sv> level head guy you are leaving out very important elements to
> this story.
Necessarily; I don't have background on the players here. I suspect no one person knows the full story. The facts regarding the disposition of the case, judges rulings et cetera are simple enough, however. The information I provided is from the legal documents.
sv> my understanding is nextech was brought into this by charlie
> same way andy mann was. it was tifer who threatened 2 ta's to
> lift legends off this stock...
Let's think about this for a moment; a good hypothesis should be testable by prediction. If they had actually been threatened (how? Tiefer is not an attorney) than the transfer agents in question would reasonably submit affidavits in support of this behavior, would they not? No support for these threats is visible.
sv > you also fail to state this stock was 'voting only'...
"Voting only"? The court's permanent injunction ordered Amazon to issue new unrestricted common stock certificates, so the judge was apparently not impressed by the "voting only" idea. The certificate was submitted as an exhibit -- it does say "common stock".
You should pull this case and take a look, or have someone do so for you. I presume, from your statements, that you are privileged to see Amazon's unpublished statements regarding this and other cases, but it does not seem that you are able to see the results. They are not always in line with what you've been told, and it may help bring some balance to your arguments.
Yes, I've just arrived here (although I've been looking at this thread, off and on, for a couple of months -- that means I've probably read only a small percentage of the many thousands of posts).
No, I am not interested in "saving investors"... I was merely correcting some information that was not accurate. Since I have seen tremendous amounts of bad news here that has come true, and good new that hasn't, and AZNT is trading more or less where it's been for several months, I don't think that this thread, or real world events, has much of an impact on AZNT's trading price. This is the same public that continues to hold Mr. Clinton in high regard, but that's another story<g>.
sv> and it had been transfered to his wife
The certificate appears to be the original. If so, and the papers do not bring this into question, no such transfer took place.
sv> & i understand that is why she is named in the case.
Mrs. Kricfalusi is not. There is a subsequent "third party suit" filed by Amazon against the Kricfalusis, which is not a counter suit to NexTech's, and therefore has no defensive effect against the ruling issued in that suit.
sv> you also fail to mention motion aznt filed ; "motion to set aside".
I made no mention of such motion because I did not, and do not, see a reference to it. And, since the permanent injunction has been ordered, whatever the attempt was did not work.
sv> i assume you are refering to the motion to set aside as a
> "later suit".
No. There is a separate suit brought against the Kricfalusis and "doe's" and "black corporations".
sv> the restrictions had not been met.
Not true -- the restrictions on the certificate had expired. But why would "voting stock", as you say, have Rule 144 restrictions _against_trading_ on them to begin with? And, no evidence of the expression "voting stock", and every evidence of normal "common stock" with all of the rights that implies. Examine the certificate yourself.
sv> can you state here level head how you have come to the conclusion
> that amazon's record of "compliance" is "poor"?
As I indicated in the post -- from reading other posts on this thread. Also, from observing the lack of timely filings in AZNT's history, and now (after yesterday's post) amplified by noting that Amazon Natural Treasures appears to no longer be a "corporation in good standing".
sv> what was the relationship between charlie kris & tifer? what was there relationship to this "nextech"? what is your relation to charlie kris., tifer & nextech ?
I don't know about these relationships, other than what I'm reading here and in the legal docs -- but _I'm_ not involved in this case! Gregory Tiefer is listed as CEO of NexTech, Inc.
sv> when you say the "case is over" you are not being honest.
Be careful. I presented that statement as a conclusion based on the documents, with the caveat that the process could go further in the event of non-compliance with the order. The other case, Amazon vs. Kricfalusi et al. (how do you pronounce "Kricfalusi", by the way; I never watched "Ren and Stimpy") is still pending -- to the best of my knowledge, no answer has yet been filed. But this is a third party case, not a countersuit.
sv> there is a motion to set aside.
As I indicated, I do not see it, and the gambit did not work in any case.
sv> ...you figure it out. you can see how good all this worked for
> andy mann, can't you?
I don't know much about that situation, but it seems from Sylver's affidavit (thank you, Janice!) that Andy Mann convinced Sylver to "give" him 4 million shares of stock based on a promise to pay; with no reference whatsoever to promissory notes, escrow, stock purchase agreements, or any standardized way to conduct such a transaction. On that basis, and from what I've heard about that suit so far (I have not pulled it - case number, anyone?) it seems that "it worked good" for Andy Mann.
Certainly Michael Sylver comes across in the affidavit as being extraordinarily unsophisticated in the doings of public corporations. This is excusable in the lay population, but not in the CEO of a public corp!
Level Head |
