Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 11:36 am
that guy is lower than whale sh*t in the ocean............
Page 2 of 28
Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 11:54 am
He is so low that the whale sh*t on the bottom of the ocean would appear as a shooting star to his eyes?
Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 11:57 am
heh heh heh
Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 12:01 pm
Tanae?White Helmet wrote:Jacuzzi?
Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 1:05 pm
I know some Jaccuzis in Little Rock, but not a Shannon. One used to work with me. If I can locate her I will see if I can get some scoop.
Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 1:41 pm
Interesting that Vodicka has a history of running from process servers. Didn't he run away from one who was trying to serve him to get his inspectors' reports for the SMU attorneys?
Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 1:58 pm
None that you'll be seeing(or won't be seeing) this weekend.White Helmet wrote:Shannon Jacuzzi? What kind of porn was she in?
More info on Vodicka
Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 11:52 pm
From the Austin American-Statesman:
http://www.statesman.com/business/conte ... 4dobi.html
Here's a brief run-down...
Hot tip and high hopes; then the stock sank
Byron told Brian, who told Steve and Bobby and Ruben. Ruben may or may not have told Barbara.
Kids passing around schoolyard gossip?
Not quite. It's the way a stock tip buzzed through a network of friends in Austin last year, prompting some to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in a New Jersey company that claims to have the next big thing in breast-cancer diagnosis.
So far, the bets they made on DOBI Medical International Inc. haven't panned out.
Most of the Austin investors — who include Brian Vodicka, a retired lawyer and real-estate investor, and Bobby Inman, the acting dean of the LBJ School of Public Affairs — bought shares last year at the equivalent of $2 each in a special offering for wealthy investors. On Friday, the shares closed at 21 cents.
The collapse of DOBI's share price has prompted one lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Austin. The suit, brought by Vodicka and 27 other plaintiffs, alleged that the company, its former investment bank and a large shareholder engineered a scheme to drive up the share price so some stockholders could dump their shares.
That case was dismissed last month on procedural grounds, but another lawsuit is likely to be filed this week, according to the plaintiffs' new lawyer, Mark Kincaid.
DOBI officials contend that the plaintiffs are suing simply because they're upset over the low stock price and that they have no evidence the company did anything improper.
The story of DOBI shows that even sophisticated investors can sometimes put large sums of money into untested companies largely on the word of a friend of a friend.
It started at lunch in early 2004. Byron Hill passed on a tip to his friend Brian Vodicka.
The company's appeal was "the advances they were making in the industry, the technology design that could revolutionize breast imaging," Hill said.
"It had the potential to be a 10-bagger," Vodicka said, using stock-market lingo for a company whose share price rises tenfold.
That kind of return would help Vodicka recoup some losses from the recent bear market and allow him to donate to favorite causes such as symphony orchestras.
Vodicka says he didn't need the money. At 46, he has been retired from the practice of law for 10 years, having done extremely well investing in apartment complexes as Austin started to recover from the 1980s real estate bust.
DOBI Medical was a risky business because it hinged on one product, the ComfortScan. The company says the machine uses high-intensity light and gentle pressure on the breast to identify "vascular abnormalities" associated with malignancies. It "has the potential to improve the physician's ability to correctly diagnose breast cancer," the company says, and the scan takes just 45 seconds.
The ComfortScan was a long way from approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, not to mention acceptance by hospitals, physicians and insurers.
The potential was huge, though: 35 million mammograms a year are done in the United States. At about $140,000 each, the ComfortScan would cost up to 75 percent less than standard mammography machines, according to the company.
But there were less dazzling facts about DOBI:
•It trades on the over-the-counter exchange, a lightly regulated market for thousands of small companies that don't meet the financial standards of the major stock exchanges.
•The company has burned through $31 million, most of it raised from investors, in its six-year life while generating insignificant sales and consistently missing its own financial and product-launch forecasts.
The company says its auditors issued numerous "going concern" warnings, signaling their doubt that the company can survive without continued additional investment.
•An investment bank raising money for the company has been sanctioned by securities regulators, and its president was once suspended for 20 days and fined $35,000 for not disclosing that his firm, Sterling Financial Investment Group, had loaned money to DOBI and would be paid in company shares, according to the National Association of Securities Dealers.
•DOBI Medical's outside scientific expert, Dr. William Li of Cambridge, Mass., is a paid director for the company and owns 63,000 shares of its stock. Li also claims, in company documents, to be a Harvard Medical School professor, but Kate Butler, a spokeswoman for the school, said there is no record of him.
Vodicka said he trusted Hill's word on the company "because of his medical marketing expertise."
Vodicka decided to invest $400,000. And if DOBI Medical "was about to take off like a rocket," Vodicka said, "I wanted my friends to take off, too."
He spread the word to his wide circle of friends.
Vodicka's twin brother Gary, a Dallas lawyer, invested. So did their mother. Vodicka's housemate, Steve Aubrey, an outdoor lighting designer, says that he put in $150,000 and that his parents invested as well.
Inman, a former deputy director of the CIA, invested $150,000 after learning of the company from Vodicka. Barbara Hearst kicked in $250,000.
Psychologist Crowley, a friend of Vodicka's for 20 years, invested the most, $500,000, which he said is "a big piece" of his savings. "I was convinced beyond a doubt ,or I never would have done it," he says.
All told, Vodicka and his friends contributed a good chunk of the $5.1 million that DOBI Medical raised in its private placement in the summer of 2004.
When twin brothers Gary, left, and Brian Vodicka got their day in court last month, the federal lawsuit brought by them and 25 other DOBI Medical investors was dismissed on procedural grounds. Another lawsuit is likely to be filed this week, the plaintiffs' new lawyer said.
http://www.statesman.com/business/conte ... 4dobi.html
Here's a brief run-down...
Hot tip and high hopes; then the stock sank
Byron told Brian, who told Steve and Bobby and Ruben. Ruben may or may not have told Barbara.
Kids passing around schoolyard gossip?
Not quite. It's the way a stock tip buzzed through a network of friends in Austin last year, prompting some to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in a New Jersey company that claims to have the next big thing in breast-cancer diagnosis.
So far, the bets they made on DOBI Medical International Inc. haven't panned out.
Most of the Austin investors — who include Brian Vodicka, a retired lawyer and real-estate investor, and Bobby Inman, the acting dean of the LBJ School of Public Affairs — bought shares last year at the equivalent of $2 each in a special offering for wealthy investors. On Friday, the shares closed at 21 cents.
The collapse of DOBI's share price has prompted one lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Austin. The suit, brought by Vodicka and 27 other plaintiffs, alleged that the company, its former investment bank and a large shareholder engineered a scheme to drive up the share price so some stockholders could dump their shares.
That case was dismissed last month on procedural grounds, but another lawsuit is likely to be filed this week, according to the plaintiffs' new lawyer, Mark Kincaid.
DOBI officials contend that the plaintiffs are suing simply because they're upset over the low stock price and that they have no evidence the company did anything improper.
The story of DOBI shows that even sophisticated investors can sometimes put large sums of money into untested companies largely on the word of a friend of a friend.
It started at lunch in early 2004. Byron Hill passed on a tip to his friend Brian Vodicka.
The company's appeal was "the advances they were making in the industry, the technology design that could revolutionize breast imaging," Hill said.
"It had the potential to be a 10-bagger," Vodicka said, using stock-market lingo for a company whose share price rises tenfold.
That kind of return would help Vodicka recoup some losses from the recent bear market and allow him to donate to favorite causes such as symphony orchestras.
Vodicka says he didn't need the money. At 46, he has been retired from the practice of law for 10 years, having done extremely well investing in apartment complexes as Austin started to recover from the 1980s real estate bust.
DOBI Medical was a risky business because it hinged on one product, the ComfortScan. The company says the machine uses high-intensity light and gentle pressure on the breast to identify "vascular abnormalities" associated with malignancies. It "has the potential to improve the physician's ability to correctly diagnose breast cancer," the company says, and the scan takes just 45 seconds.
The ComfortScan was a long way from approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, not to mention acceptance by hospitals, physicians and insurers.
The potential was huge, though: 35 million mammograms a year are done in the United States. At about $140,000 each, the ComfortScan would cost up to 75 percent less than standard mammography machines, according to the company.
But there were less dazzling facts about DOBI:
•It trades on the over-the-counter exchange, a lightly regulated market for thousands of small companies that don't meet the financial standards of the major stock exchanges.
•The company has burned through $31 million, most of it raised from investors, in its six-year life while generating insignificant sales and consistently missing its own financial and product-launch forecasts.
The company says its auditors issued numerous "going concern" warnings, signaling their doubt that the company can survive without continued additional investment.
•An investment bank raising money for the company has been sanctioned by securities regulators, and its president was once suspended for 20 days and fined $35,000 for not disclosing that his firm, Sterling Financial Investment Group, had loaned money to DOBI and would be paid in company shares, according to the National Association of Securities Dealers.
•DOBI Medical's outside scientific expert, Dr. William Li of Cambridge, Mass., is a paid director for the company and owns 63,000 shares of its stock. Li also claims, in company documents, to be a Harvard Medical School professor, but Kate Butler, a spokeswoman for the school, said there is no record of him.
Vodicka said he trusted Hill's word on the company "because of his medical marketing expertise."
Vodicka decided to invest $400,000. And if DOBI Medical "was about to take off like a rocket," Vodicka said, "I wanted my friends to take off, too."
He spread the word to his wide circle of friends.
Vodicka's twin brother Gary, a Dallas lawyer, invested. So did their mother. Vodicka's housemate, Steve Aubrey, an outdoor lighting designer, says that he put in $150,000 and that his parents invested as well.
Inman, a former deputy director of the CIA, invested $150,000 after learning of the company from Vodicka. Barbara Hearst kicked in $250,000.
Psychologist Crowley, a friend of Vodicka's for 20 years, invested the most, $500,000, which he said is "a big piece" of his savings. "I was convinced beyond a doubt ,or I never would have done it," he says.
All told, Vodicka and his friends contributed a good chunk of the $5.1 million that DOBI Medical raised in its private placement in the summer of 2004.
When twin brothers Gary, left, and Brian Vodicka got their day in court last month, the federal lawsuit brought by them and 25 other DOBI Medical investors was dismissed on procedural grounds. Another lawsuit is likely to be filed this week, the plaintiffs' new lawyer said.
Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:10 am
With Vodicka's logic, maybe I can sue ConocoPhillips for the nosedive my portfolio's taken this month, right? 
Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:34 am
Such a lovely family..........This is why lions eat their young........
Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 8:09 am
Some library plans include condo site
Lawyer, university dispute whether SMU proposal nullifies sale
12:00 AM CDT on Thursday, June 8, 2006
By HOLLY K. HACKER and KRISTEN HOLLAND / The Dallas Morning News
For at least a year, Southern Methodist University has had a model of the George W. Bush Presidential Library that places part of the facility on land now occupied by a contested condominium complex.
But SMU didn't tell condo residents the land might be used for the library when the university declared the complex obsolete last June and ordered people to move out, according to papers filed Wednesday in a Dallas district court.
Gary Vodicka, the lawyer who filed the papers, says that lack of communication bolsters the central argument in a lawsuit he filed against SMU in August charging that the school fraudulently ousted condo owners so it could raze the buildings and make way for the Bush library. Mr. Vodicka says that SMU's tactics invalidated the sale, so he continues to live there.
SMU officials deny Mr. Vodicka's allegations and say they obtained the property, just east of campus, fairly last year.
"We believe we followed not only the letter but also the spirit of the law in doing so," said Brad Cheves, an SMU spokesman.
Mr. Cheves said SMU has several proposals for where to build the library, and at least one of them doesn't include the complex, University Gardens.
SMU officials have said that they do plan to raze the condo complex but that SMU has discussed several possible uses for the site, including intramural fields, student housing and the library. They also note that they started buying units in 1998, before Mr. Bush was first elected president.
SMU is one of three finalists, along with Baylor University in Waco and the University of Dallas, for the Bush library. SMU is considered the front-runner, largely because first lady Laura Bush is a graduate and trustee.
Mr. Vodicka, who lives in University Gardens and claims to still own his condo and three others there, argues that if owners had known the buildings would be torn down for the library, SMU would have had to pay them more.
Mr. Vodicka's claim that SMU has had a model of the library for at least a year is based on a May 31 deposition of Dana Gibson, SMU's vice president of business and finance, that was part of Wednesday's court filings. Ms. Gibson could not be reached for comment, but Mr. Cheves confirmed that the model existed.
In the deposition, Ms. Gibson said the university had the model when she started work at SMU last June. It was kept in storage at the time and was later moved to the Perkins administration building, she said.
She said that SMU President Gerald Turner, Mr. Cheves and Bob Bucker, an assistant vice president, took the 3-D model and written materials to Washington in November to present their pitch for the library to the selection committee.
Ms. Gibson also said in the deposition that the construction costs are estimated at $220 million.
In the deposition, Mr. Vodicka asked whether the model puts part of the library on the University Gardens site.
"A portion, yes," Ms. Gibson responded. But she added there were different options for where to build it, "depending on President Bush's decision."
The Dallas Morning News reported in March that SMU had hired architects to prepare a conceptual master plan of the library that tentatively placed it in the southeastern part of the campus, bounded roughly by Airline Road, North Central Expressway and SMU Boulevard. The condo complex is in that area.
In the papers filed Wednesday, Mr. Vodicka also disputes the cost needed to rehab the condos to make them livable. An engineering study he ordered put the price at $1.9 million, court papers show. An engineering study commissioned by SMU last year found it would cost $12.4 million in the first year - a figure Mr. Vodicka called "poppycock."
An SMU-owned company cited the high costs last year when it declared the condos "functionally and economically obsolete," a step needed to make residents move out.
Also in the court papers filed Wednesday, Mr. Vodicka wrote that SMU used intimidation to buy Park Cities Plaza, a shopping center near campus, at a low price for the Bush library or a related policy center. He included a 2004 letter in which a lawyer hired by SMU threatens to sue the plaza owners for soil and groundwater contamination of a nearby parcel owned by SMU.
Mr. Vodicka wrote that the shopping center was later cleared of those allegations, but he includes no documentation of that.
Mr. Cheves denied that the university used intimidation to get the shopping center, which it bought in December. At least one library proposal does not include that site, he said, and it could remain a shopping center for many years.
Mr. Vodicka's Wednesday court filings - all 1,085 pages - were a response to a motion that SMU filed in April to have the case thrown out. SMU contended in its motion that it legally bought University Gardens in December and can prove its ownership, so no trial is needed.
A hearing on the matter is scheduled for Wednesday.
Meanwhile, SMU and Mr. Vodicka are also pursuing mediation. The two sides are scheduled to meet with a mediator June 27.
"The question is, what's it going to take for us to settle all his [Mr. Vodicka's] claims against us?" SMU attorney Leon Bennett said. He said SMU is eager to demolish the condos because it costs a lot of money to keep them standing.
Lawyer, university dispute whether SMU proposal nullifies sale
12:00 AM CDT on Thursday, June 8, 2006
By HOLLY K. HACKER and KRISTEN HOLLAND / The Dallas Morning News
For at least a year, Southern Methodist University has had a model of the George W. Bush Presidential Library that places part of the facility on land now occupied by a contested condominium complex.
But SMU didn't tell condo residents the land might be used for the library when the university declared the complex obsolete last June and ordered people to move out, according to papers filed Wednesday in a Dallas district court.
Gary Vodicka, the lawyer who filed the papers, says that lack of communication bolsters the central argument in a lawsuit he filed against SMU in August charging that the school fraudulently ousted condo owners so it could raze the buildings and make way for the Bush library. Mr. Vodicka says that SMU's tactics invalidated the sale, so he continues to live there.
SMU officials deny Mr. Vodicka's allegations and say they obtained the property, just east of campus, fairly last year.
"We believe we followed not only the letter but also the spirit of the law in doing so," said Brad Cheves, an SMU spokesman.
Mr. Cheves said SMU has several proposals for where to build the library, and at least one of them doesn't include the complex, University Gardens.
SMU officials have said that they do plan to raze the condo complex but that SMU has discussed several possible uses for the site, including intramural fields, student housing and the library. They also note that they started buying units in 1998, before Mr. Bush was first elected president.
SMU is one of three finalists, along with Baylor University in Waco and the University of Dallas, for the Bush library. SMU is considered the front-runner, largely because first lady Laura Bush is a graduate and trustee.
Mr. Vodicka, who lives in University Gardens and claims to still own his condo and three others there, argues that if owners had known the buildings would be torn down for the library, SMU would have had to pay them more.
Mr. Vodicka's claim that SMU has had a model of the library for at least a year is based on a May 31 deposition of Dana Gibson, SMU's vice president of business and finance, that was part of Wednesday's court filings. Ms. Gibson could not be reached for comment, but Mr. Cheves confirmed that the model existed.
In the deposition, Ms. Gibson said the university had the model when she started work at SMU last June. It was kept in storage at the time and was later moved to the Perkins administration building, she said.
She said that SMU President Gerald Turner, Mr. Cheves and Bob Bucker, an assistant vice president, took the 3-D model and written materials to Washington in November to present their pitch for the library to the selection committee.
Ms. Gibson also said in the deposition that the construction costs are estimated at $220 million.
In the deposition, Mr. Vodicka asked whether the model puts part of the library on the University Gardens site.
"A portion, yes," Ms. Gibson responded. But she added there were different options for where to build it, "depending on President Bush's decision."
The Dallas Morning News reported in March that SMU had hired architects to prepare a conceptual master plan of the library that tentatively placed it in the southeastern part of the campus, bounded roughly by Airline Road, North Central Expressway and SMU Boulevard. The condo complex is in that area.
In the papers filed Wednesday, Mr. Vodicka also disputes the cost needed to rehab the condos to make them livable. An engineering study he ordered put the price at $1.9 million, court papers show. An engineering study commissioned by SMU last year found it would cost $12.4 million in the first year - a figure Mr. Vodicka called "poppycock."
An SMU-owned company cited the high costs last year when it declared the condos "functionally and economically obsolete," a step needed to make residents move out.
Also in the court papers filed Wednesday, Mr. Vodicka wrote that SMU used intimidation to buy Park Cities Plaza, a shopping center near campus, at a low price for the Bush library or a related policy center. He included a 2004 letter in which a lawyer hired by SMU threatens to sue the plaza owners for soil and groundwater contamination of a nearby parcel owned by SMU.
Mr. Vodicka wrote that the shopping center was later cleared of those allegations, but he includes no documentation of that.
Mr. Cheves denied that the university used intimidation to get the shopping center, which it bought in December. At least one library proposal does not include that site, he said, and it could remain a shopping center for many years.
Mr. Vodicka's Wednesday court filings - all 1,085 pages - were a response to a motion that SMU filed in April to have the case thrown out. SMU contended in its motion that it legally bought University Gardens in December and can prove its ownership, so no trial is needed.
A hearing on the matter is scheduled for Wednesday.
Meanwhile, SMU and Mr. Vodicka are also pursuing mediation. The two sides are scheduled to meet with a mediator June 27.
"The question is, what's it going to take for us to settle all his [Mr. Vodicka's] claims against us?" SMU attorney Leon Bennett said. He said SMU is eager to demolish the condos because it costs a lot of money to keep them standing.
Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 2:11 pm
If all of a-hole's claims are thrown out, can SMU sue him for libel?
Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 2:37 pm
No.couch 'em wrote:If all of a-hole's claims are thrown out, can SMU sue him for libel?
Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:11 pm
per Webster's...couch 'em wrote:If all of a-hole's claims are thrown out, can SMU sue him for libel?
libel: A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.
The act of presenting such material to the public.
The written claims presented by a plaintiff in an action at admiralty law or to an ecclesiastical court.
slander: Law. Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.
A false and malicious statement or report about someone.
Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 9:06 pm
Jtstang, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that Vodicka filed the court papers himself (i.e. he wrote them himself) and they do contain some false claims that make SMU look bad. Could that not be classified as libel? Also...is MrMustang's definition legal? I would trust it if it were from Black's Law instead of Webster's.MrMustang1965 wrote:per Webster's...couch 'em wrote:If all of a-hole's claims are thrown out, can SMU sue him for libel?
libel: A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.
The act of presenting such material to the public.
The written claims presented by a plaintiff in an action at admiralty law or to an ecclesiastical court.
slander: Law. Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.
A false and malicious statement or report about someone.