SI
SI
discoversearch

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


To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (2504)2/24/2002 6:15:39 PM
From: StockDung  Respond to of 12465
 
Word has it that Michael Markow got tipped off and escaped the Boiler Room Raid? I am sure it will all come out as the "Honest Business man" and "straight shooter" sues internet posters. His attorney from what I understand called Marcow an "Honest Business Man"? Wonder is he is held in contemp of court?

Go to this arbitration link which is most shocking;
scan.cch.com

-------------------------------------------

SEC Order Bars 2 From Brokerage Industry Woodland
Hills: Latest action
comes after regulators shut down Brokers Investment
Corp., alleging it was a
huge boiler-room operation. Other former Brokers
Investment personnel have
set up a new firm nearby.
The Los Angeles Times (Pre-1997 Fulltext); Los
Angeles, Calif.; Aug 17, 1993; DON LEE;

Abstract:
It was last year when the SEC initially suspected that
Brokers Investment was violating
securities law. In April the SEC alleged in Los
Angeles federal court that Shubert and
[Daniel H. Steinberg] were running a nationwide scam
in which Brokers Investment, along
with an obscure San Diego firm called U.S. Fiberline
Communications, defrauded investors
of at least $40 million by selling dubious investments
in telecommunications. The SEC said
Brokers' salesmen raised $109 million from 6,000
investors by reading sales scripts that
talked about annual returns of up to 32%, and that $40
million was pocketed or
fraudulently used by Shubert, Steinberg and others.

[William Lawrence], in materials sent to former
clients of Brokers Investment, described
itself as a complete brokerage that deals in mutual
funds, stocks and other investments.
The brokerage was incorporated by Martin W. May in
1991 when he was head of sales
operations at Brokers Investment, papers from the
secretary of state and court
proceedings show. May, 42, is a third defendant in the
SEC's lawsuit against Brokers, and
is currently negotiating a separate settlement with
the SEC, the agency said.

[Raymond H. Niesslein], 37, is a longtime associate of
Steinberg. Niesslein has not been
accused of any wrongdoing by the SEC in the Brokers
Investment case. Before joining
Brokers, he worked with Steinberg at a Canoga Park
brokerage selling oil and gas deals. In
1984, Niesslein and Steinberg were disciplined by
regulators in Wisconsin and California,
and without admitting or denying guilt, they agreed to
stop selling unregistered securities.

Full Text:
(Copyright, The Times Mirror Company; Los Angeles
Times 1993all Rights reserved)

Norman D. Shubert and Daniel H. Steinberg, accused by
the Securities and Exchange Commission in a
complaint filed in federal court last spring of
running a huge boiler-room operation in Woodland
Hills,
have agreed to a federal order that bars them from the
brokerage industry for life.

The SEC order prohibits Shubert and Steinberg, both
Calabasas residents, from "association with any
broker, dealer, municipal securities dealer,
investment adviser or investment company." Shubert,
61, and
Steinberg, 37, signed the administrative order without
admitting or denying guilt, and it took effect July
29.

Steinberg said the cost of fighting the SEC was one
reason he agreed to the ban. "I was left with few
alternatives." Steinberg now works at a memorabilia
business in Tarzana called American Legacy. "I'm
out of the securities industry."

Shubert did not return telephone calls for this story.

The SEC order is the latest, and strongest, regulatory
action against the former owners of now-defunct
Brokers Investment Corp. in Woodland Hills. And it may
have been prompted by reports that Shubert
and Steinberg have been involved with a new brokerage
called William Lawrence Securities, also in
Woodland Hills, which was formed by executives at
Brokers Investment as regulators were closing in
on that firm.

It was last year when the SEC initially suspected that
Brokers Investment was violating securities law.
In April the SEC alleged in Los Angeles federal court
that Shubert and Steinberg were running a
nationwide scam in which Brokers Investment, along
with an obscure San Diego firm called U.S.
Fiberline Communications, defrauded investors of at
least $40 million by selling dubious investments in
telecommunications. The SEC said Brokers' salesmen
raised $109 million from 6,000 investors by
reading sales scripts that talked about annual returns
of up to 32%, and that $40 million was pocketed or
fraudulently used by Shubert, Steinberg and others.

An SEC investigation is still determining how much
money is missing and where it went. Pending that
report, expected by year-end, the defendants could be
forced to make restitution to investors and pay
civil penalties.

In April of this year, Shubert and Steinberg signed an
SEC consent order, without admitting or denying
guilt, promising not to sell unregistered securities
or break any other securities law. And under pressure
from the SEC, Brokers Investment shut down last
spring.

But as Brokers was winding down its business early
this year, William Lawrence was setting up shop in
Woodland Hills, just down the street from where
Brokers once operated in Warner Center. When
William Lawrence opened for business in early spring,
Shubert had an office in the back of that
brokerage.

Although Shubert and Steinberg had no official titles
at William Lawrence, they held a reception for its
opening, and Shubert attended regular meetings at the
new brokerage, according to an internal company
memo and former employees at William Lawrence. The
SEC, when asked about Shubert's presence at
William Lawrence earlier this summer, simply said he
should not be there.

William Lawrence, in materials sent to former clients
of Brokers Investment, described itself as a
complete brokerage that deals in mutual funds, stocks
and other investments. The brokerage was
incorporated by Martin W. May in 1991 when he was head
of sales operations at Brokers Investment,
papers from the secretary of state and court
proceedings show. May, 42, is a third defendant in the
SEC's lawsuit against Brokers, and is currently
negotiating a separate settlement with the SEC, the
agency said.

May was secretary and treasurer at William Lawrence,
but recently resigned from those posts and is
now working as a broker at William Lawrence, said
Raymond H. Niesslein, formerly senior vice
president at Brokers and now president of William
Lawrence.

Niesslein confirmed that former Brokers Investment
personnel made the move to William Lawrence
early this year, taking with them some active accounts
and client lists from Brokers Investment.
Niesslein also said that Shubert had maintained an
office at William Lawrence.

However, Niesslein said in an interview that Shubert
had moved out of William Lawrence's office in
early July and that Shubert now has no involvement
with the brokerage. Asked what Shubert had been
doing at William Lawrence's offices, Niesslein said,
"he had a lot of things he had to wind up, and we
allowed him to lease some office space."

Niesslein added: "We have a lot of old baggage. We're
trying to eliminate it."

It was Shubert who formed Brokers Investment in 1985
as a discount brokerage, and a couple of years
later Steinberg and Niesslein joined him. From 1989 to
mid-1992, Brokers sold mainly limited
partnerships that were supposed to be invested in U.S.
Fiberline's projects.

Niesslein, 37, is a longtime associate of Steinberg.
Niesslein has not been accused of any wrongdoing by
the SEC in the Brokers Investment case. Before joining
Brokers, he worked with Steinberg at a Canoga
Park brokerage selling oil and gas deals. In 1984,
Niesslein and Steinberg were disciplined by regulators
in Wisconsin and California, and without admitting or
denying guilt, they agreed to stop selling
unregistered securities.

But there are signs that regulators are now looking
into activities at William Lawrence, which is selling
some investment deals that were originally designed
and marketed by Brokers Investment.

Complaints have been filed by investors with the
National Assn. of Securities Dealers-a regulatory
group based in Washington-involving William Lawrence.
The NASD typically investigates investor
complaints.

Aaron Rose, a former William Lawrence broker, said a
compliance officer with the NASD last month
questioned him extensively about William Lawrence's
use of sales scripts-or prepared materials that are
read to potential investors.

The NASD declined to comment on whether it was
investigating William Lawrence. But a regional
official at the NASD said it was responding to some
complaints from clients of William Lawrence.

Rose and other former employees at William Lawrence
provided to The Times copies of scripts that
they said were furnished by managers at William
Lawrence. In one set of scripts, designed for a
boat-leasing deal called IBS Financial Partners,
brokers at William Lawrence were told to tell
potential
investors: "IBS is certain that they can place easily,
$4 million per month from April throughout the rest
of 1993 and can double that number in 1994. . . .
Based on these numbers" investors "could have three
times their investment in just two years."

Such scripts, though marked "for training purposes
only," were read verbatim by salesmen, former
William Lawrence employees said. Earlier this month,
Michael Burnett, a Louisville, Ky., businessman
who is an IBS director, confirmed that IBS, which is a
start-up operation, has yet to produce any
revenue. NASD rules strictly prohibit presenting
optimistic or unrealistic forecasts about investments.

Niesslein, the president of William Lawrence,
acknowledged the existence of such sales scripts, but
said
that in the last month he had discarded them and is
instructing brokers at William Lawrence not to read
training materials over the phone. "We know where
Brokers Investment got in trouble and don't want to
repeat their mistakes," Niesslein said.

Finding investors for the IBS partnership was
originally handled by Brokers Investment and then was
marketed by William Lawrence, Niesslein said.
According to the prospectus, IBS, a
Nevada-incorporated business formed partly by Shubert
and Steinberg, signs agreements with boat
manufacturers. In turn, the boat makers agree to lease
boats to people through IBS, for which IBS
receives certain fees. The prospectus, dated in
February, said Shubert and Steinberg are general
partners in IBS, meaning they are part of the
management team and entitled to benefit from the
performance of the business.

Burnett said Shubert and Steinberg resigned as general
partners of the business last spring, although
they remain minority shareholders. But the change has
not yet been recorded with the secretary of
state's office in California, which such partnerships
must do within 30 days of the change. Burnett said
failure to record the management change was an
"oversight" and that it is now being addressed.

Shubert, as recently as June, was also soliciting
money from investors for another deal that Brokers
sold
late last year, according to letters sent out to
potential investors. That deal was designed to raise
more
than $1 million to finance a firm called Berleca USA,
which wanted to market apparel using the
Coca-Cola name under a license agreement with the
beverage company.

According to the prospectus, Berleca is partly owned
by Shubert, and the program is managed by
Sovereign Capital Group of Las Vegas, which is also
owned by Shubert and was the managing partner
of some Fiberline deals. Coca-Cola, based in Atlanta,
declined to comment.

In a letter dated June 8, Shubert told investors that
Berleca was not performing well, and he concluded
by saying: "Should any of you have the ability and the
interest in providing bridge financing to Berleca,
please contact Warner Capital Group, their investment
banker."

State records show Warner Capital is owned by Thomas
Shubert, Norman Shubert's son. Warner
Capital operates in the back end of William Lawrence's
offices.

Niesslein said Thomas Shubert, who also previously
worked at Brokers Investment, was not involved in
any way with William Lawrence. Thomas Shubert refused
to comment.

[Illustration]
PHOTO: Office of William Lawrence Securities, which
opened near Brokers Investment in Woodland Hills. /
Los
Angeles Times; PHOTO: Daniel H. Steinberg and Norman
D. Shubert, former owners of now-defunct Brokers
Investment Corp., pictured on VICA magazine cover.

Sub Title:
[Valley Edition]
Start Page:
4
ISSN:
04583035



To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (2504)2/24/2002 6:20:19 PM
From: StockDung  Respond to of 12465
 
MORE INFORMATION ON MICHAEL (HONEST BUSINESS MAN) MARKCOW

State of California DEPARTMENT OF CORPORATIONS
File No. ALPHA

TO: WORLDWIDE CORPORATE FINANCE

MICHAEL C. GROSSMAN

MICHAEL M. MARKOW

15760 Ventura Blvd Suite 100

Encino, CA 91436

DESIST AND REFRAIN 0RDER

Pursuant to Section 25532 of the California Corporate Securities Law of 1968, you are hereby ordered to desist and refrain from the further offer or sale in the State of California of securities, including but not limited to, stock in NATIONAL QUALITY CARE, INC., for the reason that, in the opinion of the Commissioner of Corporations of the State of California, the sale of such securities is subject to qualification under said law and such securities are being or have been offered for sale without first being so qualified, and the Commissioner of Corporations of the State of California finds that this Order is necessary in the public interest for the protection of investors and is consistent with the purposes of the policy and provisions of the Corporate Secutitles Law of 1968.

Dated: May 15, 1998
Los Angeles, California

DALE E. BONNER
Commissioner of Corporations

By:

Alan S. Weinger
Supervising Counsel

NQCI (FORMER CONFORMED NAME: SARGENT INC)
S-8 06/14/1996

700,000 options @ $1.00

note Woodland Hills Address.....Markow's Worldwide Corporate Finance old address
kepler.ss.ca.gov

freeedgar.com

2. METHOD OF EXERCISE. The Option may be exercised pursuant thereto by
written notice to the Company stating the number of shares with respect to which
the Option is being exercised, together with payment in full, by certified or
cashier's check payable to the order of the Company, of the purchase price for
the number of Shares being purchased. If requested by the Board of Directors,
prior to the delivery of any Shares, the Optionee shall supply the Board of
Directors with a representation that the Shares are not being acquired with a
view to distribution and will be sold or otherwise disposed of only in
accordance with applicable federal and state statutes, rules and regulations.

NQCI S-8 02/19/1997

200,000 options @ $0.25

freeedgar.com

10. RESTRICTIONS ON SALE OF SHARES. Optionee represents and agrees that,
upon Optionee's exercise of the Option in whole or part, unless there is in
effect at that time under the Securities Act of 1933 a registration statement
relating to the shares issued to him, he will acquire the shares issuable upon
exercise of this Option for the purpose of investment and not with a view to
their resale or further distribution, and that upon each exercise thereof
Optionee will furnish to the Company a written statement to such effect,
satisfactory to the Company in form and substance. Optionee agrees that any
certificates issued upon exercise of this Option may bear a legend indicating
that their transferability is restricted in accordance with applicable state or
federal securities law. Any person or persons entitled to exercise this Option
under the provisions of Paragraphs 5 and 6 hereof shall, upon each exercise of
the Option under circumstances in which Optionee would be required to furnish
such a written statement, also furnish to the Company a written statement to the
same effect, satisfactory to the Company in form and substance.

NQCI S-8 POS Filing Date: 4/28/1997

70,000 optios @ $0.75

freeedgar.com

12. RESTRICTIONS ON SALE OF SHARES. Optionee represents and agrees that,
upon Optionee's exercise of the Option in whole or part, unless there is in
effect at that time under the Securities Act of 1933 a registration statement
relating to the shares issued to him, he will acquire the shares issuable upon
exercise of this Option for the purpose of investment and not with a view to
their resale or further distribution, and that upon each exercise thereof
Optionee will furnish to the Company a written statement to such effect,
satisfactory to the Company in form and substance. Optionee agrees that any
certificates issued upon exercise of this Option may bear a legend indicating
that their transferability is restricted in accordance with applicable state or
federal securities law. Any person or persons entitled to exercise this Option
under the provisions of Paragraphs 5 and 6 hereof shall, upon each exercise of
the Option under circumstances in which Optionee would be required to furnish
such a written statement, also furnish to the Company a written statement to the
same effect, satisfactory to the Company in form and substance.

NQCI S-8 Filing Date: 4/28/1997

590.000 options @ $0.25

freeedgar.com

10. RESTRICTIONS ON SALE OF SHARES. Optionee represents and agrees that,
upon Optionee's exercise of the Option in whole or part, unless there is in
effect at that time under the Securities Act of 1933 a registration statement
relating to the shares issued to him, he will acquire the shares issuable upon
exercise of this Option for the purpose of investment and not with a view to
their resale or further distribution, and that upon each exercise thereof
Optionee will furnish to the Company a written statement to such effect,
satisfactory to the Company in form and substance. Optionee agrees that any
certificates issued upon exercise of this Option may bear a legend indicating
that their transferability is restricted in accordance with applicable state or
federal securities law. Any person or persons entitled to exercise this Option
under the provisions of Paragraphs 5 and 6 hereof shall, upon each exercise of
the Option under circumstances in which Optionee would be required to furnish
such a written statement, also furnish to the Company a written statement to the
same effect, satisfactory to the Company in form and substance.

NQCI S-8 Filing Date: 7/29/1997

100,000 options @ 0.75

freeedgar.com

10. RESTRICTIONS ON SALE OF SHARES. Optionee represents and agrees that,
upon Optionee's exercise of the Option in whole or part, unless there is in
effect at that time under the Securities Act of 1933 a registration statement
relating to the shares issued to him, he will acquire the shares issuable upon
exercise of this Option for the purpose of investment and not with a view to
their resale or further distribution, and that upon each exercise thereof
Optionee will furnish to the Company a written statement to such effect,
satisfactory to the Company in form and substance. Optionee agrees that any
certificates issued upon exercise of this Option may bear a legend indicating
that their transferability is restricted in accordance with applicable state or
federal securities law. Any person or persons entitled to exercise this Option
under the provisions of Paragraphs 5 and 6 hereof shall, upon each exercise of
the Option under circumstances in which Optionee would be required to furnish
such a written statement, also furnish to the Company a written statement to the
same effect, satisfactory to the Company in form and substance.

NQCI S-8 Filing Date: 8/29/1997

260,000 options @ $0.27

freeedgar.com

10. RESTRICTIONS ON SALE OF SHARES. Optionee represents and agrees that,
upon Optionee's exercise of the Option in whole or part, unless there is in
effect at that time under the Securities Act of 1933 a registration statement
relating to the shares issued to him, he will acquire the shares issuable upon
exercise of this Option for the purpose of investment and not with a view to
their resale or further distribution, and that upon each exercise thereof
Optionee will furnish to the Company a written statement to such effect,
satisfactory to the Company in form and substance. Optionee agrees that any
certificates issued upon exercise of this Option may bear a legend indicating
that their transferability is restricted in accordance with applicable state or
federal securities law. Any person or persons entitled to exercise this Option
under the provisions of Paragraphs 5 and 6 hereof shall, upon each exercise of
the Option under circumstances in which Optionee would be required to furnish
such a written statement, also furnish to the Company a written statement to the
same effect, satisfactory to the Company in form and substance

NQCI S-8 Filing Date: 2/27/1998

100,000 options @ $0.40

freeedgar.com

10. RESTRICTIONS ON SALE OF SHARES. Optionee represents and agrees
that, upon Optionee's exercise of the Option in whole or part, unless there
is in effect at that time under the Securities Act of 1933 a registration
statement relating to the shares issued to him, he will acquire the shares
issuable upon exercise of this Option for the purpose of investment and not
with a view to their resale or further distribution, and that upon each
exercise thereof Optionee will furnish to the Company a written statement to
such effect, satisfactory to the Company in form and substance. Optionee
agrees that any certificates issued upon exercise of this Option may bear a
legend indicating that their transferability is restricted in accordance with
applicable state or federal securities law. Any person or persons entitled
to exercise this Option under the provisions of Paragraphs 5 and 6 hereof
shall, upon each exercise of the Option under circumstances in which Optionee
would be required to furnish such a written statement, also furnish to the
Company a written statement to the same effect, satisfactory to the Company
in form and substance.

NQCI S-8 Filing Date: 4/1/1998

Various Warrants to purchase stock

freeedgar.com

10. RESTRICTIONS ON SALE OF SHARES. Warrantholder represents and
agrees that, upon Warrantholder's exercise of the Warrant in whole or part,
unless there is in effect at that time under the Securities Act of 1933 a
registration statement relating to the shares issued to him, he will acquire
the shares issuable upon exercise of this Warrant for the purpose of
investment and not with a view to their resale or further distribution, and
that upon each exercise thereof Warrantholder will furnish to the Company a
written statement to such effect, satisfactory to the Company in form and
substance. Warrantholder agrees that any certificates issued upon exercise
of this Warrant may bear a legend indicating that their transferability is
restricted in accordance with applicable state or federal securities law.
Any person or persons entitled to exercise this Warrant under the provisions
of Paragraphs 5 and 6 hereof shall, upon each exercise of the Warrant under
circumstances in which Warrantholder would be required to furnish such a
written statement, also furnish to the Company a written statement to the
same effect, satisfactory to the Company in form and substance.



To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (2504)2/24/2002 6:24:18 PM
From: StockDung  Respond to of 12465
 
**SPECIAL COVERAGE OF MICHAEL MARKOW'S HUGE PROBLEMS**

......."Portrait of an Honest Business Man."

........A litany of lies and a dossier of deceit

scan.cch.com

scan.cch.com

scan.cch.com



To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (2504)2/24/2002 6:27:12 PM
From: StockDung  Respond to of 12465
 
RE: MICHAEL MARKOW. State of California DEPARTMENT OF CORPORATIONS
File No. ALPHA

TO: WORLDWIDE CORPORATE FINANCE

MICHAEL C. GROSSMAN

MICHAEL M. MARKOW

15760 Ventura Blvd Suite 100

Encino, CA 91436

DESIST AND REFRAIN 0RDER

Pursuant to Section 25532 of the California Corporate Securities Law of 1968, you are hereby ordered to desist and refrain from acting as a broker-dealer in the State of California in vlolation of Section 25210 of the Corporations Code of the State of California, unless and until you have been licensed as such under said law or unless exempt, for the reason that in the opinion of the Commissioner of Corporations of the State of California you are acting or have acted as a broker-dealer in violation of section 25210, and the Commissioner of Corporations of the State of California finds that this Order is necessary, in the public interest and for the protection of investors consistent with the purposes of the policy and provisions of the Corporate Secutitles Law of 1968.

Dated: May 15, 1998
Los Angeles, California

DALE E. BONNER
Commissioner of Corporations

By:

Alan S. Weinger
Supervising Counsel



To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (2504)2/26/2002 8:57:30 AM
From: StockDung  Respond to of 12465
 
RE: EGBT & Spadeboy

newsop.net

LesLFrench
Veteran Reporter
User # 3

User Rated:

posted 02-24-2002 12:12 AM

Jeffrey Sonn seems to be an honorable man. He is the attorney representing Eagle Building
Technologies (EGBT) in its lawsuit against SPADEBOY, an anonymous poster on Raging Bull's message
board. SPADEBOY posted a series of 9 messages in a single day last December, forewarning investors
that EGBT was a house of cards ready to collapse, calling it a "pyramid scheme". In the messages, SB
pointed out that he/she was not able to short the stock (EGBT cannot legally be shorted by a U.S.
person because it is not marginable) but that SB would have if it was possible.

Instead of heeding SB's warnings, the Company instead appeared online almost instantly, threatening
to sue SB. Then on December 11, 2001, EGBT filed an 8-K with the SEC, announcing that EGBT had
filed suit against the anonymous poster.

John Does Anonymous Foundation (JDAF) was contacted the next day by SB, requesting legal
referral/assistance. I checked with Raging Bull, who informed me that RB had not been served with a
subpoena for any discovery from EGBT. So I called Mr. Sonn to see what his intentions were relating to
discovery.

I believe Mr. Sonn to be genuine in his capacity as attorney for EGBT. As a securities lawyer, he has to
be cognizant of BOTH his client's interests, and the law. We spoke for about 30 minutes. The gist of
the debate was my position that SB's internet posts were privileged. Mr. Sonn said that they were
intended to manipulate the price of the stock in favor of "shorters". I pointed out that, according to the
posts, SB had not "shorted" the stock. I also pointed out that no reasonable person would base an
investment decision on opinions posted on the internet by an anonymous person known as
"SPADEBOY".

Still, EGBT sued SB, claiming SB shorted the stock, and disparaged it by calling EGBT a "pyramid
scheme". I proposed to EGBT, that if we produced SB's trading records, with name redacted, showing
that their allegations were false, that they drop the suit. I even proposed to disclose SB's identity to
outside counsel, predicated that no one inside the corporation, or its house counsel, would have access
to that information. EGBT declined.

EGBT served a Florida subpoena on Raging Bull, a Massachusetts company. As soon as I received
notification of the subpoena from RB's legal department, JDAF connected SB with Lyrissa Lidsky,
Associate Professor at Levin School of Law, University of Florida, who agreed to represent SB. Dr.
Lidsky further attempted to negotiate reason with EGBT, but EGBT failed to respond and the
negotiations broke down. A motion to quash the subpoena was filed and a hearing is set for early next
month.

In the meantime, SB's disclosures have begun to come true. First, a scandal arose on the RB message
board, disclosing that EGBT President and CEO Anthony D'Amato had lied about obtaining a business
administration degree at CW Post College, a university in New York. In fact, the registrar's office had no
record of his attendance there. The company's web site was amended to say that D'Amato "had
attended classes" there, but no further details were given.

Shortly after revelation of the D'Amato college degree scam broke on the Raging Bull message board
several weeks ago, D'Amato had to be checked into the psychiatric ward of a South Florida hospital
after suffering from suicidal ideation, and an apparent suicide attempt. No one from the company
claims to have been in contact with Mr. D'Amato. D'Amato checked out of the hospital this past week,
and has not been heard from since.

The company has now admitted that it produced fraudulent financial reports. One of its directors, a Mr.
Meyer Berman, in what a appears to be a last-ditch effort to patch up the hole in EGBT's sinking rubber
raft, told a news reporter that the company had been scammed by its CEO, Mr. D'Amato, from false
reports of overseas transactions. Mr. Berman called the offshore earnings reports "fraudulent". On
February the 14th, the company filed an 8-K, stating that it had requested the SEC to intervene, by
suspending the company's stock. The 8-K was signed by a director, a Mr. Ron Lakey, who is also listed
as the company's treasurer and chief financial officer. However, under what authority Mr. Lakey signed
and filed the 8-K is unclear.

Some of the regular touters on the Raging Bull board suggested that the stock was being halted. A
"halt" is an extreme measure, used on rare occasion by exchanges or the SEC to protect a company's
market for its stock, when unusual or uncontrollable conditions merit.

But instead of a "halt", the SEC suspended EGBT's stock from all trading for a two-week period. A
trading suspension, unlike a halt which is intended to protect a stock, is a tool used by the SEC for the
express purpose of notifying the public that the SEC has substantial reason to believe that publicly
available financial statements are inaccurate and potentially misleading. Furthermore, when the
suspension is lifted, a broker-dealer, before trading the stock, is required to inform the customer that
accurate financial statements may not be available on the stock.

Many brokers will not trade transactions on a stock once it has been suspended. A suspension also
means that EGBT, upon notice, could be kicked off its listing service, the OTCBB, an over-the-counter
quotation service which is managed by NASD. In an effort to clean up its scam-ridden reputation in the
penny stock market, the OTCBB recently revised its rules which required that a stock quoted on its
service maintain up to date financial filings with the SEC.

Even before SPADEBOY first posted in December, warning signals were evident. EGBT's former auditors
were charged with fraud in proceedings likely to end in criminal convictions. Although unrelated to the
activities of EGBT, investors should be wary of companies who use accountants who have been linked
to fraudulent activities, because it is well known on the street that the services of unethical accountants
are sought after by scam companies.

But perhaps the greatest caveat of all was EGBT's own news releases, following the 9/11/01 attack on
the U.S., proclaiming EGBT's entry into the anti-terrorist business. EGBT, a company which claims to
build low-cost construction structures out of concrete substances in offshore markets, announced that
it was marketing its own anti-terrorist software, to track money laundering by Al-Qaeda and other
terrorist money launderers. One has to wonder, in light of the fraudulent financial reporting, what
insight the management of EGBT has into money laundering? The company also purports to be
experimenting with terrorist identification baggage screening technology to be installed at airports. The
company touted a letter from Congressman Jay Inslee inviting the company to show up at the U.S.
Capitol and to demonstrate its technology before the joint committees on airline safety. But there is no
indication that EGBT ever demonstrated its miraculous new technology, even with the Congressional
invitation. My calls to Representative Inslee for comment have not been returned. Perhaps Congress
would better be served by having EGBT demonstrate its financial fraud techniques before the
committees investigating Enron.

Any rational person, given the above, would conclude that EGBT is a House of Cards, that is a "Ponzi
scheme", ripe for collapse. Yet EGBT persists in pressing ahead with its lawsuit against the prophet
SPADEBOY. A pattern that we have seen hundreds of times with the so called SLAPP corporations,
EGBT appears to pointing the finger at everyone except itself for its financial disaster.

Last week, EGBT's in-house counsel, a Mr. Carter, sent a nasty and threatening letter to Dr. Lidsky,
who represents the anonymous defendant, SB. The letter threatened to bring ethics charges against
Dr. Lidsky, for requesting that Lycos not turn over information on the defendant while settlement
negotiations are in progress. One can only imaging what Mr. Carter is thinking... after all, he does not
represent the company in the SPADEBOY case, and there is a great deal of question as to how much
authority a Florida subpoena has in a Massachusetts jurisdiction.

But if the revelations of Mr. D'Amato's attempted suicide and depression are not startling enough, new
information from a credible source reveals that shortly after the accusations of Mr. D'Amato's lying
about his degree surfaced on Raging Bull, that EGBT insiders, including EGBT's lawyers, began unloading
shares of EGBT stock that they owned.

First of all, why is EGBT giving stock to its lawyers? Isn't there a conflict of interest, there? How can Mr.
Sonn fairly conduct his duty to the company, and to the law, when he is being paid in stock of the
company? I have long advocated that lawyers, like auditors, must maintain independence.

Secondly, does not the sale of the personally owned stock, on the part of EGBT's attorneys, vindicate
the SPADEBOY defendant?

And last, but not least, isn't this what the SEC calls INSIDER TRADING???

Now that EGBT, through the public comments of Mr. Berman and Mr. Carter, appear to be attempting
to "repackage" the company as an honest company which was a victim of a dishonest manager, is
attempting to place all the blame on Mr. D'Amato. But the posters on Raging Bull aren't buying it. What
they want to know is, what did Mr. Berman and Mr. Carter know, and when did they know it?

We have to wonder, because it appears that the anonymous prophet known as SPADEBOY has done a
favor for the investors and to the EGBT board of directors by disclosing the fraud to the market. Are
Mr. Berman and Mr. Carter angry because SB reported the fraud before they did?

A more logical reason has been proposed by EGBT's critics on Raging Bull. They believe that, in fact, at
least one of the anonymous touters pumping EGBT's stock on Raging Bull is, in fact, connected with
Mr. Berman, if not Berman himself, who also turns out to be EGBT's largest shareholder.

Several years ago the SEC revised its rules, in an effort to deal with internet stock fraud, to prohibit
officers, directors, employees, consultants, and agents of a publicly traded company from commenting
online about the company or its stock, without first disclosing the identity of the person, and his/her
relationship to the company. The rules were amended after Systems of Excellence (SEXI) CEO Huttoe
was caught touting his own stock on an anonymous AOL stock message board. Huttoe, who ran SEXI
from the same Florida region where EGBT is located, is now serving his sentence in prison for stock
manipulation and other issues.

If the allegation is true, then at least one of EGBT's directors has been touting the stock of EGBT in
violation of SEC regulations, while other insiders have been selling. This is called "pump and dump".

If it is not true that Mr. Berman has been posting anonymously on Raging Bull's stock board, then we
can expect that Mr. Berman will want to publicly deny the allegation and clarify this situation. On the
other hand, if the lawsuit against SPADEBOY moves forward, we can expect some interesting
revelations to come from the discovery process.

Copyright 2002 Les L. French - All Rights Reserved.