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: OFW who wrote (2438)	1/12/1998 10:31:00 AM
From: jamess	Respond to of 4276

ofw, i guess now you can fax your questions to oilex. according to the attorneys they will respond.. try it, lets see if they answer the unanaswered questions that have been posted for the last 2 months. good luck, james

To: OFW who wrote (2438)	1/12/1998 12:49:00 PM
From: Madeleine Harrison	Respond to of 4276

From OLEX lawyers' letter to Offie: "..Clearly you understand that the company must safeguard against the premature disclosure of dubious information which may affect the price of the stock, either negatively or postively..." Offie, I take this to mean that they'd like you not to post negative disclosures until the company is ready for it! So do it to them nice and slow, Offie.. none of that premature stuff ;-) Madly

To: OFW who wrote (2438)	1/12/1998 4:00:00 PM
From: Prudent Investor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4276

To OFW, I am glad to see that you are back on line. Friday was quite a day. If everyone were right about the reverse split, the effect would be similar to increasing the number of authorized shares on the pre-split basis to ONE BILLION. I thought they might try to just increase them to one hundred million. Shows how little I know. I just read the "epistle" to you from Oilex's attorneys (the firm with the Shapiro of the O.J. defense team). You might want to inform them that, at least recently, their client has refused to accept certified mail or, apparently, any other type of mail that gives the sender verifiable proof of delivery. I have at least two letters sent to the corporate headquarters that were returned marked "Refused". Of course, they probably already know this. That way, when you send them questions, they can claim they never received them. A more important issue is the apparent attempt by the company's law firm to intimidate a shareholder. This presents a serious freedom of speech issue. I was not aware that we had become a totalitarian state where freedom of speech was no longer allowed. Gee, all this time I thought that we lived in the "Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave" where one is allowed to express his opinion and seek answers to questions. I did not realize that this freedom is limited to positive opinions and "friendly" questions. Over the last nine plus months, a "Consultant" to Oilex and the law firm representing Oilex have repeatedly threatened me with "dire legal consequences" for asking questions and conducting my own due diligence. My response has been and is, "Bring it on". Go ahead and give me the power of subpoena with virtually an unlimited scope to conduct a thorough and exhaustive examination of Oilex's activities. Provide me with the power to explore the accuracy of the company's press releases and the various relationships between Oilex and its officers, directors, and "consultants". Then, wait until this "high-powered" firm in Los Angeles asks for a fat retainer to conduct this suit. I think you will soon see another change in legal counsel for the company. Offie, I can not advise you concerning the apparent threats you have received from Oilex's law firm. I can tell you that, based upon my previous experience, certain elements involved with Oilex will try to intimidate people who actually take the time and trouble to conduct a reasonable due diligence on the company. Personally, I have found their threats to be empty and impotent. Prude