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: Spider Valdez who wrote (11798)	11/15/1998 1:58:00 PM
From: Janice Shell	Respond to of 26163

no janice i do not because aznt win & court RULE IMMEDIATE RETURN OF STOCK? Um, Spidey. Nowhere in this 129-page document does the Court say anything of the kind. And remember that injunction that we posted on Magnetic Diary? That you claimed was "edited"? Sorry, wrongo. The transcript makes it VERY clear that the document signed by the judge--over the protests of Qualey--was precisely what we produced. No more, no less. Over the course of the evening, and perhaps the next few days, we shall demonstrate that, and a number of other things. Not only does the Court not order that stock be returned. At the very end of the hearing we come upon this interesting exchange: 9 THE COURT: Well, I'm going to sign this order as it 10 is now and expect that they will abide about it in spirit, and 11 that you as well. 12 If you want further modification that isn't going to create 13 problems with third parties, you can come back, and I'll have 14 another hearing to deal with that, but I'm limiting to this 15 right now. 16 THE WITNESS: Your Honor? 17 THE COURT: And I don't get the feeling that the 18 plaintiff is not without some level of culpability here as 19 well. You should know that. 20 I can't imagine this idea that you execute the stock and 21 give every impression that there are no limitations on it 22 relying somehow on it being illegal to do so, though you 23 testify that nobody knows about it, and that troubles me. The "order" in question is the two-paragraph injunction as we posted it. It was written by one of the defense attorneys, not by Judge George. As I noted earlier, Robert Qualey, AZNT's lawyer (and an officer of the company) objected, saying that he wished to make amendments. The judge replied, as you see, that he could submit such amendments on the following Monday and request a further hearing, but in the meanwhile he would sign the order. To date no further hearing has been held, or scheduled. (AND I got 11800!!)

To: Spider Valdez who wrote (11798)	11/15/1998 2:04:00 PM
From: Janice Shell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26163

i see you have better credentials then sherwood do you? Huh? Sherwood drew up the subscription agreement for the private placement. That's the extent of his role in this affair, as far as I know. You very obviously don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about, or even the wit to understand the meaning of what I'm posting now.

To: Spider Valdez who wrote (11798)	11/15/1998 4:39:00 PM
From: Bill Ulrich	Respond to of 26163

Gary, the judge was quite specifically not in favor of returning the stock: Case No. CV-S-98-1247-LDG(RLH) page 54 15 THE COURT: Okay. Let me take about a ten-minute 16 recess, and maybe you can talk together and get a resolution of 17 what you need to -- what you really want to do is maintain the 18 status quo until there can be a more complete hearing, is it? 19 THE WITNESS (Mike Sylver): No. 20 MR. QUALEY: We would like to maintain the status quo, 21 but we -- and the whole point of seeking the injunction is the 22 shares have to be removed from the DTC (indiscernible). 23 THE COURT: No. That's more than maintaining the 24 status quo. ___________________________________________________ One reason for maintaining the status quo—that is, not taking a proactive measure to return the stock is provided earlier on the same page of the transcript: _____________________________________________________ 9 MR. MACLEAN: Precisely. However, your Honor, we're 10 concerned that if an order enact ensues, it results in a short 11 position through the depository system. There may be some 12 great unforeseen harm that this Court doesn't intend. And 13 that's a short situation different from one Mr. Sylver has 14 discussed, and that's what paragraph 2 deals with. ___________________________________ You should check with Mikey on this—or even better—get a real source of information.