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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : HITSGALORE.COM (HITT) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Janice Shell who wrote (5004)	1/24/2000 11:40:00 PM
From: Q.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7056

Spin control & the company's version of Reed's criminal conviction: I find it most interesting that you get a different impression of Reed's conviction and punishment when you read the docket, as compared to what the company filed with the SEC. Here's what the company had to say in their 10k/a: In addition, the following incident involving Mr. Reed took place more than 5 years ago, and the Company is under no obligation to include it in this filing. In 1992, Mr. Reed was convicted at trial of wire fraud and unlawful use of access device and served a 10 month sentence in a federal prison camp and successfully completed the rest of his term on supervised release. To start with, in the docket I don't see any mention of the phrase "wire fraud." What I do see in the docket is lots of stuff that, if the company had just reported it verbatim, would have scared investors a lot more: knowingly and willfully devised a scheme to defraud and for obtaining money and property from customers by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises." That line, repeated in dozens of charges, sounds much more menacing IMHO from the perspective of an investor. False promises. False representations. Fraudulent. After reading that, who could possibly believe anything the guy says, whether in a news release or in a conference call? Moreover, in the company's filing you don't see any mention of the huge number of counts he was convicted on. Or even a peep about his unsuccessful appeal(s), stunts and gimmicks to try to avoid serving the time that he owed to society. Also lacking in the company statement is any mention of the duration of his punishment by "supervised release." By this omission, the company avoided disclosing that Reed was still subject to the supervised release punishment for his criminal fraud scams, during his operations at Hitsgalore's predecessor, the IBB. Another trick: Note how the company emphasized that "the Company is under no obligation" to disclose Reed's conviction because it was more than 5 years ago. While it is true that the conviction was more than 5 years before the July 1999 filing, there's more than that. Reed was still serving his sentence within the 5 year window, preceding the filing. His unsuccessful appeal also fell within that window. So what then, exactly, was the company obligated to disclose, and has it actually disclosed it?