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 : ECNC (OTC:BB) - eConnect -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Erik Lundby who wrote (8061)	3/25/2000 8:55:00 PM
From: buffaloha	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 18222

No, Mr. Lundby, I did in fact answer you below. The fact that you still attempt to ignore my post demonstrates that you are not interested in real debate on the issues. For your information, Empire's president did review a draft press release four days before the Feb. 28 PR, but it was apparently further revised and then posted. So that equals a problem between Empire and ECNC's subsidiary. Seems the PR was okay, except some of the words which Mr. a@P in apparently a taped interview with the Empire guy right after Mr. A@P arrived on the scene said they did not have a "strategic alliance"....again a matter of interpretation. It is in no manner proven fraud. A jury will get jury instructions on the use of plain English right out of the dictionary for them to deliberate on these very same words you torture. Here's my response again...in case you lost it... We already went over the dictionary definition of "alliance" and how a "Letter of Intent for Negotiation and Information Exchange" can in fact apply. My own Webster's defines "alliance" as "a bond or connection between families,states, parties,or individuals...an association to further the common interests of the members..." Certainly, forming an alliance to pursue business interests, exchange information and as the contract itself says, the parties: "propose entering into an agreement concerning the Beta testing for 'same as cash' ATM transactions via internet brokerage accounts..." I mean the doggone written document is signed and is in existence. It calls for an exchange of information and doing certain tasks "to further the common interests of the members (ECNC's subsidiary and Empire). Whether this "alliance" with Empire was "strategic" or not depends on who you talk to. My Webster's defines "strategic" as "necessary to or important in the initiation, conduct or completion of a strategic plan...of great importance within an integrated whole or to a planned effect..." Clearly, this was "strategic" for ECNC's business plan to implement its business. While it may not have been for Empire, that does not mean it was not for ECNC. That is clearly how I read the PR. This game going on here is all a matter of semantics for the SEC to justify its halt when it was sicked on ECNC by Anthony@Pacific and his minions who follow him at SI and his professional short site anthonypacific.com. Further, the Pilot Island contract is online. It clearly calls for Pilot Island, who "has certain technical skills available with handheld computer technology and personal digital assistance" to joint venture with ECNC, who "has a patent for handheld computing devices that transmit debit card information." The object of this written Joint Venture Agreement is to "create a 'Client software/hardware solution' that will facilitate a secure transaction interface and communications betwen handheld computing devices and secure transaction servers. The net result to be to provide same as cash transactions over virtual private networks." The product is to be called "PocketPay." In Paragraph 2.0 "PIP's Representations," it states very clearly: [2.03]"PIP (Pilot Island) will provide the relationship with the industry leader with PDA's 3COM and their PALM division." [2.04] "PIP will provide and oversee the distribution of the client PQA (Palm Query Application) through industry alliances." Furthermore, Pilot Island ahs in the past worked with Palm code and had an existing relationship with them. In response to the issue of a "license agreement" with Palm directly, this JOINT VENTURE did provide the "WWW.PALM.NET WEB CLIPPING APPLICATION UPLOADING AGREEMENT AND RIGHTS NOTICE" to which we understand Pilot did click "I ACCEPT" as one of the developers who upon signing this agreement can utilize Palm code free, subject to many conditions of course. But interestingly enough, the agreement itself says that Plam will not reveal the information of such developers and those who sign the WEb Clipping Application. I think we are over that hurdle now. So, the point again, is that this is all about one's interpretation of wording in a PR. The actual contractual pieces to the puzzle are in fact in existence. It simply takes common sense to put it together. Don't sell yourselves short people (no pun intended)! The final arbiter of this dispute will very likely be a jury of people just like you. Use your common sense. What does this whole thing tell you? Do these agreements exist? Can the agreements be read the way the PR reports? The SEC has to prove to a jury by clear and convincing evidence that these PR were misrepresentation or fraud. I simply do not see it. But I need to see all the PR that could be in dispute. Does anyone have the more onerous ones in question. Verbatim. Online, without the fluff? We need to see what exactly the issues are before we analyze these contracts in light of the truth and the agenda of the shorts to bring this company to its knees. Still long and strong and not surrendering one single dime. Go ECNC!!! [By the way, did you actually pay $600 per month to join anthonypacific.com?]

To: Erik Lundby who wrote (8061)	3/25/2000 9:14:00 PM
From: Pluvia	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 18222

Section 4.4 of the Empire Non disclosure Agreement with ECNC... 4.4 The parties agree to use their best effort to avoid disclosure of the fact or object of their negotiation and to restrict all internal communications to those recipients to whom such information must be disclosed in order to effectively conduct negotiations. Except as otherwise required by law, the parties agree not to issue any press releases or make any public announcements regarding the negotiations without prior written approval of the other. Excellent Work Erik.... Amazning the ECNC chumps put out a press release calling this a Strategic Alliance after agreeing to this section of the contract.. Nuttin but pure fraud. And this is just the tip of the iceberg - I have reviewed the last 10 press releases. Each and every release was either pure fraud or very misleading. I want to see these guys in jail.

To: Erik Lundby who wrote (8061)	3/26/2000 12:44:00 AM
From: makeswaves	Respond to of 18222

Erik, of course, take care of the important stuff first, I hope all is well with your wife, I was cooking dinner for my five boys and handling truly delicate negotiations: divvying up Pokemon cards among the younger ones. I have entered into NDA's with various companies looking to refine, develop, manufacture and market an invention which I have patented. The NDA which my patent attorney provided to me for such negotiations is far simpler than the one in question here, yet, in general, I have never heard of an NDA being used to bind parties to future performance but rather to protect proprietary information or technology of one or both parties which is revealed as negotiations proceed. At my level of involvement in this type of negotiation the announcement of a signed NDA would be pure fluff but your HINT literally shouts the problem faced by all of us here and even more importantly by the SEC.<<< As you say,"They valued the announcement of a relationship more than anything......." duh{duh for all of us and the SEC} I guess they valued it highly and rightly so. What was the increase in market cap. in the weeks post-announcement, how many billions? And, as we all know so well, EVERYBODY'S DOING IT! Half the world has CNBC playing in the background all day long. Maria Bartiroma trots out Moe Howard of the Howard and Fine Fund berates him for his tanking previous "old economy" picks praises him for his astute choice of some glitzy biotech that "is rumored to be a target for takeover or merger with Bla Bla Bla" and then asks him for his "double your money in a year" pick. You've seen it. Next time go to your streamer or quote source and watch the damn stock, I've seen them double in the next 20 minutes! My point is that the whole market IS insane! The last time I heard some crusty old gent whine about "fundamentals" on CNBC they just about HOOTED him off camera. Who on this board would trade their play with "pennies", OTCBB's and sm cap nasd's for a guaranteed return of 50%/yr, 100%/yr, 200%/yr? Guaranteed? I know the answer, Greenspan knows the answer, and the SEC knows the answer. AGE OF INFORMATION, isn't that what we're in? Aren't we all trading the rumor, the news, the PR? Isn't any company worth a look by anyone on these boards aware of this and playing it for their gain as well? The MD/CEO we all hate this week because he's three years behind in his filings is just liable to have a cure for cancer next week. Sorry for running on, but to conclude, this market presents rare opportunities for traders with the "stuff" for it but if I'm in it for 1k%, 5k%, 20k% or more, do I have any right to squeal if one out of ten goes bad and SHAME ON ME IF ALL MY EGGS ARE IN ONE BASKET! But anyone who's really a player in this market; short, long or both better know to keep the lawyers out of it or we'll be back to calling Merrill Lynch at $150 a pop in no time. P.S. Erik, my first two were preemies, last two my wife on strict bedrest for 4 months, if that's what you mean {hope not} my heart goes out to both of you. donnachaidh