News Focus
News Focus
icon url

SunScents

06/27/11 12:50 PM

#3802 RE: Britpack #3799

Thanks for sharing that Brit! Very informative.
icon url

dehydratedman

06/27/11 12:53 PM

#3805 RE: Britpack #3799

Thanks Brit...

This is an eye opener....The Truth Joe, The Truth...

The sequence of events was as follows;
We received several offers to merge with Trophy, from Dean Bradley who explained that he and Joe Canuse owned the company (Trophy) and they would like to work with us.
We met Joe Canuse, Dean Bradley and Donna Virgil during our most recent visit to Jacksonville. I agreed to this meeting on the basis that QASP would not be discussed. We were only listening to an offer from Trophy. We took the details of this offer to our legal counsel who, like ourselves, questioned the legality and ethics of the proposed arrangement. Joe wrote to us formally with this offer which we rejected. We were surprised that these confidential conversations and proposed agreements were emailed to other parties. The details of that breach are being held for future action, if and when necessary.
We made an in good faith offer to QASP, via Joe on the above described 4% of common stock. I assume Joe put this to the QASP shareholders. He did not reply to us formally, although he informed by telephone that it was of no interest. We wrote back to him informing him that the offer was open until 21st of June. We received no response and the offer lapsed.



Did we have a shareholder vote on this?

GeneO
icon url

marc_1958

06/27/11 12:54 PM

#3806 RE: Britpack #3799

Thanks Britpack for all your efforts in keeping us informed with great information!!!!
icon url

cosmoworld7

06/27/11 12:56 PM

#3807 RE: Britpack #3799

thanks for sharing Brit - hopefully Jeff/James/Mike can clear up this mess.
icon url

doughboy2

06/27/11 12:57 PM

#3808 RE: Britpack #3799

Thanks, Brit.

Sounding positive on all fronts for us.
icon url

Montana Wildhack

06/27/11 12:59 PM

#3809 RE: Britpack #3799

However, Jeff DiGenova, argued long and hard for the QASP shareholders, stating that many had lost money – some their life savings- and some had only invested as they believed in Mineseeker. This persuaded me that we should take another look at this situation and I offered QASP 4% of common stock in our public entity.



There are some here who have questioned Jeff's support. This shows that he has been fighting the good fight for us, both in court and in trying to keep the only viable thing Q had left to work with. Read this again to see who it was who was against this deal and who tried to deal you out of it. But there are those who still believe JC - amazing!
icon url

iwondertoo

06/27/11 1:37 PM

#3815 RE: Britpack #3799

Brit FWIW, I think it would be an excellent thing if the "shareholders group" sent that out. We've all been dying to get something straight from Mr. Kendrick, and this is an excellent piece of information that all shareholders would love to hear. Even those who are staying away from the boards to try to stay sane. LOL

Is there some way to make that connection and get it out?

Thanks a million
IW2
icon url

nutinbutdatroof

06/27/11 2:00 PM

#3820 RE: Britpack #3799

Joe's claims were further complicated by Dean Bradley who has written to the Mineseeker stating that much of the cash advanced, came from him personally, not from QASP. The stated that the QASP books did not show any money due from Mineseeker and that we owned him the money. The statement that no debt by Mineseeker was in the books came at a time when Dean was, undisputedly ( I think) the president of QASP.


Interesting Mr. Kendrick has no problems living with the fact that the money Mr. Bradley paid to Mr. Kendrick may have been ill gotten from the shareholders of QASP.
I think this says a great deal to ones character, with or without a "no refund" clause.

icon url

homey_g

06/27/11 2:43 PM

#3823 RE: Britpack #3799

Impressive response from Kendrick!
icon url

gattes12

06/27/11 3:39 PM

#3832 RE: Britpack #3799

OH man this is a joke if I ever saw one.

Firstly, you must understand that we were let down very badly by QASP. They stopped the agreed funding, suddenly and without notice, at a critical time in our programme. This caused enormous damage to our progress – right in the middle of our Croatia demonstration.



This seems awfully strange considering that Mineseeker existed as its own entity (or so they would have one thinking) prior to QASP involvement. This leave the question now:

If Mineseeker relied so heavily on QASP (a company with no real money or business on its own) how could it have been a fruitful investment for QASP shareholders?

Again...

We made an in good faith offer to QASP, via Joe on the above described 4% of common stock. I assume Joe put this to the QASP shareholders. He did not reply to us formally, although he informed by telephone that it was of no interest. We wrote back to him informing him that the offer was open until 21st of June. We received no response and the offer lapsed.



This is a company that needed funding just a few short months ago , but wanted 4% of a company that has no real assets? I wonder what the offer really was? I'm willing to bet it wasn't what shareholders would think it would be.

It seems to me that a section of QASP shareholders are determined, at all cost, to spoil any attempt by NHSH to make a deal with Mineseeker, although, the arrangement would obviously be to the advantage of most



This is pure BS. If Minseeker wants to merge, they can. As James Owens described it QASP is an "unrelated company" But then again how much sense does it make to say that a section of QASP shareholders is trying to stop a merger when they just made an offer to obtain 4% of the company?

As far as the accusations against Mineseeker and me personally, we are in the process of subpoenaing a website, Investors Hub, to identify the perpetrators of many false and malicious statements.
I am not in the habit of writing long diatribes but felt this story should be set on record.



Just like Dean? Still waiting on that one.

Shareholders can blindly follow this crap if they like, but the inconsistencies in this email alone are staggering if one takes a realistic look at it.

But then again:

However, Jeff DiGenova, argued long and hard for the QASP shareholders, stating that many had lost money – some their life savings- and some had only invested as they believed in Mineseeker.

on a company that NEEDED funding to operate.


icon url

bballcoach10

06/27/11 5:28 PM

#3852 RE: Britpack #3799

Super DD! Thanks Brit.
icon url

Jim01

06/27/11 5:37 PM

#3855 RE: Britpack #3799

Thanks AGAIN, Brit! Thanks to Mike Kendrick, also!

"Book 'em Danno !"

Jim

.
icon url

Anvil

06/27/11 5:49 PM

#3857 RE: Britpack #3799

Brit, that is an interesting email. Thanks.

I have read a lot of written communications/docs over the weekend and nothing really surprises me. Bad stuff happening on both sides.

But I have to say that Owens credibility continues to decline in my opinion. Starting with share exchange, the PP, the alledged merger into NHSH (no docs), calling those statements audited, etc.

Then you have some people getting $.001 shares in N. And Jeff is paying for his own legal fees with no help from "well funded" Centacom, which the rumor is doesn't have any money. With a associated rumor being that Centa could not close the mineseeker deal because they have not been able to dump enough shares.

Rumor, yep. Would be nice if Centa IR would answer some "real" questions.

I spoke to Jeff only once, a month ago. And I believe that has worked in the shareholders interest most of the time. But man, he is running with a very suspect crowd.
icon url

stluc

06/30/11 4:07 PM

#4130 RE: Britpack #3799

no surprise joe didn't answer to this email.