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 : Amazon Natural (AZNT) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (22032)	4/6/1999 3:42:00 PM
From: Dean Dumont	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26163

13 I think the evidence is overwhelming, your Honor, that the 14 testimony that we heard in this court was not true and honest 15 testimony, your Honor. And I wish I was not in this position 16 here today, your Honor, but it's unfortunate. Now that had to hurt. Is Mr. Montal suggesting that Mr. Sylver is lying? Is he inferring that the DTC has been brought into a legal action because he didn't get a chance to talk to anyone. Is Mr. Montal suggesting that Mike Sylver LIED! Balderdash, well, or something like that. What an offensive statement, lol, it had to hurt. Deeply.

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (22032)	4/6/1999 5:23:00 PM
From: Janice Shell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26163

DAMN!! Who WAS that masked man? 9 MR. MONTAL: Now, your Honor, if one listened 10 carefully to that recording there were times where you heard 11 two voices on the Amazon Natural Treasures side. And I 12 believe one of them was just a couple of words that we heard 13 from Mr. Michael Sylver. And the other one was somebody who 14 did not identify themself on that call. But I'd like to play 15 the next one which I think will clarify exactly who that 16 person is. The other person on the call? Quiel or Qualey? There aren't many possibilities. Which brings us to another point: many times in the transcripts Robert Qualey is identified as an "attorney" for AZNT. Not once--granted, I haven't yet read the transcript of the Wednesday session--is he identified as an officer of AZNT until January 1999. This seems to me to be a point of considerable interest. Can it be that the defense attorneys are unaware of his double role in this little drama?