https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLpfbcXTeo8
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.
"Has Asher Enterprises Inc become the most common and most toxic of the penny stock financiers?"
Joe Canouse (and his brothers) are pretty toxic when it comes to financing penny stocks. I believe they have a perfect 100 percent fatality rate for their marks. Not as big as Asher in size, put very toxic for the level of deals they do.
"from Solon, OH"
Reminiscent of SPNG crook Doug Furth from Solon, Ohio. Also from HHSE http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=59504670
Furth may be back.
Soapy Bubbles Wednesday, 03/04/09 11:04:29 PM
Re: uchiknow post# 49269
Post # of 343604
It's: 6442 Dorset Ln, Solon, OH 44139-3185
In addition to the five or so other promoters, there was the king of SEC-flouting touts, Jonathan Lebed [12], whose fee of 1,250,000 free-trading shares was footed by an investor named Doug Furth. Lebed did not respond to e-mailed questions.
Furth is no ordinary investor, however. The Solon, Ohio-based Furth is the owner, via his Signature Equity Fund, of 41 million shares or 5.1 percent of the company [13], as of last November. An activist of sorts, Furth is a mainstay of the Yahoo Finance Spongetech investor message boards, where, as he admitted to me, he posts as “Alfie31555.” Furth insists that he disclosed his ownership stake on the Yahoo forum. A verbal bomb-thrower of the highest order, Alfie31555 brooks no criticism of Spongetech and has saved his bitterest vitriol for short-sellers and the reporters he sees as being used by them.
For example, Furst’s ire was aroused on Sept. 22, when the New York Post reported that a former lawyer of Spongetech had written a letter to the SEC claiming that his signature was forged on dozens of corporate documents he had not written nor had even seen. In a post on Sept. 23 at 10:48 p.m., Furth described Post reporter Kaja Whitehouse as “Nothing more than a paid whore for the shorts” and described her reporting as “giving life to their skunkworks as their puppet.” Presumably Furth was no happier with Whitehouse’s subsequent article exposing the fact that five of Spongetech’s six largest customers are impossible to track down [14], with addresses and phone numbers that appear to be fake. To top it off, Whitehouse discovered that a Web hosting service that specialized in concealing contact information created Web sites for three of the six customers on the same day three weeks ago.
Furth, who, ironically, is the general partner of a fund seeking to finance clean and wholesome family movie production [15], declined comment on why he hired Lebed. He said his remarks on Whitehouse “speak for themselves” and maintains that he “has a hunch short-sellers are paying her off.” He said he was “exercising his constitutional rights to free speech” with respect to Spongetech and its prospects, and remains a proud owner of its stock. Whitehouse declined comment on Furth or his remarks.
Furth may want to save some of his vitriol for the courtroom, where he has a few legal entanglements [16] of his own [17]. He declined comment on the legal proceedings.
So whatchagondo now, Jay? Specifically. BK case is closed. SOL is passed by long ago.
Be specific: file WHAT and with WHICH court?
BK court has no open case.
Unapproved Drugs Initiative
In June 2006, the FDA announced a new drug safety initiative to remove unapproved drugs from the market, including a final guidance entitled "Marketed Unapproved Drugs—Compliance Policy Guide (CPG)," outlining its enforcement policies aimed at efficiently and rationally bringing all such drugs into the approval process. The FDA uses a risk-based enforcement program in order to concentrate its resources on those products that pose the highest threat to public health and without imposing undue burdens on consumers, or unnecessarily disrupting the market. For all unapproved drugs, the CPG gives highest enforcement priority to the following:
Drugs with potential safety risks
Drugs that lack evidence of effectiveness
Health fraud drugs
Drugs that present direct challenges to the new drug approval and OTC drug monograph systems
Unapproved new drugs that are also violative of the Act in other ways
Drugs that are reformulated to evade an FDA enforcement action
http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/EnforcementActivitiesbyFDA/SelectedEnforcementActionsonUnapprovedDrugs/ucm118990.htm
Zero data and no FDA approval for "Alzatrex".
Not to imply that I believe for a minute that "Alzatrex" really even exists except in SKTO's boolsheet propaganda. But that's enough for the FDA to take notice and action (but sometimes they take awhile and send letters first).
"SKTO-Alzatrex(TM), Targeted to Assist Those With Memory Deficits and to Reduce Brain Fog From MMJ Use.
Great product for Alzheimer's disease."
Interesting. I don't find either Alzatrex or SK3 Group on the FDA website.
It is illegal to promote an unapproved drug and claim it is useful in treating a disease or health condition.
No worries, it's been reported to the FDA via their website and I'm sure they'll be in contact with SKTO and Jeffy Benz regarding that claim and alleged product for sale in the USA.
"Wellington Shields is a very reputable Wall Street Investment Banking Firm. They literally fund 100's of Companies each year with this exact scenario, which is their business model."
I dispute that. They are documented to do business with zero income pennystocks, fail to complete financings with such, and simply pocket the upfront fee as a skim.
Interesting. I wonder if NTEK with its "one" employee has been sending in tax payments for state disability insurance, unemployment, and income/FICA taxes.
If they are paying their people with stock, they still owe the taxes. California EDD does not take kindly to calling folks contractors when they are de facto employees.
California FTB and EDD are going to be notified Monday and they can check up on this (which they do).
LOl. Sure. Minus whatever you deleted. Now, make three predictions HERE on DD. Give forward-looking buy dates and dates/prices when your model says to sell.
Three. We'll see how good you do on those.
But you won't. because you've been asked many times before, and you always refuse to prove your "system" in a forward-looking test.
Because you're peddling bullshit.
At least find enough quarters in the couch to buy an iHub subscription, Moneybags. So you can PM your suckers. That's just common courtesy.
Especially for a guy claiming such a winning system and his altruistic desire to share this great system - for a FEE.
Or just quit scamming people and repent.
Baloney. You have to post 3 specific predictions ahead of time. Not make 30 predictions and then point back at 3 that worked.
You've refused to do that. You are a FRAUD.
Sorry you're down so much you can't afford an iHub subscription. Must be a great "system". LOL!
Have you considered doing the Jeanne Dixon annual psychic predictions for the National Enquirer?
Miss Cleo?
No, actually that's exactly what a dead cat bounce looks like. .17 to .05 to .82 then back down.
Hit the channel resistance and 50 wk MA and bounced down.
DEAD CAT BOUNCE.
Headzupp.
Wait! You've got this amazing system for picking penny stocks just before they run but:
(1) you can't offer any predictions that can be forward-tested to see how accurate your system is, and
(2) your system hasn't made you enough money to pay for an iHub subscription so you can PM.
That's some funny shit right there!
Most likely it's just Wellington scalping upfront fees from all 6.
Vandham (VNDM) dumping insider shares into the Dead Cat again today? I missed it, but it's still on the OTCBB tape.
Not very subtle or elegant. But then again there are a lot of insider shares to dump, and time is running short for one of them. :)
Any mythical NP-1 unicorns been reviewed by CNET yet or that guy who was promised one "by the end of {February}" in his e-zine rehashing the same nonsense David Foley told him at CES?
Nope?
OK, I'll check back later and see if the ship has drifted onto the Marshall Islands yet in search of the much more powerful K1 (next excuse they'll give).
So Jay, why have you not filed a motion asking for specific discovery items? You have to name the specific parties you want to depose, send rogs to, and subpoena documents from.
Great. Let's begin.
Who are the specific parties (by name), what are you accusing them of doing that is relevant to the bankruptcy creditors, and what is your evidence to support those allegations, who specifically do you seek to depose and what information do you intend to obtain from them, what specific documents do you wish to subpoena from the specified parties (by name)?
Lemme give you an example:
Request to obtain discovery from STEVEN YEHUDA MOSKOWITZ, former CFO of Spongetech - who is believed to have illegally obtained, concealed, and transferred to third parties presently unknown to Movant, shareholder assets including but not limited to money balances transferred by wire, check, sporting event tickets, and cash. Request the court to authorize you to subpoena all of Moskowitz's personal and business bank account records during the period 2007 to present (including his spouse's bank records), including A&N Enterprises (or whatever the exact name of his dad's business that did "consulting" for SPNG is), records of all sporting event tickets that Moskowitz received either personally or on behalf of Spongetech from 2007 to 2013 and the dispositions of all such tickets, etc. etc. etc.
Get it?
Start with that. Type it out here. I might even help you format it - just for sh_ts and giggles. I will be amused to see you try to file it with the BK court and see the response you get.
Spell it out - names, documents, allegations (specify how this will benefit bankruptcy creditors, explain why you didn't bring this motion during the pendency of the bankruptcy case, and what specific information from each of the named parties you intend to elicit.
"No person other than OTCMarkets is allowed to rely on this letter."
So, it's useless unless you are OTCMarkets.
Oh what a scam.
Any processor can DO h.265, but they cannot do it FAST enough to decode highly compressed video with fast motion and high complexity content without significant image quality degradation.
Tegra 4 is obsolete. Even the Tegra K1 apparently doesn't have enough power, even though it is 4 times more powerful than the older, lowly Tegra 4. That's why the WCCF Tech articles states:
"Scoring a rock solid 60fps in an off screen 1080p Benchmark it fares significantly better than the Tegra 4. The predecessor to this chip can only manage a measly 16fps (at only 1080p!) so you can see for yourself how great a difference this is."
Read more: http://wccftech.com/tegra-k1-superchip-benchmarks-revealed-4-times-faster-tegra-4/#ixzz2z0JmFTXS
The Tegra K1 is only able to do realistic 60 fps at 1080p resolution, and the old Tegra 4 is only about 1/4th as powerful as the new K1.
Probably better to wait for a more powerful chip that has the horsepower to to the job on fast motion and high image complexity video with 60 fps at much better than just a 1080p level image quality that the new K1 does.
As long as NTEK is sending the mythical NP-1 unicorns back to the "factory" for software upgrades and new motion sensing hardware for the controller, may as well have the "factory" use a much more capable, newer GPU than the old, weak Tegra 4. Or maybe NTEK should just rebrand the ZXV10 B803 if that really has the ability to do a good job decoding HEVC at better than 1080p quality levels and better than 30 fps. And doesn't require progressive downloading but can stream a continual long video of fast motion and high image complexity. The Broadcom chip may or may not be powerful enough, although one manufacturer claims it is:
"The ZXV10 B803 is designed based on the Broadcom BCM 7252 chip, and supports the 4Kx2KP60 decoding capability, which can decode Ultra HD video with the maximum resolution of 3840×2160. In comparison to traditional HD Internet STBs, the 4K UHD STB can display more vivid and precise images to significantly enhance the user experience.
4K video technology (also named as 2160p) is a new type of resolution standard. Its UHDTV specification can deliver a resolution of 3840×2160 pixels, and the maximum Full Aperture 4K specification reaches 4096×3112. In comparison to the current mainstream 1080p resolution of 1920×1080, 4K can provide over four times the image definition quality. In the future, 4K HD TV sets will be very popular, and the 4K HD and HEVC decoding technologies will help raise the HD market tide. However, in the current market, 4K chips are mainly 4KP30 – only a few chips can support 4KP60. The ZTE ZXV10 B803 STB uses a 4KP60 chip, making it one of the first HD STBs to support 4KP60.
Fang Hui, Deputy President of ZTE, said: “As a global leader in the IPTV market, ZTE offers a complete series of Internet STB products across the range of available resolutions, and is focusing strongly on the development of high-end STB products. This 4KP60 HD STB product will help build our presence in the high end market.”
The ZTE ZXV10 B803 also supports the H.265 format. H.265 is the next generation super HD code transmission specification, which delivers encoded video using half the bandwidth of the previous generation (H.264), with the same quality. The H.265 standard will gradually replace H.264 to become the mainstream standard of the next generation of video transmission.
The ZTE ZXV10 B803 also has a powerful CPU with a processing capability of 10k DMIPS (Dhrystone million instructions per second), enabling faster processing and a better user experience in comparison to current mainstream HD Internet STBs."
http://benchmarkreviews.com/13009/zte-zxv10-b803-4k-p60-ultra-hd-set-top-box-launched/#h48CwhXTZMCq5tAU.99
"ZTE has launched of its 4K p60 Ultra HD set top box (STB), the ZXV10 B803, at Mobile World Congress (MWC) 2014 in Barcelona.
The ZXV10 B803 is designed based on the Broadcom BCM 7252 chip, and supports the 4Kx2KP60 decoding capability, which can decode Ultra HD video with the maximum resolution of 3840x2160. In comparison to traditional HD Internet STBs, the 4K UHD STB can display more vivid and precise images to significantly enhance the user experience.
The ZTE ZXV10 B803 also supports the H.265 format. H.265 is the next generation super HD code transmission specification, which deliversencoded video using half the bandwidth of the previous generation (H.264), with the same quality. The H.265 standard will gradually replace H.264 to become the mainstream standard of the next generation of video transmission."
http://www.voicendata.com/voice-data/news/209836/mwc-zte-launches-4k-p60-ultra-hd-stb#sthash.HcvQdZTZ.FtezOjwf.dpuf
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=100650811
Nope, Davey was charged and prosecuted in the Ninth Circuit's jurisdiction because that is where his criminal acts occurred.
That is a two-edged sword. The Ninth Circus is one of the most lenient towards criminals, but they tend not to be so favorable to financial crooks and folks who steal IP. They get more patent, trade secret, and software piracy cases than any other Federal circuit (except the CAFC - Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit - which is kind of like the "supreme court for patents"). Although the "rocket dockets" of the Eastern District of Texas (in Tyler) and the Western District of Wisconsin (in Madison) have been feeding a lot of civil patent cases into the Fifth and Seventh Circuits over the last 5+ years or so.
There is a ton of industrial espionage, trade secret theft, copyright infringement (software) cases in the Ninth Circus, so they are much more familiar with this area. The District court in San Jose is packed with criminal and civil IP cases.
Interestingly, the Foley case is styled as a simple fraud case. Everyone seems to have missed the IP angles, which when you boil it down, is the real key subject there.
If Foley were not such a cheapskate and pig-headed fool, he'd have gotten John Keker who would have seen this angle, and, IMO, there is a potential very strong defense that could have been presented. But alas, Foley cheaped out all along the way and got second-, third-, and fourth-rate legal counsel. They all missed the best way to defend the case, especially on an appeal that might not breach his plea agreement and focus on his inept trial counsel.
It's too late for that now. I think I recommended Keker to him about two months ago on iHub, when it could have made a difference.
Now I think this winds up with the motions panel waiting until Foley files the appeal brief on 05/05/2014, then acts on the motion to dismiss, grants it, and dismisses the appeal and makes no ruling on the bail motion because then it becomes moot. It's the most politically attractive way for them to resolve this without having to deal with what metrics are used to determine a what constitutes a "fairly debatable question" in a case that otherwise would vitiate the "no appeal of sentence" provision in all plea agreements in the Ninth Circus. No appeal allowed = no need to rule on the motion for bail. Easy out.
This merits a much longer discussion to explain, but suffice it to say that I believe the Ninth would like to resolve this type of matter without opening a can of worms that would undo the finality of sentences in plea bargains and jack up their workload immensely. There are other reasons why they would like to dispose of this quickly, but we can hold on those until we see if I am right or not on how this plays out.
I am so interested to see how Riordan argues the appeal brief. If he follows the course he has in arguing the two motions currently pending, I think the USA is going to make an example out of this and go balls out and take the position that the plea agreement is then breached and refile the remaining charges AND argue that the plea agreement and sentence for the two pleaded counts cannot be appealed.
OTOH, if Riordan files an appeal brief limited to the trial counsel incompetence, it will be a closer call.
This is going to be really interesting and I don't see any way this can turn out well for Foley. Best case he buys time but winds up in the soup in the long run. Worst case, he's sitting in prison by the end of the month, his appeal is dismissed by the Ninth which finds the plea agreement prohibits an appeal of the sentencing, and/or the USA refiles the remaining charges against him for his breach of the plea agreement by filing an appeal brief that violates the terms of the plea agreement.
Interesting month this May.
Integral - do you happen to know Terren Peizer?
"Every cesspool is what it is. That doesn't mean everyone should accept it, let alone embrace it."
One thing I've come to learn over the decades is that you cannot save ignorant and/or illogical, emotional people from themselves.
Seriously, if they didn't flush their money into penny stock A, they would simply flush it away in penny stock B. Hell, many of them flush their money away in penny stock A and then come back and flush more away in penny stock B.
Money always flows from weak, dumb hands into strong, smart hands over time. Yes, there are short and medium term variances from this rule, but over the long run, it is mostly correct in most circumstances.
I think it's a restatement of "you can't fix stupid" or something similar.
I'm interested in penny stock scams not to save the stupid victims - they'll piss their money away one way or another. I simply enjoy watching the scammers get the slammer whenever possible. These scum ruin the capital markets for legitimate start-ups and small companies. They force the inventors and entrepreneurs of the world into the arms of venture capital, which typically strips them of their equity via dilution and often kicks them out of management. I would like to see the money that is flushed into unproductive scams in the pennystocks redirected into funding legitimate tech companies of real scientists and engineers following their real dreams (not made up stories and hype for the purpose of robbing investors). That said, VC do provide some business acumen and adult supervision into many starry-eyed, impractical inventors who have no discipline to get a product out with a real business timeline and marketing plan.
But I have no illusions that will happen anytime, nor that it could, as who gets to decide which are legit and which are scams? There is no objective way to do that. The i-bankers are supposed to do that, but in the real world they care about one thing only - can the institutions they place the IPO/secondary stock with flip it for a profit in a reasonable timeframe. If the company makes it or not is not relevant - only can the company issue some good news and carry a story long enough for T. Rowe and Fidelity to flip this issue to retail investors at a profit. That's it.
So in the penny stocks, the sucker money flows to those who are most adept at fooling the suckers, which is almost always a different pool of individuals than those with good ideas and real science/engineering talent.
Nonetheless, it is viscerally enjoyable to see those who are responsible for ruining the system to be punished. That's why I'm on iHub. I love seeing crooks like Rufus Harris and Jim Bolt rot in Federal prison with long terms. I just love that sh t.
Gosh, that's an interesting hypo. Did you have the mens rea to commit a crime or just drive there for a reason without a criminal purpose? What was the guilty act (actus reus) that you would have done? Driving away? Well, if you intended to drive away for the purpose of taking the cameras and electronics that others threw into your pickup, then maybe yes. But if you just drove off with them simply to go home and not with the purpose of transporting stolen property and depriving the store of their legal ownership rights for those goods, then probably no.
Did you even have a basis to know who the rightful owner(s) of the cameras and electronics was/were? Perhaps you were under the impression that this was the rightful property of the people who threw these items in your truck, and you perceived this as being bestowed gifts from them as a gesture of racial harmony.
I've seen juries acquit defendants who used crazier and less believable defenses than that. I've seen some real stunners - one was a teacher's union president whose wife had been killed by a drunk driver two years earlier - he had taken the life insurance proceeds and used part to buy a 5-series BMW, which he drove through a power station fence and into a coal pile after being chased by police after he left a bar where witnesses testified he had been drinking all night. His Intoxalyzer 5000 BAC was 0.283 on average and he had a blood test done that his lawyer would not admit into evidence. He was acquitted. The jury had a teacher, two other union members (a machinist and a warehouse worker), a black woman, and two university students on it. Talking to some of the jurors afterward, the black woman had said the police were harassing him and caused the accident and the breathalyzer numbers were lies "because the man is telling you that and the man always lies" (the "man" being the term for the police apparently). The teacher and the union members told a story of how this fellow was a noble friend of the working person and should not be punished. A couple of middle-aged women didn't want t ruin his political future over this incident as he was a part-time law student at the time! and had sympathy because he lost his wife to a drunk driver 2 years earlier!!!!. And the university students just went along with the others. At the time (1980s), and in the jurisdiction, this was a charge as a first time offense that carried no prison time, only a fine and license suspension, so a vote of 10 of 12 jurors was sufficient to find him not guilty. He is now a commercial real estate lawyer in Minneapolis.
Then I can tell you about the serial rapist who wound up getting his third hung jury because the middle-aged and older women on the jury would not vote to convict him because they felt that the victim had enticed/provoked him - despite his two prior convictions and prison time for sexual assault - and they felt that it was unfair because, as this would have been his third conviction, he would be facing a very long prison sentence this time. So, after the third hung jury, the state declined to pursue the case any further. Because the older motherly types would not vote to convict him, he walked from the charges. The very jurors who you would have thought would want to hang this turd wound up letting him walk. They did not have the guts to send a 20-something "boy" to prison for 20 years. They couldn't handle the personal guilt of doing that - so he walked.
So, if you've got folks throwing cameras and electronics into your pickup truck, drive home and don't take them out of your truck for a month or so. If the cops don't show up, you've got some cool stuff. If they do show up, just get a decent criminal defense lawyer and you'll probably walk if you're in the right area where the jury composition will buy your tales of riot woes and innocence. Worked for O.J. and Robert Blake in LA county.
Available at Fry's now - under the name Madcatz MOJO. Just download the firmware update for 4K. No need to ship it back to the "factory".
Tell ya what - why not file a motion with the US Bankruptcy Court styled with the closed bankruptcy case number wherein the motion demands subpoena power for discovery. Don't forget to name the parties you plan to subpoena and provide specific allegations.
See where that motion gets you.
I'll follow it on PACER.
Preview answer: circular filed. Nowhere.
C'mon big guy, file the motion and show us how useful your "submissions" are.
We're waiting. Amaze us. Dazzle us. Show us how it's done.
LOL!
Nope. bankruptcy case is closed. Trustee is dismissed. It's over.
There's nothing going to change that.
You had your chance and got nowhere.
But feel free to go all CMKX crazy and keep posting for a decade about how you're going to "get to the bottom of all this".
This happens on just about every cult pennystock fraud. Hell, people are still posting on the CMKX board daily.
The bankruptcy proceeding is now closed. That letter sent to the bankruptcy court is now a dead letter.
Any other "submissions" or is the point now moot since the statute of limitations long passed and nobody is going to file a shareholder lawsuit against a non-existent company with no officers or directors anyway.
Maybe you can pay Crazy Al Hodges to string folks along for $15,000. I think he's finally finished with his crazy NSS conspiracy court filings on CMKX now that those joke lawsuits were thrown out of court and laughed at on appeal.
Otherwise, this is simply a waste of time.
It's over. The money is G-O-N-E.
Moskowitz authorized the 2+ BILLION shares and authored the David Bomart letters.
"Did she buy her judicial appointment?"
Bank on it. She has no experience as a trial level judge or even clerking for a District Court judge. She only clerked a year at the DC Circuit and for O'Connor.
She will be a lousy appellate judge with absolutely no insight into what a District court judge experiences.
This is sad. There are GREAT District court judges - I can think of Zagel and Kennelly out of the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago. Either of those judges would be great to send out to the Ninth Circus for some sun and to instill a touch of reality into the Ninth Circus, by FAR the most reversed Circuit in the Federal judiciary.
The Ninth could screw up making ice cubes. Only Alex Kozinski is able to maintain any semblance of rational jurisprudence in any work of the Ninth, and he's a very "eccentric" person.
The Ninth is so frequently reversed that it has acquired the widely used "Ninth Circus" moniker. It's a veritable clown show. There is the way the Ninth does things and there is the way the other Circuits do things. The Surpremes could be fully employed 12 months of the year just reviewing 9th Circuit errors, but they can't so a lot of the 9th crap is just reflected as splits with the other Circuits. For one example, the Ninth's goofy "fairly debatable question" standard that they invented and no other Circuit uses or would even consider departing from the "substantial question/close question" standard of the Bail Act of 1984 that ALL the other Circuits except the Ninth use.
A close colleague of mine clerked for a Ninth Circuit judge back in the late '80s, and he said that the only way you could make sense out of what some of the judges would say or write was if you dropped a few sheets of good blotter acid an hour before oral arguments or panel discussions. That way the nonsense that was spewed would at least seem like "whoa, dude, I totally see what you're sayin' man".
There have been tens of thousands sold. Check out the Madcatz sales numbers on the MOJO.
NP-1 is the same hardware, just in a different enclosure. Same model number, even the NTEK "NP-1" FCC filing uses the MOJO test report and the MOJO model number.
Get the original - get the MOJO.
Then do the firmware update for 4K if you want blocky, choppy 4k for anything with more complexity or motion than a butterfly on a fuzzy uniform blue background.
Same exact chips and components - just slightly different packaging on a few. One set has the some of the components encapsulated in resin and the other has a metallic shell packaging on the same components.
Same chips, different batches that Foxconn substitutes based on supply and pricing from different vendors. Circuitwise they are identical.
You can note the same shapes and dimensions, just one set is resin encapsulated only and the other has a metallic shell packaging.
No surprise. Foxconn and other manufacturers substitute discretes and commodity components from batch to batch unless the client specs don't allow substitution to save on the cost.
It's the MOJO MB, that's why the FCC filing by NTEK references the MOJO's earlier filing and why NTEK copies the exact MOJO model number as well. Same board, different enclosure.
"So tell me personally how long it would take you to develop, manufacture and ship the NP-1 while growing a multi million profitable company?"
As long as it takes to drive to the Sunnyvale Fry's store and buy a Madcatz MOJO off the shelf (or get a pre-production sample board from Hong Kong) and put it in your own enclosure design.
Davey doesn't know how to design circuit boards, but he has experience designing ornamental ENCLOSURES from a previous employer.
Oh, and by the way, I never claimed that the FCC tests products for compliance. Post a link.
"think that it takes the FCC just ONE week to test and provide reg. numbers for products"
The FCC doesn't TEST the product. The company pays a commercial test lab to do that. NTEK paid the same exact test lab (CCC) that Madcatz used and NTEK references and piggybacks on the Madcatz MOJO test report.
So all the FCC does is take the commercial test lab's report and post it online.
FCC does not test the product itself.
Shajandr said:
Quote:MadCatz MOJO - a.k.a. The "NP-1" In A Different Enclosure (in ORIGINAL, not COUNTERFEIT enclosure)
then in reply halbaag wrote:
WRONG!!!! Simple box dimensions are enough to see this is a false statement.
Madcatz Mojo dimensions (http://www.littlegreenrobot.co.uk/phones/madcatz-m-o-j-o-review/):
130mm(w) x 114mm(l) x 50mm(h)
Nuvola NP-1 dimensions (https://www.nuvola4k.com/):
90mm (w) x 100mm (l) x30mm (h)
It looks like the enclosures are built to handle two different circuit boards. In order to fit the Madcatz Mojo circuit board inside of the NP-1, the NP-1 box enclosure width would have to be increased by at least 40 mm. That is a 55% increase!! (Eh, nope. That was WRONG.)
The length of the NP-1 enclosure would have to be increased by 14 mm. This is a 14% increase. The height is a non-issue. The Madcatz slope is implemented for aesthetic purposes. (Where'd that idea get pulled out of?) All of this being said, there is only one possible conclusion. It is impossible for the Madcatz Mojo original circuit board to be inside of the Nuvola NP-1. A design based on the Mojo? Possible. The exact circuit board? No.
--------------------------
WHOOPS-OOPS!!! Same EXACT motherboard. Now PROVEN. So my post back in mid-March was not wrong.
Davey's used the Foxconn Madcatx MOJO motherboard and just slapped an NP-1 enclosure on it. Just like I had said in mid-March.
Now he's even referencing the MOJO FCC test reports in the NP-1 filing! And using the MOJO's pre-existing model number from the MadCatz MOJO product itself!
"This device is sold at premium price and marketed as such but it just feel as 'yet another chinese Android HDMI stick/box' and behind the curtain, it seems to be the case: in the Play Store the MOJO is shown as "Foxconn International Holdings Limited Mad Catz M.O.J.O." ..."
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2566440
Foley's economic loss calculation should have been bumped by the customers' economic loss - which should be the total purchase prices paid by them. The "product" they received is totally unusable from a legal perspective as they are counterfeit and do not carry the legally necessary licenses/sublicenses to operate the games legally. The legal value of what he sold them is the cost of the USB fobs (maybe $8 apiece). Everything else other than the USB fobs was pure intellectual property, which Foley did not have title or license to and could not legally transfer any intellectual property rights to the buyers. The only thing he sold them (via Dadonna) was the physical USB fobs, which he STOLE from Global VR in the first place!).
The court allowed him to be assigned only the profit loss to Global VR ($450,000), whereas it should have added the loss to the customers (over a million dollars). The economic loss was suffered by both defrauded parties (the customers collectively and Global VR).
Economic damage from a crime can exceed the amount that the criminals received - just as an act of vandalism that nets nothing for the criminal can destroy a $10 million painting.
SO, if the correct calculation of economic loss were used by the court, it would be in excess of $1.5M and increase the points level for the Sentencing Guidelines calculation.
David Foley's new wardrobe:
It's a shame Minkow only got 5 years for it. Almost as much of a shame that David Foley got only two years in prison for his multiple felonies, when he should have received at least 56 months and rightfully deserves 20 years (and mandatory mental health treatment as the court properly ordered).
Foxconn manufactures the Madcatz MOJO motherboard. Foxconn even calls it the "Foxconn International Holdings Limited Mad Catz M.O.J.O." when it's sold in the Playstore. Your NAB "NP-1" uses their Model number - you just copied it for your FCC application. The NTEK FCC application even references the MadCatz MOJO FCC Report.
https://wikidevi.com/wiki/Mad_Catz_M.O.J.O.
"Mad Catz M.O.J.O.
Jump to: navigation, search
Mad Catz M.O.J.O.
Manuf/OEM/ODM Foxconn
FCC approval date: 20 February 2014
UPC: 728658041632 (UPC DB, On eBay)
Country of manuf.: China
Amazon image
ASIN
B00FM5IS48 (Flag of the United States.svg, On Amazon, On CCC)
Type: game console
FCC ID: P25H560211A
Industry Canada ID: 4633A-H560211A
Power: 5.2 VDC, 3 A
Connector type: barrel
CPU1: nVIDIA Tegra 4 (T40S-A2)
FLA1: 16 GiB (Sandisk SDIN8DE4-16G)
RAM1: 2 GiB (Samsung K4B4G1646B-HYK0 x 4)
Expansion IFs: USB 3.0, USB 2.0
USB ports: 2
WI1 chip1: Broadcom BCM43241
WI1 802dot11 protocols: abgn
WI1 MIMO config: 2x2:2
WI1 antenna connector: none
ETH chip1: SMSC LAN9730
ETH chip2: SMSC LAN9730
LAN speed: 10/100
LAN ports: 1
abgn
Additional chips
Audio codec;Realtek;ALC5639;;1;
Stock FW OS: Linux unknown Android
Flags: HDMI out, Audio out (3.5mm)
802dot11 OUI: none specified
For a list of all currently documented Broadcom chipsets with specifications, see Broadcom.
Micro-Console for ANDROID
This device would seem to have been originally FCC approved on ~12/18/2013, dismissed by the FCC on 02/19/2014, and approved again on 02/20/2014."
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:phT6BqwOmXgJ:https://wikidevi.com/wiki/Mad_Catz_M.O.J.O.+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=96429308
That pic looks exactly like it. Exactly.
"This device is sold at premium price and marketed as such but it just feel as 'yet another chinese Android HDMI stick/box'and behind the curtain, it seems to be the case: in the Play Store the MOJO is shown as "Foxconn International Holdings Limited Mad Catz M.O.J.O." ..."
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2566440
NTEK personnel ARE liars. Got your NP-1 yet? Ultraflix online yet?
Ted D. Campbell II is President and CEO of GrowPublic, Inc. He has worked in the areas of federal and state registered/exempt corporate securities offerings, application of the federal securities rules and regulations to such offerings, and corporate listing on the National Quotation Bureau's Electronic Pink Sheets and NASD's OTCBB. Mr. Campbell is a former founder and principal of NevWest Securities Corporation, which was a NASD licensed, Level Three Introducing Broker Dealer and Market Maker.
NASD Charges NevWest Securities Corporation and Principals With Violating Anti-Money Laundering Rules
Firm Failed to File Suspicious Activity Reports Despite Suspicious Sales of Hundreds of Billions of Shares of Sub-Penny Stock by Customer
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nasd-charges-nevwest-securities-corporation-and-principals-with-violating-anti-money-laundering-rules-57158397.html
"...NASD's complaint charges that between January 2003 and May 2005,
NevWest, through Rumyantsev and Santos, failed to adequately perform due diligence, file SARs or cease trading in multiple accounts controlled by one of NevWest's customers in connection with more than 500 sale transactions. The transactions involved a sub-penny stock issued by CMKM Diamonds, Inc. (CMKM) that traded in the Pink Sheets until the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) revoked the stock's registration in 2005. The
complaint further charges that the firm and its officers ignored numerous red flags which reasonably should have caused them to suspect that the customer was violating federal securities laws. The complaint charges that the firm should have filed suspicious activity reports with the U.S...."
And Davey, one more quick observation:
If by chance you are lucky enough for the motions panel to grant oral hearings on the motion for bail, do yourself a huge favor
and call, stalk, plead, wheedle, and promise huge sums of money to John Keker to step in and take over this from the Riordan firm before the oral hearing and before the appeal brief is due on 05/05/2014.
You keep working up the food chain of white collar defense lawyers but always trying to cheap out.
Sell the Maserati and retain Keker, because your time is running out and the guy(s) you have are not cutting the mustard.
The appeal brief is a real tough call, but I'd advise you to go back to the incompetent counsel theory for the appeal brief due on 05/05/2014 and try to get the whole plea agreement voided. It won't work, but it's a better shot. Of course you'll wind up doing a lot more time if it's voided and you get tried and/or resentenced, but it might survive a motion to dismiss and give you some small measure of hope while you're in prison.
And in prison, hope is everything. It is what keeps you from wrapping the bedsheet over the shower head and hanging yourself in the first month or two. Prison without even hoe of an appeal is horrible. Hope is worth the potential extra time, and you can always withdraw the appeal before an adverse ruling comes down if it looks like Keker is going to lose (and he'll be very honest with you about it).
Remember Frank Quattrone? Yeah, Keker saved him a lot of prison time. Keker was the only guy who could have pulled that off.
You're getting better quality lawyers each iteration, but you have a long way to go and no time to get there. Call Keker!
And unlike your current and prior lawyers, Keker understands intellectual property and this is actually a huge part of your case, even though both your lawyers and the USA have so far glossed over it.
I'd use the incompetent counsel angle and play it very cleverly to try to avoid the waiver of sentence appeal issue, then hit the first lawyer on lack of IP knowledge and argue a couple of IP angles. That's what I'd try at this point.
All should review "shorting against the box" or "shorting the box".
It's one way restricted shares and even unconverted convertible notes are PRE-SOLD into the market before they are delegended or issued.
And I've already explained how those T trades are short sales during the day trued-up from the seller's account after the close at or below VWAP of the trades. Those are technically shorts but they are simply sales of shares covered at EOD.
Davey Dearest:
There are two motions on file with the Ninth Circus:
(1) a Motion for Bail Pending Appeal filed by Foley; and
(2) a Motion to Dismiss Appeal filed by the USA.
With regard to ("WRT") Motion #1, the briefs are complete - motion, opposition, reply - and this motion is ripe for the motions panel to rule on either without or after oral hearing, which Foley has asked for.
WRT Motion #2, the USA is still due a Reply to Opposition brief and has 7 days to file that, at which time (if no new matter or issue is introduced in the Reply, which is forbidden but sometimes happens), that motion may be deemed ripe for the motions panel or they may wish to wait for the Appeal Brief to be filed on 05/05/2014 so they can rule on dismissing an appeal with at least the appeal brief in front of them.
The USA has the option of filing a Reply to the Opposition to their motion. If they chose to do so, they have 7 days to file that.
The two motions may be ruled on separately or at the same time. The motions panel has the latitude to choose.
Now, later tonight or tomorrow I will explicate why you have no basis for the appeal, at least no "fairly debatable question" of law or fact, even if you are deemed to not have waived your right to appeal your sentence, which I strongly believe you have under these briefed arguments and facts on the record.
In short (I'll preview it for ya), your plea agreement does NOT say anywhere that you were pleading guilty only to defrauding customers. All it says is that you:
"made up a scheme or plan for obtaining money or property by making false promises or statements, knowing that the promises or statements were false and material, and that it would reasonably influence a person to part with money or property ... and (2) that I became a member of the conspiracy knowing of at least one of its objects and intended to accomplish it."
(Foley Plea Agreement, page 2 lines 1-10)
The "person" can be either the customer or the company Global VR (a corporation is a legal person). Moreover, paragraph 26 of Count 1 of your indictment states:
"As a further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud, and in an attempt to conceal Foley's illicit activity from his employer, Global VR, Foley instructed, encouraged, and otherwise caused Dadonna to lie to Global VR when Dadonna was asked why he had not purchased the regular supply of game packs from Global VR."
(Foley Indictment, page 8, lines 13-18).
This was cited in the USA's Opposition. You pleaded guilty to all of Count One, including paragraph 26. Nothing in your plea agreement indicates that you were pleading guilty to simply defrauding customers. That's why Riordan can't cite it - because it is simply not there in your plea agreement. It is made up nonsense. The plain fact is that you pleaded guilty to all of Count One, in which you conspired with Dadonna to:
(1) defraud customers out of the ENTIRE PURCHASE PRICE because you sold them a product, games purported to have been sublicensed from Namco among others, to which you had no ability to sublicense as you had no license in the first place. Thus the customers were cheated out of their ENTIRE purchase paid because they received no legal right to use what you sent them, which is what they paid for - the legal right to use those games. Under the CUSTOMER THEORY, you defrauded the customers of every penny they paid Dadonna.
(2) defraud Global VR out of their INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY and PROFITS that they otherwise would be entitled from selling those game packs (notwithstanding that they may have owed royalties to an upstream licensor). Global VR may or may not have had ALL the rights to the games in the gamepacks, but they had SOME intellectual property rights, whereas you and Dadonna had NONE. Under the COMPANY THEORY, the damages were LOST PROFITS.
Your CONSPIRACY defrauded BOTH customers AND Global VR. It is not an either/or. The amount of loss should have been the total of BOTH losses. Customers were sold a fugazi with zero right to use the games and they lost their entire purchase price, and Global VR was defrauded of what otherwise would have been sales to those customers and they suffered lost profits. BOTH together is the appropriate measure of loss. But you were actually given the lightest possible loss calculation - only the profits lost to Global VR. Under the "customer-only theory" the loss would be the entire purchase price as the government initially requested.
Your lawyers' briefs claim that somehow your plea agreement was only for (1), but they can't point to anything in the plea agreement that states that or even implies (:LOL) that.
Hence, even if the motions panel were somehow to determine that you did not necessarily waive your right to appeal your sentence and defer that issue as a "fairly debatable question", you still lose because the second threshold you need to meet is to show that even if you can appeal, that the basis for the appeal itself is a "fairly debatable question", which it is not. You clearly conspired to defraud both the customers and Global VR, and under either theory the loss calculation would be at least as great as the lost profits to Global VR.
More later or tomorrow. But in the meantime, you should read up on the Ninth Circus rules for motions, oppositions, and replies.