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 (29671)	3/23/1999 1:43:00 PM
From: ERRAFF	Respond to of 43774

Legal, leave him be. Can't you see they have him working overtime!!!!! It's almost the end of the month and time is running short!

To: LegalBeast who wrote (29671)	3/23/1999 2:03:00 PM
From: ColleenB	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 43774

Well, it has taken me some time, but I have unraveled the mystery of the spat between you and jhild regarding your claims that he altered a document. You claim.... he changed the names of the litigants in the case to try to make folks believe that someone was charged that was not even named in the case.#reply-8434541 When in fact here's what he posted...no where does he say Carl was mentioned in this case. And, the odd thing is, he provides no comments on this what so ever. U.S. ex rel. Virgin Islands Housing Authority v. Coastal General Construction Services Corp. et al., 27 F.3d 911 (3rd Cir. 1994) Here is a citation. I leave it to you to go dig out the results of this particular case. #reply-7119000 Here is where I found your circular reasoning. Yet if you go there, you find the real case cite that does NOT mention Carl Kruze or any other individual. since you admit copying the cite, then you also stand convicted of changing the parties to attempt to vindicate yourself. #reply-7157954 You use the if A then B hypothesis. You claim that because jhild posted a link, one which shows the 1994 case and not the 1995 case he is guilty of changing the names of the defendants in the case. Did he make a mistake and provide you with the 1994 case and not the 1995 case, yes. Never mind he had already provided the link to the 1995 case. I assume he thought it was the original case to cite. However, he made no comments about the 1994 case he simply passed the information onto you. Jhild later clarifies his statement about citing the 1994 case as follows.... It apparently cites the same construction company, in what I believe now is a different action than reported in the original article, as the date (1994 v. 1995) on the article and the list of defendants is different.#reply-7141154 and later.... the citation reference that I gave you, could not possibly be the right one. This citation is for US 3rd District Court of Appeals, dated 1994. From the looks of it it was returned to the District Court. The Press Release that I have been quoting is dated 1995. #reply-7158286 I cannot find where he, as you claim changed the names of the litigants. I showed your if A then B hypothesis and why you think you can make this claim. But it just doesn't wash. Here's the case where Carl IS named....please note that it's the 1995 case, which btw, DOES list the same construction company as was named in the 1994 case. arentfox.com Carl's involvement with PRWT/PABN is a real issue because of his statement here....which was posted on Jan 3rd of this year on the RagingBull By the end of this month, we should see some great Press Releases and a material increase in the share price. Factually, I brought a Dominican Republic home financing transaction to PRWT and it should be a big money maker in 1999. I also referred another $32 million in 1999 Belize mortgages to PRWT which will likely be super profitable. Next mortgage project is Honduras, which I will begin working on with my Dominican Republic associate in about two weeks. ragingbull.com Think any of those $32 million dollars in mortgages in Belize have cleared yet?