Ok this is my objective.
Style feedback:
1. Do not get personal with NASD, nor Merrill, nor DF.
It is not personal, and if it is fine with me. What have i got to lose that has not already been stripped away from over this. I feel it states exactly who did what and their part in this all coming together. No one can pull off what DF did without doing exactly what he and the vessels he used.
2. FACTS over FEELINGS. If your angry, say so, then go back to facts.
Dang right, I am angry and the facts are as stated. A letter without emotion does not convey the dedication I have in this matter.
3. Don't go into too much detail, especially personal details. Make your point in a clear and concise manner.
But the detail is what makes it concise on how this whole thing came into being and their is a lot I am not putting in this letter either. I do have more facts but they do not concern the NASD.
4. You do not need to defend yourself. You're coming across as defensive when you do. Let the truth speak for itself.
Why not, been doing it since the DF influence came to this thread... the truth will prevail one way or another.
5. You're speaking for all Midland shareholders, not just yourself. Change "I" to "We" throughout.
No, I am speaking for myself no one else has had to endure what I have and I do not want anyone targeted along with me either ... if someone wants to speak out they can do their own letter to the NASD and Congressman.
6. You're attempting to provide a clear, concise reason why Midland should resume trading. Make a strong case. Be compelling.
I think I have made it very very clear the events of what happen and why. I also feel I have made a good representation on why it is not trading also.
Content feedback:
1. Make the subject clear. Change "Ref: Unfair or improper business conduct" to something like "Ref: Resumption of Trading of Midland Inc".
According to the complaint page of the NASD that is the exact verbage that is used.
2. Paragraph 1: Good intro. Clean, concise.
Thanks
3. Paragraph 2-3: Delete? The personal details are obscuring the real reason for the letter -- resumption of Midland trading. We know you've been destroyed by Midland, but NASD probably doesn't need to know the details of the Midland saga. If you feel they're truly needed, put them as a separate attachment. Perhaps a chronicle of the events from your perspective. Keep the intro strong and concise.
Awareness of audience. This guy is not going to know me from Adam and will probably not get the picture. Plus I am letting him know exactly who I am without a shred of doubt. If I will step up i front of a speeding bullet being a non compensated IR, then I guess he will see I really have nothing to lose do I.
4. Paragraph 4: Put a period after "have had to endure major losses". Delete the rest of the sentence about Internet voices?
NO WAY!!! The influence on the internet is part of the whole mess and plays an important part, a very, very important part. You would need to have accumulated all the posts to see why it is very important.
5. Paragraph 5: Delete "However, the voices..." and remaining sentences. Too much detail?
No I want detail ... I want them to see what I see not just some ramblings of a disgruntled shareholder.
6. Paragraph 6 and items 1-6: Perfect: Good, factual, clear,
concise.
7. Paragraph 7 and items 1-10:
- Item 3: Delete "... Merrill Lynch has a large influence over NASD..."? Remember, you're appealing to NASD management.
- May want to tighten up the wording on the other items.
And a Lot of the management of the NASD are former Merril Lynch employees and management. That is the reason I feel it is not trading so I feel it is important to make this complaint and state exactly the underlying basis for my opinion.
8. Paragraph 8: Delete everything after "for a current CEO"? Rest of the paragraph has information already found in Paragraphs 6-7.
Hmmm .. redundant ... or a summary of sorts.
<i?9. Paragraph 9: Perfect! ANYONE SEE ANY OTHER OPTIONS???
- Change "no further action" to "no further legal action"?
No one has filed legal action that is premature.
10. Paragraph 10-11: Delete?
WHY?
Thanks for your input but I feel the letter should be from a moron in Stockbridge not some legal eagle.
GB |
