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: PatiBob who wrote (22383)	4/11/1999 8:08:00 PM
From: TideGlider	Respond to of 26163

Yes...God sees all as you as a believer knows...certainly do not walk to and trod upon thy temple.

To: PatiBob who wrote (22383)	4/11/1999 9:45:00 PM
From: Bill Ulrich	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26163

Suddenly, I'm reminded of Icabod Slyver's "Farrow" post in reference to The Inevitable AZNT ShortSqueeze™: #reply-5690423 Icabod's re-interpretation of the Book of Exodus was indeed a masterpiece. From the moment I picked it up, until the moment I put it down, I was convulsed with laughter. Some day, I intend reading it. ·Fár'·row: n. A litter of pigs (source: Merriam-Webster)

To: PatiBob who wrote (22383)	4/12/1999 4:13:00 PM
From: Janice Shell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26163

Speaking of Smiting.... Here are two potentially interesting topics for discussion: 1. Bob Quiel explained in court that the AZNT shares he was given in return for his work as consultant did not, in fact, come from AZNT itself, but from Titan Investments. Gary Sylver's firm? After all, Gary's account with Wall Street Financial was, apparently, in the name of Titan (cfr Kenneth Slater's testimony). How many other people got their "free" shares from Titan rather than from AZNT directly? More than a few, I'm told. So.....what about Gary Dobry, a.k.a. Spidey? Is he telling the "technical" truth when he says he was never given stock by AZNT? 2. It's clear from the testimony of both Gary Sylver and Bob Quiel with regard to Exhibit #28 that Sylver lent 300,000 shares of AZNT stock to Andy Mann, transferred to Mann's account on 30 April 1998. Gary claims he did this because Andy explained that he wanted an account with AZNT shares in it to "show to his clients in London". For the moment, let's not wonder why he should have needed to do this, given that he'd had the 4 million shares in the accounts of Shoreline and Whitecliffe for more than a month. Sure, they were restricted shares, but that's what he was selling, right? Moving along...we've also learned that a lesser, but still significant, quantity of stock was loaned out of Gary Sylver's account with Creative Capital. To whom, and why? Surely he wouldn't expect us to believe that some other person "needed" shares to "show to clients", lolol. Why is stock lent, generally? In fact, what does Reg T have to say about this? Sec. 220.103 Borrowing of securities. (a) The Board of Governors has been asked for a ruling as to whether Sec. 220.6(h), which deals with borrowing and lending of securities, applies to a borrower of securities if the lender is a private individual, as contrasted with a member of a national securities exchange or a broker or dealer. (b) Section 220.6(h) does not require that the lender of the securities in such a case be a member of a national securities exchange or a broker or dealer. Therefore, a borrowing of securities may be able to qualify under the provision even though the lender is a private individual, and this is true whether the security is registered on a national securities exchange or is unregistered. In borrowing securities from a private individual under Sec. 220.6(h), however, it becomes especially important to bear in mind two limitations that are contained in the section. (c) The first limitation is that the section applies only if the broker borrows the securities for the purpose specified in the provision, that is, ''for the purpose of making delivery of such securities in the case of short sales, failure to receive securities he is required to deliver, or other similar cases''. The present language of the provision does not require that the delivery for which the securities are borrowed must be on a transaction which the borrower has himself made, either as agent or as principal; he may borrow under the provision in order to relend to someone else for the latter person to make such a delivery. However, the borrowing must be related to an actual delivery of the type specified--a delivery in connection with a specific transaction that has already occurred or is in immediate prospect. The provision does not authorize a broker to borrow securities (or make the related deposit) merely in order that he or some other broker may have the securities ''on hand'' or may anticipate some need that may or may not arise in the future. strategicbanker.com