Global 8 Environmental Technologies Inc GBLE

And now for the good stuff

[G8Shareholder]

From the shareholders website:


G8 may soon have a Nevada lawyer. The firm in question requested a two-week continuance, until October 1, 2010, while they review the case. If they take us on, they will represent us in the present action and probably in a clawback action against RB and his confederates.


Nevada's laws state that only a lawyer licensed by the state can represent corporations. Because G8 did not previously have money to hire a lawyer, it would have been defenseless if RB had not made the mistake of suing Daniel Wolf personally. Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez agreed that everything Dan said in his defense also applied to the company. There were limitations, however, to the steps Dan could undertake. These will be removed once G8 hires its own lawyer.


During the August 17th hearing Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez ordered the Plaintiff’s lawyer to:
(1) ship the company records to Daniel Wolf;
(2) As Mr Conrad said this would be difficult to do accomplish by September 20, he was to provide Mr Wolf with a privilege log.


More than a month has passed. Few records and no privilege log have been forthcoming. Only a fraction of the records have been sent and these are electronic copies rather than the original documents. There is very little financial information since 2005. G8’s records belong to the company, not Milverton Capital Corporation, the company owned by RB whose contract was canceled a year ago. Wolf is considering a motion for sanctions if RB doesn’t immediately comply with the court order.


Once we have a lawyer, G8 will also be in a position to demand the return of its assets - which were estimated to be worth more than $1 million in the June 30 2009 10-Q!


Can you imagine what a difference that money would have made a year ago? G8 would have been able to send out news releases, mailings and submit the SEC filings that it couldn’t afford. The company would still be on the Bulletin Board instead of the Pink sheets! G8 had a number of potential projects available before RB launched his legal onslaught last November. If the company had possessed the funds needed for an effective defense, it might have withstood these attacks and continued doing business. G8 might now be collecting revenue for the first time in its decade-long history. And even if we had ended up in Las Vegas, events would probably have unfolded much differently. (If you wonder what difference that would have made, look through the filings. The other side has yet to counter a single evidence of RB's wrongdoing that Dan has presented.) Even now the return of those assets could still make a tremendous change to this company’s future.


The questions surrounding the 2009 audit would also have turned out much differently if G8 had possessed that money. As you may remember, the company’s auditor (Richard Hawkins) now suspects he was given fraudulent information for the 2006 and 2007 returns. Hawkins said he could satisfy his suspicions by re-examining the records and doing the 2009 - even a shortened version would have sufficed - but G8 didn't have the money to pay him and RB refused to pay (even though he is withholding our assets!). Hawkins responded by revoking the audits he had worked on.


It now seems certain that this includes the 2005, as well as the 2006 and 2007 audits. If they go, the 2008 would most likely be pulled as well. (And I very much doubt that RB, who could have avoided this by paying $30,000 for a shortened version of the 2009, would be willing to fork out the $400,000 or so that it may cost to do all five audits.) The revocation process is taking awhile, as there is a great deal of SEC paperwork involved, but is expected to go through. This will most likely trigger a Cease Trade Order against G8 through-out the US.


Re the 2-2-2: (https://sites.google.com/site/global8net/home/news/2-2-2proposal) As I understand it, this has been talked about a great deal but Dan (who at this point is "the board") has to write up a formal proposal. To capsulize the idea: This is the formula for a compromise board, a "unity slate", that both sides would agree to vote for and that would take power until the next shareholder's meeting. We would select two members, the named plaintiffs would select two and we would have to mutually agree on two. The six would then choose a CEO, CFO etc from among themselves.


The 2-2-2 proposal does not eliminate the necessity of dealing with G8's legal problems. Whatever board gets in has a legal obligation to deal with these issues. Nor does the 2-2-2 proposal eliminate the necessity of a shareholder's meeting. We are facing problems that need to be decided by shareholders rather than the board.


Re preparations for the shareholder’s meeting: Judge Gonzalez gave the Plaintiffs freedom to set a date during the July 8 session, but they can’t do so until the SEC accepts their preliminary proxy. Their lawyer filed his latest version September 7. As per our next preliminary proxy: We finished answering SEC's questions weeks ago, only to find out they won't read them until we file our revised proxy. We are all volunteers and up to this point the proxy has been a lesser priority than contacting shareholders or raising money. (Both sides proxies will immediately become irrelevant if the named Plaintiffs accept the 2-2-2 proposal.)