Voip Pal Com Inc (QB) (VPLM) News

"Not all defendants have been served in this case."

That's a literal quote from the motion.

And all of it means absolutely nothing!!!! LOL!!

The court will doubtless grant the Motion to Stay. Later they will sanction Inza, Leon, VPLM and their lawyers for this frivolous but malicious waste of everybody's time

"INTRODUCTION
All of Plaintiffs’ claims, whether asserted against Defendants AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon,
or their respective officers and directors, should be stayed, pending arbitration or otherwise.1
Plaintiffs Ray Leon, Richard Inza, and Michael Inza (collectively, “Individual Plaintiffs”) are all
subscribers of at least one carrier Defendant. They have agreed to Defendants’ terms of service
on dozens of occasions, including after filing their original complaint in this case in at least one
instance. Each Defendant’s terms contain unambiguous and mandatory arbitration agreements
that require Individual Plaintiffs to arbitrate all claims against their respective carriers on an
individual basis. Per the terms of those agreements and the facts of this case, the Federal
Arbitration Agreement (“FAA”) applies, and the Court should stay Individual Plaintiffs’ claims
pending arbitration.
Individual Plaintiffs are aware of their binding agreements. They simply opted to file this
action in direct contravention of those agreements. The Second Amended Complaint argues that
Defendants’ arbitration agreements are unenforceable, both because the customer agreements in
which they are contained were procured through fraud and because Individual Plaintiffs’ antitrust
and RICO claims are not arbitrable as a matter of policy. The former is meritless on its face and
not before the Court in any event, as Defendants’ arbitration agreements and Supreme Court
precedent make clear that challenges to the contract as a whole—rather than the arbitration
agreement specifically—are for the arbitrator. Similarly, despite Plaintiffs’ assertions to the
contrary, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that antitrust and RICO claims are arbitrable.
As a matter of controlling law, Individual Plaintiffs must also arbitrate their claims
against the directors and officers (“Individual Defendants”) affiliated with their respective
wireless carriers.
Further, Individual Plaintiffs must arbitrate their claims against the Defendants with
whom they have no written agreement for two reasons. First, because the core of Individual
Plaintiffs’ allegations is that the Defendants have acted in concert to such a degree that they are
effectively one entity, the doctrine of equitable estoppel requires arbitration. Second, as to
Plaintiff Michael Inza’s claims, Defendant T-Mobile’s arbitration agreement extends to codefendants in the same action. Per the FAA, the Court should stay Individual Plaintiffs’ claims pending arbitration.
Likewise, the Court should stay Plaintiff VoIP-Pal.com Inc.’s (“VoIP-Pal’s’”) claims in
light of the earlier standalone companion action VoIP-Pal filed in this Court, which asserts
identical claims against the same Defendants. VoIP-Pal has impermissibly split its claims, and
the Court should stay VoIP-Pal’s claims in this later-filed case to avoid injustice and waste of
judicial resources.

You and I have been 1000% correct!!

You're just upset because I am so correct and that non one can meet my challenge. I have presented FACTS that you can't dispute.

Nothing more than just another of the many many monkey wrenches I've predicted and have manifested for yrs and yrs that never, I repeat, NEVER, amount to anything of substance. Reason being there is no substance. Vplm, in all its glory is nothing more than dryer fluff, pocket lint, the daily trash. One BIG DIVERSION from the DECEPTION it is, which is the big, mean green, fully upgraded, personal share printing, share selling machine with optional insider ATM.

INZA et al v. AT&T INC. et al
District Of Columbia District Court
Judge: Randolph D Moss
Case #: 1:24-cv-03054
Nature of Suit 410 Other Statutes - Antitrust
Cause 15:1 Antitrust Litigation
Case Filed: Oct 25, 2024
Docket
Parties (58)
Docket last updated: 5 hours ago
Monday, June 23, 2025
70 motion Stay Mon 06/23 9:45 PM
MOTION to Stay Proceedings by MARCELO CLAURE, SRIKANT M. DATAR, SRINIVASAN GOPALAN, JAMES J. KAVANAUGH, LETITIA A. LONG, MARK NELSON, MIKE SIEVERT, T-MOBILE US, INC., TERESA A. TAYLOR, KELVIN R. WESTBROOK.(Gelfand, David)
Att: 1 Declaration of Paula Phillips in Support,
Att: 2 Exhibit A,
Att: 3 Exhibit B,
Att: 4 Exhibit C,
Att: 5 Exhibit D,
Att: 6 Exhibit E,
Att: 7 Exhibit F,
Att: 8 Exhibit G,
Att: 9 Declaration of Judy Sanchez in Support,
Att: 10 Exhibit 1,
Att: 11 Exhibit 2,
Att: 12 Exhibit 3,
Att: 13 Exhibit 4,
Att: 14 Exhibit 5,
Att: 15 Exhibit 6,
Att: 16 Exhibit 7,
Att: 17 Exhibit 8,
Att: 18 Exhibit 9,
Att: 19 Exhibit 10,
Att: 20 Exhibit 11,
Att: 21 Exhibit 12,
Att: 22 Exhibit 13,
Att: 23 Exhibit 14,
Att: 24 Exhibit 15,
Att: 25 Exhibit 16,
Att: 26 Declaration of Joseph Ninete in Support,
Att: 27 Exhibit A,
Att: 28 Exhibit B,
Att: 29 Exhibit C,
Att: 30 Exhibit D,
Att: 31 Exhibit E,
Att: 32 Exhibit F,
Att: 33 Exhibit G,
Att: 34 Exhibit H,
Att: 35 Exhibit I,
Att: 36 Exhibit J,
Att: 37 Text of Proposed Order

——

A court might grant a stay in an antitrust class action case for various reasons, often involving a balancing of interests to ensure fairness and judicial efficiency. One common reason is to avoid conflicting rulings with a related case, either within the same jurisdiction or in another court. Another reason could be to allow for the resolution of a dispositive motion, such as a motion to dismiss, before incurring the significant costs of discovery. Additionally, stays may be granted to allow for the resolution of related government investigations or enforcement actions

$.0069 185,000+ reads/clicks in past 24hr on VPLM board. #29 on the 50 Most Read Boards. That's alot of clicks and about double from the most recent averages. Wonder why this new interest...

Another comfort for me is the fact that our stable of bears remain bearish. Of course, they never really saying anything, but it brings confidence.

Keep it up, "say-nothings", the clicks are GREAT! 🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀

The reason vplm went nowhere, in terms of infringement, is because it was a scam, either from the git or post the big renege following the big lie to shareholders, about what their (the company) intentions were to do with the new acquisition.

The reason the new antitrust/monopoly cases will also go nowhere is because they are a ridiculous folly, easily seen when looking at the basic premises of these suits.

Yes, you have mentioned that before. I guess, one way or the other, each of us will be put out of our misery.....hopefully very soon. Does this mean that you no longer think I am Inza? :) Now, here's to just waiting to see what happens without impugning anyone else's character! There is nothing either of us can do to affect the outcome. Like to old cow chewing her cud and standing out in the pouring rain. We will just have to "take it".

I really, really hope you're right. Been waiting 8 years!

“ bad faith tactics might actually be called out for what they are.”

That’s exactly why the RICO/antitrust suits - aka when VPLM jumped the shark - will sound the death knell for wannabee patent troll VPLM and the two criminal conmen behind it, Malak and Inza.

Ever since I got involved with VPLM, it’s felt like there’s always one more prerequisite before they could actually get a case into court. As I’ve mentioned before, I was the CEO of a company that successfully defended our applications and acquired several high-tech patents, so I’ve seen firsthand how narrowly the definition of an “invention” can be sliced—especially in electronics. Infringers with deep pockets exploit these hair-splitting nuances under the guise of “working through the legal process,” all while bleeding smaller IP holders dry with legal fees and delays.

What feels different about these new cases is the shift away from relying solely on “patent infringement” as the main strategy. That path gave bad actors too many tools to stall and bury. Now, by framing this as a broader antitrust and predatory practices issue, it appears we’re bypassing a lot of those procedural traps and heading to court more quickly. That shift gives me a different sense—like we’re finally stepping onto more level ground where bad faith tactics might actually be called out for what they are.

Only 6 recs so far?

Get that rec finger working, DB!

RSI is for wimps!

$.00645 Wow, and I just rewatched 'Boiler Room', the movie(great movie about a "bucket shop"), last night. Perfect timing!

So, you didn't buy, you were "sold"? I see. Well, not long before 2019, in 2017, VPLM hit $.45. I sold all I had @ about $.20, then reloaded far lower. Did you hold through that run? Did ya, huh, did ya? If so, it's on you!

Furthermore, I would love to see some proof of your bucket shop doing "hard-time" for selling VPLM. Geez, maybe the same bucket sold the story to Ray Leon? Maybe to Motley Fool, who has been in and out of VPLM, 3-4 times?

Last thing on this: I know I'm not dealing with the swiftest, when a person is constantly using "LOL...LMAO" and such for emphasis. Stock-talk, targets and VPLM really don't warrant "laughing out loud", unless maybe for someone that is nuts.

I will stick to that $.85 target, which hasn't been out there for "years"... Boy, look @ the volume? Sure, someone selling, but far more interesting to me is the buyer! OVER THE PAST MONTH, ABOUT $220K HAS CHANGED HANDS IN VPLM. I DON'T CONSIDER THE SELLER, BUT WHO MIGHT BE BUYING? Sellers sell for tons of reasons, BUYERS BUY FOR ONLY ONE!

Now, don't swallow your gum "LOL"...



straightword

Re: DeerBalls post# 136373 Monday, June 23, 2025 8:56:24 AM

Post#
136377
of 136379
Yeah, when I bought it long before 2019 and before the founders of the stock promotion firm that sold to me went to jail for fraud selling VPLM stock. What does that tell you? At least I'm not one that's been projecting a .85 price per share for years! LOL!! So VPLM "supposedly" has patents worth billions and billions ongoing with a price per share under .01 More continued confirmation what a farce the company is!

It must be very difficult for you to be trapped in this repeating mental loop for soooo long. What ever happened to saving people from this scam? Seems you’ve become ever more bitter and fallen into a self affirming trope that you are some sort of infallible profit justifying the inordinate time you have wasted here by claiming you get enjoyment out of reading posts written by idiots that prove you are right. “I have never been proven wrong” Do you even understand how ridiculous you look? Maybe before calling others names take a good hard honest look at your body of work here. If you really do that, I doubt you’ll like what you see.

They are scumbags that never achieved anything in their lives and somehow someway are not ashamed of themselves. They should be because they wasted their life and put shame on their family. Every deadline they set they never meet and never inform shareholders. Love when they come into interviews on ceocfo site and scumbag lowlife emil says he feels for shareholders. Then acts like this.

Yeah, when I bought it long before 2019 and before the founders of the stock promotion firm that sold to me went to jail for fraud selling VPLM stock. What does that tell you? At least I'm not one that's been projecting a .85 price per share for years! LOL!! So VPLM "supposedly" has patents worth billions and billions ongoing with a price per share under .01 More continued confirmation what a farce the company is!

The comments from the gullible investors is comical to me and why I enjoy reading them because I know the truth of the matter. It would be like a company claiming that they have a cure for cancer and with price per share under .01 LMAO!! At least wall street would be talking about them versus VPLM that can't get even ONE firm on wall street to do so which validates what a farce this is.

I think inza class action defendants response to the stay. Then mid July plaintiffs response due back. Something like that. VoIP-pal is due in August

I thought something was supposed to happen today? It was the deadline for something 🧐🧐🧐

$.00676 You have been wrong in the most IMPORTANT way: YOU BOUGHT @ $.14... I have never bought anywhere near $.14. You don't believe Emil/the VPLM story, BUT YOU BOUGHT!!!!??? What does that say?

My brother, who was a broker far ahead of me, used to say, "it's all in the buy; buy right and you're always good!".

straightword Thursday, January 03, 2019 1:10:05 PM

Post#
71561
of 136372
DeerBalls, the stock is not up 125% from two weeks ago. Prove it! Also, it's real easy to talk about how much the stock has gone up after it went from .14 when I bought it down to just over .01 Nice try but you are using select information to say this and are very misleading in doing so. Again, if there are as many billions upon billions of dollars at stake that you and Emil believe we will win judgments on at one point then why is this a .08 stock? Answer me that.

“The only people that care about this company (wall street certainly doesn't) are the gullible investors on this forum.”
You sure seem to care enough about it to spend half your life cutting and pasting ad nauseum. Why would that be? Is this your big accomplishment in life? Sad…

The FACT is that I have NEVER been proven wrong!! There is no race. VPLM is done and will never go anywhere. Emil is a complete farce. My challenge stands!! What other company in the entire world claims that they have patents worth billions and billions of ongoing revenues with a price per share below a penny. Name it!! The only people that care about this company (wall street certainly doesn't) are the gullible investors on this forum.

“Because I am correct and have NEVER been proven to be wrong!!!”
No… because you pose a challenge that cannot be proven. You can’t declare that you’ve never lost a particular race in the middle of that race. What you have done is proven that you are not that bright. There will be time to crow or lick your wounds soon enough. Stop the premature declarations, it’s adolescent. Have a nice day!

VPLM will receive no financial settlements and I'm certain that these big companies have their junior lawyers working on these cases for practice.

Because I am correct and have NEVER been proven to be wrong!!!

Emil has NEVER had any "magic". Code name "Avatar". That's all that needs to be said. He has been reaching what he says is a rock solid patent infringement case without even one single financial judgement in his favor which tells you all that you need to know about what a complete farce VPLM is. The fact that the price per share is below .01 confirms that NO ONE on wall street believes him.

Same difference. Why do you keep wasting your breath?

$.00676 After a long conversation the other day, I thought I best put out my thinking, as there are clues everywhere:

Level II is showing likely manipulation. No need to show what was 5mm shares on offer...

VPLM has been trading in a narrow range for a few weeks. Someone is accumulating.

The trading in the phone defendants' stock gives a clue, especially tmus which is down from ~$275 to $220s

The add-on of the new defendants... This isn't cheap, and why if VPLM is not confident. More defendants to split a possible settlement prior to court.

goog is already in hot water and the administration is not favorable to the giants. The defendants are messing with fire!

I am very excited by what I'm digging up. GOOD STUFF ON ORDER! Think about it...

Can you elaborate on what you mean by “this has a “different feel”?

What exactly will the reasoning be, to have the case stayed.

I wonder if VPLM will oppose their motion to stay.

IMHO

I must say, it seems like we are actually clawing our way into a courtroom to get this settled with facts and, hopefully, an unbiased referee. Speaking only for myself, this is what I have considered to be where we needed to go since I got involved in 2017.....when my daughter entered college.....she just graduated from Medical School......Until the reality of a real courtroom and major damages is staring the defendants in the face, along with the fact that VPLM has been on record for years insisting that they were willing to work out a fair arrangement, we will always get diversion and obfuscation. Sadly, that is a very effective strategy for an opponent with a bottomless pit of money and major political clout. I don't want to jinx this, because we have seemingly been close before, but this has a different feel. Good luck to us all.

Time to start believing in Emil's Magic

Thanks GBC! Looks like summer gonna get a bit hotter!

INZA et al v. AT&T INC. et al
District Of Columbia District Court
Judge: Randolph D Moss
Case #: 1:24-cv-03054
Nature of Suit 410 Other Statutes - Antitrust
Cause 15:1 Antitrust Litigation
Case Filed: Oct 25, 2024
Docket
Parties (58)
Docket last updated: 6 hours ago
Thursday, June 19, 2025
order Order on Motion for Briefing Schedule Set/Reset Deadlines Thu 06/19 1:43 PM
MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of the parties' Motion for Joint Proposed Briefing Schedule, Dkt.69 , it is hereby ORDERED that motion is GRANTED and the parties' proposed briefing schedule is adopted as follows: Defendants shall file any motion to stay this Action on or before June 23, 2025; Plaintiff's Response shall be filed on or before July 14, 2025; Defendants' replies shall be filed on or before July 28, 2025; Defendants' deadline to answer or move to dismiss the complaint shall be stayed until the Court rules on Defendants motion to stay. In the event that the Court denies any motion to stay in whole or in part, Defendants' Motions to Dismiss or other responses to the complaint (or the portion of it not stayed) shall be filed 30 days after the Court resolves the motion to stay. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 6/19/2025. (lcrdm1)

—-

VOIP-PAL.COM, INC v. AT&T INC. et al
District Of Columbia District Court
Judge: Randolph D Moss
Case #: 1:24-cv-03051
Nature of Suit 410 Other Statutes - Antitrust
Cause 15:1 Antitrust Litigation
Case Filed: Oct 25, 2024
Docket
Parties (54)
Docket last updated: 6 hours ago
Thursday, June 19, 2025
order Order on Motion for Briefing Schedule Set/Reset Deadlines Thu 06/19 1:39 PM
MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of the parties' Motion for Joint Proposed Briefing Schedule, Dkt.69 , it is hereby ORDERED that motion is GRANTED and the parties' proposed briefing schedule is adopted as follows: Defendants' motion to dismiss the Complaint shall be filed on or before August 1, 2025; Plaintiff's responses to any motions to dismiss shall be filed on or before August 22, 2025; Defendants' replies shall be filed on or before September 12, 2025. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 6/19/2025. (lcrdm1)

You go right on beliebing that Bubba, lol

might be right! Super Close At Monetizing.....SCAM

We don't think that it's a scam. WE KNOW that it's a scam!!

See here:

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/profilea.aspx?user=102211

If you really think this is a scam then why waste your breath? You know no matter how many times you post, it's not gonna change the minds of all the longs. And seriously.. it's a genuine question.. why are you, NYT, Dontknoshest and a couple others wasting your life?

VOIP-PAL.COM, INC v. APPLE INC. et al
District Of Columbia District Court
Judge: Randolph D Moss
Case #: 1:25-cv-01843
Nature of Suit 410 Other Statutes - Antitrust
Cause 28:1337 Sherman-Clayton Act
Case Filed: Jun 11, 2025
Docket
Parties (34)
Docket last updated: 6 hours ago
Wednesday, June 18, 2025
5 order .Order Wed 06/18 2:51 PM
STANDING ORDER: The parties are hereby ORDERED to comply with the directives set forth in the attached Standing Order. See document for details. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 6/18/2025. (lcrdm1
—

In law, a standing order is a general, forward-looking court order that applies to all cases or certain types of cases before a court, or a specific set of rules that govern proceedings. It remains in effect until it's specifically changed or withdrawn.

INZA et al v. AT&T INC. et al
District Of Columbia District Court
Judge: Randolph D Moss
Case #: 1:24-cv-03054
Nature of Suit 410 Other Statutes - Antitrust
Cause 15:1 Antitrust Litigation
Case Filed: Oct 25, 2024
Docket
Parties (58)
Docket last updated: 6 hours ago
Wednesday, June 18, 2025
69   motion Briefing Schedule Wed 06/18 6:38 PM
Joint MOTION for Briefing Schedule by SHELLYE L ARCHAMBEAU, ROXANNE S. AUSTIN, MARK T. BERTOLIN, CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, VITTORIO COLAO, MELANIE L. HEALEY, LAXMAN NARASIMHAN, CLARENCE OTIS, JR, DANIEL H. SCHULMAN, RODNEY E. SLATER, CAROL B. TOME, VANDANA VENKATESH, VERIZON BUSINESS NETWORK SERVICES, INC., VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC., VERIZON SERVICES CORP., HANS VESTBERG, GREGORY G. WEAVER.(Gerking, Megan)
Att: 1   Text of Proposed Order

—-

VOIP-PAL.COM, INC v. AT&T INC. et al
District Of Columbia District Court
Judge: Randolph D Moss
Case #: 1:24-cv-03051
Nature of Suit 410 Other Statutes - Antitrust
Cause 15:1 Antitrust Litigation
Case Filed: Oct 25, 2024
Docket
Parties (54)
Docket last updated: 6 hours ago
Wednesday, June 18, 2025
69   motion Briefing Schedule Wed 06/18 6:42 PM
Joint MOTION for Briefing Schedule by SHELLYE L ARCHAMBEAU, ROXANNE S. AUSTIN, MARK T. BERTOLIN, CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, VITTORIO COLAO, MELANIE L. HEALEY, LAXMAN NARASIMHAN, CLARENCE OTIS, JR, DANIEL H. SCHULMAN, RODNEY E. SLATER, CAROL B. TOME, VANDANA VENKATESH, VERIZON BUSINESS NETWORK SERVICES, INC., VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC., VERIZON SERVICES CORP., HANS VESTBERG, GREGORY G. WEAVER.(Gerking, Megan)
Att: 1   Text of Proposed Order

—-

A briefing schedule is a document that outlines the deadlines for submitting legal briefs in a case, particularly in appellate courts. It typically includes the date, time, and location for filing briefs and sometimes specifies the timing for related actions like oral arguments

“ Authorizing new shares is a better option than running out of money and going bankrupt.”

Manifestly untrue in the case of VPLM.

Bankruptcy would put a nice clean end to this obvious scam and everyone would be better off immediately, apart from crooks Malak, Inza and their paid pimps.

But you know that already.

Thank you for that line of BULLSHIT Richie.

As you know, "authorized" is not counted as "issued" or "outstanding," and does not in and of itself dilute. A company may authorize new shares for the purpose of creating stock options for employees or to compensate attorneys, or to pay down anticipated debt. Authorizing new shares is a better option than running out of money and going bankrupt. JMHO.

9+1 = 10 Billion now authorized

EVIDENCE FILED IN INTER PARTES REVIEWS (IPRs)

June 12, 2025
Evidence Filed in Inter Partes Reviews
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/eoni3ek71ix8cb658lifq/01-3.pdf?rlkey=sps6wtvb77m1x6yw0faik5jkd&e=1&st=p9sfbdpv&dl=0

Smartphone Antitrust Framework

https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/68277bb36f406e6f8cea5708/684af3c0b899c7fb7b969bd5_01-2.pdf

And then there’s this: https://www.smartlessmobile.com/

At the very least these entries to the market support VPLM case that most calls are routed through WIFI.

GreenBackClub, thank you for sharing these court filings and for sharing the news article, which essentially lays it all out there. VPLM does not need to prove infringement in the antitrust case. Their principle complaint is that they are the victim of a coordinated effort to exclude them from the wi-fi competition, even though they laid the groundwork and own crucial patents currently being used by the defendants. Again, if justice prevails, VPLM wins big!