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.
This is HUGE, if the company Mr. Noel is referring to is "Dr. Scholl's" this is going to be the best play in penny land. Their parent company is Schering-Plough, which recently merged with MERK, a 60B dollar company. IMO
Week 1, Minnesota
Thanks
Anyone know if RCCH/IWS is going to be at this show?
http://www.h2o-xpo.org/
It's one of the largest Water/Wastewater shows especially for rural areas. 20k people attended last year.
I thought TA stands for technical analysis and Transfer Agent = Transfer Agent. When you use a forward slash "/" incorrectly, you confuse people even more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slash_(punctuation)
That 85M sounds about right. I think at one point it might have been even lower. Look back at the posts from Jan-Mar of 08 and you can probably find it.
If you go back to last spring, when the pps was. 04-.05, the OS was even lower then the 188 mil they reported in Nov O8.
No capacity for dilution? Are you crazy, In March of 08' this was trading .04-.05 range. How do you think the price got to where it is now? DILUTION?
.0001 on the Ask and still NO BID!!!!
Since I can't pm, I figured since this is a open topic board I'd ask you about FapTurbo. Just wanted to get your opinion about it. Any info would be great, TIA.
What took you so long to figure that out?
Here's a reality check for you, its already on the streets, it been on the streets in the US since the 1920's.
Maybe you should find an MS support group in your town and listen in on what those people go through on a daily basis.
Would you consider those people criminals if they decided to use Marijuana to ease their pain so they could function on a day to day basis?
In your profile you listed
"Interests/Hobbies: Holistic health helping those in need"
So if you agree that Holistic health/medicine can help someone in pain, they why would you be against someone who wanted to use a different form of alternative medicine such as medical marijuana?
I'm all for LIGATT, but I really think Greg should stop using AT&T as an example. I understand that he's trying to convey the point that he wants to acquire a lot of companies. But AT&T was eventually forced to spin-off most of the companies into smaller entities and eventually got acquired by one of the companies it spun-off.
I think that it might confuse some people that know the history behind AT&T.
This is going Sky HIGH!
Medical Marijuana Reports
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3472
Emerging Clinical Applications For Cannabis & Cannabinoids
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7002
Here's a great place to start if you've been looking for an overview of medical marijuana in the US.
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3376
Picked up a few shares this week. Saw the show on CNBC that had a segment about the CEO's past. As more and more states legalize medical marijuana and dispensaries are becoming more common, there is definitely going to be a need for industry specific business applications.
One dispensary owner they interviewed stated that their taxes were in the six to seven figure range. If that is the case then there is probably a great need for inventory management, accounting and other products of that sort.
No offense, but using TA on a chart where a real company RM into a .000x symbol really doesn't make any sense.
Not to mention that chart is screwed up because on that day it hit .0006, it was trading in the .006x's. All that means is some moron put in a sell order in at .0006 instead of .006 and a MM scooped up those shares.
Thanks for signing up. The best part about it, if you lose your $.10, you get it back all over again.
One word of warning...it becomes very addicting! Don't say I didn't warn you.
Here's a link to an article about the site. Very Smart Guy who started it. If you decided to sign up, please use my link...
http://www.centsports.com/?opcode=58514
http://www.forbes.com/2008/06/12/online-gambling-centsports-ent-manage-cx_jb_0612onlinegambling.html
did you sign up?
Those felonies that he was found guilty of where no more then glorified misdemeanors.
This article just makes Mr. Evans resume and background 1000x more attractive to potential clients of Ligatt Security International.
He's investigated by the FBI, charged with these crimes, found guilty, served his time and payed his restitution.
Then when he gets out of prison, the FBI becomes one of his clients.
That's awesome, it doesn't get any better then that.
His favorite tools at that time were straws and razor blades lol
If the bank/lender holding the loan isn't going to modify the loan, what makes you think a 3rd party like Ezee can?
If you like to Bet on Sports check out this site
http://www.centsports.com/?opcode=58514
Add me as a SHORT
English please
Regarding the Ligatt online store. It has products ranging in price from $50 to $20,000+ Having these products online and available 24/7 356 could easily add to the bottom line. It's passive income.
I saw that and yes it was kinda spooky. And the current chart is in there. I've held this for a long time, 11/06, got killed in the RS and then starting buying again this week.
Things look much better this time around with the new company. Mr Evans strikes me as the type of CEO that is going to file financial statements and try to get this to a higher exchange.
All of this is my opinion.
If you want a laugh, look at post 1804 and then look at your reply.
that was the agent intelligent sports was using. since there's been no official symbol change yet, there's a good chance that agent is still handing the stock.
I think this is the transfer agent.
http://www.islandstocktransfer.com/contact
yeah 80-120k is huge overhead for a company that is supposedly making millions...give me a break
Jim, do you think this is the same guy?
My original post was # 53929
Janice, do you think this is the same Archie Thompson...seems logical, found guilty of securities fraud in the US and then move to Canada.
McCLENDON v. STATE
1989 OK CR 29
777 P.2d 948
Case Number: F-87-803
Decided: 07/13/1989
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
Cite as: 1989 OK CR 29, 777 P.2d 948
An Appeal from the District Court of Muskogee County; James Edmondson, District Judge.
BILLY J. MCCLENDON and ARCHIE THOMPSON, appellants, were convicted of Conspiracy to Sell Unregistered Securities, Distribute Unregistered Sales Literature and Transact Business Through an Unregistered Broker/Dealer (Count I), Sale of Unregistered Securities (Counts II, III & IV), Distribution of Unregistered Sales Literature (Count V), Transaction of Business Through an Unregistered Broker/Dealer (Counts VI, VII & VIII), and Fraud (Counts IX, X & XI), in Muskogee County District Court, Case No. CRF-85-512, sentenced to ten (10) years (Count I), one (1) year imprisonment (Counts II-XI), a $5,000.00 fine on each count, to be suspended upon payment of restitution in the amount of $80,900.00, plus court costs, all counts run consecutively, with the last ten (10) years suspended, and they appeal. AFFIRMED.
Jeff Belote and Warren Gotcher, Gotcher, Brown and Bland, McAlester, for appellant McClendon.
Greg Thomas, Muskogee, for appellant Thompson.
Robert H. Henry, Atty. Gen., Susan Stewart Dickerson, Asst. Atty. Gen., W. Craig Sutter, Legal Intern, Oklahoma City, for appellee.
OPINION
PARKS, Presiding Judge:
[777 P.2d 949]
¶1 Billy J. McClendon and Archie Thompson, appellants, were jointly tried by jury and convicted of Conspiracy to Sell Unregistered Securities, Distribute Unregistered Sales Literature and Transact Business [777 P.2d 950] Through an Unregistered Broker/Dealer (21 O.S. 1981 § 421 [21-421]; 71 O.S. 1981 §§ 301 [71-301], 402, and 201) (Count I), Sale of Unregistered Securities (71 O.S. 1981 § 301 [71-301]) (Counts II, III & IV), Distribution of Unregistered Sales Literature (71 O.S. 1981 § 402 [71-402]) (Count V), Transaction of Business Through an Unregistered Broker/Dealer (71 O.S. 1981 § 201 [71-201]) (Counts VI, VII & VIII), and Fraud (21 O.S. 1981 § 101 [21-101]) (Counts IX, X & XI), in Muskogee County District Court, Case No. CRF-85-512, before the Honorable James Edmondson, District Judge. Punishment was set at ten (10) years (Count I), one (1) year imprisonment (Counts II-XI), and a $5,000.00 fine on each count, to be suspended upon payment of restitution in the amount of $80,900.00 and court costs. All counts were ordered to run consecutively, with the last ten (10) years suspended. Appellants are under an appeal bond. We affirm.
¶2 In mid-1982, appellant Thompson, an accountant, encouraged Bob Culver to invest in B & A Cattle Investments, owned by appellant McClendon. Thompson showed Culver a prospectus, including a financial statement, projected revenue and profit, and a business resume of McClendon, which Thompson prepared for McClendon. Thompson told Culver the prospectus was great, Culver would receive a guaranteed interest rate of 26%, the cattle were insured, and "there's no way you can lose." The prospectus did not indicate whether the offering was or was not registered or approved by the Oklahoma Securities Commission.
¶3 On November 9, 1982, the Culvers entered into an investment contract with appellant McClendon, for which McClendon received $104,000.00. The Culvers were to receive monthly interest payments of $1800.00. On November 9, 1982, Jo Culver, on behalf of her mother, Rebecca Priest, invested $15,000.00 in B & A Cattle Investments. Thompson told Mr. Culver if he or anyone else was interested in investing, they should do it "real quick" before the interest rate dropped to 20%. On November 16, the Culvers invested another $50,000.00. The Culvers received their interest payments the next two months, but in February, 1983, one of the interest checks was returned for insufficient funds. After a second check was likewise returned, McClendon met Mr. Culver and paid him $3600.00 in cash, which included the March payment, stating the problems he had were solved. The Culvers received their interest payment for April, but never received another payment, nor were they able to recover the principal amount. Rebecca Priest never received any interest payments, or her principal.
¶4 Shirley Porter, appellant Thompson's secretary, stated that in response to Thompson's representations of a guaranteed return of 26%, she and her husband invested $10,000.00 in B & A Cattle Investments on May 21, 1982. The interest, which was due on May 21, 1983, and the principal, was never paid. Jo Culver testified that at appellant McClendon's bankruptcy hearing in December, 1983, McClendon stated the investment contracts were drawn up by Thompson, Thompson was his agent or broker in the negotiations of the contracts, and Thompson was responsible for collecting the investment money, for which Thompson received a 3% commission. McClendon further stated Thompson himself had invested $30,000.00 in B & A Cattle Investments, but that McClendon paid him off fourteen or fifteen months before.
¶5 Patty McCarthy, Associate General Counsel at the Oklahoma Securities Commission, testified that B & A Cattle Investments was not registered, had not filed a notice of exemption, the prospectus was not registered as sales literature as required by law, and Thompson was not a registered broker. She spoke to Thompson in October, 1984, when he admitted soliciting investments for B & A Cattle from the Culvers, Rebecca Priest, Shirley Porter, and a dozen or more clients.
¶6 Archie Thompson testified he provided various financial services for Bill McClendon since 1979, including preparing the prospectus for B & A Cattle Investments. When he became concerned he might be dealing in securities, he said he consulted an attorney, and subsequently made several changes in the investment contracts. [777 P.2d 951] Thompson said his understanding was that the investment contracts were not securities, and that he was not required to file anything with the Oklahoma Securities Commission. Thompson admitted that at the time he told the Culvers B & A Cattle was a secure investment, McClendon was behind on his payments to Thompson. McClendon paid Thompson $18,000.00 on November 17, 1982, the day after the Culvers invested $50,000.00 in B & A Cattle Investments.
I.
¶7 Appellants first claim reversible error occurred when the trial court admitted hearsay statements against McClendon without following the guidelines set forth in Laske v. State, 694 P.2d 536 (Okla. Crim. App. 1985), relating to application of the coconspirator rule of 12 O.S. 1981 § 2801 [12-2801](4)(b)(5). While the trial court apparently relied upon the coconspirator rule to admit the challenged hearsay, this Court may sustain the admission of hearsay on a different theory, so long as the alternative basis for admission finds support in the record. Newbury v. State, 695 P.2d 531, 535 (Okla. Crim. App. 1985).
A.
¶8 Appellants first challenge admission of Mr. Culver's testimony that appellant Thompson told Culver the prospectus was great. Defense counsel for appellant McClendon objected "to what somebody said outside the presence of Mr. McClendon." (Tr. I 210) Initially, we find no error occurred as to appellant Thompson, because his out of court statements were admissible as party admissions under 12 O.S. 1981 § 2801 [12-2801](4)(b)(1). Johns v. State, 742 P.2d 1142, 1146 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987). Further, we find the out of court statement was not hearsay as to appellant McClendon, because it was not ". . . offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. . . ." 12 O.S. 1981 § 2801 [12-2801](3). The out of court statement was not offered to prove that the investment was a good deal, but rather to show that Thompson was soliciting investments for McClendon. See Nunley v. State, 660 P.2d 1052, 1055 (Okla. Crim. App. 1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 867, 104 S.Ct. 205, 78 L.Ed.2d 179 (1983).
B.
¶9 Appellants next challenge admission of the prospectus, State Exhibit No. 1. Counsel for appellant Thompson stated at trial that his client had "no objection to the admission of that exhibit," while counsel for appellant McClendon objected on hearsay grounds. (Tr. I 214) The record supports a finding that the prospectus was prepared by Thompson as the agent or servant of McClendon concerning a matter within the scope of his agency or employment, and was therefore admissible under 12 O.S. 1981 § 2801 [12-2801](4)(b)(4). We find no error.
C.
¶10 Appellants also challenge admission of out of court statements by Thompson assuring Mr. Culver there was no way he could lose, and that the 26% rate was guaranteed. Again, as to appellant Thompson, the statements were admissible as party admissions classified as non-hearsay. See 12 O.S. 1981 § 2801 [12-2801](4)(b)(1). As to appellant McClendon, the first statement was not hearsay because it was not offered to prove that Mr. Culver could not lose by investing. See Nunley, 660 P.2d at 1055. The prospectus, which we previously found admissible in Part I(B), supra, contained a statement which guaranteed investors a 26% return. (State Exhibit No. 1) The second statement was thus cumulative to competent evidence already admitted, and cannot be reversible error. See Funkhouser v. State, 734 P.2d 815, 819 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 108 S.Ct. 326, 98 L.Ed.2d 354 (1987).
D.
¶11 Appellants next contest admission of State Exhibit Nos. 2 and 6, which were investment agreements between the Culvers and appellant McClendon. The record supports a finding that the agreements [777 P.2d 952] were admissible under 12 O.S. 1981 § 2801 [12-2801](4)(b)(4).
E.
¶12 Appellant McClendon challenges admission of out of court statements made by appellant Thompson to Mr. Culver, after the interest payments were not made, that Thompson would try to get hold of McClendon. (Tr. I 268) We find the statement admissible under 12 O.S. 1981 § 2801 [12-2801](4)(b)(4). Appellant McClendon also contests admission of Mr. Culver's statement that Culver asked Thompson to change the investment agreement to extend its terms beyond three years. (Tr. I 284-85) Here, the statement made by Mr. Culver, the declarant, was made at trial and was therefore not hearsay within 12 O.S. 1981 § 2801 [12-2801](3).
F.
¶13 Appellant McClendon next contests admission of out of court statements made by Thompson to Shirley Porter relating to B & A Cattle Investments. We find the statements admissible against McClendon under 12 O.S. 1981 § 2801 [12-2801](4)(b)(4). Appellant McClendon also objects to Ms. Porter's testimony that Thompson told her a good way to make money is to raise money for other people, and that she had to invest by a certain date or she would not get a 26% return. (Tr. I 306-07) The former statement was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted and was thus not hearsay for the reasons given in Part I(A), supra. We find the latter statement admissible under 12 O.S. 1981 § 2801 [12-2801](4)(b)(4).
G.
¶14 Finally, appellant McClendon challenges admission of Ms. McCarthy's testimony that Thompson told her he was to receive a 3% commission for soliciting the Porter investment. Again, we find such statements admissible against McClendon under 12 O.S. 1981 § 2801 [12-2801](4)(b)(4).
¶15 In conclusion, because we have found the challenged statements admissible on grounds other than the coconspirator rule of 12 O.S. 1981 § 2801 [12-2801](4)(b)(5), we hold that the trial court did not commit reversible error in failing to follow the procedural requirements of Laske, 694 P.2d at 538. Further, we find it significant that appellant Thompson testified at trial and was thus available for cross-examination. "[T]here is no reversible error where the declarant testifies in court and is subject to cross-examination, regardless of whether opposing counsel actually questions the declarant." United States v. Wolf, 839 F.2d 1387, 1395-96 (10th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 109 S.Ct. 304, 102 L.Ed.2d 323 (1988).
II.
¶16 Appellants contend in their second assignment that the trial court erred in admitting other crime evidence, consisting of Ms. Porter's testimony that she lost $10,000.00 which she invested in B & A Cattle Investments, where the State failed to give notice ten (10) days prior to trial as required by Burks v. State, 594 P.2d 771 (Okla. Crim. App. 1979). The State failed to give a Burks notice. The purpose of a Burks notice is to prevent surprise on the part of the defense, and to allow the defense to be heard prior to the evidence being placed before the jury. Clanton v. State, 711 P.2d 937, 938 (Okla. Crim. App. 1985). The record indicates the Porter investment was revealed at preliminary hearing (Tr. I 195), the Porters were subpoenaed to testify at trial (O.R. 67), and appellants challenged the testimony by motion in limine (Tr. I 193-198) prior to its actual admission at trial. Under these circumstances, we reject appellants' argument of surprise, and do not find reversible error. Id. See Hartness v. State, 738 P.2d 552, 553 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987); Melvin v. State, 706 P.2d 163, 164 (Okla. Crim. App. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1027, 106 S.Ct. 1225, 89 L.Ed.2d 335 (1986). Further, we find the testimony admissible as proof of a plan to sell unregistered securities. See 12 O.S. 1981 § 2404 [12-2404](B).
III.
¶17 Lastly, appellants contend the trial court erred in allowing Patty McCarthy, [777 P.2d 953] Associate General Counsel at the Oklahoma Securities Commission, to testify. Appellants complain that during voir dire, the prosecutor stated he would "be assisted during this trial by Patricia McCarthy from the Oklahoma Securities Commission." (Tr. I 17) Appellants argue reversible error occurred when Ms. McCarthy was allowed to testify without being introduced to the jury as a case agent rather than an assistant prosecutor.
¶18 "[T]he role of advocate and witness should be kept separated. . . ." Cavaness v. State, 581 P.2d 475, 478 (Okla. Crim. App. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1117, 99 S.Ct. 1024, 59 L.Ed.2d 76 (1979). As a general rule, a lawyer "shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness. . . ." Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.7(a ), 5 O.S.Supp. 1989, App. 3-A. Here, there is nothing to show that Ms. McCarthy acted as an advocate. She did not examine witnesses, or present argument. The prosecutor's designation of her in the role of an assistant, while clearly a bad choice of words, did not render her an advocate. Consequently, we find no error.
¶19 Accordingly, the judgments and sentences are AFFIRMED.
LANE, V.P.J., and BRETT, BUSSEY and LUMPKIN, JJ., concur.
Citationizer© Summary of Documents Citing This Document
I wonder if this is the same Archie Thompson
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=11073
2-4-6-8-10-12-14-15-18-20-21-23-26-28-29-31-34-35-38-39/ /41
Swb Escrow Svc 8599 Haven Ave # 306,
Rancho Cucamonga, CA (909) 944-1402
Statewide Bancorp, Inc.
8599 Haven Avenue, Suite 306
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
(800) 737-0104
Chase Home Mortgage
8599 Haven Ave
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
(909) 476-1256
California Mortgage Alliance
8599 Haven Ave
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
(909) 941-3464
Westend Mortgage
8599 Haven Ave Ste 923
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
(909) 944-9540