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 : Corporate Vision (CVIA) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Novice Bob who wrote (5383)	6/2/1998 10:23:00 PM
From: Art C.	Respond to of 6654

I have written the SEC about a stock before and gotten, at least, a reply from them. We might try this: Address a letter to help@sec.gov and send it to the attention of Al Lapins. When I used this route at least it got an investigation started according to the reply that I got. Art

To: Novice Bob who wrote (5383)	6/2/1998 10:45:00 PM
From: Jim Armstrong	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6654

There is a certain simple, pragmatic logic, though, to what he says. Consider four scenarios: 1. CVIA has evil intent and we sue - we probably hurt them, costs us $$, probably results in little, no, or negative $ to us. 2. CVIA has evil intent and we don't sue - little or no $ to us. 3. CVIA is well intentioned and we sue - slow down what sounded like a good plan in the beginning, and new investors flee - payback to us is slow or none if it bellys up. 4. CVIA is well intentioned and we don't sue - chance of payoff, though perhaps slow. Maybe this is too simple minded. Maybe some bad guys get away with out money if the "evil intent" scenario is in play. But, bottom line is, I don't see much of a chance of a payoff unless Scenario 4 is the case. Once again, I am far from a happy camper for some of the reasons advanced on the thread, but not all of them. With all due respect to the many perspectives represented on the thread, it sure looks to me like we've made a great many assumptions based on awfully sparse information. And that seems to be aiming at making sure we lose through scenario 1 or 3. Your information may be less sparse than mine as a result of your research. Having said that, I readily acknowledge that there is no "CVIA has evil intent, but repents" option in the list above. Maybe that improves the odds, but it sorta sounds like a mixture of 1 and 3. Perhaps there are yet other scenarios (this is a simple analysis). What approach do you think is the best way to maximize the probability of winding up with money in our pockets at the end of the day (not the same as feeling great satisfaction)? O-o-o-oh, now I've done it. Please be merciful in your response(s), I forgot my asbestos suit today. - JimA

To: Novice Bob who wrote (5383)	6/2/1998 10:47:00 PM
From: K A Anderson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6654

I thought you would enjoy that post, Its amusing that all the state and Federal investor protection laws were "accidently" left out of this post. Of course they dont have to worry about those on the VSE or in Lichtenstein <g> I thought it was even more interesting this is probably the same thing Milken and Boskey kept telling themselves. Oh well the truth will come out in the end. Guess we will see if that Federal Judge really will laugh us out of the court house in the morning. Of course he is going to have to disregard alot of evidence being presented to him. <g> KAA