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 (11920)	11/16/1998 11:57:00 AM
From: Janice Shell	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 26163

Mikey Sylver is watching. I understand he's quite obsessed with the question of shorting. Unlike Judge George. you forget defendants can not short without being in contempt of court Last I heard, NITE, National, and MHMY weren't defendants. you say marcasse cover did you not? but look who short naked from canada now!! lololol ! Don't be such an ass, Spidey. You have absolutely no way of knowing who, if anyone, is shorting today. Yes, Marcasse covered. Far as I know he has no intention of getting back in. Though frankly, the stock looks to me like an extremely attractive short. That transcript is, in my view at least, pretty devastating. 13 THE COURT: Well, and I have to tell you that, again, 14 if I understand what's happening, the reason that we have this 15 circumstance with or without Mr. Judd's client being a good guy 16 or a bad guy, you've created that circumstance. And I don't 17 know why the Court should issue an order that may have a 18 profound impact upon outsiders who didn't participate in the 19 alleged fraud. 20 You're the ones that created this circumstance so that the 21 stock went out. And you're the one that chose to deal with 22 Mr. Judd's client. And let's not forget: 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. As always, only my personal view, but I think Mikey was a fool to bring this case, and will deeply regret having done so.

To: Spider Valdez who wrote (11920)	11/16/1998 12:03:00 PM
From: jhild	Respond to of 26163

Well, Spiddles, I don't think what you are referring to would be the case: 6 THE COURT: Yeah. No. I think this covers it, 7 Counsel. And he's made a record that they're not going to 8 participate in any activity that requires anybody to borrow 9 against it or anything else. 10 If somebody does that independently, that's another thing. 11 But you will not participate in any way directly or indirectly 12 in any activity related to that stock. Last I looked Meyerson wasn't a party to the injunction, so even if they are shorting, Sylver can just knosh on his drawers some more. There is nothing inherent in this order that prohibits naked shorting by just about anyone other than those that were specifically named.