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 (11832)	11/15/1998 7:54:00 PM
From: Janice Shell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26163

i am certainly glad you are overseas it is not pretty picture you paint. I don't paint at all. I'm an art historian, not an artist. what you fail to state is court DENIED MOTION TO DISMISS, court DENY MOTION TO MOVE TO CALIF. & COURT DEMAND RETURN OF 4.48 MILLION SHARES. Let's take these one at a time, Spidey. Really, you know, this might be easier if you'd actually read the transcript. Frantic phone calls to Mikey really don't cut it. On the day of the hearing Judge George declined to consider any of Judd's various motions to dismiss. He did not, however, deny them. It was late Friday afternoon, everybody wanted to leave. George indicated that he saw no reason for a change of venue. Again, he didn't make a definitive ruling; as things stand now the case will continue in Nevada, should it continue at all. The court did NOT "demand" the return of the 4.84 million shares. On the contrary, George was interested only in maintaining the status quo ante until the case could eventually be resolved. In trial. 1 MR. MACLEAN: Your Honor, I'm going to be frank here. 2 The position of Canaccord is very simple. We see ourselves as 3 a quasi stakeholder. We're not a real stakeholder because we 4 don't have the certificate. We want to have the issue resolved 5 between Amazon and First Concorde in a form where they both are 6 torn to the jurisdiction, and we can stand back given -- 7 THE COURT: And then you can do what you believe to be 8 necessary. 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. 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: 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. 25 THE WITNESS: Okay. Wait, Robert. ASSOCIATED REPORTERS OF NEVADA (702) 382-8778 55 SYLVER - DIRECT 1 THE COURT: I'll take a ten-minute recess. 2 (Colloquy not on the record.) 3 THE COURT: Because this does seem commonsensical to 4 me. 5 MR. QUALEY: Your Honor, Mr. Sylver has just indicated 6 that all he needs -- whoever has (indiscernible) is just to 7 return the certificate, and that's all what he's 8 (indiscernible). 9 THE COURT: Well, I understand that. 10 MR. QUALEY: Not to us, but to the court. 11 THE COURT: To deposit it with the court. 12 THE WITNESS: That's it. 13 THE COURT: And it seems to me that Mr. Lefebvre is 14 suggesting that that may happen. That they want to reserve the 15 right to give it to a court of competent jurisdiction to hold 16 it, so that it could be interplead if necessary. Is that a -- 17 MR. MACLEAN: If we ever get the certificate. 18 THE COURT: Pardon? 19 MR. MACLEAN: If we ever get the certificate. 20 THE COURT: Yeah. But you're saying that you don't 21 have the certificate at this point. 22 MR. MACLEAN: Yes, your Honor. 23 THE COURT: So that's something that you can't do at 24 this point. 25 MR. MACLEAN: Precisely. ASSOCIATED REPORTERS OF NEVADA (702) 382-8778 56 SYLVER - DIRECT 1 THE COURT: And that's part of your concern. 2 MR. MACLEAN: Exactly, your Honor. 3 THE COURT: You're troubled with the Court ordering 4 you to do something that, effectively, you can't do at this 5 time. 6 MR. MACLEAN: Precisely. 7 THE COURT: Okay. You're not actually reading any of this stuff we're posting, are you, Spidey? Or is it that you're just too damned dim to understand it?

To: Spider Valdez who wrote (11832)	11/15/1998 8:16:00 PM
From: Bill Ulrich	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26163

Gary, the judge didn't deny the motion to move to California: page 84 Case No. CV-S-98-1247-LDG(RLH) 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 end page 84 Case No. CV-S-98-1247-LDG(RLH) page 85 Case No. CV-S-98-1247-LDG(RLH) 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. 5 MR. JUDD: Well, the only reason California was chosen 6 was because the action was brought there and because 7 J.B. Oxford is there. We do have a party before the Court 8 whose witnesses are there. 9 THE COURT: What is it? 10 MR. JUDD: J.B. Oxford is in California in the central 11 district. If they remain a defendant in this case, that is as 12 convenient a location as anywhere else. And we have in 13 addition -- 14 THE COURT: Well, why should I transfer it if they're 15 just as convenient as -- what's wrong with pursuing that here? 16 MR. JUDD: Well, as between -- for us, we have to go 17 someplace. We have to travel someplace. 18 THE COURT: Yes. 19 MR. JUDD: But for other parties, it's not. And it 20 seems to me that there is maybe one person in Nevada. That's 21 the witness. And there are a number of witnesses, I imagine, 22 at J.B. Oxford in California. There are people in New York. 23 There are people in Canada. 24 Assuming all these folks are going to remain defendants, I 25 don't know if they're going to allege some kind of motion to end page 85 Case No. CV-S-98-1247-LDG(RLH) page 86 Case No. CV-S-98-1247-LDG(RLH) 1 dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. 2 THE COURT: Well, what you're talking now is a venue 3 question. 4 MR. JUDD: Correct. 5 THE COURT: And from what I read, it seems to me that 6 it's as convenient one place or the other, and so I'm not 7 inclined to make a venue ruling. Seems as if he wasn't in favor of it at first, but now he's postponing the decision for later consideration. Does anybody else interpret the last line differently? I'll concede the point given a rational explanation.