marcos, there's some context missing from the passage to which you refer. Qualey and Slyver were asserting that without a return of the stock, the company would cease to exist. The judge wanted an explanation. Mike did not provide an explanation, instead preferring to soapbox his 'I'm-Gonna-Change-All-Shorting-In-America for all time' philosophy. The judge wanted him to stick to the case:
Case No. CV-S-98-1247-LDG(RLH) page 70
24 THE COURT: Well, why does it prevent you from saving
25 the company? What prevents you from saving company?
Case No. CV-S-98-1247-LDG(RLH) page 71
1 MR. QUALEY: Mr. Sylver can explain that.
2 THE WITNESS: Okay. First of all, remember, I said
3 previously there is approximately 2,700,000 or 2,872,000 shares
4 naked short of our stock out in the market.
5 Through all the broker dealers, we know how many brokers
6 have shorted exactly what amount of stock and the dates of the
7 short, the amount of the shorts. We have narrowed it down to
8 the individual brokers who committed the shorts.
9 We have devised a plan that is going to alleviate this
10 shorting and the shorting of all other stocks in this country.
11 It is going to change the face of shorting in the United States
12 and prevent this illegal wrongdoing by Canadian companies and
13 American companies, you know.
14 THE COURT: I don't care about that at all. I want to
15 deal with this case.
___________________________
(bold emphasis: mine) |
