|To: afrayem onigwecher who started this subject||8/4/2004 11:02:07 PM|
|To:Yuri Aminov who started this subject|
From: buzzlite Thursday, Dec 26, 2002 11:51 PM
View Replies (1) | Respond to of 8000
Periodically I search the web to see if there is any justice re the gifs scam. Haven't found any justice yet, but it's always interesting to me.
The esteemed former editor of waaco kid seems to be here.
Then I searched Mohamed Zayed and found this. Surely it can't be the same one.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read|
|To: StockDung who wrote (925)||12/18/2004 1:02:38 PM|
|Gayle is a punk. His involvement internally at GIFS is well known. I have some documents regarding his communications...(s)|
When GIFS was about to crumble and he was provided with the truth, he completely ignored it because he was invested and involved...
So, then the articles started about me being a jewel thief, corporate spy, on my way to Mexico...lolol...instead the offices at GIFS were raided and the company was shut down.
Zayed and Gayle were tight...
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)|
|To: tonto who wrote (932)||12/18/2004 1:11:17 PM|
|Re - MORE INFO ON GAYLE ESSARY COMES TO LIGHT |
To: TheTruthseeker who wrote (88832) 12/18/2004 12:05:16 PM
From: scionist Read Replies (1) of 88852
Re - MORE INFO ON GAYLE ESSARY COMES TO LIGHT
10. Plaintiff Mark F. Backhaus purchased shares of Streamedia common stock pursuant to the Company’s Prospectus filed in connection with its IPO, which was commenced on December 22, 1999. His signed certification, executed pursuant to the federal securities laws, is attached hereto.
11. Streamedia is a Delaware corporation that claims to provide website owners and content publishers with cost-effective services and tools for streaming, or broadcasting, live and on demand video and audio content over the Internet. The Company also operates a so-called .broadcast content website,. Bijou Cafe, at www.bijoucafe.com. The Company claims to have two primary components: it acts as an Internet content publisher and broadcaster, and as a business-to-business service bureau, to assist other businesses to publish and broadcast their content on the Web.
12. Defendant James D. Rupp ("Rupp") was the President and Chief Executive Officer and a director of the Company from its inception until October of 2000, when he resigned his management role, though he continued to serve as a director. In addition, Rupp signed the Prospectus filed in connection with the Company’s IPO. Rupp has been President and CEO of Capital Markets Communications Corporation a publisher of a number of Internet micro-cap stock
promotion newsletters including StreetSignals, TradeSignals, PowerSignals, AmexWire and the Waaco Kid.s Forum, among others.
13. Defendant Gayle Essary (.Essary.) was a founder, the Chairman and Vice President of the Company from its inception until his termination by the Company in March of 2001. In addition, Essary signed the Prospectus filed in connection with the Company’s IPO. Essary has also been Chairman of Investors Research Institute, an organization aimed at promoting the stock of microcap companies to individual investors. He is, and has been, an executive officer of several other companies that operate Internet stock promotion newsletters including HotStocks@StreetLevel, the Waaco Kid.s Forum and a number of others.
14. Defendant Walter Hollenberg ("Hollenberg") was the Vice President of Technology for Streamedia from July 1999 until sometime in 2000 and is listed in the Prospectus as an executive officer of the Company.
15. Defendant Nicholas Malino ("Malino") was the Chief Financial Officer of the Company beginning in November of 1998 and also served as Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer from August of 1999 until his resignation in October of 2000. In addition, Malino signed the Prospectus filed in connection with the Company’s IPO.
16. Defendant Henry Siegel (.Siegel.) was at all relevant times a director of the Company and in October of 2000, Seigel became the Chief Executive Officer of the Company. In addition,
Seigel signed the Prospectus filed in connection with the Company’s IPO.
17. Defendants Robert J. Wussler and David J. Simonetti were, at all relevant times, directors of Streamedia, and they each signed the Prospectus filed in connection with the Company’s IPO.
18. For purposes of this Complaint, the individual defendants identified in ¶¶12-17 shall be referred to herein as the "Individual Defendants."
19. Defendant Capital West Securities, Inc. (.Capital West.) is an Oklahoma corporation principally located at 211 North Robinson Street, Suite 200, Oklahoma City, OK, 73102-7101. Capital West is an NASD registered broker/dealer and acted as a lead underwriter and as corepresentative
for the underwriting group in the IPO.
20. Defendant Institutional Equity Corporation (.IEQ.) is an Oklahoma corporation principally located at 5910 North Central Expressway Ste. 1480, Dallas, TX 75206. IEQ is an NASD registered broker/dealer and acted as a lead underwriter and as co-representative for the underwriting group in the IPO.
21. Defendant Kashner Davidson Securities Corporation (.Kashner.) is a Florida corporation principally located at 77 South Palm Avenue, Sarasota, FL 34236-7724. Kashner is an NASD registered broker/dealer and acted as an underwriter for the IPO.
22. Defendant Nutmeg Securities, Ltd. (.Nutmeg.) is a Connecticut corporation principally located at 495 Post Road East, Westport, Ct 06880. Nutmeg is an NASD registered broker/dealer and acted as an underwriter for the IPO.
23. Defendant Schneider Securities, Inc. (.Schneider.) is a Colorado corporation principally located at 1120 Lincoln Street, Suite 900, Denver, CO, 80203. Schneider is an NASD registered broker/dealer and acted as an underwriter for the IPO.
24. Defendant Westport Resources Investment Services, Inc. (.Westport.) is a Connecticut corporation principally located at 315 Post Road West, Westport, CT 06880-4645. Westport is an NASD registered broker/dealer and acted as an underwriter for the IPO.
25. Defendant The Agean Group, Inc. (.Agean.) is a Florida corporation principally located at One South Ocean Blvd. Suite 300, Boca Raton, FL, 33432. Agean is an NASD registered broker/dealer and acted as an underwriter for the IPO.
26. Defendant Smith, Moore & Co. (.Smith.) is a Missouri corporation principally located at 400 Locust Street, St. Louis, MO 63102. Smith is an NASD registered broker/dealer and acted as an underwriter for the IPO.
27. Defendant Global Capital Securities Corporation, formerly known as EBI Securities Corporation (.Global.) is a Missouri corporation principally located at 6300 South Syracuse Way, Suite 645, Englewood, CO, 80111. Global is an NASD registered broker/dealer and acted as an underwriter for the IPO.
28. For purposes of this Complaint, defendants Capital West, IEQ, Nutmeg, Kashner, Westport, Schneider, Agean, Smith and Global will be referred to herein as the "Underwriter Defendants."
29. The Underwriter Defendants were the underwriters for the IPO, and were primarily involved in offering and selling shares of the Company to the public in the IPO.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)|
|To: scion who wrote (935)||12/18/2004 1:41:05 PM|
|lol. Essary would talk big through his "media empire", but then would cry about his old beater that he had to drive and he did not want his children to learn through the internet what he truly is...|
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read|
|To: afrayem onigwecher who wrote (931)||12/29/2004 10:46:57 AM|
|.IN THE MONEY: GeneMax Naked-Short Suits Dismissed|
28 December 2004
Dow Jones News Service
(c) 2004 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
By Carol S. Remond
A Dow Jones Newswires Column
NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--Two more lawsuits alleging illegal short selling
by brokerage firms have been dismissed without much fanfare.
Biotech company GeneMax Corp. (GMXX) was at the forefront of companies
protesting what they said were unfair attacks by short sellers in late
2002. Back then and through much of 2003, GeneMax and its then-marketing
firm Investor Communications International, or ICI, led a campaign
against naked short selling, or short selling without first borrowing
securities to make delivery.
As part of its campaign, GeneMax filed lawsuits in Canada and in the
U.S. to try to prevent brokerage firms from engaging in naked short
GeneMax filed a lawsuit against Canadian brokerage firms Global
Securities Corp. and Union Securities Corp. in September 2002 in the
Supreme Court of British Columbia. The company alleged that the
brokerages engaged in illegal short selling to manipulate the price of
A court order obtained by Dow Jones Newswires shows that suit was
dismissed on Dec. 16. A countersuit filed by Global Securities and Union
Securities was also dismissed.
GeneMax had widened its legal fight with the brokers to U.S. courts in
October 2002 when it filed suit against 11 brokerage firms in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada. That suit was dismissed. But
the company filed another suit in November 2003 that mirrored much of
the illegal short selling allegations it made in its first Nevada suit,
including fraud and racketeering. The original suit named Knight Trading
Group Inc. (NITE), Charles Schwab Corp. (SCH) and nine others and seeks
injunctions to prevent the firms from shorting GeneMax shares and
Court documents show that the 2003 Nevada suit was dismissed on Nov. 9.
GeneMax's shares, which topped $20 a share in late 2002, are now trading
at a mere 24.5 cents in very thin trading.
GeneMax's President and Chief Executive Ronald Hanford wasn't
immediately available to comment.
GeneMax was the subject of three "In The Money" columns in 2002 and
2003. Those columns questioned whether insiders would benefit most from
limits on short selling and GeneMax's connection to consultant ICI.
GeneMax terminated its agreement with ICI in late 2003.
In a short sale, a security not owned by the seller is sold in
anticipation of a decrease in the stock's price. In the U.S., NASD
requires that before they engage in short sales for themselves or
clients, firms make an affirmative determination that they can borrow a
security or will be able to provide it for delivery on demand. Market
makers are exempt from the affirmative determination rule when engaged
in "bona fide market making activity" because they provide needed
liquidity to the market. Earlier this year, NASD tightened its
affirmative determination rule, making it harder for Canadian brokerages
to take advantage of the fact that no borrowing requirement exists in
In September, another suit alleging naked short selling was dismissed
after Jag Media Holdings Inc. (JAGH), which also led the charge against
naked short selling in the U.S., failed to make its case.
Jag Media and Gary Valinoti, the company's former chief executive, sued
more than 100 brokerage firms, investment firms and financial
institutions in July 2002, alleging that they entered into a civil
conspiracy and concert of action to short sell Jag Media's stock. In the
suit, originally filed in the Judicial District Court, Harris county in
Texas and later removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Houston Division, Jag Media alleged that the
financial institutions committed market manipulation and fraud and
violated securities laws.
That case was dismissed by U.S. District Judge Vanessa Gilmore after she
found multiple deficiencies in Jag Media's third amended complaint.
Gilmore found that Jag Media didn't have a viable claim against those
(Carol S. Remond is an award-winning columnist and one of four who write
the "In The Money" feature. Most recently, she shared a 2003 Best of
Business Award from the Society of American Business Editors and Writers
for her role in Dow Jones' team coverage of the Canary Capital mutual
fund trading scandal.)
-By Carol S. Remond; Dow Jones Newswires; 201 938 2074;
email@example.com [ 12-28-04 1742ET ]
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read|
|To: afrayem onigwecher who wrote (931)||12/29/2004 11:37:31 AM|
|DAVIDSON CLAIMS SEC LEAKED INFO TO CAROL REMOND. LOL|
"In this respect, it is suggestive that the SEC apparently leaked its complaint about Agora to Remond, who cooperated by writing a story trumpeting the SEC's effort to discredit me and these good companies."
Dear Vantage Point Investor,
You may be as startled and upset as I am by the sudden collapse in the price of GeneMax (GMXX), which has tumbled in the last nine trading days. The question is, why? I can't pretend that I fully understand the answer. But I have a disturbing guess. It appears that the naked short-sellers who have counterfeited millions of GeneMax shares in an attempt to destroy the company have enlisted powerful help.
In theory, the Securities and Exchange Commission is a regulatory body charged with maintaining the integrity of public securities markets in the United States. In reality, the SEC is like any other government agency. It responds to powerful entrenched interests. It abhors bad publicity, rewards its friends and punishes its critics.
Unhappily, the SEC also lies. I know because the SEC field office in Utah has lied about me. And I suspect that these lies are the culmination of a carefully laid plan to discredit GeneMax and punish the company for raising troublesome issues about naked short selling, which has also embarrassed the SEC.
If you have been a subscriber to Vantage Point for any length of time, you are no doubt aware that I am a critic of "electronic counterfeiting," the process by which some investment banks, market makers and broker-dealers drive down the prices of Nasdaq Bulletin Board companies by selling unlimited quantities of shares they don't own. Since stock prices are determined by supply and demand, allowing unlimited counterfeiting of stock essentially guarantees that the stock becomes worthless.
Of course, a company whose shares are worthless won't last long. It is unable to raise money if its stock is worthless. All too often, such small companies are driven into oblivion by electronic counterfeiting. When we are slogging along with a weak economy, I consider it almost criminal negligence that the government would permit investment banks, market makers and broker-dealers to weaken the economy further by destroying small companies that could otherwise be a major fountain of growth.
Why would the government let this happen? I don't think it is necessarily a Grand Conspiracy with a capital "G." But the bad guys have managed to control most of the news about "electronic counterfeiting." And perversely, they also seem to have the regulators on their side.
I had a painful lesson in this reality at the beginning of this week when I learned to my astonishment that the Utah office of the SEC had tarnished my name by accusing me of failing to disclose an interest in two investments that I recommended in Vantage Point Investment Advisory. Their exact charge is as follows:
"Among the issuers promoted in this manner have been GeneMax Corp. and Endovasc Ltd., Inc. DAVIDSON is an officer, director and, indirectly, a substantial shareholder of these two issuers. Neither the soliciting e-mail nor the subsequent company report discloses DAVIDSON's relationship to the companies."
This is total rubbish. I deny any impropriety. Indeed, the charges are remote from the facts.
As you will know if you subscribed to Vantage Point last summer, I fully disclosed my role as a founder, director and officer of GeneMax when I recommended the company and its promising treatment for cancer. And I also disclosed a special relationship with Endovasc. I am not an officer or director of Endovasc. I have a few shares that I received in exchange for assigning my rights in what could be a valuable patent to the company.
To be sure that I wasn't missing something, I had my attorney review the record. He concluded that my disclosures are complete: "I spent this afternoon reviewing Agora marketing copy for Vantage Point and the newsletters and have verified that the charge that you failed to disclose your personal interest in GeneMax is completely false." Agora will be filing a motion to dismiss the SEC's baseless complaint.
I fail to see how anyone of good faith who reviewed the record could possibly construe it as the SEC apparently has. Although I can't prove it, I have concluded that the SEC, or at least some of its personnel, were more offended by my criticism of electronic counterfeiting than they are by the abuse itself -- which causes you and other investors hundreds of billions in losses. In fact, the costs of electronic counterfeiting are much higher than those entailed in the accounting scandals which have garnered so much attention. Nonetheless, instead of correcting these abuses, the SEC has gone out of its way to rope me into a doubtful complaint that they have developed against another Agora publication -- a product to which I have no connection other than a passive one as a minority shareholder in Agora.
Nor do I take it to be entirely a coincidence that while I have recommended more than 30 investments in Vantage Point over the past 16 months, my reputation is being tarred in respect to just two companies, GeneMax and Endovasc. These two companies have one thing in common, in addition to the fact that both have promising medical innovations that could ease much suffering and save many lives. Both have been at the forefront of legal action to combat the abuse of electronic counterfeiting of their shares. But these efforts have hardly earned them the friends they should. Rather than garnering applause, their efforts to confront the abuse of electronic counterfeiting of their shares has made both companies the focus of negative publicity.
In particular, one writer, Carol S. Remond, undertook to paint a negative picture of both companies, publishing what bordered on outright lies. For some reason known only to others, the SEC appears to have adopted Remond's text in defense of the electronic counterfeiters. In this respect, it is suggestive that the SEC apparently leaked its complaint about Agora to Remond, who cooperated by writing a story trumpeting the SEC's effort to discredit me and these good companies.
I wanted to write to you immediately when I got this startling news to tell you that I will not be cowed by these Machiavellian tactics. I will continue to raise important issues of investor protection that the SEC appears to wish to duck. I do so with faith that the truth will eventually triumph, the evil of electronic counterfeiting will be curtailed, and the integrity of public security markets restored.
Or to put it another way, if powerful people are so keen to discredit my criticism of electronic counterfeiting that they will orchestrate an entirely bogus charge of the kind carried on the wires against me this week, that itself indicates that more light needs to be shed on the shadowy activities they are trying to protect.
But, on to the status of your GeneMax holdings... Absolutely nothing about this company or its exciting immunotherapy development has changed and would warrant this share price decline. In fact, in an independent study commissioned by the company, it was determined that if GeneMax were funded as low as at $1.50 per share, and assuming that its products prove to work as well in humans as they have in animals, the present value of the stock would be $420 per share, notwithstanding dilution. GeneMax remains a fundamentally sound company and a tremendous buying opportunity at these levels. I recommend that you increase your GeneMax shares, as well as those in Endovasc (EVSC.OB). And, may I reiterate, I am a shareholder in both companies.
And, if you are as concerned as I am about electronic counterfeiting and its effects on the dynamic young companies that must fuel our country's future growth (as well as your portfolio), I urge you to write your congressman. You can also register your concern with the National Association Against Naked Short Selling (http://www.nakedshortselling.com),, which is taking up the fight for companies and investors alike.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read|
|To: scion who wrote (935)||3/5/2005 3:44:55 PM|
|BCSC not pursuing Nano World ex Hunter|
2005-03-04 14:25 ET - Street Wire
by Stockwatch Business Reporter
The B.C. Securities Commission, in its pending hearing for Nano World Projects Corp. and its president, Robert Papalia, is not pursuing former Nano World president David Hunter. Mr. Papalia blamed Mr. Hunter for landing the company in trouble with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and even sued him in B.C. Supreme Court.
The BCSC goes after Nano World
The BCSC has scheduled a hearing for March 7 to try Mr. Papalia and Nano World for allegedly pumping the company with misleading news. The local regulator says Mr. Papalia and Nano World misled investors with false news releases claiming the company had two big deals in Europe.
Nano World, at the time, traded on the lightly regulated, but heavily prosecuted OTC Bulletin Board.
According to the BCSC, Mr. Papalia began issuing the misleading news releases on Sept. 12, 2000, in which he touted deals with Italian automotive giant Fiat and printing company Euroinks (pronounced Euro-inks, not Eur-oinks).
To back up these purported deals, the BCSC says Mr. Papalia issued further news claiming another OTC-BB company, Frefax Inc., was going to provide a loan.
The BCSC alleges that Mr. Papalia sold at least 300,000 shares of Nano World between January and February, 2001, for proceeds of up to $130,000.
The SEC goes after Mr. Papalia
The BCSC was not the first regulator to target Mr. Papalia for the Nano World promotion. The SEC, in a civil action, won a permanent ban against Mr. Papalia on Sept. 1, 2004, for his Nano World shenanigans.
In that case, Judge Marsha Pecham of the United States Federal District Court in Seattle found that Mr. Papalia pumped Nano World up to $24.50 using misleading or false news releases.
In a 15-page judgment she said, "Papalia's violation involved fraud, deceit, manipulation, or deliberate and reckless disregard of a regulatory requirement." In addition to the permanent ban, Judge Pecham fined Mr. Papalia $33,000.
Mr. Papalia, in a statement of defence, denied the SEC's accusations.
The SEC goes after Mr. Hunter
The SEC also named Mr. Hunter in the same civil action as Mr. Papalia. The U.S. regulator said Mr. Hunter misled Nano World investors with false news releases.
Mr. Hunter, who denied the SEC's allegations, settled with the U.S. regulator out of court. He agreed to a five-year ban from the markets and to an injunction barring future U.S. Securities Act violations. He did not admit to any wrongdoing in reaching the settlement.
Mr. Howe Street
David Hunter -- son of Ben, brother of Dan, father of five -- has spent much of his life up to his eyeballs in penny stocks. Many of them have gone to many dollars, and most have ended back where they began. Although Mr. Hunter has not been accused by the BCSC of any Nano World wrongdoing, Mr. Papalia alleged halfheartedly in a very brief lawsuit that Mr. Hunter was at least partly responsible for the company's trouble.
Mr. Papalia sued Mr. Hunter in B.C. Supreme Court on Aug. 16, 2002, on behalf of Nano World. In his self-filed writ, Mr. Papalia said Mr. Hunter misappropriated Nano World's money.
The case never made it before a judge. Mr. Papalia did not follow up his writ a formal statement of claim, which would have provided details, if not credibility, to the allegations against his former colleague. Mr. Hunter did not file a statement of defence.
Mr. Hunter landed at Nano World 10 days after leaving the Vancouver brokerage industry on March 31, 2000. His 25-year brokerage career began in 1975 and included stints at four Vancouver brokerages.
Mr. Hunter's last job in the brokerage industry was at Mark Valentine's Thomson Kernaghan, which he left on March 31, 2000. Prior to Thomson Kernaghan, Mr. Hunter worked at Canaccord Capital Corp. between Sept. 2, 1992, and Jan. 15, 1996. When David and brother Dan arrived at Canaccord from Yorkton Securities, David said: "Our style is probably more like that of venture capitalists/merchant bankers. We try to identify situations, especially junior industrials, that have merit."
During his years as a big-producing broker, seeking those junior industrials of merit, Mr. Hunter introduced some of the players in Brent Pierce's Ultra Pure Water Systems (Canada) Inc., a promotion that left seven brokerages with $2.36-million in unpaid debits. Stephen Taub, a key broker in the case, said he was introduced to two of Ultra Pure's founders, Louis Gorusch and Grant Atkins, by the Hunters.
Mr. Hunter and his brother were also parties of interest, but not suspects or targets, in the SEC's civil prosecution of Dimples Group Inc., a raucous Vancouver Stock Exchange diaper promotion of the early 1990s that ended up covered like most diapers.
Other enterprises of merit that Mr. Hunter was involved with included Cost Miser Coupons (International) Inc. and, a rare success, PLC Systems Inc.
Mr. Hunter could not be reached for comment on Nano World or any other matters. He was last thought to be in Mexico. Mr. Hunter's lawyer in the U.S. case, John Payseno, said he was too busy to comment on the matter.
The BCSC, for its part, says it is aware of Mr. Hunter's involvement with Nano World.
The commission's hearing against Mr. Papalia and Nano World is set to kick off Monday, March 7.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read|