No, you cannot do anything about inquiries to the Port of Palm Beach by the public.

Even Peter, acknowledged in the written preliminary negotiation agreement that the Port of Palm Beach has a legal obligation to keep the public informed and nothing is confidential under the Florida Sunshine laws

SeaAm is just protecting his financial and professional interests in PVEC. Remember, the shareholders did not hold management responsibility even though that is a obligation of theirs.

"Truth, Justice, and the American Way"!!!!

TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT RE PORT OF PALM BEACH LOGO?

Notice the change using the trademarked Port of Palm Beach on the PVEC's Ihub Introduction.

The Port of Palm Beach Administration, as a governmental entity, has been informed of this usage and will be speaking to PVEC regarding such I am sure. Did anyone get their, the Port's, written permission?

It is very misleading to the investor community at this preliminary stage of discussions IM0.

Is the MARAD bond and/or Financial Responsibility in place?

It needs to be in place prior to the acceptance of any ticket or cargo deposits. If not, one could face jail time.

Remember, the INTENT TO R/S the Shareholders.

As per PVEC's most recent Annual Report....dilution ,dilution, dilution ...

This is a very at risk stock for purchase right now. I personally, IMO, think even NO BID is too high a value.


Contrary, to the recent Balance Sheet, IMO, the Company is major NEGATIVE NET WORTH.....

If one is going to play this stock, at least wait till the R/S happens and proven revenues and operations are in place.

IMO, current shareholders are looking for a short-term exit strategy ...do you become the loser.

I guess your statement regarding the Texas Case was false and misleading. The court records prove otherwise. Also shows that Atty Saha did not state the truth in the Annual Report.

What financing are you aware of? No new financing has been announced...just unfulfilled promises.

RE: Texas Case

Peter did not pay his attorneys in Texas. Also, states Summary Judgment hearing is scheduled for Oct 21, 2014

On Oct 13, 2014 10:36 AM, <No-Reply@efiletexas.gov> wrote:
Notification of Service

This is a notification of service for the filing listed. Please click the link below to retrieve the submitted document.

Filing Details
Case Number DC-13-02759
Case Style QUANG MERIDETH vs. PV ENTERPRISES INC, et al
Date/Time Submitted 10/13/2014 10:34:38 AM
Filing Type Motion for Enforcement
Filed By Jessica Hayes
Service Contacts QUANG MERIDETH:

Judy Brown (judyloubrown@gmail.com)

Quang Merideth (quang@ygi-international.com)



PANAGIOTIS PETER VILLIOTIS:

Peter Villiotis (pvilliotis@pvefl.com)


Document Details
File Stamped Copy https://efile.txcourts.gov/ViewServiceDocuments.aspx?SID=aa9925e5-d18d-49e9-9a55-49cceda795be&RID=173884f3-a8ca-4085-943a-1a2992ae8e40
This link is active for 7 days.

Has this been reported to the Federal Maritime Commission?

Last I checked, non arrangement has been made with the Federal Maritime Commission. It is a criminal activity to take deposits for a ferry service where passengers depart from a US port and no maritime bond or other arrangement has been made. (see my previous posting requiring the requirements).

Peter has never kept his word on any other event/time.

IF you state, "You can take that to the bank"....I am sure the bank is bankrupt and closed.

Peter has never kept his word even once....please give an example, even once, if you can verify his honesty even once.

Why would you think he would keep his word here?

Obviously a bogus balance sheet.

Even Peter has said in court that no tangible assets exist. I recall multiple postings on this board stating no assets.

Anybody want to explain the $12 million tangible assets ... and please do not say Saenz Yqchts since the court records state sold at auction and fully mortgaged years ago to Catepiller Equipment of Nashville TN.

Anyone want to see the footnotes that were not posted but stated, that are an integral part of the financial statements.

THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS!!!

Please list other attorneys involved or is this inside information?

Would like to research them.

STILL NO ANNUAL FINANCIALS FILED

OTC had been contacted questioning the removal of the STOP since the Annual Financials for 6/30/2014 still have not been filed. This appears non-compliant to OTC filing requirements. It may be a mistake on OTC. Stay turned.

See link:

http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/PVEC/financials#

Possibly Bright for Peter, but not for Common Shareholders.

Annual Report - "No significant government approvals needed" Not True]

Item 9 H - this is not rue.

MARAD requires a major bond to be in place before any ticket can be sold for passage from a US Port. This bond will be in the millions of dollars and by definition is a material disclosure item under both GAAP accounting and Annual Report disclosures.

"STOP Pink No Information" still on PVEC

They still have not filed the Income Statement, Balance Sheet, or Cash Flow Statement with OTC. Even though the Annual Report says it was filed....another error in the Annual Report, but OTC caught the misstatement.

PVEC Finanical Statemehts

http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/PVEC/financials#

Disagree ... if, and that is a big if, any operations commence, their will be a major need to sell shares and transact shares to the strategic partners. You are looking at repetitive dilutions, R/S's, etc. IMO.

There are conversion privileges to Peter's Preferred Stock as per contract signed by former management Al Ayers /Ed Salmon and Peter.
This can be confirmed via former Controller and others.

I am glad you acknowledge that Peter has absolute majority control of PVEC.

I guess one needs to look at Common Shareholder minority rights...but that would be a potential lawsuit issue bought by the Common Shareholders who just got screwed.

RE: Conversion Rights

Yes, as per Annual Report. But as a former CFO, ...

the sell of Saenz Yachts, via Al Ayers and Ed Salmon, gave conversion rights by contract up to the value of $8,000,000 at current market rates. In other words, he could convert his voting preferred shares to the turn of $8,000,0000 /.0001 equals 80 billion more shares.

Seems like Atty Saha missed some things. He did an excellent job of disclosures...better than anyone before...but certain things have been missed;

1) the conversion privileges (maybe Peter did not tell him about such),
2) the legal proceedings (the status of lawsuits is not accurate),
3) the judgement and liens filed not disclosed,
4) the personal material actions filed against the CEO not disclosed,
5) the correct title and status of Peter's position at Carnival (he was never Head Technical Supervisor - rather one of several Technical Supervisors).

There are several and many other omissions, my list is not complete...but over all Mr Saha did a commendable job compared to previous attempts. I wonder if Mr Saha was worried about liability and that was his motivation for such an strong effort? But his efforts are only based on the accuracy and information that Peter provided...it all comes down ad back to Peter's honesty ...doesn't it?

It looks like the only recourse Shareholders have now is a class action suit against the officers and others, such as Kerry, Jason, Peter, Martha (secretary), and certain other persons.

"keep control of the Company and control voting",

I am glad you noted and acknowledge that the single owner of the Preferred Shares controls this Company absolutely. Common Shareholders have no say what-so-ever.

I believe on past actions of management that those Preferred Stock conversion privileges will be converted to Common Stock. I also suspect that we will see changes to the By Laws that will be in preference to the single owner and current management. Nothing in the past three years would indicate otherwise. Greed and dishonesty have been the hallmark of this management.

And let's not forget, as the the Port of Palm Beach letter stated, and I stated days ago, all communications with the Port are public record and subject to Florida Sunshine Laws disclosure. There are creditors and their attorneys that are actively and currently ready to seize/freeze the Port's deposit from PVEC. They are well aware of the Port's Letter.

ANNUAL REPORT SAYS ONLY ONE SHAREHOLDER ON RECORD FOR PREFERRED B

See Item 6 of the Annual Report

In a reverse split of the Common Shareholders (as intent is announced in the Annual Report), the Preferred Class B will not be affected.

No Preferred Class B will be issued to the Common Shareholders. Simply the one current shareholder will control and own the Company and jettison everyone else.I wonder who that will be.

Is the management honorable? Has the management honored the contracts of its employees, consultants, former attorneys, lenders, trade creditors, etc.? Has the management protected the Common Shareholder interests by non dilution and no reverse split? Has the management ever delivered on a single PR in the past three years?

It all comes down to morality and honesty ... doesn't it....and past proven actions?

Dig deeper.... Look at the conversion privileges of Preferred Class B.

One possible scenario ...

1) Dilute the Common Shareholders to 19 billion shares or some such ridiculous amount (already done).

2) Reverse Split the Common Shareholders to effectively minimal shares (legal announcement made in the Annual Report).

3) Than convert, in the future, the Preferred Class B (which one shareholder owns 100%, probably Peter)for the full conversion amount. Effectively, Peter could gain 99% ownership of the Company via this legal scenario.

THIS EFFECTIVELY JETTISONS THE COMMON SHAREHOLDERS FROM EQUITY PARTICIPATION IN THE COMPANY. IT EFFECTIVELY WILL BE A HIDDEN DILUTION AND MORE IMPORTANT THAN ANY OF THE PRIOR DILUTIONS THAT HAVE PLAGUED PVEC THE PAST TWO YEARS!!!!

Looks like the Common Shareholders just got royally screwed

The creditors are the best hope to hold Peter accountable IMO. More incentive now, than ever, for filing an involuntary bankruptcy petition.

Annual Financials (Balance Sheet, Income Statement, Cash Flows) have not been posted

Even though item 12 and 13 states they are posted at the link provided. They have not been posted. Last financials are 6/30/2013

Maybe that is why the "stop" is still existing?

Annual Report states intent "to reverse split common stock"

Told you so....


Please see 8 A (9)

We will see ... the 21st is not too far way. LOL

Your assumptions are wrong...but the bottom line is that shareholders are last in line during a bankruptcy....they are wiped out.

I think the creditors will file involuntary bankruptcy against Peter personally and PVEC.

No, a motion for the Judge to decide the case as a Summary Judgment on the merits of the case. She decides the case and makes the decision not to bring it to trial.

Peter does not have a Texas lawyer and a corporation must an attorney to represent itself or, guess what, default.

RE: Texas Case

You have misread unfortunately or lack of legal understanding of what was read.

Case is very active and judge has a motion for summary judgment on her desk now. Not a trial, but a motion for her to decide a Summary Judgment. Attorney for Peter has motion to withdraw for lack of payment.

Doesn't look good for Peter

Smart ... a lot of bag holders dumping their shares...very smart!

The asset in Bankruptcy is the shell, as I had said.

Wrong ... creditors will do better pursuing an involuntary bankruptcy.

RE: Turner - your misstatements are a complete fabrication and misrepresentation.

Posted was his resignation letter.

Do you have any proof to support your misstatements made?

Nobody said "Company is filing for bankruptcy".

What was said, is that three judgment creditors can force the company and Peter into an involuntary bankruptcy and their is absolutely no defense since these three judgment creditors have had their claims already validated /adjudicated by the courts as valid. Please read more carefully my prior post for further clarification.

Shareholders will not matter in a bankruptcy.

The shell is an asset and their is no better way to clean a shell than in bankruptcy. The billions of shares will be cancelled and all debts voided. The shell will go to the highest bidder and the proceeds will go to the employees first, consultants,etc in the order of priority.

Share ownership, quite frankly, will not matter at all.

Shareholder only recourse will be fraud charges against Martha and Peter as officers, and SEC whistle blower pick-ups.

Inside knowledge, as you pointed out, does not have to be true....it can be an intentional misrepresentation of management.

It is still considered inside trading if one acts on the knowledge. It makes no difference if one lost money on the inside trading....it is still a violation of the law.

Who cares if the investor lost money on the "inside trading" knowledge acquired from management.

The law is pretty straight forward and not up to convoluted interpretations or mitigation of the risks and rewards of "inside trading".

Majority only know the public information


I do not think the law addresses the "Majority" as you state, but rather the minority that have proven and shown they have had prior inside knowledge in the past by acknowledging on Ihub their private conversations with Peter and Saha and their pre-knowledge of material events.


IMO, Cassandra quoted the law and the law is well written and not subject to convoluted interpretations.

Shareholders have a Corporate Responsibility

I prefer the creditors to be paid that Peter has been unwilling to do. They have preference in a bankruptcy. Employees have preference over trade creditors.

Shareholders are last in line...and frankly, shareholders took the risk and now are "bag holders". I provided plenty of warnings and current shareholders had many opportunities to unload and mitigate their losses. No, I do not care if shareholders make money....shareholders did not exercise their corporate responsibility to hold management accountable when I first asked them three years ago.

Now, shareholders are realizing the costs of lack of corporate responsibility with "no bids" and PPS of .0001.


Karma is a "bear" when shareholders did not do the right and moral thing in their investment decision making.

It is not going to be pretty for shareholders in the future.

Shareholders have a Corporate Responsibility ...

to hold management accountable. It is in the shareholders "best interest" to have management pay the debts that are due to the employees, consultants, lenders, and trade creditors. If not, these creditors will take both Peter personally and PVEC into bankruptcy.

Their are enough court ordered judgments and registered liens decided and filed now to force an involuntary bankruptcy of both.

Again, it is in the best interest of the shareholders to hold management accountable.

A Reverse Split or a Buy Back is meaningless if the Shareholders Equity is completely "wiped out" in a bankruptcy filing. Remember, Peter and PVEC cannot even dispute a bankruptcy filing if three judgment creditors file. It is in the best interest of the creditors now to file...the court absorbs their attorney fees (no charge to the creditors), and Peter will be held in contempt of court (and possibly jailed) if he makes any false statement to the court and judge.

It is going to get serious shortly.

This discussion of Turner is definitely negatively impacting the PPS of PVEC. Please keep it up....

RE: Quang Meredith loan

Not true....please provide proof of the misstatements.