Replies to post #114364 on Cannabis Science Inc (fka CBIS)

[Crusen]

As I said, the lines of evidence against this company are many.

You could, for instance, examine the long list of PR declarations which have never come true.

For instance, this is not the first time they have promised a "divy." (Penny scams often promise this, and never deliver)

No actual convictions for Dabney, you say? There is literally a surfeit of red flags on Dabney which one would have to be a regular idiot to dismiss.

Before the Court is Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission's ("Commission") Motion for Reconsideration Re Denial of Imposition of Penny Stock Bar Against Raymond Dabney....The Court previously granted the Commission's Motion for Summary Judgment....The Court grants the Commission's request for civil penalties in all respects and denies both motions for reconsideration....

Third tier penalties are available where the securities law violation "involved fraud, deceit, manipulation or deliberate or reckless disregard of a regulatory requirement [and] such violation directly or indirectly resulted in substantial losses or created a significant risk of substantial loss to other persons."
The imposition of a third tier penalty against Richard Dabney is justified...

The Court will therefore grant the Commission's request for a $50,000 penalty against Raymond Dabney, Charles Smith, and Phillip Young.....
The first, third, and fifth First Pacific Bancorp factors weighed in favor of a bar because Raymond Dabney's section 5 violations were serious, taking place over a period of two years; he personally benefitted from the violations; and he was a direct participant in the offending transactions....
On November 15, 2005, Raymond Dabney entered into a settlement agreement with the British Columbia Securities Commission that prohibited him from engaging in investor relations activities for five years because he issued false press releases in connection with his company, XRAYMEDIA, Inc

Oh yeah, Ray Dabney is just a misunderstood honest executive not at all involved in stock fraud. No, he would never defraud people.


Unfortunately, it is all-too-easy for scammers to participate in stock scams over, and over, and over, and get away with it....

However, it really does not require much brainpower to see a company for the scam it is, if it is as obvious as CBIS.

The horrible financials of this charade should be an investor's first clue that THIS FRAUD STINKS!!!!

http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020100208830/SECURITIES%20AND%20EXCHANGE%20COMMISSION%20v.%20ALLIANCE%20TRANSCRIPTION%20SERVICES,%20INC.

[Crusen]

Re:

This company's practices have been bleeding edge of legal from inception many years ago.

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=116602199

Steve: A month ago I was CEO of my own pharmaceutical company. Today, I’m the victim of a hostile corporate takeover which has left that company in the hands of individuals whom I believe are putting quick profits ahead of building a viable company which can bring a valuable product to market. After receiving legal counsel concerning the “appearance of fraud” by CSI board members, I had no choice but to tender my resignation from the company I founded more than a year ago. Within hours of my resignation, CSI Chief Operating Officer Ray Carr, VP of Research & Development Mary Ruwart, and Director of Communications Lee Wrights, also resigned.

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/07/interview-with-steve-kubby/

[LongShot_Louie]

Hate to say it Nick but..........

Crusen is right. The available records show Dabney has A (as in one) conviction on 21 counts of securities violations in 2005, but that is ONE not 21 as the sicko would have you believe, and its not MULTIPLE convictions in MULTIPLE countries as Crusen would have you believe.

The one thing those two seem to have in common is neither of them has much understanding of court proceedings or legal record keeping. Sicko apparently doesn't understand the difference between a conviction and the number of counts it includes, and the other apparently doesn't understand the difference between a "prayer for relief" and a court disposition record.

Additionally, the record shows Dabney paid his fine and adhered to the terms of his sanction, but these two either seem to forget that part or think a single conviction allows them to tar a person for life regardless of whether the person paid his debt to society or not.