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: Ellen who wrote (49462)	7/11/1998 11:45:00 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 55532

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. Ellen, I am not presenting a "defense" here. What I am presenting is the "Yeas" ignorance of the basic structure of the US legal system. (And Riley, having formerly been one of "New York's Finest" has no excuse for his) But you're quite accurate in this statement: "I would venture to guess the SEC does not care about your "reasons". A violation is a violation. Period." But be aware that the SEC regulations seem to be written and interpreted in such a manner that ANY person voicing their opinion on these threads may find themselves vulnerable. And that mainly applies to Riley and Pugs. Pugs and Riley were hyping TVSI, declaring another Mork conspiracy (who is this mysterious Mr. Mork, anyway?.. :0) and Pugs was selling into the run-up(by his own admission). Regardless of actual intent can find themselves in technical violation of the law as Allen has aptly shown. law.uc.edu (subsection b.) And this one as well: Section 10(b)-5 It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly..... (snip.. snip...).... then this subsection. b.To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or Message 5164488 Now I ask you if anyone has stated anything that they KNEW was untrue about this company or stock, even when presented with evidence to the contrary. Ooopps... there are a lot of people on the internet and in everyday life that are in violation of Securities Act of 1933/4. Ponder that and the ramifications for free speech in cyberspace. Again, we all have the right to be wrong when we do our diligence on an investment. But the basic difference with the RMIL ringleaders is that they were more interested in manipulating the stock than they were in assessing the actual operational status and progress of the company. Regards, Ron