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: Gerald Walls who wrote (23977)	11/1/1997 2:01:00 AM
From: Larry Brubaker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 35569

Gerald: Litigous Lumbert's lawsuit is the least of my worries. Even if this lawsuit were to be pursued by Litigous, which is doubtful, the matter at hand will have been tried in the marketplace long before Litigous' case would see the light of day. That EC keeps raising this as a threat hanging over IPM just shows how ridiculous EC's drivel on this thread really is. The real and only issue is the contents of the BD/Bateman report. I sure wish the doggone thing would come out so we can move past the "is IPM a scam?" phase. Then at least the shorties could move on to the "of course there are precious metals there, there are also precious metals in sea water, but you can't get them out economically" phase. At least we would have something new to argue about.

To: Gerald Walls who wrote (23977)	11/1/1997 7:42:00 AM
From: Wildcat	Respond to of 35569

Has anyone figured out why the suit is under "Marlene" instead of Bernie? Wildcat

To: Gerald Walls who wrote (23977)	11/1/1997 3:46:00 PM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

Truth from a child has few resources but his parents listen. As I said he may not have the 500K bucks for forensic accounting but the shareholders of IPM who are not mouth breathing idiots and want the questions answered that were so plausibly raised may have it as a group. I will bet that some intelligent lawyers in Arizona will smell money there. The objections you raise about Arizona being an interested party in the fraud and ineligible to sue because they are in interested party in the fraud are circular as illustrated. They can countersue. It's done all the time. They can pay the suit, they do it all the time for pubic issues.. Roe vs Wade etc etc... If you wanted to sue the miliita groups for what ever a dozen public prosecutors with political connections would take the case. If evidence is there, or likely to be found then it matters not a hoot that some other group is "investigating". They are now making money by NOT blowing the whistle. The share holders should name THEM in the suit. The shareholders should sue to get the information Bateman and BD possess. Not wait until they have been hoodwinked into pauperdom. Do you not think that 21 Market maker will get he big bad picture first? Maybe they alerady know. The stock IS falling. If I were a broker and I WAS convinced by inside info, I would support that stock or buy it. No way I could do that and hold it down at the same time. If I bought that stock on present info I know about 108 brokerages that would cheerfully fire me. Don't believe these wholesalers, they will not hold that stock even in their clients hands for one day. I once inquired into a brokerage would they support my issue in the states for 6 months!~ If they did the underwriting based upon a prefeasibility and they said "we are wholesalers we do not and cannot support stock." Unbelievable. You are the sucker that supports it. I mean you are sucker if you allow them to make money on your stock and not guarantee a minimum price. Coffee's on. Regular, or Sanka so you can go back to sleep? ec<:-}