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 : MTEI - Mountain Energy - No BASHING Allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brukie who wrote (11026)	11/7/1998 4:50:00 PM
From: Sharon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11684

Brukie, it is my understanding, a SEC investigation and cleaning up the shell are two different matters (in a sense). The SEC investigates "an event" "certain parties" to assure that trading rules are not or have not been broken. In the event they have, the SEC pursues whatever legal action is necessary to correct or bring charges as necessary. The purpose being, to clean up the illegal actions/trading of a publicaly traded company (not a shell). Owners of the company can then pursue what they want to do with the company...ie..offer it as a shell to a legitimate company wanting to go public or close the doors down. The purpose of the investigation is not to specifically get our money back or bring action against the company on shareholders behalf it is to bring action, pertaining to SEC rules against a company /parties involved...in the course of events, should they find reason to seek to make the victims whole I'm sure depends on specific circumstances and rulings. Now let us suppose the SEC finds everything just hunky doory. The share holders now own a company that has been thoroughly investigated and is therefore in a position to trade again legitimately. Or the SEC finds illegal actions...they will pursue legal action against the action and/or those responsible. The company is now "cleansed" of the civil or criminal actions. If there is "on going business" I assume the company can proceed with trading. If there is no business left "assets/accounts etc." It probably is a candidate to serve as a shell to a legitimate company wanting to go public. The "company" then seeks legal counsel to proceed. Now let us assume there has been wrong doing either civil or criminal, shareholders can then seek legal counsel regarding their rights regarding litigation as it pertains to the findings of investigation. Do you really want this company put out there without a thorough investigation? That's what it sounds like you are exploring. There are NO shareholder "representatives" of this company....only a bunch of "workers" that have tried to gather information and attempt to move it into responsible hands and resources to get this mess moving in a positive and legitimate direction. There are points of contact so the wheel is not being invented over and over. Seems to me there has been a lot of progress made, vs some scams where folks just take their lumps and move on. Doesn't help resolve the problem. Look at the number of companies that are just in limbo and will probably always be there. Perhaps I have oversimplified this or have missed some point. Anyone feel free to jump in here.

To: Brukie who wrote (11026)	11/7/1998 6:32:00 PM
From: RavenCrazy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 11684

Brukie - <<Here is that "WE" again. If that attorney is the one a certain one of you talks to, when I spoke to him the other day he said "I advise my Client". He knows I am also a shareholder in which case I to Would be a "Client" also and he never said that. So he isnt working for me.>> This is no cloak and dagger stuff here. There is no conspiracy. We're talking about Tom Krebs, as everybody knows. Owl found him in his hometown through a friend, and has so far convinced Tom to go into this matter at no charge to us. The "We" that people are starting to act a little funny about is we-the-shareholders. But we cannot expect an attorney, especially one DONATING his time, to be willing to talk to all of the shareholders. I have never talked with him and doubt he would talk to me either. I can understand the frustration is there, but you can't beat the price, and he has made only one request, that being that only a couple of "us" contact him. Otherwise, there would be an obvious time problem. Owl was one, naturally, because of being in the same town and because of being the one who first approached him. Then MoneyBaggs was included because of his scanned documents. And then, the best I understand, gpolley was added, since gpolley had been sort of a chairman for the committee to find a lawyer ever since I started asking for volunteers. If three is all Tom Krebs can handle, we have to understand that. I think it is fantastic luck that we have him right now. He has asked for patience and restraint, and I'm willing to do that and wanting to convince others to leave it in his hands for a bit. It's really that simple. You are not content to get back 20 percent of your investment, and I don't think there's a chance any of us will ever see 20 percent of it except POSSIBLY through SEC disgorgement. We just think differently. Still friends, though. Please. Raven