97. Upon information and belief, Barnett participated in CMKX with Turino in trading over 8 Billion shares of CMKX stock. CMKX is now an SEC de-listed company and basically bankrupt. This company and its questionable trading history is now under active SEC investigation.
====================================================
Contact:
Keith Houser
CEO
Phone 972-274-5533
SOURCE: BioTech Medics, Inc.
BELOW COPY OF TEXAS LAWSUIT AS FILED WITH DISTRICT COURT CLERK
No. 05-11907-C
ADAM BARNETT, ' IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
Plaintiff, '
'
'
V. ' DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
'
KEITH HOUSER, BIOTECH MEDICS, '
INC., CHARLES R. CRANE, MD; KIM '
PERALTA JACOBS, EDWARD '
THOMPSON; WILLIAM HASELTINE, '
GRIFFDOM ENTERPRISES, INC.; '
SEAN MEEGAN, MARK '
BRUMMELL, ALLIANCE EQUITIES, '
ATTICUS LLC, RICHARD EPSTEIN '
AND OTHERS YET TO BE NAMED '
Defendants. ' 68TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
'
V. '
'
WILLIAM SEMINARIO, '
HAMILTON HOLDING PA CORP & '
ANDREW JONES and Others to be named '
Third-Party Defendants. '
'
V. '
'
ADAM BARNETT, '
Counter-Defendant '
DEFENDANT HOUSER’S SECOND AMENDED PETITION
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE CHARLES STOKES:
COMES NOW Defendant and Counter-plaintiff Keith Houser (“Houser”) and files this his seconded amended petition against Adam Barnett, Andrew Jones, Others to be named , Hamilton Holding PA Corp and William Seminario (hereinafter collectively referred to as Defendants) and in response to Adam Barnett’s 3rd Amended Petition, would respectfully show the Court the following:
I. GENERAL DENIAL
1. In accordance with Tex. R. Civil. P. 192, Defendants generally deny all allegations contained in Plaintiff's Third Amended Petition and demand strict proof by preponderance of credible evidence.
II. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
2. Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part by the affirmative defense of
substantial truth.
3. Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part by the affirmative defense of
common-law qualified privilege.
4. Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part by the affirmative defense of statutory
qualified privilege.
5. Plaintiff's claim are barred in whole or in part by the affirmative defense of
mitigation of damages
III. SECOND AMENDED PETITION
A. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN
6. Counter-Plaintiff Houser intends to conduct discovery under Level 2 of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 190.
B. PARTIES
7. Counter-Defendant and Plaintiff Adam Barnett (“Barnett”) is an individual who resides in Miami, Florida.
8. Third Party Defendant William Seminario (“Seminario”) is an individual who resides in Miami, Florida.
9. Third Party Defendant Hamilton Holding PA Corp (“Hamilton”) is a Pennsylvania corporation.
10. Third Party Defendant Andrew Jones (“Jones”) is an individual who resides in Dallas, Texas. Jones is also a Texas attorney.
11. Counter-Plaintiff and Defendant, Keith Houser (“Houser”) is an individual who resides in Tarrant County and was served with process and filed his Original Answer on December 30, 2005.
12. Counter-Plaintiff and Defendant, BioTech Medics, Inc. (“BioTech” or “BTMD”) is a publicly traded Nevada corporation (OTC Pinksheets Symbol: BTMD) that was served with process and filed it Original Answer on December 30, 2005.
13. Counter-Plaintiff and Defendant, Charles R. Crane, MD (“Crane”), is the President of BioTech and is an individual who resides in Dallas, Texas. Crane filed his Original Answer and Counter-Claim on May 22, 2006.
14. Counter-Plaintiff and alleged Defendant[1], Kim Peralta-Jacobs (“Jacobs”) is the Secretary of
BioTech and is in individual who resides in Overland Park, Kansas. Jacobs filed her Original Answer and Counter-Claim on June 8, 2006.
15. Alleged Defendant, William B. Haseltine “(“Haseltine”), an attorney, is an individual who resides in Arlington, VA. It is unknown whether he has been properly served by Barnett and Jones and there is a question of venue since Haseltine is a resident of Virginia.
16. Alleged Defendant, Griffdom Enterprises, Inc., (“Griffdom”), is a Texas corporation. It is unknown whether the company has been properly served by Barnett and Jones.
17. Alleged Defendant, Testre LP (“Testre”) is a Texas limited partnership. It is unknown whether the partnership has been properly served by Barnett and Jones.
18. Alleged Defendant, Sean Meegan (“Meegan”) is an individual who has a Pennsylvania business. It is unknown whether Meegan has been properly served by Barnett and Jones.
19. Alleged Defendant, Mark Brummell (“Brummell”) is an individual who has a place of business in Pennsylvania. It is unknown whether Brummell has been properly served by Barnett and Jones.
20. Alleged Defendant, Alliance Equities, is a Minnesota company. It is unknown whether Alliance has been properly served by Barnett and Jones.
21. Alleged Defendant, Atticus, LLC is a Pennsylvania company. It is unknown whether Atticus has been properly served by Barnett and Jones.
IV. FACTS
22. On November 21, 2005, BioTech issued a press release (the “November 21 PR”), in full compliance with Section 17 CFR Parts 239 & 249, as amended of the Securities Act and the Securities & Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) Regulation F-D (“REG F-D”). The press release stated (not in the headlines, but buried in the story) that “BioTech declared a breach of contract and default on the One Million Dollar Promissory Note” ($1,000,000.00) owed by Hamilton to BioTech. The default on a One Million Dollar Promissory Note is clearly a “Termination of a material agreement not made in the ordinary course of business” as specified by the SEC, REG F-D. The default by Hamilton on a $1 million Promissory Note was greater than BioTech’s Gross Income for 2005; therefore it clearly was a “material event”. (See the November 21 PR, attached as Exhibit “A”).
23. On November 23, 2005, Barnett and Jones issued a widely disseminated press release (the “Barnett/Jones Nov 23 PR”), to fraudulently and maliciously steal free exposure from Houser and BioTech’s good names and reputations and intentionally to libel, defame and falsely disparage BioTech and Houser. In the Barnett/Jones Nov 23 PR, Barnett with Jones concurring, falsely stated and I quote:
“Mr. Adam Barnett has NEVER previously and does not currently have ANY affiliation with Hamilton Holdings P.A. Mr. Adam Barnett has NEVER represented Mr. William Seminario. Mr. Barnett’s position within the OMDA Oil & Gas, Inc., organization is SOLELY as Chairman.” (End of Quote – Emphasis added to “NEVER previously and does not currently have any affiliation with Hamilton Holdings P.A.” & “Solely”). These are key words and phrases (which are total lies) repeated time and again by Barnett and Jones.
24. On November 29, 2005, Barnett and Jones filed their Original Petition against BioTech and Houser.
V. DEFAMATION
25. Houser realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations and facts stated in paragraphs 1-24 above as set forth herein.
26. On November 23, 2005, Barnett and Jones issued a widely disseminated press release (the “Barnett/Jones Nov 23 PR”), to fraudulently and maliciously defame Houser’s good name and reputation and intentionally to libel, defame and falsely disparage Houser. In the Barnett/Jones Nov 23 PR, Barnett with Jones concurring, falsely stated and I quote:
“Mr. Adam Barnett has NEVER previously and does not currently have ANY affiliation with Hamilton Holdings P.A. Mr. Adam Barnett has NEVER represented Mr. William Seminario. Mr. Barnett’s position within the OMDA Oil & Gas, Inc., organization is SOLELY as Chairman.” (End of Quote – Emphasis added to “NEVER previously and does not currently have any affiliation with Hamilton Holdings P.A.” & “Solely”).
27. Houser introduces the prima facie evidence attached hereto as Exhibit “C” which is a Certified Copy of the “Articles of Incorporation-For Profit” of “Hamilton Holding PA CORP”, signed by Pedro A. Cortes, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, dated May 04, 2006. Filed with the Articles of Incorporation is “Docketing Statement DSCB:15-134A (Rev 2001), entitled “Departments of State and Revenue” whereby on line 2, captioned: “Individual name and mailing address of responsible for initial tax reports” the following is CLEARLY posted: “Adam Barnett
13420 SW 128th Street
Miami, FL 33186”
28. This compelling Certification by the Pennsylvania Secretary of State as prima facie evidence PROVES Adam Barnett’s name has been on file with the Pennsylvania Secretary of State and the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue since April 26, 2004 and continues through the date of the filing of this 2nd Amended Petition. It proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Adam Barnett has had an “affiliation with Hamilton Holding PA”. The evidence proves a “previous” and a “current” relationship and/or “affiliation” between Barnett and Hamilton.
29. Further, this compelling Pennsylvania prima facie evidence also establishes the fact that “Adam Barnett”…was the …”individual….responsible for initial tax reports”. Therefore, Adam Barnett was a “representative of Hamilton Holdings PA Corp.” He was, minimally, the “tax matters representative” and upon further discovery in this action, additional prima facie evidence via discovery will most likely prove that either Adam Barnett directly or one of his many companies paid indirectly for the filing of the Articles of Incorporation of Hamilton with the Pennsylvania Secretary of State via CT Corporation via cash, a check or credit card. This will demonstrate Adam Barnett had a financial interest in Hamilton which is a material and/or equity relationship. Houser relied upon the Pennsylvania SOS’s documentation as a verifiable source to qualify his truthful statements in the BTMD Nov 21 PR.
30. Barnett knew prior to the Barnett/Jones Nov 23 PR and prior to the time Barnett/Jones egregiously frivolous November 29, 2005 filing of their Original Petition. Barnett knowingly disparaged Houser’s good name and reputation with the Barnett/Jones Nov 23 PR and this instant action, and in the 2nd Amended Petition and 3rd Amended Petition.
31. Jones knowingly disparaged Houser’s good name and reputation by either ignoring the facts that Barnett did have a relationship and/or affiliation with Hamilton or in the least failing to complete the minimal due diligence as an attorney to verify that the Barnett/Jones Nov 23 PR was accurate and truthful, but it was not. Jones egregiously failed to act in an ethical and responsible manner as legal counsel in these two wide spread defamatory acts and publications.
1ST COUNT -PERJURY BY ADAM BARNETT
31. On November 23, 2005, when Barnett issued the Barnett/Jones Nov 23, PR, BARNETT KNEW THE PRESS RELEASE STATEMENTS WERE BLATANTLY FALSE. Jones concurred by permitting Jones name, Jones position as an attorney, Jones address and Jones phone number to be posted as a part of the Barnett/Jones Nov 23 PR.
32. Houser re-introduces the prima facie evidence attached hereto as Exhibit “C” which is a Certified Copy of the “Articles of Incorporation-For Profit” of “Hamilton Holding PA CORP”, signed by Pedro A. Cortes, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, dated May 04, 2006. Filed with the Articles of Incorporation is “Docketing Statement DSCB:15-134A (Rev 2001), entitled “Departments of State and Revenue” whereby on line 2, captioned: “Individual name and mailing address of responsible for initial tax reports” the following is CLEARLY posted:
“Adam Barnett
13420 SW 128th Street
Miami, FL 33186”
33. This compelling prima facie evidence in the Certification by the Pennsylvania Secretary of State PROVES Adam Barnett’s name has been on file with the Pennsylvania Secretary of State and the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue since April 26, 2004 and continues through the date of the filing of this 2nd Amended Petition and that Adam Barnett has had an “affiliation with Hamilton Holding PA”. The evidence proves a “previous” and a “current” relationship and/or “affiliation” between Barnett and Hamilton.
34. Further, this compelling Pennsylvania prima facie evidence also establishes the fact that “Adam Barnett”…was the …”individual….responsible for initial tax reports”. Therefore, Adam Barnett was a “representative of Hamilton Holdings PA Corp.” He was, minimally, the “tax matters representative” and upon further discovery in this action, additional prima facie evidence via discovery will most likely prove that either Adam Barnett directly or one of his many companies paid indirectly for the filing of the Articles of Hamilton with the Pennsylvania Secretary of State via CT Corporation via cash, a check or credit card. This will demonstrate Adam Barnett had a financial interest in Hamilton which is a material and/or equity relationship.
35. According to the Pennsylvania Secretary of State’s Corporate Division, all filings with the Secretary of Stare are subject to “false filings” statutory penalties if the statements are not true and correct at the time of filing. Therefore, whoever filed the Hamilton Articles of Incorporation and related Docking Statement relied upon the information filed as being accurate at the time of filing. If Barnett subsequently in this cause claims they were not, this event was an act of perjury or false filing before the Pennsylvania Secretary of State. In either case, it is an act of perjury.
36. According to the Pennsylvania Dept. of Revenue staff, subsequent to Hamilton’s April 26, 2004, filing there have been two (2) Annual Report forms mailed to “Adam Barnett, 13420 SW 128th Street, Miami, FL 33186” address. (See cover pages as Exhibits “C” and “D”).
37. According to official February 11, 2004 documents filed with the Florida Secretary of State, (See Houser Evidence Exhibit “E”) Adam Barnett had previously used the 13420 SW 128th Street, Miami, FL 33186 address for a now failed Florida corporation called: “Hamilton Holding Corporation”. This was two years prior to the formation of Hamilton Holding PA Corp in Pennsylvania. It is incredulous to believe that a Jury of peers is not going to make the connection with the Hamilton Holding Corporation Florida company with Adam Barnett’s name CLEARLY shown in official records and a relationship with the Hamilton Holding PA Corp.
38. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that when Adam Barnett had received a minimum of two (2) Annual Report forms from the PA Dept of Revenue at his 13420 SW 128th Street, Miami, Florida address, (and the Florida Secretary of State filings show Barnett had previously been utilizing the 13420 address for over two years), Barnett should have immediately notified the PA Dept of Revenue that he was NOT the “Individual name and mailing address of responsible for initial tax reports”. Barnett failed or refused to do so, because he knew he was affiliated with Hamilton.
39. On March 7, 2006, at 9:15AM, in Miami, Florida, Barnett at a “Videotaped Deposition” in the 215th District Court of Harris Co, Tex Case No 2005-23020 captioned: OMDA Oil and Gas, Inc., v Joe Lanza, et al, BARNETT UNDER OATH AND PENALTIES OF PERJURY stated:
Quote:
Q. And do you have a business address?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And what’s your business address?
A. 13420 Southwest 128 Street, in Miami as well, 33186.”
40. So to this day, Barnett is still using the 13420 SW 128th Street, Miami address as he has for over 3 years.
41. Barnett alleges he is “Chairman” of OMDA Oil and Gas, Inc., of Houston, Texas. As a “Chairman” of a corporation he should have known how important it was to notify William Seminario of the Pennsylvania Dept of Revenue Annual Tax Forms alleged mix-up and demanded that William Seminario as President of Hamilton file an amended Pa Dept. of Revenue form so that Hamilton would timely file its annual tax forms in compliance with Pennsylvania statutes. But there clearly is NOT such a filing made by Hamilton, Seminario and/or Adam Barnett. Staff have indicated at the Pennsylvania Dept. of Revenue that no annual filings have been made to date.
42. It should be obvious to this Court and to everyone that Adam Barnett is CLEARLY and DIRECTLY involved with Hamilton as a stealth shareholder and/or director or in the least a “representative” and/or “affiliated with Hamilton”. Therefore, Keith Houser stated truthfully and accurately that “Adam Barnett represents Hamilton”. Keith Houser did not disparage or defame Adam Barnett as Barnett and Jones falsely alleged in their numerous petitions.
1ST COUNT SUBORDINATION OF PERJURY BY ANDREW JONES
43. Houser realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations and facts stated above as set forth herein.
44. Andrew Jones has been for an extensive number of years Adam Barnett’s attorney, Adam Barnett’s business partner, a co-defendant with Barnett in a New Jersey civil action and legal representative of OMDA Oil & GAS, Inc., of Houston, Texas, of which Adam Barnett is the alleged “Chairman”. Jones has been all of the above prior to November 28th, 2005. Therefore, prior to November 21, 2005. a reasonable person could easily assume that Jones has had more than a casual interest in Barnett. Jones should have an intimate detailed knowledge of Barnett’s dealings and activities.
45. Jones publishes on his Tipton Jones LLP web site (see: tiptonjonesllp.com) on his “Attorney Bios” page that Jones is “an experienced Dallas-based trial lawyer, tackles clients’ challenges as his own and creates effective and efficient solutions throughout Texas.”
46. Pursuant to the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct (2004), the Preamble: A Lawyer’s Responsibilities states in Section [2]: “As negotiator, a lawyer seeks a result advantageous to the client but consistent with requirements of honest dealings with others” (emphasis added). Further, Section [6] specifies: “As a public citizen, a lawyer should seek improvement of the law, access to the legal system, the administration of justice and the quality of service rendered by the legal profession.” And finally, in Section [9] reads: [9] In the nature of law practice, however, conflicting responsibilities are encountered. Virtually all difficult ethical problems arise from conflict between a lawyer's responsibilities to clients, to the legal system and to the lawyer's own interest in remaining an ethical person while earning a satisfactory living.”
47. Jones should have known or made known to himself prior to his allowing Barnett to place the Barnett/Jones Nov 23 PR and bringing this frivolous lawsuit, triple amended petitions and contempt of court charges against BioTech, Houser and others to have taken it upon himself to make an ethical cursory due diligence telephone call to the Pennsylvania Secretary of State to ascertain what party or parties are responsible or designated as persons associated with Hamilton. If Jones did, as he ethically should, he clearly has perpetrated a fraud upon this Court and the multiple Defendants with Barnett in the posting of the false and disparaging Barnett/Jones Nov 23 PR and this frivolous lawsuit and subordinated perjury on behalf of Barnett. If Jones did not, he clearly has misrepresented himself to the general public as “an experienced Dallas-based trial lawyer” and violated the American Bar Model Rules of Conduct in not acting in an ethical manner and not dealing “honestly” with BioTech, Houser and the multiple other Defendants.
48. Jones with a more than a professional or casual relationship with Barnett permitted Barnett to post Jones name, address and phone number on the November 23, 2005, press release permitting Barnett’s false statement of “NEVER previously and does not currently have any affiliation with Hamilton Holdings P.A.”. These acts demonstrate clearly the aiding and abetting of Barnett with intentional libel of BioTech and Houser and malicious disparagement of their good names and reputations.
COUNT # 2 PERJURY BY ADAM BARNETT
49. Houser realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations and facts previously set forth herein.
50. On November 28th, 2005, Adam Barnett executed before Maria C. Amaya, a Notary in and for the State of Florida a sworn under oath an “Affidavit” that Barnett had “read the statements in Plaintiff’s Original Petition, Application for Temporary Restraining Order, and Request for Disclosure, and that the facts contained therein are within his personal knowledge and such facts are true and correct.”
51. In paragraph 7, of the “FACTS” in Plaintiff’ Original Petition, Barnett for the second time stated under penalties of perjury:
“7. Plaintiff, Adam Barnett is not and has NEVER (emphasis added)
been a representative of Hamilton Holding P.A.”.
52. Barnett at the time of his affirmation knew that he indeed had a relationship and a representative relationship with Hamilton, yet he perjured himself before this Honorable Court, and willfully and maliciously libeled, defamed and disparaged BioTech’s and Keith Houser’s good name and reputation.
COUNT # 2 SUBORDINATION OF PERJURY BY ANDREW JONES
53. Houser realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations and facts previously stated and set forth herein.
54. On November 29, 2005, Jones in conspiracy with Barnett filed this instant frivolous lawsuit and suborned Barnett’s perjury in Paragraph 7, falsely stating that Barnett had “NEVER” (emphasis added) represented Hamilton.
COUNT # 3 PERJURY BY ADAM BARNETT
55. Houser realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations and facts previously set forth herein.
56. On March 27th, 2006, Adam Barnett executed before Maria C. Amaya, a Notary in and for the State of Florida a sworn under oath Affidavit that Barnett had “read the statements in Plaintiff’s Second Amended Petition and Application for Temporary Restraining Order, and that the facts contained therein are within his personal knowledge and such facts are true and correct.”
57. In paragraph 15, of the “FACTS” in Plaintiff’ Second Amended Petition, Barnett for the third time stated under penalties of perjury:
“15. Plaintiff, Adam Barnett is not and has NEVER (emphasis added)
been a representative of Hamilton Holding P.A.”.
58. Barnett at the time of his affirmation knew that he indeed had a relationship and a representative relationship with Hamilton, yet he perjured himself before this Honorable Court, and willfully and maliciously libeled, defamed and disparaged BioTech’s and Keith Houser’s good name and reputation.
COUNT # 3 SUBORDINATION OF PERJURY BY ANDREW JONES
59. Houser realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations and facts previously stated and set forth herein.
60. On or about March 29th, 2006, Jones in conspiracy with Barnett filed a Second Amended Petition, another frivolous lawsuit and suborned Barnett’s perjury in Paragraph 15, falsely stating that Barnett had “NEVER” (emphasis added) represented Hamilton.
COUNT # 4 PERJURY BY ADAM BARNETT
61. Houser realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations and facts previously set forth herein.
62. On April 28th, 2006, Adam Barnett executed before Maria C. Amaya, a Notary in and for the State of Florida a sworn under oath Affidavit that Barnett had “read the statements in Plaintiff’s Third Amended Petition and Application for Injunctive Relief…, and that the facts contained therein are within his personal knowledge and such facts are true and correct.”
63. In paragraph 15, of the “FACTS” in Plaintiff’ Third Amended Petition, Barnett for the fourth time stated under penalties of perjury:
“15. Plaintiff, Adam Barnett is not and has NEVER (emphasis added)
been a representative of Hamilton Holding P.A.”.
64. Barnett at the time of his affirmation knew that he indeed had a relationship and a “representative” relationship with Hamilton, yet he perjured himself before this Honorable Court, and willfully and maliciously libeled, defamed and disparaged Keith Houser’s good name and reputation.
COUNT # 4 SUBORDINATION OF PERJURY BY ANDREW JONES
65. Houser realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations and facts previously stated and set forth herein.
66. On or about April 28th, 2006, Jones in conspiracy with Barnett filed the Third Amended Petition. Again a frivolous lawsuit and suborned Barnett’s perjury in Paragraph 15, falsely stating that Barnett had “NEVER” (emphasis added) represented Hamilton.
COUNT # 5 PERJURY BY ADAM BARNETT
67. Houser realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations and facts previously set forth herein.
68. On March 27th, 2006, Adam Barnett executed before Maria C. Amaya, a Notary in and for the State of Florida a sworn under oath Affidavit that stated:
“My name is Adam Barnett, I am older than twenty-one (21) years of age and I am under no disability. I have never been convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude and I am fully competent to make this affidavit. This affidavit is based upon my personal knowledge and that the facts stated herein while conducting my day to day business affairs.”
69. According to the Miami-Dade County Clerk of Courts, Adam Erik Barnett was “Charged” with “Grand Theft” a “felony” on September 21, 1993. It is unclear if Adam Barnett was “convicted of a felony” as the records have been “destroyed” as shown below.
Criminal Justice and Civil Infraction Cases
COURT CASE: F93032008
State Case#:131993CF0320080001XX
Name: BARNETT, ADAM ERIK
DOB: 06/11/1974
Da Date Filed: 09/21/1993
Date Closed: 10/12/1993
Warrant Type:
Hearing Date:
Hearing Time:
Hearing Type:
Cou Courtroom: REGJB-JUSTICE BUILDING, ROOM#:2-5
Address: 1351 N.W. 12 ST
Previous Case: J92012613C
J Judge: SCHWARTZ, LAWRENCE A
Bf ile Section: F015
File Location: DESTROYED
Box Number: -
Seq#
Charge
Charge Type
Disposition
1
GRAND THEFT/3D/300+/-5K
FELONY
NO ACTION
70. According to the Miami-Dade County Clerk of Courts, Adam Erik Barnett was “Charged” with “Petty Larceny” a “misdemeanor” on December 03, 1992. It is unclear if Adam Barnett
was “convicted of a misdemeanor” as the records have been “destroyed”.
Criminal Justice and Civil Infraction Cases
COURT CASE: M92078655
State Case#: 1319 92CO0786550001XX
Name: BARNETT, ADAM ERIK
DOB: 06/11/1974
Dat Date Filed: 12/03/1992
Date Closed: 11/22/1993
Warrant Type:
H Hearing Date:
Hearing Time:
Hearing Type:
C Courtroom: REGJB-JUSTICE BUILDING, ROOM#:6-6
Address: 1351 N.W. 12 ST
Judge: NEWMAN, EDWARD
De Defense Attorney: STEVENS, PAUL
Bfil Case Section: M002
File Location: DESTROYED
Box Number: -
ALT S Action: M002
ALT/Backup Judge: NEWMAN, EDWARD
Seq#
Charge
Charge Type
Disposition
1
PETIT LARCENY, THEFT
COUNTY ORDINANCE
NOLLE PROS-COMP PTI
71. According to the Miami-Dade County Clerk of Courts, Adam Erik Barnett was “Charged” with “Resisting Arrest without violence” a “misdemeanor” on October 04, 2001. It is unclear if Adam Barnett was “convicted of a misdemeanor”.
Criminal Justice and Civil Infraction Cases
COURT CASE: B01057856
State Case#:1 320 01 MO0578560001XX
Name: BARNETT, ADAM ERIK
DOB: 06/11/1974
Dat Date Filed: 10/04/2001
Date Closed: 04/03/2002
Warrant Type:
Hearing Date:
Hearing Time:
Hearing Type:
Courtroom: REGJB-JUSTICE BUILDING, ROOM#:5-7
Address: 1351 N.W. 12 ST
Judge: KRIEGER-MARTIN, LUISE
Bf File Section: M005
File Location: RECORD CENTER
Box Number: 86-207
ALT Section: M005
ALT/Backup Judge: KRIEGER-MARTIN, LUISE
Seq#
Charge
Charge Type
Disposition
1
ARRESIST ARR W/O VIOL
MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE
NOLLE PROS
72. If any of the above criminal charges were adjudicated into “convictions”, Adam Barnett may have committed perjury again in his March 27th, 2005, sworn Affidavit. It is clearly possible, based upon Barnett’s dismal past in 1992 and 1993 that there may have been juvenile delinquency felony charges which have been sealed subsequent to Barnett’s 18th birthday.
73. It is also probable that there maybe additional felony criminal charges in other jurisdictions actively pending against Barnett and those associated with him at this time.
COUNT # 5 SUBORDINATION OF PERJURY BY ANDREW JONES
74. Houser realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations and facts previously stated and set forth herein.
75. On or about March 27th, 2006, Jones in conspiracy with Barnett filed the frivolous “Contempt of Court” motion and suborned Barnett’s perjury.
COUNT # 6 PERJURY BY ADAM BARNETT
76. Houser realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations and facts previously set forth herein.
77. On November 23rd, 2005, Adam Barnett falsely stated in his Barnett/Jones Nov. 23 PR:
Quote: Mr. Barnett's position within the OMDA Oil & Gas, Inc. organization is solely as Chairman.”
78. On or about April 20, 2005, Adam Barnett as “chief executive officer” of OMDA Oil & Gas Management Issued an official press release. In that release Barnett stated he was “CEO:
"Adam Barnett, CEO stated, "While the time from drilling to finally selling the gas from these wells turned out to be considerably longer than originally anticipated, management and consultants feel that the delays were caused by circumstance beyond Young's control."
79. In the Texas District Court-Harris County Cause No. 2005-23020 civil litigation between OMDA Oil & Gas, Inc. and numerous other parties Adam Barnett was questioned under oath in depositions taken on March 8, 2006 and was shown an Exhibit 1. It was a letter issued by Barnett to OMDA Oil shareholders. One paragraph of the letter reads:
Quote: “It is my way, as leader of the company, to – as the chief executive officer, to help the morale boost of the shareholders by telling them what our plans were, that it was a real company, we weren’t the old management, and to – to get – to motivate them to stay as shareholder and to be – be patient with us as we grow.”
80. The question was asked by attorneys of Barnett: “Was this sent at or around the date that’s listed there, April 20, 2005?” Barnett answered under oath and penalties of perjury:
“And to my knowledge, this looks about the time frame—it definitely was in ’05, that I wrote one of the two letters to the shareholders. And it was available on the site for all the shareholders to see publicly.”
81. It is stated in one of Barnett’s pleas and Affirmed under penalties of perjury in the above Harris County Court Cause and we quote:
"By September 9, 2003, relying on these representations, Barnett became the majority shareholder of OMDA, and as allowed under Delaware law, took control of the company and became its Chief Executive Officer and/or President." (Emphasis added)
82. It is CLEAR that Adam Barnett lied in his widely disseminated Barnett/Jones Nov 23 PR in falsely stating that Mr. Barnett’s position in OMDA Oil & Gas is “solely as Chairman”.
83. This was intentionally done to by Barnett/Jones to libel BioTech and Houser and willfully defame and disparage their good names and reputations.
COUNT # 6 SUBORDINATION OF PERJURY BY ANDREW JONES
84. Houser realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations and facts previously stated and set forth herein.
85. On November 23rd, 2005, Jones in conspiracy with Barnett published the Barnett/Jones Nov 23 PR and filed a frivolous lawsuit on November 28, 2005, alleging that Houser had defamed Barnett by publishing the BioTech Nov 21 PR in which it was published that “Barnett was CEO of OMDS Oil & Gas”. The BioTech statement in the Nov 21 PR was TRUE.
86. At one or more times Adam Barnett represented himself as CEO of OMDA Oil and Gas prior to the BioTech Nov 21 PR. It was upon Barnett’s prior representations as “CEO” that Houser and BioTech relied and did not make a false and disparaging statement. Jones conspired with Barnett to falsely make petition before this Court, lie about Houser’s truthful statements and suborned perjury by Barnett’s false statements in this matter.
87. On November 28th, 2005, Adam Barnett executed before Maria C. Amaya, a Notary in and for the State of Florida a sworn under oath an Affidavit prepared by Jones that Barnett had “read the statements in Plaintiff’s Original Petition, Application for Temporary Restraining Order, and Request for Disclosure, and that the facts contained therein are within his personal knowledge and such facts are true and correct.” It was not true that BioTech and Houser had made a false press release on Nov 21, 2004. Barnett & Jones knew this fact at the time of the subordination of perjury.
FRAUD AND WILFULL MISREPRESENTATIONS
88. Houser realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations and facts previously stated and set forth herein.
89. From October, 2004 through the date of this pleading, Barnett and Jones have grossly withheld facts regarding and fraudulently misrepresented Barnett’s business background. Barnett has failed as an investment advisor. He is no longer a Florida investment advisor, required in his type of alleged “business”. His investment advisor licensing has either expired, terminated or stopped due to disciplinary action. Barnett has a grossly inadequate college educational background in finance and in the oil production industry for his position as Chairman and once or twice CEO of OMDA Oil & Gas Inc. He has participated in numerous hostile takeovers and has a litigious civil and criminal background. Barnett and Jones have grossly embellished Barnett’s expertise and egregiously exaggerated Barnett’s financial management abilities in a deliberate fraudulent manner before the general public, Houser and BioTech and this Court. Barnett and Jones have committed fraud by not fully disclosing Barnett’s and Jones failures and/or violations of various state and/or federal statutes to BioTech and/or Houser and this Court.
90. In October, 2004, Barnett was introduced by Jeff Turino. Mr. Turino did not fully disclose that he had an SEC Complaint filed against him in the US District Court-Middle Dist. of Florida, in the matter of SEC v. Pinnacle Business, Jeffery G. Turino, et al., Case No. 8:02-CV-822-T-17EAJ. In this matter, Turino was enjoined from violating various SEC laws. One of the statutes Turino violated was specifically in connection with the purchase or sale of any security. Turino was required to cease and desist from “employing any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud.”
91. Further, Turino was “ordered, adjudged and decreed”…”to be permanently prohibited from acting as an officer or director of any issuer that has a class of securities registered with the SEC.” It was further ordered and decreed that Turino was “prohibited for a period of five years from participating in an offering of penny stock; including engaging in activities with a broker, dealer, or issuer for purposes of issuing, trading, or inducing or attempting to induce the purchase or sale of any penny stock.”
92. Upon information and belief, Barnett is the alter ego of Turino to act as Turino’s trading front and executioner, due to the fact Turino is barred by the SEC and Florida regulatory authorities to trade penny stocks and/or participate in the running of public companies.
93. Barnett, Seminario and Hamilton were falsely introduced to BioTech Medics and Houser as reputable venture capitalist, trader and penny stock promoters. Barnett, Seminario and Hamilton had failed to advise BioTech and Houser that Barnett, Hamilton Holding PA Corp and Seminario had failed on their most recent investor relations deals and failed consulting work with Data Evolution Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation, (“DTEV”).
94. During December, 2004, when Barnett, Seminario and Hamilton were having legal counsel draw up documentation for a firm commitment of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) in a Pennsylvania exempt 504 Reg-D transaction, DTEV was in a dispute with Barnett, Seminario and Hamilton over their Consulting work and with illegal stock manipulation and trading of DTEV shares.
95. On January 7, 2005, the very day Barnett, Seminario and Hamilton met with BioTech, Houser and Jacobs in Las Vegas, DTEV filed a “Verified Complaint” and request for a “Temporary Restraining Order” in US Dist. Court- Eastern Dist. of Louisiana, Civil Action No. 05-0051 against Barnett, Seminario and Hamilton. It was alleged in the matter that:
“As a result of Barnett’s malicious actions, the price of the Company’s stock has fallen from a closing price of $7.25 per share on November 30, 2004, to a closing price of $3.20 on January 5, 2005. The most precipitous drop in the Company’s stock price occurred on December 1, 2004, the day that Barnett overtly threatened to destroy the Company’s public existence. On such day, the Company’s stock price closed at $3.80 per share down from a closing price of $7.25 on the previous day.”
96. Additionally, subsequent to the commencement of this cause, BioTech and Houser have learned that DTEV is just one of a handful of failed consultations, deals and transactions which have gone bad as a direct cause of Barnett’s wrongful acts or actions and deliberate attempt to “pump and dump” penny stock. Barnett is also currently in default of a Louisiana US Federal Judge’s Agreed Order to report on his (Barnett’s) trading activities of DTEV.
97. Upon information and belief, Barnett participated in CMKX with Turino in trading over 8 Billion shares of CMKX stock. CMKX is now an SEC de-listed company and basically bankrupt. This company and its questionable trading history is now under active SEC investigation.
98. Barnett and Jones are “co-defendants” in a failed stock touting of Prime Development & Investment, Inc. (“PDVN”) between February, 2004 through June, 2004, according to court documents filed in a Superior Court of New Jersey, Union County, complaint with PDVN Defendant run by Jones/Barnett at the time of the allegations in the complaint.
99. Additionally, PDVN is also in litigation in a US Dist. Court – N Dist. of Texas, Dallas Division Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-0855-D. Jones is an attorney in the matter. In the Defendant’s First Amended Answer and Counterclaim, Elizabeth Hanson stated in April, 2005, that Plaintiff’s PDVN (Jones) and “in early 2004 Adam Barnett, who worked with Plaintiff (PDVN/Jones) to defraud Defendant (Hanson)”.
100. Count Three in the PDVN US Dist Court case was for “Intentional Misrepresentation and Fraud”. The complaint specifically alleged: “Adam Barnett, in concert with Plaintiff (PDVN/Jones), requested that Defendant pull its 235,000 shares out of the DTC to “cover shorts” for the Plaintiff. Plaintiff (Jones) and Mr. Barnett fraudulently induced and misrepresented to Defendant that by doing so and ‘playing as a team’, Defendant ‘would be rewarded in the long run.’ Defendant relied upon such material representations, to their detriment.”
101. In paragraph 43 of the PDVN US Dist Court case it was further alleged: “The representations made by Plaintiff (Jones) and Adam Barnett were tales (false or lies). Further, at the time the representations were made Plaintiff (Jones) and Mr. Barnett knew they were false and made recklessly without any knowledge of the truth.” Jones resigned as Chairman, President, CEO and Secretary on August 5, 2005.
102. According to the latest 10QSB filed by PDVN on May 22, 2006: Quote:
“On December 22, 2004 we (PDVN) sold our 20% interest to an affiliate shareholder, Adam Barnett of Miami, Florida, for US$250,000. This resulted in a one-time gain for us of $198,737.
On November 9, 2005 Mr. Barnett filed suit against Premier in the 44th Judicial District, Dallas County, Texas and is seeking unspecified damages unrelated to the CG Group interest or concept. However, because we never received payment in full from the sale of the CG Group interest, we have declared the purchase agreement in default, taken a one-time write-down of ($157,710) in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2005 as a result of this default, and are pursuing legal remedies through litigation.
Therefore, and at least until all legal issues have been resolved relating to the CG Group interest and Mr. Barnett, Premier does not expect to make any effort to resume developing and expanding the Coconut Grove concept.”
103. In 2004, Jones and Barnett worked with and were directly associated with J. Scott Sitra and Stag Financial Group. Mr. Sitra has had an SEC complaint filed against him in 1999 and settled with the SEC in 2000 in Case No. W-98-CA-352, brought in Waco, Texas. This fact was not disclosed to BioTech and Houser and was fraudulently withheld from BioTech and Houser by Barnett and now Jones in this instant action. The SEC complaint stated:
“Sitra published favorable promotional information about Great White in exchange for cash and stock. Sitra spoke glowingly about Great White and encouraged investors to purchase its stock, while never disclosing his compensation arrangement with it. Sitra took advantage of the market interest his promotions created and sold his stock into the market contrary to his recommendations.”
“Sitra was permanently enjoined from violations of Sections 17(a) and (b) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Sitra was ordered to pay disgorgement and prejudgment interest of $12,767 and a civil money penalty of $12,767.”
104. Another penny stock company that Barnett has failed to produce positive results and been associated with is Micro Labs Inc. (“MLAR”). Barnett was dealing with MLAR around April, 2005. MLAR stock went from a high of $.10 per share to $.02 per share. Another Barnett failure to perform. Jones also participated in this failed venture.
105. At no time had Barnett declared failure with BUCKTV.COM, CSON, DTEV, MLAR, PDVN, CMKX and his association with J. Scott Sitra and Sitra’s SEC complaint to BioTech and Houser. This information would have adversely affected any decisions made by BioTech and Houser regarding any relationship with Barnett, Hamilton and/or Seminario. Barnett fraudulently withheld this damaging information from BioTech and Houser to their detriment.
106. Now we come to OMDA Oil and Gas, Inc., (”OMOG”) another one of Barnett’s failures with Adam Barnett its “Chairman” and Jones OMOG’s attorney.
107. Under Barnett’s and Jones leadership the company stock has gone from a high of $.04 per share to sub-penny averaging around $.0045 per share. The Outstanding shares have gone from 800 million to 1.609 BILLION, possibly up to 2.5 Billion and now OMOG is additionally issuing 50 million of “Preferred Shares”. The dilution of this stock is disastrous. A gigantic Barnett failure. OMOG is in at least three (3) separate civil litigation cases due to Barnett’s lack of knowledge of the oil industry and lack of management experience.
108. Barnett and Jones have egregiously mislead this Court regarding Barnett’s past which is disastrous. Barnett’s “oil experience” was being a “cook” at “Outback Steakhouse and Bennigans”. Operating an oil cooker for fried foods according to Barnett & Jones is stellar qualifications to being a “Chairman” of OMDA Oil and Gas, Inc. (Source: Barnett sworn deposition in the Houston, TX Dist Court case cited above.
ADDITIONAL FRAUD BY BARNETT & JONES
BARNETT CANNOT REMEMBER THE
DISPARAGING WORDS AND ALLEGATIONS IN THIS LAWSUIT
109. Houser realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations and facts previously stated in paragraphs 1-108 and set forth herein.
110. Barnett and Jones are perpetrating a fraud upon this Court by making scores of specious false allegations about Houser in the original petition, 2nd Amended Petition, 3rd Amended Petition and the false Contempt allegations, yet Barnett is unable to recall just one disparaging remark made by Houser under oath in this action.
111. On March 7, 2006, at 9:15AM, in Miami, Florida, Barnett at a “Videotaped Deposition” in the 215th District Court of Harris Co, Tex Case No 2005-23020 captioned: OMDA Oil and Gas, Inc., v Joe Lanza, et al, BARNETT UNDER OATH AND PENALTIES OF PERJURY COULD NOT REMEMBER ANY SIGNIFICANT DETAILS OF THIS LAWSUIT WHICH WERE SO “DISPARAGING” THAT JONES AND BARNETT BROUGHT THIS ACTION .
Quote from Page 17:
“By Mr. Bishop (Esq.):
Q. Who is the defendant?
BioTech Medics.
Q. What’s your relationship with BioTech Medics?
A victim of slander and defamation.”
Quote from Page 18:
“Q. Okay. And what was the public news that was on their web site that upset you?
Mr. Drinnon: Objection to form.
I don’t remember. It was a number of”
QUOTE FROM PAGE 19:
“things, I don’t remember specifically.
BY MR. BISHOP:
Q. Okay. It upset you bad enough to where you filed a lawsuit, you don’t remember any of it?
I didn’t say I didn’t remember any of it.
Q. Okay.
But I’m not comfortable guessing all the different things that they misrepresented.
Q. I’m am not asking you to guess, I’m asking you to tell me at least one thing that they said about you that was so bad that you filed a lawsuit?
They made representations that they had been—let’s see. I just don’t feel comfortable guessing. It’s all available in Dallas.
Q. You can’t sit here today and tell me one thing that they said about you that was so bad that you felt like you had to file a lawsuit?
I felt—
MR. DRINNON: Objection to form.
Go ahead.
I wasn’t comfortable with them mentioning OMDA Oil And Gas and the tiger (ticker) symbol to my-in my opinion, for their goals of benefiting their stock by trying to lure over thousands of our shareholder.
BY MR. BISHOP:”
QUOTE FROM PAGE 20:
Q. Was there anything that was said about you that was false?
MR. DRINNON: Objection to form, if not getting into attorney-client privilege discussion.
BY MR. BISHOP:
Q. No. And I’m not asking for anything that’s attorney-client privilege.
MR. DRINNON: Have you had any discussions with your attorneys about what was represented and what was true and false?
THE DEPONENT: Yes.
MR. DRINNON: Then that’s attorney-client privilege.
MR. BISHOP:
Q. Set aside the conversations with your attorney for a second, do you know what true and false means?
Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. And the first time you read that, whatever it was they put out, you thought it was false, didn’t you?
Yes, sir.
Q. And so after that, you contacted your lawyer about it, right?
Yes, sir.”
QUOTE FROM PAGE 21:
Q. Okay. I want to know what you thought before you ever contacted your lawyer about it?
The content of their press release in miniature I felt was not truthful.
Q. What did it say?
If it was in front of me, I could read it and be confident. It’s just I’m under oath and I don’t feel comfortable guessing.
Q. So you don’t remember anything about it?
MR. DINNON: Objection to form. He stated he doesn’t feel comfortable guessing.
BY MR. BISHOP:
Q. I’m not asking you to guess.
BY MR DRINNON: Yes, you are.
BY MR. BISHOP:
Q. I’m not asking you to guess, okay? I’m asking you to just to tell me what you remember?
MR. DRINNON: Then he’s responded.
I just remember that they mentioned things that weren’t truthful about me and I didn’t like that they brought up the company that I’m chairman and the symbol-
BY MR. BISHOP:
Q. Okay.
–for their-for purposes I felt of their”
QUOTE FROM PAGE 22:
gain to expose their stock to my – to our large shareholder base.
Q. Okay. So once again, you don’t remember a thing they said about you that was not true—
MR. DINNON: Objection to form. He just stated it.
BY MR. BISHOP:
Q. –is that correct?
I remember what I stated. I don’t remember specifically.
Q. You told him everything that you remember that they said that was untruthful?
MR. DINNON: Objection to form.
To the best of my knowledge, yes. sir.
BY MR. BISHOP:
Q. Okay.
It was a brief press release.” END OF QUOTE.
COUNTER-CLAIM:
SANCTIONS FOR FRIVOLOUS FILING OF PLEADING
112. Houser adopts and realleges those allegations contained in paragraphs 1-111, as if fully set forth herein.
113. Plaintiff Adam Barnett’s signature on the Petition constitutes a certification that he had read the pleading, and to the best of his knowledge, information or belief, formed after reasonable inquiry, that the Petition was not groundless, having a basis of law and in fact, and not brought in bad faith or for the purpose of harassment. Jones authored the words.
114. Plaintiffs Barnett and Jones knew, or should have known, that the causes of action asserted against Houser individually are groundless, have no basis in law or in fact, and were brought in bad faith or for the purpose of harassment or worse a means to extort shares of BioTech or money from Houser and BioTech.
115. Houser has incurred in the defense of Plaintiff’s claim fees and costs.
116. Pursuant to Rule 13 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Houser is entitled to recover appropriate sanctions as set forth in Rule 215.2(b) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
LIBEL AND DEFAMATION BY JONES
117. Houser adopts and realleges those allegations contained in paragraphs 1-116, as if fully set forth herein.
118. On or about March 1, 2006, Jones sent a letter to Mark Romney, Jonathan Nagy and Craig Ongley in which Jones willfully and intentionally libeled and defamed Houser by personally describing Houser as “mad, unstable and desperate”.
VIOLATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL SECURITIES STATUTES
119. Houser adopts and realleges those allegations contained in paragraphs 1-119, as if fully set forth herein.
120. All prior actions, petitions and motions by Barnett and Jones against Houser and BioTech have been a veiled hostile takeover of BioTech and deliberate libeling, defaming and disparaging of Houser in an attempt to illegally takeover BioTech and to illegally remove Houser.
121. In a March 1, 2006, letter to Mark Romney, Craig Ongley and Jonathan Nagy, Jones states his true intentions on behalf of his client Barnett and Jones himself. Jones writes:
“…we will expand this lawsuit into a shareholder class action against Houser and BTMD, which would lead to BTMD’s removal of Houser as Chairman and CEO and breach of fiduciary duty and other cross-claims by BTMD against Houser.”
122. Jones CLEARY did not state: “on behalf of my clients, we will expand this lawsuit”, but stated “we” inclusive of Jones himself.
123. Barnett and Jones have a prior history of hostile takeovers with OMDA Oil & Gas, Inc., in Houston, Texas. BioTech was to be another notch in their hostile takeover belt.
124. Houser and BioTech have taken an empty shell of a public company since December 7, 2004, and brought millions of dollars in assets to the company and daily cash flow from an ongoing business.
125. Barnett and Jones have failed to properly file with state and federal securities regulators of their hostile takeover intentions and are taking unfair advantage of Houser and BioTech by bringing the multiple petitions against Houser and BioTech. The failure to file proper documentation with state and federal securities regulators is a violation of law and has damaged Houser and BioTech and cause financial harm to Houser and BioTech.
126. Barnett and Jones cannot prevail in a hostile takeover of Houser and BioTech as they have failed miserably in the OMDA Oil and Gas, Inc., hostile takeover the past two years. A majority of shareholders of BioTech would not consider joining Barnett and Jones in another fiasco. BioTech & Houser will not agree to Barnett and Jones’ hostile takeover due to Barnett’s criminal background, lack of any qualified education, lack of CEO experience, prior failed investment advisor business, prior failed securities dealer history, prior failed public company consultancies, violators of federal and state securities statutes, being an alter-ego of Jeff Turino (a prior violator of SEC and Florida securities regulations and one who is barred to participate in penny stock companies). Barnett and Jones have proven themselves to be liars, shamelessly perjuring themselves before this Court and not acting in an ethical manner. Barnett and Jones are litigious extortioners and need to have their evil true natures exposed to the world.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
Houser respectfully requests the following instant relief:
That this Honorable Court dismiss the Defamation causes of action against BioTech, Houser, Crane & Jacobs as they are groundless. Further, the alleged defamation is not defamation but truth, the ultimate defense.
Failing instant relief as specified above, Houser respectfully requests upon final trial of this action, Houser have judgment as follows:
(a) That Plaintiff take nothing by this action;
(b) A finding that Plaintiff’s Petition, as it relates to the claims against Houser individually, is groundless under Rule 13 under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure;
(c) For all costs of court and costs of Houser’s time as CEO of BioTech to address the issues of this matter, and
(d) For all other and further relief to which Houser is justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
Keith A. Houser, Pro se
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] . Jacobs is disputing Barnett’s and Jones defective Citation and claim of successful service of process and venue.
END
Bio Tech Medics, Inc. Answers Lawsuit and Files Counterclaim
Dallas, Texas, Tuesday, January 10, 2006 ---Bio Tech Medics, Inc. announced that the company, as Defendant, had been served with a Texas civil defamation action by Adam Barnett, a Florida resident, as Plaintiff. BioTech has vigorously denied Barnett's allegations and filed a counterclaim against him, and has also filed a third-party petition against William Seminario, a Florida resident, and Hamilton Holdings PA Corp., a Pennsylvania corporation.
BioTech's counterclaim and third party petition alleges that Barnett, Seminario and Hamilton conspired to unlawfully deprive BioTech of over 12 Million shares of its common stock and manipulated the value of BioTech's common stock. Bio Tech further alleges in its counterclaim against Barnett that Barnett, using a series of aliases, published false and defamatory statements against BioTech and its management, using the Internet.
Keith Houser, CEO of BioTech, stated "We will aggressively pursue this litigation until its conclusion. We have also been in contact with the Securities and Exchange Commission- Enforcement Division about our allegations and intend to continue to assist the SEC in their investigation in any way we can."
72.14.205.104
|
