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 : PanAmerican BanCorp (PABN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jhild who wrote (12798)	8/28/1998 12:19:00 PM
From: J T	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 43774

I could understand your questions if you were a share holder in the stock. Just an INVESTOR concerned about their INVESTMENT and wanting answers. But when people like you come along and out of the goodness of their hearts, seeing an injustice being done to us poor SHEEP just has to try and save us from our follies really confuses me. I'll ask this again and hope you give me an answer. WHY ARE YOU HERE? WHAT ARE YOUR MOTIVATIONS HERE? JT

To: jhild who wrote (12798)	8/28/1998 12:45:00 PM
From: StandFast	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 43774

You have got to be kidding. You are not a source of anything but bashing. The questions you make have turned out only to be rhetorical, as you have provided nothing. Though you have no difficulty whatsoever throwing statements out as fact, without any form of substantiation. So you as a source of anything- what a joke.

To: jhild who wrote (12798)	8/28/1998 12:50:00 PM
From: barbara sperino	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 43774

John Schmitz held shares in Affordable Housing back in Feb of this year before PanAmerican was a public traded company. PanAm as PRWT has only been a public company since June 1, 1998. At that time Affordable Housing also became a part of PRWT. Now we all own shares of AFFORDABLE HOUSING along with every other company PANAMERICAN acquires. You seem to want a great deal from a co. that isn't even 3 mos old yet. For someone who doesn't have a vested interest in PRWT I personally don't think you deserve any answers. but of course that really isn't what you really want is it? You really just need to keep things stirred up and try to put a negative light on anything and everything.

To: jhild who wrote (12798)	8/28/1998 12:56:00 PM
From: LegalBeast	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 43774

Normally, I would not give a person such as this a civil answer simply because I think that It is a total waste of skin and web resources. But, there are folks who will read some of Its posts and wonder if there is a shred of truth to the question. It seems to ask seemingly innoculous questions only to be bashed by the rest of us, but it is important to understand that the manner in which these questions are asked suggests an answer. In this case, an answer that is incorrect. Now then, on to the issue. It wants to know if there is something sinister in the fact that the paperwork states that John owns the stock and not PRWT. This is a complicated issue, and not to belittle the issue, I will give you the direct answer. John has assigned his interest to PRWT. Now then how do we know that to be true. Because of the press release in which John stated that PRWT owns Affordable Housing. Do we need to see more than the press release to make this a matter of fact? No, we do not, and here is why: The press release is in itself a committment that it is true. That committment will stand as fact in any court in the land whether or not John ever takes any other action to record it. The comittment is effectively recorded in the public record and John cannot back out. He is legally stuck with the fact! Therefore, it is irrelevant to us that the paperwork says John owns it and not PRWT. Now I am sure that It will argue that John issued a false press release as indicated by Belize, jada jada, yada ... Irrelevant even if ... because, the PR stands as evidence and is a de facto contract with us, the shareholders, and is valid in court even if it is false. John cannot back out of it at all. It is effectively carved in stone!