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.
Is it? Not to me it isn't and I do have experience in such matters. I see no legitimate reason why the name of the party at IDCN she was dealing with should be withheld. I see plenty of illegitimate reasons but I see no legitimate reasons so please explain what you consider to be self explanatory.
TIA
FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR STOCKCHARTER: AROUND THE SAME TIME YOU BECAME CUSTODIAN OF IDCN VIA COURT ORDER A LADY BY THE NAME OF TERI MATHIS CLAIMED IDCN WERE PURSUING A REVERSE MERGER WITH HER COMPANY OXYGEN ORCHARD INC. SHE RELEASED A PR TO THAT EFFECT. TO DATE SHE HAS NOT NAMED WHO AT IDCN SHE WAS DEALING WITH REGARDING THIS POSSIBLE TRANSACTION AND I UNDERSTAND FROM A POST SPACE1230 MADE (WHICH MAY OR NOT MAY BE FACTUALLY CORRECT) THAT YOU DENY THAT YOU WERE THE ONE SPEAKING TO HER. QUESTION. HOW DISTURBED/CONCERNED ARE YOU AT THESE EVENTS? IN PARTICULAR, THAT AT FIRST GLANCE, IT APPEARS SOMEONE MAY BE IMPERSONATING YOU INSOFAR AS ASSUMING YOUR AUTHORITY WITHOUT YOUR KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT? SURELY THE ONLY PERSON WHO CAN PERMIT A REVERSE MERGER INTO IDCN IS YOU?
PLEASE INFORM THIS MESSAGE BOARD WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS ARE ON THIS SUBJECT AND ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION YOU ARE CONSIDERING REGARDING TERI MATHIS AND OTHERS.
Law suit? For what? Why does it not make sense to divulge that information?
Let's say there was a possible law suit. I don't believe there is or could be but let's say there is. How does not revealing the name of the person you were dealing with serve as an important business and tactical advantage for a pending litigation?
I just don't see it. Enlighten us if you would rs99.
"The one think (sic) that we now know for certain is that POS, scumbag, cockroach, JRB is gone!"
Do we iblong2?
I have publicly sought confirmation of this from Stockcharter himself. No word yet. Yes a Court has removed him from his position but 3 things can happen hereon out (in other words a Court Order is obviously a powerful step in the right direction but it is not the end of the matter):-
1. JRB can appeal.
2. KA can decide to do some business with JRB.
3. KA can reinstate JRB overtly or more likely clandestinely by accepting instructions from him making him a Shadow Director/CEO.
Can't see 1 happening at all. I think everyone here is content to take their chances on JRB winning an appeal but #s 2 and 3 are possible unless of course we receive super confirmation from the new custodian himself that JRB will have no further input or involvement with IDCN. To date, no such confirmation has been forthcoming.
Apparently JRB did not even want to try that as a defense. Question. Why?
"<--- 1st off Chris, haven't u & I (just us alone) already resolved that JRB was utilizing IDCN as a shell vehicle and was a big fat liar? In that case, JRB could have been splitting the profits with Ronald McDonald under Ronnie's name. kind of like SunRay (which I was "around" for)."
If that is case space, where can Ken's anger be found for having been lied to by his friend/business associate for over a decade, made to look a fool in front of his many followers with an unequivocal post about Hockey Stick "absolutely being mined"?
Answer: there is no anger because Hockey Stick was not secretly mined by JRB and KA knows this.
I suspect nothing happened with Hockey Stick from the time it was first mentioned hence the highly suspicious story of the prospector/man ultimately in charge of the site making off with monies he was not entitled to, the Feds giving chase but his capture eluding them and JRB simultaneously refusing an offer from shareholders to track him down for free citing "he did not want to get involved" even so much as to provide the name of the culprit to investors. Talk about a breach of fiduciary duty right there. Talk about a load of fiction also.
Other than JRB passing over to you all items necessary for the running of IDCN (such as paperwork and website codes etc) that is.
KEN, PLEASE CONFIRM OTHER THAN THIS JRB WILL HAVE ZERO INVOLVEMENT IN IDCN GOING FORWARD.
I HOPE TERI GIVES UP THE CONTACT NAME SHE WAS DEALING WITH AT IDCN BY TOMORROW OTHERWISE THERE WILL ONLY BE ONE INFERENCE POSSIBLE FOLLOWING HER REFUSAL TO DO SO.
LOOKING FORWARD TO THIS IMPORTANT LINE OF CHAT!!!
HAS THERE BEEN A HANDING OVER OF KEYS SO TO SPEAK FROM JRB TO KEN NOW THAT KEN IS CUSTODIAN INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WEBSITE UPLINK CODES AND ALL IDCN PAPERWORK ON DEALS WHICH DID NOT MATERIALIZE (LMAO)?
KEN, HAVE YOU EVEN REQUESTED THE ABOVE FROM JRB? WHAT WAS THE RESPONSE, IF ANY?
QUESTION FOR STOCKCHARTER: CAN YOU UNDERTAKE (GUARANTEE) TO US AS CUSTODIAN OF IDCN THAT JRB (JEFFREY R BRUHJELL) WILL HAVE NO FURTHER INPUT INTO OR INVOLVEMENT WITH IDCN?
"where???"
My opinion is fortified at the source (my original post setting out my opinion), in all subsequent posts on the subject and generally on this message board, maybe also in certain people's minds and hearts.
"fictional story"
How do you know?
The only thing that definitely is fictional are the majority of PRs issued by Indocan. Another piece of fiction was KA's "LOI Contract" which is fiction by virtue of its impossibility.
"staged litigation"
Yes, seen it happen space.
"maybe the judge was in on it too"
I did not say that.
"court system to lie"
I didn't say that. They did not lie. If the staging occurred, they were clever, scheming but where are the lies in an investor who sues for a breach of WY rules and a CEO who refuses to answer? Answer. There are none. Staging does not equal lying. It's a bit like going to see a movie at the cinema and realizing you just watched something that is "fiction" to use your word. Do you come out of the theater criticizing all those involved calling them "LIARS" because it is fiction? Er, no. It's called ACTING, not lying.
"makes a lot of sense"
Thanks!
On researching costs, "I'm sure you didn't"
Don't need to. Why should I research what I already know? Costs typically follow the event in litigation meaning the loser pays the winner's costs. Are you trying to assert that the whole thing couldn't have been staged because JRB now has to pay the investor's nominal legal costs for filing the claim and showing up at Court? I hardly think JRB will have said to himself "well that's me finished I got to pay a disgruntled shareholder $1000 in legal costs!!" Ooh, big deal JRB gets what he wants (exit from the company) and in the way he wants it (reducing possible conspiracy allegations with KA) but now has to pay a grand for the privilege....ooh....
It's called buying your way out of a problem. Being creative. Happens every day space.
"Ridiculous"
What's ridiculous, space? I'm still waiting to reply to a point of yours which undermines my opinion.
"& to think, all of this opinion of yours was formed from an erroneous statement made by a poster who misread the otc market ss (neglecting to compare to the prior one for the float #) and misinterpreting the June 2011 fake shareholder's meeting # of shares taken (which is "unknown but likely 0 - 980 mil)."
Which poster? Which erroneous statement? How was it erroneous? If the dubious shares were not part of the S/S, how can you cancel/benefit from a cancellation of something that did not exist in the first place? Are you saying Cassandra's DD and logic are flawed? If so, explain please.
"We all know there is no real company"
So how would you like them to raise the PPS? Via a false and misleading PR or PRs or by a truthful PR?
So with that being the case, IMO it only fortifies my opinion of a staged argument, perhaps a staged litigation. Maybe the litigating investor was "used". Let's face it. The canceled shares didn't exist to be canceled in the first place and JRB wanted to leave IDCN behind but in such a way that did not magnify his guilt. Hmm interesting.
JMO
Good post. Your opinion matches my own. It is why Ken does things in a circular tread careful manner. Until he pursues JRB for the fraud he committed, he will continue to receive criticism.
"we need to rid the JRB stink and know where we stand with s/s before we can put him behind us completely"
Agreed. The finest stench remover is to pursue JRB for breach of the non-dilution agreement but even though his foul smell would no doubt disappear would it be replaced by another stink emanating from someone else?
"Then, we need to see a b.o.d. elected. Last we need a business."
Disagree. Once the smell has gone, we require a business then a BOD. I don't advocate any old BOD going in there to try a business they are not familiar with. Select a business and find the right people who can take the company forward with that business specifically in mind. I don't want to see any old has been or never was get appointed to the board only to find he or she is useless in the business area selected. Surely I have the consensus of this message board with such opinion?
What business area will Ken select?
"Although most of it is nonsense and routed from personal levels"
Disagree. Lie, deceive, substantially under perform in business and it becomes personal most times. That's why there are laws, law Courts and contracts. Not surprising at all.
JMO
Also space, if "default is so much easier. It's so like JRB" I bet Ken is kicking himself that a legal action to undo the transfer to Wyoming hasn't already been done!! Utilizing your opinion JRB would have caved in. Perhaps JRB would never even have got to convene an unlawful shareholders' meeting!
"No you didn't understand me, at all.
RE: "How could that have come out in the litigation? It was a shareholder complaint because WY rules were not followed pursuant to the calling of a shareholder meeting and the action which took place at that meeting. It was NOT a complaint to open up the entire workings and history of IDCN so I don't see how the Robin stuff could have come out there." <--- I'm talking about incrimination for if and when JRB has to answer regarding his sisters commingling into idcn. A default judgement (from this shareholder suit) is the easy way out. If he is ever questioned about securities fraud, he could simply claim that he had no idea what the basis of the lawsuit was because he did not attend court. That's just as good for sec litigation (if it happens, don't foresee it). How bad would it have looked if JRB attended court, here, and lost? Default is so much easier. It's so like JRB"
Space, are you arguing for your original point or against it now? Looks like you are arguing against yourself.
For the avoidance of doubt, default judgment in one minor litigation does not equal the harshest consequences possible in a major SEC or other litigation. Admittedly, not turning up does not look good for JRB (neither does losing even if it is by default) but "dire consequences"? Over-brimming with wrongability.
Please understand that I understand you very well. Not that hard to understand.
I'm for the latter frankie. Best way IMO to avoid a R/S. For all his faults and my persistent detraction of him, I recognize Ken as someone who could give things a go business wise. So let's see him issue a PR or website blurb (has he been given the uplink codes to the IDCN website by JRB so he can make a statement and amend the site accordingly?) and communicate with shareholders regarding the future.
STILL WAITING PATIENTLY ON MY LINE (OF CHAT)!!!
TERI! COME OUT COME OUT WHEREVER YOU ARE!!!
Nothing good will happen until Ken releases a PR outlining future battle plans including a pursuit of IDCN documentation and JRB's historic fraud. An update on S/S won't be enough to get things moving IMO. More is required. The taint of JRB must be dealt with openly and publicly so that justice may be served.
JMO
"you shouldn't laugh about the dire consequences because you didn't understand my post"
I did understand it space. Only too well.
"I'm talking about the dirty sister Robin's laundry that could have come about."
How could that have come out in the litigation? It was a shareholder complaint because WY rules were not followed pursuant to the calling of a shareholder meeting and the action which took place at that meeting. It was NOT a complaint to open up the entire workings and history of IDCN so I don't see how the Robin stuff could have come out there. Was the Robin stuff pleaded in the litigation? Er, no. The Robin stuff would not have been relevant at such a case. It's also very hard for any stuff to come out when judgment in default is entered which means the other side wins without a fight and without bigger ancillary information coming to the fore. Furthermore, I don't see the SEC saying to themselves "ah, now that meeting was deemed unlawful and the share distribution negated by a Court of law that's our green light to pursue Robin and IDCN". The SEC will make up their own minds on that matter and do not require a Court's involvement as incentive.
So I win on that point too!
The situation merits a PR from Ken IMO so that shareholders are updated following the recent litigation. He can set out his battle plans going forward and also announce a legal attack to grab all relevant documents from the former CEO, JRB which I should think he is legally entitled to. Ken can then work out and subsequently announce to shareholders the TRUTH PERTAINING TO ALL FAILED JRB DEALS.
But I bet you the reverse gear would work just fine, probably the only thing that would......unless you're a lady driver by the name of Teri of course.
"yet you have nothing to say about Alfonso Knoll"
Whether Teri was dealing with Knoll or not, at some point relevant to her negotiations she ended up dealing with no Director because there were no Directors to deal with yet the deal according to her was still on! There's the point. So if I fail to mention Knoll or Debbie James Bond it's supremely irrelevant.
If the point mentioned above isn't cause for concern heightened by the timing of other events and IDCN's overall dirty pink history then I don't know what is!
"What a nice lady though. I saw a few of her emails to a shareholder."
As if to infer that the sight of a few pleasant worded emails is proof of the sender's all round good character. Yep, that's another worldbeater! Last time I checked not many con artists go around on email saying they are not a nice person and out to manipulate and deceive.
In absence of meeting her in the flesh, in absence of a straight, sorry any answer whatsoever on whom she was dealing with at IDCN, I'll go for the "jury's still out option".
Welcome to IDCN captcarl! I wonder if Teri will respond to your query on whom she was dealing with. It's quite the mystery at the moment. Her lack of a response so far magnifies a possible wrongdoing on her part IMHO. Personally, I don't think we'll ever know for sure. Certainly, not from her anyway.
Very good questions Ibdave. Questions 1 and 4 most relevant IMO. I imagine this is primarily a legal issue arising from the precise duties and responsibilities of a "custodian". Ken will either have to adhere to these rules like anyone else or his special custodian status will exempt him. Something to ask a securities attorney. Maybe your post will prompt Ken to take such legal advice if he has not done so already.
"How did Teri know that there were no directors? She probably called the TA just like I did and reported here. Why didn't you? Do you have any knowledge to share regarding who Teri was dealing with? She claims no to Meuse, JRB and KA."
Did she call the TA? Is that what happened? Were the TA gagged? When did she call? When did the TA get wind of the Court Order? Who did she deal with then if she was dealing with no-one? You said it yourself - she said no to Meuse, JRB and KA. And that makes you comfortable about the whole thing and the timing?
"dire SEC consequences after a default judgement is issued"
Dire SEC consequences? What are they? Don't make me laugh. It was an unlawful meeting and an unlawful issue of shares not proof of something much worse.
Space, one must always consider the timing. I just don't like it that's all.
JMO
Chris I think we have not heard the last from JRB but I do think we've heard the last from Ms Mathis.
Further proof of the "opposites" game. See this post as a reminder:-
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=59323682
While unknown shareholder and Ken become LUCKY, JRB appears to be UNLUCKY while also apparently so is Teri having almost put her business into the IDCN shell having successfully negotiated the deal with phantom Directors only for that deal to become murky because now a new man is in charge which just so happens to be announced a week after her questionable PR. Enter the custodian.
JMO
Recent events do look to me like STAGED MISDIRECTION Chris.
1. Just so happens that after all this time of inaction a shareholder in alliance with Ken takes action against JRB.
2. At the EXACT SAME TIME JUST BY COINCIDENCE ONLY a week after the Court decision is known to those involved and ONLY a week before the same Court decision is going to be announced a relatively unknown person claims a deal is at an advanced stage for her business to move into the IDCN shell despite there being no Directors for her to negotiate with. How did she know this? Inside information from the Court ruling?
3. While the shareholder involved in the law suit and Ken can count themselves to be lucky being on the right side of the judgment, Teri Mathis could count herself to be rather unlucky to just so happen to pursue a shell at the only wrong time possible in its decade plus long history when a rather significant law suit and Court Order was unfolding. Could all these people (Teri Mathis apparently a stranger to Ken) be lucky and unlucky at the exact same moment?
4. JRB seemingly permitted the default judgment against him after hanging on so vigorously to his money maker in the years gone by. Why capitulate now? Many of you will logically point to IDCN's flagging fortunes, investor discontent and troubles with his sister but that only proves my point. He wanted this to happen.
Was a secret deal done between him and Ken that in exchange for not answering the shareholder claim Ken won't pursue a claim for breach of the non-dilution agreement and for any other matters arising?
Seems to me the object of the exercise was to convince the outside world that the argument between them was genuine so as to insulate both JRB and Ken from each other and from the authorities who might pursue a conspiracy with more endeavor.
Furthermore, this appears to be the case, i.e. they set this up deliberately after the majority of posters on this board bought into my conspiracy theory. See post below posted less than 7 weeks before the legal action was initiated:-
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=66718343
JMO
This is what I suspect Chris and the reason why a certain custodian treads very carefully. The best crimes are conspiracies especially the successful ones committed over a long period of time. A dozen years is a long time and on any understanding JRB did very nicely for himself and despite his fraud completely unchallenged during his tenure....
No doubt there will be a fire in the place all the records are kept just hours before a transfer is scheduled to the new CEO with all JRB and the Fire Department have to go on is the arsonist recently had plastic surgery having previously eluded the Feds as a security guard posing as an operator of a well-known gold mine in Ontario.....
Does anyone know how JRB has taken the news? Was it all a big shock to him?
We been there ever since those assays on Hockey Stick were canceled, no not received, no received but not processed, but booked with the Ontario government then lost, no processed but then ran away with by that operator who can't be named but he had plastic surgery and is being pursued by the Feds but his capture eludes them....
If only those security guards could have stopped him.....
Ken was clearly an officer of IDCN IMHO. I wonder if him maintaining he wasn't is a violation of that FINRA penal order you found?
What you say frankie is one of the reasons I asked where my line of chat was!
That may be but 2 points:-
1. That still does not detract from the fact that they are still an officer under those circumstances.
2. Space's post made no logical sense.
IMO KA was an officer. He's certainly an officer now.
How you figure? If Ken was IRO and an IRO is an officer how is it that Ken was not an officer?