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 (16852)	1/22/1999 1:14:00 PM
From: Janice Shell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26163

what this broker who has been participating in the manipulation of a stock in concert with your group is facing is sanctions as well as everen & himself being served with wellrich & others in a defamation & libel suit. my understanding is you will be served in publication & through the consulate. everen was contacted about where the subpeona should go. everen & kuglar are being served. 'Scuse me, Gary, but weren't you required never again to mention Kugler's name on SI? Didn't you sign something to that effect? But now that you've opened the door: how, exactly, has Kugler manipulated AZNT? Everen doesn't make a market in it. I very much doubt they have any proprietary position in the stock. So just how would he do what you propose, and what would be the point? How many more people and entities does Mikey plan to add to this suit? Does he really have no idea how ridiculous he looks? He's not gonna succeed in proving a damned thing, you know. But we will. I wasn't joking when I said I'd insist on introducing the entire SI thread into evidence. And then we'll see who's been dealing in insider violations, market manipulation, material misrepresentation, and libel. I suspect the "AZNT Legal Team" is well aware of the dangers inherent in bringing such an action, which is why no one actually has been served.

To: Spider Valdez who wrote (16852)	1/22/1999 1:29:00 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26163

Can you explain to me how, legally, a) a judge can issue a summary judgment when no motion has been filed asking for one, b) in the .00001% chance AZNT filed a motion for one, how a judge can possibly issue a judgment on a defendant that hasn't even had their day in court, and c) in the .000000000000000001% chance the judge risks disbarrment and issues a summary judgment in AZNT's favor, if there's a federal marshall in the world who will enforce an action that surely will be on appeal in a heartbeat? You are so stupid it defies modern science. - Jeff

To: Spider Valdez who wrote (16852)	1/22/1999 1:39:00 PM
From: Janice Shell	Respond to of 26163

it appears dear to even the casual observer you are on a mission. Have I ever denied that? I believe I've made it quite clear why I think this company's affairs should be looked into. you defended those who could not & did not defend themselfs. I have yet to understand why you think I've "defended" Andy Mann, Shoreline, or Whitecliffe. I'm trying to find out what really happened, as are the others in what you're pleased to call "our group". you say it was "sylver's opinion letter" alders & mann used to get the legends lifted off the stock before the restriction expired. Actually it was Mike Sylver who said that. At the October 2 injunction hearing. Do I have to post from the transcript AGAIN??? yet you fail to say that issac montal & the dtc came to aznt on three seperate occassions to negotiate a stipulation that they be dropped from the case in return for the freeze being lifted & the return of the 4.48 million shares. each time they failed to live up to the agreement. How could they fail to live up to an agreement they never ratified? As I understand it, negotiations broke down because Sylver made unreasonable demands. My guess: there's NO WAY the DTC is gonna do anything that'll provoke a short squeeze. And what about the Canadian Depository? You've been saying for months that there was ONE cert, at the DTC... finally why did jboxford claim they sent the cert to dtc when the restraining order ordered its return to the court? As has been pointed out to you many, many times, the October 2 injunction did not require any of the defendants to "return" any stock to the Court. I posted the injunction once more last night. My God, can't you read and understand plain English? now comes barrister maclean forstrom jackson who contacts aznt that montal wants to "compromise" before the 1/29 hearing Now this IS interesting. Obviously you're just parroting what you've been told, and don't understand what it means, but I'd like an explanation from someone. I assume that Maclean Forstrom Jackson is the law firm of J. Brent Maclean, counsel for Canaccord. Why is Maclean speaking for, or acting as go-between for, the DTC? We know that Maclean's been in touch with Montel for quite some time: it was he who said at the injunction hearing that the DTC was considering bringing suit against AZNT. So what's the connection between the two entities? i believe they [DTC] , like the defendants can not defend themselfs in court & have tried unsuccessfully to negotiate with aznt a 'deal'. they have been unsuccessful up to as late as wedns. this week. Sorry, but in my view it's AZNT that's been "unsuccessful". we already have injunctive relief demanding the stock returned to the court Once again, this is utter nonsense. The injunction stipulated nothing of the kind. And in closing, Spidey, let me remind you that there's nothing illegal about criticizing AZNT and its management, or about asking questions.

To: Spider Valdez who wrote (16852)	1/22/1999 1:59:00 PM
From: Janice Shell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26163

One more thing, Spidey: know what I find really amusing about all this? If Mikey really does sue us, we'll have the right--in discovery--to DEMAND answers to all those pesky questions we've been asking for months. lolololololol!!

To: Spider Valdez who wrote (16852)	1/22/1999 2:29:00 PM
From: Bill Ulrich	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 26163

And just what "Rico Statutes" are you talking about here? Not surprising that you're simply parroting foundationless material of which you know nothing. ______________________________ “&#133your group, apparently in violation of rico statutes&#133”

To: Spider Valdez who wrote (16852)	1/22/1999 2:53:00 PM
From: Blue On Black	Respond to of 26163

Heeeyyyyy spidey, It's worse than you think. It's not just the SI bashers that are into defamation and libel(your definition...not mine). Think about it(I know it's hard for you but please try). All the people on the planet that don't own any aznt...isn't that default bashing (maybe bashing by not buying...get the aznt legal team to figure it out). THEY DON"T THINK THE COMPANY IS WORTH BUYING...isn't that de facto bashing? Think of the people that have bought aznt stock and SOLD. Definitely not a vote of confidence in management....wouldn't that be bashing in the extreme. Maybe the federal marshals can stand that class against the wall and shoot them. I think that should finalize the class of defendants. . . . *OK. Everyone that does NOT* currently own aznt shares report to the nearest Federal Marshal.** Happy Now? lee PS:lololololololololololol, of course.