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.
I know you and others have questions for me. I will only answer questions privately or via my email, lugocalderon at racsa.co.cr .
I will not discuss my position any further publicly as I believe it only serves to benefit Paul and/or Corey.
Regulatory agency? I gave the documents to the SEC, to NASD, to FBI Denver for some unknown reason they asked, to SEC's Florida field office.
It's all public information, I posted it here.
Everyone's main question was, "Did you physically meet Paul Taylor?" Then answer was no. Then they seemed disappointed, "Oh, so you can't identify him as the person who gave you the documents." No, I can't. I never met the guy.
I gave a Western Union tracking number I snagged.
You need documents?
I've already been giving documents to any shareholder that needs them.
I've supplied four affidavits to shareholder/creditors.
Here's one of them:
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
In re: Case: 07-10940
PRIVADA INC. Chapter 7
f/k/a NETCO INVESTMENTS, INC.,
Debtor.
DECLARATION OF RODRIGO C. ARAYA
I, Rodrigo C. Araya, declare and state under the penalty for perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the following is true (28 USC §1746):
1. I have knowledge of the matters set forth in this declaration as I was Chief Financial Officer of the debtor from March 2005 until May 2005. In May 2005, I became the President and sole director of the debtor. I believe that the documents claiming to relieve me of my duties were forged.
2. My investigation determined that any person relying on press releases issued by the debtor to invest in its common stock would be a bona fide creditor of the company due to undeniable fraud.
3. Specifically, starting in late 2004, false and misleading press releases were issued to defraud the public. The press releases included a November 2004 release that claimed the debtor became a VOIP wholesaler for South and Central America; a December 2004 release that it secured $20MM in equity financing; a December 2004 release that it acquired Crobuset Software and Communications; a December 2004 release that it acquired Netco Ltd. of Columbia, a large internet company, when it control persons merely formed a new Belize corporation Netco Investments; a December 2004 release that it implemented IPxes Service when it had no technological capability to do so; a December 2004 release that it initiated a NASDAQ listing when it did not qualify to do so; a December 2004 release that the debtor won a $9MM contract when no bona fide contract existed; a December 2004 release that it won a $22MM purchase contract from Introtech Industria (Brazil) Ltd., when it had no ability to provide service; a December 2004 release that it won an $8MM congract from Odebrecht Com. & Agro Biofloresta, when it had no technological capability to offer services; a January 2005 release estimating company performance when no bona fide customers or equipment or services existed; a February 2005 release that the company signed a $5MM technology transfer license when no funds were exchanged and no services were technologically possible; a May 2005 release claiming that the debtor opened a Columbia office; a June 2005 release misrepresenting the nature of its acquisition of Global Interactive; a June 2005 release claiming that all of the assets were released to IPXES Inc., but concealing that no services were ever offered and that no assets or bona fide customers existed.
4. The shareholders that would be bona fide creditors are those who invested money based on the press releases and material representations and/or held their shares based on the press releases and material representations during the time periods involved.
5. There is no dispute about the fraud that occurred or the liability of the company to those who relied on the material representations.
Dated this 6th day of June, 2007.
_________________________________
Rodrigo C. Araya
Since my public announcement at:
http://netcoinvestments.info/9.html
I have stated I would cooperate with shareholders in any action. It's not about money. It's about reputation and doing what is right.
I question Paul's ability to appoint an attorney to represent Netco Investments, and I question his ability to fire the attorney.
I can't understand Paul's motives -- maybe he thought (correctly) that a challenge would balloon. Maybe having federal judges write opinions would spark regulatory action.
Marco never spoke to Paul Taylor to my knowledge. Marco never filed fraud counts against anyone since he was not a victim of any fraud except the forgeries. He was brought in by me to correct the fraud on the investors, to attempt to bring a viable business into Netco, etc.
I do agree he should have asked the Court to declare the share issuances and the reverse split to be a nullity because my signature was forged.
I think he intended to amend his documents as a matter of right after seeing Corey's inevitable motion to dismiss. There was a deadline, and I think he was late. But I can't say that with certainty.
I don't know Paul's strategy. I assume the New York case was to move it to a friendly court. Paul is not a party to the case. He had an attorney appear as the company. Netco Investments submitted a document asking the Court to allow the attorney to withdraw. Attached to it was a letter from Paul saying, "You are fired" and that he had no obection to judgment. The summary judgment was based on the estoppel of the PA action. What the strategy was, I don't know.
I am not a party to the New York case. I filed a motion to intervene which Madison and the Intervenors opposed. If I am allowed intervention, I could join Paul Taylor as a defendant.
However, I recently joined the bankruptcy action for my unpaid salary. That action is in Texas. In that case, a lawsuit can be filed against Paul Taylor if I choose to pursue that route.
The company is a Texas company and it should be litigated there.
You asked previously why the judgment was filed in PA, not Texas (the cognovit note). It was filed in both PA and Texas. There is a Texas judgment.
Only after I received an email about this.
During my tenure as an officer, I did not write any press releaes. The telephone numbers listed on them are Lingo or Vonage numbers. There was never an office in the Plaza Colonial, Costa Rica, Columbia, or elsewhere. They were not done with my authorization.
His real name is Paul Taylor. Under PA law, the cognovit note is automatic but there is a 30 day window for anyone to contest it.
Madison Transfer's attorney is associated with Paul Taylor and has represented Netco in the past. The attorney represented to the Court that the representation was limited to a single issue not having anything to do with this one. Yet the emails I provided show that the attorney was privy to a scam called "a dish served cold" which was meant to give NIR Gp the shell even though he didn't want it.
Paul Taylor forged my name on the beet company's share purchase, I think it was $450 for 4,500,000 shares, along with another share subscription to some other offshore company.
He then had Arnoldo Pacheco sign a document terminating me at the direction of the new share holders. It had a funny seal on it. Paul never met Arnoldo.
The signatures of the beet company documents are not legible on the ouster documents.
Forged shares:
1/5/2006 6,000,000 to Paul Taylor forged
1/16/2006 23,000 to Paul Taylor forged
1/16/2006 23,000 to Bruce Grossman
1/31/2006 23,000 to Mal Duszak not forged but never received
1/31/06 440,000 to Paul Taylor forged
January 23, 2006, $450.00 allegedly from West Indies Sugar and Beet Group Ltd., a Belize corp., forged my name on said subscription agreement. Share certificate issued to WISBG Ltd. were never authorized by me in my capacity as President and sole director of Netco.
Netco nominee President Pacheco
Ask him if he ever heard of the beet company, who appointed him, what his job was, what Netco is, who is in charge of the beet company.
011-506-2281904 Home
>011-506-3649212 Cellular
Previously the CEO of this company used to post here, if anyone knows of the aliases used, please let me know.
The dog might not win, but he always comes out unharmed.
I haven't made up my mind if the involuntary bankruptcy thing is a good idea, but I joined. If it gets knocked, I'll just bring suit against Paul and the company. The good thing is it tolls the limitations period for any claim against Netco.
Pssst... you talking to me? Or MSGM?
He's not back, that's from 2005. But that doesn't mean he's not lurking.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=19615911
I don't know if he was referring to the stock on MSGM, or me since Paul and Brian Niessen used to call me "Dog."
Its an important thing Major, I don't know why you make fun of it. This company is another vehicle used to trick people and reading your messages, you should be offended by it, not sloughing off the seriousness of its past or present behaviour.
That's close. Maybe an older head put on it.
The address in question is not his "wife's address." Rather, it is the address that was on the directives to Madison Transfer as to where to send certifictes to. Furthermore, it is the address that the registered agent for what is now MSGM forwarded a notice of lawsuit I mailed. As to control he had a lawyer using Netco Investments as a party file a document stating that HE had no objection to Marco Chavarria's summary judgment motion. Before the Court could rule, Corey came in challenging Marco's existence. An email that was sent in confidence by Marco to Attorney Shichtman (Madison Transfer's attorney) was published on this board less than an hour later. I think full disclosure should be in the intro-box, past and present. If Paul says his address, which he uses for business, is not accurate, he should provide a functional address where he ordinarily conducts business.
I like your investment advice Reknaw, when can we get together to discuss Netco?
In my lawsuit against MSGM, the lawyer sends me a "demand" that I appear at his office on May 16. He mailed it regular mail from Nevada, so it arrives on the 17th. But he already filed a motion for sanctions against me claiming I "refused" to participate in the case. Then he files an affidavit saying he did not know my telephone number, but it is right on the Complaint that he filed an answer to.
Amazingly rude stuff.
Is this a Paul Taylor company?
I think maybe there should be a comparison portrait.
Definitely PT.
The new pirate isn't so accurate. It's not balding and it doesn't have grey hair. It also isn't as hideous. Please bring back the real pirate picture in the i-box.
I'll go if Paul goes.
Nope, insanity is doing the same crime over and over and thinking you will never be charged.
Understand that's why most people get caught. Rob the bank, get away, rob the next bank, get away, rob the third bank, get away, rob the fourth bank and do time for all of them.
Tick tock.
Major knows that when the guy in the picture finally goes to jail, I'm going to deliberately commit a crime so I can hang out with him there.
I thought it was pure jealousy!!! I know he's envious because the dastardly deeds of the guy in the picture on this board can't come close to Jack Sparrow's wrongdoing.
Maybe they can meet in Coleman, Florida, and exchange ideas while they peel potatoes.
Ok, we'll be talking about CoConnect and investigate if it has any connection to NCVT or what is now MSGM.
of course it was filed! But it takes them some time to scan in it. I understand that Corey was pleased and that his attorneys keep calling Marco's toll-free number. But they won't leave a message, just keep hanging up. Poor Corey.
...and the FBI is still investigating me for sending a puppy dog book to a former consultant of Netco.
I bet the truth is that if he opened the door to the FBI, they'd listen to everything he has to say, then magically you'll see him going to a nice place in Coleman Florida where his tall tales will make him quite the popular guy.
Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooop, there went the share price...
It all gives me the Massive G headache.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------X
MADISON STOCK TRANSFER, INC.,
CV 06-3926
Plaintiff,
-against-
NETCO INVESTMENTS, INC., and
MARCO CHAVARRIA, ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM TO
Defendants. THE CROSS-CLAIM
------------------------------X
Defendant Marco Chavarria (“Chavarria”) files this, his answer and counterclaim to the cross-claim filed by intervenors AJW Partners LLC, New Millenium Capital Partners II, LLC, AJW Offshore, Ltd., and AJW Qualified Partners, LLC:
ANSWER TO CROSS-CLAIM
1-13. Paragraphs 1 through 13 are intentionally left blank.
14. Chavarria lacks specific knowledge as to the averments in paragraph 14 of the cross-claim and therefore denies the allegation.
15. Chavarria lacks specific knowledge as to the averments in paragraph 15 of the cross-claim and therefore denies the allegation.
16. Chavarria lacks specific knowledge as to the averments in paragraph 16 of the cross-claim and therefore denies the allegation.
17. Chavarria lacks specific knowledge as to the averments in paragraph 17 of the cross-claim and therefore denies the allegation.
18. Denied. Based on information, the cross-claimants entered into a conspiracy with individuals to defraud the shareholders Privada Inc. The money was paid, not to the benefit of the shareholders, but to the benefit of officers of the company now known as Privada, Inc., and the cross-claimants unlawfully induced said officers as part of a fraudulent scheme to obtain unregistered securities so they could “dump” them onto the market rather than hold them as a legitimate financing vehicle.
19. Denied. Based on information, the entity now known as Privada, Inc., never received any benefit from the payments and the funds, with the knowledge of the cross-claimants, were diverted for the personal use of individual officers of the corporation.
20. Denied as stated. The agreement constitutes a lengthy document that must be read as a whole. Citing portions thereof creates a misleading understanding of the terms. Moreover, the conversion terms constitute a fraudulent scheme known as “death spiral financing” whereby shareholders of public corporations are defrauded through the printing and dumping of shares on the public market by debenture holders. The “death spiral financing” provisions are against public policy and should not be enforced. On the contrary, if the cross-claimants are owed money, it should be reduced to a monetary judgment.
21. Denied. It is denied that the text of the debenture is representative of the text in all of the convertible debentures and Chavarria requests that the cross-claimants immediately produce all of the alleged agreements. Moreover, it is denied that the debenture was duly authorized by the corporation and its shareholders, or a bona fide officer of Privada Inc.
22. Denied. It is denied that Privada, Inc., has any obligation to the cross-claimants. On the contrary, as stated above, the debenture constituted a part of an elaborate “death spiral financing” scheme perpetrated by the cross-claimants and a single person who was not duly authorized to execute the agreement. Finally, as the “death spiral financing” instrument plainly violates public policy and constitutes a fraud upon the shareholders of Privada, Inc., any amount due should be reduced to a monetary judgment and no other relief should be granted.
23. Denied as stated. It is admitted that the cross-claimants unlawfully, and in violation of federal securities laws, obtained billions of shares of Privada, Inc., to the detriment of the shareholders, and “dumped” them onto the public stock market all while being a control person and affiliate of Privada, Inc., which effectively meant that the securities should have been restricted. Based on information, the cross-claimants earned hundreds of thousands of dollars and created a virtual automated teller machine by printing the shares and dumping them onto the market for the sole purpose of monetary gain and not as a bona fide investment into Privada, Inc. It is further averred that the cross-claimants effectively engaged in a racketeering scheme through multiple and ongoing violations of federal securities laws through the conversion of the instruments. It is noted that some of the “conversions” were forged by parties unknown, possibly agents of the cross-claimants, and not actually signed and executed by Rodrigo Calderon Araya, the duly authorized officer at the times material. Mr. Calderon Araya has publicly announced that his name was forged on conversion instruments involving the shares provided to cross-claimants.
24. Denied as stated. Cross-defendant Chavarria has no knowledge of any request made to him, as sole authorized officer, for the conversion of any notes. Prior to Chavarria’s tenure as authorized officer, rather than make demands on the former authorized officer, Rodrigo Calderon Araya, the cross-claimants obtained shares through forged conversion documents whereby a facsimile of Rodrigo Calderon Araya’s signature was transposed onto the documents in question.
25. Denied as stated. The terms of the convertible debenture do not authorize any third-party, including the transfer agent of Privada, Inc., to issue shares. The only person authorized to issue shares is Marco Chavarria, the sole authorized officer of the corporation.
26. Admit. It is admitted that Madison Stock Transfer has not issued shares. Madison Stock Transfer does not have authorization to issue shares to the cross-claimants. Furthermore, Madison Stock Transfer resigned as the corporation’s transfer agent. Presently, Privada, Inc., conducts its own share transfers. The only authorized person to issue a certificate is Chavarria. No request has ever been made upon Chavarria. In the event Chavarria received a demand, he would make an executive decision whether to issue shares.
27. Admit. It is admitted that Madison Stock Transfer lacks authority to issue shares to the cross-claimants. Even if authority existed, said shares must be restricted.
28. Denied. As stated, no controversy exists because no request has been made on the proper parties. The cross-claimants are attempting to bootstrap their claims into this action instead of filing a separate action against Privada, Inc., for breach of contract.
29. Denied. A simple breach of contract action in a court of competent jurisdiction would adjudicate the rights of the parties. The former transfer agent is not a proper party to any dispute between the cross-claimant and the cross-defendants.
30. Denied. A corporation cannot sign any document, it must act through its officers. The only person who can sign the requested document would be cross-defendant Chavarria. Furthermore, the plaintiff cannot be required to issue shares since it is not an agent of Privada, Inc., or Chavarria. Finally, such a declaration would evade federal securities laws in that any shares that the cross-claimants are entitled to should be restricted non-trading stock as a result of the control status and insider knowledge which the cross-claimants have.
31. Denied. Even if the cross-claimants can show that their agreements are valid, which they cannot, the proper remedy is a money judgment as enforcement of the “death spiral financing” arrangement constitutes a fraud against the public. If shares are required to be issued, they should be restricted securities as the cross-claimants are control persons of Privada, Inc., by virtue of their superior position.
First Affirmative Defense
32. The requested relief would require that Chavarria engage in money
laundering activities as the funds allegedly paid constitute criminally derived proceeds from various fraud, tax evasion, and securities fraud schemes. That is, based on information, the cross-claimants operate various international funds to avoid taxation by the United States Government and to conceal the identities of the investors who may have obtained said funds from fraud, narcotics violations, tax shelter schemes, and other illegal conduct. Furthermore, the payment to Privada, Inc., was part of an elaborate securities fraud scheme and any payment back to the cross-claimants, if any payment was actually made to Privada, Inc., may violate 18 USC §§1956, 1957.
Second Affirmative Defense
33. Any issuance of shares to the cross-claimants would violate the
corporate charter duly filed with the Secretary of the State of Texas and exceed the lawful limits of the corporation. As such, if it is found that the cross-claimants are entitled to relief, the amount owed should be reduced to a money judgment bearing a lawful rate of interest.
Third Affirmative Defense
34. Any issuance of shares to the cross-claimants should be deemed to be restricted shares as the cross-claimants are control persons of the company.
Fourth Affirmative Defense
35. The agreement for shares at a value below the market rate constitutes a scheme known as “death spiral financing” that effectively guarantees financial losses to the investment public. Thus, the terms of the agreement are against public policy.
Fifth Affirmative Defense
36. The convertible note agreement may have been fully satisfied and the cross-claimants have not specifically stated how much remains due on the convertible notes.
Sixth Affirmative Defense
37. Based on information, no money was actually paid by the cross-claimants.
Seventh Affirmative Defense
38. Based on information, Privada, Inc., never received any money or consideration from the cross-claimants.
Eighth Affirmative Defense
39. The claims are barred by fraud and the unclean hands of the cross-claimants.
Ninth Affirmative Defense
40. No agreement other than the agreement filed with the Court are in existence and in order to proceed with their claims, the cross-claimants must immediately provide a true copy of each executed agreement.
Tenth Affirmative Defense
41. No person authorized by Privada, Inc., executed the agreements in question. Based on information, the documentation was executed by a third-party who falsely represented his status as an authorized agent of Privada, Inc.
Eleventh Affirmative Defense
42. This Court lacks jurisdiction over this action since no adverse claimants exist and the intervenors have not laid any claim to the res in dispute in this intervenor action.
WHEREFORE, Cross-Defendant Marco Chavarria respectfully demands that this Court dismiss or deny the requests of the Cross-Claimants, award costs and fees to the Cross-Defendants, and grant any further relief that is appropriate and just.
COUNTERCLAIM AGAINST AJW PARTNERS LLC, NEW MILLENIUM CAPITAL PARTNERS II LLC, AJW OFFSHOE LTD, AND AJW QUALIFIED PARTNERS LLC
43. Chavarria incorporates paragraphs 14 through 42 above by reference as if fully restated again.
44. Based on information, the cross-claimants induced, without solicitation, former officers and control persons of Privada, Inc., to enter into a contract whereby money would be given to the control persons in exchange for a convertible debenture known as “toxic financing” or “death spiral financing.”
45. Under the terms of the note, shares are issued to the cross-claimants for a small fraction of the market price of the securities.
46. As a result, the share price continuously plunges because the cross-claimants dump the shares onto the market.
47. As the price of the shares goes down, the cross-claimants receive additional and larger amounts of shares.
48. In this case, the former officer of Privada, Inc., determined that the cross-claimants were only entitled to restricted shares of stock because they were affiliates and control persons of the corporation by virtue of their ability to effectively control the management of the corporation at their whim.
49. That is, the note holders were effectively the majority shareholders of the corporation because, at any time, they could control the company by simply requesting a conversion of shares.
50. Based on information, the cross-claimants received insider information about the affairs of the company and could predict the pricing of the shares based on the amount of shares they caused to be issued and subsequently released onto the market place.
60. After the officer of Privada Inc. stopped authorizing shares to the cross-claimants and others, forged authorizations to issue shares were made containing a facsimile version of Araya’s signature.
61. Based on information, the cross-claimants were aware that they received share certificates pursuant to a forged share authorization.
62. In addition, the cross-claimants apparently mislead and misrepresented their control person and affiliate status to their legal counsel to obtain legal opinions denoting that the shares could be issued as “free trading” shares.
63. Based on information and belief, the cross-claimants have formed offshore corporations in an effort to conceal the origination of the assets of their funds. On information, some of the money in the funds were derived from criminally activities such as fraud, tax fraud, and narcotics violations. By creating offshore vehicles, the cross-claimants continue to conceal their liabilities to the United States Government and the criminal origins of the funds in question.
64. Based on information and belief, the cross-claimants earned hundreds of thousands of dollars over the past several years through securities fraud and other criminal behavior associated with the notes.
COUNT I – Accounting in Equity
65. Paragraphs 14 through 64 are hereby incorporated by reference and are realleged as if fully set forth again.
66. As explained above, the cross-claimants received hundreds of thousands of dollars pursuant to the “death spiral” financing notes they offered.
67. The cross-claimants refuse to provide an accounting of the money and shares they received as a result of the notes in question.
68. The cross-claimants refuse to provide Chavarria with the records he needs to determine whether additional payments are due to the cross-claimants.
69. As an officer of the company, Chavarria is the person that has the responsibility to sign any request for the issuance of shares.
70. As a result, Chavarria has a fiduciary duty to the company, the shareholders, and to the cross-claimants to assure that the requests are valid and that money is owed.
71. Chavarria also needs to be provided with evidence that the convertible notes in question resulted in consideration to the corporation before he can issue shares.
72. Chavarria demanded an accounting from the cross-claimants.
73. The cross-claimants have failed to provide an accounting.
74. It appears that fraud has occurred and it is impossible to reconcile the records. That is, many of the shares that the cross-claimants received were the result of forged directions issued in the name of Rodrigo Calderon Araya to the plaintiff, but which Araya neither executed nor authorized.
75. Based on the above, Chavarria, as the only person who can authorize the shares to be issued on a request by the cross-claimants, is entitled to an equitable accounting.
WHEREFORE, Cross-Defendant Marco Chavarria respectfully demands that this Court direct an audited accounting in equity for the purpose of determining: (1) The identity of the parties who paid consideration that resulted in the debentures; (2) The amount of the original consideration; (3) The recipient of the original consideration; (4) The amounts and consideration received by the noteholders during the material times; and (5) The remaining amount due to the noteholders.
COUNT TWO – Action for Declaratory Relief
76. Paragraphs 14 through 75 are hereby incorporated by reference and realleged as if fully set forth again.
77. A justiciable controversy existed between Chavarria and the cross-claimants as Chavarria is the only officer duly authorized to issue and execute Privada, Inc., shares.
78. The cross-claimants have demanded, through the course of this action, that the Court enter a direction that shares of Privada Inc. stock be issued to them.
79. However, Chavarria has made the determination that any shares that the cross-claimants may be entitled to should be restricted pursuant to 17 CFR §230.144.
80. Pursuant to 17 CFR §230.144(a)(1), an “affiliate” of an issuer is a person that directly, or indirectly through one or more intermediaries, controls, or is controlled by, or is under common control with, the issuer.
81. In this case, by being the largest creditor of Privada Inc. other than Chavarria, and having the entitlement to convert shares to the point of taking over a substantial portion of the corporation, well in excess of 10%, at its whim, the cross-claimants are “affiliates” as they control the issuer.
82. In addition, pursuant to 17 CFR §230.144(a)(2)(iii), the cross-claimants effectively are beneficial owners of more than a ten percent equity interest in the corporation, deeming them to be affiliates.
83. As such, the securities that should be issued to the cross-claimants are “restricted securities” within the meaning of 17 CFR §230.144(a)(3).
84. All of the requirements of 17 CFR §230.144(b) have never been met which would allow the sale of the securities without a restricted legend.
85. Nevertheless, in an effort to evade the various rules governing the issuance of securities, the cross-claimants have requested that this Court direct the issuance of shares of stock at the whim of the cross-claimants.
86. Therefore, Chavarria is entitled to a declaration that any shares he is required to issue pursuant to a debenture held by the cross-claimants be restricted notwithstanding any paid legal opinion to the contrary.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Marco Chavarria respectfully demands that this Court declare and adjudge that any shares that are required to be issued by him as officer of Privada Inc. to the cross-claimants be deemed “restricted” pursuant to 17 CFR §230.144.
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________
Marco Chavarria
I posted one message on FGFC and it went bye bye. All I said was that on Major's www.fgfc.us site you could get the July 2006 terms of the preferred shares which are total 51% regardless of dilution, was just responding to a message.
So I guess we'll see the response to Corey's complaint this week.
The PR said that all liabilities of RHMX were adopted by the gang, so I guess they'll pay me?
there's going to be alot of defendants.
That sucked.
No he wants unlimited rights to print.
Marco's not as good as your litigious self.