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.
The real reason I am here is because I have shares, my friends have shares, and I'm sick of 4 people constantly making excuses and attacking anyone who does not agree with those 4 people.
Here's your dated proof. July of 2005. Just as the volume picked up.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=7119615
and not too many people want to read the same old excuses certain people keep writing.
Mr. Megas had planned to bring the company current with its SEC filings to reverse merge his real estate holdings into the company, and had in fact contracted an accountant to start work on the filings.
Even you knew about the real estate...
http://www.deepcapture.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=51
From Tom's own fingers Mastaflash..
As to the possibility of a reversal I am not sure whether in the current climate it is possible. I explained to (xxxx Treespeople) that last November I had decided to bring all the filings and other matters up to date as I was looking to reverse in my own business here in Europe into it (my operation now has about 50,000,000 euros in hard assets, mainly property in city centre) and for that purpose I sent $25,000 to steven feldman an accountant to commence the work to bring the filings up to date. This was at the beginning of the year. Everything was going well until feldman informed me of this problem in may.
Will forward detailed stuff asap, I still unfortunately still have to work for a living.
Thomas Megas
You prove it. What am I, your gopher?
Go re-read some of the old emails Tom sent to Art about his $60 Million real estate....
[ Megas never stated anything about his net worth, that I know of.. ]
Way to twist that one. On several occasions, Megas said he was placing his $60 Million worth of real estate in Spain into the shell. Stated over the phone and in a couple of emails.
[ that he hasn't, yet, could be interpreted harmless ways, such as it wasn't worth it, or it's a delayed action, or it's still an option]
LMAO! It would not be worth getting the 240 million shares back that Tommy coughed up for pennies on the dollar based upon the last trade before the halt. Delayed action? Uhhh..did you read the settlement Tom made? Do you think Tom can go back years later and say "whoops..I was mislead into settling with Capital Growth...I want my shares back?". Again, Megas stated on a couple of occasions that "he received bad legal advice" and was going to legally see if he could get those shares back...which was just another line of BS to begin with.
[ Stewart is not Megas ]
Again, nice twist. You asked me about lies Tom has stated. Tom in the past stated his buddy Stewart was a straight shooter and good friend who had never done any wrong. Only, Stew was running a bogus bank scam, mysteriously was hanging with con artist like Lido, and now is involved with a group who defrauded a fund of close to $20 Million. Was it a momentary brain fart by Tom?
He lied point blank to a licensed attorney and BCIT shareholder from PA on two occasions [ and what were the two occasional lies? Lay it out.]
Tom stated he was rolling his real estate into the shell, he was not settling with Capital Growth at all, he would keep the shell back in compliance at all costs.....
We are talking to a major law firm come recommended to us by NASAA..... we are talking contingency. duh?
Duh..all the major law firms take cases on contingency including the one I mentioned. NASAA? Not exactly the rocket scientists you want
[ We are not his shareholders. ]
We're not? Who owns and controls the operations of the shell? Who is listed as CEO? Because if it's not Tom, then fug this crap of following Tom. BCIT is his shell, Tom does control the operations and business decisions, and we are shareholders of TOM's company.
[ Sorry, it's his company, his play, not ours. Our beef is with our certless feckless brokers, not Megas. ]
Oh..I get it now. It's Tom's company, just we are not his shareholders. By the way, I'm a valid shareholder until Tom legally proves TD Ameritrade does not have a valid master cert to guarantee my shares. Until then, it is heresay.
[My Senator was quite able to grasp the problem, just receiving a letter from me and the well organized web site as well as statements from Megas which in no way conflict with the overall situation. Apparently you think we shareholders have no grievance with our crooked market sufficient to contact our congresspeople? ]
I think I would rather hear it from the horses mouth than a bunch of parrots. I think a company willing to make public statements in writing goes a long way versus a CEO who gets very quiet when tough questions are asked.
[ repeat, Stewart is not Megas. Nor is Stewart likely to think the shareholder's cause is a problem for anybody
but the shareholders. Megas shows a lot more conscience toward us. Forget Stewart. That's not a welcome avenue for us
to enlist, imho]
I repeat. Stew is a major shareholder and a U.S. citizen. Let's see Stew step to the plate. After all, he's going to make a ton of money on a cover. And some of us know how much Stew loves working with Gov't Agencies. (That's my sarcasm)
Welcome Avenue? I bet Stew knows a good FBI agent who loves to investigate financial fraud.
And what was the honorable DTCC's answer?
It's a civil legal issue between the defrauded company and the brokerages that are claiming to have shares in hand.
I'd not expect a blackmailer to admit his attempts to blackmail.
My original post was about Stu's being asked by my attornies why the company was claiming they were advised by the DTCC to sue their shareholders. Are you insinuating Stu at any time was involved with the issues Megas has with the DTCC?
To my knowledge, Megas has never lied.
Umm, $60 Million assets, going to seek a legal remedy to overturn the shares he gave to Capital Growth based upon the bad advise he received, Stewart has never been in trouble, fully reporting (LMAO). He lied point blank to a licensed attorney and BCIT shareholder from PA on two occasions.
Megas said that, behind closed doors, the DTCC refused to open its books on trades, told Megas to get that information himself via subpoenas issued to all shareholders. When the information came in, it was stopped by threats from brokerages' lawyers at about 36% reporting. And Megas had enough information to draw conclusions about extent of nss in BCIT, and he still had enough money left to walk, because the big guns of the brokerages who steal millons in nss shares sold, could afford to cause Megas serious financial drainage from a protracted number of lawsuits. Megas has spent a lot more money of his own, fighting this, than any of us has spent
acquiring stock Megas did not sell us.
Arakit..if the brokerages really are in deep and Tom 100% knows that he nor Stewart caused those extra sales, Tom can walk into any huge law firm with his proof and never have to pay a penny to sue all these fools. Not a penny. The actual proof would make law firms like Berger and Montague salivate over a case like this. The big boys get sued every day. Big Tobacco got whacked. Dow Corning got whacked. If the proof is there....the big law firms will take this.
Megas is now expected to spend more on legal efforts? I don't think so.
Yes, like it or not, he has a legal responsibility to his shareholders. That's part of selling stock publicly. If Tom wants to cut his losses, move aside and appoint someone who can and will move this legally.
But I don['t think
insults to his integrity and past efforts are going to
help, here.
True. However, it is also insulting to sit back and see Tom selectively pass around information. The same Tom who has made several mistakes with this over the last 4 years.
Please submit your correspondence
with your state AG's, stage security officers, State Senators.
I have no interest in passing on heresay to my Senator. I would rather have Tom make a public statement as to what happened and I will forward Tom's words to my Senator's office.
Megs has no leverage with our government, being a Brit, that is why is is useful for us to contact our state officials and reps and fedeeral reps and keep pushing.
Stewart does. Where's Stew's complaint? Have Megas call his good buddy Stew and post a copy of Stew's letter(s) here on IHUB.
No. My proof was I threated to sue the DTCC and Stu Goldstein responded to my attornies.
Megas grew stupid when he was emailed with my threat to sue him if the lawsuit proceeded.
One was willing to answer...one was not.
My proof is in my attorney called and threated to sue.
Stu Goldstein of the DTCC stated the insinuation was rediculous.
Megas attornies made no comment.
There's your proof.
Where's your proof Megas was told to sue his shareholders???
That's not true Ditch...
Last I checked this was a stock discussion board and opinions were allowed
A couple of more posters are exercising their opinions and frustrations and are repeatedly called stupid, ignorant, etc.
There is none. The DTCC never told Megas to sue all his shareholders. Simply sue those who entered the fraudulent shares, obtain a judgment stating so.
The law firm Megas hired refuses to state the DTCC told them to sue all the shareholders.
But then again...think about who keeps posting that stupid statement.
That's cool. I look forward to Stewart lodging his complaint with the New York AG's office.
Maybe he can even scan a copy and let someone post it here?
About as happy as I was with Bill Kinkead?
We had Berger Montague looking at this mess.
2Late,
If it cost you money to pay it then you better have the cash to cover the cost. Now lets get one more thing straight. When I say an investor to fund the holding company I mean us. I will cover my shares on the first round up to .005 and anyone else I can for their percent profit for that round. Everyone pools together or find a relative and we cover each other out
It can be done at zero costs to the shareholder and the Transfer Agent fees can be picked up by the dividend company..leaving a net costs of zero dollars to Megas and the shareholders.
Apparently, quite a bit 2Late. No one else is allowed to offer suggestions. Worse, I received a post card in the mail but I'm supposedly not a shareholder according to one poster.
What is so difficult to grasp here
I, for one, love your post. Worse than repeated legal actions based upon previous case law would be repeated mistakes by the same law firm.
0 for 2 is not really inspiring.
That's funny Yoda...
One person's OPINION on a message board does not make anything a FACT
You should try remembering that since you seem to act like your posts are factual.
To get back to my original suggestion, have you read any of Attaway's past efforts and the results he received?
More importantly, why not, at the same time Attaway is proceeding, create a situation where BCIT gives value and creates another legal problem for anyone who oversold BCIT shares?
See Yoda..and I'm sure you will come up with another opinion statement...in case the 203 does not come thru due to counterfeit share issues, you will have given the shell actual value in case this ends up in a civil lawsuit?
kodiak.
that someone were the MM's selling millions of shares they didn't have in the name of keeping an orderly market
Ah no, the sellers would be other brokerages. The trades were unsolicited matched trades while the worst volume was taking place.
Capital Growth would see a buy-order on screen and fill that order from Pino's inventory.
When Megas digs deeper thru discovery, you will see the unsolicited matching of trades.
Yeah...it's a pretty crappy excuse. You have to remember there are two groups inside a brokerage. A small number running the brokerage's daily actions and a bunch of back-door newbies who answer phones.
Just because they use the excuse....does not mean they do not know where those sales came from. That's why you hammer them with a lawsuit, use discovery.
Yoda...
My guess is there is no poster here that can match education or experience with either attaway or megas
Have you even bothered to read any of Attaway's previous efforts?
Gee, would not all of that take focus off of our current efforts
Why can't both situations be implemented at the same time?
of course there are records Masta. You have to pick one broker and sue the piss out of them based upon fraud.
You pick TDAmeritrade.
You sue them based upon the number of shares they sold to TDA clients. You ask them how so many shares were sold.
TDA has records of every trade. My buy order was filled from someone...somewhere selling BCIT shares. A matched transaction.
Do you think TDA is going to get stuck with a huge short position because some turkey broker just kept selling and selling and selling shares?
By your statement, I could destroy major brokerages and run them out of business. Brokerages keep track of that info to protect their azzes. You have to sue them to obtain that information.
...are created in this ex-clearing market
ex-clearing is a contract where a selling broker-dealer has a contract in writing guaranteeing delivery from the seller.
That's how Jeffries was exposed for dumping 111 Billion shares of CMKX for John Edwards and another 2.4 billion shares of PCBM for Vince LoCastro. There is always an electronic log of shares.
Too many people do not understand how ex-clearing contracts are set up.
yes, except when the merger is never properly registered for share transfer.
Gotta hate that little fudge fact.
More like, Art LLC shares are spun off from BCIT shares. ART LLC is a privately held corp that brokers oil allocations for Saudi Light and REBCO contracts.
No one would want to owe shares on that little festivus miracle.
Do you understand what self-clearing is?
I would love to have a conversation on this board about self-clearing versus sitting back and hoping the DTCC will start clearing for their members...which they will not since the dumped clearing issues back onto the brokers and broker-dealers back in late 2005.
Dividends can also be of a private corp registration.
Being short a trading dividend turns into another civil proceding.
Being short dividend shares of a private company (non-trading but soon to be trading) is a criminal offense.
Cough.
Legal...where have I seen that suggestion before when it comes to fixing BCIT trading?
plumpers with bowl hair-cuts and high water pants only.
even better,
Just like with CMKX, about 300 posts from this board were printed and mailed to the SEC's office.
You think Andy Hill will ever pump another stinky pinky? Especially since they know about his others now?
No idea.
Rumor is it has ties to Las Vegas and Ohio. So the number of people appearing in front of the grand jury could be quite large.
LMAO...
Hakala was the one who introduced me to Tom. Tom was the one who helped start the investigation into Global Diamond.
Houser's not getting crap. All of Keith's pump posts including dozens of Treffrey's are at Tom's office.
BMCS is the next stinky pinky to be forked.
Could be worse, you could have your posts deleted. Complain to IHUBDan next time....
No ditch,
or remove them as they were part of a DTCC extortion attempt
They were supposedly to cover the shares Tom and Stewart were receiving to offset their expenses with the funds they loaned to BCIT
On January 6, 2006, we issued 7,500,000 shares of our Series A Preferred to Mr. Megas as settlement of our $223,247 indebtedness owed to Mr. Megas that was incurred from 2000 through 2005. On that date, we also issued 7,500,000 shares of our Series A Preferred to Stewart Sytner in reimbursement of $232,272 of costs and expenses incurred by Mr. Sytner on our behalf from 2000 through 2005.
The holders of shares of the Series A Preferred Stock have the right, at their option, to convert the Series A Preferred into shares of our common stock at a ratio of 1 share of Series A Preferred for 100 shares of common stock[/I]
See, when you are fighting brokerages and the DTCC, the last thing you do is let your share registration lapse into default with the Nevada SOS office.
https://esos.state.nv.us/SOSServices/AnonymousAccess/CorpSearch/CorpDetails.aspx?lx8nvq=qOsJlTJVMStlCK2sa1Q2HQ%253d%253d
You also start filing those missing financials, which should be simple due to no operations, no more share issuances. You update your 15c-211 filing since Legacy is a joke to begin with.
You cut out any excuses those you are fighting with can use against you.
2late
I totally agree with the view of others that you have an agenda with posts
Correct. My agenda is to get three or four of you to understand a couple of mistakes you all keep making. No one will care if you are 95% correct. It's the 5% you keep messing up that people will remember you for.
Sadly, anyone who argues with you is labeled "shorty", a "basher", or someone with an agenda.
Law firms that argue cases before the Supreme Court don't take cases they believe they can't win.
I did not realize every case was tried in front of the Supreme Court. How about those crazy law firms that try drunk driving cases? Divorce cases? Plus, the slime law firms who will take a case just to run up some legal fees?
My post was about filing a lawsuit so that you have the ability to subpoena ledger logs and get Isaac to explain under oath why he made such a request.
You come back with some post about court cases before the Supreme Court?
The SEC finalized their investigation with a total of 230 million fraudulent shares.
The SEC's investigation was only focused on Mario's shares, the connection of those shares to Pam, and how Mario's shares entered the market. The SEC did not and had not looked into the entire number of shares the brokerages are claiming to hold for their clients. The SEC investigates individuals first...and if connected..the brokerages/broker-dealer that was used to facilitate the individual's fraud.
The DTCC doesn't have the authority to rule against the SEC or over their findings to justify lowering their own costs to correct their error.
Here's a perfect example of why I post.
Brokerage "A" just realizes they are fugged with a huge short position. Brokerage "A", by law, is supposed to enforce the Customer Protection Rule. Instead, Brokerage "A" decides to give everyone the middle finger. No buy-in, no nothing.
Brokerages often wait to be sued because no judge will ever issue a judgment that exceeds what a buy-in would of cost. EVER.
Stinky pinky, insider already tied to another fraud (Stewart), no operations, a history of bumbling, etc. For Brokerage "A", it's worth taking the chance in court.
Sadly 2Late, no one here wants to hear this. This is how legal and compliance at brokerages work.
There's nothing to argue about here unless you continue to expect everyone here to believe that the DTCC has total authority over federal securities laws and their enforcer the SEC who concluded their case
Where did I say the DTCC has authority over securities law? The DTCC wiped their hands clean and shafted the brokers in 2005. This is between the company and the brokerages who sold BCIT shares without following 15c3-3.
ditch,
2 late took my post about suing and somehow came back with a reference to trying cases in front of the Supreme Court. His comment had nothing to do with my post.
The DTCC in your view is untouchable while they have the stock locked from clearing. You absolve them of any responsibility or control
Correct. It's the brokerages who control the ledgers who are 100% responsible. It's the brokerages who misrepresent the number of shares they claim to have available for the stock borrow program. The DTCC, as it is set up, has created a legal loophole to hide in.
Like or not, this loophole will remain until Congress fixes the Stock Borrow Program's procedures. As set up, the current procedures are protected from challenge under federal law.
Section 17A of the Exchange Act also makes the Stock Borrowing Program untouchable and gives the DTCC protection from broker fraud.
You also assume we want to sue brokers, when all we want is our shares, the things we bought years ago, under commercial law we own them.
Sweet. When is Megas going to properly register his additional shares and also properly file for the share exchange? I'm sure the T/A is helping everyone properly obtain their shares.
Please illuminate us and use small words as we are all simpletons in your mind
Just some of you Ditch.
op,
I posted long ago but for some reason cannot reclaim my old account.
Next step? File against Isaac and see if his actions were his own, or was Isaac acting at the request of his employer?
multi,
By the way folks, this isn't about counterfeit shares (obviously) its about the FTD's by the brokers
Of course it is. Either my shares credited to my account are real or they are bogus.
and the "Global Lock" by the DTC.
You mean the N.A.S.D.'s freeze and suspension for members to follow 15c3-3? Try calling the General Counsel of the N.A.S.D. sometime.
Also, Insurance companies do not write scam proof policies.
Do you even understand the insurance and bonding policies all brokers and broker-dealers must carry? These policies cover securities companies from losses resulting from trading fraud including settlement payments.
[i[I have a feeling they won't be paying on ANY brokers claims here lol.
They have no choice.
The DTC will do as told by the brokers.
The DTCC already stuck the brokers back in 2005 when the DTCC discontinued services for all members concerning BCIT stock. The brokerages are 100% responsible for their positions.
Really 2Late?
There is no more fraudulently issued shares in the market place
So..based upon this statement, are the other shares in shareholders hands properly issued shares? Your "NSS" would also be improperly issued...since Megas did not issue those shares.
Technically, there are more fraudulently issued shares.
Everything else that has nothing to back it is based on brokers selling shares that don't exist or NSSing this stock to death
Get over your fantasy shorty theory. Not even Patty Byrne stuck to his shorty claims once Patrick learned the brokerages were merely matching buys and sells based upon what clients claimed to have available.
Counterfeit shares are not treated as NSS. Brokerages do not buy-in counterfeit shares. They leave that as a civil issue between the defrauded company and the group that handled the fraud.
Even Megas realized this ala Capital Growth Financial.
You're saying the brokerages just fill incoming buy orders regardless of shares available.
I'm saying the brokerages were matching buy orders with some clown selling under the guise he could later produce shares to back his sales. I think there are more dumpers than Mario out there. I'm saying Megas might be looking at another situation like what Capital Growth pulled. That's why you sue the brokerages and demand to know where they received their inventory.
That's foolish 2 late..
The only problem with saying "never" is that it allows a "fully disclosed crime" to be hidden by the criminals who did it
Ughh..that's why you file suit. You make full public disclosures. "Hidden" crimes remain unseen in the public eye if ALLOWED to remain hidden by those who were defrauded. Notice Patrick Byrne's tactics, although Whacky Patty is not exactly honest himself.
We have the largest NSS position in history that no projected cost to cover can accurately be placed
Funny how every pinky now has the largest NSS position in history. You have no legal NSS until the Transfer Agent makes a formal declaration of failure to deliver. Until the formal notice, you have heresay in the eyes of the court system.
Now the only legal way to base a S/P value in a forced cover is to pay whatever price I want to remove my shares
That's not even close to how it works with securities. Damages are based upon actual loss plus additional punative damages.
203 is for actual short positions not legally covered. 203 does not cover shares sold into the market via third party fraud...Pino, Pam, and I'm still waiting for Stewie to publicly state he did not dump offshore.
They are not facing any jail time. This is a civil case between and defrauded company and multiple brokerages who failed to enforce the Customer Protection Rule.
Fraud..was a result of third party fraud, which is why the brokerages are so cocky in the first place.
It's easy to say never. That's legally why brokerages never comply with rules already in place.
Masta,
How do you come up with refund? Sue, settle, pool the proceeds to give a cash dividend.
Letting it trade? Do you even understand why brokerages do not comply if facing huge payouts? They wait to be sued because judgments will actually cost far less than covering in the open market.
There will never be a market cover in this stock. Never.
By sitting back and waiting to be sued, the brokerages will reduce their financial liabilities on this stock. Plus, judgments allow brokerages to dip into their insurance and bonding versus having to use their own cash proceeds to pay out.
No, like individual settlements with each brokerage, pooled into a cash dividend.
And a former poster on this board has great connections at
http://www.bergermontague.com/
Then again, this law firm Megas is with might have learned their lesson after really screwing up their last efforts.