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 : Amazon Natural (AZNT) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hogger who wrote (5361)	9/14/1998 1:18:00 PM
From: jhild	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26163

You know you along with BMart are heavily aligned with presenting a very biased view of the story here. You clearly have an interest in seeing the price of this stock rise for your own personal reasons. Else why would you defend and deny the facts in such a vigorous fashion. Your interest is certainly not the truth. You are finally coming around to admitting that it might not be exclusive after all (a real blow to BMart's assertions), though you continue to avoid like the plague any attempt to quote any passages. We have been told that there was no arbitration. Then we are told when there was a letter indicating that there was an action and it has a American Arbitration reference number, that this doesn't mean that anything took place. But Michael Sylver attended this reference numbered event and removed himself. But it was still not an arbitration hearing. A stock purchase agreement has been posted, lending weight to the idea that AZNT has been in the business of selling its own securities. Aided in that effort by Wellrich consistent with the evidence presented by Post #0 of this thread. But we are told that since the purchase agreement doesn't have an arbitration clause that Wellrich and AZNT cannot have had an arbitration hearing. (The ever astute The Street pointed out this fine irrelevant fact.) Never mind that Wellrich and AZNT would have been the parties to have such a binding arbitration clause in their agreement and not in any the stock purchase agreement signed by the purchasers of the shares recognizing the nature of the 144 restrictions. When the judgement is posted for all to see, what will be the excuse then? I have no way of knowing whether such a judgement will be forthcoming, or if it even exists, but I would say that by the momentum of the evidence, things are certainly pointing that way.