Replies to post #24881 on World Surveillance Group Inc (fka WSGI)

[ken w]

siriuslyricher: Great additions to the form letter. Thanks for your efforts. Puts the issue into a much better position. ken w

[msturgeo]

siriuslyrich -

A very attention grabber letter -
some comments -

You have a typo near the end - Hedge (F)und Buddies.

Also - you start to get a bit emotional towards the end - stick to the facts and show little emotion IMO.

I liked the momentum of the letter but got a little blogged when I read nilrem's report - not that it is wasted information, but it is the testimony of an anonymous message board poster, ie, heresay.

Lastly,

Send this entire piece to Bob O'brien - or post it at his blogsite -

http://www.thesanitycheck.com/BobsSanityCheckBlog/tabid/56/Default.aspx

Just IMO.

~MS

[siriuslyricher]

All, this was just a quick draft and I see some errors, like "choses" should be "chooses" and it should read "there was larger than normal selling volume" not "there was a larger than normal, etc." Please read it carefully, change it, delte or add what you want. It is just a template. It's always good to add your own personal experiences, views, knowledge.

[rjnash]

sirius - incase you don't have any of these - here are some: http://www.enterprisemission.com/help.htm
http://www.nfi-info.net/Government.htm
http://www.americaneedstoknow.com/investor_help.htm

[rjnash]

sirius - sorry I forgot to include this link, and mention great letter: http://www.securitieslawattorneys.com/

[andtheretheygo]

While I'm all for removing the "ambulance chasing" attorneys in our society, and these guys (GTE lawsuit) look the part, I believe the premise behind your "counter suit" is as weak as their frivolous claim. Did any GTE shareholder lose money because of last Friday's lawsuit PR? The FACTS say that's highly unlikely. GTE's pps closed at $1.73 on Friday (4-28-06). The PR was released after the market closed the same day. Twelve minutes after the market resumed trading on Monday, GTE released it's default PR, stating that the $600MM deal with Internafta was being called off due to lack of payment from the Russians. It was THIS news that resulted in Monday's selloff. Increased volume and an early selloff prior to Friday's close related to the lawsuit PR? Well, there certainly wasn't an increase in volume. On Thursday, volume increased to almost 2MM shares traded, and GTE's pps closed at $1.91 from an open of $1.73. Friday, volume DECREASED to 1.2MM shares traded, and GTE closed back to it's previous day's opening price of $1.73. And in fact, during the period of April 12 thru April 28, GTE traded in a narrow range of between $1.67 and $1.78, so Friday's closing price of $1.73 was just another ho-hum close on rather weak volume, and very much within the trading range of the previous two weeks. Before Monday's selloff related to the default news, GTE had also taken a hit on March 13, when the pps dropped from $3.23 to $2.56 on news that GlobeTel was giving the Russians one more week, or else (default). Subsequent updates that kept the deal alive resulted in a trading range of $2.56 to $2.10, until April 12, when Motley Fool came out with their "Silent Treatment" article, which dropped the pps from $2.10 to $1.78. (All of these price movements along with volume numbers can be viewed at http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=GTE ) So, in summary, while these so-called "lawyers" are apparently the kind that give a bad name to their profession, the news from Russia, along with a helping hand from the Fools at Motley, are the primary "culprits" in slowly bringing GTE's pps to where it trades today. IMO, the notion that the lawsuit news is a factor in the pps decline is incorrect, and simply not substantiated by GTE's trading numbers.

[nosyajfm]

Classic stuff below (from May '06)!! I especially like this part...dude merlin's interviewing was spot on!

I said "Are you talking about Seth Jayson?"
He said "Yes"
I laughed, and said "Who are the other journalists involved? You do realize that a good deal of what Seth Jayson writes is conjecture, speculation, and assumption, and I would hope that you would have more solid evidence than that to go on"
He said "No other journalists are involved, just Seth"

=============================================================

FORM LETTER WITH ADDITIONS - could someone please cut and paste and post a complete list of all possible contacts we could mail our letters to? Thanks.

I am a concerned shareholder in GlobeTel Communications Corp.
9050 Pines Blvd, Suite #110 Pembroke Pines, FL 33024
http://www.globetel.net/index.html I want to make you aware that the law firm of Joseph Gentile at Sarraf Gentile LLP, 485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1005, New York, New York 10018 (telephone: [phone]; e-mail: [e-mail]). is attempting to instigate a lawsuit on behalf of disgruntled shareholders that claim to have been damaged as a result of misleading information supplied to Investors by GTE on a business deal with Russian investors.

The suit claims the Russian investors never existed and that the entire deal was a scam. This lawsuit is reckless and without merit and is based upon unfounded accusations contained therein - site of law suit: http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/060428/0125940.html.

This bogus lawsuit has caused the share price of GTE to drop significantly since it was made public and as a result I have been financially damaged. Thus, I am asking for your assistance in investigating these allegations and taking whatever corrective actions you deem necessary against the law firm of Joseph Gentile at Sarraf Gentile LLP on behalf of myself and other agrieved shareholders.

There are many troubling aspects to this lawsuit, not the least of which is the fact that it was made public in after hours of the last trading day before a SEC Regulation SHO deadline was to be imposed in the next trading session (May 1, 2006) which would require brokers'clients to cover all naked short positions. GTE has been on the Regulation SHO list for weeks, and all day Friday, April 28, 2006, before the lawsuit became public, there was a larger than normal selling volume and an unexpected drop in GTE’s share price, indicating that certain short sellers had prior knowledge that this lawsuit was coming.

In this regard, a professed short seller of GTE, Zachary Prensky, who runs an web investing blog titled “Upside Surprise” contacted a GTE shareholder several weeks ago and told that shareholder that a law firm Prensky knew was preparing a lawsuit for shareholder fraud against GTE and was looking for a lead plaintiff. That email has been forwarded to GTE management.

Another extremely troubling aspect is the source for the “facts” alleged in the lawsuit. It appears that the entire evidence for this lawsuit was based on articles written by Seth Jayson, a writer for the Motley Fool, who is currently one of the journalists under investigation by the SEC in a probe regarding whether market sources are using reporters to spread misinformation about publicly traded companies, in attempts to influence stock prices. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06088/677765-28.stm

Mr. Jayson has written many articles highly critical of GTE which are biased, full of conjecture and innuendo, and cast a negative spin on GTE through omission, twisting of facts, half-truths, falsehoods, using denigrating terms to describe GTE’s management, products, and ventures, and giving the worst possible interpretation to GTE's business (e.g., repeatedly mocking GTE’s rigid high altitude airship, calling it a “blimp” and suggesting it is a pipe dream when many reputable U.S. firms and the Department of Defense are actively pursuing high altitude airships, including GTE which is building its HAA with the assistance of NASA and the U.S. Air Force, facts Mr. Jayson choses to repeatedly ignore).

The following message (see next paragraph), written by a GTE shareholder describes that shareholder's visit to the law firm of Sarraf & Gentile after the lawsuit was filed, and raises serious questions regarding what Mr. Jayson’s connection to this lawsuit might be, and whether, as with the many derogatory articles he has written about GTE, he has been acting in concert or at the behest of hedge funds or others who have been shorting GTE stock (over 7 million shares currently shorted), short sellers who stood to gain much if they could cover on or before May 1, 2006 at a lower prices. As noted, the share price began falling all day before the lawsuit was announced and plummeted after, in after hours trading. The SEC and the DOJ should investigate the connection between short sellers and this lawsuit, and trace the money via the clearing houses and brokers, to find out who exactly was covering their short positions on Friday, April 28, 2006, based on advance knowledge of the press release announcing this lawsuit at 4:10 PM that day. Included in that list should be the lawyers who brought this suit and Seth Jayson, Zachary Prensky, and friends, relatives, and associates of these individuals.

Shareholder message:

Posted by: nilremerlin
In reply to: None Date:5/1/2006 9:40:35 PM
Post #of 24843

I visited the offices of Sarraf Gentile a little after 6pm today. The place was kind of quiet then, hardly anyone there, and I walked in and found a guy in his office, and asked him if Joseph Gentile was there.
He said "No, he's not here, but I can sign for whatever you're delivering, and..." (I was in my bike messenger garb)
I interrupted him and said I was not there to deliver, and was a shareholder of GTE, and I wanted more information on the lawsuit.
He said "What do you want to know?"
I said "Well, what have you got that hasn't been published? What are you basing your evidence on?"
He said "Well, have you seen the news this morning?"
I said "Yeah, so what? What does that have to do with your case?"
He said "Well, research was done that revealed that Internafta doesn't exist."
I said "Who did this research, and by what means did they discover this"
He said "The research was done by journalists (plural) who came to that conclusion after searching for companies that do business in Russia"
I said "Are you talking about Seth Jayson?"
He said "Yes"
I laughed, and said "Who are the other journalists involved? You do realize that a good deal of what Seth Jayson writes is conjecture, speculation, and assumption, and I would hope that you would have more solid evidence than that to go on"
He said "No other journalists are involved, just Seth"
I said "But you said journalists, plural?"
He said "My mistake, it's just Seth Jayson's research that we're going on. If GlobeTel can prove that Internafta exists, we'll drop the case"
I said "But GlobeTel is the defendant, and it's you that has to do the proving, and in the January 6th 8K, it clearly shows that GlobeTel was requested by InterNafta to keep their contact info confidential (I showed him the copy of the 8K). Would you have GlobeTel betray that confidence in order to prove to you their existence? Wouldn't that be unethical?"
At this point the guy looked real uncomfortable, and said "Is there anything else I can help you with?"
I said "Yes, you're claiming that the April 11th Seth Jayson article states that Seth came to the conclusion that InterNafta doesn't exist, but I don't see that anywhere in that April 11th article? (I showed him a copy of the article).
He said nervously "It may have been in one of his earlier articles. Is there anything else I can help you with?"
I said "Do you have any evidence to back you up that isn't speculation, conjecture, assumption, or another mistake?"
He said "That's all I can tell you"
I said, as I was leaving "Then you'd better drop the case, unless you like to lose...Seth Jayson, LOL!"

And thus concluded my visit to Sarraf Gentile...I'll be back when Gentile is there!

nilremerlin

Based on the above, I request that you look into the conduct of the parties involved in bringing this lawsuit, keeping in mind the flimsy basis for this suit, who stood to gain by bringing it, the fact that Sarraf and Gentile, two recent law-school graduates, appear to be in the habit of bringing frequent class-action lawsuits with little merit, and in a newspaper article describing their search for plaintiffs in a class-action suit against Coors, admit to trolling the internet searching for potential clients.

As noted in a recent "Bob O'Brien's Sanity Check" blog regarding the unethical conduct of clients and lawyers in class-action lawsuits: "What does that do to the suits filed against companies under false pretenses? What about the settlements collected in those suits? What about the ongoing actions? If this guy was acting as a pretense for ambulance chasers to sue, that means that their business model was to pick targets, contrive a case using their pet plaintiff, and then sue, hoping the comapny would settle. . .. If they were doing stuff like that, what are the odds that they also filed suits solely to move stock prices for their hedge und buddies?

I think the odds are very high in this case that criminal acts have been committed under the RICO statutes, securities laws, and state and federal law in bringing this bogus lawsuit with the specific intent to bring down GTE's share price and harm GTE and GTE investors.

Regards,