OffshoreAlert
Daily news, documents and intelligence about Offshore Financial Centers and those who conduct business in them that you will not find anywhere else.
RSS Feed Print
A lesson on corporate law for Mr. Merchant.
Internal Administrator
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011
Joined: 10/12/2010
Posts: 5780


Posted: 7/6/2006 3:50:50 PM

By: davesnorocketscientist

Oh Dave. Your knowledge of the law fails you. Then again, you didn't have much to begin with. Almost like your lack of journalistic integrity. Right, you dumb bloke.

Generally, in civil law, the shareholders are not personally liable for the bad acts of a corporation. And, as far as I know, there is no such thing as associate liability concerning a theory where the shareholders and the corporation act in concert and the shareholders can be held liable for the bad acts of the corporation.

The only way someone could get to the shareholders in a civil action is through proving that the corporation is merely the alter ego of one or more of the shareholders such that the corporate veil may be pierced and liability for the corporate bad acts may attach to the sharholders; and, thus, the shareholders may be be held personally responsible for the damages incurred as a result of the corporation's bad acts.

Admit it. You don't know what you are writing about when it comes to civil suits against corporations and their shareholders. Or, in the alternative, you do but massaged the facts to avoid directly trampling on the intellectual property rights of other newsource agencies who initially reported on Kleinfeld's alleged malfeasance.

Perhaps, you should attend Offshore Investment's symposium at Jesus College in your homeland in September and learn about corporations and insurance from the pros like Denny Sleazeball and the Fat Nobody. You may learn a thing or two.

Or maybe not, god knows you are probably persona non grata whereever you raise your ugly mug. You are nothing more than a scurvy knave, you dumb bloke. When the heat is put on you with constructive criticism, you resort to baseless ad hominem arguments.

Also, defaming someone who legitimately calls out your journalistic inaccuracies is a sad ploy and an unprofessional tactic. When you make a mistake, be a man, admit it and move on. The irony of your actions is that you are no better than some of the bad guys you claim to out.

P.S. Unlike anyone in your family, a Neshanian danced ballet as a lead dancer for your Queen in early March 1961. Go try to use some of your investigative journalistic skills to confirm or deny that. You want to bet on it? I bet you don't even have a source to go to on that one.


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 7/7/2006 5:13:55 PM

By: daveisabirdbrain

Oh Dave, how pathetic can one bloody twit like you be. No matter how hard you try, your ownership of a pacer account, website and computer will never transform you from the pathetic jingoist you are into a bona fide investigative journalist.

I really don't know what you are referring to with regard to all that Fisher hogwash. I do know that you know nothing about characters in the offshore industry.

People in the know in Washington D.C. have been tracking Fisher since before you ever got the bird-brain idea that you could be a journalist.

The US Government led by Mueller and Blum shut down a slew of Montserrat banks in the late 80s and 90s that were promoted by Schneider and the majority of which were likely created with Howard Fisher's assistance.

Your lack of knowledge of the offshore industry and clear myopia re: investigating facts have caused you to miss this point and go off on tangents again to obfuscate the fact that your journalistic skills blow chunks.

Let's compare headlines re: the alleged Kleinfeld insurance scam matter:

KYC release on 6/7:

"Fifty-six beneficiaries of offshore insurance policies have accused well-known asset protection attorney Denis Kleinfeld and three alleged associates of defrauding them of $11 million in an offshore insurance scheme."

Courthousenews 5/31 release:

Courthouse News Service | Home
... seek restitution and costs. Boston Life And Annuity Co ... CN) – Boston Life and Annuity Co. and its three principals, Leo Ford, Rick May and Denis Kleinfeld, defrauded 56 ...www.courthousenews.com/Jump.May.31.htm - 21k - Cached - More from this site - Save

No matter how hard you try to explain it, a sharholder is not an associate of the corporation. A shareholder can't be a colleague, comrade or partner with a corporation he or she has an ownership interest in.

You tried to massage facts and in doing so you blew it. You need to put down the English dictionary because it rarely has the ability to define legal terms with the precision required to understand terms of art. Even using the legal definition of "associate", your introduction to your article makes no sense.

It begs the question, why are you charging money for information that was already published for free on the internet? And, why did you try to change the language used in courthousenews'?

The fact that you did not reveal the names of the parties and made it appear that a corporation owned by Kleinfeld and others was one of his associates leads to the reasonable opinion that you were trying to make it appear that you had important information about Kleinfeld that was otherwise unavailable. Guess what, you didn't even need a pacer account on 6/7 to get that information.

Your journalistic integrity, assuming you ever had any to begin with, is seriously in doubt now. Don't even get me started with your relations with Kleinfeld and BankCrozier. Whoop. There goes your objectivity also. Right out the window.

Finally, where did you get your psychiatry license - the Tom Cruise's Scientology School of Mental Disorders. The only person who is trying to craft their imagination into reality is you.

You keep on imagining you are a journalist so much so that you began to believe it for awhile but then you are uncovered as a sham of a reporter you go off defaming people you don't even know.

Dream on. Get a real job and stop pretending to be something you are not - i.e. a real journalist. I opine you are stuck in a P.O. Box and a website because no respectable news outlet would give you a job. Prove me wrong.

Dream on Merchant.


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 7/6/2006 11:12:38 PM

By: David Marchant

Re. "First of all none of my relatives have ever been married to Howard Fisher."

I have now learned that Eric Neshanian's mother, Claris Neshanian Fisher, was married to Meyer Fisher, the father of Howard Fisher. Apparently, Meyer Fisher was placed into a conservatorship on the grounds of mental incapacity and Claris Neshanian Fisher was denied the role of conservator. Apparently, Eric Neshanian has been litigating on his mother's behalf in an attempt to get some of Meyer Fisher's fortune back from Howard Fisher and the other Fisher children. I understand that the court case has not gone well for Claris Neshanian Fisher and Eric Neshanian, with Eric Neshanian claiming that the judge is biased against him and serving subpoenas on the judge to testify which were later quashed.

Feel free to enlighten us if you believe any of the above is inaccurate, Mr. Neshanian. It seems that part of your legal strategy is to anonymously post large numbers of absurdly negative messages about Howard Fisher and others on Internet message boards.

Re. "I opined that the reason you did this was to circumvent the intellectual property rights of the newsource that originally reported the lawsuit re: the alleged insurance scam conducted by Kleinfeld through one of his corporations and, also, to make it appear that you were providing information that was otherwise unavailable (i.e. an exclusive expose)."

It is obvious to me that you have not even read the OffshoreAlert article that you are commenting on. Your opinion appears to be solely based on the headline and first sentence that is free to visitors of our site, i.e. "Fifty-six beneficiaries of offshore insurance policies have accused well-known asset protection attorney Denis Kleinfeld and three alleged associates of defrauding them of $11 million in an offshore insurance scheme."

For you to conclude that a sentence as innocuous as this somehow infers that the article is an 'exclusive', an 'expose', or contains information that is "otherwise unavailable" elsewhere and that it is an example of me not understanding "corporate law" is evidence not only of absurd bias and extreme silliness but, taken along with all of your other jumbled and dishonest postings over a few years under a variety of fictitious names, is further evidence of severe mental illness.

Nowhwere in the entire OffshoreAlert article about Denis Kleinfeld being sued are the words 'exclusive' or 'expose' used or even implied. It is, quite simply, a straight-forward story based on a complaint that I obtained from the local court-house. I'm not even sure how I could imply or state that the information was "otherwise unavailable" when the story is about a lawsuit filed in a public court.

The reality seems to be that you have read no more than our headline and first sentence and the rest exists only in your imagination. It is also obvious that, as is often the case with insane people, you cannot differentiate between fact and fiction. If you are able to imagine something, then it becomes your reality, regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

David Marchant


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 7/6/2006 7:41:01 PM

By: daveswrongagain

First of all none of my relatives have ever been married to Howard Fisher. You have no idea how to read a court docket and even less of an ability to comprehend legal matters contained in a complaint.

It takes no license to package your dribble as meaningful journalism but it does take a license to hold yourself out as an expert in the law. You can barely qualify for a driver's license.

Second of all, a corporation cannot be on of the shareholder's associates in civil litigation. A corporation is a separate entity formed to eliminate a shareholder's personal liability and, under ordinary circumstances, a shareholder cannot be held liable for the corporation's bad acts. Period. Exclamation point. You identified a corporation owned and operated by Kleinfeld as his associate. This is an impossibility in civil law.

I opined that the reason you did this was to circumvent the intellectual property rights of the newsource that originally reported the lawsuit re: the alleged insurance scam conducted by Kleinfeld through one of his corporations and, also, to make it appear that you were providing information that was otherwise unavailable (i.e. an exclusive expose).

That caused you to go off on ad hominem attacks and, as a result, leads me to believe and likely other reasonable persons observing your conduct to believe that I am indeed correct.

You are unworthy to claim to be an investigative journalist let alone a journalist. Not that being a journalist is much of a noble profession anymore depending on which side you are looking at the industry.

Admit it! You blew it! The cover is off. You are a phony!


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 7/6/2006 5:27:40 PM

By: David Marchant

I'll leave Eric Neshanian's posting up for a day or so at least because, quite frankly, I could not write anything that embarrasses him as much as his own words do.

Based on his disjointed ramblings, I have no idea how he can function properly as an attorney in California and I dread to think of the quality of his typical client and the work that he does for them.

In a nutshell, I stated a few years ago in a posting on this message board that the principal object of Neshanian's obsession - an attorney called Howard Fisher - was an irrelevant figure in the offshore world, which, indeed, he is.

That innocuous event has triggered off a slew of inane and ridiculous postings by Neshanian on various Internet message boards, all of which he has made anonymously.

Never once has he disclosed the reason why he appears to be so upset at Fisher, i.e. that Fisher was once married to Neshanian's mother and that his mother and Fisher ended up in litigation

Re. his most recent posting above this one, I described a firm that Denis Kleinfeld, a Miami-based attorney, allegedly owned or controlled as one that is alleged to be an associated entity, according to a complaint filed against him and others (i.e. associated parties).

From that, Neshanian has gone into a rambling discussion about the legal liability of shareholders of a corporation, whcih is completely irrelevant to anything that I wrote.

It is evident from his posting that 1. He does not know what the word 'associate' means in everyday language; 2. He cannot differentiate between the plaintiffs making allegations in a lawsuit and the person reporting them (in this case, me); and 3. He is someone with serious mental issues, among the most severe of the various people who have become obsessed with me over the years as a result of what I do for a living.


David Marchant


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 7/8/2006 7:17:47 AM

By: David Marchant

Re. "This facts are most likely known by KYC News but never published."

But this is just complete guess-work on your part based on nothing but your imagination. It is illogical - and, I would suggest, extremely silly - to believe that, because I am a friend of Peter Johansson, I know everything about him or go prying into every aspect of his background.

Assuming you were a client of Bank Crozier's, it was incumbent upon you to do your own due diligence and find out this information before placing your money with the bank. The person you have to blame is the one that you see in the mirror.

David Marchant


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 7/8/2006 7:07:21 AM

By: TurnKey

But what for sure are true about BankCrozier/ Peter Johasson is that:

- Mr Johansson was personally responsible for the liquidation of BankCrozier as he did deliberately speculated with the funds of the depositors which led to the collapse of the bank. This action is not be labelled poor investment and can not be blamed on the authorities of Grenada.

- A vice president of Bank Crozier was sentenced to six year in prison for tax fraud in Sweden. This however did not stop Mr. Johansson from employing that person.

- Mr Johansson have a background of revoked broker licencies, tax debts etc.

This facts are most likely known by KYC News but never published.


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 7/8/2006 7:04:20 AM

By: David Marchant

I realized long ago that there was little or no value in responding to questions asked of me by people I consider to be incapable of having mature and meaningful discourse with. It is, literally, a waste of time.

Nevertheless:

Re. "Bank Crozier is a highly respectable bank that is in the business of providing professional services to legitimate clients."

Given what subsequently happened, that was not the smartest message for me to have posted (hindsight is 20/20) but it was something that, at the time, I believed to be true, may well have been true, and it was based on feedback from various people who were familiar with the bank, including clients. The fact that the bank collapsed some time later is neither here nor there as to whether that comment was accurate at that time. If a bank went out of business today because it was insolvent, it does not necessarily mean it was insolvent two years earlier.

"Are you an associate of the Peter Johannsen?".
As I have said several times before, Peter Johannson is a friend of mine. That does not make me liable for his actions, just like it doesn't mean that someone is insane just because they know someone who is (e.g. Eric Neshanian).

Did Kleinfeld's firm represent BankCrozier?
I believe that Bank Crozier did use Denis Kleinfeld for legal services.

Did you advertise your OBNR website on BankCrozier?
My firm provided a free newsletter on Bank Crozier's web-site as part of our marketing strategy. We did this to increase traffic to our site.

Did you change the name of your website after BankCrozier went belly up?
We changed the name of our company on March 26, 2003 from Offshore Business News & Research Inc. to KYC News Inc. to better reflect the broader nature of our scope than just offshore financial centers and to take advantage of the term 'KYC', which stands for 'Know Your Customer' and has become a buzz phrase in the compliance industry, which is a significant part of our target audience.

Did you and Kleinfeld ever have a falling out?
To the best of my knowledge, I have never met Denis Kleinfeld and I have only ever spoken with him when I have reported about him, which is only a few times. I have never 'fallen out' with him. It is difficult to fall out with someone you don't know in any proper sense. It is possible that I once met him briefly at an Anti-Money Laundering conference in New York that my firm helped to organize in conjunction with the IIR and which I believe he may have attended but it would only have been for a couple of seconds to shake hands, if, in fact, it occurred.

As I stated at the outset, I consider that I have substantially wasted my time in answering the above because, as anyone who reads Eric Neshanian's messages should know, it is impossible to have a mature and meaningful exchange of comments and information with him.

Also, there are many examples of him being dishonest, the most recent concerning his involvement in his mother's legal dispute with Howard Fisher and his reaction to the disclosure that he had accused the judge of bias and issued a subpoena to the judge to testify. He created the impression that these events never took place, even though they are a matter of public record.

It is also worth pointing out that he is an attorney representing a client (his mother) in an on-going legal battle and, during the action, he has been pathologically and anonymously posting negative messages about one of the opposing parties on Internet message boards.

He, apparently, does not consider this to be unethical behavior but, ridiculously, he does consider it unethical for OffshoreAlert to write a story about a lawsuit being filed because another news service had reported about it first. David Marchant

Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 7/7/2006 10:41:08 PM

By: An OBNR Reader

Seems like the allegations about Crozier and Kleinfeld are of the same nature as those that were leveled against Mr. Fisher several years ago on this board and elsewhere. It was then suggested that Mr. Fisher was about to be arrested at any moment, but he is still a very highly respected attorney who is much sought after by many professional groups for his wisdom. Same for the Bank Crozier affair; despite all of the allegations nobody was ever charged or convicted of anything in relation to it. It is easy for one to make baseless predictions, but difficult for one to make accurate and factual predictions.


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 7/7/2006 10:18:12 PM

By: kindalikethepotcallingthekettleblack

the only one deceitful and unstable is you Mr. Merchant...Let us recall this fine quote by you shall we:

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

"Bank Crozier is a highly respectable bank that is in the business of providing professional services to legitimate clients."

David Marchant

www.goldhaven.com/discuss...14889.html

--------------------------------------------------------------
Any response??

Here are a few follow up questions Mr. Unstable and Deceitful

Are you an associate of the Peter Johannsen?
Did Kleinfeld's firm represent BankCrozier?
Did you advertise your OBNR website on BankCrozier?
Did you change the name of your website after BankCrozier went belly up?
Did you and Kleinfeld ever have a falling out?


Serve. Volley. Smash.




Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 7/7/2006 8:48:10 PM

By: David Marchant

Re. "I really don't know what you are referring to with regard to all that Fisher hogwash."

That's because, apart from being insane, you are also dishonest.

Below is part of the docket sheet for Case RIPIP13111 - CTORSHIP OF MEYER FISHER

Complaint Number: 1
Complaint Type: Petition for Conservatorship
Filing Date: 02/25/1999
Complaint Status: ACTIVE

Party Number Party Type Party Name Attorney Party Status
1 Conservatee MEYER FISHER LAURA G. DEWEY
2 Conservator CLARIS FISHER THE NESHANIAN LAW FIRM INC
3 Conservator ROBERT A. ROSS ROBERT ALLEN ROSE
5 Conservator PUBLIC GUARDIAN COUNTY COUNSEL
6 Conservator PUBLIC GUARDIAN Pro Per Party deleted from case/complaint 08/16/2001
7 Mediator ROBERT A. MCCARTY Defendant Address N/A


N 02/14/2005 SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY FILED; ON PETITION FOR CONSERVATORSHIP OF MEYER FISHER REMOVE ATTORNEY PRO/PER FOR PARTY CLARIS FISHER AND REPLACE WITH ATTORNEY ERIC MARCUS NESHANIAN Not Applicable
02/14/2005 FAX FILED BY ERIC MARCUS NESHANIAN

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

09/01/2005 PROOF OF SERVICE OF CIVIL SUBPOENA SERVED ON JUDGE STEPHEN D CUNNISON SERVED 09/01/05 FILED (NON-COMPLAINT) Not Applicable
N 09/01/2005 SUBPOENA FOR JUDGE STEPHEN D CUNNISON FILED BY CLARIS FISHER. Not Applicable
N 09/01/2005 SUBPOENA FOR THE HONORABLE PAULETTE BARKLEY, COMMISSIONER FILED BY CLARIS FISHER. Not Applicable
N 09/01/2005 SUBPOENA FOR THE HONORABLE STEPHEN D CUNNISON, JUDGE FILED BY CLARIS FISHER. Not Applicable
N 09/01/2005 SUBPOENA FOR THE HONORABLE SHARON J WALTERS, JUDGE FILED BY CLARIS FISHER. Not Applicable
08/26/2005 ORDER STRIKING STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION; VERIFIED ANSWER OF JUDGE STEPHEN D. CUNNISON Not Applicable
N 08/22/2005 FIFTH VERIF STMT, REQT FOR DISQUALIFIC OF JUDGE S.D. CUNNISON BASED ON BIAS Not Applicable
N 08/22/2005 PROOF OF SERVICE OF FIFTH VERIFD STMT, REQT OF DISQUALIF OF JUDGE SERVED ON CT CLERK, M. MARTINEZ SERVED 08/22/05 FILED (NON-COMPLAINT) Not Applicable
08/22/2005 FAX FILED BY THE NESHANIAN LAW FIRM INC Not Applicable


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 7/8/2006 11:44:08 AM

By: My Good Friend Cunnison

Here is Mr. Fisher on an executive committee for the Beverly Hills Bar Association:

http://www.bhba.org/Yuri/Business/News/Newsletter-Spring-2003.htm

Here is Mr. Fisher speaking at the Southern California Tax & Estate Planning forum:

http://www.clenet.com/25SCT_AGENDA_20050713.pdf

Here is Mr. Fisher invited to speak to the Beverly Hills Bar Association:

http://www.bhba.org/intus/event3/signup.asp?event_id=1355

These are just a few items of his illustrious career. He is also a guest lecturer at Oxford and the like.

But perhaps if Mr. Fisher were running a Santa Ana divorce firm he would be considered more prestigious?

The Neshanian Law Firm, Inc., Santa Ana, CA 714-973-2600 Future home page of:. www.divorcemyspouse.com.
www.divorcemyspouse.com/ - 1k - Cached - Similar pages

Maybe you could expand into bail bonds next.


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 7/8/2006 11:14:36 AM

By: socheesy

"Seems like the allegations about Crozier and Kleinfeld are of the same nature as those that were leveled against Mr. Fisher several years ago on this board and elsewhere. It was then suggested that Mr. Fisher was about to be arrested at any moment, but he is still a >>>very highly respected attorney>>professional groups for his wisdom
WHAT??? Who are you kidding? Talk about being baseless. Heck, you are in direct conflict with Merchant. He's of the opinion that Fisher is a nobody. Enlighten us, Reader. You obviously know more about Fisher than the rest of us. If anything, your information shall demonstrate that Merchant is the nobody when attempting to determine who's who in the offshore world.

And R. Church, I definitely was not referring to FOXNEWS.

Let me assure you, after speaking with highly respected individuals in DC, the FatNobody is still a big blip on the radar for authorities. Just recently, Schneider's IFO was indicted in NY.

The only thing about Fisher that is respected is his girth!


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 7/8/2006 9:17:56 AM

By: An OBNR Reader

That is right Hunter; all innuendo, no FACTS. Put up or shut up.


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 7/8/2006 7:33:32 AM

By: When it comes to facts about Crozier still waiting ...

I'm still waiting on the recordings (digital nonetheless) between David Marchant and Tony Bukovich with regards to Bank Crozier. It was these so-called recordings that was the proof Alp kept harping on and on about at the old Diligizer board. Did anyone ever hear the 394 bps digital recordings with sufficient quality for voiceprint recognition??

Oh by the way, if the above happened at the lunch between Bukovich, Paul Renner, and Marchant then who wore the wire (or whatever) to make so-called recording?

Probably need two threads for this.

One for exchange with the choo-choo man (waste of time).

One for rehashing of Bank Crozier - Diligizer - Marchant battle (also probably a waste of time)


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 7/8/2006 7:23:36 AM

By: R.Church

" . . . no respectable news outlet would give you a job."

"respectable news outlet"

Now there's an oxymoron. All major media outlets have long since been turned into cathouses and their publishers are pimps. Watch Fox News for 30 minutes if you doubt me.


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 7/8/2006 5:56:24 PM

By: evencheesier

>>>Again all innuendo no FACTS. Where are the FACTS?

You have no idea what innuendo means do you. Opinion based on fact is not innuendo. Defamation is innuendo. Impugning a person's character to third persons by attributing a mental disease to them is defamatory either per quod or, based on the circumstances, per se.

>>>"Where are the FACTS about Mr. Marchant having more than a social relationship with anybody from Bank Crozier?"

Mr. Marchant readily admits that his newsletter was provided for free on the BANK CROZIER WEBSITE. There is no dispute that his business had a relationship with the bank. After the bank crashed, Mr. Marchant changed the name of his company. There is no dispute re: the relationship between OBNR and Bank Crozier. Is there David?

>>>Where are the FACTS about misconduct in Bank Crozier case, since nobody has been charged or convicted of any wrongdoing arising out of that case?

Umm. Wrong again. On February 7, 2001, David posted on Goldhaven (a website that was run from Canada) that

professional advice re: offshore banking should be sought out from websites like those of Bank Crozier.

http://www.goldhaven.com/discussion/messages/9001.html

That's true, right David?

Nineteen days later, on February 26, 2001, British Columbia issued a cease and desist order on Bank Crozier for advertising trust and deposit business in BC without a license.

http://www.fic.gov.bc.ca/pdf/enforcement/trust/20010226co.pdf

That's true, right, David?

The walls were caving in. But, rather than terminate his promotion of Bank Crozier and publish information about Bank Crozier and the cease and desist order or disclose his personal relationship with a bank principal or a relationship between the bank and his company, David, on 6/1/01, on the same Canadian website posted:

"Bank Crozier is a highly respectable bank that is in the business of providing professional services to legitimate clients."

David Marchant

www.goldhaven.com/discuss...14889.html

Apparently, David's exemplary investigative journalism skills failed him. Hmm, I wonder why. Any explanation David? Nonetheless, that David would subject his own credibility to be put in question without any financial compensation, direct or indirect, tangible or intangible, is possible but, based on his course of conduct, highly unlikely. Of course, David claims otherwise.

>>> Where are the FACTS about anybody relying on anything Mr. Marchant said to invest in Bank Crozier?

The mere fact that David would post such a statement (without disclosing his personal and corporate relationships with a bank principal or the bank which is wholly unethical for a journalist to do), which in hindsight is totally ABSURD, on a Canadian website is evidence enough that it was David's intent to detract the negative implications from the C&O order and encourage persons to commence or continue doing business with the bank.

>>> Where are the FACTS about Mr. Marchant having a relationship with Mr. Kleinfeld or his firm?

None, really as of yet. You got me. This an area to be examined further. Merely coincidence I guess that:

1. Kleinfeld represented his friend's bank;

2. the physical address of Kleinfeld's law firm and KYC are a little more than 1/2 a mile from each other;

3. one of the largest assets of the bank was a Nauru bank promoted by Jerome Schneider who in turn worked directly with Howard Fisher in forming such banks; and,

4. Fisher is directly connected to Kleinfeld.

Those are all true statements. Right, David?

Somehow, David, with all of his investigative prowess completely overlooked the assets of the Bank Crozier before endorsing it as 'highly respectable'. Just coincidence.

The fact that Bank Crozier was carrying a Nauru Bank as one of its major assets was reason enough not to be calling it a respectable bank. Just coincidence.

>>>Looks like trial by innuendo, but no FACTS.

Those are facts. Right, David?

>>>"First let us kill all the lawyers." Wm Shakespeare

Some Shakespearean scholars claim that this is not an attack on lawyers but praise. It's you who needs to get the facts straight.

Lastly, David, stop obscuring the point that your headline on the alleged insurance scam by a Kleinfeld owned entity was wholly inaccurate in fact and law.


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 7/8/2006 4:35:46 PM

By: David Marchant

Re. "BTW, I don't believe you re: your representations of the limited meetings and conversations between Kleinfeld and you."

A symptom of insanity is an inability to differentiate between fantasy and reality. It is apparent that, if you are able to conceive of something actually happening, then, in your mind, it actually happened, regardless of a complete absence of any evidence to support it.

I can remember once that you excitedly posted a message headlined something like 'The Missing Link" on the Diligizer due diligence board in which you were adamant that I had interviewed Peter Johansson for an article that appeared in a specific edition - I believe it was August/September or September/October of a particular year - of Offshore Finance USA or Offshore Finance Canada magazine and that this would prove some underhand association with Peter and/or Bank Crozier, even though I told you that no such article existed.

You stated that you were going to obtain the article and produce it in order to expose me. Of course, you never made it available because the 'article' only existed in your imagination. And, apparently, that's enough for you. I have little doubt that you still think it exists, because it is implanted in your mind, even though you can't find it.

David Marchant


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 7/8/2006 4:24:13 PM

By: An OBNR Reader

Again all innuendo no FACTS. Where are the FACTS?

Where are the FACTS about Mr. Marchant having more than a social relationship with anybody from Bank Crozier?

Where are the FACTS about misconduct in Bank Crozier case, since nobody has been charged or convicted of any wrongdoing arising out of that case?

Where are the FACTS about anybody relying on anything Mr. Marchant said to invest in Bank Crozier?

Where are the FACTS about Mr. Marchant having a relationship with Mr. Kleinfeld or his firm?

Looks like trial by innuendo, but no FACTS. Very unprofessional for lawyer but not unexpected. "First let us kill all the lawyers." Wm Shakespeare


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 7/8/2006 3:00:55 PM

By: davesnoethicsprofessoreither

Hey, here is another blast from the past re: David Marchant and Bank Crozier:

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

http://www.goldhaven.com/discussion/messages/9001.html

Posted by David Marchant on February 07, 2001 at 03:54:09:

In Reply to: Pacific International Bank; Vanilla Direct Bank; Banc Caribe ??? posted by Incognito on February 06, 2001 at 21:13:03:


In my opinion, it would be prudent to seek out professional advice before making a decision. Sites such as www.rpifs.com www.offshore-net.com, www.itiltd.com, www.offshoreinfo.com, www.bankcrozier.com, www.bankofbermuda.com, etc. might be worth a visit. The Bank of Bermuda, for example, has been around for over 100 years and is generally regarded as the biggest offshore bank.

You're asking for trouble by even considering banks located Montenegro, St. Vincent and Dominica. Montenegro, in particular, is one of the 'in places' to form scam banks.

By the way, how has the US government done a "thorough job...of keeping us ignorant about the rest of the world"?

Try watching CNN, reading books or newspapers with an international section, surf the Internet or, heaven forbid, travel to a foreign country (something that is alien to most US citizens).

No-one other than yourself is responsible for keeping you ignorant about anything.

David Marchant
---------------------------------------------------------------


David, it wasn't unethical of you to fail to disclose your personal relationship with the principal of the bank? Or that your corporation had a relationshp with Bank Crozier? Puhleeze, Dave, the last thing you should be doing is calling others out regarding their ethics. Tsk. Tsk.

Face it, the only one who is unethical, unprofessional, mentally unstable and deceitful, is YOU!!!

Except for the fact that Kleinfeld's firm represented your friend's bank, we've got terribly off point. Admit it, your news headline re: alleged offshore insurance scam by a Kleinfeld owned entity was terribly inaccurate re: the facts and the law.

BTW, I don't believe you re: your representations of the limited meetings and conversations between Kleinfeld and you.


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 7/8/2006 11:52:01 AM

By: TurnKey


Imagination?! This statement is so unmature hardly worth commenting. Instead perhaps YOU, being the investigating journalist in the offshore sector, should have followed up the several allegations and against Mr. Johansson. For the record, they were very current and not only in his "background". Who knows, this could have been some interesting KYC-news but on the opposite - very bad news for the existing Bank Crozier.

Never assume. FYI, I never held an account with Bank Crozier or with any other offshor bank for that matter as I do not trust them.

Have a good one!


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 7/9/2006 10:59:01 AM

By: My Good Friend Cunnison

Still waiting for him to respond to your post about his bizarre move of issuing subpoenas to the judges involved in the case. I would suggest that they are as disgusted by him as everybody else, including the Court of Appeals which denied the appeal, and the California Supreme Court which denied the petition for certiorari in the case.

It takes other lawyers years to develop a poor reputation.


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 7/9/2006 9:21:32 AM

By: David Marchant

By way of background, I was asked to provide a column for Offshore Finance USA that answered readers' questions concerning offshore investment-related products, services, individuals and businesses, which I did free of charge. Among sane people, this is an activity that reflects favorably on me. Among the insane, however, the opposite is true.

In the world of the sane, publications are produced by many parties, often in different locations, who seldom, if ever, meet or talk. In the world of the insane, however, owners, staff writers, columnists, editorial advisors, advertisers, newsagents, delivery boys and girls, etc. get together frequently to plot a great conspiracy of wrongdoing and engage in unethical and immoral activity and they are each responsible for the actions of everyone else.

Regarding the headline and first sentence below:

56 policy-holders sue Denis Kleinfeld & others for $11 m, Kleinfeld denies wrongdoing [UPDATED] July 3, 2006 Fifty-six beneficiaries of offshore insurance policies have accused well-known asset protection attorney Denis Kleinfeld and three alleged associates of defrauding them of $11 million in an offshore insurance scheme.

In the world of the sane, this is an example of me writing an article about a lawsuit being filed. In the world of the insane, it is an example of me falsely claiming to have an exclusive or expose about something that another news service reported about first and also of me being ignorant about civil law.

In the world of the insane, it is unethical for a journalist to write a story about something that another journalist has written about previously but it is not unethical for an attorney to pathologically and anonymously post messages severely criticising an opposing party in a lawsuit while the case is in progress.

David Marchant


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 7/9/2006 8:21:57 AM

By: An OBNR Reader

Mr. Marchant and his newsletters preceded Offshore Finance USA by several years.

Your claim of a connection because Mr. Kleinfeld was on the board of advisors and not even an editor is your worst yet. Many people were on their board of advisors, did Mr. Marchant have close connection with them all?


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 7/9/2006 5:28:58 AM

By: canitgetanycheesier?

Yeah, its kind of like when you let the dog out to see if it is drizzling. And, you know the sprinklers aren't on, no one is outside with a hose, and there no creeks or waterholes around and the dog comes back and he's damp on the top of his coat from his snout to his tail, you can reasonably conclude that its drizzling outside.

Are you sure you don't have any other associations with Dennis Kleinfeld? That was a fib. Right, David?

Right about the time your company was advertising on Crozier's website, you were being featured on OFFSHORE FINANCE USA and subsequently wrote articles from time to time. Right, David?

In fact, Dennis Kleinfeld was on the editorial advisory board of OFUSA and its later incarnation THE VAULT from the time you were first featured and during your tenure as a want to be cub reporter on the dark depths of the offshore world. Right, David? This is all true, right? That's Miami behind you right? Hey, you and Dennis, you guys were associates. Yeah, I think the word is associates. Yeah, you guys were associates. Go figure? And, then, sadly, the gig went dry. Was that another one of them free gigs? You know like the Bank Crozier thingy majiggy?

http://web.archive.org/web/20000709055354/www.offshorefinanceusa.com/advisory.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20000421153151/http://www.offshorefinanceusa.com/index.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20021123165455/www.vault-magazine.com/

And, somehow, your good friend Peter Johannson, a non US citizen ended up hiring one of your editors. The one from the same state as you, that's a little more than a half mile from your company's physical address. Right, David? C'mon.

Oh, dear, won't anyone come to this blathering idiot's defense.

Tell me he didn't fudge the facts on his headline of the alleged Kleinfeld insurance scam to make it appear that he was breaking a newsworthy event in the offshore world worthy of his compensation when another news source published the same information for free more than a week before.

Heck, that's why this string was started, right, David? Then, you had to go and crucify yourself with your own words. What a crying shame you poor, poor lad. You are undone.


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 7/8/2006 7:45:53 PM

By: David Marchant

So, let me see if I have this right.

It is unethical for me to make a few Internet postings in my own name, not my company's name, about Bank Crozier without stating that I know Peter Johansson but it is not unethical for an attorney who represents his mother to pathologically make many dozens, possibly hundreds, of anonymous and highly critical postings about an opposing party, in this case Howard Fisher, while the case is ongoing. On a Los Angeles Times blog at http://newsblogs.latimes.com/conservators/2005/11/share_your_thou.html, you managed to comment at length about the Meyer Fisher case, including criticising a judge, without disclosing the very relevant fact that you represent one of the parties.

By the way, SunTrust Bank is less than half a mile from my office, SunTrust Bank has offshore interests, I have written about SunTrust Bank in OffshoreAlert, SunTrust Bank has had criminals as clients, therefore ... what ... I am implicated in their illegal activity? Do you think this is a sane thought-process?

Or how about this one: Eric Neshanian is an attorney based in California, Howard Fisher is an attorney based in California, Eric Neshanian's mother was married to Howard Fisher's father, Eric Neshanian and Howard Fisher are both interested in offshore finance, Eric Neshanian and Howard Fisher both voted for Arnold Schwarzenegger as Governor ... therefore Eric Neshanian, Howard Fisher and Arnold Schwarzenegger must be in cohoots with one another.

Or how about: Eric Neshanian is an attorney, Eric Neshanian represented John Smith in his divorce, John Smith is convicted of investment fraud three years later, therefore ... Eric Neshanian is implicated in the fraud.

When Eric Neshanian first began making postings here in 2001, I quickly commented on July 6, 2001 that: "You come across as a classic example of someone adding one and one together and making an odd number."

In hindsight, what an astute observation that was.

In your mind, I was involved with Denis Kleinfeld and, now, because I have written an article about him being sued, we must have fallen out. If, in the future, I write something positive about him, this will no doubt be evidence that we have made up again. Then, if he gets sued again and I write about it, to you, this will be evidence that we have fallen out again. It really is Pythonesque.

It is revealing that, in the California court case between your mother and Howard Fisher, you have accused the judge of bias. No doubt, the sole or substantive basis for this accusation was that the judge made a ruling that was not in your favor. In your mind, the only possible explanation for this setback is that the judge is not partial.

I would not in the least be surprised if you anonymously post silly messages criticizing the judge on Internet message boards each time he makes a decision that you don't like.

Re. "BTW, I don't believe you re: your representations of the limited meetings and conversations between Kleinfeld and you." Of course you don't believe me, just like you didn't believe me when I said that I have never interviewed Peter Johansson for an article in a specific issue of Offshore Finance USA/Canada magazine. I am sure that, in your crazy mind, you still think that this 'article' exists and that it is further evidence that you are honest and I am dishonest. I am also sure that it is easier for you to think that I am conspiring with the magazine's publishers, retailers and, no doubt, Denis Kleinfeld, Peter Johansson, Santa Claus and Little Red Riding Hood, to prevent you from finding the 'article' than accepting reality, i.e. that there never was such an article. Even now, you can't even bring yourself to admit that this 'article' never existed or, heaven forbid, apologize for repeatedly posting false information.

David Marchant


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 7/8/2006 6:23:01 PM

By: An OBNR Reader

"Impugning a person's character to third persons by attributing a mental disease to them is defamatory either per quod or, based on the circumstances, per se."

I've heard that truth is a defense under American law.

Your "facts" are simply your innuendo compounded with more innuendo. There still is no facts of any substantial relationship between Bank Crozier and Mr. Marchant. There still is no facts of any charges or convictions against Crozier or its principals relating to the bank. There still is no facts of any depositor relying on Mr. Marchant's statements in making a deposit in Bank Crozier. There still is no facts of any relationship between Mr. Marchant and Mr. Kleinfeld or his firm.

In Washington D.C., the Israeli embassy is within a half mile of the Syrian embassy. Under your facts, that would imply that they have a relationship. Better you stick to divorces.


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 7/16/2006 12:56:42 PM

By: An OBNR Reader

Only according to unilateral opinion of Mr. Eric Neshanian who is not a Florida attorney and apparently not much of an attorney in California either according to subpoenas issued to judges in case and appeal denials by California courts.

We are still waiting for your explanation, Mr. Eric Neshanian, of why you served subpoenas on judges and why your appeals were rejected. What are the ethics of serving subpoenas on judges?


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 7/16/2006 11:56:49 AM

By: davesaheadcase

OBNR Reader wrote:

"There still is no facts of any depositor relying on Mr. Marchant's statements in making a deposit in Bank Crozier."\

Under Florida law (see section 501.201 et seq. of REGULATION OF TRADE, COMMERCE, INVESTMENTS, AND SOLICITATIONS) and Federal law (Federal Trade Commission Act - 15 USC 45(a)(1), 52, 55) concerning unfair business practices, the test is not whether someone reasonably relied on the misrepresentation. The test is whether the statement was made with the intent to induce or was reasonably likely to induce.

The bottom line is that Dave ol' boy in endorsing the bank with glowing statements in 6/01 (mind you this is three months after the promoter of one of Bank Crozier's largest assets was indicted in the Nauru brassplate bank scam) participated in deceptive practices. Whether or not he was ever cited is another matter.

And there can be no doubt that his conduct in relation to Bank Crozier was in violation of one or more of the canons of the journalistic code of conduct. Then again, Dave doesn't care about a code of conduct - he's just an unethical bloke.


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 7/15/2006 1:16:56 PM

By: An OBNR Reader

Looks like he will not answer questions about giving subpoenas to judges. Ensnared by the truth Neshanian slithers away.


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 7/11/2006 8:52:51 PM

By: An OBNR Reader

Very unprofessional response. Now will you answer questions about giving subpoenas to judges?


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 7/11/2006 6:43:06 PM

By: holleryouclown

In the real world: Mr. Merchant is just an unethical clown.

In Dave's world (Fantasyland): He's Elmer J. Fudd and he owns a mansion and a yacht. Or, he's an investigative journalist. Ask him, he'll tell you as much.

The only one lying Dave is you. Your credibility is shot. Deal with it.


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 7/9/2006 11:21:19 AM

By: David Marchant

He did respond, with a lie.

I stated that: "I have now learned that Eric Neshanian's mother, Claris Neshanian Fisher, was married to Meyer Fisher, the father of Howard Fisher. Apparently, Meyer Fisher was placed into a conservatorship on the grounds of mental incapacity and Claris Neshanian Fisher was denied the role of conservator. Apparently, Eric Neshanian has been litigating on his mother's behalf in an attempt to get some of Meyer Fisher's fortune back from Howard Fisher and the other Fisher children. I understand that the court case has not gone well for Claris Neshanian Fisher and Eric Neshanian, with Eric Neshanian claiming that the judge is biased against him and serving subpoenas on the judge to testify which were later quashed. Feel free to enlighten us if you believe any of the above is inaccurate, Mr. Neshanian. It seems that part of your legal strategy is to anonymously post large numbers of absurdly negative messages about Howard Fisher and others on Internet message boards."

And he replied with: "I really don't know what you are referring to with regard to all that Fisher hogwash."

David Marchant


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 7/17/2006 6:37:36 AM

By: David Marchant

I am going to end this thread now, something that I should have done several days ago (probably after the first message). All future messages will be deleted.

This is the type of thread that used to be commonplace on the old Diligizer Board and, for me, made it one of the most tedious places to visit on the Internet.

I want this message board to be a place where mature people can seek and exchange due diligence-related information in good faith.

David Marchant


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 7/16/2006 9:28:38 PM

By: An OBNR Reader

One who searches the archives of the Wall Street Journal will find articles favorable to Enron, WorldCom, and many other failures before their much worse conduct was revealed. Why don't you complain about them? Their breach of statute and ethics was much worse by your standards.

Why will you still not explain serving subpoenas on judges? You say "ongoing" litigation; Is that because Mr. Fisher won and is now out of the case?


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 7/16/2006 9:20:00 PM

By: davesnoconstitutionalscholar

Merchant, what journalistic code of conduct do you follow?

And, the First Amendment protects anonymous speech but it doesn't protect deceitful, commercial speech of the type that you've participated in. Once and for all, I am aware of no ongoing litigation by any of my family members against Howard Fisher. Your view of reality is so distorted by your stupidity and deceitfulness that you consider yourself an investigative journalist. This is truly pathetic. You really are a sad chap.

That you can not admit that it was unethical for you, as the proclaimed journalist you claim to be, to ascribe to your own name a comment in a posting that could be construed as positive towards Bank Crozier. This was unethical on several respects. Among other things, it was a falsehood, it was a distortion of the truth and it was wholly inaccurate.

For you to participate in this conduct and then not comprehend the gravity of the impropriety of the same evinces that you are comprised of a psychopathic personality. You really need help. I regret that you are sick.

I mean you have confused yourself for an investigative journalist when you are really just a wacket-out, nut case.

A feeble, pathetic, unethical bloke whose comprehension and expressive skills are equivalent to a grade school failure. Finally, noone really gives a hoot about your meaningless opinion. Get over it.


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 7/16/2006 1:18:38 PM

By: David Marchant

Re. "And there can be no doubt that his conduct in relation to Bank Crozier was in violation of one or more of the canons of the journalistic code of conduct. Then again, Dave doesn't care about a code of conduct - he's just an unethical bloke."

It is astonishing that an attorney who pathologically posts hundreds of critical and silly message board postings about an opposing party while a case is in progress and does so either anonymously or under a false name (e.g. Lloyd Daniel) does not consider this to be "unethical", but does consider it unethical for a journalist in his own name to make a comment in a posting that could be construed as positive towards Bank Crozier.

As I have stated before, it seems to be impossible to have a meaningful exchange of information and opinions with Eric Neshanian. He is exceptionally immature for a 36-year-old man, unprofessional, particularly when you consider that he is an attorney; and, if you analyse his behavior over the last few years, insane, in my layman's opinion.

He draws conclusions from information that are illogical to the point where they are idiotic and he is also dishonest. One example of the latter came on this message board when he, essentially, denied subpoenaing the judge (an action which, in itself, is odd, to say the least) in his mother's litigation against Howard Fisher.

As an investigative journalist, I tend to attract the attention of a lot of people who are, to put it kindly, weirdos and, to put it unkindly, nutters. While Neshanian is not the most mentally-unbalanced person to become obsessed with me, he is in the top three.

He is able to read all manner of wrongdoing from the most innocuous of actions and comments of others but he is unable to see any improper - or insane - behavior on the part of himself, no matter how glaring the evidence.

David Marchant


 

Jump to different Forum... 

We hunt for red flags in high-value, cross-border finance by monitoring offshore and onshore courts, regulatory actions, offering documents, and other sources - and email you the results.

View Recent Digests

BAHAMAS  
BERMUDA  
BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS  
CAYMAN ISLANDS  
Cayman Court Secrecy: A Huge Red Flag for Foreign Investors & Clients
David Marchant
As any fule kno, the biggest enemy of fraud, corruption, money laundering, and other forms of financial crime is transparency, while their best friend is secrecy. That's why the unprecedented mass sealing of cases that's taking place at the Financial Services Division of the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands is repugnant to anyone with a genuine concern for financial crime.