china voice response

8/6/2019 China Voice Response

1/41


2/41

2

2. Defendant China Voice denies the allegations of paragraph 2 of the AmendComplaint.

3. Defendant China Voice does not have knowledge or information sufficient toform a belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 3 of the 2nd 2nd Amended

Complaint and therefore denies same.



B. JUSIDICTION AND VENUE

6. Defendant China Voice admits that the 2nd Amended Complaint purports toassert certain claims that, if proven, would give rise to jurisdiction. Defendant China

Voice denies the allegation that it is engaged in any unlawful activity. Subject to the

answer above, Defendant China Voice does not dispute that venue in this district is

proper, but denies the allegation that it has engaged in any unlawful activity, in this or

any other District, related to the claims in this lawsuit. To the extent that paragraph 6

contains any other or different allegations directed at China Voice, they are denied.

C. DEFENDANTS

7. The allegations in paragraph 7 are not directed to Defendant China Voice.Defendant China Voice lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny the

allegations in this paragraph.

Case 3:11-cv-00882-O Document 102 Filed 07/11/11 Page 2 of 41 PageID 1700


3/41

3

















4/41

4





17. Defendant China Voice admits the allegations contained in paragraph 17 of the2nd Amended Complaint concerning Defendants state of incorporation. Paragraph 17 of

the 2nd Amended Complaint also asserts legal conclusions to which no response is

required, although Defendant China Voice admits that the corporate documents relating

to China Voice speak for themselves. To the extent further response is required,

Defendant China Voice denies the allegations directed against it in paragraph 17 of the

2nd Amended Complaint.









5/41

5

















6/41

6





D. RELIEF DEFENDANTS













7/41

7

















8/41

8

















9/41

9







E. OTHER ENTITIES

52. Defendant China Voice admits Beijing Techview Engineering Co., Ltd.(Beijing Techview) was a subsidiary of China Voice located in Beijing, China, as

alleged in paragraph 52 of the 2nd Amended Complaint, but otherwise the ownership

documents for the business entity cited speak for themselves.

53. Defendant China Voice admits Beijing Candidsoft Technologies Co., Ltd.(Candidsoft) was a subsidiary of China Voice located in Beijing, China, as alleged in

paragraph 53 of the 2nd Amended Complaint, but otherwise the ownership documents for

the business entity cited speak for themselves.

54. Defendant China Voice admits the ownership documents for the businessentity cited speak for themselves, as alleged in paragraph 54 of the 2nd Amended

Complaint.



10/41

10

55. Defendant China Voice admits that Flint Telecom Group, Inc. is a companythat entered into an agreement with China Voice, as alleged in paragraph 55 of the 2nd

Amended Complaint, but otherwise the transactional documents speak for themselves.

56. Defendant China Voice admits that NTELEC Networks, LLC is a companythat entered into an agreement with China Voice as alleged in paragraph 56 of the 2nd

Amended Complaint, but otherwise the ownership documents for the business entity cited

speak for themselves.



F. FACTS

58. Defendant China Voice admits that the document speak for themselves, andadmits that China Voice has done business in China and so reported, but otherwise

Defendant China Voice denies the allegations of paragraph 58.

59. Defendant China Voice admits that the documents speak for themselves, andadmits that China Voice has done business in China, but otherwise the allegations in

paragraph 59 are not directed to Defendant China Voice. Defendant China Voice lacks

sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph.

60. Defendant China Voice denies the allegations of paragraph 60 of the 2ndAmended Complaint.

61. Defendant China Voice admits that the documents speak for themselves, andadmits that China Voice has done business in China, but otherwise Defendant China

Voice does not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth



11/41


12/41

12



of the allegations of paragraph 66 of the 2nd Amended Complaint and therefore denies

same.




same.




same.




same.





13/41

13


same.




same.

72. Defendant China Voice does not have knowledge or information sufficient toform a belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 72 of the 2nd Amended












14/41

14

















15/41

15

















16/41

16






96.

Defendant China Voice does not have knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 96 of the 2nd Amended












17/41

17

















18/41

18

















19/41

19

















20/41

20

















21/41

21

















22/41

22

















23/41

23

















24/41

24

















25/41

25

















26/41

26

















27/41


28/41

28

















29/41

29







188. Defendant China Voice admits that the documents speak for themselves andthat on April 15, 2011mChina Voice entered into an agreement to purchase 100% of the

stock of NTELEC, effective October 1, 2010. China Voice admits that as part of this

transaction, Don Preston became CEO of China Voice, while Allen and Burbank resigned

from their positions with China Voice.

G. CLAIMS

189. Defendant China Voice incorporates by reference all answers to allegationscontained in the paragraphs above.






30/41

30





197.

Defendant China Voice denies the allegations of paragraph 197 of the 2nd

Amended Complaint.









31/41

31





208.

Defendant China Voice incorporates by reference all answers to allegations

contained in the paragraphs above.









32/41


33/41

33





230.











34/41

34





241.

Defendant China Voice denies the allegations of paragraph 241 of the 2nd

Amended Complaint.









35/41

35





252.





H. RELIEF REQUESTED

255. Defendant China Voice denies that the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief

requested in Paragraph 255 as it relates to China Voice.









36/41

36



260 Defendant China Voice denies that the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief

requested in Paragraph 255 as it relates to China Voice


requested in Paragraph 255 as it relates to China Voice.II . JURY TRIAL DEMAND

In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38 and 39 and Amendment 7 of

the United States Constitution, Defendant China Voice respectfully requests a trial by

jury.

III. DEFENSES

Without assuming the burden of proof on any matter where the burden rests on the

Plaintiff, China Voice asserts the following affrrmative defenses with respect to the

Plaintiff's claims:

1. First Defense: Plaintiff's 2nd Amended Complaint fails to set forth a claim

upon which relief should be granted..

2. Second Defense: The claims against Defendant China Voice are barred, in

whole or in part, because Defendant China Voice did not engage in any unlawful conduct

and Defendant China Voice is not liable for any unlawful acts that may have been

committed by any other party or non-party.

3. Third Defense: The claims against Defendant China Voice are banned, in

whole or in part, because Defendant China Voice acted in good faith and did not directly

or indirectly induce any acts constituting the alleged causes of action, or any of the bases



37/41

37

thereof.

4. Fourth Defense: The purported claims against Defendant China Voice and the

allegations upon which they are based are improperly vague, ambiguous and confusing,

and omit critical facts.

5. Fifth Defense: Defendant China Voice cannot be held liable for any

misrepresentations or omissions that it did not make.

6. Sixth Defense: The 2nd Amended Complaint fails to allege the existence of

any material misstatement or omission.

7. Seventh Defense: The 2nd Amended Complaint fails to plead fraud with

particularity.

8. Eighth Defense: The Plaintiff's imprudent actions, as well as factors outside

of Defendant China Voice's actions, have damaged Defendants, investors, and their

borrowers.

9. Ninth Defense: At all relevant times, Defendant China Voice acted in good

faith and did not know and in the exercise of reasonable care did not know of any

unlawful acts constituting the causes of action

Defendant China Voice incorporates by reference the affirmative defenses alleged

by all other co-defendants herein. Defendant China Voice also reserves the right to

amend these affirmative defenses as the case proceeds.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Defendant China Voice requests this Court to:

A. Enter judgment dismissing Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission's

2nd Amended Complaint with prejudice;



38/41

38

B. Award costs to Defendant China Voice in this action, including attorneys'

fees and expenses to Defendant China Voice; and

C. Award all other and further relief either at law or equity to Defendant China

Voice to which this Court deems Defendant China Voice to be entitled.

Dated this 11th day of July, 2011 .

/s/Jeffrey B. NorrisJEFFREY B. NORRIS

Washington, D.C. Bar No. 424258Jeffrey B. Norris & Associates.

6041 Turtle Creek CourtNorth Richland Hills, TX 76180

Telephone: 817 851-3865Fax: 817 6561823



39/41

39

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE VIA ECF

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Defendant China Voice Holding

Corporations Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiffs 2nd Amended Complaint forInjunctive and Other Relief and Request for Jury Trial has been served electronically uponeach party below who is a registered user of the electronic delivery service (ECF) under

Fe. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(E) on the 11th day of July, 2011.

Jane M.E. PetersonToby Galloway J

Jeffrey J. AnsleyU.S. Securities & Exchange Commission Curran Tomko Tarski, L.L.P.

Attorney for Plaintiff Attorney for Alex Dowlatshahi,

IntegrityDriven Network Corp.,Lucrative

Enterprises Corp., SynergeticSolutions,

L.L.C., and Darius AssetsHolding Corp.

Attorney for PlaintiffGene R. Besen

Victor Vital SNR Denton US LLPGreenberg Traurig L.L.P. Attorney for Ilya Drapkin, MG

TK Corp., Attorney for David Ronald Allen, Assoc. and SMI Chips, Inc.

Funding Group, Inc., Development CapitalAssociates Joint Venture, Townhome J. Sean Lemoine

Communities Corp., Patricia Allen, and Attorney for D-CAP AssociatesJoint

Winterstone Financial Ltd. Venture, Community ofPleasant Ridge,

Ltd., D-Cap II Partners, Ltd.,D-Cap III

J. Randall Henderson Partners Ltd., D-Cap IV Partners Ltd., Attorney for Robert Wilson, Strategic D-Cap V Partners, Ltd., D-

Cap VI Partners,Capital, and Green Horseshoe Holdings, Inc. Ltd., D-Cap VII

Partners, Ltd., D-Cap VIIIPartners, Ltd., D-Cap IX

Partners, Ltd.,D-Cap X Partners, Ltd., D-

Cap XI Partners,



40/41

40

Ltd., D-Cap XII Partners, Ltd.,D-Cap

VIII Partners, Ltd., D-Cap IXPartners, Ltd., D-Cap XV

Partners, Ltd.,

D-Cap XVI Partners, Ltd., D-Cap. XVIIPartners, Ltd.

/s/ Jeffrey B. Norris

Jeffrey B. Norris



41/41

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY U.S MAIL

The undersigned hereby certifies that on the l1th day of July, 2011, he caused a true

and correct copy of Defendant China Voice Holding Corporations Answer and

Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiffs 2nd Amended Complaint for Injunctive and OtherRelief and Request for Jury Trial to be served upon these parties by U.S. Mail:

Phillip Linder

3500 Oak Lawn, Suite 700Dallas, Texas 75219

Attorney for Christopher Mills,Silver Summit LLC, and Sleeping

Bear LLC

Gerald PateraCapital Bankers Group, Ltd.

Third Securities Corp.23 Holly Pines Lake

Pinehurst, North Carolina 28374Pro Se

Jeffrey B. Norris & Associates, P.C.

/s/ Jeffrey B. NorrisJeffrey B. Norris


china voice response

Documents