104,000,000 shares issued to offor during 2004

That's right, 104 MILLION shares ...

In short, from Dec 19, 2003 to Dec 16 2004, Offor went from 262,320,527 shares Held
to a total of 264,773,380 shares at the end of September, 2004 (this year)
to a HIGH total of 366,244,385 shares on 10 November, 2004,
and then back down to the current holdings of 316,602,564 shares as of 10 November, 2004.

Thus, Offor issued himself more than 102,000,000 shares in less than 45 days, and Then sold off (that is what disposed means) around 50,000,000 shares. ( Offor issued himself Just shy of a grand total of 104,000,000 shares during 2004. )

This is ALL straight from the SEC filings - summarized to KISS it.

Wonder how many are going to be a little chagrined at the change in the Outstanding Share Total when the 10K comes out in few days ?

Jeff - Iraqi Freedom - thank-you for that picture.

Good post.

Over 100 million - read the pre-proxy release and latest PR non-financing news.

What a shame, clouser.

Jeff, it seems character assassination is more your objective, as per your question and subsequent answering of the question yourself, rather than discussing any reality associated with this company.

What a shame that you are so insecure that you can not discuss in any reasonable manner your 'self-professed beliefs' about this company.

My offer to DISCUSS with ANYBODY still stands.

So far, nobody has had the intestinal fortitude to actually discuss one single solitary thing about this company with this poster. Instead, there have been nothing but ad hominen attacks.

Sad.

Jeff - some information for you -

http://www.investorshub.com/boards/Terms.asp

Investors Hub Terms of Use - Simplified Version / Detailed Version


Post about stocks.
Be courteous and respectful of other folks.
Have fun.
Or find somewhere else to post

To answer your question, politely, on 'why I am here' ...

Detailed Version
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/complex_terms.asp

...

iHub provides users an area to discuss financial-related information, views, opinions, and the recommendations of individuals and organizations.

...


I don't see any 'requirments', as you seem to wish to impose, for 'being here'. What does your question have to do with attempting to get straight, verifiable information about this company, their principle's and backgrounds, the corporate issues raised by me in previous posts, or anything else about the company ?

Do you have anything to add to discussing this company from verifiable, non-company generated sources - other than the single Sarnoff web-page about a memorandum of understanding, and the amateur astronomy interests of Charles Cardona ?

How about the S-8 issuances ?

How about the e-mails that are supposedly from Tom Gavin to investors ? Are those legal ?

How about the death spiral convertability of the preferred shares that Msrs. Cardona are issuing themselves for 'loans' to the 'company', loans whose proceeds they receive almost immediately in return for their self-adjusted/self-negotiated salaries ? Do you see some problems in that setup ?

What about the Corporate Governance of this company ?

We are not talking small potatoes here - with over 80 million shares issued at a current street price of about $24 million dollars these are some serious issues about some serious money that is changing hands. It really seems to me that 'real longs' and 'real investors' would be much more interested in discussing these very real issues rather than asking me if I am 'al queada' and 'why am I here'.

Again, what do your questions have to do with this stock or this company ? Is it that you are unable to have your views examined ? Is the challenge from someone like myself too tough ? If the answer to either of these questions were to be yes, then I would respectfully submit that you should not be speculating in penny stocks. Because the questions and issues that I am addressing go right to the very quick of solid due diligence.

Profit on a stock sale does not make a company good. It is interesting how you diverted from that point to something that was in no way in my previous post.

However, on your point of 'feeling guilty' - That actually is a good question.

Should the people that profitted off of ENRON stock sales and WORLDCOM stock sales feel guilty for all the money they took out of other people's pockets ? That is indeed a moral question worthy of debate. Certainly those companies never produced a profit for their shareholders, never created real value in relation to the value that they 'broadcast' and polished for public perception.

My opinion, when one makes money off of others for faulty or fraudulent product, whether knowingly or unknowingly, I believe there is sufficient justification for examining oneself with a rather disapproving attitude. And judging from your very defensive reaction to my previous logical post, I think you have that perception trying to work it's way to the surface, Dare2. Just a small piece of advise: It is never a good idea to ignore one's conscience.

Everything's OK ??? Looked like a delaying tactic, and sooth the panicked masses message to me. All fluff, no substance in that 'release', ie. nothing but 'forward looking statements'.

MMMary ? - Followup:

I find the following registration at California's Website:
ANIMAL ADVOCATES
CT NUMBER: 121118

Mailing Address:
ANIMAL ADVOCATES
359 N SWEETZER AVE
LOS ANGELES, CA 90048

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SAN DIEGO ANIMAL ADVOCATES
CT NUMBER: 83943

Mailing Address:
SAN DIEGO ANIMAL ADVOCATES
P.O. BOX 230946
ENCINITAS, CA 92023
On-Line Financial Records Are Available
http://167.10.5.131/Ct0401_0500/0483/1OQI1K6.PDF
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Looks legit to me.

Yes, given that you demanded one from me first (an explanation).

You state that ADZR is a 'good' stock because you have made money on it.

Then, by your logic, for all that have LOST money on ADZR, it would certainly be justified and fair of them to call it a 'bad stock'. I believe that would include EVERYONE that YOU sold your stock to at between $0.80 and $1.41.

For future reference, it was NOT the company 'ADZR' or the stock that was 'good' to you. It was all those buyers that bought your stock at two to three times (and more) the current selling price. Just so that you know exactly who it was that was good to you.

In fact, following is the post where you state the above referenced facts (assuming you are telling the truth.)

Posted by: Dare2
In reply to: monkeytrots who wrote msg# 478 Date:3/23/2004 10:52:03 PM
Post #of 487

I don't come here often, just happened across this today ..

Nope .. don't have any desire to spar with you on this ..

I have sold my investment recently, from .80 up to $1.41, and made some very good money,having bought way back when it was single digits .. have nothing but good to say about this company, which .. don't think you want to hear, judging from your posts on RB. Doubt you have any investment in it anyway, do you? And if not .. why do you care?

Dare2

====================

Dare2, in closing, you may wish to review your previous post to me a tad more carefully. You libeled me.

Clouser - How about addressing issues about the company ?

Your stock ownership, or lack thereof, has absolutely nothing to do with discussing the veracity and verifiability of this companies claims, nor with looking at the filings of this company to figure out what is going on Share Issuance wise, money flow wise, and 'fiduciary responsibility' wise.

Those are REAL issues worth discussing.

Come back when you want to discuss the company rather than getting into some type of bogus 'why are you here' crud.

In the meantime, read the Terms of Service of this board.

And abide by them.

You have nothing but good to say about this company ?

Then why don't you say it ?

You've sold your shares, made your profit,
and thus have no shares in the company,
so why do you care ?

That sword cuts both ways.

BTW: I do agree. InvestorHub is a MUCH better BB than RB.

They will not allow any illegal activities, clearly state that they are about DISCUSSING stocks.

And that is what this is all about.

The only information about ADZR in the public domain, other than StockPatrol.com and the MOU posting on the Sarnoff site, is info that has been put in the public through paid promotion.

I find no third party verification nor independent sources that verify anything about this company or it's principle, Charles A. Cardona.

If people wish to post links to such verification, I will chase them down, and IF they are NOT paid for (or sourced from AdZone themselves),I will back off - after examining what the truly independent sources have to say.

This may turn in to a HOT discussion, but at least, thanks to InvestorHub, it will have to remain a CLEAN discussion.

The pollyanna RagingBull boards are worthless for discussion.

Now, is anybody REALLY interested in DISCUSSING this stock ?

First Issue - Verifiable credentials from independent sources.

Second Issue - Corporate Governance

Third Issue - Proper Use of SEC FILINGS, specifically the 8K and the S8 registration process.

Fourth Issue - Source of the 'NetGet' software and name.

Fifth Issue - Share Issuance Tracking, Money Flow Analysis, Loans - sources and recipients of the money, Preffered Shares

Sixth Issue - Mr. Tom Gavin and his e-mails to shareholders - discussion of his statements and the legality of those statements.

Now, that should provide us a pretty clear roadmap for a discussion outline, if anyone cares to really debate the issues.

No name calling allowed. No flag waving. No obfusication. No vague innuendo. No 'this is bashers ... this is pumpers' nonsense. Good solid discussion, with verifiable information, solid logic.

Some HEAT. You bet. We all enjoy challenges - both sides of an issue.

But with RESPECT to each other.

Those Issues are for starters. Just a Suggested TOPICAL INDEX.

Dare2 - Would you care to comment about the Swing Trading that the SEC filings for Daniel Wasserman clearly indicates has occurred ?

Scion - was tracking down USGA halt on RB using google, and came across InvestorHub - Again. Your series of posts on this board are extremely valuable, especially your referrals and evidence pointing to possible collusion between RB posters and RB employees. This collusion is something that I have long suspected. The CPN board is another board where USGA was touted by several posters. I believe some of those posts are now missing also, courtesy of RB.

Here is my post today put on the CPN board. The possibility of RB involvement, as you have pointed out, is the more serious of the two problems, between USGA being a possible scam and RB supporting pump and dump posters. Recording the post as part of the public record here at InvestorsHub.

By: monkeytrots
05 Mar 2004, 07:10 PM EST
Msg. 39700 of 39700
Jump to msg. #

OT: 05 March, USGA update - IBD - Investors Business Daily

NOTE: 5 MARCH 2004 - Investors Business Daily corrects its January 6, 2004 story and confirms our earlier suspicions that there was no purchaser for the 20 Humvees USGA announced were ordered. IBD checked further and confirmed there were no customers.

FROM: http://www.our-street.com/usga.htm

RagingBull has shut down the USGA board since 23 Feb, 2004.
RagingBull has also eliminated SEVERAL posts from SEVERAL boards that point to and expose a pattern of collusion between RB POSTERS and RB EMPLOYEES. I will not be surprised to see this post itself removed for precisely the same causes.

While this may seem trivial to many that lurk here, there are good reasons for keeping THIS TOUTED stock and the developing saga within your views. Some of the posters on this board, CPN, were most certainly involved.