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.
Case MWV103511 Defendant 2287373 NEWTON, GENE
Action: ARRAIGNMENT Date: 03/30/2010 Time: 8:30 AM
Division: R4 Hearing Status: DISPOSED
STEPHAN G SALESON
CLERK: A5422-ZULLY SKROPOS
-
APPEARANCES
DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY NOT PRESENT.
ATTORNEY ROBERT LITTLE PRESENT.
DEFENDANT NOT PRESENT.
-
PROCEEDINGS
NO ACTION TAKEN.
DEFENSE COUNSEL INFORMS THE COURT HE EXPECTED HIS CLIENT TO BE PRESENT. DEFENSE COUNSEL IS REQUESTING MATTER BE TAKEN OFF CALENDAR.
BENCH WARRANT TO REMAIN OUTSTANDING.
-
CUSTODY STATUS
CASE CUSTODY - FUGITIVE
============= MINUTE ORDER END ================
Looks like Gene's ARRAIGNMENT went well yesterday. Trial should be fun. It's good to see there's no longer a warrant out for his arrest. LMFAO
Case MWV103511 Defendant 2287373 NEWTON, GENE
Related Cases On Calendar
This Defendant Does Not Have Any Other Cases With Future Hearings Scheduled.
Actions On Case
Action Date Action Text Disposition Hearing Type Image
05/10/2010 8:30 AM DEPT. R20 PRE-TRIAL - Minutes ACTIVE TRC
04/20/2010 8:00 AM DEPT. R4 ARRAIGNMENT - Minutes DISPOSED ARRAIGNMENT
04/20/2010 BOND FCS10577177 EXONERATED.
03/30/2010 ATTY WALK IN
03/30/2010 8:30 AM DEPT. R4 ARRAIGNMENT - Minutes DISPOSED ARRAIGNMENT
03/30/2010 WARRANT RECALL REQUESTED.
03/30/2010 BOND FCS10577177 POSTED FOR 10000.00
07/05/2006 MISCELLANEOUS PAYMENT OF $1.00 RECEIVED.
03/21/2006 WARRANT ORDERED ON 03/21/2006 AT 16:00
03/21/2006 WARRANT SENT TO SHERIFF'S OFFICE
03/15/2006 4:00 PM DEPT. R4 EX PARTE HEARING RE: ARREST WARRANT - Minutes DISPOSED
03/13/2006 COMPLAINT FILED BY BPEAR
03/13/2006 JURISDICTION SET TO RS BY OTS310.
Case MWV103511 Defendant 2287373 NEWTON, GENE
Defendant 1 of 1
Action: EX PARTE HEARING RE: ARREST WARRANT - 03/15/2006 Miscellaneous Payment of $1.00 Received. - 07/05/2006 ARRAIGNMENT - 03/30/2010 ARRAIGNMENT - 04/20/2010
Case MWV103511 Defendant 2287373 NEWTON, GENE
Action: ARRAIGNMENT Date: 04/20/2010 Time: 8:00 AM
Division: R4 Hearing Status: DISPOSED
STEPHAN G SALESON
CLERK: A5422-ZULLY SKROPOS
DEFENDANT PRESENT.
-
PROCEEDINGS
ACTION CAME ON FOR ARRAIGNMENT
DEFENDANT IS ADVISED OF CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY RIGHTS.
DEFENDANT ARRAIGNED.
-
PLEA INFORMATION
DEFENDANT PLEADS NOT GUILTY TO ALL COUNTS.
-
ATTORNEY INFORMATION
DEFENDANT TO RETAIN OWN COUNSEL.
(CONFIRM COUNSEL AT NEXT HEARING)
-
HEARINGS
PRETRIAL SET FOR 05/10/2010 AT 8:30 IN DEPARTMENT %%X %%.
DEFENDANT ORDERED TO APPEAR ON HEARING DATE.
SET LAST DATE FOR TRIAL TO 06/04/2010.
-
CUSTODY STATUS
CURRENT BAIL BOND EXONERATED.
CASE CUSTODY - OR
DISTRICT ATTORNEY NOTIFIED.
============= MINUTE ORDER END ================
LUX
http://pubtitlet.co.pinellas.fl.us/justice/crosssystemnamelookup/GEVAInput.jsp
http://pubtitlet.co.pinellas.fl.us/servlet/justice.crosssystemnamelookup.GEVA
http://www.sunbiz.org/scripts/corofflis.exe?action=OFFFWD&action_dir=F&princ_comp_name=LUXJILL&names_cor_number=N09000003481&princ_type=R&cor_web_princ_seq=0000
SHORT STOPPERS, INC.
Principal Address
706 N. GLENWOOD AVE.
CLEARWATER FL 33755
Mailing Address
706 N. GLENWOOD AVE.
CLEARWATER FL 33755
Registered Agent Name & Address
LUX, JOHN E
706 N. GLENWOOD AVE.
CLEARWATER FL 33755 US
http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:UDrB1KOWawQJ:ccfcorp.dos.state.fl.us/scripts/cordet.exe%3Faction%3DP%26inq_came_from%3DOFFBWD%26inq_doc_number%3DV43327%26cor_web_names_seq_number%3D0001%26names_name_ind%3DP%26ret_names_cor_number%3DV35497%26ret_cor_web_names_seq_number%3D%26ret_names_name_ind%3D%26ret_names_filing_type%3D%26ret_cor_web_princ_seq%3D0001%26ret_princ_comp_name%3DPURVISMARY%26ret_princ_type%3DP+%22706+N.+GLENWOOD+AVE%22+clearwater&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
http://www.realtor.com/property-detail/706-N-Glenwood-Ave_Clearwater_FL_33755_f09b3904
http://www.yellowise.com/business/Clearwater-FL/Personal-Financial-Services/C-And-R-Property-And-Financial-Servi/106004251-ST12
http://www.yellowise.com/business/Clearwater-FL/Security-Cameras-Dealers/Azure-Securities-Corp/103397715-ST12
http://dnb.powerprofiles.com/profile/167661318/ADVANCED+ENERGY+RESEARCH+CORPORATION-CLEARWATER-FL
http://www.christianentrepreneurmagazine.com/site/services.php?st=FL&id_cidade=578&id_category=873103&iphone=
http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:aWa6ACGM0ZAJ:www.directory-of-professionals.com/florida-clearwater-real-estate-agents.html+%22706+n+glenwood+ave%22+clearwater+florida&cd=11&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
http://www.corporationwiki.com/Florida/Clearwater/colorvue-lenses-inc-3702319.aspx
http://www.corporationwiki.com/Florida/Clearwater/john-e-lux-P713800.aspx
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/02/prweb211943.htm
http://www.lookupbook.com/directory/unclassified/fl/clearwater/chimeric_enterprises,_llc
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2001/05/30/022002.html
http://www.articlesnatch.com/Article/Investing-In-Distressed-Debt/481366
http://www.allbusiness.com/energy-utilities/oil-gas-industry-oil-processing/6157263-1.html
http://www.bizwiz.com/cgi-bin/bizxsrch.pl?terms=ARwCYoV4fekVoARGxAqunbnhF2AR/efHcMWZYR.
http://reverse-merger.info/contact-reverse-merger.htm
Lot of posts for a .00000001 stock. Something must be brewing...LMFAO
How's it goin' GENO? All comes around don't it? LMFAO enjoy.....
You're right Kramrer. There won't be a lawsuit filed by RCCH. Newton already played his LITTLE game. He will not be bringing any attention to himself. I'd like to know if shares were being sold from a Barbados account....nah...I don't think he's that smart actually.
Nobody here seems to get it. Shares of RCCH were not legally registered to be sold to the public. The best course of action is to file a complaint with your STATE SECURITIES REGULATOR. Restitution is available for investors. Hopefully, all the money hasn't been spent...and the CEO's wife hasn't run off with all YOUR your cash...ooops!
ONLY 60 DAYS AWAY!!!
And what if your business is already incorporated outside Quebec and you want to start doing business in Quebec? You need to file a Declaration of Registration (within 60 days of beginning operations in Quebec). The regular fee for registering a profit-making company in Quebec is $212.00; for a priority fee of $333.92 your application will be expedited.
Note that you will also have to file an Annual Declaration to keep your business registration current. The first required annual declaration is free.
After that, if your corporation files during the specified deposit period for the corporate form of business, the regular fee is $79.00. (If you file outside of this specified deposit period, the fee increases.) Once your corporation is up and running, the Registraire des entreprises will send your business a preprinted Annual Declaration form, making it easier for you to keep track.
So now your business is registered in Quebec. What’s next? You don’t have to worry about registering for the NEQ (Quebec Enterprise Number), because this 10 digit number is automatically assigned when you register your business.
However, most businesses will also have to register with Revenu Quebec (the MRQ), as they will have to deal with GST, QST, make source deductions, and/or file corporate income tax. See Grappling with the GST for more information on who qualifies as a small supplier and GST registration; see the Provincial Sales Tax library for more information on QST. You may also want to visit my Starting a Business FAQ for information on topics such as whether or not you should incorporate your business and why you need a business bank account.
http://sbinfocanada.about.com/od/bizregistration/a/regquebec_2.htm
https://ssl.req.gouv.qc.ca/slc0110_eng.html
Your company's securities offering may qualify for one of several exemptions from the registration requirements. The most common exemptions are listed below. You must remember, however, that all securities transactions, even exempt transactions, are subject to the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. This means that you and your company will be responsible for false or misleading statements, whether oral or written. The government enforces the federal securities laws through criminal, civil and administrative proceedings. Some enforcement proceedings are brought through private law suits. Also, if all conditions of the exemptions are not met, purchasers may be able to obtain refunds of their purchase price. In addition, offerings that are exempt from provisions of the federal securities laws may still be subject to the notice and filing obligations of various state laws. Make sure you check with the appropriate state securities administrator before proceeding with your offering.
Regulation D
Regulation D establishes the following exemptions from Securities Act registration:
Rule 504. Rule 504 provides an exemption for the offer and sale of up to $1,000,000 of securities in a 12-month period. Your company may use this exemption so long as it is not a blank check company and is not subject to Exchange Act reporting requirements. Like the other Regulation D exemptions, in general you may not use public solicitation or advertising to market the securities and purchasers receive "restricted" securities, meaning that they may not sell the securities without registration or an applicable exemption. However, you can use this exemption for a public offering of your securities and investors will receive freely tradable securities under the following circumstances:
You register the offering exclusively in one or more states that require a publicly filed registration statement and delivery of a substantive disclosure document to investors;
You register and sell in a state that requires registration and disclosure delivery and also sell in a state without those requirements, so long as you deliver the disclosure documents mandated by the state in which you registered to all purchasers; or,
You sell exclusively according to state law exemptions that permit general solicitation and advertising, so long as you sell only to "accredited investors," a term we describe in more detail below in connection with Rule 505 and Rule 506 offerings.
Even if you make a private sale where there are no specific disclosure delivery requirements, you should take care to provide sufficient information to investors to avoid violating the antifraud provisions of the securities laws. This means that any information you provide to investors must be free from false or misleading statements. Similarly, you should not exclude any information if the omission makes what you do provide investors false or misleading.
Was this offering made exclusively in the states noted in the filing, and did those investors receive a substantial disclosure document? RCCH's filing states that the offering will be made to ONLY accredited investors. That's 200k a year salary - $1,000,000 net worth...Just pointing out the obvious facts.
RCCH's Registration Filing
http://edgar.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/vprr/08/9999999997-08-039420
Alot of smaller cases out there...
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/business/story.html?id=b2ea68b7-1a13-4cf5-a24f-3e6ca0833d2e
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20061009/SUB/610090719
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:kOGbcywVMLoJ:www.asc.state.al.us/News/2009%2520News/1-12-08Johnson%2520and%2520wife%2520pled%2520guilty.pdf+SECURITIES+REGULATION+D+FRAUD+INDICTMENT&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiH-yOWqOZZ91dzKIVB6V-RVvYVy77nbSx18zxbbG2C_TAL_dOmIW1ch_k-Gpv8D4on1gkSDTfcutlkIkZ4fu9RtUS0JIaouKwZAwHh4W1BHqAjyZtgIQzg1MimF9qBHggZXY9r&sig=AHIEtbRkuQjlJqg8x9OTmJJ7CULpXcNaQA
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache%3Ah5T7nQJS_ssJ%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.cyberdriveillinois.com%2Fdepartments%2Fsecurities%2Fadministrative_actions%2F2009%2Ffebruary%2Fheartland_anoh.pdf+SECURITIES+REGULATION+D+FRAUD+INDICTMENT&hl=en&gl=us&sig=AHIEtbQXlS7dcyd6lzcmcBLVquxsGus-YQ&pli=1
The "Other" Securities Regulators
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") is not the only regulator keeping tabs on securities. Almost every state (and territory) has an agency or division dedicated to enforcing that state's securities laws, commonly referred to as "blue sky laws." That colorful term is attributed to a United States Supreme Court decision which explained that state securities laws were designed to protect investors from "speculative schemes which have no more basis than so many feet of blue sky." This article discusses the effects of state securities laws and regulations in the context of a nonpublic offering and the most common exemptions from state securities registration requirements.
http://localtechwire.com/business/local_tech_wire/opinion/story/3597705/
http://www.seclaw.com/stcomm.htm
http://www.nasaa.org/QuickLinks/ContactYourRegulator.cfm
Thank you for your submission to the Division of Enforcement at the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in Washington, D.C. We appreciate your taking the time to contact us. This automated response confirms that you have successfully submitted information to the Division of Enforcement. You can rest assured that an attorney in the Office of Internet Enforcement will review your information promptly.
In both of these REGDEX filings Newton states that he will NOT be selling securities to non-accredited investors. In the first he claims to only be selling to one accredited investor in Texas. ($30,000) Legally he could have sold up to $1 million to accredited investors IN states that he registered to sell them in PROVIDING RCCH was in compliance with state antifraud provisions.
In the most recent he lists a number of states that he will be selling securities in...to ACCREDITED INVESTORS. He doesn't check the ALL STATES box and again claims he will NOT be selling to non-accredited investors IN THOSE STATES. I don't live in any of those states.
In my opinion, shares were sold that were not legally registered and should NOT have been sold to non-accredited investors. I believe those shares must have had a "legal opinion" attached to them in order for the TA/brokerage house to lift the restricted legend.
In my opinion, this constitutes fraud on the part of this company and its' legal representation...unless somebody can point out where RCCH registered shares to be sold to the public...legally.
$100k in legal/accounting fees to file a Regdex?
$650k in finders fees!
If Newton sold shares to the public under Regulation 504 d...I'm not a lawyer but In my opinion... he's committed fraud.
How and when did RCCH register shares to be sold to the public?
NOT HERE
To: Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, D.C. 20549
January 17, 2006
Dear SEC,
RCC Holdings Corporation officially requests the withdrawl of our Form 10-12B/A that was filed on November 5, 2003. The file number is 001-31850
http://www.sec.gov/answers/rule504.htm
http://www.dora.state.co.us/Securities/privoff.htm
http://www.sec.gov/about/laws/sa33.pdf
http://sec.gov/info/smallbus/qasbsec.htm#eod4
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr;sid=20c66c74f60c4bb8392bcf9ad6fccea3;rgn=div5;view=text;node=17%3A2.0.1.1.12;idno=17;cc=ecfr#17:2.0.1.1.12.0.43.176
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/aprqtr/pdf/17cfr230.262.pdf
Can anybody explain to me how more than $40,000 worth of this stock has been legally sold by the issuer? thanks
$100,000 in legal and accounting fees for the filing of the REGDEX in '08? Realy, Geno...
REGDEX 9/11/08
http://edgar.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/vprr/08/9999999997-08-039420
REGDEX 12/10/07
http://edgar.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/vprr/07/9999999997-07-051304
How many would you like me to post that he has lost...are still in court, he hasn't paid, he bounced the check...LMFAO It wouldn't make a bit of difference...would it. They've already been posted. This is fun isn't it!
you forgot the rest... You have the right to an attorney. If you can't afford an attorney you can just make one up and claim he's working on your behalf so you can keep naive shareholders on your hook.
The 8k was withdrawn and deemed immaterial. eom
Any idea why Gene and Lucinda Newton have no less than 12 unlawful detainer suits against them? Meaning they've paid NO rent since the courts started keeping records in 1992? Why did Gene have a felony charge brought against him? I guess none of that matters...that was up to 18 years ago...
That might be the first thing I've seen you post in 3 years that I agree with. But as you pointed out...that has nothing to do with the current, fraudulent debacle. Any idea why Newton isn't listed as an officer in IWS International Water Solutions Inc. A bit strange as people here believe that IWS is a sole subsidiary of RCCH.
Are you denying the history of your septic tank that's gonna change the planet?
What does IWS Water Solutions Inc. Florida, have to do with RCCH's International Water Solutions Corp. virtual office Canada, PO box California? Claude doesn't seem to think that Gene Newton has anything to do with his shell game anymore. RCCH is the proud owner of a website development company that can't seem to develop websites! LMFAO
http://digitaldevelopmentsolutions.com/
October 2, 2006. IWS was forced to obtain EPA approval after the then owner Ray Shackleford was brought up on fraud charges. His partner Don Cape took over and successfully installed the systems still being touted here. The system was then sold to Larry Wilcox (known shyster at UCHUB) and Claude Smith. Claude then found himself a new shyster.
Man Indicted in Idaho Wastewater Treatment Plant Case
Release date: 04/27/2005
Contact Information:
Contact: Stacie Findon-Keller, 202-564-7338 / keller.stacie@epa.gov
(04/27/05) Raymond K. Shakleford of Bozeman, Mont., the Idaho representative for Quality Water Systems Inc., also of Bozeman, was indicted on April 13 in U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho on multiple counts of mail fraud in connection with false representations that he allegedly made to the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality in support of applying for permits to construct wastewater treatment systems. Quality Water Systems designs, sells and operates Sequencing Batch Reactor, (SBR), wastewater treatment systems. These systems are specifically designed for communities that cannot be hooked up to public sewers. One of these SBR systems was built on Eagle Island which is located in the middle of the Boise River. Shakleford allegedly used falsified data from this system to request applications for 12 additional systems to be built in Idaho. Some areas of Idaho have a concern regarding nitrate concentration in their groundwater and building wastewater treatment systems based on false data could lead to increased nitrate concentrations in groundwater. The case was investigated by the Boise Office of EPA's Criminal Investigation Division and the FBI. The case is being prosecuted by the U.S. attorney's office in Boise.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/198a007cc57e64d3852570210055f3f6/373e86e5ff1e16168525702e0067f2ab!OpenDocument
http://www.epa.gov/etv/pubs/600r06130s.pdf
I would say, contacting Webb would be a good start. He might be interested in some of Gene's backround. He may offer some advice on how to proceed with a serious complaint that would garner attention. As frog stated... I also don't believe that there will be any monetary gain from persuing a complaint...but I wouldn't mind making Newton's miserable life...a lot more miserable.
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
International Reinsurance Company, Ltd. was founded on February 8, 2000 as a
company providing reinsurance policies to licensed insurance companies, primarily in
international markets. Through its offices in the Eastern Caribbean, the Company provides
unique reinsurance solutions to clients throughout the world. Its business includes the
providing of reinsurance and retrocession to writers of property and casualty, accident and
health, and annuity business. International Reinsurance Company was incorporated in the
Island of Nevis on September 13, 2002.
http://www.otcmarkets.com/otciq/ajax/showFinancialReportById.pdf?id=7688
http://www.otcmarkets.com/pink/quote/quote.jsp?symbol=WSMI
http://www.sbcounty.gov/courts/index.asp
Most recent State filings:
http://www.sos.state.co.us/biz/ViewImage.do?masterFileId=20091020081&fileId=20101140192
http://www.sunbiz.org/pdf/70816363.pdf
Mr. Newton may soon be facing some pointed, and not so easily avoided, questions from U.S. regulators. Stockwatch has learned that some disgruntled investors and interested market observers have filed complaints about RCC with the SEC.
"I hope someone is taking a close look at RCC Holdings Corp trading Pink OTC as RCCH," one such complaint addressed to the SEC enforcement division and the Miami SEC office reads. "If not, I think they should.
"Among other things such as touting revenues, contracts and the usual fluff which cannot be verified, they spent approx 9 months touting an 'uplisting' to an 'international stock exchange' and to a lesser extent their new board of directors. This began in May of 2008."
The complaint, a copy of which was given to Stockwatch, goes on to provide excerpts from nine RCC news releases dating back to May 15, 2008, as well as links to some of those news releases.
Given all of RCC's promotional puffery and the lack of even basic current information about the company, the pink sheet outfit is likely a very good candidate for an SEC suspension.
Meanwhile, RCC's daily trading volume, which touched a lofty all-time high of more than 793.2 million shares on Jan. 7 and flirted with 241 million shares on Feb. 5 following the company's backpedalling news release, has dropped off in recent sessions.
With a more modest 62.4 million shares changing hands, RCC closed at one-100th of a penny on Feb. ll.
Comments regarding this article may be sent to lwebb@stockwatch.com
http://www.stockwatch.com/swnet/newsit/newsit_newsit.aspx?bid=Z-U:RCCH-1574156&symbol=RCCH&news_region=U
The only actions you will see from Gene Newton...will be his continuing...disjointed - nonsensical - deliberate attempts to distance himself from his (previous)..disjointed - nonsensical, deliberate, attempts to rip people off....
Not-so surprisingly it's all backfired in his face.
Not-so surprisingly...people continue to buy into it...
the optive word is projected. eom
Just another blatant attempt to mislead would be investors. There is no connection to RCCH, and to state otherwise is fraud in the eyes of the law.
About RCC Western Stores:
RCC Western Stores was founded in 1948 as Rapid City Clothiers. Customers soon began to abbreviate the name to "RCC".
From one store we have grown to become one of the oldest, largest and most respected retailers in the western industry with 29 stores in 12 States (North Dakota, South Dakota, Colorado, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois, Tennessee, North Carolina, Georgia and Florida.) Our stores are located in high volume, high traffic malls and stand alone destination stores in market areas with a solid western apparel, boot and hat business base. Our Corporate Office is located in Rapid City, SD.
We are experts in style and fit. We attribute our success to keeping the product lines focused. Our stores reflect high quality, fashion forward western apparel and boots at fair prices. Customers and employees are our most important assets. They are the key driving forces in our longevity in western retailing.
It's been stated here...many times, that due to all the attention this stock is getting, there must be quite a bit of nefarious activity. And that this stock would not garner such attention unless there were evil intentions afoot. And of course.. eventually these evil forces would be quashed by this reputable company and drive the stock price through the roof.
I will mention that there will always be shareholder of a subzero stock that claim this to be the case. But I will also ask...
Does the converse hold true?
No illicit activity...the price drops?
How silly of me...the stock is worthless...
LMFAO
Maybe this is what you're looking for:
49 million O/S
Latest PRs
February 7, 2008 - 4:44 PM EST
RCC Holdings President Announces Company Updates to Board of Directors
RCC/IWS is involved in Over Sixty Million Dollars worth of Waste Water Systems Projects’ and Contracts in the State of Montana. These are projects and contracts where RCC/IWS has received the initial monetary deposits for work to be completed. Additional contracts and revenue is expected to be generated in the State of Montana in the very short term.
There are seven (7) other States that are currently in the final stages of completion. The shareholders will be updated as the various States are completed and will include revenue figures.
RCC/IWS is also pleased to announce that on the International front that they are currently working on the completion of projects for four (4) different countries. This is the start of overseas projects which again should be announced in the short term.
The current RCC website will be updated. The IWS website is under construction and should be available in the near future.
The RCC Board of Directors is committed to keeping the shareholders updated to all events, domestic and International, as they occur.
There is GREAT NEWS!!!
no bid and the stock is worthless...
does that answer your questions?
Is this IWS's #?
2362 Andrews Valley Dr
Kissimmee, FL 34758-1709
(407) 962-0431
Read more: http://www.411.info/people/Florida/Kissimmee/Smith-D/38056943.html#ixzz0hv4UwvpZ
Eco-House Development International, Inc.
2362 Andrews Valley Dr
Kissimmee, FL 34758 Map
(407) 319-0944
http://www.yellowpages.com/info-28926076/Eco-House-Development-International-Inc
http://www.sunbiz.org/scripts/cordet.exe?action=DETFIL&inq_doc_number=P08000099439&inq_came_from=NAMFWD&cor_web_names_seq_number=0000&names_name_ind=N&names_cor_number=&names_name_seq=&names_name_ind=&names_comp_name=ECOHOUSEDEVELOPMENTINTERNATION&names_filing_type=
Is this the number for our office in Florida? thanks
Nutrition
Juice Plus
Donna Landy - Smith
2362 Andrews Valley Dr.
Kissimmee FL 34758
Phone: 800-766-4589
Fax: 407-962-0431
Email: donnalsmith1985@yahoo.com
http://www.sunbiz.org/pdf/62745222.pdf
Is this the office?
http://www.realtor.com/property-detail/2362-Andrews-Valley-Dr_Kissimmee_FL_34758_72e2d106?source=hp
7-116-107. Annual report to secretary of state.
Part 5 of article 90 of this title, providing for annual reports from reporting entities, applies to domestic corporations and applies to foreign corporations that are authorized to transact business or conduct activities in this state.
Source: L. 93: Entire article added, p. 847, § 1, effective July 1, 1994. L. 96: (1)(c) amended, p. 1328, § 49, effective June 1. L. 2000: Entire section R&RE, p. 981, § 73, effective July 1. L. 2003: Entire section amended, p. 2331, § 276, effective July 1, 2004. L. 2004: Entire section amended, p. 1508, § 287, effective July 1.
ANNOTATION
Am. Jur.2d. See 18A Am. Jur.2d, Corporations, § 284; 36 Am. Jur.2d, Foreign Corporations, § 222.
C.J.S. See 19 C.J.S., Corporations, § 583; 20 C.J.S., Corporations, § 1819.
Law reviews. For article, "The New Colorado Corporation Act", see 35 Dicta 317 (1958). For article, "The 1985 Proposed Revisions to the Colorado Corporation Code", see 14 Colo. Law. 34 (1985). For article, "1985 Amendments to the Colorado Corporation Code", see 14 Colo. Law. 2173 (1985).
Annotator's note. Since § 7-116-107 is similar to § 7-116-107 as it existed prior its 2000 repeal and reenactment and former § 7-116-107 is similar to § 7-10-101 as it existed prior to the 1993 recodification of the "Colorado Business Corporation Act", articles 101 to 117 of title 7, relevant cases construing those provisions have been included in the annotations to this section.
This section is mandatory. Colo. Fuel Co. v. Lenhart, 6 Colo. App. 511, 41 P. 834 (1895).
Thus a corporation whether it did any business during the year or not, must make the annual report required by this section. Bradford v. Gulley, 10 Colo. App. 146, 50 P. 314 (1897).
Report failing to give company's condition is insufficient. The annual report of a corporation which fails to give the financial and other conditions of the company at the date of filing the report, as required by subsection (1), is wholly insufficient. Bergren v. Valentine Hdwe. Co, 88 Colo. 52, 291 P. 1038 (1930).
Which invalidates the report. The failure to state in the report the amount of the indebtedness of the corporation at the date of the report and whether or not it was engaged in the active operation of its business within the state invalidates the report. Int'l. State Bank v. McGlashan, 71 Colo. 72, 204 P. 480 (1922).
And makes it a mere nullity. The annual report of a corporation making no reference to the condition of its properties or finances as required by this section is a mere nullity. Moody v. Rhodes Ranch Egg Co., 61 Colo. 368, 157 P. 1167 (1916); Bergren v. Valentine Hdwe. Co., 88 Colo. 52, 291 P. 1038 (1930).
7-116-105. Financial statements.
Upon the written request of any shareholder, a corporation shall mail to such shareholder its most recent annual financial statements, if any, and its most recently published financial statements, if any, showing in reasonable detail its assets and liabilities and results of its operations.
Source: L. 93: Entire article added, p. 847, § 1, effective July 1, 1994.
ANNOTATION
Analysis
I. General Consideration.
II. Shareholders' Right to Inspect Corporate Records.
III. Penalties.
I. GENERAL CONSIDERATION.
Am. Jur.2d. See 18A Am. Jur.2d, Corporations, §§ 278-284.
C.J.S. See 18 C.J.S., Corporations, § 110; 19 C.J.S., Corporations, § 988.
Law reviews. For note, "The Right to Inspect Corporate Books", see 4 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 64 (1931).
Annotator's note. Since § 7-116-105 is similar to § 7-5-117 as it existed prior to the 1993 recodification of the "Colorado Business Corporation Act", articles 101 to 117 of title 7, cases construing that provision and its predecessors have been included in the annotations to this section.
Legislature intended to require officers and directors to act responsibly. This statute elucidates the intent of the general assembly that officers and directors of corporations be required to act responsibly toward shareholders. Beebe v. Star-Stop, Inc., 32 Colo. App. 345, 513 P.2d 743 (1973), aff'd in part, rev'd in part sub nom. Beebe v. Pierce, 185 Colo. 34, 521 P.2d 1263 (1974).
Shareholder should not be burdened by corporation's failure to produce records. Although it is true that the burden of proving the value of stock is upon the shareholder [now shareholder or holder of voting trust certificates therefor], it is not reasonable that the general assembly intended that a shareholder [now shareholder or holder of voting trust certificates therefor] suing under this statute to compel production of records should be further burdened by the corporation's failure to produce the records. Beebe v. Star-Stop, Inc., 32 Colo. App. 345, 513 P.2d 743 (1973), aff'd in part, rev'd in part sub nom. Beebe v. Pierce, 185 Colo. 34, 521 P.2d 1263 (1974).
II. SHAREHOLDERS' RIGHT TO INSPECT CORPORATE RECORDS.
This section gives stockholders a statutory right to inspect corporate records. Rulon v. Silverman, 79 Colo. 525, 246 P. 788 (1926); D.F. Blackmer Furn. & Carpet Co. v. Blackmer, 92 Colo. 419, 21 P.2d 181 (1933); Bell v. Arnold, 175 Colo. 277, 487 P.2d 545 (1971).
Which right was afford by prior statutes. This section was adopted in the year 1929, and for many years prior thereto, there were statutory provisions authorizing the examination of corporate books and records by stockholders. Weck v. District Court, 158 Colo. 521, 408 P.2d 987 (1965).
This section is complete in itself, and a party seeking to inspect corporate books was not obliged to conform to, or to seek relief, under any other statute. Rulon v. Silverman, 79 Colo. 525, 246 P. 788 (1926).
And it should be liberally construed in favor of stockholders, and their rights should be zealously guarded. Dines v. Harris, 88 Colo. 22, 291 P. 1024 (1930).
But inspection is limited to "complete books and records". In 1958 significant changes were made in this section. Prior thereto it provided for examination by stockholders of "all the books, accounts and papers" of a corporation. The amendment of 1958, however, restricted the right of inspection to "complete books and records of account". Weck v. District Court, 158 Colo. 521, 408 P.2d 987 (1965).
And a court may refuse inspection of corporate books when the person is not acting in good faith. Dines v. Harris, 88 Colo. 22, 291 P. 1024 (1930).
For the indiscriminate examination by stockholders of corporate records is not favored. Weck v. District Court, 158 Colo. 521, 408 P.2d 987 (1965).
Burden of proving bad faith. Mere allegations of improper motives or bad faith on the part of one seeking to inspect the corporate books are not enough, and the burden of proof is on those who desire to deny inspection. Dines v. Harris, 88 Colo. 22, 291 P. 1024 (1930).
Shareholders lists are a part of corporate books and records. Bell v. Arnold, 175 Colo. 277, 487 P.2d 545 (1971).
And federal securities laws do not preempt access to shareholders lists. The federal securities laws and proxy rules, which provide that management must mail the proxy materials of an opposing security holder or provide a shareholders list when making a solicitation, do not preempt the field of access to shareholders lists, and this section is properly available to shareholders to allow their inspection and copying of the shareholders list of equity; they are not required to elect one of the procedures. Wood, Walker & Co. v. Evans, 300 F. Supp. 171 (D. Colo. 1969), aff'd, 461 F.2d 852 (10th Cir. 1972).
But this section does not nullify statute protecting privileged communications. The fact that this section provides that a corporation shall keep complete books and records of account, shall keep minutes of the proceedings of its shareholders and board of directors, shall keep a record of its shareholders, and the further fact that a qualified shareholder shall have the right to examine its books and records of account, minutes and record of shareholders, and make extracts therefrom does not operate to nullify the provisions of § 13-90-107, the witness statute, which protects privileged communications. Rather a waiver of the protection of the witness statute can only be brought about by those duly constituted officers who are charged with the responsibilities of managing the affairs of the corporate entity. Weck v. District Court, 158 Colo. 521, 408 P.2d 987 (1965).
Officer, not corporation, is necessary party in mandamus for inspection. In order to enforce the right of inspection by mandamus, it is not necessary to make the corporation a party respondent, but merely its officer upon whom the statutory duty is devolved. Merrill v. Suffa, 42 Colo. 195, 93 P. 1099 (1908).
III. PENALTIES.
The main purpose of this section is to emphasize that the right to the list of shareholders is clear and unequivocal. Wood, Walker & Co. v. Evans, 461 F.2d 852 (10th Cir. 1972).
However, as an aid in the enforcement of this section a penalty is authorized, but this is a secondary and not a primary aspect and purpose. Wood, Walker & Co. v. Evans, 461 F.2d 852 (10th Cir. 1972).
Officers denying shareholder access to records properly held liable with corporation. Under this statute enumerating those liable for refusing to allow a shareholder [now shareholder or holder of voting trust certificates therefor] to examine corporate records, and upon evidence showing that corporate officers acted independently, as well as jointly, in denying access to the records, officers who concurred in the denial of the statutory rights of the shareholder [now shareholder or holder of voting trust certificates therefor] could properly be held liable as well as the corporation even though written demand for the examination had been made only upon the corporation. Beebe v. Star-Stop, Inc., 32 Colo. App. 345, 513 P.2d 743 (1973), aff'd in part, rev'd in part sub nom. Beebe v. Pierce, 185 Colo. 34, 521 P.2d 1263 (1974).
"Shall" means only that liability, not amount, is mandatory. Although this section declares that the corporation and/or its officers "shall" be liable for the penalty, the courts which have directly considered the issue have held that use of the word "shall" in this context does not mean that the amount is mandatory, but rather means that the corporation and its officers are thereby mandatorily subjected to liability. Wood, Walker & Co. v. Evans, 461 F.2d 852 (10th Cir. 1972).
Thus court does not have to automatically award full penalty. Upon making a finding of the existence of the basic conditions required for corporate liability under this section, the court does not have to proceed automatically and mechanically to award the full penalty, for the courts have always been guarded about imposing liability based on failure to comply with a duty imposed by a statute such as this section where the amount of the damage is fixed on a somewhat liquidated measure without regard to injury suffered and, consequently, to construe this section so that the full amount of the prescribed penalty is to be granted on a kind of push button basis would be irrational and inequitable. Wood, Walker & Co. v. Evans, 461 F.2d 852 (10th Cir. 1972).
A court is at liberty to withhold the award of the penalty if in view of all the circumstances the award of such damages would not serve the ends of justice. Wood, Walker & Co. v. Evans, 461 F.2d 852 (10th Cir. 1972).
Applicability of section to foreign corporations. Since nothing in the language of this section indicates an intent by the general assembly to limit its effect to domestic corporations, this section also applies to foreign corporations as provided by § 7-9-104. Jefferson Indus. Bank v. First Golden Bancorp., 762 P.2d 768 (Colo. App. 1988).
Maybe somebody on the NOVA LIST is interested in their rights as a shareholder under Colorado Law.
==================================================================
Colorado Revised Statutes
7-116-102. Inspection of corporate records by shareholder.
(1) A shareholder is entitled to inspect and copy, during regular business hours at the corporation's principal office, any of the records of the corporation described in section 7-116-101 (5) if the shareholder gives the corporation written demand at least five business days before the date on which the shareholder wishes to inspect and copy such records.
(2) In addition to the rights set forth in subsection (1) of this section, a shareholder is entitled to inspect and copy, during regular business hours at a reasonable location stated by the corporation, any of the following records of the corporation if the shareholder meets the requirements of subsection (3) of this section and gives the corporation written demand at least five business days before the date on which the shareholder wishes to inspect and copy such records:
(a) Excerpts from minutes of any meeting of the board of directors or from records of any action taken by the board of directors without a meeting, minutes of any meeting of the shareholders or records of any action taken by the shareholders without a meeting, excerpts of records of any action of a committee of the board of directors while acting in place of the board of directors on behalf of the corporation, and waivers of notices of any meeting of the shareholders or the board of directors or any committee of the board of directors;
(b) Accounting records of the corporation; and
(c) The record of shareholders described in section 7-116-101 (3).
(3) A shareholder may inspect and copy the records described in subsection (2) of this section only if:
(a) The shareholder has been a shareholder for at least three months immediately preceding the demand to inspect or copy or is a shareholder of at least five percent of all of the outstanding shares of any class of shares of the corporation as of the date the demand is made;
(b) The demand is made in good faith and for a proper purpose;
(c) The shareholder describes with reasonable particularity the purpose and the records the shareholder desires to inspect; and
(d) The records are directly connected with the described purpose.
(4) For purposes of this section:
(a) "Proper purpose" means a purpose reasonably related to the demanding shareholder's interest as a shareholder; and
(b) "Shareholder" includes a beneficial owner whose shares are held in a voting trust and any other beneficial owner who establishes beneficial ownership.
(5) The right of inspection granted by this section may not be abolished or limited by the articles of incorporation or bylaws.
(6) This section does not affect:
(a) The right of a shareholder to inspect records under section 7-107-201;
(b) The right of a shareholder to inspect records to the same extent as any other litigant if the shareholder is in litigation with the corporation; or
(c) The power of a court, independent of articles 101 to 117 of this title, to compel the production of corporate records for examination.
Source: L. 93: Entire article added, p. 844, § 1, effective July 1, 1994. L. 2003: IP(2) amended, p. 2331, § 274, effective July 1, 2004.
http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp=
===============================================================
7-116-107. Annual report to secretary of state.
http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp=
How come an RCC Holdings company would deny involvement in maintaining the RCC/IWS site? LMFAO
took a while, but...two flaps ahead of ya Great Eagle..
YOU'RE DONE!!!!!!!!!!! LMFAO -you know what that means? LMFAO
how bout backpeddling on info posted on websites? LMFAO
DDS Corp. is not responsible for any of the following websites, they are not maintained by the company, thus DDS Corp. does not hold any responsibility for the stature of any of the following developed websites.
http://digitaldevelopmentsolutions.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3&Itemid=8
Amazing how RCC Holdings and Digital now share the same PO box and now there is a claim of no responsibility for the RCC/IWS site. Does this dope think I can't see through his crap?
this page can serve only one purpose...
You might be sued by United Artists as you infringed on their registered trademark (Pink Panther).
FWIW
Jerry Cinq Mars works/ed as a Lakeside rep. in the Southeast. He was brought into RCC as an advisor, and can be seen presenting for IWS at the Washington EPA fair.