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.
Bring it on.
Netco Ltd's name was stolen from Columbia. PT incorp'd it in Belize.
But the PRs said there was millions in telco revenue. Tell it to the IRS, they're coming.
A bank? Nah, a front run by one who molests children. Get it right.
http://www.redseamanagement.com/
Achoooooo.
No, see, Corey didn't "defraud." But now he knows it's fraud. And doing a financial transaction with criminally derived proceeds constitutes money laundering. 18 USC 1956, 1957. Corey can't legally take fraudulent proceeds, or doesn't he know that.
As Beavis once said, "Ey, he he heh he."
I mean, we've been here so long. We're all tired.
If you're Paul, go away. Your ego is making it worse. If you're aligned with Corey, pick up the phone. If you're truly an investor, file a damn claim and join or oppose, but don't sit here acting like anyone believes you.
He knows Paul's address, no-one wants it. ANYONE WANT OR NEED IT? Just email me! lugocalderon at racsa dot co dot cr .
What hype he creates.
At least we know what everyone's about:
Serf: Bought some shares, lost a bit of money, told others, feels bad.
KM: Doesn't like his name being drug through the mud, has a ball, wants to take it home. Corey won't let him.
Me: I'd like my reputation reinstored.
Jon Miller: Oblivious.
PT: Wanna lots a money in Pounds, please.
Red Sea: Whoa.
RKD: Greedy, lost big, won't bust a grape.
ttgop: Lost money, wants blood. At least send a letter, dear sir.
Corey: Allowing attorneys to make bad decisions on his part, all he needs to do is call the right people to resolve his issues. He certainly doesn't want Paul in charge again as it'll bring down AJW. That is, Corey knows it's fraud now and if he profits, he's violating 18 USC 1956-1957.
Duszak: Did some stuff, is owed some money and shares.
Banks: Was going to give Netco some life, but Corey didn't allow it to happen.
etc., etc.
It's apparently not an account, just a name on the stock certs. Don't know the extent of Red Sea's games. When they called, they asked for Paul.
I was hired to find business opportunities, took a while to sink into my Tico brain what was happening. I said, "Gimme da records." "Gimme, gimme, gimme." Only when no-one gave did it become a problem.
Paul never turned over the pw's for the PRs.
I think there's a nominal bank account with a few bucks in it, say $5. False Claims Act refers to not turning over excise tax (which were ruled illegal, but the government is doing the refunds, not Netco).
No. Doing Corey in was a mistake. If Corey's claims are legit, all Corey needs to do is show a cancelled check. The articles of incorporation would immediately reinstate his note. If he wants only that, and not to defraud, then it can be worked out. If he wants .0001 and to pillage, then this will go down. Marco doesn't have a beef with Corey, he has a beef with fraud.
What's your question? As I told Aetheum, my name is Rodrigo C. Araya, what's yours?
Paul opened up accounts with Red Sea, you know that, in my name and in Jon Miller's name, et al.
No I can't get in since Paul's the contact.
Don't worry, litigation is imminent down here (CR) against Red Sea.
I already took over Global in the courts.
Yes. Paul signed over shares using his fake convertible note. Don't you remember?
If you're in the USA dial 011 (internation code) 506 (Costa Rica) 835 (cell phone) 9966. That's my number since day one. I appeared at the IMMN hip hip hearing on the phone, bet that cost you a night out.
Yes, attack me now. Done with Serf? I'm here, go up in me.
How when Maydak has signed docs from me, the sole officer and director during the times material?
And Duszak has not only signed docs, but docs signed by Paul Taylor directing issuances of shares to her that she never received because he told Madison to send them to him not her.
Corey's problem is he doesn't know what happened. He wasn't there. He's just assuming that this stuff is being made up.
I don't need credibility. Put up or shut up.
Because you're just an anonymous poster. If you file a claim, I'll disclose. So far, only one person opposed Ribotsky's motion to dismiss, and that's Fred Banks of Vampire Nation. You know it came from the Cable Company in Delray. Have a nice drink in Boca, you'll need it.
Don't worry, I have it. I don't delete anything. I don't need to post it, I need to turn it over to the trustee.
From: Paul Taylor [mailto:ptaylor07@adelphia.net]
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 4:38 AM
To: 'Brian R. Niessen'
Cc: 'Rodrigo Calderón A.'
Subject: Issuer Name and Address
Please Sign and return ASAP
P
TELATINOS INC
199-1260 Plaza Colonial.
San José, Costa Rica.
We understand that the following Customers “Netco Ltd , Indri v111, North Atlantic Services Ltd Mutual Capital Investments Ltd (CUSTOMERS ) have delivered
Netco Ltd 60,000
INDRI v111 Ltda 60,000
North Atlantic Services Ltd 60,000
Mutual Capital Investments Ltd 60,000
shares of common stock in the follow denominations to (BROKERAGE FIRM) , as negotiable and free trading shares:
Certificate Numbers ____ Number of Shares Total Number of shares 240,000
As a condition of accepting these shares for deposit to the account of CUSTOMERS your clearing firm you have requested this letter indicating the authenticity of the certificates referenced above.
Telatnos Inc (“ISSUER”) hereby confirms that the shares are fully registered, unrestricted, without encumbrance, negotiable, free trading, and are issued as filly paid and non-assessable shares. There is no action, proceeding or investigation pending or threatened, which question the validity of the issuance of the shares to CUSTOMERS
ISSUER hereby acknowledges that for purposes of settling the contemplate sale transaction by CUSTOMERS, we have no claims pending that would adversely affect the settlement of the transaction. We further acknowledge and agree that there is no other agreement or understanding between CUSTOMERS and ISSUER that would preclude CUSTOMER from selling or otherwise disposing of shares represented above.
ISSUER has notified its transfer agent to confirm with you that there are no “stop transfer” orders or other restrictions against the certificates referenced above.
Sincerely
Rodrigo Calderon
President
From: Paul Taylor [mailto:ptaylor07@adelphia.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 9:19 AM
To: rodrigo@pd-cr.com
Cc: 'Brian R. Niessen'
Subject: FW: rev split please review
Rodrigo,
On or Around the 25th on this month – NASDAQ will call you with a NEW SYMBOL for TELATINOS
Report that symbol to me as fast as you get please
Paul Taylor
From: Paul Taylor [mailto:Ptaylor07@adelphia.net]
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 9:44 AM
To: 'Rodrigo Calderon'
Subject: ?
Which account that you used for NTVI cleared the Cert fastest ?
Paul Taylor
ptaylor07@adelphia.net
tel:
(310) 492 5203
Add me to your address book...
Want a signature like this?
Well he says that KM is trying to defeat the New York action and that KM is Marco. Assume that's true. The NY case is proceeding without Netco having counsel (counsel withdrew). Thus no result will be fair for Netco as it's not represented. It's not represented because it's insolvent. It's insolvent -- that's the elements of a bankruptcy.
Now if KM is Marco and Marco is asserting control, that's all the more reason for it to be under the control of the court, an independent trustee.
And Corey states that he's owed big money and not getting paid. Proof positive that Netco's insolvent.
The element is insolvency, Corey proved the case.
You don't need to justify yourself. Standby 10 minutes, let me pull up some old emails.
I don't need his affidavit, he's already provided his contact details and where to subpoena him. He can receive a subpoena on written questions and he'll answer. I'm confident in that.
Who's us? If you're aligned with Paul, you shot yourself in the foot and opened a can of worms. If you're aligned with Corey, you've cost yourself more in attorney's fees. If you're a shareholder, file a claim. I'll support you.
Zombie's a Paul Taylor word. See his challenges to Major Damage calling him a zombie hunter.
I think attorneys are scared of the mere size of Corey's pleadings. In a nutshell, Corey's law firm relies on the old saying that if you say something enough times it becomes true.
I hate to tell Mssrs. Ribotsky and Androphy that Marco "ain't Maydak." Good luck with that.
For whatever reason, Netco is de verboden vrucht, or as we say in Ticotown, "Fruto Prohibido." Don't know why that is, hope to find out.
Mmmmm, I think University of Maryland, I will check and let you know. Degree in rocks. I'll find out soon, but he's just a consultant. Doesn't own any shares.
Vampire Nation is Fred Banks. During my presidency, I bought some rights to songs by the group for the company. I was sure we could repackage them and raise a bit of cash to do something legit.
http://cdbaby.com/cd/vampnat4
Corey's arguing that the poor guy has no legit. claim, but truth is, we agreed to pay some upfront money to get the rights, then it was a profit split.
He's a bona fide creditor. That's one, need two more.
Oh you ack Replevin! The whole time you ignored him, I thought you were him.
Pay by the hour, it'll be cheaper than estimated.
Reading the Ribotsky stuff, it's all fluff. The elements of a bankruptcy are that the debtor generally isn't paying its bills on time or its in receivership. All Corey whines about is that that the Maydak nutjob is taking his ball and running home from the New York litigation. But NETCO has no lawyer in that case, so it's a non-issue and a reason to go into bankruptcy, not to dismiss it. Indeed, Corey states his three creditors are owed money -- and that's an admission of the elements -- insolvency.
I received a pleading today by fax from the guy in jail (not i-hub jail, Major you idiot) (well the guy in jail didn't send it, but it reached whomever today and the Court probably Mon. or Tue.), Fred Banks, who is the rock group Vampire Nation. It was short, sweet and to the point. What AJW Offshore said in its motion to dismiss explains exactly why an independent trustee should take over this company.
I'm not out, but Ribotsky won't want me in charge. I'll deliver his shares, all restricted.
I'll take the reigns if asked again. Won't be no fluff PRs or lies to the shareholders. That's something I can't do.
I keep trying to get him to help me and he stalls.
Hey Major, heard you're doing the rock?
The way to do it is to name them and see how they respond. There's prima facie evidence that it's a laundering vehicle for Taylor. They show a Texas address on their website. If a different Paul Taylor appears, then you drop it. Don't worry it's coming from the Tico coffee boy and it'll be done sooner rather than later.
Article 2.16(b), Paul:
In the absence of fraud in the transaction, the judgment of the board of directors or the shareholders or the party or parties approving the plan of conversion or the plan of merger, as the case may be, as to the value and sufficiency of the consideration received for shares shall be conclusive.
If I recall correctly, I was the board of directors. I made a judgment call in support of the shareholders. I approved a plan of conversion entitling Mr. Chavarria to shares. Mr. Chavarria provided consideration. You'll eventually learn about the compensation, I'm not spelling it out for Mr. Ribotsky's lawyers. Let them continue to ass/u/me based on whatever tales you conveyed to them with your fertile imagination.
Besides, you fail to understand that a judgment is conclusive. Why don't you, Marshal, Corey, and your gang just go file something to overturn the judgments in the Courts that issued them. You fail to understand that the judgments are binding on the corporation. Even if the notes themselves weren't binding, the filing in Court triggered deadlines. You received service of the documents, all you needed to do was hire a joe blow attorney within 30 days of the filing to strike the judgments off. You didn't. Now you submit anonymous letters to the Court.
And Corey never busted a grape either instead trying to have one court declare the judgment issued by another court illegal.
I don't think anyone read the abstention doctrines of the federal courts, not even Chavarria. I'll probably be withdrawing my intervention motion in New York and filing my own claims in Texas, whether in federal court or in bankruptcy court. If the bankruptcy doesn't go through, and I'm kind of neutral on it at this point because I think Mssrs. Maydak and Banks are wrong in thinking funds could be recovered, I'll toss you about for fraud and I think mAjOr mentioned today a False Claims Act cause of action that allows me to sue on behalf of the United States for all that missing excise tax you collected on the $30 Million in long distance but retained.
If Maydak or Marco don't come through and you try to defraud shareholders again while Ribotsky prints shares he knows are dervied from a total fraud, I'll be there waiting for that moment. You might consider the program that Mr. Schictman and you concocted knows as the "dish served cold" whereby you planned on giving your fraudulent enterprise to Ribotsky without him knowing. He might end up with Netco if he succeeds, which is fine with me -- as someone needs to pay my salary and you won't. I know that after you see the pleading I have for you that outlines the forgeries and the false press releases and the invoices from Businesswire -- and affidavits from Pacheco about what he was paid and by who, you won't even think of stealing from innocent shareholders again. Ribotsky can run Netco because no-one else will. He can issue his own shares.
I don't have any qualms with Ribotsky. My problem is with you. You duped me into becoming an officer of a criminal scheme and then concealed the operations (or lack thereof) of the business from me. You forged my name. You failed to pay me. You opened an account at Red Sea Management in my name without my authorization as you did for Pacheco. When I showed that share register to Pacheco showing how he has one share in an account you made, he came around and dropped the dime on you.
Texas Securities Board -- I received a call from them. I turned a plethora of documents over.
Good riddens, Paul.
-----------------------------------------------
The abstention doctrine (or doctrines), is a doctrine of federalism based on the recognition that, "[s]ince the beginning of this country's history Congress has, subject to few exceptions, manifested a desire to permit state courts to try state cases free from interference by federal courts." Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43 (1971).
I. Younger Abstention
There are two basic types of abstention. The first, based on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Younger v. Harris, can be termed a "nonintervention doctrine." The basic principle is that federal courts may not enjoin pending state court criminal proceedings except in extraordinary circumstances. In ordinary cases, federal courts must dismiss a state criminal defendant's challenge to the constitutionality of the law he is charged with violating, even if the procedural requirements for filing the suit are otherwise met. The court based this principle on traditional doctrines of equity, which prevent courts from granting equitable relief (e.g. an injunction) if the person seeking the relief has an adequate remedy at law, and will not suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is denied. Accordingly, Younger abstention requires federal courts refrain from intervening in state criminal proceedings if the state criminal defendant is able to raise the unconstitutionality of the statute he is charged with violating as a defence in the state proceedings.
As currently understood, Younger abstention will apply if (1) state proceedings are pending, (2) " important state interests" are implicated, and (3) the plaintiff1 has an adequate opportunity to litigate his federal claims in the state proceedings. E.g. H.C. ex rel Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 2000).
There are certain exceptions to the Younger abstention doctrine. True to the equitable roots of the doctrine, it will not apply if the threat of irreparable injury to the plaintiff is "both great and immediate" and "cannot be eliminated by his defense against a single criminal prosecution." Younger, 401 U.S., at 44.
While it was first applied to criminal cases, the Supreme Court extended the application of the Younger doctrine to include civil nuisance actions in Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592 (1975). The Court in Huffman extended the doctrine to include state "quasi-criminal" proceedings, which are "both in aid of and closely related to criminal statutes." The Court later further extended the doctrine to apply to purely civil proceedings in which the State was a party. Under the Court's holding in Trainor v. Hernandez, 431 U.S. 434 (1977), "the principles of Younger and Huffman are broad enough to apply to interference by a federal court with an ongoing civil enforcement action such as this, brought by the State in its sovereign capacity." The flipside of Hernandez is that federal courts do not have to abstain if the state is not acting in a sovereign capacity seeking to enforce a state programme, unless there is a substantial state interest at stake.
The Supreme Court has extended Younger abstention further still, to include civil cases in which the State is not a party, but important state interests are a stake. For example, in Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327 (1970), the Court held that the integrity of the State's contempt procedures was a sufficiently substantial interest to prevent federal interference. Some state administrative proceedings, such as attorney disciplinary proceedings, have also been held subject to Younger abstention. Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423 (1982). While the Court held Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984) that Younger did not apply to state administrative proceedings expressly declared by state law not to be connected with the state judicial system, it apparently reversed course two years later in Ohio Civil Rights Comm'n v. Dayton Christian School, 477 U.S. 619 (1986), in which it held that abstention is required in administrative proceedings unconnected with the state judicial system if "important state interests are vindicated, so long as in the course of those proceedings the federal plaintiff would have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate his constitutional claim," thus applying to state administrative proceedings to about the same extent as to state judicial proceedings2.
Worse appears to be Paul Taylor's MSGM which is now IMMN. A good thing is I still have a lawsuit against it no matter what it changes its name to. Tomorrow I have a hearing with the judge in the suit against MSGM/IMMN/CCDX/CCDE, Netco's sister share printing mill.