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.
wallstone, the Dicut deal is one of those things that MP whish never happened. The total silence from his part can only be interpreted one way: the deal was a big screw up on his side and a very dark omen on the future of CDEX. It tells me that perhaps Dicut was told one story and eventually they find out that it was not as told. When you get out of a deal like that even with a loss, it tells me that they wanted to stay away from it at all cost. And we have not found, this far, any attempt by Dicut to recover their money. I guess they decided to let it go rather than having anything to do with CDEX.
And the issue brings me to the PP investors. Perhaps MP has been very selective about who they are, and they have received limited and one sided information of the company and the technology. It's like you, showing me an impressive work of the foundation of a building, and you tell me that there will be a huge luxury condominium tower being built there. You tell me the the price of every apartment will be in the range of $1 to $2 million, but if I buy now, you will give it to me for half the price. If I am stupid enough to believe you, you get half a million from me, even as your have received a negative answer from the zoning commitee about the permit to build such a tower. You are covered by the architectural plans, and the fact that the building's foundation was already laid down, but when the time comes, you will tell me that "I tried, I really did, but they didn't let me build it". And eventually, you will convince me that the money I gave you is gone, but that you will make every effort to try to help me recover at least part of it. And that can go on for years, until either I forget about it or I decide that it is not worth spending more money in a legal action against you to recover what you most likely will prove that you don't have it anymore.
PS. have you read ALL CEO statements in one reading? It's like a long peace of literature that, after you're done, you ask yourself: "what did he say?"
Robert, did you know about this or it was Kerry thomason that was handling it:
From : "Kerry Thomason" <elf95@hotmail.com>
To : lmorovan@hotmail.com
Subject : Re: Injunction
Date : Tue, 05 Jun 2001 19:52:24 -0500
Not in the best interest of shareholders at this time. But will look at it later. Thanks for your input. Robert
From: "Liviu Morovan" <lmorovan@hotmail.com>
To: elf95@hotmail.com
Subject: Injunction
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 19:20:26 -0400
Robert,
I believe that an injunction process must begin immediately.
It will take the legal team a couple of days to put together all documentation anyway. Why wait more. Don't let them dispose, assign, transfer, or donate OUR property. Do it now.
Liviu
Robert, all that is old publicly available news, and it only shows what Loch Harris used to dilute the derivative action to an unsustainable level. You all cowardly swallowed the threat of BK pill. I restate once again, that there was no need to enter in any negotiations with the Boys. You have clearly declared in the DA demands that the court should order a shareholders meeting with the purpose of voting in a new slate of directors. You failed miserably to submit the case to a summary judgment and prevent the Boys of any action towards a imaginary BK.
But a summary judgment would have screwed up the original plan set many months before. What a joke you are.
But why don't we stick to the issues that we are discussing, like what you did and did not in 2001? You know, focus.
Robert, you certainly do remember this one:
Subj: Re: Articles & SEC
Date: 5/9/01 9:09:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: LMorovan
To: rstewart@iconba.com
I have been meditating and praying about what we have been talking about today and I feel somewhat restless and uncertain but at the same time with renewed hopes. You seem very knowledgeable about many a things regarding the current situation but from a point of view different from ours on the boards. I do hope you get the Articles of Incorporation ASAP so that we may evaluate our options.
You sound very optimistic and reflect a positive attitude about what we, as shareholders could and may do in the near future. My concern would be the logistics involved in mobilizing the core of the shareholders to become active and support any action to be taken. One thing is to speak with real people and another thing to treat with aliases.
If you recall (my posts are there for confirmation) I started in January a sharecount to evaluate the decision power we as shareholders have. I got to gather information from 69 persons totaling 19,608,242 shares owned and/or controlled. But I started to encounter resistance and my intentions were questioned so I decided to stop the count. If the average shares per person would stay constant (and many of the massive holders refused to participate) you can see that with about 1,000 shareholders we could pass the 51% of the total shares evaluated a few days ago to just about under 500M.
There are major shareholders that have been promoting taking action against the management and I suppose they will pursue if they see any chance of a successful take over of the company. I will gladly join any action that would remedy the situation in our company but I need to know in more detail what the plan is and who will help us fulfill it. Starting a "revolution" without knowing what the possible outcome would be is kind of "suicidal". I need to know who are you since I didn't see any of your postings on the board. If I am to start anything I need to know who can I count on for support and proper and timely information to gain the support and respect on the boards. I need to know who my enemies are and what their strength and weaknesses are. You see, I would like to get involved but I cannot do it alone. I may gather some support from a few loyal friends on the boards to stand behind me and increase my influence but only up to a certain limit.
I am not sure whether I am going too fast or too far but I would like to see a positive change in the current situation. The Price per Share is not necessarily my concern for the time being, I believe in a long and successful investment in the technology. Even my position is very small compared with the major shareholders, but I too have dreams and goals in life that I would like them blessed and fulfilled.
I will stop here for now, this is becoming too long of an E-mail.
Hope to hearing from you soon,
In Christ,
Liviu
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Read carefully and then read again.
Robert, now you've done it. I never sent you that E-mail, that IS a fabrication. I will make sure the FBI gets this one. As I said, you are digging yourself deeper and deeper. Your choice.
It certainly looks as if you are taking plenty of time to answer my posts. Is MP helping you devise a strategy how to make me shut up and/or discredit what I am saying?
You still did not answer my question about how did you approached and answered almost word by word the question I asked MP about forcing a shareholder's meeting. Seems like you don't want to talk about it, LOL.
"Kinda like when you asked ^^^^ if he had firewalls on his computer, interesting that you would ask such a question."
I don't know who ^^^^ is. Play fair and open and you won't get in trouble.
Robert, I will not say what I want, I will say what is documented, and the e-mail speaks for itself. You have chosed to discredit a documented fact and failed miserably. Can you comment on this answer of yours?
Subj: RE: Question
Date: 5/9/01 2:32:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: rstewart@iconba.com (Robert Stewart)
To: LMorovan@aol.com ('LMorovan@aol.com')
I believe you and I have mistaken each other for other people. I thought you were someone else and I believe you thought I was someone else. I am an investor in Loch Harris and have been for some time. I have prayed about the situation we have with Loch Harris. I am trying to look into the calling of a meeting of us Loch investors to see what this SEC stuff is about and find
out why the spinoff has not took place. How do you feel about our current board and CEO of Loch?
Thanks,
Robert
I know exactly who I sent the E-mail to, but who did you think I was?
Keep digging yourself deeper. Someday you will come clean, one way or the other.
You would have continued with your agenda, you would have gotten a shareholders meeting and Loch shareholders would have become real owners of their company and investment. You have betrayed our trust in your intentions and agenda. And never gave an explanation other than, based on what capnmike talked to you, you have decided to postpone any further action. Was that because MP told you that the impass between Loch and CDEX was solved and there will be an Asset Purchase Agreement? Did MP instruct you to drop the take over of Loch by Loch shareholders? Did he promise you to pay you a hefty commission for every Private Placement investor you got in your list?
How long did you go with the farse to make yourself look like the savior of shareholdes? And what did you do for us other than pocketing another 5000 shares of CDEX (post split) at the expense of we the shareholders?
Let's dig deeper into this.
Robert, how can you then justify answering a specific question I asked MP in my e-mail that was never sent or copied to anyone else? Did MP sent you my e-mail and asked you to answer it? That would be even worse for you. No matter how you put it, my e-mail to MP was answered by you and there is absolutely no room for interpretation ot the fact.
As I stated before, I will make no comment on any legal action that has to do with the options I saved by opting out. In due time, you and all will have access to what is publicly disclosed in a docket or other legal means.
Every time I question your motives to betray the shareholders that have aligned themselves with your agenda in the mid 2001, you always jump to the action that was started in January 2002. Why don't you just stay focused on the issue I discuss? Why do you avoid giving straight answers regarding your responsibility in the aborted action?
By the way, who counselled you not to place an Injunction against all the assets of Loch and the Boys? Was it because such an action was still within the time frame where the APA could have been challenged and revoked or voided?
Robert, wake up, there are no more 70M shares, Loch is gone thanks to you and MP. I have lost nothing, the final word is yet to come, and I WILL win.
1. I have never sent any e-mail to Icon before you answered my e-mail to MP.
2. I always held one e-mail account with AOL and one e-mail account with hotmail.
The answer to my e-mail to MP was accompanied by the original post, and was the only answer I got to that e-mail.
Do you want me to post the e-mail you sent me stating your opinion about the then current issues with Loch and your intentions in the matter? Just say so.
Do you want me to post your intentions and "plan of action" in the move to take over the control of Loch Harris? Just say so.
There are still a few things that you stated to me (well documented) that cast a dark shadow upon you regarding your involvement in all issues relating to Loch Harris and the shareholders? Do you want me to post them? Just say so.
You either said the truth in your post on the RB boards or in the affidavit. They enter in direct collision. Which one is the true one?
Think a little and let me know how much of the truth about you you want exposed.
Robert, I never sent you any e-mail or had any communication with you until after you answered the e-mail I sent to MP. I never knew you were involved in any movement to go against Loch and attempt to take over the company until "after" the e-mail I sent MP and you answered. How come you answer specifically the question I ask MP about forcing a shareholders meeting? If you are so sure I fabricated the e-mail (a serious accusation from you) then you have the means to prove me wrong before a court of law. Do it and let's end this once and for all.
You have been a critical part in my decision to stop supporting the BOD of Loch Harris and join your movement to perform the change in the management you promised in your agenda. And you certainly had no problem recruiting me for your purpose. Your attempt to bail yourself out of the mess you created is useless, and, honestly, pathetic.
You seem to have been and still are an important instrument in all the schemes thought out by both the Boys and MP. You evidently didn't tell the truth when you claimed that you and Mari were selected to represent shareholders during your CC conversations with Andy, while stating in your own affidavit that you and Mari were selected in November of 2001. But I don't want to go to issues that happened late in 2001 before clarifying your involvement in some very troublesome manipulation much earlier that year.
PS. If you look closely to the two headers you mention in your post, you will see that my e-mail to MP was sent on May 04, 2001, and your answer to it came on 5/9/01.
Robert, I did.
Robert, you will have to answer for what you say when the time comes, and will have to face the incontrovertible evidence. You are trying to accuse me of making this up, but again, the evidence will speak for itself. If you want to go that way, it is your choice.
Robert, nice try, but you are wrong. The two messages are linked because they were both on one and the same response I received to my e-mail. As you may have seen, your response is directly referring to my mail, and my mail is included in your answer. But, you want to dodge the responsibility. The e-mail is an irrefutable evidence of my claim that you have answered a direct mail I sent to MP.
On the other hand, when you presented your agenda, there was no Asset Purchase Agreement yet, there was no law suit. So, trying to constantly bring in events that occurred after the issue that I question is another sign that you refuse to give a straight answer to my question of why did you drop the movement to replace the BOD of Loch.
Have it your way, but your refusal to answer the questions I asked tells a lot about you and your agenda (quite different than the one you waved in the nose of shareholders).
Robert, stay focused. I was talking about the charade you set up in May 2001. Let's discuss that first and then go to the next phase. You proclaimed the following:
"The main agenda we have is to get our Technology to Market as quickly and strategically as possible. There are a
few road blocks keeping this from happening:
1) The current CEO and board, which has printed hyped up press releases, failed to file the accounting info which got
us delisted to the pink sheets, and got us an SEC investigation.
2) The management team does not like Malcolm Phillips, and Malcolm Phillips and our Scientist are not able to work
with the management team.
3) It appears that our old nemesis GREED, POWER, and who gets the credit is over shadowing the management’s
ability to keep the shareholder foremost.
Our agenda to remove part or all of these hurdles are as follows:
1) Continue to try to ask management to work it out through phone calls and emails.
2) Hope that management and CDEx can find common ground.
3) The shareholders can put together enough pooled shares to force management to act on our behalf. ( This is
already on going with 4.7 million shares to date willing to ask management to bring the truth out, and report all
events that have happened in the past three or four months. Including copies of their typed depositions given to the
SEC investigation team.
4) If management ignores our request, then a shareholder meeting would be called and with the appropriate share
count, remove current management and vote in new management, keeping in mind that the new management team
and new CEO will have to address the needed funding that our Scientist may need to fund our Technology for market
readiness.
5) At any point in the above mix, we can have additional pressure that can be applied by a law firm. I mentioned to
Mary that Mr. Broadus Spivey in Austin, Texas would be an exactly choice. I have visited with Mr. Spivey
concerning our matter. His strong recommendation was to get Tayolor & Dunham Law firm to help in getting
through the corporate law part. Mr. Spivey feels these men can accomplish that goal. If a trial were to come about,
Mr. Spivey is more than happy to do the trial. He is very good.
I have not, nor will not take action with a Law Firm without Mary, Michael, Kerry, and the others that will be
representing other shareholders as we do, giving their blessing.
There are some immediate request that I will be calling Mr. Baker about. These are as follows:
1) The removal of Dr. Henry Blair from any connection with our Company.
2) The immediate removal of any amendments or by-law or any other language that would enable additional shares
to be brought forth to further dilute our shares. There needs to be no more additional shares added to the current
number. Some of us are aware there may be an additional 100,000,000 shares issued. I feel this needs to be stopped.
No further dilution of our stock need take place.
3) If any director has any exposure to SEC violations, we would ask that director to resign effective immediately.
4) A list of current shareholders complete with addresses.
5) A copy of all by-laws and amendments.
6) The immediate filing of proper paperwork to remove us from pink sheets to the otc.
By know means do I believe this list to be complete, but I know it is a good start. Please look this over and lets
discuss what additions or deletions we will incorporate as part of our agenda.
Sincerely,
Robert W. Stewart"
---------------------------------------------------------------
And we believed you and supported you and trusted you. But you turned your back to your own agenda, without any explanation. That I call betrayal.
Now, do you recognize this:
Subj: RE: Question
Date: 5/9/01 10:29:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: rstewart@iconba.com (Robert Stewart)
To: LMorovan@aol.com ('LMorovan@aol.com')
I have been on the road selling group medical until this am. I apologize for not responding until now. We do not have MSN at work, however, I will look into the possibility of getting this at home. I would do whatever I can to get a meeting with current shareholders and current management at Loch. And yes, I do believe we can force a meeting, afterall, Loch is the investors company. I will have Articles of Inc. on Loch in Two weeks or less from the Nevada people. I hope to get it quicker, but if not, I will get it from Nevada. Loch is DQ in Nevada as well for not filing proper paperwork.
-----Original Message-----
From: LMorovan@aol.com [mailto:LMorovan@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 4:32 PM
To: P4316@aol.com
Subject: Question
Hello brother, I hope this will find you in good health and at peace. I have a question: do you think there is any possibility to have a shareholders meeting with the current management of Loch Harris? If not, do you think shareholders can do anything to "force" a shareholders meeting with management? I know the questions I ask are perhaps confidential, and I will understand if you feel not comfortable with answering them. I just wanted to consult with a professional (I hope I don't get a bill in the mail, lol). Rest assure, anything you say will be kept strictly confidential.
Thank you and God bless you
In Christ,
Liviu
P.S. Do you have MSN Messenger Service? We could have closer communication if you do. If not, it's a free download from Microsoft.
---------------------------------------------------------------
I sent my e-mail to Malcolm Philips (p4316) and you signed the answer I received to this e-mail. Did MP ask you to answer my "Question"? If so, it looks to me that he trusted you enough to answer his mail, therefore, there has been a very close relationship between you and MP, close enough as to taint of suspicion anything you did after the e-mail.
PS. This is an E-mail that will be provided to the Court, within or without a subpoena.
Time for you to come clean. You may try to fool me or other shareholders, but it will definitely work against you.
Robert, for respect of the rules of the board I will not say what my opinion of you is. But suffice to say, you have and continue to deceive by stating that we were not going to be able to get anything from Loch, and that the liabilities were unsurmountable. WRONG. And the fact that the Boys were able to liquidate all liabilities before the Settlement are the proof that you are not saying the truth. In May 2001, we all thought that you were serious about the shareholders meeting to get the Boys out of Loch. That was very attainable if you would have continued. But you changed your position, against the will of all of us that supported you, and never gave an explanation. That is very wrong, in my opinion. In that, you betrayed all shareholders. And the fact that you used your influence to position yourself as plaintiff in the Derivative Action speaks volumes about your total allegiance to MP, in the detriment of Loch shareholders that were convinced that you only held Loch shares. You were even before the start of the DA a CDEX PP shareholder and that, morally and ethically disqualified you from serving as plaintiff. Later we found out that Mari was a CDEX shareholder too. That speaks volumes about your morality and ethics. But then, reinforces your position as instruments used by MP to manipulate the overall outcome of Loch Harris and its shareholders destiny.
And don't ever say again you didn't answer the e-mail I sent to MP. The proof stands in your face as your accuser.
Robert, why did you abort the only real possibility to get Loch back to shareholders in 2001? You were well into gathering share support (last figure I heard you had over 50 million shares committed to the cause). Who influenced you to turn your back to all those shareholders that believed in your "good" intentions?
Robert, could you check the post I was answering? Thank you.
Robert, I thought you the shareholders are not Loch shareholders anymore. Am I right or wrong? I thought 450,000,000 plus shares were cancelled. Am I right or wrong?
Robert, you will know it when it happens, that all I can say.
Robert, I cannot expect any other answer from you since you have been part of the whole game plan. So, this exchange will not take us anywhere. I know you are wrong, I proved by my uncontested letters that the Settlement was based on many legal irregularities and that MP had played a key role in the whole mess. Time will show you and all the others that I am right and all of you and your apologists are wrong. Stay tuned for new revelations.
Robert, the main concern of shareholders when the DA started was the distribution of CDEX shares, and it was not even mentioned in the DA. That should have been you one and only goal at the time. You and your team got the whole mess that took almost 2 years to settle, and shareholders were eventually the losers. Of course they got their shares, but at what price? They were entitled to those shares as of the APA, there was no need to get into any negotiation (why should you negotiate for what is already yours). Shareholders would have received restricted shares (even MP suggested that) and then CDEX would have completed the registration and lift the restriction. But shareholders would have retained their right and status as Loch shareholders too, and they could have ousted the Boys in additional litigation through a shareholders meeting ordered by a court. At this time, CDEX might have been already registered and listed and trading, while Loch would have still been a viable trading company in the hands of a shareholders friendly BOD.
The game plan has become evident when you and your team got involved in unnecessary negotiations and allowed the Boys to have a say in what they shouldn't have had.
Nothing you say will change the fact that you sold out shareholders with the only purpose of allowing the Boys to get off the hook.
And nothing you say will change the fact that the whole Settlement has MP written all over it. Believe me, there are people working in finding out the magnitude of the involvement of MP in the litigations even from before the beginning of the legal actions. And when the work is completed, the truth shall be made public. CDEX will have some serious hurdles to overcome this time in public and not in obscure private meeting. It might be his downfall, and it will be his own doing.
Robert, you seem to have a serious problem understanding English. You assume that 99% agreed with the plaintiffs? Where did you get that number from? To the best of my knowledge, less that 15% of the totality of shareholders ever posted on any boards at the highest. The fact that only a handful opted out does not mean that the rest agreed with the SA. Did they have any choice? Not at all. You and the other plaintiffs, your counsel, the Boys and MP made sure that shareholders will be placed in a "blackmail" position: either accept the Settlement and continue to be played like a fiddler, or opt out and lose. How dumm you think shareholders are? Your plan was good, but very wicked and to a certain point illegal. You know that, I know that, the attorneys know that, the Judge knows that. Before any impartial Judge or jury, all five plaintiffs would have been disqualified, the attorney would have been forced to answer questions about serious irregularities committed during the process, and the Boys would have been held accountable for all the wrong doing that both the DA and the CA describe. JUSTICE WAS SERIOUSLY MOCKED. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that the APA was an illegal act, even as both Kamber and Cantor told me so. The very existence of CDEX is an illegal act, a transaction held between a few to benefit themselves, to the detriment of the big majority of shareholders.
Don't quote me numbers and percentages. 99% of the shareholders had no say in any action decided on "their behalf" in the last 4 or so years. And stating that I am blaming 99% who agreed with the Settlement (which is not true) is far from the truth. I never blamed any shareholders of anything, I blame you and the other plaintiffs, the attorneys, the Boys and the Judge. The whole Settlement is a slap in the face of JUSTICE. Justice, in my books, is not democratic.
But I still have faith that, sooner rather than later, justice will prevail and the responsible parties will pay for their wicked deeds.
tjfitz, CDEX must first register its securities with the SEC and then apply for an exchange. Only then the shares will become tradable. However, there are no signs MP will register the shares soon.
snipersito, check your math.
Mike, I know you better than that. Don't play the role of the ignorant.
Robert, all I hear from you are excuses and more excuses. But your actions speak about you more than your words. You have a turbulent past that conflicts with your claims of working for the benefit of shareholders. You had 3 opportunities to actually do something positive for us, and you blew all three of them. As I said before, I don't trust you, and I am sure many share my opinion about you. You failed miserably to fulfill your promises to shareholders. And you have, at all times worked for the benefit of the lawyers, of the Boys and of MP. Again, your actions are witnessing against you. One day, the whole truth shall be exposed and known. I am looking forward to that day. And just as I am not an anonymous poster on the boards, you are not one either.
Robert, you are a smart guy, at least that is the impression I had from the beginning. You know better than anyone else that Loch's liabilities were never an issue, and the fact that at this point Loch is free from any liabilities with very little if any effort proves that what the Boys have done, we could have done too, once taken over the wheels. But you seem to intentionally omit the fact that once the Boys were out, we could have appealed to the Court's protection to place all liabilities on a stand by for the duration of a positive attempt to straighten the books and finances, with the assistance and supervision of the SEC, and have all the assistance and help to undo the wrong doing of the Boys. Worst case scenario, we could have, with the blessing of the Court, filed for reorganization BK, without interfering with the distribution (not exchange) of CDEX shares. Talking about CDEX, MP could have long ago filed for registration within provisions of the Court and the SEC benevolence regarding issues related to Loch.
There was never the need for Loch to go away. Period. That move was clearly NOT in the best interest of shareholders. Many companies have gone through similar circumstances and emerged clean and strong from a clear attempt of rescuing shareholders value.
Yes, my agenda now is to go after the boys, but not before exposing all the work that has been done to get them off the hook regarding their responsibility before shareholders. You and your legal tram has shown very little interest if any, to go to the root of the problem, and negotiated an easy and remunerative way out of it. That is, per see, an offense to the goals of shareholders.
You have turned your back to so many shareholders that have placed not only their hopes in you, but also tens of millions of shares for the cause that you explained in your agenda. You had the power to turn events in out favor with an overwhelming advantage, but you fell into the plays of the many players. In that, you have turned your back to shareholders and embraced the powers that have kept them into submission for so many years.
Keep in mind that yours were not the only legal minds that were exploring other venues to get things straighten out, with the actual shareholders interest in mind. The SEC, the FBI and the DOJ were clearly and carefully kept on the side line.
The damage has been done. Now the whole mess will escalate to a new level, where important Government agencies will be invited to take actions to correct the irregularities. CDEX shares are finding their way to shareholders accounts, but that will not be an obstacle to do the right and just thing. Securities laws and regulations will work together with Federal laws and regulations. The outcome will surely be different and will be fair and just for the sake of shareholders. The damage you and others have done is not permanent, and eventually it will be repaired.
Robert, am I speaking to the same person that wrote his agenda i sometime in May 2001? An agenda that was so much more to the benefit of the shareholders than the Settlement? You had a vision and a mission, when and why did you lose both?
You say:
"I am somewhat surprised that you would think, we plaintiffs would put your agenda ahead of what was the best possible outcome for all Loch Shareholders. Your agenda Imo, was not in the best interest of Loch shareholders."
Now, are you trying to put words in my mouth? What I did, I did in the best interest of Loch shareholders, that is, justice and retribution. You want me to remind you what my agenda was? Here:
By: lmorovan
27 Mar 2003, 09:27 AM EST Msg. 177994 of 178242
This is what I want:
UNCONDITIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF CDEX SHARES AS PROVIDED IN THE ASSET PURCHASE AGREEMENT;
THE RETURN OF TENS OF MILLIONS OF LOCH SHARES, FREELY AND UNJUSTIFIABLY GIFTED AWAY BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BOD OF LOCH;
THE FAIR AND JUST RETRIBUTION TO ALL LOCH SHAREHOLDERS OF THE TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS EXTORTED FROM LOCH SHAREHOLDERS.
If what I want is wrong, then I will lose my case. If it is just, fair and right, then WE WILL ALL WIN.
JOIN ME AND LET'S WIN THIS ONE!
Never assume I would have done anything that you or anyone else would have. I would have never been part of such a one sided, manipulated Settlement Agreement. I stated before, and continue to state, that there was never a need to negotiate with the Boys. The Derivative Action, as it was presented, would have smashed them. You demanded a shareholders meeting with the purpose to vote in a new BOD that would have distributed (not exchanged) the CDEX shares to shareholders. Loch would have been saved, you stated in some of your posts that it was your intention to save Loch. Any jury would have granted the demands of the Derivative Action. Of course, a summary judgment would have not rendered such a hefty benefit to the lawyers, so it was never submitted.
Your last paragraph makes me laugh. What other option did shareholders had, after so many years of frustration and despair? It is clear to me that all parties involved in the settlement capitalized on the anxiety of shareholders, and even provided safe guards against anyone willing to hold the wrong doers accountable.
You have promised many things to shareholders and delivered something very different from what you promised. That is not right in my books.
Robert, you mean you represented us shareholders in the law suit and you did not read my letters to the Judge that were posted not only on my web site, but on the LL board and CDEX board too? Weren't you supposed, as plaintiff, to be well informed of all issues relevant to the law suit? Surprising revelation of yours!!!
Robert, did you take the time to read the letter I sent to Judge Keel dated March 15, 2003? All the answers to your questions are there. The meeting I am talking about was held in Austin on May 10, 2001, between Loch Harris and CDEX-Delaware.
Robert, read my letter to the Judge dated March 15, 2003.
Robert, are you really sure you want me to answer this post of yours?
Robert, both your aliases and all their posts are intact. Try another excuse.
Robert, how convenient your post, precisely as I was exposing you on the other board. Thanks for the clear and unequivocal confirmation. Now all know that I was right.
Raiderman, would you please read again the AOI of CDEX and the Service Agreement signed in July 2001? That should give you a better idea of who owns the rights to the technology.
Mark Baker and Rodney Boone are the incorporators of CDEX, and Malcolm Philips and all the others have signed a "Service Agreement" with CDEX to perform certain functions and duties. In other words, Malcolm Philips does not own CDEX.
Like, if you establish a corporation and hire certain individuals to run it, the corporation is still yours, and yours is the last voice to be heard in any major decisions.
Rio, Loch was delisted from the OTCBB about 3 years ago, and started trading on the Pink Sheet. Pink Sheet and OTCBB are not the same:
"The OTCBB is distinct from the Pink Sheets. The Pink Sheets are not owned or operated by The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. or the NASD. The Pink Sheets LLC is a privately owned company whose Electronic Quotation Service provides an Internet-based, real-time quotation service for OTC equities and bonds."
http://www.otcbb.com/aboutOTCBB/comparison.stm
There is nothing to indicate that Loch will cease to trade on the Pink Sheet.
CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL SHAREHOLDERS!!!
CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL SHAREHOLDERS!!!
* Judge Patrick O. Keel - Order
http://www.lmorovan.com/Latest%20Updates/latest_updates.htm
* Judge Patrick O. Keel - Order
http://www.lmorovan.com/Latest%20Updates/latest_updates.htm
Last time I checked (11:15 a.m. today) no order has been issued and/or filed.