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.
John, have any of these companies made any meaningful net profits?
If your answer is NO, then I think I'm right on all counts...not that I want to be right...it's just the reality, unfortunately.
This is all about hiding behind dilution. Just look at the Momma Potts and Greg Gibson compensation deal. That's certainly no puzzle.
ANGLR, no thank God, I don't any other stock this convoluted.
I also don't own any other penny stock.
If I am right about the tax shell game, then it would make it much easier for management to 'fly under the radar' of SEC scrutiny by taking and keeping this stock on the pink sheets.
How many other stocks has the current management group gotten off the pinks once they were on that exchange? Just asking.
Also, very importantly to you and other shareholders of good standing, there is Federal legislation which I have recently discovered that is a powerful tool in being able to deliver the corporate death penalty...but for now I am not going to disclose the specifics as I do not want to disclose my strategy prematurely.
John, my point is that the EESV deal was done, in part, for the exact reason that they could cap the price of CVIA at .125, and therefore never have to honor all the covenants of agreement with EESV and other related transactions, while they diverted $125K back to EESV -- a non-viable company -- for NO justifiable business reason.
Now, who do you think pocketed that $125K...tax free BTW?
Good incentive for insiders, bad business for shareholders.
Dilution allows you to do the following, although not limited to the following:
1) Put control of company into those who receive diluted shares so that follow-on decisions can be made by CONSENT DECREE that serves the insiders' agenda and not the common shareholders.
2) Insiders can sell or short these vast numbers of shares and turn pennies into BIG DOLLARS.
3) Dilution allows various tax credits and DEDUCTIONS (say a trip to the Bahamas) at shareholders' expense as well the advantage of being able to be spread those tax benefits among the various shell companies involved in the various transactions that CVIA has entered into, allowing real money transactions to be hidden or tax sheltered.
You may have noticed that as you look through these various shell companies that the CVIA insider group has previously done deals with many of these other players who received CVIA stock. Why is that?
Hope that provides some illumination on what I am talking about?
johnson, when's the big move coming in the stock price?
And you make sarcastic remarks to ANGLR about a lump of coal -- now that's the pot calling the kettle calling the lump of coal black. LOL
Some cold water on the face might help.
john,
On RB you said:
EESV don't want to honor the deal due to something about value. Their deal was for .125 pps and the share price as you know is 1/2 that.
Perhaps, you might now agree with my point about when this PR was put out that it would put a cap on the price of CVIA stock at $.125?
It certainly has never gone above that price again.
And now, perhaps, you might also cede me some degree of agreement that management did not have CVIA shareholders' best interests in mind when they did -- what management calls -- such a "business" transaction?
Management's game, IMO, is to create dilution. Now, I ask you: Why would it be to management's advantage to do so?
If you can answer this question, it may explain many of management's many other so-called "business" decisions.
johnson, no one said anything about
classic posts either.
Man, you are a tripe.
Thank you for your response, John. And I agree with you...but why would experienced businessmen and Bill Tuorto, a lawyer and legal advisor to CVI not do their proper due diligence do you think?
Something not quite right about that IMO...experienced, professional business people who've been through this kind of company acquisition exercise many times making such an obviously naive and amateurish oversight really stretches the credibility meter don't you think?
Do you realize that you are telling me not to tell anyone NOT to post when in fact I did not tell anyone not to post here.
I simply asked Eugene why he posts here. That's very different from telling someone not to post here don't you agree?
Eugene, why do you post here?
john, I can honestly tell you that when I got involved with Keith, we were two shareholders who wanted to set those things right that Arnold and Mabie had screwed up.
What Keith did after he moved to Tulsa was a great disappointment to me personally and as a shareholder, and the primary reason I even stay involved now is because I feel a sense of obligation to the shareholders and myself to try and make sure we all get paid for our time and money.
Those who have misunderstood my motivation are many, but whatt ya gonna do? :)
john, I'm being sincere when I ask you: What, in your opinion, was the mistake...specifically?
johnson, john green,
what is the cumulative ROC, total net revenues, ROI, ROE, ROA metrics that the Mays and post Mays management teams have generated during their tenure?
johnson, john green, why is CVIA
on the pinks?
"...you are just old disgruntiled shareholders that were scammed by old management and hired consultants."
Which hired consultants are you referring to?
In what we understand, NOT what we do.
Please read more carefully.
I don't understand what you are saying.
Try again.
Willy, I'm surprised to see you slamming the Tuortos:
"I think some of you old shareholders better wise up to the scam that was pulled on you all. jmo"
Thank you for proving my point in my post #2198.
Now, please see if you can help your buddy johnson to understand what both of us do.
You're right. You and johnson should be allowed to slander and defame me, and I should not be allowed to say what is in the public domain as posted by others and as acknowledged by you in your reply posts.
As far as shares being issued, to my knowledge no shares were ever issued of AHCD, until such time as they went public.
What you had was a right, a de facto equity stake made in your behalf by CVI corporation with a client of CVI who agreed to offer those shares to existing shareholders of record in such number as was in ratio with any particular CVIA shareholders' equity position in CVIA's stock.
So you are wrong on this point, too.
johnson, I meant to ask you: Why are you posting here?
What you state in this is not persuasive of anything.
Identify the issue at stake in this discussion, otherwise we cannot proceed in any meaningful way to contemplate those things which you claim you want to discuss.
The issuance of preferreds is so stated in Section 7 of the the 10Q. I refer you to that section for your further review before making any additional comment on this subject.
What is it in your post that you think is persuasive of anything?
Hint: AHCD never existed as an operating company, nor was it publicly traded.
Willie if it makes you feel better I'll refer to you as a whinner instead.
Now, does that make you feel better, Hal?
Willie why are posting here?
What has prompted your "sudden" burst of CVIA pride?
Why do you care what current management does or doesn't do?
I guess you think Jezco is one of those valuable family assets that will lead us to prosperity, right, Hal?
johnson, I'm looking forward to soon participating in our move up to double digits with my new common shares from converted preferreds.
Well said, Robin.
In fact, current management has destroyed shareholder value many times over from what Anderson did...so please Johnson stop boring us with your lackey comments in behalf of management.
As Robin points out, your analysis is cognively dissonant and dysfunctional.
Apples and oranges, johnson.
CVIA is not AHCD.
CVIA is a public company.
CVIA is a going concern.
CVIA's BOD issued these shares in accordance with the Corporate Law the State of Oklahoma.
You and everyone else can laugh all you want, but you and management cannot and will not ignore the law and actions taken by the BOD simply because management decides to do so.
This is a management that made several decisions without ever consulting stockholders by using a Consent Decree. Management has much to learn about Corporate Governence, and perhaps Oklahoma law might provide such instruction.
"...you the one who is being CONSIDERED for indictment or legal action against on a felony charge..."
Read again: I did not state as a fact that a charge had been brought. This is indicative of your level of scrutiny on all that you post about.
You are wrong and ill informed on every point you make in this post.
Willy's thinks it's all right for SRR, Stony's Trucking, George Russell, EESV, Global Goop-tee Goop and all the others who've had their hand out since current managment took over, BUT IT'S NOT ALL RIGHT for investors of long standing who were issued these shares by Board decision to get what they are legally entitled to.
That's WillyLogic and I would advise you Jim not to pay attention to shills like Willy. JMO
Russell paid you. And management has referred to you as one of those they have used to "promote" the stock.
What you think about the preferreds is tainted, highly suspect and most of all irrelevant.
This is your opinion on the preferreds:
I still think all preferred should be canceled asap...I think old management scammed shareholders by lining their own pockets...most of the preferred went to inside guys...some hired as company consultants. These guys don't derserve one share of preferred therefore all of the preferred should be canceled. jmo
---------------
Is it also your opinion that the pension funds in which some of these preferreds reside would be wrong in requested these penalty shares?
But I suppose you know more than a pension fund manager about this issue, right?
----------------
It's obvious, in my OPINION, that the reason you have your opinion about the preferreds is because management is paying/compensating you, or will be payingcompensating you to say these things about which you have a very incomplete understanding. JMO
---------------
You talk about scammers. Aren't you the one who is being considered for indictment or legal action against on a felony charge brought by the SEC?
You talk about scammers, but you are the one who is being looked at by the government for being a scammer, aren't you?
I'm only saying to you what you say to everyone else in many of your postings. Surely you haven't forgotten the frequency of your immaturity in calling people whiners...er, excuse me..."whinners." LOL
Please clean up your hypocrisy and, for the sake of all the people who post here with sincerity and earnestness please disabuse yourself of such jejune natterings as they unnecessarily take up valuable space on IH's server.
My apologies to all who PMed me without my responding. I simply did notice that I had these messages.
So here goes:
jas: Regarding WIEN, this firm has always maintained ties and a business relationship with Corporate Vision, at least from the time Anderson was in there, and perhaps when Gifford Mabie was there, I just don't know that for a fact. I would suggest that you ask current management about their share placement(s) and liquidity providings and incentives WIEN supplies to CVIA.
campe: As far as which state is best to incorporate in, DE is generally the best, but it depends on the company, its business model, its objectives, its size, tax strategy and anticipated growth, etc. In general, I like LLCs better for emerging companies. Same benefits as corporation, less expensive to operate as an LLC.
rhlytle: Yes you are right regarding the penalty shares.
Thank you, James.
I'm glad to hear you say that, James.
We are on the same page.
Now how about johnson's comments which are often not in accordance with your rules objective?
James, I agree with the rules.
Do you think johnson abides by these rules?
I'm the only one posting. You do not cite anyone by name.
I'm simply asking...that's all. I think it's fair to ask you when you make that kind of comment to what are you referring to so that we know what your concern is.
My objective is to provide relevant comment to our investment. I think that is the objective of this board as well...is it not?
Help me out James.
johnson, your real name is richard?
----------------------------------------------------------------
By: rf4hd1
18 Dec 2003, 07:53 PM EST
Msg. 65090 of 65090
(This msg. is a reply to 65089 by johnson1.)
Jump to msg. #
hiya richard. you're right. i am no longer a cvia shareholder. i actually sold and made some money on this company. i keep a watch on things in the remote possability cvia will do the right thing and convert my preferd shares so i can unload them also. enjoy!
r