SI
SI
discoversearch

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
International Automated Systems
An SI Board Since May 1996
Posts SubjectMarks Bans Symbol
7619 42 0 IAUS
Emcee:  TEDennis Type:  Moderated
Introduction Market Data Compact
Previous 25 | Next 25 | View Recent | Post Message
Go to reply# or date (mm/dd/yy):
ReplyMessage PreviewFromRecsPosted
6494broken_lense, Just think about the pickle Neldon will be in when forensics concYellow Kid-5/14/2019
6493Hmm, somehow he missed a sentence. Should have been "I have nothing becausebroken_lens-5/13/2019
6492This is an example of why self-representation is a bad idea. From doc 645 NeYellow Kid-5/13/2019
6491Bstguess: re: Let the courts decide! Perhaps you missed it. A Federal Judge inTEDennis25/13/2019
6490Neldon is required to file a doc similar to Greg's doc 648. That should be Yellow Kid15/12/2019
6489Appeal is looking good for IAUS, clearly showing that the court was biased and tBstguess-5/12/2019
6488In doc #617, Neldon says The receiver should be dismissed from this matter becbroken_lens-5/11/2019
6487Provided as a Public Service, at no charge:. iausenergy.com Sure is a pretty dTEDennis-5/11/2019
6486From the May 3, 2019 Contempt of Court hearing: Court ordered Mr. Johnson tTEDennis-5/10/2019
6485According to Shepard: In approximately March, 2018, I transferred 700,000 shareTEDennis-5/10/2019
6484The Defendants filed another Reply Brief. Will Bstguess share that info on the TEDennis-5/10/2019
6483Neldon filed Doc #645: "Objection to 638 Notice from the Court Re: ComplianTEDennis-5/9/2019
6482broken_lens: re: that's how I interpret "[file a new brief] which contaTEDennis-5/9/2019
6481I'd love to see how they are going to address this point: Citing no authoribroken_lens-5/9/2019
6480And worse, he actually has to address the points the DOJ made, e.g. on "plabroken_lens-5/9/2019
6479Another bad development for Denver Snuffer. He has 10 days to reduce his brief Yellow Kid-5/9/2019
6478From Shepard's US Tax Court petition: MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL by PaulTEDennis15/9/2019
6477The Defendants' Reply Brief was rejected without prejudice by the Court of ATEDennis-5/9/2019
6476Snuffer also shows discontent in his Doc #644. Defendants did not refuse to suTEDennis-5/8/2019
6475643 response to 628 motion to commence legal proceedings really seems to have toYellow Kid-5/8/2019
6474Yellow Kid: re: double-counting Yeah, that's a bit of a sticky wicket. I tTEDennis-5/8/2019
6473TED, They do make a valid point in their latest filing. There was some double Yellow Kid-5/8/2019
6472Doc #640: ********* **RESTRICTED DOCUMENT** NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSTEDennis-5/8/2019
6471I re-read the Defendants' initial appeal (Case #18-4119), Doc #010110050997.TEDennis15/8/2019
6470In their response to the appeal, the DOJ mentioned 12 times how the lenses are nbroken_lens-5/7/2019
Previous 25 | Next 25 | View Recent | Post Message
Go to reply# or date (mm/dd/yy):
HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News