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: s martin who wrote (36131)	1/12/1998 3:05:00 PM
From: Pugs	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 55532

The FEDERAL CASE 'is' the CIVIL CASE sans ZAPARA, thats' the point!!! There is no other case!! It was filed in the wrong venue but somehow Zapara wasn't named in the suit when it was filed in the Superior Court. My point, when Kugler points out a case where Zapara was named it can't be the civil suit here, it didn't fly! And Zapara was omitted when it made it to the superior court! If Zapara was the cause of Mork being short, why isn't he named in the lawsuit? Where is this lawsuit for California residents' Kugler is talking about? Is Zapara named there? Lets' see it! Pugs

To: s martin who wrote (36131)	1/12/1998 7:33:00 PM
From: Mr. Dendro	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 55532

Re: short position You asked if I had any reason to believe there is a large short position. The answer is I have no independent evidence other than Riley's representations on this thread. In fact, in going over the 10K filed in March of 1997, I noticed for the first time (under Note 10 - subsequent events) that in October and November of 1996, the Company sold 13,100,000 unregistered or "Reg S" shares. This was before the 30:1 reverse split, but I don't know if unregistered shares were subject to the reverse split or not. Regardless, there appears to be a large number of unregistered shares that could be used to cover the short position, if indeed there is one. Has anyone looked into this Reg S issue? Can you tell me if these Reg S shares are included in Riley's outstanding share count? If not, how does the presence of the Reg S shares affect the potential for a short squeeze?