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.
2015 set up everything that's contributing to the failure of ISBG, when Jackie Autry's people discovered the ISBG fraud cancelling the second million dollar tranche along with demanding payback of the original million. It's over Alonzo.
I'm not posting for shock and awe. I'm posting for one reader who I know reads this board. Alonzo Pierce Chairman of the Board, ISBG. It's over Alonzo
INTERNAL NOTES FROM THE ISBG FRAUD COMMITTED AGAINST JACKIE AUTRY
These investigations take time but it will happen imo. Wayne
> > I have been told and demanded by someone not to contact you
> > at all. They say it is hurting isbg because they are scared
> > of losing funding from Mrs Autry, seeing how its the only
> > capital they have to pay themselves I am not surprised.
> > Someone has to pay for the launch parties, just as investors
> > (debt holders) did last year with no real launch of product.
> > I kept asking Alonzo why if you have no product are you
> > wasting money on launch parties...of course never got a
> > straight answer.
> >
> > I am not knowledgeable at all on legal matters, but it does
> > not take a genius to know that signed documents and proof of
> > wire is acceptance of this clients note which Alonzo now
> > claims doesn't exist. I have the docs dated July 25 2014 and
> > a copy of the wire transfer. He is claiming it does not
> > exist because I hurt his pride and called him a liar thief
> > as well emailed Terry Williams and your friend Frieberger
> > with no reply.
> >
> > Alonzo hired Seraphim to write articles for the company
> > which were approved by him prior to release. Alonzo was
> > never given permission by me to use my email as a contact.
> > He was asked numerous times by text and email to remove it
> > and only finally did last month when recently he took down
> > temn website which became dkts website only then was it
> > finally removed. This is how I ended up with all of Alonzos
> > emails from shareholders over the last yr and in fact it was
> > me who connected Alonzo to Terry Williams because Mr
> > Williams had called me via the web site and I put both of
> > them in touch via email. I actually even suggested to Alonzo
> > they may be a good fit for a merger here. Alonzos exact
> > words were thank you so much Lou you have done an
> > outstanding job and this is the best opportunity to come
> > along in my lifetime.
> >
> > He as well released a press release with me as contact which
> > I did not know of till after its release. This is when we
> > started fighting like crazy because I told him you did not
> > have a right to put me on as contact for something I knew
> > nothing about, he was covering his own ass.
> >
> > see this link http://finance.yahoo.com/news/top-shelf-ceo-announces-agreement-122800574.html
> > I never knew this was being released or agreed to have
> > my email on it at all.
> >
> > Wayne, may you have great success in all your endeavors.
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: "ME" <eye4golf@aol.com>
> > Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 12:21pm
> > To: lou@seraphimstrategies.com
> > Subject: Re: ISBG / DKTS 8/17/15
> >
> > Hi Lou:
> >
> > Can you give me any idea as to who this person, Sidney
> > Pitteus, is as he apparently resides in the UK. Also, since
> > you seem so well informed, how is it that you think he is
> > more informed than you?
> >
> > It is just that I hate to begin corresponding with an
> > unknown entity especially since you seem so knowledgeable.
> >
> > Lou, I do have another question. it appears that Top Shelf
> > Brands was once known as TEMN. At that time, anyone wanting
> > further information was to contact Seraphim Strategies at
> > your phone number 561-374-1482. Furthermore, since your
> > email is lou@seraphimstrategies.com
> > I am curious to know what was your previous affiliation with
> > the company? Since you seem to have been closely affiliated,
> > I have to assume that you certainly have more informaiton
> > than does this person residing in the UK. Can you please
> > fill me in on the details? What was or is his relation to
> > the company?
> >
> > Thank You,
> > Wayne
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: lou <lou@seraphimstrategies.com>
> > To: ME <eye4golf@aol.com>
> > Sent: Mon, Aug 17, 2015 7:30 am
> > Subject: Re: ISBG / DKTS
> >
> >
> >
> > Ask this person sidneypitteus@yahoo.co.uk
> > all info and back-round of the
> > situation they can fill you in completely with much more
> > detail then I can.
> >
> >
> > sidneypitteus@yahoo.co.uk
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: "ME"
> > <eye4golf@aol.com>
> > Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 10:23am
> > To:
> > lou@seraphimstrategies.com
> > Subject: Re: ISBG / DKTS
> >
> >
> > Hi Lou:
> >
> > Thank you again
> > for all of the information.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Wayne
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original
> > Message-----
> > From: lou <lou@seraphimstrategies.com>
> > To: ME
> > <eye4golf@aol.com>
> >
> > sidneypitteus
> > <sidneypitteus@yahoo.co.uk>
> > Sent: Sun, Aug 16, 2015 8:28 am
> > Subject: RE: Fwd:
> > ISBG / DKTS
> >
> >
> > PLEASE PUT TOGETHER ANY AND ALL QUESTIONS YOU HAVE AND
> > DIRECT THEM
> > TO..
> >
> >
> > sidneypitteus@yahoo.co.uk
> >
> >
> > FROM WHAT I AM TOLD THIS PERSON HAS A GOOD
> > GRASP
> > AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE ENTIRE SITUATION
> >
> > I WILL NO LONGER CONTACT YOU
> > AS I
> > HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF ALL THIS HE SAID SHE SAID CRAP, Good luck
> > to you with
> > your
> > investment.
> >
> >
> > Wayne
> >
> > I do not represent the note holders in DKTS/ISBG, my
> > only
> > concern is my note holder client and friend(50k)for 15 yrs
> > as well as one
> > other
> > friend(75k) who is in this deal who is the person that
> > introduced me
> > to
> > Alonzo.
> >
> > I have spoken to total 6 guys who all did not agree to
> > Alonzos
> > press
> > release which stated all note holders agreed but those guys
> > are not my
> > concern,
> > I do not represent them or want anything to do with them.
> > They were
> > contacted by
> > another note holder, I was asked to be involved with them
> > and made
> > it clear
> > would side with whatever the majority of note holders
> > decided but after
> > dealing
> > with Alonzos lies for the last year I have had enough. I do
> > not need
> > anyone on
> > my side only documents,emails and txts proving my
> > correctness in the
> > matter and
> > will provide regulators .
> >
> > Total notes payable are 391k according
> > to the
> > attachment on this email which lists the note holders. My
> > client/friend
> > note is
> > not listed, Alonzo is not even acknowledging this guy
> > exists. Below is
> > an email
> > sent to someone to pass on to Alonzo chairman of ISBG . Its
> > just
> > amazing because
> > a month ago I have emails from Alonzo saying (Lou in a
> > perfect
> > world I would pay
> > back and might have a plan)...well in my opinion again they
> > have the funds now
> > so payback the note and we can all never speak again.
> > Alonzo
> > also sent me a
> > email that says I have not forgotten you guy don't worry I
> > promise.
> >
> > Last week
> > the note holders were sent terms finally of the convertible
> > preferred which they
> > did not agree to, but are being told to agree to by the
> > person that sold them
> > the notes,(so he can cover his own ass) he is using the
> > angle(if we sue it costs
> > money and we will get nothing anyway)so accept the
> > terms and pray this works
> > out, of course he is hyping isbg up major to them. I
> > have watched trading in
> > isbg since fima, if you were to look at level two all
> > day long, which I do,
> > there is allot of stock for sale with tiny trades to paint
> > the tape all day
> > everyday. Friday they pushed hard to make isbg look good so
> > that hopefully it
> > would appeal to note holders greed factor and they would
> > sign
> > off on the new
> > terms. This is my opinion.
> >
> > In my opinion as well the terms are
> > terrible(in a
> > phone call I had with Alonzo he swore up and down these new
> > convertible
> > preferred notes would be able to convert on issuance, of
> > course now
> > they are
> > locked up another yr...this is Alonzos game... stall,
> > delay,promise)
> > and in a yr
> > the stock is toilet paper at best. I will send you those
> > terms if
> > you
> > like.
> >
> > ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION, what it would mean to me as a
> > lender
> > or
> > shareholder would be... Ms Autry paid 1 million dollars for
> > 100 million
> > shares.
> > 1000x higher then Alonzo and an undisclosed party who
> > purchased the same
> > just
> > two months prior to Autrys investment. Alonzo issued himself
> > 100 million
> > shares
> > for 1 thousand dollars and an undisclosed party also
> > purchased 100
> > million
> > shares for 1 thousand dollars by converting that 1000 dollar
> > note
> > into
> > 100,000,000 shares in March of this year, less than 2 months
> > before Ms.
> > Autrys
> > investment. That stock was converted from an older note
> > which could
> > be
> > considered aged and in my opinion again, free trading shares
> > would have
> > been
> > issued to this undisclosed party(I would bet anything saying
> > that is your
> > big
> > seller very close to the company and isbg or someone very
> > close to the
> > company
> > is lining their pockets)all the same exact steps that took
> > place with
> > this
> > chairman's last three failed deals. I would think it
> > incredibly unfair for
> > your
> > friend to pay 1000x higher but surely they will try to offer
> > you a sweeter
> > deal
> > in the event she changed her mind and rescinded her funding
> > as this is the
> > only
> > funding this company has.
> >
> > YOU WILL OF COURSE HAVE GOOD TRADING DAYS AND
> > BAD
> > DAYS BUT BE ASSURED THIS WILL END UP A DILUTED WORTHLESS
> > NOTHING IMO. MONEY
> > IS
> > MADE ALL THE TIME TRADING SCAMS BUT IN THE END THEY ARE
> > STILL SCAMS OR
> > JUST
> > GROSSLY MISMANAGED COMPANIES. I WOULD NOT BE SURPRISED AT
> > ALL IF NEXT WEEK
> > A PR
> > WAS ISSUED THAT ADDRESSED NOTE HOLDERS(SAYING ALL IS GOOD
> > AND SETTLED BUT
> > IN
> > REALTY THAT WILL BE A LIE) AND THE 1 FOR 15 SHARES DIVIDEND
> > THAT WAS
> > ANNOUNCED 3
> > MONTHS AGO WHICH NO SHAREHOLDER RECEIVED ALL WILL BE SAID TO
> > BE
> > FANTASTIC THERE
> > AS WELL.
> >
> > FACT IS THIS SCENARIO WITH ISBG, OF FUNDING,
> > PARTIES, VIDEOS, MASS
> > MEDIA, 100 MILLION SHARE BLOCKS IS SAME EXACT SCENARIO AS
> > DKTS ALONZOS LAST DEAL
> > WITH NOTHING BUT LIES FOR LAST 2 YRS IN WHICH MYSELF,
> > SHAREHOLDERS AND NOTE
> > HOLDERS BELIEVED.
> >
> > NOTHING I SAY IS TO BE MISCONSTRUED AS
> > INVESTMENT ADVICE, I
> > AM NOT LICENSED AS FA OR BROKER, I WAS A BROKER FOR 17 YRS
> > AND LEFT THE BUSINESS
> > WITH A PERFECTLY CLEAN LICENSE HAVING NOT ONE SINGLE
> > COMPLAINT.
> >
> >
> > EMAIL SENT TO
> > THE GUY WHO PLACED ALL THESE NOTE WITH LENDERS,
> >
> >
> >
> > Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 2:54
> > pm
> >
> >
> > ____________ just so you do not think I was
> > bull shitting you attached are
> > pics of the note and share purchase agreement
> > signed by Alonzo and each page
> > initialed. I know your only concern is the guys
> > you put in this deal, that is
> > understood.
> >
> > Alonzo, on July 25th 2014 you signed
> > and initialed each page of
> > this note and share agreement as well I have a copy
> > of the wire transfer that
> > you were in receipt of funds. In your quarterly report
> > 5 months later dated Dec
> > 31st 2014 which lists the note holders you failed to
> > list this note, maybe a
> > slight oversight;some might say a blatant omission with
> > attempt to defraud. Why
> > was this note not included in the filing?
> >
> > I also have
> > the email that says, Lou
> > don't worry about Mr______ I did not forget your guy.
> > Seems you did forget or
> > intentionally meant to forget but either way you are
> > liable.
> >
> > I will gladly
> > stay away from this entire deal never to be heard
> > from again if you would just
> > live up to your obligation.
> >
> > ____________ if you
> > could pass this on to Alonzo,
> > as you requested I will not contact isbg and am
> > willing to play nice for a bit,
> > think it over please with a rational head.
> >
> > I am
> > asking you one more time Alonzo
> > to kindly settle this matter in a civilized
> > way.
> >
> > Best
> > Lou
> >
> >
> >
> > WAYNE THIS IS FROM
> > SOMEONE WITH A GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF THE
> > SITUATION AND THE LAW.
> >
> > Perhaps I can
> > assist here. I think you (and maybe the
> > barrister) are misunderstanding the
> > nature of the potential claims involved
> > here. In my (informal, speculative,
> > not-intended-as-legal-advice) opinion, the
> > lenders’ claims are not primarily
> > contract claims, or claims on the notes
> > themselves. Rather, they are tort claims
> > involving common law fraud and unjust
> > enrichment (and maybe some others
> > depending on the venue/jurisdiction), which do
> > not require an enforceable note
> > or other agreement to be valid (i.e., “implied”
> > or “constructive” or “quasi”
> > contract claims, as they are sometimes referred
> > to).
> >
> > Under, say, Florida law,
> >
> >
> > Quote:The essential elements of common-law
> > fraud are: (1) a false statement of
> > fact; (2) known by the person making the
> > statement to be false at the time it
> > was made; (3) made for the purpose of
> > inducing another to act in reliance
> > thereon; (4) action by the other person in
> > reliance on the correctness of the
> > statement; and (5) resulting damage to the
> > other person.
> > Gandy v. Trans
> > World Computer Tech. Grp., 787 So. 2d 116, 118
> > (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)
> >
> >
> > In
> > this case, one might argue that, in order to
> > induce the lenders to give him/DKTS
> > money, (1) Alonzo falsely stated that he
> > would issue them valid notes in
> > exchange for the loan, and that he had the
> > corporate authority to do so; (2)
> > Alonzo knew (or should have known, i.e.,
> > constructive knowledge) that the notes
> > would not be valid and that he did not
> > have the authority, as evidenced by his
> > eventual admission in the settlement
> > that the disputed shares were valid; (3)
> > that he made the statements for the
> > purpose of inducing the lenders to give him
> > money in reliance on his statements;
> > (4) that the lenders did, in fact, give him
> > a bunch of money (some apparently
> > even without so much as a written agreement)
> > in reliance on his false statements
> > of fact; and (5) the lenders have been
> > damages as a result of that reliance now
> > that the falsity of Alonzo’s
> > representations has become apparent.
> > Likewise under
> > Florida law,
> >
> > Quote:the
> > elements of a cause of action for unjust enrichment
> > are: (1) plaintiff has
The Chairman of the Board approves all pr's. Which the IR Firm will confirm they contain false information.
Alonzo hired Seraphim to write articles for the company
> > which were approved by him prior to release. Alonzo was
> > never given permission by me to use my email as a contact.
> > He was asked numerous times by text and email to remove it
> > and only finally did last month when recently he took down
> > temn website which became dkts website only then was it
> > finally removed. This is how I ended up with all of Alonzos
> > emails from shareholders over the last yr and in fact it was
> > me who connected Alonzo to Terry Williams because Mr
> > Williams had called me via the web site and I put both of
> > them in touch via email. I actually even suggested to Alonzo
> > they may be a good fit for a merger here. Alonzos exact
> > words were thank you so much Lou you have done an
> > outstanding job and this is the best opportunity to come
> > along in my lifetime.
> >
> > He as well released a press release with me as contact which
> > I did not know of till after its release. This is when we
> > started fighting like crazy because I told him you did not
> > have a right to put me on as contact for something I knew
> > nothing about, he was covering his own ass.
> >
> > see this link http://finance.yahoo.com/news/top-shelf-ceo-announces-agreement-122800574.html
> > I never knew this was being released or agreed to have
> > my email on it at all.
Must read notes from Attorney shared with the SEC concerning ISBG
(1) the
> > lenders conferred a benefit on Alonzo by loaning
> > him money; (2) Alonzo accepted
> > that benefit and retained it, not only in the
> > form of money but by literally
> > taking (“75% of”) the product their money was
> > used to develop out the back door
> > and into another corporate entity of which he
> > is the controlling shareholder,
> > not to mention that he may have even used their
> > money to buy that other company
> > in the first place; and (3) based on all the
> > circumstances of what went down
> > with TEMN/DKTS/ISBG the past year and a half --
> > all the PRs that turned out to
> > be false, all the delays, all the excuse making,
> > etc., etc., plus Alonzo’s
> > formation of the private LLC’s to hold the DKTS assets
> > without the lenders’
> > knowledge then transferring those to ISBG after what was
> > obviously months of
> > planning, his PR claiming a deal was made on the notes,
> > etc., etc., etc. -- it
> > would simply be inequitable (i.e., totally unfair) for
> > Alonzo to retain the
> > benefit of his actions without paying the benefit thereof
> > (including lost/future
> > profits on Besado, I would think) to the people he
> > screwed.
Sure Trader - Start Trading Stocks & Options with only $500
iHub NewsWire
How was BESADO financed and mortgaged.
-----Original Message-----
From: lou@seraphimstrategies.com
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 2:54pm
To:
Subject: isbg/dkts
Allan just so you do not think I was bull shitting you attached are pics of the note and share purchase agreement signed by Alonzo and each page initialed. I know your only concern is the guys you put in this deal, that is understood.
Alonzo, on July 25th 2014 you signed and initialed each page of this note and share agreement as well I have a copy of the wire transfer that you were in receipt of funds. In your quarterly report 5 months later dated Dec 31st 2014 which lists the note holders you failed to list this note, maybe a slight oversight;some might say a blatant omission with attempt to defraud. Why was this note not included in the filing?
Now that I have every note holders name and email I am making you aware of my intention to contact each states securities fraud division in which each note holder resides. This will no doubt be a pain in the ass for the note holders as well as isbg and dkts. As well they go after the person that sold the notes not just the company. On what grounds you ask, unregistered securities for one, unlicensed sales two, and numerous others. Alonzo I am not playing with you.
I also have the email that says, Lou don't worry about Mr______ I did not forget your guy. Seems you did forget or intentionally meant to forget but either way you are liable.
I will gladly stay away from this entire deal never to be heard from again if you would just live up to your obligation.
Just for the record we beat mcam,cgud and tiger direct in the same type of issue with the same client. I assure you attys wont cost anything on this side, don't forget who this client is.
Alan if you could pass this on to Alonzo, as you requested I will not contact isbg and am willing to play nice for a bit, think it over please with a rational head.
I am asking you one more time Alonzo to kindly settle this matter in a civilized way.
Best
Lou
The same company that has the suite at Metlife Stadium. The endorsement deal with the Giants and Jets. Etc. Etc. Etc. Can anyone show me ISBG Export License. Federal Liquor Distribution License ID number. Anyone?
So, you don't know. Where did you get your information from.
Shipped where?
ISBG didn't have 60k bottles of Besado to ship. FACT
Okay.. Alonzo had mortgaged Besado to my clients and failed to tell other noteholders and investors. My clients controlled Besado.
-----Original Message-----
From: lou@seraphimstrategies.com
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 2:54pm
To:
Subject: isbg/dkts
Allan just so you do not think I was bull shitting you attached are pics of the note and share purchase agreement signed by Alonzo and each page initialed. I know your only concern is the guys you put in this deal, that is understood.
Alonzo, on July 25th 2014 you signed and initialed each page of this note and share agreement as well I have a copy of the wire transfer that you were in receipt of funds. In your quarterly report 5 months later dated Dec 31st 2014 which lists the note holders you failed to list this note, maybe a slight oversight;some might say a blatant omission with attempt to defraud. Why was this note not included in the filing?
Now that I have every note holders name and email I am making you aware of my intention to contact each states securities fraud division in which each note holder resides. This will no doubt be a pain in the ass for the note holders as well as isbg and dkts. As well they go after the person that sold the notes not just the company. On what grounds you ask, unregistered securities for one, unlicensed sales two, and numerous others. Alonzo I am not playing with you.
I also have the email that says, Lou don't worry about Mr______ I did not forget your guy. Seems you did forget or intentionally meant to forget but either way you are liable.
I will gladly stay away from this entire deal never to be heard from again if you would just live up to your obligation.
Just for the record we beat mcam,cgud and tiger direct in the same type of issue with the same client. I assure you attys wont cost anything on this side, don't forget who this client is.
Alan if you could pass this on to Alonzo, as you requested I will not contact isbg and am willing to play nice for a bit, think it over please with a rational head.
I am asking you one more time Alonzo to kindly settle this matter in a civilized way.
Best
Lou
3 Attachments
View all
Download all?
Download?
note 1 .JPG
Download?
note 2 .JPG
Download?
note 3
Good day Mr. Chairman of ISBG.
I'm working on a new selection for you to read.
The story of Wayne from the Autry Trust threaten to expose your fraud unless you paid her back and voided the second tranche. It's a good read.
HEY MR. CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, I BET YOU DIDN'T KNOW I HAD THE TRANSCRIPT OF YOUR CONVERSATION BELOW. I BET ISBG SHAREHOLDERS WOULD LIKE TO KNOW ABOUT THE NOTES AND WARRANTS!
I had told you Alonzo asked me if i wanted temn shell cause I had mentioned publicly trading her studios. His words were i have things planned and its an option down the road.
I had told Alonzo would think about it but knew it was never happening.
I had an atty look at dkts he said its nothing but headaches and junked up, for the same cost to deal with all the problems I could buy a clean shell or start from scratch.
I want nothing from Alonzo but this note paid and the 1,266,666 shares i am owed on isbg, but really if it never happens I dont care to much cause am more then confident isbg will be worthless anyway. You saw the term sheet on isbg deal for note holders? Stock would have to be over 024 in a yr for them to break even and to exercise warrants over 20 cents. With Alonzo's habit of issuing 100 mill shares at a time i do not see it possible unless there is a major reversal in a yr. these note holders are going to get shafted somehow.Some lenders may agree out of fear if they sue will get nothing, reality is they are most likely going to get nothing anyway. I knew right when Alonzo said to me not all share holders will get the 1 for 15 he is just a bad guy. I said Alonzo if they are on record they get it . He said but this guy has 200 mill from so long ago he is not getting the shares. Alonzo does not play by the rules and will just tell anyone anything they want to hear. The entire thing is just another stall tactic anyway.
I want to post Alonzo broke into Lou's office and stole the note..lol .
Must read notes from Attorney shared with the SEC concerning ISBG
(1) the
> > lenders conferred a benefit on Alonzo by loaning
> > him money; (2) Alonzo accepted
> > that benefit and retained it, not only in the
> > form of money but by literally
> > taking (“75% of”) the product their money was
> > used to develop out the back door
> > and into another corporate entity of which he
> > is the controlling shareholder,
> > not to mention that he may have even used their
> > money to buy that other company
> > in the first place; and (3) based on all the
> > circumstances of what went down
> > with TEMN/DKTS/ISBG the past year and a half --
> > all the PRs that turned out to
> > be false, all the delays, all the excuse making,
> > etc., etc., plus Alonzo’s
> > formation of the private LLC’s to hold the DKTS assets
> > without the lenders’
> > knowledge then transferring those to ISBG after what was
> > obviously months of
> > planning, his PR claiming a deal was made on the notes,
> > etc., etc., etc. -- it
> > would simply be inequitable (i.e., totally unfair) for
> > Alonzo to retain the
> > benefit of his actions without paying the benefit thereof
> > (including lost/future
> > profits on Besado, I would think) to the people he
> > screwed.
The Chairman of the Board approves all pr's. Which the IR Firm will confirm they contain false information.
Alonzo hired Seraphim to write articles for the company
> > which were approved by him prior to release. Alonzo was
> > never given permission by me to use my email as a contact.
> > He was asked numerous times by text and email to remove it
> > and only finally did last month when recently he took down
> > temn website which became dkts website only then was it
> > finally removed. This is how I ended up with all of Alonzos
> > emails from shareholders over the last yr and in fact it was
> > me who connected Alonzo to Terry Williams because Mr
> > Williams had called me via the web site and I put both of
> > them in touch via email. I actually even suggested to Alonzo
> > they may be a good fit for a merger here. Alonzos exact
> > words were thank you so much Lou you have done an
> > outstanding job and this is the best opportunity to come
> > along in my lifetime.
> >
> > He as well released a press release with me as contact which
> > I did not know of till after its release. This is when we
> > started fighting like crazy because I told him you did not
> > have a right to put me on as contact for something I knew
> > nothing about, he was covering his own ass.
> >
> > see this link http://finance.yahoo.com/news/top-shelf-ceo-announces-agreement-122800574.html
> > I never knew this was being released or agreed to have
> > my email on it at all.
> >
YOU WANT TO INVEST IN ISBG, THEN YOU NEED TO READ INSIDE INFORMATION DIRECTLY FROM ISBG'S FORMER IR FIRM AND JACKIE AUTRY, ISBG'S LARGEST INVESTOR!
I know the management of ISBG monitors this board carefully. So, please enjoy the below read.
On Mon, 8/17/15, lou@seraphimstrategies.com <lou@seraphimstrategies.com> wrote:
>
> > From: lou@seraphimstrategies.com <lou@seraphimstrategies.com>
> > Subject: Re: ISBG / DKTS 8/17/15
> > To: "ME" <eye4golf@aol.com>
> > Cc: "Sidney Pitteus" <sidneypitteus@yahoo.co.uk>
> > Date: Monday, August 17, 2015, 10:11 AM
> > Wayne,
> >
> > I can not and will not say who Sidney is, just that he has
> > been following this a long time and is incredibly
> > knowledgeable of securities laws from what I am told. I can
> > say imo this entire situation will have much bigger problems
> > then just two (the guys I know of) note holders that are
> > pissed off.
> >
> > I would not want to hold the bag if and when this all falls
> > apart or gets a halt or suspension (not sure if I am using
> > the correct terminology but it does happen) legal or
> > regulatory developments that affect the company’s ability
> > to conduct business will sometimes trigger a trading halt.
> >
> > SEC Trading Suspensions to Protect Investors
> >
> > The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is authorized
> > under federal law to suspend trading in any stock for a
> > period of up to 10 business days. The SEC issues a
> > suspension when it believes that the investing public may be
> > at risk. Many factors influence the SEC’s decision. A very
> > important one is a company’s failure to keep up the
> > required filing of periodic reports—such as annual and
> > quarterly reports—that provide the public with information
> > about the company’s business, corporate outlook and
> > financial performance to date. Another factor is the quality
> > of the publicly available information, particularly if it
> > appears to be inaccurate. The SEC will also consider the
> > trading activity in a stock, evaluating who is actively
> > trading and whether market manipulation may be taking
> > place.
> >
> > There is more then enough reason to suspend trading in isbg
> > just based on the numerous 1111 share tape paints at end of
> > the day or every time the stock down ticks, incredibly
> > obvious. Since start of trading there is always more to sell
> > a quick tape paint and more selling.
> >
> > These investigations take time but it will happen imo. Wayne
> > I have been told and demanded by someone not to contact you
> > at all. They say it is hurting isbg because they are scared
> > of losing funding from Mrs Autry, seeing how its the only
> > capital they have to pay themselves I am not surprised.
> > Someone has to pay for the launch parties, just as investors
> > (debt holders) did last year with no real launch of product.
> > I kept asking Alonzo why if you have no product are you
> > wasting money on launch parties...of course never got a
> > straight answer.
> >
> > I am not knowledgeable at all on legal matters, but it does
> > not take a genius to know that signed documents and proof of
> > wire is acceptance of this clients note which Alonzo now
> > claims doesn't exist. I have the docs dated July 25 2014 and
> > a copy of the wire transfer. He is claiming it does not
> > exist because I hurt his pride and called him a liar thief
> > as well emailed Terry Williams and your friend Frieberger
> > with no reply.
> >
> > Alonzo hired Seraphim to write articles for the company
> > which were approved by him prior to release. Alonzo was
> > never given permission by me to use my email as a contact.
> > He was asked numerous times by text and email to remove it
> > and only finally did last month when recently he took down
> > temn website which became dkts website only then was it
> > finally removed. This is how I ended up with all of Alonzos
> > emails from shareholders over the last yr and in fact it was
> > me who connected Alonzo to Terry Williams because Mr
> > Williams had called me via the web site and I put both of
> > them in touch via email. I actually even suggested to Alonzo
> > they may be a good fit for a merger here. Alonzos exact
> > words were thank you so much Lou you have done an
> > outstanding job and this is the best opportunity to come
> > along in my lifetime.
> >
> > He as well released a press release with me as contact which
> > I did not know of till after its release. This is when we
> > started fighting like crazy because I told him you did not
> > have a right to put me on as contact for something I knew
> > nothing about, he was covering his own ass.
> >
> > see this link http://finance.yahoo.com/news/top-shelf-ceo-announces-agreement-122800574.html
> > I never knew this was being released or agreed to have
> > my email on it at all.
> >
> > Wayne, may you have great success in all your endeavors.
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: "ME" <eye4golf@aol.com>
> > Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 12:21pm
> > To: lou@seraphimstrategies.com
> > Subject: Re: ISBG / DKTS 8/17/15
> >
> > Hi Lou:
> >
> > Can you give me any idea as to who this person, Sidney
> > Pitteus, is as he apparently resides in the UK. Also, since
> > you seem so well informed, how is it that you think he is
> > more informed than you?
> >
> > It is just that I hate to begin corresponding with an
> > unknown entity especially since you seem so knowledgeable.
> >
> > Lou, I do have another question. it appears that Top Shelf
> > Brands was once known as TEMN. At that time, anyone wanting
> > further information was to contact Seraphim Strategies at
> > your phone number 561-374-1482. Furthermore, since your
> > email is lou@seraphimstrategies.com
> > I am curious to know what was your previous affiliation with
> > the company? Since you seem to have been closely affiliated,
> > I have to assume that you certainly have more informaiton
> > than does this person residing in the UK. Can you please
> > fill me in on the details? What was or is his relation to
> > the company?
> >
> > Thank You,
> > Wayne
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: lou <lou@seraphimstrategies.com>
> > To: ME <eye4golf@aol.com>
> > Sent: Mon, Aug 17, 2015 7:30 am
> > Subject: Re: ISBG / DKTS
> >
> >
> >
> > Ask this person sidneypitteus@yahoo.co.uk
> > all info and back-round of the
> > situation they can fill you in completely with much more
> > detail then I can.
> >
> >
> > sidneypitteus@yahoo.co.uk
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: "ME"
> > <eye4golf@aol.com>
> > Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 10:23am
> > To:
> > lou@seraphimstrategies.com
> > Subject: Re: ISBG / DKTS
> >
> >
> > Hi Lou:
> >
> > Thank you again
> > for all of the information.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Wayne
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original
> > Message-----
> > From: lou <lou@seraphimstrategies.com>
> > To: ME
> > <eye4golf@aol.com>
> >
> > sidneypitteus
> > <sidneypitteus@yahoo.co.uk>
> > Sent: Sun, Aug 16, 2015 8:28 am
> > Subject: RE: Fwd:
> > ISBG / DKTS
> >
> >
> > PLEASE PUT TOGETHER ANY AND ALL QUESTIONS YOU HAVE AND
> > DIRECT THEM
> > TO..
> >
> >
> > sidneypitteus@yahoo.co.uk
> >
> >
> > FROM WHAT I AM TOLD THIS PERSON HAS A GOOD
> > GRASP
> > AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE ENTIRE SITUATION
> >
> > I WILL NO LONGER CONTACT YOU
> > AS I
> > HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF ALL THIS HE SAID SHE SAID CRAP, Good luck
> > to you with
> > your
> > investment.
> >
> >
> > Wayne
> >
> > I do not represent the note holders in DKTS/ISBG, my
> > only
> > concern is my note holder client and friend(50k)for 15 yrs
> > as well as one
> > other
> > friend(75k) who is in this deal who is the person that
> > introduced me
> > to
> > Alonzo.
> >
> > I have spoken to total 6 guys who all did not agree to
> > Alonzos
> > press
> > release which stated all note holders agreed but those guys
> > are not my
> > concern,
> > I do not represent them or want anything to do with them.
> > They were
> > contacted by
> > another note holder, I was asked to be involved with them
> > and made
> > it clear
> > would side with whatever the majority of note holders
> > decided but after
> > dealing
> > with Alonzos lies for the last year I have had enough. I do
> > not need
> > anyone on
> > my side only documents,emails and txts proving my
> > correctness in the
> > matter and
> > will provide regulators .
> >
> > Total notes payable are 391k according
> > to the
> > attachment on this email which lists the note holders. My
> > client/friend
> > note is
> > not listed, Alonzo is not even acknowledging this guy
> > exists. Below is
> > an email
> > sent to someone to pass on to Alonzo chairman of ISBG . Its
> > just
> > amazing because
> > a month ago I have emails from Alonzo saying (Lou in a
> > perfect
> > world I would pay
> > back and might have a plan)...well in my opinion again they
> > have the funds now
> > so payback the note and we can all never speak again.
> > Alonzo
> > also sent me a
> > email that says I have not forgotten you guy don't worry I
> > promise.
> >
> > Last week
> > the note holders were sent terms finally of the convertible
> > preferred which they
> > did not agree to, but are being told to agree to by the
> > person that sold them
> > the notes,(so he can cover his own ass) he is using the
> > angle(if we sue it costs
> > money and we will get nothing anyway)so accept the
> > terms and pray this works
> > out, of course he is hyping isbg up major to them. I
> > have watched trading in
> > isbg since fima, if you were to look at level two all
> > day long, which I do,
> > there is allot of stock for sale with tiny trades to paint
> > the tape all day
> > everyday. Friday they pushed hard to make isbg look good so
> > that hopefully it
> > would appeal to note holders greed factor and they would
> > sign
> > off on the new
> > terms. This is my opinion.
> >
> > In my opinion as well the terms are
> > terrible(in a
> > phone call I had with Alonzo he swore up and down these new
> > convertible
> > preferred notes would be able to convert on issuance, of
> > course now
> > they are
> > locked up another yr...this is Alonzos game... stall,
> > delay,promise)
> > and in a yr
> > the stock is toilet paper at best. I will send you those
> > terms if
> > you
> > like.
> >
> > ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION, what it would mean to me as a
> > lender
> > or
> > shareholder would be... Ms Autry paid 1 million dollars for
> > 100 million
> > shares.
> > 1000x higher then Alonzo and an undisclosed party who
> > purchased the same
> > just
> > two months prior to Autrys investment. Alonzo issued himself
> > 100 million
> > shares
> > for 1 thousand dollars and an undisclosed party also
> > purchased 100
> > million
> > shares for 1 thousand dollars by converting that 1000 dollar
> > note
> > into
> > 100,000,000 shares in March of this year, less than 2 months
> > before Ms.
> > Autrys
> > investment. That stock was converted from an older note
> > which could
> > be
> > considered aged and in my opinion again, free trading shares
> > would have
> > been
> > issued to this undisclosed party(I would bet anything saying
> > that is your
> > big
> > seller very close to the company and isbg or someone very
> > close to the
> > company
> > is lining their pockets)all the same exact steps that took
> > place with
> > this
> > chairman's last three failed deals. I would think it
> > incredibly unfair for
> > your
> > friend to pay 1000x higher but surely they will try to offer
> > you a sweeter
> > deal
> > in the event she changed her mind and rescinded her funding
> > as this is the
> > only
> > funding this company has.
> >
> > YOU WILL OF COURSE HAVE GOOD TRADING DAYS AND
> > BAD
> > DAYS BUT BE ASSURED THIS WILL END UP A DILUTED WORTHLESS
> > NOTHING IMO. MONEY
> > IS
> > MADE ALL THE TIME TRADING SCAMS BUT IN THE END THEY ARE
> > STILL SCAMS OR
> > JUST
> > GROSSLY MISMANAGED COMPANIES. I WOULD NOT BE SURPRISED AT
> > ALL IF NEXT WEEK
> > A PR
> > WAS ISSUED THAT ADDRESSED NOTE HOLDERS(SAYING ALL IS GOOD
> > AND SETTLED BUT
> > IN
> > REALTY THAT WILL BE A LIE) AND THE 1 FOR 15 SHARES DIVIDEND
> > THAT WAS
> > ANNOUNCED 3
> > MONTHS AGO WHICH NO SHAREHOLDER RECEIVED ALL WILL BE SAID TO
> > BE
> > FANTASTIC THERE
> > AS WELL.
> >
> > FACT IS THIS SCENARIO WITH ISBG, OF FUNDING,
> > PARTIES, VIDEOS, MASS
> > MEDIA, 100 MILLION SHARE BLOCKS IS SAME EXACT SCENARIO AS
> > DKTS ALONZOS LAST DEAL
> > WITH NOTHING BUT LIES FOR LAST 2 YRS IN WHICH MYSELF,
> > SHAREHOLDERS AND NOTE
> > HOLDERS BELIEVED.
> >
> > NOTHING I SAY IS TO BE MISCONSTRUED AS
> > INVESTMENT ADVICE, I
> > AM NOT LICENSED AS FA OR BROKER, I WAS A BROKER FOR 17 YRS
> > AND LEFT THE BUSINESS
> > WITH A PERFECTLY CLEAN LICENSE HAVING NOT ONE SINGLE
> > COMPLAINT.
> >
> >
> > EMAIL SENT TO
> > THE GUY WHO PLACED ALL THESE NOTE WITH LENDERS,
> >
> >
> >
> > Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 2:54
> > pm
> >
> >
> > ____________ just so you do not think I was
> > bull shitting you attached are
> > pics of the note and share purchase agreement
> > signed by Alonzo and each page
> > initialed. I know your only concern is the guys
> > you put in this deal, that is
> > understood.
> >
> > Alonzo, on July 25th 2014 you signed
> > and initialed each page of
> > this note and share agreement as well I have a copy
> > of the wire transfer that
> > you were in receipt of funds. In your quarterly report
> > 5 months later dated Dec
> > 31st 2014 which lists the note holders you failed to
> > list this note, maybe a
> > slight oversight;some might say a blatant omission with
> > attempt to defraud. Why
> > was this note not included in the filing?
> >
> > I also have
> > the email that says, Lou
> > don't worry about Mr______ I did not forget your guy.
> > Seems you did forget or
> > intentionally meant to forget but either way you are
> > liable.
> >
> > I will gladly
> > stay away from this entire deal never to be heard
> > from again if you would just
> > live up to your obligation.
> >
> > ____________ if you
> > could pass this on to Alonzo,
> > as you requested I will not contact isbg and am
> > willing to play nice for a bit,
> > think it over please with a rational head.
> >
> > I am
> > asking you one more time Alonzo
> > to kindly settle this matter in a civilized
> > way.
> >
> > Best
> > Lou
> >
> >
> >
> > WAYNE THIS IS FROM
> > SOMEONE WITH A GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF THE
> > SITUATION AND THE LAW.
> >
> > Perhaps I can
> > assist here. I think you (and maybe the
> > barrister) are misunderstanding the
> > nature of the potential claims involved
> > here. In my (informal, speculative,
> > not-intended-as-legal-advice) opinion, the
> > lenders’ claims are not primarily
> > contract claims, or claims on the notes
> > themselves. Rather, they are tort claims
> > involving common law fraud and unjust
> > enrichment (and maybe some others
> > depending on the venue/jurisdiction), which do
> > not require an enforceable note
> > or other agreement to be valid (i.e., “implied”
> > or “constructive” or “quasi”
> > contract claims, as they are sometimes referred
> > to).
> >
> > Under, say, Florida law,
> >
> >
> > Quote:The essential elements of common-law
> > fraud are: (1) a false statement of
> > fact; (2) known by the person making the
> > statement to be false at the time it
> > was made; (3) made for the purpose of
> > inducing another to act in reliance
> > thereon; (4) action by the other person in
> > reliance on the correctness of the
> > statement; and (5) resulting damage to the
> > other person.
> > Gandy v. Trans
> > World Computer Tech. Grp., 787 So. 2d 116, 118
> > (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)
> >
> >
> > In
> > this case, one might argue that, in order to
> > induce the lenders to give him/DKTS
> > money, (1) Alonzo falsely stated that he
> > would issue them valid notes in
> > exchange for the loan, and that he had the
> > corporate authority to do so; (2)
> > Alonzo knew (or should have known, i.e.,
> > constructive knowledge) that the notes
> > would not be valid and that he did not
> > have the authority, as evidenced by his
> > eventual admission in the settlement
> > that the disputed shares were valid; (3)
> > that he made the statements for the
> > purpose of inducing the lenders to give him
> > money in reliance on his statements;
> > (4) that the lenders did, in fact, give him
> > a bunch of money (some apparently
> > even without so much as a written agreement)
> > in reliance on his false statements
> > of fact; and (5) the lenders have been
> > damages as a result of that reliance now
> > that the falsity of Alonzo’s
> > representations has become apparent.
> > Likewise under
> > Florida law,
> >
> > Quote:the
> > elements of a cause of action for unjust enrichment
> > are: (1) plaintiff has
> > conferred a benefit on the defendant, who has knowledge
> > thereof; (2) defendant
> > voluntarily accepts and retains the benefit conferred;
> > and (3) the circumstances
> > are such that it would be inequitable for the
> > defendant to retain the benefit
> > without paying the value thereof to the
> > plaintiff.
> > Shands Teaching Hosp. &
> > Clinics, Inc. v. Beech St. Corp., 899 So.
> > 2d 1222, 1227 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
> > 2005)
> >
> >
> > Under that theory of recovery, then,
> > one might argue that (1) the
> > lenders conferred a benefit on Alonzo by loaning
> > him money; (2) Alonzo accepted
> > that benefit and retained it, not only in the
> > form of money but by literally
> > taking (“75% of”) the product their money was
> > used to develop out the back door
> > and into another corporate entity of which he
> > is the controlling shareholder,
> > not to mention that he may have even used their
> > money to buy that other company
> > in the first place; and (3) based on all the
> > circumstances of what went down
> > with TEMN/DKTS/ISBG the past year and a half --
> > all the PRs that turned out to
> > be false, all the delays, all the excuse making,
> > etc., etc., plus Alonzo’s
> > formation of the private LLC’s to hold the DKTS assets
> > without the lenders’
> > knowledge then transferring those to ISBG after what was
> > obviously months of
> > planning, his PR claiming a deal was made on the notes,
> > etc., etc., etc. -- it
> > would simply be inequitable (i.e., totally unfair) for
> > Alonzo to retain the
> > benefit of his actions without paying the benefit thereof
> > (including lost/future
> > profits on Besado, I would think) to the people he
> > screwed.
> >
> > What else? Let’s
> > see, how about negligent misrepresentation if they
> > can’t prove straight-up
> > fraud:
> >
> > Quote:To demonstrate a negligent
> > misrepresentation claim,
> > [plaintiff] must demonstrate that the defendants made a
> > false statement
> > concerning a material fact, that, in the exercise of
> > reasonable
> > care under the
> > circumstances, the defendants were negligent in making the
> > statement because
> > they should have known the statement was false, that the
> > defendant intended that
> > [plaintiff] would rely on the false statement, that
> > [plaintiff] reasonably and
> > justifiably relied on the false statement, and that
> > [plaintiff]suffered damages
> > as a result.
> > Sunoptic Technologies, LLC v.
> > Integra Luxtec, Inc., No.
> > 3:08-CV-878-J-16JRK, 2009 WL 722320, at *2 (M.D. Fla.
> > Mar. 18, 2009)
> >
> >
> > Should
> > have known the statement was false? Haha, remember that
> > 8-K Alonzo signed back
> > in February 2014 that said “There is no record of a
> > designation of the Preferred
> > A shares filed with the Nevada Secretary of State”?
> > Here it
> > is:
> > https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1390891/000118518514000382/teamnation8k022014.htm
> >
> > So
> > with
> > those shares not existing, of course he had authority to
> > issue the
> > notes.
> > Oh
> > wait…
> >
> > http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=107803440
> >
> > If
> > only
> > he had checked the Nevada SOS first… but totally not
> > negligent
> > right?
> >
> > Let’s
> > see, what else… could maybe throw in some claims for
> > breach of
> > fiduciary duty,
> > breach of loyalty, breach of duty of good faith and fair
> > dealing, again
> > depending on the jurisdiction. Why, there’s a whole
> > smorgasbord
> > of potential
> > claims that don’t need a contract underlying them!
> >
> > Just to
> > reiterate, these
> > claims don’t need an enforceable or valid note. Basically
> > all
> > the fraud/unjust
> > enrichment ones need is willful misrepresentation, reliance
> > on
> > those
> > misrepresentations, and an unfair benefit conferred to the
> > liar. The
> > other
> > satellite claims flow from those basic acts. Heck, claims
> > like these could
> > be
> > based on a $50,000 handshake under the right set of facts.
> >
> > Of course, most
> > of
> > these claims would be against Alonzo personally, as
> > corporations generally
> > are
> > not liable for the torts of their officers (due to the
> > “corporate veil”),
> > and
> > officers generally aren’t liable for claims against the
> > corporation. More
> > on
> > that below, but also don’t think that you couldn’t pull
> > ISBG’s officers and
> > the
> > Big Tent boys into this mess too if you wanted to. It all
> > depends on who
> > knew
> > what when, which, even if they eventually disproved the
> > claims, would
> > require
> > some pretty painful and expensive discovery in order to do
> > so,
> > including
> > depositions under oath and production of lots of emails and
> > phone
> > records
> > between Alonzo and all the people now part of ISBG. Let’s
> > see… off the
> > top of my
> > head…
> >
> > Civil conspiracy between ISBG and Alonzo to commit the
> > alleged
> > fraudulent
> > acts? (“To state a claim for civil conspiracy, the
> > plaintiff must
> > demonstrate
> > (1) an agreement between two or more parties; (2) to do an
> > unlawful
> > act or to do
> > a lawful act by unlawful means; (3) the doing of some overt
> > act in
> > pursuance of
> > the conspiracy; and (4) damage to plaintiff as a result of
> > the acts
> > done under
> > the conspiracy.” Sunoptic Technologies, LLC v. Integra
> > Luxtec, Inc.,
> > No.
> > 3:08-CV-878-J-16JRK, 2009 WL 722320, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Mar.
> > 18,
> > 2009)).
> >
> > Tortious
> > interference? (“The elements of tortious interference with
> > a
> > business
> > relationship are: (1) the existence of a business
> > relationship, not
> > necessarily
> > evidenced by an enforceable contract, under which the
> > plaintiff has
> > legal
> > rights; (2) the defendant's knowledge of the relationship;
> > (3) an
> > intentional
> > and unjustified interference with the relationship by the
> > defendant;
> > and (4)
> > damage to the plaintiff as a result of the interference.”
> > Palm Beach
> > Cnty.
> > Health Care Dist. v. Prof'l Med. Educ., Inc., 13 So. 3d
> > 1090, 1094 (Fla.
> > Dist.
> > Ct. App. 2009)).
> > To reiterate again, those are not claims against Alonzo
> > or
> > DKTS, those would rope in ISBG as independently liable for .
> > And that’s
> > just
> > what comes immediately to mind in about 20 minutes, never
> > mind what you
> > could
> > come up with if the stakes were real…
> >
> > Back to the corporate
> > veil/Alonzo/DKTS
> > issue, again it would depend on the facts unearthed during
> > discovery, but it
> > seems like you could make a pretty good case that DKTS was
> > basically the “alter
> > ego” of Alonzo and a court should not hesitate to
> > “pierce
> > the corporate veil.”
> > Except, in this case it would essentially be “reverse
> > piercing,” which is
> > supported by the case law in a number of states. That is,
> > ordinarily you pierce
> > the veil to go after an officer directly for an
> > act/omission of the corporation.
> > Here, by contrast, you would be trying to
> > pierce the veil to hold the
> > corporation liable for the act/omission of its
> > officer.
> >
> > “Simply stated, veil
> > piercing is an equitable remedy used to prevent
> > the fraudulent or improper use
> > of the corporate form from injuring the party
> > seeking to pierce the corporate
> > veil.” In re Checiek, 492 B.R. 918, 920 (Bankr.
> > M.D. Fla. 2013).
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: "ME"
> > <eye4golf@aol.com>
> > Sent: Saturday,
> > August 15, 2015 4:03pm
> > To:
> > lou@seraphimstrategies.com
> > Subject: Fwd: ISBG /
> > DKTS
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Lou:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Are you
> > saying that this whole thing, for
> > all 7 note holders, can be paid off for
> > $11,910? Or convert it to 476,400,000
> > ISBG common, which makes no sense for them
> > to convert at 40,000 to 1.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Lou, if it
> > is not that, what amount did each note
> > holder invest? Are they all entitled a
> > 150% premium? You see, I am trying to
> > wrap my arms around the entire situation.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank You,
> >
> > Wayne
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > From: lou <
> > lou@seraphimstrategies.com>
> >
> > To: ME <
> > eye4golf@aol.com>
> >
> >
> > Sent: Sat, Aug 15, 2015 8:17 am
> > Subject:
> > ISBG / DKTS
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > READ
> >
> > http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=116235657
> >
> > It
> > seems
> > that
> > the company can pay off the note for $11,910 ($4,764 + 150%
> > premium)
> > on
> > thirty
> > days notice or Don Morrison can convert it into 476,400,000
> > common
> > shares
> > whenever he likes.
> >
> > We know they have $11,910, thanks to Ms.
> > Autry, why
> > then are
> > they risking that kind of dilution? Some unknown person to
> > whom Mr.
> > Morrison
> > sold $1,000 worth of the note has already converted it into
> > 100,000,000
> > shares
> > in March of this year, less than 2 months before Ms. Autry
> > turned over a
> > bit
> > less than $1M for exactly the same number of
> > shares....which
> > at last report
> > she
> > has yet to receive.
> >
> > She knew this stuff when she invested,
> > right?
> > Everybody
> > should know it NOW...it's right there in the filing.
> >
> > Let's
> > look at it
> > another
> > way:
> > The Disclosure Statement said this:
> > Total shares
> > outstanding:
> > 390,608,097
> > as of: July 10, 2015
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
It takes you to the origin of the scam from a person (Lou) who had first hand knowledge. You also get first hand information from Jackie Autry's rep.
Let's party like it's 1999.. As the late Prince had said..
I know the management of ISBG monitors this board carefully. So, please enjoy the below read.
On Mon, 8/17/15, lou@seraphimstrategies.com <lou@seraphimstrategies.com> wrote:
>
> > From: lou@seraphimstrategies.com <lou@seraphimstrategies.com>
> > Subject: Re: ISBG / DKTS 8/17/15
> > To: "ME" <eye4golf@aol.com>
> > Cc: "Sidney Pitteus" <sidneypitteus@yahoo.co.uk>
> > Date: Monday, August 17, 2015, 10:11 AM
> > Wayne,
> >
> > I can not and will not say who Sidney is, just that he has
> > been following this a long time and is incredibly
> > knowledgeable of securities laws from what I am told. I can
> > say imo this entire situation will have much bigger problems
> > then just two (the guys I know of) note holders that are
> > pissed off.
> >
> > I would not want to hold the bag if and when this all falls
> > apart or gets a halt or suspension (not sure if I am using
> > the correct terminology but it does happen) legal or
> > regulatory developments that affect the company’s ability
> > to conduct business will sometimes trigger a trading halt.
> >
> > SEC Trading Suspensions to Protect Investors
> >
> > The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is authorized
> > under federal law to suspend trading in any stock for a
> > period of up to 10 business days. The SEC issues a
> > suspension when it believes that the investing public may be
> > at risk. Many factors influence the SEC’s decision. A very
> > important one is a company’s failure to keep up the
> > required filing of periodic reports—such as annual and
> > quarterly reports—that provide the public with information
> > about the company’s business, corporate outlook and
> > financial performance to date. Another factor is the quality
> > of the publicly available information, particularly if it
> > appears to be inaccurate. The SEC will also consider the
> > trading activity in a stock, evaluating who is actively
> > trading and whether market manipulation may be taking
> > place.
> >
> > There is more then enough reason to suspend trading in isbg
> > just based on the numerous 1111 share tape paints at end of
> > the day or every time the stock down ticks, incredibly
> > obvious. Since start of trading there is always more to sell
> > a quick tape paint and more selling.
> >
> > These investigations take time but it will happen imo. Wayne
> > I have been told and demanded by someone not to contact you
> > at all. They say it is hurting isbg because they are scared
> > of losing funding from Mrs Autry, seeing how its the only
> > capital they have to pay themselves I am not surprised.
> > Someone has to pay for the launch parties, just as investors
> > (debt holders) did last year with no real launch of product.
> > I kept asking Alonzo why if you have no product are you
> > wasting money on launch parties...of course never got a
> > straight answer.
> >
> > I am not knowledgeable at all on legal matters, but it does
> > not take a genius to know that signed documents and proof of
> > wire is acceptance of this clients note which Alonzo now
> > claims doesn't exist. I have the docs dated July 25 2014 and
> > a copy of the wire transfer. He is claiming it does not
> > exist because I hurt his pride and called him a liar thief
> > as well emailed Terry Williams and your friend Frieberger
> > with no reply.
> >
> > Alonzo hired Seraphim to write articles for the company
> > which were approved by him prior to release. Alonzo was
> > never given permission by me to use my email as a contact.
> > He was asked numerous times by text and email to remove it
> > and only finally did last month when recently he took down
> > temn website which became dkts website only then was it
> > finally removed. This is how I ended up with all of Alonzos
> > emails from shareholders over the last yr and in fact it was
> > me who connected Alonzo to Terry Williams because Mr
> > Williams had called me via the web site and I put both of
> > them in touch via email. I actually even suggested to Alonzo
> > they may be a good fit for a merger here. Alonzos exact
> > words were thank you so much Lou you have done an
> > outstanding job and this is the best opportunity to come
> > along in my lifetime.
> >
> > He as well released a press release with me as contact which
> > I did not know of till after its release. This is when we
> > started fighting like crazy because I told him you did not
> > have a right to put me on as contact for something I knew
> > nothing about, he was covering his own ass.
> >
> > see this link http://finance.yahoo.com/news/top-shelf-ceo-announces-agreement-122800574.html
> > I never knew this was being released or agreed to have
> > my email on it at all.
> >
> > Wayne, may you have great success in all your endeavors.
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: "ME" <eye4golf@aol.com>
> > Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 12:21pm
> > To: lou@seraphimstrategies.com
> > Subject: Re: ISBG / DKTS 8/17/15
> >
> > Hi Lou:
> >
> > Can you give me any idea as to who this person, Sidney
> > Pitteus, is as he apparently resides in the UK. Also, since
> > you seem so well informed, how is it that you think he is
> > more informed than you?
> >
> > It is just that I hate to begin corresponding with an
> > unknown entity especially since you seem so knowledgeable.
> >
> > Lou, I do have another question. it appears that Top Shelf
> > Brands was once known as TEMN. At that time, anyone wanting
> > further information was to contact Seraphim Strategies at
> > your phone number 561-374-1482. Furthermore, since your
> > email is lou@seraphimstrategies.com
> > I am curious to know what was your previous affiliation with
> > the company? Since you seem to have been closely affiliated,
> > I have to assume that you certainly have more informaiton
> > than does this person residing in the UK. Can you please
> > fill me in on the details? What was or is his relation to
> > the company?
> >
> > Thank You,
> > Wayne
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: lou <lou@seraphimstrategies.com>
> > To: ME <eye4golf@aol.com>
> > Sent: Mon, Aug 17, 2015 7:30 am
> > Subject: Re: ISBG / DKTS
> >
> >
> >
> > Ask this person sidneypitteus@yahoo.co.uk
> > all info and back-round of the
> > situation they can fill you in completely with much more
> > detail then I can.
> >
> >
> > sidneypitteus@yahoo.co.uk
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: "ME"
> > <eye4golf@aol.com>
> > Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 10:23am
> > To:
> > lou@seraphimstrategies.com
> > Subject: Re: ISBG / DKTS
> >
> >
> > Hi Lou:
> >
> > Thank you again
> > for all of the information.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Wayne
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original
> > Message-----
> > From: lou <lou@seraphimstrategies.com>
> > To: ME
> > <eye4golf@aol.com>
> >
> > sidneypitteus
> > <sidneypitteus@yahoo.co.uk>
> > Sent: Sun, Aug 16, 2015 8:28 am
> > Subject: RE: Fwd:
> > ISBG / DKTS
> >
> >
> > PLEASE PUT TOGETHER ANY AND ALL QUESTIONS YOU HAVE AND
> > DIRECT THEM
> > TO..
> >
> >
> > sidneypitteus@yahoo.co.uk
> >
> >
> > FROM WHAT I AM TOLD THIS PERSON HAS A GOOD
> > GRASP
> > AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE ENTIRE SITUATION
> >
> > I WILL NO LONGER CONTACT YOU
> > AS I
> > HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF ALL THIS HE SAID SHE SAID CRAP, Good luck
> > to you with
> > your
> > investment.
> >
> >
> > Wayne
> >
> > I do not represent the note holders in DKTS/ISBG, my
> > only
> > concern is my note holder client and friend(50k)for 15 yrs
> > as well as one
> > other
> > friend(75k) who is in this deal who is the person that
> > introduced me
> > to
> > Alonzo.
> >
> > I have spoken to total 6 guys who all did not agree to
> > Alonzos
> > press
> > release which stated all note holders agreed but those guys
> > are not my
> > concern,
> > I do not represent them or want anything to do with them.
> > They were
> > contacted by
> > another note holder, I was asked to be involved with them
> > and made
> > it clear
> > would side with whatever the majority of note holders
> > decided but after
> > dealing
> > with Alonzos lies for the last year I have had enough. I do
> > not need
> > anyone on
> > my side only documents,emails and txts proving my
> > correctness in the
> > matter and
> > will provide regulators .
> >
> > Total notes payable are 391k according
> > to the
> > attachment on this email which lists the note holders. My
> > client/friend
> > note is
> > not listed, Alonzo is not even acknowledging this guy
> > exists. Below is
> > an email
> > sent to someone to pass on to Alonzo chairman of ISBG . Its
> > just
> > amazing because
> > a month ago I have emails from Alonzo saying (Lou in a
> > perfect
> > world I would pay
> > back and might have a plan)...well in my opinion again they
> > have the funds now
> > so payback the note and we can all never speak again.
> > Alonzo
> > also sent me a
> > email that says I have not forgotten you guy don't worry I
> > promise.
> >
> > Last week
> > the note holders were sent terms finally of the convertible
> > preferred which they
> > did not agree to, but are being told to agree to by the
> > person that sold them
> > the notes,(so he can cover his own ass) he is using the
> > angle(if we sue it costs
> > money and we will get nothing anyway)so accept the
> > terms and pray this works
> > out, of course he is hyping isbg up major to them. I
> > have watched trading in
> > isbg since fima, if you were to look at level two all
> > day long, which I do,
> > there is allot of stock for sale with tiny trades to paint
> > the tape all day
> > everyday. Friday they pushed hard to make isbg look good so
> > that hopefully it
> > would appeal to note holders greed factor and they would
> > sign
> > off on the new
> > terms. This is my opinion.
> >
> > In my opinion as well the terms are
> > terrible(in a
> > phone call I had with Alonzo he swore up and down these new
> > convertible
> > preferred notes would be able to convert on issuance, of
> > course now
> > they are
> > locked up another yr...this is Alonzos game... stall,
> > delay,promise)
> > and in a yr
> > the stock is toilet paper at best. I will send you those
> > terms if
> > you
> > like.
> >
> > ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION, what it would mean to me as a
> > lender
> > or
> > shareholder would be... Ms Autry paid 1 million dollars for
> > 100 million
> > shares.
> > 1000x higher then Alonzo and an undisclosed party who
> > purchased the same
> > just
> > two months prior to Autrys investment. Alonzo issued himself
> > 100 million
> > shares
> > for 1 thousand dollars and an undisclosed party also
> > purchased 100
> > million
> > shares for 1 thousand dollars by converting that 1000 dollar
> > note
> > into
> > 100,000,000 shares in March of this year, less than 2 months
> > before Ms.
> > Autrys
> > investment. That stock was converted from an older note
> > which could
> > be
> > considered aged and in my opinion again, free trading shares
> > would have
> > been
> > issued to this undisclosed party(I would bet anything saying
> > that is your
> > big
> > seller very close to the company and isbg or someone very
> > close to the
> > company
> > is lining their pockets)all the same exact steps that took
> > place with
> > this
> > chairman's last three failed deals. I would think it
> > incredibly unfair for
> > your
> > friend to pay 1000x higher but surely they will try to offer
> > you a sweeter
> > deal
> > in the event she changed her mind and rescinded her funding
> > as this is the
> > only
> > funding this company has.
> >
> > YOU WILL OF COURSE HAVE GOOD TRADING DAYS AND
> > BAD
> > DAYS BUT BE ASSURED THIS WILL END UP A DILUTED WORTHLESS
> > NOTHING IMO. MONEY
> > IS
> > MADE ALL THE TIME TRADING SCAMS BUT IN THE END THEY ARE
> > STILL SCAMS OR
> > JUST
> > GROSSLY MISMANAGED COMPANIES. I WOULD NOT BE SURPRISED AT
> > ALL IF NEXT WEEK
> > A PR
> > WAS ISSUED THAT ADDRESSED NOTE HOLDERS(SAYING ALL IS GOOD
> > AND SETTLED BUT
> > IN
> > REALTY THAT WILL BE A LIE) AND THE 1 FOR 15 SHARES DIVIDEND
> > THAT WAS
> > ANNOUNCED 3
> > MONTHS AGO WHICH NO SHAREHOLDER RECEIVED ALL WILL BE SAID TO
> > BE
> > FANTASTIC THERE
> > AS WELL.
> >
> > FACT IS THIS SCENARIO WITH ISBG, OF FUNDING,
> > PARTIES, VIDEOS, MASS
> > MEDIA, 100 MILLION SHARE BLOCKS IS SAME EXACT SCENARIO AS
> > DKTS ALONZOS LAST DEAL
> > WITH NOTHING BUT LIES FOR LAST 2 YRS IN WHICH MYSELF,
> > SHAREHOLDERS AND NOTE
> > HOLDERS BELIEVED.
> >
> > NOTHING I SAY IS TO BE MISCONSTRUED AS
> > INVESTMENT ADVICE, I
> > AM NOT LICENSED AS FA OR BROKER, I WAS A BROKER FOR 17 YRS
> > AND LEFT THE BUSINESS
> > WITH A PERFECTLY CLEAN LICENSE HAVING NOT ONE SINGLE
> > COMPLAINT.
> >
> >
> > EMAIL SENT TO
> > THE GUY WHO PLACED ALL THESE NOTE WITH LENDERS,
> >
> >
> >
> > Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 2:54
> > pm
> >
> >
> > ____________ just so you do not think I was
> > bull shitting you attached are
> > pics of the note and share purchase agreement
> > signed by Alonzo and each page
> > initialed. I know your only concern is the guys
> > you put in this deal, that is
> > understood.
> >
> > Alonzo, on July 25th 2014 you signed
> > and initialed each page of
> > this note and share agreement as well I have a copy
> > of the wire transfer that
> > you were in receipt of funds. In your quarterly report
> > 5 months later dated Dec
> > 31st 2014 which lists the note holders you failed to
> > list this note, maybe a
> > slight oversight;some might say a blatant omission with
> > attempt to defraud. Why
> > was this note not included in the filing?
> >
> > I also have
> > the email that says, Lou
> > don't worry about Mr______ I did not forget your guy.
> > Seems you did forget or
> > intentionally meant to forget but either way you are
> > liable.
> >
> > I will gladly
> > stay away from this entire deal never to be heard
> > from again if you would just
> > live up to your obligation.
> >
> > ____________ if you
> > could pass this on to Alonzo,
> > as you requested I will not contact isbg and am
> > willing to play nice for a bit,
> > think it over please with a rational head.
> >
> > I am
> > asking you one more time Alonzo
> > to kindly settle this matter in a civilized
> > way.
> >
> > Best
> > Lou
> >
> >
> >
> > WAYNE THIS IS FROM
> > SOMEONE WITH A GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF THE
> > SITUATION AND THE LAW.
> >
> > Perhaps I can
> > assist here. I think you (and maybe the
> > barrister) are misunderstanding the
> > nature of the potential claims involved
> > here. In my (informal, speculative,
> > not-intended-as-legal-advice) opinion, the
> > lenders’ claims are not primarily
> > contract claims, or claims on the notes
> > themselves. Rather, they are tort claims
> > involving common law fraud and unjust
> > enrichment (and maybe some others
> > depending on the venue/jurisdiction), which do
> > not require an enforceable note
> > or other agreement to be valid (i.e., “implied”
> > or “constructive” or “quasi”
> > contract claims, as they are sometimes referred
> > to).
> >
> > Under, say, Florida law,
> >
> >
> > Quote:The essential elements of common-law
> > fraud are: (1) a false statement of
> > fact; (2) known by the person making the
> > statement to be false at the time it
> > was made; (3) made for the purpose of
> > inducing another to act in reliance
> > thereon; (4) action by the other person in
> > reliance on the correctness of the
> > statement; and (5) resulting damage to the
> > other person.
> > Gandy v. Trans
> > World Computer Tech. Grp., 787 So. 2d 116, 118
> > (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)
> >
> >
> > In
> > this case, one might argue that, in order to
> > induce the lenders to give him/DKTS
> > money, (1) Alonzo falsely stated that he
> > would issue them valid notes in
> > exchange for the loan, and that he had the
> > corporate authority to do so; (2)
> > Alonzo knew (or should have known, i.e.,
> > constructive knowledge) that the notes
> > would not be valid and that he did not
> > have the authority, as evidenced by his
> > eventual admission in the settlement
> > that the disputed shares were valid; (3)
> > that he made the statements for the
> > purpose of inducing the lenders to give him
> > money in reliance on his statements;
> > (4) that the lenders did, in fact, give him
> > a bunch of money (some apparently
> > even without so much as a written agreement)
> > in reliance on his false statements
> > of fact; and (5) the lenders have been
> > damages as a result of that reliance now
> > that the falsity of Alonzo’s
> > representations has become apparent.
> > Likewise under
> > Florida law,
> >
> > Quote:the
> > elements of a cause of action for unjust enrichment
> > are: (1) plaintiff has
> > conferred a benefit on the defendant, who has knowledge
> > thereof; (2) defendant
> > voluntarily accepts and retains the benefit conferred;
> > and (3) the circumstances
> > are such that it would be inequitable for the
> > defendant to retain the benefit
> > without paying the value thereof to the
> > plaintiff.
> > Shands Teaching Hosp. &
> > Clinics, Inc. v. Beech St. Corp., 899 So.
> > 2d 1222, 1227 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
> > 2005)
> >
> >
> > Under that theory of recovery, then,
> > one might argue that (1) the
> > lenders conferred a benefit on Alonzo by loaning
> > him money; (2) Alonzo accepted
> > that benefit and retained it, not only in the
> > form of money but by literally
> > taking (“75% of”) the product their money was
> > used to develop out the back door
> > and into another corporate entity of which he
> > is the controlling shareholder,
> > not to mention that he may have even used their
> > money to buy that other company
> > in the first place; and (3) based on all the
> > circumstances of what went down
> > with TEMN/DKTS/ISBG the past year and a half --
> > all the PRs that turned out to
> > be false, all the delays, all the excuse making,
> > etc., etc., plus Alonzo’s
> > formation of the private LLC’s to hold the DKTS assets
> > without the lenders’
> > knowledge then transferring those to ISBG after what was
> > obviously months of
> > planning, his PR claiming a deal was made on the notes,
> > etc., etc., etc. -- it
> > would simply be inequitable (i.e., totally unfair) for
> > Alonzo to retain the
> > benefit of his actions without paying the benefit thereof
> > (including lost/future
> > profits on Besado, I would think) to the people he
> > screwed.
> >
> > What else? Let’s
> > see, how about negligent misrepresentation if they
> > can’t prove straight-up
> > fraud:
> >
> > Quote:To demonstrate a negligent
> > misrepresentation claim,
> > [plaintiff] must demonstrate that the defendants made a
> > false statement
> > concerning a material fact, that, in the exercise of
> > reasonable
> > care under the
> > circumstances, the defendants were negligent in making the
> > statement because
> > they should have known the statement was false, that the
> > defendant intended that
> > [plaintiff] would rely on the false statement, that
> > [plaintiff] reasonably and
> > justifiably relied on the false statement, and that
> > [plaintiff]suffered damages
> > as a result.
> > Sunoptic Technologies, LLC v.
> > Integra Luxtec, Inc., No.
> > 3:08-CV-878-J-16JRK, 2009 WL 722320, at *2 (M.D. Fla.
> > Mar. 18, 2009)
> >
> >
> > Should
> > have known the statement was false? Haha, remember that
> > 8-K Alonzo signed back
> > in February 2014 that said “There is no record of a
> > designation of the Preferred
> > A shares filed with the Nevada Secretary of State”?
> > Here it
> > is:
> > https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1390891/000118518514000382/teamnation8k022014.htm
> >
> > So
> > with
> > those shares not existing, of course he had authority to
> > issue the
> > notes.
> > Oh
> > wait…
> >
> > http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=107803440
> >
> > If
> > only
> > he had checked the Nevada SOS first… but totally not
> > negligent
> > right?
> >
> > Let’s
> > see, what else… could maybe throw in some claims for
> > breach of
> > fiduciary duty,
> > breach of loyalty, breach of duty of good faith and fair
> > dealing, again
> > depending on the jurisdiction. Why, there’s a whole
> > smorgasbord
> > of potential
> > claims that don’t need a contract underlying them!
> >
> > Just to
> > reiterate, these
> > claims don’t need an enforceable or valid note. Basically
> > all
> > the fraud/unjust
> > enrichment ones need is willful misrepresentation, reliance
> > on
> > those
> > misrepresentations, and an unfair benefit conferred to the
> > liar. The
> > other
> > satellite claims flow from those basic acts. Heck, claims
> > like these could
> > be
> > based on a $50,000 handshake under the right set of facts.
> >
> > Of course, most
> > of
> > these claims would be against Alonzo personally, as
> > corporations generally
> > are
> > not liable for the torts of their officers (due to the
> > “corporate veil”),
> > and
> > officers generally aren’t liable for claims against the
> > corporation. More
> > on
> > that below, but also don’t think that you couldn’t pull
> > ISBG’s officers and
> > the
> > Big Tent boys into this mess too if you wanted to. It all
> > depends on who
> > knew
> > what when, which, even if they eventually disproved the
> > claims, would
> > require
> > some pretty painful and expensive discovery in order to do
> > so,
> > including
> > depositions under oath and production of lots of emails and
> > phone
> > records
> > between Alonzo and all the people now part of ISBG. Let’s
> > see… off the
> > top of my
> > head…
> >
> > Civil conspiracy between ISBG and Alonzo to commit the
> > alleged
> > fraudulent
> > acts? (“To state a claim for civil conspiracy, the
> > plaintiff must
> > demonstrate
> > (1) an agreement between two or more parties; (2) to do an
> > unlawful
> > act or to do
> > a lawful act by unlawful means; (3) the doing of some overt
> > act in
> > pursuance of
> > the conspiracy; and (4) damage to plaintiff as a result of
> > the acts
> > done under
> > the conspiracy.” Sunoptic Technologies, LLC v. Integra
> > Luxtec, Inc.,
> > No.
> > 3:08-CV-878-J-16JRK, 2009 WL 722320, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Mar.
> > 18,
> > 2009)).
> >
> > Tortious
> > interference? (“The elements of tortious interference with
> > a
> > business
> > relationship are: (1) the existence of a business
> > relationship, not
> > necessarily
> > evidenced by an enforceable contract, under which the
> > plaintiff has
> > legal
> > rights; (2) the defendant's knowledge of the relationship;
> > (3) an
> > intentional
> > and unjustified interference with the relationship by the
> > defendant;
> > and (4)
> > damage to the plaintiff as a result of the interference.”
> > Palm Beach
> > Cnty.
> > Health Care Dist. v. Prof'l Med. Educ., Inc., 13 So. 3d
> > 1090, 1094 (Fla.
> > Dist.
> > Ct. App. 2009)).
> > To reiterate again, those are not claims against Alonzo
> > or
> > DKTS, those would rope in ISBG as independently liable for .
> > And that’s
> > just
> > what comes immediately to mind in about 20 minutes, never
> > mind what you
> > could
> > come up with if the stakes were real…
> >
> > Back to the corporate
> > veil/Alonzo/DKTS
> > issue, again it would depend on the facts unearthed during
> > discovery, but it
> > seems like you could make a pretty good case that DKTS was
> > basically the “alter
> > ego” of Alonzo and a court should not hesitate to
> > “pierce
> > the corporate veil.”
> > Except, in this case it would essentially be “reverse
> > piercing,” which is
> > supported by the case law in a number of states. That is,
> > ordinarily you pierce
> > the veil to go after an officer directly for an
> > act/omission of the corporation.
> > Here, by contrast, you would be trying to
> > pierce the veil to hold the
> > corporation liable for the act/omission of its
> > officer.
> >
> > “Simply stated, veil
> > piercing is an equitable remedy used to prevent
> > the fraudulent or improper use
> > of the corporate form from injuring the party
> > seeking to pierce the corporate
> > veil.” In re Checiek, 492 B.R. 918, 920 (Bankr.
> > M.D. Fla. 2013).
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: "ME"
> > <eye4golf@aol.com>
> > Sent: Saturday,
> > August 15, 2015 4:03pm
> > To:
> > lou@seraphimstrategies.com
> > Subject: Fwd: ISBG /
> > DKTS
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Lou:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Are you
> > saying that this whole thing, for
> > all 7 note holders, can be paid off for
> > $11,910? Or convert it to 476,400,000
> > ISBG common, which makes no sense for them
> > to convert at 40,000 to 1.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Lou, if it
> > is not that, what amount did each note
> > holder invest? Are they all entitled a
> > 150% premium? You see, I am trying to
> > wrap my arms around the entire situation.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank You,
> >
> > Wayne
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > From: lou <
> > lou@seraphimstrategies.com>
> >
> > To: ME <
> > eye4golf@aol.com>
> >
> >
> > Sent: Sat, Aug 15, 2015 8:17 am
> > Subject:
> > ISBG / DKTS
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > READ
> >
> > http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=116235657
> >
> > It
> > seems
> > that
> > the company can pay off the note for $11,910 ($4,764 + 150%
> > premium)
> > on
> > thirty
> > days notice or Don Morrison can convert it into 476,400,000
> > common
> > shares
> > whenever he likes.
> >
> > We know they have $11,910, thanks to Ms.
> > Autry, why
> > then are
> > they risking that kind of dilution? Some unknown person to
> > whom Mr.
> > Morrison
> > sold $1,000 worth of the note has already converted it into
> > 100,000,000
> > shares
> > in March of this year, less than 2 months before Ms. Autry
> > turned over a
> > bit
> > less than $1M for exactly the same number of
> > shares....which
> > at last report
> > she
> > has yet to receive.
> >
> > She knew this stuff when she invested,
> > right?
> > Everybody
> > should know it NOW...it's right there in the filing.
> >
> > Let's
> > look at it
> > another
> > way:
> > The Disclosure Statement said this:
> > Total shares
> > outstanding:
> > 390,608,097
> > as of: July 10, 2015
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
Discover something new.
Sure Trader - Want $50 in Free Trades?
iHub NewsWire
Advantis Corp. To Produce Amstercan Branded Vape Pens(ADVT) Feb 13, 2017 9:44 AM
ISBG aims for up-list to OTCQB: New Website to Come(ISBG) Feb 13, 2017 9:43 AM
Let's party like it's 1999.. As the late Prince had said..
I know the management of ISBG monitors this board carefully. So, please enjoy the below read.
On Mon, 8/17/15, lou@seraphimstrategies.com <lou@seraphimstrategies.com> wrote:
>
> > From: lou@seraphimstrategies.com <lou@seraphimstrategies.com>
> > Subject: Re: ISBG / DKTS 8/17/15
> > To: "ME" <eye4golf@aol.com>
> > Cc: "Sidney Pitteus" <sidneypitteus@yahoo.co.uk>
> > Date: Monday, August 17, 2015, 10:11 AM
> > Wayne,
> >
> > I can not and will not say who Sidney is, just that he has
> > been following this a long time and is incredibly
> > knowledgeable of securities laws from what I am told. I can
> > say imo this entire situation will have much bigger problems
> > then just two (the guys I know of) note holders that are
> > pissed off.
> >
> > I would not want to hold the bag if and when this all falls
> > apart or gets a halt or suspension (not sure if I am using
> > the correct terminology but it does happen) legal or
> > regulatory developments that affect the company’s ability
> > to conduct business will sometimes trigger a trading halt.
> >
> > SEC Trading Suspensions to Protect Investors
> >
> > The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is authorized
> > under federal law to suspend trading in any stock for a
> > period of up to 10 business days. The SEC issues a
> > suspension when it believes that the investing public may be
> > at risk. Many factors influence the SEC’s decision. A very
> > important one is a company’s failure to keep up the
> > required filing of periodic reports—such as annual and
> > quarterly reports—that provide the public with information
> > about the company’s business, corporate outlook and
> > financial performance to date. Another factor is the quality
> > of the publicly available information, particularly if it
> > appears to be inaccurate. The SEC will also consider the
> > trading activity in a stock, evaluating who is actively
> > trading and whether market manipulation may be taking
> > place.
> >
> > There is more then enough reason to suspend trading in isbg
> > just based on the numerous 1111 share tape paints at end of
> > the day or every time the stock down ticks, incredibly
> > obvious. Since start of trading there is always more to sell
> > a quick tape paint and more selling.
> >
> > These investigations take time but it will happen imo. Wayne
> > I have been told and demanded by someone not to contact you
> > at all. They say it is hurting isbg because they are scared
> > of losing funding from Mrs Autry, seeing how its the only
> > capital they have to pay themselves I am not surprised.
> > Someone has to pay for the launch parties, just as investors
> > (debt holders) did last year with no real launch of product.
> > I kept asking Alonzo why if you have no product are you
> > wasting money on launch parties...of course never got a
> > straight answer.
> >
> > I am not knowledgeable at all on legal matters, but it does
> > not take a genius to know that signed documents and proof of
> > wire is acceptance of this clients note which Alonzo now
> > claims doesn't exist. I have the docs dated July 25 2014 and
> > a copy of the wire transfer. He is claiming it does not
> > exist because I hurt his pride and called him a liar thief
> > as well emailed Terry Williams and your friend Frieberger
> > with no reply.
> >
> > Alonzo hired Seraphim to write articles for the company
> > which were approved by him prior to release. Alonzo was
> > never given permission by me to use my email as a contact.
> > He was asked numerous times by text and email to remove it
> > and only finally did last month when recently he took down
> > temn website which became dkts website only then was it
> > finally removed. This is how I ended up with all of Alonzos
> > emails from shareholders over the last yr and in fact it was
> > me who connected Alonzo to Terry Williams because Mr
> > Williams had called me via the web site and I put both of
> > them in touch via email. I actually even suggested to Alonzo
> > they may be a good fit for a merger here. Alonzos exact
> > words were thank you so much Lou you have done an
> > outstanding job and this is the best opportunity to come
> > along in my lifetime.
> >
> > He as well released a press release with me as contact which
> > I did not know of till after its release. This is when we
> > started fighting like crazy because I told him you did not
> > have a right to put me on as contact for something I knew
> > nothing about, he was covering his own ass.
> >
> > see this link http://finance.yahoo.com/news/top-shelf-ceo-announces-agreement-122800574.html
> > I never knew this was being released or agreed to have
> > my email on it at all.
> >
> > Wayne, may you have great success in all your endeavors.
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: "ME" <eye4golf@aol.com>
> > Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 12:21pm
> > To: lou@seraphimstrategies.com
> > Subject: Re: ISBG / DKTS 8/17/15
> >
> > Hi Lou:
> >
> > Can you give me any idea as to who this person, Sidney
> > Pitteus, is as he apparently resides in the UK. Also, since
> > you seem so well informed, how is it that you think he is
> > more informed than you?
> >
> > It is just that I hate to begin corresponding with an
> > unknown entity especially since you seem so knowledgeable.
> >
> > Lou, I do have another question. it appears that Top Shelf
> > Brands was once known as TEMN. At that time, anyone wanting
> > further information was to contact Seraphim Strategies at
> > your phone number 561-374-1482. Furthermore, since your
> > email is lou@seraphimstrategies.com
> > I am curious to know what was your previous affiliation with
> > the company? Since you seem to have been closely affiliated,
> > I have to assume that you certainly have more informaiton
> > than does this person residing in the UK. Can you please
> > fill me in on the details? What was or is his relation to
> > the company?
> >
> > Thank You,
> > Wayne
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: lou <lou@seraphimstrategies.com>
> > To: ME <eye4golf@aol.com>
> > Sent: Mon, Aug 17, 2015 7:30 am
> > Subject: Re: ISBG / DKTS
> >
> >
> >
> > Ask this person sidneypitteus@yahoo.co.uk
> > all info and back-round of the
> > situation they can fill you in completely with much more
> > detail then I can.
> >
> >
> > sidneypitteus@yahoo.co.uk
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: "ME"
> > <eye4golf@aol.com>
> > Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 10:23am
> > To:
> > lou@seraphimstrategies.com
> > Subject: Re: ISBG / DKTS
> >
> >
> > Hi Lou:
> >
> > Thank you again
> > for all of the information.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Wayne
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original
> > Message-----
> > From: lou <lou@seraphimstrategies.com>
> > To: ME
> > <eye4golf@aol.com>
> >
> > sidneypitteus
> > <sidneypitteus@yahoo.co.uk>
> > Sent: Sun, Aug 16, 2015 8:28 am
> > Subject: RE: Fwd:
> > ISBG / DKTS
> >
> >
> > PLEASE PUT TOGETHER ANY AND ALL QUESTIONS YOU HAVE AND
> > DIRECT THEM
> > TO..
> >
> >
> > sidneypitteus@yahoo.co.uk
> >
> >
> > FROM WHAT I AM TOLD THIS PERSON HAS A GOOD
> > GRASP
> > AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE ENTIRE SITUATION
> >
> > I WILL NO LONGER CONTACT YOU
> > AS I
> > HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF ALL THIS HE SAID SHE SAID CRAP, Good luck
> > to you with
> > your
> > investment.
> >
> >
> > Wayne
> >
> > I do not represent the note holders in DKTS/ISBG, my
> > only
> > concern is my note holder client and friend(50k)for 15 yrs
> > as well as one
> > other
> > friend(75k) who is in this deal who is the person that
> > introduced me
> > to
> > Alonzo.
> >
> > I have spoken to total 6 guys who all did not agree to
> > Alonzos
> > press
> > release which stated all note holders agreed but those guys
> > are not my
> > concern,
> > I do not represent them or want anything to do with them.
> > They were
> > contacted by
> > another note holder, I was asked to be involved with them
> > and made
> > it clear
> > would side with whatever the majority of note holders
> > decided but after
> > dealing
> > with Alonzos lies for the last year I have had enough. I do
> > not need
> > anyone on
> > my side only documents,emails and txts proving my
> > correctness in the
> > matter and
> > will provide regulators .
> >
> > Total notes payable are 391k according
> > to the
> > attachment on this email which lists the note holders. My
> > client/friend
> > note is
> > not listed, Alonzo is not even acknowledging this guy
> > exists. Below is
> > an email
> > sent to someone to pass on to Alonzo chairman of ISBG . Its
> > just
> > amazing because
> > a month ago I have emails from Alonzo saying (Lou in a
> > perfect
> > world I would pay
> > back and might have a plan)...well in my opinion again they
> > have the funds now
> > so payback the note and we can all never speak again.
> > Alonzo
> > also sent me a
> > email that says I have not forgotten you guy don't worry I
> > promise.
> >
> > Last week
> > the note holders were sent terms finally of the convertible
> > preferred which they
> > did not agree to, but are being told to agree to by the
> > person that sold them
> > the notes,(so he can cover his own ass) he is using the
> > angle(if we sue it costs
> > money and we will get nothing anyway)so accept the
> > terms and pray this works
> > out, of course he is hyping isbg up major to them. I
> > have watched trading in
> > isbg since fima, if you were to look at level two all
> > day long, which I do,
> > there is allot of stock for sale with tiny trades to paint
> > the tape all day
> > everyday. Friday they pushed hard to make isbg look good so
> > that hopefully it
> > would appeal to note holders greed factor and they would
> > sign
> > off on the new
> > terms. This is my opinion.
> >
> > In my opinion as well the terms are
> > terrible(in a
> > phone call I had with Alonzo he swore up and down these new
> > convertible
> > preferred notes would be able to convert on issuance, of
> > course now
> > they are
> > locked up another yr...this is Alonzos game... stall,
> > delay,promise)
> > and in a yr
> > the stock is toilet paper at best. I will send you those
> > terms if
> > you
> > like.
> >
> > ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION, what it would mean to me as a
> > lender
> > or
> > shareholder would be... Ms Autry paid 1 million dollars for
> > 100 million
> > shares.
> > 1000x higher then Alonzo and an undisclosed party who
> > purchased the same
> > just
> > two months prior to Autrys investment. Alonzo issued himself
> > 100 million
> > shares
> > for 1 thousand dollars and an undisclosed party also
> > purchased 100
> > million
> > shares for 1 thousand dollars by converting that 1000 dollar
> > note
> > into
> > 100,000,000 shares in March of this year, less than 2 months
> > before Ms.
> > Autrys
> > investment. That stock was converted from an older note
> > which could
> > be
> > considered aged and in my opinion again, free trading shares
> > would have
> > been
> > issued to this undisclosed party(I would bet anything saying
> > that is your
> > big
> > seller very close to the company and isbg or someone very
> > close to the
> > company
> > is lining their pockets)all the same exact steps that took
> > place with
> > this
> > chairman's last three failed deals. I would think it
> > incredibly unfair for
> > your
> > friend to pay 1000x higher but surely they will try to offer
> > you a sweeter
> > deal
> > in the event she changed her mind and rescinded her funding
> > as this is the
> > only
> > funding this company has.
> >
> > YOU WILL OF COURSE HAVE GOOD TRADING DAYS AND
> > BAD
> > DAYS BUT BE ASSURED THIS WILL END UP A DILUTED WORTHLESS
> > NOTHING IMO. MONEY
> > IS
> > MADE ALL THE TIME TRADING SCAMS BUT IN THE END THEY ARE
> > STILL SCAMS OR
> > JUST
> > GROSSLY MISMANAGED COMPANIES. I WOULD NOT BE SURPRISED AT
> > ALL IF NEXT WEEK
> > A PR
> > WAS ISSUED THAT ADDRESSED NOTE HOLDERS(SAYING ALL IS GOOD
> > AND SETTLED BUT
> > IN
> > REALTY THAT WILL BE A LIE) AND THE 1 FOR 15 SHARES DIVIDEND
> > THAT WAS
> > ANNOUNCED 3
> > MONTHS AGO WHICH NO SHAREHOLDER RECEIVED ALL WILL BE SAID TO
> > BE
> > FANTASTIC THERE
> > AS WELL.
> >
> > FACT IS THIS SCENARIO WITH ISBG, OF FUNDING,
> > PARTIES, VIDEOS, MASS
> > MEDIA, 100 MILLION SHARE BLOCKS IS SAME EXACT SCENARIO AS
> > DKTS ALONZOS LAST DEAL
> > WITH NOTHING BUT LIES FOR LAST 2 YRS IN WHICH MYSELF,
> > SHAREHOLDERS AND NOTE
> > HOLDERS BELIEVED.
> >
> > NOTHING I SAY IS TO BE MISCONSTRUED AS
> > INVESTMENT ADVICE, I
> > AM NOT LICENSED AS FA OR BROKER, I WAS A BROKER FOR 17 YRS
> > AND LEFT THE BUSINESS
> > WITH A PERFECTLY CLEAN LICENSE HAVING NOT ONE SINGLE
> > COMPLAINT.
> >
> >
> > EMAIL SENT TO
> > THE GUY WHO PLACED ALL THESE NOTE WITH LENDERS,
> >
> >
> >
> > Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 2:54
> > pm
> >
> >
> > ____________ just so you do not think I was
> > bull shitting you attached are
> > pics of the note and share purchase agreement
> > signed by Alonzo and each page
> > initialed. I know your only concern is the guys
> > you put in this deal, that is
> > understood.
> >
> > Alonzo, on July 25th 2014 you signed
> > and initialed each page of
> > this note and share agreement as well I have a copy
> > of the wire transfer that
> > you were in receipt of funds. In your quarterly report
> > 5 months later dated Dec
> > 31st 2014 which lists the note holders you failed to
> > list this note, maybe a
> > slight oversight;some might say a blatant omission with
> > attempt to defraud. Why
> > was this note not included in the filing?
> >
> > I also have
> > the email that says, Lou
> > don't worry about Mr______ I did not forget your guy.
> > Seems you did forget or
> > intentionally meant to forget but either way you are
> > liable.
> >
> > I will gladly
> > stay away from this entire deal never to be heard
> > from again if you would just
> > live up to your obligation.
> >
> > ____________ if you
> > could pass this on to Alonzo,
> > as you requested I will not contact isbg and am
> > willing to play nice for a bit,
> > think it over please with a rational head.
> >
> > I am
> > asking you one more time Alonzo
> > to kindly settle this matter in a civilized
> > way.
> >
> > Best
> > Lou
> >
> >
> >
> > WAYNE THIS IS FROM
> > SOMEONE WITH A GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF THE
> > SITUATION AND THE LAW.
> >
> > Perhaps I can
> > assist here. I think you (and maybe the
> > barrister) are misunderstanding the
> > nature of the potential claims involved
> > here. In my (informal, speculative,
> > not-intended-as-legal-advice) opinion, the
> > lenders’ claims are not primarily
> > contract claims, or claims on the notes
> > themselves. Rather, they are tort claims
> > involving common law fraud and unjust
> > enrichment (and maybe some others
> > depending on the venue/jurisdiction), which do
> > not require an enforceable note
> > or other agreement to be valid (i.e., “implied”
> > or “constructive” or “quasi”
> > contract claims, as they are sometimes referred
> > to).
> >
> > Under, say, Florida law,
> >
> >
> > Quote:The essential elements of common-law
> > fraud are: (1) a false statement of
> > fact; (2) known by the person making the
> > statement to be false at the time it
> > was made; (3) made for the purpose of
> > inducing another to act in reliance
> > thereon; (4) action by the other person in
> > reliance on the correctness of the
> > statement; and (5) resulting damage to the
> > other person.
> > Gandy v. Trans
> > World Computer Tech. Grp., 787 So. 2d 116, 118
> > (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)
> >
> >
> > In
> > this case, one might argue that, in order to
> > induce the lenders to give him/DKTS
> > money, (1) Alonzo falsely stated that he
> > would issue them valid notes in
> > exchange for the loan, and that he had the
> > corporate authority to do so; (2)
> > Alonzo knew (or should have known, i.e.,
> > constructive knowledge) that the notes
> > would not be valid and that he did not
> > have the authority, as evidenced by his
> > eventual admission in the settlement
> > that the disputed shares were valid; (3)
> > that he made the statements for the
> > purpose of inducing the lenders to give him
> > money in reliance on his statements;
> > (4) that the lenders did, in fact, give him
> > a bunch of money (some apparently
> > even without so much as a written agreement)
> > in reliance on his false statements
> > of fact; and (5) the lenders have been
> > damages as a result of that reliance now
> > that the falsity of Alonzo’s
> > representations has become apparent.
> > Likewise under
> > Florida law,
> >
> > Quote:the
> > elements of a cause of action for unjust enrichment
> > are: (1) plaintiff has
> > conferred a benefit on the defendant, who has knowledge
> > thereof; (2) defendant
> > voluntarily accepts and retains the benefit conferred;
> > and (3) the circumstances
> > are such that it would be inequitable for the
> > defendant to retain the benefit
> > without paying the value thereof to the
> > plaintiff.
> > Shands Teaching Hosp. &
> > Clinics, Inc. v. Beech St. Corp., 899 So.
> > 2d 1222, 1227 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
> > 2005)
> >
> >
> > Under that theory of recovery, then,
> > one might argue that (1) the
> > lenders conferred a benefit on Alonzo by loaning
> > him money; (2) Alonzo accepted
> > that benefit and retained it, not only in the
> > form of money but by literally
> > taking (“75% of”) the product their money was
> > used to develop out the back door
> > and into another corporate entity of which he
> > is the controlling shareholder,
> > not to mention that he may have even used their
> > money to buy that other company
> > in the first place; and (3) based on all the
> > circumstances of what went down
> > with TEMN/DKTS/ISBG the past year and a half --
> > all the PRs that turned out to
> > be false, all the delays, all the excuse making,
> > etc., etc., plus Alonzo’s
> > formation of the private LLC’s to hold the DKTS assets
> > without the lenders’
> > knowledge then transferring those to ISBG after what was
> > obviously months of
> > planning, his PR claiming a deal was made on the notes,
> > etc., etc., etc. -- it
> > would simply be inequitable (i.e., totally unfair) for
> > Alonzo to retain the
> > benefit of his actions without paying the benefit thereof
> > (including lost/future
> > profits on Besado, I would think) to the people he
> > screwed.
> >
> > What else? Let’s
> > see, how about negligent misrepresentation if they
> > can’t prove straight-up
> > fraud:
> >
> > Quote:To demonstrate a negligent
> > misrepresentation claim,
> > [plaintiff] must demonstrate that the defendants made a
> > false statement
> > concerning a material fact, that, in the exercise of
> > reasonable
> > care under the
> > circumstances, the defendants were negligent in making the
> > statement because
> > they should have known the statement was false, that the
> > defendant intended that
> > [plaintiff] would rely on the false statement, that
> > [plaintiff] reasonably and
> > justifiably relied on the false statement, and that
> > [plaintiff]suffered damages
> > as a result.
> > Sunoptic Technologies, LLC v.
> > Integra Luxtec, Inc., No.
> > 3:08-CV-878-J-16JRK, 2009 WL 722320, at *2 (M.D. Fla.
> > Mar. 18, 2009)
> >
> >
> > Should
> > have known the statement was false? Haha, remember that
> > 8-K Alonzo signed back
> > in February 2014 that said “There is no record of a
> > designation of the Preferred
> > A shares filed with the Nevada Secretary of State”?
> > Here it
> > is:
> > https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1390891/000118518514000382/teamnation8k022014.htm
> >
> > So
> > with
> > those shares not existing, of course he had authority to
> > issue the
> > notes.
> > Oh
> > wait…
> >
> > http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=107803440
> >
> > If
> > only
> > he had checked the Nevada SOS first… but totally not
> > negligent
> > right?
> >
> > Let’s
> > see, what else… could maybe throw in some claims for
> > breach of
> > fiduciary duty,
> > breach of loyalty, breach of duty of good faith and fair
> > dealing, again
> > depending on the jurisdiction. Why, there’s a whole
> > smorgasbord
> > of potential
> > claims that don’t need a contract underlying them!
> >
> > Just to
> > reiterate, these
> > claims don’t need an enforceable or valid note. Basically
> > all
> > the fraud/unjust
> > enrichment ones need is willful misrepresentation, reliance
> > on
> > those
> > misrepresentations, and an unfair benefit conferred to the
> > liar. The
> > other
> > satellite claims flow from those basic acts. Heck, claims
> > like these could
> > be
> > based on a $50,000 handshake under the right set of facts.
> >
> > Of course, most
> > of
> > these claims would be against Alonzo personally, as
> > corporations generally
> > are
> > not liable for the torts of their officers (due to the
> > “corporate veil”),
> > and
> > officers generally aren’t liable for claims against the
> > corporation. More
> > on
> > that below, but also don’t think that you couldn’t pull
> > ISBG’s officers and
> > the
> > Big Tent boys into this mess too if you wanted to. It all
> > depends on who
> > knew
> > what when, which, even if they eventually disproved the
> > claims, would
> > require
> > some pretty painful and expensive discovery in order to do
> > so,
> > including
> > depositions under oath and production of lots of emails and
> > phone
> > records
> > between Alonzo and all the people now part of ISBG. Let’s
> > see… off the
> > top of my
> > head…
> >
> > Civil conspiracy between ISBG and Alonzo to commit the
> > alleged
> > fraudulent
> > acts? (“To state a claim for civil conspiracy, the
> > plaintiff must
> > demonstrate
> > (1) an agreement between two or more parties; (2) to do an
> > unlawful
> > act or to do
> > a lawful act by unlawful means; (3) the doing of some overt
> > act in
> > pursuance of
> > the conspiracy; and (4) damage to plaintiff as a result of
> > the acts
> > done under
> > the conspiracy.” Sunoptic Technologies, LLC v. Integra
> > Luxtec, Inc.,
> > No.
> > 3:08-CV-878-J-16JRK, 2009 WL 722320, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Mar.
> > 18,
> > 2009)).
> >
> > Tortious
> > interference? (“The elements of tortious interference with
> > a
> > business
> > relationship are: (1) the existence of a business
> > relationship, not
> > necessarily
> > evidenced by an enforceable contract, under which the
> > plaintiff has
> > legal
> > rights; (2) the defendant's knowledge of the relationship;
> > (3) an
> > intentional
> > and unjustified interference with the relationship by the
> > defendant;
> > and (4)
> > damage to the plaintiff as a result of the interference.”
> > Palm Beach
> > Cnty.
> > Health Care Dist. v. Prof'l Med. Educ., Inc., 13 So. 3d
> > 1090, 1094 (Fla.
> > Dist.
> > Ct. App. 2009)).
> > To reiterate again, those are not claims against Alonzo
> > or
> > DKTS, those would rope in ISBG as independently liable for .
> > And that’s
> > just
> > what comes immediately to mind in about 20 minutes, never
> > mind what you
> > could
> > come up with if the stakes were real…
> >
> > Back to the corporate
> > veil/Alonzo/DKTS
> > issue, again it would depend on the facts unearthed during
> > discovery, but it
> > seems like you could make a pretty good case that DKTS was
> > basically the “alter
> > ego” of Alonzo and a court should not hesitate to
> > “pierce
> > the corporate veil.”
> > Except, in this case it would essentially be “reverse
> > piercing,” which is
> > supported by the case law in a number of states. That is,
> > ordinarily you pierce
> > the veil to go after an officer directly for an
> > act/omission of the corporation.
> > Here, by contrast, you would be trying to
> > pierce the veil to hold the
> > corporation liable for the act/omission of its
> > officer.
> >
> > “Simply stated, veil
> > piercing is an equitable remedy used to prevent
> > the fraudulent or improper use
> > of the corporate form from injuring the party
> > seeking to pierce the corporate
> > veil.” In re Checiek, 492 B.R. 918, 920 (Bankr.
> > M.D. Fla. 2013).
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: "ME"
> > <eye4golf@aol.com>
> > Sent: Saturday,
> > August 15, 2015 4:03pm
> > To:
> > lou@seraphimstrategies.com
> > Subject: Fwd: ISBG /
> > DKTS
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Lou:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Are you
> > saying that this whole thing, for
> > all 7 note holders, can be paid off for
> > $11,910? Or convert it to 476,400,000
> > ISBG common, which makes no sense for them
> > to convert at 40,000 to 1.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Lou, if it
> > is not that, what amount did each note
> > holder invest? Are they all entitled a
> > 150% premium? You see, I am trying to
> > wrap my arms around the entire situation.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank You,
> >
> > Wayne
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > From: lou <
> > lou@seraphimstrategies.com>
> >
> > To: ME <
> > eye4golf@aol.com>
> >
> >
> > Sent: Sat, Aug 15, 2015 8:17 am
> > Subject:
> > ISBG / DKTS
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > READ
> >
> > http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=116235657
> >
> > It
> > seems
> > that
> > the company can pay off the note for $11,910 ($4,764 + 150%
> > premium)
> > on
> > thirty
> > days notice or Don Morrison can convert it into 476,400,000
> > common
> > shares
> > whenever he likes.
> >
> > We know they have $11,910, thanks to Ms.
> > Autry, why
> > then are
> > they risking that kind of dilution? Some unknown person to
> > whom Mr.
> > Morrison
> > sold $1,000 worth of the note has already converted it into
> > 100,000,000
> > shares
> > in March of this year, less than 2 months before Ms. Autry
> > turned over a
> > bit
> > less than $1M for exactly the same number of
> > shares....which
> > at last report
> > she
> > has yet to receive.
> >
> > She knew this stuff when she invested,
> > right?
> > Everybody
> > should know it NOW...it's right there in the filing.
> >
> > Let's
> > look at it
> > another
> > way:
> > The Disclosure Statement said this:
> > Total shares
> > outstanding:
> > 390,608,097
> > as of: July 10, 2015
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
Discover something new.
The emails you had posted earlier came from Lou. I have all the emails exchange between Lou and Pierce. Along with all the emails exchanged with all lenders and Jackie Autry's representatives..
Prior to his death, Lou was interviewed by the
SEC in the office of James Sallah, Atty in Palm Beach. Check the public records, you will see the lawsuit by Pierce against Lou for violating their confidentiality agreement. I've already met with the SEC investigator. It's not me who's worried.
Wrong. A standard ad package at Sirius doesn't get you on Howard's show. Howard is classified as premium talent and in his contract with Sirius he gets a percentage of all ad revenue. ISBG couldn't afford his rate. Especially with less than 3k on the books
Howard Stern?
I've met Howard Stern. Actually I was part of a team that deposed Howard in a lawsuit which included Melani Griffith for a pay to play lawsuit against a movie producer. Do you know what pay for play? With Howard you have to guarantee payment just to talk to him. ISBG doesn't have the cash even to get in the building
Huge news!
ISBG IS A SCAM!
You can confirm with:
Jackie Autry
Bow Wow aka Shad Moss
Rob at Loma Financial
James Sallah
648 shareholders at DKTS
They already have Bow Wow under contract. Look at how many bottles of Cavoda and Besado he has sold, or drank. Must be drank. No sales, profit, inventory reduction. He now claims he was scammed
Yeah Columbia. Alonzo has bought enough of their national product (coke) ask Nano in Florida.
Why does Pierce have a diazig llc in Louisiana?
Another important point to bring to this discussion. Why did Jackie Autry extricate herself out of this scam-fraud.
Here are the facts. Alonzo Pierce set up three Louisiana LLCs to hide assets. Below are the three. Here's an important question, where do these brands (assets) appear on the balance sheet, they don't. ISBG is an elaborate scam, yes some people will make money just like some people make money in a Ponzi scheme, but the majority will be bagholders similar to the stockholders of DKTS and TEXX.
Company Information
Company Name: BESADO TEQUILA LLC
File Number: 41689589K
Filing State: Louisiana (LA)
Filing Status: Active
Filing Date: November 14, 2014
Company Age: 2 Years, 3 Months
Registered Agent:
Anieze Pettis
3500 N. Causeway Blvd
Suite 160
Metairie, LA 70002
Mailing Address:
3500 N. Causeway Blvd
Suite 160
Metairie, LA 70002
Company Contacts
ALONZO PIERCE
Manager
3500 N. Causeway Blvd
Suite 160
Metairie, LA 70002 Company Information
Company Name: DZIAQ LLC
File Number: 41689587K
Filing State: Louisiana (LA)
Filing Status: Active
Filing Date: November 14, 2014
Company Age: 2 Years, 3 Months
Registered Agent:
Anieze Pettis
3500 N. Causeway Blvd
Suite 160
Metairie, LA 70002
Mailing Address:
3500 N. Causeway Blvd
Suite 160
Metairie, LA 70002
Company Contacts
ALONZO PIERCE
Manager
3500 N. Causeway Blvd
Suite 160
Metairie, LA 70002
Company Name: KENTUCKY TEQUILA LLC
File Number: 41689591K
Filing State: Louisiana (LA)
Filing Status: Active
Filing Date: November 14, 2014
Company Age: 2 Years, 3 Months
Registered Agent:
Anieze Pettis
3500 N. Causeway Blvd
Suite 160
Metairie, LA 70002
Mailing Address:
3500 N. Causeway Blvd
Suite 160
Metairie, LA 70002
Company Contacts
ALONZO PIERCE
Manager
3500 N. Causeway Blvd
Suite 160
Metairie, LA 70002
You can post all you want about the haters. We are just messengers of fact about Pierce and the fact is, ISBG doesn't own BESADO. Again, I reference the public record below.
Company Information
Company Name: BESADO TEQUILA LLC
File Number: 41689589K
Filing State: Louisiana (LA)
Filing Status: Active
Filing Date: November 14, 2014
Company Age: 2 Years, 3 Months
Registered Agent:
Anieze Pettis
3500 N. Causeway Blvd
Suite 160
Metairie, LA 70002
Mailing Address:
3500 N. Causeway Blvd
Suite 160
Metairie, LA 70002
Company Contacts
ALONZO PIERCE
Manager
3500 N. Causeway Blvd
Suite 160
Metairie, LA 70002
You had asked for proof that a Louisiana LLC owned Besado, not ISBG. I provided the proof. I can't help if you can handle the truth.
Yeah.. Read below.. ISBG doesn't own BESADO.. Actually DKTS didn't own BESADO.. It's all part of Pierce's scam, he personally owns BESADO and would retain all profits to it, nothing for shareholders.. I would call this a "WTF" moment..
Company Information
Company Name: BESADO TEQUILA LLC
File Number: 41689589K
Filing State: Louisiana (LA)
Filing Status: Active
Filing Date: November 14, 2014
Company Age: 2 Years, 3 Months
Registered Agent:
Anieze Pettis
3500 N. Causeway Blvd
Suite 160
Metairie, LA 70002
Mailing Address:
3500 N. Causeway Blvd
Suite 160
Metairie, LA 70002
Company Contacts
ALONZO PIERCE
Manager
3500 N. Causeway Blvd
Suite 160
Metairie, LA 70002
There were 648 shareholders of record screwed at DKTS. How many will be screwed at ISBG.
ISBG owns nothing, Pierce transferred all assets to two llc's in Metarie, Louisiana
Alonzo Pierce has a stripper girlfriend in South Florida. A family values man.
Curly, Larry and Moe
Slim Whitman saved the world in the movie "MARS ATTACK"
With all that paid for from the $2700.00 shown on the balance sheet and a title loan on Pierce's Honda
Did Lou ever tell you about the taste party in Florida when Pierce had empty Besado Bottles filled with the cheapest Tequila they could buy. Pierce your scams are historical
Yeah. Maybe they'll get Slim Whitman to do the next promo.
You have to agree, this scam gets more elaborate. I wonder what Lou would be saying.. Where's Allen, PHD.. Rob at Loma missing this great opportunity he help to create this with the quad 4 note..