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.

Non-Tech : SLJB - Sulja Brothers Building Supply, Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim Bishop who wrote (937)	12/1/2006 6:26:18 AM
From: rrufff	Respond to of 1681

See her posts here - She stated that he deposited it. That was her decision. It was deposited in her account. All standard. The issue is confusing but I think it comes down to whether or not the drawer of the check or Petar changed the check to certified. Even that is not clear if you read her posts. So - good case? From what we have here, the most we seem to have is an unjust enrichment equitable type action if Petar retained the asset somehow. If there was fraud or collusion, it has not been detailed from what has been written so far. I'm not defending the company or Petar (re their screw-ups) but to accuse someone on NO coherent evidence is just not right.