is rotflmfao
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.
Ok, ok. I am just, for the fun of arguing the case, trying to show that fraud is not black and white. I know if I was going to PR about a nobo list, I'd pay the $150 and get a list. If they didn't, they're dum dums.
Yeah, I'm going to download it, I think there are some jurisdictional defenses that might be available to Matt under the Supreme Court case of United States v. Cabrales, 524 US 1 (1998).
He might be a big bad boy who deletes and message referring to the weight of CEOs, but he is entitled to the best defense we ihubbers can give him as a matter of law. The facts are his problem.
Maybe so. One thing the feds like to do is charge you with something, say $1,000,000, then get you to plead guilty because the guidelines recommend XX months for that. Then your presentence investigation report comes out and it's 80 pages and claims you stole billions from cathouses in China on Friday the 13th. They call it relevant conduct, and the money is added to your points. The prosecutor needs only to prove it by preponderance of the evidence.
The Supreme Court said that's not nice in a case called Booker, so their solution was that it can still be done, but that the solution is to let the judge do whatever he wants-- he doesn't have to follow the book. He can just give you 100 years or 1 year as long as he articulates his reasons.
-----------
So they're that dumb that they would PR getting a nobo list without paying a lousy $150 for the list? LOL, I am not saying I don't believe it, but I am just seriously wondering if they'd be so brazen and stupid.
Is the redacted indictment now available on PACER?
It still doesn't say that the revenues claim is false.
For instance, if I have a shell, I'm going to want something good in it. If I want to expand into the hottest market, I can make such a plan and do so legally. If I have revenues increase 300%, I can say what was said legally even if I'm overly excited.
Now, for the purposes of dumping stock, well that's illegal even if the statements were true as it would have been insider trading and a whole host of other price manipulation issues.
Fraud usually requires a representation, and the representation must be materially false. So, normally they say that, "Defendant XXX issued a press release containing the materially false claim that revenues increased by 300%."
I never believed it, never would have believed it until the following. It was where it became clear that all things weren't neutral at ihub and that promoters had an edge. With respect to the incident, with no news, volume and interest in the stock was created allowing some with large positions to sell of their stuff to the uninformed:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=35076733
and Matt's reply:
Posted by: IH Admin [Matt] Date: Monday, January 26, 2009 12:23:45 PM
In reply to: Anonymous Nobody who wrote msg# 122842 Post # of 127604 [Send a link via email]
Anonymous Nobody,
Contrary to the conspiracy theories that shorts and a few others have managed to dream up in the last day or two awaiting my reply, it was a rather basic Admin move.
A user or two expressed an interest in taking over the board, they have a good history with me. You aren't around that often (though you seem to be now) on the SGLS board, so I popped them in. Didn't think it'd be a big deal; you're clearly negative on the stock and that often discourages conversation when the 'Mod' is negative. You can obviously still post there.
I don't know a thing about SGLS and don't care about it. All I care about is an active discussion of the stock. That's certainly happening right now over there. I'll monitor the board. If it turns out NetGains/others is a wanker and doing a bad job, I'll put you back in.
Oh - to shorts - it's off topic to discuss Mod changes/deletions/etc on the board. You're free to discuss those with me, but not on the board, that's why I removed the few posts you guys made.
Very strange that they used an ICE agent to seek the arrest warrant. This is probably due to the one defendant being a foreign national and ICE having contributed to the investigation as to his status, but it's still weird stuff.
I did read the complaint, but did so quickly. I did NOT read the indictment as it wasn't yet available on PACER. I remember them saying to make the PR sound enormous, but never saw it say that the company did not triple it's sales. That's why I asked for a clarification since I wasn't sure. I am not trying to plant any seeds of doubt, the documents consist of charging papers and are not judicial findings. I can sue you tomorrow for selling me a lemon car even though we never met, it's a fact of life in the USA. That's not to say there isn't something to the charges, I don't know, I have no vested interest in any of the companies involved.
I'm glad they're letting it happen.
Is there anywhere in the SEC allegations where it is asserted that the press releases were materially false?
There certainly are great lawyers, but most criminal attorneys are burnt out from taking on too many cases. In addition, people make the mistake of giving them a hefty retainer to "handle the case" instead of per hour with itemized billing. The lawyer always says a retainer is cheaper, but the reality is that once they get the loot, they don't want to work and suggest a plea. They go from aggressive to sluggish, often not taking your calls. When you decide to fire the guy, you realize he has all your money and you paid him to take the case so there's no refund.
A competent lawyer will never purport to know the answer to a complicated legal question as the law changes daily with new published opinions.
When there's no published opinion, the lawyer shouldn't say there's no law to support your argument, but should say, "Let's see if we can get the appeals court to adopt that argument."
Is it the right thing to do to cooperate at the expense of your associates to receive a shorter sentence? I personally believe that the state should have to prove its case, and that people should take personal responsibility if they choose. Personal responsibility is making your own decisions, not making them for your codefendants.
I am guessing that someone already flipped or they wouldn't have text conversations.
Nobody has anything to be mad about unless they were a true investor in the companies involved (investor doesn't mean flipper, guys, come on).
We all have been entertained by ihub and we choose to hang out here. We know it's the wild West, and if we don't, then we should be mad at ourselves.
I often argue with attorneys and they say, "who went to law school?" I reply, law school consists of a lousy three year program. A lawyer planning on going into criminal law takes the same courses as a bankruptcy attorney. They usually have one 3 month course once or twice a week in criminal law and the same for constitutional law.
Bottom line is anyone can read a statute, anyone can read a judicial case interpreting the statute, and nobody can predict what the judge will do since he's just another lawyer in a robe, albeit one scared of making the prosecutor mad.
I didn't know there were feds in Delaware. I just thought it was a guy and a computer that made corporations.
There's no difference in your sentence if you're convicted of conspiracy or aiding and abetting. They base the recommended sentence on the underlying conduct and the amount of money.
RICO usually requires that the defendants operated an entity, incorporated or otherwise. I doubt they will supersede the indictment materially since they investigated the for two years.
I am still trying to figure out why they charged Matt in a separate indictment. It allows the defendants to easily seek separate trials.
Look at these pumpers using PRs to tout their case and only expressing in a footnote that they haven't proven it yet.
U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney’s Office
District of Delaware
1007 Orange Street, Suite 700
P.O. Box 2046 (302) 573-6277
Wilmington, Delaware 19899-2046 FAX (302) 573-6220
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE David C. Weiss
Thursday, May 21, 2009 Acting United States Attorney
(302) 573-6277
PRESS RELEASE
SEVEN INDICTED IN "PUMP AND DUMP" STOCK SCHEMES
David C. Weiss, Acting United States Attorney for the District of Delaware, announced today
the unsealing of five indictments against seven individuals as part of a two-year securities fraud
investigation into the manipulation of so-called “penny stocks” traded through the over-the-counter
stock markets. The fraud schemes described in the indictments all involve efforts to manipulate the
prices of publicly traded stocks to create the illusion of market interest in the stocks. The goal was
to induce the investing public to purchase a stock based on the artificial trading volume, and thus
increase the price of the stock. The defendants then were able to sell off significant holdings in
these stocks, generating millions of dollars in proceeds. Such a scheme is known colloquially as a
“pump and dump.”
Joining Acting U.S. Attorney Weiss in this announcement were John Kelleghan, Special
Agent in Charge of the ICE Office of Investigations in Philadelphia; Don Fort, Special Agent in
Charge of the Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation, Philadelphia office; and Colonel
Thomas Mac Leish, Superintendent of the Delaware State Police. The investigation was conducted
in coordination with the Securities and Exchange Commission, who today also announced the filing
of a related civil complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
The Indictments are merely accusations, and 1 all defendants are presumed innocent unless
proven guilty.
2
The five indictments were unsealed late yesterday, following arrests in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida,
and Los Angeles, and Orange County, California.1 The seven defendants named in the indictments
are:
• Pawel Dynkowski, age 24, formerly of Newark, Delaware;
• Joseph Mangiapane, Jr., age 43, of Laguna Niguel, California;
• Marc Riviello, age 50, of Atherton, California;
• Matthew W. Brown, age 26, of Aliso Viejo, California;
• Jacob Canceli, age 50, of Mission Viejo, California;
• Gerard D’Amaro, age 38, of Lighthouse Point, Florida; and
• Angelo R. “Bill” Panetta, age 48, of Montebello, California.
The companies whose stocks the defendants are charged with manipulating and conspiring to
manipulate include GH3 International, Inc. (stock ticker: GHTI); Asia Global Holdings Corp. (stock
ticker: AAGH); Playstar Corporation (stock ticker: PLYCF); and INCA Designs, Inc. (stock ticker:
IDGI).
“The integrity of our nation’s public stock markets requires protection from those greedy few
who engage in market manipulation at the expense of many,” said Acting United States Attorney
Weiss. “The wide-ranging actions of the defendants demonstrate rampant, serial abuse of the freemarket
system through a nationwide network of manipulative trading, which netted the defendants
millions of dollars in fraud proceeds. Especially in these challenging economic times, the United
States Attorney’s Office is committed to vigorously prosecuting those who continue to undermine
our system of capital markets by committing securities fraud.”
“For as long as societies have had financial systems, there have been people who attempt to
exploit those systems,” said John P. Kelleghan, Special Agent in Charge of the ICE Office of
Investigations in Philadelphia. “One of ICE's priorities is to work with our law enforcement partners
to protect the public and the integrity of our nation’s financial system.”
3
“Money laundering is a global threat, fuel for criminals to conduct their criminal affairs and is
used to manipulate and erode our financial systems,” said Don Fort, Special Agent in Charge,
Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation, Philadelphia.
The Alleged Scheme
Taken together, the indictments allege that, between September 2006 and September 2008,
defendants Dynkowski, Mangiapane, Riviello, Brown, Canceli, and D’Amaro sought to fraudulently
inflate market demand for, and thus the prices of, shares of various companies traded through the
“pinksheets” and on the over-the-counter bulletin board by manipulating sales of those stocks in a
way that appeared to be the product of free and fair market forces. To accomplish this, the
indictments allege that the defendants used sham conversions of corporate debt, postings on on-line
message boards, and manipulative trading (such as wash sales and matched orders). As alleged in
the indictments, these actions were often timed to coincide with false and/or misleading press
releases from the issuers, which were at times orchestrated by the defendants. Once the fraudulent
market demand was created, the defendants would sell off large blocks of shares that they had
acquired, generating millions of dollars in profits at the expense of unwary investors. The
indictments further allege that the proceeds from these stock sales were laundered through various
individuals’ and entities’ bank accounts, both inside and outside the United States.
The Indictments
A nine-count indictment filed on April 16, 2009, charges Pawel Dynkowski and Joseph
Mangiapane, Jr., with various securities fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy to commit securities fraud,
conspiracy to commit money laundering, and money laundering offenses. Marc Riviello is charged
with one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, one count of conspiracy to commit money
laundering, and one count of money laundering. A separate indictment charging Matthew W.
4
Brown with related offenses was also returned on April 16, 2009. The charges in these indictments
primarily arise out of the alleged manipulation of GHTI and AAGH.
Jacob Canceli was charged on April 16, 2009, with one count each of conspiracy to commit
securities fraud, securities fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. These
charges principally relate to his alleged involvement in the manipulation of GHTI.
A four-count indictment filed on April 30, 2009, charges Gerard D’Amaro and Pawel
Dynkowski each with one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, one count of securities
fraud, one count of wire fraud, and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering. These
charges primarily arise out of the alleged manipulation of PLYCF and IDGI.
Defendant Angelo R. “Bill” Panetta is charged separately with one count of perjury and one
count of obstruction of justice in connection with his testimony before a grand jury for the District
of Delaware. According to the indictment, Panetta provided false testimony to the Grand Jury
concerning conversations he had with “R.R.,” another subject of the investigation, during which
Panetta and R.R. discussed how Panetta might handle the questions posed to him in the Grand Jury.
Panetta is also charged with concealing from the Grand Jury his knowledge of another person
involved in the investigation.
Each count of securities fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, and conspiracy to commit
money laundering carries a maximum penalty of twenty years imprisonment, and fines ranging from
$250,000 to $5,000,000. Each count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud carries a maximum
penalty of five years imprisonment and a $250,000 fine. The maximum penalties for perjury and
obstruction of justice are five and ten years imprisonment, respectively, and a $250,000 fine per
count.
Acting U.S. Attorney Weiss praised the cooperative law enforcement effort that resulted in
these charges. The investigation, which began in 2007, has been pursued jointly by local ICE, IRS,
5
and DSP authorities, with assistance from local and federal investigators in Orange County,
California, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, and New York City. Acting U.S. Attorney Weiss also thanked
the SEC for its willingness to provide invaluable assistance to the federal authorities. Acting U.S.
Attorney Weiss stated that the investigation is continuing.
* * *
SEC bans Arizona lawyer Stocker
2009-05-21 14:12 ET - Street Wire
Also Street Wire (U-*SEC) U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Also Street Wire (U-AVLL) AVL Global Inc
by Mike Caswell
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has secured a permanent penny stock ban against Arizona lawyer David Stocker. Mr. Stocker agreed to the ban to settle civil fraud allegations in three civil suits launched by the SEC in 2007 and 2008, including one that had Ontario father and son Peter and Tyler Fisher as defendants. In that case, the SEC alleged that Mr. Stocker helped the Fishers issue unrestricted shares in a pink sheets company, AVL Global Inc., which they allegedly sold in a subsequent pump-and-dump.
The ban is contained in court orders filed in Michigan, Texas and Arizona, the three states where the SEC filed its complaints against Mr. Stocker. The orders prevent him from participating in an offering of penny stocks, and require him to pay a total of $1.4-million in disgorgement of profits plus $399,070 in interest. (All figures are in U.S. dollars.) Mr. Stocker did not admit to any wrongdoing in settling the cases.
The ban comes two months after Mr. Stocker pleaded guilty to related criminal fraud charges in Arizona. Prosecutors there alleged that he helped manipulate 19 stocks over a two-year period, including AVL Global. He has not yet been sentenced in that case.
The AVL Global case
The SEC filed the first of its three complaints against Mr. Stocker on June 14, 2007, in the Eastern District of Michigan. In that case, it alleged that he participated in a scheme that allowed the Fishers to improperly obtain 15 million free-trading shares of AVL Global, a company that was purportedly developing a GPS tracking device. In addition to naming the Fishers and Mr. Stocker as defendants, the complaint also named Phillip Offill, a Texas securities lawyer since indicted on criminal fraud charges for his alleged role in AVL Global and other companies.
As part of the scheme, the Fishers caused AVL Global to issue 15 million shares to private companies controlled by Mr. Stocker and Mr. Offill, the SEC said. On paper, the shares appeared to be legitimate arm's-length sales, but the actual purpose of the transactions was to circumvent the registration requirements and transfer the shares back to Peter Fisher as freely tradable stock, the complaint stated. The SEC claimed that Mr. Stocker drafted legal opinions representing that the stock was being bought for investment purposes, which allowed the shares to be unrestricted.
According to the complaint, Mr. Stocker then transferred the free-trading shares back to Peter Fisher, his family or associates. "As a result, Peter Fisher controlled approximately 90% of the AVL Global shares issued in the April, July, and October 2004 stock transactions," the complaint stated.
Once the shares were back in Peter Fisher's control, he started issuing false and misleading news releases to pump the stock, the SEC said. One news release claimed that the Botswana Department of Defence was testing the company's GPS tracking units, and suggested that a successful test would lead to an order for 3,000 to 5,000 units, the SEC alleged. "This statement was false and misleading," the complaint stated. "By early September, the company's distributor for Africa ... had determined that Botswana lacked satellite coverage necessary to support AVL Global tracking devices and sent the testing units back to AVL Global." The SEC also claimed that the Fishers arranged for junk faxes touting the company. The fax spammer, who was not named in the complaint, received one million free-trading shares, the complaint stated.
During the alleged spamming and false news releases, the stock rose to a $4.10 high on Dec. 15, 2004. It then declined to 38 cents on Feb. 28, 2005.
The SEC sought disgorgement of profits, appropriate civil penalties and penny stock bans. Tyler Fisher settled the case as soon as it was filed, agreeing to pay $25,000 and to a five-year ban from penny stocks. He did not admit any wrongdoing. The allegations remain outstanding against the senior Fisher and Mr. Offill, who both deny any wrongdoing. The case is on hold pending the outcome of Mr. Offill's criminal trial.
Stocker's Texas case
Three months after it filed the AVL Global case, the SEC launched another suit against Mr. Stocker, alleging that he and Mr. Offill had participated in a scheme to help four Texas men obtain free-trading shares in six companies based in Texas, New Mexico and California. The complaint, filed in the Northern District of Texas, named as defendants Mr. Stocker, Mr. Offill and four Texas residents: Shane Mullholand, Ryan Reynolds, Timothy Page and Steven Fischer.
The SEC alleged that Mr. Stocker helped the companies go public and arranged for his co-defendants to obtain free-trading shares for little or no money. He allegedly prepared corporate resolutions, subscription agreements and legal opinions designed to give the appearance that the companies were selling shares to accredited investors, when in fact the shares were purchased by his co-defendants, who only planned to resell the shares on the market.
The other defendants in the case have all filed their answers, in which they deny any wrongdoing. Like the AVL Global suit, that case is also on hold pending the resolution of Mr. Offill's criminal trial.
Stocker's Arizona case
The SEC filed its third case against Mr. Offill in the District of Arizona on Aug. 11, 2008. In that complaint, it claimed that he stole the identities of several public companies that had become defunct, but still had value as shells. When he found each company, he incorporated a new company under the same name, and then used his authority to act on behalf of the new company to take over the old one, the SEC claimed. He allegedly did this by causing the old companies to undergo a rollback and change their shares for shares in the new companies.
"Through this scheme, Stocker and Carrera Capital [a private company he controlled] were able to gain control of public shells without having to pay for them or otherwise deal with their former control persons," the complaint stated. The SEC said he profited from the scheme by selling the companies as shells.
As Mr. Stocker was the only defendant in that case, it is now closed.
Janice and Jim didn't start this, Art2Gecko did but left the moderator open.
I would say, yes, if convicted, Matt's looking at about 12 years. It's the 1956 (money laundering) that will bump up his sentence a bit. I will do a sentencing guidelines analysis later.
I am not saying Carnes controlled Matt, but I am suggesting that ruthless promoters had their way and had clout. I was still shocked by the extent of the SEC allegations.
He had a big chunk at the time of the alleged shenanigans.
Further consultations to promoters who want to protect their privacy is at a rate of $350.00/hour. LOL. I tried to start a service, foradodge.com, but stupid DaimlerChrysler shut me down.
I don't know why it would be so hard, even if they kept half of the money they made selling worthless stocks, put the rest in and make the shareholders some cash.
For instance, if Matty did what they say, he could have just as easily put ihub into a shell and made everyone some money.
I know if I had a shell or 30, I'd find real deals for them, and try to give everyone some loot.
To those that say I am already doing that, touche, but you're wrong at this juncture.
Someone definitely is-- and they retained their chats like good snitches do. Listen, folks, if you're going to run an illegal stock promotion business:
1. Use a good proxy when posting your false information.
2. Use offshore mail servers for your email so feddies got problems getting.
3. Don't have your real name in your email address (bobjones52@yahoo.com). Better to use papabigbuns@hotmail.ro than mynameisbobbyfraud@hotmail.com.
4. Don't give hotmail your real information.
5. Don't register your telephone to your name, use prepaids.
6. Don't save copies of your chat messages--especially if your real name is attached to the username of the chat service.
7. Move the money offshore BEFORE you're indicted, not after you know of any investigation. Do this without a paper trail.
8. Check out the background of anyone you do business with and make sure they're not undercover agents (look at the recent promoters indicted for hiring FBI agents posing as stock brokers-- all they needed to do is check them out).
Better yet, don't bother. Try starting a real business and actually make money for your investors. LOL.
Add me as a friend! I don't like many friends because over 5 they charge you with RICO conspiracies.
Yes, dum dum ADVFN bought the corporation instead of just the intellectual property. I'd have bought the domain and the software and made a clean corporation in case of something like this.
I disagree with your immunity argument. If an OFFICER of the corporation engaged in a conspiracy to defraud and used ihub as a portal, then Investorshub.com Inc. could be liable in a civil suit.
If Matt did what they say and did not aid it using ihub, then no,there's no liability just because his friends used the vehicle.
But if he took action to allow them to, say, moderate the board and delete negative messages, then... sure, the corp. could be liable.
One of the most shocking things I saw was Matt remove neutral Anonymous Nobody from SGLS and put in promoters as the mods who, on no real news, manipulated the price of the stock. (His public explanation was he wanted persons pro-SGLS as mod to have more posts). The new mods then deleted anything negative. That's an example of aiding a stock manipulation that the company could be liable. If he left A.N. as mod, and the promoters just did what they do, then he could invoke the protection statutes. But when you put promoters in without disclosing why, and you let them delete information that isn't TOU but is simply negative, then sure the company could be liable.
Simply put, if Matt used ihub as a vehicle, and the charges are true, ih.com inc could be liable. If Bob Jones from Zillynoble used ihub to do the same thing but he wasn't affiliated, then the federal laws would protect ihub inc.
In 2007, ADVFN bought Investorshub.com Inc. I suppose, if you were a victim, you could indeed sue Investorshub.com Inc. since it's an entity. Like a dirty Pink Sheets shell, they don't lose liability if it changes hands.
If I was ADVFN after buying the company, I'd have transferred the asset not left it in the old shell. Now it's too late since moving it would be a conveyance that could be reversed.
Under the civil statutes, you have 2 years to sue for securities fraud from the time you could reasonably have known.
Don't buy Pink Sheets stocks unless you want to lose your money, agreed. I don't want anyone telling me I can't buy. I have no problem with the SEC charging or suing Pink Sheets promoters who lie or defraud. As stated, I sue or people I know have sued these scammy stocks.
Sure, I spent 7 years playing with the feds on exaggerated charges. It's not all cut and dry, and I know it first hand.
Pink Sheets stocks are high risk vehicles, why invest in that type of investment unless you're looking for high returns in exchange for risk.
Any company can be picked apart if they're not legit. A few public records searches, such as what I discuss on my board, will give you your answers before you invest.
But most people don't investigate as they're interested in a chart, or a wave of PRs, they are just as culpable as the scammers.
But to say no Pink Sheets or OTC basically suggests that only huge companies should have the opportunity to go public. I disagree. The system should not be stacked against little guys.
On the other hand, if you are defrauded, it's your duty to take action. My wife and I have sued Pink Sheets companies for fraud and some for spamming and received judgments or other positive results. If you lose $1000, take them to small claims court. They will probably make restitution. But people don't, and it's because of their own complacency.
So let's not have big brother decide whether or not we invest in otc stocks.
He gave us countless hours of entertainment. No I am not suggesting that if he defrauded people he get away with it, but the government tends to hype their case.
For instance, they alleged he operates investorshub.com. How about the truth. He is presently an administrator of investorshub.com, owned by the public company ADVFN.
But it's a way to make him appear more important than he is, and it's no different than hyping a pink sheets stock. The government attorneys want to look like they got big fish. The reality will come out in the trial or sentencing proceedings.
Maybe the SEC case has flaws. In reading the civil complaint, they allege that Pinksheets.com quit quoting one of the companies. Pink Sheets has no authority to stop quoting anything, they simply refuse to post the quote on their website, big deal. But an experienced SEC attorney would know that there is no place in a lawsuit for this type of allegation.
The pinks/otcs serve a purpose. If you're playing them on ihub looking for momo, then you're gambling.
If you've been defrauded, you can take action against the companies. People simply don't.
The meek aren't playing these, they're investing in bonds.
LOL! They will treat Matt with decency and respect (as long as he buys them commissary).
Well the whole board is a big pump. Everyone here has motives. Can you sue? If you bought the stock, yes. Can you sue Ihub? No, it is a piece of software that was sold to ADVFN, and they had no idea. Can you sue Matt and attach his bank accounts with the sale proceeds in them? Sure, if you're a victim.
I accessed docket entry 5 on the Delaware federal court pacer, which was a motion to unseal the indictment. The motion stated that Matt was arrested at his home 5/20, so there was no need to keep it private anymore.
Case 09cv46 (D.Del.)
Matt I think is paid salary now, the company that owns ihub is ADVFN. I am sure they're pissed about the publicity, for sure, as they paid a lot of money for the legitimacy of it. Some people have suspected preference to promoters, I personally didn't believe it. Time will tell, let him defend his case before making judgments.
And who cares. The goal is to make money. People who play pinks and otc know what they're buying-- junk. Not saying it's right to lie in PRs, and I have sued or helped others sue companies that do-- but the investors are culpable as well when they play the momo.
Matt isn't going to hate this board. We may be able to find the flaws in his indictment for him. His attorney certainly won't.
Yes, Admin Matt. Listen, it won't be so bad, he'll get to spend $300/month in commissary, he gets 300 minutes of phone calls per month at 23 cents per minute, and emails for $6.00 an hour. There is a library, Wall Street Journal, and mail service. A recreation yard so he can get in shape.
Finally, french fries on Wednesday's, and they are good usually.
I know, believe me, I know.
What is weird is that they issued separate indictments against each person, all with separate docket numbers. That's unusual. It could help the defendants demand separate trials.
For instance Matt's case is 09cr46 and Canceli's is 09cr47.