Premier Brands Inc.(fka BRND)

[74stingray]

It is because BRND was named as one of several Defendants in the case. The Defendants were all companies and their officers promoted through spam email by Stock Castle and their associated newsletters. It is easy to confirm on the court docket at www.sdcourt.ca.gov. Also, the wire service always checks these things out before allowing a news release to get out, confirming case numbers and actions.



From: ******** [mailto:******************************]
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 3:59 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Case 37-2012-00101057-CU-NP-CTL BRND

Hi Mr. Sharpe,

I have a question about why this case dated back in 2012 would have the same case number 37-2012-00101057-CU-NP-CTL as the one in this link dated July 11 2013 with Dennis Rodman to appear on Sept-26-2013?
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/159749136/Subpoena-of-Dennis-Rodman-with-respect-to-Premier-Brands-Inc-pump-and-dump

Many are claiming it’s a fake document as its not been officially stamped by the court.

Can you help clear up the matter for the iHub board.



Oh and BTW, 3rd party deposition subpoenas are issued by the court but not filed or stamped, so you can tell the smart guys to quit playing lawyer. As soon as Rodman is served there will be a press release.

Ask yourselves this question: What kind of a “real” company gets sued, has their New Jersey attorney contact me but doesn’t even try to defend the lawsuit. By the way, the attorney told me that the company was broke. They offered me $10K to go away and I told them to shove it. Still it only takes $400 to file a general denial. They didn’t even do that even though I gave them several reminders and plenty of extra time.

GS

From: ******** [mailto:******************************]
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 3:59 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Case 37-2012-00101057-CU-NP-CTL BRND

Hi Mr. Sharpe,

I have a question about why this case dated back in 2012 would have the same case number 37-2012-00101057-CU-NP-CTL as the one in this link dated July 11 2013 with Dennis Rodman to appear on Sept-26-2013?
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/159749136/Subpoena-of-Dennis-Rodman-with-respect-to-Premier-Brands-Inc-pump-and-dump

Many are claiming it’s a fake document as its not been officially stamped by the court.

Can you help clear up the matter for the iHub board.

TY


And here is the evidence of the way your public company is run. Nice investment. BY the way, the address in Sacramento is fake too. There is no Unit 360. In fact, the whole building is only two stories.

From: Gregg Jaclin [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 6:29 PM
To: Clipper Corporate Partners
Cc: Jamie Yi Wang
Subject: RE: Sharp v Premier Brands

Mr. Sharp

I appreciate your patience. Unfortunately my client has not responded to me. I am traveling myself tomorrow so I am copying my associate, Jamie, so she can reach out to the company again. If we hear anything we will let you know.

Gregg E. Jaclin, Esq.
Anslow + Jaclin LLP
195 Route 9 South l Manalapan, NJ 07726
T 732 409 1212 x 202 l F 732 577 1188
[e-mail] l www.anslowlaw.com



To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that unless specifically indicated otherwise, any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachment to this communication, other than an attachment which is a formal tax opinion) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related matter addressed herein.

This electronic transmission by the law firm of Anslow + Jaclin LLP contains information that may be confidential or proprietary, or protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents hereof is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify Anslow + Jaclin LLP at once at [phone].



They can insist what they want. There is only one case and all subpoenas relate to that case. The subpoena was issued to discover the assets of BRND so that I can seize them. Jorge Olsen, Greg Jaclin and several others have all been subpoenaed. A UC1 lien on the company was filed yesterday. And as I said before, subpoenas are issued by the court but not filed or file stamped. I don’t care what the iHub board thinks and they can stop playing lawyer.

From: ******** [mailto:******************************]
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 5:24 AM
To: 'Clipper Corporate Partners'
Subject: RE: Case 37-2012-00101057-CU-NP-CTL BRND

Hi Mr. Sharpe,

Thank you for your quick reply, However this information still relates to the 2012 case which is not being questioned on the iHub board.
They are insisting that the July 11 2013 with Dennis Rodman to appear on Sept-26-2013 is a fake document, http://www.docstoc.com/docs/159749136/Subpoena-of-Dennis-Rodman-with-respect-to-Premier-Brands-Inc-pump-and-dump
can you help with proving its real with a link or official stamped document?

Thanks again for your help on the matter.


From: Clipper Corporate Partners [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 9:35 AM
To: '**********'
Subject: RE: Case 37-2012-00101057-CU-NP-CTL BRND

It is because BRND was named as one of several Defendants in the case. The Defendants were all companies and their officers promoted through spam email by Stock Castle and their associated newsletters. It is easy to confirm on the court docket at www.sdcourt.ca.gov. Also, the wire service always checks these things out before allowing a news release to get out, confirming case numbers and actions.



The email is from the company’s attorney and in the subject of the email you can see who the client is.

From: ******** [mailto:******************************]
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 5:30 AM
To: 'Clipper Corporate Partners'
Subject: RE: Sharp v Premier Brands

Hi Mr. Sharpe,

Who was this letter from and who is the client mentioned?

Ty



From: Clipper Corporate Partners [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 9:53 AM
To: *************
Subject: FW: Sharp v Premier Brands

The email is from the company’s attorney and in the subject of the email you can see who the client is.

From: Gregg Jaclin [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 6:29 PM
To: Clipper Corporate Partners
Cc: Jamie Yi Wang
Subject: RE: Sharp v Premier Brands

Mr. Sharp

I appreciate your patience. Unfortunately my client has not responded to me. I am traveling myself tomorrow so I am copying my associate, Jamie, so she can reach out to the company again. If we hear anything we will let you know.

Gregg E. Jaclin, Esq.
Anslow + Jaclin LLP
195 Route 9 South l Manalapan, NJ 07726
T 732 409 1212 x 202 l F 732 577 1188
[e-mail] l www.anslowlaw.com



To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that unless specifically indicated otherwise, any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachment to this communication, other than an attachment which is a formal tax opinion) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related matter addressed herein.

This electronic transmission by the law firm of Anslow + Jaclin LLP contains information that may be confidential or proprietary, or protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents hereof is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify Anslow + Jaclin LLP at once at [phone].