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.
Just a guess now...
Is this for real? Quite a leap to stem cell research...
http://local.yahoo.com/info-21110268-humex-medical-group-garden-grove
Looks like this dude is selling it:
http://www.dulacmining.com/claims-for-sale-lease/maisy-may-gold-mine---dawson-new
I already have a pretty good idea what will happen...
Dang, you appear to be correct. I really hate it when I'm wrong. So the value of these shares is, using the mythical_phenix algorithm, ~$160K. That works out to be about $0.0008/Phie share.
PHIE holds 4 million restricted shares of AGMC according to their most recent SEC filing. In this filing they value the shares at $0.15 for a total value of $600K. LOL! They must be using the Cory Ribotsky algorithm for that calculation. It appears to me these shares are worth $0.02 or $80K. At best. But hey, Henry's found someone to pony up $2Billion for a piece of the PHIE action, eh? LOL! LOL!
--
Buyin' some more coal I see from today's PR. LOL! You'd think they might want to make their payroll taxes current first, eh? These guys can get tenacious:
While you are waiting for the latest promises to 'unleash shareholder value', have a review of this, from a PR dated 7 Feb 2011:
Elektrik Eye Recordings. Hmmm....
Entity Name: ELEKTRIK EYE RECORDINGS, LLC
Entity Number: 201010510043
Date Filed: 04/13/2010
Status: ACTIVE
Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA
Entity Address: 35193 AVENUE A #C
Entity City, State, Zip: YUCAIPA CA 92399
Agent for Service of Process: SCOTT SAND
Agent Address: 35193 AVENUE A STE C
Agent City, State, Zip: YUCAIPA CA 92399
The Jetson style boomerang appearing in both is just too funny!
--
This sounds like the big ole elephant in the room to me also...
I must have missed the discussion regarding the civil suit filed in Illinois against Imaging3 in October 2011. Sorry, it's tough to keep track of all this stuff. I'm sure you all have discussed it in real time already. LOL!
Northern District of Illinois
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:11-cv-07652
Exhibit Source Inc v. Imaging3, Inc.
Basically, it is a claim by Exhibit Source, Inc, that they designed a set for the RSNA show, but Imaging did not execute the contract, however they appeared at the show with a set strikingly similar to the Exhibit Source design.
Curious indeed. The filing has pictures of the design and the actual booth. Pretty spiffy, and certainly worth the $1.52 in PACER fees to have a look. That's only about 20 IMGG shares.
--
Gee dude, I wonder if we will see:
1. 6 years worth of auditing filings appearing on Edgar in the next 24 hours.
or
2. Nothing.
LOL!
Well, the 10 days has come and gone. I do wonder if the $25K got paid to the SEC. Hey, they need the money to fund these operations. All in all it seems it was a pretty good year for SEC in the penny stock arena, comparatively speaking.
--
Well, there you have it. The tell. LOL!
Gee, Rick assured us he was a stand up guy...
http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=IGTG&read=25916
By: rickotc
17 Oct 2006, 09:29 AM EDT
Msg. 25916 of 26023
Jump to msg. #
My name is Rick McCaffrey, an investor relations specialist at OTC Financial Network, a division of National Financial Communications (NFC), both which are owned by Geoff Eiten. I work diligently with Geoff Eiten, the founder and president of NFC, and Scott Sand, CEO of Ingen, and I hereby want to set the record straight.
There are two major complaints by certain parties that for whatever reason need to be straightened out. If there are any questions regarding the current civil complaint by the State of Massachusetts against Eiten, I would be happy to discuss it with you.
As far as Eiten’s 1983 involvement in the distribution of a controlled substance, he has paid his dues and has nothing more to say about that. The fact is that Eiten was a Series 7 broker from 1971 to 1991 with -0- complaints from his customers. He had been a registered investment advisor (RIA) since 1978-1996 and continues to publish his small-cap newsletter OTC Growth Stock Watch to date. The only reason Eiten is not an RIA today is because of a clerical error made by not filing his annual ADV form, because the State of MA changed from a physical form filing to an electronic filing in 1996. Again, if you need further clarification, please contact me.
I would like to remind everyone that any complaints about Eiten are currently being handled through all appropriate legal channels. I have worked for OTCFN and closely with Eiten now for over 8 years and I can personally tell you that he exemplifies forthrightness in all his business practices and fully discloses his interests in any deals he backs. Again, I would be glad to answer specific questions you may have on Ingen or Eiten. You can reach me at 781-444-6100x625 or email rick@otcfn.com.
--
Dude, go to the head of the class! LOL! It is probably similar to the claim "patent-pending coal-combustion-to-steam-energy system that requires 50 pocent less coal..."
--
Final judgement: Ingen to pay $25K within 10 days...
LOL! What if they don't? I see also that the judgement is quite specific in terms of allowable payment options. It seems stock is not an option. Bummer.
...FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Ingen is liable for a civil penalty in the
amount of $25,000.00, pursuant to Section 20(d) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. j 77t(d), and
Section 21(d) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. j 78u(d). The total amount, $25,000.00, shall be
due and payable within ten days of entry of the Final Judgment. Payment shall be made by
certified check, bank cashier's check, or United States postal money order payable to the
Securities and Exchange commission...
--
Change in location...
Updated contact info for Ingen on their website:
Contact Information
Ingen Technologies, Inc
3410 La Sierra Avenue – F507
Riverside, CA 92503
Phone: 951-688-7840
Fax: 951-688-8802
Email: info@ingen-tech.com
Curious. Address is one of those PostalAnnex places. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader where the phone numbers map to.
--
Hey, load up the truck. I missed the part where it says how much the Phi Group, Inc. paid for the interview. Perhaps The Wall Street Reporter really wanted to do the interview so there was no charge. What do you think?
--
Nice, we got interviews, and conference calls, and press releases, and this and that. Only thing missing is the 10-Q. Oops. That's the only thing I'm interested in. Where's it at? LOL!
--
Should not be much uncertainty over the outcome of any shareholder votes (LOL!):
Shouldn't take too long. While you are waiting, read this quote carefully (emphasis mine), then see if you can find a single example of this, just one, in all the history of this company:
Henry Fahman, Chairman of PHI Group, said, "We believe our focus on coal and other natural resource assets in Indonesia, in conjunction with PHI Energy Corporation and our cooperation with AXN Group, will accelerate our growth and create substantial value for our shareholders."
--
EBIG, Tsingda, Dwarf. I think they're all turds. But interesting turds.
--
VIEs. Thanks to SamSamSamIam who posted this message:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=69055171
referencing this article:
http://tilt.ft.com/#!posts/2011-06/22126/first-reverse-mergers.-next-up-vie-structures
and this:
http://www.britishchamber.cn/content/latest-developments-variable-interest-entities-vies
Tsinga and Dwarf Technologies both use this VIE structure. Interesting. Glad to see it explained some.
--
I love the Zeve! Babkie shows what he really thinks of the hapless bagholders...
From the latest PR, emphasis mine:
Rob Babkie, Chief Executive Officer of Zevotek, said that, "...Zevotek's board of directors, by unanimous decision, have allowed for any fractional shares resulting from the reverse split to be rounded up to the nearest whole post-split share as an added benefit to all of our Zevotek shareholders."
Let's see. Suppose you held 1,000,001 shares presplit. Without the generosity of the board, you would have only 200 shares post split. But thanks to the 'added benefit' you actually get 201. Unfortunately, 201 times zero is still zero.
--
LOL! Doctors are notoriously poor investors! Easily duped, more money than sense, way too trusting. It would hardly be surprising to see one or two surface in this arena.
--
Why in the world would someone name an operation that has anything to do with equities "Steadman"? LOL!
This post implies that the text "THIS NEW COMPANY IS IMAGING3" exists within the 10Q. That is simply false. Imaging3 does enough hapless maneuvering without having to make stuff up for them. That's pretty shameless, as is commenting on the post as if it was true...
--
Curiously enough, if I type the phrase
"control and receive the economic benefits of its business operations through various contractual arrangements"
into Edgar's full text filing search, I see results from
Tsingda and Compass Acquisition (nka Tsingda)
Dwarf Technologies
Oriental Dragon and Emerald Acquisition (nka Oriental Dragon)
--
EBIG, Dwarf Technologies, Tsingda
EBIG (Eastbridge Investment Group) appears to be some type of a glorified stock promoter who purports to spin off share dividends of companies it helps take public. Two of these companies, Dwarf Technologies, and Tsingda eEDU have S-1 forms filed with the SEC. Both seem to be companies that don't actually own the underlying business, but instead have contracts to manage and influence it.
What the heck is this? I've never heard of a such a thing. Is this a common Chinese operating mode?
Here's a blurb from the Dwarf S-1:
I think I can have a go at answering a version of this. Suppose the question was: "How many dividend shares will I, as a hapless shareholder of EBIG, receive that have any value whatsoever?"
I believe the answer will be: None. Zero. Zilch. Nil. Null.
You getting my drift here? LOL!
--
That is simply outstanding! LOL! What I want to know, though, is who the evil 'Purchaser' is?
Civil motions. As you might imagine, it can be difficult to determine exactly what all this legal mumbo jumbo is actually saying. Here's my interpretation:
The government originally wanted disgorgment as well as civil penalites against both Sand and Ingen. Based on motions filed on 9/7/2011, it appears that:
1. The disgorgment request from Ingen has been dropped.
2. The disgorgment and the civil penalty from Sand have both been been dropped.
3. What is left is a civil penalty from Ingen in the amount of $25K. However, this is still a motion, the judge has not yet ruled.
You have to read this, which is from the filing. It is hard for me to understand the logic here. LOL!
Ingen’s actions merit a $25,000 penalty. It played an integral part in the kickback
schemes orchestrated by Sand. In fact, Ingen, through Sand, issued both of the kickbacks to the
pension fund. On May 7, 2009, Ingen wired money to the phony consulting company even
though it never provided consulting services to Ingen. On June 2, 2009,
Ingen wired the second kickback to the phony consulting company. On
May 11, 2009 and July 13, 2009, Ingen also issued kickbacks to the cooperating witness in the
form of millions of shares of restricted stock. Additionally, the
company actively sought to hide the fraud. In an effort to mask the kickbacks, Ingen entered intoa phony consulting agreement. Accordingly, Ingen’s participation was a
necessary part of the kickback scheme.
Moreover, the scienter of Sand, as company CEO, should be imputed to Ingen. SEC v.
Haligiannis, 470 F. Supp. 2d 373, 381-382 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). Sand’s actions are clearly
egregious. He orchestrated a market manipulation scheme designed to falsely raise Ingen’s stock
price and volume in an effort to generate investor interest. Sand also displayed a high level of
scienter by taking numerous steps to hide the schemes. Sand’s scienter in both creating and
hiding the kickback schemes should be imputed to Ingen. These facts weigh heavily in favor of
the Court imposing a penalty against Ingen.
Because of Ingen’s fraud, deceit, and manipulation, a second tier penalty is warranted,
but other factors weigh in favor of a penalty of $25,000 rather than a larger amount. For
instance, Ingen’s actions do not demonstrate a recurring pattern of violating the securities laws.
The company’s involvement in the kickback schemes appears to be a relatively isolated incident,
and the company has apparently cut ties with Sand. Further, the company appears to have taken
remedial steps to prevent future fraud by installing a new CEO and new board members.
Additionally, investor losses were limited in this case.
The final factor, the current and future financial conditions of the Defendant, carries little
impact in this case. While Ingen is a relatively small company and is attempting to raise new
capital, it has made no showing to this Court that it is in dire financial straits. Further, the relief
sought in this motion is not excessive. The Commission could have sought a much larger
penalty against the company for the alleged violations of the securities law. In this case,
however, the facts and circumstances dictate a penalty of $25,000 against Ingen. The amount of
the penalty will sufficiently punish the company and deter future wrong doing.
--
You forgot Clayton.
Wow, does this mean you have moved out of the 'suspicious' camp and are now fully entrenched in the 'kool-aid' camp? LOL!
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=63096457
SEC files relatively weak excuse for the delay, and states they intend to file various motions by September 8, 2011.
--
Judge is getting impatient with Sand's civil case:
ORDER Requiring Motion or Status Report; ( Motion due by 8/8/2011, Status Report due by 8/8/2011). Signed by Judge Patricia A. Seitz on 7/27/2011. (ral) (Entered: 07/28/2011)
--
Updated Share Structure on PinkSheets:
Market Value $767,077 a/o Jul 20, 2011
Shares Outstanding 52,471,827 a/o Jul 20, 2011
Float 28,117,912 a/o Jul 20, 2011
Authorized Shares 8,000,000,000 a/o Dec 31, 2010
Shareholders of Record 608 a/o Jul 20, 2011
Previous:
Share Structure
Market Value $971,631 a/o Jun 15, 2011
Shares Outstanding 51,138,493 a/o Jun 15, 2011
Float 26,784,578 a/o Jun 15, 2011
Authorized Shares 8,000,000,000 a/o Dec 31, 2010
--
If you calculate the actual cash value provided by the patents since the beginning of time, I'd say you each have exactly the same: nothing. LOL!