Here is my choice: It is not true unless it is confirmed by the company and an independent source.

You stated that you took someone's word that it was true, without any proof. That was your choice.

Why the company would promote a "full product line of stratellite systems" and not happen to mention that they went to 65,000 feet and back with one of them says to me that it simply did not happen and you were lied to.

Glad to be proven wrong by the company again. I'm batting 1000 being proven wrong by believing them. Keeping that record intact through not believing (someone at Globetel) would be a good thing.

Mide was referring to the earlier time frame, not the current one, as I pointed out in my succeeding post. He ignored it.

The question was unanswered, but apparently you wish that it had not been.

justfrank.. I posed the question to mide asking why Globetel / Sanswire / Tao has not recently announced this breakthrough (now that previously existing impediments that held Mide and the company back from announcing it sooner have now been removed) while leaving it to Mide to post it on a message board.

My question was left unanswered by Mide. I was part of the exchange and I do not know what reason it is that you are referring to. I also went back to confirm my recollection and did confirm. So I would appreciate it if you would help me to understand what it is you mean.

Axel...anything scheduled for today, tomorrow, or the next day? Can you provide a link?

Montanar...thanks much. I have enjoyed reading your posts also. They have solid underpinnings of critical thinking.

At least things are getting interesting again. Can't be too careful though. Never sure if we're watching a legitimate card game or if it's Three Card Monty.

Mide... merely that it would be safe in terms of guarding a deal against premature disclosure, the possible opening up of the situation to undesirable participants, and also to avoid possible SEC criticisms for having an appearance of impropriety.

I recall the post and did not consider the interpretation of what was written, or translated, from the website to be an acceptable one. It is not clear if that is the altitude intended for the future or if the test flight was at some lower altitude like in the pictures. Unless it's clear, there's nothing really. Judging by the lack of attention the post was afforded by all but two of the standard rah-rah crowd on this board, it was not deemed credible as an achieved altitude.

Reaching 65,000 feet and coming back is a major, major milestone and would be much ballyhooed or kept top secret imo. Not saying it didn't happen, just saying Mide's was the first definitively clear statement to that affect for what was, or would be, an historic achievement.

Yes, I do get it. Sometimes it is difficult to communicate without speaking past one another. When I said they chose not to announce, I meant as recently as today. You have done it instead.

I stated earlier that I understand why it wasn't done back when it was disclosed to you, and based that on virtually the same reasoning that you just outlined.

It is why haven't they done it now that it is safe to talk about, and instead left it for you to do, that is difficult to understand. (get it?) That is what does not make sense.

I sincerely hope your faith will be rewarded. If it is, I will stand to gain as well, but I won't have the righteous satisfaction that you will. We do the best we can. Thank you for your discourse.

Mide..I did not mean to imply that it had to be disclosed by GTEM, just surprised that they chose not to.

I have not made a decision as whether I believe you or not. That is why I asked if you believe it was possible that you were deceived.

It's kind of like having jewelry appraised. If you don't let it out of your site you know they didn't switch the stones. Did you have the proof, or did you take their word?

Mide...Thanks for a reply that is one of the most significant that I have seen in quite some time.

Some follow up, if I may. I take it that you feel it is safe to talk about this because the deal is closed and to do so before now could have negatively affected the deal.

This news would have been some loud thunder for the company to boom. Why do you feel authorized to steal their thunder, so to speak?

I am pleased, mind you, that this is as you say, a fact. Just curious about the seeming incongruity of its disclosure through unofficial channels.

It seems you leave open the possibility that you were misled. Do you believe that you could have been misled?

Kudos for your presence on the scene nevertheless, and thanks for sharing!

mide.."As I know SkyDragon has already been to 65K and back...and why they call it the Stratellite."

How do you know this to be true?

I can say this about the situation, and while it isn't in any way meaningful in terms of how this will turn out, it is better as compared with previous debacles. It is this: at least there is more than half a scintilla of information available about the other half of the joint venture. With Russia they were unknown and with Mexico they were known in the press but never overtly participated in any way.

This at least has a pulse on the other end and it belongs to an entity with at least the appearance of respectability and even some credibility.

Still frustrated with the years of failure and corruption that I feel this company personifies. It will take a resounding success story to change my opinion, and I'm not optimistic.

Of course you realize how pathetic this is sounding.

Perhaps it is best left alone as no one appears to actually know what's going on, including whomever produced the company's new web site.

You're right of course, but get ready for boundless joy and unbridled speculation as well as dire predictions of impending doom.

You can see those itchy traders' fingers getting twitchy at the thought of it.

Is it actually necessary to point out that a cash payment could have been four quarters and a nickel? Think of every conceivable interpretation of the words before you jump to any conclusions. It's word play, not straight talk.

In my opinion, any entity Tao or otherwise, is highly suspect for ever even considering a partnership or deal with Globetel. If they have legitimate interests, then they hold all the aces in any negotiation and therefore have their boots on the back of the neck and Globetel's head's on the curb. If they don't, then in my mind they are suspect of engaging in the kinds of fraudulent activities that the former associates of this company have been charged with perpetrating.

But let the the blind balderdash of unbridled optimism bubble forth unencumbered. Baby needs new shoes.

One does not need to judge the quality of posters on this board as to know what to think of Globetel. Just go to one of Globetel's sites: http://www.globetel.net/mexico/index.html where you will see that "We did it", "Mexico has it", and "The World Will Know It" along with the attendent "FAQ's" and "Facts".

Huh? To what extent is the information on this site true? A financial report might tell the tale. If I had a business as wonderful as that appears to be, I would get the financials out and get the share price up pronto.

I hope this latest in their sorry series of websites turns out to be wonderful and true. But I would never, ever take the content of that site as any kind of an indication of what this company will actually do in any marketplace anywhere on earth. That is basically what they say on their disclaimers, and boy, do they ever mean it.

Modlam...It's a reference to the manner in which a portion of Huff's shares were sold without investors finding out about it. If something like that happened in one area, then why should I not suspect that a similar occurance might not happen somewhere else? (that's a rhetorical question, don't feel obligated to answer)

You're right, my opinion of this company is at an all time low. In that sense I have hit bottom. I don't like it. You don't like it. But it is what it is whether we like it or not.

There is a vetting process for government contractors, black or otherwise. It's absurd at this stage to imagine they would ever be trusted after all they have failed to do and the terrible management people they have engaged over the years.

Even if they owned a good idea, the best they could hope for would be an offer to buy it outright. If they got one, they would probably mask the proceeds as payment on a defaulted loan or some other way to hide it from investors.

All imo based on their past performance or lack thereof in other areas.

IMO that was for him merely the cost of "doing business". The SEC apparently felt the same way and gave him noogies for doing it and said, "Now get out of here ya' big galoot!"

I recall no such admonishments when Jerry Hinton was fondly reminisced about by backward looking longs.

My sense of fair play says what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

But I would never expect to arrive at a consensus on the matter, and am happy to drop it having said my piece. gl.

It's a significant piece of the forensic timeline. Too bad he didn't also waste more time cutting and pasting all of the scores of posts that again and again pointed out that "if the share price goes down, Huff loses millions" that were offered up as a justification for not selling.

I don't care if he is gone, this company has a history. There were many sucked in by his BS and it is worth remembering.

Looks like we get to chase the balloon around for a while longer.

Always pumped just enough to stay out of reach and for those who try to pop it, they never quite get that done either.

Having matriculated to a brand new moniker, we are now treated to another refrain of Pump and Pop-in-stance, again.

It looks like he was hoping someone would ask. Not surprised by the answer. I figured it would be something along those lines since the statement was pregnant with innuendo.

Globetel has turned out to be a very ugly baby.

I can't comment further because every time I try it comes out as being more vile than I wish to post.

At this point GTEM is possibly any accountant's worst nightmare. They are known to have fed fraudulant information to their previous accountant so now nothing they say can be trusted, they are under SEC investigation so anything an accountant does will be closely scrutinized by the regulators, and when they try to straighten things out, things don't get straightened out.

IMO GTEM would be the lowest priority, highest risk client that I'd rather not have on my client list. To do their work I would need to charge double and then spend the extra fee doing independent research verifying and documenting all my findings, or the lack thereof, on everything they told me. I would have more lucrative clients who would absolutely get priority over this dog, who I would just as soon would get lost as continue with being the difficulty to me that it is.

Just my opinion. I'm not an accountant.

More than horrific, it was criminal, which calls into question the true strategic vision. Just enough lame effort and half built build-outs to sucker people out of their money imo. There is really precious little evidence to the contrary as far as I can see.

I was wrong too. I should have been a basher through the whole thing.

Given that every step has led to a worsening of conditions as compared with preceding steps and they have also been accompanied by optimistic interpretations to the contrary, I see no reason to think that the next steps will turn positive. Hope hasn't helped thus far and the rain just keeps on falling. Until something good actually happens, it's the same old misery.

http://www.cfo.com/printable/article.cfm/11318445/c_11317690?f=options

SEC Settles Telecom Twofer
UTStarcom execs past and present to pay up over revenue-recognition errors; GlobeTel officials settle case about falsely inflating revenue.
Stephen Taub, CFO.com | US
May 2, 2008

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced separate settlements of charges against people at two telecommunications companies.

Former UTStarcom CFO Michael Sophie and current company chief executive Hong Liang Lu settled a case in connection involving false financial reports and recurring internal control deficiencies. Without admitting or denying guilt, they agreed to pay civil penalties of $75,000 and $100,000, respectively.

According to the SEC's complaint, UTStarcom publicly reported more than $400 million in sales between 2000 and 2005 that were subject to undisclosed side agreements or contract modifications that rendered revenue recognition improper under applicable accounting principles.

The commission also alleged that UTStarcom failed to disclose and properly account for transactions between the company and an entity controlled by an executive of UTStarcom's China subsidiary, and that the company failed to properly record compensation expenses for employee stock options.

The SEC accused Lu and Sophie of falsely certifying that the company's financial statements and books and records were accurate.

In a related administrative order, the SEC found that UTStarcom violated securities rules and that Lu and Sophie caused the company's violations. Both the company and the individuals agreed to cease and desist from such violations.

UTStarcom, which makes wireless network equipment and cellular phones, said last September that it would restate its results for the seven-year period ended December 31, 2006 to correct the way it recognized revenue generated in China. Part of the revenue the company had garnered in China was reported earlier than it should have been, UTStarcom said in a press release at the time.

This was not the first time the company has run afoul of rules because of revenue-recognition problems in Asia. In May 2006 UTStarcom said it would restate its results for nearly three years as a result of its premature recognition of revenue on a contract with a customer in India as well as other transactions.

In a statement Thursday, the company stressed that no monetary penalties were assessed against the company. It acknowledge, though, that the settlement with the SEC does not include the Justice Department's ongoing investigation of whether the company violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

In the other case, the SEC filed a civil action against GlobeTel Communications and three former officers: CFOs Thomas Jimenez and Lawrence Lynch and chief executive Timothy Huff.

According to the complaint, Jimenez and Lynch schemed to inflate GlobeTel's revenue and hide millions of dollars of unpaid receivables and liabilities between 2004 and 2006. The SEC alleges that GlobeTel recorded $119 million in revenue on the basis of fraudulent invoices created by two people in charge of its wholesale telecommunications business.

Jimenez and Lynch are accused of making, or causing to be made, entries on GlobeTel's general ledger that improperly offset the receivables associated with those revenues against the liabilities, thereby concealing the revenue fraud from investors. Huff is alleged to have caused GlobeTel to sell $1.6 million worth of its common stock in 2005 in violation of the registration provisions of the federal securities laws.

In a settlement announced Thursday, Lynch agreed to a five-year officer and director bar and to pay a civil penalty in an amount to be determined by the court. Huff agreed to pay a $30,000 civil penalty. Neither admitted or denied guilt.

So the traders and the flippers were the only ones who were able to make sense out of the unknowns involved. They surfed the scam got out in time, and they said as much while they were doing it. I wish I had been as smart. At least they were being honest, unlike the people running the company, who shall forever reek of cat urine.

As I read the SEC notice I was waiting for the next line after the part about the $30,000 fine to say something along the lines of 'in exchange for cooperating with the prosecution of....', but it didn't say anything like that. Maybe they didn't want to say it, even if true.

Still wondering if that is a foot yet to fall.

Otherwise, that's not a fine, it's an incentive bonus. All imo.

An odd aspect to this latest failure to deliver is that the apparently same situation last month precipitated a timely PR providing an update and managing expectations / disappointment levels.

This time no such effort. What changed? Why was it appropriate last month but not so this month?

found this. edited for brevity:

http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/1396865/

The Florida Venture Forum Taps Presenting Companies for 2008 Early Stage VC Conference

Friday, April 18, 2008; Posted: 10:53 PM

The Florida Venture Forum has selected 15 Florida companies to present at its first Early Stage Venture Capital Conference to be held at the Omni ChampionsGate in Orlando on May 16.

Fifteen of Florida's early-stage prospects for equity financing will make 10-minute presentations to an audience of venture capitalists, private equity investors, angel investors, investment bankers, financial intermediaries and entrepreneurs.

Southwest Florida

Trimax Wireless, Naples: Provider of fixed and mobile broadband wireless networking solutions, targeted at the local government, hospitality, defense and industrial markets.

That looks like a very good synopsis to me, thanks. Financials should be enlightening, and no doubt shall also raise more questions.

July '07 PR references legal action vis a vis Hotzone, so this is how I thought the outcome in '08 might affect financials covering things back in '07 (?), however I certainly could be incorrect in my personal perceptions about these things, which is all I have to go on and that is what I am describing here.

They don't list assets on this one?

I would expect they would want to see the outcome of tomorrow's Hotzone hearing before issuing financials.

http://www.miami-dadeclerk.com/civil/docketinfo.asp?pCase_Year=2008&pCase_Seq=9021&pCase_Code=CA&pCase_Loc=01&id=AAAHgHAAOAAAaOlAAe

This hearing (link posted by coastiretired on RB) was apparently set on April 15, which was after the March 31 PR, so I wouldn't expect financials right away since the Hotzone asset would seriously affect the bottom line imo.

I think the shares have to be recycled through the Federal Reserve drying machine or something, don't they?

I guess no one could ever accuse Cole of being associated with any sort of shorting activity, after all, he is so clearly unknowledgable about the whole thing.

I guess that none of the resident geniuses posting on this board were around to tell the potential subscribers in Tempe that the size of the mesh was way too large to interfere in any way with the short wavelength signals from the transmitters and that therefore they should sign up even if they couldn't get the signal.

Some of us bitter folk have to evaluate a company on the basis of a faith in physics as opposed to faith that profits and market share might be reported. Did I say bitter? Sorry, poor choice of words.

They may have the option, but you don't. You have to wait.

If you think the SEC takes away that option, you should explain why. But don't feel obligated. Your opinion is far from authoritative.

I was asking a question. Your answer isn't really adequate. Sorry.

It is not an option, it is the reality. We are waiting; whether you consider it to be an option or not.

This is probably stating the obvious but doesn't the litigation with Uli concern ownership of an asset and therefore as long as this is in question, the filing of financials is affected? There must be a way to qualify an unknown such as this since other companies do it all the time or would it be just as well to wait inasmuch as this is one of the few remaining assets and would make a huge difference on the balance sheet?