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.
johnson, what is CVIA's stock price?
What a perspicacious remark. Thank you for being so consisent, Eugene. LOL
And you, johnson, can't raise a $.79 CVIA stock price...can you?
Yeah, whatever, johnson.
100% on this board know you have no credibility. So, even by your foolish math I am 10% ahead of you. LOL
Also, trying reading what is written for once. You met Joe. Call Joe. Joe will tell you. It's easy to verify, unlike what you say, which is NEVER VERIFIABLE.
The real point is you don't know Joe and you're too lazy to do what's necessary to verify what I say...just like you're too lazy to do you due diligence on Corporate Vision.
johnson, as usual you muddy up the issue with irrelevant remarks.
The point is Joe can verify the money that I raised -- it was more than .79...and you enjoy your "All Day Sucker" now, ya here?
In the case of CVIA, it's real simple...take a look at their bank statement and deposits made totalling approx. $800K.
Ask Joe Seibert, who was Chairman of the Board. He will verify.
Now, get going and check it out.
BTW, johnson your implied question asking: "...no proof ever shows up except your printed word" agains shows your lack of knowledge about not only business, but the world.
My current business is confidential, but when the next "tombstone" gets done, I'll point you to it, okay?
I mean, really johnson, what's the dupe. There's nothing for me to gain by claiming something that's not true. Wake up, I'm not the one who is duping you...can you guess who it might be?
In the meantime, we all live in the hope that you will remain unduped? LOL
You are wrong johnson. But then what do you know about the truth of anything?
The answer: nothing.
I spelled out the deal to Bill. I sent him a specimen contract for the deal that had been done with someone else.
It was a legal Agreement. Legal Agreements don't just get typed up...they have to be written by an attorney...that costs money...they have to be perfected for each deal...that costs money.
This was no hot air like what you blow, buddy, it was the real deal. You just can't accept the idea that I am who I say I am.
You are so unbelievably benighted it's scary.
I know they read the boards. In fact Richard Tuorto Sr. when I spoke to him in late December just happen to have a print out of one of my posts on his desk.
I thought that really strange, but it does tell you something about management's priorities...what it tells you is they are concerned about the real truth and don't want anyone pointing it out to the world.
On the other hand money is money, but these people are only interested in their own "Our Thing."
Pete, if you want to believe them over me, that's your mistake.
That's really not a very convincing arguement, but what do I know...I know the stock is on the pinks and has not gone above $.125 since I said that the stock price would be capped by that ridiculous arrangement with EESV.
They don't have to deal with me. I really could care less.
My point is they don't deal with anyone who has an 'earnest money' interest in investing in this company. Neither you nor anyone else can defend the decrepitude of this management team.
Show me the money!!!!! You can't do that. Yeah, I know, it's just around the corner.
Believe I will never do another thing to help this company.
Pete, whatever they're doing is irrelevant to the anecdote I related to this board.
They had this opportunity to access my source 4-6 months ago.
Given what was going on with this company can't you at least admit it was worth their time to take a close look at that kind of financing? A financing, BTW, that was very favorable to the company and would have created ZERO dilution. I'll say it again, ZERO DILUTION.
Put aside that it was the "hated" ST that was trying to help this company and ask yourself if this was a good and rational business decision given the company's state of affairs (near bankruptcy to be precise) to pass up this kind of aggregate money?
If you believe management now do you also believe this?:
Press Release:
Corporate Vision To Receive Up To $2,500,000 In Royalty Assignment
Wednesday October 2, 10:44 am ET
The Company
Corporate Vision, Inc. (OTCBB: CVIA) is an emerging, growth-oriented venture capital company, with current investments and alliances in Technologies and the Environment. They are a development stage holding company with liquid waste disposal and trucking operations, and plan to become one of the leading providers of multi- modal transportation services and logistics solutions throughout the US and abroad.
Investment Considerations
For the last 3 years, the B-Right Trucking Co., a subsidiary of CVIA, has had operating revenues in excess of $40 million.
To optimize B-Rights capacity and dramatically increase revenues per mile, CVIA created CVT as a return haul service for B-Right Trucking, and to implement the Jezco System. The Jezco System allows CVT to transport liquid and solid waste via the B-Right Trucking Co. and over 5 million other traditional flat-bed and box-van trailers.
When completed, Phase 1 will generate an additional $10 million in annual revenues for CVIA. CVIA contemplates 3 distinct phases in its effort to revolutionize the transportation of waste. Upon the completion of Phase 3, CVIA estimates combined annual revenues at approximately $100 million!
Phase 1 will generate an additional $10 million in annual revenues for CVIA.
Where's the $10 million, Pete?
Why hasn't the stock gone above $.125 since the PR?
Why is this stock still on the pinks?
Willy say IT COME SOON!
Bill, I think maybe you have to reword your Zen koan, or else I am more of a 'grasshopper' than I thought. :)
But, you make a good point, and I'll rephrase my question in the spirit you ask it:
What does it tell us about a management team that when presented with a legitimate and fair offer for much needed financing which would have gotten them out of that Stony's deal, avoided having EESV "invest" $250K and prevented an implied price cap on the stock at $.125, giving them a chance for balance sheet repair and new, unsubordinated operating leverage on their balance sheet that they decided to make a 'No Choice Choice?'
What source?
Eugene, I'm going to be nice to you by saying it this way: You really don't know what you are talking about. You also have no sense of real business and business negotiations.
You view me through this distorted prism whereby all my motives are suspect. As they say you can't talk a paranoid out of their paranoia.
Keith got money from real investors who put money into CVIA because they expected Keith to return a profit on their investment. They did not expect Keith to squander that money, which is what he did. That's not my fault. That's not the investors' fault. That's Keith's fault and Ray Hall and all the other malfeasant clowns who had their greedy palms out.
That money was invested to finance CVIA's success...that's the fact...nothing else Eugene.
You may proud of BT, but once again I would suggest that it is your lack of business knowledge speaking, not your pride.
Please...if they do then why haven't they availed themself of it months and months ago?
Do you really think these people are really interested in running a real business? I don't...and that's why they didn't want to enter into any kind of meaningful negotiation; plus, I would guess, they don't want the scrutiny of the necessary due diligence.
Mike here's another chance to be right:
I told the company that I had a funding source that could provide up to $10M, if the company could justify that amount.
I explained the deal template to Bill T. Bill T. thought it was interesting, said they would get back to me, we talked a few more times, but they never followed up with any serious intent.
Then they dissolved Stony's and all the rest of the baloney they did after that.
Now, and this is not a trick question: Why do you think the company passed up an opportunity to finance at least $4 to $5 million to bankroll their business and give them execution money to succeed on their business plan and create shareholder value?
I have great faith that you will be right on this as well. :)
You are! You are!! :)
You are so right you'll never know!!!
Awright, I'll you a clue...
The death penalty should be applied to corporations convicted of defrauding the federal government, report recommends...
You are absolutely right, Mike. Eugene has been consistently wrong in his portrayal of CVIA, both as a company and as an investment.
You are right, Mike. Johnson has been consistently wrong in the things he says about CVIA. He has never been right about the essentials of this company and its direction in the marketplace.
If he were a paid employee and had this bad of a performance, he would be fired immediately.
That's right, Mike; give eugene heck. He deserves it.
He has been wrong about everything that he's posted about CVIA and what's going on with this company.
Ordinarily, I would say johnson should be fired for such a bad performance, but he's too much fun to keep around. LOL
He amuses us for free.
Thanks Eugene for all the yuks. LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
CVIA: A TURN AROUND COMPANY: Is now poised for solid growth in 2002
This is at the top of our home page.
This says it all doesn't it? This little sentence written many months ago provides all the perspective one needs for judging how badly management's performance has been over the past two years.
It also tells you something about management IMO illegally preventing the preferreds from being issued. Seems that newly minted shares are only for insiders and the cronies of insiders.
This is just one reason why that little sentence at the top the page will remain bitterly ironic.
BTW, what business is it exactly that we are poised for growth? What does CVIA do as an ongoing concern? What are we paying management for...exactly?
Go CVIA!!!!!!!!!
Yeah, I like it in the "mist" of this company...it's so refreshing. LOL
johnson, they did not buy anything, dying or otherwise.
They paid zero dollars and then hijacked the company.
JMO
Reread their PRs johnson.
For one thing, claiming to have $40M in revenue was a gross exaggeration of the truth. If Stoney's was such a money maker why did management discard it?
And yes, management is that stupid.
Thank you, Pete.
They know they have support with the investors
who account for the majority of the stock.
This is a ridiculously absurd thing to say.
Of course they have the support of a majority...it's the majority they created by doing bogus deals that spit out tremendous dilution that allowed these scumbags to then run this business like tyrants who issue dictums by "Consent Decree."
You are comical, Eugene.
Pete, please delete Willy's post. It is nothing but spamming...as he is cloaking his stock picks in the form of a question. Also, it is not "On Topic."
Thank you.
Check my posts on RB. I explained that many times.
It's as much of a brow raiser as your buying publicly traded shares directly from management in an offering that was not made available to the general public, but to a select few such as yourself.
I like my position much better than yours...you really should check the law before you open your mouth about things of which you know nothing about.
This management has IMO defrauded and destroyed our shareholder value. That's illegal.
There is nothing going on with this company IMO other than theft of shareholder value and tax avoidance.
The SEC doesn't like that, and neither do I.
An effective letter to use as a model when writing a letter of complaint to the SEC:
http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/sec-letter-final.pdf
OT: Is this OUR Leon Blaser making friends everywhere he goes?
Pepper Hills Homeowners Association Meeting
Minutes 9/12/98
Called to order 7:10 p.m.
INTRODUCTION
David Day indicated this is the first official meeting of the association; the Blasers and Garret Longstreet declined to attend. They want us to meet, define committees, etc., and then they will turn control over to us in October. David introduced himself and members of the transition team: Mike Garrecht, Dia Gainor, Jim Armstrong, and others on transition team who were not present. First thing we need to decide how we will vote; reviewed one vote per lot provisions in arts of incorporation, requested only one hand per lot be raised, those with proxies use additional fingers.
OFFICER NOMINATIONS/ELECTIONS
Voting in officers is a necessary first step to transitioning the control of the association from the developer to the homeowners. Nominations were opened.
President: David Day nominated. No additional nominations. Vote was unanimous.
Vice-President: Mike Garrecht, Jason Schwenson nominated. David asked each to introduce himself.
Mike is a twenty year state employee in the Tax Commission; previously lived in a condominium complex and was part of the board of directors there, including president for seven years; knows that there is a lot to do to in Pepper Hills.
Jason is a construction superintendent, is proud of the subdivision, and wants to see it kept up. Has worked in many subdivisions, and sees ours as going downhill already. Perceives that we need a lot of help, especially because of Blaser, and wants a nice subdivision.
Vote was 2 for Mike, 23 for Jason.
Secretary: Dia Gainor, Lori Holt nominated. David asked each to introduce herself.
Dia works for the state in the Emergency Medical Services Bureau. She began assisting the Pepper Hills homeowners by drafting the letter following the last homeowners association meeting to get Blaser's attention that we were serious about our concerns and desire to transition control. Has had experience with numerous homeowners associations.
Lori a secretary at Jackson's food stores, does minutes and correspondence regularly, proud to live in Pepper Hills.
Vote was 16 for Dia, 9 for Lori.
Treasurer: Jim Armstrong, Mark Orndorff, Mike Garrecht nominated. David asked each to introduce himself.
Jim has been in this development since December of last year, as some organizational experience, Treasurer is perhaps the busiest job keeping track of dues, payments to contractors, has a contractor, open to new ideas.
Mark is a Micron systems administrator, very interested in serving the association but perhaps not as Treasurer.
Mike has a degree in accounting, but does not have a computer. He acknowledged that having a computer would be essential to the Treasurer.
Vote: Jim 25; Mark 0, Mike 0
Discussion about remaining types of positions on the Board of Directors was held. Point made that it should be an odd number of directors; motion made that it be a board of seven with four officers and three other board members, seconded. Vote was unanimous.
David reminded the members that these issues and others are up to the association to define since no bylaws have been drafted yet.
Consent to open nominations, with election for three with the three highest numbers of votes. Consent that every lot could cast a total of three votes. Suggestion that to afford continuity, each seat should have staggered duration. Further suggestion that some form of automatic transition (e.g., vice-president becomes president) be considered to further assure continuity when the President's term expires.
Nominations: Mark Orndorff, Mike Garrecht, Lori Holt, Vern Hart, and Chuck Robertson.
David asked those who had not yet had a chance to introduce themselves in prior nominations to do so.
(Number of votes received shown in parentheses after each name)
Mark Orndorff (16) 1 year
Mike Garrecht (11)
Lori Holt (12)
Vern Hart is a computer professional, lives on Blueberry Dr, owns the internet computer domain "Pepperhills.org", (17) 2 years
Chuck Robertson was secretary for Gem State Kiwanis, lives on Silverking, was president of a HOA for three years (25) three years
Outcome of vote:
Joining the officers to form the Board of Directors are: (term in parentheses)
Mark Orndorff (1 year)
Vern Hart (2 years)
Chuck Robertson (3 years)
SCOPE OF THE ASSOCIATION
David introduced an agenda item about "how big the association should be". Has heard that Pepper Hills is 98 acres but has seen official government documents that it is 101 acres. Pepperwood, to the south of the school site, is planned for 150 condominiums, additional multiplexes, some single family homes, playground and pool. Developer is allowing us to decide if we should allow to fold Pepperwood into the Pepper Hills Homeowners Association (PHHOA). Some pros and cons ... can be significant source of revenue, has facilities (such as the pool) which can be desirable, less common area to maintain. Cons include liability, possible lack of desire for Pepperwood occupants to pay higher fees, especially if related to landscaping. Some units already in Pepperwood are twenty years old, but many more units being added in the future. Concern that Pepperwood issues cannot be addressed by our subdivision association, concern about impact to long time residents to be "taken over" by PHHOA. Concern that Pepperwood residents might let the area go and that would affect the Pepper Hills property values. Developer assures that the high-density housing will be owner occupied. Members expressed doubt that that would remain the case on a long-term basis. Question whether PHHOA could block the construction through a suit to change the zoning. Question whether hearing would be necessary, but zoning change could have taken place years ago. Concern that fourplexes will have negative impact on Pepper Hills home values. Suggestion that being part of the solution (inclusion in the same HOA) would be beneficial. Member described experience with condos in Eagle, have steep fees and strict covenants that keep up appearance. David described that the pool and other common areas would be governed by their own covenants, but we would have mutual interaction on other common issues. Suggestion that we put this matter for some more investigation to the new board members. Leon has desire for us to decide soon. Question whether Pepperwood is being maintained well now. The Pepperwood residents there are likely to come over to use our facilities (to the extent we have any). Desire for at least some kind of sign-off on covenants or other bargaining leverage was expressed. Need to have some kind of input on whether their covenants are complimentary to ours. Identified a desire for further information, need for members to think about it. Leon Blaser should be willing to discuss this with us and answer questions about this in October.
Some discussion about the school, a bond this fall should secure the land trade, another bond can be expected in two years to establish an elementary school there. City will maintain park, will probably exist three years from today. Entertained motion to table the matter of the Pepperwood inclusion in the PHHOA. Passed by voice vote.
Architectural Control Committee: Bylaws call for appointment by Directors, discussion about number of Architectural Control Committee (ACC) members...3? Distribution from throughout the subdivision. Recommendation that the three at large board members be the architectural committee, who can have additional volunteers as needed. Discussion about duties of the architectural committee, they do requests for variances, approve designs and colors. Right now the ACC is the Blasers and Garret Longstreet. Request for expression of interest among members present to be ACC volunteers received no response.
Motion that the three at large board members be the ACC. Passed by voice vote.
Discussion about additional volunteers (as needed) participating, such as the block representatives. This will be left to the discretion of the ACC and specific provisions that may be drafted in the Bylaws.
BYLAWS
By acclimation, the members present agreed that the Board members will begin drafting Bylaws. Dave provided Jim with a list of owners by Block and Lot number. Names and telephone numbers of Board members will be circulated to members. Discussion about block representatives and their roles included the desire to isolate the officers from the "heat of the conflict" through the Block Representatives; they could also be the arms and eyes of the ACC, they could also be distribution points for minutes and other correspondence. A proposed definition of the blocks will be brought to the October meeting by the Board and allow occupants of those blocks to volunteer.
TREES
Trees on Peppermint are gone due to insect infestation in roots, which is very difficult to eradicate. At developers expense (initially) the same species of trees could be in, but differences of flood irrigation instead of sprinklers and annual or biannual injection of systemic insecticide would be at HOA expense. Other trees could be planted (non-deciduous, resistant to the insects) that would not be as pretty as the original design. PHHOA has not gotten a second opinion from another landscape company. The point was made that it should not cost anything for evaluation. Concern that it should be treated so as to minimize the chances of spreading. Robertson assured that this was something the Board could look into very readily. David unsure as to ongoing obligation of developer for resolution. Motion that Directors should pursue an additional evaluation. At least three years of flood irrigation is necessary to eradicate the bugs. Can be dealt with at the Directors meeting and have more information for the October meeting.
DUES
According to the covenants, $200 HOA fee is paid at the first purchase of each lot, $50 per year per lot has been assessed thereafter. Some fees were collected in 1997, no collections in 1998. By law, Blaser must account for all revenue. A belief was expressed that there is no account and no funds will be turned over to the PHHOA. David described that we are in a good position since we could collect $50 from existing lot owners, but covenants require that a notice be sent to each owner the prior fiscal (calendar) year. We could send a notice for 1999, and request that each member should be asked to pay 1998 dues. There was some discussion about the amount of assessment set in the covenants, and requirements to increase assessments more than 20% per year and the percent of members that must be present to raise dues. Discussion that regular annual assessments can be set by the Board (see covenants), and possibility that Board is not limited to $50 for the first year assessment once PHHOA is under homeowners' control.
Goal for turning over PHHOA to Pepper Hills homeowners in October would include a turnover of records from Blaser, but expenses to date may have been paid from general development funds and will have no subdivision specific records.
IDEAL MEETING DATE
October 23rd, motion passed unanimously.
Revisited ACC, member asked what variances have been approved to date. A member said that Longstreet indicated that there have been no approvals for metal fences, and some that encroach on sidewalks may be in violation of ordinances. Suggestion that documentation be required from Longstreet of what variances have been approved. A member proposed that any member should be able to document approvals received previously from Longstreet. Questions about enforcement surfaced, and discussion included the point that covenants specify the process available to the Board. Acknowledgement that there are some very strong opinions about materials and acceptability of variances. Discussion that there should be an immediate moratorium on variance consideration by Longstreet since we have an ACC now.
MOTION TO ADJOURN
Unanimous motion to adjourn at 8:47 p.m.
IMPROMPTU MEETING OF DIRECTORS
David identified the need to have a meeting especially related to the ACC (fences and submission review process), the landscaping, drafting bylaws, division of subdivision into blocks, and Pepperwood subdivision pros and cons. Saturday a.m., Monday evening meeting time/day best for Board meetings. Next meeting: Saturday at Mark Orndorff's house September 19th, 9:00 a.m., 12069 W. Silverking. We should each pay our dues so an account can be opened, two signature account, check on insurance. Find PO Box (treasurer will do). Identify "agent" and "business address". Electrical and maintenance of streetlights will become an association expense.
It says in the TOS that posts are to be civil.
Is Rocky's post in compliance with the requirement to be civil.
I certainly don't think so, and ask that you remove this post for violating the TOS.
Thank you.
If that's your logic then you should NOT be in favor of anything Mays and "Gibson" have done...as nothing is more bogus than the decisions of these people.
imho
You have a good day, too.
It's not a threat.
:)
What TOS was violated?
Investors Hub Terms of Use - Simplified Version / Detailed Version
1) Post about stocks.
I DID. THIS PERTAINS TO CVIA AS IT RELATES TO CORPORATE EXECUTIVE BEHAVIOR AND WHICH HAS FOR ME, AND OTHERS, ANALOGUES TO CVIA MANAGEMENT.
2) Be courteous and respectful of other folks.
THERE WAS NOTHING DISCOURTEOUS IN THAT POST.
3) Have fun.
I CAN'T CLAIM THAT I HAD FUN MAKING THAT POST, BUT I DID FEEL THAT IT WAS GERMANE AND RELEVANT TO OUR INVESTMENT IN CVIA.
No, Rocky, I'm not testing him. I was asking because I didn't know the reason why.
Relax...this isn't RB. :)