News Focus
News Focus
icon url

InnVest

12/09/17 1:28 PM

#284842 RE: PhenixBleu #284841

Thanks for posting good factual information along with links to sources. Shareholders prefer this versus CEO naming calling and wishes for imprisonment before due process. Keep up the great work here!
icon url

PhenixBleu

12/15/17 11:39 AM

#285109 RE: PhenixBleu #284841

UPDATE - MyECheck v Ken Maciora et al - In the Sacramento share fraud case against Ken Maciora et al, MEC's attorney filed a Request for an Entry of Default against Rod Zalundaro.

MyECheck v. Ken Maciora et al

Securities Fraud, Breach of Contract, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Intentional Interference with Prospective Business Advantage, Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations, Business and Professions Code 17200, Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

https://services.saccourt.ca.gov/PublicCaseAccess/Civil/SearchByCaseNumber

Year Filed 2016 and Case 00202624
icon url

PhenixBleu

12/26/17 4:19 PM

#285539 RE: PhenixBleu #284841

Sacramento Update - Ken Maciora failed to pay the $450 sanction imposed by the Sacramento Court. He was to pay MEC by December 2, 2017. Last Friday, MEC submitted a Declaration and Proposed Order so they can enforce via Judgement.

Reference Entries 206 and 207.

MyECheck v. Ken Maciora et al

Securities Fraud, Breach of Contract, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Intentional Interference with Prospective
Business Advantage, Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations, Business and Professions Code 17200, Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

https://services.saccourt.ca.gov/PublicCaseAccess/Civil/SearchByCaseNumber

Year Filed 2016 and Case 00202624











icon url

PhenixBleu

01/05/18 12:10 PM

#286400 RE: PhenixBleu #284841

CASE UPDATES - MEC v Maciora et al

MEC filed a Third Amended Complaint on December 29. This was allowed through the judicial ruling in Maciora's Motions to Demurrer/Strike.

https://services.saccourt.ca.gov/PublicCaseAccess/Civil/SearchByCaseNumber

Year Filed 2016 and Case 00202624

A Tentative Ruling was issued January 4 on Maciora's Motion to Compel. The Judge DENIED Maciora's Motion for failure to comply with CA rules. The ruling is available through Aerox's post linked below.

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=137435142


icon url

PhenixBleu

01/07/18 12:36 PM

#286451 RE: PhenixBleu #284841

Regarding sanctions assigned to Ken Maciora in MEC v Maciora et al, an Order for Judgement was requested on December 29 for the $450 dollar sanction Maciora did not pay. Reference filing 211.

Maciora now owes MEC/EMK Lawyers $1,050 after the $600 sanction ordered in the Motion to Compel Decision, which Maciora did not challenge. The sanctions are to compensate EMK Lawyers for time wasted as a result of Maciora's legal deficiencies. Reference filing 216.

MyECheck v. Ken Maciora et al

Securities Fraud, Breach of Contract, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Intentional Interference with Prospective
Business Advantage, Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations, Business and Professions Code 17200, Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

https://services.saccourt.ca.gov/PublicCaseAccess/Civil/SearchByCaseNumber

Year Filed 2016 and Case 00202624
icon url

PhenixBleu

01/08/18 4:40 PM

#286495 RE: PhenixBleu #284841

Case Update - Charlie Abujudeh vs MEC et al (debt collection)

Plaintiff Charlie Abujudeh’s two applications for writ of attachment/right to attach order are DENIED.

Plaintiff’s denied 8/8/17 ex parte application does not bar his 8/28/17 applications. To be sure, a party need not supplement its papers when its ex parte application is denied solely for failure to show that waiting for a noticed motion would cause great or irreparable injury. (Code Civ. Proc., § 485.220, subd. (b).) But the denial of ex parte relief on other grounds does not bar a new request based on new papers asserting new facts.

Even so, plaintiff still fails to show the probable validity of his claim. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 481.190, 484.090, subd. (a)(2); accord Kemp Bros. Constr., Inc. v. Titan Electric Corp. (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1474, 1484.)

Defendants’ objections are SUSTAINED as to #1-15 and 19-22 and OVERRULED as to #16-18.

Plaintiff shall give notice.

http://www.occourts.org/rulings/nscottrulings.htm
icon url

PhenixBleu

01/11/18 10:39 AM

#286573 RE: PhenixBleu #284841

Update--Sacramento share fraud case against Ken Maciora. Maciora has been ordered to pay his very late $450 sanction fee immediately. The Court approved MEC's request for Judgement.

Reference ROA Number 217.

MyECheck v. Ken Maciora et al

Securities Fraud, Breach of Contract, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Intentional Interference with Prospective
Business Advantage, Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations, Business and Professions Code 17200, Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

https://services.saccourt.ca.gov/PublicCaseAccess/Civil/SearchByCaseNumber

Year Filed 2016 and Case 00202624
icon url

PhenixBleu

02/05/18 11:16 AM

#287087 RE: PhenixBleu #284841

We also continue to have favorable decisions in our suit against fraudster scammers Ken Maciora, Rod Zalunardo and Bill Delgado. The court has sanctioned them and we have won a small judgement againt Maciora because he failed to pay the court sanctions. He keeps digging himself in deeper, he will be held accountable for his vile actions and pay for damages done to the company.



Source: Company Facebook 02.05.18
icon url

PhenixBleu

02/23/18 2:48 PM

#287806 RE: PhenixBleu #284841

Case Update - MyECheck v Ken Maciora et al.

A Motion for a Protective Order was filed to protect the company's business relationships with customers and suppliers. It is Entry #234. The Motion hearing has been set for March 22. A Tentative should be available the afternoon of March 21.

Ken Maciora has been using the discovery process to request access to MEC's confidential and proprietary contracts with UBA, Tangiers, and Chicago Ventures. The CEO is stating that access would cause irreparable harm to the company.

Reading the filings will help anyone recognize the true purpose of this Motion. It has nothing to do with what Maciora knows today, the real estate conspiracy theories floating around, or perceptions of fraud on the part of the CEO. It's about keeping Maciora from causing further harm than he has already done to the CEO, the company, and its shareholders.

For Maciora's part, he is looking for information he can use to support his improper and invasive actions with these entities. I have seen the email he sent to Tangiers. I believe there is nothing in a funding agreement between MEC and Tangiers that can support Maciora's voice and written communications with Tangiers.

Here is a blog post with further insight into Protective Orders during Discovery.

http://www.legaldocspro.net/blog/protective-order-in-california-regarding-production-of-documents/

MyECheck v. Ken Maciora et al

Securities Fraud, Breach of Contract, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Intentional Interference with Prospective
Business Advantage, Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations, Business and Professions Code 17200, Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

https://services.saccourt.ca.gov/PublicCaseAccess/Civil/SearchByCaseNumber

Year Filed 2016 and Case 00202624


icon url

PhenixBleu

06/02/18 7:30 AM

#290589 RE: PhenixBleu #284841

Case Update - MyECheck v. Ken Maciora et al

Ken Maciora filed a Cross-Complaint with 14 Causes of Action in April. The Company filed an Answer this past week denying all claims. Essentially, Maciora regurgitated the four-year old Sierra Global Conspiracy Theory he put forth in his failed Federal Court pro se litigation against PMB Helin.

My non-professional opinion is Maciora is attempting to use the Court Discovery process to find proof that will put legs on his assumptions of wrongdoing. This is the ONLY defensive strategy he can use. The vast majority of allegations made are unrelated to the core issue advanced by the Company, which is Maciora is not entitled to shares the Board did not approve. It's loaded with the same gossip, hearsay, and innuendo we've come to expect from him since he joined forces with the person(s) that initiated the Sierra Global Conspiracy Theory back in 2014.

Maciora puts forth his belief that Green Pay is a sham business. Isn't it weird then that he alleges Zalunardo is entitled to shares while leading a sham business for nine months, and therefore Maciora ought to be able to buy them from him? Maciora admits he bought these shares (that the Board never approved). His assumption is that a contract worker not on the board can approve the issuance of shares. Maciora reveals his lack of business acumen throughout the Cross Complaint. As is typical with Maciora, he leaves out key facts that work against his narratives, and has his own version of facts (one of my favorite clauses from his failed Federal Court case in Washington). One such fact is Zalunardo was termed for cause, a corporate action that can negate conditions of employment. The filings show Zalunardo refused to sign his termination agreement.

Another fun fact is Maciora signed an NDA with the same "sham business" and violated it, according to the Company. Is calling it a sham justification for the breaches? I think not.

We are fortunate to have an excellent team of attorneys. They have succeeded in getting sanctions for Maciora. The Court has noted Maciora's legal incompetence. Maciora will be subject to a jury trial. Their opinions are the only opinions that matter.

Link to the case:

Securities Fraud, Breach of Contract, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Intentional Interference with Prospective
Business Advantage, Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations, Business and Professions Code 17200, Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

https://services.saccourt.ca.gov/PublicCaseAccess/Civil/SearchByCaseNumber

Year Filed 2016 and Case 00202624

icon url

PhenixBleu

06/09/18 1:46 PM

#290710 RE: PhenixBleu #284841

Case Update - MEC v Maciora et al - Maciora's Ex Parte Order to Show Cause

On May 29, Ken Maciora filed an Ex Parte Application for Order to Show Cause as to why MEC's Third Amended Complaint should not be Dismissed. The premise he advances is that MyECheck does not have standing to sue because they forfeited their name with California's Secretary of State.

MEC's Corporate Secretary filed an update with CA on May 25--four days before Maciora filed the Ex Parte documents. It is pasted at the bottom of this post.

https://services.saccourt.ca.gov/PublicCaseAccess/Civil/SearchByCaseNumber

Enter 2016 and 00202624

Reference Filings 307-309
icon url

PhenixBleu

06/30/18 2:53 PM

#291261 RE: PhenixBleu #284841

Look for the Tentative Ruling for Maciora's "Order to Show Cause RE Dismissal for Lack of Capacity and Standing" on Monday, July 2. They typically appear around 1:00-2:00 p.m. PST.

https://services.saccourt.ca.gov/PublicCaseAccess/Civil/TentativeRulingSearchByDepartment

Use July 3 as the date and Department 54.

This is the Motion in which Maciora admits filing for a new business license in Wyoming and California using MEC's former name MyECheck. He focuses on perceived missteps by Ed and uses those perceptions as justification for his actions. As I read Maciora's filings related to this Motion, I see the same adolescent level of retaliation, mirroring, hostility, and power tripping I've seen in all of his court cases.

He informed the Court that his new business named MyECheck will be operational this fall. In light of this maneuvering, read the definition of Vexatious Litigation.

Vexatious litigation is legal action which is brought, regardless of its merits, solely to harass or subdue an adversary. It may take the form of a primary frivolous lawsuit or may be the repetitive, burdensome, and unwarranted filing of meritless motions in a matter which is otherwise a meritorious cause of action.


From Vexatious Litigants: The Legal Bully:

Vexatious litigants are those who engage in legal proceedings without having a legitimate claim. These litigants use the judicial process to annoy, embarrass, harass or inflict legal expenses on others.

California enacted the “vexatious litigant statute” to address the problem of the persistent litigant who had a number of groundless actions. The first type of vexatious litigant is any person who, during the seven year period immediately preceding the action, has commenced or maintained in pro per at least five litigations (other than in small claims court) which have been finally determined against him or have remained pending at least two years without being brought to trial. (C.C.P. § 391(b)(1).) In pro per means any person who files a lawsuit on his or her own behalf, without an attorney’s assistance. The second type of vexatious litigant is a person who, after a litigation has been finally determined against him, repeatedly re-litigates in pro per against the same defendant. (C.C.P. § 391(b)(2).)



In 3.5 years, he has filed four. One to go...

Maciora v Signature
Maciora v PMB February
Maciora v Cowan et al
Maciora v MEC


icon url

PhenixBleu

07/29/18 3:40 PM

#291879 RE: PhenixBleu #284841

Look for a Tentative Ruling on Wednesday afternoon, August 1, around 2-3 p.m. PST in MEC vs Kenneth Maciora et al.

Ken Maciora, defendant in MEC's Sacramento share fraud case, filed a second Motion to Compel production of documents.

Maciora is attempting to convince the court that access to confidential contracts is required to defend himself against his own egregious behaviors.

MEC is saying they've provided everything they are required to with appropriate redactions. They note filings are available on the SEC's public access system. As an example, the Centric Gateway contract is attached to an 8-K dated March 11, 2016, and has been linked in the iBox since then. The related Confidential Treatment Order is linked below.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1619558/999999999717000765/filename1.pdf

MEC again notes Maciora's harassing behavior, and obsessive emails attempting to set Meet and Confer appointments.

MEC's attorneys continue to do an excellent job.

MyECheck v. Ken Maciora et al

Securities Fraud, Breach of Contract, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Intentional Interference with Prospective
Business Advantage, Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations, Business and Professions Code 17200, Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

https://services.saccourt.ca.gov/PublicCaseAccess/Civil/SearchByCaseNumber

Rather than sign in, look to the right of the linked page. Select Tentative Rulings by Department. Use the date of August 2 and Department 54.
icon url

PhenixBleu

07/29/18 3:57 PM

#291880 RE: PhenixBleu #284841

Looks like the Charlie A case was settled. A hearing is set for Monday, August 8.

Docket Entry 215 reads:

THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL ON SETTLED CASE IS SCHEDULED FOR 08/06/2018 AT 10:00 AM IN DEPARTMENT C12.

Charlie Abujudeh vs MEC et al(Orange County)

Debt Collection

https://ocapps.occourts.org/civilwebShoppingNS/ShowCase.do?index=0&number=30-2017-00922498-CU-CO-CJC&tab=0#caseAnchor

Year Filed 2017 Case 30-2017-00922498-CU-CO-CJC
icon url

PhenixBleu

08/02/18 1:04 AM

#292011 RE: PhenixBleu #284841

MyECheck v Kenneth Maciora et al: Tentative Ruling Issued August 1, 2018

2016-00202624-CU-SL
MyECheck, Inc. vs. Kenneth Maciora
Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel
Filed By: Maciora, Kenneth

Pro-per Defendant Kenneth Maciora’s “(Maciora”) “motion to compel Plaintiff’s further response for compliance with the Court’s order and Defendants request for production (set four), request for sanctions” is ruled upon as follows.

Background

On 3/28/2018, the Court partially granted Plaintiff’s MyEcheck, Inc.’s (“MEC”) motion for protective order. Maciora had propounded Requests for Production, Set Four, on MEC. The RFPs provided the following definitions:

1. UBA Contract - The valid and effective contract referred to in Paragraph 85 and Paragraph 86 of your Third Amended Complaint.

2. Tangiers Capital Contract - The valid and effective investment agreement between MEC and Tangiers Capital referred to in Paragragh 87 of the Third Amended Complaint.

3. Chicago Ventures Contract - The valid and affective investment agreement between MEC and Chicago Ventures referred to in Paragraph 87 of the Third Amended Complaint

The request for production asked for the "valid and effective" copy of the "UBA contract," "Tangiers Capital contract," and the "Chicago Ventures contract." The contracts/investment agreements with these three entities are specifically alleged to be the basis for MEC's causes of action for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and with contractual relations.

MEC moved for a protective order relieving it of the obligation to produce these contracts to Maciora on the ground these contracts contain private, sensitive information which Maciora is likely to use to further his assaults on MEC, its stock, its shareholders and the prospective purchasers of MEC stock, causing still more irreparable harm. The Court allowed MEC to redact from each of the contracts the information which is either sensitive or trade secret and the disclosure of which would unduly or irreparably harm MEC, its stock or its reputation before producing the contracts to defendant Maciora.

MEC then produced the documents in redacted form. Maciora argues that the produced documents are not the actual contracts. He also takes issue with the redactions. Maciora seeks the following by way of this motion:
·
An order compelling MEC to produce the valid and effective contracts
·
Monetary sanctions pursuant to CCP §2031.030
·
Evidence sanctions pursuant to CCP §2023.030
·
Monetary sanctions pursuant to CCP §177.5
·
Relief from the Protective Order

Analysis

Maciora first contends that the produced documents are not the actual contracts\investment agreements. In response, MEC notes that the documents produced for Chicago Ventures is not the investment agreement. MEC produced a Form 8-K, dated October 19, 2015. MEC states “given that there are a series of loan agreements between MEC and Typenex [a subsidiary of Chicago Ventures], MEC produced its Form 8-K in an effort to provide Maciora with the most efficient mechanism to summarize only the information relevant to MEC's claims and/or Maciora's defenses. (Declaration of Ryan Hanlon, ¶ 2.) Given MEC’s concession that the Form 8-K is not the actual contract, the motion is GRANTED as to the Chicago Ventures contract.

The motion to compel production as to United Bank of Africa and Tangiers Capital is DENIED. With respect to the United Bank of Africa, the contract produced is between United Bank of Africa and Centric Gateway. According to MEC, "Centric Gateway is an authorized licensee of MEC and sells MEC's proprietary software. [Thus], [t]his is the contract and corresponding business relationship that is referenced in MEC's operative Complaint." (Declaration of Ryan Hanlon, ¶ 2.) With respect to Tangiers Investors, MEC produced a 8% Convertible Debenture Agreement, which shows that Tangiers Investors agreed to pay MEC a certain sum plus 8% interest per year. It appears to the Court that these documents are the contracts/investment agreements and responsive to the RFPs.

Maciora also requests that MEC produce the unredacted versions of Form 8-K (Chicago Ventures) and 8% Convertible Debenture Agreement (Tangiers Investors) these documents are publicly available in unredacted form. Maciora was able to locate the unredacted copies through the SEC or through the Federal District Court’s electronic service known as PACER. MEC claims that because Maciora has the unredacted versions, that the motion is moot. The Court is not convinced that the motion is moot. Given that the documents are publicly available, the redactions should be removed. As to the Tangiers Capital and Chicago Ventures, the motion is GRANTED. MEC shall serve the unredacted versions of the Form 8-K and 8% Convertible Debenture Agreement. As to United Bank of Africa, the motion is DENIED.

By no later than August 15, 2018, MEC shall produce the identical, but unredacted versions of the Form 8-K (Chicago Ventures) and 8% Convertible Debenture Agreement (Tangiers Investors.

By no later than August 15, 2018, MEC shall produce the actual contract(s) with Chicago Ventures, subject to the current protective order. MEC may redact the information which is either sensitive or trade secret and the disclosure of which would unduly or irreparably harm MEC, its stock or its reputation before producing the contracts to defendant Maciora.

Maciora’s request for monetary sanctions pursuant to CCP §2031.030 and CCP §177.5 is DENIED.

Maciora’s request for evidence sanctions pursuant to CCP §2023.030 is DENIED.

The Court is not convinced that such sanctions are warranted.

Maciora’s request for relief from the protective order is DENIED.

Maciora's objections to evidence are OVERRULED.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.
icon url

PhenixBleu

08/17/18 12:21 AM

#292592 RE: PhenixBleu #284841

I will be updating this stickie soon. Looks like MEC and Charlie A reached an agreement.
icon url

PhenixBleu

08/19/18 9:15 PM

#292661 RE: PhenixBleu #284841

MEC, Incorporated - ACTIVE LITIGATION SUMMARY

Below is a summary of Federal and State litigation involving MEC as Plaintiff or Defendant.

1. MyECheck v. Seven Miles Securities et al

Declaratory Relief and Cancellation of Share Certificates, Damages for Fraud, Preliminary and Permanent Injunctions

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/5672005/MyECheck,_Inc_v_Seven_Miles_Securities_et_al

2. MyECheck v. Ken Maciora et al

Securities Fraud, Breach of Contract, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Intentional Interference with Prospective
Business Advantage, Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations, Business and Professions Code 17200, Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

https://services.saccourt.ca.gov/PublicCaseAccess/Civil/SearchByCaseNumber

Year Filed 2016 and Case 00202624