Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 1, 2023 - Blood Money

01:07:04

IS the Vinco Ventures conspiracy a political takedown of Jesse Law? Or is it Truth?

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	So, let's go. Let's go.
	So,
	Alright, welcome to the latest episode of Blood Money.
	Today I have a very special group of guests who are going to be talking about this Vinco Ventures conspiracy and what's been happening in terms of the accusations made towards Jesse Law and the other board members.
	So I will let these gentlemen in to the room.
	How you guys doing? Good, Vin.
	Thanks. Great. All right.
	A lot of guests. We got a lot of guests here.
	So this is going to be obviously a very long episode.
	So, you know, buckle in.
	Why don't we first start off with introductions, you know, every single person that's here right now and what your role is in this whole Vinco Ventures conspiracy, as we're calling it.
	All right. I want to go clockwise.
	Start with me right here. Yeah, why don't we do that?
	Yep. So I'm Retail Rudy on Twitter.
	My real name is Shad Vic.
	When I pulled off the mask, I'm a shareholder of BBIG in the Vinco Ventures stock.
	I just started organizing the community back in December because I built websites and software for a living, threw up a website, people started joining, and we've been through the process of trying to get nominations for board members.
	We filed a lawsuit in the 8th Judicial Court there in Las Vegas.
	And now we're just waiting for a hearing next week to see what happens if we get a receiver for the company.
	So just a short view there, I'm a shareholder who's just fighting against what we feel is corruption.
	Got you. Chris?
	Yeah, I'm Chris Muntz.
	I'm a Vinco Venture shareholder as well.
	Been since August of 2021.
	Been riding the wave for a very long time.
	Along with Shad, I'm a plaintiff here in the court case that we've, you know, had in front of us for the last couple of months.
	Yeah, and looking forward to the next couple of weeks.
	A lot of fireworks, I guess, with the election here coming up Tuesday and then our motion for receiver on Thursday.
	Hey, everyone. I'm Matt.
	I'm president of No Rhino Nevada PAC that was recently just filed.
	A lot of you probably know from, you know, the anti-lockdown movements back in 2020.
	We were doing a lot of rallies out there trying to get businesses back open.
	And then in 2021, we got involved with the party and we actually were on Jesse Law's team two years ago.
	And, you know, Over the last month or so, when we found out about this Vinco Ventures information, it all took a big turn, and here we are today.
	JD? I'm Jason Dick, JD Sharp on Twitter.
	I'm vice president of No Rhino Nevada.
	I also got in touch with Shad Vick originally and kind of started the, we'll call it the press campaign, for the various things that they've gone through as far as losing 95 plus percent of their investment, in particular since Jesse Law joined the board of directors in October of last year.
	Got you, got you. So I don't know who wants to take this question, but give us the basics, the layman's version of this story, exactly what happened, why Jesse is being accused of whatever he's being accused of, and why any of you feel that he might actually be guilty of doing those things?
	I'd be glad to take that on our end.
	I mean, our end is much different because when we met Jesse Law, As a shareholder, you don't meet members of the board.
	You just are aware of who they are.
	And on a high level, you see resumes.
	But we didn't really know, at least I didn't know Jesse Law was really affiliated with politics until the last month or so.
	Prior to that, I just knew he was a board member.
	And I was aware of our board because we tried to communicate with them for two years to try and get filings on time to understand what our assets are.
	As we found evidence of self-dealing, of collusion, conflicts of interest, as we've dug deeper, we've had to do a lot of work to find out what's going on.
	That's how we found out more about Jesse Law.
	But Jesse Law is interesting because both him and Brian Hart are on one of the same filed documents in the beginning as having worked with Theodore Farnsworth, who's an indicted for securities fraud in the MoviePass saga.
	So here you have a guy Who's on a document.
	He's supposed to be an independent director of a publicly traded company, and he's not.
	He's not independent. And so when we filed the case, there's a slew of things we could talk about that are wrong both civilly and potentially criminally.
	But we saw one thing that really stood out that really got us going when we saw that they amended the Articles of Incorporation to issue illegal preferred shares.
	So as a shareholder investor, Every one of our shares matters because that's what it gives us a vote.
	When shares are issued illegally, that actually gives someone else a vote.
	So they were diluting the shares illegally?
	Yeah, it does two things.
	It dilutes the outstanding shares so that our shares are worth less, but it also gives them a vote.
	Somebody else a vote, right?
	So Chris Muntz is my co-plaintiff here.
	And he's been a master at DD along with many other shareholders.
	But he really scrutinized that particular piece.
	And he was able to testify in court with us about it.
	Yeah, Chad, I can go ahead and elaborate a little bit more.
	Because I think what you'll hear and probably some of the, you know, what Jesse Law is going to be telling, you know, Nevada voters is that he was an innocent bystander or he's just a dude who was placed on the board of directors.
	You know, you gotta ask why.
	I mean, he doesn't have any experience in a digital media company.
	Why was he picked? But it goes even further than that.
	I mean, he was definitely, it's clearly in the evidence that he was handpicked by Ted Farnsworth.
	You can go back to EDC in May of 2022.
	So our primary application is an application called LaMotive.
	LaMotive was intended to be, or was billed as a TikTok competitor.
	And they streamed, they did live streaming for concerts and electronic dance festivals.
	EDM festivals. LaMotive streamed EDC 2022 out in Las Vegas.
	This is before Jesse Law.
	This is before the lawsuit. This is before anything happened with Vinco Ventures.
	This is back to May of 2022.
	Jesse Law was in attendance at EDC with future board members, Brian Hart, with Ted Farnsworth.
	They shot a promo video where he's dancing.
	Ted's there. They have the LaMotive stuff in the background.
	It's very clear that he had a prior affiliation with Zash Global Media, which was Ted's company, and Ted long before the lawsuit was filed, long before he was named a member of the board of directors.
	You fast forward to July of 2022, right?
	There was a lawsuit that was filed by then CEO or co-CEO and board member John Colucci alleging a hostile takeover of Vinco Ventures by Ted Farnsworth.
	On the day after that lawsuit was filed, Jesse Law was named in a document, on a public document that was filed in court, signed by Ted Farnsworth, naming Jesse Law as an employee and a manager of Zash Global Media.
	So before he was ever a board of director, he had a prior affiliation with Ted Farnsworth.
	That's not debatable. And I think that's a point that needs to be addressed, right?
	So I listened to your I saw your call or your interview with Jesse a couple weeks ago.
	And it may have been actually last week.
	My days are moving by pretty fast.
	You know, I watched your video and there were a couple of things that were really alarming to me, right?
	So you pressed him on that and he said, oh, I can't answer that because of the SEC. You know, he hid behind the veil of the SEC. The SEC is going to come calling.
	Yes, if you're going to ask him questions in particular about the role that he's played in Vinco Ventures as a board member or any dealings that they have, anything that's related to the delinquent filings, anything relating to the A360 Media National Choir deal, He can't answer that because he's a board member, but he can sure as heck answer anything that happened prior to becoming a board member.
	And he really needs to address that prior affiliation with Ted Farnsworth because, in my opinion, and the DD and the evidence that we have clearly suggests that everything that happened from the time that he was on the board of directors has not been in the best interest of IncoVentures.
	It's been in the best interest of Ted Farnsworth and the toxic financiers.
	Gotcha, gotcha. I mean, so I talked to Jesse before this interview, and the concern I have here is that there's an election coming up.
	There's a court case that we're talking about.
	Findings, discoveries have not been made.
	There's a lot of accusations happening, right?
	So, I mean, the story could go many ways.
	The story could go in a way where, hey, you know, the election happens, Jesse loses, and he loses because of all these accusations, and then findings, discoveries happen, and, you know, maybe it shows that he was not in the wrong.
	There's other board members.
	There's other individuals. There's other people.
	People that might have been, you know, I guess guilty of doing some of these wrongdoings, right?
	So that's my concern is to really temper this in terms of like these are still accusations, allegations, discoveries haven't been made, findings haven't been made.
	Right? So, you know, what Jesse told me is that he feels as though it's almost like you guys have the higher ground in the sense that he feels he can't answer a lot of these questions.
	Hence, he can't defend himself.
	And, you know, you guys are able to talk, but he isn't.
	So that is something that I would love to address.
	I mean, what do you think about that?
	I'd love to talk about that.
	I mean, I'll just tell you something.
	There's one thing. It's one thing when you sling mud at somebody, right?
	Mm-hmm. It's another thing when three of your board members resign at the same time.
	So he's got three other board members, Lisa King, Richard Levinson, and I'm missing the name right now.
	Brian Hart. Yeah, Brian Hart. They've all resigned recently.
	Now, I can't tell you why they resigned.
	There could be a lot of reasons.
	But it's quite telling that they would resign right now in the middle of a lawsuit.
	Why wouldn't they just defend themselves?
	Why wouldn't they stand up from themselves as board members?
	Why wouldn't they follow through with it, right?
	And so that alone is very telling.
	You can deduct a lot from just those other board members resigning.
	And he's sticking around.
	That's fascinating. Now, you need to know, too, the chair of our board of directors shared a domestic address with Theodore Farmsworth.
	So they started Zash Global together.
	He also signed the bond for Theodore Farnsworth to get out on probation right now.
	so we have evidence of these documents so it's not like there's no relationship these are proven things and you deduct one from the other but if you look at the actual hardcore evidence we're not just saying hey i saw this or i heard this if you look at our court filings we have printed documents with signatures transactions of money and so on and so forth so it's not like we're just That's one of the reasons why my teaser to this entire appearance
	was because Jesse's been saying that everyone who was making these statements has what's called Jesse Derangement Syndrome.
	What he's doing is he's aligning himself with Donald Trump.
	And Donald Trump has gone through a number of mudslinging and hit pieces and fake news and false accusations and wrap-up smears.
	And that's not what this is.
	These are two plaintiffs on a court case that are sharing exactly what their evidence dictates in their court case.
	And it's very important that we don't conflate What's happening with Donald Trump and what's happening with Jesse Law just because he tries to align himself with Trump and basically discredit or diminish his potential malfeasance, which has led to 60,000 plus shareholders losing quite a bit of money.
	If I could just add, I'm not political at all.
	I have no dog in the race.
	I'm not from Nevada. I'm from Ohio.
	I live in D.C. The politics of this doesn't matter to me, to be honest with you.
	But what does matter is the fact that I talk, me and Shad talk to 20, we represent or we have the support of 2,500 shareholders.
	I talk to these people every single day.
	People send me messages, you know, thank you for the lawsuit, all you're doing.
	And, you know, it makes me uncomfortable because, like, I feel like I have such a huge burden.
	But those are the people that I care about, that I represent.
	None of this, you know, the politics behind it, you know, that's not what I'm motivated by.
	You know, it doesn't...
	At the end of the day, I'm unimpacted by the results of the election, but I do feel an obligation, to be honest, with people that are going to be impacted by this.
	At the end of the day, what we really want is Jesse Law out of our company and we want to save our investment.
	That is all that we care about.
	Do you feel as though Jesse Law is one of the main reasons why your investment is suffering?
	Absolutely. So he was appointed onto the board of directors on September 28, 2022.
	Three weeks later, actually not even three weeks later, October 13, his first action on the board, they pushed through the illegal amendment to the Articles of Incorporation to create shares violating Nevada Revised Statutes.
	That was within... Two to three weeks, his first action on the board.
	He was handpicked by Ted because he found somebody who would be willing to go along with what we believe is fraud to serve their own self-interests.
	Oh, sorry, Chad. Oh, sorry, I was just saying, touching up on the politics stuff, just that aspect, keep it long.
	But, you know, about a month ago, this information was presented to us by people.
	And, you know, to go off what Chris said, this is just an issue we felt like voters in the upcoming CCRP election had to know going in and To the CCRP election.
	I mean, this is the guy who's going to be in control of our party the next two years in the most important election probably in our lifetimes, 2024.
	So it was just every day we would find something out new, like a new revelation every day.
	And you notice when we put the RJ article out probably about a week and a half ago, we really didn't say much after that.
	You know, we weren't on Facebook.
	Or Twitter talking then.
	We let the information present itself.
	And then, you know, the other side just started attending us, you know, But yeah, what guys have been through in the BBIG family is just, I mean, Jesse is not innocent, I don't think, in my opinion.
	I know these are alleged charges, but from everything we've heard, BBIG family, she seems heavily involved in this.
	And, you know, it's nothing personal.
	You know, this is just information that we could not overlook to bring into the political arena with the election coming up.
	And I'll just, if I can just add, you know, that our lawsuit is not against Jesse Law.
	Our lawsuit is against Vinco Ventures, here at Orangeworth, and individually, each member of the board of directors.
	So it's not like we came out to target one individual, but he's being highlighted right now.
	And it is bringing attention to our case, but you don't sue your own company.
	That's not the best way to typically get your money back.
	Because by suing us, we cost ourselves time and money, our lawyers, and we're paying for this lawsuit on both ends.
	We're trying to make our company whole.
	And the best way we see to do that is to remove a board of directors that's complicit.
	So if one member of the board doesn't speak out and they see these oddities, there's a problem.
	So let me ask you, Jesse, when I was speaking with him earlier, he was saying that most of the drop in stock value happened before he was at the company.
	Is that accurate? So, there was, I mean, you know, I think that's just a, that's a red herring, you know?
	I mean, like, yes, there was, the company has been, it's been a victim of fraud, you know, alleged fraud since Ted Farnworth came into existence.
	But since Jesse Law has been involved, we haven't seen things get better.
	We've only seen it get worse and substantially worse, right?
	I mean, we're down... We were almost adjusted for reverse split.
	I'm going to say this because I know my folks back in the BBIG community are going to get on me for this.
	I'm going to talk about post reverse split adjustment.
	Since Jesse Law got on board, we were just under $20.
	Today, we closed at $2.
	That's a 90% drop right there since he's been involved.
	And that's all during Jesse's time, that 90% drop happened.
	But you're saying that there was a drop prior to Jesse being involved because there was still some fraud going on with the Farnsworth gentleman?
	I would say that's accurate, yes.
	Okay. Yeah. And if I could, just to expound on that, why we dropped, it's not that...
	It's not that he's been coming in doing helpful things to the company.
	He's on the audit committee.
	We have not seen financial filings.
	We have not seen a financial filing from the day that he started on Vinco Ventures through today where he has been in the company.
	He started at the very end of Q3 2022.
	What are we now? We're almost ready to end Q2. Are we just into Q2? We have never seen a financial filing.
	We've been out of compliance on financial files ever since he came into the company.
	And he's on the audit committee.
	He's literally responsible for the oversight and the compliance of our financial reporting.
	Why are we still waiting on audited financials?
	The other members of that audit committee have stepped down.
	They're the ones who've left.
	So he's the only one left on that audit committee.
	You learn something new every day.
	Wow. I didn't even know that.
	Our financial firm, our chief auditor is Markham LLP. They were just charged by the SEC. There's a big picture going on here.
	We could get into a lot of entities.
	I know there's a focus here on Nevada right now, but there's a lot going on with this particular ticker.
	I'd love to find out about it.
	I mean, I'd love to get the big picture.
	Do you mind if I pose you some questions that are being asked by the viewers?
	Sure. Absolutely.
	Was there ever a vote?
	This is a bad sentence.
	I apologize. I got to figure out what's actually being said here.
	All right.
	Was there ever a vote for the shareholders to vote on the new members?
	Yes. Are you talking about the current board of directors?
	I think the question is, was there ever a vote for the shareholders to vote on the new board members?
	No, there was not.
	They were brought in after the Clucci case.
	The independent board members...
	The Clucci case was in court there in Vegas.
	Part of the settlement was that three board members would be removed.
	The ones who were actually dependent.
	And then three other board members, including Jesse Lauber, brought in, so we never had a chance to actually vote him in.
	Can I actually address that as well?
	Sorry, I have a lot to say. Regarding independence, I actually heard on your podcast or your interview with Jesse, and he kind of obfuscated the question by talking about partisan politics.
	That's not what independent means.
	Instead of answering the question, he kind of slipped by it without having to address it.
	This does come into independence.
	We have five board of directors.
	The NASDAQ for compliance requires that three of them are considered independent.
	So he was brought in as an independent director.
	But what an independent director is, is not somebody who has conflicts of interest, right?
	They're free of conflict. They don't have a financial interest in the company that they're coming into, right?
	They're independent. And what we've seen and what we know from before he came in, that he already had existing ties.
	He was already an employee of Zash.
	We were supposed to merge with Zash.
	There was no way he could be deemed independent because he had a vested interest in what happened with the merger that he was an employee of.
	So independent basically means that there's no conflict of interest mechanism, essentially?
	I'd be careful because I'm not a SEC attorney, and I don't have the language of what the NASDAQ says in front of me.
	But I would say that's generally correct, that you would not have a financial interest, you would not have a conflict of interest in the company that you're serving on the board for.
	Wow. Wow. Interesting.
	Big picture. I mean, we've heard all this stuff about the National Enquirer.
	I mean, it kind of makes my brain hurt, to be honest with you, because it sounds like this thing has so many tentacles.
	Could you guys give us a big picture of what you think is really going on here?
	Chad, do you want to take that one? I'm not one that likes to allude to things without facts, okay?
	Because when you start mentioning National Enquirer, There's a lot of theories about that.
	But it was telling to listen to the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal interviews and also their articles that have come out.
	Because when Theodore Farnsworth interviewed, he started getting into politics.
	And I think that's what brought a lot of this up because we were blindsided.
	I didn't see that coming when he brought Trump into the picture and boxes and blackmail and dirty stuff from the Inquirer of the past.
	I was like, whoa. What just happened here?
	I can't say what that means, where it came from, but it opened some eyes.
	And I think we know something that's amazing is that we have financiers, toxic financiers is what they call them in the trading world, who basically have given us loans that are preferred to them, but not preferred to the shareholders.
	And they're considered toxic because there's really no way that we can make our money back with these types of laws.
	And I'm dumbing it down quite a bit.
	And a lot of these firms, like one of them recently, BH Capital, was also just charged by the SEC. Another one that we know of, Hudson Bay, is not even registered broker-dealer.
	That's a NASDAQ FINRA requirement, that they have to be registered broker-dealer if they're going to be issuing shares and trading shares like this.
	And so, you know, you're going to see more things happen.
	But what these toxic financiers do, they don't just lend money.
	They get shares or they get options in what's called warrants.
	And they can exercise these so that they can get shares at a super, super cheap price.
	And what's typical in a market when you can get shares for next to nothing, you can lend those out to people, which allows you to shorten.
	There's a thing called a legitimate thing called the dark pool.
	When I got into investing, I thought it was a joke, like some You know, thing out here, dark pool.
	But that's a term used by the SEC, where institutions can trade large blocks of shares off of the exchange, off the lid exchange, right?
	So if I want to trade 5 million shares, it's not a good idea to go on to the lid exchange.
	It'll change the price action.
	So I find another entity that's willing to exchange with me, who's also maybe another institution.
	And the SEC allows this dark pool trading to take place.
	So a lot of these toxic financiers have partners who are in the same vein as them, where they can get these warrants, trade them off exchange, but they can short them on exchange.
	So imagine if you're only taking the price down on the NASDAQ, but you're only buying off exchange so it never goes up.
	You can take the price down exponentially forever.
	And then if you're actually engaging in synthetic or counterfeit, I don't even want to use naked or synthetic anymore.
	I'm just going to say counterfeit because my dad gets that when he listens to me.
	Counterfeit shares are fake.
	They're illegal. They're not allowed to exist.
	And they've created loopholes for these institutions to trade counterfeit shares only when it comes to shorting the stock and taking it down.
	So if you wanted to take a company down to bankruptcy, that would be a good way to do it.
	So, you know, this A360 deal and the National Enquirer, it hasn't gone through.
	It was supposed to go through. And he was even touting that it was a $100 million deal.
	It was done. It was in the bank.
	And then all this court and the pressure with it has come out and they reneged on the deal because of a timeline.
	I don't know if it's still in the works, if something's going to happen.
	But it is interesting that it stopped quickly.
	Wow. So you're saying...
	Sorry, go ahead. It's going to be quick.
	All I can say for him is he came on your show last week and you asked him if he had any knowledge of the Enquirer.
	You saw his answer.
	I paused for 10 seconds and then like, woo!
	That's a conspiracy theory.
	I have a screenshot of him saying to the moon on February 9th with the Enquirer's logo on it.
	And the timing of the deal is very strange because keep in mind this deal was supposed to go through in early February and David Pecker testified against Donald Trump like 45 days later.
	And before that happened, Alvin Bragg, the Soros-funded DA in Manhattan, told the grand jury that they were going to be home for a month.
	And then Pecker testifies, just kind of out of nowhere, and then two days later, you have the first former president to ever be indicted, and obviously a future political opponent to be indicted.
	So that whole dynamic is very strange, especially Especially because Pecker hasn't sued anybody.
	You know, they tried to sell the Inquirer for six years with absolutely no success whatsoever.
	And then Farnsworth in the New York Times specifically mentioned how he just shed liability by doing this deal.
	And the CEO and COO formerly of A360 are now that of Vinco Ventures.
	So the entire deal is very strange and it looks like it has political implications about it.
	Wow, wow. Alright, another question here.
	Is the company at risk of being delisted?
	Absolutely. Yeah, so with regards to those non-compliant filings that we discussed, our deadline for those to be filed was the 7th of July.
	So that was last Friday and they were not filed.
	We have not seen any disclosures on why.
	So, yeah, I mean, you know, are we risking delisting?
	Like, we think so, but the company's never told us.
	So we don't know what our current standing is with the NASDAQ. Another question.
	When will we learn who the preferred shareholders are?
	Yeah, I don't know that we'll ever know that.
	What do you think, Chad? I don't know how to answer that.
	That's beyond my expertise.
	You know, we're trying to get a receiver so we can inspect our books and records.
	If we get a receiver in there, we'll actually have access to what we're supposed to see anyway.
	Because we're shareholders, we have a right to access our financials, but because they don't file them with the SEC, we don't get them.
	So we don't know anything going on.
	And, you know, look, we haven't seen 2022's filings.
	Everybody else gets their first quarter of the year.
	We still haven't seen ours, and we're going into August, right?
	We don't have a clue. And the filings we did get this year were from...
	Six months to a year late last year.
	So we have no idea where we're at.
	I would love to know, you know, our float was 249 million shares.
	And then when this proxy and annual meeting went through, we ended up with 260 million shares.
	So we ended up with 11 million more shares than were before the meeting, which makes no sense.
	We knew there was going to be probably a million Preferred, interjected, but we don't know where the other 10 came from.
	And we're going to find out.
	There's no way they can hide that from us.
	That's our right as shareholders.
	And Vam, I sincerely hope that members of the CCRP have not received preferred shares from Jesse Law because one particular member of the CCRP, Natalie Thomas, on Facebook stated that she has shares in Vinco Ventures about last week.
	What does that mean for the Lehman?
	What does that mean if other people receive shares?
	Well, I mean, anybody can buy shares at BBIG. But not anybody can get preferred shares.
	So I own common shares.
	That's what you buy on the exchange.
	Shares of common stock.
	Preferred shares are given to you in a special way from the company.
	And those are voted differently than common shares.
	I can't get preferred shares unless maybe I'm a board member.
	A board member might get preferred shares because they're given a stipend to be a board member and then they might be also issued shares, right?
	Yeah, these particular shares, these Series A preferred shares, have 1% of the total vote of the common shares outstanding.
	So, at the time of the shareholder meeting, we had 249 million common shares outstanding.
	That means that each preferred share had up to 2.49 million votes per share.
	Each individual shareholder, investor, whoever gets those preferred shares, can have up to 9.99% of the total vote.
	But then they also had another element to that where they said they were issuing them to five unnamed investors.
	Meaning that they could essentially rig the vote by giving them 50% of the total vote to approve self-interested proposals.
	So you got to think, right? So leading up to the shareholder vote, leading up into like February of 2023 and beyond, all the analytics showed that retail shareholders owned between 70 to 80% of the company.
	The company tried to do a shareholder vote last year in June of 2022, but their vote failed because they were not good.
	They were very unfavorable proposals to retail shareholders.
	We turned down the vote.
	They couldn't get it approved.
	So what they did was they still knew that they were going to lose their vote.
	So they created these preferred shares out of thin air illegally so that they could rig the vote, dilute the value of the retail shareholder, and then pass these proposals for their own self-interests.
	I'm curious, as investors, what did you see in this company that was attractive to you for investment?
	And what is it that has been, I guess, pulled out from under your feet at this point that is no longer what the attraction was?
	It's like, what didn't we see?
	Okay, so think about TikTok, right?
	TikTok, everybody's got TikTok.
	It's one of the main social media apps out there.
	We built a TikTok competitor called Lomotif and we had 250 million downloads and it hadn't even been launched in the United States yet.
	That was Lomotif India.
	So we started making strides there.
	With that app, we had licensed deals with music makers so that people could upload their video, they could edit their video, make these little shorts with music from artists.
	So a lot of things were going with Warner Brothers artists and things like that.
	So Lo Motif alone, we were given a press release at one point that it had a potential valuation of five billion dollars.
	And if you look at the market cap and what the stock was trading at, we're like, you buy this, you're already making money just as soon as they launched Loan Motif USA. In addition to that, we have a company we own called AdRiser.
	It's a software company for digital ad distribution.
	And it also was touted as making good money.
	And so that increased our market cap.
	In addition, we have some other assets, other companies in video production and things like that, which aren't all bad, but those were our two main money makers.
	And the press releases coming out were fantastic.
	But then when they mentioned that we're getting into NFTs and Cryptide, and that for every share Every 10 shares of BBIG that you held, you were going to get one free share of Cryptide when it spun off in the form of a dividend, which would be tax-free. That brought in a lot of people.
	And that's turned out what appears to be fraudulent as well.
	We don't have time to even focus on that company yet.
	But there's a lot of things going, in my opinion.
	Those all attracted me.
	I started trading the stock mostly short-term trades, but once I found out more about it, I took a long position.
	Yeah. So I'll say this, you know, as an investor, right?
	So, you know, you have some – you invest in companies and they may be winners, they may be losers, and you move on.
	And there's a certain notion I think that some people have that we're just like we're butthurt or – We're upset because we made a bad investment and so we're suing.
	That's not what this is.
	I've won on stocks.
	I've lost on stocks. I've walked away.
	It's just a bad investment. That's it.
	In this particular case, as Shad said, we sold a really strong bill of goods on these assets that had a lot of potential value.
	And the company's press releases, their public statements, everything suggested that this had the potential to be, you know, multi-billion dollar company with a multi-billion dollar market cap.
	At the time, you know, we're trading, you know, low hundred million dollars, right?
	So, you know, it looks like a good investment.
	So this is what I would tell people that want to suggest that we're just upset investors, that we made a bad investment, that, you know, who cares about a couple investors that lost some money.
	On our mind, this was a good investment.
	What we were told was one thing, reality was another thing, and we feel like we were stolen from.
	That's why we had this lawsuit.
	We would not be suing a company.
	I don't want to be a plaintiff.
	The last thing that I want to do is have to do what I've been doing for the last number of months.
	This has been a full-time job for me and Shad.
	We spend hours a day working with lawyers, talking to the community, building our case.
	Researching, doing due diligence.
	We don't want to be doing this.
	It's not lucrative for us.
	There's no more benefit to us.
	We're doing this as voluntary work on behalf of a very large community that we represent, that we feel an obligation to ensuring that we do our best.
	That's what this is. We all believe that we had a good investment and we're still fighting to try to save it.
	And that's why we made this lawsuit.
	So as we're talking... Sorry, go ahead.
	No, I agree with Chris 100%.
	And our group of investors are, I would say they're very savvy, sophisticated investors.
	So they do a lot of day trading.
	Some of these people trade full-time.
	That's their job. So it's not like they just go long on a position and they're not astute with financials, okay?
	But it's one thing, like Chris says, something goes south, it's your fault, right?
	But if someone comes into your house and steals your kid, you're not going to go look for your kid?
	And that's what these people have done.
	They've come into our homes. They've taken something personal because it wasn't just a mistake on the part of the company.
	This was intentional.
	So when something's done intentionally, it's got a different vibe.
	And I think sometimes you fight for yourself.
	And this is a battle we've chosen to take.
	So as we're talking here, actually, Natalie Thomas was texting me, which is interesting.
	This is great. It's interactive and stuff.
	People are watching. So she's saying that and she allowed me to share this information.
	I'm just looking at my text message here.
	So she's saying that I bought these so I can get months.
	Big information immediately asked me to donate to him.
	It's she's not a preferred shareholder, I think, is the summation of it.
	And then she sent me this.
	Well, that's great. I hope she's not.
	That's fantastic news. This still image is what she sent, I think, because she was saying that she actually bought these, and yeah, they're not preferred shares.
	Good. At least one issue has been...
	Yeah, so another question we have here.
	So do these preferred shareholders vote to forgive the $20 million-ish loan?
	So... That's a loaded question.
	It's actually a $60 million loan.
	That was a loan that was provided by Vidco Ventures to TED and Zash Global Media as part of our agreement prior to merging the two companies together.
	There was an agreement that was made in December.
	That was approved by the board of directors that was to acquire whatever was left of Zash and then fold that within Vinco Ventures.
	And that would be for a separate set of preferred shares.
	So there would be 10 series B preferred shares that were convertible into 144 million common shares.
	In addition, in that agreement, we were going to forgive $60 million in loans that went to Zash.
	So was that voted on?
	Did the preferred shareholders vote on that?
	Yes, because it was voted on at the shareholder meeting in April.
	It was, what's the word, ratified in April.
	So yes, they voted on it, but that was already after that decision had already been executed by the board of directors.
	Got you, got you. Now, obviously, we don't have a crystal ball here, but could we talk about scenarios going forward?
	Because this is obviously happening in a really odd time.
	There's elections coming. Jesse's saying that this is all about, you know, political persecution, that, you know, he hasn't had his day in court, blah, blah, blah, right?
	So, you know, nonetheless, you know, discoveries and stuff haven't been made yet.
	Let's talk about likely scenarios going forward.
	How does this play out?
	Yeah.
	I don't know.
	Manuel?
	Yeah.
	Chad and Chris like the financial question, which was not my area of expertise.
	Well, here's Here's a decent answer for you.
	So Eric Finman has been, he was a former CEO, I believe, of Zash.
	He has been instrumental in making statements Via social media that have led to what we'll call it the flexibility in the price of the stock in itself.
	And yesterday he said that he thinks that Vinco Ventures is going to soon be going bankrupt.
	And this is my personal opinion.
	I think that he is saying that because their case, you have to hold shares for that case to have standing in court.
	And I think that that's an effort to scare Shad and Chris and all the other members of the BBIG family into selling their court case will essentially just have no standing.
	Well, interesting.
	We felt the same about that.
	But I mean, listen, next week on Thursday, Judge Alf is going to call the court to order.
	And we prepared.
	We've got our case together.
	We've submitted all of our filings.
	We've got now, I think, 1500 new declarants.
	We have about 15% of the company in declaration saying, hey, I'm holding just for this case.
	These people could have sold at any time, but they're holding just for this case.
	And she's going to have to determine if the evidence is sufficient to get us a receiver.
	And if she gets us a receiver, that's a big deal.
	I consider that our first real win.
	Even though I think our first win was getting into court as proper plaintiffs just to plead our case and get our testimony on the record.
	But that will be the first step that says, okay, I do agree the evidence shows You need somebody in that company.
	Now, if we don't get a receiver and we go into discovery, that's still a win.
	If we go into discovery, the court's saying we need to look into this further.
	But some of our evidence is so compelling, you would think we've already gone through discovery.
	I mean, I can't state anything about our strategy or about other things we may know, but we know a lot.
	And I mean, is there, again, smoking gun evidence about Jesse's involvement?
	What would you say is that, I mean, if you could list it, what is the smoking gun evidence about Jesse's involvement in all of this?
	Well, he serves on the board of directors.
	He was instrumental and he was critical to vote on approving the fraudulent or illegal articles of incorporation that created fake preferred shares that were used to approve proposals that were not in the best interest of shareholders or the company, that were only in the best interest of Theodore Farnsworth and toxic financiers.
	That's not even a conspiracy.
	That's what it is.
	He was a voting board member that approved illegally in violation of NRS 78.380 to create preferred shares that should not have been allowed to be created in the first place, and then they created proposals that only benefited other people.
	That's it. That's what it is.
	There's no conspiracy there.
	Those are the facts. Sorry to interrupt you.
	This act of creating shares is on its face, unlawful.
	It's just you're not supposed to do that without some kind of approval.
	That's absolutely right. There is a statute on the books.
	Munz just stated it.
	NRS 78. There's 380 and 390.
	The point is, they cannot, by law, issue preferred shares without a vote of shareholders.
	It's illegal. And they kind of slid in this paper.
	They signed it.
	They shoved it in. And they're thinking we wouldn't notice because, frankly, these aren't the kind of things you notice.
	Could I ask a quick question there?
	So the people that voted on it, those are the five board members that voted to pass that?
	It was four at the end of the meeting.
	Sorry, sorry. You guys are talking over each other.
	Could you clarify that? Yeah, we don't know if there's a vote for that.
	We don't have any documents.
	We just know that the paper was signed by Ross Miller while he was an interim CEO during the time period that those five board members existed, and they have to approve anything.
	Got you. So by law, they're the ones that have to approve.
	We don't know if they approve, but that's the way it's supposed to go down, correct?
	So the NRS 78.380 says that it needs to have two-thirds approval by the board of directors.
	So 78.380 is approved by the board.
	78.390 is approved by the shareholders.
	It was supposed to be a shareholder vote to approve the creation of these preferred shares.
	They used 78.380 to circumvent the obligation to get a shareholder vote because it would not have passed if they had gone to a shareholder vote.
	And they did it as a board vote, where you need two-thirds in order to pass that, essentially, as a board vote.
	So the assumption there is that two-thirds of these five individuals voted on that.
	So I have to make a point, though.
	So Richard Levinson was not yet part of the board of directors, so there were only four board members at that point in time.
	Okay. And you're saying three of those four resigned?
	Three of those... Three of our five board members resign.
	Richard Levitchin, Brian Hart, Lisa King.
	So they submit their vote in order to create these extra shares that you're not supposed to do, and then three of them resign.
	Yes. I mean, is that a close enough timeline to draw concern about those series of events?
	I think they've just recently resigned.
	So I think their resignation is a cumulative buildup of the lawsuits.
	There's not just our lawsuit.
	There's three or four others in Nevada.
	There's numerous lawsuits in New York.
	There's a ton of lawsuits building.
	I think it's... It's not just one thing.
	It's a cumulative effect of all the corruption and all the lawsuits and everything coming down on them at the same time.
	There's 17 or 18 lawsuits either against Ted or Vinko right now.
	And then what you're getting at is that it's possible that Jesse isn't the one that signed off, right?
	I see where you're getting with this.
	I mean, I'm trying to remain skeptical just because we haven't gone through it.
	There's an eight-month difference between the time that that took place and when the recent board members resigned.
	So the assumption would be that in those eight months...
	Yeah, when all these lawsuits come down, it starts to look like this is a shit show.
	I need to get out of here, basically.
	But also remember, Ben, that this isn't something that you have to worry about whether it's unanimous or not.
	They're not voting on, you know, like, should we put glass in the office room?
	They're voting on something that has a statute that if you don't do it properly, it's illegal.
	So if somebody's aware of that, they need to speak up, whether you voted or not.
	Yeah. I mean, it just seems as though the introduction of shares is a way of diluting your investments.
	So it's directly harm in your pocket when that happens.
	Would that be correct? Yeah, whoever got those shares can sell them and make money.
	You know, there's a lot of things you could speculate about the shares.
	It's hard to say, you know, but definitely does dilute our vote.
	When we make these big decisions at these proxy meetings.
	Gotcha, gotcha.
	Well, this is actually a pretty amazing episode.
	I'm glad you guys brought this information forward.
	Is there anything that we haven't touched upon on this topic that is worth mentioning?
	I think that it's interesting how close the GOP is in Nevada to this particular situation, whether it's Jesse Law, whether it is the RNC Chairwoman Segal Chata, who represents two other plaintiffs in a case against Vinco, or whether it's their former attorney, Mark Hutchison.
	So I think there's an interesting proximity to the GOP with what's going on here.
	What do you decipher from that in terms of the proximity if you were to make guesses of what's going on?
	I'm not going to make any guesses as to what's going on, but I am extremely interested to find out what happens when they stay in this case.
	They don't sell their shares as they're kind of being pushed to do.
	I'm excited to see what discovery and what information comes out of it.
	I think a lot of people should be as well.
	One thing I want to touch on is, you know, with the CCRP election coming up, you know, having heard all of this information, all sides, all tentacles, like, this looks super bad.
	Clark County Republican Party chairman race, you know, you would think that, you know, there'd be resignation by now.
	But no, they're digging in.
	And, you know, a unity ticket coming up Tuesday.
	It's, this is way too much.
	You know, if this were like a CED or Congress race, you would think that, you know, they would have bowed out by now.
	But this is a lot.
	And like I said, you learn something new every day.
	You know, the deeper we got into this, it was a new revelation daily.
	And, you know, it's like resign, man.
	This seems really bad, especially, you know, if he's going to be leading the party going forward.
	I just think we need to change.
	Yeah, I mean, could I tell you what my concerns are just having interviewed all four candidates is that, you know, this is an unpaid position, right, which is deeply concerning to begin with, because Jesse's position, Michael's position should not be unpaid, especially in today's climate, you know, and I'm not trying to... I agree with that.
	I don't necessarily support Jesse and what he's doing because we are impartial here.
	Even though, in all frankness, I've said it on prior episodes, I have a relationship with Jesse.
	He is a friend. He is somebody that helped me through my campaign.
	In fact, a lot of the people in the GOP office.
	So my experience on those terms was a little bit different because I've heard a lot about this GOP is not helping out stuff, right?
	But on the same token, we got to talk about these things because these are important topics to discuss, right?
	And the inherent issue I see, and this is no excuse for corruption, is that you got these people that are essentially doing full-time jobs that are not getting paid anything for it, right?
	And hence, and therefore, you go out there and you try to find other forms of revenue.
	The danger there becomes, and by the way, this is Jill, who's a I think is also a great candidate, right?
	She spoke about how she's at a place in her life where she could afford to do a volunteer position, which is amazing.
	And on that interview, I told her why I thought she's such a great candidate, the whole businesswoman thing.
	You know, being able to work with teams, being able to strategically place teams in different places to get a certain agenda going forward, right?
	All that stuff's good. What I don't like about it is the fact that one has to be independently wealthy or independently safe enough financially in order to do this position because that prohibits people from being in that position.
	And the inherent issue I I see that's an unpaid position.
	And again, not to defend Jesse, but there just seems to be fundamental errors in the way this whole thing is being done.
	What are the possibilities for somebody to take that role?
	Because frankly, it sounds like you've got to have a whole bunch of money to be able to be in that position because it is a vote.
	My argument is...
	Don't run for politics if you are susceptible to corruption or if you are using it to enrich yourself financially or further yourself financially instead of furthering the party and getting candidates elected that can win.
	And I would say that is the case for all of politics.
	There's a reason why, for example, Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, a number of Lifelong politicians have net worths of $100 million plus despite the fact that they're making $170,000 a year.
	There is a reason why Donald Trump has been so maligned by the establishment politicians because he wasn't for sale.
	He had enough money that he was not going to be purchased.
	So I would argue don't run for politics if you are not financially stable enough to be susceptible for corruption.
	Because policy, as we saw during COVID-19, dictates how we live our lives.
	And because of politicians like that, that have been susceptible to such things, that's why we have many of the issues that we have right now.
	And that's where the term rhino, reclaim only, comes from.
	Totally. I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but my point is more of a general point as far as, you know, if these positions are not available to every single person, the best and brightest, the best and highest qualified, what happens is sort of elitism creeps in.
	And by the way, I'm not trying to say that in this scenario, Jill is the elite.
	She just has the financial security to be able to do this without having to worry about going out and making a living.
	And that worries me because you see there's a pathway to elitism.
	Let's say it wasn't, Jill. It was Mr.
	Billionaire so-and-so.
	You could see how that could lead to things that take the power out of We the People's hands.
	So that's kind of a more general statement as far as going forward.
	What do the parties have to do in order to leave the door open for anybody that's a good chairperson?
	Everybody should be able to do that, not just the individual that has that financial security because it's a volunteer position.
	So anyway, this is great, guys.
	Is there anything else that you want to mention before we wrap this up?
	Yeah, sure. You go ahead first, Chris.
	I just want to say we have a third plaintiff who wasn't able to be on this call, Daryl Jenis.
	I just want to give him a shout-out.
	He's been incredibly helpful with generating a lot of our documents that we filed in court.
	He's been a court member of our team.
	I just want to give him a shout-out.
	Also, I just want to say real quick, I just want to give, I guess, a shout out to John Brookhagen.
	And the reason I want to say that is because whenever this news story broke, he reached out to me and he reached out to me with the intent to truly get the facts and approach it from an authentic position to really understand whether or not Jesse Law was really involved or if this was just a political stunt.
	I just want to say that I respect the fact that that's what he did and that's the approach that he took.
	I think he's a genuine person.
	I know that he's running for vice chair.
	He's not running for chair, but I just wanted to make that point as well.
	If I may, I'd love to make a shout out to the BBIG community.
	There's a lot of folks on LinkedIn, Reddit, StockTwits, of course Twitter, and YouTube folks who cover our ticker.
	And so many of them have made it possible for us to even get into court by donation.
	So we have a GoFundMe. If you go to GoFundMe, it's a shameless plug, but put in Vinco Ventures or BBIG and GoFundMe, we'll accept donations.
	They go towards shareholder action in the legal case.
	But thanks for having us on, too.
	It means a lot that you'd cover this kind of stuff.
	Thank you so much for coming on the Blood Money Podcast.
	I want to make a shout out to Jessica Hill from the Review Journal for writing the first article, which gave a ton of attention to the BBIG family and their case.
	And then for the follow-up article, which talked about the unity ticket with John Brukagan and Jill Douglas and potentially Nephi Oliva.
	Thank you. Yes, unity ticket to Jill Douglas for chair, John Bruckhagen for vice chair, BBIG family, please go to there, go fund me, donate.
	Also, we're newly formed PAC, check out Norino.com, NorinoNevada.com.
	Our main site's still currently being built, but we're currently accepting donations now.
	And... You know, we just want clinics here in Nevada, and we want to win 2024.
	That's what all this is about.
	And, hey, let's go.
	Unity Ticket Tuesday.
	You know, the free world is at stake.
	I mean, it's no joke. 2024 is it.
	You know, if you watch the Blood Money podcast, it's all about information.
	A lot of people that aren't getting the information are, you know, kind of happy or content with what's going on.
	Once you have information, you know that literally the future of the world is at stake.
	This is the last house standing on the block.
	And it's very important that we win 2024 because, frankly, the future of the planet is at stake right now.
	Oh, absolutely. It is everything.
	There's never, you know, tyrannies, dictators have never been able to consistently stay in power in the past because they didn't have the technology to do so.
	Well, now they do, especially with artificial intelligence and GPT-4 and GPT-5.
	And we've seen this administration.
	They have no problem.
	With a tyrannical policy.
	Also, one thing I didn't get to mention, I have a major issue with the fact that there is a lot of Republicans who have lost a lot of money with BBIG. And Jesse Law said one thing.
	I believe he said that it's a couple of retailers losing a few million dollars.
	No, it's 60,000 people.
	Who, like Shad and like Chris said, thought they invested into something that wasn't what they invested into.
	And based on what they just said, Jesse Law was instrumental in creating that lack of reality, so to speak.
	Guys, thank you so much for coming on the Blood Money Podcast.
	We really appreciate your time.
	Like we said, for the viewers out there, I mean, the shit's pretty serious right now.
	Excuse the French. This is a very important election, and people have to think about their vote.
	People have to think about their vote in Austin.
	People have to think about this stuff going forward because the issue I brought up where, you know, this creeping elitism by what these volunteer positions, I mean, that has to be fixed.
	I mean, that is something that has to be looked at because these positions should be available for anybody that's willing to do the job.
	That's our point of view here at Blood Money.
	For the viewers out there, thank you so much for showing up to this episode of Blood Money.
	Please join us on AmericaHappens.com for all of our latest episodes, including Gloves Off with Joy Gilbert, Blood Money with Yours Truly, Mindy Robinson's Conspiracy Truths, Gianna Michele State National University, our HN News Live every Tuesday, Thursday at 2 p.m.
	where we talk with civilian journalists all around the country and we find out what's going on all around the United States.
	So thank you so much for joining us for this episode of Blood Money.
	I will see you on the next episode.
	Thanks, man. Thanks. Thanks, man I'm so
	So
	out the America Happens Network.

▲