is...doing as little as possible
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.
bobbybdb, that is all well and good but what if the broker never reported the sale to the DTC in the first place? Then the broker is the entity that caused us not to trade. In a normal situation, the DTC will have a buy and a sell transaction for the shares traded so that they can clear the trade. If they don't, then they have a short. (I know you know all this, I am just clarifying my thought process and not being condescending)
However, if the DTC does not know about the sale and never receives the other half of the transaction either, then they cannot clear it, would never know about it, and would not have any shares held in the broker's account.
What imsoweary is claiming is that the brokers committed criminal fraud and sold non-existent shares, never intending to report the sale to the DTC. I think he is right because if it was a legit sale, as you propose, then the brokers would be going after the hedge fund who naked shorted BCIT already.
They are not going to sit on a possible hundreds of millions of dollars loss for 2 years without taking some action.
We need publicity. As long as this problem is so quiet, no one is concerned. We need to start raising a stink ourselves with the DTC, the SEC and any financial news outlets we can think of. Otherwise this massive criminal cover-up will never get exposed, the brokers and the DTC will never have an incentive to resolve it and we will be here till heck freezes over.
The time has come for us to take control of our own destiny and do what we think is in OUR best interest! No one is going to look out for us, except us. We can sit here and talk for another 2 years, waiting for some white knight to come to our rescue, or we can take action now!
Here is what we need to do:
Order certs for your shares from your broker (don't worry, they can't deliver them) and when they tell you they cannot send them to you, demand a written explanation as to why they are incapable of delivering a cert for the shares you purchased from them more than 2 years ago. Be professional but be stern. Don't let them give you any crap. YOU are the customer and YOU have rights.
Once you get that letter from your broker, write the SEC and demand an investigation of your broker's failure to deliver a certificate for a purchase of shares you made more than 2 years ago. Again, be professional but be stern.
Mail, via certified mail, your letter to the SEC and also send a copy to the DTC, your broker AND one of the major financial news outlets. We all can decide which news outlet to send a copy to later. However we do want to send to only one or two of them in order to ensure they get a couple thousand complaints to the SEC demanding an investigation into possible criminal fraud by our brokers.
This should start the ball rolling and put the fear of public disclosure into everyone at the SEC, the DTC and your broker...for now.
As far as we know, no one is being treated differently. There is nothing wrong in telling someone thank you, if that is indeed what he intends to do. There is nothing nefarious about returning one kindness for another. What is nefarious, and unethical, is efforts to instill doubt, mistrust & suspicion. The man is innocent until proven guilty.
ohbull2000, oh, ok. Thanks! Heck, I never even responded to the thing. Anyone with half a brain could figure out what Megas was doing and could have figured out it would be dismissed one way or another. Besides, I aint got nothing left for anyone to take, unless they want to fight the IRS for what's left of the shirt on my back. Even that is getting kinda ratty! lol
alynnb, failure to comply with what? The case was dismissed. How can someone be sued for failure to comply to a dismissed suit? Megas asked the court to dismiss the case, it wasn't a judgment by the court. Megas dropped it. Its over. He may use some of the information he obtained for a future suit but it wont be in connection to the original one. It can't, there is no suit to comply with. Am I missing something here? I'm so confused!
ohbull2000, what am I missing here? Of course those cases will be stricken. The original suit was dismissed, making any jurisdictional request, or request for dismissal pointless. I really don't understand some of the thinking on this board. The only countersuit that *might* be applicable is the frivolous nature of the original suit but even that is suspect.
Megas asked the court to dismiss the case, period. There is no suit to challenge anymore, there can be no allocation of court/lawyer fees etc. For anyone not counter suing, it is basically as if the case was never filed in the first place.
I am confused. Has something happened that I missed? I admit I have not kept up on things lately.
And imsoweary's reply to Kenco...
By: imsoweary
13 Jun 2007, 11:34 AM EDT
Msg. 47860 of 47910
(This msg. is a reply to 47831 by kenco.)
kenco, Who ever said Megas did not intend to carry it through to a settlement or judgment? If the DTC's claim turned out to be true, which Megas had no choice but to accept as a fact at that point, then he certainly would have carried it through to a settlement or judgment.
There is no way anyone, even woogie, could ever prove that Megas filed the lawsuit against the shareholders purely for discovery purposes, even if he did. With the DTC's insistence and demand that the counterfeit certs be identified and removed from the market, Megas had all the evidence he needed to support the basis for the lawsuit.
Excellent post from RB by imsoweary...
By: imsoweary
13 Jun 2007, 10:26 AM EDT
Msg. 47828 of 47828
(This msg. is a reply to 47822 by kenco.)
kenco, no, you are wrong. The DTC refused to allow BCIT to trade until the fraudulent certs had been identified and removed from the market. The DTC did not question whether there were fraudulent certs in the market, they insisted there WERE fraudulent certs in the market and that all the shares beyond the issued and outstanding were backed by those fraudulent certs.
Based on the DTC's insistence that there WERE fraudulent certs in the market and that all the shares beyond the issued and outstanding were backed by those fraudulent certs, Megas had the basis for making the allegations against the shareholders. The DTC insistence that there were fraudulent certs in the market WAS the evidentiary support needed to make the allegations. If the DTC insists it is so, then it must be so, right?
Since Megas had no way of identifying who had shares backed by fraudulent certs, unless the brokers opened their books, which they refused to do, the ONLY alternative for Megas was to sue all the shareholders, requiring them to identify the source of the shares they owned. By offering amnesty to those who did deal in fraudulent certs, if they turned them over to the company, he had reason to believe that the lawsuit would indeed identify the source of the fraudulent certs.
When it became clear from the individual shareholder's statements that none of the shares they held were back by the claimed fraudulent certs, there was no reason to continue with the lawsuit. Megas had the evidence he needed to go back to the DTC and tell them they were wrong. None of the shares out there were backed by fraudulent certs but rather were sourced directly from the brokers themselves, thus proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that a massive case of NSS existed.
This is so simple that anyone who cannot understand and accept it as the truth must either be an idiot or choosing to deny it for their own reasons. Mark my words, watch and see what happens.
Tackler, well some might consider it positive and some negative. I consider it realistic and objective.
I look and listen to both sides of a story and try not to let my emotions control my logic (not always successfully).
Truth be told, there are those who would persuade you to either side, as long as they just persuade you, winning your trust for future manipulation. So you can never know with 100% certainty that who you trust and believe is on your side, truly is.
Tackler
Which side is the "darkside", who determines which side is the "darkside" and what criteria is used to determine which side is the "darkside"?
A personal letter to Megas...
Dear Mr Megas
I do thank you for what you have been able to tell me. I will go ahead and respond to the summons based on what information I have. I truly wish you the best of luck in resolving this enormous problem, to the benefit of BCIT and its genuine shareholders. I also hope that the pseudo-shareholders come out alright, if not blessed, as well.
As I previously mentioned, I just started filing for bankruptcy and expect the filing to be complete long before BCIT shares begin trading again. I have put it off as long as I can and it has only gotten me deeper and deeper in debt by doing so. Since my filing for bankruptcy will hurt a number of businesses and individuals, I cannot put it off any longer without harming even more people. This is not the type of person I am. I can’t knowingly go on harming people who trusted me. I feel horribly bad for those who will be harmed already and will willingly forfeit any assets I have in order to reimburse them, including my shares of BCIT.
Things have not gone well for me in the last several years, as you know. Besides being physically, mentally and financially devastated by my illness, several investments I had made in the securities market have turned out to be very bad investments. Besides being bad investments, they have also turned out to be fraught with illegal activities and outright fraud.
The worst of these was CMKM Diamonds, where I lost $45,000. The CEO of the company was slick and won over the hearts and minds of over 60,000 investors, myself included. All of us placed an enormous amount of trust in the CEO. It was only in the last year or so that we learned the company had dumped almost 800 billion shares on the market. In addition, only in the last month we learned that the company received between $200 million and $400 million in proceeds from the sale of these shares. Unfortunately we also learned that the CEO and other company officers had gutted the company and stole all of the proceeds, leaving a mere $588 in the company account.
The new CEO and new company attorney, who I believe you are familiar with, Bill Frizzell, are in the process of suing the former CEO and other officers. The old CEO has fled to Canada and it is extremely doubtful we will ever see any of that money again. Even more sad though is that most of the shareholders had placed so much faith and trust in the CEO, that even now, with incontrovertible evidence right in front of them, they cannot accept that their trusted CEO would do something like this and so they have concocted some elaborate, unbelievable sting theory that is supposedly going to result in a windfall of trillions of dollars to the shareholders. Rather than face the fact that their faith and trust was misplaced, they would rather believe in some inconceivable fantasy that borders on lunacy.
You are a intelligent man, Thomas. A lot of people admire you, personally and professionally. As with the CEO of CMKM, a lot people, about 1500 in fact, have placed their faith and trust in you, as deeply and as profoundly as they did in the CEO of CMKM. In fact, most of these people are CMKM shareholders as well as BCIT pseudo-shareholders. Now, most are starting to question that faith and trust, becoming angry in fact, because your summons accuses them of committing fraud. There are many questions in their minds and nowhere to get answers. All they see is you attempting to cut them loose, forcing them to fend for themselves against their brokers. They sought a leader among men, to fight the good fight. Instead they got sued, for a crime they did not commit.
Although it will probably not make any difference to me, given my bankruptcy will most likely be complete before there is any resolution to the BCIT issue, I hope and pray that the BCIT pseudo-shareholders have not placed their faith and trust in vain again and that you will not abandon them in their battle against the brokers. They need that leader I spoke of, that leader among men, to fight the good fight. The only question is, are you up to the challenge to be that leader? Do you want to be known as Thomas Megas, the CEO who fought the good fight…and won, or do you want to simply be known as that CEO who sued his own shareholders, destroying all their hopes and dreams in the process? The challenge is there. The choice is yours. I know you will make the right decision.
Best regards,
Ed
average, agreed. It is certainly upsetting to be accused of committing fraud when you know you have done no such. You spend your life trying to do what is right and being a good citizen and then crap like this hits you. Don't think I am not upset as I surely am.
However, being accused and being guilty are two different things. I understand what Megas is trying to do but I think he is confused about these shares and their source. In trying to explain the situation to his lawyer, in order to make the case, his own misconception is evident in the summons. I think once clarity is brought to the situation that the judge will dismiss the case and Megas will come away with a better understanding of what has happened.
Of course, I could be all wet. I tend to expect the good in most people and that has burned me more than once.
No is saying the summons is about naked shorting. Don't get your panties in a wad. In many people's opinions, Megas has erroneously identified False Certificates as the source of the problem. We are simply claiming that naked shorting is the source of the problem. As such, I intend to challenge the very premise of the summons (ie False Certificates), in my response.
glaszman, not only that, there is considerable incentive for the brokers to naked short a stock to death and drive its PPS down to almost nothing. If they succeed in doing so and the stock gets delisted or the company goes bankrupt, they do not have to cover those naked short shares so not only do they get commissions and the spread, they get the entire sale price of the shares, tax free!
Janice, ok, now we are getting somewhere. You admit that at least some of those shares are naked shorted shares. That's good progress for today. I don't want to over stress you so we will continue therapy again tomorrow. lol
tex, I haven't finalized my opinion and thoughts yet. Still need some more information from Megas himself and am awaiting a reply. I will post my final thoughts (ie my response to the summons) once it is complete.
Janice, this I agree with you. The suit is so ridiculous and so frought with misconception that if the judge knows anything about securities, he would throw it out immediately. The suit just doesn't make sense. I think Megas honestly believes there are false certificates out there when in fact, there are none. Any illegal certs were previously taken care of through the settlement with Pino. Now, if there are no false certificates, then what is it that is backing up the shares in our accounts? Please answer.
Joda, yes, you are a mud skipper on your way to becoming...something lol
Do you know for sure that they didn't?
Janice, when you answer my questions. quid pro quo.
Janice, I just "leeped" into this mess today. Its all relatively new to me as I have not participated on this board more than once or twice before, a long time ago and prior to this suit. So, you'll have to bear with me as I absorb everything that has gone before. I am at a disadvantage here. Just imagine what I will be like when I suck it all in! lol
Janice, yes, I read it the first time but all you did then was cut and paste, without any commentary. I had no idea what you were trying to say and as intelligent as I am, I have not yet mastered mind reading. I had not seen these documents before, particularly the 2nd one. How did you come to possess this? It obviously had to come from either the author or one of the recipients.
Janice, ok, let's go with that for a moment. Please identify and explain the participation of the parties at fault for the existence of the fraudulent shares.
You have yet to answer a single direct question I asked you. The casual reader would have to assume you either can't, or won't, answer them.
Anything that is not a legal share is a fraudulent share. Naked Shorted Shares are not legal shares. Therefore, NSS are fraudulent shares. These are not the same shares that Pino was sued for.
RDG013, that money DID cover the illegal shares that existed back then. However, these shares have nothing to do with that situation. These are naked shorted shares that the brokers created out of thin air because they didn't expect to have to ever have to cover them.
Well surprise, the company didn't just go under and disappear after trading was halted. Instead Megas got all the financials up to date and moved forward to the point where we actually did start trading again, until the DTCC pulled the plug. Why did the DTCC pull the plug? Because the enormous number of NSS shares out there would cause a short squeeze of monumental proportions.
I don't think suing us was the right thing to do either. In fact, I think it was really stupid. It sounds like something the DTCC forced Megas to do before they would clear BCIT for trading. However, I also see an opporunity to turn this around and put the onus where it really belongs, the brokers.
RDG013, that money DID cover the illegal shares that existed back then. However, these shares have nothing to do with that situation. These are naked shorted shares that the brokers created out of thin air because they didn't expect to have to ever have to cover them.
Well surprise, the company didn't just go under and disappear after trading was halted. Instead Megas got all the financials up to date and moved forward to the point where we actually did start trading again, until the DTCC pulled the plug. Why did the DTCC pull the plug? Because the enormous number of NSS shares out there would cause a short squeeze of monumental proportions.
I don't think suing us was the right thing to do either. In fact, I think it was really stupid. It sounds like something the DTCC forced Megas to do before they would clear BCIT for trading. However, I also see an opporunity to turn this around and put the onus where it really belongs, the brokers.
Bob, I feel challenged! lol
Seriously, I will not compromise my ethics nor my logic. I have been run over by the markets enough. The brokers come out on top every time and have gotten away with horrendous crimes. They have destroyed companies that could have been the next Microsoft or found a cure for cancer. The Naked Short Selling conducted by the brokers is destroying the very foundation of our economic system.
Trillions of dollars have been stolen over the years by their criminality. If we don't start to speak up and fight back, they will continue to rape us. We must fight back for change and we have the opportunity to do that by putting in our responses to the summons, the information and declaration of where the real fault lies. The judge can decide anything, including declaring the shares illegal but forcing the brokers to cover them on the open market, which is exactly what they should do, BY LAW.
The discussions in these threads have given me a great source of ideas for writing my response to the summons. I will glady post a copy of it here after it is complete but for now, I am running out of free postings for the day so must limit any further reamrks for today.
rnozaut, neither am I. I will fight this to the end and I will do everything I can to see that the brokers pay and no one else. Those truly responsible MUST pay. The criminal behavior of the brokers MUST stop. They have destroyed companies and shareholders around the world with their greed and avarice. We MUST band together and fight this.
Compromise? How many times does he need to compromise? Is it his responsibility to compromise every time someone commits a criminal act and forges BCIT's shares? How many times would this "compromise" make, three?
As long as the brokers keep getting off the hook for their criminal behavior, the more they are going to continue that behavior. It must stop! Those that commit the crime must be held responsible and pay the price for that crime. Requiring the brokers to purchase shares on the open market is the only fair resolution to the problem as not only will they be required to make good those shares, they will incur a significant penalty as well.
Why would any logical, ethical person disagree with that? None would! Therefore I can only conclude that anyone advocating such a "compromise" is either not logical or is unethical. Which is it in your case?
Janice, I have no intention of handing over my shares to anyone. I expect my broker to provide me with genuine shares, period. I bought them, they cleared them and they have been sitting in my account for almost 2 years.
Megas has clearly said that those who have stated they purchased their shares in good faith from their broker and had nothing to do with certs have been dismissed from the case. So there is no reason to give up anything.
Just answer these questions Janice:
1) On what basis do you believe it is fair for BCIT to bear the cost, figuratively and literally, of legitimizing the illegal shares?
2) On what basis do you believe it is not the responsibility of the brokers/shorters to have to bear the cost of correcting their error/criminality?
3) Why are you protecting the brokers?
P.S. I recognized Urban for what he was back in the fall of 2004, but that has no bearing here so don't try to divert attention to another topic.
Janice, ok, I erred, I was reading the last line of the benficial owner section of the 10K where it states 49.5% is owned by the officers of the company. The actual majority between the two is 86.6% BUT...
You are still missing the point. It doesn't matter if they own 99% of the issued and outstanding between them, any forced acceptance of the illegal shares is unfair to the real shareholders, unfair the company and unfair to Megas. Why should he have to bear the cost of "fixing" a problem he did not create? Answer that, Janice.
Hogwash! Between the two of them they barely own a majority of the shares. There is still almost another 50% of the company owned by others and whomever they are, they still have rights and expectations of the officers of the company. You know this so why are you obfusicating the issue? Is there something in it for you perhaps?
What is the exact wording of option B?
What makes you think that striking a deal and selling those shares to the brokers to cover the psuedo-shares is the right thing to do?
The fact is, that is the WRONG thing to do as it 1) lets the brokers off the hook for their criminal activity as they would likely be able to acquire them at a much lower price than they would have to pay on the open market, 2) harms the genuine shareholders by diluting shareholder value and 3) harms the psuedo-shareholders by denying them a higher PPS in which to sell their shares back to the brokers.
The only group to benefit by selling shares directly to the brokers/shorters to cover the psuedo-shares is the criminal brokers/shorters. Why would anyone want to reward criminality?
I'd like to see Megas forced to recognize the shares in question as valid shares.
I'm sure you would, Janice. Forget for the moment that it would be unfair to the genuine shareholders of BCIT because of the massive dilution that would be forced on them. Despite the fact that they nor BCIT had anything to do with all the illegal shares on the market. BCIT has no responsibility whatsoever for the illegal shares.
You are blatantly transparent, Janice. Obviously anyone in the back pocket of the brokers or naked shorters would like to see what you describe happen. It would get the brokers off the hook for tens or hundreds of millions of dollars that it would cost them, to actually have to cover the naked shares they sold, and make the genuine shareholders pay for the damage they caused! How could ANY student of the securities industry even suggest such an idiotic and illegal action?
You claim to be a proponet of cleaning up the market and exposing frauds like CMKX. What about frauds like the brokers who created the air shares in the first place? What about frauds like the journalist who claim to be objective in their reporting and free of influence?
Only someone on the take would want to see the victims victimized! Is that really what you want to see, Janice? How much did it cost the brokers/shorters to buy you, Janice? 100 grand? 200 grand? Still a drop in the bucket compared to what it will cost them to have to cover on the open market. Let's not quibble here. How much were you worth to them?
LOL, I guess there has to be a doubter in every goup. Its what keeps us honest.
I don't understand how the DTC can say it had not received instructions from the company regarding the exchange of the
'old' shares for the 'new' shares, as noted in the various press announcements. Are they lying or has Megas not given them the information? If they are lying, then why has no one called them on it? This stock gets more and more confusing every day.