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: LegalBeast who wrote (28609)	3/12/1999 8:53:00 PM
From: ColleenB	Respond to of 43774

As I recall Colleen, you PMed me with a statement that you had all sorts of bad stuff of PRWT. Well... this is not exactly the way I remember OUR exchanges. For an attorney you sure are sloppy with your wording. I might be able to produce some of these PM's, how about you, since you are the one making the claims? I asked you for whatever you had so that we could research it, but you never came through with anything. Oh, you mean like there was never any attempted discussion about the financials I posted on NHLT. That went well, didn't it. How about all the information that the longs have posted about THRM? Wow, we sure know a lot about the connection between PABN and THRM, don't we? Y'all are in a defensive mode and are not willing to look at anything about PABN objectively and sterile. All you want to do is get into a slug fest. Like now... I did not know the topic turned to our personal exchanges, I thought it was about the legal questions on an investor who has reported dealings with John Schmitz. One with whom you have had several conversations with.

To: LegalBeast who wrote (28609)	3/12/1999 8:58:00 PM
From: jhild	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 43774

"The Government thought that he was guilty or they would have never taken over the case." You actually think I said that don't you? And you didn't even bother to research that I have never said that, did you? Talk about your callous disregard for the truth. You are there. Indeed the written record is clear about what I said. And I did not say that. Which begs the question of what is your relationship to Carl Kruse? Do you know him? Do you do favors for him by posting here? Do you get information from him about the stocks he is pushing? Why is your defense of him so strident. "The LegalBeast doth protest too much, methinks."

To: LegalBeast who wrote (28609)	3/12/1999 9:07:00 PM
From: ColleenB	Respond to of 43774

About your memory of the qui tam exchange, you really should go back and reread it. Your buddie's exact words were "After all, it was a qui tam" and "The Government thought that he was guilty or they would have never taken over the case." I find recorded proof which contradicts your above statements.... You have me confused with someone else. I have not said any one was found guilty of anything, especially criminal. techstocks.com and.... You are welcome to review my posts. I believe that I was always clear that Carl Kruse was apparently accused of filing fraudulent documents in order to receive payment for work not done. Exactly as described in the citation that has been available on this thread for months. I am quite certain that I have never made the claim that Carl was indicted for the criminal act of fraud as you would claim that I have. techstocks.com

To: LegalBeast who wrote (28609)	3/12/1999 9:13:00 PM
From: ColleenB	Respond to of 43774

About your memory of the qui tam exchange, you really should go back and reread it. Your buddie's exact words were "After all, it was a qui tam" and "The Government thought that he was guilty or they would have never taken over the case." Then when I asked him for the cite of the case, he deliberately changed the names of the litigants. Fraud pure and simple. Oh, and lookie here...more quotation marks... to which you do not post the link to and jhild denies you quoting him in this manner.... >>>"The Government thought that he was guilty or they would have never taken over the case."<<< You actually think I said that don't you? And you didn't even bother to research that I have never said that, did you? Talk about your callous disregard for the truth. You are there. Indeed the written record is clear about what I said. And I did not say that. Message 8296911 Counselor, it really is not a good practice for you to pretend to quote somebody when you can be so easily proven wrong. Can you provide a link to your claims?

To: LegalBeast who wrote (28609)	3/12/1999 9:14:00 PM
From: ColleenB	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 43774

Then when I asked him for the cite of the case, he deliberately changed the names of the litigants. Fraud pure and simple. I asked you for this link... or is this proof much like your telling people I told you I sold my PRWT at 5cents? Where's that proof? I really would LOVE to see this information. My opinion is that anything that happened in that case was totally irrelevant to this stock. Perhaps, but are YOU willing to guarantee/secure people's investments on YOUR OPINION? You can do this and halt further discussion on this topic.

To: LegalBeast who wrote (28609)	3/12/1999 9:15:00 PM
From: Scottoo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 43774

You are right, LB, I feel as if I am reading "Dick and Jane" at times Warm Regards, Scottoo