SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   Gold/Mining/EnergyJBII - The Secret Catalyst Turns Plastics into Oil


Previous 10 Next 10 
From: scion7/16/2014 7:22:08 PM
   of 704
 

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: Johnik who wrote (672)8/25/2014 7:42:38 PM
From: SteveF
   of 704
 
Is this a good stock? *snicker*

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: Steady_on who wrote (660)8/25/2014 7:49:53 PM
From: SteveF
   of 704
 
Do you still blame message board posters? Do you care who got the millions of dollars of shareholder funds (i.e. your money) that's missing today?

I'm sure Bordy thanks you even though he stopped responding to emails and phone calls months ago.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: zardiw9/4/2014 11:00:28 AM
   of 704
 
Sleazy Court Tactics on PTOI:

So Seneca files this motion stating the company is out of money....blah blah blah.....And what is his motive pray tell?

Why to scare any potential investors of course, and to drive the SP down............and WHY does he do that?

Cause his blackmailing attempts FAILED.

What a sleaze ball.

Now here's some actual documentation to prove this:

Response to so called Discovery papers that were NEVER SENT.

2. On July 30, 2014, I received an email from Plaintiff's counsel, Rebecca Fuller,
transmitting Plaintiffs request for production, request for admissions, and first set of
interrogatories. (A copy of that email is attached to Plaintiff's motion [D.E. 33-5]) This was the
first time I, or anyone else at Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., learned that Plaintiff had issued
written discovery in this matter.
3. As a result, on July 31, 2014, I caused to be reviewed every fax transmission
received by Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A.'s Miami office on June 26, 2014, which are
maintained on Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A.'s network, and can confirm that no fax was
received
from or on behalf of Plaintiff on June 26, 2014. (Due to the sensitivity of the June 26,
2014 faxes reviewed, they are not attached to this declaration.)

4. I also caused to be reviewed the electronic file maintained for this matter, and can
confirm that Plaintiff s June 26, 2014 discovery requests were also not received at Carlton Fields
Jorden Burt, P.A.'s Miami office by U.S. mail. It is Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A.'s regular
Case 0:13-cv-61809-RLR Document 35-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/28/2014 Page 1 of 2
business practice to image all incoming mail and load it to the corresponding electronic file.
Based on my understanding of this business practice, the absence of any record from the
electronic file
indicates that the discovery requests had not been received by U.S. mail.
5. In fact, as of the date this declaration is being signed, neither I nor anyone else at
Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A. have ever received Plaintiff's discovery requests by fax or U.S.
mail.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
foregoing is true and correct based on information in my possession and information provided to
me.

LYING response of attys that 'supposedly' sent these Discovery Papers.....

My question is....instead of 'recovering the transmission reports'........why didn't they just INCLUDE them in this response?

You know why they're not included.............cause they DO NOT EXIST:

While we are certain that the discovery requests in question were sent to your office on June 26, 2014, and are recovering
the transmission reports
to indicate the same, we are willing to agree to an additional 30 days to respond, until August 30,
2014; provided, however, that we will schedule mediation in this matter for mid-September of 2014.

z

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: zardiw who wrote (682)9/4/2014 11:39:55 AM
From: Reseller Mike
   of 704
 
That dog won't hunt....

i.picresize.com


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Reseller Mike who wrote (683)9/4/2014 1:14:26 PM
From: Rawnoc
   of 704
 
LOL if faxes counted as service most of the processor-serving industry would be out of business.

Woof, woof.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Rawnoc who wrote (684)9/4/2014 1:19:42 PM
From: Reseller Mike
   of 704
 
Seeing as they have been using facsimile for all there other process documents it's fair to say they agreed to it,
therefore it is an acceptable delivery for this one as well....

law.cornell.edu

bow-wow

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


To: Reseller Mike who wrote (685)9/4/2014 1:46:59 PM
From: Rawnoc
   of 704
 
Doubtful. We're talking about an attorney's office that said it didn't receive the fax. What are the odds that the attorney's office is lying AND it can be proven it is lying?

A receipt on the sender's end of a Fax isn't good enough. Most faxes are electronic these days anyway and any number of things could have gone wrong. I speak from frustrating experience how many times I've had to resend electronic faxes and vice-versa. You should ALWAYS follow up with a phone call and verify receipt of the fax. It's a pretty simple procedure that two attorney firms are more than capable of doing. If that wasn't done, the Plantiff is attempting to play dirty and it won't fly.

But what do I know....I only called every legal thing accurately from day 1.

I'll take a biscuit.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Reseller Mike who wrote (685)9/4/2014 2:04:04 PM
From: Rawnoc
   of 704
 
I just saw this on pacer: ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov

The attorney signed under penalty of perjury that he didn't receive the Fax until July 31. I doubt the lawyer would take that huge of a risk and lie to a judge under penalty of perjury and risk jail time. Furthermore, even if he did lie (yeah right), the odds of proving he lied are astronomically low.

Finally, since it's been 30 days from July 31 anyway, who gives a shit? As long as the attorney has already filed the necessary responses by the time the judge rules next, the judge won't give a shit at the attempt to nitpick let alone prove the nitpick is even valid.

If this is the bow-wow crow, it's not looking too good for Seneca.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: algood4025811/20/2014 3:30:28 PM
   of 704
 
ih.advfn.com

Current Report Filing (8-k)
Date :11/20/2014 @ 11:29AM
Source :Edgar (US Regulatory)
Stock :Plastic2oil, Inc. (QB) (PTOI)
Quote : 0.068 0.006 (9.68%) @ 3:05PM

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read
Previous 10 Next 10