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.
giveit2me my challenged friend.
Explain hoe ecmh is makin money in any transaction that involves NIR conversions. Come on now dude, make your claims and make some sense of it.
Gonna get fun.Yabadabado.
Gotta love Juniper. Some puckered butts walkin around Roslyn these days. Jury selection process should be fun ta watch. I could really help em there.
No he didn't marshall.
He got it totally wrong and I posted the transactions as they happened. The dude can't even tell the differece i two seperate companies much less how the directors gave shares back to the company. Because you dudes got fired ya have a beef with ECMH, problem is you're totally wrong when ya try ta discredit these directors. They didn't take or enrich themselves, they gave back and cleaned up the companies. That clean up put you out and because a that you'd like ta pretend they did wrong. The facts don't back up your claims so ya wanna make stuff up. Anyone who wants ta show some rocks and make those false claims where is counts is gonna lose big time. Why don't you step up and see just how smart ya are and confront em with your lies. Get all the other posters that want ta back ya up together with ya. Call the SEC, post your claims very clear right here, get yourself some mouthpiece and file a Complaint. Let's see just how sure ya are of yourself. You dudes can't even understand what ya read so good luck.
You're all screwed up dude.
REI is not RETI. Rotary Engines Inc. was the company that had all of the rotary engine assets from John Deere/ Curtiss Wright. ECMH bought those assets for the 3 million plus. Look at the financials in the K's. It was a note due to REI which ECMH paid in shares. The 204 million shares. Then the REI dudes who are now the ECMH directors retired 100 million shares. Gave them back, made them go away. After which they owned 104 million shares. Those were common shares. In june the did a 30 for 1 reverse. Divide the 104 million shares by 30 and you have the total shares they now own. About 3.5 million shares. They then issued the non convertable votin only shares so they didn't lose voting control to NIR or antone else after giving back shares to the companies benifit. That's how it went down. the ECMH directors not only didn't enrich themselves they in fact did just the opposite and diluted themselves much more than they needed ta do. They could have protected their share very easily. Be careful what ya accuse them of cause your dead wrong. Postin info that is dead wrong is not a very good idea. Makes ya look foolish and liable.
You're comical with your efforts.
Since when does RETI a sub company of ECMH own any shares. Show that claims backup. Since when were any shares not effected by the June RS? Show any backup to that claim. Are ya so desperate that you're makin up new lies? Yep.
You're comical with your efforts.
Since when does RETI a sub company of ECMH own any shares. Show that claims backup. Since when were any shares not effected by the June RS? Show any backup to that claim. Are ya so desperate that you're makin up new lies? Yep.
No need ta make things up sparky.
I posted why HLNT is a terrible investment. Also posted why I was once interested in HLNT. Also posted what I found out about HLNT management. If ya missed any a that let me know and I'll tell ya again.
Read my post on the hho board.
It explains why HLNT is garbage.
Try this.
Go to bed tonight without thinkin about me. If you're smart you'll learn somethin.
That aint gonna fly dude
I told ya why it was good once and you've posted 20 times tellin me I say it everyday. Like I told ya a post or two back, I've told others many times in the past what was comin. Many like you went deaf because a their fixation. So do whatever ya wanna do. I've told ya where ta do your dd. Do it and then go fix whatever ya find. You'll get laughed off the stage but maybe you'll learn somethin.Tthe real game starts when they look back at ya and say "so the f--- what. What the hell are you gonna do about it" I'd say the same thing to ya cause you're a yapper. Yappers aren't the dudes that carry a big stick. You're a writer dude and that's fine. I just don't care what ya write. Read that book a hundred times when gettin paid ta do so. Sure aint gonna read it again here. Ya made the statement that i don't read your posts. I told ya I just skim em. That aint goona change until ya catch my interest. Facts not your view on life is gonna do that.
Graduate from opinion to fact and get back to me.
The market will fail. I've written about many. Long before your 2009 revelations. The sub-prime motgage fall on insider shortin is a mnost recent example. We made a bundle on the dollar fall and gold. Started that in 2005. Posted one or two posts on each that were my opinion. Except for those I work with it just got blank stares. The readers were too focused on pumpin a penny stock in order ta make 50 bucks a day ta listen. I've always gotten a personal laugh outta those who think I might have that same 50 buck mindset. I get accused a bein arrogant and thinkin others are stupid all the time. Those are the only ones who've been right about me yet.
They don't care if he's scared or not.
Trust me on that one. They'll be happy to see how he defends himself. There's only one test needed involvin his fear factor. Let's see if he posts that fraud claim. I don't think he has the balls. Hope I'm wrong.
You're makin some interestin claims dude.
"including some I won't describe that I think can be used as a proof of knowing fraud"
You're headin for the ride of your life.
I heard he bought a little time ta get affairs in order before he gets put away. This name change is classic Owen, Goldenburg, Handler and Tatum. SEC should just follow what ever they do, give em a year and they step in and investigate. Post that you're lookin for people they screwed and they'd have a slam dunk case. Get Real USA should be fun ta watch. I think with these guys, once you go to prison and get out you have to then start at the back of the line until your CEO time comes up.
WILLIAM M. JOEL v. FRANCIS X. WEBER (03/02/92)
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK COUNTY
Docket Number available at www.versuslaw.com
Citation Number available at www.versuslaw.com
decided: March 2, 1992.
WILLIAM M. JOEL, PROFESSIONALLY KNOWN AS BILLY JOEL, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
FRANCIS X. WEBER, ALSO KNOWN AS FRANK WEBER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. (ACTION NO. 1.) FRANK MANAGEMENT, INC., PLAINTIFF, V. CHRISTIE B. JOEL, DEFENDANT. (ACTION NO. 2.)
Gold, Farrell & Marks for Christie B. Joel, defendant.
Anthony T. Conforti for Frank Management, Inc., plaintiff.
Edward H. Lehner, J.
Author: Lehner
The novel issue raised on this motion of defendant Christie Brinkley Joel (Brinkley) to dismiss the complaint against her pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) is whether one has absolute immunity against a claim of tortiously interfering with a contract between the person's spouse and a third party.
FACTS
In his complaint the entertainer Billy Joel (Joel) has asserted causes of action against Francis Weber and Frank Management, Inc. (FMI) seeking a judgment declaring valid the termination of an agreement under which FMI served as manager of Joel's business and personal affairs (the Agreement). Joel asserts such right based on his discovery in the latter part of 1989 that FMI, acting through Weber (its president and former sole shareholder), committed fraud in handling of his finances and breached its fiduciary duty to him. Weber, who has recently filed for bankruptcy, is the brother of Joel's former wife.
In the subsequent action instituted by FMI against Brinkley, which has been consolidated with the Joel action, FMI alleges that between January 1, 1986 and August 1989 Brinkley (who was married to Joel in 1985) "did wrongfully, knowingly, intentionally, maliciously and without reasonable justification or excuse, induce persuade and entice ... Joel to violate, repudiate, and break" the Agreement, resulting in damage to FMI of $11,000,000. No facts are alleged to support this contention other than an assertion that Brinkley "harbored ill feelings and malice toward FMI as a result of the involvement of Frank Weber in the negotiation and execution" in 1985 of an antenuptial contract between Brinkley and Joel. Apparently Weber had acted as a negotiator for Joel in connection with such contract, pursuant to which FMI was to administer the household account of the parties.
In support of her motion Brinkley asserts that as Joel's wife she has absolute immunity against this type of claim. She also notes that the Agreement was twice renewed (in 1987 and 1989) after her marriage to Joel.
Discussion
In Guard-Life Corp. v Parker Hardware Mfg. Corp. (50 N.Y.2d 183, 189 [1980]), the following principle was quoted from Restatement (Second) of Torts ? 766: " 'One who intentionally and improperly interferes with the performance of a contract (except a contract to marry) between another and a third person by inducing or otherwise causing the third person not to perform the contract, is subject to liability to the other for the pecuniary loss resulting to the other from the failure of the third person to perform the contract.' " The court also noted (supra, at 190) the various factors set forth in Restatement (Second) of Torts ? 767 to be considered in determining whether the interference was " 'improper' ", to wit:
"(a) the nature of the actor's conduct,
"(b) the actor's motive,
"(c) the interests of the other with which the actor's conduct interferes,
" (d) the interests sought to be advanced by the actor,
"(e) the social interests in protecting the freedom of action of the actor and the contractual interests of the other,
"(f) the proximity or remoteness of the actor's conduct to the interference and
"(g) the relations between the parties."
Here the allegations of the complaint fail to set forth necessary facts to show conduct that could be deemed "improper" (see, Silverman v Caplin, 150 A.D.2d 673 [2d Dept 1989]; Quail Ridge Assocs. v Chemical Bank, 162 A.D.2d 917 [3d Dept 1990], lv dismissed 76 N.Y.2d 936; Susskind v Ipco Hosp. Supply Corp., 49 A.D.2d 915 [2d Dept 1975]). The conclusory allegations that Brinkley acted "wrongfully, knowingly, intentionally, maliciously and without reasonable justification or excuse" are insufficient to satisfy the pleading requirement (see, Gertler v Goodgold, 107 A.D.2d 481, 490 [1st Dept 1985], affd 66 N.Y.2d 946 [1985]; John R. Loftus, Inc. v White, 150 A.D.2d 857, 860 [3d Dept 1989]; Susskind v Ipco Hosp. Supply Corp., supra). Therefore, the complaint fails to state a cause of action and is dismissed.
Further, FMI is denied leave to replead because without allegations of wrongful conduct, such as physical threats or fraud (see, Guard-Life Corp. v Parker Hardware Mfg. Corp., supra, at 191), which is not asserted herein, the court finds that it is inappropriate to subject a party to inquiry concerning the motives behind advice and recommendations given to that person's spouse. Partners to a marriage should have the unfettered ability to discuss all aspects of domestic economics, including the suitability or unsuitability of any business venture, without fear of being called to account for the resulting steps either spouse may take that affect existing contractual relationships. The persuasive ability of either spouse to cause the other to alter business relationships should not be subject to judicial scrutiny as to the propriety thereof.
The court has found no New York case dealing with the immunity claimed herein, although in Silverman v Caplin (supra), a claim was asserted against a wife for persuading her husband to breach a contract, but the complaint there was dismissed on other grounds.
In Lee v Silver (262 App Div 149, 151 [1st Dept 1941], affd 287 NY 575 [1941]), where a mother was sued for advising her 17-year-old daughter to disaffirm a contract, it was held that "[p]ublic policy dictates that parents should have an absolute right to advise their infant children with regard to all matters ... [without] inquiry as to motive[, as s]uch an unrestricted right is one most calculated to promote the best interests of the family". The court finds this principle to be equally applicable to the relationship between husband and wife.
In MacDonald v Trammel (163 Tex 352, 354, 356 SW2d 143, 144 [1962]), a tortious interference claim against a wife for inducing her husband to breach a contract for the payment of commissions was dismissed, the court holding that since the property involved was part of their community estate, the wife should not "subject herself in damages for advising and consulting with her husband in respect to their common interests".
Although New York does not have community property, under our Equitable Distribution Law it has been stated that " 'marriage is, among other things, an economic partnership to which both parties contribute as spouse, parent, wage earner or homemaker' ". (Price v Price, 69 N.Y.2d 8, 14 [1986].)
In light of the limited immunity, the court finds that no valid cause of action can be asserted against Brinkley based on claims, referred to in the opposing affidavit, that she sought a termination of the Agreement because of a desire not to have the brother of Joel's former wife manage her finances, or because she wanted her own manager to serve the functions being handled by FMI under the Agreement (which asserted desire apparently has been fulfilled), or for any other reason not involving the type of wrongful conduct referred to above. Moreover, it would appear that crucial testimony to support FMI's claims would be inadmissible. CPLR 4502 (b) provides that a "husband or wife shall not be required, or, without the consent of the other if living, allowed, to disclose a confidential communication made by one to the other during marriage." Although this privilege does not apply to " 'ordinary conversations relating to matters of business' " (Johnson v Johnson, 25 A.D.2d 672, 673 [2d Dept 1966]; Federated Dept. Stores v Bloomingdale Bros. Div., 96 Misc. 2d 567 [Sup Ct, NY County 1978]), here the Agreement related to more than business, as it included the handling of the household account created pursuant to the aforesaid antenuptial contract. Further, since FMI was managing the income and assets of the "marital partnership", communications between Joel and Brinkley with respect thereto would not appear to be admissible as an ordinary business conversation, but rather would constitute the type of confidential discussions between spouses relating to their personal finances which would be subject to the statutory privilege.
In light of the foregoing, Brinkley's motion to dismiss the complaint against her is granted, and the clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, severing the FMI action from the Joel action.
Disposition
In light of the foregoing, Brinkley's motion to dismiss the complaint against her is granted, and the clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, severing the FMI action from the Joel action.
levelnever
Ya the name rings a bell. Saw it in the company filins when I was lookin inta the RICO case in NY namin the company and CEO Kenneth D Owen. Like I told the other dude, use the email I provided, I don't have the PM option.
I have no idea yet.
You're the one havin the talk. I'd imagine the info would be of interest ta you. Sort of a "the more I know the better off I am" kinda deal. I already know plenty. Don't have a clue as ta what you know. Just thought I'd pass on some ta help ya out. My interest is in the technology. As HYDB stands now there aint a chance in hell of seein any advance. I watch these things cause ya never know when someone might get smart or better yet when someone smart might show up.
post #1420
I can't answer PM's.
That should be interestin. Did he buy some extra time before goin away? Talk about what? If ya need a private contact for me it's
fupd@hush.com
Bottom Feeder?
Dude you're down the rabbit hole.
I'm not tryin ta sell you on anythin. Don't care about the cartoons ya watch and there is no secret. Bout the only request I have of you is ta consider usin 3 words instead of a hundred.
I'm not sure about that.
So far I've never heard from anyone but CHTL that she even exists. Maybe she got lost in the Mexican bank with the Olatoa PIPE money that Alvarez, Tay and Tobin claimed was a done deal. You remember that deal, right? The money to pay Chinacom a 149 million or so for a minority position in some deal we just found out per the latest PR that never existed? Now dimwit Tobin is blamin it all on end of year tax sellin? Is the dude retarded?
The WIMAX world can sleep again.
Another CHTL deal with the Chineese through a Cayman Island Corp. Does Mrs. Mang have relatives for this vertual venture.
Are ya serious dude or just dropped off the tater truck?
NIR is in a panic these days. Changes in laws regardin transparency will mean hedge funds become more transparent. All is aimed at the hedge fund investor position. Protection against the Sonja Kohn/ Madoffs of the world Ponzie games. The impact will be accurate reportin. It will not impact convertable notes. I could care less what happens to NIR. Unless it pertains to contractural obligations contained in their convertable notes. If your passion or beef is with NIR I sugest you spend your time readin lawsuits and shortin claims rather than tranparency reportin to NIR investors. You don't find dirt by watchin if NIR complies with some new reportin obligation after the fact. You're postin about old news, old info and missin your target by a mile. If it's all new stuff to ya go ahead and slog through it. Trust me, when you're done you'll be lookin from a different, more effective angle
Some of ya might find this interestin.
While ya watch, think about rotary engines that are more powerful and smaller runnin on alternative fuels. HHO gas is a good primary thought. ECMH is is a huge dollar industry that is gonna get bigger. The opportunity for a small, technology sound, not connected company like this is huge. BP, the middle east and the rest know this stuff and will position where they need to position. Bank on it. I'm not pushin anythin in this video except the science and probabilities in the energy/power sector.
http://www.agorafinancial.com/reports/OST/NewWar/vp/OST_NewWar_vp.php?code=POSTLC00
If I wanted ta talk to a parrot I'd buy one.
ECMH dudes that's who.
More money in a conversion means more debt payed.
Who said NIR cares?
Show me the Convertable Note scam data.
Show me how conversions don't pay debt.
Ask them how they think yourself. I already know.
I aint close ta what?
Got that wrong dude.
I thought you were a thinker? Good news means pps goes up. NIR converts same amount a shares and debt is paid down faster. Or refinanced by those that see the future. You got yourself a loser pink view a things goin right now. These dudes don't think that way. Better learn how the minds work that call the shots. Ya aint close yet.
Hey Joey Rink.
I'm lookin at starin a new board. Gonna talk hho as well as dig deep inta companies, hedge funds, the folks that run em. I'm gettin a little tired a the blockin of the view below the surface. I'm thinkin we should be lookin deep inta hho technology as well as a load a other subjects and targets I have in mind. Watch for it ta come soon.
I got an email response today.
I asked about progress and was told that one of the dudes from the florida facility just returned from Olson Labs. the test facility. Also was told that due ta insider info that was all I was gonna get until an update is released. Probably this week. A meetin on the trip results was happenin today. That's all I got so wait for that PR and it's probably a waste of time ta email.
All my ideas are good.
Question is, do I bother or not? I suspect it would be a very active board.
Dude ya might wanna look up the difference between hydrogen gas hho and liquid hydrogen.
downside.
Got your PM but can't respond. Yes I o know of several and some quality DD folks. I'm actually thinkin about a new board focused on the subject.
Mossad.
Tougher than the Russians that want ta gut her.
Cause it's not what they want.
They'll string out the liquid hydrogen thing for another 10 years. Call BP and ask em. Tell em ya have a great idea.
Why not?
What the hell are ya talkin about and who's feedyn ya the crp?
I don't think it's gonna fly here.
Are you my ex wife?
Maybe I'vd been at a party.
And got ripped.
Probably.