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: Level Head who wrote (17682)	1/31/1999 7:34:00 PM
From: Spider Valdez	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 26163

it is true tiefer is not attorney. i ask you, did he ever claim to be when threatening ta's to get charlie's restricted stock? from here story is clearer now, it appears teifer did not sue his "client" (lawyer/client) he sued his 'friend' & 'associate' charlie, is this true? i stand by my claims teifer threatened 2 ta's to get legends lifted off charlies restricted stock. as you know, this is the reason the ta's resigned. if the legends were lifted aznt would proceed against the ta. once aznt was self transfer the threats ceased. i am not lawyer like you & i am not maybe as close to this case but my undsterstanding is there is no judgement. we have here is tiefer , friend & associate of charlie, suing him for the 224k shares of restricted stock the company would not allow to have the legends lifted off of before the restrictions had been met . tiefer moves the case to nevada & gets court order for aznt to hand over this stock. aznt files motion to set aside citing the stock is restricted, etc.. you say the certificates "appears " to be the original, but you also know it is being examined for authenticity. you make note of aznt's suit against charlie & his wife & i agree with you, i am to believe it was not a counter suit. but you negate the motion to set aside that was filed. you say the restrictions were met, it is my understanding that there were restriction on that sock not met. perhaps you will discover the truth to this in court. i can not "examine the certificate" myself. can you? it is my understanding the cert is being examined for authenticity. so we will see. you are right the other case is in preliminary stages & is not a countersuit from what i understand. as for andy mann, the proof is in the pudding, a default was entered against him 13 jan.. he chose not to defend himself at all, which negates the strength you see in his arguement. it is over & a victory for aznt in regards to this stolen stock. you say it worked out "very good" for him? how is that? where is he? why do you not defend andy mann in this case? why did he choose not to defend himself? i see the same for charlie, he brought andy mann to sylver & he brought teifer. why do you not tell us how doumanis & creative capital , who acted as trustee for the 4 million shares, allowed andy mann to get physical posession of the stock before the restriction had expired & before he paid for the stock? it appears mann & alders (is alders also not a lawyer?) conspired to get the stock from the ta before the restriction was met, much like teifer & charlie. coicidence? what is charlies relationship with george doumanis? spider