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: tonto who wrote (36129)	1/12/1998 2:49:00 PM
From: Just My Opinion	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 55532

tonto: Why would Florida Transfer be named? They came into this after all the hoopla was over with, really. I don't xpect that you really would know, just maybe a guess. I am thinking that they were named as harassment. al

To: tonto who wrote (36129)	1/12/1998 2:54:00 PM
From: Pugs	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 55532

Tonto, I understand that, but some are using fundamentals to evade the squeeze. I , personally , don't want to knock everyone over the head with these cases, and I was hoping to spring that on Kugler later, but the civil case was kicked-out and filed again in the Superior court. It's the SAME suit, EXCEPT it omits ZApara, why? This brings us back to the squeeze....and Morks short position, and , IMO , Kuglers' presence here. There is no other FEDERAL CASE, this IS the FEDERAL CASE, it omits Zapara and was the same CIVIL CASE ( sans Zapara ) that was filed in the wrong venue. I can't find another case that was filed for Calif. residents or a FEDERAL CASE where Zapara was named....though, Kugler claims Zapara wasn't named in the FEDERAL CASE, the FEDERAL CASE 'is' the CIVIL SUIT!, Why didn't ZAPARA make it into the suit filed in the Superior court? Pugs

To: tonto who wrote (36129)	1/12/1998 3:08:00 PM
From: s martin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 55532

Tonto, Riley is acting as his own attorney in this matter and it occurs to me that he is actually trying to do some"discovery" in his case by using the red herring that Mike has lied. He and Pugs are IMO taking advantage of the DD that you and MK are able to do because they don't have the necessary resources to find these cases. I hope the entire matter of the lawsuit is dropped and we can try to focus on future trading in RMIL. To: +tonto (36124 ) From: +Riley G Monday, Jan 12 1998 2:35PM EST Reply # of 36137 The main reason that I have called KUGLER on this issue is about his comments that CA. residences were not named on the USDC, Central District of LA complaint #ED CV-97-300. This is not true as a CA. resident (Scott MEYERS) was in fact named on that suit. And if you have a copy of the complaint, then you and others would see that ZAPARA should be named in this suit as everything that Mork claims starts with his selling 100k RMIL (OVIS) because of ZAPARA. So how can you make allegations against others and leave the key suspect out of the picture? I don't think that ZAPARA has an active complaint filed against him by D. Mork, and I would like to know if there is one. Riley G