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 (30821)	4/4/1999 6:20:00 PM
From: LegalBeast	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 43774

Whatsa matter jhild? Can't find any fact so you slip back into accuse mode? Wah Wah Wah ... <<<<<I'm not searching for that case number for you. You can look it up yourself. It is enough for me that the DOJ issued a Press Release. I only reported that story. You want to counter it, then track it down your own lazy self. >>>>> Guess what, Mr. FRAUD, I did and there was no case such as you reported. Since you know that as well as I do, I suppose that is why you claim that you are not going to look for it. Knowing how you like to post things, if you had been able to find it, then I am sure you would have posted it by now, but since you have not, I guess you could not find it, right Mr. FRAUD? You know that the press release is in error, yet you cling to it like a teddy bear. Well, your teddy bear has no stuffing this time because THERE IS NO CASE. Lord only knows why but that is the fact. Perhaps there was a case and it was dropped. Perhaps someone got ahead of themselves with that PR. I don't know, and neither do you, but you do know that your press release is meaningless as is your defense. So, you only have two choices: 1) admit that you blew it and that there is no case or 2) find the case to prove that I have lied about its non-existance. Since I already know that you cannot find a case that does not exist, that only leaves you one choice unless you want to continue your FRAUD. Don't forget that you are the one that keeps bringing this up and like I promised, everytime you bring it up, get ready to eat your FRAUD all over again. Your claim that I should get my lazy self to find a case that does not exist is laughable. You want to call me a liar, then prove it. Produce a valid case number. <<<<<You say you made money on ICVI yet for all the world were proclaiming then that every time you bought, it went down. That it was so far down, you might as well hold. So maybe you did buy and sell lots of times, the real point is that you are either lying now or were lying then. >>>>> Had you bothered to read the entire post from which you copied only pieces out of context, you would have recognized a new word - Sarcasm. But then, you find truth in any little thing that may tend to support your claims when taken out of context while you find anything that suggests you may be wrong to be a lie. Perhaps you should tell the whole story before accusing, Mr. FRAUD. Every time you quote out of context, you will be exposed. That is a promise. <<<<<You are not a trustworthy witness. You have misrepresented the qui tam process, despite your repeated grudging and erroneous revisions forced on you by my research. >>>>> Completely wrong, Mr. FRAUD. I made one minor error in that I said that the govt had to be in the case rather than had an option to join. I admitted that error. That is NOT misrepresentation in anyone's dictionary. On all other points about qui tam, I was RIGHT ON. Your continued misrepresentation of what went on is just an attempt to cover up the fact that you got caught committing FRAUD by changing the name of the litigants in the case. Blither on Mr. FRAUD, everyone here knows what happened and also knows that you got CAUGHT committing your FRAUD. <<<<< You positively murdered the use of ultra vires as you would have applied it as a reason for PRWT not reporting to the SEC. >>>>> I never said it was why they did not report to the SEC. That is another FRAUD on your part. Before you decide I am so wrong in the way I did use the term, why don't you go back, read my post in its entirity, and then post just exactly why I was wrong. Seems to me that I have asked you do explain that point on several occasions and as yet you have refused saying that you don't do DD. And, when you post your analysis, don't forget to post a link to your Funk and Wagnalls or some obscure site written by a first year student. So far, your analysis has been limited to accusations with absolutely no substance. You expect anyone to believe you? Hahahahahahahahahahaha <<<<<Then when anyone asks you for backup, you act indignant and run away yelling over your shoulder that you don't do DD. Well isn't that the darn truth.>>>>> You must have been talking to yourself when you posted that, Mr. FRAUD. We are still waiting for a case number and an explanation of ultra vires. I never said I don't do DD. Again, your FRAUD speaks volumes. In fact, I share a lot of DD with folks who discuss it in its entirity in a reasonable manner. Too bad for you that you don't qualify. What I have said on many occasions is that I will not educate you, nor will I do your DD for you. I will demand proof of your claims, such as a case number when you and I and everyone else on here knows that the case does not exist. YOU are the only one here that claims that you don't do DD. Now I suppose you will deny that too? Get real, Mr. FRAUD.