All of us long term "Bagholders" are holding tight!

)

WIDD look here:

http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=20318804

I fly every week between Denver and Washington/Dulles and almost in every case I am booked on that United flight 903 from Dulles to Denver, I am always either seated nezt to, or waiting at the gate, with Raytheon employees on the way back to their Aurora Colorado facility. They never disclose details of their work with anyone, as it is mostly associated with high security clearances. Nevertheless...sometimes one overhears conversations, but those are typically out of context cannot be trusted IMHO.

So..an article from 1992...and your point?

Dimensional Fund Advisors still holding onto GTEM shares?
http://holdings.nasdaq.com/asp/Institutional.asp?&sHead=t&coname=GLOBETEL+COMMUNICATIONS+COR...

Not true...he did know

Given nilremerlin's statistic:

http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=19020148

it appears that the naked short-ing's goal was/is about keeping the PPS stable below a resistance point perhaps allowing a client(s) of the Broker/Dealer to accumulate slowly at a good PPS.

Your lawsuit against Dumas et.al. was dismissed by the judge remember?

Observations regarding your observations....

1. Patrick Heyn, prior interim CFO, etc.... I think you are right regarding the wrapping up of the investigations. The end results and the corporate financials are most likely being worked on.

2. Regarding the "K-Men", that comment of yours is ludicrous. I have worked as a consultant on oversas engagements for years, in both Europe and the Far East, in "turnaround" situations, and at times I was away from home for months at a time. Business is now globally interconnected more than ever before, and no executive, based either here in the US, nor anywhere else, can expect to have a cozy 9-5 job returning to their own home every night, anymore. It is understood that an executive must travel a large percentage of the time as a part of their position.

Settlement/Payment of claims related to Suits or litigation against the company or officers will be handled and paid for by the insurance company.

"....are the convertible shares underlying the bonds."


that was my point!

Private Bonds? Meaning ....securities which did not require registration?

LOL

Provide the link on EDGAR demonstrating such a transation closed and bonds were registered with the SEC:

http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?type=&dateb=&owner=include&count=40&action=g...

That financing never closed.

Who would be considered a creditor, if there are no bondholders, and they are paying their bills with current receivables factoring?

Link please?

Chapter 11 implies Assets < Liabilities with zero cash flow to manage current Liabilities. How would you presuppose this is the case, without a clue into the current financials?

I agree that the projects were mismanaged.

Believe one thing "trade"...I would never allow, what happened on these projects, occur in my portfolio of projects and programs. I make a living taking over projects and programs which are "disasters" waiting to be canceled, and I bring them back to sustainable recovery. There were actions which, taken early on, would have mitigated many of the risks and delays. To make matters worse, management was (in my opinion) misinformed about the true state of the projects and the current issues and risks. I (and probably many Prog. Mgrs like me) would have managed things differently, but that is "water under the bridge" for now.

You point stating:

".....even "incentivized" them with GTE shares thru the GTE Europe facility. "

Gives thought to what parties might be incented to "tinker with the share price and the trading patterns" during some part of this period. Russian "investors" are not above their attempts at market manipulation, on their own exchanges and on other countries working through shell companies based offshore.

SCIENTER - Knowingly. Having the requisite knowledge of the wrongness/illegality of an act or conduct; guilty knowledge; knowing the impropriety/illegality associated with doing certain acts. This is often an element of liability or guilt that must be proven before a judgement or conviction can be obtained.

A man may do many acts which are justifiable or not, as he is ignorant or not ignorant of certain facts. He may pass a counterfeit coin, when he is ignorant of its being counterfeit, and is guilty of no offence; but if he knew the coin to be counterfeit, which is called the scienter, he is guilty of passing counterfeit money. A man who keeps an animal which injures some person, or his property, is answerable for damages, or in some cases he may be indicted if he had a knowledge of such animal's propensity to do injury. In this respect the civil law agrees with our own.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s006.htm

I do not have all of the facts (I have no access to the specific project plan and milestones with actuals, do you?!) and I cannot say that what was PRed was correct and an honest projection, per what was reported by Bob Jones, back to Tim Huff, any more than you can.

Regardless, we are where we are right now. Only what is reported in a 10Q is what counts for me.

Really??!!!.....no other aerospace company nor pharma has ever released projections of new product developments which have, then subsequently been proven to be off track? What world are you living in?!

What does "corporate governance" have to do with day-to-day staff management? Are you saying that Sarbannes-Oxley (or any other corporate governance framework) has rules related to daily management of corporate staff? Please provide a link and enlighten us all! I think you could start a business in that area.... of teaching CEOs and BODs how best to daily micro-manage staff according to corporate governance!

The CEO is not supposed to micro-manage his individual company staff. That is the responsibility of the operations and division management team. Additionally, he must rely on his team of experts, to provide him with the accurate updates. He is not an aerospace engineer by profession mind you. Looking at the Strat himself, how would he know what was really "done" without seeing the thing in the air himself like the rest of us?

tradeforyourlife.....the engineers were aerospace and materials engineers whose plans, risk management plan, estimates, dependencies and commitments to milestones were managed by Bob Jones. Bob Jones reported milestones and their progress to Tim Huff and the BOD. Obviously the plan was not being managed well. Tim Huff's background is telecommunications not aerospace engineering, and given the high level of reporting typically given at the CEO level, it does not surprise me at all, that such misreported information could be represented.

They fixed the problem...they have Doug Murch who will now have his "lessons learned" from his predecessor's mistakes, and will take no excuses for such things going forward.

JMHO

siriuslyricher...I think that most long time holders have been so burned by past commitments (remember the performance plan put in place last April, which had concrete milestones) which did not come to fruition, that only after proof of execution and generation of revenues, reported on a 10Q, will suffice for most people at this point.


There is a new management team with an unpublished (at least to shareholders) set of new milestones. There is still a lot of ambiguity and one thing that investors do not like is ambiguity.

That is the way it is for now.

I believe you are right

)

Both could be wrong

risk_it_us I have to..well...ummmm...oh my....I agree with you!

"...but maybe I'm wrong."

Remember, the design was changed?

I cannot vouch for what was reported to Huff at the time. I am as disappointed as you are. If I was running that project, this kind of thing would never have happened and it would not have been reported to management and allowed to be PR-ed, had I known differently, as it had been.

There must be total transparency in reporting project progress to business executives. I would rather go in and explain the real issues and risks and what I am doing about them, rather than, sugar-coating status and progress.

I have to believe that is the primary reason Jones was replaced by Murch.

The engineers were giving the management team estimates which were not in line with the risks. I have seen this time and time again on projects. I just took over a major program,and after I reviewed the project plan, which was hardly consistent, I also noticed activities being reported by the project manager, which were marked at 75% and 100% completed, but for which no completed deliverable could be identified! I ended up working with the team, restructuring the project plan, and the definitions of what "DONE" means.

There is a definition of what DONE means:

http://hiwg.cap.gov/CAPWebDoc/The%20Doctrine%20of%20Completed%20Staff%20Work.doc

developed by someone on the Army General Staff in 1942. I make sure my own team members clearly understand this.

The modern interpretation is:

http://www.asq.org/pub/qualityprogress/past/0307/qp0307career.pdf

That is your interpretation.

Could it be that two of the three directors ( one of whom was in fact only an interim CFO by the way) were removed not of their choosing?

Having worked for years, earlier in my career, in Aerospace & Defense, I am not at all surprised at the timelines expressed by Doug Murch. Very typical for a project like this. The other PRs were not overly promotional....that management team simply had no previous experience as to what it took to field a team and manage a project in this area. This is way different than configuring and installing telecommunications gateways.

It is called GAAP, i.e., Generally Accepted Accounting Principles

http://eventuring.kauffman.org/eShip/appmanager/eVenturing/eVenturingDesktop?_nfpb=true&_pageLab...

I agree with you that we are starting to see a different pattern with this company now, with the new mgt. team. PRs are fewer and directly related to results achieved, not wishes and 'forward projections'. There is a better focus on execution. I am not sure what will transpire wthe SEC investigation and if the company will suceed in getting a dismisal of the frivolous class action lawsuit (prior experience with similar cases lend me to believe it will be dismissed). Time will tell.

GLTA....Danielle

I did drop a hint a little while ago did I not?!

Wrong again.....Rob Bleckman confirmed that was not true.

Email I received on Friday:

"Hi Danielle.
Crazy day as always.
Uli is contractually bound to GlobeTel and the Hotzone technology is
proprietary to GlobeTel, that's all I know. Someone else asked me about Uli
too, apparently something that was posted somewhere in German that said he
was forming a company with Larry Lynch? I cannot comment on his extra
curricular activities but Uli did not leave GlobeTel."

The 8K submission perhaps?

How would you have the related papers? Just curious? What is your relationship here with this deal?

The JV is considered a subsidiary and the financials roll up into a consolidated financials. This is not considered an investment held on the Balance Sheet with dividends/interest payments as cash inflows from investment activities, according to FASB.