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 : ECHARTERS -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Big Shorty who wrote (2083)	12/23/1997 8:42:00 AM
From: Bill Jackson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3744

jimc, I do not believe he has offered it to over 50 people, and in the event of a blanket mention, as on SI here, he would select groups of 50 or less for variances to differing ends. A friend of mine gets groups of lawyers, doctors etc all the time to form such assemblies. They are then not considered offerings and thus not subject to the 18 month rules. I offered mostly reg S and Reg D offerings for US reporters to persons/corps who are not US residents. I have never taken part of an OSC offering to over 50 subject to those rules. Bill

To: Big Shorty who wrote (2083)	12/23/1997 11:50:00 AM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3744

Well if you advertise the offering and it is an offering some of the scare stuff you say is true. But what offering? A flow through group is an offering? Not exactly. There is a moot difference here. Here in Ontario you can form a syndicate at a certain level. The question is who was it offered to? For instance, it may have been already formed. Mention of it may not make it illegal. I have two such other syndicates, one for a gold exploration venture in Northern Ontario and another for an offshore diamond mining venture. There is nothing illegal in mentioning that. I think the supra techno stuff is what brokers and lawyers who are in the biz like to bandy about to keep their turf to themselves. This I think is a good reason to deregulate. The regulations do not keep Bre-X's and Delgratias from happening, which was the intention of these nit picking regs in the past which were framed by our oh so pure regulators some time around when the robber Barons where operating. The intention of the legislation was to keep J.P. Morgan in business and his enemies out. He should have been on the Titanic. Any way the mechanism, legally, for it to be done has been worked out satisfactorily and it has been done before and recently. It is not theoretical it is actual. Anon. EC<:-}