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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Naxos Resources (NAXOF) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sh who wrote (11213)	3/28/1998 10:12:00 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

sh: Glad to help out. I also should have mentioned that SUSPECTING something is wrong and REALLY knowing it are often two different things. As lawyers, we have to be careful about our suspicions and make sure we can back them up. Also, while we have a duty to refrain from assisting a client in committing fraud (and I'm saying there was any in this situation) it is often difficult to withdraw from representing a client with whom you strongly disagree or who you suspect may not be entirely forthcoming because you must do so without causing any prejudice to the client's interests. This is especially difficult during a trial, administrative proceeding, investigation etc. Often withdrawing under those circumstances really undercuts the client's credibility. I sympathize entirely with Mr. Kemp's position as I have been there. Throw in a personal relationship with the client and you've got the makings of a disaster. Believe it or not most lawyers are decent human beings who often have to make tough choices. Sometime we do well. Others not so well. I'm giving Kemp the benefit of the doubt for the moment. JLA

To: sh who wrote (11213)	3/28/1998 10:51:00 PM
From: SER	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

To SH, I would assume that any lawyer/firm would resign if illegal activity was requested of them. And such action would in itself bring about change. To ALL, IMHO this legal team was put in place because of divisions between major shareholders. From an outsider and a business person I can only assume, with the action that did take place, that Naxos has/had some major problems between management/stockholders. When people get headstrong, the "I know better and have the power" syndrome, their circle of advisors becomes smaller and smaller. Sometimes the king gets drunk on his own greatness and trust in a few "yes" advisories who can do no wrong but do everything wrong. When someone suggest to the king that he is wrong, the king will usually confer with people who will "yes" the king and that nay-sawyer is removed from the advisory circle. I once had to tell the King who ruled for 8 record years, that he had no clothes on. I told him that because of his disregard for reality his company was imploding and he was going to be removed from his thrown. He dismissed me from his office and summoned his "yes" people, they told him that I was full of *hit. Three weeks later they where all gone. In a company like Naxos when you don't have much money, experience and time a team approach is the best. IMHO that is why we have this advisory board. One person can not help us. One group of advisors can. This company needs a management team with experience, honesty and integrity in business as well as in mining. The new management search, COC-SFA is a great first step. Getting a major investor on board is the next step. Getting gold out of FL is the third. If the JL process works then that would be the fourth. IMO the company has put to much emphasis on the JL method in the past. I love SFA it works for everyone else and it can work for us. JL can be an added benefit after we start getting gold out of FL and not before. Let's start digging and mining and stop experimenting. Let's GO FOR THE GOLD!