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.
"So was that Best Buy? Walmart? Sears?"
Do they have the mythical NP-1 unicorn for sale? Got links?
Otherwise, it's just more crapola. Like claiming Ittiam is a "partner" when all that happened is that NTEK took a non-exclusive license to their H.265 algorithm and codec, like I took a license from Microsoft when I installed Office on my computers. Ittiam is no more a "partner" of NTEK than Microsoft is a "partner" of my business. Unlike NTEK, I don't put out baloney PRs claiming I partnered with Microsoft.
Curiously, none of these "partners" have any PRs or anything on their websites naming Nanotech or NTEK - at all. Zip. Ittiam - not a peep about any "Nanotech" or NTEK or D SHOAF.
It all comes from NTEK's proven lying IR department.
So tomorrow I will buy an iced tea at McDonalds and thus McDonalds will be my "partner". Then buy some gas at Exxon to partner with them.
The oldest trick in the pennystock scam world is paying name people and companies in an attempt to legitimize themselves by association. Spongetech did it by placing their sponges in Wal-Marts and Walgreens - but it was all a SCAM.
So as of tomorrow, I'll be "partnered" with both McDonalds and Exxon (one of the largest companies in the world!!!). Thus my comments will have the imprimatur of Exxon and McDonalds - my partners.
Lorraine Cullivan - lives in East Bridgewater, MA went to Holbrook, MA
Philip Foley - lives in East Bridgewater, MA from Holbrook, MA
Facebook friends of each other. And with David and Jeff Foley too.
On January 30, 2013 the Company ...
issued Philip Foley, unrelated and non-affiliated independent contractor, 25,500,000 shares of restricted common stock containing the restrictive legend, at $0.006 per share, to eliminate $153,000 of compensation due under the terms of a services agreement, and reducing the company’s debt by the same amount, and acquiring license rights to proprietary technology and assets.
...
On September 27, 2013 the Company issued ...
Issued Lorraine Cullivan, employee, 100,000 shares as part of her employee compensation.
Issued David Foley, employee, 1,950,000 shares to eliminate compensation past due under the terms of an employment compensation and expesne agreement from 2007, and reducing the company’s debt by the same amount covered in a promissory note.
Issued David Foley, employee, 1,000,000 shares to eliminate compensation past due under the terms of an employment compensation and expense agreement from 2007, and reducing the company’s debt by the same amount covered in a promissory note.
On July 23, 2013 the Company issued ...
Issued Steven Foley, unrelated and non-affiliated investor, 22,831 shares as settlement of interest due from a paid convertible debenture, reducing the company’s debt by $2,283.10.
Issued Richard Foley, unrelated and non-affiliated investor, 15,580 shares as settlement of interest due from a paid convertible debenture, reducing the company’s debt by $1,558.
Issued David Foley, employee, 606,589 shares to eliminate compensation past due under the terms of an employment agreement from 2007, and reducing the company’s debt by the same amount covered in a promissory note.
Wow, so NTEK's IR person, Lorraine, is a neighbor of Philip Foley (recipient of 25,000,000 shares of restricted stock) in East Bridgewater, Massachusetts, AND
Philip Foley, Richard Foley, and Steven Foley - all recipients of restricted NTEK stock are UNRELATED PARTIES??? None of them are relatives of Jeff or David Foley???
"American public companies are required to disclose all transactions with related parties such as executives, associates and their family members in their annual 10-K report. While the great majority of related-party transactions are perfectly normal, the special relationship inherent between the involved parties creates potential conflicts of interest which can result in actions which benefit the people involved as opposed to the shareholders."
And NTEK's IR person just happens to live in the same town as one of these UNRELATED Foleys??
WHAT ARE THE ODDS OF RANDOM CHANCE THESE FOLKS JUST STUMBLED INTO NTEK?
Like hitting the restricted stock lottery. Twice.
Who is Lorraine Cullivan?
According to LinkedIn, she has only ever had one job - and that is IR for Nanotech - and it lists her address in Massachusetts (where the Foley Brothers are from!).
https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=277863301&authType=NAME_SEARCH&authToken=t3Pi&locale=en_US&srchid=830162711395883246471&srchindex=1&srchtotal=3&trk=vsrp_people_res_name&trkInfo=VSRPsearchId%3A830162711395883246471%2CVSRPtargetId%3A277863301%2CVSRPcmpt%3Aprimary
When you do a NATIONWIDE search on Zabasearch, only ONE Lorraine Cullivan comes up - an 81 year old who has/had places in Massachusetts and a place in Naples, Florida (retirement capital of Florida's Gulf Coast):
Lorraine Cullivan Naples FL 81
Lorraine Cullivan Edgartown MA 81
Lorraine Cullivan Winchester MA 81
Lorraine E Cullivan
261 Fox Den Cir
Naples, FL 34104
http://www.zabasearch.com/people/lorraine+e+cullivan/naples+fl/1009832160
I wonder if the Foleys are using one of their aunts or old MA friends as a nominee for stock issuances now.
Maybe "Lorraine Cullivan" (good Irish name) can provide some IR details on whether this is her, whether she knew the Foleys before NTEK, and where she currently resides and how we can verify it.
Maybe somebody can SPEAK with Lorraine and clear this up - assuming you have a phone number for her. That answers and doesn't dump you into voicemail...
"massive companies partnering with NTEK are probably telling the truth"
Funny thing, I searched Akamai's and Ittium's websites and PR newswires, and they have made exactly NO MENTION of Nanotech (NTEK) in any of their public pronouncements.
Only more NTEK IR propaganda, which has proven false in the past, and the past is prologue with this Foley scheme company.
That is NOT the mythical NP-1 enclosure. The NP-1 enclosure has the light in the center, not on the extreme left side like that gizmo in the video at 0:27:
But I'll bet it's the same board, which is NOT NTEK's.
The Mythical NP-1 courtesy of convicted felon game counterfeiter, David Foley (#13141-111).
NTEK's David Foley, company founder, brother of current ice sculptor CEO, and demonstrator of the mythical "NP-1" unicorn that is always unavailable and with no FCC ID number, is convicted of multiple counts of fraud relating to game counterfeiting and bank fraud, in both Federal criminal court and also in civil SEC proceedings in civil court, where he also admitted to fraud.
Hope that finally clears it up for ya!
He's free until the Ninth Circus rules on his motion for bail, which will be in a couple/several weeks depending upon how quickly the District court hands up their reasoning for denying him and the parties have an opportunity to brief it and the judge(s) can either rule on the briefs or hold a hearing and then rule - and then Federal inmate #13141-111 will get a chuckling contact with his reporting date/place for prison.
Meanwhile, he has another 20,000,000 NTEK shares that can come off restriction after 12 April 2014, that he can get delegended (takes a week or so usually), and dump into the market to raise some money for his prison commissary account.
Here's your link: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/rules/rules.htm
Chief Justice D SHOAF presiding.....
Not gonna happen. NTEK's David Foley gets a few week reprieve until the Ninth Circus rules on his latest request for bail. It's an automatic stay under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure for the Ninth Circus Rule 9.1.2(e).
(e) If the appellant is on bail at the time the motion is filed in this Court, that bail will remain in effect until the Court rules on the motion. (Rev. 1/1/01 - changed from (d) to (e))
We're gonna keep getting late-night drunken PMs from the guy for a few more weeks, so get used to it.
Plus he's got 20,000,000 of his restricted NTEK shares coming off restriction after 12 April 2014, so he'll be busy getting those delegended (takes several days or so) and dumping those.
Relax, the David Foley clown show is not over tomorrow, we get to have a few more weeks of tweets, faked box photos, and nastygrams.
Hey BIG, I call your bluff. Post a pic of your mythical NP-1 unicorn tonight showing the FCC label with the FCC ID number!!
Unlike this FAKE label seen on the "NP-1" that was at CES and has no FCC ID number and is not even a correct format label - it's a faked printer-printed copy on Office Depot-style labels:
The FCC has NO record of any grantee with "nanotech" in the name.
Don Member Level Thursday, 03/20/14 09:14:03 PM
Re: None
Post # of 173894
I have searched the FCC database and found no results when seeking to find a Grantee Code assigned to Nanotech. Neither has a filing been made for a Produce Code for the missing NP-1. Those two codes combine to form the FCC mark of the device. The following explains why this is significant for those attempting to sell Class B electronic devices in the US.
Quote:All electronics products sold in the United States are required by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to obtain an FCC mark showing that the product complies with the following standards:
- Emissions (the effect on other electronic devices of energy radiated from the product)
- Immunity (the product's response to other electronic devices)
There are two categories that your product can fall into: Class A or Class B. A Class A device is a product marketed for commercial or industrial use and is not intended to to be used in a home. A Class B device is a product marketed for residential or home use. Class B requirements tend to be stricter than Class A requirements.
"The FCC Rules and Regulations, Title 47, Part 15, Subpart B regulates "unintentional radio-frequency devices". Products regulated include any unintentional radiator (device or system) that generates and uses timing pulses at a rate in excess of 9000 pulses (cycles) per second and uses digital techniques. This includes almost every product that employs a microprocessor including workstations, personal computers, point-of-sale terminals, printers, modems, and many electronic games. It is illegal to sell or advertise for sale any products regulated under Part 15, Subpart B until their radiated and conducted emissions have been measured and found to be in compliance.
Wrong! it is EVERY part of the electronic device that oscillates at more than 9kHz - that is EVERY chip, the PCB board circuit traces, the ports (USB2, USB3, Ethernet, HDMI). It is the entire device that must be tested by an approved tester and a report generated and filed and reviewed and approved by the FCC.
BTW, not only is NTEK (Nanotech) NOT listed in the FCC GRANTEE database, it is not even listed in the APPLICANT database - which means they have not even APPLIED to the FCC yet!
Same reason your computer needs an FCC ID - high frequency electrical circuits cause RF radiation in frequency bands regulated by the FCC.
Taken from Don's post:
I have searched the FCC database and found no results when seeking to find a Grantee Code assigned to Nanotech. Neither has a filing been made for a Produce Code for the missing NP-1. Those two codes combine to form the FCC mark of the device. The following explains why this is significant for those attempting to sell Class B electronic devices in the US.
Quote:All electronics products sold in the United States are required by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to obtain an FCC mark showing that the product complies with the following standards:
- Emissions (the effect on other electronic devices of energy radiated from the product)
- Immunity (the product's response to other electronic devices)
There are two categories that your product can fall into: Class A or Class B. A Class A device is a product marketed for commercial or industrial use and is not intended to to be used in a home. A Class B device is a product marketed for residential or home use. Class B requirements tend to be stricter than Class A requirements.
"The FCC Rules and Regulations, Title 47, Part 15, Subpart B regulates "unintentional radio-frequency devices". Products regulated include any unintentional radiator (device or system) that generates and uses timing pulses at a rate in excess of 9000 pulses (cycles) per second and uses digital techniques. This includes almost every product that employs a microprocessor including workstations, personal computers, point-of-sale terminals, printers, modems, and many electronic games. It is illegal to sell or advertise for sale any products regulated under Part 15, Subpart B until their radiated and conducted emissions have been measured and found to be in compliance.
"That's what they keep saying yet the TA doesn't send shares to Etrade. The shares are sent to the DTCC in their name, Cede & Co."
Ummmm... in a DTC chill, DTCC will not accept or exchange shares, nor will they transfer shares. So in this case, if your shares are held in street name with a broker who has you as a book entry for CEDE & CO. held shares, you probably can't get the old shares exchanged for the new. Only shares held in your name directly (non-street name, non-CEDE) could be exchanged (and sold) - like the shares Alfie and Joe have and will continue to get via convertibles.
If the DTC institutes a "freeze", then after a period they will remove the shares from DTCC and the shares will not be able to be cleared by any registered clearing agency.
That is likely why the brokerages are telling people that they will need the TA to transfer shares directly with the brokerage and not via CEDE, because DTC is not processing HIPH exchanged (reverse-split) shares. But the brokers can't (I believe) exchange any shares they have at CEDE until the DTC institutes a "freeze" (which ends ALL services at DTC for the security) and after some period of time, removes the security from DTC.
So I think if you hold shares in street name via CEDE, it may be a VERY long time before you get the new post-reverse split shares in your account (or perhaps issued to you directly if your brokerage refuses to hold a non-DTC eligible security [assuming the DTC eventually freezes HIPH, if they haven't already].
HTH.
The best white-collar criminal defense/appellate lawyer in California, perhaps in the USA, is John Keker, bar none. But he doesn't take a lot of loser cases, like NTEK's Foley's. I would bet Foley first tried to hire Keker and got turned down so he had to resort to this guy (Riordan) who is more willing to take on loser cases, like Foley's and this one he recently lost in a very similar pursuit for bail pending appeal:
"9th Circ. Denies Bail For AUO Execs In Price-Fixing Case
Share us on: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn By Melissa Lipman 0 Comments
Law360, New York (January 25, 2013, 4:23 PM ET) -- The Ninth Circuit refused Tuesday to let two AU Optronics Corp. executives out on bail while they appeal their price-fixing convictions, ruling that the defendants hadn't shown they were likely to succeed in overturning or substantially shortening their sentences. Note: this is exactly the same problem Foley is going to have. Inability to show a significant legal dispute exists on appeal.
AUO President Hsuan Bin Chen and former Vice President Hui Hsiung have been trying to convince the Ninth Circuit to release them while they challenge their convictions and matching three-year sentences.
But a three-judge panel denied those requests, ruling that there was no proof that the two men would succeed in getting prison terms shorter than the amount of time they would spend in jail while the appeal proceeds.
"Appellants have not shown that these appeals raise a 'substantial question' of law or fact that is likely to result in reversal, an order for a new trial, a sentence that does not include a term of imprisonment, or a reduced sentence to a term of imprisonment less than the total of the time already served plus the expected duration of the appeal process," the court said.
A spokeswoman for the DOJ declined to comment on the ruling. Attorneys for Chen and Hsiung were not immediately available for comment Friday.
The two were each sentenced in September after a jury found they conspired with LG Display Co. Ltd., Toshiba Corp. and other electronics companies to artificially inflate the prices of LCD panels.
Though prosecutors had asked for 10-year prison sentences, the judge sentenced the two to 36 months in jail and ordered them to pay $200,000 in fines. AUO was fined $500 million over its alleged role in the scheme.
The two defendants had argued they should be freed while they appeal their convictions both because they are not flight risks and because they have raised legitimate questions challenging the March conviction. The AUO executives claim that the government overstepped its authority by applying U.S. antitrust law abroad.
But the U.S. Department of Justice opposed the request, saying that the appeal would likely go nowhere.
The claim that the government overreached its territorial authority by prosecuting the pair fails under U.S. law, prosecutors said in a court filing. The government pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that prosecutors can bring charges related to foreign conduct that was meant to substantially impact the U.S. market.
The defendants also did not properly raise their extraterritoriality-based objection at the trial court level, so they cannot raise it on appeal, the prosecutors said.
The government also reiterated earlier arguments that both men, who are Taiwanese nationals with homes in Taiwan, might attempt to flee the country. Chen is not a U.S. citizen and faces deportation after his prison sentence is finished, and Hsiung, though a naturalized U.S. citizen, has lived in Taiwan since 1996, the prosecutors said.
Taiwan has no extradition treaty with the U.S.
Judges William C. Canby, Richard R. Clifton and N. Randy Smith sat on the panel for the Ninth Circuit.
Hsiung is represented by Christopher T. Handman and Elizabeth B. Prelogar of Hogan Lovells. Chen is represented by Michael A. Attanasio and Jon F. Cieslak of Cooley LLP and Dennis P. Riordan, Donald M. Horgan and Ted S. Jones of Riordan & Horgan.
The cases are U.S. v. Hsiung, case number 12-10492, and U.S. v. Hsuan Chen, case number 12-10493, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit."
Janice, in re: your PM to me (I am not a subscriber and don't have outgoing PM) - Foldoink PM'ed me a nastygram yesterday (Monday) claiming he had an appeal on file (which he still doesn't - he has a motion for bail). I don't think his lawyer is being realistic with David about what is going on and his abysmal chances to stay free for more than a couple/few weeks at best.
How funny that he PMs us though!
Hey BIG, I call your bluff. Post a pic of your mythical NP-1 unicorn tonight showing the FCC label with the FCC ID number!!
Unlike this FAKE label seen on the "NP-1" that was at CES and has no FCC ID number and is not even a correct format label - it's a faked printer-printed copy on Office Depot-style labels:
The FCC has NO record of any grantee with "nanotech" in the name.
Don Member Level Thursday, 03/20/14 09:14:03 PM
Re: None
Post # of 173894
I have searched the FCC database and found no results when seeking to find a Grantee Code assigned to Nanotech. Neither has a filing been made for a Produce Code for the missing NP-1. Those two codes combine to form the FCC mark of the device. The following explains why this is significant for those attempting to sell Class B electronic devices in the US.
Quote:All electronics products sold in the United States are required by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to obtain an FCC mark showing that the product complies with the following standards:
- Emissions (the effect on other electronic devices of energy radiated from the product)
- Immunity (the product's response to other electronic devices)
There are two categories that your product can fall into: Class A or Class B. A Class A device is a product marketed for commercial or industrial use and is not intended to to be used in a home. A Class B device is a product marketed for residential or home use. Class B requirements tend to be stricter than Class A requirements.
"The FCC Rules and Regulations, Title 47, Part 15, Subpart B regulates "unintentional radio-frequency devices". Products regulated include any unintentional radiator (device or system) that generates and uses timing pulses at a rate in excess of 9000 pulses (cycles) per second and uses digital techniques. This includes almost every product that employs a microprocessor including workstations, personal computers, point-of-sale terminals, printers, modems, and many electronic games. It is illegal to sell or advertise for sale any products regulated under Part 15, Subpart B until their radiated and conducted emissions have been measured and found to be in compliance.
You are free to search for yourself...
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GranteeSearch.cfm
As an aside, my Iphone's FCC mark is found in the database and is registered to Apple Computer, even though the phone was made by Foxconn...
" No plea agreement nor the judges interpretation of it may violate the law nor the rights of the accused."
You are so totally wrong on that it shows you have no legal training. While a plea agreement can indeed be illegal, and voidable as an agreement, it is well-settled, black letter law that plea agreements can waive rights irrevocably and without recourse or appeal, including waiver of basic Constitutional rights and procedural rights. Including the right to challenge a court's calculation of points under the Sentencing Guidelines. Indeed, I recall a case that is directly or almost directly on point for that very issue. (cite later when I have time and inclination to look it up again)
I am still bizzy today, but tonight I will explicate this issue and MORE about David Foley's journey into prison after this brief intermission for some entertainment at the Ninth Circus for a few weeks, at MOST.
More in store L8ter.
~OUTT 4 now.
Hey BIG, if you have a mythical NP-1 unicorn post the FCC ID number and certification number!!!!
But you can't!
The briefing schedule is irrelevant (at least for now - for Thursday) see boldfaced (e):
9-1.2. Release Pending Appeal
(a) A motion for bail pending appeal or for revocation of bail pending appeal, made in this Court, shall be accompanied by the district court’s bail order, and, if the movant questions the factual basis of the order, a transcript of the proceedings had on the motion for bail made in the district court. If unable to obtain a transcript of the bail proceedings, the movant shall state in an affidavit the reason why the transcript has not been obtained. (Rev. 12/1/09)
(b) A movant for bail pending appeal shall also attach to the motion a certificate of the court reporter containing the name, address, and telephone number of the reporter who will prepare the transcript on appeal and the reporter's verification that the transcript has been ordered and that satisfactory arrangements have been made to pay for it, together with the estimated date of completion of the transcript. A motion for bail which does not comply with part (b) of this rule will be prima facie evidence that the appeal is taken for the purpose of delay within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b).
(c) Unless otherwise directed by the Court, the non-moving party shall file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to all motions for bail or revocation of bail pending appeal of a judgment of conviction within 10 days of service of the motion. (Rev. 1/1/2003; 12/1/09)
(d) Unless otherwise directed by the Court, the movant may file an optional reply within 7 days of service of the response. (Rev. 1/1/2003; 12/1/09)
(e) If the appellant is on bail at the time the motion is filed in this Court, that bail will remain in effect until the Court rules on the motion. (Rev. 1/1/01 - changed from (d) to (e))
Cross Reference:
Correct, Janice. Just to add a bit more color - Foley cannot add any new matter to the trial court decision on bail. He exhausted his bases for requesting bail in the motion that was filed in district court for the district court bail decision. He will NOT be allowed to argue any NEW bases for bail at the district court level on remand for reasoning. You don't get two kicks at the cat to add new matter at the district court level after you file your initial motion for bail pending appeal to the district court. Niko is totally wrong on that.
Now, he (Foley/Riordan) might try to make additional arguments later, at the Ninth Circus appellate court, but that will be separate for a remand to the district court for their reasoning. The district court rules only on the original motion that was filed. And it will remain denied, IMO, in view of the plea agreement, but this time with the reasoning enunciated.
I'm bizzy now, but I'll write more explanations tonight.
Take home message: he'll get temporary bail (stay of sentence) until the district judge issues reasons for the denial and the Ninth then takes up those reasons - all based on the district court original appeal motion filed by Foley. Any new bases for a motion to appeal can only be considered by the appellate court and must already be in the motion filed by Riordan last Friday.
Bottom line: Foley bought a few weeks at the cost of an appeal that will cost him well over $100,000. But then he gets to dump another 20,000,000 NTEK shares after April 12th, so maybe that was a good investment.
Foley has 20,000,000 more shares that can come off restriction after 12 April 2014. Maybe you forgot those.
"it could simply deny Foley's motion without waiting for a filing in opposition."
It COULD, but the Ninth Circus likely won't until there is an opposition brief and the full trial record transcripts are forwarded on the 26th. The Ninth is the most lenient in these matters of all Federal circuits and make sure they hear everything.
Here's my prediction. mark it down.
The DOJ files an opposition brief opposing bail. There is an oral hearing. The assigned Ninth Circus judge rules that the trial court did not enunciate the reasons for denying bail and grants temporary bail pending the district court issuing a new denial with reasons. It gets kicked to the District court judge who reissues a denial of bail on the basis that there is no legal issue presented which presents a legitimate dispute in view of the explicit prohibition in the plea agreement against appealing the sentence. This goes back to the Ninth Circus who, in view of that reasoning, upholds the denial of bail, the temp bail is revoked, and Foley goes into the JOYNT while the appeal proceeds.
Free time bought: couple/few weeks.
You're not fully grasping my point. The motion for bail is first - and that gets ruled on in a couple of weeks, max - maybe kicked to the District court to enunciate the reasons they denied bail pending appeal and then for the appellate court to rule based on those reasons. If he doesn't get bail, which I expect will be the case since his pleas agreement explicitly prohibits him from appealing the judge's calculation and imposition of sentence, then he goes in the JOYNT.
After that, the actual appeal on the merits would take place while Davey works on his prison tats. The appeal brief is not due until May 5th, the opposition brief Jone 6th, and then the appeal takes months after that depending on the docket, oral argument schedule, etc. But Foley will be sitting in prison while that goes on. And depending on what is in the appeal brief, the DOJ could refile the remaining charges even while the appeal is pending on the counts he plead to. The appeal issue is more complex, so just focus on the request for bail now on the basis that merely filing the appeal breaches the plea agreement on Foley's part.
Result is that he bought himself a couple/few weeks before going to the graybar hotel.
"They would have to make a decision before the 27th and in time to either stop the incarceration,,, or it stands and Incarceration takes place"<>/i>
That's not exactly right. The way it works in the Ninth Circus is that until the appellate court rules on the request for bail, he gets an automatic stay. So Foley filed a motion for bail pending appeal and until the US attorney files an opposition brief and the judge rules on that (usually a few days to a week, unless the judge allows a reply brief responding to the opposition brief).
So it's a little more complex. Foley bought himself probably two weeks or so, by filing just before the deadline and using the automatic stay provision.
A couple more weeks to dump his 45,000,000 shares coming off restriction.
Note: this was originally posted by an NTEK long and booster -
2bornot2b Member Level Tuesday, 02/11/14 02:18:56 PM
Re: None
Post # of 173484
FYI...there are literally thousands of Nuvola NP-1's out there already per IR. Please write or call for yourselves. Mine just happens to be coming later because I ordered later. Good Luck!
On Feb 6, 2014, at 8:53 AM, I wrote IR with the following.
"Hello Lorraine,
Could you please provide me with some specific and definitive information about the timeline when consumers will have their pre-ordered Nuvola NP-1 and/or when consumers will be able to buy them in stores where they are actually on store shelves? I'm not asking that you answer with non-publicly available information, but rather information which backs up and verifies information already in the public domain.
I've been hearing and seeing things via Facebook, Video Interviews, etc. which appear to be in contrast with the reality of the situation and would like more current and accurate information.
I've told friends and family that I've recommended investing in NTEK that I would look into it for them and report back.
Please advise!"
On Thursday, February 6, 2014 12:04 PM, Lorraine Cullivan <lorraine@nanotechent.com> wrote:
"Many customers have received them. Big box stores take a couple of months for training marketing and demonstration setup. I know that we have already started that process with two major retail outlets however we cannot announce them until they are ready to roll it out. Remember they have to coordinate hundreds of stores and thousands of people for a roll out so it doesn't happen overnight"
On Feb 6, 2014, at 9:14 AM, I wrote:
"Thanks Lorraine,
When you say that "Many customers have received them." are you referring to average consumers who purchased them online?
Is there any way to determine specifically when I should also be receiving my pre-ordered Nuvola NP-1 other than getting an email notice about their shipping soon?
Will keep the timeline for the retailers in mind."
On Thursday, February 6, 2014 12:28 PM, Lorraine Cullivan <lorraine@nanotechent.com> wrote:
"Thousands.
What is your order number.
Remember that ihub represents less than 50 customers"
"To Me
Today at 11:57 AM
Your NP-1 order is in the 10 series of orders which are being fulfilled in the third production run that is under way."
Verbatim from 2bornot2b's original post!
On Feb 6, 2014, at 9:14 AM, [ ] wrote:
"Thanks Lorraine,
When you say that "Many customers have received them." are you referring to average consumers who purchased them online?
Is there any way to determine specifically when I should also be receiving my pre-ordered Nuvola NP-1 other than getting an email notice about their shipping soon?
Will keep the timeline for the retailers in mind."
On Thursday, February 6, 2014 12:28 PM, Lorraine Cullivan <lorraine@nanotechent.com> wrote:
"Thousands.
What is your order number.
Remember that ihub represents less than 50 customers"
Check out how many "principal architect" software jobs are available, dude - just in Boston alone:
http://www.indeed.com/q-Principal-Architect-l-Boston,-MA-jobs.html
e.g.,
Principal .NET Architect - Boston - new
Magenic - Waltham, MA
.NET Architect and Tech Lead JOB ID:. Senior Consultant responsbile for architectue, design, and implementation of business solutions....
2 days ago - save job - email - more...
Principal Customer Solutions Architect - new
Aclara Technologies - Wellesley, MA 02481
Essential functions & responsibilities of the Principal Customer Solutions Architect include:. Act as a liaison between Engineering and Professional Services....
15 days ago - save job - email - more...
Principal Architect-Technology
Cognizant 1,187 reviews - Boston, MA
The Enterprise Architect will assess client’s IT infrastructure components, ensuring alignment to industry trends and client’s roadmap/blue print while leading...
26 days ago - save job - email - more...
Principal Cloud Success Technologist - new
Salesforce 53 reviews - Boston, MA
The Principal Cloud Success Architect is ultimately responsible for the technical success of a small portfolio of enterprise customers, becoming their trusted...
2 days ago - save job - email - more...
Principal BI Architect - Boston
Magenic - Waltham, MA
Experience architecting and implementing complex BI solutions. 7+ years SQL 2000/2005 Development experience including T-SQL, MDX, and Database Design....
30+ days ago - save job - email - more...
Principal in Charge - H - new
Lend Lease 20 reviews - Boston, MA
The Principal-In-Charge holds responsibility for all of sales and operations, as well as the financial health and strategic direction of the Office....
10 days ago - save job - email - more...
Business Intelligence Principal Architect-MA
Corporate Technologies, Inc. - Burlington, MA
Drive the end-to-end technical, functional and process architecture, establishing thought-leadership with the client and serving as program architect from small...
26 days ago - save job - email - more...
User Experience Lead / Information Architect... - new
User Experience Lead / Information Architect... Pr... - Boston, MA
Better yet, can you envision yourself as one of the principal people responsible for significantly accelerating that growth?....
Coroflot - 9 days ago - save job - email - more...
Principal Storage Architect
Nuance 44 reviews - Burlington, MA
part of the Shared Services Architecture team in the capacity of Storage Architect to help build an agile, elastic, cost effective and fully shared Nuance...
Sponsored by TheLadders.com - 27 days ago
Principal Infrastructure Architect (Strong Linux, VMware,Saa...
Advancement Alternatives - Billerica, MA
Stable ,growing SaaS Client seeks Lead architect responsible for Linux and advanced Virtualization to Lead a world-class private Cloud infrastructure group.This...
Sponsored by Dice - 18 days ago
ETC, ETC.
It is a MIDDLE MANAGEMENT title. And Will Law is only ONE of several at a subsidiary business unit. Not even CLOSE to being in Akamai senior management. Sheesh!!
Guess what - I don't have a McDonalds' "operations hierarchy table" (is that something like an org chart?) either, but I know that the local McDonalds' assistant manager is not a member of McDonalds Corporation senior management, just as Will Law is not part of Akamai's senior management team, but a middle-manager in one of Akamai's subsidiary business units - indeed he is a (one of several, not even THE) Principal Architect within the Media Engineering group at Akamai - how do I know that? Because that is what Akamai lists him as in the NAB meeting bio they listed for the middle manager:
http://nab14.mapyourshow.com/5_0/sessions/speaker.cfm?speakerid=1CAFCEC1&CFID=22240044&CFTOKEN=9dde9f3bad0284f-C5FB60EE-5056-9271-4E6B2FCD2180F63C
"Will Law is a Principal Architect within the Media Engineering group at Akamai."
(1) Not a V.P. or officer. (2) One of multiple "principal architects", (3) in the "Media Engineering" subsidiary business unit, (4) not listed as senior management in the Akamai 10-Ks either.
As I said, a MIDDLE MANAGER in a subsidiary business unit.
Just like if the local McDonalds assistant manager let NTEK put in a demo kiosk in the local McDonalds restaurant and was quoted as "McDonalds partners with NTEK".
That is exactly how NTEK's IR spins this crapola. They take a non-exclusive license to two codecs (like you take a license to Microsoft Office when you click the "accept terms" box) and they PR "partnering" with the licensor company (Ittiam). What crapola!
And you will find not a single peep about NTEK on neither Akamai's nor Ittiam's websites and no PRs from them referring to NTEK.
Because this is more boolsheet PR crapola cooked up by the ever-lying, proven false NTEK IR group. The same clowns that claimed that thousands of the mythical NP-1 unicorns were shipped to "thousands" of end users back in January!
But that is par for the course for this SCAM. Just like the fake Ultraflix "launch" with 75+ movies on Superbowl Sunday that never happened and STILL is not available online.
100 percent complete, unadulterated SCAM. No FCC certification, no product shipments received, no independent reviews or tests, no Ultraflix availabilty. The founder and brother of the ice sculptor CEO going to Federal prison for a two-year stretch for game counterfeiting and bank fraud in four days 27 March 2014.
Just hype, bogus PRs, promises unfulfilled, and pre-orders from last July still unfulfilled (and now, no more pre-orders even taken!!).
OH WHAT A SCAM!
Don't LIE about Will Law - here is his real title:
Will Law is a Principal Architect within the Media Engineering group
http://nab14.mapyourshow.com/5_0/sessions/speaker.cfm?speakerid=1CAFCEC1&CFID=22240044&CFTOKEN=9dde9f3bad0284f-C5FB60EE-5056-9271-4E6B2FCD2180F63C
As I said - MIDDLE MANAGEMENT in a subsidiary business unit!
NOT IN AKAMAI'S SENIOR MANAGEMENT!
Now that's directly from the NAB listing provided by Akamai.
CES was supposed to be "MAJOR" but it was a FLOP. The stock tanked after CES and continues it's overall downtrend since then.
The hundreds of thousands of people at CES were so impressed that none of them bothered to buy NTEK stock. Share price decayed as did trading volume after the CES show - unlike the tiny NAB, CES is the LARGEST electronics show in the world.
And Davey Foley and his NTEK phony demo flopped sweat.
I have searched the FCC database and found no results when seeking to find a Grantee Code assigned to Nanotech. Neither has a filing been made for a Produce Code for the missing NP-1. Those two codes combine to form the FCC mark of the device. The following explains why this is significant for those attempting to sell Class B electronic devices in the US.
Quote:All electronics products sold in the United States are required by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to obtain an FCC mark showing that the product complies with the following standards:
- Emissions (the effect on other electronic devices of energy radiated from the product)
- Immunity (the product's response to other electronic devices)
There are two categories that your product can fall into: Class A or Class B.
A Class A device is a product marketed for commercial or industrial use and is not intended to to be used in a home.
A Class B device is a product marketed for residential or home use.
Class B requirements tend to be stricter than Class A requirements.
"The FCC Rules and Regulations, Title 47, Part 15, Subpart B regulates "unintentional radio-frequency devices". Products regulated include any unintentional radiator (device or system) that generates and uses timing pulses at a rate in excess of 9000 pulses (cycles) per second and uses digital techniques. This includes almost every product that employs a microprocessor including workstations, personal computers, point-of-sale terminals, printers, modems, and many electronic games. It is illegal to sell or advertise for sale any products regulated under Part 15, Subpart B until their radiated and conducted emissions have been measured and found to be in compliance.
You are free to search for yourself...
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GranteeSearch.cfm
As an aside, my Iphone's FCC mark is found in the database and is registered to Apple Computer, even though the phone was made by Foxconn...
It is illegal to market, sell, or advertise any electronic product such as the mythical "NP-1" that does not have FCC certification.
Guess what - NTEK will no longer even take "pre-orders" - because they found out that would be illegal as they have nothing with an FCC certification.
Sung to the Eagle's tune "Hotel California"
"You can pre-order any time you like, but you can never receive."
Only now they won't even take pre-orders anymore!
Officers from the ITC, US Customs and Border Protection, and local police seize and impound counterfeit goods from China that infringe US patents, trademarks, and copyrights:
The slow boat from [?China?] to an unknown port at an indeterminate date and laden with the bulk cargo of mythical NP-1s has been spotted! You should ask IR, they are the ones who claimed it was on a ship back in DECEMBER and they claimed THOUSANDS of NP-1 were shipped to end-users in the USA in JANUARY. But nobody has got one yet!
Akamai's senior management team is disclosed in their 10-Ks. The dude you mentioned is not even an officer of the company!
He's middle-management in one subsidiary business unit.
Not even given a VP title.
The mythical NP-1s are all in the custody of the missing-in-action President, Secretary, Treasurer, and sole Director of Nanotech Media, Inc. and Nanotech Communications, Inc. - D SHOAF who IR still refuses to explain why this unknown person is the sole officer and director of these Nanotech entities. Maybe this MIA officer/director has the missing NP-1s that nobody has received and has zero independent reviews or tests.
Contrary to what IR has spewed for MONTHS now.
No deliveries - only hot air from this share-selling scam and insider enrichment scheme run by a convicted felon going to Federal prison in 4 days for game counterfeiting FRAUD and bank FRAUD.
Securities fraud charges coming next for the Foley gang.
LOL - NTEK IR - the same clowns who claimed thousands of NP-1s were shipped to end users on February 6th - yet none showed up over a month later.
The same IR with the "slow boat from China" with no port and no arrival date - and which they still can't tell you where or when it will dock.
The same NTEK IR that has no explanation for why D SHOAF is the President, Secretary, Treasurer, and sole Director of Nanotech Media, Inc. and Nanotech Communications, Inc.
The incredible NTEK IR department.
Still nothing filed with the SEC. Still IR boolsheet.
NTEK is a share distribution scam and insider enrichment scheme - just like SPN_ was - which is where some of the pumpers here originated from.
From one FRAUD to another. Gotta move those shares to get paid to pump.
Yeah, MIDDLE MANAGEMENT - that's what I said. Not a VP. Not on the senior management team. A mid-level guy in one subsidiary business unit.
Got it.
Give us a DD update, Pops - where are the thousands of NP-1s that IR said were shipped to end users in JANUARY?????
David Foley didn't say that, NTEK IR did!
Where did they all go???
I can't find that name (Will Law) in any of Akamai's senior management. No V.P. by that name.
You must be referencing a MIDDLE MANAGEMENT person who is not even on the senior management team.
No reference to NTEK or NP-1 on any Akamai website or PR either.
So some middle management guy is letting NTEK piggyback on their floor display booth. Wonder how much cash he's getting paid for that.
I've been reading all these reviews of the NP-1 and ... oh wait.
If you want to find out more about the type of scam dimwitted Randy Hoff is pulling, send a letter or postcard to:
Rufus Paul Harris # 61490-019
FCI Texarkana
FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
P.O. BOX 7000
TEXARKANA, TX 75505