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 (16608)	1/21/1999 1:06:00 PM
From: Rico Staris	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26163

CAN YOU SAY . . . . . . . . . . . CLUELESS! . . . . . . . . . . . see you guys later.... . . . . It's obvious that they were not informed about it..... . . . . . . . . so no use playing with CLUELESS IDIOTS! . . . . . . . . . CYA!

To: Spider Valdez who wrote (16608)	1/21/1999 1:28:00 PM
From: Hogger	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26163

Spidey, I've also received some legal "best guess" info ... there appears to be a difference between a person being found in default and that being attested to ... it appears that in this instance the judge previously stated that the named parties were in default as of the date the summons time limitations for appearance lapsed and that the failure to appear automatically triggered some legal mechanism by which the clerk is the only one required to attest to such and the default therefore becomes effective. Consequently, the named parties are in default. However, before any action can be taken on the default (ie, seizure of assets) the judge must issue some manner of enabling document, probably referred to as a seizure order. That apparently has not been issued, but appears to be an almost automatic occurrence unless mitigating evidence is presented - and such has not been submitted (ie ... where is Andy.) Failure to appear when issued a summons is taken rather seriously by most Federal Judges. That certainly seems to be the case in this action. Also, looking at the fonts used in the various verbiage, they appear consistent with those used by the court in previously issued documents, so this finding of default does appear to be valid. I am a shareholder and reseller, not an attorney, but this does convince me that standing pat on my investment for a while longer is certainly in order and is a prudent move on my part. Hogger

To: Spider Valdez who wrote (16608)	1/21/1999 3:52:00 PM
From: Janice Shell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26163

...this DEFAULT before me clearly states that this action was "ENTERED" on "JANUARY 13, 1999" Um, yeah. "Entered" as in "filed". As you've so frequently told us, you're a very stupid guy, but I confess I didn't think you were THIS stupid. HOW many times have we explained that AZNT did indeed file a Motion for Default on the 13th? So what? now the judge sign to enforce it Yeah? What makes you think he'll do that? He's by no means obliged to, you know. in 3 -10 days, it will be enforced. Wrong. At some point in the future--probably at the next hearing on 29 January--Judge George will rule on the motion. No kidding: what is it you don't understand about this? He can say yes, he can say no. My guess is he'll say no. now worry about your own case! I repeat: let's talk about insider violations. Let's talk about blatant attempts at market manipulation. Let's talk about whether you, Gary, have ever signed a contract with AZNT that speaks to matters that go beyond your role as distributor of AZNT products. Think very very carefully about all this, Gary. You're up to your eyebrows in stevia...