a American Heritage, Kolt Curry.
---------------------
anyone know if this will impact SP and events here?