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 : JAWS;A P/E of 2 with 150%/yr Erngs Growth!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John F. Poteraske who wrote (2924)	9/24/1998 12:59:00 AM
From: Randomm	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4230

This has been taking from the Yahoo board. I believe it is important and should also be posted here. Re: the SA Advisory Newsletter. I received a copy of... cardshark_1999 Sep 23 1998 6:35PM EDT the e-mail earlier today. I have also forwarded a copy of it to Tom Prichard who was out of town today. I expect to be talking to him tomorrow. Needless to say, my phone has been ringing off the hook since the post hit the board, or I would have put this out sooner. I personally spoke with the SEC Internet Fraud Division head Jay Perlman and one of his associates some six or eight weeks ago. Right after Monski started posting his tirades on the board. I spent the better part of an hour with them and suggested that they check him out. Needless to say, the discussion went on to include the strange trading in the stock. Of which I also recommended they check out. Additionally, some four months ago, Colin contacted Senator Phil Gramm about the suspected illegal naked shorting that had been going on in the stock. He received a reply saying that his office would be in touch with the SEC to investigate. This I found out after my company was hired to do the Rights deal. Which was one of the main reasons that compelled me to talk with the SEC people. I have no way of confirming what SA Advisory has said other then to say that at this stage of the game, I would welcome any SEC Investigation. Probably more so then anyone who has circumvented the Federal Reserve Rules under Reg. T, by selling stock they don't own. I do not question that SA may have received a call from the SEC as to their position and or compensation when they first recommended the stock. I also have no way of knowing this evening whether they did or didn't receive any shares. But as long as it is disclosed, there is nothing wrong with that. What I do have a problem with, and will be an area that I will discuss with Pritchard is that even if the comment about, >>"In addition, the the Company itself is being investigated for possible illegal sale of shares according to SEC rules and regulations." >> were true, how would they know. I can't even comprehend for a second that the SEC would have told them this. I think everyone here knows the animosity between SA and the Company that has been out there for months. SA has a reputation of "front running" all their recommendations both on the buy and the sell. I hope the SEC investigates their trading tactic as well as the publishing of this e-mail letter and its specifics and motivation. My bottom line for now is that we have an excellant company that has certain party's with an agenda that would do whatever it takes to get people to sell the stock. As far as my own stock is concerned, I have no interest in selling, not now and not until it is much, much higher then the current price. The above comments are mine and mine alone and should not be construed to be either officially or unofficially a statment from the Company.