Ratcatching
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 idcn shell needs to be dusted off now and put to good use"
How you suppose this miracle is to be achieved?
Will take money. Can't see custody Ken plowing personal monies into this. Reverse split probably only option although the best asset at Ken's disposal is the non-dilution agreement....
JMO
I don't think they got a choice frankie. I think they already reached for the best thing available to them with the water project. This is a very dirty shell. Dirt tends to attract more dirt.
JMO
I agree with that space but question is are IDCN shareholders truly without JRB?
KA has not made an opening statement about future intentions or anything really. The prepared mind, certainly the prepared mind of an IDCN investor, is entitled to think JRB still lurking in the shadows somewhere.
JMODYODD
Who said anything about a shareholder PR? A simple post on this forum would have sufficed.
This is EVEN MORE EVIDENCE. Why?
Because for reasons which are part historic, part the personalities on this message board like it or not this place became a PUBLIC BREEDING GROUND TO TRASH JRB & KA.
But it JUST SO HAPPENS that while the BIG PUBLIC TRASHING OF JRB is set in motion and Court stamped no post on this site to say it is happening. I mean why?
FURTHER EXAMPLE OF OPPOSITES GAME.
I-HUB IDCN MESSAGE BOARD: PLACE TO TRASH JRB (AND KA)
I-HUB IDCN MESSAGE BOARD: PLACE WHERE IDEAS ABOUT LITIGATING ARE DISCUSSED, OPINIONS GIVEN PUBLICLY
LOCATION OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF INTENDED, THEN PENDING LITIGATION? YOU'D THINK I-HUB IDCN MESSAGE BOARD BUT NO!!
Who knows who ultimately paid the attorney costs?
Why wasn't the litigation announced on I-Hub as it was being contemplated?
Why wasn't the litigation announced on I-Hub as it was being filed?
Why wasn't JRB's failure to respond announced on I-Hub as it occurred?
Answer?
SECRECY
Reason for SECRECY?
To deprive suspicious shareholders from knowledge that could open a can of worms and make it even worse for JRB and KA. Ever heard of INTERPLEADER? Go read about it.
IF SO NOBLE THIS SHAREHOLDER WITH HIS LITIGATION, WHY THE SECRECY?
THINK ABOUT IT PEOPLE.
You're right. Changing states clandestinely so you can print shares indefinitely is no bad thing especially when you sign an agreement with the IRO stating you won't do that then the IRO holds it up to encourage investors. Yep, no biggie.
Removing JRB a couple of years ago I would have agreed with your "candle" but he wanted to go when he was removed so it's neither here nor there. The main event is the illegal dilution. Can that be reversed? Will Ken speak to us about that?
ALL STAGED. BUNCH OF ACTORS. DESIGNED TO INSULATE JRB AND KA FROM EACH OTHER AND DISCOURAGE AUTHORITIES FROM INVESTIGATING A CONSPIRACY. IS IT SO RIDICULOUS SPACE?
JRB KNOWS THE HEAT IS ON.
KA KNOWS THE HEAT IS ON.
EACH HAS BEEN BURNED BEFORE.
SISTER ROBIN JUST WENT DOWN.
WHY NOT STAGE AN EXIT STRATEGY SO YOU DON'T JOIN YOUR SISTER DOING BIRD?
JRB DELIBERATELY SLIPPED UP ALLOWING LITIGATION HENCE HIS COURT DEFAULT SAVING TIME & COSTS BECAUSE IT'S WHAT HE WANTED. IT'S WHAT HE WANTED BECAUSE HE AGREED IT WITH THE FUTURE CUSTODIAN DUE TO PRESSURE THE FUTURE CUSTODIAN WAS EXERTING.
JMODYODD
Thanks cbm. Point is when the non-dilution agreement was infringed 18 months ago, Ken waited and waited and did nothing. He did not know JRB was going to break WY company law a year and a half later....or did he?
YOU DECIDE.
There were numerous events space. There isn't exactly a rabble of posters on this message telling me my opinion is crazy. Only person doing that is you. I've referred previously to the various events, matters and circumstances as to why I believe it to be true - the main one being the non-dilution agreement failure to act. You yourself seem to have flip-flopped with your opinion on it. Your own post answering me a few weeks ago proof:-
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=73329167
New thing for ya. You say KA did enough by wrestling the shell off of JRB and infer maybe his honor is satisfied bygones be bygones and all that. What about the honor of shareholders though who've suffered, been ripped off and utterly misled? But here's the big point. The point I've been saving til now simply waiting for you to make your move first and now you have. READ THIS. AND WEEP!
CONSIDER. IF JRB HADN'T HAVE SLIPPED UP WITH HIS UNLAWFUL BOARD MEETING AND SHARE DISTRIBUTION WHAT WOULD THE LITIGATING INVESTOR HAVE HAD TO GO ON TO GET JRB REMOVED FROM THE BOARD AND HAND THE SHELL OVER TO CUSTODIAN KEN?
ANSWER: ZIP, ZILCH, RIEN, NADA, NUTTIN.
INFERENCE TO BE DRAWN: WHERE LUCK IS PRESENT, THE "OPPOSITES" GAME IS BEING PLAYED AND WHEN THE "OPPOSITES" GAME IS BEING PLAYED EVENTS ARE ORCHESTRATED AND CONSPIRATORS CONSPIRE.
FURTHER PROOF THE GAME IS BEING PLAYED? GIVE YOU A CLUE. IT'S DO WITH WATER.
THIS MY FRIENDS IS A SHARE SHELL SCAM. NO GOODNESS EVER GOES INTO THE COMPANY. IT'S ALL ABOUT THE PUMP FOLLOWED BY THE DUMP!!!!
I only pretended to misunderstand space1230. You misunderstood my false misunderstanding. Regarding the description you give of the correlation I made, you have hardly demonstrated it was haphazard. Consequently, the opinion I rendered which is logical, utilizes facts and deductive reasoning stands; your criticism in its current form is feeble and merely an irrelevant "bare assertion".
JMODYODD
How did you find out? I told no-one.
Sounds to me like they all in this together cbm. Quadpartite deal involving Teri Ken JRB and Alponce. JRB still involved. Believe it.
"weak comparison though (from original post)"
Too hard on yourself space1230.
"i appreciate the dialogue"
Welcome.
So that PR of a couple of weeks ago in actual fact ought to have read IDCN pursue pursuers who will hastily undo legal impossibility and ratify currently illegal unenforceable contract for R/M.
JMODYODD
If the answer Teri gave is nonsensical, that IMHO renders the contract she agreed and signed void. It is trite law if the situation which underlies the subject matter of a contract makes no sense and is otherwise to be considered a "legal impossibility" the contract is void and unenforceable.
JMODYODD
Weird that she would provide a nonsensical answer. Doesn't bode well IMHO. See if you can procure answers to the queries I pose in my previous post. Thanks.
"Ok petergriffin...here's your "line of chat"..."
I detect some anger perhaps stroppiness on your part. There really is no justification for this. I made a perfectly legitimate query on the board and the evidence for that is in the very answer you received.
Did we at all know the shell had been "split off from operations"?
Erm, no.
Isn't such a split off worthy of a PR or at least website blurb which is free?
Erm, yes.
Did we receive that information?
Erm, no.
Could we have done with knowing that information?
Erm, yes.
Is that one of the factors as to why I was perplexed about the proposed R/M?
Erm, yes.
So it seems my lack of inside info or telepathy or clairvoyance caused my queries in the first place. TOLD YOU IT WAS ONE OF THOSE TELEPATHIC REVERSE MERGERS!!
Now we've dealt with that, let's get down to the real important stuff.
Shell split from operations?
Operations you say?
Alrighteeeee.
How can such a split occur without convening a board meeting, reaching a board resolution and at least posting those rather important board minutes wouldn't you say? I mean it's not everyday a public company says let's hive off the goodness of the business (lol) to somewhere other than the public shell but hey here's a new concept let's not even follow procedure by calling a board meeting and just strip away the business from the shell, let's not even inform shareholders and then when we do get around to informing shareholders let a third party buyer do it who has no stated connection with the company just to make sure all shareholders are left wondering about everything. Yep, it's another JRB class act!
Talking of the business, where is it? Teri was somewhat tautologous in her reply. She said there are 3 entities. 3 separate entities. One of them are the operations but then she says the operations are an attribute of the shell albeit an unimportant attribute. Matter of opinion maybe. Matter of opinion best conducted by shareholders perhaps but how can something be separate if it is attached?
HOW DO YOU LIKE THAT LINE OF CHAT?
Couldn't have put it better myself. You are poetry in motion Cassandra. However, notwithstanding the poetry, let's play along with janet awhile and try discover more chat up lines....
If I possessed survey results, I would have used a different word than "believe". This forum all about "opinions" space. Didn't you know that?
JMO (no need for survey results)
I do too Roberto. I think we may see volume increase significantly over the next few weeks.
JMO
Thanks! I believe you are in the minority space1230.
JMO
PICKING UP ON THIS NEW LINE OF CHAT: IDCN TO FORM GENUINE BUSINESS SOON!!
"aka, he controls the web site"
IMO he always will.
IDCN's struggle for operations as Teri puts it is simply another form of deception with JRB still calling the shots behind the scenes IMO. He might be removed from the Board but there will be some shadowy agreement lurking somewhere allowing him to run things. Who would want IDCN? I mean really? Tainted shell. Best stay with a tainted individual. IDCN just a vehicle for pumping share price; thanks to excellent DD by certain posters (yourself one of them) that objective no longer possible unless of course there's a salesman out there who can sell matches to arsonists and ice-cubes to eskimos.
JMODYODD
The tone and wording of Teri's email tends IMO to support the notion I enunciated in this post right here:-
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=73593158
JMODYODD
"So now what is holding up the big move?"
A business?
A custodian in charge of a business who speaks to investors?
A product?
Making and selling a product someone wants to buy?
Take your pick frankie.
IDCN knows all about ointment! Let's not be too hard on Teri just yet. LOL!
"Teri resignation letter"
What would you like her to resign from? She's not part of IDCN. Would you like her to resign her position from her own private company? If so, why? That's a bit harsh, isn't it?
Lines of chat, eh? Reminds me of Upstate's "Dream Team" reference. More like psychotic (LOL) nightmare with those 2. Maybe I should reach out to Janet once more about the water deal.....
Surely what happens to Indocan is the sole decision of a certain Kenneth Ash? As custodian, he is the one and not anyone else who should be issuing IDCN PRs.
I think it is time Ken issued a PR or at least a website blurb outlining his intentions.
JMODYODD
"Stud" quote. Utterly meaningless.
Welcome to WFSV ascientificmethod! Do you think it is trading too high, too low or about right? I'll give you a clue. It's the first one.
At least Teri Mathis seems to have invented a brand new concept in business in addition to her Big Pitcher. It's called:-
THE CLAIRVOYANT REVERSE MERGER!!!
TCRM for short?
On and on, on and on....
"I find it Ludacris to think Ken would ever do any business with JRB let alone reinstate him in any capacity."
If such an obvious and silly concept, Ken won't mind confirming it in writing on this message board for the avoidance of any doubt and so as to put the shareholders' minds at ease. He is in a unique position to do that. Let's see him do it! Sooner the better. Surely?
"They hate each other."
Do they? I remain skeptical.
"I not sure that Terri will not attempt some legal action"
What legal action would she initiate? What would entitle her to initiate it?
Presumably all of her negotiations with IDCN were "SUBJECT TO CONTRACT" so what possible claim could she have?
She inferred as much herself in her own PR when she said IDCN "pursue" R/M with her company. Let us set aside the more accurate phrase she should have used in the circumstances which I indicated at the time, namely that IDCN actually need to pursue the pursuers who will pursue the R/M for they had no Directors at the time in order to pursue, but let's set that aside, if the deal was already done Teri would not have said "pursued". There is no need to pursue a deal which is already done. That would not need pursuing. In other words, Teri would have employed other words!
Bottom line. Last time I checked it is trite law one can not sue for FAILED NEGOTIATIONS. There would need to be a contract. As far as I can see, there was none.
JMODYODD
You are correct insofar as it is IMO but IMO MO has the advantage of being true as well as making logical sense. I shan't call her because the whole point is she ought to be making this information publicly available. I am asking for the name of the person at IDCN. That's it. I am hardly asking for top secret information which I'd expect her to keep private.
Furthermore, a search of the name "Knoll" on this message board proves you are mistaken:-
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/msgsearchbyboard.aspx?boardID=4489&srchyr=2012&SearchStr=Knoll
I believe you are mistaken but if you are not it certainly escaped the attention of your co-Mod space1230 in a recent post of his to me:-
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=73595571
"Do you announce to the king you are going to attack or do you surprise them and try and catch them off guard? The element of surprise. Really very simple strategy."
Are you sure that's pertinent, rs99? I mean here we are discussing conduct during a possible R/M and you want to talk about military manoevers. OK I am being a little facetious but you are very wrong for the following reasons:-
Aside from litigation where the 2 parties are meant to hate each other, certainly be enemies anyway, in a R/M you basically have 2 parties like any other transaction. A buyer and a seller. You can't just move your business into a shell for free but the main point is the parties are meant to like each other. You want to buy. I want to sell. Owners of the Mathis business are the buyer, the Director/majority shareholder/de facto whoever is in "charge" of IDCN the seller.
Point? Well it's points actually....
Point 1. Both parties are meant to like each other. There may be some reluctance on behalf of both parties but it is what it is. A buy and a sell like anything else so either they want to do business or they don't. Thus, the "element of surprise" doesn't come into it.
Point 2. And here's the really good bit. The first thing the parties notice about each other is that they notice each other! They both exist! They both know they both exist! They both know who each other are! So where is this "element of surprise" exactly? Or are you trying to infer that if a proposed R/M goes bad, one or perhaps both of the contracting parties automatically inherit amnesia or dementia thus they forget who they were dealing with so at the moment of litigation when either the person not afflicted sues or the person afflicted remembers to sue and who to sue the other party (whoever they are) is "surprised"?
Point 3. There is no reason whatsoever not to offer up the name of the person you are dealing with when negotiating a R/M even if it is to say it is the "BOD" because guess what? In the ordinary course of events that's the body of people you SHOULD be dealing and in reality can ONLY deal with!
r/s99, surprise attacks, elements of surprise don't come into it. This isn't a secret hostile takeover where multi-millionaire businessmen buy up stock through trust funds and nominees only to reveal themselves when it tactically suits. It's a R/M into a penny stock shell called IDCN. There is no legitimate reason why Teri Mathis can not supply the name of the person she was dealing with at IDCN.
JMODYODD
Perhaps I am being dense. I invite the rest of this message board to chime in and inform me why there is a legitimate business, tactical and legal reason why Teri Mathis would not disclose the name of the party she was dealing with at IDCN.
Looking forward to your responses.
PG keeping it "real".