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: Graystone who wrote (25358)	11/11/1997 3:43:00 AM
From: J. Gordon Rothschild	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

"IPM said in the April release. We are suing." And so they did, in two stages. The first one is recorded as being emminently successful. "IPM fully expects to obtain a judicial determination that the Department of Mines was without any authority over the mining industry and that the statements made by Messrs. Coggin and Niemuth about IPM's Black Rock property were untrue and misleading." The judicial determination shutting up the AZDMM was based on the departments lack of authority or ability to even comment on matters regarding commercial activities in the state. After reading the transcript, it is obvious that the Superior Court judge made the proper decision. The truth or untruth of the departments statements were not at issue in this case, thus the awarding of a permanent injunction against the department. "Guess they couldn't get that judicial determination that the statements were untruth. All they did was shut the Department up, I think the truth or untruth of those statements was never raised by IPM in a courtroom, they couldn't." The second stage, regarding the "truth or untruth" of the statements, and perhaps actions by the AZDMM, will be decided when the damage lawsuit for $25 million goes to trial. Although the verasicity of the company's claims would emphatically support the awarding of damages in a larger amount, this may not be necessary for the court to find reason to award some amount to the plaintiff based on the impact the behavior of the defendants had on the company. If you are going to offer what you'd like to represent as objective reasoning, please get your facts straight. You do a tremendous disservice by muddling. JG

To: Graystone who wrote (25358)	11/11/1997 10:19:00 AM
From: Matt C. Austin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 35569

Greystoned, Looks like Mr. Rothschild already put you in your place but I'll add that your DD is just like that of Chatters, Coggins, Lumbert, Schechter ad infinitum. Why don't you folks actually do some DD before you start flopping your mouth. It just shows your ignorance of the situation and will be up on this board for many years to come. Stupidity in perpetuity. Get a life - find out what you're talking about. You're following your father, Chatters, around and making the same moronic statements.

To: Graystone who wrote (25358)	11/11/1997 11:07:00 AM
From: Larry Brubaker	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 35569

<<Fools abound in SI land. Anyone who shorted this stock in the summer already made lots of money and they can cover any time they please (go look at an IPM chart if you don't understand this).>> And you must be one of them if you think we buy this tripe. Sure, the shorts can cover a share or two at a nice profit, but 798,000 shares? I don't think so shortie. We saw how explosive this stock can be a few weeks back when the shorties tried to cover and the stock was at $6.5 before the shorties could say, "E. Charters, help." No, shorty, the squeeze is comin, and your scare tactics are not working. Tick Tock.