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 (8190)	3/26/2000 7:12:00 PM
From: buffaloha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18222

Mr. Lundby... ...you are one of the more persistent ones in confusing the fine points either by design or real error. In either event, I did in fact answer all your questions. Again, you paste selective quotes out of context expecting that to be the full story. Again, did you learn this from your subscription to anthonypacific.com and the FAQ about how to do short spamming? I mean this is in fact a well known tactic. But since you are obviously preoccupied with other life issues, I will answer you one last time. You wrote: You are being so rediculous it is not even funny. An alliance can not be formed and an entity can not join it without one entity even knowing it existed. Do you believe that agreeing to negotiate with somebody to see you might work together automaticly makes you a member of whatever alliance they say you are a member of? Well, I fail to see how my posts are as absurd and preposterous as yours, but I try not to get into personality disagreements, so I will carry on. Start here: "Alliance" is DEFINED in Webster's (of the English language) as: "a bond or connection between...parties...." It is also defined as: "an association to further the common interests of the members." Now, take the document between ECNC's subsidiary and Empire, it is called: "Letter of Intent for Negotiation and Information Exchange." In this document itself the parties refer to it as the "Agreement" and yes it is for the purpose of pursuing business interests and possibly further agreement which they will term the "Final Agreement" and in fact, sections 2.3, 3, 4, 5 and 7 are binding even if no further agreements are made. Therefore, this very document, in and of itself, IS AN "ALLIANCE" by simple definition. You cannot show that this written agreement to pursue business opportunities with the ultimate goal of achieving "an agreement concerning Beta testing for "same as cash" ATM transactions via Internet brokerage accounts" is not an "alliance" as defined in plain English in Webster's. This is the standard of applying plain English that a jury AND A JUDGE must apply (by legal principles applicable to contract interpretation) to the wording in the PR where ECNC calls it a "strategic alliance." Also, while it may not be "strategic" for Empire, it certainly could be for ECNC as the word itself is simply defined to include: "...important to the initiation, conduct or completion of a strategic plan." It also can mean: "of great importance to a planned effect." Tell me how that is not true for eCNC. It IS true for eCNC. It wants to ally with brokerage houses to secure internet swipe technology transactions and apparently felt it needed one to test the system with. NO ONE said that it was anything more than that except you. YOU are the one who is now trying to make it into something the PR never even says it is or was intended to be by ECNC or these parties who signed this Agreement. That was the entire purpose for signing the agreement. Even if it was only a preliminary step in the process, it was done and it was imnportant. Now, if nothing existed at all, but there was only some oral discussion about possibly following some business leads, then I might say you have a better point, but here we have it in black and white that that is exactly what these parties intended to pursue when they signed the Agreement. Why do you continue to fail to get this very simple point? That is all this is about. There is no proof of Fraud, only civil allegations. It is a high standard to prove fraud. Do you really think it can be done from the shorts' confused interpretations of the PR? You can't simply run around calling things fraud. You have to prove it. From everything I see, and I've been at this for quite a few years now, I see no fraud based on what has been presented to us in the media and by your own spin meisters. Your "so says someone" is rather shallow also because for your info that "someone" happens to be the SEC staff attorney Tercero who reportedly said that the Empire rep did in fact review the draft PR, but never got a copy of the final. So, this leads me to assume he had no problem with issuing a press release, just the wording was later questioned. But this is between ECNC and Empire, not the SEC. You don't understand that this is a contract issue, not a fraud issue. Even if ECNC arguably breached the confidentiality or approval clause by not getting a final approval of the exact language in the PR, as I went over yesterday, that is still not fraud. While we do not have ECNC's version of events, even if they did send out a final PR without the final OK from Empire, then at most this is a breach of contract between ECNC and Empire. I went over this with you repeatedly. If you continue to refuse to understand these points, I can no longer help you. Good luck with your wife and baby. There are bigger things in life than ECNC. Aloha!