My correspondence with Mr.James Dale Davidson himself:
Note James Dale Davidson founded 'NAANSS'to mask his own share dumping.Note he continues to blather on and on about electronic trading creating counterfit shares.And it's all a lie to mask his share-money laundering operation.
James Dale Davidson replies:
By tony ryals on 3/20/2004 8:10:43 PM
E-mail: tryals@angelfire.com
'James Dale Davidson' answers,or avoids answering,as the case may be, Ryals email:
Dear Mr. Ryals,
Who are you? I infer from your rantings below that you are delusional. But perhaps more than that? Perhaps you are malicious, and in the employ of electronic counterfeiters who have feasted on the corpses of small public companies ever since the advent of electronic clearing? I can think of no other motivation that would explain your letter. By and large, normal people do not sit around inventing malicious fantasies about someone they don't even know.
Obviously, you have your own agenda, so you are unlikely to be swayed by anything I might say. I recognize that. But for what it's worth, I have never been involved in any "pump and dump" exercise. For the record, you have been warned. I would advise you not to repeat your malicious slanders in a public forum, or I shall be obliged to take legal action for redress.
Sincerely,
James Davidson
P.S. By the way, your search for a company I have been involved with which was a success for its investors could not have been very diligent. As it happens, there was a long op ed piece in the Washington Post this week by a small investor who made so much money following my advice that filing his taxes had become a burden for him.
Tony Ryals wrote:
Dear Mr.James Dale Davidson,
I have meant to contact you for some time regarding my Endovasc 'investment'.I have no idea when you left the 'company' but by the time you did it had dumped millions of shares while fraudulently claiming the 'shareholder value' was the result of Schwab's,Ameritrade's, Refco's,et.al.'s, 'naked shorting.Was 'famed trial attorney O'Quinn'perhaps misled to believe that all those shares were the result of 'naked shorting' rather than the apparent pump dump operation it turned to be ?
I also noted you were greatly responsible for founding the 'naanss' group that blamed most shareholder penny stock losses on 'naked shorting'.Is this just a smoke screen for defrauding Americans and laundering their money through massive share dumping that cannot easily be tracked ? Was the account Mr.Cantrell set up at Schwab with an insider for millions of seemingly free shares a part of your November 2002 pump dump ?
I have looked continuously for a company you have been involved with that was a success for its shareholder-investors. And you know I can't seem to find one although for some reason you always appear to have pumped and dumped the stock through your own myriad publications.Sometimes I believe 'The Soveriegn Individual'explains your own modus operendi of using the internet for anonymously influencing naive investors to buy while you dump the shares you have gotten for free from penny 'management' and then use your offshore shells including 'LOM' anmd 'New Paradigm' among many others to hide launder that money you stole from Americans so as not to pay taxes on the theft.That is doubly humorous and fraudulent coming from one who pretends to be an American patriot,even involving yourself in political intrigue,and who prides in having founded the 'National Taxpayers Union'.
Also you have claimed publically the the 'SEC lies'. This I will not comment on but to say they rarely say anything at all.And only through 'freedom of information act' can you get a thing out of them. However you also tell me in your 'Vantage Point'that you received a few shares of Endovasc by way of a 'nicotine patent'that you applied for with 'Dr.Summers.Could you please inform me what the patent number is or was it approved ? Then at another time you claim to have a 'substantial' holding of Endovasc shares through an unidentified source.Was this as a 'consultant'or what,I really don't understand.You see the only reason I 'invested' in 2001 was because of the Stanford nicotine patent for angiogenesis.Now if you left another as you claim in exchange for shares I would like to know about it.
Finally, as an off topic from my Endovasc losses due to a fraudulent pump dump, I would like to ask if you still think Bill Clinton murdered your former employee, CIA Chief Willam Colby ? Try as I might I cannot find any statement from Mr.Colby re the death of Vince Foster nor any reason to believe he agreed with you that Bill Clinton killed his own friend.
Sincerely,
Tony Ryals
James'Fraud'Davidson and MOD Ventures:
27 N. Summerlin Ave.
Orlando,Florida 32801
James Dale Davidson jamesd@attglobal.net
Private Investor, Entrepreneur, Analyst and Author. Mr. Davidson
has extensive experience in entrepreneurial executive management/venture
finance. Author, with Lord William Rees-Mogg, Blood in the Streets:
Investment Profits in a World Gone Mad, The Great Reckoning, and
The Sovereign Individual: Mastering the Transition to the Information
Age. Founder of Agora Publishing, The Hulbert Financial Digest,
and Strategic Investment. Director of Pickering & Chatto Publishers,
London. Principal of The Fleet Street Press. Founder (natural resource
companies) Oroperu, Sedna Geotech, Ouro Brasil, Oro Argentina, Consolidated
African Holdings, Anatolia Minerals Development Corporation. President,
New Paradigm Capital, a private merchant bank based in Bermuda,
a former director of Banco Comafi S.A., Buenos Aires, Argentina
and Cardlink Worldwide, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Current North American
technology and Internet related affiliations: BestTransport, Mariah
Vision3, Interactive Retail Management, Internet Transactions Transnational,
NewsMax Media, Advanced Power Devices, Packetup Corporation, Stardata,
and CyGene. Founder, MIVI Therapeutics and GeneMax Pharmaceuticals.
Chairman, Wharekauhau Holdings Ltd., Featherston, New Zealand, Director,
Martinborough Vineyards, Martinborough, New Zealand, and Palliser
Properties, Ltd, Auckland, Deputy Chairman, BEVsystems, Founder
and Director, New World Premium Brands, Auckland, New Zealand (winery roll-up and distribution).
Re: James Dale Davidson replies:
By tony ryals on 3/21/2004 3:41:57 PM
E-mail: tryals@angelfire.com
My Ryals,
You don't identify yourself. Really, that is rather uncivil, though hardly more uncivil than your initial missive which accuses me of a number of felonies of which I know I am innocent. Under the circumstances, I have no interest in keeping up an extended correspondence with you, given that you have made it quite clear that you are prejudiced against me and prepared to leap to conclusions which are remote from the facts.
That said, I doubt that you have a claim against me over the patent I applied for in conjunction with Dr. Summers, as Endovasc signed a substantial contract with a major nutraceutical firm to market the product. This has all been announced. As to being proud of it, yes, I am. It was a valid insight that has been confirmed in human and animal testing.
Sincerely,
James Davidson
Tony Ryals wrote:
Dear Mr. James Dale Davidson,
I appreciate your attempt at a reply but other than your name calling there was a total disregard for the questions I posed.Others,than you or I, who are both biased as to whether your 'Vantage Point' Endovasc articles are pump dumps,can deal with that.
I, as an 'investor' in Endovasc long before you appeared,would just like to focus on the nicotine patent you wrote with Dr.Summers.Remember that you proudy announced that you had co-patented it with Dr.Summers in 'Vantage Point' in 2002 when the stock was being featured in 'Vantage Point' ? Where can I find the number of this patent ? And just how many shares did it cost us, the humble naive investors who bought our shares the old fahioned way ,through those dirty naked shorting mms such as Charles Schwab ? You are more sophistiated re securities than I so you might help me locate this tranacton in SEC filings or fill me in as to why such minor details are not requred in SEC filings.
Your assistance in locating this patent that all EVSC INVESTORS ARE MOST PROUD OF IS MOST APPRECIATED.
Sincerely,
Tony Ryals
James Dale Davidson proud of securities frauds:
By tony ryals on 3/25/2004 5:23:40 PM
E-mail: tryals@angelfire.com
Dear Mr. Ryals,
Needless to say, I regret that you lost money in Endovasc or, indeed, in any investment. That said, your fixation on exploring this issue with me is entirely misplaced. By your own admission, you did not invest in Endovasc on my say-so. In the somewhat patchy account of your complaint that emerges between the lines of your demanding and unpleasant communication, I find no logical nexus between your losses and any action of mine. In pure logic, I cannot see how applying for a patent could have destroyed your investment, or exposed it to any material harm whatever. In the absence of any disclosure on your part, I owe you none. And none you will get. If you think you have a claim against me, contact my lawyer, whose e-mail address is listed above.
Otherwise, I will treat your further communications as
spam in the same category as a certificate for a $10 savings on any Teddy Bear purchased in April, notice of a free poetry contest, something about "Ronald Reagan's greatest laughs," and the inevitable promise to enlarge my penis by "up to five inches guaranteed." Att is sending through a lot of malarkey, including too much from you. You have not behaved as a gentleman in any respect in our correspondence. I won't miss hearing from you.
Sincerely,
James Davidson
Tony Ryals wrote:
Dear James Dale Davidson,
Is this your way of saying no patent exists ? All I asked was for the patent number, or if it is still pending,the date it was applied for.I would presume this patent is part of the pink sheet 'evsc' branch as that is the entity I presume is related to the $1.5 million something or other.Sure I would like to know how many shares were given to you for the patent as well.
Also I am glad for you that Stanford did not challenge it as it appears it may be covered in their own patents.Stanford angiogenesis patent by the way can be located on internet.As I lost 99% of my 'share value' due to supposed 'naked shorts'I would at least like to have full disclosure re this patent.
You and the doctor must have a copy describing the patent. May I see it ?
Sincerely,
............................................................
Note the letter below addressed to the SEC from 'Dr.'David P Summers appeared on the internet yahoo and ragingbull sites in December 2003.Mr.Davidson had done as much pump dump and bleediing of the 'company' or its investors as he could leaving the Endovasc 'management'to look elsewhere to dump additional shares around the world and hidden from the eyes of U.S.investors and the SEC.
Even the date of the Securities Act in the letter of David P Summers to the Dallas-Fort Worth SEC is wrong to purposely deceive real investors of Endovasc but putting enough in public view to scare Dwight Cantrell,Diane Dottavio,Robert Johnson the Texas mortuary man,and Judge Ken Reilly. Cantrell, representing 'Endovasc',will later take Summers to court in Montgomery,Texas in January 2004 and take over the penny pump dump shell called Endovasc for himself and his insiders to tout and dump shares of.Summers no doubt still lurks in background with shares to dump,honor among thieves.
................................................................
U.S. Securities Exchange Commission
Enforcement Division
Ft. Worth, Texas
Dear Mr. Baudhuin:
This letter is further to my today's telecom and substantiating a earlier telephone voice mail made to Barbara Ray of the Enforcement Division on or about December 8, 2003 when I called to notify the Commission that I had expressed concerns as the Chief Executive Officer of Endovasc Inc., (OTC BB ENSV) over potential violations of the 1932 Act, and particularly the Sorbannes/Oxly Act within my Company. I have been particularly disturbed over an Agreement between Endovasc, Inc. and The Baladore Group of Phoenix, Arizona which was acting as a Broker/Dealer in our securities to foreign nationals and/or exempt U.S. citizens. Of particular concern was the deal itself which carried a 50% discount to the Company but according to my Board of Directors was the "best we could do under the circumstances." The major concern was a continued drop in our stock price although I was assured that stock sold under Regulation S was restricted for one year, and the price drop was not the result of shares coming back in to the Country in circumvention of the Regulation. I instructed CFO and his assistant to request a random sampling of the subscribers to ascertain and validate some degree of verification, no action was taken was taken that I could physically verify. I instructed my CFO and his coordinator to terminate the deal during a telephone conversation I made from Rome while presenting at a medical conference on or about November 26, 2002. I followed up with a face-to-face meeting the next week in my office upon returning from Europe. I was assured that no more shares would be sold. One week later I was presented with a sign-off form from Baladore that represented that more shares had been sold and in order to be reimbursed by Baladore, I was put into a compromise with my instructions. I signed for reimbursement for the additional shares that represented about 200,000 shares, then terminated the CFO's coordinator, who was handling the logistics for the current CFO.
I called a meeting of the Board of Directors during the same week and asked for the resignation of the CFO. It had been disclosed that not only was the CFO paying himself cash and shares through his own private company which had been represented as a public accounting firm in the past, but was actually a family property trust administered by Mr. Cantrell for and on behalf of numerous family members. During the meeting, I teleconferenced the opinion of our securities counsel, Mr. Larry Wilson, Esq who confirmed to Mr. Cantrell that his actions and inability to perform as CFO had put the Company, its directors and Shareholders in grave risk. Upon hearing advise from Mr. Wilson, Mr. Cantrell told the Board,..."if my actions have put the Board and the Company into risk, then I WILL resign." He then asked for the weekend to consider his options. In order to accommodate this request the meeting was recessed until Tuesday, December 16, 2003.
On Tuesday, Mr. Cantrell and Ms. Dottavio presented themselves to the meeting. They were accompanied by Judge Ken Reilly and one of his police officers, (Officer Whitehead?). Mr. Cantrell asked the chair if he could have the floor stating that he not only would he not resign but made a motion to remove me from the Chair and my position as CEO. Obviously a takeover plan was in effect and Ms. Dottavio had prepared herself to cooperate with Mr. Cantrell's wish.
Judge Reilly then ordered me to hand over my keys, electronic pass card, and to empty my brief case in the presence of Ms. Dottavio and the Officer. I asked to return to my office in order to get advice of counsel, Mr. Wilson, who advised me to cooperate with the Officer. Not wishing to disturb the peace with an objection to this illegal act, as well subject myself to further abuse and humiliation I complied and both the Judge and the Officer escorted me from the building.
To summarize, not only was this entire affair a blatant attempt to distract me from my mission to served the Shareholders best interest, but was a conspiracy of deceit perpetrated with an act of judicial oppression, upon the Shareholders by an incompetent CFO and Director with direct conflict of interest in holding both positions. My services to the company are indispensable at this moment in time, and my absence from the Board and Chief Executive decision making puts the Company and its shareholders at risk and irreparable harm. My sole mission as founder, CEO, Chairman and major stockholder in this company is to put in place corporate governance that is congruent with the Sorbannes/Oxly Act, SEC, the laws of the State of Nevada and the Charter and Bylaws of the Company in order to continue toward the goal of returning maximum investment to my shareholders share value. This mission is being obstructed by two Directors who have either obstructed these attempts or are incapable of performing the duties required by the above.
I have advised my Auditors and my SEC counsel of my investigation. I have recited by assessment of potential violations of the Act and requested an exceptional audit on share sales. Whether or not this will take place is now in the hands of the new CEO, Ms Diane Dottavio and the CFO, Mr. Dwight Cantrell.
Very sincerely yours.
ENDOVASC, INC.
Dr. David P. Summers,
................................................................
Note below, the insider 'iveseenitall' posting on Endovasc's ragingbull.com board against SEC rules discouraging insider touting.He is posting on November 26,2003 and discussing a conference in Italy on that day.Note he denies being an insider then predicts and posts an Endovasc press release before it occurs.More important,note the date is November 26,2003.Note the letter above to the SEC from Dr.Summers exposing the boiler room share deal with 'Balador' of 'Arizona',which is really Bellador of Kuala Lumpur,gives the same day but a different year,2002.
Yes the letter above is real and written to real SEC officials in Dallas-Fort Worth office as my correspondence with the real Barbara Ray below will show.This confession by 'Dr.' David P Summers should have cracked the ENDOVASC FRAUD WIDE OPEN.WHAT HAPPENED,SEC ?
.............................................................
By: iveseenitall1
26 Nov 2003, 09:47 AM EST Msg. 2166 of 7690
(Msg. is a reply to by None.)
Keep posting baddogone! 2 straight days of relentless bashing has resulted in a hire opening today! LOL! Nice going sick puppy!
(Voluntary Disclosure: ST Rating- Strong Buy)
By: iveseenitall1
26 Nov 2003, 03:29 PM EST Msg. 2184 of 7690
(Msg. is a reply to by None.)
News before the bell? ;)
By: iveseenitall1
26 Nov 2003, 03:33 PM EST Msg. 2185 of 7690
(Msg. is a reply to 2175 by baddogone0.)
baddogone, when did I claim to be an insider????? I am a trader who makes tons of $$$ from buying this stock low and selling it high. It's such a simple game. You should try it sometime instead of wasting your time bashing this stock. Surely your time is worth something? No?
By: iveseenitall1
26 Nov 2003, 07:43 PM EST Msg. 2186 of 7690
(Msg. is a reply to by None.)
Ok,Ok, so it was after the bell!
EVSC To Present Liprostin Results in Italy Today
Wednesday, November 26, 2003 04:32 ET
Endovasc, Inc (EVSC: OTCBB) will present the results of Liprostin(TM) treatments in elderly critical limb ischemia patients at the conference of the Italian Society of Artero-Venous Pathology in Rome, Italy today. Professor Giovanni Brotzu, MD, will present the results of 18 patients treated over a three month period.
............................................................
From: Tony Ryals [mailto:tryals@angelfire.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 8:24 PM
To: dfw@sec.gov
Subject: Re:Endovasc and Fraud
Dear Tom Baudhuin,Barbara Ray and Dallas Fort Worth SEC,
I am writing to ask if you could confirm or deny that the letter below posted on ragingbull message board is real or not.Did 'Dr.'Summers of Endovasc of Montgomery,Texas actually send it to you ? I have been sent a copy of a litigation in Montgomery,Texas by 'grimreaper'or 'birdy' aliases that seem to confirm that Dwight Cantrell and Judge Ken Reilly who have indeed taken over EVSC from Summers.The company tells usshareholders nothing but continues to pump and dump the stock.Their lies have caused me to lose 99% per cent of my investment and even that is in form of a 'cert' I can't use fostered on me by businesswire pr of late 2002 that claimed 'fanmed trial attorney discovered my broker Schwab had naked shorted me.
I now realise this was fraudulant lie to conceal their own share dumping after phony reverse split of July 2002 and consequent pumping of stock by James Dale Davidson through Agora's Vantage Point etc.Had I not had my shares confiscated from Schwab account in 2002with phony Nevada reverse split,it would have reached value of over $1 1/2 million during Davidson's pump dump rather than valueless 12,000 share cert I am stuck with now.You see I am in Guatemala and 'cert' sold by Alexander Walker and his'natco,is in California.I only watch it fade to nothing here due to Dwight Cantrell and insider dumping.Schwab bought me the cert all the while knowing Cantrell had given millions of shares to a Schwab account in advance for dumping.
AS SCHWAB 'MAKES A MARKET' IN THAT STOCK THEY HAD MORE TO GAIN FROM EVSC'S FRAUD BUSINESS THAN FROM MY ACCOUNT.
Oh ,by the way, I first sent a complaint to SEC in early 2003.I could look for the number but my name is Clarence Anthony Ryals.I have lost about$60,000 on this fraud alone.Also please note below letter the to you from 'Dr.' Summers I am trying to confirm is part of an evsc SEC filing from late 2003.It claims two 'consultants got millions of shares as early as May 2002 while I was being told it was a real reverse split and no mention was being made by the company that they were giving shares to 'consultans' to dump.On the contrary businesswire prs promoted the reverse split as being to qualify for AMEX and NASDAQ BOARDS.Also to fight the 'naked shorts.And I was told in prs that 'proportionate percentage' ownership would be maintained.These were all lies.
Another issue is that Schwab never told me a thing although they knew all the while what was happening. I believe even Scwhab Capital benefitted from insider info I never had.They let me their client be destroyed without so much as a heads up to EVSC lies about 'reverse split'. So another query I have is
can EVSC keep the names of the 'consultants' hidden from investors ? (They never mention their names only that 'consultants' got many shares that diluted their shareholder value.They can tell me this 2 years after the fraud and they can get away with having told me all the while 'famed trial attorney O'Quinn had discovered it was naked shorting ?!!
Please give me some feedback as to what is going on and whether letter to you from Summers is legit or not.Your names funny enough are the only things not purposely misspelled in the letter.I have received email from one person who tell me 'balador' boiler room mentioned by Summers out of Arizona is really Belladorgroup.com out of Kuala Lumpur!!! He had been 'cold called' by them in early 2003!! Did you know this ? Also I believe James Dale Davidson who pumped the stock through Vantage Point in November 2002 was one of the anonymous 'consultants' refered to in SEC filing below.
Could you influence Schwab to to confirm or deny whether the Schwab account that was filled-exchanged with shares by Cantrell and Summers in May 2002 was dumped in November 2002 when Davidson pumped ? My explanation of how I was defrauded by a 'naked short scam' is in comments to SEC re 'sho'.You can also see it by doing google search of 'naans' and'ryals',my last name.
I was born in Texas and when I invested in Stanford patent evsc holds I thought I was investing in America from Guatemala.I now believe Davidson sent that 'investment' to Bermuda,Bahamas,or Lichtenstein for all I know.If I don't know or can't find out how could U.S. gov ever claim to be
able to track 'terrorist' money flows ?
Sincerely,
Clarence Anthony Ryals
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 10:47:26
dfw wrote:
Dear Mr. Ryals:
We cannot comment regarding a possible communication sent to this office.If a member of the public wishes to request information from theCommission's non-public files, you must file a Freedom of Information(FOIA)request with the Commission. Information about how to file a FOIA request can be found on the Commission's website at
http://www.sec.gov/foia.shtml.
Barbara Ray
Investor Assistance Specialist
Fort Worth District Office
817-978-3821
.............................................................
This just in from Mr.Marchant's KYC or offshorebusiness.com hints at more penny stock pump dumps involving LOM of Bermuda are yet to be revealed.Will Endovasc be one of them or was the Schwab 'select client' they protect another entity someone else ?:
LOM and CIBC sued for alleged securities fraud
October 6, 2004 Investment firm Lines Overseas Management, which is currently under investigation by three securities regulators, has been accused of fraud involving five more penny stock firms.
from recent Oct.2004 offshorebusiness.com abstract
............................................................
This 'scam warning' is probably a denial of wrong doing by the very ones who did it.Belladorgroup is the 'Balador' from 'Dr.Summers letter to the Dallas-Fort Worth SEC office.Belladorgoup has received warnings for its sleezy securities operations in Hong Kong etc.:
Endovasc Scam Warning
Dated: Friday, 9 January, 2004
Dear Client
We have been advised that one of our long-standing Clients has been contacted by a company called Bellador Institutional Services, offering to purchase Endovasc shares in exchange for shares of Advanced Micro Devices.
"Bellador Institutional Services" has no connection with our company, and is being operated as a fraudulent scheme to lure unsuspecting investors into wiring money to an account that has no connection with Bellador Advisory Services (Labuan) Ltd, or Endovasc Inc.
The client received a recommendation that he should exchange stock that he owns in Endovasc, Inc. for stock in Advanced Micro Devices, a company that has a very strong recent trading history. The request included a false claim that this company had inside information about ¡°bad news¡± that would soon be released about Endovasc which would allegedly cause the trading price to fall. The client was offered the opportunity to exchange shares of Advanced Micro Devices for Endovasc shares before the release of the alleged bad news, but was told that he would have to wire almost $7,000.00 U.S. to Union Bank of California that would be forward to an account at FBME Limited in Nicosia, Cyprus to complete the transaction.
This is a completely fraudulent scheme by a company that is not connected with the real Bellador Advisory Services (Labuan) Limited. We would never give this type of advice regarding the purchase or sale of securities. It would be a violation of the securities laws of the United States for us to provide information to you from insiders at Endovasc that is not generally available to the investing public and for you to purchase or sell stock based upon that inside information that, when released to the public, might affect the trading price.
This fraudulent company called Bellador Institutional Services has no connection with Bellador Advisory Services (Labuan) Limited. The Peter Taylor who is referenced in the communications from Bellador Institutional Services is not the Peter Taylor who is a director of Bellador Advisory Services (Labuan) Ltd. The money that you may be requested to wire will almost certainly wind up in the hands of criminals in Cyprus rather than being used to pay for shares of stock in a public company called Advanced Micro Devices.
All communications with you by representatives of Bellador Advisory Services (Labuan) Ltd will be from persons at our office who are known to you. All real transactions will be confirmed by the usual Transaction Confirmation letter with instructions for funds to be sent only to trust accounts of Logan & Geotas, PLC., our law firm in Phoenix, Arizona, USA. You will not receive wire transfer instructions that show a bank outside of the United States as a final destination. Cyprus has joined Nigeria and several former Soviet republics as centers of Internet fraud and the recent schemes seem to be targeting sophisticated, high networth investors.
Our Internet technology consultants confirm that we have a secure firewall on our servers and that the confidential information about addresses of our clients who previously purchased Endovasc stock has not been compromised. The matter has been reported to the two banks which were listed on the fraudulent wire transfer instructions.
We have notified Endovasc, Inc. of the attempted fraud. We have requested (and Endovasc has agreed) that all future communications of shareholder addresses between Endovasc and its stock transfer agent be sent by facsimile transmission rather than by e-mail to reduce the chance that confidential information about client addresses could be obtained by the interception of e-mail messages.
Please advise us if you have any concerns or issues with the above information, because we are treating this as a very serious matter and we are also advising our Regulatory Authority LOFSA (Labuan Offshore Financial Services Authority) in respect of this matter.
Bellador Advisory Services (Labuan) Ltd
Client Services Dept
...........................................................
Below from Endovasc SEC filings long since the 'reverse split' of July 2002(or May 2002 if you were an insider getting in on the scam and receiving shares worth 40 times their value overnight at the expense of 'regular' shareholders.)Note MIVT or 'MIV' below was coincidentally another penny pump scam out of Canada that James Dale Davidson and his gang bled dry by pump-tout promotion and the usual dumping of countless untrackable shares on investors they defraud.
For whatever reason Endovasc and MIVT made a 'deal' at all it was probably at Davidson's suggestion and yet another stock manipulation.And besides they could put out another press release pretend something big was occuring and dump more shares on suckers.
Note that in litigation with those they willingly did pump dump deals with in the past and sold shares to at super discount to dump and short 'regular' shareholders,that V Finance is mentioned.This is also I believe a market maker like Schwab Capital et.al.,only on a much smaller scale.It was mentioned by Carol Remond in her June article above as another that LOM of Bermuda held an account (no doubt to dump penny stock shares from),with them.
And we can be assured Mr.Davidson is familiar with them as he surely is with LOM even more so.:
................................................................
ITEM 5. OTHER EVENTS
- --------------------
On May 13, 2003 Endovasc, Inc.'s (EVSC), board of directors received
notification from MIV Therapeutics Inc. (MIV) that MIV would not be extending
its licensing agreement dated May 17, 2002 for the next year. All license fees
previously due before the cancellation have been paid in full.
SIGNATURE
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized.
ENDOVASC, INC.
(A NEVADA CORPORATION)
By:___________________________________________
Dr. David P. Summers, President and Chief
Executive Officer
DATE: MAY 20, 2003
This about the Stanford patent Endovasc used to con me and others among the many supposed pharmaceutical 'products' they never develop but use to con suckers into buying their shares.I guess they use shares to get into the Montgomery,Texas golf club as well.:
Angiogenix
Our Angiogenix technology promotes new growth of blood vessels (known as
angiogenesis and vasculogenesis), and has applications in the treatment of heart
disease, stroke, limb circulatory disease, and wound healing. Researches at
Stanford University discovered the technology during a 1999 study funded by the
Tobacco-Related Diseases Research Program of the University of California, the
American Heart Association, the National Institutes of Health and the Deutsche
Froschungsgemeinschkaft. While studying the damaging effects of tobacco smoke,
researchers discovered that smokers appeared less susceptible to deaths due to
infarction as compared to non-smokers. This counterintuitive discovery
suggested that low-dose (non-smoked) nicotine had extraordinary angiogenic
growth factor potential. To develop technology based on this unique discovery,
we obtained a worldwide exclusive right to the patent application for Nicotine
Receptor Agonist in February 2000.
Further study of our Nicotine technology revealed more conclusive results.
Experiments have shown that nicotine promotes angiogenesis and vasculogenesis in
areas of the body that are deprived of proper blood supply. Blockages of the
arteries that feed an organ, often caused by build-up of fatty material,
cholesterol and plaques in arterial walls, may deprive the tissue of proper
blood supply. These blockages reduce the body's ability to supply organs and
surrounding tissue with nutrients, particularly oxygen, which results in a
condition called ischemia. Ischemia reduces cells' ability to function and in
severe cases causes rapid cell death. The body naturally defends against
ischemia by reducing the work required from the affected area and attempting to
grow new blood vessels into the ischemic area. Stanford researchers found
tobacco smokers had significantly more growth of new vessels around such
blockages than non-smokers, apparently due to the therapeutic effects of
nicotine. Upon further analysis, researchers determined that nicotine could
recruit and mobilize the body's own quiescent stem cells that might provide a
method of treating and preventing a range of diseases and ailments involving
angiogenesis. These diseases, such as myocardial and cerebral infarction,
mesenteric or limb ischemia, common wounds, vascular occlusion, and vascular
stenosis, commonly called "hardening of the arteries", affect millions of
persons every year in the United States alone (American Heart Association).
We estimate that the market for treatment of these diseases is over $5
billion. For example, we estimate that a course of treatment for coronary
ischemia utilizing Angiogenix(TM) drugs would cost approximately $10,000 to
$15,000. This type of treatment would be significantly less expensive and
intensive than current alternatives of angioplasty and or open heart surgery,
providing a "biological bypass." We hope to market a commercially viable
product using this Nicotine Receptor Agonist technology within three years.
10QSB Nov.19.2003
ITEM 2.
CHANGES IN SECURITIES
- -------
-----------------------
Recent Sale of Unregistered Securities. During the three months ended
September 30, 2003, the following transactions were effected by us in reliance
upon exemptions from registration under the Securities Act of 1933 as amended
(the "Act"). Unless stated otherwise, we believe that each of the persons who
received these unregistered securities had knowledge and experience in financial
and business matters which allowed them to evaluate the merits and risk of the
receipt of these securities, and that they were knowledgeable about our
operations and financial condition. No underwriter participated in, nor did we
pay any commissions or fees to any underwriter in connection with the
transactions. These transactions did not involve a public offering. Each
certificate issued for these unregistered securities contained a legend stating
that the securities have not been registered under the Act and setting forth the
restrictions on the transferability and the sale of the securities.
During the three month period ending September 30, 2003 we issued an
aggregate of 597,451 shares of common stock for services, which we valued at
prices ranging from $0.31 to $0.51 per share, with an aggregate value of $206M.
These transactions were exempt from registration pursuant to Section 4(2) of the
Act.
During the three month period ending September 30, 2003 we issued an
aggregate of 15,000 shares of common stock for cash at a price of $0.33 per
share, with an aggregate value of $5M. These transactions were exempt from
registration pursuant to Section 4(2) of the Act.
During the three month period ending September 30, 2003 we issued 1,585,535
shares of common stock for payment of liabilities at prices ranging from $0.35
to $0.39 per share and $618M in the aggregate. These transactions were exempt
from registration pursuant to Section 4(2) of the Act.
During the three month period ending September 30, 2003 we issued a total
of 55,518 shares of common stock upon the conversion of preferred stock. We did
not receive any proceeds from these transactions. These transactions were
exempt from registration pursuant to Section 4(2) of the Securities Act.
10KSB Oct.14,2003
LITIGATION
----------
On September 11, 2002 the Company filed a civil lawsuit styled ENDOVASC,
INC. v. J.P. Turner & Co. LLC et al, Number 02-CV-7313, in the United
States District Court, Southern District of New York. The complaint is for
damages as a result of an alleged fraud and stock manipulation. The Company
is seeking monetary damages in excess of $200,000. In a related matter, a
show cause complaint was filed against the Company on September 19, 2002
styled Balmore SA et al v. ENDOVASC, INC. A hearing was held on September
26, 2002 with the Judge issuing an unfavorable ruling against the Company.
The matter was settled through the issuance of 203,000 shares of the
Company's common stock. In another related matter, a show cause complaint
was filed against the Company on October 17, 2002 styled Laurus Master Fund
Ltd. et al v. Endovasc Ltd, Inc., Number 02- CV-8317, in the United States
District Court, Southern District of New York. This suit involves the
issuance of 430,476 shares of stock. This matter was settled through the
issuance of the Company's common stock to retire Series A Preferred
Convertible stock. In another related matter the Company has become a
defendant
Continued
F-10
ENDOVASC, INC.
(A DEVELOPMENT STAGE CORPORATION)
SELECTED NOTES TO UNAUDITED CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
__________
(IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT SHARE DATA)
8. LITIGATION
----------
in arbitration styled V Finance v. ENDOVASC, INC. This matter relates to
performance under a Funding Agreement. The Company intends to defend its
position vigorously as it believes it will prevail and, accordingly, has
not accrued any liability associated with this case in the accompanying
unaudited condensed financial statements.
9. JOINT VENTURE
-------------
In November 2002, the Company entered into an incorporated joint venture
agreement with MIV Therapeutics, Inc. ("MIV"). This 50/50 joint venture,
called Stentgenix, Inc., was created to primarily develop a therapeutic
coating for vascular stents.
Under the terms of the agreement the Company receives 2,500,000 shares of
Class A common stock of the joint venture in consideration for contributing
all of its rights, entitlement and interests in and to any and all coatings
for any applications, products and medical devices utilizing the Company's
Angiogenix technology. MIV receives 2,500,000 shares of Class A common
stock of the joint venture for cash consideration of $2,500 payable over a
three-year period, with $300 payable in the first year. If MIV fails to
make the required payments, one Class A share of common stock will be
returned to treasury of the joint venture for each dollar not paid.
............................................................
This is from SEC filing re Judge Ken Reilly's appointment to Audit and Compensation Committee that in email communication he denies ever occured.:
At a special meeting of the Board of Directors held on September 21, 2002, the
Board considered the appointments of an Audit and Compensation Committee. The
Board unanimously appointed Judge Ken Reilly as Chairman of the Compensation
Advisory Board and Ken Beverly as Chairman of the Audit Advisory Committee to
the Board of Directors. Previously announced Beuttenmuller, Bagrier and
Davidson, were made prior to the Sarbanes/Oxley Act, and were rescinded by the
Board until further review by the respective Chairman. On November 18, 2002, the
annual shareholders meeting took place at the Del Lago Hotel and Resort,
Montgomery, Texas, with all issues placed before the shareholders approved for
the coming year. In November and December 2002, the Company awarded contracts
to two (2) certified good manufacturing (cGMP) contract laboratories to
manufacture and validate both of the Company's pending Phase III drugs. Upon
completion and validation of each of the drugs for FDA requirements, an initial
new drug application (IND) will be filed with the FDA for Phase III clinical
trials. As of March 31, 2003, the products have been produced and are pending
cGMP release in June 2003 for Phase III trials on Liprostin. Phase III trials
for Angiogenix are expected to commence in the quarter ended December 31, 2003.
..............................................................
Below,EVSC litigation from 'Dow Chemical Company' for whatever reason,an insider or former insider named Creekmore who probably was into promotion,and a mysterious other from an attorney Pizzulli in Malibu representing Geotermica LTD.,whatever that is.Their complaint sounds unusually like mine but its hard to get those court records in L.A. for some reason and the law firm won't talk.:
10 QSB
May 5,2004
6. LITIGATION
----------
On August 28, 2003, Cause No. 03-08-0681-CV, "The Dow Chemical Company vs.
Endovasc LTD., Inc.," was filed against the Company in the District Court
of Montgomery County, Texas, 359th Judicial District. Dow Chemical Company
("Dow") filed a complaint against the Company for breach of contract and
damages. The amount of damages sought is approximately $230,000. This case
is being vigorously defended against the allegations made by Dow. The
Company has also filed its own counter-claim against Dow for breach of
contract and damages. On March 31, 2004, a prediction cannot be made as to
the final outcome of the complaint and damages allegedly owed to Dow or to
the Company.
On November 7, 2003, Cause No. 03-11-08112-CV, "Greg Creekmore vs.
Endovasc, Inc. and Endovasc, LTD., Inc.," was filed against the Company in
the District Court of Montgomery County, Texas, 284th Judicial District.
Greg Creekmore ("Creekmore") filed a complaint against the Company for
breach of an employment contract between the parties. Creekmore seeks
payment of $114,000 plus interest, 1 million shares of the Company's common
stock and reimbursement of court costs including reasonable attorneys fees
allowed by law. This case is being vigorously defended against the
allegations made by Creekmore. On March 31, 2004, a prediction cannot be
made as to the final outcome of the complaint and damages allegedly owed to
Creekmore.
On January 13, 2004, Case No. H-03-5226, "Lorenz M. Hofmann, Ph.D. and LMH
Associates, Inc. vs. Endovasc, LTD., Inc., Endovasc, Inc., David P.
Summers, Ph.D. and M. Dwight Cantrell" was filed against the Company in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas Houston
Division. Lorenz M. Hofmann, Ph.D. and LMH Associates, Inc. ("LMH") filed a
complaint against the Company for breach of contract and damages. LMH seeks
payment of $91,859. This case is being vigorously defended against the
allegations made by LMH. The Company has also filed its own counter-claim
against LMH for breach of contract and damages. On March 31, 2004, a
prediction cannot be made as to the final outcome of the complaint and
damages allegedly owed to LMH.
In March 2003, Francis C. Pizzulli ("Pizzulli") filed a lawsuit against the
Company and others in the Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC291463
seeking damages for alleged breach of contract, damages for alleged
misrepresentations, and to invalidate a merger/reverse stock split of the
Company. The Company denied any and all liability in the lawsuit. Without
the admission of any liability by either Pizzulli or the Company, in
February 2004, the Company agreed to issue to Pizzulli 500,000 shares of
common stock of the Company to settle the lawsuit. The value of the stock
of $125,000 has been recorded in the accompanying income statement for the
three and nine-month periods ended March 31, 2004.
The Company is subject to certain other legal proceedings and claims which
arose in the ordinary course of its business. In the opinion of management,
the amount of ultimate liability with respect to these actions will not
materially affect the financial position, results of operations or cash
flows of the Company.
................................................................
below is stockpatrol.com article about S shares,and how SEC regulations plus lax enforcement in my opinion,aid offshore use of U.S.'penny stock' companies to orchestrate pump dumps and of course money laundering that goes hand in hand.:
OT: BEWARE THE EVIL TWINS
September 22, 2004
We offer this disturbing thought. The federal securities laws, the very rules that were calculated to discourage deception and protect investors, provide a pair of mechanisms that fuel fraudulent stock schemes. Or, to put it slightly differently, securities laws that are designed to foster transparency and disclosure instead protect silence and deception.
One fundamental precept underlies our federal securities laws - investors must be given access to material information about public companies and the people who run and control them. Yet two federal regulations not only ignore that mandate but tolerate secrecy.
What are these tools that can be used to distribute stock clandestinely to the four corners of the globe, conceal identities, launder funds, and defraud investors? They are every con artist's dream and every law enforcement official's nightmare - and they share a common root, the letter "S." They are Regulation S, which allows U.S. public companies to sell stock overseas without registration, and Form S-8, which enables companies to register shares instantly.
When they were first enacted, these two regulations were relatively benign, but promoters and manipulators have discovered ways to utilize both Regulation S and Form S-8 to further illicit schemes.
Regulation S
Regulation S was crafted as a safe harbor that allows public companies to sell shares to non-U.S. citizens. In essence, while regulators wanted to assure that U.S. investors had adequate access to information about public companies, non-U.S. residents were not afforded the same protection. Those non-U.S. residents would be permitted to buy and sell shares, among themselves, even though the issuer had never registered those shares with the SEC.
In other words, companies were given license to do abroad what they could not do at home - dump shares on the marketplace without registration or disclosure.
Why would lawmakers, who so carefully crafted securities laws that demanded both registration and disclosure, also create this massive loophole in the system? Perhaps they truly wished to provide the international community easier access to U.S. public companies, or, conversely, they wanted to afford those public companies the ability to attract foreign capital. Cynics might say that American lawmakers were willing to overlook the impact on foreign investors so long as they could maintain order in their own home.
Whatever the rationale, Regulation S has engendered a booming business, particularly for small, struggling companies who are desperate for funding at any cost. Those companies, many of which trade on the OTC Bulletin Board or the Pink Sheets, have been willing to sell stock to overseas investors, at a deep discount from prevailing market prices, under Regulation S.
To qualify for a Regulation S exemption, the shares must be sold offshore to a non-U.S. resident, and may not be sold back into the United States for one year. Those requirements are not as stringent as they may seem at first blush. The U.S. market is foreclosed to re-sales for one year, but that leaves the rest of the world - and the market for U.S. public companies is thriving around the globe.
Boiler rooms operating in Europe and the Far East aggressively hawk Regulation S shares. Consider the case of the Brinton Group, which operated out of Bangkok, Thailand and other locations in Indochina.
In September 2001, a small over-the-counter company called Oasis Resorts International Inc. announced plans to sell $15 million of its stock to the Brinton Group under Regulation S. In exchange, Oasis was to receive $4 million in cash and 1.1 million shares of another obscure OTC company, Virtual Gaming Technology.
The public records do not indicate that Oasis ever received the cash. In fact, when it stopped filing public reports in 2001, the Company had a working capital deficit of $6.4 million. On June 8, 2004 the SEC revoked Oasis's registration because of the Company's failure to file financial reports.
There is little doubt, however, that Brinton was issued the Oasis stock - and proceeded to dump it on unsuspecting investors in the Far East and Australia. According to a November 19, 2001 article in Time Asia, the Brinton boiler room prodded Australian investors to buy Oasis shares by telling them that the Company was a global casino operation run by the team that had set up a restaurant chain featuring Gary Coleman, the diminutive star of the 1980s TV show "Diff'rent Strokes." They did not bother to mention that the only jewel in that chain was a failing restaurant in Denver, Colorado.
Brinton was also peddling Virtual Gaming stock. In all likelihood that included the Virtual Gaming shares that had been handed out to Oasis as part of the Regulation S deal. Virtual Gaming was an internet gambling firm run by one Virgil Williams, who was once tied to a boiler room scam in San Diego, California.
Brinton's activities were interrupted in July 2001 when the firm was raided by a task force that included the Securities and Exchange Commission of Thailand, the FBI, U.S. Customs, the Royal Thai police, the Thailand Anti-Money Laundering Office, the Thai Immigration Bureau and the Australian Federal Police. Thai authorities charged Brinton with running an unlicensed securities firm and engaging in fraudulent activities, including the use of high-pressure sales tactics.
Despite that raid, Brinton, and other boiler rooms utilizing the same aggressive sales techniques, continued to sell stock. On June 10, 2004, a Thai court convicted seven individuals who ran the Brinton Group - and a trio of other boiler rooms - of illegally selling securities.
Other regulation schemes have a distinctly different flavor - but they all have the same goal, to dump unregistered stock on the market. One recent Regulation S manipulation centered on an individual named David Wolfson, who apparently inherited his affection for stock scams from his father Allen. Allen Wolfson has been named in multiple SEC and criminal stock fraud suits and was convicted in March 2003 of scamming investors out of $7 million.
David Wolfson, as regulators discovered, is quite a chip off the old block. Earlier this year he and his cohorts were charged with orchestrating a massive Regulation S scam. The SEC says that Wolfson and his colleagues found struggling U.S. companies that were hungry for cash (and occasionally formed the companies themselves) and then arranged for them to sell stock to a British Virgin Island corporation called Sukomo at a deep discount - 30% of the bid price.
Since Sukomo was purportedly a non-U.S, citizen, the stock was sold without registration under Regulation S. There were a few problems with this setup, as the SEC discovered. First, Sukomo was actually a boiler room operating from Laos and Thailand - so its agenda was clear. It wanted stock to dump on overseas investors. Second and more important as far as Regulation S is concerned, Sukomo may have been a non-U.S. resident but it never was a bona fide purchaser. In reality, Sukomo was simply acting as a broker and the proceeds from its boiler room operation were going back to Wolfson, his colleagues, and to a lesser extent, the issuing companies.
Regulation S also has been used to fuel schemes concocted by U.S. residents who established phony offshore companies to act as Regulation S buyers. Those Regulation S. shares quickly found their way back into the U.S., long before the one year holding period expired.
In other words, Regulation S is an invitation for abuse. Its potential harm far outweighs its actual benefit.
Form S-8
The S-8 Registration Statement is rapidly becoming the weapon of choice for stock scams. It is quick and effective and takes advantages of a glaring loophole in the federal securities laws.
Form S-8 allows public companies to register shares that have been, or will be, issued to directors, officers, employees and consultants - instantly, with minimal disclosure. Here is how it works. A company that wishes to register securities begins by filing a Registration Statement with the SEC. In most cases, the SEC reviews that Registration Statement, issues appropriate comments, asks pertinent questions and requires reasonable clarification. Then, after the company provides satisfactory responses to these questions, the SEC allows the Registration Statement to be declared effective, and permits the sale of the securities.
This process is designed to protect investors by ensuring that they receive ample information about the company in which they are about to invest.
Form S-8 abandons that protection and leaves investors to fend for themselves. An S-8 Registration becomes effective immediately after it is filed with the SEC, before it is reviewed by anyone. In an instant, the shares are registered and may be sold. Let the buyer beware.
Rather than provide detailed disclosure, Form S-8 includes fragmentary information, including the number of shares being registered. The company's financial condition is rarely presented in detail. Instead, the Form S-8 incorporates prior financial statements "by reference." As a practical matter, few investors will bother to review those earlier documents.
The absence of meaningful disclosure is only one of the disturbing features of Form S-8. Here is another. The company is not required to identify the individuals who will be receiving shares. Instead, the shares may be registered for a generic "Employee Benefit Plan." Which employees will "benefit" from that plan? The company is not required to identify the potential recipients when the Form S-8 is filed. And while companies are supposed to amend each Form S-8 to add the names of the new stockholders as shares are issued, they rarely do.
In reality, the recipients of shares may not be employees at all - and that is another distressing feature of S-8. Under the statute that controls this registration form, employees may include "consultants" and "advisors" - opening the possibility for shares to be distributed to a host of individuals with mere marginal connection to the company.
And the company is never obligated to account for the services rendered by those consultants in consideration for the stock.
The impact of these registrations can be seen in dozens of Form S-8 Registration Statements filed each week. Consider this example. A company, called Bach-Hauser, has made a business out of issuing S-8 shares. In fact, so far this is the only discernible business developed by the Company, despite a seemingly endless stream of consultants.
Since early 2000, Bach-Hauser has filed twenty three Forms S-8, registering more than 220 million shares issued to consultants, including a variety of lawyers. What have all these consultants been doing for Bach Hauser? The proof, as they say, is in the pudding, and Bach-Hauser's bowl remains quite empty. The Company has no business and no revenues.
Although Bach-Hauser initially named the consultants who had been issued shares, in recent years they have adopted a practice - followed by most small companies - of registering shares for unidentified recipients under an Employee Benefit Plan.
Bach-Hauser is a glaring example of the way Form S-8 has been used to flood the market with shares. It is hardly alone. Virtually every day, tiny companies issue mounds of shares to unidentified individuals for unspecified services - and it is all within the letter of the law.
But the common use of these two rules, Regulation S and Form S-8, hardly reflects the spirit of disclosure that is at the foundation of federal securities regulation. Instead, these twins seem destined to leave investors in the dark.
Just imagine if lawmakers had conceived triplets.
©2004 Stock Patrol .com . All rights reserved.
Reg S,SEC,and Stem Genetics:
On October 16, 2003, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a Complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, against twenty-one individuals and entities involved in a scheme to sell securities in five United States-based microcap issuers to hundreds of investors located primarily in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand through a boiler room located in Vientiane, Laos. The Complaint alleges that since late 2002, hundreds of overseas investors have been defrauded by a scheme organized by David M. Wolfson and Gino Carlucci of Salt Lake City, Utah, and Sukumo, Ltd. of Vientiane, Laos. It is further alleged that Sukumo raised at least $16 million from more than 1,100 investors by selling restricted Regulation S shares in Stem Genetics, Inc., F10 Oil & Gas Properties, Diversified Financial Resources Corporation, Valesc Holdings, Inc., and NCI Holdings, Inc., with 70% of the offering proceeds wired to Sukumo and 15% to 20% of the proceeds wired to Wolfson or entities under his control. It is further alleged that Wolfson and persons affiliated with F10, Diversified and Valesc manipulated the prices of those securities in trading on the OTC Bulletin Board, thereby inflating the price Sukumo charged investors. Finally, it is alleged that Stem Genetics, F10, Diversified, Valesc and NCIH, aided and abetted by certain of their officers, made false filings with the Commission and that those officers falsely certified the filings of the issuers when those filings contained material misrepresentations and omitted to state material facts.
In making its sales of securities Sukumo allegedly misrepresented the amount of its commissions by telling investors, orally and in writing, it was receiving only 2% of the sales price of the stock rather than the 70% it was actually receiving. Sukumo also allegedly failed to inform investors the stock they were purchasing was restricted stock. The issuers allegedly stated in their filings that Sukumo was purchasing shares from the issuers when, in fact, it was simply acting as a sales agent for the issuers for a 70% commission. The issuers also allegedly failed, in some or all of their filings, to disclose that Wolfson and the entities controlled by him, NuWay Holding, Inc., Momentous Group, LLC, and Leeward Consulting Group, LLC, were receiving 15% to 20% of the offering proceeds. In addition to these misrepresentations, it is alleged that Stem Genetics and its chief executive officer, Howard Robertson, made material misrepresentations on the company's web site concerning Stem Genetics's business operations. Finally, F10, Diversified and Valesc allegedly failed to disclose that the price of their stock was being manipulated in trading on the OTC Bulletin Board. It is alleged that the price of F10 stock was manipulated by Wolfson, Momentous, Jon R. Marple, the son of F10's principal officers, and by his company Grateful Internet Associates, LLC. It is alleged the price of Diversified stock was manipulated by John Chapman, Diversified's chief executive officer. It is also alleged the price of Valesc stock was manipulated by Jeremy D. Kraus, Valesc's chief executive officer and by Samuel Cohen, the company's chief financial officer.
The Commission seeks the entry of temporary restraining orders against Sukumo, which is also known as The Sukumo Group, The Fujiwara Group, First Chartered Capital Corporation, First Colonial Trust, First China Capital, and International Investment Holding, and Michael Sydney Newman, its control person. The Commission also seeks the entry of preliminary and permanent injunctions against Wolfson, Carlucci, NuWay Holding, Inc.; Momentous Group, LLC; Leeward Consulting Group, LLC; Stem Genetics, Inc.; Howard H. Robertson, M.D.; G&G Capital, LLC; F10 Oil and Gas Properties, Inc.; Jon H. Marple; Mary E. Blake; Jon R. Marple; Grateful Internet Associates, LLC; Diversified Financial Resources Corporation; John Chapman; Valesc Holdings, Inc.; Jeremy D. Kraus; Samuel Cohen; NCI Holdings, Inc. Asset freezes are sought against all defendants except Diversified, Chapman, Valesc, Kraus and Cohen.
The Complaint alleges all the defendants in the action have been violating the antifraud provisions of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. In addition, the Complaint alleges F10, Diversified, Valesc and NCIH have been violating the issuer reporting provision of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and that: F10 and Valesc violated Rules 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13 under the Exchange Act by filing false annual and quarterly reports; Diversified violated Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11 and 13a-13 by filing false annual, current and quarterly reports; NCIH violated Rules 12b-20, 13a-11 and 13a-13 by filing false current and quarterly reports. The Complaint also alleges that Jon H. Marple and Blake aided and abetted F10's reporting violations and that they violated Rule 13a-14 under the Exchange Act by falsely certifying those reports. Kraus and Cohen were charged with aiding and abetting Valesc's reporting violations and with falsely certifying its filings. The Complaint also alleges that Carlucci aided and abetted NCIH's reporting violation and that he falsely certified its filings.
On October 16, 2003, the Honorable Dale A. Kimball, United States District Judge, granted the Commission's application and issued a temporary restraining order, asset freeze and the other requested relief. Judge Kimball also scheduled a December, 2003, hearing on the Commission's application for a preliminary injunction.
SEC Complaint in this matter
................................................................
This from Christopher Byron,'Hedge Fund Hijinks',of New York Post explains how open loopholes such as Regulation S that encourage or aid and abet fraudulent activities including money laundering through stock share manipulation and concealment have existed for years almost as if on purpose to give international criminal elite the right to defraud ordinary Americans and other investors who buy shares of penny stocks on the open market:
'So it was great to read the other day that the new chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, William Donaldson, seems to agree that something really does need to be done before things get any worse.
'To that end, Donaldson told a Senate committee last week that the SEC will hold public hearings next month regarding the hedge fund industry. The purpose: to begin drafting regulations designed to increase the visibility of what these secrecy-obsessed investment vehicles are actually doing with their clients' money. The goal is not to tell the funds what they can and cannot invest in, but simply to make their investing activities more visible to everyone.
'Thus, in the helpful spirit of suggesting the sorts of activities the Commission might usefully look into, how about a cold, hard look at what everyone I know in this field refers to as the "Reg. S scam."
'Put simply, Reg. S is how penny-stock promoters set themselves up for a killing by selling unregistered and otherwise illegal stock to foreigners under a misguided 1990 amendment to the Securities Act of 1933 known as "Regulation S."
'Though the funds hide their tracks well, folks familiar with the offshore hedge fund game say that funds based in places like Tortola and Switzerland are becoming increasingly important customers of worthless Reg. S shares, which they dump back onto the U.S. market as soon as it is legal to sell the shares.
'Yet before getting into the specifics, first some background as to what Regulation S actually is, and why it was enacted in the first place.
'So-called Reg. S was adopted, in a fit of deregulation excitement at the start of the 1990s, to let U.S. companies sell stock quickly and cheaply to foreign investors, without having to go through the time-consuming and costly work of filing an SEC registration statement to sell the shares directly into the U.S. market.
'Now we'll just sidestep the question of why Washington apparently thought foreign buyers were some kind of lower life form who didn't warrant the protections of full financial disclosure given to U.S. investors, and we'll simply note that because of the way the law was written, penny-stock promoters quickly came running. Reg. S became a way for them to sell worthless microcap stock to foreigners, who could then sell it right back to gullible Americans.
'Since the law's enactment in 1990, the SEC has tried periodically to crack down on such practices, and in 1997 it amended the rule to require investors in Reg. S shares to hold them for a full year before being allowed to resell them to U.S. investors.
'But extending the holding period hasn't really changed much of anything, as evidenced by the thriving business that continues unabated in Reg. S offerings. A search of the SEC electronic database reveals that more than two dozen obscure and troubled companies on the OTC Bulletin Board sold Reg. S shares to foreign investors last year.
'And that sum doesn't include the countless more companies that are so small and obscure they aren't even registered with the SEC, yet they continue to use Reg. S - entirely legally - to flood overseas markets with stock that cannot be sold in the United States at all...............
'Who is buying the trash? My sources say the customers are increasingly turning out to be offshore hedge funds, which are stocking up anonymously on these penny-stock versions of weapons of mass destruction, to drop them on the market if and when the issuing companies ever do register with the SEC for their shares to become free to trade in the United States.
So here's hoping the SEC will begin looking into this matter, as well as into the many others that now characterize the hedge fund game, when the Commission holds its public hearings on hedge fund hijinks next month.
http://www.nypost.com/business/73344.htm
© 2003 The New York Post
...............................................................
Yet these near unregulated or unaudited penny stock frauds sometimes don't even bother with Reg.S or registration at all before dumping on a gullible and defrauded penny stock buying public who fall for their lying touts or promotions that the fraudulent management feel is justified under 'safe harbor protections but or not or should be,considering the obvious lies in their press releases. And often the transfer agent is paid well for his collusion and no one not even the SEC knows how shares outstanding the are dumping or selling to dumpers on this uncontrolled and unregulated 'market'.
REPORT #429 September 2001
EUROPEAN UNION AND THE USA BANKS ( OECD ) AND GOVERNMENTS are KING OF MONEY LAUNDERING WORLD WIDE - The Octopus Lair is the OECD
By Christopher Byron, (from the Belize Culture Listserve)
Sept. 24 Û In his speech to the nation last week, President Bush said a key element in America's new all-out war to eradicate terrorism will be to identify and cut off the sources of financial support for terrorists. Bush repeated the message Monday, announcing that he had signed an executive order freezing the financial assets of several alleged charities that evidence suggests are actually fronts for the al-Qaida network. But actually achieving the goal of cutting off the terrorists from their sources of financial support may well prove more difficult than anyone expects, requiring investigators to probe deep into the offshore activities of AmericaÌs mightiest banks and the financial affairs of many of AmericaÌs leading public figures.
OVER THE YEARS, the worlds of terrorism and dollar-based global finance have in fact become so entwined that no less a figure than Bush himself appears at one point in his career as a private businessman to have been unwittingly involved financially with associates of a Persian Gulf banker named Khalid bin Mahfouz. Mahfouz has now been identified in press reports as a source of financial support for an al-Qaida charitable front , a powerful example of just how far the tentacles of terrorist-linked offshore money have reached into the fabric of American finance.
More about that in a minute. For now, it is enough to know that as a result of the unregulated worldwide growth of offshore banking, international business and finance is rife with such entanglements.
DOLLAR'S KEY ROLE
All this is due to the pivotal role that the U.S. dollar has come to play in global financial affairs. That role alone makes the United States the most influential power on Earth. It also makes the nation itself vulnerable to political, social and economic pressures far beyond the countryÌs sphere of influence, or even reach.
Over the years, the dollar has emerged as the only truly global currency and is freely accepted in countries everywhere as a de facto local currency for commercial transactions. According to a report this month by the Federal Reserve, there is approximately $550 billion in U.S. currency now in existence, with roughly half of it in the hands of foreigners. Some 90 percent of all $100 bills in circulation are held by foreigners.
It is this money , a sea of stateless wealth that has been growing relentlessly for more than 40 years , that has enabled some of the vilest criminals in the world to move into, infect and spread throughout the U.S. banking system.
Cocaine traffickers from Columbia, Bolivia and Peru. Opium smugglers from Afghanistan. Arms dealers from Europe. Penny stock swindlers from Canada. Crooked bankers from the Persian Gulf. They are all part of a global criminal underworld that traffics in human misery. They take their profits in dollars, and, like any free-enterprise capitalist, they like nothing better than to put those dollars safely away in U.S. bank accounts, brokerage accounts and even real estate.
The entry points into all these markets are the offshore banking centers of see-no-evil countries like the Cayman Islands, the Netherlands Antilles, the Bahamas, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Austria and the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu, which is the size of Connecticut and has only 4,000 telephones in the whole country but operates a bustling international financial center.
These are the places where the international criminal underworld spiffs up its money in a clean suit of clothes to go shopping in America. This is possible because the biggest and most sophisticated multinational banks in America , the nation's so-called money center banks , are there waiting to serve them, operating what amount to financial Laundromats that take the stink off the cash.
THRIVING OFFSHORE BRANCHES
Why are U.S. banks operating offshore branches and subsidiaries in these places to begin with? The most frequently cited reason is that these countries have, for a variety of reasons, developed into attractive domiciles for U.S. multinational companies seeking to conduct business in non-U.S. markets and not send the profits back to the United States. So the banks simply followed their corporate customers to these palm-shaded islands.
But many of these countries quickly realized they could attract yet more capital by enacting bank secrecy laws that prevent foreign governments , namely, the United States , from discovering the identities of people who set up local shell companies as incorporated businesses, then use the shells to hide income that hasnÌt been taxed.
These shell companies, which often call themselves banks as well, began setting up "correspondent" banking relationships with the U.S. money center banks, further confusing the picture. Soon, the secrecy alone became reason enough to go there.
African and Latin dictators began hiding their plundered loot in the same offshore banks where the Euro-dollar financing subsidiaries of Fortune 500 insurance companies were also doing business , along with Medellin cocaine traffickers, Mafia torpedoes and insider traders on Wall Street.
There are now more than 4,000 "offshore banks" in the global banking system. In the Cayman Islands, 570 "banks" have put their names on doors in the countryÌs capital city of Georgetown, but nearly 100 of them are nothing more than mail drops. Typically, these shell banks have no real physical presence anywhere, and are simply make-believe entities created by criminals ranging from tax evaders to drug-trafficking army generals.
A two-year Senate study makes it no longer possible to deny what everyone has known all along ... big, money center banks like Citicorp, JP Morgan Chase, and Bank of America have so completely ignored the "know your customer" rule of prudent banking that the entire business of offshore banking has been compromised.
There are 65 such shells in the Bahamas, and more are springing up every day and in places like Montenegro, Vanuatu, even in a place called Nauru, a 21-square-mile sandbar in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Nauru has one radio station, 500 TV sets and 12,000 people. It, too, is now a hub of global finance.
All of this has gone on for so many years and decades that it is simply no longer possible to sort out the tax evaders and the criminals from the legitimate business people. And by and large, the major money center banks no longer bother to try Û not that they ever tried very hard.
BANKS DON'T KNOW CUSTOMERS
The banks insist that their activities in these offshore money centers are legitimate and proper, and they dismiss each new instance of money laundering that surfaces as being an isolated case.
But the evidence is overwhelming that the banks have no desire to find out who specifically they are doing business with , and what their customers' backgrounds actually are , before providing them banking services that, in effect, put a criminal's money through the spin cycle.
Now, a two-year study by a Senate Committee chaired by Michigan Democrat Carl Levin makes it no longer possible to deny what everyone has known all along: that big money center banks like Citicorp, JP Morgan Chase and Bank of America have so ignored the "know your customer" rule of prudent banking that the entire business of offshore banking has been compromised. One U.S. banker is quoted in the study as telling Senate staff investigators, "There is no reason for offshore banking to exist if not for tax evasion, crime or whatever."
Said the Levin report, which was published in February to almost no attention in the press: "U.S. banks, through the correspondent accounts they provide to foreign banks, have become conduits for dirty money flowing into the American financial system and have, as a result, facilitated illicit enterprises, including drug trafficking and financial frauds." The report specifically named Citicorp, Chase, and BOA as among those that have, by their sloppy practices, opened "a significant gateway into the U.S. financial system for criminals and money launderers."
The findings in the Levin report are astonishing. Twenty money center banks were examined by staff investigators. Collectively, the banks had more than $500 billion in assets on their books, 90,000 employees on their payrolls and operations in more than 35 countries around the world. Nearly every bank surveyed had extensive "correspondent" banking relationships with offshore entities and shell-type operations , in the majority of cases running to well over 1,000 such relationships with shells. One bank alone was processing more than $1 trillion daily in foreign wire transfers at the time the staff investigators turned up.
In an early interview with investigators, Chase Bank, which has one of the largest networks of correspondent banking relationships in the country, claimed that U.S. banks don't even open accounts for small foreign banks in obscure jurisdictions.
In fact, the opposite is true. Investigators eventually found that Chase itself was processing the illicit proceeds of Internet gambling through an obscure correspondent bank in Antigua.
Nor was that all. Under questioning, one Chase banker disclosed that the bank really did not know the first thing about many of its offshore customers. The employee told investigators that she herself was responsible for the bank's correspondent relationships with 140 offshore outfits but that she had never actually visited more than 25 to 30 of the larger ones. The small ones were simply ignored.
More than 4,000 "offshore banks" have by now barnacled themselves onto the global banking system. In the Cayman Islands, 570 "banks" have their names on the door somewhere in the countryÌs capital city.
The banker told investigators she had never received any anti-money-laundering training from Chase, that she had never been trained in due diligence analysis, that the bank had no standard forms for conducting due diligence and that there were no internal procedures whereby she was ever notified of countries, or correspondent banks, of which she ought to be suspicious when opening accounts.
The Levin report overflows with such stories. There was the Miami bank , Security Bank N.A. , which disclosed that for almost two years it simply looked the other way as more than $50 million worth of proceeds from financial fraud, Internet gambling and money laundering flowed through its books courtesy of an offshore outfit bearing the name British Trade and Commerce Bank.
Or consider the $2.7 million in drug money that the Bank of New York processed for a small offshore bank in Columbia and the Bahamas, British Bank of Latin America. Or the claim by Bank of America that it did not know, until investigators from Levin's staff alerted it, that an offshore bank in St. Kitts was using it to launder hundreds of millions of dollars per month in illicit proceeds from Internet gambling. Citibank never bothered to find out the source of money moving through it via a Cayman Island shell bank that was actually laundering drug money via Argentina, according to the report. Citibank let "hundreds of millions of dollars" flow through it even after receiving a seizure order from U.S. law enforcement targeted at the accounts of the Cayman bank , M.A. Bank.
Or consider the case of Harris Bank International, which made a point of never asking its offshore correspondent clients who they were doing business with. In this way, Harris wound up doing business with an offshore outfit known as Standard Bank Jersey Ltd., apparently not realizing that Standard Bank, in turn, was handling accounts for a shell bank named Hanover Bank, which was engaged in processing millions of dollars associated with financial frauds. The report says Harris Bank told the investigators it had no idea whom else Standard Bank might have been doing business with and that it had no immediate plans to find out.
These dealings are but a fraction of the questionable financial transactions that began growing following the Yom Kippur War and the quintupling of oil prices in the early 1970s.
The price surge transferred financial leverage from the money capitals of New York and London to Persian Gulf states like Bahrain that few people in the West had ever heard of before. The result? Western businessmen and bankers proved only too eager to curry favor with people who, overnight, seemed to have the wealth of the pharaohs spilling from their pockets.
SECRET MONEY
In the mid-1970s, an obscure Saudi money man named Ghaith Pharaon began investing large sums in U.S. banks, first in Detroit and Houston, and then, in 1977, in the National Bank of Georgia, which he acquired from Jimmy Carter's one-time director of the Office of Management and Budget, Bert Lance.
Only later was it learned that Pharaon was actually a front man for a Pakistani financier named Agha Hasan Abedi, who presided over an outfit bearing the name Bank For Credit & Commerce International. This institution, ostensibly based in Pakistan but with its main offices in London and New York, was in turn bankrolled by moneymen from Saudi Arabia. Among the fat cats were top members of the Saudi royal family and even the Croesus-rich head of Saudi ArabiaÌs intelligence service, Kamal Adham, a brother-in-law of King Faisal.
The bank , whose false bookkeeping and impending collapse first came to public attention as a result of an expose I published in New York Magazine in June of 1991 , turned out to be a colossal criminal enterprise that touched nearly every country on Earth. The bank was engaged in widespread, pandemic bribery of officials in Europe, Africa, Asia and the Americas. It laundered money on a global scale, intimidated witnesses and law enforcement authorities, engaged in extortion and blackmail. It supplied the financing for illegal arms trafficking and global terrorism. It financed and facilitated income tax evasion, smuggling and prostitution.
Its main means of operation? Secrecy , the secrecy that came from acting through BCCI-controlled shell companies in every offshore banking center in the world, the exact same modus operandi employed by thousands upon thousands of crooked offshore banks to this very day.
BUSH UNKNOWINGLY TIED IN
Through its fronts and various other disguises, BCCI penetrated the top-most echelons of American business, co-opting and exploiting many of the most visible and influential public figures in America. They ranged from former Secretary of Defense Clark Clifford, to Robert Magness, the founder and chairman of the nationÌs largest cable television company, TCI Inc. For his part, Magness wound up serving as the titular head of a shadowy commodities trading company, Capcom Inc., which laundered billions of dollars of offshore money through the commodities markets of Chicago.
For a period in the 1980s, the bank's tentacles even touched George W. Bush. This occurred when Bush , who at that point had not yet entered politics, but whose father was vice president in the Reagan administration , sold a small and struggling oil company he had started to a Texas wildcatting outfitter named Harken Energy, which was not much bigger than BushÌs outfit. Doing so set in motion a chain of events that wound up entangling Bush, briefly but awkwardly, in the affairs of not just BCCI but of the bin Laden family itself.
BIN LADEN CONNECTION
One of Bush's original partners in his oil company - which initially bore the name Arbusto Corp. , had been a fellow named James Bath. Bath in turn had contacts in the Middle East and was actually named in a 1976 trust document as the Houston business representative for none other than Salem M. bin Laden, a half-brother of the infamous Osama bin Laden, who is accused of masterminding the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11.
Several published reports from the early 1990s quote an associate of Bath's named William White , himself an Annapolis graduate and Naval fighter pilot , as claiming that Bath was actually involved in a secret conspiracy to funnel Saudi money into the United States and that he has worked as a CIA liaison to Saudi Arabia since 1976 Û the year when Bush's father, George H. W. Bush, became head of the CIA. White is quoted as saying that Bath ran an aviation business and obtained several aircraft from the CIA. Bath was quoted as denying any involvement with the CIA. In 1988, Salem bin Laden was killed in Texas in a private-plane crash. There has been much conjecture , but no established facts , as to the reasons for, or circumstances of, the crash.
In any event, Houston-based Bath ran a Cayman Islands-based aviation business bearing the name Skyway Aircraft Leasing Ltd., which was actually owned, according to a court document, by a wealthy Saudi banker named Khalid bin Mahfouz. In 1977, Mahfouz , who was reported by The Wall Street Journal in 1999 to be undergoing treatment for drug abuse , joined up with the previously mentioned Saudi front man for BCCI, Ghaith Pharaon, and became an investor in a small Houston bank, Main Bank of Houston, in which Bath himself held a stake.
When Harken needed capital to expand, Bush got a $25 million infusion from the Union Bank of Switzerland, via an Arkansas investment banker named Jackson Stephens. Few people at the time had yet even heard of BCCI, but Bush would doubtless have been astonished to learn that he was being surrounded by people with ties of one sort or another to the biggest and most crime-infested bank in the history of world capitalism.
For starters, Jackson Stephens, head of the Little Rock investment firm that bears his name, would eventually be named as the promoter of a deal in which BCCI attempted, through various front men, to take over the largest bank in Washington D.C. Bush would also have been astonished to learn that the Persian Gulf patron of his oil patch pal, James Bath , Mr. Khalid bin Mahfouz , was himself an early and large investor in BCCI. Finally, he would doubtless have been surprised to learn that the bank that actually cut the $25 million check for Harken , an outfit bearing the name Banque de Commerce et de Placements , was in fact only half owned by Union Bank of Switzerland. The other half was owned by BCCI.
Those facts would certainly have eliminated much of Bush's presumed surprise when he subsequently learned that no sooner was the Harken financing completed than Union Bank of Switzerland sold its interest in Harken to a Saudi real estate developer named Abdullah Bakhsh, whom The Wall Street Journal has described as a "sometime business associate of BCCI figures Ghaith Pharaon and Khalid bin Mahfouz."
As for Mahfouz, who was fined $212 million by the United States for his involvement in BCCI and barred from any further activities in the American banking system, he has now resurfaced - in connection with Osama bin Laden.
A March 2000 press report by the Paris-based Intelligence Newsletter said bin Mahfouz was being held under house arrest in Taif, Saudi Arabia, at the behest of U.S. authorities. The reason: Mahfouz was believed to have provided financial aid to a charitable front organization raising money for Osama bin Laden , the Afghan-based terrorist who had already been linked to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1992 attack on U.S. Servicemen in Somalia, a 1995 bombing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa. A top counter-intelligence source in Washington says Mahfouz is still under house arrest.
These are the types of people Washington now needs to root out of the nation's , and the world's , financial systems if it is to cut off the flow of money to the terrorists who have attacked America. But the tentacles not only now reach into just about every major money center bank in the country, they have even brushed up against the early business affairs of the very man who is now rallying America to the fight. In the end, getting the dirty money out of America may prove every bit as hard as pulling bin Laden from the mountains of Afghanistan.
...............................................................
Correspondence with Alexander Walker transfer agent for Endovasc and many questionable penny stocks over the years.If Mr.Walker received $200,000 in free shares as an 'insider'as he did from Endovasc 'management', from every(over 1000) penny stocks he was transfer agent for he would make $200 million on that alone !!!! Surely a transfer agent should not be insider of companies they handle share distributions for.:
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 14:06:57
Nevada Agency and Trust Company wrote:
Dear Mr. Ryals,
Kindly state your question and I will be happy to answer to the best of my ability.
Very truly yours,
Leah Finke
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Ryals"
To: "Leah @ Natco"
Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: ENDOVASC INC
Dear Alexander Walker . I am contacting you in regards to reinserting that,ha,10,000 share envc 'cert' back into my Schwab account.I guess I can pass on the,ha,nutriceutical dividend 'cert'.I could send it direct to Schwab if you can handle that as otherwise I would have to send it all the way to Guatemala for a signature.I explained all that to 'Dr.' Summers last December but I had no idea 'company' was just 'moving' to Delaware overnight.
Oh would you mind my asking how a transfer agent also becomes an 'insider' ? It seems a good job if you can get it.Also is the rumor true that most 'insiders' that officially acknowledge being so are relatives are asociates of Cantrell.I realise they are not employees cause there should be only 2 or 3 of them.
Also I am enclosing part of a 'share agreement' from Charles Schwab by way of Dwight Cantrell that I only received due to SEC enquiry earlier this year.It was sent to someone with a Schwab account in May of 2002.It is offering to exchange up to 30 million shares per individual!!!,for preferred shares.I did not receive such an offer for my 550,000 shares in Schwab account.Silly me,I thought we were having a real reverse split.
My suspicion is these shares saved from reverse split had to do with someone having a Schwab account with shares left over from the Balmore or Celeste purchase.Perhaps it was someone related to James Dale Davidson.Do you know or can you help me with that mystery.Looks like Endovasc fraud is about up now anyways and I lost big time,suckerd by the Stanford nicotine patent.Pretty funny,huh ? So for my $60,000 I'd sure like to know who got to keep and convert 'up to 30 million shares' from their Schwab account and convert to 'preferreds'.
Again the priority is to most efficiently return those remaining shares to Schwab account before next shoe drops,which I'm sure you've heard the company has eaten all shareholder assets and rumor on rb board is they are about to begin cannibalising one another.
In All Sincereity,
Clarence Anthony Ryals
SHAREHOLDER AGREEMENT(1ST PARAGRAPH)
'The undersigned(Subsciber)hereby agrees to exchange,and Endovasc Ltd.,Inc.,a Nevada corporation(The 'Company')hereby agrees to issue and exchange with the Subscriber,the number of shares of the Company's $.001 par value common stock(the'Company Shares')set forth on the signature page
hereof for Series B Convertible Preferred Stock,$.001 par value (the'Preferred Stock')convertible in accordance with theterms thereof at the exchange ratio of one share of Preferred Stock for each ten shares of the Company Shares exchanged (The Exchange).The Certificate of Designations of Series B Convertible Preferred Stock,$.001 par value per share is annexed hereto as Exhibit A('Certificate Designation').(The Company Shares are sometimes referred to herein as the 'Shares' or 'Common Stock').(The Preferred Stock and Common Stock issuable upon conversion of the Preferred Stock are collectively referred to herein as ,the 'Securities').Upon acceptance of this agreemnent by the Subscriber,the Company shall issue and deliver to the Subscriber the Preferred Stock against receipt of certificates representing the Company Shares endorsed or with stock powers attached in proper form for transfer.This Exchange Agreement and other similar Exchange Agreements relate to the exchange of a maximum of 3,000,000 shares of Preferred Stock for a maximum of 30,000,000 shares of Company Shares......'
On Thu, 29 May 2003 13:37:15
Leah @ Natco wrote:
Dear Mr. Ryals:
Your letter directed to our firm dated May 27, 2003 pertaining to Endovasc is acknowledged. Our organiztion is the duly appointed and acting transfer agent for the stock Endovasc. We serve over one thousand corporate clients in this limted capacity.
Your letter should be directed to Endovasc. We have this date sent by fax and email a copy of your letter to Dr. Summers for a response. No stockholder contacted our office to exercise dissenters rights.
Very truly yours,
Alexander H. Walker Jr.
Chairman of the Board
----- Original Message -----
From: Tony Ryals
To:
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 3:13 PM
Subject: Documentation of Dissenters rights.........
Dear Nevada Agency and Trust Co.,
I contacted your office by phone several weeks ago regarding Endovasc's reverse split and the automatic activation of Nevada dissenters rights at the time of its 'move' to Delaware.The secretary said I would need to make my request to your lawyer and so I am taking this oppotrtunity to do so.
I will let you know that during time you remained quiet and would not divulge re the shares being sold by Endovasc,they were dumping into the float while blaming Scwhab, Ameritrade, Etrade,and just about anyone but themselves. We, the investors, were led to believe that the company was not doing this by misleading businesswire prs being put out at the shareholders expense.In effect we were paying to be lied to.You could have done much by just being the honest broker between the company and shareholder rather than keeping us in the dark while Endovasc's Summers and Cantrell treated us as mushrooms.
Earlier company prs assured that investors would maintain a'proportionate per centage' of ownership in company we had before the reverse split.Later they conned us into removing shares from our accounts and converting to 'certs' by false promises of 'dividends' and to protect ourselves from our brokers 'naked shorting'.This was just another con by a company that thinks the safe habors' act was created for them to have freedom to lie to shareholders or defraud them of their shares.Instead the company began immediate printing and dumping of shares while you remained silent.
But my immediate concern is to obtain an honest divulgance of who got dissenters rights or at least how many shareholders got dissenters rights at time of move to Delaware and how many shares this represented.You see,before the reverse split, I held 550,000 Endovasc shares in my Schwab account. I was told by the company that it was a real reverse split.I fully expected a drastic reduction in shares of all kinds.
At the time of the ''move' to Delaware and activation of Nevada dissenters rights I was left completely in the dark.Schwab of SF has since informed me that my SEC 14C WAS NOT SENT BY THE COMPANY, NOR TO MY KNOWLEDGE, DID MANY OR ANY SCHWAB CUSTOMER RECEIVE NOTIFICATION.THIS AS YOU MIGHT IMAGINE LED TO LOSS OF NEARLY ALL MY SHARES THAT COULD ONLY HAVE BEEN PROTECTED BY NOTIFICATION OF MY NEVADA DISSENTERS RIGHTS!!!
Dr.Summers has told me at one time 'many' shareholders were notified and asserted their dissenters rights.Then he said 'less than 5' did!!! Dwight Cantrell the accountant that he is has given the figure as '3' but will not state how many shares were involved. I assume that any dissenter had to sign a settlement agreement of some kind, as to my knowledge, it was notresolved in court.
Yes I want to know if any client at Schwab received notice and asserted their rights and saved their shares.I will ask, but so far Schwab say Endovasc never sent nor requested they distribute the 14C in which the Nevada dissenters rights were hidden in.Both the SEC and Nevada require both documents together or not,be sent in written form to shareholders.
They take it for granted that account holders will receive said
documents through their broker who has their mailing address.
So again, as not to distract, I wish to receive documentation
regarding how many applied for and received their Nevada dissenters rights, as required by law, at time of 'move' to Delaware.The number '3', stated by Cantrell, sounds suspiciously small to me, when 100 million or so
shares were in the float at the time!!
Also I wish to know how many shares were involved. To my
knowledge and according to Summers,the dissenters kept all their shares on a one for one basis while those who were not informed, such as my self and all those with a Schwab account, lost or had the 'company' self deal, all our shares to themselves!!!Under the fraud of a reverse split in which we were supposedto maintain our 'proportionayte per centage of ownership' in the company!!!
And finally as thee are no court records, I presume there was asettlement agreement that was signed by the 'dissenters'. I would also like a copy of that document.Your cooperation is much appreciated.
Sincerely,
Clarence Ryals
...............................................................
Correspondence with Endovasc's 'Dr.' Summers:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 11:35:50
Dr. Summers wrote:
Dear Tony:
I can see that we are getting nowhere trying to explain the mechanics of the Delaware reorganization and the language of the 14c notification.
I can also see that you are only interested in insulting me and/or the company and nothing we can say of do will change your attitude.
As of today, I will cease responding to your ramblings and suggest that if you continue to harass our employees that you could be liable to various civil and/or criminal damages.
So in spite of trying to help you, I've been continually insulted, called a liar, a fraud and God know what else you have posted on the chat boards (all of which can be subpoenaed) and I think that I will call it a day.
Good day sir!
('Dr.' David P Summers)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Ryals"
To: "Dr. Summers"
Cc:
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2003 7:45 PM
Subject: Re: re failure to offer preferreds
Dear Dr.Summers,Do you not think I have reason to wonder if you are lieing to me or mad as a mad hatter?
Think about the time you b.s.ed me about the mideast shiek or whatever that was interested in making an investment.IT TURNED OUT TO BE COMPLETLY FABRICATED. Think about my original reason for 4mnvesting'in the first place,Dr.Colombo was about to have those human trials in Milan,remember?
Whatever became of that?
Now you tell me less than 5 shareholders took you up on your offer to keep their shares rather than giving them all to you as a reward for selling us to the offshores.Why didn't you do a businesswire 'shareholders alert' about that? 'Look out below suckers,I mean envc shareholders.'
Now consider that now you tell me that 'less than five'shareholders took you up on your preferred offer?
How many is less than five,could that mean 4 or 3 or 2 or 1? How many shares did this less than 5 represent?
And remember this statement you made?
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 15:16:18 -0600
From: "Dr. Summers" [add to address book] [add to
spam block list]
Subject: Re: re failure to offer preferreds
To:
Reply To: "Dr. Summers"
Tony:
The 14C was about 50 or 60 pages. Yes, many "regular" shareholders opted for the Preferred Shares.
Again, if you want to see the 14C, go the or and you can read the entire statement.
ds
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Ryals"
To: "Dr. Summers"
Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2003 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: re failure to offer preferreds
Dear Dr. Summers,How many pages do you reckon that 14c to be? I figure that if I'd a got it Ed dalton would have noticed.Also I note that at one point in it you specifically request that the broker forward it even at
ENVC expense,to shareholders.Now I still don't see what might have saved me from what hit me.Did any 'regular'shareholders get preferred shares as you hint I somehow could have?
If so, how did they do it? WAS THAT SOMETHING THEY COULD HAVE DONE BY TAKING THE .02 SHARE OFFER AS A 'DISSENTER', THEN NEGOTIATING?
I DON'T GET IT BUT IF sCHWAB DID HAVE OBLIGATION TO INFORM AND DIDN'T DO THEY OWE ME MY SHARE BACK BEFORE WE'RE FULLY DILUTED AGAIN.I MEAN WE ALREADY HAVE THEY SAME SHARES OUTSTANDING OR MORE FROM THE TIME I FIRST BOUGHT THE HALF MILLION. PLEASE TRY AND GIVE ME AN ANSWER RE sHWAB NOT SENDING AND WHAT I MIGHT DO IF ANYTHING IN RETROSPECT.You see I thought you wer going to point me to the place in the 14c where it explained how I would have saved my half million
shares had I known but we'0ve taken me in circles.....
Sincerely,
Tony Ryals
--
On Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:28:59
Dr. Summers wrote:
We sent out over 600 official notices to shareholders who had listed their name and address with the Company. What is this B.S. about "selected
customers" and a "special mailing list?" Some shareholders had only 50 shares. Can't you get this in your head? We posted a public notice with the SEC WHICH you can still pull up off the SEC Edgar if you care to spend the money to look at it.
Schwab was notified as was Fidelity, Ameritrade, E-trade and all the other brokers who held shares in their clients street name. That is just pure bull s-it! How the hell do you think we can locate someone who has buried his/her shares in a brokerage account that has no name, no address other than a brokers address and your account number, The dissenters rights
was part of the 14C!!! and they had 20 days to object! I don't recall the date, you look it up!!! You know how many dissenters we got? Less that five!
We even asked the brokers if they needed extra copies to distribute at our expense!!! How else could we have done this other than the way we did it? Maybe your California friend forgot to send you your mail. Be carefulabout calling our company a fraud, you could wind up getting sued.
I would appreciate that you quit wasting my time on your own failure to take due notice of a SEC required public notice that we went an extra mile to get the news out.
('Dr.'David P Summers)
---- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Ryals"
To: "Dr. Summers"
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2003 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: re failure to offer preferreds
Dear DR.SUMMERS,As a follow up to yesterday's e-mail I enclose the letter I sent to Lana Copeland Friday.
Note Schwab insists you never got the 14c to them,and thus to me and how many other smaller shareholders?This is why I asked on what date you mailed it to them and to which office or employee some time back.If this was not sent it is time to be both honest and responsible for the fact.So,I'm still asking yesterday's questions I sent to you about the number of shareholders who received dissenters rights and the number of shares involved but who areand how did these happy 'dissenters' get on a special mailing list.Apparently Schwab located them by noting they had saved themselves from reverse split and enquired as to notification.I don't know but if WE can't resolve it I'm gonna take my complaint fromcalifornia to texas to nevada to washington and on and on. Might even go back to Schwab to complain about this fraud.
tony ryals
Dear Lana Copeland,
I enclose a letter from a friend who gets my mail in California.As you can see Schwab contends that they never received a 14C with Nevada dissenters rights to send me.Is this true or false? This is why I asked you to send me a date and person or office to whom it was sent at Schwab.Looks like the ball's in your court now and Schwab and I am waiting for your serve.
Dr.Summers says he's concerned withreaching 'shareholders', well,it certainly looks like he missed some.Why does Schwab contend that you purposely sent 14C to 'select customers'(of Schwab,or of yourselves?,and not to me who HAD 550,000 SHARES?
NOW I WONDER IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER SCHWAB CLIENTS YOU MISSED AND WHICH YOU FAVORED AND WHY? Also if the shareholders 'of record'who received their real shares are not cited in an SEC form,where can I get the records,the Secretary
appoint appraisers? Yes, I can go writing all over the place, from fed to state, guessing but as a shareholder I cetainly feel I have a right to know 'straight from the horses mouth', so to speak.I truly feel conned,once again,to have fallen for that 'Schwab has a million envc shares outstanding' pr paid by envc when all the time you all were dumping 4 milion plus but wouldn't bother to tell shareholders that in your pr.And then the envc pr that disappeared from your website that announces reverse split and reincorporation in Delaware that Dr.Summers uses to assure all shareholders they will still keep their 'proportionate percentage' ownership.He did not state we had to be on a 'select customers'list.
Sincerely,
Tony Ryals
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 07:50:45 -0800
From:
To: tryals@angelfire.com
Hi Tony,
Today you received a reply from Schwab referring to the ENVC 14C document. They said that upon investigating, Schwab discovered that ENVC had sent the offer to "select customers" directly, and never gave Schwab any of these to distribute. They included a copy of the document that they were able to get from another Schwab customer who had received the offer.
The letter also contained a demand that you immediately stop making unfounded allegations against Schwab, and they threatened legal action if you continue.
I can send you a copy of the letter if you like.
On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 09:47:29
Dr. Summers wrote:
We sent notices to ALL shareholders who had their shares listed in their own name and address. We asked Schwab and all other to inform their "street named" clients of the Notice. Most Brokers will make copies and distribute the notices to the company's shareholders. We offered to send additional notices according to how many the broker claimed as street named
clients.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Ryals"
To: "Dr. Summers"
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 2:16 PM
Subject: Re: re failure to offer preferreds
Dear Dr.Summers,Well I finally got the reply from Schwab but it isn't exactly what I expected.It does appear that envc sent notices NOT to all shareholders equally but to a selected few,according to Schwab.You do realise this has lead to collapse of my Schwab account and I have heard that Nevada grants a possible extention of dissenters rights who failed to receive their notification.Is there any chance you would consider restoring my shares?
Sincerely,
Tony Ryals
Dear Tony,
Today you received a reply from Schwab referring to the ENVC 14C document. They said that upon investigating, Schwab discovered that ENVC had sent the offer to "select customers" directly, and never gave Schwab any of these to distribute. They included a copy of the document that they were able to get from another Schwab customer who had received the offer.
The letter also contained a demand that you immediately stop making unfounded allegations against Schwab, and they threatened legal action if you continue. I can send you a copy of the letter if you like.
On Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:20:09
Dr. Summers wrote:
I am not allowed to give advice on what you should do with a certificate that is just as valuable in your hands as it is in a brokerage account.
But, if I were you, I would simply hold on the certificate until the transaction you read about last Thursday (14C SEC notice) has taken place.Have you read it? If you haven't you should before you write me again.
ds
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Ryals"
To: "Dr. Summers"
Cc:
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 3:07 PM
Subject: Re: re failure to offer preferreds
Dear Dr.Summers,
So now what am I supposed to do with my shares?I TOOK THE
COMPANY'S PR TO HEART AND TO MUCH INCONVENIENCE REMOVED THEM FROM SCHWAB ACCOUNT.NOW THEY ARE IN CALIFORNIA AND I CAN'T SIGHN THEM.SO PLEASE JUST TELL ME WHAT I'M SUPPOSED TO DO NEXT.
SINCERELY,
TONY RYALS
--
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:37:19
Dr. Summers wrote:
We send all public notices to our shareholders of record, either
to the named shareholder and address listed by the shareholder or to the brokers who hold our shares. For shareholders who hold their shares at a broker, we send the notice to the broker and ask that they (the broker)distribute the notice to ENDOVASC shareholders which he is obliged to do as part of his service to you. We also request the broker to tell us if he needs more copies, proxies, filings, and other material, which we supply if asked. We have no other method of informing you if you are not listed on our stock rolls by your own name and address.
ds
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Ryals"
To: "Dr. Summers"
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 5:44 PM
Subject: Re: re failure to offer preferreds
Dear Dr.Summers,Did Charles Schwab charge you anything for mailing the 14c document to me? If so you should ask for money back cause they didn't do it.They still do not answer my queries from a couple of weeks ago.Does the company simply not care and thinks it fulfilled its legal duties when a shareholder is telling them that the broker they requested to
complete this legal transaction failed?Would you, as the company that was supposed to insure that I received this important legal document in a timely fashion, not inqire of Ms. Heather Shapiro for me? She refuses to address the issue altogether. Or to inquire for me at the Schwab section or office
to which it was sent to be forwarded to me?I would be much obliged.
Sincerely,
Tony(Clarence Anthony)Tony Ryals
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 15:16:18
Dr. Summers wrote:
Tony:
The 14C was about 50 or 60 pages. Yes, many "regular"shareholders opted for the Preferred Shares.
Again, if you want to see the 14C, go the o
and you can read the entire statement.
ds
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Ryals"
To: "Dr. Summers"
Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2003 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: re failure to offer preferreds
Dear Dr. Summers,How many pages do you reckon that 14c to be? I figure that if I'd a got it Ed dalton would have noticed.Also I notethat at one point in it you specifically request that the broker forward it even at ENVC expense,to shareholders.
Now I still don't see what might have saved me from what hit me.Did any 'regular'shareholders get preferred shares as you hint somehow could have?If so, how did they do it? WAS THAT SOMETHING THEY COULD HAVE DONE BY TAKING THE .02 SHARE OFFER AS A 'DISSENTER', THEN NEGOTIATING?
I DON'T GET IT BUT IF sCHWAB DID HAVE OBLIGATION TO INFORM AN DIDN'T DO THEY OWE ME MY SHARE BACK BEFORE WE'RE FULLY DILUTED AGAIN.I MEAN WE ALREADY HAVE THEY SAME SHARES OUTSTANDING OR MORE FROM THE TIME I FIRST BOUGHT THE HALF MILLION. PLEASE TRY AND GIVE ME AN ANSWER RE sHWAB NOT SENDING AND WHAT I MIGHT DO IF ANYTHING IN RETROSPECT.You see I thought you wer going to point me to the place in the 14c where it explained how I would have saved my half million shares had I known but we'0ve taken me in circles.....
Sincerely,
Tony Ryals
On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 10:27:52
Dr. Summers wrote:
Tony:
Go to Edgar.com and pick up all the ENDV public announcements during the year 2002. The Form 14 C is the one that was sent to
Schwab and other brokers.
ds
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Ryals"
To: "Dr. Summers"
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 4:26 PM
Subject: Re: re failure to offer preferreds
Dear Dr. Summers,Sill no answer from Schwab re those preferred shares and no word from you on how to remind them what document to look for.I did start a thread on offshorebusiness.com re celeste balmore and endovasc.
It's got about 10 posts so far.That stuff I never got from you and certainly not nigelbirch and yintok. Here's an example of my queries.
Sincerely,
Tony Ryals
Re: Balmore, Celeste and Endovasc
By Antonio on 2/18/2003 5:18:21 PM
E-mail: tryals@angelfire.com
Has anyone paid attention to the mms these Balmore and Celeste boys work with? Is it somewhat random or are there any favored mms that they go through? Schwab,for instance, is often one of the most active mms in Endovasc but when those boys were dumping over 60 million into Ensdovasc's float a little over a year ago,(before that the outstanding was about at its present 30 some million so they added 2/3 in a couple of
months),Schwab may have taken a back seat. I requested Schwab trading records re:ENVC,but you can imagine where that got me.
=== message truncated ===
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 13:17:16
David P. Summers, Ph.D wrote:
Mr. Clarence Anthony Ryals,
Re: Notice to Cease
and Desist
Dear Mr. Ryals:
Please take notice.
Your improper and illegal misrepresentation of myself and Endovasc has continued long since my attorneys and I personally tried to help you with your problem. With this notice I am demanding that you ceases and desist from further malicious and flagrant attempts to damage the company and its officers especially with your continued slander on RaggingBull. It is a
violation of both criminal and civil law to try to threaten and coerce someone to commit an illegal action, what ever your cause.
It is improper and illegal for me to give you imformation that is not already in the public domain or that is given to all shareholders at the same time.
Further libelous statements and blatant untruths will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of both criminal and civil law.
Respectfully yours,
David P. Summmers
cc Wes Christian, Esq.
David P. Summers
CEO
Endovasc, Inc.
550 Club Drive, Suite 440
Montgomery, Texas 77316
Ph: 936.582.5920
Fax: 936.582.5996
summers@endovasc.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Ryals"
To:
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 10:21 AM
Subject: Preferred Share Shorting...........
Dear Dr.Summers,
A couple of months ago I had planned to speak with you and not Dwight Cantrell.Not many have respect or trust for that man as for as I can figure.His offer of nothing and inability to fathom the depth of which I was defrauded by Endovasc James Dale Davidson and I guess one other unidentified receiver of the preferred share 'offer'that was certainly not offerred to me was disheartening to say the least.
Now only tradersnation has allowed me to see the true depth to which I was being shorted over the last year although we have still not estimated what portion of the shorting of those 18 million shares came from Endovasc 'management' directly and how much came from Davidson and the other preferred share 'beneficiary', much less why they deserved all those shares.I do presume I am correct in assuming those shares came from Balmore or Celeste.Does this mean that James Dale Davidson has direct ties to one orboth of those entities,or did he have contacts to buy second hand from them?Don't you think it's time for those of us who were defrauded by buying on the 'regular' market knew?
Now you know that I am in this for the long haul or until you and Cantrell and Davidson and Walker decide to let me out of your 'blood in the streets' nightmare.What I want is simply to have my former Schwab account 550,000 shares plus the forward split returned to my account. If you cannot manage this I will continue every channel available to expose this fraud from the state and federal level maybe international.From every news media and economic reporter who may have the slightest interest.I will make sure Stanford knows the fraud committed with their patent and name from every angle, every academic department I can think of.And I will get back to any lawyer who shows interest.
Also I do believe this is what SEC terms as insider trading and I will expose it. And I will do my best to make Wes Christian and O'Quinn see how they were used to defraud and deceive as well.I can't imagine even now they don't realise after revelation of 18 million float that they were more than incorrect last November in accusing Schwab anmd Etrade for your and James Dale Davidson's naked short scam to manipulate and defraud me even further.
I would also like to know of the 18 million float how much was dumped by James Dale Davidson or the other unidentified person or entity that got the 1 for 1 preferred exchange.That's quite a scam if you can get it.I guess one way is to go over your SEC filing and add whatever shares are not accounted for till you get 18 million.It would appear that Davidson et.al. accounted
for much more shorting than Schwab Etrade et.al. combined, no?
I would hope you can reply today and I will call if you wish.Othwrwise I will post this on internet for the record tomorrow and send to various interested parties.We just might create a new website devoted to James Davidson's penny fraud scams and Endovasc's contribution to it.
Sincerely,