Did Marc Jason Dannenberg manage your investments?
Al
Marc Jason Dannenberg (CRD #2569254, Registered Representative,
Thornwood, New York) submitted a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver, and
Consent pursuant to which he was fined $7,500 and suspended from
association with any NASD member in any capacity for 17 months and one
week. Without admitting or denying the allegations, Dannenberg
consented to the described sanctions and to the entry of findings that
he effected a transaction in the securities account of a public
customer without the customer’s prior knowledge, authorization, or
consent and left a threatening message on the customer’s home
telephone answering machine after he refused to pay for the stock
purchase. The findings also stated that Dannenberg made false
statements on his Form U-4 concerning violations of state investment
regulations or statutes. (NASD Case #C10990199)
SHEPHERD, SMITH & EDWARDS, LLP contact info below:
http://www.stockbroker-fraud.com/nasdr_data.php?eid=4786&tid=8445
Marc
Bill Clinton who was the biggest criminal in history? Are you kidding
me with this.
Long live Marc Dannenberg
Marc Dannenberg
Marc
Posting shit about me anonymously will not get you invited to Christmas
dinner. I know I will never meet you to bitch slap you as you are a
washwoman. This one infraction in my 12 years happened in 1996, for
those that care what a worthless individual posts anonymously. If you
have any questions about this infraction, feel free to call me at 011
34 952 853 542. If you are friends of Al, too bad.>
Marc
matter how it may be solved, will go down as "suspicious" in the
annals of the cold fusion and free energy crowd.
Give it a few years, and you'll be reading stories similar to those
about Stanley Meyer supposedly groaning "I've been poisoned!"
immediately before keeling over dead after inking a $50 million deal
to build research laboratories for his Water Fuel Cell.
Reply
Marc
probably owned AXP, OAT, ASND, PTEC, BRK, LEH, and you made an absolute
fortune.
Mike McWilliams
You sound sort of like a loaded weapon rather than a salesman. I hope
they are paying you well.
Dan Bloomquist
Marc wrote:
> However...
No numbers yet??? Why I'm I not surpirsed>>>>>
> Reply
I have, where are you?
Best, Dan.
--
Add one for email
Marc
I have posted a link to the chemical equation. What are you asking for
exactly?
Marc
Mike McWilliams
Posting a link to a chemical equation is insufficient. It would be more
useful to see:
Cost of technology
cost of input
cost of processing
cost of output
plus a comparison to existing methods (ie. the cost of coal)
they admit that they get 14% efficiency, and make a misleading statement.
"" It does, however, produce more energy in the form of hydrogen than
the energy input in the form of methane.""
Then it gets even more weird:
""It is important to note that the overall cost competitiveness of
hydrogen extends beyond hydrogen production to hydrogen compression,
storage, and distribution. The cost models are currently being expanded
to include these elements and involve some innovative hydrogen
distribution cost savings.""
I haven't seen any hard facts about this rather important part of the
equation.
It's also useful to talk about how the hydrogen is going to be used.
Transportation, electrical generating? Each of these has efficiencies
associated with them. If you take hydrogen from an admittedly
inefficient process, and then lose more through another energy
conversion, all of the sudden gasoline starts to sound good.
It's free too, it comes from the ground.
Dan Bloomquist
Marc wrote:
This is about turning a perfectly good fuel into hydrogen. And at what
cost? We have peaked in the production of methane on this continent. We
don't have extra methane for a 'hydrogen economy'.
See: 'Cost analyses'
http://www.esemag.com/0505/solar.html
Not a single number.
What of there claims to produce hydrogen from water? How do you separate
the oxygen from the hydrogen assuming a somewhat viable output. And what
of the cost to do this?
> Marc
Al
<michael.m...@drdc-rddc.gc.ca> wrote:
>they admit that they get 14% efficiency, and make a misleading statement.
>
>"" It does, however, produce more energy in the form of hydrogen than
>the energy input in the form of methane.""
Mike, a correction: They state that they get 14% more energy out in
the form of hydrogen than goes in in the form of methane.
Some would call this 114% efficiency (and they would make the
thermodynamicist in each of us cringe).
The long and the short of it is that for a measly 14% gain, you'd be
better off just burning the methane directly and using the solar
collector in a more conventional manner. I'd like to see a full cost
breakdown of the SHEC system, including full amortization of the
capital costs. I suspect it's not all that good.
But if your goal is not to produce energy, but rather produce
hydrogen, this process may be OK. (Especially if you're after
government grants and subsidies aimed at promoting "the hydrogen
economy".)
Marc
Al wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 07:19:21 -0700, Mike McWilliams
> <michael.m...@drdc-rddc.gc.ca> wrote:
>
> >they admit that they get 14% efficiency, and make a misleading statement.
> >
> >"" It does, however, produce more energy in the form of hydrogen than
> >the energy input in the form of methane.""
>
> Mike, a correction: They state that they get 14% more energy out in
> the form of hydrogen than goes in in the form of methane.
>
> Some would call this 114% efficiency (and they would make the
> thermodynamicist in each of us cringe).
>
> The long and the short of it is that for a measly 14% gain, you'd be
> better off just burning the methane directly and using the solar
> collector in a more conventional manner. I'd like to see a full cost
> breakdown of the SHEC system, including full amortization of the
> capital costs. I suspect it's not all that good
It's plenty good. I have the numbers, but certainly not to give out on
a usenet forum. I think you now have backpeddled enough
>
> But if your goal is not to produce energy, but rather produce
> hydrogen, this process may be OK. (Especially if you're after
> government grants and subsidies aimed at promoting "the hydrogen
> economy".)
they are a hydrogen producer, and they do it cheaper and cleaner than
anyone else.
Go SHEC.
Al
>Al wrote:
>> The long and the short of it is that for a measly 14% gain, you'd be
>> better off just burning the methane directly and using the solar
>> collector in a more conventional manner. I'd like to see a full cost
>> breakdown of the SHEC system, including full amortization of the
>> capital costs. I suspect it's not all that good
>
>It's plenty good. I have the numbers, but certainly not to give out on
>a usenet forum. I think you now have backpeddled enough
One of us is certainly backpedaling, and it certainly isn't me. I
point out the 14%, you scream that I'm misunderstanding things, then
you say oops, we're talking apples and oranges.
>> But if your goal is not to produce energy, but rather produce
>> hydrogen, this process may be OK. (Especially if you're after
>> government grants and subsidies aimed at promoting "the hydrogen
>> economy".)
>
>they are a hydrogen producer, and they do it cheaper and cleaner than
>anyone else.
>
>Go SHEC.
So, all your blather about how SHEC is our energy future was just
that: blather.
If you had numbers that supported your assertions, you'd certainly
post them.
Come on, Marc. This is a science-based hydrogen energy group. We're
big boys here. We can understand cost analyses in addition to the
thermodynamics.
Please show us how the capital outlay necessary to build and maintain
this SHEC process for a 14% gain in chemical energy is justified over
simply using the methane directly.
Marc
able to pick up the phone and call them. What is holding you back?
Bill Ward
wrote:
>No, Call SHEC. Very simple. If you guys were "big boys" you would be
>able to pick up the phone and call them. What is holding you back?
>
Not my job. You're the flake they're paying to pump the
stock, and you're too lazy or incompetent to present even a
moderately entertaining scam for us to laugh at. You are
pathetic, but still annoying.
Go away and at least try to get your act together.
Shoo.
Bill Ward
Marc
We'll see.
Flakes like me are the top 1 percent of this country.
Good Luck Bill, and I mean that.
Marc
Tim.Ward
Marc wrote:
> No, Call SHEC. Very simple. If you guys were "big boys" you would be
> able to pick up the phone and call them. What is holding you back?
Sci.energy.hydrogen is for discussing the science and technology of
hydrogen. It's not for generating "buzz" regarding the product you're
trying to sell.
If you want to discuss the technology, then present some results and
tell us why you think they're significant. The last time you tried
this, you didn't pay enough attention to what you were pointing to.
Some people may agree with you that they're significant. Others may
disagree.
Scientists and engineers are, by and large, a sceptical group. If you
make an extraordinary claim -- such as "This process will revolutionize
energy production" -- you should be prepared to show extraordinary
evidence that this is so.
I'm not sure why you'd want to bother, because you have repeatedly
expressed disdain for the opinions given by this newsgroup. Obviously,
it's not the forum you expected. You might be happier posting to one
of the alt.hydrogen or alt.solar groups.
I notice this thread is cross-posted into a couple of misc.invest
groups.
Followups have been set to sci.energy.hydrogen.
Tim Ward
davehowe17
You keep telling people to call SHEC, yet you yourself said earlier
that "I don't know what to think right now as SHEC Labs has not been
forthcoming with investors."
If they're not forthcoming with the people who've invested money with
them, what makes you think they're going to be any more forthcoming
with an anonymous voice from the Internet?
The more you talk about this company, the more it sounds like a scam.
People in sci.energy.hydrogen sure have poked holes in the "science"
behind it. It seems you're taking care of poking holes in the rest of
it.
Tim Ward
"davehowe17" <daveh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1120930867.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Not just sci.energy.hydrogen. He can't convince rec.uk.gardening, either.
Marc
No one has poked holes in their technology. Please tell me where you
see this. They have not been forthcoming in the terms of their money
raising but that is because they are not professional businessmen.
They are from the same area as the company and they have not raised
enough funds to bring the major change needed in Management to bring
the company to commerciability. There is no scam, Dave, as no one has
become enriched in 9 years. They will talk to you, and they have
learned a valuable lesson regarding Business in the real world.
Marc
Remember, people thought the world was flat as well, and they were
proven wrong.
Marc
Marc
Bet against them Tim, I dare you.
Don Lancaster
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email: d...@tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
Tim Ward
"Marc" <mda...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120941267.8...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
But not by you.
Tim Ward
Steve Spence
the time the world was flat and he would have taken you for an idiot.
It's like claiming the bumblebee can't fly story of recent times.
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
Dan Bloomquist
Steve Spence wrote:
> the whole flat earth thing was a "common" myth. Tell any fisherman of
> the time the world was flat and he would have taken you for an idiot.
> It's like claiming the bumblebee can't fly story of recent times.
>
Or claiming we can fuel today's world with crop fuels. It is all in the
numbers, ya think Steve?
> Steve Spence
Paul Vader
>Remember, people thought the world was flat as well, and they were
>proven wrong.
No, it's your head that's flat. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
Marc
Marc
You're a schmuck.
Marc
Dan Bloomquist
Marc wrote:
> Paul,
>
> You're a schmuck.
Pot, Kettle.
> Marc
Marc
you. All you do is beg for people to visit your bullshit site. Send
me a trailing 12 and we will see who is the schmuck, who is the pot,
and who smokes too much pot.
Marc
You slanderous pissant. You were wrong again. You poor bastard, you
have no balls and no sense. Come out and meet me. You are an idiot
Al, always were and always will be. The internet makes you strong, huh?
God help you if I ever run into your pathetic self.
Mr. Dannenberg,
This communication should clarify the email that I wrote in confidence
to Don Lancaster who has posted many of his views on the
Sci.energy.hydrogen forum on the internet. I respect Mr. Lancaster for
his knowledge and as I have stated that reference material from his
publications were used in the design process of the electronic control
systems used by SHEC-Labs has developed is propretary and if
individuals wish to learn more of the intricate workings or "numbers"
of our technology, a notarizd "Non Discloser Agreement" (sic) would
need to be put in place. I assure you, as validations and feasibility
studies have suggested, the science is innovative and complies with all
rules of Physics.
I have discussed my past email communication that was sent to Mr.
Lancaster with the management at SHEC-Labs and have been told that you
had at no time suggested an increase in your rate of commission, you
have suggested that SHEC-Labs give you 150,000 shares of our stock at
no charge for your past efforts and that you have in fact decided to
reduce your rate to 10 percent if you were able to raise more funds.
With respect to the 33.750 USD that was to be directed to SHEC-Labs and
SHEC-Labs never received, Mr Dannenberg apparently you were asked
several times to send confirmation that the funds had been returned to
the original owner and eventually you did fax SHEC-Labs communication
that on March 1, 2005 funds had been returned via wire transfer.....
I should also correct another statement. "The postings of this obvious
crook reflect badly on the hard work of SHEC's staff" I should not
have suggested that you Mr. Dannenberg area crook. (no shit)
Blah, Blah, it goes on to say how hard SHEC works and how they are not
a scam.
I will accept all apologies. For smart people, you sure are stupid.
It's not your fault though. It's your parents fault.