This action appears to be the reason Lebed does not trade anymore--the New York Times published the fact that he kept $500,000 of his gains at age 15 which they implied stung the SEC and he now does paid promos disclosing the amount of the payment but no trading.

Just so we have accuracy here--which everyone wants--

Lebed sent out an email predicting .01 in late Dec, my

recollection looking at the CPOW history and looking at

the CPOW entry on my watch list which is a short at.34,

it was around 27 Dec

he reiterated that 14 Jan in the link posted.

And of course that is just his opinion.

Posters here actually trade CPOW, he does not.

That is from the date of the KND agreement --but for myself thanks for the link to StockReads I was unaware of that site --I did not know that there was a site posting the Lebed class of internet types

Oh yes, I agree, absolutely, hearsay, unlike the posters on this board--the Lebed subscribers who made 50% on it this month should send the funds back now.

No doubt it will double this week.

GLTA

Sorry but Lebed's heads up was an email not a newsletter

Jack

Sykes has timothysykes.com and has posted the barn photo
He is not pushing CPOW right now--its far too slow--he led an attack on WLOCD Thursday and Friday that netted him 31k--that is the sort of move he likes, the 1 or 2 day short

He led an attack on CPOW December 31st and January 3rd--made over 7k on the January shorting

Lebed sent out an email in late December that CPOW is maybe the best pump and dump short he has seen and will go to .01--it has dropped from .34 or .33 to .16 since that statement--it is not on his website --he does promos long, not shorts --it was simply a gift to subscribers and of course they have made 50% in one month

GLTA

skyhi--wow a double by the end of the week!!
.32 !

Someone better get up with K.N.D. Feeds and tell them to get a phone

And remind the Canola Council of Canada that CPOW is an ""industry leader""

And tell Lebed and Sykes they are quite wrong this is not headed to .01

If someone has mentioned this already, please forgive me

If after trading on Monday CCME is still on the RegSHO list
then it is a done deal, it cannot get off because there are only 4 days left and it would need 5 consecutive off days--wouldn't the brokers contact their naked short clients the next day and wouldn't those people try to cover starting Tuesday?

No offense taken

I am curious as to who was the owner of CBE when bought by CPOW --who got the 28 million plus shares CPOW paid for CBE and where are those shares now--it appears CBE was a sole proprietorship , one owner, and those shares were worth zip at the time

At .16 these are now worth about $5 million

At the time CPOW hit .30 these were worth over $8 million

At .40 these were worth over $11 million

I am curious because Metz is not an officer of the company so he could pay the stock promoters out of CPOW stock and it would not be revealed.

My advice to investors is to lay the press releases down beside the SEC filings and look for significant differences like the one that just came out wherein the filing states the Chinese will own 90% but press release states something along the lines of an undetermined majority.

It is the same Metz.

As of last year he was barred by a US District Court from penny stock promotions situations due to his involvement as CEO in fraudulent press releases and hiding the payments to stock touters etc in the Prime Time / Hunt Gold fraud.

His bio-diesel company was allegedly acquired by another company, CPOW, and CPOW is free to engage in business.

I was not trying to pull an alarm and disappear--You recounted that you speak with Shenher from time to time and I recommended that you ask him about Metz. I assumed that would be your next step. Sorry if I assumed too much.

You are not implying that this PR is misleading are you?

Who would do something like that?

Who would have a motive to do something like that?

Metz is chief development officer of Canadian Bio-Energy too

Busy fellow

And lucky

Well shame on you !

There is no phone number.

Are you long in this stock?

Do you recall what that phone number is for K.N.D. Feeds, Inc?

It will bear inquiry

Perspective--thats a nice word--the next time you talk to him you might ask him if CPOW development officer Troy Metz is the same Troy Metz referred to in post #26767 on the HGLC board here on IHUB

It was not great news--the Chinese got 90% of the benefits

CCME seems to be following the market today in parallel

A graph of the market and CCME would look the same

I bought more as well

On the wild swings--be glad you are not in WLODC

shorts took it down over 50% today, made a fortune

The halt orders can only be levied for 3 days.
I believe that if they wish to stop trading further
the Commission must state reasons.
That would occur within the next 20 hours.
Will be interesting.

The stock is trading in the US--the halt order applies to Canada trading
I have none of this stock long or short

i suspect we will know a definite answer soon enough

you made the statement that they do not

you stated that the company has no control over the newsletters

are you claiming the company has nothing to do with the newsletters?

could not be more obvious could it

bankrupt company

pumped by all the penny newsletters

no thanks, i do not trade pump and dumps

If you read the halt order you will cease the concern of the Commission which led them to do the order though they are not being specific as this point as to exactly what has them alarmed

The cease trade order was a technicality --the current halt trade order is not

There seems to be some confusion here.

The British Columbia Securities Commission issued a cease trade order on CPOW for failure to file a document.
This was revoked when the document was filed. But that same day the Commission issued a halt trade order which is in effect until the end of today. It would seem more can be expected in the next 24 hours.

That the 33 million are not formally, officially off the books is not at all unusual in corporate activities of any corporation.

My opinion is:

If SL told others the article was coming out and those others shorted--that in and of itself is not a crime or a civil wrong--it is just not illegal
we are not talking about insider trading or the like

Now if the article was false that would or could be a different story-especially if the shorters knew or had reason to know that it was false

But the article cites public sources for nearly all of its claims--just because that material is negative is not actionable--
such citations are going to make succeeding in a civil action for libel very difficult and probably impossible under US law --

The #10 in regard to Wang in the press releases does not strike me as so aggregious to be significant --he is mentioned in 3 or 4--

On the positive side:

As far as the stock price--I bought and sold it for substantial profits over several days, it was climbing beautifully, on the day of the drop the China contract news came out and I think that there is no problem tying the SL article to the sudden drop the very same day it was published.

If Gordon Wang was a defendant in that other matter then he was a defendant and we cannot change that but to me as a shareholder I realize that there may be an innocent explanation--
I was an elected DA 20 years
I had many assistants and one day one went into private practice after 10 excellent years in my office.
She joined a firm with 2 young partners who were earning a million a year.
Her character, ethics were absolutely above reproach.
Her very first day on the new job the police came to the firm with search warrants, seized records and so on
The 2 partners went to jail for tax evasion, dealing in cocaine etc

Now she was a member of this crooked law firm, no changing that
But she was innocent of any wrongdoing.

The same could have occurred to Wang --because he was with the firm in some capacity he was named as a defendant--lawyers name everyone they can--so I am not bothered by that claim
BUT this is the sort of thing STTK must explain

The point you make in their "Conclusions" about the "catalog" and the "Vancover-based directors" struck me the same as it did you--that SL better be right about that--

Glad that you are meeting with them

Yes I have been a trial lawyer for 32 years, civil and criminal cases

I think that you will agree that they need to aggressively and immediately refute sl

Can they?
They say that they cannot, because of the pending legal action, and I agree with you that it may be on the advice of a lawyer

The answer can be found if you put into Google:

The American Bar Association Rules of Professional Responsibility
Rule 3.6 Trial Publicity, especially paragraph (c)
Rather right on point in this situation

I sent STTK an email on it

It is important to note that the directors and officers of STTK have an OBLIGATION to protect not only STTK but the shareholders
If they fail to do so with such an obvious remedy as Rule 3.6 they can be sued and held personally liable

The problem with a lawsuit includes:

1. It takes too long, maybe years

2. Stocklemon almost certainly has no assets, no money--so a big damage award is worthless

3. Stocklemon cited a lot of previously published public site matter so how can one succeed against that?

The company needs to VERY aggreesively respond and rebut these allegations immediately
They are allowed to do so under the law--and they have an OBLIGATION to do so to protect investors

I sent Smart-Tek an email about the officers not being able to comment on the stocklemon allegations because of a pending legal action.

I have no doubt some lawyer told them that but it is ridiculous.

Where a company suffers prejudice from such allegations they are allowed to immediately rebut and point by point and in fact they have an obligation to do so to protect the company and the shareholders.

( to avoid an argument over this--it is is found in the American Bar Association Rules on Professional Responsibility in the section on pretrial publicity)

If any of you wish to send a similar email, fine.

Sorry but I cannot locate that article--NYTimes did not save it in their archive

Good article in todays NY Times on Hawaii efforts to screen for bird flu--recounts millions of dead birds, number / percentage of humans who died

Well as far as your comments on Bird Flu as a scare--it is true that what effect it may have on humans may be speculative--

But certainly there is no question that this is a very real tangible threat to the World wide chicken industry --birds are dying all over--9 Indian farmers killed themselves last week over their losses--
the Europeans are quite worried about the economic devastation of Bird flu

aido taking a far worse beating today --i suppose related to 10K filed?