I'm really loving this interchange,...and I'm willing to keep paying stockwatch the $100 per month just like I'm keep willing to pay for ROBtv just to get the fuckers. And boy are these bastards fuckers!!
Imagis Technologies Inc - Street Wire
Imagis legal beagle growls at Stockwatch
Imagis Technologies Inc NAB
Shares issued 19,279,379 Sep 26 2002 close $ 1.18
Friday September 27 2002 Street Wire
Also Imagis Technologies Inc (IGSTF) Street Wire
LEASHLESS IN VANCOUVER
by Lee M. Webb
Imagis Technologies Inc. litigator Howard Shapray of Shapray Cramer &
Associates, who filed a libel suit on behalf of the Vancouver-based biometric
company against Red Herring Communications Inc. and veteran journalist
Christopher Byron on Sept. 10, has taken issue with a Sept. 16 Canada
Stockwatch article. The Stockwatch article examined the statement of claim
against Red Herring and Mr. Byron and other public Red Herring allegations
made by Imagis.
In familiar bombastic style, Mr. Shapray unleashed his objections to the
Stockwatch article in a Sept. 19 letter. "I am writing you concerning your
recent column entitled, 'Forthwith and Hogwash,'" Mr. Shapray began. "I assume
that the 'Forthwith' refers to the sometimes bombastic legalese found in the
Statement of Claim that we lawyers are a slave to in libel actions. However,
it appears that the 'Hogwash' may in fact be a reference to the contents of
your own 'piece.'"
In fact, the "Hogwash" was a reference to something else entirely. As noted in
the article, the term was borrowed from a colourful turn of phrase used by Mr.
Shapray. The Vancouver litigator once characterized claims made in connection
with an action against one of his many promoter clients as "utter hogwash in a
tuxedo."
Mr. Shapray informed Stockwatch that he wanted to "set the record straight on
two points." Mr. Shapray's first objection was with respect to Stockwatch's
characterization of the Vancouver litigator's client list, specifically, the
claim that it included many well-known Howe Street promoters.
"I do not believe that it was correct to say that my client list includes
'many well-known Howe Street promoters,'" Mr. Shapray wrote. "I dare say that
it has included a few, over the years. However, I also suspect, although I am
not keeping score, that I have probably sued more 'well-known Howe Street
promoters' than I have represented. So much for Shapray trivia which appears
to fascinate you and, I am sure, your readers."
At the possibly very slight risk of bruising Mr. Shapray's ego, Stockwatch
cannot attest with the same certainty that "Shapray trivia" fascinates
readers; and it is hardly a matter of fascination for Stockwatch. Mr. Shapray
has simply recently become one of the interesting characters involved with
Imagis. As for the lawyer's client list, Stockwatch is satisfied that it does
include many well-known Howe Street promoters.
Mr. Shapray may well have sued more Howe Street promoters than the many he has
represented. On occasion the Vancouver litigator has sued one Howe Street
promoter while representing another Howe Street promoter. For example, Mr.
Shapray sued promoter Shafiq Nazerali-Walji, also known as Shafiq Nazerali, on
behalf of promoter Rene Hamouth. Mr. Nazerali-Walji, an Imagis consultant, is
the brother of Imagis founder and current director Altaf Nazerali.
Mr. Hamouth, a Vancouver promoter with a checkered history who was acquitted
of stock manipulation charges in connection with Penway Explorers Ltd. in
1993, evidently had a falling-out with Mr. Nazerali-Walji and a cast of Howe
Street veterans over the aborted vend-in of Zeolite Mira S.R.L. to Corsaire
Inc., one of Mr. Hamouth's promotions. Mr. Shapray filed the lawsuit against
Mr. Nazerali-Walji on behalf of Mr. Hamouth in March of 1998.
The defendants in the lawsuit included Mr. Nazerali-Walji, his offshore
company, First Capital Invest Corp., Ikon Ventures Inc., one of Mr.
Nazerali-Walji's OTC Bulletin Board promotions, and convicted fraudster Nelson
Skalbania and his offshore company, Lyths & Hangers Ltd. Brokers named in the
lawsuit include Ralph Olson and his Colorado-based brokerage, Cohig &
Associates, mobster broker Jean Claude Hauchecorne, later banned for 20 years
by the British Columbia Securities Commission (BCSC), Mr. Hauchecorne's
colleague, Carlo Rahal, and the brokerage they worked for, Pacific
International Securities, now preparing for a landmark BCSC hearing to begin
on Oct. 7.
The lawsuit also mentioned Anker Bank, August Roth Bank and Raifinanz AG,
three Swiss operations that allegedly provided anonymous trading services to
Mr. Nazerali-Walji. Mr. Hamouth also linked Mr. Nazerali-Walji to legendary
boiler room operator Irving Kott and to BCSC-banned promoter Eugene Sirianni,
now living in Switzerland.
Mr. Hamouth accused the key players in the aborted Corsaire deal, including
Mr. Nazerali-Walji, of a scheme of misappropriation of opportunity and of
engaging in a short-selling assault on Corsaire. The defendants denied the
substantive allegations. Mr. Hamouth's action against Mr. Nazerali-Walji ended
in a consent dismissal without costs to either party on April 16, 1999,
closing that particular door on any further insights into intriguing Howe
Street shenanigans.
A year before filing the lawsuit on behalf of Mr. Hamouth, Mr. Shapray
represented Atlas Capital Group Ltd., headed by Hanif Mawji, in an action
against Mr. Nazerali-Walji. The other defendants in the lawsuit filed 1997
included Mr. Nazerali-Walji's ZMAX Corp., and offshore entities Anker Bank,
Bank Sarasin & Co., Interallianz Bank, Credit Lyonnais (Suisse SA) Rahn &
Bodmer, Credit Suisse, Banca del Gottardo, BIL Banque International a
Luxembourg (Suisse) SA, Darier, Hentsch & Cie., Darier Hentsch Zurich AG,
Ueberseebank AG, Raifinanz AG and Valor Invest Ltd.
As Mr. Hamouth would do the following year, Mr. Mawji linked Mr.
Nazerali-Walji to the notorious paperhanger Mr. Kott. "Nazerali's involvement
in shady 'boiler room' operations was not confined to his association with
Kott in Amsterdam," Mr. Mawji claimed in an affidavit, identifying Mr.
Nazerali-Walji by his other known name. "Nazerali himself told me of having
been deported from Uruguay in the 1980s because of his operation of a boiler
room in Montivideo."
Mr. Mawji went on to express his belief that Mr. Nazerali-Walji would even
turn on his close associates. "Based upon his prior conduct, I believe that
Nazerali will be prepared to engage in dishonesty or improper conduct, even at
the expense of those who have friendly relations with Nazerali," Mr. Mawji
claimed.
Mr. Nazerali-Walji denied the alleged association with Mr. Kott. "I have not
been closely associated with Mr. Irving Kott or been involved or connected
with any alleged fraudulent activities by Mr. Kott," he claimed. He also
denied being deported from Uruguay or having ever been jailed anywhere. "I
never told Mr. Mawji anything of the kind," Mr. Nazerali-Walji said.
As would subsequently happen in the Corsaire lawsuit, the action against Mr.
Nazerali-Walji by Allied Capital was quietly resolved. The lawsuit was
dismissed by consent on July 10, 1997, and the court file was subsequently
sealed.
Having twice sued Mr. Nazerali-Walji at least twice on behalf of clients who
made serious allegations of misconduct against him in court documents, Mr.
Shapray is now representing Imagis, a company with which the Vancouver
promoter with numerous offshore connections is closely associated. Perhaps it
is not surprising that Mr. Shapray does not keep score of his clients.
After registering his objection with respect to Stockwatch's characterization
of his client list, Mr. Shapray turned to his second point, this one involving
the Red Herring libel action. As reported by Stockwatch, the statement of
claim filed by Imagis notes that Mr. Byron's article appeared on Red Herring's
Web site and also on MSNBC's Web site. "Despite the warnings and presentation
of factual information to refute the false claims, Red Herring refused to
publish any retraction or remove the Article from Red Herring's website,
though MSNBC did so forthwith," Imagis alleged.
Imagis made much the same claim in a Sept. 12 news release. "It should be
noted that MSNBC which originally carried the article that had been posted on
Red Herring's Web site, immediately withdrew it once the company informed
MSNBC of the factual inaccuracies and in the article," the company stated.
"However, after the company notified Red Herring of the facts and identified
the defamatory imputations contained in the article, Red Herring published the
article in its monthly magazine thereby ensuring wider circulation and causing
further damage to the company."
Stockwatch reviewed an Aug. 15 letter from MSNBC's lawyer, Kraig Baker of
Davis Wright & Tremaine, to Imagis that is clearly at odds with Imagis's
claims regarding the removal of Mr. Byron's article from MSNBC's Web site.
"We have been asked to respond to your letter of Aug. 13, 2002, regarding the
MSNBC.com posting of the Red Herring article written by Christopher Byron,"
Mr. Baker wrote. "MSNBC Interactive has given serious consideration to your
concerns contained in the Aug. 12, 2002 letter sent to Red Herring. However,
based on our review of the article and the applicable law, a correction is not
warranted and, indeed, would only bring further public attention to the
matters raised in the article.
"While we don't believe that there is a basis for the publication of a
correction, as part of our normal administrative procedures with respect to
the posting of articles such as the Red Herring article, this article was
removed from the MSNBC.com website on August 13, 2002 and should be removed
from all servers by August 14, 2002. In addition, pursuant to our standard
procedures, there will be no continuing links to the August 5, 2002 article on
the MSNBC.com website nor will the article be accessible using the search
function on the MSNBC.com website."
In addition to reviewing the letter, which clearly states that the article did
not warrant any correction and, further, was removed as part of MSNBC's
"normal administrative procedures," Stockwatch contacted Mr. Baker. The MSNBC
lawyer was specifically asked whether the removal of Mr. Byron's article was
at all related to the complaint from Imagis. His answer was unequivocal. "This
article would have come down whether Imagis had sent the letter or not," Mr.
Baker said.
Evidently Mr. Shapray did not like either the Stockwatch review of the MSNBC
letter or the report of Mr. Baker's unequivocal response. "As to the issue of
MSNBC and its response, it is apparent that somebody has provided you with a
copy of the letter from Mr. Kraig Baker of Davis Wright & Tremaine that was
delivered to my client last month," Mr. Shapray wrote on Sept. 19.
Mr. Shapray is perhaps still labouring under the mistaken notion that a
Stockwatch reporter has some special association with Red Herring or Mr.
Byron. In an Aug. 6 letter, Mr. Shapray was quite explicit about an alleged
association, remarking that a recent event was making it very difficult for
him to convince his client, Imagis director Treyton Thomas, to respond to
questions posed by a Stockwatch reporter. "The event in question is the
appearance of an article, authored by Mr. Christopher Byron, in Red Herring,
which has a very distinct aroma of your direct collaboration," Mr. Shapray
wrote.
In the same letter, Mr. Shapray, who had informed Stockwatch on July 25 that
he did not represent Imagis, suggested that Mr. Byron's article might be
actionable. Before the end of August, Mr. Shapray was representing Imagis and
on Sept. 10 he filed the libel suit against Red Herring and Mr. Byron.
On Sept. 13, Mr. Shapray delivered another piece of correspondence to a
Stockwatch reporter, advising that he was acting as counsel for Imagis. "I
believe that you have material evidence relating to the matters in issue in
this Action," Mr. Shapray wrote. "In addition to your testimony, I believe
that you may have physical evidence, in the form of notes and/or recordings of
communications with Mr. Byron and/or others associated with him pertaining to
the subject matters of the Red Herring article." The lawyer requested that
immediate steps be taken to preserve any relevant evidence.
Mr. Shapray cited Rule 28, advising a Stockwatch reporter that he could be
"compelled to answer certain questions and provide information," before going
on to pose a series of questions. While neither Red Herring nor Mr. Byron has
yet filed a notice of appearance, let alone a statement of defence, Mr.
Shapray pushed for responsive answers within four days. On Sept. 17, the
Imagis litigator was advised that a Stockwatch reporter would take his request
under advisement.
"I do not object to providing you with a reasonable opportunity to take legal
advice on your legal obligations, however, the need to preserve evidence in a
case such as this is pressing," Mr. Shapray replied on Sept. 18. Perhaps
troubled by dark imaginings about whirring paper-shredders and midnight trips
to a distant dumpster, the agitated Mr. Shapray requested a response within
two days. "Failing a satisfactory reply by that time, you may expect that I
will bring a motion to the court, and seek the appropriate relief, at the
earliest practicable opportunity."
Meanwhile, Stockwatch does indeed have a copy of Mr. Baker's letter to Imagis.
In fact, many people undoubtedly have a copy. The letter was in the public
domain, available to anyone with Internet access, which is exactly where
Stockwatch obtained a copy of the correspondence. Interestingly, the letter
was not placed in the public domain by Mr. Shapray's client, Imagis, which
instead just offered its wobbly spin on MSNBC's response. On Sept. 19, Mr.
Shapray provided some more spin.
"I have subsequently been in communication with Mr. Baker over my client's
interpretation of his letter and certain other objectively observable facts
that contradict the interpretation placed on it by Red Herring and
Stockwatch," Mr. Shapray wrote. "After giving a particular version of events
to you, it appears that Mr. Baker has now been muted. I say this because Mr.
Baker tells me that his client does not want to offer any explanation of the
fact that other, rather old Byron/Red Herring articles, continue to appear on
the MSNBC server, while the article in question was promptly removed."
Setting aside the imputation that Mr. Baker might be less than
straightforward, if the MSNBC lawyer has "been muted," he left the unleashed
Mr. Shapray with a distinct advantage. The Vancouver litigator seized the
opportunity.
"If it is simply routine 'business' as usual to remove Red Herring articles
from MSNBC's servers, so quickly, why has MSNBC declined to explain the
phenomenon of why articles written by Mr. Bryon for Red Herring several months
ago still appeared on MSNBC servers today?" Mr. Shapray wondered in his Sept.
19 letter. "Might it be, Mr. Webb, that MSNBC had simply, as a matter of
expediency, decided to remove any articles from its website and archive server
if there is a controversy over their content that MSNBC does not want to
become involved with? In my view, in light of the continued appearance of
other Byron/Red Herring articles on MSNBC.com that is a more likely
explanation of the truth than the version that you would have your readers
swallow."
While "swallow" is not a word that Stockwatch would normally use with respect
to its readers, those readers can make their own determination about what to
swallow. If they like, they can ingest Mr. Shapray's tale about the spineless
folks at MSNBC who, by his account, publish articles and then remove any
evidence of their existence if the subject of the article complains. Not only
that, Mr. Shapray's carefully couched tale seems to insinuate, they perhaps
even lie about their practices.
Stockwatch does not presume to speak for MSNBC. Stockwatch provided a report
substantiated by a letter from MSNBC's lawyer and subsequently corroborated in
an interview with Mr. Baker. Stockwatch has no reason to believe that either
the letter or the information provided by Mr. Baker was misleading.
Mr. Shapray is correct in pointing out that other "rather old Byron/Red
Herring articles" appeared on the MSNBC server as of the date of his letter.
Indeed, there were three such articles when Stockwatch checked. While
Stockwatch cannot speak for MSNBC, a simple explanation for that "phenomenon"
may very well be that the articles were just inadvertently left on a server,
rather than being removed as is the stated usual practice.
Other "objectively observable facts" support Mr. Baker's claim that so-called
"partner articles" published by MSNBC, such as Red Herring articles, are
removed after a certain period of time as part of MSNBC's normal
administrative procedures. Mr. Byron has written 17 Red Herring articles that
were also carried by MSNBC as part of its news content. As of the date of Mr.
Shapray's letter, 14 of those articles no longer appeared on MSNBC's servers.
Perhaps, contrary to Mr. Shapray's speculative musings, the 14 articles were
removed as part of the normal administrative procedures, as claimed by MSNBC,
and the three articles still available on the site were an aberration; in
other words, they were simply missed.
MSNBC also carries partner articles from Newsweek, The Wall Street Journal and
The Washington Post, among others. Those articles are also removed after a
certain time as part of MSNBC's normal administrative procedures, though
perhaps an article or two might still be found on MSNBC's servers.
It remains to be seen whether Mr. Shapray will have the opportunity or the
inclination to unleash his theory regarding MSNBC's conduct in court.
Meanwhile, Stockwatch can address the closing expectation in Mr. Shapray's
Sept. 19 letter.
"I expect, that should you decide to do another story about me or the Imagis
lawsuit, you will not make the same mistakes twice," Mr. Shapray wrote. The
bombastic Mr. Shapray need have no concern on that score. If they occur,
Stockwatch is quite prepared to acknowledge errors and is diligent in ensuring
that they are not repeated. However, Stockwatch is satisfied that there were
no mistakes in the first place with respect to the two issues raised by the
Vancouver litigator.
With 91,400 shares changing hands on the TSX Venture Exchange, Imagis closed
at an objectively observable $1.18 on Sept. 26.
Comments regarding this article may be sent to lwebb@stockwatch.com.
(More information regarding Imagis Technologies is available in Canada
Stockwatch articles published on March 7, 11, 15, 25, 27 and 28; April 2, 9
and 16; May 17, 23 and 30; June 4, 11, 18, 26 and 28; July 3, 12 and 18; and
Sept. 12, 13, 16, 20, 23 and 24, 2002.)
(c) Copyright 2002 Canjex Publishing Ltd. stockwatch.com |
