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: Pugs who wrote (36138)	1/12/1998 3:09:00 PM
From: s martin	Respond to of 55532

whatever

To: Pugs who wrote (36138)	1/12/1998 4:01:00 PM
From: s martin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 55532

Are you now saying there IS a FEDERAL case, now that it has been proven to you? It appears there were two cases filed one federal... and one in the CA State Superior court. Seems once again you accused Mike of lying and he then showed that you were the one who was lying. I expect your next post will say there was no Federal case filed by Mork naming Zapara, when he was wearing a funny little hat. Maybe you'll get it right some time. This time you were way off base calling Mike a liar. To: +michael d kugler (35888 ) From: +Pugs Sunday, Jan 11 1998 11:15PM EST Reply # of 36127 Mike, Mork filed for bankruptcy in '93 You said Zapara was named in another suit other than the "FEDERAL CASE".....I don't know of a FEDERAL CASE! Follow me.....Magellan put out a press release stating Zapara was named in a suit filed in the SUPERIOR COURT of CALIF....you following me?.....YOU SAID, that Zapara was named in a case filed in Calif.? Is this a different case than the one filed in the SUPERIOR COURT of Calif., and where did you hear about a FEDERAL CASE. You pride yourself on your DD and your honesty, I'm sure you'll respond to the direct questioning. Pugs To: +michael d kugler (35960 ) From: +Pugs Monday, Jan 12 1998 12:24AM EST Reply # of 36124 What FEDERAL CASE? What second Calif. case? You said these things, you must have some proof other than a bunch of yes-men saying how great you DD is, Mike...you're lying. Pugs To: +michael d kugler (35905 ) From: +Pugs Sunday, Jan 11 1998 11:31PM EST Reply # of 36126 Why do you refuse to answer the questions? Q: You said Zapara was named in the suit filed in the superior court of Calif., he wasn't....why are you saying you didn't say this? Q: You said there was a FEDERAL CASE...Why has no one heard about it except you? Q: Are you saying a second suit was filed in Calif. where Zapara is named? Pugs