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 : DCI Telecommunications - DCTC Today -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Parker Benchley who wrote (18791)	8/20/2000 11:06:26 AM
From: Don Green	Respond to of 19331

You've stalked this board with your vicious tongue for years. Rest assured, Birney and I have never been the enemy.

To: Parker Benchley who wrote (18791)	8/20/2000 12:39:06 PM
From: Ed Pettee	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 19331

FWIW .. Copies of the official complaint are available at the US District Court for the Southern District of New York.Those interested in following the case can call the Clerks office at--212-805-0136. They will give you instructions on how to proceed. The answer to the Complaint has not yet been filed (as of Friday), when it is you can also get that copy. Thanks , to Kathy for putting it on her site. Some interesting observations: On at least three different occasions the Company was warned that their auditing methodology was not proper. #63--"DCI's Independent auditors advised them in May or early June of 1999 that the Muller Media acquisition was not complete for accounting purposes" I don't understand why the auditors didn't walk away. #63--"Letter to Murphy dated 6/10/97, from Nasdaq Listing Qualifications Panel, rejected DCI's application for listing on the SmallCap market in part because of concerns over the Company's accounting for the Muller Media acquisition." I don't remember being told about that reason. and #79--"SEC staff objected to accounting for Card Call and Muller Media in a letter to Murphy dated 4/14/98 " Now this is a whole year before the May 3rd 99 SEC suspension. #114--" Murphy and Grace Murphy were also unjustly enriched by payment of personal expenses by DCI during the Fraud, including but not limited to, the payment of at least $238,000 of personal expenses in fiscal year 1997. $250,000 in fiscal year 1998, $97,000 in fiscal year 1999." Now that isn't just walking around change or petty cash. #--138 How about the comment -" and the transfer to her of assets obtained as a result of her husband's unlawful conduct" If your not guilty why wouldn't you stand tall and not transfer your assets into your wifes name? I am sure Mr. Murphy and Mr. Hintz have answers for all of the issues raised in the Complaint , and they should be given the presumption of innocence which is due them. I wait with anticipation for their responses. Ed Pettee

To: Parker Benchley who wrote (18791)	8/20/2000 12:46:29 PM
From: ernie de la fuente	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 19331

I am absolutely sick after reading the report!!! If only 50% of the SEC claims are proven true, we shareholders STILL have been had. Imagine if 100% are true and if the SEC missed some things especially in the "ill-gotten" gains area? HOT QUESTIONS: 1) Why doesn't the SEC make public, letters written to companies like DCTC when the SEC is questioning the accounting on a qtrly filing? If I had known such questioning by the SEC took place, I would have sold my holdings in a millisecond or not PURCHASED ANY MORE shares of DCTC!!!! 2) Why are companies like DCTC allowed to file qtrlys that the SEC feels are improper especially when it is taken to the level of the SEC writing a letter to DCTC? This makes it seem any public company can file anything they want especially when they have an auditor "looking the other way" as the SEC has implied took place here. 3) Shouldn't the SEC have a policy that allows them to officially rescind past qtrly filings to PROTECT THE PUBLIC AND EXISTING SHAREHOLDERS?? 4) Why didn't the NASD make its rejection of DCTC filing for a full NASDAQ listing public info? I called the NASD and couldn't get any comments from them. All I could muster was an email response from DCTC that reported that we didn't get listed due to "we were rejected because our stock price was not high enough at that time". How many other folks received emails similar to this from DCTC??? I am sure I have more questions but I have to go puke again! Let's not be shy folks. Don't let the Valuehunters and Don Greens of the world who now claim to be on OUR SIDE irk you from posting. SHARE IDEAS, SHARE QUESTIONS, LET's GET TO THE BOTTOM OF ALL OF THIS. No more I told you so's. Put past differences between shareholders to rest!!!!! If you have a deep desire to keep the "I told you so" going because you get off on it, just PM me, call me names do whatever will get you your fix but please let's get some open CONSTRUCTIVE dialog going here again. It is not time to WALK AWAY with your losses!!!! It appears as I always suspected, the SEC sure as hell could have done a better job of PROTECTING THE PUBLIC as it was on the trail of SOME REAL INJUSTICES TAKING PLACE in DCTC land!