Calypso Wireless (fka CLYW)

[downsideup]

What I found most interesting, in that context, was the pop up right in the middle of the Delaware court action, showing that the SEC had revived... or, had dusted off (?) after a very long hiatus... their previously ponderous interest in following up on the issue of CLYW's former accountant continuing to refuse to answer any and all of the questions being posed to him by the PCOAB or the SEC... ?

The guy had his career as an accountant terminated by the refusal, when they defrocked him ?

So, what do you think he was hiding ? And, how was or could it be, and how is it STILL being made worth his effort... to avoid cooperating with the government ?

Maybe a few more questions worth asking there, about how it was that the governments own effort in addressing the problem became... sporadic ?

And, then, following that same trail back as far as it goes here, it shows the same people involved together, even BEFORE the origin of CLYW, in the deals that were done for the shell ? Do look at that, and what you see in the events then, already, appears to show EXACTLY the same pattern in CLYW's first disputes in the Texas courts, as was always apparent in CLYW... with manufactured "disputes" that were structured to be heard in the Texas courts... each of which postured members of the "same team" as fictional adversaries in the court, in order to get the courts imprimatur and stamp of approval on "settlements" of disputes they generated among themselves, which they chose to generate... specifically in order to get the court to approve those things in "settlement" of the disputes... which couldn't be approved any other way ?

The assumption from the start seems to have been that getting the courts' approval of a fraud they were operating, based on having grossly misrepresented what was being presented to the court in the existence of the "dispute between the parties"... would result in the court insulating them from future accountability tied to the effort in generating the result.

So, they postured disputes and presented "both sides" of an argument... and then managed to "lose" the argument with themselves... which always resulted in the court awarding them a larger interest... at shareholders expense.

That's the same pattern you see in the "no show"... and in the other events here... where you're supposed to believe that Daic and Turrini (as also seen in the Baxter patents disputes), or Daic and the other former management (in the events leading up to 2007/2008)... we're "adversaries" and not "same team" players in the disputes brought to the court.

Basically, they've been playing a "tag team"... operating a fraud in which CLYW shareholders always manage to lose, and they always manage to win... because... they are the management... and they are the the other side... who enable management in choosing, for you, to lose to them, for you...

It looks to me like pretty much everyone involved with CLYW as "management" or as "service providers"... were all participants and employees doing the bidding of the "same team" as they cooperated in working against the shareholders interest...

At least, right up until the point that Dave Williams threw something of a wrench into the gears... with his original judgment against them, in Delaware, which postured a serious threat to their continued control, and their ongoing ability to use the courts in Texas, the way they had been, to minimize their risks. So, then, they decided that perhaps they could "manage" the problem Williams presented in the risk he might disrupt their scam, by giving him a seat on the board... thinking they could "control" him that way... or, corrupt and co-opt him, over time.

We've seen that effort playing out over the last 5 years...

It's still not all been resolved, of course...

But, the core of it, the logic in the design being practiced, and the repetition in the patterns applied, over and over, has been pretty well exposed, now.

I think it isn't much of a surprise that we see continuing efforts being made to disparage Williams, which appear they are being fostered by those participants who have interests "other than a simple holding in shares"... and who have shared risks related to the management and the operation of the frauds practiced on the courts in Texas... and the shareholders... in prior "settlements". They're probably hoping that will serve to reinforce the idea that "the disputes were real"... since Williams effort was real... when the truth is that only the disputes Williams prosecuted against "them" were real... while neither the disputes among them, not involving Williams, nor any of the resolutions of them (without Williams) were ever "real".

There's a bunch of former management and "consultants" still out there, and a team of lawyers (and, one "lawyer") who "put the deals together" or played other roles in structuring and enabling each of those "conflicts" or the "settlements" of them that were brought to court.

Of course, that's also the context in which the Baxter Patents deal and the deal with Daic for the "international patents" has to be considered... all still expected to be "validated by the approval of the court"...

In the result... if you look at it that way... you'll see that each of those "disputes" that was brought to court in Texas... was a practice of fraud on the court (and the shareholders)... in a pattern that repeats and extends all the way back to the original disputes re the ownership over the shell, at the point when it was still Butch Ballow http://www.khou.com/news/local/Investigators-Fugitive-arrested-after-living-rich-life-in-Mexico--98478479.html who was operating as the "market consultant" advising CLYW management on how to "maximize the benefit for shareholders" before Daic filled that role, only replacing Ballow in that role when he went "on the lamb"...

It was back then... at a point when Ballow was still our market consultant, that CLYW's now former accountant was working for CLYW, and at the same time was also working as the accountant for the guy that CLYW was suing and being sued by... in the first dispute over an ownership interest in CLYW... tied to CLYW not honoring their agreements that had given them possession of the Clear View shell ?

Looks to me like that pattern... has persisted...

The disputes are structured... to extract the benefit of a court decision that validates the result they intended... when that result could NEVER be considered valid otherwise, without a judge saying it is.

The criminals have learned that if they control both sides in a conflict being postured to have it be heard in a courtroom... they always win... and you always lose...