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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : JAB International (JABI) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: WhiteKnight who wrote (4369)	3/26/1999 9:29:00 AM
From: Peter S.	Respond to of 4571

Larry, first of all, there are certainly some shareholders who appreciate all you have achieved so far. There are others who would much rather pour salt onto their old wounds and blame you for the continuing pain they experience. I can only attribute some of the ridiculous posts seen on SI and Yahoo to the anonymity the internet provides. Accentuate the positive. Peter S PS: I thought 30 days was a bit optimistic :(

To: WhiteKnight who wrote (4369)	3/26/1999 12:12:00 PM
From: I.Hynie	Respond to of 4571

Larry, you have been around for a while. I am rather surprised that this kind of stupidity can upset you. Even CPQ is sued by shareholders who expect guaranteed profits 365 days a year. Ivo

To: WhiteKnight who wrote (4369)	3/26/1999 1:06:00 PM
From: SurfCa2	Respond to of 4571

Fair enough. We were basing our comments on your postings from November in which you stated that if and when the stock price reached $5, you would be granted XX number of shares. Those were your words, not ours. A 10-1 reverse split was mentioned, however since the price of BCMD stock went below 50 cents, a 10-1 wouldn't be enough to push it over $5. All of a sudden the reverse split goes to 12-1 which WOULD then push the price after split to over $5. And since RELISTING on Nasdaq does NOT REQUIRE a $5 stock price, what other explanation makes sense? Of course we hope you are right about the reverse, however in my 15+ years of investing and my 18 years of owning several businesses, I have seen a few reverse splits in some of my stock picks, and not ONCE has any of them EVER recovered. Here's to hoping BCMD will be different. There is nothing wrong with questioning what is happening to OUR money, and if you feel that there is, then you have no business being involved in a public offering. As for the lawsuit you mention, well I agree with you 100%. But please don't confuse those of us who simply want answers, to those losers who are seeking to blame YOU for THEIR ERRORS.

To: WhiteKnight who wrote (4369)	3/26/1999 8:04:00 PM
From: WhiteKnight	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4571

Brush Creek Mining and Development Co. Inc. 11117 Lower Circle, Grass Valley, CA 95949 (530) 477-0834 Fax: (530) 477-6020 March 25, 1999 Sigmund S. Wissner-Gross Heller, Horowitz &Feit, P.C. 292 Madison Avenue NewYork, N.Y. 10017 Gentlemen: I am in receipt of your correspondence, which claims you represent seven Brush Creek or former Brush Creek shareholders. I have held many discussions with David Mersereau and can assure you that his claims are without merit. I have been told by Howard Kalodner, former Dean of the Western New England College of Law, Board member of Brush Creek, and participant in the same private placement offering as your clients, that the company did use its best efforts and that no specific guarantees, deadlines, penalties or consequential damages were incorporated into the private placement offering. The company is not aware of any fraudulent inducement and certainly by the fact that the registration statement was filed when the company had the funds to complete the filing, this should indicate that your statement that the Company never intended to honor their contractual obligations is false and without merit. The company did, in fact honor their obligations without litigation or additional involvement of your clients. I took office on November 15, 1998 after the company had filed notice of its intent to file bankruptcy. I have worked without salary, advanced funds to pay for the company's audit and filing of 10-k and 10-q reports, negotiated settlements of law suits, and entered into a merger agreement to raise $10 million for the company so that it may avoid bankruptcy. If you seek injunctive relief to impede the pending merger, the company will file bankruptcy and ask the trustee to sue you for consequential damages. Your threatened lawsuit is pure highway robbery. I will not tolerate it. You do not need to seek injunctive relief to void the pending merger. You need to provide constructive proof that you want the merger to be completed. I will resign upon receipt of your lawsuit and cause the shareholders to seek a class action lawsuit against your firm and your clients for your attempt to interfere with my efforts to save this company. I will use the bankruptcy petition to obtain an automatic stay of your lawsuit. Your clients invested approximately $100,000 and are claiming lost profits of $3.3 million because they were not able to sell their shares a few weeks before the company obtained a $9 million funding commitment from Sterling. The likelihood that they would have wanted or known when to sell their shares to obtain the highest price is certainly questionable. The company had never had any revenue, never has to this date had any revenue, has lost over $50 million in gold exploration, and you believe they are entitled to $3.3 million in lost profits on potential stock sales. This is absurd. The entire dollar volume of stock sold in the company since your clients invested has not totaled $3.3 million. The few shares that sold for these prices could not have sustained even a few thousand shares of selling, much less 1.5 million shares of selling by your clients. I propose to offer the following settlement. If your clients, represented by 75% of the shares purchased, desire to provide a settlement and release of any claims, prior to April 30, 1999, I will agree to continue using my best efforts to complete the merger. If I do not receive such constructive evidence of your assistance in settling your client's claims, I will resign effective April 30th. If I receive a lawsuit from your firm, I will immediately resign and cancel my efforts to save the company from bankruptcy. The choice is yours. Either your clients take a positive action to provide me assurances you aren't simply going to wait and file your suit after the merger, or I will look for another tax loss carry forward company who's shareholder's aren't total idiots. Please be assured I will post this correspondence on the Yahoo bulletin board so that all shareholders who want to take action against you will know exactly who and why to file a class action suit against your firm and your clients for your threatened interference. I have had it with David Mercereau's bullshit. As a stockbroker, he should probably be more concerned with his SEC violations than those of the Company. His participation and fees in a private placement are prohibited by NASD rules. His motives in this threatened lawsuit seem to be his attempt to divert criticism from his recommendations and involvement in selling the private placement shares rather than as an injured party. How much has David Mercereau profited from his commissions (and shares received) while everyone else lost money? Perhaps he should be returning money to your other clients. Sincerely, Larry Stockett The White Knight with No Tolerance for Greedy Idiots

To: WhiteKnight who wrote (4369)	3/29/1999 11:43:00 PM
From: Nliten	Respond to of 4571

Big Mistake Larry.

To: WhiteKnight who wrote (4369)	3/30/1999 2:56:00 AM
From: WhiteKnight	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4571

New Websites for Our New Affiliations copy/paste this url bcmd.com Engineering/home.html this is the new McLaughlin Engineering Website containg all vital information about McLaughlin Engineering including letters of recomendation from former customers. All links are now completed. this will soon be mclaughlinengineering.com but at the time of this post internic has not yet completed the registration process and I have been informed this link may not be functional for 24-36 hours so if not yet working try again later. Additionaly I have been informed the NEW JAB International website should be up and running tonight or tommorow. I am not webmaster for this site, simply relaying the information as I was told. This is the JAB site (http://www.jabinternational.com) at the time of this post only their test version was up. I expect this also to be change soon. and as always our other web sites: bcmd.com uscement.com Coming shortly (later today/tommorow) mclaughlinengineering.com jabinternational.com I will be away until 4/10/99 for personal reasons. If you do not recieve the usual prompt responce from any e-mail to me that is why. Please feel free to contact Larry Stockett if you have any questions. (larry@ipo-network.com) Despite what some here may want you to think progress is being made and you will be informed as news becomes available. John Andersen BCMD IR / Webmaster