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 : OILEX (OLEX) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Omar who wrote (2127)	12/23/1997 2:12:00 PM
From: FARRIS	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4276

Omar, I never got the impression that Offie was implying that the judgement was not paid in full. In fact, I made that assumption. He is driving at the Jefferson County stuff and you know it. Maybe Offie should repost those questions so we can get to the heart of the issue. At least I think that is at the heart of his issues. Offie? Eric Oh yea, I would like to hear who, within the company, to include anyone associated with Phoenix or any other company with a direct controlling interest in the company, has sold any shares over the past six weeks. Anyone?

To: Omar who wrote (2127)	12/23/1997 2:29:00 PM
From: OFW	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 4276

An apology is expected from you, Omar. In your post 2127 you imply that I only told part of the story regarding the Wayman civil proceeding. You state: "And now lets get to the part you forgot to mention. As it relates to the truth in your due diligence effort, we are surprised that you did not find the Satisfaction of Judgement that was entered on April 30,1996 acknowlediging that full payment was received and the matter was totally closed. In addition with your excellant due diligence work we are surprised that you did not find the certified copy of the journal entry demonstrating these truths.We are also surprised that you would withhold this information from the net. it does appear by disclosing 1/2 truths that the agenda you and others pursue definately appears biased with extreme prejudice to this writer." You might want to read my posts again, Omar. I specifically stated as follows: Post 2110: POST 3 OF 4 This post will contain the full text of several documents relating to Case No. 91C-3673, George and Connie Wayman Vs. Allen L. Burditt, et al, filed on December 30, 1991 in the 18th District Court of Sedgwick County, Kansas. The documents include the Plaintiff's Amended Petition dated April 17, 1992; Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment dated June 12, 1992; Court Order by Journal Entry of Default Judgment dated June 19, 1992; and, Satisfaction of Judgment entered before the court on April 30, 1996. POST 2112: On April 30, 1996, the Plaintiffs filed a SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT with the Court as follows: BEGINNING OF TEXT OF SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT Plaintiffs, George W. Wayman and Connie J. Wayman, hereby acknowledge the receipt from the defendants of an amount which plaintiffs will accept in full payment of the judgment and costs awarded to the plaintiff in the Journal Entry of Judgment, filed June 19, 1992 in the above-entitled action, and do hereby authorize the Clerk of the District Court, Sedgwick County, Kansas, to note satisfaction of the judgment of record. Dated this 30th day of April, 1996. T. Lynn Ward, No. 14609 Hershberger, Patterson, Jones & Roth, L.C. 100 South Main, Suite 600 Wichita, Kansas 67202 (316) 263-7583 /s/ Attorneys for Plaintiffs George W. Wayman and Connie J. Wayman END OF TEXT OF SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT At no time have I attempted to present a one-sided view of this matter. I have included all information including the Satisfaction of Judgment. Wish to issue your apology at this time, Omar? Offie

To: Omar who wrote (2127)	12/23/1997 2:53:00 PM
From: Prudent Investor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4276

Omar, My, my, my, how your English, grammar, sentence structure and spelling have improved since your last posting. It makes wonder if you aren't two different people. "We are also surprised that you would withhold this information from the net. it does appear by disclosing 1/2 truths that the agenda you and others pursue definately appears biased with extreme prejudice to this writer". If you take the time to read Offie's postings, you will see that he refers to the satisfaction of judgment not once, but twice (in the introductory posting and the civil proceedings posting). As I recall from actually reading Offie's postings, he never refered to you, Omar. He did refer to Allen L. Burditt, II. Why would you say that this is "biased with extreme prejudice to this writer"? Unless, of course, you are in reality none other than the same Allen L. Burditt, II. If so, why don't you post under your own name? I am certain that many of Oilex shareholders would like to engage you in conversation. You say that this lawsuit has nothing to do with Oilex. If my memory serves me correctly, Mr. Burditt was on probation for two felony convictions for violating security laws when "Phoenix Reserves Inc acquired it's majority stock position in oilex in November 1994". That isn't relevant? I believe that most shareholders think it is.