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.
that is obviously a very optimistic theory.
And very, very illegal.
How much is Tim Kennedy's appearance fee? How does that help the 4k streaming business model?
I expect Toon Goggles will generate exponentially more revenue than NTEK. Their premium subscription for everything is $4.99/mo. Half the price of a single Rocky rental from NTEK.
NTEK hype is meant to sell stock for insiders who printed it for free or at substantial discount. They have no sustainable business model whatsoever and they've told many, many lies this past year that we're just supposed to forget about?
It is completely accepted that UltraFlix is one of the major players in the 4K content industry.
By that logic then Toon Goggles is a major player in the 4k industry?
How much revenue will be generated by renting Rocky for $10 a pop? Seriously.
Foley also partnered with the Bureau of Prisons to attend CES.
How soon before it touches the 2's again today?
Millions of shares need to be sold today and the rest of the week. There is nothing to hype after CES.
Well, Samsung is a "Partner"!
Using that logic so is the Bureau of Prisons.
Millions more need to be dumped this week.
Loretta Lynch questioned over secret deal depriving fraud victims of $40M
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/4/loretta-lynchs-office-cheated-stock-fraud-victims-/print/
Probe of Obama attorney general nominee sought over secret deals for cooperators
By Jim McElhatton - The Washington Times - Sunday, January 4, 2015
More than a year before President Obama nominated federal prosecutor Loretta Lynch to be attorney general, a former federal judge quietly called on Congress to investigate her U.S. attorney's office for trampling on victims' rights.
Paul Cassell, a law professor at the University of Utah, said Ms. Lynch's office, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, never told victims in a major stock fraud case that a culprit had been sentenced — denying them a chance to seek restitution of some $40 million in losses.
Mr. Cassell, in written remarks to a House Judiciary Committee panel in 2013, said if prosecutors were using secretive sentencing procedures to reward criminals for cooperating with them, it could violate the Crime Victims Restitution Act.
"Every day that the office withholds notice from the victims in this case about the continuing proceedings that are occurring in this case is a day in which the office is violating the CVRA," he wrote, urging the subcommittee to conduct its own inquiry into Ms. Lynch's office.
The Judiciary Committee acknowledged in an email to The Washington Times that it never followed up to contact Ms. Lynch's office, but added the panel "has not ruled out sending an inquiry to the U.S. attorney's office regarding its handling of victims' rights."
Ms. Lynch's nomination to be attorney general will soon come before the Senate Judiciary Committee, now controlled by Republicans, and the case could surface as a topic of inquiry.
"I do think it's something that the Senate should be investigating as part of the confirmation process," Mr. Cassell said in an interview.
Meanwhile, a lawyer has filed a Supreme Court petition to force more records in the criminal case to be unsealed, charging that Ms. Lynch's office has failed to explain secret deals it gives cooperators.
"These deals, indisputably in defiance of mandatory federal forfeiture and restitution laws, allow cooperators to keep the proceeds of their crimes in exchange for their cooperation and keep their reputation intact, hidden behind secret dockets," said attorney Frederick Oberlander, who has sued the businessman on behalf of fraud victims.
Brian Fallon, a Justice Department spokesman, said in a statement that the Supreme Court petition "raises no claims of any merit."
"Many of these claims have already been litigated on no fewer than three prior occasions, and each time the courts have rejected them," he said. "One court went so far as to warn the petitioner against any future frivolous findings or else potentially face court-imposed sanctions."
The petition isn't the first time that Mr. Oberlander and his attorney, Richard Lerner, have sought to pry loose sealed records in the long and complicated case of Felix Sater, the businessman at the center of the stock fraud.
Pump and Dump
Sater pleaded guilty in 1998 in a racketeering stock "pump and dump" fraud scheme, but his case remained on a secret docket in federal court in Brooklyn, New York, as he cooperated with the government in other investigations, court records show.
The secrecy surrounding the 1998 criminal case allowed Sater to resume "his old tricks" and defraud new victims of hundreds of millions of dollars, Mr. Oberlander charged in a civil racketeering lawsuit he filed against Sater in recent years. An attorney for Sater disputes that account, saying his client has been a "model citizen."
When he sued, Mr. Oberlander included leaked copies of Sater's pre-sentencing report and a copy cooperation deal for the 1998 case, which were under seal. The disclosure set off a fierce and contentious legal battle between federal prosecutors and Mr. Oberlander and his attorney, Richard Lerner, who both have faced a contempt investigation after the disclosure.
Eventually, more than a decade after his guilty plea, Sater was sentenced and fined $25,000 in a hearing that took place without notice to victims shortly before Ms. Lynch took over the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York, according to records.
In court papers, Mr. Oberlander and Mr. Lerner noted that Sater faced nearly 20 years in prison and a mandatory $40 million in restitution and $80 million forfeiture, but the sentencing judge imposed no restitution or confinement. And victims weren't at the hearing to object because they were never told about the sentencing in the first place, according to the attorneys' Supreme Court petition.
Ms. Lynch wasn't U.S. attorney during the sentencing hearing, but her office has since fought efforts to unseal records in the case.
Mr. Fallon also said many of the key developments in the case "occurred outside of Ms. Lynch's stints as U.S. attorney," first in 1999 and again in 2010. Still, court records show numerous examples of Ms. Lynch's office pushing to keep details about the case from becoming public.
The government's arguments for keeping records sealed — many of them redacted or under seal — have been upheld in rulings by the U.S. District Court in Brooklyn and by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit despite arguments pushing for more transparency from victims' rights and press groups.
'Most serious matters of national security'
Robert Wolf, an attorney for Sater, said his client provided "extraordinary cooperation" after his 1998 guilty plea, including working on "the most serious matters of national security, battling our greatest enemies at tremendous risk to his own life and for the benefits of all citizens of our country."
In an email, Mr. Wolf called the $25,000 fine Sater was ordered to pay "more than merited" and a "measure of gratitude" for unspecified cooperation that saved "potentially tens of thousands, if not millions, of our citizens' lives."
Neither Sater's lawyer nor the Justice Department would discuss the nature of his cooperation.
Mr. Wolf said Sater has gone on to build a business and has been a "model citizen."
"From job creation to philanthropy, Mr. Sater has been clear of all legal allegations," he said.
Mr. Wolf also discounted what he called "sham concerns" about victims' rights, accusing the attorneys suing Sater of a "legal shakedown" aimed at using the threat of public disclosure to force a lucrative settlement deal.
Mr. Oberlander, however, said in an email that the case provides a troubling example of prosecutors evading federal forfeiture and restitution laws as a reward for cooperation.
"And Ms. Lynch's office refuses to notify crime victims of their restitution rights when restitution and notice to victims are mandatory under federal law," he said.
Mr. Lerner said the Sater case was "no mere aberration," charging that "Ms. Lynch's success as a prosecutor has been dependent upon her office's repudiation of constitutional and statutory law."
The Supreme Court petition filed by Mr. Lerner of behalf of Mr. Oberlander also details the involvement in the Sater case of two other Justice Department officials — Marshall Miller, principal deputy assistant attorney general in the criminal division, and Leslie Caldwell, assistant attorney general in the criminal division.
Mr. Miller was the victims' rights coordinator for the federal prosecutor's office in Brooklyn, while Ms. Caldwell, a former prosecutor in the office, later represented Sater at his sentencing.
At the sentencing hearing, Ms. Caldwell said Sater was "really deserving of the full measure of leniency" given the "extraordinary circumstances of his cooperation," according to transcripts.
Outside concerns
While attorneys debate Sater's sentencing deal, two outside groups — the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press and the National Organization for Victim Assistance — have filed briefs in recent years pushing for more transparency in Sater's case and questioning whether the secrecy has limited public oversight and stifled the voice of victims.
In a May letter to judges on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, attorneys for the Reporters Committee said they first challenged the "super sealing" of the Sater case in 2012.
Some records were later unsealed in March 2013, but the district court left about 25 percent of the records under seal after secret "ex parte" meetings closed to the press, public and the attorneys who were seeking to unseal the documents, according to the committee.
Ms. Lynch's office argued that Sater's safety was one consideration for sealing, but the Reporters Committee said the information about his case already was available and the subject of media reports, which undercut that argument.
"When the press and public have no way of holding courts accountable for giving informants special treatment, secret defendants can abuse the system and endanger the public," Bruce D. Brown, the committee's executive director, wrote in a letter in May.
In 2012, two years into Ms. Lynch's tenure at U.S. attorney, Mr. Cassell filed a separate brief on behalf of the National Organization for Victim Assistance. They argued that Ms. Lynch's office appeared intent on preventing the public from learning anything about how prosecutors treated crime victims in the case.
The victims' rights group said it had asked Ms. Lynch's office whether it followed through on restitution for crime victims as the law requires in the case. The group received no explanation other than a brief email to Mr. Cassell saying the office "complied in all aspects of the law."
"At this point," the attorneys argued, "the government is using the alleged sealing orders it may (or may not) have obtained in this case not as a legitimate law enforcement tool but rather as an excuse for obscuring what happened."
Mr. Cassell a year later asked the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution to inquire into the matter. But that didn't happen.
In a statement, the Judiciary Committee said it incorporated Mr. Cassell's concerns into legislation improving services for crime victims at all federal prosecutors' offices. But the House panel never contacted Ms. Lynch's office directly.
"The committee takes such requests seriously, and the precedent is often to use alternate strategies other than a formal congressional inquiry," the committee said in an email statement — though the committee said it "is also open to examining this issue further and has not ruled out sending an inquiry to the U.S. attorney's office regarding its handling of victims' rights."
Unless they've already been reissued.
They have an app and a pinball machine. They charge $10 to rent Rocky. Not much potential for greatness there.
Why on Earth would anyone purchase the company when they can just create their own app in about 6 hours? NTEK has zero intellectual property and zero exclusive content (except Sammy Davis Jr's VHS collection, LOL)
Cable is an over priced joke
Is NTEK still trying to charge $10 to watch Rocky once? LOLOL!!!
Yes!!! A 4k documentary about dolphins! I hope NTEK's servers can handle the demand for that one!
Yeah but Comcast doesn't have NTEK's pinball machine!!! LOL at this pumpadump.
The Foleys need some walking-around money for the Vegas trip.
Someone can't dump fast enough. Blew out the 52-week low. 2's soon.
in no way can you account for the fact that rick heddle, a captain of industry could be so easy duped out of 3 million dollars.
I can't speak for anyone else but the thought of lazy low-brow scammers like John Bordynuik doing nothing but pushing a get-rich-quick scheme on the public - promising his friends and family that if they help they too can get richer by scamming the naive - is disgusting.
The fact that he's succeeded (although at the expense of those same friends and family) to the tune of over $60 million dollars unaccounted for...
John Bordynuik belongs in prison.
He created JBII to run the scam. It's PTOI now so he can walk away with everyone's money. Wanting "the company" to fail means wanting the scam to fail.
Lumb was a big fan of the FLD's. Monk laughed it him too.
Lumb and his no-bid stock.
I hope so, it's your money that's paying for their Vegas jaunt next week.
Like I said the table next to them is still for sale. Maybe the Foleys could get it too and set up the pinball machine! Or an ice sculpture demo!
Their booth is in the middle of Sorenson Media, Team Research, Businessfriend and another table that hasn't been sold yet. I'm sure all of those will also benefit greatly from Sony's existence a couple hundred feet away! LOL!
I hope they can find the booth:
That's only one of about a dozen halls being used for CES this year: http://www.mapyourshow.com/shows/index.cfm?Show_ID=CES15
All NTEK has is an app tho. Nobody attending CES is going to be impressed by an app that can be duplicated by anyone there. It's a joke. Hype.
Another $100 was spent and it's now only down 30% on the day! Wheeee!
https://ces.itnint.com/2014/regonline/CreateAccount.aspx
The International CES is not open to the general public and all attendees must be in the consumer electronics (CE) industry to be eligible to attend the show. Due to the investment made by our exhibitors, International CES show management wants to ensure that its attendees are members of the trade.
So it's good that it's only down 40% now on the highest volume in months?
LOL you think they need NTEK to do that? It's a paid appearance. A funny one too.
UFC already has their own streaming app with over a million downloads. One of the dumbest wastes of shareholder $$$ yet.
LOLOL
Lumb can't dump his no-bid stock fast enough LOL! 250 million sold below .0001 and no end in sight. He's a laughingstock!
It did? LOL
Insiders can't dump fast enough near 52-week lows.
That is a lie. That PR is from November.
With the Company’s Directors having authorized a Stock repurchase Program of up to $750,000 on January 13, 2014 and amended on September 26, 2014; the Company’s Management believes that it is illogical to expend any sums of monies on any future stock repurchases, in the market, from either Loan Term Convertible Loan Note Holders or from any other third parties that have directly or indirectly contracted with the Company and/or its subsidiary companies.