BlockQuarry Corp (BLQC)

[Scarface]

YOU WANT TO INVEST IN ISBG, THEN YOU NEED TO READ INSIDE INFORMATION DIRECTLY FROM ISBG'S FORMER IR FIRM AND JACKIE AUTRY, ISBG'S LARGEST INVESTOR!

I know the management of ISBG monitors this board carefully. So, please enjoy the below read.




On Mon, 8/17/15, [e-mail] <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> > Subject: Re: ISBG / DKTS 8/17/15
> > To: "ME" <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: "Sidney Pitteus" <[e-mail]>
> > Date: Monday, August 17, 2015, 10:11 AM
> > Wayne,
> >
> > I can not and will not say who Sidney is, just that he has
> > been following this a long time and is incredibly
> > knowledgeable of securities laws from what I am told. I can
> > say imo this entire situation will have much bigger problems
> > then just two (the guys I know of) note holders that are
> > pissed off.
> >
> > I would not want to hold the bag if and when this all falls
> > apart or gets a halt or suspension (not sure if I am using
> > the correct terminology but it does happen) legal or
> > regulatory developments that affect the company’s ability
> > to conduct business will sometimes trigger a trading halt.
> >
> > SEC Trading Suspensions to Protect Investors
> >
> > The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is authorized
> > under federal law to suspend trading in any stock for a
> > period of up to 10 business days. The SEC issues a
> > suspension when it believes that the investing public may be
> > at risk. Many factors influence the SEC’s decision. A very
> > important one is a company’s failure to keep up the
> > required filing of periodic reports—such as annual and
> > quarterly reports—that provide the public with information
> > about the company’s business, corporate outlook and
> > financial performance to date. Another factor is the quality
> > of the publicly available information, particularly if it
> > appears to be inaccurate. The SEC will also consider the
> > trading activity in a stock, evaluating who is actively
> > trading and whether market manipulation may be taking
> > place.
> >
> > There is more then enough reason to suspend trading in isbg
> > just based on the numerous 1111 share tape paints at end of
> > the day or every time the stock down ticks, incredibly
> > obvious. Since start of trading there is always more to sell
> > a quick tape paint and more selling.
> >
> > These investigations take time but it will happen imo. Wayne
> > I have been told and demanded by someone not to contact you
> > at all. They say it is hurting isbg because they are scared
> > of losing funding from Mrs Autry, seeing how its the only
> > capital they have to pay themselves I am not surprised.
> > Someone has to pay for the launch parties, just as investors
> > (debt holders) did last year with no real launch of product.
> > I kept asking Alonzo why if you have no product are you
> > wasting money on launch parties...of course never got a
> > straight answer.
> >
> > I am not knowledgeable at all on legal matters, but it does
> > not take a genius to know that signed documents and proof of
> > wire is acceptance of this clients note which Alonzo now
> > claims doesn't exist. I have the docs dated July 25 2014 and
> > a copy of the wire transfer. He is claiming it does not
> > exist because I hurt his pride and called him a liar thief
> > as well emailed Terry Williams and your friend Frieberger
> > with no reply.
> >
> > Alonzo hired Seraphim to write articles for the company
> > which were approved by him prior to release. Alonzo was
> > never given permission by me to use my email as a contact.
> > He was asked numerous times by text and email to remove it
> > and only finally did last month when recently he took down
> > temn website which became dkts website only then was it
> > finally removed. This is how I ended up with all of Alonzos
> > emails from shareholders over the last yr and in fact it was
> > me who connected Alonzo to Terry Williams because Mr
> > Williams had called me via the web site and I put both of
> > them in touch via email. I actually even suggested to Alonzo
> > they may be a good fit for a merger here. Alonzos exact
> > words were thank you so much Lou you have done an
> > outstanding job and this is the best opportunity to come
> > along in my lifetime.
> >
> > He as well released a press release with me as contact which
> > I did not know of till after its release. This is when we
> > started fighting like crazy because I told him you did not
> > have a right to put me on as contact for something I knew
> > nothing about, he was covering his own ass.
> >
> > see this link http://finance.yahoo.com/news/top-shelf-ceo-announces-agreement-122800574.html
> > I never knew this was being released or agreed to have
> > my email on it at all.
> >
> > Wayne, may you have great success in all your endeavors.
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: "ME" <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 12:21pm
> > To: [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: ISBG / DKTS 8/17/15
> >
> > Hi Lou:
> >
> > Can you give me any idea as to who this person, Sidney
> > Pitteus, is as he apparently resides in the UK. Also, since
> > you seem so well informed, how is it that you think he is
> > more informed than you?
> >
> > It is just that I hate to begin corresponding with an
> > unknown entity especially since you seem so knowledgeable.
> >
> > Lou, I do have another question. it appears that Top Shelf
> > Brands was once known as TEMN. At that time, anyone wanting
> > further information was to contact Seraphim Strategies at
> > your phone number 561-374-1482. Furthermore, since your
> > email is [e-mail]
> > I am curious to know what was your previous affiliation with
> > the company? Since you seem to have been closely affiliated,
> > I have to assume that you certainly have more informaiton
> > than does this person residing in the UK. Can you please
> > fill me in on the details? What was or is his relation to
> > the company?
> >
> > Thank You,
> > Wayne
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: lou <[e-mail]>
> > To: ME <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Mon, Aug 17, 2015 7:30 am
> > Subject: Re: ISBG / DKTS
> >
> >
> >
> > Ask this person [e-mail]
> > all info and back-round of the
> > situation they can fill you in completely with much more
> > detail then I can.
> >
> >
> > [e-mail]
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: "ME"
> > <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 10:23am
> > To:
> > [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: ISBG / DKTS
> >
> >
> > Hi Lou:
> >
> > Thank you again
> > for all of the information.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Wayne
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original
> > Message-----
> > From: lou <[e-mail]>
> > To: ME
> > <[e-mail]>
> >
> > sidneypitteus
> > <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Sun, Aug 16, 2015 8:28 am
> > Subject: RE: Fwd:
> > ISBG / DKTS
> >
> >
> > PLEASE PUT TOGETHER ANY AND ALL QUESTIONS YOU HAVE AND
> > DIRECT THEM
> > TO..
> >
> >
> > [e-mail]
> >
> >
> > FROM WHAT I AM TOLD THIS PERSON HAS A GOOD
> > GRASP
> > AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE ENTIRE SITUATION
> >
> > I WILL NO LONGER CONTACT YOU
> > AS I
> > HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF ALL THIS HE SAID SHE SAID CRAP, Good luck
> > to you with
> > your
> > investment.
> >
> >
> > Wayne
> >
> > I do not represent the note holders in DKTS/ISBG, my
> > only
> > concern is my note holder client and friend(50k)for 15 yrs
> > as well as one
> > other
> > friend(75k) who is in this deal who is the person that
> > introduced me
> > to
> > Alonzo.
> >
> > I have spoken to total 6 guys who all did not agree to
> > Alonzos
> > press
> > release which stated all note holders agreed but those guys
> > are not my
> > concern,
> > I do not represent them or want anything to do with them.
> > They were
> > contacted by
> > another note holder, I was asked to be involved with them
> > and made
> > it clear
> > would side with whatever the majority of note holders
> > decided but after
> > dealing
> > with Alonzos lies for the last year I have had enough. I do
> > not need
> > anyone on
> > my side only documents,emails and txts proving my
> > correctness in the
> > matter and
> > will provide regulators .
> >
> > Total notes payable are 391k according
> > to the
> > attachment on this email which lists the note holders. My
> > client/friend
> > note is
> > not listed, Alonzo is not even acknowledging this guy
> > exists. Below is
> > an email
> > sent to someone to pass on to Alonzo chairman of ISBG . Its
> > just
> > amazing because
> > a month ago I have emails from Alonzo saying (Lou in a
> > perfect
> > world I would pay
> > back and might have a plan)...well in my opinion again they
> > have the funds now
> > so payback the note and we can all never speak again.
> > Alonzo
> > also sent me a
> > email that says I have not forgotten you guy don't worry I
> > promise.
> >
> > Last week
> > the note holders were sent terms finally of the convertible
> > preferred which they
> > did not agree to, but are being told to agree to by the
> > person that sold them
> > the notes,(so he can cover his own ass) he is using the
> > angle(if we sue it costs
> > money and we will get nothing anyway)so accept the
> > terms and pray this works
> > out, of course he is hyping isbg up major to them. I
> > have watched trading in
> > isbg since fima, if you were to look at level two all
> > day long, which I do,
> > there is allot of stock for sale with tiny trades to paint
> > the tape all day
> > everyday. Friday they pushed hard to make isbg look good so
> > that hopefully it
> > would appeal to note holders greed factor and they would
> > sign
> > off on the new
> > terms. This is my opinion.
> >
> > In my opinion as well the terms are
> > terrible(in a
> > phone call I had with Alonzo he swore up and down these new
> > convertible
> > preferred notes would be able to convert on issuance, of
> > course now
> > they are
> > locked up another yr...this is Alonzos game... stall,
> > delay,promise)
> > and in a yr
> > the stock is toilet paper at best. I will send you those
> > terms if
> > you
> > like.
> >
> > ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION, what it would mean to me as a
> > lender
> > or
> > shareholder would be... Ms Autry paid 1 million dollars for
> > 100 million
> > shares.
> > 1000x higher then Alonzo and an undisclosed party who
> > purchased the same
> > just
> > two months prior to Autrys investment. Alonzo issued himself
> > 100 million
> > shares
> > for 1 thousand dollars and an undisclosed party also
> > purchased 100
> > million
> > shares for 1 thousand dollars by converting that 1000 dollar
> > note
> > into
> > 100,000,000 shares in March of this year, less than 2 months
> > before Ms.
> > Autrys
> > investment. That stock was converted from an older note
> > which could
> > be
> > considered aged and in my opinion again, free trading shares
> > would have
> > been
> > issued to this undisclosed party(I would bet anything saying
> > that is your
> > big
> > seller very close to the company and isbg or someone very
> > close to the
> > company
> > is lining their pockets)all the same exact steps that took
> > place with
> > this
> > chairman's last three failed deals. I would think it
> > incredibly unfair for
> > your
> > friend to pay 1000x higher but surely they will try to offer
> > you a sweeter
> > deal
> > in the event she changed her mind and rescinded her funding
> > as this is the
> > only
> > funding this company has.
> >
> > YOU WILL OF COURSE HAVE GOOD TRADING DAYS AND
> > BAD
> > DAYS BUT BE ASSURED THIS WILL END UP A DILUTED WORTHLESS
> > NOTHING IMO. MONEY
> > IS
> > MADE ALL THE TIME TRADING SCAMS BUT IN THE END THEY ARE
> > STILL SCAMS OR
> > JUST
> > GROSSLY MISMANAGED COMPANIES. I WOULD NOT BE SURPRISED AT
> > ALL IF NEXT WEEK
> > A PR
> > WAS ISSUED THAT ADDRESSED NOTE HOLDERS(SAYING ALL IS GOOD
> > AND SETTLED BUT
> > IN
> > REALTY THAT WILL BE A LIE) AND THE 1 FOR 15 SHARES DIVIDEND
> > THAT WAS
> > ANNOUNCED 3
> > MONTHS AGO WHICH NO SHAREHOLDER RECEIVED ALL WILL BE SAID TO
> > BE
> > FANTASTIC THERE
> > AS WELL.
> >
> > FACT IS THIS SCENARIO WITH ISBG, OF FUNDING,
> > PARTIES, VIDEOS, MASS
> > MEDIA, 100 MILLION SHARE BLOCKS IS SAME EXACT SCENARIO AS
> > DKTS ALONZOS LAST DEAL
> > WITH NOTHING BUT LIES FOR LAST 2 YRS IN WHICH MYSELF,
> > SHAREHOLDERS AND NOTE
> > HOLDERS BELIEVED.
> >
> > NOTHING I SAY IS TO BE MISCONSTRUED AS
> > INVESTMENT ADVICE, I
> > AM NOT LICENSED AS FA OR BROKER, I WAS A BROKER FOR 17 YRS
> > AND LEFT THE BUSINESS
> > WITH A PERFECTLY CLEAN LICENSE HAVING NOT ONE SINGLE
> > COMPLAINT.
> >
> >
> > EMAIL SENT TO
> > THE GUY WHO PLACED ALL THESE NOTE WITH LENDERS,
> >
> >
> >
> > Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 2:54
> > pm
> >
> >
> > ____________ just so you do not think I was
> > bull shitting you attached are
> > pics of the note and share purchase agreement
> > signed by Alonzo and each page
> > initialed. I know your only concern is the guys
> > you put in this deal, that is
> > understood.
> >
> > Alonzo, on July 25th 2014 you signed
> > and initialed each page of
> > this note and share agreement as well I have a copy
> > of the wire transfer that
> > you were in receipt of funds. In your quarterly report
> > 5 months later dated Dec
> > 31st 2014 which lists the note holders you failed to
> > list this note, maybe a
> > slight oversight;some might say a blatant omission with
> > attempt to defraud. Why
> > was this note not included in the filing?
> >
> > I also have
> > the email that says, Lou
> > don't worry about Mr______ I did not forget your guy.
> > Seems you did forget or
> > intentionally meant to forget but either way you are
> > liable.
> >
> > I will gladly
> > stay away from this entire deal never to be heard
> > from again if you would just
> > live up to your obligation.
> >
> > ____________ if you
> > could pass this on to Alonzo,
> > as you requested I will not contact isbg and am
> > willing to play nice for a bit,
> > think it over please with a rational head.
> >
> > I am
> > asking you one more time Alonzo
> > to kindly settle this matter in a civilized
> > way.
> >
> > Best
> > Lou
> >
> >
> >
> > WAYNE THIS IS FROM
> > SOMEONE WITH A GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF THE
> > SITUATION AND THE LAW.
> >
> > Perhaps I can
> > assist here. I think you (and maybe the
> > barrister) are misunderstanding the
> > nature of the potential claims involved
> > here. In my (informal, speculative,
> > not-intended-as-legal-advice) opinion, the
> > lenders’ claims are not primarily
> > contract claims, or claims on the notes
> > themselves. Rather, they are tort claims
> > involving common law fraud and unjust
> > enrichment (and maybe some others
> > depending on the venue/jurisdiction), which do
> > not require an enforceable note
> > or other agreement to be valid (i.e., “implied”
> > or “constructive” or “quasi”
> > contract claims, as they are sometimes referred
> > to).
> >
> > Under, say, Florida law,
> >
> >
> > Quote:The essential elements of common-law
> > fraud are: (1) a false statement of
> > fact; (2) known by the person making the
> > statement to be false at the time it
> > was made; (3) made for the purpose of
> > inducing another to act in reliance
> > thereon; (4) action by the other person in
> > reliance on the correctness of the
> > statement; and (5) resulting damage to the
> > other person.
> > Gandy v. Trans
> > World Computer Tech. Grp., 787 So. 2d 116, 118
> > (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)
> >
> >
> > In
> > this case, one might argue that, in order to
> > induce the lenders to give him/DKTS
> > money, (1) Alonzo falsely stated that he
> > would issue them valid notes in
> > exchange for the loan, and that he had the
> > corporate authority to do so; (2)
> > Alonzo knew (or should have known, i.e.,
> > constructive knowledge) that the notes
> > would not be valid and that he did not
> > have the authority, as evidenced by his
> > eventual admission in the settlement
> > that the disputed shares were valid; (3)
> > that he made the statements for the
> > purpose of inducing the lenders to give him
> > money in reliance on his statements;
> > (4) that the lenders did, in fact, give him
> > a bunch of money (some apparently
> > even without so much as a written agreement)
> > in reliance on his false statements
> > of fact; and (5) the lenders have been
> > damages as a result of that reliance now
> > that the falsity of Alonzo’s
> > representations has become apparent.
> > Likewise under
> > Florida law,
> >
> > Quote:the
> > elements of a cause of action for unjust enrichment
> > are: (1) plaintiff has
> > conferred a benefit on the defendant, who has knowledge
> > thereof; (2) defendant
> > voluntarily accepts and retains the benefit conferred;
> > and (3) the circumstances
> > are such that it would be inequitable for the
> > defendant to retain the benefit
> > without paying the value thereof to the
> > plaintiff.
> > Shands Teaching Hosp. &
> > Clinics, Inc. v. Beech St. Corp., 899 So.
> > 2d 1222, 1227 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
> > 2005)
> >
> >
> > Under that theory of recovery, then,
> > one might argue that (1) the
> > lenders conferred a benefit on Alonzo by loaning
> > him money; (2) Alonzo accepted
> > that benefit and retained it, not only in the
> > form of money but by literally
> > taking (“75% of”) the product their money was
> > used to develop out the back door
> > and into another corporate entity of which he
> > is the controlling shareholder,
> > not to mention that he may have even used their
> > money to buy that other company
> > in the first place; and (3) based on all the
> > circumstances of what went down
> > with TEMN/DKTS/ISBG the past year and a half --
> > all the PRs that turned out to
> > be false, all the delays, all the excuse making,
> > etc., etc., plus Alonzo’s
> > formation of the private LLC’s to hold the DKTS assets
> > without the lenders’
> > knowledge then transferring those to ISBG after what was
> > obviously months of
> > planning, his PR claiming a deal was made on the notes,
> > etc., etc., etc. -- it
> > would simply be inequitable (i.e., totally unfair) for
> > Alonzo to retain the
> > benefit of his actions without paying the benefit thereof
> > (including lost/future
> > profits on Besado, I would think) to the people he
> > screwed.
> >
> > What else? Let’s
> > see, how about negligent misrepresentation if they
> > can’t prove straight-up
> > fraud:
> >
> > Quote:To demonstrate a negligent
> > misrepresentation claim,
> > [plaintiff] must demonstrate that the defendants made a
> > false statement
> > concerning a material fact, that, in the exercise of
> > reasonable
> > care under the
> > circumstances, the defendants were negligent in making the
> > statement because
> > they should have known the statement was false, that the
> > defendant intended that
> > [plaintiff] would rely on the false statement, that
> > [plaintiff] reasonably and
> > justifiably relied on the false statement, and that
> > [plaintiff]suffered damages
> > as a result.
> > Sunoptic Technologies, LLC v.
> > Integra Luxtec, Inc., No.
> > 3:08-CV-878-J-16JRK, 2009 WL 722320, at *2 (M.D. Fla.
> > Mar. 18, 2009)
> >
> >
> > Should
> > have known the statement was false? Haha, remember that
> > 8-K Alonzo signed back
> > in February 2014 that said “There is no record of a
> > designation of the Preferred
> > A shares filed with the Nevada Secretary of State”?
> > Here it
> > is:
> > https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1390891/000118518514000382/teamnation8k022014.htm
> >
> > So
> > with
> > those shares not existing, of course he had authority to
> > issue the
> > notes.
> > Oh
> > wait…
> >
> > http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=107803440
> >
> > If
> > only
> > he had checked the Nevada SOS first… but totally not
> > negligent
> > right?
> >
> > Let’s
> > see, what else… could maybe throw in some claims for
> > breach of
> > fiduciary duty,
> > breach of loyalty, breach of duty of good faith and fair
> > dealing, again
> > depending on the jurisdiction. Why, there’s a whole
> > smorgasbord
> > of potential
> > claims that don’t need a contract underlying them!
> >
> > Just to
> > reiterate, these
> > claims don’t need an enforceable or valid note. Basically
> > all
> > the fraud/unjust
> > enrichment ones need is willful misrepresentation, reliance
> > on
> > those
> > misrepresentations, and an unfair benefit conferred to the
> > liar. The
> > other
> > satellite claims flow from those basic acts. Heck, claims
> > like these could
> > be
> > based on a $50,000 handshake under the right set of facts.
> >
> > Of course, most
> > of
> > these claims would be against Alonzo personally, as
> > corporations generally
> > are
> > not liable for the torts of their officers (due to the
> > “corporate veil”),
> > and
> > officers generally aren’t liable for claims against the
> > corporation. More
> > on
> > that below, but also don’t think that you couldn’t pull
> > ISBG’s officers and
> > the
> > Big Tent boys into this mess too if you wanted to. It all
> > depends on who
> > knew
> > what when, which, even if they eventually disproved the
> > claims, would
> > require
> > some pretty painful and expensive discovery in order to do
> > so,
> > including
> > depositions under oath and production of lots of emails and
> > phone
> > records
> > between Alonzo and all the people now part of ISBG. Let’s
> > see… off the
> > top of my
> > head…
> >
> > Civil conspiracy between ISBG and Alonzo to commit the
> > alleged
> > fraudulent
> > acts? (“To state a claim for civil conspiracy, the
> > plaintiff must
> > demonstrate
> > (1) an agreement between two or more parties; (2) to do an
> > unlawful
> > act or to do
> > a lawful act by unlawful means; (3) the doing of some overt
> > act in
> > pursuance of
> > the conspiracy; and (4) damage to plaintiff as a result of
> > the acts
> > done under
> > the conspiracy.” Sunoptic Technologies, LLC v. Integra
> > Luxtec, Inc.,
> > No.
> > 3:08-CV-878-J-16JRK, 2009 WL 722320, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Mar.
> > 18,
> > 2009)).
> >
> > Tortious
> > interference? (“The elements of tortious interference with
> > a
> > business
> > relationship are: (1) the existence of a business
> > relationship, not
> > necessarily
> > evidenced by an enforceable contract, under which the
> > plaintiff has
> > legal
> > rights; (2) the defendant's knowledge of the relationship;
> > (3) an
> > intentional
> > and unjustified interference with the relationship by the
> > defendant;
> > and (4)
> > damage to the plaintiff as a result of the interference.”
> > Palm Beach
> > Cnty.
> > Health Care Dist. v. Prof'l Med. Educ., Inc., 13 So. 3d
> > 1090, 1094 (Fla.
> > Dist.
> > Ct. App. 2009)).
> > To reiterate again, those are not claims against Alonzo
> > or
> > DKTS, those would rope in ISBG as independently liable for .
> > And that’s
> > just
> > what comes immediately to mind in about 20 minutes, never
> > mind what you
> > could
> > come up with if the stakes were real…
> >
> > Back to the corporate
> > veil/Alonzo/DKTS
> > issue, again it would depend on the facts unearthed during
> > discovery, but it
> > seems like you could make a pretty good case that DKTS was
> > basically the “alter
> > ego” of Alonzo and a court should not hesitate to
> > “pierce
> > the corporate veil.”
> > Except, in this case it would essentially be “reverse
> > piercing,” which is
> > supported by the case law in a number of states. That is,
> > ordinarily you pierce
> > the veil to go after an officer directly for an
> > act/omission of the corporation.
> > Here, by contrast, you would be trying to
> > pierce the veil to hold the
> > corporation liable for the act/omission of its
> > officer.
> >
> > “Simply stated, veil
> > piercing is an equitable remedy used to prevent
> > the fraudulent or improper use
> > of the corporate form from injuring the party
> > seeking to pierce the corporate
> > veil.” In re Checiek, 492 B.R. 918, 920 (Bankr.
> > M.D. Fla. 2013).
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: "ME"
> > <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Saturday,
> > August 15, 2015 4:03pm
> > To:
> > [e-mail]
> > Subject: Fwd: ISBG /
> > DKTS
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Lou:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Are you
> > saying that this whole thing, for
> > all 7 note holders, can be paid off for
> > $11,910? Or convert it to 476,400,000
> > ISBG common, which makes no sense for them
> > to convert at 40,000 to 1.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Lou, if it
> > is not that, what amount did each note
> > holder invest? Are they all entitled a
> > 150% premium? You see, I am trying to
> > wrap my arms around the entire situation.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank You,
> >
> > Wayne
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > From: lou <
> > [e-mail]>
> >
> > To: ME <
> > [e-mail]>
> >
> >
> > Sent: Sat, Aug 15, 2015 8:17 am
> > Subject:
> > ISBG / DKTS
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > READ
> >
> > http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=116235657
> >
> > It
> > seems
> > that
> > the company can pay off the note for $11,910 ($4,764 + 150%
> > premium)
> > on
> > thirty
> > days notice or Don Morrison can convert it into 476,400,000
> > common
> > shares
> > whenever he likes.
> >
> > We know they have $11,910, thanks to Ms.
> > Autry, why
> > then are
> > they risking that kind of dilution? Some unknown person to
> > whom Mr.
> > Morrison
> > sold $1,000 worth of the note has already converted it into
> > 100,000,000
> > shares
> > in March of this year, less than 2 months before Ms. Autry
> > turned over a
> > bit
> > less than $1M for exactly the same number of
> > shares....which
> > at last report
> > she
> > has yet to receive.
> >
> > She knew this stuff when she invested,
> > right?
> > Everybody
> > should know it NOW...it's right there in the filing.
> >
> > Let's
> > look at it
> > another
> > way:
> > The Disclosure Statement said this:
> > Total shares
> > outstanding:
> > 390,608,097
> > as of: July 10, 2015
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >