Case 3:12-cv-01068-RNC Document 16

Filed 10/15/12 Page 1 of 21

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. JERRY S. WILLIAMS, MONKS DEN, LLC, and FIRST IN AWARENESS, LLC, Defendants.

No. 3:12-cv-01068-RNC

JOINT REPORT OF PARTIES RULE 26(f) PLANNING MEETING Date Complaint Filed: July 20, 2012 Date Complaint Served: July 27, 2012 Date of Defendant Williams Appearance: September 14, 2012 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b), 26(f), and D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 16, a conference was held on October 4, 2012. The participants were: Richard M. Harper II, Esq. for plaintiff U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Jerry Williams, pro se, for defendant Jerry Williams. I. Certification Undersigned counsel certifies that, after consultation with his client, he has discussed the nature and basis of the parties claims and defenses and any possibilities for achieving prompt settlement or other resolution of the case and, in consultation with his client, has developed the following proposed case management plan in a separate negotiation with defendant Jerry Williams, pro se. Counsel further certifies that he has forwarded a copy of this report to his client.

Case 3:12-cv-01068-RNC Document 16

Filed 10/15/12 Page 2 of 21

II.

Jurisdiction A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, Section 22(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act) [15 U.S.C. 77v(a)], Sections 21(d) and (e) and 27 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) [15 U.S.C. 78u(e) and 78aa], and Section 214 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (Advisers Act) [15 U.S.C. 80b-14]. B. Personal Jurisdiction

Williams denies the existence of personal jurisdiction by asserting it as an affirmative defense. See Answer, pp.4-5. B.1. Plaintiffs Position on Personal Jurisdiction

Williams objection to personal jurisdiction is frivolous. The Commission has alleged claims against Williams for violating the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. See Complaint, 83-96. These statutes provide for service of process wherever the defendant may be found. See 15 U.S.C. 77v; 15 U.S.C. 78aa; 15 U.S.C. 80b-14. When Congress uses this broad service language, it intends to permit nationwide personal jurisdiction. See Dynegy Midstream Services v. Trammochem, 451 F.3d 89, 95-96 (2d Cir. 2006) (citing, as an example, Section 27 of Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78aa). Under these statutes, if Williams resides in the United States, he is personally subject to the jurisdiction of this court. See SEC v. e-Smart Technologies, Inc., 828 F. Supp.2d 167, 172 (D.D.C. 2011) (holding personal jurisdiction for alleged violations of Exchange Act and Securities Act is satisfied by defendants contacts with United States); see also SEC v. Carrillo, 115 F.3d 1540, 1543 (11th Cir. 1997) (same); Application to Enforce Administrative Subpoena Duces Tecum of SEC v. Knowles, 87 F.3d 413, 417 (10th Cir. 1996) (same). Williams answer

Case 3:12-cv-01068-RNC Document 16

Filed 10/15/12 Page 3 of 21

admits that he resided in Connecticut during the time period alleged in the complaint and, during the course of those alleged activities, moved to Arizona where he currently resides. See Answer, 11, 15; Affirmative Defenses, 1. He is therefore subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court. B. Defendant Williams Position on Personal Jurisdiction

Defendant Williams does not deny that the United States District Court has Jurisdiction. Williams asserts, as the Plaintiff has stated that Williams did reside in Connecticut for a portion of time of the alleged complaints and Williams moved to Arizona as a permanent residence in early 2010. As the Plaintiff has stated that service of process can occur wherever the defendant may be found, and as the Plaintiff has served and communicated over the course of their investigation of approximately two years with Williams at his residence in Arizona, Williams believes that the filing of complaint in Connecticut is in accordance with Rule 11, solely for the purpose of increasing litigation costs of the Defendant and placing undue burden of travel and lodging. III. Brief Description of Case This case is a securities fraud enforcement action brought by the Commission against defendant Williams and his wholly-owned business entities. A. Claims of Plaintiff

The Commissions complaint alleges that, from March 2009 through the end of 2010, defendant Williams and his business entities perpetrated an internet-based scalping scheme involving the stock of two companies, Cascadia Investments, Inc. (Cascadia) and Green Oasis Environmental, Inc. (Green Oasis). Scalping is a type of fraud in which the owner of stock, in this case defendant Williams, recommends that stock for investment and then immediately sells

Case 3:12-cv-01068-RNC Document 16

Filed 10/15/12 Page 4 of 21

it at a profit upon the rise in the market price which follows his recommendation. Williams and his companies repeatedly recommended and instructed others to buy, hold and accumulate these two stocks. When a rise in market price followed his repeated recommendations and instructions, Williams immediately sold his holdings at a profit, deceiving all of the investors and potential investors whom he had told to buy and hold Cascadia and Green Oasis stock. Williams was in fact a paid stock promoter of these companies. He obtained large holdings of Cascadia and Green Oasis in exchange for his agreement to promote these stocks. In March 2009, Cascadia hired Williams to promote the company in exchange for 14 million shares, which Williams received on March 18, 2009. Cascadia engaged Williams promotion services again in May 2009, paying him 10 million shares, and again December 2009, paying him an additional 3.3 million shares. In late February 2010, Green Oasis hired Williams to promote the company. Green Oasis paid Williams by selling him 1.4 million shares at a price of $0.1 per share at a time when the stock traded at $0.8 per share. To promote these stocks, Williams broadcasted his recommendations through two principal means: (1) an internet message board, and (2) teaching securities trading classes. With regard to the message board, Williams moderated and controlled a message board called Monks Den, which was hosted on InvestorsHub (iHub), a website dedicated to securities trading message boards. Williams used the message board to market himself as an enormously successful trader who, through years of experience, had learned certain trading techniques that would enable other people to also become successful stock traders. Williams also used the message board to recommend Cascadia and Green Oasis and as forum to discuss those recommendations. As moderator of the board, Williams communicated with other iHub subscribers by posting messages and sending email messages or alerts. Williams created the

Case 3:12-cv-01068-RNC Document 16

Filed 10/15/12 Page 5 of 21

content of the message board, selected the discussion topics--which restricted board discussions to his stock recommendations and strategies, and chose the boards assistant moderators. In addition to the message board activity, beginning in or around December 2009, Williams started teaching classes, called Monkinars, in which he touted his recommended stocks, including Cascadia and Green Oasis, and taught his Den members the trading strategies he wanted them to follow. Although the classes started out small with only a few attendees, over time the class sizes grew as Williams online popularity grew. From December 2009 through October 2010, Williams held approximately 18 Monkinars in cities across the United States, and also held at least three outside the United States. Williams and his business entities charged attendees between $1,000 and $1,500 per person. By October 2010, Williams Monkinar in Boston, Massachusetts drew approximately ninety attendees, each of whom paid $1,500 to attend. Williamss recommendations of Cascadia and Green Oasis stock coincided with his promotion engagements. For example, on March 19, 2009just one day after he received his initial 14 million shares to promote CascadiaWilliams recommended the companys stock on his website and began to tout the companys prospects through message board posts and emails. In addition to promoting Cascadia stock on the Monks Den message board, Williams hired other stock promoters to help him market Cascadia to investors. Similarly, Williams scalping occurred immediately following his promotional recommendations. For example, after Williams told others to buy Cascadia in March 2009 and the stocks price started to rise, Williams sold his own stock holdings. On March 23, 2009less than a week after he received 14 million shares to promote the company and only four days after he began recommending the stock to his followersWilliams sold over one million Cascadia shares. Within the next four days, Williams sold another 1.1 million shares. As will be shown at

Case 3:12-cv-01068-RNC Document 16

Filed 10/15/12 Page 6 of 21

trial, this patternpayment to Williams for stock promotion, Williams promotion of the stock to Monks Den followers, Williams scalping sales repeated itself over several months. In addition to simply recommending purchases of Cascadia and Green Oasis stock, Williams employed a more aggressive and direct stock promotion scheme called a Float Lock Down. Williams told his followers they could make huge profits by collectively buying and holding the outstanding shares, or float, of companies selected by Williams. After they had locked down the float by purchasing all publicly available shares, Williams claimed that they would trigger a short squeeze, forcing market makers that had shorted the stocks to buy the investors shares at enormous profits. Williams emphasized that to successfully deploy the Float Lock Down strategy, investors would have to work together as a team: that is, they had to buy, hold and continue to accumulate the stock until the short squeeze occurred, even when the price of the stock rose and they could potentially profit by selling prior to the purported short squeeze. Williams repeatedly discouraged individuals from making short term profits from temporary price increases caused by those deploying the Float Lock Down strategy. Williams claimed such sales would undermine the timing of the short squeeze by delaying the locking of the float or by allowing market makers to cover their short position before the short squeeze occurred. Williams selected both Cascadia and Green Oasis as Float Lock Down targets for his followers. In each case, Williams selection of the stock as a Float Lock Down coincided with (i) his engagement by the company to promote the stock, and (ii) his receipt of free or discounted company shares as payment for promoting the companys stock. Once Williams announced the Float Lock Downs to his followers, Williams actively promoted buying, and discouraged any selling, of the stocks through message board postings, emails, and direct statements in his Monkinar classes. Moreover, as Williams was encouraging

Case 3:12-cv-01068-RNC Document 16

Filed 10/15/12 Page 7 of 21

his followers to buy and hold Cascadia and Green Oasis in pursuit of the Float Lock Downs, Williams did the opposite. As the price of these stocks began to rise from the buying activity inspired by his promotional activity, Williams sold his holdings, profiting on the deception of his followers. In a final twist on the scalping scheme, in the spring of 2010, Williams scalped an investment fund for which he had become an investment adviser. After teaching a Monkinar in Japan in April 2010, Williams was approached by attendees about investing their funds using the Float Lock Down strategy. Williams agreed and, together with another Monks Den follower, worked to create a pooled investment fund for these investors. With the help of a New Zealandbased investment bank, the prospective investors created the U.S. High Performance Fund (USHPF). Williams signed an Investment Management Agreement to become the funds investment adviser, for which he would receive a fee of three percent of the realized profits for each trade. The fund received approximately $3.5 million from investors. As the fund was being established, Williams purchased 158,681 Green Oasis shares for his own account in June 2010, adding to his existing holding of approximately 20,000 shares. Then, starting on July 7, 2010 and continuing through August 11, 2010, Williams, as investment adviser for the USHPF, purchased over 2.6 million shares of Green Oasis for the fund at a cost of nearly $1.3 million. Green Oasis share price, which had been trading at around 0.24 for several days, rose to .31 by the close of trading on July 7, 2010. Williams continued to purchase additional shares for the USHPF through August 11, 2010, and the price rose to over $0.72, often trading well above $0.60. While Williams purchased Green Oasis stock for the USHPF as its investment adviser, from July 8, 2010 through July 13, 2010, Williams sold his personal Green Oasis stock position

Case 3:12-cv-01068-RNC Document 16

Filed 10/15/12 Page 8 of 21

of 178,681 shares, for $78,484, realizing profits of approximately $36,000. Williams never disclosed these sales to the USHPF, its trustee, or the investors in the fund. In total, Williams reaped unlawful profits in excess of $2.4 million from his scalping scheme. Based upon the misconduct alleged in the Complaint, the Commission has sued Williams and his business entities for securities fraud in violation of Sections 17(a) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act. See Complaint, Claims 1, 3 & 4. The Commission has also sued Williams and his business entities for promoting Cascadia and Green Oasis stock without disclosing the fact that Williams received and would continue to receive compensation for these promotional activities, which violates Section 17(b) of the Securities Act. See Complaint, Claim 2. The Commission seeks permanent injunctions restraining and enjoining the defendants from future securities law violations, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains together with pre-judgment interest, civil penalties, a penny stock bar against Williams, and any other relief the Court may deem just or appropriate. B. Defenses of Defendant Williams

Defendant Williams cannot speculate as to the mindset of the Plaintiff complaint, but as a reader and, in this case, the Defendant, the Plaintiff complaint appears to imply a predatory picture of Defendant actions.

As I am not an Attorney, and have no experience in matters such as this, the following description will be written in a response manner to points of the Plaintiff complaint or their included case description (I will make no distinction between Plaintiff complaint and their description as it is a summarized version of the complaint).

Case 3:12-cv-01068-RNC Document 16

Filed 10/15/12 Page 9 of 21

I would also like to apologize for any format irregularities that I may have or have had as well as for not being familiar with when written responses should be in first or third person. I am simply going to relay my points in a manner that will be easy to read and or follow.

As this is Defendants first opportunity to relay any substantial version of Defendants view of the complaint or more importantly, to inform the court of material and relevant facts that will show Defendant always acted in good character and furthermore, Defendant acted in accordance with what Defendant suggested to others for both sales of stocks and in life.

Plaintiff complaint states that Defendant immediately sold his shares of two specific companies, CDIV and GRNO that were part of Float Lock Down calls by Defendant. Plaintiff complaint does not provide a complete picture of either sales of shares by Defendant or the Float Lock Down process spoken of by Defendant. Plaintiff complaint also fails to mention that in all forums related to Defendant, the S.E.C. paragraph regarding due diligence for investors was displayed from the S.E.C. website. Additionally, all students participating in the Monkinars received a disclosure that the Defendant was in no way financially licensed but, was rather teaching a method of technical analysis.

Plaintiff complaint states that Defendant immediately sold his shares giving the implication that Defendant called plays and immediately dumped all his shares took the profit and ran. Nothing could be further from the truth. Defendant sold shares in the aforementioned companies over the course of 2 years. What the Plaintiff complaint does not reveal is that Defendant sold shares of said companies in the same manner as he relayed to readers of the forums or in conversations in email or in person to attendees of Monkinars. Most of the Defendants sales were out of necessity rather than by choice. Defendant had to liquidate half of his CDIV, which equaled approximately 11 million shares at that time, per divorce agreement, and as will be discussed further, Defendant had to pay all costs of holding the Monkinars out of his pocket as PayPal withheld the release of funds until the end of 2010. The method of selling relayed, was to sell in increments as the price and volume increased to recover cost basis and assure at least some profit, and then hold a chunk for the long haul, rather than waiting for a single specific target price and unloading all shares at once, as this would harm the natural

Case 3:12-cv-01068-RNC Document 16

Filed 10/15/12 Page 10 of 21

movement of the stock, it was also relayed that short term flipping was counter-productive, as short term flipping on stocks with low floats would lock the price in a channel. Defendant relayed to folks that he would not advertise or post his sales as such an announcement would likely flood the market with sellers and create enormous downward pressure on such low float stocks, although, he did mention on occasion, as a price passed a certain resistance point that he would treat himself in some way or another, thus implying that Defendant would be selling incrementally as new levels of higher bases were established. As the Defendant was routinely asked when he would sell, his common answer was, as the price and volume increased and that I would not advertise my sales as it would be like yelling fire in a theater.

The Plaintiff complaint does an excellent job of listing Defendants sales however, completely disregards 4 very critical facts.

1.

Defendant held and continues to hold millions of shares in the aforementioned 2 companies the Defendant did not sell, which he could have sold for approximately 3.5 million dollars.

2. Defendant held those shares without selling long before Defendant was informed or any had any knowledge of any S.E.C. investigation(s).

3. Defendant did not sell those shares as Defendant was following the same process he relayed to others, by not selling into weakness, Defendant held himself to the same standard as anyone else and watched millions of dollars in profit disappear rather than selling those millions of shares into a falling stock which would have only compounded the weakness.

4. This action alone, is contradictive to any predatory picture painted by Plaintiff and, furthermore shows without a doubt, that Defendant actions were in line with what Defendant relayed to readers or students.

10

Case 3:12-cv-01068-RNC Document 16

Filed 10/15/12 Page 11 of 21

Additional note, Defendant routinely advised people to never put money in plays that they could not afford to lose and always relayed that he understood that life gets in the way and given the choice of holding or buying a play, or providing for needed expenses such as mortgage payments or bills and such, that it was no contest, life needs always come first. Again, long before Defendant was informed of any S.E.C. investigation, Defendant routinely helped folks in need by donating funds on multiple occasions and even traveled at his own expense from Arizona to Michigan to teach a family with a paralyzed head of household.

The thought process behind a Float Lock down.

The concept of the Float Lock Down is quite simple; a group of investors buys all of the outstanding shares of a low float stock, ideally, a very low priced stock. It is no mystery that penny stocks and sub-penny stocks are massively naked shorted as evidenced by S.E.C. regulations and enforcement. This referenced Bloomberg investigative piece is one of literally hundreds of similar news pieces showing that naked shorting exists in the 6 Billion dollar per day range.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9w2FDNsJFuw&feature=gv#!

The logic of supply and demand would rule the resultant lock up of the float. For example, if a companys stock has 50 million shares outstanding and the group collectively owns 75 million shares, then, it stands to reason that the excess 25 million shares are naked shorts. Assuming the naked short position is forced, via a buy in notice to cover the short position or the shorting party elects to cut their losses and cover their naked position, the inevitable result would be that the holders of the shares could then dictate the price at which they were willing to sell.

Defendant first became aware of the concept of locking up the float of companies while witnessing and to some extent, participating in the process first hand on two companies that essentially had no business model to speak of, nor revenues of any substance. The results of

11

Case 3:12-cv-01068-RNC Document 16

Filed 10/15/12 Page 12 of 21

locking up the company floats took TUBR from a few cents to over $4.00 and EVCC from a few cents to nearly $8.00.

The process of buying and selling shares on low float companies is quite different than that of a heavily traded and liquid stock like AAPL, for example. Stocks like AAPL have instant liquidity, allowing investors to buy and or sell at will without having an effect on the price of the shares. Small float companies are quite different in that, any holder of shares, even with what might seem to be a small amount of shares can greatly affect the price of the stock.

Defendant relayed the following strategy relating to buys and sells for the Float Lock Downs: When buying, the buyer should buy in phases, by placing a portion of the intended purchase on the bid with a limit order and buying the balance of intended purchase at the ask price. This method would help the stock and traders in two ways. First, it would show activity at the ask price signaling strength in the trend. Second, by placing a portion on the bid side, it would show a deeper level of support on the Level 2s and, additionally, would allow a potential seller to exit without having a large effect on the price, which is win / win for the buyer and seller, The buyer gets a cheaper price and the seller has liquidity for their exit sale.

When selling, Defendant suggested to sell incrementally into strength by placing orders above the current ask price as this would not stall an existing movement. Defendant suggested the incremental sales to recover initial cost basis and secure a portion of profit thereby leaving the investor risk free to hold a chunk for the long haul as the seller would already be whole and only risking potential gains. Plaintiff states that Williams advised against short term profits. That is incorrect, what Williams did advise against was short term flipping as that method of trading would tend to hold a low float stock at resistance levels for extended periods of time, for example, if a trader sat on bid collecting shares at .04 and immediately placed the shares on ask at .06, those actions tend to stall a stock and if a stock stalls long enough, investors lose interest and sell at bid to move on to the next one.

Plaintiff complaint relays that Defendant taught at least 18 Monkinars throughout 2009 and 2010. What the Plaintiff complaint does not relay, even though Plaintiff is completely aware

12

Case 3:12-cv-01068-RNC Document 16

Filed 10/15/12 Page 13 of 21

by deposition of Defendant and Plaintiffs forensic review of Defendant financial records spanning the previous 3 plus years, is that Defendant was receiving fees for the Monkinars via PayPal. Plaintiff is fully aware that PayPal did not release the funds collected for the Monkinars until the end of 2010 which forced Defendant to liquidate shares over the course of the 2 years. PayPals withholding of collected fees forced Defendant to pay for all expenses of the Monkinars out of his own pocket. This totaled hundreds of thousands of dollars in travel, hotel rooms, conference rooms and equipment rental, staff pay and administrative expenses as well as meals for all participants (costs for meals was included in sign up and thus also remitted to PayPal).

Plaintiff has shown a one sided picture of my actions, in what I believe is an attempt to show me as mentioned earlier, to be a predator. While I do agree that a portion of the Plaintiffs complaint or their included case description are factual, such as numbers and dates, I believe and can certainly show that there is a far greater range of action(s) that show aspects of the time frame in which alleged complaints occurred as well as my actions since the S.E.C. investigation.

Plaintiff relayed I had been a promoter. That is true and while working for other promoters, I found out very quickly that nearly every promoter in the penny stock arena was out to hurt people. I can literally and vividly recall a promoter calling me and asking me to go stir up the action, they want to dump shares after lunch I declined. (That statement is certainly not meant to say that every person or company involved in promotional activity can be typecast, I am not intending to cast an accusation, only to relay personal experience.) Plaintiff also states that I never disclosed that I received shares from various companies. While I may not have disclosed the information in the proper format required by the S.E.C., I certainly disclosed it as shown in deposition transcripts of witnesses. Keeping in mind that the Monks Den members were, and still are a very tight group with most of them considering each other family. Any information or news shared by anyone was instantly common knowledge.

Plaintiff states that Defendant, as Moderator, controlled the Monks Den as to not allow any discussion of plays that were not called by the Defendant. This allegation is a half truth. I, and all Moderators of Monks Den allowed free discussion of any play for years, it was only

13

Case 3:12-cv-01068-RNC Document 16

Filed 10/15/12 Page 14 of 21

after Monks Den had reached a traffic level that, what was routinely called, drive by spammers started inundating the board with so many random posts that it made the threads of conversation impossible to follow.

Plaintiff description of USHPF Fund, is in my opinion, also vastly distorted in that the Plaintiff complaint and their included case description are written to focus on a single action showing my profit from the sale of GRNO shares of approximately $36,000 (which I took 5 days to liquidate in keeping with the selling method described earlier).

The following, is a far more complete representation:

Defendant was invited by a previous attendee of a Monkinar to come to Japan and discuss with his associates about how a Float Lock Down could work. He mentioned the interest in establishing a fund to participate in the Float Lock Down investment strategy.

Defendant agreed to travel to Japan to share in these discussions and shortly thereafter, Defendant traveled to New Zealand to meet with the Fund holders.

The Plaintiff complaint focuses on 2 Float Lock Downs. There were however, a total of 4. The Defendants actions in the other 2 companies will again show the Defendant acted in good character.

The investors from Japan proceeded to form the Fund in New Zealand. Discussions with the investors included which of the Float Lock Downs the Fund would take part in. Defendant advised against the Fund purchasing shares of CDIV. This again, is in keeping good character, and continues to show the pattern of Defendant purporting himself both professionally and honestly by informing the investors that CDIV was too far along for them to take part in given that CDIV rose in price over 119,000% from the original call by Defendant. And, no, that number is not a typo. And Defendant had been selling incrementally and was now holding the chunk for the long haul.

14

Case 3:12-cv-01068-RNC Document 16

Filed 10/15/12 Page 15 of 21

Plaintiff states that Williams sold 178,681 shares of GRNO for approximately $36,000 profit and that Fund was not notified. That statement is completely false. Fund was informed of my intent to sell a portion of my GRNO shares to cover my expenses of travel to Japan and New Zealand The Fund was also informed that I had well over a million shares that I would hold for the long haul After covering travel expenses, I had no intent to sell any further, and I didnt. GRNO reached in excess of $.70 I could have sold those shares for approximately $850,000 in total. I still hold those shares. I would not sell into weakness hurting the stock or other people.

The Fund also entered EIGH. And, yet again, in keeping with the pattern of good character and the process Defendant taught and shared with others, along with the Fund, Defendant personally purchased with his own funds, in his own account just over 3 million shares of EIGH at a cost of $582,000.00. I never sold a share even as I watched the price plummet from hovering around $.40 to sub-penny, I would not and could not in good conscience race for the exit as so many others did, I stuck to my beliefs and did not hurt others, I have taken the entire loss. Once again, this pattern of behavior is directly contradictory to the nature of the Plaintiff complaint.

The Fund also entered PNTV. Again, in total, I had as many as approximately 1.9 million shares at one time. I could have sold those shares for easily in excess of $650,000 as the price remained well over $.20 for an extended period of time and a good period of close to $.40. As I stated earlier, the volume and price never increased with enough strength to allow for the sale of any shares in the method I always relayed to others. When the S.E.C. investigation became public, at the request of the company, I returned my shares to the PNTV treasury. I dont recall the specific amount, but I believe it was 1.5 million Admittedly, the remaining shares I had in PNTV have been sold over the course of the last 2 plus years (at a loss), but, frankly the expense of voluntarily complying with the S.E.C. in their investigation has depleted my resources and forced me to liquidate my remaining shares.

Plaintiff seeks injunctions and $2.4 million plus interest from Defendant. I say the pattern and actions described here are not only provable but, have been known by Plaintiff for better

15

Case 3:12-cv-01068-RNC Document 16

Filed 10/15/12 Page 16 of 21

than a year or more. As I will not likely have the resources to defend myself through the completion of a trial, I am taking this opportunity to get opinions and facts as part of the record.

Over the course of the investigative requests, as I have had no staff or assistance for quite some time now, I have personally, spent over 2,000 hours in research, reading, copying and relaying information in the formats requested.

Defendant has at times, in order to comply with deadlines for production, collapsed from exhaustion, lack of sleep and dehydration on multiple occasions, and in one instance, to the extent of a hospital stay.

I have voluntarily complied with every request of me from the S.E.C. at the cost of literally, all my available resources and placed myself in substantial debt.

I believe the aforementioned actions and descriptions show that I kept my word and acted honestly, so much so that during the time of the alleged complaints, in keeping my word, I watched $5 million dollars vanish from my accounts.

This investigation and action, whether warranted or not, is destroying my health and has destroyed my reputation and thereby ended any chance of my ever teaching again, resulting in essentially, no livelihood. The Plaintiff is also aware that the Veterans Administration has deemed my disabilities to make me unemployable. Without teaching, I will be forced into living on a fixed income of just under $1,200 per month as I do not qualify for social security benefits.

I believe the S.E.C. has already acted as Judge, Jury and Executioner. Any punishment warranted for improper disclosure has certainly been paid.

Additional notes:

16

Case 3:12-cv-01068-RNC Document 16

Filed 10/15/12 Page 17 of 21

Settlement conference:

Plaintiff states that no early settlement is possible. Plaintiff intends to pursue trial to closure to seek full judgment and or remedies listed in Plaintiff complaint.

Defendant, in good faith, attempted to open discussion of settlement during initial discovery conference on October 4th, 2012 with Plaintiff Counsel. Defendant is well aware that in all likelihood, he will not be able to complete this trial successfully to completion on his own as he does not possess the experience or knowledge and cannot afford a knowledgeable staff for assistance. Nor will he be able to afford Counsel to represent the business entities where the Plaintiff Counsel has moved to strike the answer(s) provided by Jerry Williams, on behalf of Monks Den, LLC and First in Awareness, LLC appearing, Pro Se. Defendant will likely have to expend all equity remaining in his home, his last significant asset. Williams attempted to suggest a settlement based on the equity remaining in his home, relaying that a settlement would be the only probable way the Plaintiff would receive any relief in this matter as the costs for Defendant to hire Counsel and continue with trial will very likely exceed Defendants resources and result in a default judgment in favor of Plaintiff. The judgment, if won, will be an empty victory at further costs including the time of the Court and its staff, the government and tax payers as well as the Plaintiffs time and expense to prepare for and attend. IV. Statement of Material Undisputed Facts Counsel and defendant Williams, pro se, certify that they have made a good faith attempt to determine whether there are any material facts that are not in dispute. Defendant Williams is unwilling to stipulate to any facts before reviewing the available documentary and testimonial record. V. Case Management Plan A. Standing Order on Scheduling in Civil Cases

The parties request modification of the deadlines in the Standing Order on Scheduling in Civil Cases as set forth below.

17

Case 3:12-cv-01068-RNC Document 16

Filed 10/15/12 Page 18 of 21

B.

Scheduling Conference with the Court

The parties request a pretrial conference with the Court before entry of a scheduling order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). Both the Commission and Williams would prefer to attend the conference in person. C. 1. Early Settlement Conference The parties certify that they have considered the desirability of attempting to settle

the case before undertaking significant discovery or motion practice. Settlement is unlikely at this time. 2. 3. The parties do not request an early settlement conference. The parties do not request a referral for alternative dispute resolution pursuant to

D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 16. D. 1. Joinder of Parties and Amendment of Pleadings Plaintiff should be allowed until Friday, November 2, 2012 to file motions to join

additional parties and to amend the pleadings. 2. Defendant Williams should be allowed until Friday, November 30, 2012 to file

motions to join additional parties and to file a response to any amended complaint. E. 1. Discovery The parties anticipate that discovery will be needed on the following subjects:

Williams securities trading activity, Williams activity on and moderation of the Monks Den message board, Williams communications to members of Monks Den (both electronic and oral communications during Monkinar classes), Williams activities leading to the formation of the USHPF, and Williams activities as investment adviser of the USHPF.

18

Case 3:12-cv-01068-RNC Document 16

Filed 10/15/12 Page 19 of 21

2.

All discovery, including depositions of expert witnesses pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 26(b)(4), will be commenced by October 18, 2012 and completed (not propounded) by Friday, March 8, 2013. 3. 4. Discovery will not be conducted in phases. Plaintiff anticipates taking a total of ten depositions of fact witnesses. Defendant

anticipates taking a total of ten depositions of fact witnesses. The depositions will be completed by Friday, March 8, 2013. 5. 6. The parties will not request permission to serve more than 25 interrogatories. Plaintiff does not intend to call an expert witness in its case in chief. Plaintiff

may call a rebuttal expert in the event any of the defendants call an expert. Plaintiff will designate all rebuttal trial experts and provide opposing counsel with reports from retained experts pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) by Friday, February 1, 2013. 7. Defendant Williams does not intend to call an expert witness at trial. Williams

will designate all trial experts and provide opposing counsel with reports from retained experts pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) by Friday, January 4, 2013. 8. 9. Depositions of experts will be completed by Friday, March 8, 2013. Undersigned counsel and defendant Williams have discussed the disclosure and

preservation of electronically stored information, including, but not limited to, the form in which such data shall be produced, search terms to be applied in connection with the retrieval and production of such information, the location and format of electronically stored information, appropriate steps to preserve electronically stored information. 10. Undersigned counsel and defendant Williams have discussed discovery

procedures that minimize the risk of waiver of privilege or work-product protection, including

19

Case 3:12-cv-01068-RNC Document 16

Filed 10/15/12 Page 20 of 21

procedures for asserting privilege claims after production. The parties have further agreed that if a producing party identifies any inadvertently produced attorney-client privileged or attorneywork-product protected document(s), the receiving party will either return or delete the document upon request of the producing party. F. Dispositive Motions

Dispositive motions will be filed on or before Friday, April 26, 2013. G. Joint Trial Memorandum

The joint trial memorandum required by the Standing Order on Trial Memoranda in Civil Cases will be filed by Friday, May 24, 2013. VI. Trial Readiness The case will be ready for trial by Monday, June 3, 2013.

Respectfully submitted,

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, By its attorney,

/s/ R.M. Harper II Richard M. Harper II (PHV #05528) Senior Trial Counsel U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission 33 Arch Street, 23rd Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02110 (617) 573-8979 (Harper) (617) 573-4590 (Facsimile) HarperR@sec.gov

20

Case 3:12-cv-01068-RNC Document 16

Filed 10/15/12 Page 21 of 21

JERRY S. WILLIAMS,

/s/ Jerry S. Williams Jerry S. Williams, pro se 3123 North 82nd Way Mesa, AZ 85207 480-639-7038 Jswcase@gmail.com

October 15, 2012

21