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: james reinhart who wrote (7657)	11/3/1997 12:36:00 AM
From: james reinhart	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12454

Rick, You beat me to it. Am I right about the new law about being above $1 to avoid delisting? TIA JR

To: james reinhart who wrote (7657)	11/3/1997 9:56:00 AM
From: Gary Green	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12454

I do not excuse Bohemia Despite the Rick's (a/k/a "ant/termite) insinuations, I do not and never did represent GB. Moreover, I have not acted with regard to CCEE as a lawyer. There is no client. Instead, I have always acted here, and am acting now, for myself, as an investor. Rather than "solicit clients" on this thread, I openly disclaimed any interest in representing clients in litigation involving CCEE, and made it clear that if there was interest in having me act as the proxy for shareholders who could not attend the meeting (a non-lawyer, unpaid role I was offering in the name of helping the investors to fight back before it was too late), as I stated here, I would hire my own lawyer. All of this is off-point, but since the ant/termite has intentionally sought to insert confusion into the discussion, I thought it was a good idea to again disclose that he is an unreliable source of information, with a personal grudge against CCEE, and no monetary stake in the debate. (The ant/termite cannot even read or does not understand that the word "or" is disjunctive. Look at the ant/termite's post at exchange2000.com, and read the rule yourself. It says that a lawyer "shall not knowingly: (a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person." The next word is the word, "or", which means that regardless of what follows, the lawyer is still prohibited from making a false statement. That section is clear enough to real lawyers. It is a good thing Rick is just a pretend or wanna be lawyer. Now, a return to the substantive discussion. The question is whether GB is in collusion with CCEE to manipulate the price of the stock by playing with the information and release dates. I think that is far fetched. If anything, I believe CCEE would want to harvest good news and release it at a strategic point to keep itself from being delisted from NASDAQ. I do not see how GB can make a material impact since the NASDAQ requires the issuer of the stock to stay above $1. I have seen GB's promotional material on the web and have heard of it around the investment world before. I also talked to my own broker, and of course,I spoke to Mr. West. From all of that, I conclude that GB does not own the CCEE shares it traded, but rather, was a mere retail broker that pushed the stock to small, retail customers. While I do not know this for a fact, based on the way such brokers work, GB might have bought some shares for its inventory, took short positions and might have been a market maker--but even if it did, it would probably not keep many of them. That is not its main business. Similarly, it is hard to see GB as the main underwriter for a new issue, nor is there any reason to believe that the shares would be registered any time soon. Rather, it seems to me that the shares would would be used as barter or in a private investment/placement.

To: james reinhart who wrote (7657)	11/3/1997 11:28:00 AM
From: Rick	Respond to of 12454

Call YOUR OWN ATTORNEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OR CALL: 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 (7620 ) From: +Rick Sunday, Nov 2 1997 7:45AM EST Reply #7629 of 7668 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 ========================================== The e-mail address where you should send his link is: aopcweb@courts.state.pa.us courts.state.pa.us ========================================= To: +Lee Kennedy (7620 ) From: +Rick Sunday, Nov 2 1997 10:37AM EST Reply #7632 of 7669 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 ========== exchange2000.com exchange2000.com exchange2000.com exchange2000.com exchange2000.com exchange2000.com exchange2000.com exchange2000.com exchange2000.com exchange2000.com exchange2000.com exchange2000.com exchange2000.com exchange2000.com exchange2000.com exchange2000.com exchange2000.com exchange2000.com exchange2000.com exchange2000.com exchange2000.com exchange2000.com exchange2000.com exchange2000.com exchange2000.com exchange2000.com exchange2000.com exchange2000.com exchange2000.com exchange2000.com exchange2000.com exchange2000.com exchange2000.com exchange2000.com exchange2000.com exchange2000.com exchange2000.com exchange2000.com exchange2000.com exchange2000.com exchange2000.com exchange2000.com exchange2000.com exchange2000.com exchange2000.com exchange2000.com exchange2000.com exchange2000.com