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.
Nope, not Tim. Never have even spoken to the scumbag. Check my posts. Its been weeks since I warned the board there would be no financials and the accountant would quit. Don't need inside information to predict something like that when the facts stated in the bankruptcy court decision indicated Fraud, Scam...10b5 violation,etc.
I guarantee you, Pawsons worst enemies are the IRS and the SEC. You do not buy and then sell cobs homes, without tax consequences. You do not accrue income on the stonewall note, and then tell the IRS nevermind. You do not create millions of income out of thin air and then expect the sec not to take notice. The accountant ran, but cannot escape litigation. lol. Anyone who thinks Pawson is going to hire auditors to produce accurate financials by which the sec can then use against Pawson to throw him in jail is living in a fantasy world.
His autopsy photo will be a better seller imho. lol.
Normally you can't sue a governmental agency because of sovereign immunity. But congress does pay out some compensation for certain wrongs. You should write your congressman/woman that you suffered losses because the Department of Homeland security did not announce publicly that they had no contract with cyberkey and that if they had done so you would not have invested and lost. Not saying you or anyone else would be successful, but worth a shot imho.
That was the IRS position. Doesn't mean the IRS will prevail on that position. Consult your tax advisor. If it is cost feasible given the amount of taxes you would be saving, you may want to get a letter ruling, or fight it on appeal once disallowed by audit.
Here is another example. Say there is a law that says you can't have sex with a female under the age of 16 if you are over 21. Remember what Brook SHields looked like at 14? She could have passed for being a few years older if not 21. So you have sex with her without knowledge of her true age, she even tells you falsely that she is 21. You can be convicted of having sex with a 14 year old even though you had no knowledge she was under 14 and would not have had sex with her if you knew she was under age. bummer, but a lot of laws are written like this. And the law says we all are presumed to know what the law is. Otherwise no one would be prosecuted because everyone would be defending on the basis of ignorance of the law.
No, but I believe Plant had knowledge/intent and that in general in order to defraud someone the perpetrator has knowledge and intent of what he is doing. Your focus is misplaced. The SEC has to prove their case, and is being cautious by pleading alternatively. It is one thing to allege knowledge, but now try to prove someone had knowledge. Written documents could certainly provide such proof i.e. the press releases and phony contract document. But what if Plant has another patsy who testifies "Jim never saw those"? The statute apparantely allows the SEC to get a conviction on the alternate and easier to prove "should have known" element of the crime.
The sec is enforcing their provisions prohibiting certain misleading acts, not fraud per se.
No need. I would rather the SEC investigate whether BA is the mastermind behind the scheme to defraud investors both in ckys and hisc. A phony contract pr'ed in both companies by BA. Certainly raises my eyebrows, and I can smell that BA has millions to go after. Also, I would like a court to make law and hold the transfer agent liable in this instance, because many called and were told that the website figures were accurate, which certainly seems to indicate that they were participants in the fraud. The transfer agent should be held to have a duty to disclose an accurate count imho.
I haven't had a chance to reread the provisions that Plant has been indicted on and refresh my knowledge. However, there need not be any lesser offense, the statute itself might read anyone is guilty of the crime who had knowledge or should have had knowledge. Two ways to get him for the very same crime.
Under the law one can do something intentionally --that is with knowledge what he/she is doing is wrong/illegal. But under the law one can also do something not intentionally but negligently and recklessness is a degree of criminal negligence. In order to be held liable under negligence, that person under the law had a responsibility or duty to do something, which he/she did not do. Corporate officers/directors all have a duty to their shareholders under state corporate laws, and a duty to see that sec rules are followed. All the pleading is doing is anticipating Plants defense that "I had no knowledge" by pleading alternatively that even if that is true, he must still be held responsible and liable under the statute because negligence is a violation as well. Think of you running down someone with your automobile and killing them. If you intentionally did it, its murder in the first degree. If you were not looking at the road ahead when you hit the pedestrian, you are then criminally liable for your negligence in not following the duty the law imposes upon you to always keep your eye on the road. The sec has a real easy case to prove in front of them.
Has anyone contacted the attorney general of Nevada. If Plant was selling 1.5 million of stock during the time alleged, the stock was non-existent in that the corporation at that time was not authorized to issue that many. So Nevada law was violated as well, and there are additional imprisonment terms under Nevada law that Plant should have to serve. Here is Nevada law.
NRS 90.650 Criminal penalties.
1. A person who willfully violates:
(a) A provision of this chapter, except NRS 90.600, or who violates NRS 90.600 knowing that the statement made is false or misleading in any material respect;
(b) A regulation adopted pursuant to this chapter; or
(c) An order denying, suspending or revoking the effectiveness of registration or an order to cease and desist issued by the Administrator pursuant to this chapter,
Ê is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 20 years, or by a fine of not more than $500,000, or by both fine and imprisonment, for each violation. In addition to any other penalty, the court shall order the person to pay restitution.
2. A person convicted of violating a regulation or order under this chapter may be fined, but must not be imprisoned, if the person proves lack of knowledge of the regulation or order.
3. This chapter does not limit the power of the State to punish a person for conduct which constitutes a crime under other law.
(Added to NRS by 1987, 2181; A 1989, 159; 1993, 938; 1995, 1242; 1997, 495; 2003, 20th Special Session, 273)
NRS 90.660 Civil liability.
1. A person who offers or sells a security in violation of any of the following provisions:
(a) Subsection 1 of NRS 90.310;
(b) NRS 90.460;
(c) Subsection 10 of NRS 90.500;
(d) Subsection 2 of NRS 90.570;
(e) Subsection 2 of NRS 90.610; or
(f) A condition imposed in subsection 8 or 9 of NRS 90.500,
Ê is liable to the person purchasing the security. Upon tender of the security, the purchaser may recover the consideration paid for the security and interest at the legal rate of this State from the date of payment, costs and reasonable attorney’s fees, less the amount of income received on the security. A purchaser who no longer owns the security may recover damages. Damages are the amount that would be recoverable upon a tender less the value of the security when the purchaser disposed of it, plus interest at the legal rate of this State from the date of disposition of the security, costs and reasonable attorney’s fees determined by the court. Tender requires only notice of willingness to exchange the security for the amount specified.
2. A person who offers or sells a security in violation of subsection 2 of NRS 90.570 is not liable under subsection 1 of this section if:
(a) The purchaser knew that a statement of a material fact was untrue or that there was an omission of a statement of a material fact; or
(b) The seller did not know and in the exercise of reasonable care could not have known of the untrue statement or misleading omission.
3. A person who willfully participates in any act or transaction in violation of NRS 90.580 is liable to a person who purchases or sells a security, other than a security traded on a national securities exchange or quoted on a national automated quotation system administered by a self-regulatory organization, at a price that was affected by the act or transaction for the damages sustained as a result of the act or transaction. Damages are the difference between the price at which the securities were purchased or sold and the market value the securities would have had at the time of the person’s purchases or sale in the absence of the act or transaction, plus interest at the legal rate of this State from the date of the act or transaction and reasonable attorney’s fees.
4. A person who directly or indirectly controls another person who is liable under subsection 1 or 3, a partner, officer or director of the person liable, a person occupying a similar status or performing similar functions, any agent of the person liable, an employee of the person liable if the employee materially aids in the act, omission or transaction constituting the violation, and a broker-dealer or sales representative who materially aids in the act, omission or transaction constituting the violation, are also liable jointly and severally with and to the same extent as the other person, but it is a defense that the person did not know, and in the exercise of reasonable care could not have known, of the existence of the facts by which the liability is alleged to exist. With respect to a person who directly or indirectly, controls another person who is liable under subsection 3, it is also a defense that the controlling person acted in good faith and did not, directly or indirectly, induce the act, omission or transaction constituting the violation. Contribution among the several persons liable is the same as in cases arising out of breach of contract.
(Added to NRS by 1987, 2182; A 1989, 160)
Yes, they have to report a 14 million dollar writeoff, restate 2006 income (eliminate 6 million), or at a minimum report the following subsequent events that took place... the stonewall note bankruptcy decision , and the charlotte county florida foreclosure, and whether any other financings are in default.
That is really something to look forward to if a shareholder. sure.
Dude, you don't want to be in this...financial suicide. Take advantage of the pop and get out.
Not important. Still enough to include him in the lawsuit as part of the scheme. Hell, I would even recommend all that lost on ckys also sue God for this unjust setback if it were not impossible to get service of process. But there are still numerous parties to sue in this instance under the shotgun approach. Bound to get a few and those that we don't get will have hefty defense costs that in itself will cause those defrauded some satisfaction.
well his one smoking gun post on here about the military contract is dated December 28, 2006. That was the day ckys filed a 2 billion increase in authorized shares? There are no coincidences. What is funny, is even if it truly was a coincidence, no jury will believe it. snicker.
I think he wishes he could permanently delete all his posts.
There are so many parallels here with the big contract hisc supposedly had that was pr'ed by BA and the ckys contract pr'ed by BA, both which were outright lies created to fleece investors....I think BA will be held liable .
Dude you represented that you introduced ckys to the military contract. If there is no military contract, you were a participant in the fraud of ckys investors by that statement. Enjoy spending tens of thousands of dollars on attorney fees defending yourself both in criminal and civil courts.
Smartmoney, name this scemotion in your class action lawsuit as well.
If an arms length third party had done this, why hasn't that party been sued? No mention that they even intend to sue or the name of the third party. The so-called entity was probably just a scam entity created by plant himself.
Knowles: In order for the case to have been filed in Pennslyvania some of the alleged fraudulent misrepresentations had to occur there in order for that court to have jurisdiction.
Great. Lets just hope his wife cannot claim any marital interest in them or that somehow she can be proven to be one of the perpetrators of the fraud.
It seems awful coincidental that a $2 million purchase order was announced right when squm had a loan in default a few months ago. Something doesn't smell right to me about the timing.
A lawsuit is only successful if in the end there is something to recover. That is why I asked earlier about whether ckys is insured for this...is there any money left from any source from which to collect any judgment obtained. Since Plant was an agent for ckys, all shareholders can basically sue Ckys itself for the fraud committed by its agent plant. Such a lawsuit makes ckys worthless imho even if it has a viable operation. Ckys will probably file for bankruptcy,and if its assets are viable, sell the business operation off to a third party (maybe Heaton as first lien holder) in bankruptcy free of all liens. Doubtful any proceeds will be left for shareholders unless there is an insurance policy. The class action lawyers usally get most of any recovery. We do not know if there is any cash left in the business if the 2 billion in shares were sold. Plants assets may not be recoverable if his wife has a marital interest in them. Hopefully some type of cause of action can be asserted against HEaton, Squm, and BA though.
Anybody know whether the company has an errors/omissions policy and the policy limits to cover director/officer/employee fraud. Anyone else feel that the last po from squm was fake and was a conspiracy by BA, Squm , and plant as I do. I think these entities should be named in any suit. Smartmoney, if you go to the yahoo news for world health alternatives there were a bunch of press releases from class action law firms who operate nationally. You need a large firm who will front the necessary expenditures for the class. You might want to contact one of those firms. If I recall Heaton took a first security interest in all of ckys assets. His axx has to be sued as well. GLTA.
Jerseyboy comes to mind.
Smartmoney. Can't pm. Sorry to hear the extent of your loss. Wasn't Heaton suppose to be worth a lot. Go after him...he had to be part of any scheme to defraud.
Plant could have been served with a subpoena to appear for a deposition, and then failed to show. He could have been arrested for failing to comply with the subpoena and released after promising to show. If that is the case, he now has to appear and then plead the 5th if he has done wrong. Just speculating given no charges are showing.
economic times. When lenders have a lot of loans out on projects which are not selling, it is very difficult to get them to loan even on a project which looks good in all respects. Others suffer because of the economic woes of others.
and how the supposed re-financing is coming.
How come I have never seen your posts before. What was your former alias? What is your agenda? I have posted that my agenda is to continue to do additional due diligence to pave the way to recover my loss through litigation. It isn't bashing when you post links to information that the company has failed to release. You just want others to buy so you can sell to them.
Actually, I think a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing could possibly help the share price. Investors would certainly have a better handle on what CBAY's assets are worth and the respective liabilities.
Yesterday's buyers will soon learn Pawson speak. Reread the press release. It says Cal Bay has not filed bankruptcy. Why no definitive statement such as Cal Bay has no intention of filing bankruptcy in the near future? Then reread the press release on refinancing. Why no announcement of the closing of the new supposed financing? Because it hasn't happened. Taking way too long imho. The short thingy pulled again by Pawson yesterday shows desperation imho. So if you can't refinance, and you are in foreclosure on at least one property, what other alternative is there but to file Chapter 11 at some point to protect the assets? Then we have the SEC suspending 35 companies from trading just yesterday because of financial reporting. CBAY has overstated its income by $6 million and assets by $14 million just on the Stonewall note alone. And the sec is not going to do anything? Snicker.
That is a fake. Bankruptcy is in the US Bankruptcy Court. Chapter 11 allows the company to keep its assets and reorganize. Chapter 7 is liquidation.
Never thought you were an idiot. Figured you might wash Pawson's/Cbay's car and take out the trash though. You certainly have not been able to get the stock moving. If you aren't paid I guess it is because you were on commission.
All I have done is report facts with links which should have been reported and released by the company. I therefore would have nothing to apologize for. There will be no run. Shakerzzz attempts have failed twice already. Doesn't Pawson let you go home early on Friday?
No, I did my due diligence before I was born and picked very wealthy parents who sent me to the best of schools. I was able to limit the majority of my loss in cbay by averaging down and getting out on the lower entries on the few bounces that happened. When I discovered that Pawson did not disclose the bankruptcy decision, that was a flashing red light for me not to trust whatever Pawson says or does.