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.
Crow3:
Why are you trying to put words into my mouth.
I do not have a clue as to who started the Grey Market!
lmorovan:
Do you remember when you made the big dado, about how "WE" shareholders owned Loch Harris? Remember? Do you remember?
You said it over and over again! You said the tech was the shareholders, remember?
Good grief little boy, get a clue.
Public companies are owned by their shareholders.
Crow3:
I am sure they had MANY meetings I was not invited to.
I am also positive that B&B never attended by phone or in person any of them.
lmorovan:
Why don't you give Frank Arnold or John Courtade a call in Austin, Texas, and tell him just how smart you are.
John Courtade, Esq.
Law Office of John Courtade, P.C.
4408 Spicewood Springs Rd.
Austin, TX 78759
Counsel for defendants R. Boone, M. Baker, & R. Baker
Counsel for derivative plaintiffs, derivatively on behalf of Loch Harris
Frank Arnold, Esq.
Law Office of Frank Arnold
1515 S. Capitol of Texas Highway, Suite 415
Austin, TX 78746
Counsel for Loch Harris, Inc.
Let them know that all Boone or Baker has to do is revoke the AOI and CDEX goes puff!
I hear the laughing from Austin already.
lmorovan:
You were wrong, period.
Inet was right.
Once again, swithching hands or changing your shirt does not make you a different person.
Sassy has pointed that out you countless times!
lmorovan:
You really must learn the difference between consultant and employee. They are not related in the least.
You should also do a little research on contract labor and employee. They are not related either.
Sassy:
You are so right again.
But it is good to see them continue typing!
Words are an unbelievable source of power!
lmorovan:
Wrong again lmorovan!
Can you read?
Read 7c below, we the shareholders are dissolving Loch Harris, this was the shareholders choice!
7. Second, the settlement responds in several ways to plaintiffs' contention that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties and committed waste in their control of Loch:
(a) Any CDEX shares that the Individual Defendants directly or indirectly receive through the share exchange, own, or have a beneficial interest in will be non-voting or have a voting proxy.
(b) The Individual Defendants and persons whom they control will be permanently ineligible to serve as directors, officers, employees, or consultants of CDEX (except that two defendants will be allowed to complete outstanding obligations to CDEX under consulting agreements that predate the Settlement Agreement).
(c) Loch will be dissolved promptly after the share exchange pursuant to the judicial reorganization / sale, so the individual defendants will necessarily cease the activities that plaintiffs alleged constituted a continuing breach of fiduciary duty and waste. A liquidator will be appointed to dispose of the company's remaining property, with the potential of a final distribution to the former shareholders who participated in the share exchange and class members who opted out.
INET6:
I do believe that you last exposure of lmorovan was one of the best exchanges this board has ever seen.
I know it is hard to feel good about crushing lmorovan and once again pointing out his deception, but I am putting your name at the top on this board.
Someone asked about me a question about abzt, I don't think it was you, but if it was, I don't know one thing about the company.
All, I do know is that their CEO made the most "FORWARD THINKING" press release I have read in some time.
I had to research it to be sure none of the ole lh boys were on board. Their not!
I do think CDEX might some day may make a similar type press release.
lmorovan:
I do not agree that the APA was an insider transaction. Those are your words. The documents and I said separate, not insider.
But, you are correct when each time you are caught in a lie, you just start typing with the other hand, thinking you are not lying because you are using you other hand.
That last lie INET caught you in was pretty bad. And you do know, that swithching keyboards or having a ghost writer is no excuse of not knowing the law.
lmorovan:
To be honest with you lmorovan, I think you and your ghost writer are in for some potential legal problems.
But to answer your silly question about Boone and Baker, which I have pointed out to you countless times.
In order to dissolve a corporation, A corporation may be dissolved upon the authorization of a special resolution passed at a meeting of the shareholders in accordance to S.237(a) or the consent in writing of all the shareholders entitled to vote at such meeting (S.237(b)).
How many times have I told you, the boys cannot vote anything. Did you not learn anything about how Loch Harris dissolved?
sanddoller:
Not a problem little girl. Just change the record.
I would never want you to be terminal.
sandollar:
SCAPEGOATS?????
I am sure it has to do with your breath.
There were those that did not do as they should have, and there were those that went by the book and backed up their work.
As I have said for years, the SEC has ALL facts.
Baker Boone Blair Loch Harris Gone!
CDEX approved to go public!
Baxa wants to distribute their TECH, and has Paid CDEX to do so!
lmorovan:
MARCH 11, 2003
"7. Second, the settlement responds in several ways to plaintiffs' contention that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties and committed waste in their control of Loch:
(a) Any CDEX shares that the Individual Defendants directly or indirectly receive through the share exchange, own, or have a beneficial interest in will be non-voting or have a voting proxy.
(b) The Individual Defendants and persons whom they control will be permanently ineligible to serve as directors, officers, employees, or consultants of CDEX (except that two defendants will be allowed to complete outstanding obligations to CDEX under consulting agreements that predate the Settlement Agreement).
(c) Loch will be dissolved promptly after the share exchange pursuant to the judicial reorganization / sale, so the individual defendants will necessarily cease the activities that plaintiffs alleged constituted a continuing breach of fiduciary duty and waste. A liquidator will be appointed to dispose of the company's remaining property, with the potential of a final distribution to the former shareholders who participated in the share exchange and class members who opted out.
(d) Defendant Boone will relinquish 200,000 shares of CDEX and relinquish his right to 5 million shares of Loch Harris that he contends he paid for but were not issued; defendant Mark Baker will relinquish 500,000 shares of CDEX; and defendant R.B. Baker will relinquish 1 million shares of Loch Harris. These relinquished shares will go into the Loch corporate treasury to be part of the distribution to class members or to fund certain other obligations and expenses as explained in the Settlement Agreement.
(e) The Individual Defendants (in their capacities as officers and directors of Loch Harris) and Loch Harris will prevent the company from distributing any benefit whatsoever (e.g., money, repayment of loans, compensation of any sort, or any other type of benefit) to the Individual Defendants except for repayment of funds advanced to the company on or after September 17, 2001 to pay third-party claims."
Please note 7a- The b boys CANNOT VOTE their stock. They are still powerless!
Please 7b- On May 13, 2003, the executive service agreements were cancelled by Mr. Phillips, CEO of CDEX.
So, lomorovan, as usual, all of your points about who inc what are nothing but a mute point. There were obviously certain trade offs to allow the tech to continue to move forward. But your points about Baker or Boone calling any shots at CDEX, is nothing but FALSE!
sanddollar:
Good grief little girl, Blair fell no where, his case was dimissed!
My gosh girl, get a clue, PLEASE!
lmorovan:
Business Editors
AUSTIN, Texas--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 29, 2001
Loch Harris, Inc., (OTC:LOCH) a Nevada corporation, updated certain information regarding voting proxies for CDEX-Inc. (CDEX) common stock owned by Loch and matters related to the possible spin-off of CDEX common stock by Loch.
As previously reported in Loch's press release dated September 24, 2001, Loch's Board of Director's had approved a date of record for a proposed spin-off of approximately 48,000,000 shares of CDEX-Inc. (CDEX) common stock that Loch owns. October 30, 2001, was set as the date of record. As reflected in the press release, many issues needed to be resolved before any distribution under the spin-off could occur. While Loch is working toward resolution of those issues, to date, certain material matters involving the spin-off have not yet been resolved. Accordingly, Loch has not yet set a payment date for such possible stock dividend distribution.
If a spin-off of CDEX shares in the form of a stock dividend does occur, it is Loch's general understanding that to determine who is entitled to receive such stock dividend, a person needs to look at two important dates. The two important dates are the "date of record" and the "ex-dividend date". The "ex-dividend date" is generally the first business day after the stock dividend is paid and is also after the "date of record". If you sell your Loch stock before the "ex-dividend date", normally you are selling away your right to the proposed CDEX stock dividend spin-off. This is the case even if the sale took place after the "date of record". When this happens, your sale includes an obligation on your part to deliver to the buyer of your Loch shares any CDEX shares distributed pursuant to the stock dividend spin-off. As stated above, Loch has not yet set a payment date for such stock dividend distribution; therefore, no "ex-dividend date" has yet been set. Accordingly, if Loch's understanding is correct, Loch shareholders who are shareholders of record on the "date of record" but who sell their Loch stock after the "date of record" but before the "ex-dividend" date are also selling with the Loch stock their right to the CDEX stock under the proposed stock dividend spin-off. Loch shareholders should not rely on Loch's understanding regarding treatment of this matter, but should consult with their own personal financial advisors or brokers to answer any questions relating to entitlement of CDEX shares.
550***-As previously announced in the September 24, 2001 press release, Loch would like to reemphasize that, although it is Loch's intent to spin-off certain CDEX shares it owns, there is no assurance that the outstanding matters regarding the spin-off can be resolved satisfactorily or that the proposed spin-off will occur or, even if it does occur, that it will not have tax or other consequences deemed undesirable by possible recipients. Such consequences include, but are not limited to, the possibility that recipients could be attributed with unwanted taxable income related to the stock dividend and, either the CDEX shares received by Loch shareholders might be deemed restricted securities and not freely tradable or that even if they are tradeable, no viable market for CDEX shares will develop. Loch will try to keep shareholders updated as, if and when developments warrant.
660***-Pursuant to the provisions of the Asset Purchase Agreement entered into between Loch and CDEX on August 4, 2001 and as previously announced in Loch's press release dated August 13, 2001, Loch granted its voting proxy with respect to 13,000,000 CDEX shares owned by Loch to the CDEX Board of Directors. In addition, Loch was obligated to grant voting rights to an additional 48,000,000 CDEX shares owned by Loch to the CDEX Board of Directors if such shares had not been distributed by October 1, 2001. Such proxy was granted to the CDEX Board of Directors. As a result of the foregoing, Loch has granted voting proxies to the CDEX Board of Directors on all 61,000,000 shares of CDEX common stock owned by Loch. This constitutes approximately 75 % of the CDEX common stock currently outstanding. Pursuant to the terms of the proxies, the proxies will terminate immediately and automatically as to any shares covered by the proxies when, as and if any such shares are sold, transferred or assigned to any party not under the control of Loch or its officers or directors. The Asset Purchase Agreement and the Proxies will be included as exhibits to Loch's Form 8-K and any statements made herein are qualified in their entirety by reference to such exhibits.
Forward-looking statements made herein are based on current expectations of Loch and CDEX, involve a number of significant risks and uncertainties, and should not be considered as guarantees or assurances of future performance. The factors that could cause actual results to differ materially include, but are not limited to: interruptions, breach or cancellation of existing contracts, impact of competitive products and pricing, product demand and market acceptance risks, the presence of competitors with greater financial or other resources than Loch or CDEX, product development and commercialization risks, an inability to arrange additional debt or equity financing or to retain or procure necessary personnel and an inability to obtain necessary governmental or other approvals for proposed or anticipated transactions.
Please note 550***- This is coming from Loch's prospective! You do understand what this paragragh is saying?
Please note 660***- Loch Harris gave all 61 Million share voting rights to CDEX board, Baker and Boone are NOT on CDEX board, they have NO voting rights, thus NO SAY!
lmorovan:
MARK BAKER and Rod Boone would be the correct answer.
Now, why were they allowed to do so?
Maybe the answer lies in the business wire below:
"Business Editors
AUSTIN, Texas--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 10, 2001
Loch Harris Inc., (OTC:LOCH) a Nevada corporation and CDEX-Inc., a Nevada corporation (CDEX) are pleased to announce the finalization and execution of an Asset Purchase Agreement (Agreement) on Aug. 4, 2001.
Under the Agreement, Loch transferred to CDEX all its ownership (including revenue interests) in certain assets and technologies, including its chemical and explosives detection technologies. Loch warranted to CDEX that its ownership interests in the assets and technologies would be unencumbered by competing claims and debts against ownership, including those associated with Coldwater Capital LLC, and potential claims to ownership and royalties related to the previous funding provided by it to Loch for development of the technologies. In exchange, CDEX agreed to issue at Loch's direction 69,350,000 shares of the approximately 80,000,000 shares of CDEX common stock that is anticipated to be issued per events surrounding this Agreement.
Of the 69,350,000 CDEX shares issued at Loch's direction, based upon the number of Loch shares currently outstanding, it is anticipated that approximately 48,000,000 CDEX shares will be distributed directly to holders of Loch stock (one share of CDEX stock will be distributed for every ten shares of Loch stock owned as of the record date). The record date for Loch stock ownership determination is to be announced in the near future. These shares of CDEX stock to be distributed to Loch shareholders are currently being retained by Loch until distribution.
110***In addition, it is anticipated that approximately 13,000,000 shares of CDEX stock will be retained as part of Loch's assets. The final 8,350,000 shares were issued at Loch's direction to resolve any obligations, loans, or royalties, which could result in potential claims of parties against the assets or technologies transferred. These obligations, loans, and potential claims include those of Coldwater Capital LLC, Rodney Boone and Mark Baker, both of whom are officers and directors of Loch, and who have rendered services and made, guaranteed and/or pledged collateral for loans to or on behalf of Loch in connection with the assets and technologies.
220***-Of the remaining approximately 10,650,000 shares of CDEX that were or may be issued pursuant to events surrounding this Agreement, 7,200,000 have been issued to or at the direction of the six member operating team of CDEX, including Malcolm H. Philips, Jr., Timothy D. Shriver and Dr. Wade Poteet. In addition, 1,850,000 shares were issued to consultants of CDEX, including 500,000 and 750,000 shares to secure the services of Baker and Boone, respectively, for transition and consulting services to CDEX.
It should be noted that all shares issued to the CDEX Operating Team and to CDEX consultants, have stock repayment provisions in the event that certain types of termination of services occurs prior to the scheduled end of the respective contracts. Finally, consideration is being given to issuing 1,600,000 shares of CDEX to procure additional funding for CDEX.
330***-In accordance with the Agreement, the voting rights of shares received by any officer or director of Loch as a result of the Agreement, as well as the voting rights to the 13,000,000 shares currently anticipated to be retained by Loch after the distribution, have been assigned by proxy to the CDEX Board of Directors.
In addition, the voting rights of shares currently intended for distribution to Loch shareholders (approximately 48,000,000) will be assigned by proxy to the CDEX Board of Directors, if such distribution has not occurred by Oct. 1, 2001. The proxies on all the foregoing shares will lapse upon the transfer of the respective shares to a party not controlled by Loch or Loch's officers or directors.
Loch anticipates that the shares retained by it will be used in connection with addressing general corporate purposes. As previously announced, Loch believes the transfer of the technology to CDEX and anticipated spin-off of CDEX shares is in accordance with its long-range objectives.
440***-In addition, on Aug. 4, 2001, new management (completely separate from Loch's management) assumed control of all CDEX operations. As previously reported, the new management consists of Malcolm H. Philips, Jr., president and CEO and Timothy D. Shriver, senior vice president of operations (biographical summaries, as well as other information regarding CDEX are contained on the CDEX Web site located at www.CDEX-Inc.com). The new CDEX Board consists of Malcolm H. Philips, Jr., Chairman and George E. Dials."
Please note 110***- Pay special attention to the last sentence in the paragragh.
Please note 220***- Another important paragragh.
Please note 330***- The very ones who incorporated CDEX cannot VOTE their shares!!! Thus, they have ZERO SAY! Hum, sounds like a trade off! EXTEMELY important paragragh!
Please note 440***- "COMPLETELY SEPARATE" You do understand exactly what completely separate means. You can bet the SEC understood.
d4diddy:
Duh, if you knew the answer, you would not be making such a fool of yourself, day in and day out.
d4diddy:
Do you enjoy saying nothing?
You best attend something other than your shop if you want to have a clue as to what you speak of.
I have had several emails filling in the blanks of the very simple paragragh I asked you to answer.
All are amazed that you could not fill in the blanks.
lmorovan:
I talk direct to CDEX at any time I want. I can ask any question about any issue or thing at any time I want.
I CANNOT and WILL NOT ask about information that would be deemed insider information.
I have attended many shows, demonstrations, and social functions.
The incorporators of CDEX are gone as of May 13, 2003. An d they "NEVER" one time had any input into CDEX. Period.
d4diddy:
"Irrelevant Edge, "you don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows."
You do if you don't know your directions.
"Did the SEC file on Loch Harris for their well known pump-n-dump scam?"
They filed an investigation to see if pr's could have influenced the stock price.
"Did the SEC question how 100 million Loch Harris shares authorized in Janurary 2000 got distributed?"
Duh, I bet they forgot to ask that question diddy. Afterall, they are not to bright according to you and lmorovan. I am sure when they were looking into the stock records of Boone and Baker, they just forgot to ask about those 100,000,000 shares.
I got this response back from the SEC on Feb. 7, 2006 when I asked them if the Loch Harris investigation was still ongoing:
"Dear Sir:
I have been advised that there is no additional publicly-available information concerning this matter. As you may be aware, SEC investigations are conducted on a nonpublic and confidential basis to ensure the integrity of the investigative process.
Sincerely,
ANN H SULZBERG
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
100 F St, NE
Washington, DC 20549-0213
(202)551-6308"
"Did the SEC dismiss all claims against Henry Blair after everyone pointed the finger at him?"
Would the below Judge be the same one that dismissed Blair?
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Argued November 7, 2000 Decided September 21, 2001
No. 00-5016
The Honorable John H. McBryde,
United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Texas,
Appellant
v.
Committee to Review Circuit Council Conduct and
Disability Orders of the Judicial Conference
of the United States, et al.,
Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia
(No. 98cv02457)
David Broiles and Arnon D. Siegel argued the cause and
filed the briefs for appellant.
William B. Schultz, Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for appellee
United States of America. David W. Ogden, Assistant Attor-
ney General, Mark B. Stern and Scott R. McIntosh, Attor-
neys, and Wilma A. Lewis, U.S. Attorney at the time the
brief was filed, were on the brief. Thomas W. Millet, Attor-
ney, U.S. Department of Justice, entered an appearance.
Robert B. Fiske, Jr. argued the cause for appellees the
Committee to Review Circuit Council Conduct and Disability
Orders of the Judicial Conference of the United States, et al.
With him on the brief was Lowell Gordon Harriss.
Before: Williams and Tatel, Circuit Judges, and
Silberman, Senior Circuit Judge.
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Williams.
Separate opinion filed by Circuit Judge Tatel, concurring
in part and dissenting in part.
Williams, Circuit Judge: On December 31, 1997 the Judi-
cial Council of the Fifth Circuit (the "Judicial Council" or
"Council"), acting under the Judicial Conduct and Disability
Act of 1980, 28 U.S.C. s 372(c) (the "Act"), imposed sanctions
on the Honorable John H. McBryde, United States District
Judge for the Northern District of Texas. The sanctions
followed a two-year investigation by a Special Committee of
the Judicial Council ("Special Committee"), including nine
days of hearings. The Committee took evidence relating to
incidents spanning the entirety of Judge McBryde's judicial
career and involving encounters with judges and lawyers both
inside and outside his courtroom. (We will consider an
example from the exhaustive record when we address Judge
McBryde's argument that the Council illegally considered the
merits of his judicial decisions.)
The investigation culminated in a 159-page report in which
the Special Committee concluded that "Judge McBryde ha[d]
engaged for a number of years in a pattern of abusive
behavior" that was " 'prejudicial to the effective and expedi-
tious administration of the business of the courts.' " Report
of the Special Committee of the Fifth Circuit Judicial Coun-
cil Regarding Complaints Against, and the Investigation
into the Conduct of, Judge John H. McBryde at 150-51 (Dec.
4, 1997) ("Committee Report") (quoting 28 U.S.C. s 372(c)).
The Report also recommended a variety of sanctions based on
the provisions of s 372(c)(6)(B): that Judge McBryde receive
a public reprimand, pursuant to subsection (v); that no new
cases be assigned to him for a year, pursuant to subsection
(iv); and that he not be allowed for three years to preside
over cases involving any of 23 lawyers who had participated in
the investigation, pursuant to subsection (vii) (providing for
"other action" considered appropriate in light of circum-
stances). See Committee Report at 152-58. The Judicial
Council endorsed the recommendations and issued an order
imposing the recommended sanctions. See In re: Matters
Involving United States District Judge John H. McBryde,
Under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, No.
95-05-372-0023 (Jud. Council 5th Cir. Dec. 31, 1997) ("Judi-
cial Council Order"). The lawyer-related disqualification be-
came effective on February 6, 1998, but the Council stayed
the reprimand and the one-year suspension pending review
by the Committee to Review Circuit Council Conduct and
Disability Orders of the Judicial Conference of the United
States (the "Review Committee"). On September 18, 1998
the Review Committee substantially affirmed the Council's
action and lifted the stay. See In re: Complaints of Judicial
Misconduct or Disability, No. 98-372-001 (Jud. Conf. U.S.
Sept. 18, 1998) ("Judicial Conference Report").
Soon thereafter Judge McBryde brought suit in district
court, claiming that the Act, both facially and as applied,
violated the due process clause and the Constitution's separa-
tion of powers doctrine.1 He also claimed that the initiation
and conduct of the investigation against him exceeded the
authority granted by the statute. Finally, he posed a First
Amendment challenge to the Act's restrictions on disclosing
__________
1 Defendants/Appellees in this case are the Review Committee;
Judge William J. Bauer, individually and as Chairman and as
member of the Review Committee; the Judicial Council; and Judge
Henry J. Politz, individually and as Chief Judge of the Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and as presiding member of the
Judicial Council, at the relevant times.
the record of the proceedings. On cross motions for sum-
mary judgment, the district court agreed with Judge
McBryde's First Amendment argument, McBryde v. Commit-
tee to Review Circuit Council Conduct and Disability Orders,
83 F. Supp. 2d 135, 171-78 (D.D.C. 1999), but rejected the
rest. Only Judge McBryde appealed; here he repeats the
essence of his remaining arguments.
Judge McBryde's claims are moot insofar as they distinc-
tively relate to the one-year suspension, which expired on
September 18, 1999, and the three-year disqualification, which
expired on February 6, 2001. Certain of the non-moot claims
are barred by the Act's preclusion of judicial review, 28
U.S.C. s 372(c)(10), namely the "as applied" and statutory
challenges; the district court was therefore without jurisdic-
tion to hear them. We vacate the district court's judgment
insofar as it addressed the moot or precluded issues. Judge
McBryde's remaining constitutional challenges fail on their
merits; we therefore affirm the district court's ruling. We
address first mootness, then preclusion, and finally the mer-
its.
lmorovan:
Mr. Mark Bakers executive service agreement and Mr. Rod Boone's were terminated May 13, 2003.
They were terminated by Mr. Malcolm Phillips.
Neither of these two men have had any connection with any type of agreement, with CDEX, since May 13, 2003.
While MP was CEO of the Company, neither Baker nor Boone had anything at all to do with managing or directing CDEX at any level.
And I am very confident, that they will not in the future either.
Maybe you need to go back and do a little reading lmorovan. You seem to be falling further and further behind.
Did you not just hated it when INET6 proved you wrong yet again.
Your habits are very hard to break.
d4diddy:
1. I did a word search on patent application 10/268678 and did not find the word "revolutionary" in the document---perhaps you are looking at a version edited by your buddy, Henry Blair. The truly unique aspect of CDEX's work is the discovery (not found by any other research group until CDEX revealed it) that certain co-existing materials that are detectable by x-ray fluorescence are present in all explosives manufactured by all countries in existing landmines.
2. 2. Valimed does not differentiate between sterility and non-sterility, nor does it claim to do so diddy. You like to add your flavor to things to give a different impression of the real facts. Can you produce one fact where Valimed claims it can? No, would be the correct answer. If you could have filled in the blanks of your little test, you would have been able to understand that once bacteria begin to grow in the medication, or when alterations (changes, in case you try and alter the meaning of the word ) in its compounded structure occur, Valimed does measure the resultant altered composite signature as a change from the original.
3. Cdex never used the word revoltionary in the patent, why is it you want it used? Also, why do you want to give the impression that Valimed has claimed it can differentiate between sterility and non-sterility, to do so is to try and lie about what Valimed has said, vesus what diddy has twisted.
1) Question for you diddy, now relax, I am not going to ask you to fill in the blanks, I know you can't, but knowing that you were not at the booth in Vegas to hear cisco ( either him or his buddy, flash, flash, oh my my, ) try and buy a unit with a credit card, did you ever stop to think that the show units were just that----show units---and not loaded with either a full complement of optical components or a full standard database of signatures. I know you as a real executive type professional, would ask that very question to the person you were visiting with. Did cisco ( or his buddy fail to tell us that this was explained to him? In fact, conversations with anyone who has "real" actual questions, start out with telling the looker that very thing. Thus, a sale of a show unit to him, Cisco, (or his bud, flash,flash )would have been inappropriate at that time, and this was explained in detail to Mr. Credit card man. He was never told that the NDVU was in the "prototype" or "testing" stage (at least not by anyone knowledgeable on the sales team while he was standing there.) But diddy, if Mr. Credit Card man has enough buying power on his credit card, Baxa will gladly accepted his card at any time with standard BAXA delivery, warranty, and installation support. I hope he gives BAXA's sales team a call today. At the show, cisco, ( or his buddy, flash flash, camera's are a wonderful thing ) appeared somewhat flaky and not quite, shall we say, serious, about really wanting to purchase a unit. This was a dead give away to me when he offered his credit card, how unprofessional is that. And now my question. Diddy, do you think cisco's ( or his buddy, flash flash ) credit card has an insufficient or sufficient limit for this machine's cost?
lmorovan:
Are you dodging the truth again, as you did with INET6?
"no, I mean the one that hired MP as an employee of CDEX."
Is the one who hired MP still have his sevice agreement intact?
lmorovan, did you take a nap?
tia
Xeno:
Could you please provide the P&D scam that the SEC filed on IPIX.
tia
lmorovan:
You mean the one's that were terminated a few months short of their two year terms by Malcolm Phillips on May 13, 2003?
Or, are you saying you have an executive service agreement with CDEX?
lmorovan:
"That's what they were paying MP to do."
What?
"they didn't have to be there or do anything."
You are saying the Baker and Boone are paying MP?
Wow, what a scoop we have from Mr. lmorovan.
INET6:
One of the most truthful post ever written on this board.
Ditto!
lmorovan:
"Listen, my friend, there is nothing to gain from your efforts to discredit me. I am not the enemy, you know that. But you like to play games, invent things and then state them as fact, trying your best to perpetuate misleading information."
We disagree with the above quote from you.
Many of us do believe you to be the enemy.
Infact, 37,000 shareholders disagreed with you during the SA and its acceptance by the court.
rottenapple:
Do you think MN and his million might have been a little before MP and WP.
And my guess would be that MN never gave the one million.
INET6:
lmorovan is sleep deprived and obviously some other deprivations exist.
How many times must this person be proved wrong?
Truly amazing.
d4diddy:
Do people retire and become full time consultants?
Exactly how do you define "full time"?
When retiring, do they actual remain with the company as the lead Scientist?
You twisted things, and got caught again.
lmorovan:
Did you attend a CDEX shareholders meeting two years ago?
Did Mark Baker or Rod Boone open the meeting?
Which one did you speak with at that meeting?
tia
lmorovan:
"Will they bring CEXI in the $20.00 range? They might. But then, who do you think will benefit from such an achievement?"
Would the answer be everyone who owns shares in CDEX.
Crow3:
"All of which assumes facts not in evidence." No assumptions on this Crow, they are out, their consulting contracts are no longer, and have not participated in any together in the last 4 or 5 years.
Yes Crow, they started CDEX, hired MP, and then MP ended their consulting agreements and they were gone from CDEX. When was the last time you saw the employee let the boss go?
I know of no interest showed by either, nor were either of them ever at the court house in Austin, for the da or ca.
If they had interest, it was from very far away, and between just themselves.
"Since MP was an employee of the Bs, I reckon they coulda told him what to do now and again, if they wanted to. So how do you know that they did not?"
I asked about 100 hundred times if Boone or Baker were ever seen or heard from. The answer was always no. Also, I was at several functions, and shows, and demostrations and the lab, never did I see either at anything.
lmorovan:
The ones that are now gone.
Have you ever in your life believed in something so strongly, that you made the sacrifices it took to get it.
A good example is like a lease purchase.
You lease the home while at the same time you are actually taking it over. Both sides get their desired effect, one side gives the impreesion they are running the show, which makes their leaving easier to swallow, and the other side gets the ultimate goal, the whole HOUSE!
Crow3:
Are you asking me if you read that somewhere? I don't know, did you? Did you also read whether they can vote those shares?
By "significant" are you saying they have to file paperwork before they sell stock?
I have heard that Boone has sold all his CDEX shares, and that Baker has around 30 or 40k left.
I guess you are trying to split atoms or hairs with this post. They may or may not still have shares of CDEX, owning shares of stock does not put them anywhere around the company.
MB and RB are not making any decisions anymore, they are not writing any pr's anymore, they are not at any board meetings anymore, and all of that simple means, they are not around CDEX.
lmorovan:
Must I remind you of all your predictions in the past?
Please, I have not the time, nor energy to start posting all your post where you said, certain things would never happen.
Not once, do I recall, anyone including me, to have said the silly remark you have made on your post.
The list goes on and on.
I am NOT predicting the end times lmorovan. I am not picking a day that Jesus Christ is coming back.
I am simply saying that the shareholder meeting will happen. The 10M shares will be approved, the accounting firm, approved as well.
Just like many of us predicted a winner in the Super bowl. With your silly logic, you could have argued that the Super bowl was no guarantee to happen. Well, no DUH.
It is time for you to sleep. You are slipping into that silly lmorovan world of yours.
bye
sandpenny:
No can do.
Just read the filings, that is all you can do.
Baxa!
sandpenny:
WOW, is a good start to your most enlightening post.
Okay, let me break it down for you, and just you.
Lets pretend, that WP never met HB or RM or RB.
Lets say that MP and WP met through mutual friends.
WP showed MP what he felt his TECH could do.
I could go on, but just maybe you do understand what I was saying.
Mercy sweety, did you ever dream you would be asked to a prom? Was it not great that you got asked.
I bet you remember a few girls that did not get asked.
I have wished many times that MP had been asked to take this tech forward from the beginning, and the LH boys been no where around.
Which of COURSE would have saved me from answering an email sent to MP, then sent to me, with the same email address on it! LOL
But then again, it is all magic, right? Thanks, we all love to laugh at the magic email addressed to MP's address, but sent to me, even though, my address was never be different. Even my State and City be different. LOL
The new mantra is coming to life as we type, MP predicted exactly what is happening today. It has been pointed out by those who know not how to twist, and lie.
Just imagine little penny, what if, MP had said, " I will take CDEX to the TOP, I will grow this company huge, and I will not stop until we are a fortune 500 comapny!
MP, you have kept your promise, my hope is, the men and women that you and the bod have hired, will now take CDEX to the next level. I for one, believe they will.