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 : AREE - Formerly TVSI -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John D. Morrison who wrote (2708)	5/13/1998 11:56:00 AM
From: Pugs	Respond to of 6528

or....how the SEC allows the criminal shortseller's accomplices to infest these threads to rape and pillage. It's up to shareholders to combat the abusive practice of illegal naked shorting....Planet Sports is here!! The public float is small even tho there are a ton of shares wrapped-up, the illegal short position grows each day.....this investment will require confrontations with the lowest of the low, but we will prevail!!! Pugs

To: John D. Morrison who wrote (2708)	5/13/1998 11:59:00 AM
From: Tom Allinder	Respond to of 6528

John, I think the SEC has bigger fish to fry. OTCBB stocks are no man's land. A murky underworld that only predators (professional traders, MMs) and Prey (unwary investors) inhabit. This has been going on a long time and will continue to go on for all time to come. Humans (most) have certain "rights". In the world of BBs there are no "rights"... like in the animal world. Only predators and prey. Tom

To: John D. Morrison who wrote (2708)	5/13/1998 12:18:00 PM
From: DJ Byrne	Respond to of 6528

John, This is what I found interesting in OVIS that when Mork shorted the reported 100,000 shares, it would be illegal naked shorting if he did not have someone like Zapara to dump on that Zapara was suppose to back up the short. Couldn't understand why Mork sued OVIS/RMIL also in the suit along with Zapara, if Zapara was the one that made the deal with Baker and Mork. Also why would Mork use another Canadian brokerage when he, I believe owns one, PEMP, according to the latest filings? It still appears to be the shareholder that gets hit the hardest. dj

To: John D. Morrison who wrote (2708)	5/13/1998 12:36:00 PM
From: Riley G	Respond to of 6528

Clip from that article: bigmouth.pathfinder.com For shorts, the small-cap over-the-counter market, which was the home of all the Hanover house stocks, is a kind of juicy last frontier. In more grownup parts of the market, rules impede the ability of shorts to bombard a stock that is already headed down. But they can pound a small-cap stock with all they've got, subject only to one constraint: An investor selling short must supposedly ascertain, through his broker, where he is going to borrow the stock that he has, by his sale, promised to deliver. Were this "affirmative determination" rule followed, it would tend to limit short sales, since the amount of borrowable stock is finite. But the rule is often flouted, which means that so-called "naked short sales" are common. Moreover, the rule doesn't apply at all to bona fide market makers. As a result, a firm will sometimes claim to play that role, even though its real intention is shorting. ---------- my comments: SO it is not so! The nays here on TVSI and RMIL and a few other threads are flat out lied when they say that this does not happen in OTC stocks. I am shocked!!!! This is why every should must call all their RMIL shares in NAME form, and the same can be said for ALL OTC stocks that investors go LONG TERM in. Help protect your investments... Riley G