Other Weaver/Weare companies

Roy talks to Castor

Dear Raven,

I am sorry for the delay in answering and keeping up with things in a timely fashion. My illness has been hard to deal with, and I just don’t have the strength that I once had. My Doctors tell me this is not unusual when you have any type of heart failure. This is not my first time of have congestive heart failure, but I can say it was the worse. For totally recovery, I am told it could take six months or longer, but in my case they are not sure cause the most they say I will live is maybe one year. To me that was great news simply because it extended my life 6 months from what they told me two years ago October (they told me my heart would fail in one year unless I lived the perfect life of no stress and I didn’t do anything.

I feel they are all wrong, I feel I will fight and be around for many years beyond what they have all predicted.

Here is the case I was telling you about:

United States District Court Eastern District of Wisconsin

Case No. 01-MC-21

Case No. 01-MC-22

Case No. 01-MC-23

Hawkins

Weare

Movants

United States Securities and Exchange Commission

Respondents

This was a hearing held on May 4, 2001, for a hearing on motions filed by the Movants for an order pursuant to the customer challenge provisions of the right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978, 12 U.S.C. 3401 et.seq., quashing a subpoena dues tecum issued by the Security and Exchange Commission to North Shore Bank in Brookfield, Wisconsin. For the reasons stated at the conclusion of the hearing in open court the motions will be dismissed.

By the Court:

J.P. Stadmueller

Chief Judge

The reasons given were; (1) The SEC provided no proof or evidence of any wrong doing on behalf of Weare, Hawkins, Or J&k Global Marketing. (2) The SEC was on a fishing expedition attempting to find wrong doing with only mere rumors and suspicion to support their allegations (3) dates, times and events the SEC stated were not possible.

The SEC was provided ample time to provide proof to the courts in Grenada that J&K Global Marketing, LTD, had no intention of opening a Bank in Grenada. They and the bank, Allied General Bank, LTD., both were ordered by the court to answer J&K’s motion to admit or deny the fact(s) that J&K clearly was to be sponsored by Allied General Bank, Ltd., a bank that agreed to sponsor J&K with the bank name of LeGrande International Bank, LTD. In April, 2000, Allied Bank accepted a payment in the amount of $350,000.00 to secure J&K a Bank License.

In late August, Allied Banks officer contacted J&K and assured them that their license was approved and would be issued in September, 2000 and they should get ready to go into the banking industry. J&K the purchased Banking software, additional personnel, they sent an agent to Grenada to go over the facility for the bank (which was an office that would be shared with Allied Bank), computer connections, and other needs to have an adequate office to begin operations in Grenada. The cost to J&K for computer hardware, software, and additional personnel exceeded $150,000.00.

Allied there after came up with new excuses as to why the license was not issued but continually assured J&K that the license was approved and could be issued any day.

J&K Global Marketing, LTD., was informed by Allied Bank in Approximately March, 2001, that Allied was notified by the SEC to freeze all the assets of J&K Global Marketing, Corp., a Belize Corporation. As it was becoming more and more clearer to J&K, Allied Bank defrauded J&K of the $350,000.00 for the purchase and fee’s required by Allied, only assisted the bank on their fraud on J&K. The Bank encouraged J&K to open a J&K Global Marketing, LTD., a Grenada company, with Allied and stated the more money you have in our bank will make it much easier for the government to issue the license (which J&K was informed of many times that the license was approved, they were just waiting on it to be printed and issued). J&K followed the banks advice and opened an account within Allied Bank.

Allied fully was aware that the members within J&K were informed that the license was approved. By Allied not issuing the license, and J&K not able to provide to their members, they knew that the authorities in the U.S.A. would immediately claim fraud on behalf of J&K and issue an order to freeze all funds. The bank could then use the funds from J&K any way they felt they wanted to, without paying J&K anything for the use of their money.

J&K provided over whelming evidence to the court in Grenada, including a letter of admittance from the bank of the above facts. The bank has claimed that Allied never paid the State fee required and that was the reason the license never was issued. This was their claim when the case was first filed over 8-10 months ago. Then several months later, the bank issued a statement that J&K never had any intention of opening a bank.

The SEC filed in Grenada to join J&K lawsuit and they stood behind the bank in their claims.

At this time in Grenada, both Allied Bank and the SEC have failed to answer J&K claim(s) and J&K has proven without any doubt that the allegations from the SEC and the bank are false. J&K can now move for a default judgment against both Allied General Bank, LTD., and the SEC and the amount J&K is hoping for in the minimum of $21Million to as much as $72Million when damages are awarded (J&K is requesting a minimum of three times actual damages to as high as ten times for punitive). Damages were established by the SEC by taking a default Judgment in Denver, Colorado in the amount of approx. $7.1 Million without giving J&K any credit for the amounts paid by J&K which was a little over $3Million. (Paid back to members).

If our attorneys in Grenada were quicker in their actions, this would have already been completed 6-8 weeks ago. For some reason, attorney’s in other countries are slow in everything they do. It takes them weeks just to answer emails. If I was an atty., I think I would go to the islands, either they are so busy with mounds of cases, or they just have an easy life of leisure.

The SEC has violated the laws of the constitution to begin any case against us. If anyone reads their first filing, they cite an SEC law that states they can tie up your assets, and everything you own, purely on suspicion. In the U.S.A., by tying up all your assets, denies you the right to council. J&K paid an atty. $25,000.00 as a retainer and when that atty. Contacted the SEC one of the first questions they asked the atty. was if he was paid any retainer, When he said he did, the SEC informed him that those funds are frozen immediately and could not be used to defend us. Of course the atty. backed off and demanded other funding. The atty. tried to get me to cooperate with the SEC but at the same time he also informed me if I did cooperate and get into a meeting with them, to expect to walk out of their office penniless. It did not matter that we did nothing wrong, the SEC laws did not and do not follow the Constitution.

My personal goal is to retrieve all funds that have been seized illegally and refund everyone who has not received their funds as promised. Those who have been paid lost nothing. It will be a bookkeeping night mare but if J&K is the one issuing refunds you are at least assured to get your funds. If the SEC takes control you will be lucky to get pennies on the dollar.

Will J&K ever reopen, the system has made that impossible. Will Ken Weare/Roy Weaver ever become a participate in a different legal means to assist the people, yes. Will the new enterprise allow the SEC to have any jurisdiction within the upcoming program, NO!

I know a few members felt because of my silence that was proof of guilt. Behind the scenes and acting in a very discreet fashion was my only chance to end this once and for all. I had to prove J&K did fully intend to open and establish a bank, going to court within the USA I could not prove anything simply because everything was run offshore and court battles within those countries and prevailing was the only means I could prove our intentions.

I know 9 people had questions, and I hope this has answered if not most but all of you. More than likely you will not hear from me again until the final disposition occurs in Grenada. How long will this take? God only knows. Having both the bank and the SEC in violation of a court order in Grenada assists us to some day appeal the default judgment in Colorado, and have that order reversed some day.

In my personal opinion, the only reason Allied General Bank, LTD. and the SEC did not answer is simply they do not have any legal arguments that they could possibly come up to defend their past, current and future actions. J&K proved there case way beyond a reasonable doubt, (which is not needed in a civil case), and they had nothing to say without filing additional false statements without proof.

My silence was the best defense anyone could ask for. It allowed the opposition to file different documentation in different courts where they contradict them self.

I want to thank all of our members for staying loyal with us. I know that the SEC has placed a lot of pressure on a lot of people, to file complaints against us. From what I can tell, Sears gets more complaints on a percentage level yearly than we did. One question we noticed the SEC asked people was "would you have become a member if you knew that J&K had no intention of ever opening a bank" and of course their answer was they never would have become a member. The SEC considers that to be a legitimate complaint. By proving that was not the case, that made that complaint a moot point.

Thank you all again for standing with me. I will update everyone after the fact, I can not allow myself to let the opposition know what I am doing until it is either to late for them to change their story, or the case has already been ruled on by a competent court of law.

Kenneth Weare aka Roy Weaver

*****

A J&K member checked the courtcases at Pacer:

Here is the PACER docket entries of the 3 cases cited above, Weare, Weare, & Hawkins. The docket entries for both Weares are posted. The one for Hawkins is exactly the same. As one can see by the names these Weares don't have anything to do with Ken/Roy Weare, unless they are some relatives. It certainly doesn't have anything to do with J&K Global.

What is says is the following- The SEC issued a subpoena to the 3 respondants ordering them to divulge the contents of their bank accounts. These 3 persons filed a motion asking the court to quash (stop) the SEC from doing this. The judge found that the respondants motions, the Weares and Hawkins, were "dismissed for lack of standing." The SEC then got their court ordered motion to go into their bank accounts. Either Castor or Roy got things backwards.

******

U.S. District Court

Eastern District of Wisconsin (Milwaukee)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 01-MC-23

Weare v. SEC

Filed: 04/12/01
Assigned to: Chief Judge J P Stadtmueller
Demand: $0,000
Nature of Suit: 890
Lead Docket: None
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Dkt# in other court: None
Cause: Civil Miscellaneous Case

ELIZABETH WEARE Douglas R Stern
petitioner [COR LD NTC]
Stern & Ramthun
2600 N Mayfair Rd - Ste 400
Wauwatosa, WI 53226
(414)771-7780
v.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Karen J Shimp
COMMISSION [COR LD NTC]
respondent Richard M Humes
[COR LD NTC]
United States Securities and
Exchange Commission
Office of the General Counsel
450 5th St NW - Ste 6077
Washington, DC 20549-0207
(202)942-0811

DOCKET PROCEEDINGS

DATE # DOCKET ENTRY

4/12/01 -- MISCELLANEOUS CASE (eeb) [Entry date 04/13/01]

4/12/01 1 MOTION by petitioner Elizabeth Weare to quash subpoena

4/26/01 2 BRIEF by petitioner Elizabeth Weare in support of motion to
quash subpoena [1-1] (eeb) [Entry date 05/17/01]
[Edit date 05/17/01]

4/26/01 3 BRIEF by respondent SEC in opposition to motion to quash
subpoena [1-1] (eeb) [Entry date 05/03/01]
[Edit date 05/17/01]

5/2/01 4 HEARING MINUTES: by Chief Judge J P Stadtmueller on motion
to quash subpoena; petitioner's action dismissed for lack of
standing; no costs or attorney's fees awarded; court orders
that defendant prepare appropriate written order referencing
today's proceeding and submit to the court of signature.
Court Reporter: Diane M. (eeb) [Entry date 05/03/01]
[Edit date 05/17/01]

5/16/01 5 ORDER by Chief Judge J P Stadtmueller dismissing the
motion to quash subpoena [1-1] FURTHER ORDERED that this
order may be served on North Shore Bank by any officer of
the Commission who is specially appointed for that purpose
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c).
dismissing case (cc: all counsel) (eeb)
[Entry date 05/17/01] [Edit date 05/17/01]

Case Flags:
TERMED
1FILE

END OF DOCKET: 2:01mc23

*****

Docket as of January 28, 2002 12:54 pm Web PACER (v2.3)

U.S. District Court

Eastern District of Wisconsin (Milwaukee)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 01-MC-22

Weare v. SEC

DOUGLAS L WEARE Douglas R Stern
petitioner [COR LD NTC]
Stern & Ramthun
2600 N Mayfair Rd - Ste 400
Wauwatosa, WI 53226
(414)771-7780
Douglas L Weare
[COR LD NTC] [PRO SE]
7842 W. Appleton Avenue
Milwaukee, WI 53218
(414)463-0975
v.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Karen J Shimp
COMMISSION, United States [COR LD NTC]
respondent Richard M Humes
[COR LD NTC]
United States Securities and
Exchange Commission
Office of the General Counsel
450 5th St NW - Ste 6077
Washington, DC 20549-0207
(202)942-0811

DOCKET PROCEEDINGS

DATE # DOCKET ENTRY

4/12/01 -- MISCELLANEOUS CASE (eeb) [Entry date 04/13/01]

4/12/01 1 MOTION by petitioner Douglas L Weare to quash subpoena (eeb)
[Entry date 05/03/01]

4/26/01 3 BRIEF by respondent SEC in opposition to motion to quash
subpoena [1-1] (eeb) [Entry date 05/03/01]
[Edit date 05/17/01]

4/26/01 2 BRIEF by petitioner Douglas L Weare in support of motion to
quash subpoena [1-1] (eeb) [Entry date 05/17/01]
[Edit date 05/17/01]

5/2/01 4 HEARING MINUTES: by Chief Judge J P Stadtmueller on motion
to quash subpoena duces tecum; petitioner's action dismissed
for lack of standing; no costs or attorney's fees awarded;
court orders that defendant prepare appropriate written
order referencing today's proceeding and submit to the court
for signature. Court Reporter: Diane M. (eeb)
[Entry date 05/03/01] [Edit date 05/17/01]

*****

U.S. District Court

Eastern District of Wisconsin (Milwaukee)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 01-MC-21

Hawkins v. SEC

BECKI HAWKINS                     Douglas R Stern
     petitioner                  [COR LD NTC]
                                  Stern & Ramthun
                                  2600 N Mayfair Rd - Ste 400
                                  Wauwatosa, WI 53226
                                  (414)771-7780
                                  Becki Hawkins
                                  [COR LD NTC]
                                  7842 W. Appleton Avenue
                                  Milwaukee, WI 53218
                                  (414)463-0975
   v.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE           Karen J Shimp
COMMISSION, United States         [COR LD NTC]
     respondent                   Richard M Humes
                                  [COR LD NTC]
                                  United States Securities and
                                  Exchange Commission
                                  Office of the General Counsel
                                  450 5th St NW - Ste 6077
                                  Washington, DC 20549-0207
                                  (202)942-0811

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

DOCKET PROCEEDINGS

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

DATE # DOCKET ENTRY

4/12/01 -- MISCELLANEOUS CASE (eeb) [Entry date 04/13/01]

4/12/01 1 MOTION by petitioner Becki Hawkins to quash subpoena (eeb)
[Entry date 05/03/01]

4/26/01 3       BRIEF by respondent SEC in opposition to motion to quash
                 subpoena [1-1] (eeb) [Entry date 05/03/01]
                 [Edit date 05/17/01]

4/26/01 2       BRIEF by petitioner Becki Hawkins in support of motion to
                 quash subpoena [1-1] (eeb) [Entry date 05/17/01]
                 [Edit date 05/17/01]

5/2/01   4       HEARING MINUTES:   by Chief Judge J P Stadtmueller on
motion
                 to quash subpoena duces tecm; petitioner's action dismissed
                 for lack of standing; no costs or attorney's fees awarded;
                 court orders that defendant prepare appropriate written
                 referencing today's proceeding and submit to the court for
                 signature. Court Reporter: Diane M. (eeb)
                 [Entry date 05/03/01] [Edit date 05/17/01]

5/16/01 4       ORDER by Chief Judge J P Stadtmueller dismissing the
                 motion to quash subpoena [1-1] dismissing case (cc: all
                 counsel) (eeb) [Entry date 05/17/01]
                 [Edit date 05/17/01]

5/24/01 6       TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS re: Ruling of the court on motion
                 to quash in cases 01-MC-21, 01-MC-22 and 01-MC-23. (eeb)
                 [Entry date 05/24/01] [Edit date 05/24/01]

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

Case Flags:
TERMED
1FILE

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

END OF DOCKET: 2:01mc21

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws