EFF Medinex v. Awe2bad4mdnx case

Securities Class Action: MDNX Claims
by: caconsultant2000

11/01/00 02:34 pm EST
Msg: 2742 of 3576

 
Dear Shareholders and interested parties:

I would like to evaluate the possiblitiy of a securities class action after reading several months of messages posted to this MDNX board.

First, I require all written claims made by MDNX board memebers, corporate officers, shareholder investment literature, and SEC filings.

Secondly, I require any evidence that can prove that the written claims are falsely made with prior knowledge or no prior knowledge.

Thirdly, I need any and all MDNX inter/intra office memorandum, e-mails, that indciate that false claims were made to deceive investors.

Fourth, I need financial information regarding the persons responsible for making the false claims.

If someone is willing to compile this information then this case might be prosecuted.

CACONSULTANT2000

 Posted as a reply to: Msg 2739 by polinsider_again
 

Securities Class Action: Investor Fraud
by: caconsultant2000

11/01/00 03:00 pm EST
Msg: 2743 of 3576

 
Perhaps, an investor would like to state any false claims made by MDNX regarding SEC filings, printed investment literature, board or officer written statements, or any other communications.

Re: Securities Class Action: Investor Fr
by: caconsultant2000

11/02/00 11:51 am EST
Msg: 2748 of 3576

 
Dear trashman56:

I wish to thank you for your critical response.
Perhaps you may want to contemplate the following quesitons:

1. Do you believe in accountability?

2. Do you beleive in truth?

3. Do you believe in fairness?

4. Should investor fraud be tolerated?

5. What recourse does an investor have if
false claims have been made?

6. Is it possible that weasels manage
corporations?

7. Should directors and officers of
corporations be held personally
accountable for investor fraud?

8. Should public corporations disclose
truthfully information regarding its'
financial condition?

If the majority of your answers to the above questions is yes, then an ethical standard is established for the protection of the investor. If the majority is no, it is time for a mass tort.

The big question, is one motivated by unethically earned easy big money or does one honestly earn the financial rewards of a successfully grown corporation. Where do you stand trashman56?

I do appreciate your welcomed input vis a vis MDNX?

 Posted as a reply to: Msg 2745 by trashman56

Re: Securities Class Action: Investor Fr
by: caconsultant2000

11/13/00 11:29 am EST
Msg: 2798 of 3576

 
Dear naggingfishwife:

Say hello to Lynn Sarko @ KR for me.

The Royal Family has a history that forms patterns. The Arizona roots were transplanted to Idaho.

This case is ripe. Will KR be the first to file? What a about collectability? Some board members have very deep pockets.

I have a rather large case file of the Royal Family.

Happy hunting.

 Posted as a reply to: Msg 2797 by naggingfishwife

The Big Question: False Disclosures?
by: caconsultant2000

12/06/00 02:09 pm EST
Msg: 2962 of 3576

 
Is it possible that Netivations and or MDNX disclosed false information to investors during the Private Placement, pre-IPO or post-IPO?

I have read with interest from this board that false disclosures have been made. Where is the proof?

I have read all the "talk" but where is the action?

Perhaps, the case is one of past employees singing the blues. I do not believe that the Netivations or MDNX board of directors are capable of fraudulent disclosure. The Royal famliy live a modest lifestyle and are most concerned about the longevity of the corporation. Why would they be so shortsighted and forego long term rewards for short term gains? The Royal family members are major shareholders.

Is not the Royal famliy an outstanding family that is honest, founded in truth and of high moral character?

All I hear is rattling by past employees. Where is the concrete evidence?

Let me know what you think at AIAPASPECS@aol.com

Re: Anthony Raymond Paquin: Name Change?
by: caconsultant2000

02/08/01 11:24 am EST
Msg: 3224 of 3576

 
In response to verification of Anthony Raymond Paquin petition for name change, I offer the following:

1. The petition was reported in the Idaho Edition of the Spokesman Review under the heading of Kootenai County Court activities on February 6, 2001.

2. If you obtain a copy of the February 6, 2001
edition you will find the reporting of the petition.

3. Most probable, there exists only one Anthony Raymond Paquin that resides in Kootenai County, Idaho.

4. This is the same Anthony Raymond Paquin that briefly ran in the past Republican Primary against Congressman Helen Chenoweth-Hage. Paquin dropped out of the race due to, by his own quote, "dirt". He sent boxes of "dirt" to each of Congressman Chenoweth-Hage's offices shortly before Chritmas, nice gifts.

5. This is the same Anthony Raymond Paquin that filed various statements with the Federal Election Commission.

6. This is the same Anthony Ramond Paquin that owned Agency One and then sold it to become AMS.

7. This is the same Anthony Ramond Paquin that left a trail of problems in Arizona. One included a "Midnight move" according to a certain architect.

If you are not satisfied, please verify with a visit to the Kootenai County Courthouse and there you will find the petition.

 Posted as a reply to: Msg 3222 by truthseekker

Re: Medinex company policy
by: caconsultant2000

02/08/01 02:15 pm EST
Msg: 3230 of 3576

 
Thank you for the clarification. It is important to know that two Anthony Paquins reside in Kootenai County, State of Idaho. I hope that the Postal Service gets it right.

With the loss of $30,000,000 anything is possible. I would love to see the asset portion of Tony Jr.'s personal balance sheet.

 Posted as a reply to: Msg 3229 by susancuff  

Re: ?????
by: caconsultant2000

02/08/01 05:10 pm EST
Msg: 3233 of 3576

 
Dear ulna15:

Nope, I am not GS, Mr. Gary Strong. Good guess.

I am shocked at the extremely fast response of Ms. Susan Cuff that my post activated. It is nice to know that MDNX monitors this post.

Perhaps, Ms. Susan Cuff would explain why MDNX has lost $30,000,000? Would you care to tackle this one?

How about this one, when will MDNX be delisted?

Has MDNX paid Microsoft in the last six months?

Have any SEC complaints been filed against MDNX and or directors?

Based on current cash projections, when will MDNX run out of cash?

When MDNX runs out of cash, will MDNX seek additional capitol, else bankruptcy filing?

How many civil complaints naming Netivations/MDNX as a defendant are currently filed in state or federal court?

If a forensic audit occured, would certain officers be exposed?

Alas, so many questions and no answers.

 Posted as a reply to: Msg 3231 by ulna15  

Re: ???? Susan Cuff: What about this ??
by: caconsultant2000

02/12/01 11:13 am EST
Msg: 3248 of 3576

 
Dearest comeonbill:

My greatest hope is that I do not offend any individual associated with Netivations/MDNX.
Although, my interest as is the class of shareholders demands accountability and justice from the MDNX Officers and members of the Board of Directors.

Therefore, I continue to seek the truth about the Paquins past business history. If the truth causes criminal and civil action then so be it. Hence, the truth will surface.

The wheels of justice grind slowly but are completely thorough. Please review the Federal 1934 Securities Act that defines Officer and Director liabilities including the rights of the shareholders. Viva Securities Class Action.

Respectfully Submitted,

caconsultant2000

 Posted as a reply to: Msg 3247 by comeonbill
 

Re: Cacon: here is your answer..G'Luck
by: caconsultant2000

02/13/01 01:16 pm EST
Msg: 3254 of 3576

 
Dear truthseekker:

Thanks for the website address. What do you know about the law firm of Schubert and Reed?

Do you know if they have initiated an investigation of MDNX?

The area of law prctice of Schubert & Reed is a good fit vis a vis MDNX.

I see that a securities class action derivative complaint focuses on the officers and memebers of the board of directors.

The Paquins have an interesting business history in Idaho and Arizona.

I know that one board member has assets in the millions, therefore collectibility should not be a problem.

 Posted as a reply to: Msg 3251 by truthseekker
 

Re: Cacon: here is your answer..G'Luck
by: caconsultant2000

02/13/01 04:11 pm EST
Msg: 3256 of 3576

 
Dear comeonbill:

Perhaps you would be so kind to qualify any false statements made on this message board.

In time a shareholders derivative class action
would exonerate any malicious procsecution with offensive counterclaims. Therefore, how deep are your pockets?

Please just identify any false statements posted on this message board. Else, without such identification, you agree none exist.

Respectfully Submitted,

CACONSULTANT2000

 Posted as a reply to: Msg 3255 by comeonbill

Re: CACON..watch yourself
by: caconsultant2000

02/14/01 12:41 pm EST
Msg: 3264 of 3576

 
Dear alt999us:

or

Dear Jeff:

I would very much appreciate your identification of falsely made statements via caconsultant2000 as your post indicates. You should be specific, therefore continued duscussion can occur. Perhaps the truth will surface.

Just answer these two questions, if you please:

1. Did Tony Paquin in deed send Congresswoman Helen Chenoweth-Hage a basket of dirt as a Christmas gift before the Idaho Republican Primary, this is the primary that Tony dropped out of?

2. What was the significence of the "DIRT" as it relates to Tony Paquin, a Christmas card was supplied with the dirt?

I very much appreciate your response.

Respectfully Submitted,

caconsultant2000

 Posted as a reply to: Msg 3262 by alt999us

Re: CACON..watch yourself
by: caconsultant2000

02/14/01 01:30 pm EST
Msg: 3266 of 3576

 
Dear comeonbill:

If one were to contemplate the significance of several baskets of Christmas dirt sent to Congressman Chenoweth-Hage, as Helen desired to be addressed, the conclusion is obvious.

Relate the basket of dirt to Tony's exit from the primary. The logic is simple for those of you that are not political minded.

The business history of the Paquins therefore become a basis for any current and or future investigations vis a vis shareholder derivative class actions.

I agree that literal dirt will not cause a statutory violation but hence has meaning as to the character of the Paquins.

But then how many of us have sent dirt to a standing Congressman as a Christmas gift. I heard that the Christmas dirt would not even sprout any form of life. The Christmas dirt was even a loss.

For those of you that are unbelieving, this Christmas dirt story was reported in the Idaho Edition of the Spokesman Review.

Respectfully Submitted,

caconsultant2000

 Posted as a reply to: Msg 3265 by comeonbill
 

Re: CACON..watch yourself
by: caconsultant2000

02/14/01 02:11 pm EST
Msg: 3268 of 3576

 
Dear comeonbill:

The "digging" as you referenced in your post is ongoing. Hey, why don't you try and answer some of my questions. You certainly seem to be interested in my posts. I'll bet that you could provide some interesting answers.

Perhaps you can provide a definition of your screen name. I find it offensive.

 Posted as a reply to: Msg 3267 by comeonbill

!!!!!!! Attention Susan Cuff !!!!!!!!
by: caconsultant2000

02/20/01 02:33 pm EST
Msg: 3305 of 3576

 
Dear Susan Cuff:

Please respond to message number 3301 on this message board. You stated that MDNX legal counsel is monitoring this message board.

Therefore, based on your posted statement, MDNX must respond to message number 3301, else MDNX agrees that all posted messages are factual.

MDMX must identify any false statements contained in the posts, hence to allow retractionary posts.


Respectfully Submitted,

caconsultant2000

????? What is "Big Dirt" ???????
by: caconsultant2000

02/21/01 04:43 pm EST
Msg: 3313 of 3576

 
Dear dotcommie2000:

What is the meaning of "Big Dirt"? Can you explain what you mean or better yet, do you have any "Big Dirt"?

Any insight is greatly appreciated.


Respectfully Submitted,

caconsultant2000

 Posted as a reply to: Msg 3312 by dotcommie2000  

Re: Message from Medinex Systems Inc.
by: caconsultant2000

02/22/01 05:41 pm EST
Msg: 3325 of 3576

 
For the legal counsel that is monitoring this message board, say hi to all the esquires at Moffitt Thomas and Jeff Crandall.

Both law firms have been a wealth of information. Surprise, money talks as do attorneys.

Just for the board monitors:

1. How much does Medinex owe Moffitt Thomas currently?

2. Has Medinex reduced Crandall's monthly salary yet?

3. How many employees has Medinex fired as a result of posting to this message board?

4. How many in-house cheerleaders does Medinex pay as consultants?

5. Who has more liability, BPI or Medinex vis a vis the $50,000 push?

 Posted as a reply to: Msg 3316 by medinex_systems

Re: Message from Medinex Sytems Inc.
by: caconsultant2000

02/23/01 12:24 pm EST
Msg: 3336 of 3576

 
Dear MDNX:

You have repeatedly stated, "The Company has taken legal action to enjoin the publication of unlawful statements and to redress its damages.", via posts on the message board.

So that postees/shareholders may retract said unlawful statements, please identify said unlawful statements. Without MDNX identification of said unlawful statements, MDNX agrees that no unlawful statements have been posted on this message board.

Additionly, please advise shareholders by defining exactly what "legal action" was taken by MDNX's legal counsel. It is important to current or future MDNX shareholders to know that any statements posted on this message board could enjoin them as a defendant in the current "legal action". Without identification of any alleged unlawful statements, any posting shareholders could be sued by MDNX.

Is is the policy of MDNX to sue shareholders? You should advise future MDNX shareholders that they also may be enjoined in legal action if they were to post to this message board. By progessing litigation against current MDNX posting current or future shareholders, MDNX will make huge PR gains.

 Posted as a reply to: Msg 3331 by medinex_systems  

Re: Message from Medinex Sytems Inc.
by: caconsultant2000

02/23/01 02:02 pm EST
Msg: 3338 of 3576

 
Yea, you are absolutely right as you have stated. The repeat message is not from (MDMX) it is from (MDNX). Either you are the fool or you can't repeat (MDNX), not good options.

What the hay, this is a good break from legal and year end accounting duties. I have a March 15th deadline to meet for corporate filings as you well know.

 Posted as a reply to: Msg 3337 by imthebest_here  

Re: Message from Medinex Sytems Inc.
by: caconsultant2000

02/26/01 12:08 pm EST
Msg: 3348 of 3576

 
Dear awe2bad4mdnx:

The legal deparment at MDNX that is monitoring this message board has only one priority. Your point is well taken that MDNX will sue to protect its'degrading stock price due to this message board as it alleges.

But, the MDNX legal department has other motives. The main concern is not degrading stock prices but the chill effect on postees who wish to disclose information that is hidden by the MDNX management. MDNX wishes to silence the truth.

The MDNX legal department is fully cognitive of the perfect defense of absolute truth to the claimed causes of action. Therefore, let them initiate litigation that will be used for SEC complaints and avered civil actions. The MDNX management might be stupit enough to pay its' legal department to create a litigational bulldog biting itself. After all MDNX legal department will generate more legal fees for itself. So, why not.

The closing thought, MDNX shareholder investment will be utilized to sue current MDNX shareholders which will inturn create more litigation naming MDNX as defendant. Moffitt Thomas and Crandall will make a killing. MDNX might have better ways to invest MDNX cash rather than to create more litigation. Could egos possibly overcome good logical business management?

 Posted as a reply to: Msg 3342 by awe2bad4mdnx  

Re: Message from Medinex Systems Inc.
by: caconsultant2000

02/27/01 11:16 am EST
Msg: 3356 of 3576

 
Dear MDNX:

Please define exactly what legal action that your legal department has taken as stated in your recent posts to this message board.

Without definition of above by MDNX, MDNX agrees that all statements are true and accurate as posted to this message board.


CC: ACLU

 Posted as a reply to: Msg 3355 by medinex_systems  

Re: caconsultant2000
by: caconsultant2000

02/28/01 03:25 pm EST
Msg: 3377 of 3576

 
Perhaps if you contemplate the Federal Securities Act of 1934, then perhaps you may deduce that MDNX has an obligation to shareholders or potential investors to disclose critical information that could adversely effect the shareholder or potential investor. I beleive that enjoining shareholders as defendants in protracted litigation would qualify.

Have you ever been sued for any of the causes of action that MDNX is claiming? Do you realize the defensive costs assocaited with this type of litigation?

The publicity following the ACLU defending this type of MDNX litigation against shareholders or potential shareholders would grealty help the share price of MDNX stock. What do you think?

Potential headlines,"MDNX sues shareholders and potential shareholders for disclosing truth". I have not seen any statements posted to this message board that have been identified as being false by MDNX or MDNX legal department. Have you?

 Posted as a reply to: Msg 3376 by awe2bad4mdnx  

Re: Attention all Morons and Non-lawyers
by: caconsultant2000

03/01/01 12:12 pm EST
Msg: 3384 of 3576

 
Just ask Donna Weaver if she would support TP in any future political candidacy.

Just ask TP about why the Christmas gift of dirt was sent to the Chenoweth Office.

Parting thought for today, remember that discovery goes both ways hence the specific verbage contained in the posts. If you do not understand it, I'm not going to explain it.

Sorry, I'm off to Chicago and I may miss the delisting announcement. This might be my last post since this board will then be shut down.

 Posted as a reply to: Msg 3382 by awe2bad4mdnx

File ACLU Complaint In Your Own State
by: caconsultant2000

03/12/01 07:00 pm EST
Msg: 3456 of 3576

 
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS MUST BE REPORTED

If any postees of this message board wishes to file an ACLU Complaint, go to the web address of www.aclu.org to find your state ACLU chapter. File your complaint with your state ACLU chapter as soon as possible before this board is shut down due to delisting.

File SEC Complaints @ www.sec.gov/
by: caconsultant2000

03/12/01 07:10 pm EST
Msg: 3458 of 3576

 
If you are one of the many Netivations/MDNX shareholders that shared in the $100 million share value loss, you can file a complaint with the Securities and Exchange Commission at www.SEC.gov/.

Report to the SEC any written or publicly disclosed statement(s) made by MDNX that you felt were false representations of the company's financial condition, sales, market share, custom base or any other misleading information. In other words, any disclosures made by MDNX that were false inducements to purchase shares of MDNX.

File Complaint: Idaho Attorney General
by: caconsultant2000

03/12/01 07:18 pm EST
Msg: 3459 of 3576

 
If you are a shareholder that shared in the $100 million share value loss and feel that MDNX disclosed misrepresents to investors and potential investors, you can file a complaint with the Idaho Attorney General Office or the Attorney General Office of your state of residence. The Idaho Attorney General's toll free number is (800) 432-3545.

Re: Potential Civil Rights Class Action
by: caconsultant2000

03/12/01 08:03 pm EST
Msg: 3460 of 3576

 
Perhaps you can identify where the accountability falls for the $100 million loss in share value. You have stated, "Don't blame everyone else, the Paquins included", then who is to blame, Donna Weaver? Donna and hubby have the deepest pockets vis a vis collectibility.

There will be accountibility in the matter, rest assured. In time the Courts will sort out this mess. The discovery phase will be a hay day.

 Posted as a reply to: Msg 3452 by theblazer5bucks  

Who are Beverly & Larry Enyart of AZ?
by: caconsultant2000

03/12/01 08:20 pm EST
Msg: 3461 of 3576

 
Perhaps, the Anthony Paquins can identify Beverly and Larry Enyart of Arizona?

I beleive the Enyarts can be found on page 100,000 of the Paquin history book. At least that is what I have been told by the Enyarts. Larry is a promient Arizona architect.

Who resided at 1730 E. Norther Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85020 ?

How about the following, who had ownership?

1. Omega Ineternational
2. Vision's Unlimited
3. Drafting Demostration
4. Sun City Shopper Saver
5. P.C. Services
6. Sun Mailing Co.
7. Sun Industrial Mail, Inc.
8. Q & A Communications, Inc.
9. Paquin Consulting
10. Panthera Systems, Inc.
11. Agency One
12. Paquin and Associates

Investigation is ongoing.