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 (11905)	11/16/1998 10:49:00 AM
From: tonto	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26163

You are absolutely correct. it is foolish to do combat with you guys

To: Spider Valdez who wrote (11905)	11/16/1998 10:56:00 AM
From: BORIS BADENUFF	Respond to of 26163

Hope you hopped on board for PESO!! LOLOLOL!!!!

To: Spider Valdez who wrote (11905)	11/16/1998 11:20:00 AM
From: Janice Shell	Respond to of 26163

EVERYONE know dtc was named to case! EVERYONE KNOW this cause delay in return of stock. "EVERYONE" knows no such thing. Just Mikey, you, and maybe Chuckles the Clown. As I explained to you long ago--long before we had the transcripts--the judge has no jurisdiction over the DTC if it is not included in the case. He makes that quite clear. If AZNT wishes to add them, they can try. There's no proof at all that that's been done. There is, in fact, no indication that anything whatsoever has happened in the case since 2 October. BUT of course Attorney McClean DID inform the court that he'd spoken with counsel for the DTC, who told him they were fed up with AZNT's shenanigans and were themselves considering bringing suit against the company. Good luck, Mikey.

To: Spider Valdez who wrote (11905)	11/16/1998 7:32:00 PM
From: EL KABONG!!!	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 26163

Spider, I have read all 129 pages, twice! I am not by any means a lawyer, or a legal eagle or a paralegal. I have some high school business law courses and some college level business law courses. Not enough to be degreed (not that I'd want to be), but enough to comprehend legal proceedings and terminologies. you will crucify shareholder because you have not the courage to face company or company lawyers As I read the transcript, I couldn't believe the courtroom strategy employed by the company. If I were a shareholder, I'd be ashamed to admit it. This is not a bash of AZNT or its' business prospects, but my observation and opinion of how ill-prepared they were for courtroom proceedings and on what I see as an ill-conceived game plan when they were on the offensive side of the ball. As I said, I'm not an attorney, but I certainly wouldn't be afraid to face off against your company lawyer(s). To start, they failed to lay any foundation whatsoever in exhibits as to the true nature of the business of AZNT. They failed to provide unbiased definitions to the court on the precise meanings of the stock market terminologies (for example, shorting or short's squeeze) they planned to employ in the testimony of the CEO. They failed to provide documentation linking the alleged facts (from the AZNT perspective) to the unbiased definitions so that the court could easily see AZNT's viewpoint of being wronged. They failed to provide independent documentation on how the entire process of issuing stock is supposed to work. They failed to provide the court with adequate documentation on the differing types of stock (such as free trading versus Reg-S versus 144). They failed to provide the court with copies of NASDAQ regulations and guidelines. They failed to provide the court with documentation that would differentiate between NASDAQ and OTC-BB (and NASDAQ Small-Cap). They failed to provide the court with SEC regulations regarding shorting of OTC-BB companies. They failed to provide the court with any reasonable estimate on how badly (dollar amount) the company was harmed by Andy Mann's alleged actions. They failed to show the court in any manner whatsoever how shareholders might have been hurt by their version of what transpired. And on and on and on... In my opinion, a first year law student might have prepared a better case than what I saw in the transcript. The CEO's testimony, especially on cross examination and re-cross examination, showed that counsel had done little to prepare him (the CEO) in how to respond and how to phrase his responses. At times the testimony read like the whimpering of a frustrated child, rather than a calm and prepared executive. AZNT almost had a lock-in on strategy. All they had to do was show the court that they were wronged, and they didn't know by who and then let the respondents fight it out amongst themselves for varying degrees of responsibility. Simply play one party off against the other and let the opposing side make your case for you. But they didn't even have the foresight to name the DTC as a respondent, in my opinion a blunder of unimaginable proportions. It is my viewpoint that at this juncture, plaintiffs may have little credibility left with this particular jurist, and whatever chance AZNT had of an undisputed win is certainly diminished if not outright gone. I eagerly anticipate the next chapter of this ongoing saga. Would someone who is an attorney care to comment on my observations and opinions? Thanks. KJC