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 : DCH Technologies (DCH) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scoobah who wrote (952)	4/5/1999 4:49:00 AM
From: Sid Turtlman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2513

Steve: A smoke screen, foaming-at-the-mouth response, as expected. What you are saying, if I understand you correctly, is that there is evidence that not every one of DCHT's news releases was intentionally fraudulent. That is just ducky, but I WASN'T ASKING about those announcements. I was asking about the one that appears to have been knowingly false, and you have no explanation for that. Are you saying that morality is a batting average thing, that as long as MOST of a company's announcements are reasonably honest, it is OK lie on SOME of them? Do you really believe that? Well, I don't, and neither does the law. The questions are pretty simple: 1. When DCHT announced its large contract with Antaeus Corp., did Antaeus exist as something much more substantial than just some papers filed by a Delaware lawyer? Yes or no? 2. Given that Antaeus was supposedly going to do millions of dollars of business with DCHT, did it have financing more significant than some share of the $20 that its public parent company had in the bank at the time? Yes or no? 3. When DCHT made its announcement, did Antaeus have an address, a phone number, and ITS OWN employees? Yes or no? (Having an employee of DCHT, MTEY or the privately held SIMS outfit also be the "President of Antaeus" doesn't count.) If the answers to these are "no", as appears to be the case based on the information in MTEY's 10-K, then those responsible at DCHT (and maybe its consultants?) have a serious legal problem that could involve criminal charges. If the answers are "yes", then DCHT should have no problem presenting evidence to that effect. Perhaps it could even explain why MTEY, with $20 to its name, forgot to mention in its 10-K its half ownership in a joint venture supposedly capable of giving millions of dollars in business to DCHT. Whether or not other DCHT press releases were honest, or at least have not yet been proven false, doesn't mean a thing.