Home > Boards > Stock Clubs > Penny Flippers > FACT-N-FICTION

Yes, Ollu does have an interesting past.

Public Reply | Private Reply | Keep | Last ReadPost New MsgNext 10 | Previous | Next
Lexit Member Profile
Followed By 13
Posts 1,961
Boards Moderated 2
Alias Born 03/13/07
160x600 placeholder
Lexit   Thursday, 03/29/07 11:58:54 PM
Re: Bull Trader post# 8540
Post # of 12962 
Yes, Ollu does have an interesting past.

He was part of this credit card scam:


"Montreal, on February 1, 2002 - the Office of the consumer protection announces that it obtained the judgment of the company 3479391 Canada Inc., a company known under the name of Sterling VIP Executive Club, to have devoted itself to false or misleading representations towards consumers.

The company on television attracted its customers by advertisements diffused and electronic publicity in the subway. It let to them believe that it was able to obtain a credit card shortly to them and that it was committed conveying at the office of credit of their choice information for a rehabilitation of their file of personal credit.

This process of rectification of credit was addressed primarily to consumers who had is declared bankruptcy or which had been seen refusing the access to the credit taking into account their bad file.

Sterling VIP Executive Club pled guilty with the forty-eight reports deposited against it and thus bailed out fines adding up 120.000 $. "


Here's the translated "La Facture" Radio Canada report: http://tinyurl.com/394d34

here's the original page:


He "represented" the company at this CRTC hearing:



THE CHAIRPERSON: Order please.
Mister the Secretary.

THE SECRETARY: Next person to present will be Mr. Serge Ollu, please. Go ahead, Mister.

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening, Mister Ollu.

Mr. OLLU: Good evening, Madam President. The public opinion given recently indicates that with the course your audiences you wish to allow the Canadians to express their point of view on activities of the Radio-Canada Company. It is for this purpose that I am in front of you today and I want to maintain you one activity of the Radio-Canada Company in particular and of an ethical problem which results from this.
I am the director general of one service firm which was the subject partly of the emission “La Facture” last on December 1. The administrators of our company judged that this television show had caused an undue wrong to the company in this which it conveyed of erroneous information and more particularly so that it related to a complaint of a person not-identified in spite of our requests and which felt sorry for was finally placed only subsequently to the diffusion such as in fact faith document attached.

Like very undertaken concerned to preserve its good reputation, the company informed 10 its prosecutors to bring proceedings against the author of the 11 erroneous remarks while reserving its right of recourse against the Radio-Canada Company. Until there nothing special good, a banal action as it is some each day of the hundreds in front of the courts.

It is only later in the advance of the file that disconcerting facts have fact surfaces. Indeed, it proves that defendant 18 represented by lawyers retained and paid by the Radio-Canada Company at very the public funds. This established fact disturbs us at the most point and raises important questions to which we cannot bring answer but that your Council east able to undoubtedly elucidate with knowing. Are it usual for the Company Radio-Canada to engage of the public funds in one period of restrictions on the defense of people of which 2 it diffuses the interviews if it proves that them do testimonys of these people give place to a recourse in justice on behalf of the part concerned?

Second, is it possible that the Radio-Canada Company in evil of comments and/or dimension of listening gives as a preliminary to the person person interviewed the insurance of a legal representation the case falling due, to some extent a form of immunity which 10 would constitute an invitation at worst the abuses? 11 1056 By taking the defense here of person interviewed with lawyers selected and paid by it, the Radio-Canada Company does not come it to deprive this person of an important means from defense which could be it his, namely to plead the fault of 16 the Company Radio-Canada itself. the television shows of the kind “La Facture” 18 enjoy a certain popular favour but they should not be used as public outfall of the complaints some justified times, some time not, of all the dissatisfied customers. That is likely to become the case, especially if the diffuser is used for then of its considerable means to put the person interviewed at the shelter of the consequences of its gestures, same the gestures which them StenoTran became public and potentially detrimental thanks to the intervention of the diffuser. With any event the question remains whole: how the Radio-Canada Company can justify the use of public funds to the defense of people of which it diffused an interview? To less that it is not about its share of an operation for to limit the damage resulting from an interview to the subject of which it maintained the doubts since departure. We have, unfortunately, only them 11 questions. We hope that you will be able to obtain the answers.

Thank you very much, Madam the President.

PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr Ollu.

Soon after the "La Facture" report the company closed it's doors and vanished....


From Credit Cards to the Stock Market.

Public Reply | Private Reply | Keep | Last ReadPost New MsgNext 10 | Previous | Next
Follow Board Follow Board Keyboard Shortcuts Report TOS Violation
Current Price
Detailed Quote - Discussion Board
Intraday Chart
+/- to Watchlist