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.
Bigbizz, if it happened that way, the Form 4 should have been filled out that way. Better call the company and find out.
Roughly 2.4 million shares of SEVU were traded during the entire month of October. Ergo, it is not possible for George Bernardich or anyone else to have purchased 3.1 million shares "in the open market" as purported in the insider filings:
10/26/2001 GEORGE S BERNARDICH
Chief Executive Officer 3,331,200 SEVU Open Market Purchase
Cost $1,700,660.00
Of course, it's possible that the purchases were made over a period of months and were only reported on 10/26, but that would probably be a violation of SEC disclosure requirements.
Another reason to be skeptical of that information is why would he buy in the open market when he could have the shares for 10 cents apiece in the PP? Also, while a guy who spent his career in retail management may be wealthy from other investments, he likely didn't accumulate 1.7 million in cash from his JC Penny salary alone.
Finally, had the purchase actually happened there would have been a PR touting "CEO Takes Major Stake in Company, blah blah."
Conclusion: There is something wrong with the insider filing info. If not, it should be easy to verify the transaction by calling Bernardich. Whoever calls him should be sure to ask him to identify the source of his purchase funds to verify the company or some contrived entity didn't loan him the money. And don't forget to ask about those 30 or 40 million mysterious new restricted shares reportedly outstanding.
Is this the article you're talking about?
http://www.modbee.com/technology/story/1054563p-1113209c.html
In the article, SecureView is mentioned but not by name:
"And Popular Science and Popular Mechanics recently spotlighted Supercircuits' $500 floodlight camera that screws into a socket like an ordinary bulb and sends captured video over the power lines to a receiver."
If Ann S. wants to be removed as a lead plaintiff, she should contact Seaview's attorneys... no, wait, they no longer have an attorney. Seriously, she should contact the plaintiffs' attorneys and ask that her name be removed from the lawsuit. However, it really makes no difference because she is currently only one of several individuals listed as "lead plaintiff" in the case (due to the court having combined the various lawsuits earlier this year).
New filings in proposed class action lawsuit:
[ SELECT EVENTS FROM THE DOCKET REPORT FOR CASE: 8:01cv00957 FOR THE PERIOD 10/01/2001 to 10/20/2001 ]
10/9/01 MOTION by Seaview Video (unopposed) for Foley & Lardner to withdraw as attorney (crb) [Entry date 10/11/01]
10/12/01 ORDER granting [18-1] consent motion for Foley & Lardner to withdraw as attorney (Terminated attorney Douglas M.
Hagerman for Seaview Video, attorney Richard S. Davis for Seaview Video). Seaview Video shall retain other counsel
and cause that counsel to file a notice of appearance in
this case within 30 days of the date of this order. Seaview
Video is notified that a under the law a corporation is not
authorized to represent itself and must be represented by
counsel. ( Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara ) ctc (jnb)
[Entry date 10/15/01]
Docket as of October 16, 2001 0:39 am Page 9
Proceedings include all events.
8:01cv957 In re: In Re: SeaView Video ARBCAN
LEAD EAJ
10/12/01 MOTION by Ann H. Scheuer, William J. Henry, Christopher Henry, Robert J. Tarjan, Raymond Howlin, Dolores Gouvert, John Grammatico, Irene Wengel for an extension of time until 12/17/01 or 30 days after Seaview Video's new counsel makes an appearnce to file an amended consolidated complaint, and for all defendant's to file a response within 60 days after the filing of the amended complaint.
(jnb) [Entry date 10/15/01]
[END OF DOCKET: 8:01cv957]
Pilot, this is a copy of the docket summary for the class action suit. Rich's attorney is not listed. Mark Wall, a local Florida attorney, represented him on most matters.
Docket as of October 12, 2001 0:20 am Web PACER (v2.3)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court
Middle District of Florida (Tampa)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 01-CV-957
In re: In Re: SeaView Video
Filed: 05/17/01
Assigned to: Judge Richard A. Lazzara
Jury demand: Plaintiff
Demand: $0,000
Nature of Suit: 850
Lead Docket: None
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Dkt# in other court: None
Cause: 15:0078m(a) Securities Exchange Act
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEAVIEW VIDEO TECHNOLOGY, INC.
In re
ANN H. SCHEUER, on behalf of Steven J. Toll
herself and all others [COR LD NTC]
similarly situated Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld &
plaintiff Toll, P.L.L.C.
West Tower, Suite 500
1100 New York Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
202/408-4600
Jonathan L. Alpert
[COR LD NTC]
Matt Craig Myers
[COR]
Alpert & Ferrentino, P.A.
100 S. Ashley Dr., Suite 2000
P.O. Box 3270
Tampa, FL 33601-3270
813/223-4131
Richard S. Davis
[COR LD NTC]
Foley & Lardner
Suite 901- West Tower
777 S. Flagler Dr.
West Palm Beach, FL 33401-6163
USA
561/650-0140
Douglas M. Hagerman
[COR LD NTC]
Foley & Lardner
One IBM Plaza
330 N. Wabash Ave., Suite 3300
Chicago, IL 60611
312/755-1900
WILLIAM J. HENRY Mark S. Willis
plaintiff [COR]
Joshua S. Devore
[COR]
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld &
Toll, PLLC
West Tower, Suite 500
1100 New York Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20005-3964
USA
202/408-4600
Steven J. Toll
(See above)
[COR LD NTC]
Jonathan L. Alpert
(See above)
[COR LD NTC]
CHRISTOPHER HENRY Mark S. Willis
plaintiff (See above)
[COR]
Joshua S. Devore
(See above)
[COR]
Steven J. Toll
(See above)
[COR LD NTC]
Jonathan L. Alpert
(See above)
[COR LD NTC]
ROBERT J. TARJAN Mark S. Willis
plaintiff (See above)
[COR]
Joshua S. Devore
(See above)
[COR]
Steven J. Toll
(See above)
[COR LD NTC]
Jonathan L. Alpert
(See above)
[COR LD NTC]
RAYMOND HOWLIN, on behalf of Marc A. Topaz
himself and all others [COR LD NTC]
similarly situated, Schiffrin & Barroway, LLC
consolidated plaintiff Three Bala Plaza E., Suite 400
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
610/667-7706
Paul J. Geller
[COR LD NTC]
Jack E. Reise
[COR]
Cauley, Geller, Bowman & Coates,
LLP
2255 Glades Rd., Suite 421A
Boca Raton, FL 33421
561/750-3000
Evan Smith
[COR LD NTC]
Brodsky & Smith, LLC
11 Bala Ave., Suite 39
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
610/668-7987
Brian M. Felgoise
[COR LD NTC]
Law Offices of Brian M.
Felgoise
230 S. Broad St., Suite 404
Philadelphia, PA 19102
215/735-6810
DOLORES GOUVERT, on behalf of Fred T. Isquith
herself and all others [COR LD NTC]
similarly situated Gregory Mark Nespole
consolidated plaintiff [COR]
Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler,
Freeman & Herz
270 Madison Ave.
New York, NY 10016
USA
212/545-4600
Steven J. Toll
(See above)
[COR LD NTC]
Jonathan L. Alpert
(See above)
[COR LD NTC]
Richard S. Davis
(See above)
[COR LD NTC]
Douglas M. Hagerman
(See above)
[COR LD NTC]
Marc S. Henzel
[COR LD NTC]
Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel
210 W. Washington Square, 3rd
Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19106-3514
215/625-9999
JOHN GRAMMATICO, on behalf of Robert I. Harwood
himself and all others [COR LD NTC]
similarly situated James G. Flynn
consolidated plaintiff [COR]
Wechsler, Harwood, Halebian &
Feffer LLP
488 Madison Ave.
8th Floor
New York, NY 10022
212/935-7400
Bruce G. Murphy
[COR LD NTC]
265 Llwyd's Ln.
Vero Beach, FL 32963
561/231-4202
Jonathan L. Alpert
(See above)
[COR LD NTC]
IRENE WENGEL, on behalf of Richard A. Lockridge
herself and all others [COR LD NTC]
similarly situated Gregg M. Fishbein
consolidated plaintiff [COR]
Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen
P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Ave. S., Suite
2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
612/339-6900
Paul J. Geller
(See above)
[COR LD NTC]
Jack E. Reise
(See above)
[COR]
Jonathan M. Stein
[COR]
Cauley, Geller, Bowman & Coates,
LLP
2255 Glades Rd., Suite 421A
Boca Raton, FL 33421
561/750-3000
v.
SEAVIEW VIDEO TECHNOLOGY, INC. Richard S. Davis
defendant [COR LD NTC]
Foley & Lardner
Suite 901- West Tower
777 S. Flagler Dr.
West Palm Beach, FL 33401-6163
USA
561/650-0140
Douglas M. Hagerman
[COR LD NTC]
Foley & Lardner
One IBM Plaza
330 N. Wabash Ave., Suite 3300
Chicago, IL 60611
312/755-1900
RICHARD L. MCBRIDE
defendant
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOCKET PROCEEDINGS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATE # DOCKET ENTRY
5/17/01 1 Class Action COMPLAINT for violation of the federal
securities laws filed; jury demand; Filing fee $ 150.00
Receipt # T010238 (plk) [Entry date 05/18/01]
5/17/01 -- MAGISTRATE JUDGE CASE ASSIGNMENT Magistrate assigned:
Elizabeth A. Jenkins (plk) [Entry date 05/18/01]
5/17/01 -- SUMMONS(ES) issued for Seaview Video, Richard L. McBride.
Consent(s) issued. (plk) [Entry date 05/18/01]
5/17/01 -- **ARBITRATION candidate. (plk) [Entry date 05/18/01]
5/21/01 2 NOTICE of designation under Local Rule 3.05 - TRACK 3.
(ctc) (sak) [Entry date 05/22/01]
5/24/01 3 MOTION by Ann H. Scheuer for Steven J. Toll to appear pro
hac vice and appearance of non-resident attorney (Steven
J. Toll) and designation of local counsel (Jonathan L.
Alpert and Matt C. Myers). (sak) [Entry date 05/25/01]
5/29/01 -- ENDORSED ORDER granting [3-1] motion for Steven J. Toll to
appear pro hac vice. Local counsel: Jonathan L. Alpert and
Matt C. Myers. ( Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara ) ctc
(sak)
6/4/01 4 RETURN of service executed as to Seaview Video Technology
on 5/21/01. Service accepted by Mark Wall, Esquire, as
Registered Agent. Answer due on 6/11/01 for Seaview Video
Technology. (sak) [Entry date 06/05/01]
6/4/01 5 RETURN of service executed as to Richard L. McBride on
5/21/01. Answer due on 6/11/01 for Richard L. McBride. (sak)
[Entry date 06/05/01]
7/5/01 6 NOTICE of attorney appearance for Seaview Video by Richard
S. Davis, Douglas M. Hagerman (bls) [Entry date 07/06/01]
7/11/01 7 NOTICE by Ann H. Scheuer of pending litigation. (sak)
[Entry date 07/12/01]
7/16/01 8 MOTION by movants, William J. Henry, Christopher Henry and
Robert J. Tarjan for appointment as Lead Plaintiffs, for
approval of their selection of Lead Counsel and for
consolidation of all related cases (8:01-cv-1133-T-27TGW,
8:01-cv-1159-T-30TGW, 8:01-cv-1218-T-30EAJ and
8:01-cv-1311-T-17TBM). (sak) [Entry date 07/17/01]
7/16/01 9 MEMORANDUM by movants, William J. Henry, Christopher Henry
and Robert J. Tarjan, in support of [8-1] motion for
appointment as Lead Plaintiffs, [8-2] motion for approval
of their selection of Lead Counsel and [8-3] motion for
consolidation of all related cases (8:01-cv-1133-T-27TGW,
8:01-cv-1159-T-30TGW, 8:01-cv-1218-T-30EAJ and
8:01-cv-1311-T-17TBM). (sak) [Entry date 07/17/01]
7/16/01 10 DECLARATION of Mark S. Willis, Esquire by movants, William
J. Henry, Christopher Henry and Robert J. Tarjan re: [8-1]
motion for appointment as Lead Plaintiffs, [8-2] motion for
approval of their selection of Lead Counsel and [8-3]
motion for consolidation of all related cases
(8:01-cv-1133-T-27TGW, 8:01-cv-1159-T-30TGW,
8:01-cv-1218-T-30EAJ and 8:01-cv-1311-T-17TBM). (sak)
[Entry date 07/17/01]
7/16/01 11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of [8-1] motion for appointment as
Lead Plaintiffs, [8-2] motion for approval of their
selection of Lead Counsel, [8-3] motion for consolidation
of all related cases (8:01-cv-1133-T-27TGW,
8:01-cv-1159-T-30TGW, 8:01-cv-1218-T-30EAJ and
8:01-cv-1311-T-17TBM), [9-1] support memorandum and [10-1]
declaration to counsel of record for this and related cases
by William J. Henry, Christopher Henry and Robert J.
Tarjan. (sak) [Entry date 07/17/01]
7/24/01 12 ORDER granting [8-3] motion for consolidation of all
related cases: 8:01-cv-1133-T-27TGW, 8:01-cv-1159-T-30TGW,
8:01-cv-1218-T-30EAJ and 8:01-cv-1311-T-17TBM with this
case for all further proceedings. All subsequent papers
shall be filed in this lead case and shall be identified as
In re: SeaView Video Technology, Inc., Securities
Litigation. Deferring [8-1] motion for appointment as Lead
Plaintiffs and deferring [8-2] motion for approval of their
selection of Lead Counsel. The parties shall immediately
advise this Court of any other action which may be filed in
this District or any other District related to the subject
matter of these consolidated actions. The Clerk shall
administratively closed the member consolidated cases. (
Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara ) ctc (sak)
[Entry date 07/25/01]
7/25/01 13 NOTICE of attorney appearance for Seaview Video by Richard
S. Davis (jnb) [Entry date 07/26/01]
8/2/01 14 ORDER granting [8-1] motion for appointment as Lead
Plaintiffs. William J. Henry, Christopher Henry and Robert
Tarjan are appointed as Lead Plaintiffs for this action.
Granting [8-2] motion for approval of their selection of
Lead Counsel. The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfold
and Toll, P.L.L.C. is appointed as lead counsel in the
consolidated action. Lead Plaintiffs shall file a
consolidated complaint within 45 days of this order,
setting consolidated complaint deadline at 9/19/01 for
Robert J. Tarjan, for Christopher Henry, for William J.
Henry. The consolidated complaint shall be treated as if
it were the original complaint in the actions consolidated
herein, except that Defendants shall have 45 days after the
filing and service of the consolidated complaint to answer.
( Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara ) ctc (sak)
[Entry date 08/03/01]
8/2/01 15 JOINT MOTION with memorandum in support by Ann H. Scheuer,
Seaview Video, William J. Henry, Christopher Henry, Robert
J. Tarjan, Raymond Howlin, Dolores Gouvert, John Grammatico
and Irene Wengel (joint) to defer case management
conference, (joint) to defer filing of case management
report and (joint) to extend time for the filing of
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. (sak)
[Entry date 08/03/01]
8/6/01 -- ENDORSED ORDER granting [15-1] joint motion to defer case
management conference, granting [15-2] joint motion to
defer filing of case management report and granting [15-3]
joint motion to extend time for the filing of Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification. See order for specifics.
( Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara ) ctc (sak)
[Entry date 08/07/01]
9/13/01 16 AGREED MOTION with memorandum in support by Ann H. Scheuer,
Raymond Howlin, Dolores Gouvert and John Grammatico
(agreed) to extend time through 10/15/01 to file a
consolidated, amended complaint and (agreed) to extend
time through 12/17/01 for Defendants to answer or otherwise
plead. (sak) [Entry date 09/17/01]
9/18/01 17 ORDER granting [16-1] agreed motion to extend time through
10/15/01 to file a consolidated, amended complaint,
resetting amended complaint deadline at 10/15/01 for
Robert J. Tarjan, for Christopher Henry and for William J.
Henry and granting [16-2] agreed motion to extend time
through 12/17/01 for Defendants to answer or otherwise
plead, resetting answer due for 12/17/01 for Richard L.
McBride and for Seaview Video. ( Signed by Judge Richard
A. Lazzara ) ctc (sak) [Entry date 09/19/01]
10/9/01 18 MOTION by Seaview Video (unopposed) for Foley & Lardner to
withdraw as attorney (crb) [Entry date 10/11/01]
Foley and Lardner, attorney for SeaView in the proposed class action lawsuit, files motion to withdraw as company's lawyers. I have no idea why they did so, or what impact this may have on CA lawsuit.
[ SELECT EVENTS FROM THE DOCKET REPORT FOR CASE: 8:01cv00957
FOR THE PERIOD 10/01/2001 to 10/12/2001 ]
10/9/01 MOTION by Seaview Video (unopposed) for Foley & Lardner to withdraw as attorney (crb) [Entry date 10/11/01]
Attorney Info:
Richard S. Davis
Foley & Lardner
Suite 901- West Tower
777 S. Flagler Dr.
West Palm Beach, FL 33401-6163
561/650-0140
SEVU believers, the critics aren't going away and there is nothing you can do about it. SEVU critics, the believers aren't going away and there is nothing you can do about it. What you CAN do is figure out how to debate the issues without the personal invective, or at least take it to the other venues.
-shamus the school marm
Problem is, his "explanation" is not objective. The truth is that in most instances the selling broker files the 144 for the seller on the date of sale. So, by the time the 144 is published, the stock is already sold. Not always, of course, but it's a prudent assumption.
As Diverdan has already reported, the news of Rich's passing has been confirmed. I know that everyone here will be respectful during this sad time. Rich McBride was 48 years old. He died too young.
R.L. McBride and Assoicates appears to have been administratively dissolved by the State of Florida. Is SeaView next?
http://ccfcorp.dos.state.fl.us/scripts/cordet.exe?a1=DETFIL&n1=P00000008213&n2=OFFFWD&n3...
How do you know that Videocom receives a 9 dollar royalty payment for each unit sold?
Rich McBride's latest escapade:
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/msg.gsp?msgid=16439294
Bigbizz, is there a major retailer (or even one of those ostensible 700+ SeaView dealers) anywhere in the country that I could walk in tomorrow and buy a SecureView camera off the shelf? If so, please identify the name and location. If not, why not?
I regret to announce that Rich McBride, at his own volition, has resigned as assistant moderator of this board.
I am pleased to announce that Rich McBride has agreed to help administer this message board. He now has the same authority that I have to enforce iHub's terms of use, subject to review by iHub management. Rich will also supply the copy for the introductory page.
Let's all try to make this an intelligent forum for information, analysis and healthy debate.
If you think McBride has a "wealth of knowledge" about SeaView that he is willing to share, why don't you ask him some direct questions and see if you can get him to respond with anything other than self-serving gobbledegook. You might start by asking him what he means by "success," since success has certainly not yet been reflected in revenues or profits.
Exposing liars who control publicly traded companies is not "petty foolishness," especially when those lies have resulted in financial ruin to investors who relied upon false information in public statements and press releases.
Your most recent untruth is that your "rights were not really restricted" while you were on probation. If that's so, why did your attorney, Mark Wall, have to file a court motion seeking permission for you to travel to Taiwan? Wall's motion, granted on 4/20/01, reads in part:
"It is necessary for McBride to travel to Taiwan for important business purposes to represent the interest of SeaView Video Technology, Inc., a company for which McBride was the founder and is now a consultant and shareholder. The intended dates for the trip are from April 22 to April 29, 2001. Trisha Hoffman White (McBride's probation officer) has no objection."
You're the one who "plays on words," Rich, not me. The only reason I keep bringing up all this "old stuff" is because you keep lying about it.
Rich, you wrote: "Because there was no trial and I was not found guilty, my rights were not really restricted."
The above statement is false. While you were on probation, you could not legally leave the country without the court's permission. You know it, I know it, anybody who has read the case file knows it, so what makes you think you can get away with lying about it now?
Frank and I both currently have the power to delete posts for just cause. As usual, Rich McBride's statement implying otherwise was inaccurate.
To Rich McBride:
Rich, as an anonymous message board poster, I don't have time to respond to personal attacks from every congressman, senator, and ex-CEO of a publicly traded company who takes a pot shot at me. I am much too busy funding my campaign for President and CEO of SeaView with loose change found behind my couch cushions.
I fingered you as a bag of hot air over a year ago, when this stock was trading in the high teens. As you may have noticed, it is now under a dollar. Comparing that track record to yours, I really don't think I have anything to be "jealous" about.
Following are the two most recent entries in the official court record relating to the class action suit filed against SEVU. This is what Rich McBride was making reference to in his post today:
9/13/01
AGREED MOTION with memorandum in support by Ann H. Scheuer, Raymond Howlin, Dolores Gouvert and John Grammatico (agreed) to extend time through 10/15/01 to file a consolidated, amended complaint and (agreed) to extend time through 12/17/01 for Defendants to answer or otherwise plead. (sak) [Entry date 09/17/01]
9/18/01
ORDER granting [16-1] agreed motion to extend time through
10/15/01 to file a consolidated, amended complaint, resetting amended complaint deadline at 10/15/01 for Robert J. Tarjan, for Christopher Henry and for William J. Henry and granting [16-2] agreed motion to extend time through 12/17/01 for Defendants to answer or otherwise plead, resetting answer due for 12/17/01 for Richard L. McBride and for Seaview Video. ( Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara ) ctc (sak) [Entry date 09/19/01]
You wrote: "The last PR is just a pitiful rehash of mostly known events that adds nothing to SEVU's Credibility but clearly demonstrates that Management will stop at nothing to try and prop the stock..."
You are being too kind to SeaView management. Reading between the lines of yesterday's PR (a necessary procedure when analyzing any SEVU PR), it seems the company has changed its previous focus from retail sales of SecureView and underwater cameras to now trying to find industrial applications such as the parking lot security system. Optimists will argue that the retail and industrial divisions are both important and are being given equal attention by this "great management team." Realists, however, must ask if this is a signal that the retail effort has failed.
My guess is that Rich McBride (who remains in charge of this company despite his claims to the contrary) has a very short attention span, as do many entrepreneurs who are good at dreaming up products but lousy at running a business. That would certainly explain what appears to be a very wishy-washy business plan.
Why am I not surprised that Charles Abraham received another 105,000 shares of SEVU for "consulting" services? Many of you may recall that Abraham filed a 144 for his first 100,000 shares last October. Until that time, McBride had falsely claimed or implied that McBride himself was the inventor of the patents that are in fact owned by Abraham/Videocom.
After the Videocom connection was exposed by Raging Bull posters, McBride began trying to convince people how smart he was to have acquired those "valuable" patent rights for a royalty payment of a mere 100K SEVU shares (which Abraham is believed to have sold for approximately $800,000). Now we learn that Abraham is getting another 105,000 shares, further illustrating how McBride talks out of both sides of his mouth.
"SeaView donating cameras (who said charging) is hardly
a reason to pull a post."
I'd just do it and not talk about it. But you have a valid point, so I have restored your post #12344.
Hey, Rich, what is this about?
U.S. Bankruptcy Court
Southern District of Florida (Dade)
Adversary Proceeding #: 01-1277 Date filed: 8/27/01
Assigned to: Judge A. Jay Cristol
Related Bankruptcy Case #: 99-18530
In Re: Treasure Stores of Key West, Inc., Demand: $0,000 Nature of Suit: 454
* Parties * * Attorneys *
CORALI LOPEZ-CASTRO, as
Trustee and not in her
individual capacity,
c/o George Batarseh
2 S Biscayne Blvd #2400
Miami, FL 33131
* Plaintiff * George Batarseh, Esq
2 S Biscayne Blvd #2400
Miami, FL 33131
305-379-2425
v.
SEAVIEW VIDEO TECHNOLOGY, INC.
* Defendant *
RICHARD MCBRIDE
* Defendant *
Docket Proceedings
Date Doc. No. Docket Entry
8/27/01 1 Complaint (01-1277) Corali Lopez-Castro, vs. Seaview Video Technology, Inc NOS 454 Recover Money/Property. (sg) [EOD 08/29/01] [01-1277]
8/27/01 2 Statement by George Batarseh for Plaintiff Corali Lopez-Castro in 01-01277. Re: Filing Fees (sg) [EOD 08/29/01] [01-1277]
8/27/01 -- Adversary Filing Fee in the Amount of $150.00 Deferred. (sg) [EOD 08/29/01] [01-1277]
8/28/01 3 Summons Issued on Richard McBride in 01-01277, Seaview Video Technology, Inc. in 01-01277 Answer due 9/24/01 for Richard McBride, for Seaview Video Technology, Inc; Pretrial Hearing scheduled for 10:00 11/7/01 at Room 1410, Miami; Trial Hearing scheduled for 9:30 11/19/01 at Room 1410, Miami. (sg) [EOD 08/29/01] [01-1277]
8/28/01 4 Order (AJC 8/28/01) Setting Filing/Disclosure Requirements for Pretrial/Trial. Initial Disclosures of Witnesses and Documents Shall Be Made At Least 30 Days Before the Pretrial Date. (sg) [EOD 08/29/01] [01-1277]
Diverdan, you wrote: "A no-contest plea doesn't mean Jack S***. If the District Attorney has a solid case on someone, the DA would not allow a plea of no-contest because a conviction would be assured."
I know you're a cop, so I know you know better than to make such a statement. The truth is this: Yes, McBride was on felony probation but no, technically he does not have a criminal conviction. It's called a "plea bargain," and it's the kind of deal that prosecutors frequently offer first offenders, particularly non-violent white-collar thieves.
It's your own business if you want to be an apologist for McBride, but don't try to tell the hundreds of thousands of people who have gone to jail after pleading no-contest to a crime that "a no-contest plea doesn't mean Jack S***."
"Only George and James Cox receives any Salary
on the management staff."
Does that mean CFO Doug Bauer and COO Michael Ambler no longer work for SeaView?
Congratulations on successfully completing your felony probation. Anyone who believes that crime does not pay knows nothing about the criminal justice system in Florida... or how insiders and manipulators exploit penny stocks.
For over a year, you've been responding to insult after insult from SeaView management with "it's not that big of a deal." During the same period, the stock price has declined steadily. Once SEVU lost over 90% of its former price, your mantra became "it's no big deal, the downside risk is minimal." If a firecracker blew off nine of your fingers, I guess you would say: "It's no big deal, I have one left."
The PP has blown away 50% of your remaining equity in the form of dilution. The stock overhang is now as great as it was when you saw all those 144 filings that you said were "no big deal." How many more "details" about the PP do you need to understand that?
You are partially correct. SeaView filed a Def14A with the SEC on July 8, SHAMEFULLY over a week after the actual shareholder's meeting, listing share ownership for current directors Myles and Bradford Gould of 22,500 and 5,000 shares respectively. According to this filing, board members receive no salary and are compensated only for out-of-pocket expenses. How the Goulds acquired their stock was not disclosed. There is no mention of share ownership by former directors in any known SEC filing.
Correction to previous post: Fred Leslie was NOT indicted for Medicare fraud. Here are links detailing the charges:
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/msg.gsp?msgid=15072965&s=Fred%20Leslie
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/msg.gsp?msgid=15079241&s=Fred%20Leslie
Again, this may or may not be the same Leslie who was a director of Seaview. If the company had filed a proxy statement in 2000, we wouldn't have to speculate.
As you requested, here is the list of defense witnesses filed by Rich McBride's lawyer in the 1997 criminal case. I obtained a copy of this list directly from the case file during a trip to Florida in April 2001. That case number is 970975CFANO.
Miles Gould is a current director of SeaView. Charles Cato is a former director. I believe that Dr. Brad Gould, another current director, lives in the Carolinas and is the son of Miles. The company has only had one other (former) SeaView director, Fred Leslie. A "Dr. Fred Leslie," whom I have not personally confirmed to be the same person connected with SeaView, was charged with Medicare fraud (or a similar crime) last year.
To the best of my knowledge and belief, none of these directors and former directors have ever filed a Form 3 or Form 4, so we don't know how many shares of SEVU they own, if any. Further, the company has never disclosed how much, if any, they are paid. The company has never notified shareholders when a director was appointed or left SeaView.
Miles Gould
Gould & Company
1900 Emony Street #312
Atlanta, GA 30318
Uri Pollack
Blaze-Out, Inc.
763 Trabert Ave.
Atlanta, GA 30318
Charles Cato
Target Marketing
9034 Baywood Pk. Dr.
Seminole, FL 33777
Robert Henry
18975 112th Ave.
Nunica, MI 49448
Jim Bryan
2680 Dawson Ave.
Long Beach, CA 90806
Robert Choi
Vistalite
1830 State St.
East Petersberg, PA 17520
Martin Price
690 N.W. 116th St.
Miami, FL 33168
Os Hillman
3595 Webb Bridge Rd.
Alpharetta, GA 30201
Speculation that the SEC "forced" McBride to step down is illogical: if that had happened, it would be a material event that SeaView would have been compelled to report immediately. It is equally illogical to assume the SEC investigation of SeaView and McBride has been concluded.
Pinellas records are available online if you're willing to pay a fee:
https://pubtitles.co.pinellas.fl.us/index.html
I don't have access to that site or a copy of the actual case docket, so I have not personally verified the dismissal.
For the record, I have been informed by one of the principals that the lawsuit filed by Internet Marketing Solutions against Rich McBride was dismissed and McBride's shares in WLDI were cancelled. IMS reportedly was a defunct Colorado corporation and not registered to do business in Florida at the time they filed the lawsuit.
Past is prologue. "Old" patterns tend to repeat themselves, as we can clearly see from the "new" private placement.
On 2/28/01, Internet Marketing Solutions, Inc. (Robert Hainey, President), filed a civil lawsuit against Rich McBride and his advertising agency, RL McBride Associates, in Pinellas County, FL, Case Number 01001552-CI. According to IMS's complaint, prior to 9/24/2000 RLMA agreed to purchase 1,000,000 shares of WLDI for fifty cents per share. The cause of action states that Hainey transfered all one million shares to McBride on 9/4/2000, and that McBride never paid for the stock. Consequently, Hainey sued McBride for five hundred thousand dollars.
The plantiff's filing reads, in part: "Part 1 is a cause of action for securities fraud pursuant to Section 517.301 Section 517.211 of the Florida Statutes. Richard McBride and McBride, Inc. violated Section 517.301 by a)designing and employing a device, scheme or artifice to defraud; b)engaging in a practice which operates as a fraud and deceit; and c)obtaining securities from Internet Marketing by means of untrue statements of material fact."
I know there was a motion by McBride's lawyers to dismiss the case on a technicality, but I'm not sure how the judge ruled. Maybe Rich or his son can tell us the current status of the case.
That's right, I have dibs on that job. I just hope I can count on the Morons and Retards to vote for me.
Rich McBride wrote: "Shamus, I was shocked to hear you, a Director on this board would post the name of an I-Hub poster as someone on another board."
If an employee(s) of SeaView is posting on stock message boards on company time, under multiple aliases, for the purpose of hypeing the stock, that is an issue of legitimate concern.
"You have contacts as a director we don't."
As Seahag has already pointed out, I don't.