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: marcos who wrote (11804)	11/15/1998 4:34:00 PM
From: Janice Shell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26163

The Court doesn't seem to like Mikey all that much. In the course of the hearing the Court became a bit testy on more than one occasion. But let's turn momentarily to a secondary issue. We remember that the pathetic Spidey has been insisting for some time now that the suit brought by First Concorde against AZNT in California had been dismissed. Where DOES this moron get his information? Here we have Judge George discussing the California suit with Robert Qualey. Background: Bruce Judd of First Concorde has requested a change of venue to California: 21 The other kinds of things that are being asked, first of 22 all, with respect to the Court choosing to abstain, and you 23 didn't know, if I remember correctly, what you told me when we 24 were together before, you didn't know about the California 25 action having been filed, and it was filed in state court. ASSOCIATED REPORTERS OF NEVADA (702) 382-8778 1 I was confused because there's also a request that I 2 should, if we intend to maintain a federal lawsuit, that it 3 should be transferred to the central district. I have a hard 4 time imagining why if that's the case. No one has given me any 5 clear understanding that venue there is better than here. As a 6 matter of fact, it seems perhaps there are venue reasons for 7 keeping it here. 8 The abstention, normally, you consider a number of factors. 9 But an additional factor is what has been done in the earlier 10 file proceeding. That is to say in the state court in 11 California. And if I understand correctly, it appears that 12 nothing has been done, and so I don't know that -- 13 MR. QUALEY: There's not even an initial meeting 14 scheduled until 1999 as I understand it. We return to this question later in the hearing: Qualey at this point is trying to persuade George that orchestrating a short squeeze is AZNT's right and duty, but the judge does not agree: 17 MR. QUALEY: And we're not asking that. We just want 18 to stop the ham to the company. 19 THE COURT: Well, it seems to me as close as you can 20 come to that is being suggested in this proposed order. Now, 21 you want to talk about it for a few minutes. Go ahead and do 22 so. And I'll come back in 15 minutes. And if there are any 23 changes that yon agree to, fine. 24 And what about you, Mr. Judd? Are you satisfied with what 25 you've given me as far as the -- I'm not inclined to either ASSOCIATED REPORTERS OF NEVADA (702) 382-8778 85 SYLVER - DIRECT 1 send this to California or nor am I inclined, and you may want 2 to argue those questions, to even defer to the California 3 court. I don't think anything's been done in that California 4 court. So, it would seem that the California case is still on the books. Wrong yet again, Spidey. So far, I'm afraid, you've scored no points at all in this debate. Dummy. Better call Mikey. Only I don't think he'll really be able to help. For both of you, as Lee so memorably said: get mirror off desk back on wall. too much stevia not good!!

To: marcos who wrote (11804)	11/15/1998 5:03:00 PM
From: Bill Ulrich	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26163

marcos, there's some context missing from the passage to which you refer. Qualey and Slyver were asserting that without a return of the stock, the company would cease to exist. The judge wanted an explanation. Mike did not provide an explanation, instead preferring to soapbox his 'I'm-Gonna-Change-All-Shorting-In-America for all time' philosophy. The judge wanted him to stick to the case: Case No. CV-S-98-1247-LDG(RLH) page 70 24 THE COURT: Well, why does it prevent you from saving 25 the company? What prevents you from saving company? Case No. CV-S-98-1247-LDG(RLH) page 71 1 MR. QUALEY: Mr. Sylver can explain that. 2 THE WITNESS: Okay. First of all, remember, I said 3 previously there is approximately 2,700,000 or 2,872,000 shares 4 naked short of our stock out in the market. 5 Through all the broker dealers, we know how many brokers 6 have shorted exactly what amount of stock and the dates of the 7 short, the amount of the shorts. We have narrowed it down to 8 the individual brokers who committed the shorts. 9 We have devised a plan that is going to alleviate this 10 shorting and the shorting of all other stocks in this country. 11 It is going to change the face of shorting in the United States 12 and prevent this illegal wrongdoing by Canadian companies and 13 American companies, you know. 14 THE COURT: I don't care about that at all. I want to 15 deal with this case. ___________________________ (bold emphasis: mine)