To: Spider Valdez who wrote (9401 ) 10/26/1998 3:11:00 PM From: Janice Shell Respond to of 26163
do you not know that court orders return of this stock and jboxford 4 million shares BEFORE any trial . Indeed I do not "know" this. Funny, it's not mentioned in the 2 October injunction. Here we go again:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA CASE NO. CV-S-01247-LDG(RLH) AMAZON NATURAL TREASURERS INC. [sic], a Nevada Corporation, TITAN INVESTMENTS a Sole Proprietorship and GARY SYLVER Plaintiffs, vs. JOSEPH ANDY MANN, FIRST CONCORDE SECURITIES, LTD., WHITECLIFFE INVESTMENTS FUND LTD., SHORELINE SECURITIES, LTD., CANACCORD CAPITAL CORP., CITIBANK, and JB Oxford Defendants. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the defendants J.B. OXFORD and CANACCORD CAPITAL CORPORATION be and hereby are enjoined from trading, selling, transferring, assigning or otherwise hypothecating any or all of the common shares in the capital stock of the plaintiff, AMAZON NATURAL TREASURERS, INC. [sic] held to the credit of accounts in the name of the defendant FIRST CONCORDE SECURITIES, LTD. at the defendants J.B. OXFORD or CANACCORD CAPITAL CORPORATION or either of them; except that the defendants J.B. OXFORD and CANACCORD CAPITAL CORPORATION, or either of them, are at liberty to deposit certificates representing such shares or any of them with any court of competent jurisdiction by way of interpleader or similar proceedings. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the injunction granted herein, and its continued operation, be and hereby is, conditional upon the plaintiff AMAZON NATURAL RESOURCES, INC. [sic] not taking any action that results in a short position or positions in common shares in the capital stock of the plaintiff AMAZON NATURAL RESOURCES, INC.[sic] being asserted against the defendants J.B. OXFORD and CANACCORD CAPITAL CORPORATION, or either of them, through any stock depository or clearing house or system, or otherwise. Dated this 2 day of October, 1998. Please point out to me the phrase that informs us that any or all of the defendants must "return" the "stolen" shares before any trial has taken place? Further to this: take a good hard look at the second paragraph. Doesn't it seem to you that AZNT's determination, as announced in last Thursday's LV Sun, is in clear violation of the condition therein imposed? (And Pugsey: you're a FINE one to talk about "honesty" after the Dr Daaboul debacle, and so many others.)