Indocan Resources Inc. (IDCN)

[UpstateChris]

I would like to take a moment to reword a previously posted, partially inappropriate, message.

First, IDCN is a pink sheet to the extreme. If you are here with full knowledge of that looking to play the pops on pumps and get out quick, then obviously you do not care at all about the legitimacy of IDCN's business. I fully understand and can appreciate this and wish you the best of luck.

To those that may be considering investing in IDCN, or any stock for that matter, I would like to share a bit of wisdom with you that every trader has learned through varying degrees of pain over their trading career:

Never ever trust anyone or anything you read on a forum or blog or even more mainstream media until you can verify it from an outside source. Period. No exceptions.

A "fact" is just that, it is a truth that can be verified and not disputed. Sure it can be interpreted in many ways, and it's implications towards the future value of a stock can be hotly debated but it is still a fact.

People post things on forums all the time and state that they are facts. Sometimes they are - sometimes they are completely made up - sometimes in between. If something is a fact there should always be a way to verify it - WITHOUT TAKING ANYONE'S WORD FOR IT. This is the critical part. You should assume that I am lying to you, that the CEO is lying, that the Investment Relations Officer is lying and that we all have our own agendas.

On discussion forums such as iHub it is common to see someone post something - that may be completely made up - and immediately others start talking about it, figuring out how it fits with other pieces of information, trying to read in to what it means and generally running down the rabbit hole without ever taking a moment to question the veracity of the original piece of information. Anyone who has been here (on iHub/Yahoo!/The Lion/etc..) for a few years has seen many examples of this. A single post of pure fiction can result in weeks and hundreds of followup posts. A month later anyone looking at the forum will think "Wow, there are like 500 posts on Project X!" so instead of even wondering if Project X is real they jump directly to how they feel about where Project X will take the company.

My point is, just because there are a large number of posts on something doesn't mean it is real anymore than you can repeat a lie enough times to make it the truth.


My IDCN example from a previous post relates to the Sunray problems. This was before I was involved in IDCN. In June of 2006 the SEC filed a lawsuit against Sunray Oil, Abilene Oil & Gas, Larry Stiles and J&L Drilling. The official SEC info is here: http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2006/lr19737.htm (Again, please DO NOT beleive me - instead look for yourself). There is no doubt what so ever that a fraud occurred and legal action ensued. No one questions this. Those involved in IDCN back then know that the Investment Relations Office, Ken Ask, and the CEO, Jeffrey R. Bruhjell, were making many claims that IDCN had direct business relationships and partnerships with Sunray Oil. Here is one such example:

ADDISON, TexasAddison is a city in Dallas County, Texas (USA). The population was 14,166 at the 2000 census. Addison is a northern suburb of Dallas. The city calls itself the Town of Addison but it is incorporated as a city.
..... Click the link for more information., Aug. 25 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Indocan Resources Inc (BULLETIN BOARD: IDCN IDCN Infodomestic Developer Connection Network
IDCN Impreza Drivers Club Norway
IDCN Interior District California Nevada ) today announces it has also entered into an agreement with Sunray Oil Company of Addison, Texas, http://www.sunrayoilcompany.com/ and a consortium assembled by Sunray Oil, whereby Indocan Resources Inc. has agreed to purchase a 30% interest in the Abilene and 30% interest in the Albany projects as well as the original commitment on the Carnell No. 3.

At Abilene, Sunray will drill and complete two (2) wells to the depth of 2,800' and Indocan will additionally have the "First Right of Refusal" for further participation in additional wells.

At Albany Sunray will drill and complete ten (10) wells to the depth of 2,800', re-work and/or recomplete all thirty-six (36) wells to maximize production. Indocan will additionally have the "First Right of Refusal" for further participation in additional wells.
More information is available at http://www.indocan.com/

Company Info: [phone] Jeffrey R Bruhjell, president

CONTACT: Investor Relations, Ken Ash [phone].

CONTACT: Ken Ash, Investor RelationsInvestor relations

The process by which the corporation communicates with its investors.
..... Click the link for more information., [phone], or Jeffrey R Bruhjell, president, [phone], both of Indocan Resources Inc.
Web site: http://www.sunrayoilcompany.com/
Web site: http://www.indocan.com/

This is a Press Release, or PR, from IDCN. Notice the short statement that IDCN has entered an agreement with Sunray Oil (IDCN is a 1 man show, Sunray is a well known oil company founded in 1934). Then to quickly stop anyone from asking what type of agreement (Is Jeff bringing them lunch or something?) they go on to talk about what Sunray is doing. While that is great, the PR does not in any way say what the agreement is. It could be anything. Jeff could have sold his old pick up truck to Sunray for all we know. Anyone with $300 can write and release a PR through several available channels. They do not fact check - they just take what you submit and push it out. The PR (authored by and paid for by IDCN) does state that IDCN will have first right of refusal for participation in future wells. What level of participation? Where any future wells offered? Did IDCN refuse or participate? What was the level of participation, the costs, the revenues, etc.? Is that line even true since IDCN wrote the PR? Google Sunray Oil Corporation. Ask yourself what a one man show like IDCN with no physical property, no intellectual property, no money, no people, no anything could possibly offer them. They were doing business before Jeff was born. There very well have been some sort of agreement between IDCN and Sunray - but there are no records of what it was.

Well, PR's were released, assumptions were made and the whole thing was apparently blown into some huge deal between IDCN and Sunray...all through speculation and not facts because no facts about the agreement (if it did exist) were ever made public.

Then the SEC/Sunray thing hit. Perfect timing? Jeff and IDCN could claim that they were screwed by Sunray. They were off the hook for having to find a way out of that (possibly) fictitious venture. The Sunray scandal saved them. Big public news. IDCN claimed all kinds of things. Mix that with the very real SEC action and everyone just assumed it was truth. Stories of lawsuits and legal settlements were made and Jeff and Ken interjected IDCN into story and everyone felt bad that they were screwed not by IDCN, but by Sunray. It was perfect.

Now look at my statement above...trusting no one. OK, how do we prove any of this to be fact? One quick and easy thing to check is the accuracy of the lawsuits. The government maintains several databases that are generally used in the legal system to reference other cases - like an online law library. The official one is PACER, http://www.pacer.gov/ or the Public Access to Court Electronic Records system. It is not free, but it is not expensive. There are, for example, 36 cases with "Ken Ash" as a defendant (this does NOT mean that they are all - or any of them - are the Ken Ask involved with IDCN). And yet there are exactly zero hit with Bruhjell or Indocan anywhere within +/- 2 years of the Sunray scam. In other words, there never was a lawsuit involving IDCN & Sunray - at least not in the U.S. FYI, cases that are settled out of court or dismissed are still listed.

Read in to this whatever you want but in my mind when "facts" are thrown out there and entire scenarios are built upon these "facts" it is helpful to first verify them. The many people that lost money on IDCN during the Sunray scam blamed Sunray - and yet there are no "facts" to support a direct arrangement or subsequent legal action between the two companies.

The same results appear when you start to research every other IDCN "venture" over the years.



Some will obviously not agree with me. Fine - as I said, assume I am lying. Instead of just calling me names though, pick a business venture and provide a way to verify (not forum posts, blogs, SA articles or PR's...I mean an actual, above reproach method to verify) the underlying facts. I am fairly certain no one can deliver on that challenge.