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 : CCEE Breaking Out -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lee Kennedy who wrote (7620)	11/2/1997 4:16:00 AM
From: Gary Green	Respond to of 12454

Lee-You rely on Rick for legal interpretation, does he fill your teeth too? You revealed the error in your thinking when you said, "I think my point should have been obvious. Considering your background, there is every reason to believe that your interest in this stock is more than that of an ordinary stockholder. Rick has pointed out that if you work for CCC you would be required not to reveal that fact." Rick is as inaccurate in interpreting law as a map of Hong Kong would be to get around New York city. I said I do not represent CCEE. That is a fact. With no evidence, Rick implies I am not telling the truth, and further that all lawyers have a duuty to lie under the Rules of Professional Responsibility/ He claims (erroneously and stupidly) that the Rules would require me to lie if CCEE were indeed my client and if CCEE asked me to lie. That is unadulterated garbage. In fact the contrary is true. Set forth below ids the pertinent provision in Pennsylvania, RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT Rule 4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly : (a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person. In other words, Rick is once again full of crap. Rely on him at your own risk.

To: Lee Kennedy who wrote (7620)	11/2/1997 7:45:00 AM
From: Rick	Respond to of 12454

Lee, Why it falls to me to expose the ERRORS on this thread I do not know. But I will tell you that for this ERROR you should send this link to the PA SUPREME COURT. ======== To: +Lee Kennedy (7620 ) From: +Gary Green Sunday, Nov 2 1997 4:16AM EST Reply #7628 Lee-You rely on Rick for legal interpretation, does he fill your teeth too? You revealed the error in your thinking when you said, "I think my point should have been obvious. Considering your background, there is every reason to believe that your interest in this stock is more than that of an ordinary stockholder. Rick has pointed out that if you work for CCC you would be required not to reveal that fact." Rick is as inaccurate in interpreting law as a map of Hong Kong would be to get around New York city. I said I do not represent CCEE. That is a fact. With no evidence, Rick implies I am not telling the truth, and further that all lawyers have a duuty to lie under the Rules of Professional Responsibility/ He claims (erroneously and stupidly) that the Rules would require me to lie if CCEE were indeed my client and if CCEE asked me to lie. That is unadulterated garbage. In fact the contrary is true. Set forth below ids the pertinent provision in Pennsylvania, RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT Rule 4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly : (a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person. In other words, Rick is once again full of crap. Rely on him at your own risk. =========================================== This is called a LIE of omission. THE POSTER DID NOT TELL YOU THERE IS A "(b)" =========== Rule 4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly: (a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; or (b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6. law.cornell.edu:80/lawyers/rule_4.1.html ===================== IN OTHERWORDS LEE IF THIS PERSON IS AN ATTORNEY AND NOW I WONDER THAT POST WAS PERHAPS A VIOLATION OF RULE 4.1 ================= Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information (a) A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to representation of a client unless the client consents after consultation, except for disclosures that are impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation, and except as stated in paragraph (b). (b) A lawyer may reveal such information to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary: (1) to prevent the client from committing a crime, including disclosure of the intention to commit a crime; or law.cornell.edu:80/lawyers/rule_1.6.html

To: Lee Kennedy who wrote (7620)	11/2/1997 8:29:00 AM
From: Rick	Respond to of 12454

Lee, The e-mail address where you should send his link is: aopcweb@courts.state.pa.us courts.state.pa.us

To: Lee Kennedy who wrote (7620)	11/2/1997 10:37:00 AM
From: Rick	Respond to of 12454

Lee, There are other VERY SERIOUS ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS HERE!! ESPECIALLY UNDER THE PA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT. For example: professional misconduct by "engag[ing] in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice." See Pa. Rule 8.4(d). As a matter of fact Lee you might want to e-mail: Professor Catherine J. Lanctot Professor James Edward Maule Villanova University Law School and ask them if this person is really a lawyer. ================================= 3. A lawyer who gives "off-the- cuff" responses to legal questions on the Internet may also violate the duty of competency. The risk in this area, as noted in part II above, is that the circumstances of the dialogue between lawyer and questioner may create an attorney-client relationship. If that happens, then all the traditional duties to clients apply, and giving advice based on a limited set of facts disclosed in a two or three sentence posting may violate the duty of competency, as well as other duties. a. In fact, even if an attorney-client relationship is not created, a lawyer who gives careless advice to the public over the Internet might well be committing professional misconduct by "engag[ing] in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice." See Pa. Rule 8.4(d). law.vill.edu law.vill.edu

To: Lee Kennedy who wrote (7620)	11/2/1997 11:14:00 AM
From: Rick	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12454

Lee, You and a few others, who have been on the recieving end of this person's writing, and off the cuff advice, might want to send or fax copies of his writings. Just ask if this conduct is representative of the high ethical and professional image of lawyers in Pennsylvania. John L. Doherty The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Union Trust Building, Suite 400 501 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: 412/565-3173 Fax: 412/565-7620

To: Lee Kennedy who wrote (7620)	11/2/1997 1:00:00 PM
From: Parker Benchley	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 12454

>>>My opinion is that if CCEE is reversed now, there is every chance that the price will be back to 70 to 80 cents by next March UNLESS some of the promised news comes out in the meantime and that is no mystery factor. I've seen it happen too many times. <<< Lee, All, I agree with you. I too am seeing this is the likely scenario with a reverse split. Gary Green has very good ideas, but (if the proxy is defeated) the possiblility of being below $1 when the new NASDAQ rule is close to being employed, should damn well stir this company into the action of either revealing all these revenue producing "deals" to improve the stock price, or....righteously hitting the wall. Again, I'd rather take the straight punch in the nose than gradually bleed to death from the little nicks of a surreptitious razor blade. There's absolutely NO reason to believe CCC will "suddenly" perform with integrity in the future and every reason TO believe they'll manipulate a reverse split just as they've done in the past. They've given us a myriad of valid reasons to mistrust them such as late filings, failed announcements, misleading the people closest to their operation, etc., etc. Therefore I'm not with Gary on the voting for a reverse. I simply will not believe anymore pie-in-the-sky "what if this happens" scenarios. Also, with no disrespect intended, I'll always choose to file my own proxies. The "what if" is something CCC can already work internally by utilizing the financial success of Softworks and cutting the fat inside Computer Concepts. Good god, even the most successful companies downsize to maintain their profitablity. As Gary stated, Softworks ALONE makes this stock, at this float, worth $.70!!! Now think about that for a moment and ask yourself what these people are really trying to do? They have done NOTHING to gain the trust of shareholders...yet they ask for ridiculous concessions for the "good" of the company. It smacks of slippery, ulterior motives. I don't care to see my shares go through a reverse split just to slowly end up at the same price again. I suspect that's all the company is REALLY shooting for anyway. ( If I want that type of slow-bleed aggravation I'll get married again. <g> Just a joke Dorine...) For me, it's now academic as I Federal Expressed my proxy on Friday with NO to all 15 proposals. As for the rest of you, vote with your heads and hearts. To restate my feelings: techstocks.com techstocks.com Thanks and I say... VOTE NO ON ALL 15 PROPOSALS! George