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 : PanAmerican BanCorp (PABN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: barbara sperino who wrote (23489)	1/21/1999 4:34:00 PM
From: LegalBeast	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 43774

Barb, This is so typical. He cannot come up with real cites that prove whatever lie he wants to put forward, so now he resorts to asking us for cites that prove his lies to be wrong? What a joke! Here is a hint: The case he cited was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and did not even list Carl as one of the litigants. But he wants us to prove Carl, who is not working for PRWT and is irrelevant to PRWT, was not convicted of a crime. The burden of proof is on him and without fabricating cases as he did there, he cannot come up with anything. Maybe if we give him just a little more rope, he will hang himself and we will be done with the liar for good?

To: barbara sperino who wrote (23489)	1/21/1999 5:18:00 PM
From: jhild	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 43774

If you recall, the notice about that case involving Carl was a civil case. It merely indicated his involvement in a civil action to recover funds. I reported it as such. And the link is there for all to see and judge for themselves. arentfox.com Admittedly your fellow PRWT investor Rosario, yes your Rosario, has made much more of this notice by calling Carl Kruse a criminal. I have not made such a claim. Nor do I subscribe to this notion until such a time as he is found guilty of criminal charges. I would note though that the notice of this case describes actions on his part that could well be criminally actionable. But at this time I do not represent that there are any criminal charges, as you would accuse me of. So if it is proof that you seek about his criminal record, I will refer you to Rosario, as he is the one making those claims. As to my oversight of the outcome of this case, I have not found it, though since John Schmitz assures everyone that Carl has never done any work for PRWT, it now seems moot to continue to search for it. Especially, since I never made any accusation about Carl, other than to note that he was apparently a defendant and that the notice of this described actions on his part that were described as fraudulent. I did indeed call into question his involvement with PRWT and the allegation that this press release raised of his actions in that regard. I welcome any link to information that describes the outcome of this case, exculpating or not, because as you so mistakenly fail to understand, I am indeed interested in this story. Not just the facts that fit your concept of what you think I want the story to be.