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 auditors were to blame, the members of the BOD did not carry out their fiduciary responsibilities, Tim Huff did not "babysit" his direct reports, and some of the direct reports were outright crooks. The strategic vision of the company was unique...the execution was horrific.
I have to admit...I was wrong.
This explains why the members of the BOD were jumping ship. They saw the "writing on the wall", and we trusted the financials as they were published in PRs and 10Qs, but alas.....we had a few crooks in the mix, along with a lack of accountability and oversight.
Why wasn't ColeThornton suspended for the same (supposed)offense?
He trashed Robert Bleckman, a GTE company officer, with a post to a defamatory website. I was only responding to him/her and giving him.her a taste of his/her own medicine. (Childish I agree, I should have just reported it.....but that alias should have been suspended too for that same misdeed).
SAMdashada you stated:
"it is completely disingenuous for anyone to claim that GTEM(Wells Notice) has "new management" when both Kostro and Lienwand have been involved with this company for years."
Really...can you please enlighten us all as to their dates of active service as a CEO and/or a Board Chairman?
My understanding is that he was terminated at the SEC's request.
If such was the case, then we would have seen 8Ks related to registration of securities.
Thank you mide for the post!
I would add, that it is very apparent, after reading some of the documents on Joe's site, that this management team was not operating "as a team" and was quite disfunctional.
Each and everyone of the management team had individual responsibility and accountability for this state of affairs, and consequently, the business suffered as a result. Peter Khoury came in, as an interim CEO, and made the necessary changes required in the lines of business, along with the composition of this management team, to fix this key issue.
One thing I have always seen with operations in start-up companies (along with most projects I have been called upon to step in and recover), which have slipped into a "distressed state", is that "the root cause" of failure, is never attributable to a technology roadblock or issue, but always boils down to "a people and/or teaming issue".
I wonder how Joe M. is doing with his other lawsuit?
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=22430524
This might be what is getting more on his nerves. "Ex"s tend to be quite vindictive when things go to court. Could explain a lot of his rants.
Strange...I had a buy order in for almost 20 minutes and even though I saw a number of transactions post to my limit order, my specific order was never executed.....oh well.
Speaking of legal eagles and dockets....A rather interesting docket I must say!
http://apps.jims.hctx.net/courts/CaseInquiry.do?pageid=Activity%20Inquiry&pagecode=AC&clr=Y
Just punch in 200578287.
So much for Vern's credibility, but we all knew that, given his overly-promotional "spin" on his own qualifications and achievements related to Sanswire's Strat to Globetel prior to purchase.
GLOBETEL COMMUNICATIONS CORP vs ALTVATER, ULRICH
* Click on BOOK/PAGE of a particular docket to see the image if it is available *
Case Number (LOCAL): 2007-20439-CA-01 Filing Date: 7/5/2007
Case Number (STATE): 13-2007-CA-020439-0000-01 Dockets Retrieved: 10
Judicial Section: 27
Date Book/Page Docket Entry Comments
08/23/07 ORDER: DENYING ORDER SHOWING CAUSE ETC.
08/09/07 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 08/23/2007 09:30 AM
08/01/07 MOTION TO COMPEL
07/11/07 MOTION: TO APPOINT SPECIAL PROCESS SERVER
07/11/07 NOTICE OF HEARING- MOTIONS 07/17/2007 09:30 AM
07/09/07 MOTION: & ORDER TO APPOINT SPECIAL PROCESS SERVER
07/09/07 ORDER: TO APPOINT SPECIAL PROCESS SERVER
07/05/07 CIVIL COVER
07/05/07 COMPLAINT
07/05/07 SUMMONS ISSUED DN01 DN02
I do not see any order of dismissal here?
http://www.miami-dadeclerk.com/civil/docketinfo.asp?pCase_Year=2007&pCase_Seq=20439&pCase_Co...
You mean:
GLOBETEL COMMUNICATIONS CORP vs ALTVATER, ULRICH DOCKET - PARTIES
2007-20439-CA-01
13-2007-CA-020439-0000-01
N/A 27
GLOBETEL COMMUNICATIONS CORP PN 01 14 07/05/07
ALTVATER, ULRICH
I believe you are mistaken Vern...again your "newswire" has it wrong.
Uli apparently has no money nor assets left. The case was to get the equipment back...and now this is still pending.
Your baseless speculations without any foundation. If that was the case, they would have been evicted immediately and had funds garnished to provide payment.
I think those attending will be in for a surprise
)
Steve....perhaps you can tell mr_schnizzle your past connections to GTEL?
I am sure they will print for a price.
Why would military even bother to invite them to the 2008 Trident Warrior demonstrations if this was a hoax?
For those who wish to read GTE's lawyers submitted response send me an email and I will send it to you. It is a PDF file so you will have to have Adobe Acrobat Reader installed in order to read it.
Perhaps JustFrank can do us all a favor and post it on the board for everyone come to think of it?
Just sent a copy to "justfrank" and hopefully he will post it.
There is a hearing at the end of the month.
The court record at California Superior Court, City of LA related to "that lawsuit"
Please provide the link
Here is a list of all minutes related to sanswire:
http://www.lawa.org/searchActionBOAC.cfm
Type in Sanswire and you will see there are no actions being taken against Sanswire as risk_it_us would claim
I have former classmates, from Tel Aviv University & the Technion, who currently work there who confirmed it for me. I am satisfied...I am sorry that is not good enough for you.
I agree with you on this point though...we need to see RESULTS as expressed in the audited 10Qs, in the way of increased revenues, in order to ascertain whether this new relationship means anything to shareholders.
News from the DGRNewswire:
Aspen, CO--(DGRNewswire)--:8/22/2007 3:29:42 PM
- The current Palmdale hanger lease extension, is currently in active renegotiation with the County. The company fully expects to continue operations and development there, including work with their teaming partner Elisra.
- Restated Financials will be released by the end of September 2007, with more current financials following closely on after that.
So I suppose those at Elbit (Elisra is a subsidiary) would not have done the due dilligence needed to assure themselves, prior to signing a teaming agreement, that the finances and operations are in order?
You are too funny.
Perhaps he is busy with more important affairs, than wasting his time monitoring his email inbox 24x7.
Anyone in the Dade County area planning to attend the court hearing this week?
)
Your allegations are unfounded....nice try
I believe the recast financials are in the prior auditors hands (GTEM also owes them some money I believe). They are taking their sweet time reviewing the restated numbers regarding valuation of assets. They have a set amount of time to complete the review of these numbers. I believe we will see the restated financials, hopefully, by the end of the month, if not before, and shortly thereafter, the company will be brought up to date on its financials and be current. At that point, they will be in a position to move forward, IMHO, with some other deals and partnerships.
The SEC has not enforced Reg SHO so far. Why would you expect them to enforce a new regulation when they have proven so impotent in their regulatory and fiduciary responsibilities to so many other companies suffering from such manipulation?
Those lazy lizards, who call themselves public servants, will publish memos, white papers, position papers, hold endless numbers of hearings, and still the end result will be the same....nada.
Actually both parties are registered businesses in Broward county
Here is the public search link for Broward County:
http://www.clerk-17th-flcourts.org/bccoc2/pubsearch/public_search.asp?
I could not find such an action in their databases.
When were these auditors appointed and approved by the BOD? What work did they do for GTEM? Please provide a link to the County Court record substantiating your claim of the existence of such a thing.
Who promised Aug 15? Why would you assume that date without a concrete confirmation from official company sources?
Just a thought
"The teaming agreement calls for the integration of Sanswire's low and medium altitude SkySat(TM) airships and high altitude Stratellite(TM) airships with relevant Elisra's Electronic systems and applications."
Now...why would a company such as Elisra (a subsidiary of Elbit http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=eslt&d=t) a well respected and established defense contractor, sign a partnering agreement with a company with unproven technology I wonder? Especially given this company's recent history? Why?
WallStreetMaven Given we do not yet have financials restated, nor concrete news regarding current financial standing and pending revenue generating business, it is hard to say.
I also see you are new to InvestorsHub...welcome aboard!
In fact...an actual case of a sold product with a satisfied customer would add a lot of credence.
I saw this comment when I logged into my account regarding GTEM:
"UPC 11830 Restriction
The Uniform Practice Code (UPC) 11830 Indicator indicates the stock is on list is compiled daily by the NASD based on data from the National Securities Clearing Corporation (NSCC). Securities subject to this "restricted" status are those with an aggregate 'clearing' short position of 10,000 or more shares that is equal to or exceeds one half of one percent of the total shares outstanding.
If the delivery of shares is not completed within the prescribed time frames, any subsequent short sale order on one of these "restricted" securities will be subject to mandatory close out provided that a fail-to-deliver situation exists 10 days after normal settlement date. In fail-to-deliver transactions, the normal clearance and settlement process is interrupted by a failure to receive the security in question.
This buy-in requirement was intended to add stability to the marketplace. This rule helps assure investors that restricted securities are available to cover short positions in times of extreme market volatility. The requirement may also help prevent short-selling abuses that could be harmful to individual investors. For more detailed information, please visit the NASD regulatory web site."
Looks like the extent of short selling has reached a zenith!
)
Actually Peter spends more time now in the US than in London.
Hang on to your seats....more partnership and teaming agreements to be announced soon IMHO before the end of the year
GLTA....