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.
Nice to see that everyone is having fun today...
It takes a special type of person to revel in the negative.
It is what it is
For now
D_DOG
The torch is lit and many a case with similarities to the LG case will benefit
from the ongoing court findings. The days of the toxic lenders crushing
companies and shareholders investments are coming to an end.
D_DOG
The SEC v LG Capital case will set precedent for many other cases
of the same nature along with a probable offer from Crown Bridge
Partners to try to settle the DarkPulse, Inc. et al v. Crown Bridge
Partners LLC et al RICO case before the Judge makes a ruling
based off the precedent and the RICO triple penalty for damages.
The biggest take away is that the toxic lenders will be a lot more open
to sitting down at the table and attempt to settle to avoid class action
litigation. If they do settle they usually get off without admitting fault or
guilt of trading violations and remain in business but go forth in a different
direction instead of toxic lending.
D_DOG
More progress with SEC v LG Capital case:
Tuesday, November 14, 2023
58 order Scheduling Order Tue 11/14 1:36 PM
SCHEDULING ORDER: Telephonic initial conference scheduled for 12/13/2023 at 11:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge James R. Cho. Counsel for all parties must participate. Counsel for plaintiff is directed to immediately confirm this conference date and time with counsel for the defendants. Counsel are directed to complete the attached Proposed Scheduling Order and electronically file same with the Court no later than 12/11/2023 . Each party is directed to call toll free (888) 808-6929 and use access code 106-5334 . The parties are reminded that, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 1.8, they may not independently record any court proceedings. Adjournment requests will not be considered unless made in accordance with this Court's Individual Rules. Ordered by Magistrate Judge James R. Cho on 11/14/2023. (TT)
Att: 1 Chamber's Individual Rules
D_DOG
THIS IS HUGE, IMHO: Looks like something is finally happening with
Securities and Exchange Commission v. LG Capital Funding, LLC et al
"Relief Defendants"
This is the spark that was needed to start the FIRE
Monday, November 13, 2023
57 order Order on Motion to Dismiss Mon 11/13 3:56 PM
DECISION & ORDER: The Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC" or the "Plaintiff") brings this action against LG Capital Funding, LLC and Joseph I. Lerman (collectively, "Defendants"), as well as Daniel Gellman, Boruch Greenberg, and Eli Safdieh (together, "Relief Defendants") for alleged violations of Section 15(a)(1) of the Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78o(a)(1). See Compl., ECF No.1 . Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Def. Mot., ECF No.26 . For the reasons in the attached Decision and Order, Defendants' Motion is DENIED. So Ordered by Judge William F. Kuntz, II on 11/13/2023. (SY)
D_DOG
https://nomoresharps.com/
"Uses a rechargeable 11.1-volt battery to deliver an electrical current producing an arc
of electricity directed at the tip of the needle and lancet, incinerating them."
From what I remember reading the 3,000 degree + temperature (probably higher) of the
arc melts and fuses the needle shut, sealing the contents and leaving no sharp
protrusions.
The issue of the sharp needle is moot at that point and it can be treated as Biohazard
waste and disposed of in the Red Biohazard bags just like bloody bandages and other
body fluid soak gauze pads. They fall under the same bio waste category at that point.
I'd have to dig into some of my hazmat notes but I'm 99% sure that is the SOP from
what I remember.
Maybe someone on the board can clarify the procedure.
D_DOG
NOPE, I don't think so......
Sharps containers not required from what I understand.
D_DOG
Looks like Redhawk is adding SUPER LAWYERS
to their legal team. The more the merrier 🤑🤑🤑
https://www.wandhlawfirm.com/
Redhawk Medical Products & Services L L C v. N95 Shield L L C
Docket last updated: 11/10/2023 11:59 PM CST
Thursday, November 09, 2023
22 motion Enroll as Counsel Thu 11/09 11:41 AM
MOTION for Jason M. Welborn, Jacob H. Hargett, and G. Shelly Maturin, II, of Welborn & Hargett, LLC, to Enroll as Counsel by Redhawk Medical Products & Services L L C. Motions referred to Carol B Whitehurst. Motion Ripe Deadline set for 11/9/2023.(Attorney Jason M Welborn added to party Redhawk Medical Products & Services L L C(pty:pla))(aty,Welborn, Jason)
Att: 1 Proposed order
D_DOG
The RICO case yes, it was a shot in the dark
type of case that stretches the boundaries of
law. Cases like that do not have much to go
back on for case history.
The breach of contract case is straightforward
and has a lot more clarity to it. Signed contracts
are binding and Louisiana has a common sense
approach to how they are applied in their state.
D_DOG
I'm thinking that the NY judge is happy to wash
his hands of this case.
Att: 1 Notice of Right of Appeal
And this case is going to Appeals to
languish in the court system.
D_DOG
Wednesday, November 08, 2023
47 order Judgment - Attorney Fees Wed 11/08 9:44 AM
JUDGMENT on Attorney Fees. Fees in favor of Crown Bridge Partners LLC, Sepas Ahdoot, Soheil Ahdoot against DarkPulse, Inc., Redhawk Holdings Corp., Social Life Network, Inc. in the amount of $ 32,438.85. It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Order dated November 07, 2023, Sepas Ahdoot, Soheil Ahdoot, and Crown Bridge Partners LLC's (collectively, "Defendants") Rule 54(d) Motion for Attorney Fees is GRANTED for fees in the amount of $32,438.85, plus post-judgment interest calculated from the date the Clerk of Court enters judgment; accordingly, case is closed. (Signed by Clerk of Court Ruby Krajick on 11/8/2023) (nd)
Att: 1 Notice of Right of Appeal
Absolutely but the only thing that is relevant for me right now is getting
current and back to trading, you won't get those answers on the phone.
We should have the financials back from the auditors by now or in the
very near future, also I don't see them failing any of the auditors tests
being our CEO is well versed in the in's and outs of the books and how
they need to be kept to satisfy any auditor.
IMHO there isn't anything else that needs to be done other than the
financials to be current, the court cases have no bearing on anything
other than future Q's.
We've been stagnant and in the dark long enough.
D_DOG
Calling the office is of no use, they can't
tell you anything. They can only inform
us via an 8K or simply a just get current with
their filings, they've had plenty time.
D_DOG
It sure seems like the New York Southern District Court judge wants this case
closed being he ordered: The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this
case and enter judgment pursuant to Dkt. No. 36. SO ORDERED
I thought it was going to the Court of Appeals, I guess he wanted to have the
last word beforehand....
D_DOG
YEP, lack of communication begins to gnaw at your trust and
eventually question what you once believed to be facts.
We aren't guaranteed a tomorrow, as time goes on our
tomorrows become fewer much quicker.
Just look at a few of our former directors, a few had to step down
due to health reasons or age, it wears you down eventually.
D_DOG
I'm getting tired of following all the court notes and cases, it's
not what investing in a company is suppose to be.
We keep thinking that we should be hearing something positive
from the company but it seems like the can keeps being kicked
down the road, further and further from the goal posts.
D_DOG
This is concerning to me because of what I derived from the onset of the arbitration
award is that the court was to rule on the findings of the agreed upon terms written
in the contract and follow the arbitrator's findings as per the defined signed contract
not pull this into the court room and have the court change the agreed upon terms.
RE: "During the teleconference, the parties shall be prepared to discuss the status
of the case, any issues requiring the Court's consideration, and the scheduling
of pretrial conference and trial dates."
Maybe it's just me but this seems to go against the exact agreed upon terms set
forth in their contract.
D_DOG
The RICO case that was finalized by the judge has been
appealed and is headed to a higher court.
D_DOG
Another move in the legal game of chess:
Thursday, November 02, 2023
44 misc Letter Thu 11/02 4:03 PM
LETTER addressed to Judge Victor Marrero from Jeffrey Fleischmann dated November 2, 2023 Document filed by Sepas Ahdoot, Soheil Ahdoot, Crown Bridge Partners LLC..(Fleischmann, Jeffrey)
43 respm Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion Thu 11/02 11:09 AM
MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re:38 MOTION for Attorney Fees . . Document filed by DarkPulse, Inc., Redhawk Holdings Corp., Social Life Network, Inc...(Basile, Mark)
42 notice Notice of Appearance Thu 11/02 10:57 AM
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Mark R. Basile on behalf of DarkPulse, Inc., Redhawk Holdings Corp., Social Life Network, Inc...(Basile, Mark)
D_DOG
Agreed on both matters, I've read the contract in it's entirety a few times and
like what I got out of it, not that I'm knowledgeable of the in's and out's or the
law but the general sense of clarity is there.
I have had a friend who is very knowledgeable read through it and he felt it
was solid as well.
As per the class action suit that is destined to go the full ride through the legal
system due to it's legality and the broad implications to all of the shenanigans
that plagued the stock market way too long.
A POUND OF FLESH WILL BE HAD EVENTUALLY
D_DOG
The best part of that article:
"An arbitration award is far more final and binding than a decision by a state or federal trial court. A party seeking to avoid enforcement of an arbitration award is required to show by clear and convincing evidence that the award was the product of fraud or corruption; that the complaining party was deprived of a fair hearing, or that the arbitrator went beyond the powers granted by the parties’ contract. The practical implication being that an arbitration award is far less likely to be appealed than a state or federal trial court decision."
D_DOG
Very good read, on another note here is a link to contract law in Louisiana being
this case is being heard there::
https://www.proeducate.com/courses/static_files/docs/LA/Post/1_GeneralContractLaw_Text.pdf
D_DOG
Agreed, there can be no more excuses.
D_DOG
All anyone can ask while we're here is to hope for the best,
strive to be your best and hopefully help others
along the way.
D_DOG
Agreed, 100% The Fat Lady Needs to Sing Loud and Proud
Nothing in life is ever guaranteed, not even life itself.
D_DOG
Plus contract law in Louisiana has its own particulars in itself.
D_DOG
The courts are a finicky bunch, if one is signing contracts at
the multimillion dollar level and you decide to go the route
of a binding contract agreement (that offers protection for
both parties) then attempting to claim,
"Whoops, I made an error" might not work too well. Those
types of excuses stop being affective once you leave the
children's table at the family holiday dinners.
Try getting out of signing a contract with the US Armed
Forces and saying WHOOPS.
The only option available would be mental incompetence,
on a singular scale. But being capable enough to engage
lawyers and sign ones name on the contract takes that
option off the table.
IMHO
D_DOG
Interesting, I keep an eye on a bunch of cases that I feel are relevant and
important to us.
Thanks for posting
D_DOG
I wasn't referring to the lawsuits, besides the RICO case has been ruled on, unfortunately
not in our favor. The venue, which was based in the financial capital of NY was an uphill
battle from the beginning.
As far as the timeline the RICO case took a year and 6 days to be finalized, that is not a
long time for a court case so I stand by my original claim that they will be ruled on in a
timely fashion.
I don't see this as a pissing match but for you to post I TOLD YOU SO is just awesome,
good for you. I'm only interested in a favorable out come for us, the common shareholders.
I offer my opinion on our ongoing struggles to get back to trading at a better position than
we were at by factoring in the ongoing progress and failures of REDHAWK.
Also I suspect the N95 case will be ruled on before years end leaving us with the settlement
phase and collections. That case isn't about having the court decide on the out come, it's
about the acknowledgement of the reward already ruled on by the contract specific guidelines.
The arbitrator already issued the Final Award.
Interest keeps accumulating:
The pre-award interest is calculated as follows:
June 24, 2021 to December 31, 2021: $823,262.33
(191 days @ $4,310.27/daily @ 3.5%/year)
January 1, 2022 to December 31, 2022: $1,573,250.00
(365 days @ $4,310.27/daily @ 3.5%/year)
January 1, 2023 to May 1, 2023: $968,580.14
(121 days @ $8,004.79/daily @ 6.5%/year)
[61].
For a total of $3,365,092.47 in pre-award interest.
Having the ruling acknowledging that award is what is in play, not the validity of the award.
Its the stepping stone to payment.
IMHO, the contract is written quite well with clear and simple language that isn't easily deniable
or convoluted by their lawyers.
I was speaking of when we actually start trading again, that is my only interest at this point,
it is that that I was referring to as an elusive timeline.
On another note, I never denied that defense lawyers have a monetary reward to extend the
timeline by any means possible and charge for every page/minute and hour of their time.
That's their over paid livelihood that they consider is owed to them to help their client.
Best of Luck to All of Us
D_DOG
At this point I have no idea and you may be right, I hope not but it sure
does appear that the goal posts keep moving. Changes in what drives us
back to trading seem to keep evolving and new barriers come into play.
It's hard to understand but I hope it's sooner rather than later, our time
and money have been invested for a long time without a defined
clear and decisive end point.
It's been a VERY LOOOOOONNNNNNGGGGG TIME.
D_DOG
It looks like the Securities and Exchange Commission v. LG Capital Funding, LLC et al
case is winding down, LG's attorneys filed their PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL
AUTHORITY today with the court before a decision has been rendered.
If I'm correct this means the case is in it's final stage.
Is there anyone out there to verify/clarify that this is the meaning of todays filing.
D_DOG
That's a good question
D_DOG
Yes it's a stall tactic but due to the large dollar value of this case the Magistrate Judge
will most likely entertain this motion.
I'd say it's more of using the system via: Pro Hac Vice, this will allow another lawyer that
isn't admitted to practice in the current courts venue to represent their client, N95.
They may file for a MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply next
D_DOG
Looks like N95's lawyer is calling up one of the Partners from Rolfes Henry
Pro Hac Vice: “for this turn; for this one particular occasion.”
https://rolfeshenry.com/attorneys/james-j-birch/
Wednesday, October 04, 2023
19 motion Appear Pro Hac Vice Wed 10/04 10:33 AM
MOTION for James J. Birch to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Admission fee: $105, receipt number ALAWDC-5714007) by N95 Shield L L C. Motions referred to Carol B Whitehurst. Motion Ripe Deadline set for 10/4/2023.(aty,Lorrain, Adrien)
Att: 1 Affidavit,
Att: 2 Certificate of good standing,
Att: 3 Proposed order
D_DOG
Other than a current update everything that they are doing is listed in that 8K. I don't
see management giving anything more than that until the big items are complete.
It sucks for sure but they seem to have a plan and the only thing they can give up at
this point is in that 8K.
Just my opinion
D_DOG
I wouldn't know, I only know what I read and sometimes I get it wrong so lets see
what happens in the near future.
D_DOG
I'm not sure if it would have helped with the share structure, I think those
shares might already be part of the OS if I'm correct. Getting them back
would mean that someone is sitting on millions of shares.
I'm thinking that the object of the suit was to be financially compensated
for the ill-gotten shares.
I may be wrong but that's my thoughts on the expected outcome.
D_DOG
Not surprised but I did have hopes of a different outcome.
Deep Pockets appear to be incredibly interwoven in New York.
D_DOG
A bit of a setback and deff not what I was expecting but
right now it is what it is.
DarkPulse, Inc. et al v. Crown Bridge Partners LLC et al
ORDER granting23 Motion to Dismiss and directing the Clerk's
Office to close the case.
(Signed by Judge Victor Marrero on 9/29/2023)
D_DOG