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: jhild who wrote (29746)	3/24/1999 3:20:00 PM
From: LegalBeast	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 43774

Still no case number, Mr. FRAUD? You ignorant idiot. Ramble on and continue to defend an article that you know to have errors. I believe you actually said that it must be some other case than the one cited in the article? No, Mr. FRAUD, my information comes strictly from your fraud and the court record. I don't need any other source to expose you for what you are. This is indicative of your ignorant raving style. Cling to any shred that might support you even though you know it to be wrong. So, Mr. FRAUD, why don't you just come clean and admit you messed up by relying on an obviously flawed source. Heck anyone can make a mistake, even DOJ. As to the SEC, stuff it idiot. If you really think I am after you for any purpose other than to ram your FRAUD down your throat, come and get me. Unlike your own cowardly self, my real information is posted in my profile. Come get me, Mr. FRAUD!

To: jhild who wrote (29746)	3/24/1999 3:28:00 PM
From: LegalBeast	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 43774

Just to clear the air since you did not read it when I posted it, here is the basis of the case against you, Mr. FRAUD: To: jhild (22325 ) From: LegalBeast Thursday, Jan 7 1999 5:01PM ET Reply # 22408 of 29766 It is interesting that a FRAUD talks of FRAUD: 1. jhild states that Carl was charged with Fraud. 2. jhild gives us the case (in italics no less) with the case title and a valid legal cite. 3. The title does not match the legal cite because the names of the parties have been changed (he probably did not think anyone would really look up the case) 4. jhild tries to make his deception go away by saying that he knows he has seen the real case somewhere (yeah, right). 5. jhild tries again to make his FRAUD go away by telling me that I should not refer to that case any more because it is not the case he wanted it to be and says that he obviously got the wrong title and cite together (No kidding). It does not take a rocket scientist to see that jhild is a total fraud and will do anything to try to support his wrong position. Obviously a person without any ethics whatsoever. But, will he ever admit that he trompled his foreskin on this one? I doubt it. Folks like him never own up to their own FRAUD! Totally Irresponsible ... THOUGHTS?