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 : OILEX (OLEX) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonkie who wrote (4057)	9/12/1998 1:02:00 PM
From: Steve	Respond to of 4276

Zonkie, I've been audited before. Nothing owed. It was a relatively painless process since we had documented all of our deductions. I don't know why you would be so concerned with my income since none comes from anything but my own efforts in marketing and selling goods and services that my company offers. I had nothing to do with Oilex or any other company involved during this whole affair except being a shareholder. I did answer Offie that 144s were filed and that I believed that at no time did any insider break the 13D disclosure rule. If however, you have detailed ownership records and stock transaction histories available then perhaps you can show when any of the insiders owned more than 5% and did not file a 13-D and violated the dribble rule subsequent to this. I haven't seen any proof either way so I am withholding judgement, as should you. Poor management is another issue that I have decried in the past. I didn't like the debentures and questioned them. If Oilex needed the cash that badly then why didn't they pursue an alternative. Reason: Allen's Kansas conviction. Oliver Timmins should never have allowed Allen such discretion or a consultant position either. But if the consultant contract did exist then the payment to Phoenix Reserves is legal regardless of the best interests of the shareholders. But should Allen have enforced the terms of the contract at that time, my answer is no, he should not have. Did a conflict of interest exist, possibly. And it is in that context of negligence that Saul has the best opportunity to recover damages but it requires him to acknowledge the consulting contract which he refuses to do.