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 : IMES -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth who wrote (1743)	8/3/1998 11:09:00 PM
From: don denson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1901

All: Val's new web site is up and operating. A number of meta supporters are there- who are not SI guys. She still has it under construction, but you will be amazed at the depth of her ability and understanding of what we are about. Give her time to complete it, but as you will note, it will be worth it! Check in and take a view of it- a good place for hanging our hats for the long haul ahead. www.ildf.com dd

To: Kenneth who wrote (1743)	8/4/1998 12:26:00 PM
From: don denson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1901

All: Well, I suppose many of you have read or heard about the news (seen in CNET) about the TechSearch lawsuit with Intel (using X86 technology by IMS). Its a complicated setup alright. Hopefully the facts will come out completely, and soon, as this has a tremedous bearing on our position as shareholders, of course. Obviously, 1/2 trillion bucks is not to be sneezed at! Let me pose an opinion or two, and ask a couple of questions: Apparently, IPIQ think possession is 9/10 of the law! In my business, real estate, that may often be true. I may sound like a broken record, but my sirene song for all this time is: this is a public company! I didn't put my thousands down on a private arrangement to be jacked with at the leisure of every slaggard, scam artist, and flim flam man to come down the dirt road! Public companies have SEC rules of the road by damn! If it weren't that way, we would not be here cause I never heard of IMS until it was described to me as a public co with potential- with publically traded shares that I could invest in. nuff said. Read the SEC objection letter to our bankcruptcy court handling our case. Check out the Delaware laws that apply. By God, this case will be made to adhere to these rules- or we will take it all the way up- bank on it! I am keying in one item in particular- the Cnet article states that, the patent was bought last November and filed this June while IMS was/is in bankcruptcy. Could this be an accurate quote? Reporters do make mistakes, but if so this is a whopper! Think for a moment if it were true- is this what has been going on in our company for all these months? Did the directors and officers actually sell off our major asset that the company has been developing for the last 10 years+? Without saying anything, period, til now (assuming the quote from the article came from an inside source)? Setting aside the validity of the lawsuit claims, and understanding that will take us some time, we need to hone in on a couple of important facts that may develop out of this. Some of us have had the opinion that things were NOT RIGHT, and have not been for quite a while. We have collected so much evidence in that direction that its hard to ignore it! Heck, top government officials are now joining in questioning what has gone on. How could a public company, without any notice at all to anybody, do such a thing? Set aside the ethics, look at the law. It is spelled out clearly as a matter of fact in the SEC objection just recently filed! Could all these directors and officers of meta have been so blind back- in NOVEMBER of 1997!! A public company of record, must secure 80% approval of the shareholders (through a properly overseen, official vote!) to sell off major company assets! - If the X86 chip tech is not (after 10 years+) then what else would suffice this rule? Did not TechSearch know this about the law? Their attorneys sure know how to go after the big gun in town. How did they overlook this little requirement? If you don't think this smells fishy enough, ask yourself, if our fine shepherds of meta have known this for all this time- why did they keep telling the court (and us) in their filings that the meta 6000 was to be left in the shell which we would be keeping after the "valuable assets" were taken away by IPIQ? I'd like to know what the judge will say to this little item? Well, do we still hold rights to the meta 6000 or don't we guys? Let's see the sales contract dear Board. Let's get it out here right now! We are going to get it sooner or later. When did you guys sell away our assets? Back in November? Did you think you would have this bankcruptcy all wrapped up by now, and we would be out in left field will no power to argue with? Mr. Vaughan, are you with us? Dear SEC, "in case you missed the latest news on our company that you have been investigating, here is a little news item you may find of interest". Now are any of you invigorated? Might it be worth investing a little time for you to call/join ILDF and start helping a little more? I hope you held on to your shares until we get this settled. At least you may find things getting even more interesting as we go along. I hope the other side hasn't run all of us off! If not, for goodness sakes, get involved a little will you? There's only been a couple of people up in Ohio that have been holding the fort for you, waiting for you to enlist!!! dd

To: Kenneth who wrote (1743)	8/4/1998 6:45:00 PM
From: Young, Smith & Associates	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1901

Hello IMES Thread: I know you haven't heard from me for a long time. But now after 4 months since my resignation from IMS I don't feel the inclusion of my good name is appropriate. I have never stated my opinion of the ongoing circumstances at IMS publicly. However I will defend my personal position and the role I played at IMS. I was an employee of the Company and worked very hard to support the shareholders. I executed my job to the best of my abilities and when the ultimate plan to move the major assets of the Company to a private entity was revealed I resigned. I was offered a job in Texas but refused, as I could not morally nor ethically support such a strategy. I took direction from the officers of the Company and performed all tasks relative to the investor relations function. I support a large family and the decision to resign meant forgoing a secure income and all the benefits associated with a corporate position. I did become emotionally involved with many of the shareholders of IMS and do sympathize with your current situation. In fact I was a holder of IMS securities which I still have and they are completely worthless. I had hoped this would be my long-term financial security as all of you did and I am disgusted at the proposed outcome. I supported the shareholders in every meeting in which I was involved with management, the Board of Directors and potential investors. If you have further questions please post, as I will respond responsibly. Bill Young