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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : International Precious Metals (IPMCF) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E. Charters who wrote (23970)	11/1/1997 1:42:00 AM
From: Gerald Walls	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 35569

Actually IPM has to prove its assays to deny a reasonable doubt can be maintained. Actually Bernie has to prove his assertions by preponderance of evidence. This isn't the Tax Court where the defendant has to prove himself innocent as you let on. Claim salting. Well If ten experts can find no trace of Pt in the rock then I am afraid it looks very very bad for the defense. And trust me that day will come in court. Lumbert can allege it then ask that it be proven. He does not have to carry his proof to court. Its called discovery. Expert forensic discovery in this matter does not have to exceed 500,000 dollars. The states interest is served so they should do it pro bono. It's delicate but the notoriety of the case should trigger this. The state is not an uninterested party (the AZ Dept of Minerals & Mining is currently being sued by IPM) and therefore would have to stay out of it. As far as proof that there's precious metals in the dirt (you say "rock" again) all IPM would have to do is document that this is already underway by arms-length world-recognized third parties and request that the trial delayed until the evidence from this activity is available. Since this is the crux of the entire case the case would be delayed until the BD/Bateman report. When it is released the case will be over except for formalities one way or the other. So, again, it appears that the lawsuit is a not a factor because the only way that Bernie can win is if IPM has nothing and in that case it doesn't matter because the stock would be near worthless anyway. It all comes down to the BD/Bateman report. In my opinion, judging from the dispositions of the previous lawsuits of Bernie's, the only way this goes further than the initial filing stage is if a backer pays his expenses (and then some?) and drives him to court. Noticing that the only case in which he's retained a lawyer (according to the online court records) is the one in which he's the defendant I'd become suspicious if he suddenly brought one in here.