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.
Chris needs to blockchain this pos and get it going . Tired of looking at this. Blockchain blog, live stream blockchain whatever it takes.
Bill must have read about a "blockchain" pump, figured he'd thrown in the rest of his scams buyback, Boeing, bearings.ect.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-21/crypto-craze-sees-long-island-iced-tea-rename-as-long-blockchain
Last 10q shows 2.9 billion , for the period ending on Sept 30 2014.
https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/AXCG/filings
Can't find anything on him. With post on cornilla street cafe, drob, and Avery Sunshine, it seems like there has too be some connection to AXCG. Tried to contact blog but would not let me send anything.
Looks like something may be starting back up. Looks like just a blog right now. Good sign.
I hear that. I want out too, collect my tax write-off and never look at this company again.
Who knows ??? The only hope I have is that Chris is offering shares as repayment. For acutus to consider that 2 things would need to happen. 1. Chris does something with the company, stock in a dead company does them no good, they held shares in axcg for 3 years now. 2 the share price needs to increase, where it sits auctus would need to convert about 3 billion shares to get paid back.
It's been 3 years , either Chris has something up his sleeve by now or you can put that last shovel of dirt on this. I'd say if nothing happens by 1st quarter 2018...it's dead.
Looks like the documents I looked at Thursday were eye's attorneys proposed judgement. The judge has ruled and eyes lost thier case, but like I said before ...with Chris wanting to give autcus shares instaed of cash, it has to be a good sign. They will either have to give them a boatload of shares or get the share price up for auctus to cash out.
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/19436584/Eyes_on_the_Go_NY,_INC_v_Auctus_Private_Equity_Fund,_LLC_et_al#
Monday, November 20, 2017
75 order Judgment Mon 2:48 PM
Judge Richard G. Stearns: ENDORSED ORDER entered. JUDGMENT in favor of Auctus Private Equity Fund, LCC(Caruso, Stephanie)
74 order Order Mon 2:15 PM
Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. re72 Statement of facts,,,,,,,71 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion,, filed by Chris Carey Advisors, LLC, Tall Oaks CT, LLC, Mary Weaver Carey, Off the Charts, LLC, Eyes on the Go NY, INC., Eyes on the Go, Inc., Amie Carey Sepaniak, Jamie S. Karczewski, Christopher Carey, Blazej Kesy,68 Proposed Document(s) submitted, filed by Auctus Private Equity Fund LLC. The court previously entered summary judgment in favor of Auctus on its claim for breach of contract after finding that Eyes had failed to timely repay Auctus on two convertible notes. All that remains is to determine the amount of the damages to be awarded. Eyes does not challenge Auctus's computation of the amount due under the notes as totaling $271,965.43 (under the notes, the default sum is to be calculated at 150% of the outstanding principle and interest (accruing at a rate of 22% per annum)). Eyes suggests that in lieu of a money judgment, the court should order the conversion of the outstanding amounts to Eyes shares. However, conversion is an option available solely at the election of Auctus. The notes also provide for the payment of any reasonable attorneys fees incurred in collecting on a default. Eyes contends that because the court ruled against Auctus on 11 of its 12 claims, Eyes should be considered the prevailing party on those claims. However, under Nevada law (the choice of law under the notes), "[a] party prevails 'if it succeeds on any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the benefit it sought in bringing suit.'" LVMPD v. Blackjack Bonding , 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 10, 343 P.3d 608, 615 (2015) (emphasis original). Auctus intended to recover on the loans it made to Eyes and in this regard Auctus unquestionably succeeded. However, the court will discount by one quarter the amount of the fee award requested for the portion of work performed by Reed & Giordano because counsel unaccountably sought entry of summary judgment for Auctus on a Chapter 93A claim that had been previously dismissed by the court. The court finds other aspects of Auctuss fee request (having considered the nature of the work, the hours spent, and the hourly rate) to be adequately documented and reasonable. The court will therefore award Auctus attorneys fees in the amount of $41,591.88. (RGS, int2)
Anyone interested in looking at the Court docs I have , send me your email or post it here and I will forward them this weekend. There's nothing in them that gives any indication if this stock will pick back up or not. The only positive I took away is that Auctus accepted stock in eyes from thier previous agreement, so if it doesn't start back up they still are out thier investment. might have fought for cash settelment if the didn't think this was going to start up again???
Text of proposed judgement document
Imposed judgement
Stern's, D.J
It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that auctus is entitled to shares in eyes equal to the conversion it previously placed in this matter. And that eyes is awarded attorney fees and cost in the amount of $16,100 as they have prevailed on 11 of 12 causes of action. Aucuts not afforded attorney fees.
All claims against Chris Carey, Mary Weaver Carey ect... Are dismissed again.
I looked into some more court docs this morning. Auctus counter sued eyes for 12 counts of securities fraud. Eyes claims all of this has be unfounded and not proven thru the case, and do not deny breach of contract. Auctus made an investment of $110,000 summer of 2014. Thier notes came due Jan 15, 2015 ( Chris closed up shop Jan 8 I believe). Auctus was issued 237,000,000 shares @ .0000275 Jan 15. Auctus claims eyes owes them $271,965....with interest incurring daily.
lawsuit should be wrapping up, hope we all can get outta this POS in 2018
Auctus has until 10/27/2017 to submit a proposed form for judgment, along with a supporting memorandum of no more than 10 pages, specifically identifying the sections of the contracts and relevant law supporting its damages calculation. Eyes will have until 11/13/2017 to submit a responsive memorandum of no more than 10 pages.
Have you heard from Chris lately? Looks like this lawsuit will be finalized soon, hoping something will start back up after. I remember someone saying Chris was upset that he had no control over the company because of the toxic lenders. I'm assuming this law suit was to clean that up. Why else you you sue someone you owe money too.
I'm sure Comac went with a real company that actually produces bearings not some $hit hole someone was trying to pass off as a "factory" to sell shares.
http://www.bearingtips.com/self-lubricating-spherical-aircraft-bearings-dupont-longxi/
Anyone interested in looking @ the Court docs here's a link .
https://www.lawsuitdata.com/lawsuit-data/natures-of-suit/torts-lawsuits/assault-libel-slander/massachusetts-district-court/0001263503/eyes-on-the-go-ny-inc-v-auctus-private-equity-fund-llc-et-al/officially-filed-court-documents/
I got the 1-2 documents to see what the case was about. Nothing ground breaking, "eyes" is suing Acutus for slander , libel ect. Eyes claims Acutus contacted clients and perspective clients claiming Eyes was in legal and finacail trouble. Eyes claim this action hurt them financially and thier reputation as well. Why Acutus would try to sabatoge a company that owes them $110,000 is beyond me but there must have been bad blood between them and Chris over the toxic finances.
Court Case update:
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/19436584/Eyes_on_the_Go_NY,_INC_v_Auctus_Private_Equity_Fund,_LLC_et_al#
Friday, October 13, 2017
67 order Order on Motion for Summary Judgment Fri
11:41 AM
Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting in part and denying in part51 Motion for Summary Judgment. Auctus's motion for summary judgment is DENIED as to its Chapter 93A claim, the claim having been previously dismissed because Auctus did not adequately plead the alleged material misrepresentations underpinning the claim, see Dkt # 48, and Auctus did not timely seek to amend its Counterclaims. Auctus's motion is ALLOWED as to the breach of contract claim as Eyes on the Go does not dispute that it has not fully repaid the principal and interest owed under two promissory notes (noting, however, that approximately $6,500 of the first note was converted to Eyes shares in January of 2015). Auctus has until 10/27/2017 to submit a proposed form for judgment, along with a supporting memorandum of no more than 10 pages, specifically identifying the sections of the contracts and relevant law supporting its damages calculation. Eyes will have until 11/13/2017 to submit a responsive memorandum of no more than 10 pages. (RGS, int2)
Continue to Create Account
Nobody knows what it means except Chris. Is he trying to clear up debt for personal reasons, to sell the shell or try something new? I'm assuming Auctus holds a boat load of share still
interesting stuff from dismissal
*In July of 2014, Auctus, for approximately $56,000, purchased from Eyes a promissory note convertible into 8% of Eyes common stock.
*In September of 2014, Auctus purchased a second convertible note from Eyes on the same terms as before
*In January of 2015, Auctus converted approximately $6,500 of unpaid principal and interest from the July note into Eyes shares.
*Auctus alleges that Eyes has failed to make repayments under the terms of the notes
Looks like Counter suit by Auctus dismissed???
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/19436584/Eyes_on_the_Go_NY,_INC_v_Auctus_Private_Equity_Fund,_LLC_et_al#
Wednesday, May 03, 2017
48 order Order on Motion to Dismiss Wed 2:33 PM
Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting34 Motion to Dismiss WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The counterclaims of Auctus Private Equity Fund arise out of a penny-stock investment gone bad. Counterdefendant Eyes On the Go NY, Inc. developed a business model offering consumers online streaming of live and recorded video and audio from social venues such as bars, restaurants, performance spaces, and clubs. In July of 2014, Auctus, for approximately $56,000, purchased from Eyes a promissory note convertible into 8% of Eyes common stock. See Counterclaims Exs. A (Purchase Agreement) & B (Note). Under the Note, Auctus could elect to be repaid the principal with interest, or to convert the note or a portion thereof, for shares in Eyes. In September of 2014, Auctus purchased a second convertible note from Eyes on the same terms as before. See Counterclaims Ex. C (Purchase Agreement) & D (Note). In January of 2015, Auctus converted approximately $6,500 of unpaid principal and interest from the July note into Eyes shares. See Counterclaims Ex. E. Auctus alleges that Eyes has failed to make repayments under the terms of the notes. Auctus also alleges that Eyes, to induce Auctus to make the investments, materially misrepresented its operation, finances, and future prospects. Auctus asserts, against Eyes and several other entities and individuals it alleges as "control persons" of Eyes, claims for securities fraud under federal (Count I) and state (Count II) law; breach of contract (Count III) and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count IV); unjust enrichment (Count V); breach of fiduciary duty (Count VI); fraud (Count VII); negligent misrepresentation (Count VIII); fraudulent conveyance (Count IX); violations of the Massachusetts Unfair Business Practices Act (Count X); civil conspiracy (Count XI); and accounting (Count XII). For purposes of its motion to dismiss, Eyes does not challenge the breach of contract claim. Eyes contend, and the court agrees, that Auctus has not adequately pled the core of its remaining claims, that is, Eyes' alleged misrepresentation(s). Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b), "n alleging fraud..., a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud." Likewise, under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA), 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b), "the complaint shall specify each statement alleged to have been misleading, [and] the reason or reasons why the statement is misleading." Although Auctus identifies certain statements made by Eyes about the health of its business over the course of the parties' dealings, Auctus does not identify what, if any, aspect of these statements was false, or explain "the reason or reasons why the statement [was] misleading." Because the Counterclaims contain no factual allegations as to the actual state of Eyes' business affairs or the alleged speakers' knowledge, the court cannot infer that any untrue statements were made with the requisite scienter. See In re Genzyme Corp. Sec. Litig. , 754 F.3d 31, 40 (1st Cir. 2014) ("To state a claim for securities fraud under Section 10(b), a plaintiff must allege: (1) a material misrepresentation or omission; (2) scienter, or a wrongful state of mind; (3) in connection with the purchase or sale of a security; (4) reliance; (5) economic loss; and (6) loss causation."). Auctus's claims for negligent misrepresentation and under the Securities Act § 12(2), 15 U.S.C. §77l(a)(2), to the extent that they do not sound in fraud, but see N. Am. Catholic Educ. Programming Found., Inc. v. Cardinale , 567 F.3d 8, 15 (1st Cir. 2009) ("[T]he case law here and in other circuits reads Rule 9(b) expansively to cover associated claims where the core allegations effectively charge fraud."), also falter because the Counterclaims do not specifically identify the materially misleading statements or omissions upon which Auctus purportedly relied. Because misrepresentation is also the only basis for the claims of breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, and violations of the Unfair Business Practices Act, these too will be dismissed as inadequately pled. Finally, the court will also dismiss Auctus's claims for unjust enrichment and an accounting. Auctus's breach of contract claim provides an adequate legal remedy for the sole damages alleged in the Counterclaims - those incurred through Eyes' alleged default on the two notes. See Santagate v. Tower , 64 Mass. App. Ct. 324, 329 (2005) ("An equitable remedy for unjust enrichment is not available to a party with an adequate remedy at law."). (RGS, int2)
Seems like someone is loading...bring it on! I will say this, Chris does have some connections, to get Gander on Sony Play Station was no small feat. Hopefully he does things right this time. I doubt it will be Gander.tv again. No volume in 2 years then all the sudden this...gotta be something in the works.
Heard a rumor a while back that junior was trying to get his own reverse merger to start his own company, reselling internet service providing equipment in South America (like what they were doing @ GSM). Wonder if that is why they filed the lawsuit, try and work with debt holders & try another startup? Waiting and watching...
So, it's sound as if Chris and co. have till Monday to come up with a better excuse than just making a dumba$$ agreement with this company. Sounds as if the case will be dismissed.
I did notice today, not sure how longs it's been like this, but, in the begging of Jan 15 Scottrade had a No Buy/Sell Only attachment on AXCG. It is no longer there, don't know if it means anything or not. I'm hoping this lawsuit with Auctus Equity is settled and Chris regains control of the company and its shares from the toxic debt holders and he has a plan for something else. C.C advisor website is down, he is no longer on the Board at GSM systems. Hoping something happens here and we can all get out. I do believe Chris lost his a$$ on this but he is the only one to blame for it.
13,069,242 volume today...WTF is going on?
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/19436584/Eyes_on_the_Go_NY,_INC_v_Auctus_Private_Equity_Fund,_LLC_et_al#
looks like the gangs all here in the counter suit.
Eyes on the Go NY, INC. v. Auctus Private Equity Fund, LLC et al
Massachusetts District Court
Judge: Richard G Stearns
Case #: 1:16-cv-11974
Nature of Suit 320 Torts - Personal Injury - Assault, Libel, & Slander
Cause 28:1332 Diversity-Libel,Assault,Slander
Case Filed: Oct 03, 2016
Docket
Parties (18)
Last checked: Thursday Nov 17, 2016 4:33 AM EST
Counter Claimant
Auctus Private Equity Fund LLC
Represented By
Alex Todd Paradiso
Engel Thornburgh & Mccarney LLP
contact info
Katherine Baggett Thornburgh
Engel Thornburgh & Mccarney LLP
contact info
Philip M. Giordano
Reed & Giordano, P.A.
contact info
Counter Defendant
Eyes on the Go NY, INC.
Represented By
Richard A Luthmann
The Luthmann Law Firm, PLLC
contact info
Defendant
Auctus Private Equity Fund LLC
101 Arch Street, Suite 2010
Boston, MA 02110
Represented By
Alex Todd Paradiso
Engel Thornburgh & Mccarney LLP
contact info
Katherine Baggett Thornburgh
Engel Thornburgh & Mccarney LLP
contact info
Philip M. Giordano
Reed & Giordano, P.A.
contact info
Defendant
Peter Flynn
Represented By
Alex Todd Paradiso
Engel Thornburgh & Mccarney LLP
contact info
Katherine Baggett Thornburgh
Engel Thornburgh & Mccarney LLP
contact info
Defendant
Louis J Posner
Represented By
Alex Todd Paradiso
Engel Thornburgh & Mccarney LLP
contact info
Katherine Baggett Thornburgh
Engel Thornburgh & Mccarney LLP
contact info
Defendant
Alfred Sollami
Represented By
Alex Todd Paradiso
Engel Thornburgh & Mccarney LLP
contact info
Katherine Baggett Thornburgh
Engel Thornburgh & Mccarney LLP
contact info
Plaintiff
Eyes on the Go NY, INC.
Represented By
Richard A Luthmann
The Luthmann Law Firm, PLLC
contact info
ThirdParty Defendant
Christopher Carey
ThirdParty Defendant
Mary Weaver Carey
ThirdParty Defendant
Chris Carey Advisors, LLC
ThirdParty Defendant
Eyes on the Go NY, INC.
Represented By
Richard A Luthmann
The Luthmann Law Firm, PLLC
contact info
ThirdParty Defendant
Eyes on the Go, Inc.
ThirdParty Defendant
Jamie S. Karczewski
ThirdParty Defendant
Blazej Kesy
ThirdParty Defendant
Off the Charts, LLC
ThirdParty Defendant
Amie Carey Sepaniak
ThirdParty Defendant
Tall Oaks CT, LLC
ThirdParty Plaintiff
Auctus Private Equity Fund LLC
Represented By
Alex Todd Paradiso
Engel Thornburgh & Mccarney LLP
contact info
Katherine Baggett Thornburgh
Engel Thornburgh & Mccarney LLP
contact info
Philip M. Giordano
Reed & Giordano, P.A.
contact info
My thoughts are...it would be nice if chris keep investors informed on what's going on lol, but I know that isn't going to happen. I've got so many shares of this crap I can only hope that something happens once the law suit is settled. I know chris & family own a boatload of shares and not sure if a RS would effect them. I'm waiting till I can sell this crap and look at it as a reminder not to put my money in this sub penny junk ever again.
Guy can make a stock run...even his bulter got in on some action.lol.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2007/07/the_hamptons_butler_did_it.html
Not mj but hearing $BSSP is ready to go, multibags
Email I recieved a few days ago.
I can appreciate your opinion.
What you don't understand is I am not a member of DraftDay Fantasy Sports Inc. (DDAY) the old Viggle. I am the President of DraftDay Gaming Group. DDFS, of which you are a shareholder, is the majority shareholder of DDGG, but I am not a DDFS employee and therefore can't comment on any of the the questions you posed to me.
I am working as hard as I can to bring some new exciting partnerships to DDGG that I hope will make all of the DDFS shareholders happy.
I'm sorry that I can't offer more than that as it's not my place to comment about DDFS (and I have no involvement on that front regardless).
Have a nice day sir.