Replies to post #96157 on Drone Services USA Inc. (DSUS)

[Seaam]

As per your comments.....

Larry Salzant case - remember he is a former Director of PVEC and a major lender....new case is to be filed as mentioned in prior post. The prior posting suggested search later this week. Or shareholder/potential shareholder could just call Larry and ask him themselves. Contact information has been posted

Meredith case - Dallas - This a SUMMARY JUDGMENT hearing. A summary judgment request is made by the plaintiff when no defense was presented in a timely manner by the plaintiff in the prior hearing(s). Last earlier scheduled hearing was cancelled due to snow storm. No defense has been given in any prior hearing.

But given that one says fraudulent documents, what proof do you have of this. The signed Promissory Note (witnessed) and complete audit trail of funds delivered to Mr Villiotis bank accounts (whom no one else had control over) and items paid for Mr Villiotis benefit are very hard to argue. And there are multiple witnesses. He owes the money and has defaulted.

Obviously, from the posted Promissory Note, no share conversion is even mentioned. Finally, Mr Merideth has never and does not own any shares in PVEC. The only person that seems to know about a so called illegal share conversion is the IR Company representative...and yet no proof of any nature has been submitted. To defame Mr Meredith in such, by innuendo, is criminal IMO.

Once a Summary Judgment is granted by the court, than this Texas foreign judgment can be registered in Florida as a "foreign judgment". No defense is allowed in State of Florida for foreign judgments.

By best advise is:

Do you think company plans to pay the defaulted debt, verified by court order, to the consultant's friend via next round of toxic debt financing? Do you think that the defaulted unpaid wages should be paid off during the next round of toxic debt refinancing?

Certainly would make sense to start new year with a clean sweep. Cleans up old business, gets rid of criticism, and pays off the legitimate defaulted debt and unpaid wages. Require of the consultant to sign a non disclosure and confidentiality?

Best for shareholders, company, consultant and his friends. Least expensive for company. And it is the correct ethical moral thing to do.

[DayofReckoning]

its no wonder PVEC is at toilet bottom, nothing to discuss concerning a business model except for "pending lawsuits" true or not

[elvisonfire]

pg--can you tell me what pvec's business model is--you seem to be on the inside with them--thanx--e

[Seaam]

RESEARCH BY "PG" regarding today's case...that is on-going ...

Civil / Probate Justice System - Docket Information

BACK TO SEARCH RESULTS ALL PARTIES START A NEW SEARCH
SAZANT, LARRY S vs PV ENTERPRISES INC
* Click on BOOK/PAGE of a particular docket to see the image if it is available *

Case Number (LOCAL): 2012-24882-CA-01 Dockets Retrieved: 53 Filing Date: 06/26/2012
Case Number (STATE): 13-2012-CA-024882-0000-01 Judicial Section: 21
Date Book/Page Docket Entry Comments
12/18/2013
MOTION TO WITHDRAW
12/18/2013
NOTICE OF HEARING- MOTIONS 01/07/2014 09:00 AM
12/16/2013
CANCELLATION NOTICE 12/17/2013 09:00 AM
12/16/2013
CANCELLATION NOTICE 12/17/2013 09:00 AM
12/16/2013
MOTION TO WITHDRAW
12/16/2013
MOTION TO WITHDRAW
11/21/2013
NOTICE OF HEARING- MOTIONS 12/17/2013 09:00 AM
02/14/2013
OBJECTION: TO PLTF'S UNILATERALLY NOTICE DEPOSITION
02/01/2013
SUBPOENA RETURNED
02/01/2013
SUBPOENA RETURNED
01/28/2013
ORDER: APPROVING STIP RE: PARTIES MOTIONS TO COMPEL
01/28/2013
STIPULATION
01/22/2013
ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL IS GRANTED FOR PLAINTIFF & DENIED FOR DEFENDANT
01/03/2013
NOTICE OF HEARING- MOTIONS 01/17/2013 09:00 AM
01/03/2013
MOTION TO COMPEL
12/19/2012
MOTION TO COMPEL
12/19/2012
NOTICE OF HEARING- MOTIONS 01/17/2013 09:00 AM
12/04/2012
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
11/19/2012
ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ATTORNEY:00124702 DN01 DN02
11/19/2012
MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENSE OF IMPROPER VENUE
11/19/2012
COUNTER CLAIM $
11/19/2012
MOTION TO DISMISS
11/07/2012
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
10/17/2012
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS
10/17/2012
ORDER: ON DEF'S OBJECTIONS TO PLTFFS REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
10/04/2012
NOTICE OF HEARING- MOTIONS 10/16/2012 09:00 AM
09/27/2012
ORDER: ON PLTFFS MOTION PURSUANT TO RULE 1.35 (B)+(C)
09/21/2012
NOTICE OF HEARING- MOTIONS 10/04/2012 09:00 AM
09/14/2012
MOTION TO STRIKE
09/13/2012
CANCELLATION NOTICE 09/20/2012 09:30 AM
09/10/2012
E-MAIL NOTICE [e-mail]
09/10/2012
MOTION: PURSUANT TO RULE 1.351 (B) & (C)
09/10/2012
NOTICE OF HEARING- MOTIONS 09/25/2012 09:00 AM
09/10/2012
NOTICE OF HEARING- MOTIONS 09/27/2012 09:00 AM
09/10/2012
NOTICE OF HEARING- MOTIONS 09/20/2012 09:00 AM
09/10/2012
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
09/10/2012
OBJECTION: TO PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF PRODUCTION ETC
09/10/2012
NOTICE: OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 2.516 ETC
09/10/2012
OBJECTION: DEF. OBJECTIONS TO PLANTIFF'S NOTICE OF PRODUCTION ETC
09/10/2012
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE ATTORNEY: 00124702 DN01 DN02
09/10/2012
RESPONSE: TO PLAINTIFF'S REQ. FOR PRODUCTION
08/23/2012
ORDER: GRANTING DEF COUNSEL'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW
08/21/2012
MOTION TO DISMISS
08/17/2012
NOTICE OF HEARING- MOTIONS 09/21/2012 09:00 AM
08/17/2012
MOTION TO WITHDRAW
08/06/2012
NOTICE OF HEARING- MOTIONS 08/21/2012 09:00 AM
08/06/2012
OBJECTION: TO MOTION TO DISMISS
07/03/2012
SERVICE RETURNED BADGE # 727 S 06/27/2012 DN01
07/03/2012
SERVICE RETURNED BADGE # 727 S 06/27/2012 DN02
06/26/2012
SUMMONS ISSUED DN01 DN02
06/26/2012
CIVIL COVER
06/26/2012
COMPLAINT
06/26/2012
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

[Cassandra]

Kerry (PG), as a compensated representative of PVEC, would you please explain why the company selectively blocks or bans access by selective IP addresses that have never registered an ID or posted as well as even banning registered users from even reading parts of its website? What kind of infraction would cause the company to ban a registered user from even being able to continue to read the portions of the company's website?

If the company is as transparent and honest as you claim, why would it not allow everyone to view all of the links and information on its website?

The blocking of people from even being able to view parts of the company's website is the absolute antithesis of company transparency.

In case you haven't noticed, your secretive strategy since November has not resulted in appreciation of the PVEC share price. The exact opposite has happened, but you blame it all on supposed illegal manipulation that you have reported to "authorities."

Please explain why PVEC bans some of its registered users and even the IP addresses of people who have never registered an ID or posted anything from even just viewing apparently restricted portions of its website.

In fact, why does the company even have a restricted area of its website? What is it hiding?

Lastly, it would be appropriate for you to reveal your actual role and qualifications to be the apparent primary spokesperson for PVEC. Why do you refuse to do so?