http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/naked-panic-behind-naked-shorting/story.aspx?guid=%7BD78FCD65%2D2A05%2D40CB%2D96D6%2DAE857B0AA021%7D

And I disagree with you. If management just learned of it, I think it is absurd to expect a response from management tomorrow.

Agreed. It shows a lack of real understanding in the system.

If you think that the companies who are defrauded automatically have insight into such fraud, you clearly are mistaken. This fraud was perpetrated at the transfer agent level. Your post suggested that you expect an answer from Dean NOW; while I might concur that the shareholders deserve an explanation from management at some point, I don't think that point is NOW, unless there is substantiation to a suggestion that the Company already KNEW about this matter. Again, we are operating on a summary from the DoJ, and that summary doesn't indicate exactly what the facts were. For instance, the summary indicates that the conduct occurred with the "assistance" of the transfer agent; assistance, however, can be malignant or benign, and there has not been put forth enough information to know which in this case. I think that Dean should have some adequate time for this matter to be investigated, and THEN I think that the shareholders deserve to have explained to them what the Company will do to address the matter.

Dean would not necessarily have reason to know anything about this. Just because the IRS prosecuted these guys for fraud doesn't mean that they advised ONEV of the underlying facts. You're putting the cart before the horse on this one, in terms of an explanation from Dean. I do agree, however, that the transfer agent needs to provide an answer TO Dean. He should change the transfer agent, it seems, from what is contained in the DoJ release.

The indictments were issued on April 3, 2007. Seems like the took advantage of the run-up that was occurring then, and they may have been responsbile for some of the failures to deliver around that time. Anyone have a history of Reg SHO listing for ONEV? Assuming a price of around .02, that could be 350,000,000 shares of One Voice fraudulently traded. I wonder what made them do it with One Voice????? There's more to this than meets the eye, in my opinion.

If anyone here is a Connecticut resident, you should go to Sen. Dodd's website, http://dodd.senate.gov/ , and send him a message, including a link to the DOJ release, regarding this naked short-selling in One Voice, and ask his assistance in pushing the SEC to act. He only takes comments on the site from Connecticut residents (as he is a CT senator). It's the "express your views" link next to his picture.

It would matter to me...cause if it approached a dollar, ALL of us would try to sell as many shares as we could!!!

Current O/S 1,178,620,215

I have questions pending, and now two weeks without any answers from Rob.

We apparently haven't had any material events for over a year...well, except for the constant downdraft in pps!

Interesting comment from a Lehman note today on INTC:

"Lehman notes in the market for MIDs, Smartphones and UMPCs, they see significant unit growth opportunity for INTC (as Atom and successors ramp)"

Hopefully, ONEV actually can come through with some OEM contracts!

Already gave the information previously; you can search for it here on ihub.

not true

You don't need to get a proxy. They can do it without your approval.

Slightly over 200 million shares traded since the beginning of July this year.

I believe that 20% is considered "controlling" interest in the sense that you mean!

5% ownership does NOT lock you up. Lock up is NOT the same as the restrictions faced by 5% or greater owners, but you already knew that!

Agreed. Only shares they pick up from or through ONEV would be subject to lock-up.

To you it's not; to me it shows their slipshod work.

What's interesting is that they clearly have no clue how many shares are outstanding!

Okay, Rip van Winkle...

Because that assertion by him is nonsense, and not worth a reply.

Veno, the key words in his post when read carefully are omitted from your post here. The key words in his post suggested that when the guy suing for visual voicemail is done making his cash on those suits, he could come buy all these bunches of ONEV shares at these bargain prices, and maybe even get in on some convertible action.

"Sounds like that guy might be able to come after One Voice once he's done bringing suit against the deep pocket tech companies for mere cash and decides he wants to load up on some of these big time valuable ONEV shares like La Jolla Cove did."

What are you talking about??? Are you even looking at the ticker?? Check the trades even here from ihub's site, and you will see that MANY of the trades today have been at the bid, for nearly two million shares! Really, you simply have abandoned the reporting of facts!

http://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=trades&cb=1219763891&symbol=NB%5EONEV

Unfortunately, the candle might burn out, or burn the building down, with ONEV locked out because of failure to pay rent!

That's because they're in La Jolla now

Veno, I would note, however, that the MTNL revenue structure does not indicate at what point the revenues are expected to reach the breakeven levels, as the SEC filing discusses MTNL's subscriber growth for the service as taking place over a period of two years.

Specifically, the most recent 10-Q states:

"According to MTNL, the MobileVoice service will be made available to MTNL's existing 6.13 million subscribers for MobileVoice email by phone service and the total expected customers for this service is .92 million within the first two years."

Try it with internet explorer; some browsers don't work with things properly. It showed the proper header when I opened it, and I was using iexplorer.

It worked fine when I just tried it!

The one who is dodging the source of confrontation is Dean, who cannot be found to answer his phone except for people like you have an in to his office, apparently. You have seen the legions of longs here, other than yourself, who have posted here that e-mails of theirs go ignored more often than not, not to mention calls that aren't taken. Now, you can say that the CEO is too busy, but then you can't castigate posters for not going to the source. You can't have it both ways, veno.

Did they say that to you in an e-mail??

Because you're so good at DD, you can go to nasdaq.com and look up the June 10-Q for 2005 and see it yourself. I actually think it may refer to a launch in Q3, and it says that such a launch has caused interest by national carriers, touting a "bottom up" approach as being successful.

RTG is not RCC, but you already know that. And RCC supposedly was in contract form with the lawyers for RCC. In fact, in a 10-Q from 2005, ONEV said that RCC should launch in Q4 that year. The lawyer's reference for the contract was in a corporate update, I believe, from late 2005. Those used to be available on ONEV's website, but now there are no PRs prior to 2006 on the new site. I cannot locate where the reference was made, but for sure it was made, and I think that even veno would agree.

"Motorola signs dozens if not hundreds of "teaming agreements" like that signed with ONEV every year. Some are arranged to exchange knowledge between the parties. Some are an acknowledgement to simply work with another company in teaching each other's employees about aspects of technology that the other company is not proficient in. A few of these "teaming agreements" go on to product products with a combination of each party's tech which are sold and generate revenue for both teamed partners."

Nice speculation stated as fact!

RMCI again on lead ask of .0039 to push price down, but also now appearing to steady price on bid at .0035.

Ahhhhh; the blame the customer excuse - AGAIN!!

Perhaps I missed it, but I don't think I saw anything in the 10-Q about the private investors...am I wrong??? If not, what happened to them???

Who cares; are you really serious??? This company needs revenues...without revenues, the patents are meaningless. ONEV had a DECREASE in y-o-y revenues this quarter.

Oh, and already there is something that strikes me as different from what he suggested in the CC. Now it appears that ONEV itself is a problem with the MTNL launch:

"We are planning on having our service ready for testing by MTNL by the end of October, 2008."

That suggests a problem with testing readiness being on the shoulders of ONEV!!!

And still the Company owes MORE than the maximum on the credit line!!! The balance on the credit line is more than $2.3 million! See pages F-2 and F-17 of the 10-Q.

Hear hear!!