posted December 31, 2004 12:35            

quote:

---

Originally posted by realityinc21:
SCOTTRADE IS SHOWING 0 VOLUME?????

---

posted December 31, 2004 13:36            

quote:

---

Originally posted by momentum_alerts:
.0007 will come down fast watch!

---

posted December 31, 2004 20:24            

STAR GAZER
Member posted December 31, 2004 20:11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow. I was reading through the posts and on the previous page I came across TTRIF: Thermo Tech Technologies. I bought the stock years and years ago for over a dollar a share. Sounded like a great stock, they were going to turn garbage into expensive resalable biomaterial. Their pilot plant burned down, the officers of the company were arrested for stock manipulation, a new board took over, built a plant in Indonesia that was going to get palm leaves from surrounding plantations, the new president of the company welcomed every one on the new website and said that he considered it his mission to keep all shareholders informed on what was taking place. Showed a picture of the plant and in front of it dignitaries shaking hands with the owners. Then no updates and after a few years, the site with the presidents message, also disappeared. Now the Pink Sheet site has a message in red "We are unable to contact the issuer." I guess that the shares still trade, but the company is probably long gone.

Is this company on the up and up, would like to know before I spend my money on it...

posted January 01, 2005 15:40            

this is a old play that is being pumped hard

posted January 01, 2005 20:55            

this is a scam a old one with more than 6billion in os.

stop trying to suck in newbies to this scam!!

some of us have been around long enough to remember this pos play 1999.

damn these scams never really die.

Outstanding Shares: 6,957,139,438 as of 2003-06-09

posted January 01, 2005 21:00            

quote:

---

Originally posted by momentum_alerts:
You all are entitled to your opinions, but when my guyz run this like we are running HPON now, maybe the next play you will pay more attention haha.
Happy trading
TTRIF remember we alerted at .0005 and it had a chance at .0004 as well.

---

WELL IF YOU RUN IT YOU WILL FOR SURE DUMP IT.. LOL

WILL YOU TELL EVERYONE WHEN YOU DUMP YOUR LUMP OF SHARES.

I HOPE YOU WILL GIVE ALL THE GUPPIES A CHANCE TO DUMP BEFORE YOUR GROUP DOES.

posted January 02, 2005 13:43            

Having a scientific and planning system backgorund.... The company holds patents for the conversion of human waste (sludge) into a viable product.... Human waste has a huge level of organic waste and other nutrients that would be beneficial for ferilizer applications while reducing the need for landill space.... As population grows this will become a main stream approach to dealing with waste disposal.... Now that the patent and technology have reduced any threats to human health associated with the application of biosolids its just a matter of time that company sees tremndous profits.... I am expecting news of plant opening in Malayaysia in the very short term.. I then expect to see more contracts for systems in ASIA AUSTRALIA UK, and the U.S..... The company has recently moved headquarters to Atlanta and on the first 2 new research reports have been issued .... I suggest all serious investors buy these reports as i can assure they are worth thr 30 dollars...... Heres a brief tid bit about thermo tech.......
Buy the research reports do your dd, I expect when malyasisa news stock should be trading in the .03-.05 range.... At this level very little risk great reward.... As more plants come online in 2005 i think we will see the sp increase expotentially as capitol structure improves... I will buy Mon and some longterm.. Target 2005 .10-5.00( depending on how many new plants are online and how they are recieved according to the demographics in each market.....

Thanks for bringing to my attention

aimho

Thermo Tech Technologies Inc. is engaged in the waste conversion and waste management industries. The Company holds the patents to an organic waste conversion technology and has developed turnkey commercial designs for its Thermo Master Plants, which can be delivered anywhere in the world, operating at capacities of up to 1,200 tons per-day receiving. One such facility is its flagship Hamilton Bio Conversion Inc. Thermo Master Mark III plant, located in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. The Mark III technology is covered by patents granted in the United States, Canada, New Zealand and Australia with 14 more pending and in the final stages of approval under the Patent Cooperation Treaty protocol for international patents.

Just by looking at the price history though I would buy and hold.

Hamilton, Ontario - Thermo Tech™ Technologies Inc. (the "Company") is pleased to announce that after many months of negotiations and discussions, letters of intent have been signed to construct two 1200 ton per day Thermo Master™ plants in China. One plant will be built in Shanghai and one in Zhenjiang.

The successful culmination of the discussions has been greatly assisted by Xin Hua Holdings Company Limited of China. Xin Hua is one of China's most respected and well-known companies. In addition, United Prosperity Ltd. of Hong Kong played a key role in successfully concluding negotiations.

posted January 02, 2005 19:06            

Suite 204 3970 E. Hastings Street

Burnaby, BC

V5C 6C1

Tel: (604) 419 0430

Fax: (604) 419 0431

August 3, 2004

Dear Sir or Madam:

RE: Hamilton Plant

The Hamilton Thermo Master Plant was opened in June 1995. The Hamilton Thermo Master Plant operated continuously, expanded and profited until new management in September 2001 shut down operations. When the Hamilton Thermo Master Plant opened in June 1995, Ren J. Branconnier was the president and Chief Executive Office of Thermo Tech Technologies Inc. (Thermo Tech), the Parent Company who controlled the Hamilton Thermo Master Plant. Mr. Branconnier, in addition to being one of the inventors of the patented Thermophilic process used in the Thermo Master Plant, was instrumental in assisting in the design and layout and working with the engineers to ensure the Hamilton Thermo Master Plant was a turn key operation. Mr. Branconnier financed through equity all four of the commercial Thermo Master Plants built by Thermo Tech Technologies Inc. Mr. Branconniers work is a success, and the Hamilton Thermo Master Plant was at the time and remains today a showpiece of modern recycling.

The Hamilton Thermo Master Plant has undergone expansion in plant capacity, for both input and output. By 1998, the initial capacity had grown from 100 tons per day of raw material received to over 600 tons a day. Mr. Branconnier was the driving force behind the success of the Company and remained committed to the process and recycling.

In late 1997, Wayne Hansen, a chartered accountant, joined Thermo Tech Technologies Inc. as the Chief Financial Officer and together with Mr. Branconnier sold the benefits of the Thermo Master Plant to the world.

Mr. Branconniers goal was always to commercialize the Thermo Master Plant and patented thermophilic process and build the worlds largest recycling facility. By 1999, both these goals and more had been accomplished. Mr. Branconnier wanted to step away from direct leadership of the Company to allow him to be free to investigate and research the commercialization of other recycling technologies and other businesses. In December 1999, Mr. Branconnier resigned. However, his belief in the technology continued and he offered his consulting services to the Company as needed.

Mr. Hansen also left Thermo Tech Technologies Inc. and moved to Europe and began European Thermo Technologys, PLC which purchased a license for Europe to market and sell the patented thermophilic process.

Given these significant changes, the new management team decided to follow a new direction and focused its resources on licensing new plants, instead of financing and building. This direction required a reorganization of Thermo Tech Technologies Inc.

Following the resignations, Mr. Branconnier with the assistance of several of the companies major creditors including Mr. Hansen, organized a General Security Agreement (GSA), to allow operations of the Company to continue while securing the various parties debts. This GSA proved to be very successful as it granted creditors security and allowed Thermo Tech to complete all required expansions to the Hamilton Thermo Master Plant. Milverton Capital Corporation (Milverton), headed by its president Mr. Branconnier, was also a major creditor and became the sole owner of the GSA after he allowed all other parties to be paid first, relying on his belief in the technology and his willingness to work with the new management on repayment.

Early in 2000, a new group of consultants, with previous experience in Thermo Tech Technologies Inc., formed a new company, Planet Earth Recycling Inc. (Planet Earth). Planet Earth negotiated with Thermo Tech and set-up a consulting contracts with both Thermo Tech Technologies Inc. and European Thermo Technologys, PLC to contract-out services. In April 2000, a Master Services Agreement was reached for the Marketing, Construction and Operation of Thermo Master Plants. The following service agreements were signed, ensuring Thermo Tech Technologies Inc. solid operational support:

1) Turnkey Construction Agreement;

2) Commissioning and Training Agreement;

3) Maintenance Service Agreement;

4) Technical Services Agreement;

5) Waste Supply Agreement; and

6) End Product Purchase Agreement.

This change in structure and the contracting out of essential services freed Thermo Tech Technologies Inc. to focus on marketing and selling new licensing agreements.

By September 2000, Planet Earth was operating the Hamilton Thermo Master Plant under contract and was directing the phase II new expansion to bring the Hamilton Thermo Master Plant capacity to over 1,200 tons per day.

In October of 2000, Thermo Tech agreed to a new South Asian License with a company to build over 100 new Thermo Master Plants in the region. By December 2001, this new licensee had blossomed into a company wishing to take over Thermo Tech Technologies Inc. and a deal was finalized in January 2001.

Unfortunately, neither the new board of Thermo Tech, the existing board of Planet Earth, nor Ren Branconnier President of Milverton Capital Corporation were able to work together, resulting in several issues developing. Their disputes centered on the existing operating contracts, unpaid amounts to Milverton and a new contract signed in March 2001 and the responsibilities of each party for all matters. This dispute could not be resolved.

By August 2001 Planet Earth was redirecting all accounting and payment issues to Thermo Tech and walked away from operations. In September 2001, Thermo Tech canceled all contracts with Planet Earth and shut down the operations at the Hamilton Thermo Master Plant until a plan to move forward was formulated. Litigation began shortly thereafter and Thermo Tech Technologies Inc. only had two options to move forward with the plant. One, start to operate the plant again itself without the benefit of Planet Earth, the operator the new management was relying on for all know-how and operational experience, or two, contract with a new operator.

An additional issue was raised, and Thermo Tech began to question the continued acceptance of the end product. The end product of the plant had always been an animal feed additive. The process was safe and approved by Agriculture Canada and provided a very valuable commodity for Miracle Feed of Canada, whom purchased all the end product produced. However, global market conditions were changing and continued acceptance of the end product was no longer assured, given the BSE issues in Europe.

Given the various issues relating to the end product, the new management decided to lease out the Hamilton Thermo Master Plant to a new operator that would operate as a fertilizer or soil amendment operation. This approach had always been envisioned by Mr. Branconnier, given the abundance of municipal sludge available. They arranged a new lease and operator in May 2002.

The Hamilton Thermo Master Plant was moth balled, although the operator has kept the plant in minimal operational mode without processing or receiving waste for safety and permitting reasons.

During this period new management has not operated the facility but has obtained a new sludge permit, in the name of and owned by the Hamilton Thermo Master Plant facility.

In January 2004, the outstanding litigation between Thermo Tech, Planet Earth and Milverton was settled and as a result, Milverton obtained control of all the assets of Thermo Tech including the Hamilton Thermo Master Plant.

Milverton, and its President Mr. Branconnier, are ready, have begun work to re-start the Hamilton Thermo Master Plant and have put together a team with Thermo Master Plant, know-how, operational experience, raw waste experience and end product knowledge. We are using our wisdom and are working with Mr. Hansen of European Thermo Technologys, PLC to further everyones goals.

Our team has the experience and record of accomplishment in operations from 1995 to 2000 to ensure another success in both the existing Hamilton Thermo Master Plant and all new facility using this patented thermophilic technology.

Our team is ready to move this desperately needed solution forward to help save our world, currently drowning in waste.

Copyright © Milverton Capital Corporation, All Rights Reserved

Here is a recent court case settlement that I found.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Citation:
664847 B.C. Ltd. v.
TT Land Development Inc. et al


2004 BCSC 356

Date: 20040316
Docket: L033482
Registry: Vancouver

Between:

664847 B.C. Ltd.

Petitioner

And

TT Land Development Inc., Milverton Capital Corporation and
Aarzen Blowers and Compressors of Canada Inc.

Respondents

Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Groberman

Oral Reasons for Judgment

March 16, 2004

Counsel for Applicant, Milverton Capital Corporation

Robert B. Rogers

Counsel for Respondent, Aerzen Blowers and Compressors of Canada Inc.

Paul W. Schwartz

[1] THE COURT: The respondents Milverton Capital Corporation and Aerzen Blowers and Compressors of Canada appear on this application to determine the priorities between them in respect of the proceeds of the sale of land at 11611 Twigg Place, Richmond, B.C.

[2] While there are a number of procedural defects affecting the application, some of which were initially the subject of objection by Aerzen, the parties have now agreed that, the priorities issue having been fully argued, the court ought to determine the matter on this application. I will accordingly treat this application as if it were an application for direction as to which of the parties holds priority over the proceeds of sale.

[3] The factual background is somewhat complex. In the final analysis, however, the issue is whether a crystallized floating charge over the land registered in the personal property registry but not registered against title to the land takes priority over a judgment registered against title.

Factual Background

[4] Thermo Tech Technologies Inc. is a company engaged in the development of innovative processes to deal with waste. The corporate structure of Thermo Tech Technologies and its subsidiaries is complex. For the purposes of this application it is sufficient to recognize that Richmond Bio Conversions Inc. is a subsidiary of Thermo Tech and that TT Land Development Inc. is a subsidiary of another related subsidiary of Thermo Tech.

[5] TT Land Development held title to land at 11611 Twigg Place. It is common ground between the parties to this application that, while not indicated on title, the land was held by TT Land Development in trust for Thermo Tech Technologies Inc. and Richmond Bio Conversions Inc. It is not, for the purposes of this application, necessary to determine how the beneficial interest was split as between the parent company and the subsidiary.

[6] Milverton Capital Corporation was the major financier of Thermo Tech. In March of 2000 it entered into general security agreements with Richmond Bio Conversions Inc. and Thermo Tech Technologies Inc. These agreements gave Milverton a floating charge over all of the companies' assets, including real property. The general security agreements were registered in the personal property registry on March 17th, 2000.

[7] Milverton also held additional security over the subject land. It held a mortgage on Richmond Bio Conversions' lease on the property and also held an assignment of rents and an option to purchase. These three charges on the land were properly registered against title. The principal amount of the mortgage of the lease was $13,170,475.49. The expiry date of the lease was April 2005, although it was renewable.

[8] Aerzen supplied certain equipment to the Thermo Tech facility and in November of 2000 Aerzen registered a charge in respect of the equipment against Thermo Tech and Richmond Bio Conversions in the personal property registry.

[9] In the fall of 2001 Thermo Tech became insolvent. It was unable to meet the demands made upon it by, among others, Milverton. It is alleged by Milverton and not disputed by Aerzen that the floating charges held by Milverton crystallized at that time. In December of 2001 Milverton commenced an action against Thermo Tech and Richmond Bio Conversions, seeking to recover almost $8 million owed to it.

[10] In March of 2002 Aerzen commenced action against Thermo Tech and Richmond Bio Conversions, having not been paid for the equipment and having found that the equipment had vanished. Aerzen included TT Land Developments Inc. as a defendant, alleging that it held property in trust for Thermo Tech and Richmond Bio Conversions. In October 2002, in an unopposed summary trial, Aerzen obtained judgment against the three defendants in the amount of $240,215 plus prejudgment interest in the amount of $44,716.20. It registered the judgment against the subject property on March 20, 2003.

[11] In December 2003, the petitioner sought to purchase the subject property and commenced its proceeding seeking approval of the sale. In February of this year Milverton discharged its charges against the property, purportedly without prejudice to its rights against the proceeds of sale.

[12] The sale went ahead. No attempt was made to allocate a specific amount of the buy-out of Richmond Bio Conversions lease as opposed to the fee-simple interest. Aerzen was not involved in the negotiations preceding the sale and at no time did it agree that Milverton's charges against the land would be preserved against the proceeds of sale.

[13] Aerzen subsequently removed its judgment from title on the basis that proceeds of sale equal to the amount of its judgment would be held in trust pending determination of the priorities. I am advised that the net proceeds of sale are, in round numbers, about $530,000.

Analysis

[14] I am satisfied that both Milverton and Aerzen have valid claims to the proceeds. The general securities agreements that Milverton entered into with Thermo Tech and with Richmond Bio Conversions clearly granted it a floating charge over real property and that charge crystallized by late 2001. For its part, Aerzen obtained a judgment against Thermo Tech and Richmond Bio Conversions, which judgment was registered against the subject property in March of 2003, several months before the property was sold.

i. The Lease of the Mortgage

[15] In terms of title to the real property, Milverton argues that the registration of the mortgage over the lease gives it priority over the subsequently registered judgment of Aerzen. I cannot accept that proposition. The lease and the fee-simple remainder are separate interests in land and Milverton's mortgage over the lease cannot be treated as if it were a charge on the fee-simple. Only the portion of the purchase price attributable to the lease can be said to be secured by the mortgage.

ii. Effect of Registration in the Personal Property Registry

[16] Milverton also argues that the registrations of the floating charges in the personal property registry should be treated as if they were registrations against the title to the land. In this regard it relies on Section 203 of the Land Title Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 250, which provides that the personal property registry established under the Personal Property Security Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 359 is the proper office for the registration of an uncrystallized floating charge. Section 203(10) of the Land Title Act provides that "priority between crystallized floating charges that charge the same parcel of land must be determined by the date of registration [in the personal property registry]."

[17] In my respectful view, these sections do not assist Milverton. We are not here concerned with priorities between two crystallized floating charges. Rather, we are concerned with the priority between a crystallized floating charge and a judgment registered against real property.

[18] Section 203(6) of the Land Title Act allows for the registration of a crystallized floating charge in the Land Title Office. That registration is provided for precisely because registration of the uncrystallized charge in the personal property registry does not result in that charge’s priority over subsequent charges registered in the land title office. Section 44(7) of the Personal Property Security Act and section 29(3) of the Land Title Act make it clear that, with the exception of priorities among crystallized floating charges, registration in the personal property registry does not assist the holder of a floating charge in terms of priority over other charges registered in the Land Title Office.

[19] I must treat this case, therefore, as one in which Milverton's security registered against title to the property was limited to security against the leasehold interest. Aerzen's security was registered against the fee simple interest.

Priority of a Registered Judgment as against Unregistered Charges

[20] Notwithstanding that Milverton did not register its crystallized floating charges against the land, it is my view that those charges take priority over Aerzen's registered judgment.

[21] Counsel for Milverton cites the case of Andrekson v. Peerless Pipe and Equipment (1982), 139 D.L.R.(3d) 556, a case in which our Court of Appeal held that a floating charge took priority over a registered judgment even though it was assumed that the charge did not crystallize until after the registration of the judgment. The court held that until a judgment creditor takes steps to execute against land, its charge does not take priority over a subsequently crystallized floating charge, even where the floating charge has not been registered against the land.

[22] The case at bar is a stronger one than Andrekson in that the floating charge in this case crystallized prior to the registration of the judgment. It would seem, therefore, that Andrekson would be controlling.

[23] It must be recognized, however, that Andrekson concerned a judgment registered under a system in place before the changes that occurred on October 31st, 1979. Under the old system, judgments were registered in an alphabetical list in the Land Title Office rather than against individual properties. Andrekson also predates, of course, the Personal Property Security Act.

[24] In examining other cases, I am satisfied that an unregistered floating charge takes priority over a registered judgment, at least where the floating charge has crystallized prior to the registration of the judgment. In Yeulet v. Matthews (1982), 133 D.L.R. (3d) 399, Low L.J.S.C. (as he then was) reviewed the issue of the priority of registered judgments over chronologically prior unregistered charges. He undertook an extensive examination of the jurisprudence on the matter in British Columbia. Citing Jellett v. Wilkie (1896), 26 SCR 282, he noted that, despite the existence of a Torrens system, a judgment creditor can only sell the land of a judgment debtor subject to all charges, liens and equities that the land is subject to in the hands of the judgment debtor. The judgment creditor can take no greater interest in the land than the judgment debtor holds. Low L.J.S.C. noted that section 20 of the Land Title Act provides that an unregistered instrument is ineffective "except as against the person making it."

[25] Section 20 of the Land Title Act preserves the effect of an unregistered instrument as against the property owner. The judgment creditor, therefore, who can attach only the interests of the judgment debtor, cannot take priority over an existing charge on the property even if that charge is unregistered.

[26] Like the slightly later Andrekson case, Yeulet was concerned with a judgment registered under the old system rather than a judgment registered as a charge against a specific parcel of land.

[27] Shortly after Yeulet, however, in Woollends v. Woollends (1982), 41 BCLR 357, Cowan, L.J.S.C. (as he then was) affirmed that a judgment registered against specific land of a judgment debtor pursuant to the Court Order Enforcement Act attaches the interest of the judgment debtor subject to all charges, liens and equities to which the land is Subject in the hands of the judgment debtor. This will be so even if those charges, liens and equities are unregistered.

[28] Woollends concerned a judgment registered against a specific parcel under what is now Section 86 of the Court Order Enforcement Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 78. Noting the wording of what is now Section 86(3)(a) of the Act, which provides that judgment forms a lien and charge on the land "to the extent of the judgment debtor's beneficial interest in the land," Cowan L.J.S.C. held that the decision in Yeulet v. Matthews remained applicable to judgments registered after October 30th, 1979.

[29] More recently the Court of Appeal reached a similar conclusion on somewhat different facts in Martin Commercial Fueling Inc. v. Virtanen (1997), 144 D.L.R. (4th) 290.

[30] In the case at bar, Milverton's floating charges had crystallized prior to the registration of Aerzen's judgment against the land. While the crystallized charges were not registered in the Land Title Office, they were valid charges against the judgment debtor's interest in the property and the registration of the judgment did not serve to give Aerzen any greater interest in the land than the judgment debtor had. Accordingly, Milverton's security ranks ahead of Aerzen's in attaching the proceeds of sale.

[31] It appears to be common ground that Milverton's crystallized floating charges secure several million dollars worth of debt. In the circumstances it would appear that all the net proceeds of sale will go to Milverton.

[32] Milverton will have the costs of this application on Scale 3.

“H.M. Groberman, J.”
The Honourable Mr. Justice H.M. Groberman

These Oral Reasons for Judgment were released on March 16, 2004 from the Vancouver

posted January 03, 2005 03:55            

There were 2 recent research reports made available on dec 30th, i reccomend u pay the 60 bucks to read them.. This stock has serious potential if it breaks .01 blues sky to dimes see chart.... I also expect very favorable developments near term for this company..

Risk rewards very favorable and any monkey can see from the chart that an uptrend is starting, not much in way to .0080 after .0010..

all just my newbie thoughts.....lol