Bancorp International Group Inc (fka BCIT)

[realwhiz1]

In the past, everytime we were close to clearing this mess up, someone with an alterior agenda steps in and screws it up.

That should be in a form of a question. Who's agenda or who would have the most to lose or GAIN?

Motive $1.25 per share = GAIN

GAIN How? That 60/40 split - yeah the Grabowski case what .40 a share then that Lusk case bet it was higher. Hmmm $1.25 value where? maybe the next round of negotiations with the losing broker. I am still betting Megas was thinking he was going to be selling at $5.00 per share by the end of the year.

Did that money go into the company business account in order to create value? The so called business account - the one everyone wired into for 205 purchases - no it didn't - closed out summer of 14. When that well ran dry, Megas kicked it to the curb.


____________________________________________________
TRADING? WOW what an insult! As only the late Frank Zappa can say it: GREAT GOOGLY MOOGLY!


Yes Weebie I am quoting you:

post 157949

When the DTC told us to submit a legal opinion to remove the lock, Megas was going to get his company back...WE WON.

Isn't removing the lock and exposing the short what Rothchild is all about?

I just cannot get my head around why the Legal Opinion hasn't been submitted.

We fought the fight and won- oh yeah no money for Huxley if it actually traded again.
________________________________________________

Post #157951


Megas never had any intentions to remove the lock!

And still Huxley solicited money for the lock.

From: Bill Ferguson <[e-mail]>
To: XXXXXX <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, Sep 9, 2014 10:26 am
XXXXX

I like your thinking and we have adopted your BCIT lock suggestion.

I am going to run this by a colleague to see if we can find a fault and then Megas.

Bill




Now we know why the legal opinion will not be commented on any further.

On the back of your time, expense, and hardship, BILL FERGUSON wants to get paid!






From: Bancorp International <[e-mail]>
Date: May 6, 2015 at 5:24:15 AM EDT
To: Bancorp Investor Support <[e-mail]>
Subject: Follow up on Update May 5

Dear all

-------------

We are almost at a decade since these crimes against BCIT took place and we are sitting still on worthless shares.

$1.25 is not worthless.

Most of us have 106's and you havent responded to my last couple emails - will holders of 106 shares get left behind with zero (given Megas's current course)?

Ah the old 106 story.
I am going to say this one last time.
You have no relationship with BCIT at this stage.
You bought your shares from your broker and if you want to be a shareholder of record then you have to ask for your shares in certificate form.
If your broker fails to comply with your entitlement which is a mandatory duty, then you need to take action and file for mandatory injunctive relief compelling the broker to deliver shares.
Of course most of you have not done so, which is your choice and we are not going to spend anymore time trying to tell you what you should do.

and, bill, come on, WHAT ABOUT TRADING?

What about it.
The messages have been going out to you for years.
Had you all done your bit then you might actually have had trading shares, but you did not do so, you sat on your hands and let 130 odd people and us do all the hard work.
I will be honest with you, CH is only just able to keep its head above water financially and the time has come for us to say enough.

A Settlement?

Do you honestly expect a broker to shell out $1.25 X 2.2 billion unless they have people squeezing their balls? come on chaps get real.
They are going to settle with the people who are hounding them for their shares and the rest of you will have to live with your decision.
There are a few people who cannot file and they are noted.

what is the endgame here?

BCIT shares for those who are bothered to ask and fight for them so that, should things develop, they may benefit


The DTC Lock?

The DTC lock is not really an issue.

It is not a rule statute or regulation which prohibit brokers from delivering certificates to individual shareholders.
UCC 8 states that there are two distinct contractual relationships which state that DTC has a liability to brokers for shares and Brokers are liable to you the customers

There is no connection between the DTC and you the customer and DTC says this themselves.
So if the DTC has no relationship with you and no liability to you then the liability for delivering your shares is with the broker.
Don't forget the the Exchange Act and UCC both put obligations on your brokers to obtain and hold your shares in trust until you either want to sell them or leave the indirect holder and be given the certs.

Arbitrators are starting to see through the brokers bull and there have been two more wins where people have been given refunds.
This is not great news as the price of BCIT has now gone from a fraction of a cent to $1.25 and the awards do not comply with the FINRA guidelines.


The legal opinion on the removal of the DTC lock is ongoing and it is inappropriate for me to comment further.


all in all CH just might get paid soon.

Bill