it appears dear to even the casual observer you are on a mission.
Have I ever denied that? I believe I've made it quite clear why I think this company's affairs should be looked into.
you defended those who could not & did not defend themselfs.
I have yet to understand why you think I've "defended" Andy Mann, Shoreline, or Whitecliffe. I'm trying to find out what really happened, as are the others in what you're pleased to call "our group".
you say it was "sylver's opinion letter" alders & mann used to get the legends lifted off the stock before the restriction expired.
Actually it was Mike Sylver who said that. At the October 2 injunction hearing. Do I have to post from the transcript AGAIN???
yet you fail to say that issac montal & the dtc came to aznt on three seperate occassions to negotiate a stipulation that they be dropped from the case in return for the freeze being lifted & the return of the 4.48 million shares. each time they failed to live up to the agreement.
How could they fail to live up to an agreement they never ratified? As I understand it, negotiations broke down because Sylver made unreasonable demands. My guess: there's NO WAY the DTC is gonna do anything that'll provoke a short squeeze. And what about the Canadian Depository? You've been saying for months that there was ONE cert, at the DTC...
finally why did jboxford claim they sent the cert to dtc when the restraining order ordered its return to the court?
As has been pointed out to you many, many times, the October 2 injunction did not require any of the defendants to "return" any stock to the Court. I posted the injunction once more last night. My God, can't you read and understand plain English?
now comes barrister maclean forstrom jackson who contacts aznt that montal wants to "compromise" before the 1/29 hearing
Now this IS interesting. Obviously you're just parroting what you've been told, and don't understand what it means, but I'd like an explanation from someone. I assume that Maclean Forstrom Jackson is the law firm of J. Brent Maclean, counsel for Canaccord. Why is Maclean speaking for, or acting as go-between for, the DTC? We know that Maclean's been in touch with Montel for quite some time: it was he who said at the injunction hearing that the DTC was considering bringing suit against AZNT. So what's the connection between the two entities?
i believe they [DTC] , like the defendants can not defend themselfs in court & have tried unsuccessfully to negotiate with aznt a 'deal'. they have been unsuccessful up to as late as wedns. this week.
Sorry, but in my view it's AZNT that's been "unsuccessful".
we already have injunctive relief demanding the stock returned to the court
Once again, this is utter nonsense. The injunction stipulated nothing of the kind.
And in closing, Spidey, let me remind you that there's nothing illegal about criticizing AZNT and its management, or about asking questions. |
