SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Zia Sun(zsun) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: StockDung who wrote (6739)2/2/2000 10:39:00 PM
From: Sir Auric Goldfinger  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 10354
 
NASD Charges Online BrokerWith Secretly Inflating Prices. Securities regulators have brought fraud charges against a deep-discount online broker, pointing up the dangers investors might face when they go looking for ever-cheaper stock trades on the Net.

The regulatory arm of the National
Association of Securities Dealers said
Wednesday U.S. Rica Financial and its chief
executive, Vinh Huu Nguyen, deceived
customers by secretly inflating prices on stock purchases.

The NASD said that U.S. Rica Financial lured investors with $4.95
commissions and even special "commission-free" trading days, but was in
many cases selling customers stock out of its own proprietary account.

According to regulators, U.S. Rica regularly purchased stock on the open
market for itself and then in turn sold the shares to its customers at a mark
up -- sometimes as much as 29% of the price. Vinh Huu Nguyen, U.S.
Rica's chief executive, also was named in the complaint.

In each case, the NASD said, the San Jose, Calif., firm told customers
they were getting the best price available. Indeed, securities laws require
brokerage firms to execute their customer's trades at the best available
market prices.

"I think it's important that, given the prominence of advertising from online
brokers about low cost, people realize that some things may not always be
as they're portrayed," said Barry Goldsmith, head of enforcement for
NASD Regulation. "You need to read the fine print, read the disclosures
and pay very close attention to your trading confirmations."

For his part, Mr. Nguyen said that his company has done nothing wrong,
and will fight the charges. "We continue to take care of our customers.
That's really all we can say," he said.

U.S. Rica's Web site (www.usrica.com) plays up its deep-discount
commissions. In addition to $4.95 stock trades, U.S. Rica also offers an
unlimited-trading plan for $29.95 a month -- referred to as a "low-cost,
worry-free commission plan." In both cases, investors are assessed a
$2.50 "service charge" per trade.

The NASD said those low commissions disguised a scheme to sell
customers overpriced stock, with some of the purchases dating back as
early as December 1998.

According to the complaint, in just under one month in early 1999, U.S.
Rica funneled 263 trades through its own account, netting the firm
$37,132.95 in illegal profits.

On Feb. 17, 1999, the NASD said, U.S. Rica advertised a
"commission-free day." But many trades on that day weren't executed on
the open market, and customers again were sold shares at inflated prices
from U.S. Rica's own account, according to the NASD.

The NASD alleged that U.S. Rica pocketed $2,156.25 from mark-ups
during the promotion.

In some cases, the discrepancies between what U.S. Rica charged
customers for stock and the price the firm actually paid were small, yet still
added hundreds of dollars to the cost of the trade. For instance, the
NASD said that in one trade, Mr. Nguyen purchased a stock for $22.375
through U.S. Rica's inventory account, and then sold the shares to a
customer for $23 apiece. The customer's confirmation statement indicated
the shares had been acquired on the open market for $23, plus the $4.95
commission charge. But the customer actually was charged a mark-up of
$312.50.

And in some cases, the broker's allegedly illegal profits were huge. The
NASD said that in December 1999, a customer placed an order to buy
10,000 shares of Oxis International, a Portland, Ore., maker of medical
devices. The customer was told the trade went through at $7.50 a share,
the NASD said, when in reality U.S. Rica obtained the shares for $5.80
each -- adding a whopping $17,000 to what the customer should have
paid for the purchase.

The NASD said U.S. Rica also cheated investors on stock sales, telling
customers that their shares sold for less than U.S. Rica actually sold them
for in the market. In many cases, the complaint alleged, the difference was
hundreds of dollars.

In its complaint, the NASD noted that U.S. Rica was ranked among the
top 10 brokers for overall low cost by Gomez Advisors, a Lincoln, Mass.,
consulting firm that tracks online brokers and other e-commerce
companies. According to the review posted on Gomez' Web site
(www.gomez.com), "If you are looking for a cheap, no frills broker with a
no-minimum deposit, U.S. Rica may be for you."

Dan Burke, senior brokerage analyst for Gomez, declined to comment on
the firm's ranking, but said NASD actions are taken into account when
evaluating firms. "Investors should definitely be looking at issues other than
just cost when they pick an online broker," he said.

U.S. Rica was ranked 8th on the Gomez Web site in the cost category, but
ranked 52nd out of 53 firms overall.

Bradley Skolnik, an Indiana securities regulator and president of the North
American Securities Administrators Association, said that the dramatic rise
in the number of online brokerage firms -- particularly little-known firms --
demands that investors be more diligent when choosing a broker.

"It would be premature to comment on this case since all of the facts aren't
known, but at the very least I hope it shows investors that they need to do
their homework and not select a broker only on price," he said.

U.S. Rica was established in May 1995. According to NASD records,
there have been no other disciplinary actions against either the firm or Mr.
Nguyen.



To: StockDung who wrote (6739)2/3/2000 2:42:00 AM
From: WTMHouston  Respond to of 10354
 
Oh, well. I guess either the Judge or the Plaintiffs "may" not have had a sense of humor about what "may" not be legal or constitutional.

I wonder if the court order may have also ordered you not to express your opinion about the accuracy of the court ordered retraction or the circumstances under which it was issued. I suspect it may not have.

I do not know how the court could legally prevent you from saying "I am posting this retraction because I have been ordered to do so, not because I agree with it." The "not because I agree with it" is clearly protected by the First Amendment, court order or not.

Whether it may have or not, the court order, at least as far as a preliminary injunction is concerned, is a crock, unless you have admitted that the info in the press releases was false, implied false facts, or was not based on an objective analysis of Ziasun's stock value.

This may still be my opinion.

Troy



To: StockDung who wrote (6739)2/6/2000 2:53:00 AM
From: afrayem onigwecher  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 10354
 
SSOL - SMARTSERV ONLINE INC
Exchange: OTCBB
Delay: at least 15 minutes
Last Price: 97 1/2 at 15:59 EST
Change: Up 26.063 (+36.48%)
High: 99.968 at 15:57 EST
Low: 73 1/2 at 9:33 EST
Open: 73.937
Previous Close: 71.437 on 2/3
Volume: 388,700
Shares Outstanding: 1,435,000
Market Cap.: 139,912,500
Currency Units: US Dollar

Confirm all data with your broker or financial advisor before trading.

Data by: S&P ComStock



To: StockDung who wrote (6739)2/9/2000 6:58:00 AM
From: Anthony@Pacific  Respond to of 10354
 
Floyd,

It is a shame that such a thing was ordered, I wish you had taken it more seriously, I also belive that the order was not only unconstitutional but you should have had an atty involved.

Freedom of Speech.is one of our most basic pillars in the USA, so to be silenced seems a travesty to me.


Shame shame..



To: StockDung who wrote (6739)2/16/2000 10:13:00 AM
From: Sir Auric Goldfinger  Respond to of 10354
 
FORM 5 ANNUAL STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP

Filed pursuant to Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
Section 17(a) of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 or
Section 30(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940

[_] Check box if no longer subject to Section 16. Form 4 or Form 5 obligations
may continue. See Instruction 1(b).

[X] Form 3 Holdings Reported

[_] Form 4 Transactions Reported

________________________________________________________________________________
1. Name and Address of Reporting Person*

Hardman, Allen D.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Last) (First) (Middle)

462 Stevens Avenue, Suite 106
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Street)

Solana Beach, California 92075
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(City) (State) (Zip)
________________________________________________________________________________
2. Issuer Name and Ticker or Trading Symbol


ZiaSun Technologies, Inc. (ZSUN)
________________________________________________________________________________
3. IRS Identification Number of Reporting Person, if an Entity (Voluntary)


N/A
________________________________________________________________________________
4. Statement for Month/Year


12/99
________________________________________________________________________________
5. If Amendment, Date of Original (Month/Year)



________________________________________________________________________________
6. Relationship of Reporting Person to Issuer
(Check all applicable)

[X] Director [_] 10% Owner
[X] Officer (give title below) [_] Other (specify below)

Vice President
________________________________________________________________________________
7. Individual or Joint/Group Filing
(Check applicable line)

[X] Form filed by one Reporting Person
[_] Form filed by more than one Reporting Person
________________________________________________________________________________


================================================================================
Table I -- Non-Derivative Securities Acquired, Disposed of,
or Beneficially Owned
================================================================================

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
5. 6.
4. Amount of Owner-
Securities Acquired (A) or Securities ship
Disposed of (D) Beneficially Form: 7.
(Instr. 3, 4 and 5) Owned at End Direct Nature of
2. 3. ----------------------------- of Issuer's (D) or Indirect
1. Transaction Transaction (A) Fiscal Year Indirect Beneficial
Title of Security Date Code Amount or Price (Instr. 3 (I) Ownership
(Instr. 3) (mm/dd/yy) (Instr. 8) (D) and 4) (Instr.4) (Instr. 4)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C>

Common Stock, $0.001 Par Value 25,000 D
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

====================================================================================================================================
</TABLE>
* If the form is filed by more than one Reporting Person, see Instruction
4(b)(v).

Reminder: Report on a separate line for each class of securities beneficially
owned directly or indirectly.



(Over)
(Form 5-07/99)

<PAGE>


FORM 5 (continued)

Table II -- Derivative Securities Acquired, Disposed of, or Beneficially Owned
(e.g., puts, calls, warrants, options, convertible securities)

================================================================================

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
9. 10.
Number Owner-
of ship
2. Deriv- of
Conver- 5. 7. ative Deriv- 11.
sion Number of Title and Amount Secur- ative Nature
or Derivative 6. of Underlying 8. ities Secur- of
Exer- Securities Date Securities Price Bene- ity: In-
cise 3. Acquired (A) Exercisable and (Instr. 3 and 4) of ficially Direct direct
Price Trans- 4. or Disposed Expiration Date ---------------- Deriv- Owned (D) or Bene-
1. of action Trans- of (D) (Month/Day/Year) Amount ative at End In- ficial
Title of Deriv- Date action (Instr. 3, ---------------- or Secur- of direct Owner-
Derivative ative (Month/ Code 4 and 5) Date Expira- Number ity Year (I) ship
Security Secur- Day/ (Instr. ------------ Exer- tion of (Instr. (Instr. (Instr. (Instr.
(Instr. 3) ity Year) 8) (A) (D) cisable Date Title Shares 5) 4) 4) 4)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C>

Non-Qualified Common
Stock Option $2.00 7/1/97 J** 25,000 7/1/99 12/31/06 Stock 25,000 D
7/1/00 12/31/06 Stock 25,000 D
7/1/01 12/31/06 Stock 25,000 75,000 D

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

====================================================================================================================================

</TABLE>
Explanation of Responses:

** The Stock Options described in Table II above were granted to Mr. Hardman
under the terms of his employment agreement with the subject company, ZiaSun
Technologies, Inc.



Allen D. Hardman 2/8/2000
--------------------------------------------- -----------------------
**Signature of Reporting Person Date

** Intentional misstatements or omissions of facts constitute Federal Criminal
Violations.

See 18 U.S.C. 1001 and 15 U.S.C. 78ff(a).

Note: File three copies of this form, one of which must be manually signed.
If space provided is insufficient, see Instruction 6 for procedure.


Page 2


<PAGE>


Derivative Securities Codes (Except For Transactions Exempt Pursuant to
Rule 16b-3)

C--Conversion of derivative security

E--Expiration of short derivative position

H--Expiration (or cancellation) of long derivative position with value
received

O--Exercise of out-of-the-money derivative security

X--Exercise of in-the-money or at-the-money derivative security


Other Section 16(b) Exempt Transaction and Small Acquisition Codes (Except
For Rule 16b-3 Codes Above)

G--Bona fide gift

L--Small acquisition under Rule 16a-6

W--Acquisition or disposition by will or the laws



To: StockDung who wrote (6739)2/24/2000 6:49:00 PM
From: Sir Auric Goldfinger  Respond to of 10354
 
How the Truthseeker could become very wealthy indeed: "Whistleblower Suits Yield More Than $3 Bln In Recoveries
2/24/0 17:52 (New York)


WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--More than $3 billion has been recovered
in cases brought under the whistleblower provisions of the False
Claims Act since the law was amended in 1986, and almost half
the recoveries came in the past two and a half years, the Justice
Department said Thursday.
"It took us 12 years - to the end of fiscal year 1998 - to
recover $2 billion in civil fraud cases brought under the whistleblower
provisions," Acting Assistant Attorney General David Ogden said.
"We have reached the $3 billion mark just 16 months later."
The False Claims law allows private individuals to file suit
on behalf of the U.S. alleging that false or fraudulent claims
have been submitted to the federal government.
Persons who file these "qui tam" suits may recover from 15%
to 25% of the settlement or judgement if the federal government
intervenes in the case, or up to 30% if they pursue it on their
own.
To date, the Justice Department said, the whistleblower provisions
have yielded recoveries of about $3.5 billion - $3.3 billion in
cases the department pursued and $211 million in cases litigated
by whistleblowers after the department declined to pursue the
cases.
Among the areas where the False Claims Act been in play in
recent years is the federal government's ongoing investigation
into alleged "yield-burning" abuses in the municipal bond market.

Several cases involving various federal agencies and whistleblower
Michael Lissack on one side and securities firms on the other
already have been brought and settled, and a global settlement
involving a batch of additional firms is expected later this year.
Yield-burning involves excessive mark-ups of Treasury securities
sold to state and local governments for use in muni advance refunding
escrow accounts.
Yield-burning provides a windfall for bond market middlemen
and feigns compliance with federal tax regulations barring arbitrage
in the muni market, where arbitrage is earned by investing bond
proceeds in higher-yielding instruments.
The practice, allegedly far from isolated during the muni refunding
binge of the early 1990s, is deemed by federal authorities to,
among other things, cheat the U.S. out of revenues that would
not be lost if there was compliance with the arbitrage rules."