Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Technology Stocks : EDTA (was GIFT) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Arnold Freilich who wrote (2311)	1/17/2000 11:18:00 AM
From: bigbadalan	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 2383

Arnold, Grant Robertson indicated that he knew no one on our slate and it might well have been the fact that this statement was made before he saw our slate. Using this logic, I guess he could have said all kinds of things about us and then used the excuse that he did not know who we were. If this convoluted logic can pass muster, I imagine that we will have to redesign the definition of perjury, libel and slander. On the other hand, it seems that Robertson is making the rules as he goes along. On the other hand, Robertson certainly did know that Jack Carella, a long term associate of mine and partner in my firm was on his (Robinson's) slate until literally the last minute. In a lengthy discussion between Robertson and Carella, Jack Carella pointed out to Robinson that even though he saw nothing wrong with running on both slates, it might send the wrong message to investors. Jack pulled off of the Robertson Slate and went on ours. That fact is irrefutable and was the subject of a long discussion between the two men. (Thus, I guess we must chalk Mr. Robertson's statement that he didn't know us to something other than not knowing our slate. Surely, Mr. Robertson will have a new answer covering new law on that issue sooner rather than later. In the meantime, Grant has had substantial discussions with Scott Hillstrom on many different subjects over an extended time. Not only did Robertson know that Scott was running, but he also knew very well that Mr. Hillstrom was heading our slate. As to me, as you know better than anyone else Arnie, I bought the patent from Grant but had already known him for approximately six years at that point. When Mike Franzese, an E-data Director, was officing with me, he and Grant talked almost daily and much of the time, I answered the phone and talked to Grant. Grant has been in my office, I have met him in London several times and have had extensive relationships with him throughout this sordid situation. In another area, I do not imagine that you know about this yet, but Steve Schwartz, Company Counsel, resigned on Friday. Considering the fact that Schwartz has stuck with the Company through thick and thin, I would think his resignation is sending a strong message regarding Robertson's tactics. I will leave this for you to judge and other to judge. In the meantime, we have another round of Utah Court actions later this week. We are attempting to get a contempt judgment against Robertson for violating a lawful order of the Utah Court. In addition, we are asking that all illegally issued shares be rescinded. Grant thinks that because he lives out of the Country he can do what he wishes no matter what the U. S. and Utah Security regulations say. Arnold, if you read Mr. Robertson Proxy Statement and attached letter, I am sure that you can see that Mr. Robertson has taken poetic license to a level unseen by this party in all the years I have been in the business. In addition Grant and associates have made various charges against everybody and anybody to avoid losing the company. I have heard that libel suits may be ready at the time of the Shareholders Meeting. Arnold, nice corresponding with you and if you want to talk, you know my number; hope things are going well for you.