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 : Rocky Mountain Int'l (OTC:RMIL former OTC:OVIS) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael d kugler who wrote (35912)	1/11/1998 11:47:00 PM
From: Pugs	Respond to of 55532

Mike, Are you saying there are now 2 cases filed in Calif.? You said there was a "seperate case" for those filed in Calif. I only know of 1 suit filed in Calif., in the Superior Court, it names Meyer ( from Calif. ) and the old TA, but not Zapara!! You said that was the reason for the case being filedin CAlif., not me! So...are you saying there is another suit filed in Calif. independant of this one....And where did you hear of a FEDERAL CASE, No one else has? Prove it! Pugs

To: michael d kugler who wrote (35912)	1/11/1998 11:53:00 PM
From: Kurt N	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 55532

>>>You said here there was no suit. I say you're wrong (again). Do you now want to agree that there is a suit agains Zapara, or do you want to maintain there isn't? That's the only issue here. <<<< Could you do all of us a favor, and that is posting the case # and date filed here of the suit against Zapara. Since you maintain that there is a suit against Zapara, by doing that you would prove Pugs wrongs. Otherwise Pugs was right all along. It is possible to search for a lawsuit and not find it, although that doesn't necessarily prove that it doesn't exist. Likewise if you find the suit, then it must exist (unless dismissed, or dropped), and since you are so sure it exists, please prove Pugs wrong here. Kurt