| | Register
Who is Bob O'Brien?
Sanity Check Archive
Click Here to see Bob's Old Sanity Check articles.
About our Blogs

Blogs found on this website represent the opinion of the author. For more information please visit our terms of use.
Funny Bunny
Looking for something a little lighter?
Catch Bob's more irreverent and amusing pieces in his Funny Bunny Blog.

NCANS Respectfully Submits An Amicus Brief In Nanopierce Case

Location: Blogs Bob O'Brien's Sanity Check Blog    
Posted by:   bobo 5/2/2006 11:00 PM

NCANS was busy last month.

After the SEC filed their Amicus brief in the Nanopierce case, which argued in support of the assertion that federal regulatory schemes had a de facto preemption over state law, NCANS retained some attorneys and began the arduous process of crafting an Amicus that would point out how that just wasn't so.

Tommytoyz created the original template, which framed some great arguments based upon the UCC, and 17A. We then dismantled the meat of the SEC's assertion regarding the DTCC's SBP scheme and state law's reach, and came up with the following brief, which argues that Congress did NOT articulate the intent to preempt state law in cases such as this, and that the notion that they did is flawed.

Read it yourself, and decide whether there is merit to our position.

I personally feel that it makes a compelling argument that there are limitations to the extent to which the DTCC can hide behind the SEC's skirts, and that the only way for the appellate court to rule would be in a manner consistent with Congressional intent.
Copyright ©2006 Bob O'Brien
Permalink  |  Trackback
Comments (23)
Re: NCANS Respectfully Submits An Amicus Brief In Nanopierce Case By edwardb_3 on 5/3/2006 7:50 AM
Great job! Given the unwillingness of the Congress to act on exercise its responsibility to "We the People" and enforce the laws it has made, this appears to be the proper, and only way to bring the SEC to heel.
Re: NCANS Respectfully Submits An Amicus Brief In Nanopierce Case By bobo on 5/3/2006 8:00 AM
The argument is sound. And the SEC's brief's case law doesn't support its conclusions - I frankly couldn't understand why they had included it, and neither could Tommy - it was almost like they were just stuffing cases in there to fluff the brief up...
Re: NCANS Respectfully Submits An Amicus Brief In Nanopierce Case By troydian on 5/3/2006 8:57 AM
Bobo, if you listen to this program 5/1/06 the relevece it is obvious... what is and was going on in our media outlets.... radiOrbit Playlist
Open media player

1. 05-01-06 - McKenna - Boire
2. 03-13-06 - John Major Jenkins
3. 03-28-05 - Rick Strassman
4. 03-06-06 - Richard Sauder
5. 02-27-06 - Neil Hague
6. 02-02-06 - Mikes Rant!
7. 03-20-06 - Michael Tsarion
8. 03-27-06 - John Lash
9. 04-03-06 - McKenna - Buhner
10. 04-10-06 - Dr. Michael Hyson
11. 04-17-06 - James Kent

Podcast Feed

http://mikehagan.com/subscribers/
Bravo NCANS! By upwardmo on 5/3/2006 9:20 AM
A masterfully constructed and legally compelling argument. I hope the court reads it carefully and gives it the consideration it deserves.

Bobo: When will the court decide on the appeal?
Re: NCANS Respectfully Submits An Amicus Brief In Nanopierce Case By Noodles on 5/3/2006 9:32 AM
For Release: May 3, 2006

FTC Seeks Halt to Sale of Consumers’ Confidential Telephone Records

The Federal Trade Commission has filed federal court complaints charging five Web-based operations that have obtained and sold consumers’ confidential telephone records to third parties with violating federal law. The agency is seeking a permanent halt to the sale of the phone records, and has asked the courts to order the operators to give up the money they made with their illegal operations.

“Trafficking in consumers’ confidential telephone records is outrageous,” said Lydia Parnes, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “It robs consumers of their privacy and exposes them to everything from snoops to stalkers. We intend to put a stop to it.”

In congressional testimony last February, the FTC said it was investigating companies that advertised on the Internet that they would obtain and sell telephone records. The testimony said that FTC staff had surfed the Web to locate companies that offered to sell consumers’ phone records, identified targets, and completed undercover purchases of the phone records. FTC staff followed up with warning letters to operators of 29 Web sites that continued to advertise the sale of phone records to the public.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 states that customers’ phone records are their private property and can only be disclosed to the customer or with the approval of the customer. According to the FTC complaints in these cases, the defendants advertised on their Web sites that they could obtain the confidential phone records of any individual, including lists of outgoing and incoming calls, and make that information available to their clients for a fee. “The account holders have not authorized the defendants to obtain access to or sell their confidential customer phone records. Instead, to obtain such information, defendants have used, or caused others to use, false pretenses, fraudulent statements, fraudulent or stolen documents or other misrepresentations, including posing as a customer of a telecommunications carrier, to induce officers, employees, or agents of telecommunications carriers to disclose confidential customer phone records,” the FTC complaints state. The defendants then sold the records to third parties. According to a Commission complaint, one of the defendants, Integrity Security & Investigations Services, Inc., based in Yorktown, Virginia, also advertised, obtained and sold consumers’ financial records, including credit card information.

The agency charged that the practices violate the FTC Act and has asked the courts to permanently bar the illegal practices and order the defendants to give up their ill-gotten gains.

The FTC brought these cases with the invaluable assistance of the Federal Communications Commission. The FTC also acknowledges the assistance of Cingular Wireless LLC, Sprint Nextel Corp., and Verizon.

The defendants in these cases are: 77 Investigations, Inc., and Reginald Kimbro, based in Upland, California, and using mailing addresses in Jacksonville, Florida, Broomfield, Colorado, and Nashville, Tennessee; AccuSearch, Inc., doing business as Abika.com, and Jay Patel, based in Cheyenne, Wyoming; CEO Group, Inc., doing business as Check Em Out, and Scott Joseph, based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Information Search, Inc., and David Kacala, based in Baltimore, Maryland; and Integrity Security & Investigation Services, Inc., Edmund L. Edmister, Tracey Edmister, and F. Lynn Moseley, based in Yorktown, Virginia, with a mailing address in Laguna Beach, California.

The Commission vote to file the complaints was 5-0.

NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendant has actually violated the law. The case will be decided by the court.

Copies of the complaint and settlements are available from the FTC’s Web site at http://www.ftc.gov and also from the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices in the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish (bilingual counselors are available to take complaints), or to get free information on any of 150 consumer topics, call toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use the complaint form at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/complaint.htm. The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to thousands of civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad.

MEDIA CONTACT:

Claudia Bourne Farrell
Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2181

STAFF CONTACT:

Betsy Broder
Bureau of Consumer Protection
202-326-2968

(Civil Action No. EDCV06-0439 VAP (OPx) - 77 Investigations, Inc.)
(Civil Action No. 06CV105D - AccuSearch, Inc.)
(Civil Action No. 06-60602 CIV-Cohn - CEO Group)
(Civil Action No. 1:06-CV-01099-AMD - Information Search, Inc.)
(Civil Action No. 2:06-CV-241-RGD-JEB (E.D. Va.) - Integrity Security & Investigation Services, Inc.)

(http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/04/phonerecords.htm)
Re: NCANS Respectfully Submits An Amicus Brief In Nanopierce Case By mhatmccane on 5/3/2006 10:05 AM
So, why is it that we NEED the DTCC? What is it that they really bring to the party ? I keep going back to Dr Byrne's presentation showing Broker/Dealer holdings in DTCC vs "entitlements" held in their accounts. Who is it that is sipposed to clean that mess up ?
Re: NCANS Respectfully Submits An Amicus Brief In Nanopierce Case By mhatmccane on 5/3/2006 10:15 AM
Please see Bud Burrell's blog Hartman v Moore re recent ruling on powers of exemption granted to fed agencies.
Re: Hartman v. Moore, SCOTUS Ruling Impacting Everyone By bburrell on 5/3/2006 10:35 AM
Re: Hartman v. Moore, Supreme Court Ruling of Significance By bburrell on 5/3/2006 7:43 AM
mhatmccane:

There is no enabling legislation giving the SEC any authority to "grandfather" prior law-breaking. They are "assuming" the authority, completely outside of the enabling legislation that created them.

Sean:

The DTCC settled one case early on when the plaintiff brought up counterfeiting, in a sealed settlement. There are about 4 cases I am aware of involving DTCC having current exposures. Recently, DTCC's counsel has threatened potential plaintiff lawyers with Rule 11 sanctions if they go after them. That has scared off several new actions.

Two actions are pending against the SEC and DTCC, and both are preceding WITH DISCOVERY HAVING BEEN GRANTED AND PRODUCED IN THE FIRST ONE. I have some knowledge of what has been found thus far, and it is a nightmare for the SEC.

DTCC has been "granted" limited immunity by the SEC. The SEC has no legal basis for granting such immunity to anyone. This limited immunity granted them does not extend to matters in which the DTCC (or the SEC) have any pecuniary interest.

I will tell you a story about many of the most famous plaintiff's actions of the last half century. They all got nowhere until they had gotten kicked in the face fifty or more times over ten to 20 years. Only persistence and the correctness of their causes eventually won out. That is what I think will happen here. There has been so much perjury here by the agencies involved, they are now jumping ship like the rats they are.

Fraud on this scale in time of War is not just fraud, it is treason. DTCC is a monopoly/cartel, owned by a syndicate which works together in violation of existing laws. This will come out. I know some of those who will plead their cases for these causes.

The Limited Immunity of these agences does NOT extend to violation of the Bill of Rights, or of any other element of the Constitution. These claims also avoid PSLRA, and they have sat Federal Judges back in their chairs when properly articulated. I feel some frustration over this, having advised counsel for some of he victims repeatedly that there were real constitutional claims that needed to be made here, with the support of a senior SEC lawyer firm, and that has only happened when one Company pled its cause Pro Se, and another had a senior Federal prosecutor for counsel. Both are getting discovery, when no one else has.
Re: NCANS Respectfully Submits An Amicus Brief In Nanopierce Case By mongatu on 5/3/2006 10:38 AM
>>>Re: NCANS Respectfully Submits An Amicus Brief In Nanopierce Case By bobo on 5/3/2006
The argument is sound. And the SEC's brief's case law doesn't support its conclusions - I frankly couldn't understand why they had included it, and neither could Tommy - it was almost like they were just stuffing cases in there to fluff the brief up...<<<

Good idea to file the AC brief. I gave it a quick read. My impressions:

Good arguments based on statutory analysis, and generally well organized, but I was troubled by the paucity of actual case law precedent cited to support the main contentions. Have there really never been any state law securities fraud cases that survived a federal preemption claim? Perhaps not, but if there were any, they should have been cited. Perhaps they did best they could with the available authorities.

Also wrt your point about the other sides inappropriate use of authority: If so, it would have been appropriate for the AC brief to have called them on it and "distinguished" those cases cited by the Defendants and the SEC. In other words, it should have been pointed out in the AC brief exactly how those case cited by the other side failed to provide support for their position.

Finally, and this might be stylistic nitpicking, but some of the language in the AC brief seemed amateurish to me, .e.g., "Defendants and the SEC cannot contend . . . . " etc., etc. Such language was used at several places in the brief. It may sound good to the non-professional but it is actually logically incorrect and such illogical statements tend to weaken or detract from the overall argument. Specifically, it is factually incorrect to say even rhetorically that the opponent "cannot contend" this or that because the fact is they CAN contend whatever the hell they want (and they did). The issue is not whether or not they can make a certain contention (of course they can). The issue is whether the contention that was made either has or lacks merit. So the correct way to phrase this for example is to say that "Defendants contention that [e.g., 1 + 1 = 3] is entirely without merit." or words to that effect instead of "Defendants cannot contend that 1 + 1 = 3."

Just my 2 cents. Anyway, kudo's to NCANS for getting involved on this level.
Re: NCANS Respectfully Submits An Amicus Brief In Nanopierce Case By cynabear on 5/3/2006 10:43 AM
GReat Brief! GREAT WORK Tommytoyz et. al.
This is going to the Supreme Court
Re: NCANS Respectfully Submits An Amicus Brief In Nanopierce Case By bobo on 5/3/2006 10:50 AM
Mongatu:

The brief was written by a former securities regulator and current member of the bar/specialist in securities law for 20+ years, so if it sounds amateurish, I apologize - we got the best we know of.

We considered describing why the SEC's cases were inappropriate, but considered better of it due to the length of the document - Tommy actually has a very good analysis of the cases and what they do and don't actually say.

I don't disagree with your statements. Any assistance on future briefs (and there will be at least one more) would be deeply appreciated. You know my email address: ncans.mgr@gmail.com
Re: NCANS Respectfully Submits An Amicus Brief In Nanopierce Case By mongatu on 5/3/2006 11:45 AM
Bob,

Point taken. Not questioning the author's expertise at all and I'd be the first to admit I'm not a specialist or even very knowledgeable wrt securities law. However, for many years my practice has been limited to criminal appellate law, hence I have written numerous appellate briefs (even argued & won one against the state attorney general before the CA Supreme CT) so I do know a few things about writing persuasive appellate briefs.

And I entirely agree about the desirability of keeping it fairly short, but it really damages the credibility of the opposing party if it can be shown that one or more major authorities they rely on actually don't support their position. And there are ways of getting that across without "spilling too much ink" or breaking up the flow of the argument too much.

Anyway, I'd certainly be willing to proof read any future efforts and submit my comments (if any) privately in advance. I'll send you an email.
Re: NCANS Respectfully Submits An Amicus Brief In Nanopierce Case By Nanopierce on 5/3/2006 2:05 PM
Nanopierce NPCT

Some information about the public company Nanopierce, its CEO Paul Metzinger and stock promoters. The CEO has been sued by the SEC twice for fraud. He was also sued over missing stock certificates. He was not allowed to practice law in front of the SEC for 36 months. He's never had a successful company. He went bankrupt. The company stock promoters have been sued by the SEC for fraud in relation to their promotion of npct and other companies. The company stock promoters are currently being sued for fraud by an investor.

October 5, 2004 NPCT announces a deal to go into the business of chicken feed additive with Xact Industries. I tried to check out this PR and new business partner but so far it seems totally false and the new biz partner is as scammy as Paul. The new guy was sued by the US for making false statements. http://web.archive.org/web/20050207080943/http://www.mary.cc/npct/40.htm

June 15, 2004 NPCT hires a new paid stock promoter Market Pulse. They gave them $100K to release a PR touting a deal NPCT is doing with themselves. http://web.archive.org/web/20050207080943/http://www.market-pulse.com/disclaimer.php

March 2004 NPCT EXPOSED on CNN WORLD TV show by MAJOR FORBES ANALYST!! http://web.archive.org/web/20050207080943/http://www.mary.cc/npct/38.htm

January 27, 2004 Purepennies.com and tradersnation.com are now hyping npct. They are paid promoters. Paid promoters = yet another sign of a stock scam. They are promoting it without a disclaimer.

Reference: http://web.archive.org/web/20050207080943/http://www.mary.cc/npct/case.htm docket of Harvest Court vs Nanopierce case. Harvest Court is suing Nanopierce for stock fraud.

January 26, 2004 They admit they have no real product or business but are interested in buying a nanotech business, see PR. They are doing more toxic funding with an entity with a total scam past. Charleston Capital Corp. (a NY corp.) is also Park Capital Securities LLC (currently being sued) is also a packaging company is also Ara Proudian is also The Financial Commerce Network (sued for breach of contract, lost then went bankrupt) as per names, addresses and phone numbers. Ara was also involved in IVOC which is at .0051. He is involved with three other companies with no quote. He is getting a huge commission to try and hype, boiler room the shares to others, even people in other countries. They say they will get up to $14M in new funds, why not say up to $100B, just as believable. Press release is here under january 16 http://web.archive.org/web/20050207080943/http://www.nanopierce.com/press_releases.htm

January 18, 2004
I just found a court ruling in regard to the ongoing litigation between Harvest court the toxic funder and Nanopierce. The funder sued NPCT for securities fraud. Paul the CEO and company state that no investor would ever believe what the company paid stock promoters have to say so it can't be considered fraud. It was shown that Paul told them what to say so I guess no investor should believe what Paul has to say. Originally Paul even said they were not paid yet it was proven that they were paid. It also seems that Paul and company insiders took huge commissions on the toxic funding. They even sold their commission shares instantly against their agreement. Here's the original document. http://web.archive.org/web/20050207080943/http://www.mary.cc/npct/nanotech.doc

January 17, 2004
Kathy Knight kills her site and offers the domain name for sale. She no longer has a disclaimer when she legally must have a disclaimer because she is still posting on the boards about the companies.

August 31, 2003 CEO admits he's even not in nanotech field

http://web.archive.org/web/20050207080943/http://hightechmagazine.com/ManageArticle.asp?C=190&A=1730

"Yet many companies would love some of that $35 billion. Which might explain"nano" in the names of many firms. But just because a company has thenano prefix does not mean it is really involved with nanotechnology. TakeDenver-based NanoPierce Technologies. Formerly known as Sunlight Systems, itstechnology creates connections between microchips and other electronic parts atsizes about the nanoscale. "We just use nano because it means small,"says CEO Paul Metzinger. Perhaps the best-known nanotech company is NanophaseTechnologies, which makes the metal-oxide particles found in sunscreens. Hardlythe stuff of nanotechnology. "

August 3, 2003 Great article on how companies, especially Nanopierce, have misused the nanotech word.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050207080943/http://www.mary.cc/npct/36.htm

May 2003, NASD takes action against npct stock promoter Schneider Securities
http://web.archive.org/web/20050207080943/http://www.mary.cc/npct/35.htm

May 15, 2003 highlights of horrible quarterly report. Lost Avery contract, barely any funds, very little revenue, a securities fraud lawsuit.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050207080943/http://www.mary.cc/npct/34.htm

April 2, 2003 Nanopierce has to financially restructure
http://www.mary.cc/npct/33.htm

9/19/02 NPCT is sued for fraud by investor/funder. Here's a page from the lawsuit, just the introduction. The CEO, company and stock promoter is being sued for fraud, for pump and dumping the stock and lying and defrauding investors.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050207080943/http://www.mary.cc/npct/kkkk.jpg
Here is the entire lawsuit in fax tiff format. You need a computer fax or Kodak imaging to view.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050207080943/http://www.mary.cc/lawsuit.tif
If you have Windows, you have Kodak imaging on your main harddrive here C:\WINDOWS\KODAKIMG.EXE this is not a link. Substitute your hard drive letter or go to start, programs, accessories, imaging then open the file.

10/15/02 NPCT mentioned in toxic funding article
http://web.archive.org/web/20050207080943/http://www.mary.cc/star.htm

9/2002 CEO makes a misleading press release. Company mentioned states product is lacking in terms of quality and price.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050207080943/http://www.mary.cc/npct/10.htm

8/2002 Forbes advisors says to stay away from Nanopierce!
http://web.archive.org/web/20050207080943/http://www.mary.cc/npct/9.htm

5/2002 Nanopierce stock promoter sued by the SEC personally for fraudulent and misleading claims and projections. She was paid in CASH which was not reported in company SEC documents.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050207080943/http://www.mary.cc/npct/8.htm

10/2000 NPCT states $15M in funding. They state it's not toxic when it is. They state it's a first for a company when it is now. They state they are traded on NASDAQ when they're trade on otcbb. Company promoter states it's "awesome" and people will regret selling. It was horrible toxic funding and anyone who sold would have been ecstatic.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050207080943/http://www.mary.cc/npct/17.htm

CEO Paul Metzinger states that stockreporter.de analyst Skousen's report is independent and good. NPCT releases a press release about the report which means the ceo viewed it and agreed with it. Promoter Kathy Knight states in her own site that she contacted Stockreporter.de to look into covering Nanopierce. She also states that NPCT did not pay for the coverage which is of course a lie as per the SEC lawsuit.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050207080943/http://www.mary.cc/npct/16.htm

May 1, 2002 she settles with the SEC.

Information on current stock promoter Kathy Knight-McConnell
http://web.archive.org/web/20050207080943/http://www.mary.cc/kathy-knight-mcconnell

1. The CEO was sued for fraud by the SEC three times. (see below for lawsuit dockets). He "consented to issuance of permanent injunction and entry of judgment against Metzinger." Look at all the charges against him http://web.archive.org/web/20050207080943/http://www.mary.cc/npct/7.htm

Here is the judgment. He showed the SEC that he was penniless then agreed to rat out his companies and associates in exchange for the injunction and judgment. If he breaks the settlement agreement, he consents to be tried as a criminal in criminal court. Here are the documents. They are jpg scans of the documents. The documents were not available online. I had to pay $10 a page to get them from the Colorado archive. I scanned them because stock promoter Kathy Knight rewrote them for investors and she edited them. This shows the original.

http://web.archive.org/web/20050207080943/http://www.mary.cc/npct/NP1.JPG

http://web.archive.org/web/20050207080943/http://www.mary.cc/npct/NP2.JPG

http://web.archive.org/web/20050207080943/http://www.mary.cc/npct/NP3.JPG

http://web.archive.org/web/20050207080943/http://www.mary.cc/npct/NP4.JPG

2. The CEO was also sued for racketeering and was involved in a lawsuit over missing stock certificates. See dockets below.

3.The CEO's last company had to reorganize, i.e. Intercell. Other companies he was involved in went bankrupt also such as Faspaq. He also went bankrupt personally in 1989 when the SEC sued him. He pled poverty. A division of Intercell also went bankrupt. None of his businesses have been a success.

4. NPCT was started as a mining company then became a distributor of skylights symbol SUNY which is a shell Metzinger's wife owned and now they sell hitech? The assets of npct i.e. patents and patent applications were bought with printed shares from a division of Intercell. Intercell considered their value ZERO. CEO Paul Metzinger is also the CEO of Intercell. symbol IICP.OB http://web.archive.org/web/20050207080943/http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=IICP.OB&d=t

5. No direct revenue, no profits. They had a tiny tiny bit of income for consulting about something which had nothing to do with the company.

6. They have hired many, many stock promoters. One of them posted on the message boards that toxic funding is "awesome" and the funder was a good company when that was not the case. The company is currently suing the funder for stock manipulation and securities fraud. The funder Southridge Financial, Kernaghan are infamous as corporate loan sharks who short stocks. More information on them here http://web.archive.org/web/20050207080943/http://www.mary.cc/tk Metzinger did toxic funding with his last company Intercell in 1997. In 1998 he states that type of funding is bad and tries to pay it off. Yet, he does the same convertible debenture funding for NPCT then sues the funder over it stating he had no idea it was toxic funding.

7. They have an Open House every year which is basically just a stock promotion meeting. Here is a photo from it. They promote it heavily in Asia, Germany and the US yet they only had 35 people and I see at least five stock promoters in the audience. They have 28 employees so maybe it was just employees and promoters. If this were a revolutionary product, how come more people weren't there? http://www.nanopierce.com/daten/company/openhoeuse_event/oh_images/
Audience/Thumbnails/TN_the_audience1.jpg

8. Most of the DD on this company is paid promotion such as wallstreetreporter.com , investortoinvestor.com (Kathy Knight, Kent Klook), Investor Relations Worldwide Corporation asianinvestoronline.com (owned by a Colorado company) , WillyWizard.com (Hal Engel) , ceocast.com, nanotechinvesting.com is company site, stockreporter.de, Charles Van Musscher of Gruenwald, Germany, The Geneva Group, Inc. of Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida and probably others. Check out their disclaimers on their sites. They have been paid to promote NPCT. Check out annual SEC reports and search/find for Investor Relations and you will see their names and compensation. Here are just a few from the SEC documents which you can recognize from the message boards especially Hal Engel, Kathy Knight and Chad Beemer who do not post anonymously.

8a. Kathy Knight is the main stock promoter. She sends "press releases" to various free press release agencies. She begs sites to write positive articles about the company. She posts all over the internet. She made the following post on Raging Bull.

By: Kknightmcc $$$$$
18 Oct 2001, 10:44 PM EDT Msg. 53428 of 75582
(This msg. is a reply to 53416 by veritaspateomaximus.)
veritaspateomaximus

You obviously have been talking to our board terrorist and falling into her trap of personally attacking me. I am not fat and do not eat twinkies. I have lost a great deal of weight since the photo Mary talks about was taken after having gained from a heart attack which stopped me from exercising. She uses that ploy to disparage me. So it is obvious that you are a part of her terrorist organization, or your posts on the NSCT board asking if people know her and saying what a great person you think she and directing them to her comments on this board are pointed at swaying people to believe your comments instead of seeing the truth for what it is. As to your comments about me, go to blazes because that is the path your are treading on.

Here is a photo of her.
Looks like someone is a big fat liar. If she could lie about not being fat with photos of herself on the web like this, she can obviously lie about anything which is the only reason I bring this up. I added the text so I can legally post the pic as parody. I used to post a link to the photo in her site but she blocked links to it. Obviously she is trying to hide the truth.

8b. The most recent stock promotion by General Research GmbH is paid promotion. Notice in the disclaimer that they state that no one in the US, Canada... should read the report yet the company has the report in their US website and they are sharing it with US investors. http://web.archive.org/web/20050207080943/http://www.nanopierce.com/daten/investor/disclaimer1.html This same promoter Dr. Georg Hochwimmer also promoted scam company GENI and HRCT. GENI was halted by the SEC. Notice in the actual promotion they keep stating IF the product is more than just a prototype, IF it can be mass produced, IF people want to buy it, IF it is not obsolete by the time they build it... The report also states they have funds for a year when as per SEC docs, cash on hand, burn rate, they have funds to last til the end of June, which is five months from today 1/02.

8c. The most recent recent stock promotion 2/20/02 is also paid promotion by Schneider Securities. Their report was posted on the board by WillyWizard and Kent Kloock without the disclaimer which is an SEC violation. I called NPCT IR and Schneider Securities and they refused to call me back or give me their disclaimer. They also stated that NPCT is a nasdaq stock when it is otcbb and they stated they had $1.8M cash as of 2/20/02 when they had that amount of cash as of 12/31/01. As per current burn rate and COH as of 12/31/02, they should be out of funds middle of May. As expenses are up, they may be out of funds earlier IF they do not get new financing or take the existing toxic funding from Southridge. Schneider securities also sued for fraud by the SEC. The defendants offered settlement agreements. They manipulated share prices, sold unregistered securites besides other things.

http://web.archive.org/web/20050207080943/http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/3-9591.htm

7/1/98 . Common Stock 186,500 Investor Relations Putter Consulting
7/1/98 Common Stock 24,500 Investor Relations Kathy Knight- McConnell
7/1/98 Common Stock 6,250 Investor Relations Hans Kast
7/1/98 Common Stock 6,250 Investor Relations Roger L. Smothers
6/3/99 Common Stock 100,000 Investor Relations Harold Engel, Jr.
6/30/99 Common Stock 144,000 Investor Relations Stock Enterprises
6/30/99 Common Stock 250,000 Consulting Services Bert Roosen
6/30/99 Common Stock 30,000 Investors Relations Chad Beemer
6/30/99 Common Stock 10,000 Interest on Rose & Richard Gram

9. Paul Metzinger is also CEO of Intercell. They did a 1:20 reverse stock split and their stock was at .14 That means it is really worth less than a cent. He changed the stock symbol also. He wasn't even in any type of business. His words again "I am currently assessing with the Board of Directors various business opportunities, which could well form the basis for the future business activity of the Company. There are several opportunities which we find of particular interest and which are in markets of substantial size upon which to build a real operating company. We have no specific restrictions imposed upon our search. I invite any shareholder who may be aware of a technology or a business opportunity, which they think may be of interest to the Company, to please contact me."

10. Intercell also had problems with the SEC with their reports. They had to restate them. This straight from the CEO. "Our previously announced plan to restructure, recapitialize and refinance Intercell Corporation was, unfortunately, delayed because of a frustratingly long effort to accommodate the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission on certain technical accounting issues relating to the audited financial statements for the fiscal year ended September 30, 1999."

11. The CEO begs shareholders not to verify contracts with other companies. This is very troubling and suspect.

http://web.archive.org/web/20050207080943/http://www.nanopierce.com/daten/investor/press_archive/shletter14_09_01.html

"We are currently engaged in extremely sensitive discussions with many major global players in the microelectronics industry. These discussions and future business relationships can and will be jeopardized if shareholders make direct contacts with any of these companies in what may be a well intentioned effort to find out what is going on.

Recently executives of one company, at the highest levels, contacted us expressing extreme and troubling concern about calls received from inquisitive shareholders. These executives felt "compromised” being faced with answering questions about what they deemed to be inside material information, which obviously they could not disclose or even affirm or deny. These contacts must stop otherwise we may lose the opportunity to ever again deal with these companies. It destroys our reputation to be a trustworthy partner."

Then shareholders check out contracts as per SEC recommendation. Boeing said "Nanopierce who?" and Infineon clearly stated they are not doing business with Nanopierce. Others said no comment or did not respond at all.

Also, if you say you are in a related company and ask for a sample to try out, test, they say NO. What does that tell you?

Paul then states 10/2001 through his promoter Kathy that he will no longer be providing information to shareholders because of message board posters trying to verify his information. I personally believe he received a cease and desist letter from Boeing as Boeing told me they were going to find out what was up with Nanopierce. Below is the misleading news which the CEO Paul Metzinger and his paid promoter Kathy Knight released.

http://www.edtn.com/story/OEG20010809S0041 http://web.archive.org/web/20050207080943/http://www.mary.cc/npct/37.htm

12. NPCT stock promoter Stockreporter sued by the SEC for fraud in his promotions. http://web.archive.org/web/20050207080943/http://www.mary.cc/npct/sp.htm Here is the SEC lawsuit against the Stockreporter. http://web.archive.org/web/20050207080943/http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr16680.htm

13. Here Metzinger claims there are huge oil reserves for a company when there weren't. http://web.archive.org/web/20050207080943/http://www.mary.cc/npct/1.htm

14. Here are some investors burned by Paul posting on Silicon Investors about him and his scams. http://web.archive.org/web/20050207080943/http://www.mary.cc/npct/3.htm and yet another burned Intercell Investor, same scam over and over again. http://web.archive.org/web/20050207080943/http://www.mary.cc/npct/4.htm

15. A recent unbiased article about NPCT. http://web.archive.org/web/20050207080943/http://www.mary.cc/npct/5.htm This is the only honest article ever written about the company I believe. He did some good DD.

16. James Stock is Investor Relations for NPCT. He also has a history.

He hyped AREE, a total stock scam that noted tout jmhollen also hyped. It's trading at .001. He's Investor Relations for AREE also.
http://www.areteindustries.com/contact_arete.shtml

He's also IR, or should we just say penny stock promoter for HYPD
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/011119/192390_1.html
HYPD today at .60

and he's IR for this loser also at .03
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/020108/80345_1.html
CRWJ .03

He's IR here also
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=usxp.ob&d=t
USXP .03

and here
http://www.lbti.com/pages/news/pg07.html
LBTI .0004

and here
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=jamestock%40aol.com&hl=en&selm=U0054.1269%24Pd.95468%40typ12.nn.bcandid.com&rnum=3
PFCK .0001

He's no investor relations, he's a penny stock promoter who only seems to promote penny penny stocks. Would a respectable honest company hire an investor relations person with a past like this?

17. Metzinger rips off his business partners as well.

Paul shouldn't have a law license.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050207080943/http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=NPCT&read=59053

Paul doesn't keep promises to his partners.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050207080943/http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=NPCT&read=59052

http://web.archive.org/web/20050207080943/http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=NPCT&read=59050

Louis wins his appeal
http://web.archive.org/web/20050207080943/http://www.courts.state.co.us/ctappeals/caseann/12-6-01.htm

Article about Paul and Louis
http://web.archive.org/web/20050207080943/http://www.mary.cc/npct/6.htm

Here are lawsuit dockets from Pacer website

Bankruptcy Cases

Name Court Case No. Filed Chapter
1 METZINGER, PAUL cobk 91-27035 12/31/1991 7
Civil Cases

Name Court Case No. Filed NOS Closed
2 METZINGER, PAUL codc 1:1989cv00227 02/08/1989 850 02/23/1989
3 METZINGER, PAUL codc 1:1991cv00065 01/14/1991 850 03/23/1992
4 METZINGER, PAUL codc 1:1996cv01300 06/03/1996 190 02/26/1997
5 METZINGER, PAUL H nvdc 3:1983cv00181 06/03/1983 850
6 METZINGER, PAUL H. utdc 2:1988cv00897 09/30/1988 850 04/30/1990
7 METZINGER, PAUL H. nysdce 1:2002cv00767 01/31/2002 850
8 METZINGER, PAUL H. nysdce 1:2002cv07579 09/19/2002 850 07/10/2003



105 METZINGER, PAUL codc 1:1989cv00227 02/08/1989 850 02/23/1989
SECURITIES & EXCHANGE vs. PAUL METZINGER

U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (Denver)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 91-CV-65

Kanchanapoom, et al v. Zufelt, et al

Filed: 01/14/91
Assigned to: Judge Sherman G. Finesilver
Jury demand: Both
Demand: $5,000,000
Nature of Suit: 850
Lead Docket: None
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Dkt # in USDC C Dist CA : is CV89-7321-RMT (Ex)
Cause: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act


PAUL METZINGER Paul H. Metzinger
defendant [COR LD NTC]
Paul H. Metzinger, P.C.
600 - 17th Street
#2309-S
Denver, CO 80202
U.S.A.
303-592-1010
PAUL METZINGER, P.C. Paul H. Metzinger
defendant (See above)
[COR LD NTC]

2/5/91 9 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant Richard Metzinger,
defendant Robert H. Burgener, defendant E.M.I. Inc.,
defendant Crown, Ltd., defendant King, Ltd., defendant Sid,
Ltd. by Timothy James O'Connor, Mary Frances O'Connor (yk)
[Entry date 02/06/91]

It is ordered that the
second cause of action is dismissd as to Paul H. Metzinger
and Paul H. Metzinger, P.C. and First Trust Corp. It is
ordered tht the 8th and 12th causes of action are
dismissed.

U.S. District Court

U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (Denver)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 96-CV-1300

Maxam Gold Corp v. Timberline Conslts, et al

Filed: 06/03/96
Assigned to: Judge Clarence A. Brimmer
Jury demand: Defendant
Demand: $1,667,000
Nature of Suit: 190
Lead Docket: None
Jurisdiction: Diversity
Dkt# in other court: None
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

MAXAM GOLD CORPORATION Michael H. Berger
fka [COR LD NTC]
Maxam International Waldbaum, Corn, Koff, Berger &
Corporation Cohen, P.C.
plaintiff 303 East 17th Avenue
#940
Denver, CO 80203
U.S.A.
303-861-1166
Raymond Harris
[COR LD NTC]
(To be updated)
Cary Ira Schachter
[COR LD NTC]
Conant, Whittenburg, French &
Schachter, PC
600 North Pearl Street
#2300
Dallas, TX 75201
USA
214-999-5100
FTS 999-5747
v.
TIMBERLINE CONSULTANTS, INC. John Henry Schlie
defendant [COR LD NTC]
John H. Schlie, Atty at Law
1120 Lincoln Street
#1600
Denver, CO 80203
USA
303-832-6890
RON KNITTLE John Henry Schlie
defendant (See above)
[COR LD NTC]
PAUL METZINGER John Henry Schlie
defendant [term 10/09/96]
[term 12/23/96] (See above)

He was sued over stock certificates.
U.S. District Court

District of Utah (Central)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 88-CV-897

SEC v. Faspaq, Inc., et al

Filed: 09/30/88
Assigned to: Judge Bruce S. Jenkins
Jury demand: Defendant
Demand: $0,000
Nature of Suit: 850
Lead Docket: None
Jurisdiction: US Plaintiff
Dkt# in other court: None
Cause: 15:77 Securities Fraud


PAUL H. METZINGER
defendant
[term 01/30/89]
The SEC won the case against the main defendant. Paul settled this case along with two others in the settlement agreement noted above.

Check out NPCT thread on http://web.archive.org/web/20050207080943/http://www.siliconinvestor.com/ especially the old posts. Look at all the promoters on the IHUB one also http://web.archive.org/web/20050207080943/http://www.investorshub.com/boards/board.asp?board_id=98
Look at all the promoters here on Raging Bull. http://web.archive.org/web/20050207080943/http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=NPCT

I have no shares. I have not been paid to post. I am not short. I just hate seeing people being fleeced by stock promoters. This company seems very suspect to me because of management's history and the fact they have no real income. If their patents were so hot, why wouldn't someone buy them or license them for millions? Why couldn't they have gotten a loan against the patents instead of the toxic funding? Why would they have sooo many stock promoters? When you see stock promoters saying this is a $60 stock when they're at .66 cents, you just KNOW something is funny here. As per Asensio's book "Sold Short" this company has almost ALL the signs of a stock scam, i.e. little or no revenue, a hot hot field, management with a bad past, restated earnings, change in auditors, lots of stock promoters, a hard to define product, lots of fluffy press releases, a past involving a mining company...

Sources of information

All legal information about lawsuits came from here. It's a pay site so you need an account, only 7 cents a page. Well worth it to do your DD on your investments.
http://pacer.uspci.uscourts.gov/

All SEC information came from their SEC filings. I use this source
http://web.archive.org/web/20050207080943/http://www.amex.com/quote.dll?mode=stock&symbol=npct&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&multi.x=0&multi.y=0

If you have questions, feel free to email me. mmmaryinla@aol.com



Re: NCANS Respectfully Submits An Amicus Brief In Nanopierce Case By mhatmccane on 5/3/2006 2:21 PM
Bobo,

In looking at the Hartman v. Moore ruling cited by Bud Burrell in his blog, it appears that someone (NCANS ?) has grounds to sue the SEC and get the "grandfathering" thrown out and matbe even Reg SHO. Is this worth pursuing ?
You miss the point entirely By tommytoyz on 5/3/2006 2:36 PM
This is a share holder lawsuit against securities market manipulation by market participants, via FTDs and much more. Nothing to do about the company.

NOTHING.

For all I know Nanopierce and it's management can be criminals and selling sand. But that is not the topic of this complaint. No security, whether issued by a good or bad company, is to be manipulated by market participants. All securities are to be treated the same by the system (clearing agents, etc..) and the market participants.

If the company indeed made false statements and filings, which I am not aware of and the DTCC and SEC make no mention of in this case, that would be a different topic and case altogether.
regarding "bad" companies By upwardmo on 5/3/2006 7:35 PM
Those who bring up the point that targeted companies may be "bad" companies miss (or ignore) the point that not only are those companies targeted by naked shorts, but so are the innocent investors in those companies. It is THEIR money that is extracted to profit the naked shorts. Pretending that shorts are doing investors a favor by exposing bad companies is disingenuous; the shorts are feeding off of the longs.
Re: NCANS Respectfully Submits An Amicus Brief In Nanopierce Case By bobo on 5/3/2006 9:27 PM
mhat: At some point if you see me doing another massive fund raiser a la Washington Post ad, you can intuit that I have found a legal partner with the balls to take that on. So far, no go, as most attorneys don't want to take on the federal government. They are pragmatists, not drafters of declarations.

Tommy: Absolutely correct. If Nanopierce is the most abysmally horrible scam in creation, or the best company in the world, it deserves equal protection under the law. Those that occupy my bandwidth with cut and paste, off the shelf bashing of the company completely miss the point - NCANS, and the NASAA, have separately arrived at the well documented and supported conclusion that the SEC's position is in error, and that the lower court was also in error.

Regardless of whether the company is a POS, which isn't a question here.

It sort of reminds me of the arguments that it was somehow OK to shoot your slaves, as they weren't really human - they were bad, somehow sub-human. That evolved into vigilante justice of a kind, where it was somehow justified to lynch those you "thought" were bad in some way. We still see episodes of this sort of evil and malicious logic, where a cop beats an unarmed man or men, who have surrendered and put up no struggle - but are caught on tape. The answer is that the perp was "bad" - illegal immigrants, or suspected of being criminals or whatnot.

The question is really simple. Do "bad" girls deserve the protection of the law equivalently to "good" girls?

If not, why not, and why is the law selective - why is that desirable? And who gets to make the god-like determination of who is "good" and who is "bad"?

I agree with Tommy - the law is the law - whether the company sucks or not is immaterial to whether laws were fragrantly violated, and whether the shareholders of those companies were abused and defrauded.

Or by investing in a "bad" company, do you automatically become "bad", and thus "fair" game, too?

For me these are not difficult questions.

The only ones who seem to have trouble with them are those who profit by destroying "bad" entities - golly, I wonder why that is....?
Re: NCANS Respectfully Submits An Amicus Brief In Nanopierce Case By bbhindyou on 5/4/2006 5:15 AM
Isn't it possible to have a form of action to throw out S.H.O. without a lawer.You know we the PEOPLE.We need a tea party but instead of throwing tea we could print [fake shares you know like they do] in the amount of naked shares estimated to be outstanding on the stocks on the S.H.O. list.Some one would need to throw a LOT of paper.We might have to do it in shifts.Where to throw it though where to throw it? Suggestions?
Re: NCANS Respectfully Submits An Amicus Brief In Nanopierce Case By bobo on 5/4/2006 7:34 AM
why bother printing fake shares when you can just mismark your naked short sales long? The system will happily treat these worthless markers as genuine, and you aren't bothered with annoyances like the SHO regs
Re: NCANS Respectfully Submits An Amicus Brief In Nanopierce Case By mhatmccane on 5/4/2006 11:22 AM
Bobo,

Thank you for your response. Overturning the grandfathering and reg SHO may be moot at this point in time; after all, the money has already been spent buying the best politicians and journalists and "research" reports that money can buy.
Re: NCANS Respectfully Submits An Amicus Brief In Nanopierce Case By r3fman on 5/4/2006 9:27 PM
I read the brief and was going to make many of the points mongatu made (until I saw his post). There were some really good opportunities missed to destroy the credibility of the other side.

For example, since a judge can make a correct ruling even if his premise is wrong, I thought too much time was wasted on attacking the 'field premption' argument and not enough on the conflict preemption argument. While you needed to discuss field preemption, a couple cites and a relatively short discussion ending with a line like "And finally, the arguement for field preemption is so weak that even though the judge decided the case on that basis, both the Defendants and the SEC argue that the right basis is conflict preemption."

Then spend the bulk of the brief on what the SEC argued, and destroy their credibility.
Re: NCANS Respectfully Submits An Amicus Brief In Nanopierce Case By bobo on 5/4/2006 10:06 PM
The problem is that what the SEC argued was largely immaterial to the reason that the lower court used for tossing it. Which was federal preemption. So we had a choice - argue interesting to us ways that the SEC was incorrect in their arguments, or argue the fundamental area that the case was decided.

FWIW, we are looking at other briefs, which have more of a substantiative to the issues flavor. This just wasn't the place to file that one. But stick around...
Re: NCANS Respectfully Submits An Amicus Brief In Nanopierce Case By n-tres-ted on 5/5/2006 6:56 AM
Bobo, you okay? What about Arne Alsin's new column:
Brokers Break Down Trust in the Market (yesterday at thestreet.com)?

Your name:
Title:
Comment:
Please limit your comments to 500 characters. For longer comments, use our forums.
Subscribe via Email
Get This Blog via Email:


Powered by Squeet.com
Sanity Check Archive