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.
All documents related to this case are available for review and download (with an account) via Justia website and PACER.
The documents obtained are public information and what you are paying for is the electronic access to these documents. These same documents can be obtained by going to the NY courts as they are a matter of public record.
If the Ministry of Mines has no record of CLIL having any concessions I believe that is something to be concerned about. Maybe it is a delay in the government; however, when was the first concession obtained? Hmmm...I doubt the government is that slow!
The lawsuit exists and it has at least some merit - since MMTE only had to show up to prevent a default judgement simply indicates they were there. They also filed for dismissal of the case; obviously there is enough to proceed forward with a Jury trial.
The fact that the lawsuit continues simply indicates there is at least something there. It does not indicate to what extent the lawsuit has merit just that it has some.
At several points it was stated the lawsuit was a non-issue and would be thrown out as soon as the Judge reviewed the case documents.
Obviously that is not the case.
The lawsuit at least has some merit - the extent will be determined by the Jury on 2 April 2012 OR it will be settled prior to that date.
In terms of the 'iron clad evidence' and settlement - why wouldn't you want to settle? Why wait on a Judge/jury to decide a case if an agreement can be made ahead of time? Ultimately it is cheaper for both parties.
At this point it is obvious the lawsuit exists, MMTE and Liebs are fully aware of it and the hearing is scheduled for trial on 2 April 2012.
It would be very beneficial if the case can be settled sooner than that date.
I would certainly hope so - this lawsuit holding over MMTE for the next 7 months will very likely keep it from moving north. At least if a settlement is agreed to then we can see what Liebs can do.
I certainly agree that everyone wants to see this move North! I also realize that the lawsuit update is not what was wanted but at least there is an update. It indicates the lawsuit has at least enough merit to continue forward.
Unfortunately the actual trial date is scheduled for April 2012 so we have quite a few months of waiting.
I think any information related to Fongs past turned out to be worthwhile. Especially considering there have been trends established and it looks similar to what AFPW has seen!
The mentioned posting may have been good; however, I still question if shorting was to blame? I think there is a much better answer! Maybe some additional shares added? So what is the answer here?
It seems the price has not corrected itself in the positive manner. Was it shorting that caused this?
Radio Control Airplanes and Helicopters have been using Lithium Batteries for quite some time for propulsion energy and not just for controls.
Another aspect where Lithium can be used is Remote Control Cars/Trucks/Boats - all of these examples can use Lithium for controls and propulsion.
The controls in cars/trucks/boats are generally done with AA batteries; however, controls of helicopters and planes generally use a smaller battery and Lithium suits that need very well.
The propulsion of the above mentioned items can be via electric motor powered by Lithium batteries.
In terms of percentages of Nitro powered versus Electric Powered my experience is about 50/50 - half prefer Nitro and half prefer Electric.
I would love to stick to the facts in a positive manner. I would love to see the PPS increase and all of the positive information that has been posted on this board does in fact come true.
These are facts!
It is not so much MMTE negativity it is more applicable to posts made about another Liebs controlled company. There were comments made that it was a scam.
There is speculation about MMTE but that is yet to be fully identified.
Since Liebs is in fact CEO of both companies one should consider what is being posted on that other board and how that is a scam. So if Liebs is CEO of a scam company over there and he is also CEO of MMTE - whether there is a bright future or not for MMTE it does not appear to be very positive.
Some of this information has been available for many days. Personally I have not signed in to PACER for some time due to my schedule.
In terms of information - it was my understanding this forum is for the sharing of information. Yes it is used for other things as well but its primary purpose is to share information.
Since this information had not been shared with the iHub board (although it has been available) I provided it. If this case is thrown out of court once a Judge hears both sides I will provide that as well (when I sign in to PACER again).
I agree - there are many questions!
I can understand your point of view of giving the Plaintiff ammunition; however, there are 2 points that I find it difficult to get past:
1) Certified information that Liebs and MMTE were served on July 19 but on August 21 released information they were not served and knew of no pending litigation.
2) If this suit is of no concern why did they not attend the pre trial hearing? So not only did MMTE state they knew nothing about it they took it one step further and did not attend the pretrial.
I certainly agree with buffalo on this one - if there is something positive out of the information obtained from the Court Filings please let us know.
Right now I believe a notarized document over what we have.
I have read the court documents where one individual under perjury of law stated that he hand delivered the court order to Liebs and MMTE at Astro Restaurant 1361 6th Ave on July 19, 2011 and this was filed with the courts on August 12, 2011.
On 22 August 2011 MMTE Stated:
This one single piece of information indicates something bad in terms of what MMTE has released and what has been provided to the Courts!
Clerk of US District Court certifies that William Lieberman and MMTE was served on July 19, 2011 and proof was provided to the courts on August 12, 2011.
Furthermore the Clerk stated that the defendants failed to appear at the September 1, 2011 pretrial conference, has not filed an answer, or otherwise moved with respect to the complaint herein.
This is from the Clerks Certificate for this case.
Document Listing of Case:
Filed: 07/13/2011
Entered: 07/14/2011
Summons Issued
Docket Text: SUMMONS ISSUED as to Izzy Goldreich, John Does 1-10, William Lieberman, Mammoth Energy Group, Inc., XYZ Companies 1-10. (ama)
Filed: 07/13/2011
Entered: 07/14/2011
Case Designation
Docket Text: Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein is so designated. (ama)
Filed: 07/13/2011
Entered: 07/14/2011
Case Designated ECF.
Docket Text: Case Designated ECF. (ama)
1
Filed: 07/13/2011
Entered: 07/14/2011
Complaint
Docket Text: COMPLAINT against Izzy Goldreich, John Does 1-10, William Lieberman, Mammoth Energy Group, Inc., XYZ Companies 1-10. (Filing Fee $ 350.00, Receipt Number 1011426)Document filed by M & A Advisors, LLC, Dominic Martinez.(ama)
2
Filed: 07/13/2011
Entered: 07/14/2011
Rule 7.1 Corporate Disclosure Statement
Docket Text: RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. No Corporate Parent. Document filed by M & A Advisors, LLC.(ama) (ama). (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/26/2011: # (1) Rule 7.1 Statement) (ama).
Filed & Entered: 07/25/2011
Note to Attorney to E-Mail PDF
Docket Text: ***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO E-MAIL PDF. Note to Attorney Robert J Hantman for noncompliance with Section 14.3 of the S.D.N.Y. Electronic Case Filing Rules & Instructions. E-MAIL the PDF for Document [1] Complaint, [2] Rule 7.1 Corporate Disclosure Statement to: caseopenings@nysd.uscourts.gov. (ama)
3
Filed: 08/11/2011
Entered: 08/12/2011
Order for Initial Pretrial Conference
Docket Text: NOTICE OF COURT CONFERENCE: Initial Conference set for 9/1/2011 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 14B, at the U.S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Jed S. Rakoff. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 8/11/2011) (mbe) Modified on 8/25/2011 (ae).
4
Filed & Entered: 08/12/2011
Affidavit of Service Complaints
Docket Text: AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE. William Lieberman served on 7/19/2011, answer due 8/9/2011; Mammoth Energy Group, Inc. served on 7/19/2011, answer due 8/9/2011. Service was accepted by William Lieberman. Document filed by M & A Advisors, LLC; Dominic Martinez. (Hantman, Robert)
Filed: 09/01/2011
Entered: 09/06/2011
Pretrial Conference - Initial
Docket Text: Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jed S. Rakoff: Initial Pretrial Conference held on 9/1/2011. (Default Hearing set for 9/15/2011 at 09:00 AM before Judge Jed S. Rakoff.) (ft)
5
Filed & Entered: 09/09/2011
Certificate of Clerk
Docket Text: Clerk's Certificate issued as to William Lieberman, Mammoth energy Group, Inc. (jnm)
Filed: 09/10/2011
Entered: 09/12/2011
Note to Attorney to Re-File Document - Deficient Docket Entry Error
Docket Text: ***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO RE-FILE DOCUMENT - DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY ERROR. Note to Attorney Robert J Hantman to RE-FILE Document [6] FIRST MOTION for Default Judgment as to Defendants Lieberman and Mammoth Energy Group, Inc.. ERROR(S): Supporting Documents are filed separately, each receiving their own document #. (db)
6
Filed & Entered: 09/10/2011
Terminated: 09/10/2011
Motion for Default Judgment
Docket Text: FILING ERROR - DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY - FIRST MOTION for Default Judgment as to Defendants Lieberman and Mammoth Energy Group, Inc.. Document filed by M & A Advisors, LLC, Dominic Martinez. Return Date set for 9/15/2011 at 09:00 AM. (Attachments: # (1) Affidavit Robert J. Hantman, Esq., # (2) Clerk's Certificate, # (3) Text of Proposed Order Entry of Defualt)(Hantman, Robert) Modified on 9/12/2011 (db).
7
Filed & Entered: 09/12/2011
Motion for Entry of Default
Docket Text: FIRST MOTION for Entry of Default as to William Lieberman and Mammoth Energy Group, Inc.. Document filed by M & A Advisors, LLC, Dominic Martinez. Return Date set for 9/15/2011 at 09:00 AM.(Hantman, Robert)
8
Filed & Entered: 09/12/2011
Affidavit in Support of Motion
Docket Text: AFFIDAVIT of Robert J. Hantman in Support re: [7] FIRST MOTION for Entry of Default as to William Lieberman and Mammoth Energy Group, Inc... Document filed by M & A Advisors, LLC, Dominic Martinez. (Hantman, Robert)
9
Filed & Entered: 09/12/2011
Motion for Entry of Default
Docket Text: FIRST MOTION for Entry of Default as to William Lieberman and Mammoth Energy Group, Inc.. Document filed by M & A Advisors, LLC, Dominic Martinez. Return Date set for 9/15/2011 at 09:00 AM. (Attachments: # (1) Clerk's Certificate)(Hantman, Robert)
10
Filed & Entered: 09/12/2011
Affidavit in Support of Motion
Docket Text: AFFIDAVIT of Rober J. Hantman, Esq. in Support re: [9] FIRST MOTION for Entry of Default as to William Lieberman and Mammoth Energy Group, Inc... Document filed by M & A Advisors, LLC, Dominic Martinez. (Hantman, Robert)
Affidavit in Support of Motion
Filed & Entered: 09/12/2011
Affidavit in Support of Motion
Docket Text: AFFIDAVIT of Rober J. Hantman, Esq. in Support re: [9] FIRST MOTION for Entry of Default as to William Lieberman and Mammoth Energy Group, Inc... Document filed by M & A Advisors, LLC, Dominic Martinez. (Hantman, Robert)
Motion for Entry of Default
Filed & Entered: 09/12/2011
Motion for Entry of Default
Docket Text: FIRST MOTION for Entry of Default as to William Lieberman and Mammoth Energy Group, Inc.. Document filed by M & A Advisors, LLC, Dominic Martinez. Return Date set for 9/15/2011 at 09:00 AM. (Attachments: # (1) Clerk's Certificate)(Hantman, Robert)
Affidavit in Support of Motion
Filed & Entered: 09/12/2011
Affidavit in Support of Motion
Docket Text: AFFIDAVIT of Robert J. Hantman in Support re: [7] FIRST MOTION for Entry of Default as to William Lieberman and Mammoth Energy Group, Inc... Document filed by M & A Advisors, LLC, Dominic Martinez. (Hantman, Robert)
Motion for Entry of Default
Filed & Entered: 09/12/2011
Motion for Entry of Default
Docket Text: FIRST MOTION for Entry of Default as to William Lieberman and Mammoth Energy Group, Inc.. Document filed by M & A Advisors, LLC, Dominic Martinez. Return Date set for 9/15/2011 at 09:00 AM.(Hantman, Robert)
Motion for Default Judgment
Filed & Entered: 09/10/2011
Terminated: 09/10/2011
Motion for Default Judgment
Docket Text: FILING ERROR - DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY - FIRST MOTION for Default Judgment as to Defendants Lieberman and Mammoth Energy Group, Inc.. Document filed by M & A Advisors, LLC, Dominic Martinez. Return Date set for 9/15/2011 at 09:00 AM. (Attachments: # (1) Affidavit Robert J. Hantman, Esq., # (2) Clerk's Certificate, # (3) Text of Proposed Order Entry of Defualt)(Hantman, Robert) Modified on 9/12/2011 (db).
Certificate of Clerk
Filed & Entered: 09/09/2011
Certificate of Clerk
Docket Text: Clerk's Certificate issued as to William Lieberman, Mammoth energy Group, Inc. (jnm)
Filed: 09/10/2011
Entered: 09/12/2011
Note to Attorney to Re-File Document - Deficient Docket Entry Error
Docket Text: ***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO RE-FILE DOCUMENT - DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY ERROR. Note to Attorney Robert J Hantman to RE-FILE Document [6] FIRST MOTION for Default Judgment as to Defendants Lieberman and Mammoth Energy Group, Inc.. ERROR(S): Supporting Documents are filed separately, each receiving their own document #. (db)
Affidavit of Service Complaints
Docket Text: AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE. William Lieberman served on 7/19/2011, answer due 8/9/2011; Mammoth Energy Group, Inc. served on 7/19/2011, answer due 8/9/2011. Service was accepted by William Lieberman. Document filed by M & A Advisors, LLC; Dominic Martinez. (Hantman, Robert)
Filed: 09/01/2011
Entered: 09/06/2011
Pretrial Conference - Initial
Docket Text: Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jed S. Rakoff: Initial Pretrial Conference held on 9/1/2011. (Default Hearing set for 9/15/2011 at 09:00 AM before Judge Jed S. Rakoff.) (ft)
So let's see if I understand this correctly:
1) There is in fact without a doubt a lawsuit!
2) MMTE DID NOT show up for the initial hearing since they claimed the lawsuit did not exist!
3) The Plaintiffs filed for an entry of default by which the Defendant would be ordered by a court to settle.
4) The Plaintiffs simply need to show up to avoid a default judgement!
So at this point it tells me the following:
1) If MMTE is legit they will show up to avoid a default judgement.
2) If MMTE does not show up on the 15th it goes to show the future we can truly expect from them!
Will $117,000 Make Any Difference for Fox Petroleum Inc (PINK:FXPT)?
By Martin Tsvetkov
Date: Sep 12, 2011
FXPT_chart.pngYesterday, Fox Petroleum Inc (PINK:FXPT, FXPT message board) made a spectacular return to the promotional spotlight for the first time in five months. As much as $117 thousand were put on the table to pump FXPT shares in the first session of the new week. Not bad for a company that has failed to maintain a working website.
In addition thereto, the company just went up with an official press release as well.
According to the latter, FXPT had entered into an agreement for the acquisition of two Louisiana-based oil assets, each held by a separate limited liability entity. While no transaction details whatsoever have been announced so far, it has been disclosed that one of the leases has produced in excess of 6 million barrels of both oil and gas for the last eight decades.
A brisk look at the chart reveals that the new paid advertising campaign comes hard on the heels of two consecutive positive market sessions for FXPT stock. In fact, FXPT shares managed to score a combined 36% increase in value over Thursday and Friday. Both sessions failed to trigger exceptionally high volume.
Once a diligent financial information provider, FXPT no longer files with the SEC. Moreover, ever since the company last filed a full-on 10-Q report in August 2010, it has provided no current financials whatsoever. Yet, as of May 31, 2010, FXPT had:
zero assets;
a working capital deficit in excess of $23.7 million;
zero revenue.
Considering how negligent FXPT has been in maintaining a sound financial discipline for the last twelve months, market players could hardly expect any positive developments in the company's financial situation. Because, if any improvement had taken place, FXPT would have seized the opportunity to boast about it immediately.
Very Interesting! So Liebs has been running this company for quite some time, another person takes over and now this is a scam?
Just curious why it is just now becoming a scam?
I agree with your post - you also mentioned exactly how I feel about this.
If in fact MMTE is a truly legitimate company then there is absolutely no problem bringing up the shady operations and all the mistakes that have been made. If MMTE were legitimate these issues would be addressed and explained openly without trying to hide these aspects.
Now IF MMTE were a scam and simply wanting to get money from shareholders they would try to hide the past, try to hide the current con artist connections and simply not respond to anything negative and try to keep it hidden long enough to make some money.
The problem with MMTE is they have done a little of both - a few aspects they have addressed but others they avoid like the plague.
Unfortunately this can be seen for the past few months - not just the past few weeks. It was done off and on but it is apparent looking at the charts.
You are certainly correct - the factual research that can be proven in black and white is not believed but yet the research that involves hints and blindly connecting the dots is fully accepted!
You are absolutely correct and it is funny that when the truth is spoken there is a lot of backlash for it.
It really hit me when the lawsuit became public around 13 July. I had questions prior to that but I really opened my eyes at that time.
The comments made on iHub have very little affect on the overall PPS of MMTE or any stock. This would imply that every investor subscribes to iHub and we know that is not accurate. There will always be positive and negative opinions of MMTE and that is why there is buying and selling.
At this point we are seeing and have seen massive dumping of shares by large shareholders getting out. We have seen the now un-restricted shares get dumped.
The problem is the opinion is that he is running a 'private' company rather than a public company. Mickey Mouse - I like that.
By all means but pay close attention to the verbage used in the information obtained. Yes wangdo found the original information regarding the setup of CLIL. That only has one association with MMTE - one person. So how does this indicate that MMTE owns CLIL?
Mammoth does not OWN CLIL! That is not the way it is setup. Please go back and review exactly how CLIL and MMTE are associated.
CLIL is setup as a separate entity which can leave MMTE as a no value shell that served one purpose. I'll give you one guess as to what that purpose is!
Based on PPS there is only one way to make money on MMTE.
The lawsuit is real, it still exists as it has not been updated yet. It may or may not be legitimate but it does in fact exist!
MMTE does not have 16k acres - CLIL does. There is a difference and I think that is something that should not be forgotten.
In terms of Brian - That is such a tremendous blessing!
Unfortunately Liebs has already answered some of these questions:
1) He will not discuss it!
2) Send email although it will take a while but use FB to respond - Well this is being ignored so far.
3) He will not discuss it!
4) See #2
5) See #2
6) He will not discuss it!
So lets see - you have 6 questions of concern and 3 will not be discussed. This sounds very typical of MMTE