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: antibash who wrote (19774)	2/20/1999 11:14:00 AM
From: Janice Shell	Respond to of 26163

Auntie? This letter, such as it is, was posted by Icky months ago. It is neither clear nor interesting with all those X's. Not difficult to understand that the obliterated portions must have contained material AZNT doesn't want anyone to see, eh?

To: antibash who wrote (19774)	2/20/1999 12:34:00 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26163

Antisense, that letter was posted here by Spidey (or was it Bmart; eh, same person) months ago. I see your source is and has always been Spidey. Don't worry, the fact you lied about using and dropping that "first time" source doesn't really make me think any less of you. That would be quite hard to do at this point. BTW, did you notice the line that says "All of the issues raised by this letter is enough to indite and convict..." Doesn't that attention to detail remind you of the same person who threatened to sue for "declamation and liable"? LOL, etc., of course. - Jeff

To: antibash who wrote (19774)	2/22/1999 7:00:00 AM
From: tonto	Respond to of 26163

Anti, what does this have to do with AZNT from a fundamental or squeeze stand point? On RMIL, it was Mork. Pugsie lead the cheers of getting Mork...once that was done, the stock was going to fly. The simple message I posted was, Morgan, Financials, and the SEC. In the end, Mork was a distraction which assisted shareholders in not recognizing what the company actually was doing. In the case of Wellrich, there is no disagreement by anyone posting that AZNT entered into an agreement with them. Wellrich states that AZNT owes it money. There will be a final decision on this soon. It is tied to their raising money which as Pugs has posted many times they were successful in doing. (They have many affidavits from shareholders) There is an argument over which side is telling the truth, but since this really is about a short squeeze play, does it matter to the squeeze play? Mork did not, and I do not believe Wellrich does either. The focus should be on AZNT. The snips to the SEC may indicate there were previous problems, and if that is the case, the SEC will take action. The snips only show that a letter was written. No big deal. The SEC gets comparable letters about penny stocks everyday. Yet, how many actions have taken place in the last year... I do not believe Wellrich affects the AZNT squeeze play. 3. WellRich is not a licensed broker/dealer, but may be functioning as such in violation of Section 15(a)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). See Polannin, John, Jr., "Finder's Exception From Federal Broker-Dealer The use of the word "may" stands out.