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.
Jato
You are very wise.
"I'm not selling a share until .40."
This is the beginning. Up 30-40% in 7 days.
There is a as yet undisclosed reason for the accumulation.
Listen to nilreMerlin. He's on to something even if he doesn't know-- hint.
Management has tight lips this time, until proper.
It will keep gaining momentum from here on out.
As more realize, volume will increase.
Look for a window up one of these mornings.
Best of a prosperous new year to you.
This is my last post.
"You have information that a certain individual is going to cover based on information that they have received or somehow obtained?"
I never said that.
Sorry I can't be more specific at this time although it is company affirming. I shared what I could. Patience.
7 days.
Good luck to you.
It means the market.
No, it's not upsetting to me. It's a opportunity.
I made much money on the ride up on the Russian pump. I played on the momentum of traders/investors belief of potential, not because I believed that the Russian deal would ever materialize.
Time to accumulate is Over? Is that what you think?
@ 10 cents? If you believe in GTEM you would be buying anyway. If your order is not being filled it shows you how tight the spring is wound.
Despit what I think about GTEM, I stand by my prediction, when it hits, it will be self explanatory.
Mr Noob
GTEM will experience a dramatic and unexpected price surge in within the next 7 days. I base this on non-insider information that I have obtained.
In 7 days, if this does not happen, I will cease to post.
Mr Allan
I seriously doubt that any loans would be forthcoming from legitimate loan sources, given the GTEM record of defaults, non-payment to vendors/creditors, creditor lawsuits, questionable revenues, history of "cooking" the books, banning from AMEX for fraud, legal troubles and SEC investigation.
Venture capitalists are not in the business of giving away money to proven bad credit risks;
Unless-
GTEM will guarantee a certain number of shares sellable at a fixed rate beneficial to the givers. We all know what happens then. Dilution and the inevitable run-down of the share price.
If Joe Monterosso and Luis Vargas are guilty, then they will be the first of the GTEM executive elite to fall - something we have been predicting for some time.
"Mr Allan, perhaps you'd like to take a moment to realize that the SEC is only bringing litigation against Joe Monterosso and Luis Vargas."
The reason you don't see GTEM or other individual executive elite listed on the litigation page is because the SEC has not concluded its investigation of GTEM. You will have to wait to see if GTEM ("the company") on the SEC litigation page.
GTEM ("the company") is currently under an SEC investigation for additional charges that were not charged against Monterosso and Vargas. (compare)
The SEC staff, as a result of its current and ongoing investigation of GTEM (the company), has already issued recommendations ro the Commission"- that it bring a civil action against the Company-"and "=SEC authorize and institute proceedings to revoke the registration of Company's securities="
Notice, if you will, that the recommendation to revoke the registration of Company's securities is not an action against either Monterosso and Vargas, it is against GTEM (the company)
I believe that the SEC is not turning a blind eye to the multiple charges of the AMEX against GTEM, which resulted in the delisting of GTEM (the company) for fraud and issuing false and misleading press releases, amongst other findings.
Who may be next to fall?
More to come.
http://biz.yahoo.com/e/071012/gtem.pk8-k.html
It was GTEM that brought "internafta" to the company. The whole lot of them, past and present.
One cannot blame one or two individuals. Some had bigger roles than others, but if you're looking to blame--blame GTEM.
The management of GTEM worked as a team.
Huff and Bleckman were issuing outrageous and unbelievable statements with grandiose and unrealistic claims and projections. It seemed like a remarkably sloppy and hasty effort at the time.
Every management employee was culpable for the Russian network-1/2-billion dollar deal nonsense that GTEM orchestrated and pumped to investors. The pattern of pump and forget continues from the GTEM team, imo, although the PR's today do little to nothing to affect market price as many no longer believe - the consensus seems to be--
--GTEM, put up or shut-up
The affair had shown, at the least, that the management of GTEM had/has no business sense, or that it was, as some believe, a scheme to bilk investors with a classic pump and dump. Which, I am unsure. I could believe either, as I have always believed GTEM officers to be incompetent while living with undeserved lavish salaries, expense accounts, and bonuses.
In the end, you have a 10 cent company, banned from the AMEX for--issuing false and misleading PR's, under SEC investigation for serious multiple violations, and GTEM still seems to have nothing but a perpetual promise of intent.
Mide
As a creditor, I can assure you that it is a big deal when a company defaults on their financial obligations. It should also be a big deal to investers when a company defaults repeatedly as GTEM has done to some of their vendors.
"They appear to be paying bills of importance, as they are still in existence --"
Quite the contrary, it would seem that GTEM is not paying bills as seen by mounting creditor lawsuits.
A company can exist for quite a while, with no revenues, at the expense of their creditors. The creditor often wants to extend goodwill to the struggling beneficiary and may be reluctant to start the expensive and time consuming collection process. They would rather work with the company before filing a lawsuit as a last resort. This process could go on for months or years.
Happy New Year to all
May your investment be prosperous!
Miguellara, GLOBETEL HAS NOT BEEN DISMISSED from wrongdoing
as you claim. Unless you can provide facts to back up your assertions, one can only conclude that it is a fabrication.
What we do know as fact is this:
"On October 5, 2007, GlobeTel Communications Corp., received a "Wells Notice" from the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") in connection with the SEC's ongoing investigation of the Company. The Wells Notice provides notification that the staff of the SEC intends to recommend to the Commission that it bring a civil action against the Company for possible violations of the securities laws including violations of Sections 5 and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933; Sections 10(b), 13(a), and 13(b)(2)(A) & (B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11, and 13a-13 thereunder; and seeking as relief a permanent injunction, civil penalties, and disgorgement with prejudgment interest. The staff is also considering recommending that the SEC authorize and institute proceedings to revoke the registration of Company's securities pursuant to Section 12(j) of the Exchange Act.
Under the process established by the SEC, recipients have the opportunity to respond in writing to a Wells Notice before the SEC staff makes any formal recommendation to the Commission regarding what action, if any, should be brought by the SEC. The Company is determining if it will provide a written submission to the SEC in response to the Wells Notice."
http://biz.yahoo.com/e/071012/gtem.pk8-k.html
Happy New Year
May your GTEM investment be prosperous.
IHUB also shows .135 last trade
http://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=squote&cb=1195696389&symbol=GTEM
Are you saying that IHUB is also "messing with GTEM?"
"Yahoo quote shows that GTEM closed the day even at .135
Everywhere else the GTEM closing price is .14, up .005
Yahoo appears to be consistently messing with GTEM.
Happy Thanksgiving, all! If you see a turkey on the table tomorrow, think Yahoo, which gets the Turkey Award of the Week, IMHO."
Broward County Case #CACE07031649
National City Commercial vs Globetel in contract indebtedness suit -
new filing.
National City Commercial Capital is a subsidiary of National City Corporation (NYSE: NCC), in Cleveland, Ohio, a trusted name in financial services for more than 100 years. With more than $140 billion in financial holdings and an extensive banking network, National City Corporation provides the fuel that drives the equipment leasing engine at National City Commercial Capital.
At National City Commercial Capital, we utilize the resources of National City Corporation to offer equipment leasing to thousands of customers-manufacturers, distributors, vendors, large corporations, small businesses and other leasing organizations.
Distinguished by outstanding customer service, we have built our reputation by staking our resources on your business model and counting your success as our own.
"----you state GTEM has no cash as if it is a verifiable fact. Please name your credible sources. If not, it's just an opinion. Unless you have some inside information that the rest of us do not....mad"
10k is a good place to start-
Do people even read these things?
We do not have existing capital resources or credit lines available that are sufficient to fund our operations and contractual obligations as presently planned over the next twelve months. Throughout 2006 and continuing into 2007, the Company has been dependent upon monthly funding from its existing debt holders. Funding decisions have typically not extended beyond thirty days at any given time, and the Company does not currently have a defined funding source. Funding delays and uncertainties have seriously damaged vendor relationships, new product development and revenues. In the absence of continued monthly funding by its current debt holders, the Company would have insufficient funds to continue operations. There is no assurance that additional funding from the current debt holders will be available, or available on terms and conditions acceptable to the Company.</u<
Ok cpmac,
Perhaps it's the word "here" that threw you. probably most that bought above $1 - $4 have sold long ago. (if they had any sense at all)
"Actually MR. ALLAN you are wrong as most of the LONGS here bought 100,000's shares when this was .01-.03."
It's an unprovable contention that I'm wrong, or that you're right. I'm sure that 5 or 6 may come forward to "prove me wrong" as well.
I will even concede that I was wrong, as I worded it.
Really, it's not a point worth continuing with, cpmac, whether you lost .30 a share post split, or are just even after so many years.
The point was... So What? As in so what to owls assertion that someone paid 40 cents a share for GTEM? So What! Thousands, perhaps 10s of thousands more bought during the Russian hype at prices far above $2.00- $3.00, you see, so what to 40 cents.
Sorry to get you riled.
".someone is paying over .40 a share for GTEM" Of course.
Most of the longs here paid up to ten times that amount per share.
So what?
When the spam has forged headers and originates from Russia and other countries, you know it's a genuine pump-and-dump scam. I have a account that collects these sort of spam emails from criminals.
I started receiving the emails a week ago, and the frequency has slowed to almost nothing now, leading me to believe that the criminals are now entering the dump phase.
The criminals are orchestrating this, in my opinion.
It's sad when a company is victimized in this way.
My guess is that it was for legal
reasons, or it just wasn't worth his time anymore.
-
"it has served its purpose"
sounds innocuous or maybe a defensive parting shot, or it was his platform to vent and having done so, the passion is gone?
It's a moot point and pointless as HOTZONE is registered to
FalconStor Software, Inc. (REGISTRANT)
Registration Number 2848598
Registration Date June 1, 2004
FalconStor Software, Inc owns the Hotzone trademark.
Globetel has applied for the word Hotzone, and at this juncture, they are an applicant only.
Thus far, Globetel has been refused this trademark by the United States Patent and Trademark Office examining attorney for several reasons.
Amongst them-
Registration of the proposed mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 2848598. ((REGISTRANT) FalconStor Software, Inc.)
Registration is refused because the proposed mark merely describes the feature and purpose of applicant’s goods.
The Office action is open and awaiting a response/appeal from Globetel.
Whether or not Globetel responds is open to speculation. It appears that Globetel may have given the office a limited response-as the examining attorney said this-
-"Merely stating that information about the goods or services is available on applicant’s website is an inappropriate response to a request for additional information, and is insufficient to make the relevant information
of record."
Click on this link to see the entire ruling--
12-Sep-2007 Offc Action Outgoing- at this link- and scroll down the page for
details.
http://trademarkoffice.notlong.com
Any claims that Globetel owns Hotzone trademark are contrary to United States Patent and Trademark Office. Keywords here are registrant and applicant. Registrant is the owner.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=24462255
The price is almost sub-penny again, only this time it's 200 times more worthless.
Full circle.
That didn't take very long.
What's next?
The registered owner of "Hotzone" is FalconStor Software, Inc.
The owner of "Hotzone"is
Word Mark
HOTZONE
(REGISTRANT) FalconStor Software, Inc.
Registration Number 2848598
Registration Date June 1, 2004
GTEM applied May 25 2007, but thus far has been refused the trademark "Hotzone" for the reasons below- (link at bottom) GTEM (and Trimax, for that matter,) are applicants only.
(APPLICANT) GlobeTel Communications Corporation CORPORATION DELAWARE 101 NE 3rd Ave., Suite 1500 Fort Lauderdale FLORIDA 33179
Current Status:
A non-final action has been mailed. This is a letter from the examining attorney requesting additional information and/or making an initial refusal. However, no final determination as to the registrability of the mark has been made.
Condensed-
ABANDONMENT, THE OFFICE MUST RECEIVE A PROPER RESPONSE TO THIS OFFICE ACTION WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE ISSUE/MAILING DATE.
ISSUE/MAILING DATE: 9/12/2007
The assigned trademark examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and has determined the following:
Section 2(d) - Likelihood of Confusion Refusal
Registration of the proposed mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 2848598. ((REGISTRANT) FalconStor Software, Inc.)
Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the enclosed registration. The applicant’s mark is “HOTZONE” for “Computer hardware for telecommunications; Computer hardware, namely, wireless access point (WAP) devices; Computer network hubs, switches and routers; Computer networking hardware.”The registrant’s mark is “HOTZONE” for “Computer
software for use in data storage and data management.”
Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration where an applied-for mark so resembles a registered mark that it is likely, when applied to the goods and/or services, to cause confusion, mistake or to deceive the potential consumer as to the source of the goods and/or services. Therefore, any doubt as to the existence of a likelihood of confusion must be resolved in favor of the registrant.
Here, the marks are identical. They are like in sound, appearance, and commercial impression. Similarity in sound alone may be sufficient to support a finding of likelihood of confusion.
Relatedness of Goods and Services
Here, the goods are related. Although applicant has identified the goods as computer networking hardware and registrant has identified the goods as hardware for “data storage and management,” this difference is not dispositive.
Since the identification of the registrant’s(FalconStor Software, Inc.) goods is very broad, it is presumed that the registration encompasses all goods of the type described, including those in the applicant’s more specific identification, that they move in all normal channels of trade and that they are available to all potential customers.
Therefore, because of a likelihood of confusion caused by identical marks and highly related goods, registration is refused.
Section 2(e)(1) - Descriptive Refusal
Registration is refused because the proposed mark merely describes the feature and purpose of applicant’s goods. Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); TMEP §§1209 et seq. Note that terms that describe the function or purpose of a product or service may be merely descriptive or generic under 15 U.S.C. §1051(e)(1). In re Gould Paper Corp., 834 F.2d 1017, 5 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 1987)
Therefore, because the mark merely describes the feature and purpose of the goods, registration is refused.
Advisory: Generic Term
In addition to being merely descriptive, the proposed mark appears to be generic as applied to the goods and, therefore, incapable of functioning as a source-identifier for applicant’s goods. In re Gould Paper Corp., 834 F.2d 1017, 5 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Pennzoil Prods. Co., 20 USPQ2d 1753 (TTAB 1991).
Specifically, the attached evidence shows that the proposed mark is the common generic name for a wireless network that covers a large area. See the attached. Note that generic terms are terms that the relevant purchasing public understands primarily as the common or class name for the goods or services.
Under these circumstances, neither an amendment to proceed under Trademark Act Section 2(f), nor an amendment to the Supplemental Register can be recommended.
Failure to respond to a request for information can be grounds for refusing registration. In re DTI P'ship LLP, 67 USPQ2d 1699, 1701 (TTAB 2003). Merely stating that information about the goods or services is available on applicant’s website is an inappropriate response to a request for additional information, and is insufficient to make the relevant information of record.
In re Planalytics, Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1453, 1457-1458 (TTAB 2004).
Trademark Rule 2.61(b) states, “The examiner may require the applicant to furnish such information and exhibits as may be reasonably necessary to the proper examination of the application.”
STATUS CHECK: Check the status of the application at least once every six months from the initial filing date using the USPTO Trademark Applications and Registrations Retrieval (TARR) online system at http://tarr.uspto.gov. When conducting an online status check, print and maintain a copy of the complete TARR screen. If the status of your application has not changed for more than six months, please contact the assigned examining attorney.
/Jason Eric Lott/
Jason Eric Lott
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 113
Open the document "Offc Action Outgoing" at
http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/tow?SRCH=Y&isSubmitted=true&details=&SELECT=US+Serial+No&TEXT=77190519
You're right. I guess Trimax 4010 doesn't have "hotzone" in it.
Is the word "Hotzone" by itself generic?
"I would also like to bring to everyone's attention, that the Trimax web site now currently appears to have taken all references to HotZone off its pages -- but, I've located the following being used and incorporated into the web pages.:"
Click on the picture at the bottom of this page-
http://www.trimaxwireless.com/4000series.php
Trimax 4010
Thanks for an interesting discussion Cole, Sam and all.
I'm going offline.
There is no trial, serious1, the SEC has been investigating GTEM.
"When was the trial for Globetel?"
"Please attach official SEC documents stating that Globetel has been convicted of Fraud "
Please show where it is stated that GTEM has already been convicted of fraud.
Opinions and insurance facts are posted. yes. If you can refute any of the insurance facts that I have posted serious1, then please contribute.
Cole,
a D & O Policy can cover those accused of or even tried for fraud, under the federal securities laws, but a D & O Policy never covers those who have actually been convicted of fraud.
The D & O Policy generally covers the directors and officers for potential liability for defense costs and the cost of settlements, although the insurer is not obligated to do so.
More carriers are rescinding the policy based on misrepresentations in the D & O application, which often includes attachments to the application, such as financial reports.
Yes it is a very serious matter Cole, with very real and potentially damaging consequences to GTEM, depending on what is found in the investigation. If fraud were to be found, there could be possible criminal charges, or at the discretion of the insurer, as I previously stated, they could file civil lawsuits against GTEM, under the federal Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). If the lawyers are correct in their presumptions, it could further damage GTEM relationship with the SEC, in my opinion.
We shall see.
You are correct Sam, in some states.
It is complex, as each state sets its own definitions.
Each state passes laws individually and some provisions in these laws may be stronger or better defined than others.
For example, in Florida one has only to provide misleading information-
Any person who knowingly and with intent to injure, defraud or deceive any insurer files a statement of claim or an application containing any false, incomplete or misleading information is guilty of a felony of the third degree.
Many states are similar, for example-
Tennessee
It is a crime to knowingly provide false, incomplete or misleading information to an insurance company for the purpose of defrauding the company. Penalties include imprisonment, fines and denial of insurance benefits.
Colorado
It is unlawful to knowingly provide false, incomplete or misleading facts or information to an insurance company for the purpose of defrauding or attempting to defraud the company. Penalties may include imprisonment, fines, denial of insurance and civil damages.
District of Columbia
It is crime to provide false or misleading information to an insurer for the purpose of defrauding the insurer or any other person. Penalties include imprisonment and/or fines. In addition, an insurer may deny insurance benefits if false information materially related to a claim was provided by the applicant.
And many other states are similar
So in answer to the question that Cole posed,
"Does anyone know if...
Someone "lies" in an effort to get insurance they wouldn't otherwise be able to acquire...
Is that insurance "fraud"?
The answer is yes,imo. That fits the definition of attempting to defraud in many states.
Yes, that would be insurance fraud and could be prosecuted criminally, if proven that there was an intent to defraud a insurance provider.
I believe it is only Oregon and Virginia, that do not classify some insurance fraud as a crime. Most states have insurance fraud bureaus as well.
Florida is one of the stricter states when it comes to prosecuting insurance fraud.
Insurers may also file civil lawsuits under the federal Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), which requires proving a preponderance of evidence rather than the stricter rules of evidence required in criminal actions and allows for triple damages.
Excellent point SAMdashada
"It is time that people stop making excuses for management's mismanagement. The good news is that the SEC (and possibly the DOJ) is apparently doing what shareholders refuse to do."
I believe that there are a large number, a silent majority, that do hold the GTEM management culpable.
p944na, you need to do a bit of DD on the SEC and Wells notices, in my opinion.
"That is, could the FBI or other law agency bring criminal charges against Joe M, if the SEC findings due to his Wells notice warranted such action?"
Of course it could be applied to Joe M, depending on what is contained in his notice.
To sum up the answers to your questions, No, the SEC does not file criminal charges. Read this and inform yourself.
http://www.sec.gov/about/whatwedo.shtml
Read up on Wells notices (try google)
This is what we do know, thus I referenced GTEM- and at this point JM is the least of the worries.
-and please, if you have specific verifiable SEC posted charges against JM, post them!
Here are the specific charges against GTEM-
On October 5, 2007, GlobeTel Communications Corp., received a "Wells Notice" from the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") in connection with the SEC's ongoing investigation of the Company. The Wells Notice provides notification that the staff of the SEC intends to recommend to the Commission that it bring a civil action against the Company for possible violations of the securities laws including violations of Sections 5 and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933; Sections 10(b), 13(a), and 13(b)(2)(A) & (B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11, and 13a-13 thereunder; and seeking as relief a permanent injunction, civil penalties, and disgorgement with prejudgment interest. The staff is also considering recommending that the SEC authorize and institute proceedings to revoke the registration of Company's securities pursuant to Section 12(j) of the Exchange Act.
Under the process established by the SEC, recipients have the opportunity to respond in writing to a Wells Notice before the SEC staff makes any formal recommendation to the Commission regarding what action, if any, should be brought by the SEC. The Company is determining if it will provide a written submission to the SEC in response to the Wells Notice.
http://biz.yahoo.com/e/071012/gtem.pk8-k.html
Of course, p944na, the FBI, the DOJ, or other law enforcement agencies could bring criminal charges against GTEM (principals), in conjuction with the SEC findings against GTEM for possible fraudulent activities.
This has yet to be seen.
Because the SEC doesn't file criminal charges, p944na.
" Joe M has not had criminal charges filed against him by the SEC."
Can you please tell me how you know this to be a true statement?
tia.
I see serious1, it appeared as if you were stating a fact, that Joe M was charged criminally by the SEC.
"And as far as your statement below that is why Joe M(Wells Notice) got crimal charges from the SEC because he is corrupt.""
Failing to find verification of this, and not seeing any evidence to the contrary, I conclude that your statement was erroneous; Joe M has not had criminal charges filed against him by the SEC.
I do not know of any criminal charges that have been filed against Joe M or GTEM. It is quite possible, though, that criminal charges could emerge later against GTEM and/or current/past employees.
We do know that GTEM has been under investigation from the SEC, for many issues, and that the SEC has concluded that GTEM was in possible violation of many regulations including accounting discrepancies, "amongst other things." We also know that the SEC is considering serious actions against GTEM.
On October 5, 2007, GlobeTel Communications Corp., received a "Wells Notice" from the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") in connection with the SEC's ongoing investigation of the Company. The Wells Notice provides notification that the staff of the SEC intends to recommend to the Commission that it bring a civil action against the Company for possible violations of the securities laws including violations of Sections 5 and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933; Sections 10(b), 13(a), and 13(b)(2)(A) & (B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11, and 13a-13 thereunder; and seeking as relief a permanent injunction, civil penalties, and disgorgement with prejudgment interest. The staff is also considering recommending that the SEC authorize and institute proceedings to revoke the registration of Company's securities pursuant to Section 12(j) of the Exchange Act.
Under the process established by the SEC, recipients have the opportunity to respond in writing to a Wells Notice before the SEC staff makes any formal recommendation to the Commission regarding what action, if any, should be brought by the SEC. The Company is determining if it will provide a written submission to the SEC in response to the Wells Notice.
http://biz.yahoo.com/e/071012/gtem.pk8-k.html
serious1,
My question is addressing what you claim and stated about Joe M, not what other posters are saying.
You are saying that the SEC has charged Joe M criminally. I am unaware of any criminal charges filed. Would you please show a link verifying this.
"And as far as your statement below that is why Joe M(Wells Notice) got crimal charges from the SEC because he is corrupt."
serious1-
"And as far as your statement below that is why Joe M(Wells Notice) got crimal charges from the SEC because he is corrupt."
Would you please show a link to the information that Joe M received criminal charges from the SEC, as you claim in your statement.
and disturbing, yes Cole!
rwehapi2003
Executive Summary
Coalition Warrior Interoperability Demonstration’s (CWID) Assessments Working Group (AWG), Information Assurance (IA) Team performed a high-level assessment Trial 3.14, Coalition Secure Management and Operations System (COSMOS). This trial implemented mechanisms to provide assurance that the information processed by the vendor’s product was secure. These mechanisms appeared to be appropriate given the level-of-data and operating environment of the trial.
Compare the above 3.14 trial summary heading with the 6.42 summary below.
Executive Summary
Coalition Warrior Interoperability Demonstration’s (CWID) Assessments Working Group (AWG), Information Assurance (IA) Team performed a high-level assessment Trial 6.42, HotZone 4010/4020 (HZ4010). This trial implemented mechanisms to provide assurance that the information processed by the vendor’s product was secure. These mechanisms appeared to be appropriate given the level-of-data and operating environment of the trial.
Except for the #, they are identical .
rwehapi2003, the Executive Summary as it appears above is a repeated statement at the top of all of the final conclusions. It is a generalized precursor heading and refers to what procedures follow in any given trial. It is not specific to the hotzone trial, or any trial, as you seem to be thinking. It is placed, wording identical, with the exception of the trial #, in any summarized trial.
The hotzone trial was the only trial that did not have the Information Assurance Assessment, because the trial was "moved" for some inexplicable reason.
Every other trial, that reported an Executive Summary, had been put through the required Information Assurance Assessment (IA), and had one IA conclusion,
either-
a “Basic IA Assessment” methodology,
or a “Targeted IA Assessment” methodology.
The hotzone trial was not concluded. It is incomplete.
But you knew that.
Read it.
"-Hotzone units are built to military standards to begin with, so passing a threat mitigation survey by an IA team would pretty much be a given:
Except that they weren't performed, so they are not a given, nor were they passed.
IA Capabilities Description
No Threat Mitigation Survey was completed for this trial, which would contain a listing of possible vulnerabilities and mitigation for this product. This trial changed sites before execution week, not allowing the IA team to perform an IA assessment on this trial.