The Jailhouse

[MMMARY]

bop: response to your dd report

<snip>
~*~*~UNPAID DD ON NPCT~*~*~

This is completely irrelevant. Whether the DD is paid or not, if it is correct it's correct. If it is wrong, it's wrong.

me: it is relevant to show that I'm not a paid promoter or a person shorting the stock for profit. As per SEC regulations, I would have to disclaim this. I have no financial motive, nothing to gain and potential liability. It shows that I am posting this information nonanonymously in order to inform investors.

Some information about the public company Nanopierce and its CEO Paul Metzinger. (Some of the links go my website mary.cc. I have no cookies, virii, password grabbers... or anything in my site that is harmful, guaranteed)

A report like this should not deliver only "some" information. It can be focused only on a specific type of information and it is perfectly correct to do so. The portion in parenthesis comes across as an excuse for not providing third party confirmation.

me: I posted the bit about cookies because the paid promoters were yelling that i have cookies, password grabbers ... in my site to try and keep people from going to my site to view it. I post this in message boards as well as on that stand alone page. There are links in there to actual documents so there is third party confirmation. Some of the press releases are older and no longer on yahoo server so I copied them here.


1. The CEO was sued for fraud by the SEC three times. (see below for lawsuit dockets). He "consented to issuance of permanent injunction and entry of judgment against Metzinger." Look at all the charges against him http://www.mary.cc/npct/7.htm
Here is the judgment. He showed the SEC that he was penniless then agreed to rat out his companies and associates in exchange for the injunction and judgment. If he breaks the settlement agreement, he consents to be tried as a criminal in criminal court. Here are the documents.
http://www.mary.cc/npct/NP1.JPG
http://www.mary.cc/npct/NP2.JPG
http://www.mary.cc/npct/NP3.JPG
http://www.mary.cc/npct/NP4.JPG


Major red flags here. All corroborating "evidence" is available only at the reporters website and mostly consists of "pictures" of purportedly SEC documents taken by the reporter. Likewise the "evidence" indicates some charges and the referenced lawsuits, but the commentary is slanted towards the inflammatory that the individual is guilty of something. If the inflammatory commentary were removed and third party verification of the "evidence" presented this would be an outstanding bit of information in reference to company management.

me: I had to scan the actual documents as they are not available online. Search pacer and you wont' find them there, just a link to them and then it says it's not available. I scanned them because company paid stock promoter retyped them and edited them. I had to show she was lying.

Note: ADAPT did a most cursory search concerning the individual above. In addition to some verification of the above information we also found references to the individual prevailing in several appeals. That information should also be included in a report of this nature.

me: where is your proof that he prevailed in appeals? I don't see it, links, verified third party information? That seems a tad hypocritical to me.



2. The CEO was also sued for racketeering and was involved in a lawsuit over missing stock certificates.

No supporting evidence whatsoever presented in the report. This reporter appears to expect the reader to take everything at face value. a clear sign that the reader should be very careful in judging the accuracy of this information.

me: the docket information is right below this information. It's right here http://www.mary.cc/npct I post my dd in two parts, first part here and then the dockets.

3.The CEO's last company went bankrupt, i.e. Intercell. Other companies he was involved in went bankrupt also such as Faspaq. He also went bankrupt personally in 1989.

Again no supporting third party confirmation. Additionally, while worthwhile to know, this reporter is reminded of the standard disclaimer used by mutual fund salesmen. "Past results are not necessarily an indication of future performance"

me: again, I posted the dockets also. you just didn't read them.

4. NPCT was started as a mining company then became a distributor of skylights symbol SUNY which is a shell Metzinger's wife owned and now they sell hitech? The assets of npct i.e. patents and patent applications were bought with printed shares from a division of Intercell. Intercell considered their value ZERO. CEO Paul Metzinger is also the CEO of Intercell. symbol IICP.OB http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=IICP.OB&d=t

At last a third party link. Though not to the company that is the subject of the report(?). More unverified "facts". this is beginning to look more like an opinion column than a DD report.

me: go to any sec document site and you can see it all for yourself. Even look at the latest quarterly report and it states it there also.

5. No direct revenue, no profits. They had a tiny tiny bit of income for consulting about something which had nothing to do with the company.

This informationis too easily verified not to have been accomanied by the appropriate link. At this point the astute investor is likely to leave the document and proceed directly to the company filings to review thing for himself. The reporter has failed the reader by not providing the information promised in the header.

me: If you look at the link below, you can see all the sec filings for yourself. I provided a link. You just didn't bother to read it.

6. They have hired many, many stock promoters. One of them posted on the message boards that toxic funding is good and the funder was a good company when that was not the case. The company is currently suing the funder for stock manipulation and securities fraud. The funder Southridge Financial, Kernaghan are infamous as corporate loan sharks who short stocks. More information on them here http://www.mary.cc/tk

Again more easily verifiable information lacking verification. Though if taken at face value it appears that company may be trying to recoup losses as the result of misplaced trust in the past. The comments concerning the funder are irrelevant in this context.

me: verification is right on the board where this was psoted. RB user kknightmcc posted on rb and on her site i2i that the funder was good. This is toxic funding! It's very relevant. Only losers accept toxic funding as they can get funds from no other place.

7. They have an Open House every year which is basically just a stock promotion meeting. Here is a photo from it. They promote it heavily in Asia, Germany and the US yet they only had 35 people and I see at least five stock promoters in the audience. If this were a revolutionary product, how come more people weren't there? Why'd they even take a photo of such a small audience? http://www.nanopierce.com/daten/company/openhoeuse_event/oh_images/
Audience/Thumbnails/TN_the_audience1.jpg


Presented without the commentary this would be a good piece of DD. The questions asked are an obvious attempt to direct an action by the reader. a definite no-no in a proper DD report.

me: your own twisted opinion, a big no no to me.

8. Most of the DD on this company is paid promotion such as wallstreetreporter.com , investortoinvestor.com (Kathy Knight, Kent Klook), Investor Relations Worldwide Corporation asianinvestoronline.com (owned by a Colorado company) , WillyWizard.com (Hal Engel) , marketreporter.com , ceocast.com, nanotechinvesting.com is company site, stockreporter.de, Charles Van Musscher of Gruenwald, Germany, The Geneva Group, Inc. of Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida and probably others. Check out their disclaimers on their sites. They have been paid to promote NPCT. Check out annual SEC reports and search/find for Investor Relations and you will see their names and compensation. Here are just a few from the SEC documents which you can recognize from the message boards especially Hal Engle, Kathy Knight and Chad Beemer who do not post anonymously.
7/1/98 . Common Stock 186,500 Investor Relations Putter Consulting
7/1/98 Common Stock 24,500 Investor Relations Kathy Knight- McConnell
7/1/98 Common Stock 6,250 Investor Relations Hans Kast
7/1/98 Common Stock 6,250 Investor Relations Roger L. Smothers
6/3/99 Common Stock 100,000 Investor Relations Harold Engel, Jr.
6/30/99 Common Stock 144,000 Investor Relations Stock Enterprises
6/30/99 Common Stock 250,000 Consulting Services Bert Roosen
6/30/99 Common Stock 30,000 Investors Relations Chad Beemer
6/30/99 Common Stock 10,000 Interest on Rose & Richard Gram

Again, presented without the commentary that attempts to steer the reader to a desired conclusion this would be an excellent bit of DD.

me: your own twisted opinion, a dd no no for sure. I spelled it all out for everyone. If I just post the investor relations names no one will realize what I'm talking about.


9. Paul Metzinger is also CEO of Intercell. They did a 1:20 reverse stock split and their stock was at .14 That means it is really worth less than a cent. He changed the stock symbol also. He wasn't even in any type of business. His words again "I am currently assessing with the Board of Directors various business opportunities, which could well form the basis for the future business activity of the Company. There are several opportunities which we find of particular interest and which are in markets of substantial size upon which to build a real operating company. We have no specific restrictions imposed upon our search. I invite any shareholder who may be aware of a technology or a business opportunity, which they think may be of interest to the Company, to please contact me."

After a short respite we return to no verification.

me: if an investor can't even find an SEC doc, they have no business investing in anything. If someone's on a message board, they can find an SEC doc. If I post an excerpt, you would probably state that I'm lying.

10. Intercell also had problems with the SEC with their reports. They had to restate them. This straight from the CEO. "Our previously announced plan to restructure, recapitialize and refinance Intercell Corporation was, unfortunately, delayed because of a frustratingly long effort to accommodate the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission on certain technical accounting issues relating to the audited financial statements for the fiscal year ended September 30, 1999."

This is the first portion of this document to be presented in the proper format. Now if the reporter had only included a third party verification link of the quote it would be perfect.

me: the link is gone as the company restructed. This came form a letter to shareholders posted on SI years ago.

11. The CEO begs shareholders not to verify contracts with other companies. This is very troubling and suspect.
http://www.nanopierce.com/daten/investor/press_archive/shletter14_09_01.html

"We are currently engaged in extremely sensitive discussions with many major global players in the microelectronics industry. These discussions and future business relationships can and will be jeopardized if shareholders make direct contacts with any of these companies in what may be a well intentioned effort to find out what is going on.

Recently executives of one company, at the highest levels, contacted us expressing extreme and troubling concern about calls received from inquisitive shareholders. These executives felt "compromised” being faced with answering questions about what they deemed to be inside material information, which obviously they could not disclose or even affirm or deny. These contacts must stop otherwise we may lose the opportunity to ever again deal with these companies. It destroys our reputation to be a trustworthy partner." Then shareholders check out contracts as per SEC recommendation. Boeing said "Nanopierce who?" and Infineon clearly stated they are not doing business with Nanopierce. Others said no comment or did not respond at all.
Also, if you say you are in a related company and ask for a sample to try out, test, they say NO. What does that tell you?
Paul then states 10/2001 through his promoter Kathy that he will no longer be providing information to shareholders because of message board posters trying to verify his information. I personally believe he received a cease and desist letter from Boeing as Boeing told me they were going to find out what was up with Nanopierce.

This time we get a good link but the commentary is deliberately inflammatory. Recommendation that an investor make a false representaion to obtain a sample is extremely disturbing. As is the follow up that because the company doesn't hand out samples based on a phone call proving something is amiss.

me: I did not tell people to lie. I stated IF. A shareholder can ask for a sample and you get the same exact answer. You would think they would at least ask more questions before stating no.

12. NPCT stock promoter Stockreporter sued by the SEC for fraud in his promotions. Here is the npct stock promotion. Here is the SEC lawsuit against the Stockreporter. http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr16680.htm

This information should have been included in item #8 above. Properly constructed though.

me: It is included above. http://www.mary.cc/npct/sp.htm You jsut didn't bother to copy the link.

13. Here Metzinger claims there are huge oil reserves for a company when there weren't. http://www.mary.cc/npct/1.htm

Again the link is not third party verifiable.

me: Because it's dead. People don't keep news items up forever. Yahoo gets rid of htem in just a few months.

14. Here are some investors burned by Paul posting on Silicon Investors about him and his scams. http://www.mary.cc/npct/3.htm and yet another burned Intercell Investor, same scam over and over again. http://www.mary.cc/npct/4.htm

see item #13

me: there are links to SI posts in the actual report. You didn't even read it. YOu did not dd at all.

15. A recent unbiased article about NPCT. http://www.mary.cc/npct/5.htm This is the only honest article ever written about the company I believe. He did some good DD.

see #13

me: there is a link to the actual report which is still on line . YOu didn't even read it.

16. Metzinger rips off his business partners as well.

Paul shouldn't have a law license.
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=NPCT&read=59053

Paul doesn't keep promises to his partners.
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=NPCT&read=59052

http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=NPCT&read=59050

Louis wins his appeal
http://www.courts.state.co.us/ctappeals/caseann/12-6-01.htm
Article about Paul and Louis
http://www.mary.cc/npct/6.htm

A poor mix of other opinions and bad verification. Given that so much of this document is unverifiable only the most desperate investor would bother researching these allegations.

me: There's a current lawsuit which spells it all out. I posted the actual lawsuit up there. YOu didn't read it.



The remainder of the document references court dockets. This is appropriate for a due diligence report. However considering the overall length of the preceding and it's questionable presentation the reporter has all but insured that no one will review the attached documents.

me: The dockets are all verifiable. Don't you have a pacer account? It's all from a pay service so I copy/pasted it out for the rest of the people.


In Conclusion: Had the report provided verifiable confirmation at respected impartial third party locations and dispensed with the attempts to guide a reader to a specific conclusion this would be a valuable document. As it stands it is almost worthless, save for it's ability to teach others how not to proceed in making a report and alerting one what to expect from the reporter in question in the future.

me: I did. You didn't bother to read them. Your dd of my dd was pure opinion. My dd post is correct. YOu did not research. You dismissed it because you just don't like the messenger.

Here are lawsuit dockets

105 METZINGER, PAUL codc 1:1989cv00227 02/08/1989 850 02/23/1989
SECURITIES & EXCHANGE vs. PAUL METZINGER

U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (Denver)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 91-CV-65

Kanchanapoom, et al v. Zufelt, et al

Filed: 01/14/91
Assigned to: Judge Sherman G. Finesilver
Jury demand: Both
Demand: $5,000,000
Nature of Suit: 850
Lead Docket: None
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Dkt # in USDC C Dist CA : is CV89-7321-RMT (Ex)
Cause: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act


PAUL METZINGER Paul H. Metzinger
defendant [COR LD NTC]
Paul H. Metzinger, P.C.
600 - 17th Street
#2309-S
Denver, CO 80202
U.S.A.
303-592-1010
PAUL METZINGER, P.C. Paul H. Metzinger
defendant (See above)
[COR LD NTC]

2/5/91 9 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant Richard Metzinger,
defendant Robert H. Burgener, defendant E.M.I. Inc.,
defendant Crown, Ltd., defendant King, Ltd., defendant Sid,
Ltd. by Timothy James O'Connor, Mary Frances O'Connor (yk)
[Entry date 02/06/91]

It is ordered that the
second cause of action is dismissd as to Paul H. Metzinger
and Paul H. Metzinger, P.C. and First Trust Corp. It is
ordered tht the 8th and 12th causes of action are
dismissed.

U.S. District Court

U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (Denver)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 96-CV-1300

Maxam Gold Corp v. Timberline Conslts, et al

Filed: 06/03/96
Assigned to: Judge Clarence A. Brimmer
Jury demand: Defendant
Demand: $1,667,000
Nature of Suit: 190
Lead Docket: None
Jurisdiction: Diversity
Dkt# in other court: None
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

MAXAM GOLD CORPORATION Michael H. Berger
fka [COR LD NTC]
Maxam International Waldbaum, Corn, Koff, Berger &
Corporation Cohen, P.C.
plaintiff 303 East 17th Avenue
#940
Denver, CO 80203
U.S.A.
303-861-1166
Raymond Harris
[COR LD NTC]
(To be updated)
Cary Ira Schachter
[COR LD NTC]
Conant, Whittenburg, French &
Schachter, PC
600 North Pearl Street
#2300
Dallas, TX 75201
USA
214-999-5100
FTS 999-5747
v.
TIMBERLINE CONSULTANTS, INC. John Henry Schlie
defendant [COR LD NTC]
John H. Schlie, Atty at Law
1120 Lincoln Street
#1600
Denver, CO 80203
USA
303-832-6890
RON KNITTLE John Henry Schlie
defendant (See above)
[COR LD NTC]
PAUL METZINGER John Henry Schlie
defendant [term 10/09/96]
[term 12/23/96] (See above)

He was sued over stock certificates.
U.S. District Court

District of Utah (Central)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 88-CV-897

SEC v. Faspaq, Inc., et al

Filed: 09/30/88
Assigned to: Judge Bruce S. Jenkins
Jury demand: Defendant
Demand: $0,000
Nature of Suit: 850
Lead Docket: None
Jurisdiction: US Plaintiff
Dkt# in other court: None
Cause: 15:77 Securities Fraud


PAUL H. METZINGER
defendant
[term 01/30/89]
The SEC won the case against the main defendant. Paul had case against him dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction. SEC was supposed to refile against him in CO which is the proper jurisdiction but didn't.

Check out NPCT thread on http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/subject.gsp?subjectid=19793 especially the old posts. Look at all the promoters on the IHUB one also http://www.investorshub.com/boards/board.asp?board_id=98
Look at all the promoters here on Raging Bull. http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=NPCT

I have no shares. I have not been paid to post. I am not short. I just hate seeing people being fleeced by stock promoters. This company seems very suspect to me because of management's history and the fact they have no real income. If their patents were so hot, why wouldn't someone buy them or license them for millions? Why couldn't they have gotten a loan against the patents instead of the toxic funding? Why would they have sooo many stock promoters? When you see stock promoters saying this is a $60 stock when they're at .66 cents, you just KNOW something is funny here. As per Asensio's book "Sold Short" this company has almost ALL the signs of a stock scam, i.e. little or no revenue, a hot hot field, management with a bad past, restated earnings, change in auditors, lots of stock promoters, a hard to define product, lots of fluffy press releases, a past involving a mining company...
Sources of information
All legal information about lawsuits came from here. It's a pay site so you need an account, only 7 cents a page. Well worth it to do your DD on your investments.
http://pacer.uspci.uscourts.gov/
All SEC information came from their SEC filings. I use this source
http://www.amex.com/quote.dll?mode=stock&symbol=npct




___________________________
Just say NO to stock fraud!
<img src=http://www.mary.cc/x.gif>