PART II to Mr D Allen.
I want to regurgitate a string of your words.
1. Our investment decisions are for the most part fact-driven..(ARE YOUS SURE ABOUT THAT?)
2. We have attempted to present facts and sources for those facts in an effort to establish credibility. (WHAT? TO GAIN CREDIBILITY FOR WHAT? Or WHO?)
3. We believe the facts overwhelmingly support our conclusion that this is a hoax. (OK A HOAX is defined in Webster as "to trick into believing or accepting as genuine something false and often preposterous; something accepted or established by fraud or fabrication" I think we agree on what a HOAX is, right?
Consider this some friendly advise: If you REALLY DO have a team a LEGAL REPS, they should of already advised "you" or "we" (depending on your pronoun) of the terms LIBEL which can manifest itself in both written and oral statements. Other related words you may wish to review are slander, defamation, etc.. I think you get the picture. You have already overloaded your posts with accusations, and even though they are on the Internet, a person's words written in this type of media holds a lot of weight - as has already been done..Have your Legal Reps look it up for you..Consequently, I think you "we" have already stepped over the line..in my opinion.but, I am not a lawyer.but a lot of them read your writings!
Now to address your "15 Points of Enlightenment" I will use CAPS to differentiate our words.
1. Sales averaging less than $330,000 per year for the three years ended December 31,
1995. Sales for the year ended December 31, 1996 are similar. NOW, THE COMPANY IS UNDERGOING AN INTERNAL AUDIT..THERE IS NO WAY THAT YOU WOULD KNOW, AS FACT, (PER YOUR OWN WORDS) THAT THIS YEAR'S NUMBER WILLL BE SIMULIAR..UNLESS YOU HAVE AN `INSIDE SOURCE?? YOU ARE STATING THAT THIS IS A FACT..SORRY I DO NOT BUY IT - THIS IS NOT FACT!
2. Substantial loses for above four year period. WHAT FOUR YEAR PERIOD? 1992-1996? ITS A NEW BALL GAME NOW WITH NEW PRODUCTS AND NEW TECHNOLOGY..A COMPANY'S PAST HISTOYRY IS NOT ALWAYS A BARAMETER TO JUDGE WHJAT IT COULD DO IN THE FUTURE - AGAIN, 1996 IS NOT A FACT. I WILL CONCEDE THE PRIOR YEARS.
3. No tangible assets. YOUR SOURCE FOR THIS PLEASE?? YOU SAY YOU HAVE SOURCES..LET'S SEE THE ONE ON THIS!
`
4. Misrepresented distribution network. AGAIN, YOUR SOURCE? YOU ARE SADLY MISTAKEN, AND MISINFORMED. THE SOURCE PLEASE.
5. Failed previous publicly traded ventures of the two key management individuals, Klenovic
and Bunte. YOU ARE TEAMING THESE TWO PEOPLE TOGETHER..PLEASE PROVIDE US YOUR SOURCE AND THE PUBLIC COMPANIES (PLURAL) THAT FAILED..REMEMBER TO COUPLE THEM TOGETHER NOW!
6. Shares issued well beyond what they divulged to shareholders. EVER ASK THE REASON WHY YOURSELF AT THE COMPANY? I DOUBT YOU HAVE..YOU ARE RELYING ON INFORMATION FROM OTHER SOURCES. I THINK IF YOU HAD INVESTIGATED, YOU WOULD HAVE FOUND AN EXPLANATION FOR THE SHARES.
7. No customers nor references of consequence. HERESAY, AND NOT FACT. THIS IS YOUR OPINION - I THINK IF YOU WOULD CHECK FURTHER, YOU WOULD FIND WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR.
8. Grossly inflated revenue projections and earnings. I HAVE NEVER SEEN THESE SO CALLED PROJECTIONS COMING FROM THE COMPANY. SOURCE PLEASE?
9. Illegal use of SGA Goldstar to promote stock. I THINK YOU HAVE IT TWISTED. YOU HAVE NOT RESEARCHED THIS OUT. THIS OCCURRED IN 1995. TWO YEARS AGO, AND IT WAS NOT AN ONGOING THING, AND THE COMPANY DROPPED THEM QUICKLY. DO YOUR HOMEWORK DOUG! OH, SOURCE PLEASE FOR THIS??
0. SEC v. Klenovic complaint citing:
Misappropriation of investor funds
Selling of unregistered stock
Failure to file disclosure documents of his stock holdings
Filing false and misleading public disclosure documents
DO NOT DISPUTE. BUT YOUR CONTINUING ATTACKS ON MATT KLENOVIC IS EXTREMELY EXCESSIVE, AND MAY CAUSE YOU SOME GRIEF IN MY OPINION IN THE NOT TOO DISTANT FUTURE.
11. Court ruling in SEC v. Klenovic matter permanently restraining and enjoining him and
his associates from certain activities damaging to shareholders and citing disgorgement in
the amount of $1,474,934. DO NOT DISPUTE. NIXON GOT CAUGHT TOO REMEMBER? BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN I WOULDN'T VOTE FOR HIM TODAY IF HE WERE WITH US..GREAT MAN IN MY OPINION.
12. Misrepresented orders which never materialized totaling hundreds of thousands of |
