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.
Thanks Aetheum, but Pink Sheet's was equally confused, as were some of the major news outlets that put the NIVS P.R. under NCVT (formerly NTCV).
Even on this board, we've had investors come to NCVT and ask about Netco Washington.
This was, when an investor searches for Netco Investments, both boards show up and they can see there is a difference.
But, as a guy with no financial interest in IPCY/CCDX/NCVT, we appreciate that you have taken the time to follow this so closely.
No, I wasn't confused -- but Pink Sheets was, placing the NIVS P.R. on Paul Taylor's scam, Netco Investments.
Oh, I misinterpreted that. But heavenly Aetheum isn't.
No, no. Autostar is the car dealer, ttgop, they're the ones who had it towed away. It was a Jeep... a... $40,000 hunk of Jeep Cherokee.
Aetheum is Latin for rat urine.
Has anyone talked to this guy?
Kenneth Macdonald, Director and Secretary/Treasurer
Well if they do a r/s, and the stock falters, everyone here who bought based on the representation that they would not could tackle their officers down in court. (If they do a r/s and the stock climbs, then there's no cause of action-- so they'd have to be pretty confident that a r/s would make it rock.
I think they're going to keep the float as it is, or even allow more shares to be issued up to the maximum of 50,000,000,000 (choke!) total, then grow. If they are planning on making a company, they must think that they can get the price above .0001 in the long term.
Furthermore, I don't think that this Taylor Moffit person said, "gee, let's steal a million dollars with a public company," because we see that he has a steady income through his association with the Bradford companies. And these Bradford companies -- although they make it clear that they do not control or recommend JMCP -- do have their reputation a bit tangled with this company by having whatever weird kind of contracts they have.
So I believe they are trying to do something other than just pump stock.
But I could be wrong, I just don't know.
Well, it may be like they inferred, previously restricted shares from the people who they bought the shell from -- shares that find themselves not restricted anymore -- coupled with the company's issuance of restricted shares for their own projects (merger with Taylor Moffit LLC, etc.) which increases the total number of restricted shares.
The other possibility is old convertible debt (over two years old) that has been promptly converted and dumped -- which it's best to get it out of the way. Those are legitimate reasons for an increase in free floating shares.
Well the lawsuit Serf had copies of, there was a settlement with Paul. It is possible that the plaintiff there obtained a default against Netco. It's also possible that PT is up to something tricky by suing his own company. We shall see. I have a judgment search occurring as we speak, will hear back probably in two days since you guys have a holiday up there.
Precisely, "bye bye truck," Mr. Niessen walks, as he should.
Aetheum, I deleted your message (#2) to Serfdom which you copied from NCVT, IPCY, and BANY. It relates to Netco Texas which is NCVT and the purpose of this board is to prevent investors from being confused between NIVS and NCVT. As such, I removed it as a duplicate message.
I do not censor messages, and if anyone wishes to read the message I deleted, it remains on NCVT, BANY, and IPCY boards.
You are welcome to post on any topic on this board, positive or negative, so long as it relates to NIVS or something that affects NIVS. If you wish to discuss the confusion between NCVT and NIVS, that is fine as well.
Thanks for being the first post here Aetheum, and that's precisely why I started this board. I was never the President of this company, NIVS.
See, when Paul wanted to change the name of his fraud from Telatinos to Netco, he didn't tell me there was another publicly traded company by the same name.
Thus, when NCVT (Netco Texas) fell to .0001, and news came out on NIVS (Netco Washington), investors accidentally bought NCVT.
Paul had a good time printing shares that day, and I bet he was quite excited.
So now we have to make sure the investors know the difference. NIVS is not NCVT and I was never President of NIVS. Fortunately for NIVS investors, neither was Paul!
CCDX's Paul Taylor and his nominees made me that rcathepimp.com website. I'd complain to Geocities and have them take it down, but that dude who's on there is kind of cool. I just wish he'd put up a picture of me with some ladies. And Aetheum went way far back to repost the link on each and every board. Gotta love Aetheum and Paul, or Paul and Aetheum, or Paultheum or Aethepaul.
Well they promised no reverse split. If they reverse at this point and it causes investor losses, that could be a liability problem for them. I think they know that. They're right tho, they should have done at least a 20 for 1 at the beginning.
I hope they don't (reverse split) either, but that is a big mamma float there. If they did a reverse split, say 10 for 1, but didn't dilute much after that, it wouldn't be too bad. But if they did a big reverse split and then diluted, then we're done.
But even though their answer kind of circled around the question, I'm glad they responded to us.
I don't think that these guys have an evil intent and purpose, I just hope they do things right.
Aetheum's really busy today. He's over at IPCY talking about the default judgment.
No, Aetheum, no-one showed me. I repeatedly asked for the corporate documents from Paul Taylor, but he said Jon Miller had them. But, we both know that Jon Miller wasn't running things, isn't that right Aetheum. So why don't you be so kind as to show it to me.
Funny how your response is here at IPCY instead of the board where you first mentioned the default.
Yes, I knew about that one. But I don't know if its the same suit. Aetheum said there was a "default judgment" against Netco. I wonder what's out there. I ponder if Paul maybe sued Netco or something so he could convert more shares or have a one-up.
Yeah, Aetheum, with all his wisdom, couldn't have any relation to Paul Taylor. After all, he says he has absolutely no interest in these stocks -- but where is the Colorado lawsuit that only he knows about.
JPW, this "Aetheum" guy, don't imply he's Paul. "Aetheum" has absolutely no financial interest in IPCY/NCVT/CCDX! It can't be Paul then because Paul is a control person! LOL, and Aetheum, he's only obsessed. He knows about a Colorado court judgment and everything, but we don't. Certainly that wouldn't be an insider. And "Aetheum," he just sticks up for Paul and rags on me and Serf because he's a good citizen.
So don't confuse a person who has no financial interest in these stocks, a guy like Aetheum, with a control person like Paul. Paul and his nominees would never log on to a stock board using an alias! Never!
Now, JPW, I'm down here in Costa Rica, we don't do this 4th of July thing, but I understand it was your day of independence from England? Isn't Paul Taylor, control person of NCVT and CCDX, from England?
If Paul is from England, wonder where Aetheum is from!? Nah, there can be no relation between the two, can there be?
RESPONSE FROM JMCP PROMISING PR TO ADDRESS SHARES:
The following is a response from JMCP regarding shares:
That is a lot of shares. We gained about 51% of the shares when we purchased the corporate shell. It appears that we should have done a massive reverse stock split when we first bought the company. There are a lot of people selling previously restricted stock. Though we are not allowed to divulge shareholder identities, we will comment that there were large MN shareholders when we purchased the shell, Reg D offerings (504) in Minnesota are different, and these preexisting shares may account for some of the frustration we are experiencing.
We will do a PR to address these issues more fully.
Thanks for writing!
JMCP
Aetheum, baby, can you tell us where to find the Colorado judgment against Paul Taylor's NCVT, since you are an uninterested party, you would be able to point us in the right direction.
Rodrigo
A judgment against Netco is a nullity, Aetheum, it has no assets, it exists only in name. I think any shareholder suit is going to be brought against the officers and control persons of the company. That means Paul Taylor and crew, possibly even myself since Paul put my name in the releases as if I issued them.
It's not going to be hard for any harmed investor to prove: (1) The press releases Paul issued were false; (2) The press releases contained material misrepresentations; (3) The shareholders justifiably relied on those representations; (4) The shareholders were damaged as a proximate result. Those are the elements of fraud.
As far as unlawfulness with regard to the Frank transaction, let's be clear. Paul Taylor, despite calling himself a "consultant," was a control person, an affiliate. Therefore, those shares should have been restricted. Furthermore, I don't believe that Paul Taylor ever had a bona fide note that truly allowed conversion of shares. His alleged debt note, which I have not seen, IMHO was not in exchange for honest services or an investment into the company.
The SEC is indeed investigating Netco, albeit slowly. The NASD is investigating the unusual trading patterns with Netco. I have no idea who these guys have been in touch with as well.
Aetheum's down at BANY posting a copy of his reply to your message to me as if I wrote it him. Gotta love Aetheum, he represented to us that he has no financial interest in NCVT or CCDX or IPCY. Yet he's obsessed with it.
Now he pointed out a Colorado judgment that we didn't know about, so his due diligence in a stock he's not interested in is patently overwhelming.
Why are you replying to me on this board as if I wrote the message to you Aetheum or as if it even relates to BANY? I simply released copies of the documents, and Serfdom posed a question to you, not me.
Take the NCVT matter to NCVT and CCDX, they have nothing to do with BANY.
The only related topic of BANY with NCVT is that Corey has a convertible note that has resulted in the issuance, or prospective issuance, of 2,000,000,000 shares of BANY (when it's o/s was 200,000,000, increasing it 10x). Corey also owned notes of NCVT.
But people with BANY do not have any idea what we're even talking about and you keep copying your messages down here.
Finally, you originally claimed that you had no interest in CCDX, NCVT, or IPCY, but it's all you talk about.
My name is Rodrigo Calderon Araya, your name remains Aetheum.
A company cannot simply issue shares and place them on the market, that's a public offering that requires a registration statement with the S.E.C. Similarly, if you buy shares directly from a company through an exempt transaction and they issue shares, those shares are normally 144 restricted shares. Rule 144 states, "The term restricted securities means:
Securities acquired directly or indirectly from the issuer, or from an affiliate of the issuer, in a transaction or chain of transactions not involving any public offering."
The shares we trade are exempt because they do not benefit the issuer at all.
Most Pink Sheets evade this by issuing shares for debt. But to be unrestricted, the debt has to be over two years old, say a convertible note, etc. (For instance, see my website www.netcoinvestments.info for how Paul Taylor converted millions of shares using an alleged convertible note in the NCVT (Netco Investments) matter. He evaded 144 by claiming he was only a "consultant" to the company and sold his shares, which he obtained by converting alleged notes that were supposedly over two years old, to third persons as unrestricted stock).
The authorized number of shares have nothing to do with how they can be issued and placed onto a market.
It also does not matter that the company is "non-reporting." You still have to have a basis for issuing free trading shares. There must be an exemption from Rule 144. Raising money for the company by issuing unrestricted shares and placing them onto the market without a registration statement is patently illegal, and I don't think this is what JMCP has done. Their transfer agent wouldn't allow it.
So that brings us to the question, where did the free trading shares come from?
Here's a link to the various regulations about issuing shares which are exempt from registration (such as Regulation D -- which still requires filing a notice with the SEC).
http://www.law.uc.edu/CCL/33ActRls/index.html
Most of the exemptions provide for restricted shares absent a registration statement.
Here's Rule 144, relating to the restrictions on shares.
Rule 144 -- Persons Deemed Not to Be Engaged in a Distribution and Therefore Not Underwriters
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preliminary Note to Rule 144
Rule 144 is designed to implement the fundamental purposes of the Act, as expressed in its preamble, To provide full and fair disclosure of the character of the securities sold in interstate commerce and through the mails, and to prevent fraud in the sale thereof * * * The rule is designed to prohibit the creation of public markets in securities of issuers concerning which adequate current information is not available to the public. At the same time, where adequate current information concerning the issuer is available to the public, the rule permits the public sale in ordinary transactions of limited amounts of securities owned by persons controlling, controlled by or under common control with the issuer and by persons who have acquired restricted securities of the issuer.
Certain basic principles are essential to an understanding of the requirement of registration in the Act:
If any person utilizes the jurisdictional means to sell any non-exempt security to any other person, the security must be registered unless a statutory exemption can be found for the transaction.
In addition to the exemptions found in Section 3, four exemptions applicable to transactions in securities are contained in Section 4. Three of these Section 4 exemptions are clearly not available to anyone acting as an underwriter of securities. (The fourth, found in Section 4(4), is available only to those who act as brokers under certain limited circumstances.) An understanding of the term underwriter is therefore important to anyone who wishes to determine whether or not an exemption from registration is available for his sale of securities.
The term underwriter is broadly defined in Section 2(a)(11) of the Act to mean any person who has purchased from an issuer with a view to, or offers or sells for an issuer in connection with, the distribution of any security, or participates or has a direct or indirect participation in any such undertaking, or participates or has a participation in the direct or indirect underwriting of any such undertaking. The interpretation of this definition has traditionally focused on the words with a view to in the phrase purchased from an issuer with a view to * * * distribution. Thus, an investment banking firm which arranges with an issuer for the public sale of its securities is clearly an underwriter under that Section. Individual investors who are not professionals in the securities business may also be underwriters within the meaning of that term as used in the Act if they act as links in a chain of transactions through which securities move from an issuer to the public. Since it is difficult to ascertain the mental state of the purchaser at the time of his acquisition, subsequent acts and circumstances have been considered to determine whether such person took with a view to distribution at the time of his acquisition. Emphasis has been placed on factors such as the length of time the person has held the securities and whether there has been an unforeseeable change in circumstances of the holder. Experience has shown, however, that reliance upon such factors as the above has not assured adequate protection of investors through the maintenance of informed trading markets and has led to uncertainty in the application of the registration provisions of the Act.
It should be noted that the statutory language of Section 2(a)(11) is in the disjunctive. Thus, it isinsufficient to conclude that a person is not an underwriter solely because he did not purchase securities from an issuer with a view to their distribution. It must also be established that the person is not offering or selling for an issuer in connection with the distribution of the securities, does not participate or have a direct or indirect participation in any such undertaking, and does not participate or have a participation in the direct or indirect underwriting of such an undertaking.
In determining when a person is deemed not to be engaged in a distribution several factors must be considered.
First, the purpose and underlying policy of the Act to protect investors requires that there be adequate current information concerning the issuer, whether the resales of securities by persons result in a distribution or are effected in trading transactions. Accordingly, the availability of the rule is conditioned on the existence of adequate current public information.
Secondly, a holding period prior to resale is essential, among other reasons, to assure that those persons who buy under a claim of a Section 4(2) exemption have assumed the economic risks of investment, and therefore are not acting as conduits for sale to the public of unregistered securities, directly or indirectly, on behalf of an issuer. It should be noted, that there is nothing in Section 2(a)(11) which places a time limit on a person's status as an underwriter. The public has the same need for protection afforded by registration whether the securities are distributed shortly after their purchase or after a considerable length of time.
A third factor, which must be considered in determining what is deemed not to constitute a distribution, is the impact of the particular transaction or transactions on the trading markets. Section 4(1) was intended to exempt only routine trading transactions between individual investors with respect to securities already issued and not to exempt distributions by issuers or acts of other individuals who engage in steps necessary to such distributions. Therefore, a person reselling securities under Section 4(1) of the Act must sell the securities in such limited quantities and in such a manner as not to disrupt the trading markets. The larger the amount of securities involved, the more likely it is that such resales may involve methods of offering and amounts of compensation usually associated with a distribution rather than routine trading transactions. Thus, solicitation of buy orders or the payment of extra compensation are not permitted by the rule.
In summary, if the sale in question is made in accordance with all of the provisions of the rule, as set forth below, any person who sells restricted securities shall be deemed not to be engaged in a distribution of such securities and therefore not an underwriter thereof. The rule also provides that any person who sells restricted or other securities on behalf of a person in a control relationship with the issuer shall be deemed not to be engaged in a distribution of such securities and therefore not to be an underwriter thereof, if the sale is made in accordance with all the conditions of the rule.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definitions. The following definitions shall apply for the purposes of this rule.
An affiliate of an issuer is a person that directly, or indirectly through one or more intermediaries, controls, or is controlled by, or is under common control with, such issuer.
The term person when used with reference to a person for whose account securities are to be sold in reliance upon this rule includes, in addition to such person, all of the following persons:
Any relative or spouse of such person, or any relative of such spouse, any one of whom has the same home as such person;
Any trust or estate in which such person or any of the persons specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section collectively own ten percent or more of the total beneficial interest or of which any of such persons serve as trustee, executor or in any similar capacity; and
Any corporation or other organization (other than the issuer) in which such person or any of the persons specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section are the beneficial owners collectively of ten percent or more of any class of equity securities or ten percent or more of the equity interest.
The term restricted securities means:
Securities acquired directly or indirectly from the issuer, or from an affiliate of the issuer, in a transaction or chain of transactions not involving any public offering;
Securities acquired from the issuer that are subject to the resale limitations of Rule 502(d) under Regulation D or Rule 701(c);
Securities acquired in a transaction or chain of transactions meeting the requirements of Rule 144A;
Securities acquired from the issuer in a transaction subject to the conditions of Regulation CE;
Equity securities of domestic issuers acquired in a transaction or chain of transactions subject to the conditions of Rule 901 or Rule 903 under Regulation S (Rules 901 through 905 and Preliminary Notes);
Securities acquired in a transaction made under Rule 801 to the same extent and proportion that the securities held by the security holder of the class with respect to which the rights offering was made were as of the record date for the rights offering "restricted securities" within the meaning of this paragraph (a)(3); and
Securities acquired in a transaction made under Rule 802 to the same extent and proportion that the securities that were tendered or exchanged in the exchange offer or business combination were "restricted securities" within the meaning of this paragraph (a)(3).
Conditions to Be Met. Any affiliate or other person who sells restricted securities of an issuer for his own account, or any person who sells restricted or any other securities for the account of an affiliate of the issuer of such securities, shall be deemed not to be engaged in a distribution of such securities and therefore not to be an underwriter thereof within the meaning of Section 2(a)(11) of the Act if all of the conditions of this rule are met.
Current Public Information. There shall be available adequate current public information with respect to the issuer of the securities. Such information shall be deemed to be available only if either of the following conditions is met:
Filing of Reports. The issuer has securities registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, has been subject to the reporting requirements of Section 13 of that Act for a period of at least 90 days immediately preceding the sale of the securities and has filed all the reports required to be filed thereunder during the 12 months preceding such sale (or for such shorter period that the issuer was required to file such reports); other than Form 8-K reports (Rule 249.308 of this chapter); or has securities registered pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, has been subject to the reporting requirements of section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for a period of at least 90 days immediately preceding the sale of the securities and has filed all the reports required to be filed thereunder during the 12 months preceding such sale (or for such shorter period that the issuer was required to file such reports), other than Form 8-K reports (Rule 249.308 of this chapter). The person for whose account the securities are to be sold shall be entitled to rely upon a statement in whichever is the most recent report, quarterly or annual, required to be filed and filed by the issuer that such issuer has filed all reports required to be filed by section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the issuer was required to file such reports), other than Form 8-K reports (§ 249.308 of this chapter), and has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days, unless he knows or has reason to believe that the issuer has not complied with such requirements. Such person shall also be entitled to rely upon a written statement from the issuer that it has complied with such reporting requirements unless he knows or has reasons to believe that the issuer has not complied with such requirements.
Other Public Information. If the issuer is not subject to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, there is publicly available the information concerning the issuer specified in paragraphs (a)(5)(i) to (xiv), inclusive, and paragraph (a)(5)(xvi) of Rule 15c2-11 under that Act or, if the issuer is an insurance company, the information specified in Section 12(g)(2)(G)(i) of that Act.
Holding Period for Restricted Securities. If the securities sold are restricted securities, the following provisions apply:
General Rule. A minimum of one year must elapse between the later of the date of the acquisition of the securities from the issuer or from an affiliate of the issuer, and any resale of such securities in reliance on this section for the account of either the acquiror or any subsequent holder of those securities. If the acquiror takes the securities by purchase, the one-year period shall not begin until the full purchase price or other consideration is paid or given by the person acquiring the securities from the issuer or from an affiliate of the issuer.
Promissory Notes, Other Obligations or Installment Contracts. Giving the issuer or affiliate of the issuer from whom the securities were purchased a promissory note or other obligation to pay the purchase price, or entering into an installment purchase contract with such person, shall not be deemed full payment of the purchase price unless the promissory note, obligation or contract:
provides for full recourse against the purchaser of the securities;
is secured by collateral, other than the securities purchased, having a fair market value at least equal to the purchase price of the securities purchased; and
shall have been discharged by payment in full prior to the sale of the securities.
Determination of Holding Period. The following provisions shall apply for the purpose of determining the period securities have been held:
Stock Dividends, Splits and Recapitalizations. Securities acquired from the issuer as a dividend or pursuant to a stock split, reverse split or recapitalization shall be deemed to have been acquired at the same time as the securities on which the dividend or, if more than one, the initial dividend was paid, the securities involved in the split or reverse split, or the securities surrendered in connection with the recapitalization;
Conversions. If the securities sold were acquired from the issuer for a consideration consisting solely of other securities of the same issuer surrendered for conversion, the securities so acquired shall be deemed to have been acquired at the same time as the securities surrendered for conversion;
Contingent Issuance of Securities. Securities acquired as a contingent payment of the purchase price of an equity interest in a business, or the assets of a business, sold to the issuer or an affiliate of the issuer shall be deemed to have been acquired at the time of such sale if the issuer or affiliate was then committed to issue the securities subject only to conditions other than the payment of further consideration for such securities. An agreement entered into in connection with any such purchase to remain in the employment of, or not to compete with, the issuer or affiliate or the rendering of services pursuant to such agreement shall not be deemed to be the payment of further consideration for such securities.
Pledged Securities. Securities which are bona fide pledged by an affiliate of the issuer when sold by the pledgee, or by a purchaser, after a default in the obligation secured by the pledge, shall be deemed to have been acquired when they were acquired by the pledgor, except that if the securities were pledged without recourse they shall be deemed to have been acquired by the pledgee at the time of the pledge or by the purchaser at the time of purchase.
Gifts of Securities. Securities acquired from an affiliate of the issuer by gift shall be deemed to have been acquired by the donee when they were acquired by the donor;
Trusts. Where a trust settlor is an affiliate of the issuer, securities acquired from the settlor by the trust, or acquired from the trust by the beneficiaries thereof, shall be deemed to have been acquired when such securities were acquired by the settlor;
Estates. Where a deceased person was an affiliate of the issuer, securities held by the estate of such person or acquired from such an estate by the beneficiaries thereof shall be deemed to have been acquired when they were acquired by the deceased person, except that no holding period is required if the estate is not an affiliate of the issuer or if the securities are sold by a beneficiary of the estate who is not such an affiliate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note. While there is no holding period or amount limitation for estates and beneficiaries thereof which are not affiliates of the issuer, paragraphs (c), (h) and (i) of the rule apply to securities sold by such persons in reliance upon the rule.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 145(a) transactions. The holding period for securities acquired in a transaction specified in Rule 145(a) shall be deemed to commence on the date the securities were acquired by the purchaser in such transaction. This provision shall not apply, however, to a transaction effected solely for the purpose of forming a holding company.
Limitation on amount of securities sold. Except as hereinafter provided, the amount of securities which may be sold in reliance upon this rule shall be determined as follows:
Sales by affiliates. If restricted or other securities sold for the account of an affiliate of the issuer, the amount of securities sold, together with all sales of restricted and other securities of the same class for the account of such person within the preceding three months, shall not exceed the greater of
one percent of the shares or other units of the class outstanding as shown by the most recent report or statement published by the issuer, or
the average weekly reported volume of trading in such securities on all national securities exchanges and/or reported through the automated quotation system of a registered securities association during the four calendar weeks preceding the filing of notice required by paragraph (h), or if no such notice is required the date of receipt of the order to execute the transaction by the broker or the date of execution of the transaction directly with a market maker, or
The average weekly volume of trading in such securities reported pursuant to an effective transaction reporting plan or an effective national market system plan as those terms are defined in Rule 242.600 of this chapter during the four-week period specified in paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section
Sales by persons other than affiliates. The amount of restricted securities sold for the account of any person other than an affiliate of the issuer, together with all other sales of restricted securities of the same class for the account of such person within the preceding three months, shall not exceed the amount specified in paragraphs (e)(1)(i), (1)(ii) or (1)(iii) of this section, whichever is applicable, unless the conditions in paragraph (k) of this rule are satisfied.
Determination of Amount. For the purpose of determining the amount of securities specified in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this rule, the following provisions shall apply:
Where both convertible securities and securities of the class into which they are convertible are sold, the amount of convertible securities sold shall be deemed to be the amount of securities of the class into which they are convertible for the purpose of determining the aggregate amount of securities of both classes sold;
The amount of securities sold for the account of a pledgee thereof, or for the account of a purchaser of the pledged securities, during any period of three months within one year after a default in the obligation secured by the pledge, and the amount of securities sold during the same three-month period for the account of the pledgor shall not exceed, in the aggregate, the amount specified in paragraph (e)(1) or (2) of this section, whichever is applicable.
The amount of securities sold for the account of a donee thereof during any period of three months within one year after the donation, and the amount of securities sold during the same three-month period for the account of the donor, shall not exceed, in the aggregate, the amount specified in paragraph (e)(1) or (2) of this section, whichever is applicable;
Where securities were acquired by a trust from the settlor of the trust, the amount of such securities sold for the account of the trust during any period of three months within one year after the acquisition of the securities by the trust, and the amount of securities sold during the same three-month period for the account of the settlor, shall not exceed, in the aggregate, the amount specified in paragraph (e)(1) or (2) of this paragraph, whichever is applicable;
The amount of securities sold for the account of the estate of a deceased person, or for the account of a beneficiary of such estate, during any period of three months and the amount of securities sold during the same period for the account of the deceased person prior to his death shall not exceed, in the aggregate, the amount specified in subparagraph (1) or (2) of this paragraph, whichever is applicable; Provided, That no limitation on amount shall apply if the estate or beneficiary thereof is not an affiliate of the issuer;
When two or more affiliates or other persons agree to act in concert for the purpose of selling securities of an issuer, all securities of the same class sold for the account of all such persons during any period of three months shall be aggregated for the purpose of determining the limitation on the amount of securities sold;
The following sales of securities need not be included in determining the amount of securities sold in reliance upon this section: securities sold pursuant to an effective registration statement under the Act; securities sold pursuant to an exemption provided by Regulation A (Rules 251 through 263) under the Act; securities sold in a transaction exempt pursuant to Section 4 of the Act and not involving any public offering; and securities sold offshore pursuant to Regulation S (Rules 901 through 905 and Preliminary Notes) under the Act.
Manner of sale. The securities shall be sold in brokers' transactions within the meaning of section 4(4) of the Act or in transactions directly with a market maker, as that term is defined in section 3(a)(38) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the person selling the securities shall not
solicit or arrange for the solicitation of orders to buy the securities in anticipation of or in connection with such transaction, or
make any payment in connection with the offer or sale of the securities to any person other than the broker who executes the order to sell the securities. The requirements of this paragraph, however, shall not apply to securities sold for the account of the estate of a deceased person or for the account of a beneficiary of such estate provided the estate or beneficiary thereof is not an affiliate of the issuer; nor shall they apply to securities sold for the account of any person other than an affiliate of the issuer, provided the conditions of paragraph (k) of this rule are satisfied.
Brokers' Transactions. The term brokers' transactions in Section 4(4) of the Act shall for the purposes of this rule be deemed to include transactions by a broker in which such broker:
does no more than execute the order or orders to sell the securities as agent for the person for whose account the securities are sold; and receives no more than the usual and customary broker's commission;
neither solicits nor arranges for the solicitation of customers' orders to buy the securities in anticipation of or in connection with the transaction; provided, that the foregoing shall not preclude
inquiries by the broker of other brokers or dealers who have indicated an interest in the securities within the preceding 60 days,
inquiries by the broker of his customers who have indicated an unsolicited bona fide interest in the securities within the preceding 10 business days; or
the publication by the broker of bid and ask quotations for the security in an inter-dealer quotation system provided that such quotations are incident to the maintenance of a bona fide inter-dealer market for the security for the broker's own account and that the broker has published bona fide bid and ask quotations for the security in an inter-dealer quotation system on each of at least twelve days within the preceding thirty calendar days with no more than four business days in succession without such two-way quotations;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note to Subparagraph g(2)(ii):The broker should obtain and retain in his files written evidence of indications of bona fide unsolicited interest by his customers in the securities at the time such indications are received.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
after reasonable inquiry is not aware of circumstances indicating that the person for whose account the securities are sold is an underwriter with respect to the securities or that the transaction is a part of a distribution of securities of the issuer. Without limiting the foregoing, the broker shall be deemed to be aware of any facts or statements contained in the notice required by paragraph (h) below.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes
The broker, for his own protection, should obtain and retain in his files a copy of the notice required by paragraph (h).
The reasonable inquiry required by paragraph (g)(3) of this section should include, but not necessarily be limited to, inquiry as to the following matters:
The length of time the securities have been held by the person for whose account they are to be sold. If practicable, the inquiry should include physical inspection of the securities;
The nature of the transaction in which the securities were acquired by such person;
The amount of securities of the same class sold during the past three months by all persons whose sales are required to be taken into consideration pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section;
Whether such person intends to sell additional securities of the same class through any other means;
Whether such person has solicited or made any arrangement for the solicitation of buy orders in connection with the proposed sale of securities;
Whether such person has made any payment to any other person in connection with the proposed sale of the securities; and
The number of shares or other units of the class outstanding, or the relevant trading volume
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of proposed sale. If the amount of securities to be sold in reliance upon the rule during any period of three months exceeds 500 shares or other units or has an aggregate sale price in excess of $10,000, three copies of a notice on Form 144 shall be filed with the Commission at its principal office in Washington, D. C.; and if such securities are admitted to trading on any national securities exchange, one copy of such notice shall also be transmitted to the principal exchange on which such securities are so admitted. The Form 144 shall be signed by the person for whose account the securities are to be sold and shall be transmitted for filing concurrently with either the placing with a broker of an order to execute a sale of securities in reliance upon this rule or the execution directly with a market maker of such a sale. Neither the filing of such notice nor the failure of the Commission to comment thereon shall be deemed to preclude the Commission from taking any action it deems necessary or appropriate with respect to the sale of the securities referred to in such notice. The requirements of this paragraph, however, shall not apply to securities sold for the account of any person other than an affiliate of the issuer, provided the conditions of paragraph (k) of this rule are satisfied.
Bona Fide Intention to Sell. The person filing the notice required by paragraph (h) shall have a bona fide intention to sell the securities referred to therein within a reasonable time after the filing of such notice.
Non-exclusive rule. Although this rule provides a means for reselling restricted securities and securities held by affiliates without registration, it is not the exclusive means for reselling such securities in that manner. Therefore, it does not eliminate or otherwise affect the availability of any exemption for resales under Securities Act that a person or entity may be able to rely upon.
Termination of certain restrictions on sales of restricted securities by persons other than affiliates. The requirements of paragraphs (c), (e), (f) and (h) of this rule shall not apply to restricted securities sold for the account of a person who is not an affiliate of the issuer at the time of the sale and has not been an affiliate during the preceding three months, provided a period of at least two years has elapsed since the later of the date the securities were acquired from the issuer or from an affiliate of the issuer. The two-year period shall be calculated as described in paragraph (d) of this section.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory History
37 FR 596, Jan. 14, 1972, as amended at 39 FR 6071, Feb. 19, 1974; 39 FR 8914, Mar. 7, 1974; 43 FR 43711, Sept. 27, 1978; 43 FR 54230, Nov. 21, 1978; 44 FR 15612, Mar. 14, 1979; 45 FR 12391, Feb. 28, 1980; 46 FR 12197, Feb. 12, 1981; 47 FR 11261, Mar. 16, 1982; 53 FR 12921, Apr. 20, 1988; 55 FR 17944, Apr. 30, 1990; 58 FR 67312, Dec. 21, 1993; 61 FR 21356, 21359, May 9, 1996; 62 FR 9242, 9244, Feb. 28, 1997; 63 FR 9632, 9642, Feb. 25, 1998; 64 FR 61382, 61400, Nov. 10, 1999; 69 FR 15594, 15617, Mar. 25, 2004; 70 FR 37496, 37617, June 29, 2005; 70 FR 45529, Aug. 8, 2005.
Are we back on the rcathepimp.com site Aetheum? Why don't you have Brian actually put a picture of me up on the site?
My signature went on the ones back to Paul Taylor. At the time, I relied on Paul Taylor's material misrepresentations that these were legitimate debt to stock conversion. He knows that those shares were issued to him, it wasn't a plan or a proposal.
You can't just issue stocks to raise capital without registering with the SEC or having an exemption. All the exemptions, without an IPO, make the stock restricted. So what concerns me is how they issued free-trading stock. I certainly have no beef with them issuing discounted restricted shares, etc. Just because it's a pinkie doesn't mean that the rules for issuing free trading stocks go out the window. I'd like them to address the issue. It's possible that they issued shares to cover debt to the old insiders and creditors who dumped them, that may be an acceptable way of getting them out of the way. So if something like that happened, let them tell us.
Yes, I am concerned over the continued confusion between NIVS and NCVT. Now with the price of NCVT looking high because of the reverse split, we need to make sure people do not buy it.
I have no real interest in NIVS, but there was no board, so I will be adding some general info about them.
Well some can sleep at night knowing that CCDX's Brian Niessen isn't a rich guy even though he is Paul Taylor's nominee. In fact, I understand that they took his vehicle for non-payment. Paul Taylor could have saved his friend's truck, but he keeps all the money for himself and gives nothing to his IPO Holdings partner -- despite it having the missing $50,000,000 in assets.
Let me interpret this for you who do not know Spanish. It says, "Bye bye Brian's truck."
Consulta de Gravámenes -
Descripción - REGISTRO NACIONAL -02/07/2006 11:50:17 GarantíasHistoria
No Existen Gravamenes para esta Referencia
Partes del GravamenTomoAsientoSecuencia 2006053775001
Fecha Inscripción
08/03/2006
Fecha Presentación
06/03/2006 TipoGravamen
DECRETO DE EMBARGO Estado Grav.
INSCRITO Fecha Inicio Fecha Vencimiento Moneda
DOLARES Monto 20304.00 PlazoInteresesAutoridad Judicial
JUZGADO CUARTO CIVIL DE MAYOR CUANTIA SAN JOSE.
Número Sumaria 06-000004-183-CI.
Ley Exoneración 06-000004-183-CI.
Registro AuxiliarDescripción
DESCONOCIDO Tomo Reg. Aux.0 Folio Reg. Aux.0 Datos último movimiento
Fecha08/03/2006 Tomo2006 Asiento053775 Secuencia001 TipoGarantiaClase CódigoBienTomoAsiento Secuencianmlkj
VEHICULO590494
TomoAsiento SecuenciaDescripción
Mov. Fecha2006 053775 001 DECRETO DE EMBARGO 08/03/2006 Tipo ParteTipoIdentificación No. IdentificaciónNombrenmlkjACTORACTOR3101336780
AUTOSTAR VEHICULOS SOCIEDAD ANONIMA
nmlkjDEMANDADO DEMANDADOVN283044
NIESSEN BRIAN RONALD
Well as far as the NCVT shell, I have alot of ideas as to what it could be used for. I had them when I took the role as President, but Paul Taylor just wanted to issue press releases about them and nothing else.
I can say that before I was terminated, I did install a little poison pill for Paul. I cannot reveal details about it until it is filed publicly.
I can say one thing, if control reverts, there will be a shareholder fund where at least 30% of the company shares would revert to the shareholders based on the amount they invested during the pumps, not the amount they paid per share. The shareholders participating in the fund would need to show that they bought shares on the open market and were holding them, not merely day trading them.
The shareholders would indemnify the company if they chose to receive shares, BUT WOULD NOT HAVE TO HOLD THE OFFICERS HARMLESS. In other words, the shareholders could still sue Paul Taylor, myself, and anyone else (or any entity) they believed participated in the fraud. So accepting the shares would only take away the right to sue the shell itself (because if the shell is sued, then it would have to spend money on legal fees that would impair any business it could have in the future, but if you can get money from Paul Taylor, or even his CCDX which may have obtained NCVT money by conveyance, that's great).
But the above is a foreward looking statement contingent upon me, or another investor, regaining control of the company.
No, he exists. He is a Canadian who lives in Costa Rica. I do not believe he knows the extent his name was used, and I'm 99% positive he did not sign the document subscribing to Netco shares on behalf of the West Indies Beet Company, a Belize company, which bought the majority of shares after the 333:1 split.
I think Jon was given some money or stock in the early days and everything after that was a scan of his signature.
I cannot say for sure, I do not get along with Jon well and don't talk to him much. I don't have his phone number. If I see him around, it is my intention to tell him.
CONVERSATIONS WITH FRANK
From: frank cornacchi [mailto:achef1@shaw.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 5:50 PM
To: calderon rodrigo
Subject:
Dear sir
Let me ask you a question?Why did you send a press release by way of a free web site that anyone can say what they wish. You mentor to facts are not fact but a basher that is to blame for netco down fall.Please in future use a news lease company.
If you so desire facts call
1 416 628 6268
--
From: frank cornacchi [mailto:achef1@shaw.ca]
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 12:39 AM
To: Rodrigo Calderón A.
Subject:
Again I ask you Calderone are you a played puppet Of the so-called Ihub poster board serfdom using RCA as you) that is making a compete fool of you
-
From: frank cornacchi [mailto:achef1@shaw.ca]
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 11:25 AM
To: Rodrigo Calderón A.
Subject:
I as I have stated I do a lot of digging and I would like to get on a real PT move.Between you and me IPCY ( not by PT) was one I should watch.My connection feels it may see some new highs. Its to bad you are not connected with this venture.
Again Thank you
Frank
-
From: "Rodrigo Calderon" <rodrigocalderonaraya@gmail.com>
> To: "frank cornacchi" <achef1@shaw.ca>
> Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 11:54 AM
> Subject: Re:
>
>
> Dear Mr Cornacchi:
> I am in receipt of your message. I am not working on behalf
> of anyone. I was, and may still be, president of Netco
> Investments (Texas). While in that capacity, Paul Taylor
> forged my name to documents and issued millions of fraudulent
> shares. Prior to my appointment, it appears that Taylor
> caused various false press released to be issued pumping up
> the company. In recent days, Taylor has been dumping
> millions of shares onto the market.
> As far as CCDE, it appears that it is presently being pumped
> up as well.
> The current press releases issued by Taylor are a stretch of
> the imagination. For instance, he states that Morgan
> Guaranty provide 1.5 million dollars by purchasing shares at
> 15c each. These shares can be bought on the open market at
> less than 4c .
> With respect to IPCY, I do not have direct knowledge as to
> whether Taylor is controlling it. I do know that he filed
> suit seeking the majority of the shares. The court records
> in Nevada indicate that the suit was withdrawn.
> Immediately thereafter, IPCY started issuing press released.
> I hope this information is helpful. It should not be relied
> on as investment advice as I am not an investment counselor.
> If you purchased shares of any of the above company and
> suffered a loss, you need to contact a securities attorney to
> preserve your rights.
> Rodrigo Calderon Araya
From: frank cornacchi [mailto:achef1@shaw.ca]
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 5:46 AM
To: Rodrigo Calderón A.
Subject:
Its 7:30 Am in Canada< I am just having my morning coffee.
Good Morning to you:
I have just read you replies I thank you very much.
I have one question if you have time please answer if you wish. This was main reason I first contacted you.
What did you do for the Telatino's/Netco from Dec 2004-March 2005?
Can you get me all information which is fact not what is posted on message boards which I can read/ tells me no facts.
To me message boards are like a broker giving me advise. I have never met a rich broker dealer. I do all my own trades
Frank
Have a nice day
From: frank cornacchi [mailto:achef1@shaw.ca]
Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 8:14 PM
To: Rodrigo Calderón A.
Subject: Investors Hub - Concorde Resources Corp (CCDE) Post #983
I ask you as a former shareholder of Telatino & now CCDE to share your envolvement as CEO you say, you have asked Tranfer Agent, you state I may be or was CEO, really didn't know. I read this you expect me to believe you are a man with principals. I don't think I would trust you with my dead cat.it seems your morals not not very high.If you are stupid enough to think Andy is doing all this shit for nothing, think again. I class you as Doug Black.
CONVERSATIONS WITH FRANK
From: frank cornacchi [mailto:achef1@shaw.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 5:50 PM
To: calderon rodrigo
Subject:
Dear sir
Let me ask you a question?Why did you send a press release by way of a free web site that anyone can say what they wish. You mentor to facts are not fact but a basher that is to blame for netco down fall.Please in future use a news lease company.
If you so desire facts call
1 416 628 6268
--
From: frank cornacchi [mailto:achef1@shaw.ca]
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 12:39 AM
To: Rodrigo Calderón A.
Subject:
Again I ask you Calderone are you a played puppet Of the so-called Ihub poster board serfdom using RCA as you) that is making a compete fool of you
-
From: frank cornacchi [mailto:achef1@shaw.ca]
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 11:25 AM
To: Rodrigo Calderón A.
Subject:
I as I have stated I do a lot of digging and I would like to get on a real PT move.Between you and me IPCY ( not by PT) was one I should watch.My connection feels it may see some new highs. Its to bad you are not connected with this venture.
Again Thank you
Frank
-
From: "Rodrigo Calderon" <rodrigocalderonaraya@gmail.com>
> To: "frank cornacchi" <achef1@shaw.ca>
> Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 11:54 AM
> Subject: Re:
>
>
> Dear Mr Cornacchi:
> I am in receipt of your message. I am not working on behalf
> of anyone. I was, and may still be, president of Netco
> Investments (Texas). While in that capacity, Paul Taylor
> forged my name to documents and issued millions of fraudulent
> shares. Prior to my appointment, it appears that Taylor
> caused various false press released to be issued pumping up
> the company. In recent days, Taylor has been dumping
> millions of shares onto the market.
> As far as CCDE, it appears that it is presently being pumped
> up as well.
> The current press releases issued by Taylor are a stretch of
> the imagination. For instance, he states that Morgan
> Guaranty provide 1.5 million dollars by purchasing shares at
> 15c each. These shares can be bought on the open market at
> less than 4c .
> With respect to IPCY, I do not have direct knowledge as to
> whether Taylor is controlling it. I do know that he filed
> suit seeking the majority of the shares. The court records
> in Nevada indicate that the suit was withdrawn.
> Immediately thereafter, IPCY started issuing press released.
> I hope this information is helpful. It should not be relied
> on as investment advice as I am not an investment counselor.
> If you purchased shares of any of the above company and
> suffered a loss, you need to contact a securities attorney to
> preserve your rights.
> Rodrigo Calderon Araya
From: frank cornacchi [mailto:achef1@shaw.ca]
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 5:46 AM
To: Rodrigo Calderón A.
Subject:
Its 7:30 Am in Canada< I am just having my morning coffee.
Good Morning to you:
I have just read you replies I thank you very much.
I have one question if you have time please answer if you wish. This was main reason I first contacted you.
What did you do for the Telatino's/Netco from Dec 2004-March 2005?
Can you get me all information which is fact not what is posted on message boards which I can read/ tells me no facts.
To me message boards are like a broker giving me advise. I have never met a rich broker dealer. I do all my own trades
Frank
Have a nice day
From: frank cornacchi [mailto:achef1@shaw.ca]
Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 8:14 PM
To: Rodrigo Calderón A.
Subject: Investors Hub - Concorde Resources Corp (CCDE) Post #983
I ask you as a former shareholder of Telatino & now CCDE to share your envolvement as CEO you say, you have asked Tranfer Agent, you state I may be or was CEO, really didn't know. I read this you expect me to believe you are a man with principals. I don't think I would trust you with my dead cat.it seems your morals not not very high.If you are stupid enough to think Andy is doing all this shit for nothing, think again. I class you as Doug Black.
CONVERSATIONS WITH FRANK
From: frank cornacchi [mailto:achef1@shaw.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 5:50 PM
To: calderon rodrigo
Subject:
Dear sir
Let me ask you a question?Why did you send a press release by way of a free web site that anyone can say what they wish. You mentor to facts are not fact but a basher that is to blame for netco down fall.Please in future use a news lease company.
If you so desire facts call
1 416 628 6268
--
From: frank cornacchi [mailto:achef1@shaw.ca]
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 12:39 AM
To: Rodrigo Calderón A.
Subject:
Again I ask you Calderone are you a played puppet Of the so-called Ihub poster board serfdom using RCA as you) that is making a compete fool of you
-
From: frank cornacchi [mailto:achef1@shaw.ca]
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 11:25 AM
To: Rodrigo Calderón A.
Subject:
I as I have stated I do a lot of digging and I would like to get on a real PT move.Between you and me IPCY ( not by PT) was one I should watch.My connection feels it may see some new highs. Its to bad you are not connected with this venture.
Again Thank you
Frank
-
From: "Rodrigo Calderon" <rodrigocalderonaraya@gmail.com>
> To: "frank cornacchi" <achef1@shaw.ca>
> Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 11:54 AM
> Subject: Re:
>
>
> Dear Mr Cornacchi:
> I am in receipt of your message. I am not working on behalf
> of anyone. I was, and may still be, president of Netco
> Investments (Texas). While in that capacity, Paul Taylor
> forged my name to documents and issued millions of fraudulent
> shares. Prior to my appointment, it appears that Taylor
> caused various false press released to be issued pumping up
> the company. In recent days, Taylor has been dumping
> millions of shares onto the market.
> As far as CCDE, it appears that it is presently being pumped
> up as well.
> The current press releases issued by Taylor are a stretch of
> the imagination. For instance, he states that Morgan
> Guaranty provide 1.5 million dollars by purchasing shares at
> 15c each. These shares can be bought on the open market at
> less than 4c .
> With respect to IPCY, I do not have direct knowledge as to
> whether Taylor is controlling it. I do know that he filed
> suit seeking the majority of the shares. The court records
> in Nevada indicate that the suit was withdrawn.
> Immediately thereafter, IPCY started issuing press released.
> I hope this information is helpful. It should not be relied
> on as investment advice as I am not an investment counselor.
> If you purchased shares of any of the above company and
> suffered a loss, you need to contact a securities attorney to
> preserve your rights.
> Rodrigo Calderon Araya
From: frank cornacchi [mailto:achef1@shaw.ca]
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 5:46 AM
To: Rodrigo Calderón A.
Subject:
Its 7:30 Am in Canada< I am just having my morning coffee.
Good Morning to you:
I have just read you replies I thank you very much.
I have one question if you have time please answer if you wish. This was main reason I first contacted you.
What did you do for the Telatino's/Netco from Dec 2004-March 2005?
Can you get me all information which is fact not what is posted on message boards which I can read/ tells me no facts.
To me message boards are like a broker giving me advise. I have never met a rich broker dealer. I do all my own trades
Frank
Have a nice day
From: frank cornacchi [mailto:achef1@shaw.ca]
Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 8:14 PM
To: Rodrigo Calderón A.
Subject: Investors Hub - Concorde Resources Corp (CCDE) Post #983
I ask you as a former shareholder of Telatino & now CCDE to share your envolvement as CEO you say, you have asked Tranfer Agent, you state I may be or was CEO, really didn't know. I read this you expect me to believe you are a man with principals. I don't think I would trust you with my dead cat.it seems your morals not not very high.If you are stupid enough to think Andy is doing all this shit for nothing, think again. I class you as Doug Black.
CONVERSATIONS WITH FRANK
From: frank cornacchi [mailto:achef1@shaw.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 5:50 PM
To: calderon rodrigo
Subject:
Dear sir
Let me ask you a question?Why did you send a press release by way of a free web site that anyone can say what they wish. You mentor to facts are not fact but a basher that is to blame for netco down fall.Please in future use a news lease company.
If you so desire facts call
1 416 628 6268
--
From: frank cornacchi [mailto:achef1@shaw.ca]
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 12:39 AM
To: Rodrigo Calderón A.
Subject:
Again I ask you Calderone are you a played puppet Of the so-called Ihub poster board serfdom using RCA as you) that is making a compete fool of you
-
From: frank cornacchi [mailto:achef1@shaw.ca]
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 11:25 AM
To: Rodrigo Calderón A.
Subject:
I as I have stated I do a lot of digging and I would like to get on a real PT move.Between you and me IPCY ( not by PT) was one I should watch.My connection feels it may see some new highs. Its to bad you are not connected with this venture.
Again Thank you
Frank
-
From: "Rodrigo Calderon" <rodrigocalderonaraya@gmail.com>
> To: "frank cornacchi" <achef1@shaw.ca>
> Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 11:54 AM
> Subject: Re:
>
>
> Dear Mr Cornacchi:
> I am in receipt of your message. I am not working on behalf
> of anyone. I was, and may still be, president of Netco
> Investments (Texas). While in that capacity, Paul Taylor
> forged my name to documents and issued millions of fraudulent
> shares. Prior to my appointment, it appears that Taylor
> caused various false press released to be issued pumping up
> the company. In recent days, Taylor has been dumping
> millions of shares onto the market.
> As far as CCDE, it appears that it is presently being pumped
> up as well.
> The current press releases issued by Taylor are a stretch of
> the imagination. For instance, he states that Morgan
> Guaranty provide 1.5 million dollars by purchasing shares at
> 15c each. These shares can be bought on the open market at
> less than 4c .
> With respect to IPCY, I do not have direct knowledge as to
> whether Taylor is controlling it. I do know that he filed
> suit seeking the majority of the shares. The court records
> in Nevada indicate that the suit was withdrawn.
> Immediately thereafter, IPCY started issuing press releases.
> I hope this information is helpful. It should not be relied
> on as investment advice as I am not an investment counselor.
> If you purchased shares of any of the above company and
> suffered a loss, you need to contact a securities attorney to
> preserve your rights.
> Rodrigo Calderon Araya
From: frank cornacchi [mailto:achef1@shaw.ca]
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 5:46 AM
To: Rodrigo Calderón A.
Subject:
Its 7:30 Am in Canada< I am just having my morning coffee.
Good Morning to you:
I have just read you replies I thank you very much.
I have one question if you have time please answer if you wish. This was main reason I first contacted you.
What did you do for the Telatino's/Netco from Dec 2004-March 2005?
Can you get me all information which is fact not what is posted on message boards which I can read/ tells me no facts.
To me message boards are like a broker giving me advise. I have never met a rich broker dealer. I do all my own trades
Frank
Have a nice day
From: frank cornacchi [mailto:achef1@shaw.ca]
Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 8:14 PM
To: Rodrigo Calderón A.
Subject: Investors Hub - Concorde Resources Corp (CCDE) Post #983
I ask you as a former shareholder of Telatino & now CCDE to share your envolvement as CEO you say, you have asked Tranfer Agent, you state I may be or was CEO, really didn't know. I read this you expect me to believe you are a man with principals. I don't think I would trust you with my dead cat.it seems your morals not not very high.If you are stupid enough to think Andy is doing all this shit for nothing, think again. I class you as Doug Black.
Serfdom's right, I was President of Netco. See my internet site www.netcoinvestments.info for the history. When I discovered that Paul Taylor may have been involved in the fraud, which he blamed on Jon Miller, I asked for documents from the transfer agent, Madison Transfer, which stonewalled me for a while but eventually provided them. When I received them, I determined that Paul Taylor had forged my name on conversion documents which I stopped signing when Paul Taylor failed to provide evidence of a bona fide conversion note.
As the shares used to vote me out were forged, it is very possible that I may still be legally President of Netco. The present President is Paul Taylor's nominee based on shares voted by a Belize company, West Indies Beet, or something. But neither myself, nor do I believe, Jon Miller executed the document.
Serf, can you undertake a mission? I need you to research the messages that Frank was posting during the times he was receiving the shares from Paul. Maybe make a file with them and the links thereto.
I don't know if Paul gave him shares for services (pumping, etc.), or if he paid Paul. It's perfectly legal for a person to buy shares from a third party that is not an insider. If Frank honestly believed Paul was not an insider, then he needs to show us the compensation he paid to Paul Taylor.
NOTE: These should have all been 144 issuances, but the transfer agent provided free-trading shares. Any shares I received, if I actually received them, were 144 and were never sold by me. All my restricted shares died in the reverse split.
From: Paul Taylor [mailto:ptaylor07@adelphia.net]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 7:40 AM
To: 'Rodrigo Calderon A.'
Subject: Conversion #8 TTNJ SCHEDULE A - TREV brentwood unit 1
Sign and return plse
SCHEDULE A
NOTICE OF CONVERSION
(To be executed by the Registered Holder)
The undersigned hereby irrevocably elects to convert $40,363.73 (Forty Thousand, three hundred and sixty three dollars and seventy three cents) of the Convertible Debenture Note – into 1,614,549 shares of common stock, par value $0.0001 per share ("TTNJ - Common Stock"), of Telatinos Inc., a Texas corporation (the "TTNJ") according to the conditions of the conversion rights of the Convertible Debenture Note – May 15th 2003.
If securities are to be issued in the name of a person other than the undersigned, the undersigned will pay all transfer taxes payable with respect thereto and is delivering herewith such certificates. No fee will be charged to the Holder for any conversion, except for transfer taxes, if any.
The Issuer shall electronically transmit the Common Stock issuable pursuant to this Notice of Conversion to the account of the undersigned or its nominee with DTC through its Deposit Withdrawal Agent Commission system (“DWAC Transfer").
Name of DTC Prime Broker: N/A
Account Number: N/A
In lieu of receiving shares of Common Stock issuable pursuant to this Notice of Conversion by way of a DWAC Transfer, the undersigned hereby requests that the Issuer issue a certificate or certificates for the number of shares of Common Stock set forth below (which numbers are based on the Holder's calculations hereto) in the name(s) specified immediately below or, if additional space is necessary, on an attachment hereto:
BRENTWOOD CAPITAL CORP 514,049 shares
C/O
Leonard Clarke
315 7th Avenue
New Westminster V3L 1W4
604 721 9007
PAUL TAYLOR 600,500 shares (In Two Certificates 50/50)
16421 VIA VENETIA EAST
DELRAY BEACH
33484
Rodrigo Calderon Araya 250,000 shares
Calle 32, Avenida 7, Casa # 768
Barrio La Pitahaya, San Jose
San Jose, Costa Rica
Frank Cornacchi 250,000 shares
C/O WEIR Package Service
605 Ridge St.
Sault Ste. Marie,
Michigan
49783
The undersigned represents and warrants that all offers and sales by the undersigned of the securities issuable to the undersigned upon conversion of the Preferred Stock shall be made
pursuant to Rule 144 of the securities under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Act"), or pursuant to an exemption from registration under the Act.
The Issuer shall issue and deliver shares of Common Stock to an overnight courier not later than three business days following receipt of this Conversion notice.
Date of Issue May 15th 2003
Date of Conversion: October 10, 2005
Principle to be Converted Pursuant to
This Conversion – $40,363.73
(Forty Thousand, three hundred and sixty three dollars and seventy three cents)
Number of Shares of Common Stock to be issued pursuant to
Conversion – 1,614,549 shares
Formula = 1,614,549 x $0.025 = 40,363.73
Signature: ___________________________________
Rodrigo Calderon
President
Telatinos Inc
October 10, 2005
HOLDER ______________________
Paul Taylor
10 October 2005