IJJ Corp (IJJP): Cassandra, to better understand your tho...

Reply Private New

Replies (6) Next 10 Prev Next

Send PM Follow Ignore

Followers	5216
Posts	24069
Boards Moderated	6
Alias Born	09/20/2000

stervc

Re: Cassandra post# 26059

Monday, 02/02/2015 11:34:21 AM

Monday, February 02, 2015 11:34:21 AM

Cassandra, to better understand your thoughts…

Randy Goulding is the lawyer that is currently in Good Standing” that put the deal together for IJJP and the consortium of companies. If you research that case a little further, you will see that ”The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (the “NACDL”) and ”The Illinois Attorneys for Criminal Justice” each filed an ”Amicus Curiae” brief in support of Randy’s appeal concluding that Randy committed no fraud and made no misrepresentations.

I learned this because I called Randy to speak with him on the matter. I asked if he had anything in writing that he could send me to help others within an investing forum that was getting the wrong impression about him and he sent me two documents; a copy of the Amicus Curiae that was filed on his behalf and a letter of explanation that he had previously sent to others to outline what ”actually” transpired. He stated that those documents will indicate how his conduct was not inappropriate as concluded by very credible parties. He stated that this information will be provided in links on the website that is in the process of completing updates after I reached out to speak with Randy from his contact number on his website below:
http://gouldinglaw.com/Contact_Us.html

I’ll show the two documents that he sent me at the end of this post, but here is what The NACDL specifically concluded:

“This approach to criminal liability effectively outlaws apparently innocent conduct of lawyers in protecting client confidentiality.”

“An attorney’s duty of confidentiality to the client requires that legal services be performed in a manner which prevents incriminating disclosures, where there is no ongoing criminal activity. Compliance with that duty cannot “defraud” the IRS.”

“The Seventh Circuit Has Taken the Fraud out of the Defraud Clause. Its Standard Jury
Instructions Fail to Require Any “Purposeful Misrepresentation” or “Dishonesty” for an 18
U.S.C. § 371 Conviction. Such a Broad and Distorted Use of 18 U.S.C. § 371 and 1341 Denies Due Process.”

“The Seventh Circuit’s jury instructions for 18 U.S.C. § 371, criminalizing apparently innocent conduct by not requiring [a wrongful intent, is in] conflict with eight other circuits.”

“The induced conduct lacks knowing participation in a criminal conspiracy—defendants [which also includes the attorney I engaged to assure compliance with the law] consistently encouraged [the undercover agent to comply] with the law.”

“The government’s crime fraud theory is flawed—the client proposed no future crime or fraud; there was no misrepresentation or any other element of fraud—the ethical prescriptions of the legal profession require that lawyers perform services in a manner which preserves such client confidences.”

“Standard Seventh Circuit instructions defining “willfulness” as “avoidance” improperly facilitate conviction for apparently innocent avoidance conduct.”

“This prosecution has the appearance of retaliation for Goulding’s exercise of first amendment and other statutory rights.”

Since that time, Randy has regained his license and have practiced law without incident.

Regardless of his past, he is a registered Attorney that is authorized to ”currently” practice law. He is a Licensed Securities Attorney authorized to practice law under his Attorney No. 1025619. Here are Randy’s credentials below:
http://gouldinglaw.com/About_Us.html

As for the issue that insinuated to be a problem with the SEC, within the link you provided below, it specifically stated that the problem that got that other unrelated situation in trouble with the SEC was as follow… ”The Complaint alleges that the Section 3(a)(10) exemption was not available for any of the stock offerings at issue because the terms and conditions of the exchanges – including the fact that the issuers were raising capital through such exchanges – were not fully disclosed to the court.” This is per the link you provided below:
http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/civil_injunctive_action_filed_against_penny_stock_financiers_and_two_public/

As you can see from the links that you provided within the posts below as proof, the lawyer here, Randall S. Goulding (Randy), had provided, made available, and fully disclosed to the court the Section 3(a)(10) exemption for all stock offerings at issue while also fully disclosing the terms and conditions of the exchanges:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=110290324
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=110310112

Here are the main documents disclosed to the court:
http://www.cannabisheadliners.com/images/PDF/4_disclosure_memorandum.pdf

This means that... the reasons that you are believing will be an issue with the SEC based on a different situation that failed… do not exist here.

Here’s the bottom line for how everything is related. The judge approved an Income Sharing Program between IJJP and five other companies (HALB, CWIR, TWDL, ENTI, & GEAR) of which the Income will come from two marijuana operations/farms; World of Marihuana Productions Ltd. (WOM) and Michigan Plant Technologies (MPT). The Income distribution per the court order is indicated below: