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.
Pursuant to some requests, here are documents relating to Corey Ribotsky and his convertible note with Paul Taylor.
AFFIDAVIT SUPPORTING INTERVENTION IN INTERPLEADER ACTION BY COREY'S ATTORNEY
http://netcoinvestments.info/2006-09-15.Affidavit_re_Corey_Intervention.pdf
COPY OF CONVERTIBLE NOTE
http://netcoinvestments.info/2006-09-15.Convertible_Note.pdf
COREY'S COUNTERCLAIM SEEKING TO ENFORCE THE CONVERTIBLE NOTE
http://netcoinvestments.info/2006-09-15.Counterclaim.pdf
COREY'S MEMO IN SUPPORT OF INTERVENTION
http://netcoinvestments.info/2006-09-15.Memorandum_in_support_intervention.pdf
Paul Taylor, I mean Aetheum, your ego is what will bring you down! Your friend apparently violates every ethical canon that exists to help you, and you take the privileged information and put him in jeopardy instead of just being happy that you're privy to something you shouldn't be. That's what's disturbing about your scam. You not only take people's money, you bask in the glory of it as if you should be proud, and you hurt everyone who assisted you along the way. When your friend's disbarred, are you going to feed him? Are you even going to apologize to him?
Is there something in that email that should embarrass Marco, or me?
Is there anyone on this forum that doesn't know that Aetheum is Paul Taylor?
Do you have any loyalty, Paul, any?
When CCDX goes down, are you going to blame the kids at Terrax, or the Beverly Hills Weight Loss people, or Kenneth MacDonald? Or will you just make a new name, issue new stocks, and pump something else.
Doesn't matter, Paul, doesn't matter, because I'll be right here analyzing every move that you make, and warning potential investors.
Yes, he lives in Delray Beach, Florida, in a house owned by his wife, Susan.
He's trying to get past his reputation -- and it's not working. CCDX even amde a 15c211 to try to get rid of the warning pinksheets.com has when you tpye in CCDX for a quote.
He has loads of preferred shares with CCDX so when the time is right, he'll be diluting.
CCDX is now Concorde Diversified, but Paul never advised NASD of the name change.
His plan is to be a conglomerate of junk.
Read the 15c211 and other hilarious reports at:
http://www.pinksheets.com/quote/finance.jsp?symbol=CCDX
Paul Taylor changed companies every 9 months and completed a whole new pump and dump. The majority of the VOIP press releases were patently false. Paul Taylor currently runs CCDX and is playing simiilar games (listing in his documents that the company has an office in Vancouver Washington when it is a mail drop, etc.).
As far as Coreey Ribotsky, he has just intervened in litigation that Madison Stock Transfer brought supposedly to determine who now owns the company.
Corey intervened and is asking the Court to declare his convertible note issued to marketcentral.net and Trezac (which were the names prior to Telatinos and Netco) valid and enforceable. Corey attached the note as an exhibit. If you would like to see it, I would be happy to email it to you. Just private message me where you'd like it sent.
Syntec Biofuel Inc. (OTC BB: SYBF), formerly NetCo Investments, Inc. (OTC BB: NIVS), announced today that it has terminated the acquisition agreement entered with Syntec Biofuel Inc. (Syntec Biofuel Canada) dated April 7, 2006.
The cancellation was due to NetCo Investments’ inability of closing the minimum required US $500,000 financing to complete the acquisition.
On April 7, 2006, NetCo Investments announced the signing of a definitive purchase agreement to acquire all the assets, including patents of Syntec Biofuel Canada, a scientific research company that has developed and patented a Catalyst to convert Syngas into Ethanol.
NetCo Investments had agreed to issue 15,700,000 shares in exchange for 100% of Syntec Biofuel Canada assets and it would assume the liabilities of Syntec Biofuel Canada.
The acquisition would have been constituted as a reverse take-over (RTO) of NetCo Investments by Syntec Biofuel Canada. The shareholders of Syntec Biofuel Canada would have owned approximately 65% of the combined company if the acquisition were to proceed and complete.
Following the acquisition announcement, NetCo Investments proposed to close a US $1 million private placement to provide funding for the development of the catalyst being acquired from Syntec Biofuel Canada.
The private placement had since been scaled up to US $2 million.
On July 12, 2006, NetCo Investments shareholders ratified the acquisition agreement. NetCo Investments, Inc. subsequently changed its named to Syntec Biofuel Inc.
The closing of the acquisition is subject to NetCo Investments raising a minimum of US $500,000 within 60 days. Failing that, the agreement would be reversed and the assets and liabilities transferred back to Syntec Biofuel Canada and Syntec Biofuel Canada transferring back the 15,700,000 common shares issued as purchase consideration.
With the termination of the acquisition agreement, NetCo Investments/Syntec Biofuel did not say if it will change to present name.
Burnaby, BC based Syntec Biofuel was established in 2001 at the University of British Columbia as a scientific research company.
Syntec Biofuel has received research funding from NRcan and NRC.
Syntec said its patented thermo-chemical catalyst can be used for the production of ethanol from syngas derived from a host of renewable resources including waste gases, biogas, municipal solid waste and virtually any type of low-cost, cellulosic material including wood waste (hardwood/softwood), agricultural residues or DECs (Dedicated Energy Crops).
The matter remains in litigation in the federal court in New York. I am keeping everyone updated on developments that are in the public record, but I cannot predict what the federal judge will do with the interpleader in New York although I know what he should do.
So until it can be conclusively determined who has control of the company, I don't think Marco intends to making a statement or promises to anyone until that hurdle is resolved.
Then, assume control is adjudged tomorrow and its favorable to new management, it has to be determined what can legally be done and how any plan can be implemented.
I think you know that talk is cheap, and I don't think Marco's plan is to provide cheap talk. I also don't think he intends to talk until he can freely talk.
Wow Paul, looking from your posts, you seem to be more interested in retail trading of shares other than your own. Don't worry, I'll have the appropriate people take care of the preferred stocks of NCVT that they forgot to rescind like you said in your email. Any other good advice, pass it down my way.
RKD spends hours on Billy Martin's bashing it. Maybe he knows the secret -- a broker that lets you short pink sheets stocks. LOL. If so, maybe we should be nice to him to acquire that information.
RKD, I helped you get out of jail, now tell us which broker let you short Billy Martin's!
Shame, RKD, I remember once I sent Matt private messages to get you out of jail even though you were a jerk.
I am sorry to hear about Frank. I don't think we were actually mad at him, it was part of the game to taunt him for pushing the PT paper. I think he enjoyed the debate, or he wouldn't have been here. He received paper from Paul Taylor, who knows what Paul got for giving him the paper, he wanted the value to go up so he could get a better price for it, no different than any other form of salesmanship. It's our job to respond, to do the due diligence, and to separate fact from fiction. I know in private emails he sent me, Frank was a bit mad about my coming out and saying that Paul Taylor forged my name on Netco share issuances, but in the end it would always be Paul Taylor's dilution and reverse splits that would wipe out the shareholders -- whether they received the shares from Paul himself or from the open market.
So we'll pardon Frank posthumously, if there was anything really that needed pardoning, and let him rest in peace. If Frank made some money on Paul Taylor's games, well at least someone other than Paul did. The only one truly culpable is the guy issuing the shares at the expense of his shareholders rather than to benefit them in the future.
So with that in mind, goodbye Frank.
How since Corey has 2,000,000,000 shares to sell? Explain the math.
200,000,000 shares in the float, 2,000,000,000 new shares to Corey, equal to a 11x1 forward split only you don't get any shares.
In theory, the price should have dipped to .001.
Paul Taylor was so kind to let me know that the new management's articles of incorporation may not have cancelled all of the preferred shares of NCVT stock. He sent me an email. I, of course, forwarded his recommendations to the appropriate person. In the interim, here is the text of the amendments:
CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
TO
ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
OF
OF NETCO INVESTMENTS, INC.
July 17, 2006
The undersigned being the sole authorized officer pursuant to the terms of the Cognovit Note for Netco Investments, Inc., a corporation existing under the laws of the State of Texas, does hereby certify under the seal of said corporation as follows:
ARTICLE 1 -- Name
1. The name of the corporation is Netco Investments, Inc.
2. The filing number issued to the corporation by the secretary of state is: 109912800.
ARTICLE 2 – Amended Name
3. This amendment changes the articles of incorporation to change the article that names the corporation. The article in the Articles of Incorporation is amended to read as follows:
The name of the corporation is: Privada, Inc.
* * *
ARTICLE 4 – Other altered, added, or deleted provisions
4. All previously issued Preferred Shares, Series “A” with Par Value, are hereby rescinded and cancelled for lack of consideration and fraud.
5. All previously issued Preferred Shares Series “B” without Par Value, are hereby rescinded and cancelled for lack of consideration and fraud.
6. All previously issued Preferred Shares Series “C” with Par Value, are hereby rescinded and cancelled for lack of consideration and fraud.
7. Any person holding any Series “A”, “B”, or “C” Preferred Shares that are rescinded and cancelled by virtue of paragraphs four (4) through six (6) above may tender them to the corporation’s transfer agent or treasurer for the issuance of one (1) common share for each one-hundred (100) Preferred Shares tendered. No other payment or compensation shall occur unless awarded by a court of competent jurisdiction.
8. No rescinded or cancelled Preferred Share may be exchanged for common shares except as stated above.
9. Articles VIII and IX, titled “INTERESTED TRANSACTIONS” and “INDEMNIFICATION,” contained with the original articles of incorporation filed on December 28, 1988, shall not apply to any officer, agent, or consultant employed or affiliated with the corporation prior to the filing of this Certificate of Amendment, and are dissolved nunc pro tunc as to previous officers, agents, and consultants.
10. As of the date of the filing of these Articles of Amendment, all officers, directors, and consultants to the corporation are hereby terminated. The sole director and officer shall be Marco Chavarria until his successor is elected and qualified.
11. All alleged convertible notes or debentures allegedly issued to Paul Taylor, the N.I.R. Group, Inc., Corey Ribotsky, First Street Manager LLC, AJW Partners LLC, New Millenium Capital Partners II LLC, AJW Manager LLC, or their nominees and agents will not be honored by the corporation, its agents, its transfer agent, or its officers absent a judicial decree by a court of competent jurisdiction holding that said notes are valid. This provision includes, but is not limited to, the alleged Notes of the Borrower dated January 31, 2002.
12. The terms of the Cognovit Note attached hereto and dated February 1, 2006, and duly filed, lodged, and accepted as a judgment in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, at General Docket Number 2006-016159 are incorporated by reference as if fully restated again as Amendments to the Certificate of Incorporation. This article remains in effect without regard to whether the Cognovit Note is satisfied, withdrawn, vacated, nullified, declare void, or materially altered.
ARTICLE 5 – Statement of Approval
13. The Amendments to the articles of incorporation have been approved in the manner required by the Texas Business Corporation Act and by the constituent documents of the corporation.
14. This document will become effective when the document is filed by the secretary of state.
The undersigned signs this document subject to the penalties imposed by law for the submission of a false or fraudulent document.
This document was executed pursuant to Article VII of the Articles of Incorporation by a vote of the at least 51% of the shares outstanding, of which said amount of shares are owned by the undersigned pursuant to the terms of the Cognovit Note attached hereto.
Dated this 17th day of July, 2006.
____________________________________
Marco Chavarria
Authorized Officer and excess of
51% shareholder pursuant to the duly
executed and filed Cognovit Note
Usually, when news is out, the stock goes up a bit. Sometimes news comes out and insiders dump on the news, but the news helps the stock stay the same. Sometimes news comes out and people dump on the news, and the price goes down a bit.
In this case, the news came out about the name change. Not too much volume, so nobody seems to be dumping, but the share price falls.
Either people think Bionic Products sounds stupid, or the company's shell remains tarnished by Paul Taylor. Again, my recommendation to management is that they issue a release explaining the terms of the settlement with Paul. Only then do I think people might actually be interested.
Yeah, what's it going to be?
Look up to the sky, and you'll see a bright star, and that's Serf, watching down on us, waiting for the right time to pop through the clouds and save us all.
It's perfect for the certified mail he's going to be getting.
RKD's back!
Look for lots of selling when its CEO gets indicted for claiming in their 15c211 that the company has a 5"x5" "office" in Vancouver, Washington.
The matter is in litigation. I don't think the new management intends to issue a release saying something that the judges may not approve of. I have knowledge of the following:
1. A default judgment was entered against Paul Taylor's nominee that he claims is President of Netco. The default was entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in a declaratory and injunctive suit against him for disavowing the cognovit note, that is a judgment of that court.
2. Counsel allegedly acting for Netco (Paul Taylor) filed a "Notice of Removal" purporting to remove the Pennsylvania action to the federal court in New York. Can't happen that way. Furthermore, the document filed by Paul's lawyer does not comply with 28 USC 1446, which is the law regarding removals. So it's unclear if it has any validity. I understand that new management filed a motion asking the New York judge to send it back to Pennsylvania.
3. I know that the cognovit note was filed in Texas in the District Court in Austin based on Pennsylvania's acceptance of the document as a judgment. Therefore, the judgment now exists in Texas.
4. I know that the note was filed with the Secretary of State in Texas and lodged there. I have reviewed Court documents to that effect.
So that's the situation.
I have been advised that the PR companies will say that Paul Taylor submitted the press releases. I can certainly attest that I did not authorize the insane press releases that included my name and attributed quotes to me such as that Global Interactive had customers and sales, when it was just a shell purchased. Furthermore, I never authorized the press release about the claim that short sellers and spurious SEC complaints caused a decision to move all of Telatinos' assets to a private company. Finally, I never authorized the press release claiming that all of the officers of Telatinos were examined (since the SEC did not examine me and I was President).
I know that Paul Taylor is the person who benefitted from the issuance of shares, using his convertible note to distribute them.
I know that Paul Taylor was the only ones who had the ability to submit share instructions to Madison Transfer, and that Madison only accept share conversions and issuances approved by Paul Taylor.
I know that the only contact for the company while I was an officer was Paul Taylor, and I know that Paul Taylor also applied the Jon Miller name to documents, probably without his knowledge as well.
Paul Taylor of Delray Beach, Florida, wrote and published the paid media releases.
That's right, if they would tell the shareholders what's going on and what his role is, if any. I know they bad mouthed him before, said he tried to steal their company, and that certainly sounds like Paul. I can't imagine Paul winning in Court though since he's a walking fraud. One deposition, "Are you a fraud, Mr. Taylor...." and that's the end of that.
Paul, I hear you were pegged on the first message! Can't you get a bit original, you know, a paid subscription.
CEO's of public company's should not be on bulletin boards relating to their own stocks without the appropriate disclaimers, you know that, Paul.
But while we are here, let me give you some more advice on the 15c211. Don't say that your 5"x5" maildrop box in Vancouver, Washington, is "adequately insured," and don't call it a mailbox.
And yes, you're right, you projected $85,000,000 in revenues when you knew that the company did not have any customers, any sales, and real contracts except what you made on paper, and did not have the technological ability to perform on any contract.
How much did I get? 250,000 shares of Telatinos, restricted, and I think 500,000 that you placed at Red Sea Management without my authorization.
How much did your lawyer get? How about your transfer agent? Why do you choose to put everyone who does work for you in harm's way, Mr. PolkMollyDonk?
Tick tock. The clock is ticking for CCDX. Who will be its new executive officer?
QUOTE FROM CCDX 15c211:
"PAUL TAYLOR -- Widely recognized as an 'out of the box thinking manager' that generates a high ROI based on net profit contributions, cash savings, and corporate development."
No mention on the 15c211 of Paul's involvement with Netco, Telatinos, Trezac, etc.
Well the point is it seems implausible that it will be going up when there are 2,000,000,000 shares that are going to be dumped onto the market by Corey and the gang. That's all. If there are 200,000,000 now, what will the share price be at 2,200,000,000?
It appears that the share price for I pee see why is going down. What's the story, Aetheum?
Green, where? This stock went from .02 to .004 over the last several months because the owners sold 2 Billion shares to Corey of the NIR Group. In case that doesn't sink in, that's ten times the present issued share count.
.04, I think it says .004.
Well, as long as it's not operated by Paul Taylor, famous president of CCDX and his crew. We have a Pirate's grill in a casino here in Costa Rica, and I had a business meeting there last week. All the waitresses were dressed in Pirate's gear, and I just thought of Paul the whole time.
He's so obnoxious, in his emails, the name was Pirate. He's not a pirate, he's just a consultant. He might fancy himself to be Captain Pirate, but he's going down with his ship I hear -- once the shareholders take appropriate legal action against him. CCDX shareholders need to oust him for the false and fraudulent 15c211 statement claiming a maildrop is an office.
What he should have done is rented a little office, then he could have an office. He could have had the ink jet kid up in Washington rent him the bathroom, then he could say he has an office.
I think they're all full of Schicht!
I can understand your feelings, I think a certain corrupt consultant has some issues beyond his trickery. But what someone needs to let him know is that his grand scheme wasn't the work of genius. If he was a true genius, he'd have took the money he made, turned it into something big, made the company part of it, and created a successful enterprise.
Aetheum, come out, come out, wherever you are. I know you want to...
In the office next door to his old lawyer. LOL.
2:06-cv-03926-LDW-WDW Madison Stock Transfer, Inc. v. Netco Investments, Inc. et al
Leonard D. Wexler, presiding
William D. Wall, referral
Date filed: 08/15/2006 Date of last filing: 08/25/2006
Attorneys
Scott R. Cohen
Law Offices of Scott R. Cohen
One Old Country Road, Suite 485
Carle Place, NY 11514
516-747-7887
516-739-3539 (fax)
srcesq@yahoo.com
Assigned: 08/15/2006
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED representing Netco Investments, Inc.
(Defendant)
Marshal D. Shichtman
Marshal Shichtman & Associates, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 498
Carle Place, NY 11514
516-741-5222
516-741-5212 (fax)
shichtm@aol.com
Assigned: 08/15/2006
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED representing Madison Stock Transfer, Inc.
(Plaintiff)
Oh Aetheum, we need you here to explain to us what's going on! What series preferred shares are you giving RACE? Who is going to be your lawyer in Texas? Pennsylvania? Illinois? Michigan? Colorado? Nevada? Alaska? Canada? United Kingdom? Costa Rica? Each and every one of those places has a victim Aetheum, and you might find you have a surprise.
All is quiet... do you know where your Paul Taylor is tonight?
It's going to be hard to sell at .0002 when the Market Makers are selling at .00019 and the .0002 sales are, for the most part, the MMs at 00019! They're the ones causing us problems.
In addition, opposing counsel will be advised of the material misstatements of fact in the 15c211 that Paul Taylor recently authored so that they can do their due diligence with respect to being part of any company associated with him.
Here are the developments in English (but you forget, I'm from Costa Rica, so you're lucky it's not in Spanish):
1. Madison Transfer using Paul Taylor's "former" lawyer filed a so-called interpleader action in New York claiming that the transfer agent does not know if Marco's claim to control Netco is correct. The interpleader lawsuit by Madison alleges that no collusion is occurring between Madison and Netco. (LOL, IMHO).
2. Paul Taylor, claiming to act for Netco Investments, hired the lawyer next door to his "former" lawyer for the interpleader action.
3. Marco filed a motion seeking to disqualify both lawyers. Marco alleged in the motion that Madison Transfer's lawyer is engaging in a clear conflict of interest that cannot be waived by a "consultant" to the company, and that Paul Taylor's new lawyer was hand picked by the "former" lawyer.
4. The new Paul Taylor lawyer removed the Pennsylvania judgment from the Pennsylvania court to the New York federal court on August 23, 2006.
5. Marco filed a motion to send it back to state court because: (a) It must be filed within 30 days of receiving (through any means) a copy of the state pleadings, and Paul Taylor sent an email to Marco on July 17 with copies of the documents as attachments, so he obviously received them and his lawyer is lying to the court when claiming otherwise; and (b) you cannot remove a Pennsylvania state lawsuit to a New York federal court. Rather, the law states clearly that it must be moved to the district where the state litigation was, in this case Pennsylvania. The New York court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the Pennsylvania lawsuit.
Marco Chavarria (MAC-0000)
Apartado 3124-1000
San Jose
Costa Rica
1-866-227-3711 Telephone/Fax
DEFENDANT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------X
MADISON STOCK TRANSFER, INC.,
CV 06-3926
Plaintiff,
-against-
RE: Filing at Docket Entry 7
NETCO INVESTMENTS, INC., and
MARCO CHAVARRIA, MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION PURSUANT TO 28 USC
1447(c) TO REMAND
Defendants.
-------------------------------X
BACKGROUND
Without alleging in its Notice of Removal that the filing was timely, Netco Investments removed a Pennsylvania action, consisting of a confessed judgment, to this Court on August 23, 2006. See Entry 7. The procedural posture is as follows:
On July 10, 2006, defendant Marco Chavarria (“Chavarria”) confessed judgment in accordance to Pennsylvania law, and judgment was entered against Netco Investments, Inc. See Entry 5. Netco Investments had thirty days to challenge the judgment. Pa.R.Cv.P. 2959(a)(3). M & P Management v. Williams, 2006 Pa. Sup. 112 (Pa. Superior Court May 16, 2006). The record at Entry 5 shows that the Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas mailed notices of judgment to Netco Investments on July 10, 2006. Moreover, the “consultant” to the corporation knew about the judgment because he sent an email to Chavarria on July 19, 2006, providing him copies of the documents from the case along with a resolution from the purported President of Netco Investments, Inc., claiming to disavow the judgment. If the alleged President of Netco did not know about the suit, it appears questionable as to how or why he issued a resolution disavowing it.
As such, the Notice of Removal is untimely. Moreover, the Notice of Removal was filed in the wrong court. As such, pursuant to 28 USC 1446(c)(4), the case of Chavarria v. Netco Investments, GD 06-016159 should be summarily remanded to the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
JURISDICTION TO REMAND
This Court has jurisdiction to summarily remand the defective Notice of Removal pursuant to 28 USC 1447(c).
DISCUSSION
I. This Court must remand because removal was untimely.
The Notice of Removal in this case is facially defective as it does not, and cannot, aver that it was filed within thirty (30) days from receipt of the pleadings in the state case. In this case, the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, entered judgment on July 10, 2006. As shown by the docket at Entry 5 in this case (last two pages), that court mailed notices of the judgment to Netco Investments, Inc. According to the Action in Interpleader filed in this case, the contact person for Netco Investments, Inc. is “consultant” Paul Taylor. On July 19, 2006, Taylor sent an email to Chavarria providing him copies of the various Court of Common Pleas pleadings and a resolution from the so-called President of Netco Investments, Inc., purporting to disavow the judgment. See Second Declaration of Marco Chavarria attached hereto as Exhibit A.
28 USC 1446(b) provides that removal must occur within thirty (30) days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a company of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief. In this case, Exhibit A demonstrates that on July 19, 2006, the “consultant” sent an email to the plaintiff with copies of the documents filed in the state court. Also attached was a purported resolution disavowing the judgment note. As such, it appears more than clear that Netco Investments received notice of the pleadings from the state court more than thirty (30) days ago.
Absent a finding of waiver or estoppel, federal courts rigorously enforce the statute's thirty-day filing requirement. See, e.g., Somlyo v. J. Lu-Rob Enters., Inc., 932 F.2d 1043, 1046 (2d Cir. 1991); Nicola Prods. Corp. v. Showart Kitchens, Inc., 682 F.Supp. 171, 173 (E.D. N.Y. 1988); Martropico Compania Naviera S.A. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara, 428 F.Supp. 1035, 1037 (S.D.N.Y. 1977). Thus, the notice of removal was untimely and of no effect.
Therefore, this Court must remand the present action.
II. This Court lacks jurisdiction over the removed action
28 USC 1441(a) provides jurisdiction on removal on when removed to the same district as the underlying litigation. It states that the action “may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.” Furthermore, the procedure to remove a case is governed by 28 USC 1446(a), and that statute makes it clear that a defendant in a civil action desiring to remove a case from a state court “shall file in the district court of the United States for the district and division within which such action is pending a notice of removal signed pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” As such, Netco Investment’s Notice of Removal is facially defective. Congress provided removal jurisdiction to the district court where the action is pending, not anywhere else. The only court that can entertain the Notice of Removal is the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
The only case ever where removal was permitted in a district other than that designated by §1446(a) was Roberti v. Longworth, 164 F. Supp.2d 395, 396-97 (S.D.N.Y. 2001), and that case has been described by a leading treatise as "patently incorrect." 14C Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction 3d § 3726, at 122 & n. 5.1 (2004 Pocket Part). Even in Roberti, the case was in the same state as the underlying action and the district court claimed that removal was based on 28 USC 1441(b). In this case, removal is governed by 28 USC 1441(a).
To authorize an ex parte transfer to a district other than that in which a case had been pending without a showing of emergency might raise constitutional questions of due process. See Connecticut v. Doehr, 501 U.S. 1, 111 S.Ct. 2105, 115 L.Ed.2d 1 (1991); authorities cited, Little Tor Auto Center v. Exxon), 822 F. Supp. 141 (S.D.N.Y. 1993). Such questions are avoided by following the plain meaning of 28 USC 1441(a) and 1446(a).
CONCLUSION
Based on the above, removal was brazenly improper and filed in the wrong court. As such, this case must be remanded to the Court of Common Pleas where the time limit for challenging the judgment has already expired.
Dated: San Jose, Costa Rica
August 23, 2006
Respectfully submitted,
Marco Chavarria
DEFENDANT/CLAIMANT
U.S. District Court
Eastern District of New York (Central Islip)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:06-cv-03926-LDW-WDW
Madison Stock Transfer, Inc. v. Netco Investments, Inc. et al
Assigned to: Senior-Judge Leonard D. Wexler
Referred to: Magistrate-Judge William D. Wall
Cause: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act
Date Filed: 08/15/2006
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 850 Securities/Commodities
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Date Filed # Docket Text
08/23/2006 7 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Netco Investments, Inc. from Court of Common Please of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, case number GD No. 06-016159. ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 1964306) (Cohen, Scott) (Entered: 08/23/2006)
08/23/2006 8 MOTION to Disqualify Counsel by Marco Chavarria. (Mierzejewski, Elizabeth) (Entered: 08/24/2006)
08/23/2006 9 MEMORANDUM in Support re 8 MOTION to Disqualify Counsel by Madison Stock Transfer, Inc.. (Mierzejewski, Elizabeth) (Entered: 08/24/2006)
08/23/2006 10 AFFIDAVIT of Rodrigo Calderon Araya in Support re 8 MOTION to Disqualify Counsel. (Mierzejewski, Elizabeth) Modified on 8/25/2006 (Mierzejewski, Elizabeth). (Entered: 08/24/2006)
08/25/2006 11 AFFIDAVIT of Marco Chavarria in Support re 8 MOTION to Disqualify Counsel. (Mierzejewski, Elizabeth) (Entered: 08/25/2006)
08/25/2006 12 LETTER dtd 8/24/06 to the Clerk from Marco Chavarria re: Enclosed Motion to remand with Memorandum in support and second declaration. (Mierzejewski, Elizabeth (Entered: 08/28/2006)
08/25/2006 13 Notice of MOTION to Remand by Marco Chavarria. (Mierzejewski, Elizabeth) (Entered: 08/28/2006)
08/25/2006 14 MEMORANDUM in Support re 13 Notice of MOTION to Remand by Marco Chavarria. (Mierzejewski, Elizabeth) (Entered: 08/28/2006)
08/25/2006 15 SECOND AFFIDAVIT of Marco Chavarria. (Mierzejewski, Elizabeth) (Entered: 08/28/2006)
Actually things are quite active.