Accountant “fired”… believable ???

Yes folks… the CEO of IC Places, Inc., Mr. Steve Samblis, files an 8K with the SEC (see it here)  stating that the accounting firm, DKM Certified Public Accountants, have been terminated.  Believable ???  Well, you may remember it was just a short time ago that Mr. Samblis stated, on several occasions, and reported such via several SEC filings, that the previous president of IC Places (then IC Punch Media) was fired also… and that was documented to be far less than truthful.  See the details here.

So… can this termination be believable in light of previous numerous documented instances where Mr. Samblis has been, shall we say, reckless with the truth?   In a response by Travis Green, CPA, Audit Partner, with the firm DKM Certified Public Accountants when questioned about the missing lawsuit information in the 10K (details here) replies on 5/1/14 “Any information that would come to our attention subsequent to our audit report date would have to be measured on a case by case basis and in entirety to determine if it would have a material effect on the financial statements.“.  Could it be that DMK Certified Public Accounts simply did not care to be associated with Mr. Samblis and his omission of information as relevant to the “… substantial doubt as to the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern as the Company has incurred net losses since inception and existing uncertain conditions which the Company faces relative to its obtaining capital in the equity markets.”.  As the link documents, there was (and maybe still is) a substantial legal judgement against Mr. Samblis and IC Places, Inc.  This is something that not only should have appeared in the SEC filing, but the omission is compounded by proactively indicating that there was in fact no legal actions during that reporting period.  Obviously given the actual documentation shown in the link, demonstrates both the omission, and the statement of no legal proceedings was factually inaccurate.  Was such omission  purposeful and an attempt to deceive and defraud… that is for the courts (and you) to decide, however most will likely agree, it appears so.

So, could it be, that like the presidents “firing”, the real truth is, DKM chose to no longer represent Mr. Samblis?   Perhaps DMK will comment on the controversy at some later date.  Additionally, one wonders if the new accounting firm, Hartley Moore Accountancy Corporation, 2400 E. Katella, Suite 862 Anaheim CA. 92806, is aware of Mr. Samblis’s history with accuracy in the reporting of material facts revelent to IC Places and its solvency.

Also, take notice that the new firm uses the term “Accountancy” in their title.  It appears that for the filing fee of $80.00, just about anyone can form an “Accountancy” company, and, according to the statute here, there doesn’t even need to be a Certified Public “Accountant” within the company.  (see the below graphic (click to enlarge)) See the full exception here.


Now… there may be some very reputable “Accountancy” firms out there, however, when viewed in the context of why would Mr. Samblis chose an “Accountancy” firm over a CPA firm like he had in DKM… one would question the motive involved, and therefore question if the new firm is reputable.  Can we now expect to see a play on terms relative to the SEC filings, i.e. document has been audited by a Certified Public Accountancy”.

Stay tuned folks… it only gets better and better !


Is the CEO a liar ???

Is the CEO of IC Places, Inc. (formally IC Punch Media, Inc.) Mr. Steven Samblis a liar.  Well… many say yes.  Many point to his previous press releases where he promotes new relationships, affiliations, or initiatives that the company is involved with, and say because many, (and some say ALL), of these initiatives have not come to fruition (“true” as they say), that this is evidence of his lying.

Well, we disagree.  Many businesses initiate new ideas, try new things, enter into new relationships and affiliations.  Many times these new initiatives turn out to be not what they initially thought they would be, and in some cases outright fail.  That’s just business.  Some things work… others don’t.  So… simply because Mr. Samblis has tried new things to improve the company, and most if not all have not proved successful, and many have outright failed… does not mean he lied about them, or is a liar.

However… what these poor and failed initiatives make him is… probably the worst businessman (and/or CEO) of all time.  The club of businessmen and/or CEO’s that have spent tens of millions of dollars on trying new things, only to have their stock currently trade at extremely sub-penny status – AFTER 3 REVERSE SPLITS… is an extremely small club.  A club some say Mr. Steven Samblis should not only be a member of, but be the leader of.

What folks should be looking at to draw a conclusion that Mr. Samblis is likely a liar is hard evidence.  Evidence that can be documented and indisputable against the common standard of proof.  Lets look at some one at a time.

SEC filings:

1) CEO Employment contract:  Mr. Samblis files multiple 10-Q/K reports that state… “The company does not have employment contracts with its majority shareholder, who is the executive officer.“.  This is a quote from the August 12, 2011 Quarterly report filing here.

Then…the public filing dated 11/14/2012 states the following: “On November 18, 2005 the Company entered into an employment agreement with Steven Samblis to be our Chief Executive Officer.”. The passage goes on to list the compensation which includes the provision of majority control being maintained.

2) Lawsuits against the company:  The most recent filing, the 10K (see here), as well as the previous filing, the 10Q (seen here) there is NO mention (or can be said, “disclosure”) that there is in fact a legal proceeding against the company.  See it here.  In fact, the filings state..  “We are not engaged in any litigation, and we are unaware of any claims or complaints that could result in future litigation.” (emphasis added)

Then… it becomes known that there was in fact litigation that had occurred during these 2 filing periods.  See details here.

3) President of company being asked to resign:    In the 10-Q report (here), it is clearly stated that the president’s resignation was “requested“.  (see details here)

Then… just recently the resignation letter of the president became available.  See it here.  Clearly, this was a voluntary resignation on the part of the president, which is, in direct opposition to Mr. Samblis’s SEC filing statements, as well as multiple message board posts.  In fact, of late, Mr. Samblis is still maintaining that he requested the resignation.  Additionally, notice the date of resignation discrepancy between Mr. Samblis’s statements and filings, and the actual resignation letter.

Keep in mind that the above statements/declarations are from the formal SEC 10-Q reports, filed, signed, and attested to by the CEO of the company, Mr. Steven Samblis.

Other incidents:

1) Reverse split:  This one doesn’t even need any document references here.  As everyone knows, there were a vast number of posts over multiple message boards where Mr. Samblis stated he would not do a reverse split of the stock.  In several instances he used the word “never” in reference to the possibility of a reverse split.  This was likely the topic that Mr. Samblis most addressed in his message board posts, and steadfastly disputed anyone that would even hint at him doing another reverse split.

Then… as everyone knows, on March 27, 2013 he does a reverse split.

2) Statements regarding our websites:  In a message board post dated 4/28/2014 on Investors Hub, (see it here) Mr. Samblis states (see below premise), via his HollywoodFastLane alias, that “Issacs attempted to sell the sites (right after registering them) to IC Places for a hugely inflated price.

Then… Friends posted the actual email exchanges between Mr. Samblis and Larry, which clearly demonstrate Mr. Samblis was not being truthful.  (See them here.)  as can be clearly seen, a) Larry did not contact Samblis to sell the sites… Mr. Samblis made the initial contact and requested a purchase… several times, before Larry agreed.  And b) referring to the “hugely inflated price” as Mr. Samblis states… an agreed upon price of $1500.00 was struck.  However, due to Mr. Samblis’s message board posting where he blatantly disrespected Larry… Larry cancelled the deal.  Then Mr. Samblis later (October 27, 2013 email) offers over  three times that amount, voluntarily, to purchase the sites, but that offer is refused (see the next email).  Clearly Mr. Samblis has misrepresented the actual events surrounding the purchase of our sites.

Now, as most of you know, we could go on and on giving example after example of instances of where Mr. Samblis was, shall we say, reckless with the truth.  Although some instances would be open for dispute, we think there are no better examples of questionable actions, that many would call lying, then the instances involving the SEC reporting.  These SEC reporting discrepancies are clear, documented, and clearly a misrepresentation of the facts.  Many would say a blatant disregard and disrespect for the authority of the SEC.

Well folks… you have the facts, you are free to decide for yourself if Mr. Samblis is a liar.  It seems obvious Mr. Samblis has recently taken to the message boards, using what many believe to be multiple aliases to promote the company, and therein a presumed purchase of the company stock shares (some call this stock manipulation).  Many believe it is Mr. Samblis stating through multiple aliases that it is not him really posting using these multiple aliases.    One such account, HollywoodFastLane, was apparently shut down recently by Investors Hub as being in violation of their Terms of Service, and many believe a fraudulent use of such account.  Many say this is Mr. Samblis’s attempt at circumventing being held accountable for his statements and actions by claiming he was not actually the poster.  The poster made multiple statements using the HollywoodFastLane account stating that he was “hired” by the company to maintain social media content.  If this is actually Mr. Samblis making these posts, it is but another example of what many call lying.  Maybe some day his use of such tactics may be able to be discovered and documented also.



Fraud… or honest mistake ???

If you have seen the most recent SEC filing by the CEO of IC Places, Inc. Mr. Steven Samblis (formally IC Punch Media, Inc), you might have noticed a section making a statement about, have there been any legal proceedings.  See graphic below (click to enlarge).  As one could imagine, any legal proceedings the company is involve with are an important piece of information that should be included in the filings, so investors can be aware of any real or perceived risk the company may have as a result.


Well… this most recent filing, the 10K (see here), as well as the previous filing, the 10Q (seen here) there is NO mention (or can be said, “disclosure”) that there is in fact a legal proceeding that, by all appearances should have been disclosed.  Please refer to the graphic below (again, click to enlarge).  Notice the dates of both the commencement of the legal action, and the dates of the K/Q reporting periods.


It’s public knowledge that the lawsuit was filed, and active when the SEC filings were submitted, so WHY was the legal action against the company not disclosed ?  If interested, a complete listing of the initial complaint, and all subsequent documents can be obtained here.  With the damages demanded ($75,000), that would have resulted in approximately 250 million shares of stock to satisfy payment.  Many would agree this is significant, so significant as to certainly warrant inclusion (disclosure) in each filing where the action was still active.   With approximately 16 documents having been filed with the court over a 6-month period, and at least $75,000. on the line, one would think it would be difficult to “forget” about the lawsuit, such that it would be overlooked when completing the SEC filings.

Also, as evidenced in the below graphic, before an actual trial began there was an out of court settlement.  According to the documents, the settlement amount was $32,128.00, to be paid in 3 monthly installments.  And as a condition of the settlement there was a provision in the settlement that provided for the event of a default (i.e. non-payment).  In the event of a default, a Judgement would be entered IN THE FULL AMOUNT of sought damages (i.e. $75,000.).


Well, guess what… Mr. Samblis did not make the very first payment, and, as the settlement terms allowed for, a Judgement for the full $75,000. was entered, AND… of course additional legal fees were requested as a result.  See the graphic below.


Where does the lawsuit stand today… unknown.  There was a hearing scheduled for 2/14/2014 but as the below graphic indicates, there was a “No Appearance”.  We don’t know WHO didn’t appear, or WHY they didn’t appear.  We have attempted to contact Mr. Kernan but as of this posting date there has been no response.  One could assume the debt is still outstanding, (if Mr. Samblis couldn’t make the first 10k payment, its unlikely he could come up with the 75k full default amount), however there is no confirmation of such at this time.  One could also assume that if the debt had been satisfied, such a significant expenditure would need to be listed in the 10K document.  However, there would be no need to assume anything if Mr. Samblis were to make a statement as to the status of the lawsuit.  He could say: a) its paid, b) he could say its not paid and why… c) he could say its not my fault and blame it on the accountant, or d) and  the most likely is… he could not say anything, and if he remains silent on the matter, that might give a good indication as to if its been paid yet.

ImageAlso troubling, and may explain a lot about the whereabouts of content (2000 hours of video, etc) and other issues, such as the reasoning for the “Strategic Partnership” designation of MyImagineTV (instead of a wholly owned subsidiary of IC Places, Inc.),  is the notification in one of the attorney’s letters seen below.  Notice the highlighted section related to the “remedies” available, specifically “taking possession of intellectual property”.


What was the lawsuit about… it had to do with the breach of terms and conditions set forth in a “Producer Agreement” regarding the production of the “Woody and Craig, Zombie Hunters”.  See the quasi-press release in the below graphic.


So folks… fraud, or an honest mistake?  You have the facts, and you can form an opinion of your own.

Additionally, it would seem appropriate for investors to ask… have there been any other misrepresentations in any of the previous SEC filings?  We know, as pointed out by Joseph Collins, that Mr. Samblis’s employment contract had not been listed in any previous filings prior to the dispute between them.  The notification of the employment contract started appearing after the dispute.  Below is an excerpt from one of our previous posts here, demonstrating there was apparently misrepresentation of Mr. Samblis’s Employment Contract.  One would think that an employment contract with terms that paid the CEO 250 million shares of stock, and $250,000. as compensation, would be significant enough to disclose.


Investors are led to believe that reports submitted to the SEC by reporting companies are accurate, and portray a valid and complete picture of the company listed.  With examples like the above, one rightfully questions if investors can really count on the accuracy of such documents.  Can you really trust what you read in these SEC filings anymore ???  What else may have been “forgotten” ?

The other indirect negative ramification of this breach of contract is… it would seem reasonable that other people in the network production/entertainment/talent end of the business may be hesitant to do business with Mr. Samblis now that he has a history of a breach of contract.  This no doubt makes it more difficult to do business.


Samblis defends Reverse Split

Well, finally, after some 8 days since the actual reverse split… Mr. Steven Samblis, CEO of IC Places, Inc (formally IC Punch Media, Inc) breaks his silence and speaks to the reason(s) he ordered the reverse split.  See the post here.  And in true Samblis form… the blame is redirected elsewhere.  How many times have investors heard this?

As we predicted in our post here, and again here, it appears the main reason Mr. Samblis cites for the reverse split is “Getting the company healthy is a major initiative. The reserve split was necessary to achieve this.”  i.e. he did it all for the investors!  If you are an  investor do you feel special now???  Do you feel Mr. Samblis is looking out for YOUR best interest?

Another reason Mr. Samblis cited for doing the reverse split is our websites !  Apparently he thinks our websites are one of the reasons the company is doing so poorly.  Apparently Mr. Samblis thinks that if he can silence us, the company would do much better.  He is probably right in that concept overall, however what he apparently fails to realize is that even if he is successful at silencing one of his critics, there will be more that pop up in our place.  Does Mr. Samblis really think ALL his critics can be silenced?  Bad decisions and the resulting opinion of such are going to be talked about publically nowadays… this is the internet age.

Mr. Samblis appears to be exhibiting more of his arrogant and vindictive tendencies in singling out one particular critic over all the rest.  Has he forgot about and ignored the loudest critic of all… LieHub?  (which by the way, maybe we better change how we characterize them, after all they have been pretty good at accurately predicting the future with respect to Mr. Samblis)   How about the scores of investors that have lost money on their investments in his company, which he then ridiculed and chastised on a public forum when they asked questions about his actions as CEO ?

Mr. Samblis appears to be so delusional in his thinking that folks talking about the actions he has taken to bring the company to the point it is currently… is the reason the company is at the point it currently is.  In other words… stop talking about all the bad decisions he has made because that’s what is causing him to make those bad decisions.  This would be laughable if it weren’t so sad.  Mr. Samblis needs to focus on making better decisions in order to move this company forward and overcome his past decisions that have brought this company to where it is today.  Thinking he can silence people talking about his decisions is just a waste of ill-focused energy.  Get a grip Mr. Samblis and start focusing on better decisions that will bring this company back from the edge of insolvency.

He also states “After I refused to pay the outrageous money to the man that holds and runs these websites he turned them all into attack sites.”  Well, re-read the above if you think they are “attack” sites, however if you want the real truth about what transpired regarding why Mr. Samblis does not currently own the sites he refers to, read the actual written exchange between Mr. Samblis and the owner of those sites here.  You will also notice in this string of emails that Mr. Samblis OFFERED twice the previously agreed upon price for the purchase of those sites, and the owner rejected that offer and refused to sell the sites.  So, once again, Mr. Samblis attempts to mislead the readers/investors into thinking what he wants you to think.  Its a good thing there is a written record of the exchange or some readers just might be influenced by Mr. Samblis’s attempts to mislead.

We thought this was an interesting post (click to enlarge) by a frequent poster on Investors Hangout about what another CEO did when his company did a reverse split.  Its interesting to note the result of this CEO’s actions.  We will leave it up to you to decide which appears to be the better decision made by the 2 CEO’s in question here.




Next Reverse Split forecast

Well… now that Mr. Steven Samblis has 3 reverse splits under his belt for his public company PNCH(D), there is now a pattern based on actual historical data that can be used to forecast possible future reverse splits.  Take a look at the below chart (click to enlarge).  This chart could represent a fairly accurate forecast of when, and how large, a future reverse split may be.  This chart utilizes the actual historical data, and projects out possible dates and share reductions for the future.

Now of course Mr. Samblis will dispute this data, and most likely dispute the entire concept of another reverse split… but how did his assertions about not going to do a reverse split regarding the most recent reverse split work out ?   Numerous post after post assuring the investors he would not do a reverse split, even going so far as to call those who would suggest such bashers, and liars.  If Mr. Samblis’s credibility was questionable before the 3/27/14 reverse split… there is certainly NO question now.


For over a year this company could not get anyone to buy the stock over a penny (or much over .0003)… what now makes this company worth 2-3 cents a share?  Given the history of reverse splits, and the overwhelming likelihood of another one… WHO is going to take a chance on this company, and more importantly… a CEO with less than zero credibility.  Even if the company were to have revenue (which it hasn’t for quite some time now), its unlikely investors would take a chance on it with so many other companies out there that actually have revenue and some are even profitable.  That coupled with factual data demonstrating the CEO has been reckless with the truth on more than one occasion, about serious issues such as not going to do a reverse split.  How could anyone trust ANYTHING Mr. Samblis says… or, puts in writing for that matter.   And… Mr. Samblis has not even had the intestinal fortitude to face his investors over the reverse split yet.

Come on Mr. Samblis… face the investors !

Bashing ???

Unfortunately, it appears when an investor asks a valid, but unflattering, question about the company or the CEO… they are labeled a “basher”.  When did asking a valid question make a poster a basher ?   Labeling a poster who asks a very valid question, and/or giving their unflattering opinion about the company or CEO a basher,  is a tactic of the avid supporters of the company to discredit that poster.  Its a very effective tactic (if you let it) to silence the poster.  Its a “shoot the messenger” mentality for those who can not argue the merits of the issue being discussed.  If the poster’s question or comment is valid, even though at times maybe crudely stated, instead of supporting a response with alternative facts, the responding poster attacks the questioner personally in an attempt to convince others that because the questioning poster is somehow flawed personally… the question has no validity.  Many have seen this tactic utilized by Mr. Samblis also.  We say nonsense !

Using the tactic of attempting to discredit the messenger is tantamount to playing the race card in a discussion about political issues.  How many times have you seen those that would speak out in opposition of the policies of the president be labeled a racist.  The theory is… if you disagree with the president, then you must be a racist.  We say nonsense !   Placing a label on someone who disagrees with your position is an effective tactic (if you let it) at changing the subject.  The discussion at that point is not about the issue at hand, but the NEW issue of creditability of the questioner instead of the issue.  Don’t let yourself fall into this trap.  If you let the attempt to divert the discussion to unrelated issues like labeling, you fall prey to their trap.  They attempt to trap you because they are unable to argue the merits of the issue.  They have no defense, perhaps because the issue is indefensible, so therefore they attack the messenger instead of the message.  Pathetic and inexcusable in our opinion.

An additional tactic to quiet unflattering questions and/or opinions is the use of censorship.  Censorship is also a very effective tactic used by those who can not debate the issues and seek to simply make the issue invisible, or so they think.  LieHub is a prime example of the practice of censorship.  Anyone who has spent more than a few minutes on the site will realize pro-PNCH comments are frequently deleted.  Those that support PNCH find this practice unfair and unacceptable.  Deleting an opposing view leaves the reader with an unrealistic, and perhaps an invalid view of the company.

The Investors Hangout message board is an example of the opposite of LieHub.  Investors Hangout frequently deletes negative comments about PNCH.  We ask… if the practice is wrong on LieHub… why is it not wrong on Investors Hangout?  Deleting posts, it could be argued, is a tactic by those that have the power to delete postings to influence what others see.  The deleted post is likely not flattering to their position or cause… so they delete it so that it can not become a discussion that may develop into something they don’t want brought to light.  Here again, its easier (and perhaps equally as effective as changing the subject by labeling) to divert the subject matter because they likely have no supporting information to debate the issue.

Censorship will likely reveal and result in hypocrisy.  Take for instance these 2 posts (click to enlarge):

Image   Image

And now take a look at this post:


See any hypocrisy ???

By reading those first 2 posts it would appear that attacking another poster will NOT be tolerated (and summarily deleted)… UNLESS (it would appear) the attack is in support of PNCH.  Most will agree… this example is obviously hypocrisy personified.   As we write this post, the personal attack seen above remains posted.

Folks… if you have a question or an opinion, don’t let the opposition curtail your voicing such.  Make your point, support such with facts or justification, and don’t let others divert your attention off the subject matter by labeling you, or censoring you.  There are far more outlets to express your opinion than message boards.  AND… if you feel the need to attack the messenger, then you likely have an unsupportable position on the subject, or, you don’t have enough knowledge about the issue to respond.  Do your homework, then respond.  Attacking the messenger only shows that you are unable to debate the issue effectively.  If you see a response that attacks the messenger, you know the responder has no ability to defend what they are attempting to defend.  And the same goes for those that have the power to delete posts… ask yourself…are you abusing your privilege as a moderator in an attempt to force your own agenda onto other readers?  If so… shame on you !



Could PNCH trading be halted ???

Well, read on and form your own opinion.  We were alerted to an action by the SEC regarding a company trading under the ticker IMTC.  See the SEC notification here.  Right off you may initially ask yourself… what does IMTC have to do with PNCH ?  Answer… nothing whatsoever.  However… what’s important is the REASON the SEC halted IMTC.

You will notice the following text in the SEC notice:

The Commission temporarily suspended trading in the securities of IMTC because of
questions that have been raised about the accuracy and adequacy of publicly disseminated information concerning, among other things, IMTC’s business, revenue, and assets. This order was entered pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Exchange Act. (emphasis added)

Now… if IMTC was halted because of “questions” surrounding “publicly disseminated information concerning”  among other things “revenue and assets”… how does this differ from the questions surrounding publicly disseminated information about the revenue and assets of PNCH ?  Its significant to understand that it appears no hard evidence was used in their decision, but simply the “questions” surrounding such information.  There certainly have been significant questions raised about the revenue and assets of PNCH.

The bashers over on LieHub have been saying and predicting the halting of PNCH for quite some time now, however it appears perhaps now the SEC is taking a serious look at companies who, although they may be compliant, or seemingly compliant on their SEC filings, such filings, and any detail, and/or lack thereof, are getting a closer look.

For instance… does it seem reasonable that PNCH has had ZERO revenue in the last several quarterly reports?  Where is the revenue for the advertising viewers see on the IC Places website?  Where is the revenue from content being provided to Clearvision?  Where is the revenue from the Prescription Discount Card program… etc., etc., etc. ???  It just defies logic and common sense that NO revenue is being generated for anything PNCH is doing.  Is this enough of a “question” for the SEC to take a close look at PNCH, or, perhaps halt the trading until these type questions can be answered?

There are no shortage of unanswered questions surrounding the PNCH operations and finances.  The sad part of this issues is… these are self-inflicted issues.  Mr. Samblis’s new concept of going dark so to speak regarding the ongoing operations of the company and discussing and documenting the flow of investor funds, is causing more red flags than the possible unflattering truth.  One should ask themselves… why the secrecy surrounding cash flow.  If investors navigate to the negative upon the lack of information… what will the SEC think about the lack of information.  It is just normal human behavior to question the lack of factual information and secrecy to gravitate to the negative and suspect there is something to hide if there is an appearance of something being hidden from view.

Of course Mr. Samblis could put the SEC and the investors at ease if he would simply inform the investing public of the whereabouts of the invested funds, as well as any revenue being generated from ongoing activities.  If there really is NO revenue being generated… then that should be communicated and explained also.  Mr. Samblis will likely counter with… “everything is in the filings”.  Well, you have read the filings… are you satisfied ?  Many are not, and the folks at the SEC are human just like you.

Mr. Samblis… come forward, voluntarily, and discuss the  PNCH finances.  Not only will you ease investors fears… you just may head off an SEC investigation into a decision to halt trading until such information is uncovered and released.

Think it can’t happen to PNCH ???  We bet that’s what the folks at IMTC were thinking also.

Well… there appears to be some progress…maybe.  Mr. Steven Samblis, CEO of IC Punch Media announced today (via twitter feed from his @Orlandolive twitter feed) that ImagineTV is launching.  The website is here.  If you don’t like to read, there is a link here where Mr. Samblis is being interviewed about the launch and content (appears to be a “promotional” video).

Without any further explanation, which is par for the course for Mr. Samblis, one is left to assume, speculate and/or conclude that this appears to be an extension, or rebirth, of his Self Help Center endeavor.  If you navigate to the Self Help Center website, you are now simply re-directed to the IC Places website.

One thing that jumped out at us upon initial review, was the “relationship” of the new initiative.  In the graphic below (click to enlarge), notice the highlighted section.  This notation leaves open the question as to what extent this initiative will benefit the shareholders of PNCH.  In our post here about where’s the revenue, one must question where any revenue and/or profit will be accounted for as a result of any sales THIS initiative has.


Also notice the reference in the graphic below.  IC Places has “invested” in Imagine TV.  What does that mean ???  If invested in the traditional terms, does that mean Mr. Samblis, through IC Places Inc. has bought shares in the Imagine TV company?  If so, how much investment, and where did the funds come from for the investment – Mr. Samblis’s “personal” funds, or PNCH funds?  AND… like VU Television, there appears to be confusion surrounding multiple Imagine TV companies all using the same or slight variation of the Imagine name (sort of like MYimaginetv).  So if there was really an investment, i.e. an exchange of funds, which company was the investment placed in?


As usual, with no explanation, and the past history of questionable creditability of Mr. Samblis… this new initiative creates more questions than it provides answers.  What, on the surface, appears to be a good thing, may in fact be not so much.

We guess, stay tuned, hopefully there will be a press release explaining the relationship.  However, as press releases go, they usually create more questions then they answer, and, even if Mr. Samblis were to personally provide an explanation to the investors of PNCH, it will likely be code-speak as suggested in this excerpt from our post here.


Mr. Samblis… please provide a meaningful explanation of the relationship arrangement posted on the MyImagineTV website, along with what, if any, benefit this new initiative will have for the investors of PNCH.  And please… no code-speak !


The dreaded Reverse Split !

Well folks… there it was for all to see… the CEO of IC Punch Media, Mr. Steven Samblis acknowledging a reverse split is possible.  For months and months the bashers over on LieHub have predicted Mr. Samblis would do a reverse split.  In contrast, for months and months Mr. Samblis has vehemently denied and had been steadfast in his statements of not doing a reverse split.  Well… Mr. Samblis’s post last night seemed to be acknowledgement of a reverse split certainly being a viable option, and in our opinion, the lead-in and set-up of one.


Some of you may remember our post speaking to a reverse split here.  Also, here is just one of the posts where Mr. Samblis states he would not do a reverse split because “there is no reason to“.  In many, if not all of Mr. Samblis’s statements concerning a reverse split, he has always added that caveat about no need.  We believe this was no accident.  Has he planned on doing a reverse split all along… who knows, but its obvious to us at least that Mr. Samblis knew this was a tool in his toolbox that was at his disposal at any time.  By emphasizing so frequently that he was not going to do a reverse split, he apparently had hoped that readers would latch on to the not going to part and miss and/or underestimate the no need to part.  Pretty slick don’t you think ???

On a related issue regarding carefully chosen wording in an effort to mislead… take a close look at this post.  In the line about getting assets back and damages from Collins, Mr. Samblis makes a true statement… however, true to what extent?  Make a positive difference, a negative difference, or very little difference either way?  Take a look at this post from Mr. Samblis, wherein he states “My attorneys feel he is judgment proof because if we won we would never recover a dime from him.”.  So what is the point of the statement about making “a difference”?  The obvious point that comes to mind is to mislead the reader.

Lets look at the next statement Mr. Samblis makes in the same post.  “There is nothing in either agreement that gave him majority control of the company. He could get shares but no place is any percentage of ownership talked about.“.  Here again, a true statement, however, that is not the accusation of Mr. Collins.  Mr. Collins assertion is that in 90-days he was to “step up as CEO”.  The only “control” Mr. Collins spoke about was being elevated to CEO.  Mr. Samblis carefully and cleverly attempts to mislead the  reader into thinking Mr. Collins has no basis for his statements.  Its clear for all to see that the provision about being elevated to CEO is certainly listed in the Mr. Collins Employment Agreement.

Lets look at Mr. Samblis’s statement about the listing of Mr. Samblis’s employment contract.  Mr. Samblis states “Collins said there was no record of my employment contract”.  What Mr. Collins actually stated was…”Samblis failed to disclose his alleged Employment Agreement at that time. Further, Mr. Collins audited all previous SEC filings for IC Places, all signed by Samblis, and not only was there no mention of this agreement, the annual statements for years 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 expressly state “There is no employment contract with Executives or Directors at this time. Nor are there any agreements for compensation in the future”.  Now, look at the statement Mr. Samblis quotes in support of his contention Mr. Collins is lying.  Do you see anything in there about maintaining majority control of the stock?  Mr. Samblis states “but it was in all the books and in public filings”.  Again, do you see any mention of the Greystone Park Enterprises, Inc. employment contract in Mr. Samblis’s “example”.

The public filing dated 11/14/2012 states the following: “On November 18, 2005 the Company entered into an employment agreement with Steven Samblis to be our Chief Executive Officer.”. The passage goes on to list the compensation which includes the provision of majority control being maintained.  Do you see this employment contract listed in any previous filings, and specifically the part about maintaining majority control of the stock. Take a look at the below graphic, taken from the August 12, 2011 Quarterly report filing here. (click image to enlarge).  Do you see anything about an employment contract?  What you do see is the specific statement that there are NO employment contracts !


So… Mr. Samblis’s “example” is correct in and of itself, but has no relationship to the accusations Mr. Collins is making.  Again, this appears an effort to mislead the reader with true statements which have noting to do with the issue at hand.  Pretty slick don’t you think?

Folks, when you read ANYTHING from Mr. Samblis, we suggest you read it carefully.  Read it with the original question or issue in mind.  We think you will begin to realize many, if not all, of Mr. Samblis’s statements are carefully worded to mislead and deflect the original question.  Its the magician concept… shake your left hand to draw attention away from what your right hand is doing.

There were some very good posts yesterday regarding how Mr. Samblis should conduct himself as CEO of the company.  Mr. Samblis would be wise to heed their advice.  However, its doubtful he will.  For instance, take a look at this post here, and Mr. Samblis’s reply to it here.  This exchange was back in June of 2013.  Do you think Mr. Samblis will heed the good advice he has been given ???  It has been suggested many times, by many investors, that Mr. Samblis hire a professional public relations officer, however apparently Mr. Samblis sees no merit in this action, in spite of the vast numbers of investors telling him its needed.  In fact he really doesn’t need to hire one, as it likely any number of posters/investors would be more than happy to step up and volunteer their expertise for this much needed service.  But still, all this good advice falls on deaf ears.  What does that tell you about the future of the company regardless of any productive business decisions Mr. Samblis may make in the future.

Mr. Samblis is quick to blame anything and everything bad on someone or something else… he really needs to consider revisiting that concept if he has any hope whatsoever of turning this company around !


Return of assets ???

What has changed between this: (click to enlarge)


and this:


Consider the following:

1)      Punch assets were valued at 2.8 million (or 135 million shares at the time of purchase)… Mr. Collins has returned 153 million shares.  That far exceeds the value of the asset purchase.  Mr. Samblis has said numerous times that the asset purchase is completely separate from the employment agreement.  Did Mr. Collins return the asset purchase shares, or the employment shares?  How could that ever be determined?  Of course it will be argued by Mr. Collins that he returned the asset shares, and how could that be disproved?

2)      What assets are there really?  The biggest asset (some may disagree, (Mr. Samblis has)) is the Punch name.  What else could there be… some camera equipment, office equipment, video library of old movies.  No real estate was listed in the asset listing, so how much could these assets really be worth?  The asset listing listed 1.4 million in “tangible” assets.  There is a lot of interpretation within the term “tangible”, such as the film library at $650,000., and Software and Broadcast Equipment at $757,000, does anyone think that might be just a little over inflated?  Would they be worth spending 10, 20, 50 thousand dollars in legal fees to attempt to get them back… and would the attempt be successful?

3)      The public move to regain assets could be simply the latest maneuver to garner interest in the stock and perhaps drive up the price.  Public statements like the Chinese deal, CVN deal to be in 12 airports by the end of 2013, and each airport worth $192,000. in yearly revenue, new network launch to numerous markets around the country, etc, etc, etc.  There have been numerous attempts in the past to publically release statements to the investing public that many say have proven to be false and/or never come to fruition.   What makes this public statement about regaining Punch assets (that Mr. Samblis has said he didn’t want) any different?  It appears the recapture of Punch assets stands even less chance of becoming a reality due to Mr. Samblis’s very weak argument that Mr. Collins never returned the shares used to purchase those assets.  Mr. Samblis will have a VERY difficult time proving WHICH set of assets Mr. Collins returned.  If Mr. Collins had returned none, that would be a completely different ball game, but as it stands now with Mr. Collins having returned shares in excess of the amount exchanged for the asset purchase agreement, it looks like any money spent in legal fees to get something Mr. Samblis stated is poison… just makes no sense.

Still think attempting to get back “poison” assets makes any sense ???  Perhaps Mr. Samblis can lay out WHY getting these assets back now is different from when he said there would be noting to gain going after them.  What has changed ???