Saturday, January 14, 2012Truth Is In The Eye of The Beholder
Truth Be Told-Part II
By Michael Osborn
I originally posted this article on January 12, 2012 with a copy of a letter written by George Sharp/Helischauer to an Orange County attorney. I was asked to hold off on posting the letter because George threw a bitch-fit about its contents being shared with the online world. I find it ironic how he can post half-truths about people and have NO problem with it but as soon as someone fires back at him with provable facts, he has a hissy fit. Well, based on the fact that George took a year of my life which drastically affected me and my family, I decided to clean up the content of my article and re-post the information without the attached George Sharp/Heischauer letter and I removed specific names until we receive formal written approval from all parties to post, which we will have in hand the week of the 16th . Happy reading.
Let Georges delusions continue…
On Tuesday, December 27, 2011, an email with an attached letter was sent from George Sharp/Helischauer to an attorney in Orange County.
According to the letter, the subject was Sharp v Cuba Beverage Company et al. San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2011-0090093-CU-FR-CTL . After reviewing the complaint and the subsequent court filings, it is obvious that the case is without legal merit. I guess this lawsuit confirms that any joker with $125 bucks can file a lawsuit, with or without a legal foundation. If you have not had an opportunity to review the complaint (see above link), I suggest you carve out some time and get ready for some comedy. I will present the facts as I understand them to our readers and then let you decide.
April 22, 2011: George Sharp sues Cuba Beverage claiming he lost money buying Cuba's stock. Unfortunately for him, he omits to state how many shares he bought, when he bought them, what he paid for them and how much he lost on this investment. Despite the judge ordering him, two times, to amend his complaint to be more specific, he refused to do so. According to an attorney close to the matter, when George was asked for the specific information, he told the defendants that they will only find out in discovery, which is obviously displaying suscpicious behavior. When a subpoena was served on TD Ameritrade, which is George Sharp's broker, he filed a motion to quash the subpoena. When the demand for production was due which required Sharp to provide copies of his confirmations, Sharp who has been acting In-Pro-Per, had his attorney file an anti-SLAPP motion to freeze discovery.
Our research has shown that the majority of George Sharp's lawsuits appear to be cookie-cutter. This includes the lawsuits filed against Cuba Beverage, Writers Group Film, Yasheng Eco Trade, and Arena Pharmaceuticals. In each lawsuit, George Sharp refuses to say who, how, when, where, and how much he lost on his investments. These facts are required to establish foundation surrounding the claim and are normal for the plaintiff to provide to support his complaint.
What is the reasonable conclusion? Why is Sharp withholding these simple foundational facts?
Based on the fact that George Sharp is not willing to provide this simple, yet required information, one can safely argue that George Sharp either never bought any stock of Cuba Beverage or that of any of the other companies he sued or if he did make a purchase, it was a miniscule amount. This supports our continued claim that George is a frivolous lawsuit filer and will soon be formally deemed a vexatious litigant with the California Supreme Court.
Because it is hard for me to believe that anyone could willfully be this devious and schrewdly waste the courts valuable time, I would love to be wrong about George buying stock in the companies he sues. Based on Georges own actions, I highly doubt I am wrong. One solution to prove me wrong would be for George to post on www.sharp-v-cubabev.info or www.sharp-v-writ.info ALL of his trade confirmations for Cuba Beverage and Writers Group Film. I will eat crow and issue a public apology to George if he can factually prove that he purchased a reasonable amount of stock that would merit his litigation. We all know that one thing Sharp is good at doing is posting on his webblogs, perhaps this time his post could actually be supported with factual information...we doubt it though!
George has no problem posting links to complaints he has filed which he knows will negativly impact the stock price nor does he have a problem posting personal information about the insiders of these public companies to scare the investment public and therefore depress the stock price even further. If George truly has no problem with full disclosure then why would he not be willing to post proof of his purchases and therefore his losses? He can even block out his account number and his address on the confirmations if it makes him feal better. No problem! Just prove us wrong!
If he does NOT post his confirms then there is only one reasonable and logical conclusion; George Sharp is a fake and his lawsuits are total frauds filed to manipulate the price of thinly traded micro-cap companies for his own financial benefit.
Alhough I would love to continue getting into the legal merits of the complaint (or lack thereof) and the viability of George being able to maneuver his way around a courtroom during an actual trial, I think I will leave the "lawyering" up to real attorneys and just focus on specific contents of his letter.
Unfortunately, in Georges letter, instead of spending time on his supposed subject of Cuba Beverage, he decided to devote most of his letter to slamming me, including discussing my ability to pay may legal bills. Now, I’m a big boy and have a thick skin especially after being imprisoned for a year while paying my "debt" to society, so I can take his self-indulgent rants. He tried to scare the Orange County attorney by inferring that one of my former in-house attorneys left the State of California because of his conduct based on how I manipulated him and his actions. The reality was that because of his religious beliefs and changes occurring in his family, moving was the option they felt was better suited for their lives and family. Georges attempt at an underlining scare-tactic is comical...at best!
My issue here is what does any of his rants about me have to do with Cuba Beverage?
He further whines on about the disposability of my attorneys and names my formal criminal lawyer Evan Ginsburg. He states that "I throw my attorneys under the bus after I no longer find them useful". It truly amazes me how George believes his own delusional bullshit. You see, Evan Ginsburg who represented me in my criminal trial, became my attorney in January, 2010. While acting as my attorney in my on-going criminal trial (which included George Sharp as one of the States proposed witnesses) Mr. Ginsburg assigned a third-party judgment in favor of Mr. Ginsburg over to George to go collect. At that time, Mr. Ginsburg had both a legal and ethical responsibility to recuse himself as my attorney but neglected to do so. Mr. David Harter, as Georges attorney in both the criminal matter and the assignment of the judgment also had an ethical responsibility to notify all of the parties of this conflict. At the very least, David Harter is guilty of culpable negligence. The statement “he has a tendency to throw his attorneys under the bus” is not entirely factual. How would you have felt about such a collaboration? With that being said, I did make sure to protect my legal rights and “toss” a formal complaint regarding this matter into the California Bar Association and the American Bar Association.
Again, I wonder...what does this have to do with Cuba Beverage?
George continues his “know-it-all” attitude by admonishing the Orange County attorney saying, “Finally, you seem to think that you have made the discovery of some great conspiracy in naming me with an AKA of George Helischauer. If you wish to list the name properly, you need to list it as an FKA, as my name was legally and properly changed within the courts in 1997 and is listed as George Sharp with the Social Security Department, DMV and other authorities.” For starters, who the hell is the Social Security Department? Did he mean the Social Security Administration? You can tell that in the following line, he uses his words very carefully “you need to list it as an FKA, as my name was legally and properly changed within the courts in 1997” What does the phrase “within the courts” mean? Does he mean his name change was formally accepted and decreed by the courts? Well, we have gone through every civil and criminal document available through Pacer and WestLaw as well as hired a private detective and based on our research, there is no such document publicly listed proving his name change “within the courts” . The following is the report we received referring to his California Department of Motor Vehicles Report and Consumer Report from our Private Detective:
It's peculiar because in 1997, George lived in California and according to the California Courts, Judicial Branch of California, he would have had to follow several specific steps including a public announcement of his proposed name change and a formal hearing on the matter. If the name change was approved then the court would give him a decree finalizing his name change. According to the Pacer case locator, our thorough search of every national court record resulted in NO such specific steps ever being documented.
Could he have tried to do a common-law name change? According to Wiki “In California the "usage method" (changing the name at will under common law) is sufficient to change the name. Not all jurisdictions require that the new name be used exclusively.[13] Any fraudulent use or intent, such as changing the name to the same name as another person's name, may invalidate this type of name change.
Specifically in California, Code of Civil Procedure § 1279.5 and Family Code § 2082 regulate common law and court decreed name changes. Code of Civil Procedure § 1279.5 (a) reads, "Except as provided in subdivision (b), (c), (d), or (e), nothing in this title shall be construed to abrogate the common law right of any person to change his or her name." Subdivisions b through e preclude one from changing their name by common law if they are in state prison, on probation, on parole, or been a convicted sex offender. If a person is not in any of these categories, then a common law name change is allowed. Family Code § 2082 also specifically states, "Nothing in this code shall be construed to abrogate the common law right of any person to change one's name."
Official Registration
A legal name change is merely the first step in the name-change process. A person must officially register the new name with the appropriate authorities like the Social Security Administration,whether the change was made as a result of a court order, marriage, divorce, adoption, or any of the other methods described above. The process includes notifying various government agencies, each of which may require legal proof of the name change and that may or may not charge a fee. Important government agencies to be notified include the Social Security Administration,[14] Bureau of Consular Affairs[15] (for passports), the United States Postal Service,[16] and the Department of Motor Vehicles (for a new driver's license or state identification card). Additionally the new name must be registered with other institutions such as employers, banks, doctors, mortgage, insurance and credit card companies. Online services are available to assist in this process either through direct legal assistance or automated form processing.
If George is claiming the “Usage Method”, then why in 1997 did he register a new Delaware corporation under the apropos name, George A. Helischauer, Inc.?
Further, why in November of 2006, did he have a Federal Tax Lien in the amount of $85,277.00 in favor of creditor the “Internal Revenue Service” attached to the name George Helischauer, not George Sharp?
If in fact George is unilaterally operating under his statement of “my name was legally and properly changed within the courts in 1997” then why in 1991, did he register Select Database Corporation, a California company and list the officer of the corporation as George A. Helischauer? According to Dun and Bradstreet he was listed in this position through March 2006. Was George operating as both George Helischauer and George Sharp at the same time?
In December 2003, George signed a Service Agreement with Victory Capital Holdings Corp. now known as Victory Energy, as a contractor to act in various CEO roles for the company and its affiliates. Victory Capital is a public company that I helped form and sat on the Board of Directors of for several years. George stated when counsel was preparing the agreement he had to be a contractor because he was not a US citizen. According to his agreement with the company, he never disclosed under Reg. FD an AKA or FKA regarding his alleged 1997 name change. To act in an executive role of a public company that is fully reporting to the SEC, one would think that the executives AKA or FKA would be an important disclosure requirement prior to executing an agreement.
The true acid test for George Sharp/Helischauer will be to produce a true and legal copy of his Passport to the court (which we will be requesting). Last week, I have forwarded Georges letter which offered an explanation regarding his name change to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in a hope that they can shed some light on this overly confusing matter.
Finally, in his letter, Geroge complains about how we obtained his credit report, as if we did some illegal deed. First, it is a matter of public record and stamped by the court as discovery in the eviction action filed by Ms. Aniko Kaye against George. Also as a matter of public record are all of his 2006 Wells Fargo bank records. These records are stamped as evidence as well by the court and made for a very interesting read. Ironically, he used these records to support his alleged sham claim to the court that he had to move from the slums of Beverly Hills/Los Angeles to La Jolla and because of this move, his rent jumped to $2,000.00 a month at 7660 Fay Avenue, Suite H122 La Jolla CA 92037 (which the court now knows was and is nothing more than a UPS store). Is UPS charging a lot more these days or is someone trying to manipulate the court and play more games with peoples lives? Hmmm...
So after reading Georges letter, I can safely say that it had very little, if anything at all to do with Cuba Beverage and was more about his fixation with me, Michael Osborn aka Michael Osborn Ison. The fictitious world that George has spent so much time creating now appears to be crumbling around him. As my friend continues to tell me, far too often, people lie when the truth fits so much better.
You live by the sword, you die by the sword.
Posted by Abuse of Law at Saturday, January 14, 2012 Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Labels: abuseoflaw.org, cuba bev, drudge report, drudgereport.com, FBI, george helischauer, George Sharp, IRS, SEC, stock fraud, stock promoter, usag, writers group film
