PanAmerican BanCorp (PABN) Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : PanAmerican BanCorp (PABN)

PABN 0.00001000

0.0%

Mar 7 3:00 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: LegalBeast who wrote (29762)	3/24/1999 5:40:00 PM
From: jhild	Read Replies (4) of 43774

1. jhild states that Carl was charged with Fraud. Nope. Never did. Find that statement that you claim I made. You are the fraud on that one. You even went so far as to fabricate a quote that you tried to represent that I made. 2. jhild gives us the case (in italics no less) with the case title and a valid legal cite. Not exactly right. jhild only gave you a cite that named some of the same parties with an et al., but that was all jhild had at the time, and was trying to be helpful. 3. The title does not match the legal cite because the names of the parties have been changed (he probably did not think anyone would really look up the case) No actually jhild had you do the leg work to look it up, because he thought you had access to Lexis, little knowing that you only had access to the net. But he learned from you where to look up some cases at least at the Appellate Level. And he thanked you for that with a grin at the thought of having you work for him to track it down. 4. jhild tries to make his deception go away by saying that he knows he has seen the real case somewhere (yeah, right). No, he merely pointed you back to the Press Release that indicates that the case had been joined by the DOJ as proof that there was one. It did after all appear to be from the DOJ. (As indeed it is: usdoj.gov You should once again provide proof that I ever said that I saw the real case. (I know now that you know how to link, so let's not crybaby that as an excuse.) 5. jhild tries again to make his FRAUD go away by telling me that I should not refer to that case any more because it is not the case he wanted it to be and says that he obviously got the wrong title and cite together (No kidding). No, in fact I said that it appears that case was not the right one as it was dated the prior year and as you pointed out your self it did not correspond to the same list of defendants in the DOJ release. How could it be then the one that was referred to? It looks like a different case as you your self believe. Get those feet out of your mouth and you could start wiping that egg off your face.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next