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: Pluvia who wrote (8076)	3/25/2000 9:22:00 PM
From: moronbaiter	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 18222

Anybody seen Manny lately ?

To: Pluvia who wrote (8076)	3/25/2000 10:30:00 PM
From: buffaloha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18222

Mr. Pluvia, I'll try your tactic of selective posting. But the point about the nondisclosure was already covered below. From you: "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." By the way, did you even bother to read the fluff piece from the Canadian site? The one that says the SEC complaint submitted by Robert Tercero, staff attorney (by the way is he the one who went to law school in El Salvador and got a US affiliate LLM degree about 2 years ago?), where he supposedly represented that yes, the Empire rep had reviewed the draft of the PR about 4 days before it was released on 2/28? I guess he expected to get a final draft before it was released. But there is no mention that he did not approve any press release about their combined efforts to pursue business relations. If you read the actual Agreement between Empire and ECNC's sub, you will see that it does in fact call for testing internet card transactions as one of the purposes for their relationship. Now, again, in my dictionary, this is still an "alliance." There may also be some dispute about whether the Empire guy wanted a final version before releasing it to the press. But we do not have ECNC's version of events on this point yet since it appears ECNC cleverly consented to the TRO on further info on the PR for 60 days (in other words no evidence was presented, only a time delay to set an evidentiary hearing). I'll bet there are some faxes still to come on the issue. It seems there was some small word changes from possibly "letter of intent" to a more vague "strategic alliance." But the real point is, now pay attention here, this is at most a breach of contract between Empire and ECNC's subsidiary. A breach of contract is not FRAUD. Further, this is between ECNC's sub and Empire, if Empire felt aggrieved by the choice of revised words. This is not between the SEC and ECNC, if Empire felt aggrieved it could possibly allege ECNC breached its contract, but this is not fraud. The reality is even if it amounted to a "breach of contract" to redraft a few words in a previously reviewed PR draft (which by the way may have been approved, we simply don't know), that is not misrepresentation since the words "strategic alliance" can in fact apply to these parties' agreement. I have already explained why I cannot think of one possible way that a jury reading the English language can conclude that the type of agreement that ECNC's sub had with Empire was not either an "alliance" as defined by Webster's or "strategic" for ECNC. See, this is all semantics. Word salade. Where is the CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE of fraud. There is none. That is a high standard of proof. At most we have confusion on the part of shorts with an agenda to call it fraud, none as I read it. A Judge or jury will have to weigh the evidence and decide if this arises to the level of "fraud." Until then there is none proven. And I dare say there is a lot of wrangling to go before these inanities even make it to a jury, if they do. If you want to read further below my other responses on the Pilot Island misinterpretation of PR by the shorts, please feel free.