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.

Technology Stocks : Thermo Tech Technologies (TTRIF) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Robert Pool who wrote (3721)	3/19/1998 9:08:00 PM
From: Jeff Chan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6467

Still the same antics... I'm still watching TTRIF in order to get back in, but in reading the thread, it still seems like TTRIF is still suffering from a major lack of credibility. While TPP may be spreading garbage (excuse the pun), TTRIF is not helping itself by saying, "We're gonna build here, or we're gonna build there" or the supposed contract with Korea, or Japan or whatever. I wish they would just keep a lid on the news until something ACTUALLY happens. Meanwhile the stock keeps going south! Regards, Jeff

To: Robert Pool who wrote (3721)	3/19/1998 11:32:00 PM
From: m jensen	Respond to of 6467

RE: J Taylor 's newsletter On Friday March 6th, I received a call from Stanley Lis, President of Trooper Technologies to inform me that Friday the 13th, would be the day that Thermo Tech Technologies would be fined C$5 million and President Branconnier would be thrown in jail due to contempt of court charges. Details were sketchy from Mr. Lis so I called Trooper back and spoke to another senior member of that company's management team. What I was then told sounded very suspicious to me. Essentially, I was led to believe by Trooper that the judge had already made up his mind that Thermo Tech was in contempt of court, From TPP Release Mar 16/98 in respect to Feb 27 /98 hearing [12] In any event, a stay of execution like an injunction is a discretionary remedy. I would exercise my discretion against granting a stay. The defendants are in contempt of the order below. When Mr. Justice Cohen refused the stay an application to this Court for an interim stay could have been made. It was not. The defendants apparently said they would appeal within a few days. It took them 29 days. Counsel for the defendants now explains that there were a number of other applications before Mr.Justice Cohen which delayed the matter going forward. In any event, the order of Mr. Justice Cohen was not complied with. even without a hearing.Therefore the sentence for Mr. Branconnier and a fine of $5 million was only a formality that would be set on Friday the 13th.˜ My reaction was, " you must be kidding! A criminal trial would be held without the defense having an ability to defend itself?˜ Give me a break!" My comments on this little gem... A criminal trial what a farse... Contempt of court is at the discretion of the court and can contain... fines, jail time, freeze of assets, ongoing fines ie/ $5 today and $10 for every day thereafter and I'm sure the options go on & on... After discussing this issue with Thermo Tech, I became convinced the stories being published by Trooper and spread widely by the company on the Internet were basically nonsense. It appears that my read of this was in fact correct because yesterday the Judge McKinney of B.C. threw contempt charges brought against Thermo Tech by Trooper, out of court. As I understand the details of the proceeding from my discussions with Mr. Branconnier and Ed Bows, the attorney for Thermo Tech, Judge McKinney of B.C. wondered why in the world this contempt case was even brought before him. He said he reviewed the documents and since an engineering firm vouched for the fact that Thermo Tech had already delivered all it was obligated to deliver under the Licensing agreement, he could see no grounds for any contempt of court charges. Also from TPP release of Mar 16 /98 On March 13, 1998, the Company appeared before Mr. Justice Mackenzie in the Supreme Court of British Columbia seeking fines against the Thermo Tech companies in the view of the continued disobedience of the Court Order. Mr.Justice Mackenzie has referred this application to Mr. Justice Cohen who made the Ruling on January 20th, 1998, and who would be in the best position to impose appropriate punishment and penalties regarding Contempt.The date of the hearing seeking punishment for the Contempt will be announced shortly. You guy's decide ;-) From TPP release of Mar 16/98 which took place on Feb 27/98 [4] I am told today that the parties have not yet applied to Mr. Justice Cohen with respect to the confidentiality issue. I am surprised that has not been done because confidentiality appears to be a matter which concerns the defendants. [12] In any event, a stay of execution like an injunction is a discretionary remedy. I would exercise my discretion against granting a stay. The defendants are in contempt of the order below. When Mr. Justice Cohen refused the stay an application to this Court for an interim stay could have been made. It was not. The defendants apparently said they would appeal within a few days. It took them 29 days. Counsel for the defendants now explains that there were a number of other applications before Mr.Justice Cohen which delayed the matter going forward. In any event, the order of Mr. Justice Cohen was not complied with. Interesting 4 & 12 seem to be in direct contradiction to the Following Mon 9 Mar 98 News Release See Thermo Tech Technologies Inc (TTRIF) News Release Mr Rene Branconnier reports Thermo Tech Technologies issued the following news release March 6 1998 in response to the news release of Trooper Technologies with respect to the ridiculous application by Trooper to seek sanctions against the company and Mr Branconnier for non-compliance with the order of Mr Justice Cohen dated January 20 1998.Thermo Tech is not in contempt of court. The order of Mr Justice Cohen provided that failing agreement between counsel, the parties are at liberty to apply for directions with respect to issues as to confidentiality. Thermo Tech has sought to have the plaintiffs enter into a confidentiality agreement with respect to the standard certified engineering specifications required by the court order to be delivered to them. They have refused to enter into an appropriate confidentiality agreement and a hearing has been set by Thermo Tech counsel for Tuesday, March 10 1998 in accordance with the terms of the order. Once the terms of the confidentiality agreement are set by the court, Thermo Tech intends to deliver the standard certified engineering specifications which its engineering consultants have updated, to Trooper.Thermo Tech will not deliver documents regarding the specifications and sourcing of the equipment used in the construction of thermophilic plants, as Mr Justice Cohen in his order specifically denied the application by Trooper to obtain that information.Thermo Tech understands that certain parties have been making statements that an order of damages against Thermo Tech or incarceration of Mr Branconnier had been made. Thermo Tech states unequivocally that those statements are false and Mr Branconnier is pleased to report that he is not in prison. At the hearing March 6 1998, the court refused to set a hearing date for any contempt proceeding against Mr Branconnier and the company fully expects that the contempt proceeding against the company will be dismissed when heard on Friday, March 13 1998.To summarize the above, nothing of consequence occurred on March 6 1998.The application by Trooper for contempt sanctions is without merit. The news release of Trooper and comments made by certain parties on the Internet and otherwise are typical of the campaign of half-truth and misinformation which Thermo Tech is continually being forced to address in this matter. Unlike Thermo Tech which is focused on the continued growth and success of its business, the other parties in this matter appear to concentrate their efforts on the production of sensational news releases for public consumption. WARNING: The company relies on litigation protection for "forward looking" statements.