Syntrol Corp (SNLP)

[The Rainmaker]

Here's my problem. Two key things to remember. Uponus IS CONTROLLED BY Thomas Volpert Jr. He is the mastermind of Uponus technology. How many encryption patents do they own ONE I repeat one patent. What year was the patent filed? 2001. I repeat 2001. Nothing has happened with this patented technology in 13 years. Patent was finally issued in 2008. Not one client paying to use it. 13 years. Now an Officer of WFMC is insinuating Uponus could have prevented the SONY hacking scandal using the Uponus software. Creating a false sense of value as an Officer of a Public Company.

BRIDGE FOR SALE

Israel Vasquez President and COO and Thomas R. Volpert Jr. President and Chief Scientist Developer have signed a mutual agreement to explore a business opportunity, transaction and partnership

http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/7382878.html
http://www.patentbuddy.com/Inventor/Volpert-Thomas-R-Jr/17603070

Now let's see what kind of track record Thomas Volpert Jr, controlling person and inventor for Uponus has.. This says he filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy and got sued by his Uncle for money he owed his Uncle.

http://openjurist.org/110/f3d/494/in-the-matter-of-thomas-r-volpert-jr-appeal-of-bernard-m-ellis

Thomas R. Volpert (the "Debtor") filed a pro se Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition on June 30, 1993. Debtor's uncle, plaintiff John Volpert, later filed a seven-count adversary complaint, to which Debtor was required to respond by January 29, 1994. Debtor did not answer or otherwise plead by the deadline, but Ellis appeared on his behalf at a status hearing on February 2, 1994. At the status hearing, Ellis was given a fourteen-day extension to file an answer, but this new deadline was missed as well.
Ellis appeared before the bankruptcy court again on April 21, 1994, in response to plaintiff's motion for an order of default. At Ellis' request, the motion was continued until May 11, 1994, in order to allow Ellis more time to complete his pleadings. On May 2, 1994, Ellis moved to dismiss the entire complaint because plaintiff allegedly lacked standing, and also to dismiss individually Counts 1, 2, 3 and 6 on various other grounds. The bankruptcy court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of standing the same day, and ordered Ellis to respond to Counts 4, 5 and 7 within seven days.
On May 11, 1994, however, rather than submitting an answer, Ellis asked the bankruptcy court to reconsider the denial of his motion to dismiss for lack of standing. The bankruptcy court rejected this request and gave Ellis another seven-day extension to file an answer to Counts 4, 5 and 7. The bankruptcy court also warned Ellis that failure to respond this time would result in an entry of default. Despite his repeated assurances to the bankruptcy court that he would file an answer by May 18, Ellis again missed the deadline. Instead, on May 19, 1994, Ellis moved to dismiss Counts 4, 5 and 7 individually on various grounds, or, alternatively, for a more definitive statement regarding those counts. On May 25, the bankruptcy court denied the motion to dismiss but required plaintiff to file a more definitive statement within fourteen days. Ellis was ordered to answer Counts 4, 5 and 7 once he received the more definitive statement.
Ellis finally filed an answer to Counts 4, 5 and 7 on June 22, 1994. This answer, though, was found to be legally insufficient by the bankruptcy court. On July 1, 1994, the bankruptcy court struck the answer, and entered an order of default on Counts 4, 5 and 7. On July 11, Ellis moved to vacate the default order and for leave to file an amended answer. Ellis failed to serve plaintiff's counsel with a copy of the proposed amended answer, however, and due to this failure, the motion was denied. On July 15, 1994, Ellis moved for reconsideration of his July 11 motions, but he again failed to serve plaintiff's counsel with a copy of his motion, even though both attorneys work in the same office building. On July 25, 1994, the bankruptcy court gave Ellis until July 27, to give plaintiff's counsel proper notice of his proposed amended answer, and set a hearing on the motion to vacate the default for the next day.
Finally, on July 28, 1994, the bankruptcy court vacated its default order and allowed the Debtor to file his amended answer. The bankruptcy court also gave plaintiff twenty-eight days to file an application for sanctions against Ellis, which plaintiff did on August 8. Then, on January 18, 1995, the bankruptcy court ruled that Ellis' delays in filing the Debtor's answer, the legal insufficiency of the answer he finally filed, and his repeated failure to serve plaintiffs counsel with proper notice of his proposed amended answer, demonstrated conduct that "unreasonably and vexatiously" multiplied the court's proceedings. Accordingly, the bankruptcy court granted plaintiff's motion for sanctions, and awarded plaintiff $1000 in attorneys' fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Ellis then brought this appeal.

http://www.leagle.com/decision/1995426186BR240_1384.xml/IN%20RE%20VOLPERT