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 : Rocky Mountain Int'l (OTC:RMIL former OTC:OVIS) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (49428)	7/11/1998 2:22:00 AM
From: Ellen	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 55532

You have a lot of nerve, posting about integrity. I realize that you have been charged by the SEC with fraud - and there is no conviction as of this date. IMHO, if they have enough evidence to even bring forth a charge, that says a lot, especially after so many months of investigation. It would appear that you have posted and continue to post "to an audience" - possibly to have such posts "documented" and read by the SEC perhaps? Puhleezzzzzzzzzzz...

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (49428)	7/11/1998 5:47:00 AM
From: Riley G	Respond to of 55532

To: Senforce@aol.com Subject: Ron Reece Friday, Jul 10 1998 9:00PM Cc: reecerd@erols.com SEC (John Stark), As per instructions, here is another set of private email messages from one Ronald Reece that is being sued by the SEC for securities fraud upon the Green Oasis (GRNO) shareholders. I will continue to send them as required. I thank you for your time and efforts in this matter, and hope that you convict Ron Reece for the charges levied. I think that you will find other evidence from the SI private message format, as I do believe that Ron Reece was using that medium to convey tactics and strategies to hype and tank other securities for his and others benefit. You should find the private messages between he and the following monikers; Tonto (Todd Pauley) , S Martin, Michael Kugler (real name). signed, Riley G Retired NYPD Shareholder of RMIL PS. The only shareholder of RMIL being sued by an admitted short seller of OTC stocks. All shareholders of all OTC securities should call for their stocks certificates to stop the blatant FRAUD in the OTC market. ______________________________________________________ To: Riley G (who wrote...) From: Ron Reece Friday, Jul 10 1998 9:00PM ET Then Riley... why were you subpoenaed?? Do you really think that what you and the cartel have done wasn't illegal manipulation of a public market?? What you may soon discover is that a complaint can be filed against you as well and that you may opt to settle it rather than pay thousands to defend yourself. Your having been a law enforcement officer, I think you know the difference between technical violations of the law and willing intent to violate it. And if you think it is over with RMIL, I suggest you think again. It took the SEC 15 months of investigative efforts before they filed a civil complaint against GRNO(not criminal yet). It will likely be 15 more months before a court date is arrived at. Yet GRNO still hangs in there, has a physical presence in Charleston with a demonstrable technology. RMIL is an empty shell with nothing but you and Pugs and your BS about a massive short position. Ask yourself what RMIL has to show as a result of its past year's operations and it might dawn upon you that it qualifies as a scam and a fraud. I'll be looking forward to the day when you have a complaint filed against you for manipulation of a public market. Just like I was pleased to see you subpoeaed by the SEC. Regards, Ron --------- To: Riley G (who wrote...) From: Ron Reece Friday, Jul 10 1998 9:15PM ET Geezus Riley, you sure know how to call the kettle black.... <vbg> You have opened yourself up to so many legal difficulties it is amazing. You think you are exonerated solely because you haven't sold any RMIL stock?? Well buddy, I haven't sold any GRNO either and I guarantee you that my investment in this company's stock far outweighs anything the gov't alledges. Let's ask a purely hypothetical question here. Supposing someone was involved in an effort to commit fraud, aka SEXI, IDID, GIFS... etc, would that person put there own hard won capital at risk AFTER the stock had peaked in price?? Or would they have asked for shares or warrants instead?? RMIL management has committed a fraud and misrepresentation wherein it has been discovered that there was no reasonable expectation of their generating $12 million in revenues in 1997, as well as the BS they flung around about the $10 million Asian investor. And btw, if you think that RMIL will only be faced with $25,000 in legal bills, think again. The last I heard, GRNO has already forked out a cool quarter million in cash to defend itself. And one final thing you might bear in mind... Regulatory authorities doesn't like to litigate. It is costly and time-consuming. They would rather see the issue settled, with or without a penalty, or hope the company runs out of money and folds. RMIL has about 10-12 months to go before before they will likely find themselves in a similiar position, I reckon. Either that, or they will financially bleed to death from the legal cost involved. Btw Riley, when was the last time you saw someone jailed as a result of a civil case?? Think before you speak.... and then think about likely awaits you down the road. And remember, you didn't believe me when I told you that you might be subpoenaed by the SEC. Guess I was right on that one too, wasn't I? Why don't you choose to learn from my experience which I had been willingly sharing with all of you. You will not decide my guilt or innocence and to do so out here is to deprive ME of what every citizen of this country has a right to, presumption of innocence until found guilty. Regards, Ron

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (49428)	7/11/1998 9:12:00 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 55532

No Riley... I told you to send this one. You've already sent that other one... Don't be redundant if you plan on complaining. Remember how you all hated receiving domestic complaints from the same residence night after night?? The people who answer SEC mail are no different. Give 'em a break. Regards, Ron ******************************************* I think the appropriate term is "consideration" under Section 17(b) of the securities act of 1933. What we all have here when looking at trading halts and SEC investigations is an expensive education in the finer nuances of securities law and the operation of the overall stock market. Lessons are here to be learned. That is why I have over 20 differenct threads bookmarked. There are some very intelligent people here on SI and each of us should be open to sharing their knowledge and insight. And again, the issue for me is to preserve the integrity of the internet as a useful tool for diligence and information sharing. Too many regulators seem to feel that the internet has only added to their workload and many of them aren't quite comfortable with it yet. Things they don't understand, they fear. Yet the internet provides a self-regulatory capability as well as others dispute and debate each other's perspectives with the appropriate evidence to back it up. I want to see that preserved regardless of who is discussing a stock, myself, or someone else. Btw....., "Riley"??.... make sure you send this one to SENFORCE@aol.com as well. Regards, Ron **************************************** Again Riley, it is because of people like yourself, continuously spewing forth innuendo and untruth, that others have to take a stand to oppose it, no matter what the personal cost.