Brent,
As you have no further questions, I need to respond to All4all’s account of the controversy. This is going to be long as there is a lot of history of this controversy to cover. Be patient, I hope it is interesting to see how these things develop.
All4all states, “Rumor is something one doesn't have first hand knowledge of, it can be true or false.” Rumor is the source of All4all’s problem with me.
He states, “He (Vernen) canceled the license he has granted PDGT in September/2007.” Not true. The license contract was completed having run its 5-year course.
He states,” Mr Cammarata moved to pay any unpaid licensee fees to Mr Vernen and negotiations to reinstate the license rights started between both parties. “
Not true. Mr. Cammarata held the unpaid royalties (a very small percentage of the value of the contract) hostage to Triple Tech accepting a much lower monthly figure. Triple Tech then broke off negotiations until such time as the owing royalties were paid and Mr. Cammarata provided a CV (resume). Through his lawyer, Mr. Cammarata then agreed to these terms, if a meeting would be set. Triple Tech agreed to a range of dates for the meeting and also set a time for the money and CV to be received. Mr. Cammarata then disappeared and a Cease and Desist date expired. That ended the contract.
Why is this difference important? Negotiations towards a new contract never started. The amount of money owed is not large ($15K) and has already been counted as an uncollectable bad debt. Triple Tech broke with Paradigm with a Cease and Desist. There are no sour grapes here – Triple Tech simply wanted to end the relationship with a company which did not have the money to pay its bills or supply a CV on the CEO brought in after the scandal of the Eiten complaint.
Triple Tech’s conclusion that Paradigm is a disreputable company it does not want to do business with is based on Paradigm’s actions following these events. Paradigm did not inform its shareholders of the loss of its only product. Instead it continued to issue PR’s claiming new contracts and sales as if the contract were in effect. It also continued, to this day with its website ParadigmTactical.com to show Frisker as its product. Also on the Paradigm Ihub site it claims “Paradigm is the owner of the Frisker Pro patent.” This has never been true.
Why don’t we take them to court? I have told All4all the reason, but he chooses not to include it. Our decision was that “You don’t chase a vagrant through court.” Paradigm has no address to serve – it claims to be somewhere in three states: Massachusetts, Florida, or Delaware. It will be expensive to find and set jurisdiction, more to bring a case. Second, they do not appear to have any money.
All4all states: “Mr Vernen patent only specifies a particular design for a metal detector, so PDGT felt it didn't have to be hostage to a particular design.” I cannot be sure what All4all’s source for this statement is or why he makes it. It is an incorrect reading of the patent and patent law as I have explained to All4all. My patent is not for a metal detector but the claim granted by the USPTO in the patent is for the right to WEAR a metal detector – any metal detector. It covers any conceivable additions which include a metal detector which is WORN on a human appendage. The proposed product of Paradigm says on its website it is a worn metal detector. By ignoring this fact, All4all is posting over-enthusiastic projections of Paradigm’s ability to market such a product. By not at least presenting this claim in his posts, he is misleading those who seek information.
All4all also incorrectly states, “In April, Mr. Vernen and his 2 partners at Triple Tech LLC, create accounts on IHUB and other boards. Their plan was to make sure PDGT didn't make it as a company.” It may be a small point, but it shows All4all is willing to present suppositions as fact. After giving Paradigm 8 months to adjust and inform the shareholders of the loss of the Frisker contract, a partner decided to post on GB – he did and it is his ONLY post. Immediately questions arose there and I took an account to answer. In time a poster suggested I look at Ihub as a better board. I did and have posted here. The other partner in Triple Tech hates computers and has never used one. I do not know where he gets even secondhand knowledge to claim our intent was to “make sure PDGT didn’t make it as a company.” I am sorry if the truth is damaging to Paradigm – it is not our intent to harm but to inform the shareholders. A statement like that shows All4all’s true colors.
All4all states: “In May, it became obvious the Canadian company above mentioned (ACG) was a scam.” Go back and read the posts on Paradigm Ihub. All4all was promoting his interpretation of a blog to mean there was a great, different product RadDrone that Paradigm was really coming out with. Then he promoted the blog to indicate a “reverse merger” which would push the stock up greatly. It was that Canadian inventor and myself that finally won the day in making it “obvious” ACG was a scam. No thanks to All4all.
All4all states: “At the same time Mr. Vernen also contacts him and tells him how bad PDGT is. He first believes Mr Vernen, also creates accounts on IHUB and elsewhere, so he could state neither ACG or PDGT did not own RadDetect patent. I believe he has since changed his opinion, but I could be wrong.” This is a total misstatement and All4all knows it.
First, the Canadian inventor contacted ME through the Ihub page. All4all has referred to the post in one of his. The post asked I contact him – the Canadian inventor. The Canadian inventor was outraged, at no prodding from me, about Paradigm’s PR announcing his product RadDetect being acquired from ACG. There are numerous posts by the Canadian inventor trying to inform the board of the scam and Paradigm’s part. Again no thanks to All4all who opposed the posts with those of his own. And yes, All4all, you are wrong. There has been no changing of minds. If Paradigm attempts to infringe on the Canadian inventor’s patent, I have reason to believe there will be lawsuits. Again, All4all PURPOSELY does not present an accurate picture as he knows it in his posts.
Finally All4all sums up with a list of rumors (his words). I comment.
”- PDGT is offering RadDetect to distributors
- A prototype will be ready in the next couple of weeks “
Facts are, based on the Canadian inventor’s statements, there are no RadDetect units available and ACG nor Paradigm are distributors if there were. RadDetect requires a nuclear bunker to test and calibrate. Any units or prototypes would infringe on his patent. If All4all is posting about Paradigm’s prospects to an investor, then he should balance that information with what is being said by those involved, firsthand.
”- The new Metal Detector will be available by month end
- PDGT redesigned the metal detector taking into consideration remarks from TSA last year test “
This is welcome news. This is by far an earliest date I have seen. Paradigm has refused to supply its Pat Pending number – even though it discloses nothing in itself except that a patent has been applied. Disclosing the number provides credence that some patent has been applied but under penalty of law if that turns out not to be true. Paradigm’s refusal should be taken as an indication it wishes not to run afoul of this law by making false claims – that is applied for a patent.
If Paradigm has created an appendage mounted metal detector – it will infringe on the Frisker patent. This will cause great problems for the company and its shareholders. If true, it is welcome news that this stage can begin.
”- Mr Vernen (AKA Wizard) and Triple Tech is being sued by PDGT”
What informed source does this come from? If there is none, then why state it? It must be inside information from Paradigm –right? What ethic would apply in disclosing this information here when Triple Tech has not been made aware of either the fact or the intentions?
To conclude. I have posted the loss of the Frisker contract, requested the CV of the CEO, Shown RadDetect contract and the ACG are frauds, the reverse merger nonsense, and pointed out difficulties with a StealthSensor worn metal detector. Each time, not to be challenged in an information gathering way, but by being called a basher. Motives assigned without reason, “Their plan was to make sure PDGT didn't make it as a company.”
All4all, by his own disclosure, owns 2% of Paradigm stock. He bought this stock at basement prices with the intentions of getting in on a bump in price if the stock received positive news. All fine and what penny stock is all about. BUT, organizing a campaign to mislead stockholders by trying to trash any negative view to get a false bump crosses some line of ethics – don’t you think?
I have been in business most of my life. People talk of gouging oil companies, Enron, Tyco, and so and think that is just how business is done. It is a dog’s world out there and cheating and stealing are the way it is done. I know business is not that way and those who try it are soon not in business.
Let me relate a story of business, as I know it. About 25 years ago a guy called me up. I met him in a run-down section of town in a small warehouse that looked as if a bomb had gone off. He told me he had just bought this “company” and needed a module to make his product work in the then developing computer world. He didn’t have any money. Could I help? We made a deal that I would make the module at no cost to him but if he sold any he would pay a royalty. Nothing written, just a handshake. Today he has the second largest company in his field in the US. The original handshake is still honored. If I had patented the module it would have run out long ago. He could have made his own module at great savings. We never wrote anything down and have supported each other and prospered all these years. That is how business is really done in the world I know and it is the rule rather than an isolated case.
So, when I tell you that my motive is simply to inform the shareholders of things I know about, maybe I am not so naïve after all. Perhaps if people could expect the truth about investments and risk in a penny stock, they would be more willing to to invest. As it is, people laugh if you tell them you invested in a penny stock - with good reason.
In your words, ”Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others. “
Verne
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
