To: E. Charters who wrote (24002 ) 11/1/1997 11:14:00 PM From: Gerald Walls Read Replies (2) | Respond to
As I said he may not have the 500K bucks for forensic accounting never said, you professional word twister, that AZ was unable to file their own lawsuit or join in this one as a plaintiff. Nice attempt to change the topic. What I said was that the state of Arizona is a defendant in a different lawsuit by IPM and is therefore not an uninterested third party in Bernie's suit due to its adversarial relationship to the company and they would have to be considered a hostile party if it intervened in this suit.shareholders . It is instead solely by Bernie Lumbert who has been harassing people for months with his scam warnings and is unlikely to own any stock except that which he may have bought to have standing as a shareholder. Do you admit that your previous statement was incorrect?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. fact , that BD and Bateman are intentionally withholding information that would show IPM to be a fraud. Are you, as a matter of fact not of opinion , accusing IPM, BD and Bateman, jointly or separately, of fraud and/or stock manipulation?
