Response from Nik.
1. TJAK, Could you please ask NIK who the IBM UK executive is. When you find out you can e-mail me with that information. All I need is his name. Then I will go to my former co-workers at the Corporate Headquarters in Armonk, N.Y. and get Management permission to speak to the UK executive. As a retiree of IBM, with 30 years of service, I have the right to do this, and I will. Only then will we put to rest the scope of involvement with IBM as NIK has claimed. If he is put off by this, too bad, they have put themselves in the unique position of explaining each movement to the shareholders by their own deception and half truth statements. We own this company, unless they forgot! Nik had stated "If you would copies of the email traffic surrounding this conversation I would be more than happy to supply them"
Now I know this answer will get twisted, but am sure anyone with a shred of intelligence will understand this answer.
I'm not going to reveal the name of a contact that we have been working with for six months onto a public board, and I'm even less inclined when I saw who posted this question.
Bob has been offered the opportunity to have his representatives visit the office and discuss this. He declined, then claimed a day later that he had all the information necessary to make his decision, and was going to sell his shares and wouldn't be venting on IHub anymore.
Furthermore, I can see no benefit to the company and it's shareholders in passing this information on. The last thing I am going to do, having been through the difficulties we have all been through in the last 12 months, is to risk the relationship we have built with senior management at IBM.
Again, apologies that this answer will not help the situation on the board, and will obviously be twisted to become something sinister and underhanded, but there is little I can do to prevent that.
2. Who is the new Attorney representing MDFY, as stated in a recent post from either Nik or Ian? It would be nice to know who this person is in case we have some legal questions pertaining to MDFY and wish to address them.
Any legal matters can be addressed to the company and should they warrant attention by legal counsel we will forward them. This is standard operating procedure for any company.
3. I keep reading that MDFY has conducted investigations into various allegations but I haven't seen any time-tables as to when we can or will expect to see the results?
When appropriate the results of our findings will be reported to shareholders.
4. Aren't we selling Medify Remote subscriptions yet? How many have been sold? On order? Back ordered due to product shortages? and so on? If Nik or Ian would address these questions I believe Nik will see and increase in potential shareholders coming on board therefore pushing the share price up based on demand.
Yes, we're selling subscriptions. Please see previous discussions on sales figures.
1.WHY DOES MDFY OWE $165,794.52 IN BACK TAXES ACCORDING TO THE SECURITIES DIV OF DELAWARE?
Tom
Many thanks for sending on the further question.
Once again, this is a question based on inaccurate information. I have checked with Ian to be able to fully explain the situation.
Delaware charge the company the maximum amount in tax until a return is filed. When the return is filed then the balance is worked out and what is actually due is immediately due for payment.
When Ian joined the company, there was a bill for back taxes totalling $280,000.00 (!) because previous CEO's had paid no attention to it.
Ian bought everything up to date and we paid, in total, $500 per year (for the two previous years) and are fully up to date. The latest return is due for filing at the end of March and our US accountants predicted that the tax bill will be a similar amount again.
In conclusion, Medify's taxes are complete and paid up to date. There is no outstanding amount.
Hope this helps.
Regards
Nik
