Bourque Industries Inc (CE) (BORK) Share Price

Thank you blastin. In reference to "counterfeit masks being addressed in court" I itemize past posts below.

blastin
February 17, 2022
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=167927374
"... most of us know Borque Industries was just a pump and dump scheme that fell short to ever create a marketable product [the] scam of the counterfeit mask being addressed in court JB's fate [the] pink onesies always looked good on JB, and they will again soon."

blastin
May 03, 2022
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=168739124
COMPLAINT
Comes now, Plaintiff Boss Consulting, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “Boss”), sues Defendants, and alleges in this Complaint as follows:
NATURE OF ACTION
1. This is a civil action for fraud and racketeering activities, breach of contract, conversion, and unfair business practices.
2. Plaintiff is a product distributor of goods. Plaintiff was authorized by Case 8:20-cv-01897-MEMF-KES Document 1 Filed 10/01/20 Page 1 of 22.
COMPLAINT
PAGE 2 a buyer to act as its representative to acquire certain personal protective equipment (PPE), quantities in the millions. Plaintiff entered into a transaction with a seller who claimed to have goods meeting the specifications and quantity requested, but who provided counterfeit goods. This transaction was made through the services of an investment group, and when the entire transaction was rejected, no money was refunded to Plaintiff, leaving her liable for millions of dollars to the buyer of the goods.

blastin
May 03, 2022
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=168739124
COMPLAINT
Comes now, Plaintiff Boss Consulting, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “Boss”), sues Defendants, and alleges in this Complaint as follows:
NATURE OF ACTION
1. This is a civil action for fraud and racketeering activities, breach of contract, conversion, and unfair business practices.
2. Plaintiff is a product distributor of goods. Plaintiff was authorized by Case 8:20-cv-01897-MEMF-KES Document 1 Filed 10/01/20 Page 1 of 22
COMPLAINT
PAGE 2 a buyer to act as its representative to acquire certain personal protective equipment (PPE), quantities in the millions. Plaintiff entered into a transaction with a seller who claimed to have goods meeting the specifications and quantity requested, but who provided counterfeit goods. This transaction was made through the services of an investment group, and when the entire transaction was rejected, no money was refunded to Plaintiff, leaving her liable for millions of dollars to the buyer of the goods.

blastin
May 03, 2022
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=168739143
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. This court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 USC § 1331 and the U.S. Const., Art. III, because this case presents a federal question under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1962.
4. Plaintiff’s damages far exceed $75,000.
5. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the pattern of unlawful and fraudulent practices alleged in this Complaint was perpetrated and committed in the County of Orange, State of California.
6. Plaintiff further alleges that the counterfeit goods were imported into California by certain of the Defendants and from there were transported by said same Defendants across state lines to the buyer.
7. Plaintiff further alleges that certain of the Defendants are residents of and/or maintain business offices within Orange County, California.

gotmilk
May 03, 2022
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=168740408
Thank you, I need to reread what you posted and make a flow chart to track where the $6,688,000 (6 million 688 thousand dollars) originated from and where it traveled. For sure counterfeit goods made, are by law, need to be destroyed, so everything here is about the money.
Seems like John Bourque and Carol J. Condon acted totally stupid in 2020 to obtain "easy" money.
Also seems like John Bourque and Carol J. Condon will both do prison time, meaning unless John Bourque transfers all of the Bourque Industries Kryron secrets he illegally moved from Bourque Industries to exist solely within his possession, then Bourque Industries can not move towards success.

Reference:
1. This is a civil action for fraud and racketeering activities, breach of contract, conversion, and unfair business practices.
4. Plaintiff’s damages far exceed $75,000.
6. Plaintiff further alleges that the counterfeit goods were imported into California by certain of the Defendants and from there were transported by said same Defendants across state lines to the buyer.

The official Bourque Industries t-shirt.

This is as of 2/25/25 looks as if he's getting off. Something he hasn't done in a while

AARON M. MCKOWN
aaron@mckownbailey.com
WILLIAM P. CASSIDY, JR.
wcassidy@mckownbailey.com
McKown Bailey
520 Newport Center Drive, Suite 470
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: 949-858-3200
Attorneys for Defendants
Redstone Advisory Trust,
Aaron M. McKown, P.A., and
Aaron M. McKown
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BOSS CONSULTING, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
TERMINATOR ARMOR, INC., an
Arizona corporation; BOURQUE
INDUSTRIES, INC., a Nevada
corporation; JOHN M. BOURQUE, an
individual; CAROL J. CONDON, an
individual, REDSTONE INVESTMENT
GROUP, LLC, an entity; AARON M.
MCKOWN, an individual; AARON M.
MCKOWN, P.A., an entity; and
OHANA CAPITAL FINANCIAL, an
entity,
Defendants.
Case No.: 8:20-cv-01897-MEMF-KES
Hon. Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULING
ORDER DUE TO TRIAL CONFLICT
Hearing Date: March 27, 2025
Hearing Time: 10:00 a.m.
Courtroom: 8B
REDSTONE ADVISORY TRUST, a
Texas Trust; and AARON M.
MCKOWN P.A., a Florida Corporation,
Cross-claimants,
v.
TERMINATOR ARMOR, INC., an
Arizona Corporation; BOURQUE
INDUSTRIES, INC., a Nevada
Corporation; JOHN M. BOURQUE, an
individual; CAROL J. CONDON, an
Case 8:20-cv-01897-MEMF-KES Document 172-1 Filed 02/20/25 Page 1 of 5 Page
ID #:1092
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
individual; OHANA CAPITAL
FINANCIAL, INC., a Utah Corporation,
Cross-Defendants.
REDSTONE ADVISORY TRUST, a
Texas Trust; and AARON M.
MCKOWN P.A., a Florida Corporation,
Third-Party Plaintiffs,
v.
KRYON CORPORATION, an Arizona
Corporation; BOURQUE SUB 3, INC.,
an Arizona corporation; ROBERT
KILLION, an individual; TRILITHON
SANITATION, INC., a Utah
corporation; SEMISI “JAMES” NIU aka
JOHN TAUFA aka SIONE TAUFA, an
individual; JAMES EVANS, an
individual; HIGHRHEALTH, LLC, a
Louisiana limited liability company; and
LONNA HEGGELUND, an individual.
Third-Party Defendants.
Case 8:20-cv-01897-MEMF-KES Document 172-1 Filed 02/20/25 Page 2 of 5 Page
ID #:1093
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Defendants Redstone
Advisory Trust (erroneously sued as Redstone Investment Group, LLC), Aaron M.
McKown, and Aaron M. McKown P.A. (the “Motion”) came for hearing on March 27,
2025 at 10:00 a.m. in the Courtroom 8B of United States District Court for the Central
District of California, the Honorable Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong presiding.
Upon the consideration of Moving Parties’ Motion, and other parties’ responsive
pleadings (if any) thereto, the Court finds as follows:
1. The Motion is GRANTED.
2. Plaintiff Boss Consulting, Inc.’s first cause of action for breach of contract
against Defendants Redstone Advisory Trust (erroneously sued as
Redstone Investment Group, LLC), Aaron M. McKown, and Aaron M.
McKown P.A. is dismissed without leave to amend.
3. Under California law, only a party to a contract may be liable for breach
of contract unless the non-contracting party expressly assumed the
agreement. See Clemens v. Am. Warranty Corp., 193 Cal.App.3d 444, 452
(1987); see also Gold v. Gibbons, 178 Cal.App.2d 517, 519 (1960)
(“Breach of contract cannot be made the basis of an action for damages
against defendants who did not execute it,” unless the non-party has
expressly assumed the contract). Merely because a party assisted in some
regard or accepted the benefits of the contract does not bind the party to its
terms. See Matthau v. Superior Court, 151 Cal.App.4th 593, 603 (2007)
(refusing to bind a non-party to a contract merely because it benefitted or
assisted in performance, finding the proposition “unsupported by
law”). Plaintiff does not allege that either of the McKown Defendants was
a party to the contract nor does Plaintiff allege that either of the McKown
Parties assumed the contract. Rather, Plaintiff expressly alleges that it
contracted with Terminator through Redstone. These admissions entitle
the McKown Parties to judgment on Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim.
Case 8:20-cv-01897-MEMF-KES Document 172-1 Filed 02/20/25 Page 3 of 5 Page
ID #:1094
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
4. The same is true with respect to Redstone. While Redstone is alleged to
have entered the agreement with Plaintiff, Plaintiff judicially admits facts
that demonstrate it contracted with Defendant Terminator Armor, Inc.
(“Terminator”) for the goods at issue. For example, Plaintiff admits that it
timely accepted the contract by wiring the purchase price for the goods ($2
million) to Terminator and that it separately paid Redstone a commission.
Plaintiff further admits that Terminator delivered the goods in California
for Plaintiff’s inspection, Plaintiff inspected the goods, and the goods were
then shipped by Terminator to Plaintiff’s buyer in Arkansas. Plaintiff
alleges that after its buyer rejected the goods, Plaintiff demanded a return
of payment from Terminator, not Redstone. These facts conclusively
acknowledge that the contract was between Plaintiff and Terminator. At
best, Redstone was nothing more than an agent of a disclosed principal –
a principal that Plaintiff admits had been disclosed prior to Plaintiff’s
acceptance of the contract. Thus, under California law, Redstone cannot
be held liable for Terminator’s alleged breach. Dones v. Life Insurance
Co. of North America, 55 Cal.App.5th 665, 689 (2020) (“[A]n agent is
ordinarily not liable on the contract when he acts on behalf of a disclosed
principal.” (quoting Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal.App.3d 903, 929
(1980))).
5. Each of the Defendants are separately entitled to judgment on Plaintiff’s
first cause of action for breach of contract as a result of Plaintiff’s judicial
admissions that it inspected the goods, that during the inspection it
conclusively determined that the goods were non-conforming because they
were counterfeit, and that despite this discovery, Plaintiff did not reject the
goods. Instead, the goods were then shipped to Plaintiff’s buyer in
Arkansas and that only after Plaintiff’s buyer rejected the goods did
Plaintiff attempt to revoke its acceptance. California’s Commerci

I keep checking in out of curiosity. I bought then sold years ago. Luckily was a positive, small but... 

I hope those still holding eventually get a positive or at a minimum a break even return. 

Good Luck!

If possible, could you please update us on the trial with Boss Consulting.

Suit: Racketeer/Corrupt Organization

The Court scheduled a further settlement conference for March 10, 2025.
Brief filed by defendant Terminator Armor.

Thank you,
gotmilk (Doug)

Will March 10, 2025 happen ?

Racketeering (RICO) Act

1/2/2025

Why do you care??? This stock is dead/empty-shell. Huh????????????

It ranges from thousands to hundreds of thousands.

volume not available for me to see

Movement again today.

More movement today.

The rational for those that initiated the lawsuit against Bourque Industries was a realization that the failure to obtain success was a result of the mismanagement of the Board of Directors not to protect shareholders, but to allow John Bourque to keep his majority share holdings and prevent outside help from arriving and deliver Kryron as a commercial success.

My speculation is that those that initiated the lawsuit have received assurance that once the court removes John Bourque and the Board of Directors from this company, and returns their shares back into Bourque Industries, that new management will arrive and bring people with the technical expertise to do what John Bourque was unable to accomplish.

For those that purchased shares in this company during the early years, following advice from those they trusted, have most likely taken the advice from these same folks to dump their shares for a total lost and exorcise troubling thoughts. Sounds good, except for that lawsuit, as a replacement of current management with new people, leading to this company becoming successful , will deliver a second trauma to those that took bad advice from those they trusted as smarter and knowing better than them.

And just what, pray tell, may possibly be gained by filing or proceeding with a lawsuit of any kind against BORK? Pleases correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that the only person who has anything to gain in such a lawsuit is the lawyer who is paid to file and pursue the lawsuit. Someone tell me, is it worth the headache, stress, time, or money to support such a suit?

movement ?

For the past months the Bid/Ask was not displayed (see below for why).

Note: What I see/note may be my limitations to understand this stuff.




Warning! This security is eligible for Unsolicited Quotes Only
This stock is not eligible for proprietary broker-dealer quotations. All quotes in this stock reflect unsolicited customer orders. Unsolicited-Only stocks have a higher risk of wider spreads, increased volatility, and price dislocations. Investors may have difficulty selling this stock. An initial review by a broker-dealer under SEC Rule15c2-11 is required for brokers to publish competing quotes and provide continuous market making.

Warning! This security is traded on the Expert Market
The Expert Market® serves broker-dealer pricing and investor best execution needs. Quotations in Expert Market securities are restricted from public viewing. OTC Markets Group may designate securities for quoting on the Expert Market when it is not able to confirm that the company is making current information publicly available under SEC Rule 15c2-11, or when the security is otherwise restricted from public quoting. See additional information about the Expert Market here...
https://blog.otcmarkets.com/2021/03/25/understanding-the-expert-market
.

Time for JB to auction off all the patents?

JB posted on X formerly known as Twitter. Of course it was politicaly motivated.

Why does John Bourque want a later and later trial, knowing the extra time is useless for this scam of a company having no viable product to sell.

Looks as if Bourque's attorney has another trial in mid January 25 and is trying to get things pushed back to September 25'. Judge has denied his request as of now. Right now, JB better be stocking up on baby oil so him and the Diddler can be cell mates.

It has been spoken on this board that the lawsuit against Bourque Industries will happen January 2025.

3+ months from now.

I'm hopeful speculation will kick in prior to that date where the court will remove all shares held by John Bourque and the Board of Directors and return them to Bourque Industries, that along with removal of John Bourque and all Board of Directors from Bourque Industries, plus give control of Bourque Industries to what ever is done in this type of situation to allow Bourque Industries to resume it's quest to become a successful company. But then, most likely the court will dissolve Bourque Industries.

Time to buy lol

I have them all.

2,750,000 BORKs
average 1¢
all sitting in eTrade

Hope you got totally OUT. From $5.90s to $.000001 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sad ... Sad ... Sad .. Sad.

Best case scenario is to counter the "Racketeer/Corrupt Organization" charge against Bourque Industries.

If Bourque Industries continues "as is" into the trial, then the fact "Since 2011 the cash inputs directly into Bourque Industries has not advanced this company to where a product is sold, producing a revenue stream suitable to identify that this company is not a scam." speaks of John Bourque and the Board of Director engaging in criminal activity to victimize investors that transferred cash directly into Bourque Industries while never producing any positive results.

All Bourque Industries can do, is now before the trial, produce activity that will put Bourque Industries onto a path to become a successful company and show that it's not a scam.

For example, prove to an established alloy producing company that Kryron is for real and have them accept a majority of shares in Bourque Industries so that they can establish Bourque Industries as a valid company.

So far, John Bourque will take Bourque Industries to the grave as a failed company.

doug

What does everyone think best case scenario is at this point for investors? We know what worst case scenario is.

Shit looks BORK'ed

I thought it was June 2024. That’s too bad. I do want to try and make the court dates if possible.

According to Pacer Trial has been set for 1/27/25 crazy how long this took to go to trial. Not sure where the trial is but will post maybe we can get 30 investors that got taken to be in the court room.

Anyone have any updates?

Question: How would the shareholders benefit?

I'm not tuned-in to matters like this.

What options can a guilty verdict against Bourque Industries hold,
and if so, what options against John Bourque and the Board of Directors.
Does Bourque Industries have debt outstanding?
Are the patents worth anything?

doug

How would the shareholders benefit?

Hopefully the suit against Bourque Industries will occur in June. The best outcome for the Hurting in the Dark Shareholders will have the court (1.) Remove John Bourque and the Board of Director Puppets from Bourque Industries (2.) Terminate all share holdings in Bourque Industries held by John Bourque and the Board of Director Puppets (3.) Seize all assets from John Bourque and the Board of Director Puppets (4.) Assign prison time to John Bourque and the Board of Director Puppets.

Interesting...

Bourque Industries (John Bourque and the Board of Directors) has a long history exchanging company shares for cash, this with the stated intent to use such to bring this company to a commercial success.

Since 2011 the cash inputs directly into Bourque Industries have not advanced this company to where a product is sold, producing a revenue stream suitable to identify that this company is not a scam.

Perhaps this is the justification to bring suit against Bourque Industries, as follows.

Nature of Suit: Racketeer/Corrupt Organization
Cause: Racketeering (RICO) Act

I recall that I had a telephone conversation with Juan C. Mendoza, Chief Security Officer of Bourque Industries where he criticized me for exchanging cash for BORK shares on the open market rather than giving that money directly into Bourque Industries.

.

BORK +0.0001 (+9,899.9970%)

If there are any investors in the area of that trial they should addend every trial date.

6/24/2024

Will Bourque Industries
(a.k.a. John Bourque and Board of Directors)
arrive "empty handed" at the court
and plead innocent
having these past 12 years
engaged in an honest attempt
to make the company successful
each year obtaining cash from investors
resulting in failure
while never communicating with shareholders
with the stated by John Bourque in 2011
"I don't give a shit about the investors."
If so, then it's a guilty verdict.
Or perhaps, John Bourque will arrive with news?
News, like Bourque Industries has joined
or be joined with
an established alloy company
having the money and technical personnel
and of course on-going sales for revenue.
Gosh, that would mean Bourque Industries
would exchange Bourque Industries shares
for the "help" to get a not-guilty verdict.
That recourse means John Bourque
will accept a lost of having total control
based on his share holdings.

"Investor is putting in cash and hiring experts..."

Once (likely) John Bourque goes to prison for the third time, BORK may live.

Doug

At this stage it doesn’t really matter. Investor is putting in cash and hiring experts in the industry to validate and improve upon formulas and processes.

JB has moved on and is looking for his
next scam. Going into 2024 I think we should move on as a group. The only thing keeping JB relevant is us chatting about him.

Please add any further or in depth knowledge you have.

November 2023 "... The trial begins in June 2024 and will validate John Bourque's character as a scammer or Ponzi Master. John Bourque's brother is working with a former investor to try and replicate Kryron in a new and improved form... As of now ballistically it's not performing how they'd hoped." - blastin

"working with a former investor" - Is this investor adding money and/or technical knowledge ?
"ballistically " - On the Bourque Industries web site are mentioned many other areas for Kryron.

Thanks,
gotmilk (Doug)

Can't Remember the last time I posted here, but does not look like much has changed. . . I do have a question about the BAM sale. . . I did buy a share for $30k and am thinking over the past few years that it is something that one could 'deduct' on our 1040 filing this year. With BORK shares virtually worthless, I would think it 'safe' to deduct the loss over the next decade. . . any thoughts are appreciated. . . Good to see Got Milk is still active along with a few other familiar 'names' . . . MerthyQ seems absent recently. . . happy HOLIDAYs to ALL

Boss Consulting v. Terminator Armor

Perhaps I have the wrong website https://www.bossconsulting.com/

For the legal action expected, Boss Consulting would be a "gun for hire" of lawyers.

All I see is: Consulting Information Services

doug

Guys please look at another penny: VRSSF.

It’s an AI start up with a lot of risk but also a lot of potential.

I sold my $500 of BORK after losing tens of thousands and looked elsewhere. Did a lot of DD and invested in VRSSF. Check out their website and do your own DD. Only invest what you can afford to lose.

I wish everyone all the best!

Happy Thanksgiving!!

Do you know who Boss Consulting is?

Question: What are the possible outcomes?

Boss Consulting Inc v. Terminator Armor, Inc., et al.

Plaintiff: Boss Consulting Inc
Defendant: Bourque Industries, Inc., John M. Bourque, Terminator Armor, Inc., Ohana Capital Financial, Aaron M. Mckown P.A. and Carol J. Condon

First need to identify the objective (goal intended to be attained) for Boss Consulting.

Do they want the current management of Bourque Industries to be removed, this with the stated opinion that Kryron can be successfully brought to market with new people.

doug

Just an FYI, JB is still active on X (twitter). He doesnt post but he will reply and "like" other posts.

SOMEONE better jump in and do some chest compressions, as the chart is DEFINITELY flatlining red!

Tomcat

Is this all real? Are they really going to court? What are the possible outcomes?

Is this stock ceased from trading?

I was here when the company was called "Global Platinum & Gold" and was a "desert dirt" gold mining stock! It was SO MUCH MORE fun in those days!

IMHO - Tomcat

The Jury trial is 6/24/2024.

7½ more months until possible news from Bourque Industries (a.k.a. John Bourque).

"It's been over for a while..." - blastin
"It ain't over till it's over." - Yogi Berra

Boss Consulting Inc v. Terminator Armor, Inc., et al
Case #: 8:20-cv-01897
Nature of Suit: Racketeer/Corrupt Organization
Cause: Racketeering (RICO) Act
Case Filed: Oct 01, 2020

The Court hereby ORDERS the schedule for trial and pre-trial deadlines:
First round of trial filings is 4/24/24.
Second round of trial filings is 5/8/2024.
Final Pretrial Conference is 6/5/2024.
The Jury trial is 6/24/2024.

doug