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 : Arcon Energy (MIDL Presently) The Ultimate Sleeper -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ga Bard who wrote (3613)	6/16/1998 10:08:00 AM
From: J-DA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4142

Gary This new twist is going to bring out the "best and worst" in a lot of stockholders. If all goes well, DF issue is resolved, Midland issue straightened out, DF 144 Pat. OK, JS strikes a deal with midland, etc,etc,etc,. My crystal ball is cracked. Bad? YES! Terminal? Don't think so. Could turn out to be a fantastic buying opportunity. Get your thick skin out your going to need it. Try not to succumb to the expected flair-ups. Best to You!!! J DA

To: Ga Bard who wrote (3613)	6/16/1998 10:10:00 AM
From: Ray Emery	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 4142

Gary, I am sick about this..... but HOLDING. I just hope that John has some loyalty to the shareholders of Midland cause he could take DF-144 to whomever he wanted to now. Ray

To: Ga Bard who wrote (3613)	6/16/1998 10:16:00 AM
From: Islander	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4142

Gary, you said that Midland(Arcon Energy) owned DF144 and filed for patents etc..also that the XON testing agreements were between XON and MIDl. NOW, you are saying that Spriggs and some Kentucky inventor own DF144.. WHAT Kentucky inventor? What's his name? Didn't Arcon acquire these rights? And oh yeah, the Dallas office was closing wasn't it? Can you tell me this not a HOAX!? What is left if we bought MIDL, w's. P. whatever and MIDL DOESN"T OWN DF144?

To: Ga Bard who wrote (3613)	6/16/1998 10:58:00 AM
From: Triffin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4142

Gary... Congrats...I think <gg> 1) Who is in charge of MIDL 2) Who is on the board of MIDL 3) Where is MIDL corporate office I assume that we own stock/warrants in MIDL which right now has no assets and no cash unless the warrants actually get exercised..so we are back to a "shell" and waiting...correct???

To: Ga Bard who wrote (3613)	6/16/1998 11:50:00 AM
From: RavMan	Respond to of 4142

Ignore it

To: Ga Bard who wrote (3613)	6/16/1998 12:07:00 PM
From: Frank Fontaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4142

Gary, I have known You for longer than probably any one else on this thread!! I still have the fullest confidence in the fact that You do not knowingly ever post false information about any stock. Your handling of IR is IMO the best thing that could happen right now. Keep up the good work and pay no heed to the people who bought with out knowing why!! Frank

To: Ga Bard who wrote (3613)	6/16/1998 2:19:00 PM
From: H-Man	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4142

Man, I wish they (John and MIDL) had struck a deal before he resigned. Nothing to do now but take a nap. Wake me up when it's over. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

To: Ga Bard who wrote (3613)	6/16/1998 3:34:00 PM
From: Sam Miller	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4142

Is this their new attorney. To: Ga Bard (629 ) From: Sam Miller Thursday, Dec 18 1997 11:14PM ET Reply # of 789 Predeccesor to MIDL mentioned (America's Coffee Cup). Is same mgt team in place? I noticed the CFO Marsik is the same. SEC sues 55 people in massive penny-stock scheme By Jeff Mamera NEW YORK, Dec 18 (Reuters) - In one of its biggest-ever attacks on penny-stock fraud, the Securities and Exchange Commission Thursday filed five separate civil suits in federal court against 55 people stemming from a 1996 undercover probe into alleged bribery of penny-stock brokers. The SEC, which also named two brokerage firms and one stock issuer in its suits, claimed the defendants paid more than $3.3 million to brokers who induced their customers to buy certain low-priced -- or penny -- stocks. Four of the suits were filed in New York and a fifth in Utah. The SEC seeks repayment of the $3.3 million and to bar some of the defendants from soliciting penny stocks to retail customers. Eight of those defendants were among 45 who were charged in criminal court in 1996 following a sting operation in which federal agents posed as stockbrokers willing to take bribes. The suits focus on alleged fraud in the sale of shares of Securitek International Corp.(OTC BB:SECQ - news), International Investment Group Ltd., SpacePlex Amusement Centers International Ltd., America's Coffee Cup Inc. and the proposed initial public offerings of Interactive Information Solutions Inc. and StockNet Inc. The defendants in the case include brokerage firms La Jolla Capital and J.S. Securities, as well as stock-issuer Golf Ventures Inc. Among people named in the suits were Jeffrey Szur, president of J.S. Securities. The SEC alleged he and Bertram Slutsky led a scheme to manipulate Securitek shares. Slutsky allegedly paid bribes to Szur and J.S. Securities' employees of up to 50 percent of the sales of Securitek stock to retail customers, the SEC said. The bribes enabled Slutsky to sell his stock at an artifically inflated price, the SEC also said. The SEC also named Leonard Alexander Ruge, a Canadian stock promoter arrested in October 1996 and charged with securities fraud. In the Utah suit, the SEC named George Badger, ''principal officer'' of Golf Ventures Inc. The suit alleges Badger directed a scheme to manipulate stocks issued by Golf. Michael Krome, a lawyer for defandant Mac Beagelman, said he had not seen the SEC civil suit, but that his client was prepared to defend himself against it. ''We're going to defend it and hopefully we'll find some resolution where everyone will get their money back if, in fact, they were cheated,'' Krome said. Beagelman was a member of International Investment Group's board from about 1978 to 1996, the SEC said. The other individuals charged could not be reached for comment. The defendants have 20 days to respond to the SEC's suit. The SEC said it expects a civil trial, although when that trial will take place is still unknown. ''It's impossible to say,'' said Henry Klehm, the SEC's senior associate regional director. ''It takes a long time to get these things to trial.'' Klehm said it was one of the biggest penny fraud stock cases ever filed by the SEC. He said that to date a few of the criminal cases have been settled, but none of the civil cases have been.