Brukie -
<<Here is that "WE" again. If that attorney is the one a certain one of you talks to, when I spoke to him the other day he said "I advise my Client". He knows I am also a shareholder in which case I to Would be a "Client" also and he never said that. So he isnt working for me.>>
This is no cloak and dagger stuff here. There is no conspiracy. We're talking about Tom Krebs, as everybody knows. Owl found him in his hometown through a friend, and has so far convinced Tom to go into this matter at no charge to us. The "We" that people are starting to act a little funny about is we-the-shareholders. But we cannot expect an attorney, especially one DONATING his time, to be willing to talk to all of the shareholders. I have never talked with him and doubt he would talk to me either. I can understand the frustration is there, but you can't beat the price, and he has made only one request, that being that only a couple of "us" contact him. Otherwise, there would be an obvious time problem.
Owl was one, naturally, because of being in the same town and because of being the one who first approached him. Then MoneyBaggs was included because of his scanned documents. And then, the best I understand, gpolley was added, since gpolley had been sort of a chairman for the committee to find a lawyer ever since I started asking for volunteers.
If three is all Tom Krebs can handle, we have to understand that. I think it is fantastic luck that we have him right now. He has asked for patience and restraint, and I'm willing to do that and wanting to convince others to leave it in his hands for a bit. It's really that simple.
You are not content to get back 20 percent of your investment, and I don't think there's a chance any of us will ever see 20 percent of it except POSSIBLY through SEC disgorgement. We just think differently. Still friends, though. Please.
Raven
|
