Daleco Resources Corp (fka DLOV)

[virgule]

See post #29 of 30 for reference to this post. Would the Supreme Court of British Columbia actually approve an illegal "Pooling of Interest" business Amalgamation???

-----Original Message-----
From: Marv Eatinger <[e-mail]>
To: info <[e-mail]>; issuers <[e-mail]>; service <[e-mail]>; dubcongress <[e-mail]>
Sent: Sun, Feb 3, 2013 10:07 am
Subject: DALECO RESOURCES CORP - COOPERS & LYBRAND - FRAUD!

See post #29 of 30 for reference to this post. Would the Supreme Court of British Columbia actually approve an illegal "Pooling of Interest" business Amalgamation???

DID THE FACT THAT DALECO PARTNERSHIP OF CALIFORNIA - [ TWO NEVADA INCORPORATED COMPANIES NAMED "AMIROIL INTERNATIONAL" AND "COAST EXPLORATION COMPANY" ] WHO BOTH HAD "COOPERS & LYBRAND" ACCOUNTING FIRM OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AS THEIR AUDITORS, MEAN ANYTHING CONCERNING "AICPA.ORG" REPLY AS COPIED BELOW ON OCTOBER 04, 2001???? "AICPA.ORG" NEVER REPLIED TO MY EMAIL REQUEST OF OCTOBER 3, 2001!

SEE BELOW FOR THE FOLLOWING COPIED REQUEST TO ''AICPA.ORG" :

"On August 16, 2001, I sent you a letter. The AICPA needed proof that Daleco
> Resources Corporation was involved with United States accountants before
> the AICPA would investigate ethics and professionalism. I gave you proof
> which was page 1150 from the 1993 Dun & Bradstreet directory. If that is
> not enough proof look at the 1990, 1991 & 1992 Dun & Bradstreet directory.
> My question again is as follows: Does the AICPA still take the position
> that the Professional Ethics Division cannot initiate an investigation
> because "the accountants who performed the engagement" were accountants of
> a foreign country?"



----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 8:12 AM
Subject: Re: Daleco Resources Corp


>
> The Technical Standards Subcommittee of the AICPA Professional Ethics
> Division is currently reviewing the information that you have submitted to
> determine whether an investigation is warranted. Please call me if you
> have further questions regarding this matter.
>
> Regards,
>
> Lillian Ceynowa
> Senior Technical Manager
> AICPA Professional Ethics Division
> [phone]
>
> ___________________________________________________
> This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information
> intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law.
> If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and
> are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this
> message, or the taking of any action based on it is strictly prohibited.
>
>
>
>
> [e-mail]
> t To: [e-mail]
> cc:
> 10/03/01 Subject: Daleco Resources Corp
> 05:54 PM
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> The following Raging Bull (http://ragingbull.lycos.com) page
> has been sent to you from a friend. Register to join the financial
> discussions leading the investor revolution.
>
> Click the following link to register:
> http://ragingbull.lycos.com/cgi-bin/reg0.pl
>
> Your friend's note:
> On August 16, 2001, I sent you a letter. The AICPA needed proof that Daleco
> Resources Corporation was involved with United States accountants before
> the AICPA would investigate ethics and professionalism. I gave you proof
> which was page 1150 from the 1993 Dun & Bradstreet directory. If that is
> not enough proof look at the 1990, 1991 & 1992 Dun & Bradstreet directory.
> My question again is as follows: Does the AICPA still take the position
> that the Professional Ethics Division cannot initiate an investigation
> because "the accountants who performed the engagement" were accountants of
> a foreign country?
>
> To view this page on the web please click on the following
> URL (web address):
> http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=DLOV&read=68
>
> **********************************************************
>
> TAKEN FROM: Daleco Resources (DLOV)
>
> BY: virgule POST NUMBER: 68
> REPLY TO: none
>
> The following is verbatim of an advertisement that appeared in
> BARRON'S-CURRENT CORPORATE REPORTS-page 74 on November 16, 1981: United
> Westland Resources Ltd. O LOS ANGELES, CA., Nov. 9, 1981 - United Westland
> Resources Ltd. (NASDAQ Symbol: UNWRF) and Reef Resources Corporation
> (NASDAQ Symbol: REEFF) announced that the amalgamation of the companies was
> today approved by the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The amalgamation
> is now subject only to the approval of the Vancouver Stock Exchange. The
> amalgamation is on the basis of one share of the amalgamated company for
> each one issued share of United Westland and one share of the amalgamated
> company for each two issued shares of REEF. Management of the companies has
> advised that they are aware of no other reason for the recent increase in
> the market price of the companies shares. United Westland Resources Ltd.
> and Reef Resources Corporation are Canadian oil and gas exploration and
> production companies conducting their activities in the United States. The
> companies are traded over-the-counter and shares are also listed on the
> Vancouver Stock Exchange under symbols UWR and RRC, respectively. (Contact:
> Dov Amir, President, United Westland Resources Ltd., 9025 Wilshire Blvd.,
> Beverly Hills, CA 90211. Phone: [phone].)

> Dov Amir has demonstrated his ability to present terminology in a uniquely misleading fashion.
> However, an advertisement presented in a major business and financial
> journal stating that "the amalgamation of the companies was today approved
> by the Supreme Court of British Columbia" is possibly to bold for an
> individual with Dov Amir's intellectual ability when it comes to business
> and finance. Let's assume that the Supreme Court of British Columbia did
> actually approve the amalgamation (by pooling of interests method of
> accounting-see posts #67 and #31 below) of United Westland Resources Ltd.
> and Reef Resources Corporation. They would have had to look at the
> structure of the two companies before and after the amalgamation to approve
> this amalgamation. As stated below (post #31) this was not an accepted
> accounting method for handling an amalgamation with this structural result.
> So, if this advertisement was true in fact, you can imagine what would have
> had to take place in order to obtain the approval of the Supreme Court of
> British Columbia for an illegal amalgamation!!
> (Voluntary Disclosure: Position- Long; ST Rating- Strong Sell; LT Rating-
> Strong Sell)
>
>
> **********************************************************
>
> To view this page on the web please click on the following
> URL (web address):
> http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=DLOV&read=68
>
> Be sure to check out Raging Bull
> to get -
>
> ** Access to the Internet's most valuable financial discussions
> ** Breaking news and commentary
> ** Access to Charts, SEC Filings and much more...
>
> -------
> *We did not check the above sender's email address and hope a friend sent
> this message. We apologize if a friend did not send this message.