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 : NAMX -- North American Expl.-- Que Sera Sera! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (4004)	6/24/1998 4:43:00 PM
From: Hunter Vann	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4736

Maybe Bates is more concerned if you are/were involved in any manipulation of the stock Alice and I were accused of the exact same things in the frivolous lawsuit. Boonen on the other hand was named in quite a few different things involving Vanity, etc..etc.. Alice was exonerated of her charges simply because she did not file a response to the initial complaint. She simply asked for a motion to dismiss based upon her non-involvement with any of the related charges. I, on the other hand, filed a response to the complaint. I, therefore, can not file a motion to dismiss since I filed a response to the complaint. Get it? After all, that's not what the suit was/is about. How do you know what it's about?? I don't think they can prove anything against you if they cannot establish some link between you and those shorters Now, you're starting to understand. But, first of all they can't file a suit against anybody if it's not filed in the state that the company was incorporated in. One would've figured that John Bates would have known this. In my book, Mr. Bates and Mr. Ebeling are one in the same. Bates trying to continue this matter speaks volumes about the type of person this man is. And remember, this man now sits on the NAMX board.