Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
OT -- I wonder if the KKD's are next????
By LAURAN NEERGAARD
.c The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (Sept. 29) - Scientists have found a clue to the chemical reaction that may cause potato chips, french fries and other fried or baked starchy foods to build up high levels of a possible cancer-causing substance.
The suspect is asparagine, a naturally occurring amino acid that, when heated with certain sugars such as glucose, leads to the formation of the worrisome substance acrylamide.
The Food and Drug Administration has made studying acrylamide's risk and determining how to lower its levels in food one of its highest research priorities, according to a plan that agency officials were to discuss Monday with consumer groups and food manufacturers.
Canada's government made the discovery about the suspect chemical reaction and has ordered food manufacturers to look for ways to alter it and thus lower levels of acrylamide in food. Cincinnati-based manufacturer Procter & Gamble Co. says its scientists, too, have found the asparagine connection.
It is the first clue to emerge in the mystery of acrylamide since Swedish scientists made the surprise announcement in the spring that high levels of the possible carcinogen are in numerous everyday foods: french fries, potato chips, some types of breakfast cereals and breads - plenty of high-carbohydrate foods that are fried or baked at high temperatures. The chemical was not found in boiled foods, which are cooked at lower temperatures.
Sweden's findings were confirmed in June by governments in Norway, Britain and Switzerland, and preliminary testing of several hundred foods by the FDA suggests U.S. foods contain similar acrylamide levels, said Richard Canady, who is directing the agency's assessment of acrylamide's risk.
Acrylamide is used to produce plastics and dyes and to purify drinking water. Although traces have been found in water, no one expected high levels to be in basic foods.
It causes cancer in test animals, but it has not been proved to do so in people. Still, Swedish scientists have said the levels are high enough that foodborne acrylamide might be responsible for several hundred cases of cancer in that country each year.
In the United States, the FDA has been careful to caution that acrylamide so far is only a suspected carcinogen. The FDA has not yet advised consumers to alter their diets to avoid it.
Still uncertain is whether the FDA, once it finishes testing different foods next year, will publicly identify which brands contain the most acrylamide - information wanted by consumer advocates.
For now, Canady said, ``We want to reinforce ... eating a balanced diet with plenty of fruits and vegetables. That's the best way to ensure that you're getting adequate nutrition.''
The FDA has an impressive research plan but ``should give the public better advice,'' said Michael Jacobsen of the consumer group Center for Science in the Public Interest.
``People should be consuming less french fries and potato chips for other reasons - the salt, the calories, the fat - and the government should have been urging that anyway. Here's yet another reason,'' he said.
The food industry stresses that while fried potato products are getting most of the bad publicity - most testing so far shows the highest levels in them - acrylamide is in a wide variety of foods. Procter & Gamble said Friday that its testing found acrylamide in such previously unimplicated foods as roasted asparagus and banana chips.
``The other aspect people need to look at is while a french fry or a potato chip may be high ... in concentration, it still comes down to what is the total contribution of that food to the diet,'' said Henry Chin of the National Food Processors Association.
Asparagine is in lots of vegetables, Chin noted.
Regardless, the asparagine clue is encouraging, Chin and Jacobsen said.
Different varieties of potatoes contain different levels of both asparagine and glucose. That might explain varying acrylamide levels among different brands - levels in french fries, for instance, vary widely among fast-food restaurants. Pick a different potato and a brand's acrylamide level might drop.
09/29/02 13:36 EDT
Troy
COMPX 10/01/2002~~~~~~~~~~~
Previous Close 1172.06
1155 timhyma
1180 wtmhouston
Troy
<<It's paying $1.50 as a dividend and it closed today at 15.70.>>
Is it really still paying that or is that just what it has paid over the last 12 months? Don't REIT's just pay out a percentage (95% I think) of net on an ongoing basis?
Edit -- Perhaps a better way to ask this might be to posit whether the current large yield is more likely an indication that the market expects the dividend (and-or the stock price) to decline in relation to the stock price?
Obviously, the COB thinks the yield looks pretty good for around $17M - $18M of his money, even though he seems to have dropped a couple million of pocket change over the last few weeks.
Troy
<<Actually, I withdraw my offer to you.>>
Drats...and I was all ready to start a new lottery thread titled something like "When Does Joe Get Banned for Life WAG?" Much like the SI DeathWAG thread (on that other message board) a while back, all those interested could post a WAG date along with a comment. <g> I suspect, someone would likely get it this time. <g>
Troy
An interesting post and article regarding "material" events and their disclosure.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=516765
Troy
Edit x 2:
Based on what Excel has just posted, I am back to my inquiry of whether NVEI is at stage two and three rather than stage four?
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=516529
This would seem to indicate that they are at steps 2 and 3 -- they have "a" FPGA that someone called a "prototype," but are still in the process of developing "the" prototype -- but not yet at step 4 since the field "simulation" they did was not with a FPGA.
2) Develop a programmable prototype using off-the-shelf development hardware and software. This is typically done with programmable logic devices like FPGAs or CPLDs (Complex Programmable Logic Device). Once the prototype is done, go to step 3.
3) Test the prototype in a laboratory environment using line-simulation software and hardware. These simulations model the behavior or real-world lines. There are many such tools available. When the testing is being done, you can reprogram the FPGAs on the fly to address bugs, etc. When you are satisfied with the laboratory testing, go to step 4.
4) Test the prototype on an actual service loop. This is where the rubber meets the road. If the prototype works here, the final product will work as well. If the process is done correctly, the final product will do *exactly* what the FPGA prototype did. <-------- YOU ARE HERE.
Troy
I understand your point and the confusion, I think. <g> Is this consistent with this, though?
WHP03 posted:
The Maine Telco test did not utilize the FPGA, this I know, and I was told this recently, and told it's ok to share that (not a material issue). NVI's line code was pumped through a wave signal generator to see how the signals looked/behaved on real-world (installed) copper telephone wires. The results where at least as good as in-lab simulations suggested they would be. Those in-lab simulations indicated NVI's tech far surpasses the performance of any other copper based transmission technology (speed and distance).
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=515869
This seems consistent with the data posted by NVEI about the trial
http://www.newvisual.com/trial/
Down on the ground, a sophisticated waveform generator was connected to the outside plant. Next, the engineers began transmitting NVC signals over a variety of loop lengths.
Back at the remote terminal hut a member of the NVC development team connects to the other end of the copper pair that bears the NVC-generated signal.
Does this change your impression that the test must have been with a FPGA?
Taking it one step further, and for the sake of discussion, if they just fed code through the waveform generator and did not use a FPGA, how, if at all, does this impact the status of the progression of the development? Perhaps a better way of asking this would be to query why they would feed code through the waveform generator rather than use a FPGA to feed or process the signal?
Troy
I appreciate your effort at explaining.
<<I suppose that since the FPGAs act like the final ASIC product would, NVEI refers to it as a "simulation." I do not like this terminology since this is completely different from a computer "simulation" during which FPGA code, line conditions and data would all be simulated inside a computer. The terminology makes it confusing.>>
Amen to the confusing part. The confusing label aside, what then was it that NVEI just did with Maine Telco? NVEI has called it a "simulation," but it apparently was not done with a FPGA. How would what they just did differ from a similar test using a FPGA? Would it even be a similar test?
Is there something magic or revealing in:
The results of this first in a cycle of simulations indicate that New Visual's underlying signal processing and simulation technology works as expected.
Was this primarily a test of the "simulation technology?" What about this description:
The objective of the test was to determine if New Visual's sophisticated field simulation model accurately measures and adjusts for noise and attenuation, which determines the signal-to-noise ratio, a key measure of the performance of a transmission technology.
This sure seems to suggest that they were testing their "field simulation model" and not the actual "transmission technology." Is that a fair and-or accurate reading of the material? Would that explain why no FPGA was used in the testing?
Might that also explain why the tests and results did not create more of a market reaction?
It sure does seem like this current sentence from NVEI indicates that there is not a prototype, despite what they displayed at the SH meeting, unless they have just been sloppy in how they have described things either on the web site or at the SH meeting.
The technology will pass through a series of simulations before a prototype is developed.
Troy
<<We need to abolish the terrorists at any cost.>>
And there is the line that separates many folks.
While I (and most non terrorists) heartily join the goal of abolishing terrorism, I join those who soundly reject the "at any cost" portion of that equation. I will not give up my constitutional rights to "abolish terrorists" and I will fight those who desire to take them away from me or anyone else for that (or any other) goal.
Ben Franklin said it best: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." He wrote those words as part of his Historical Review of Pennsylvania in 1759, nearly 30 years before there was a U.S. Constitution.
The remark was as appropriate in 1759 as it is now. If abolishing the terrorists is worth "any cost," then they have already won the war since we are willing to give up what we are striving to preserve.
One final thought: this has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative, unless seeking the preservation of the constitution and its guarantees of liberty somehow divides those groups.
Troy
Thanks again to Excel's mention of the search feature. It really made finding this again much easier. Had I realized how easy it was, I would have done it the other night.
The 10K filed in 2002 indicates that there was $865K in convertible financing at .40 per share, which breaks down as set out below. I do not know if there is any more than this.
"In October 2001, we issued the following unregistered securities: an aggregate of $615,000 principal amount of convertible promissory notes to three investors, which notes are convertible into our common stock at a conversion price of $0.40 per share, and are due and payable upon the receipt by us of certain proceeds from our motion picture currently in production."
"In December 2001, we issued an aggregate of $250,000 principal amount of convertible promissory notes to three investors, which notes are convertible into our common stock at a conversion price of $0.40 per share, and are due and payable upon the receipt by us of certain proceeds from our motion picture currently in production."
"10.18 Convertible Promissory Note [$250K] dated October 10, 2001 by New Visual Corporation in favor of Nellie Streeter Crane, Ltd.*
10.19 Convertible Promissory Note [$125K] dated October 15, 2001 by New Visual Corporation in favor of Quail Run Trust Limited.*
10.20 Convertible Promissory Note [$240K] dated October 23, 2001 by New Visual Corporation in favor of Charles R. Cono.*
10.21 Convertible Promissory Note [$62.5K] dated December 14, 2001 by New Visual Corporation in favor of the Gerald and Judith Handler Living Trust.*
10.22 Convertible Promissory Note [$125K] dated December 14, 2001 by New Visual Corporation in favor of W.P. Lill Jr. Trust dated 12/22/99.*
10.23 Convertible Promissory Note [$62.5K] dated December 14, 2001 by New Visual Corporation in favor of the Handler Children Trust.*"
Troy
If there already is a "prototype," then I really do not understand NVEI's answers to questions: all of which sure read as though they are still developing a prototype. For example:
QUESTION:
Can you render me any information on the current status of addition field trials?
ANSWER:
The technology will pass through a series of simulations before a prototype is developed. Many of those simulations are tested in our labs, and these tests occur on a daily basis. We will, from time to time, also find it necessary to conduct these simulations on telephone wires that are in actual use. The only test that we have announced to date was at Maine Telephone, and a description of that test can be found at http://www.newvisual.com/trial.
------------------------------------------------
Other aspects are very flexible, like how might a circuit card which uses our technology be connected to the currently installed boxes and switches and routers that already exist in the world. We are in continuous conversations with NV's target customers from among the various international service providers and equipment manufacturers so that we can decide on what "interfaces" (like PCI, USB, Ethernet and Utopia) we ought to plan to put on our prototype and our first chips. Since each of these "interfaces" costs us money to develop, build, test and support, we are doing some exhaustive analysis of the markets first, and Ken MacLeod is helping us do that.
Some features of the technology are very well defined; others are still in the process of definition; while still others will be defined after the release of the prototype.
----------------------------------------------
With regard to the release of the product prototype, "significant" means that we don't think our long term business plan is affected, or that the dates we told you at the shareholder meeting will change in a negative way. Our plan still calls for delivery of a working prototype this year, and our first chip part in the first half of next year.
---------------------------------
These excerpts from NVEI's Q&A sure seem to indicate that there is not yet something that NVEI is willing to publicly call a prototype.
Additionally, this post containing an answer from JH also seems to suggest that there is not yet a prototype:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=493139
John's reply (9/9/02):
Bob,
Tom Cooper has stated that we are on schedule to produce a prototype of our first product before the end of the year. He has also stated that we are on or ahead of that schedule. That first product prototype is what will be used for carrier trials.
That is also consistent with an email John sent me a while back: that there was not yet a prototype but that it was expected within a year.
I was not at the SH meeting so I do not know what they showed everyone. But, Elderwolf (and hitimer) sure seem to also think that there is an existing prototype.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/replies.asp?msg=446873
Rob- you're absolutely right. We have a prototype. However, it's not the completed prototype that they will be turning over to the teleco for carrier trials. They are finalizing the design and making minor adjustments before calling it absolutely finished. It's done enough for NV to test, but not enough to call a finished product.
This would seem to indicate that they are at steps 2 and 3 -- they have "a" FPGA that someone called a "prototype," but are still in the process of developing "the" prototype -- but not yet at step 4 since the field "simulation" they did was not with a FPGA.
2) Develop a programmable prototype using off-the-shelf development hardware and software. This is typically done with programmable logic devices like FPGAs or CPLDs (Complex Programmable Logic Device). Once the prototype is done, go to step 3.
3) Test the prototype in a laboratory environment using line-simulation software and hardware. These simulations model the behavior or real-world lines. There are many such tools available. When the testing is being done, you can reprogram the FPGAs on the fly to address bugs, etc. When you are satisfied with the laboratory testing, go to step 4.
4) Test the prototype on an actual service loop. This is where the rubber meets the road. If the prototype works here, the final product will work as well. If the process is done correctly, the final product will do *exactly* what the FPGA prototype did. <-------- YOU ARE HERE.
Troy
I saw the "you are here" label at step 4, but it did not seem to fit so I figured it was referring to something else.
Did I understand or misunderstand that NVEI has said that the schedule is to have a prototype before the end of the year? Perhaps, I misunderstand their use of the term prototype.
If they do not yet have a prototype, how can they be at step/stage 4?
Troy
<<Joseph P. Money, J.D.>>
Now there is an opportunity for some great one-liners!!
Troy
<<Anybody wanna summarize?>>
That falls squarely into the "be careful what you ask for, you might just get it" category. <g>
Troy
Between your post and excel's search hint, I (rather easily) came up with:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=446882
When I originally read spoke's post, it did not make as much sense as it now seems to in light of the question I asked.
While I don't profess to fully understand all of the technical side, if I understand the basics correctly, NVEI is at step one and is working towards step two in the process spoke described.
Yes, no, maybe? If it is a yes, then my last questions are answered and I appreciate the help in finding the answer. If it is a no or a maybe, then I must still not understand.
Troy
I read that the tests so far (Maine) have been "simulations." This may be obvious and I just do not understand it, but how is that different from testing the actual technology?
Obviously, they do not yet have a chip, so I understand that there are physical differences. Are theories and technology that may be incorporated into a chip commonly tested with software type "simulations" before chip design and creation of a prototype? How could-do they know that a physical chip will act and react the same way as a software generated simulation? How does one simulate what a chip would do in a way that can produce meaningful results?
Troy
<<that was worth 5 bucks>>
I'd have paid $5 if it had not been here.
Perhaps, instead of (or as a part of) jail, the fighting members should be banned to their own private fight thread; such as the "Chur v. Scu Fight Thread." If no one else was able to read or post to these sites, (that is, they were truly private except for admin), I bet the (meaningless out-of-control) fights would end much sooner. If not, they could fight it out as long as they wanted without requiring the rest of us to read about it.
Of course, that would also mean that Joe would likely have more threads than anyone else. <g> There is a price for everything.
Troy
<<Where is it written that...."
In Joe's post, of course.
Troy
<<I have not heard of ONE good reason why I am here..Are you saying that MATT is NEVER WRONG???>>
I would not presume to actually know or provide you the reason, but could hazard a guess based on what I read. You'll have to get the actual reason(s) from the proverbial horse's mouth. If I were a betting man (although I am), I would hint, at least in part, that this is not RB and the subject titles actually mean something -- at least when the OT comments become disruptive. Plus, if one is going to file even a single TOS complaint, much less several, one had better make sure that the allegations are accurate and correct.
Please do not ask me to discuss or refute whatever your TOS allegations were. I do not know what they were, and frankly do not care.
No, I am not saying that Matt is never wrong. Had I meant that I would have said that. Even though it may seem surprising that someone would actually do this, what I said was what I meant. Read it again, it was literal: "You might not like it or agree with it, but there is a reason and [are] possibly several." I do not have to actually know what Matt was thinking (and some might suggest that to be a difficult or dangerous task at times <g>) to know that he was thinking, and decided, something.
Troy
<<there is NO reason why I am here.>>
You might not like it or agree with it, but there is a reason and possibly several.
Troy
<<scu8452 and Churak, wear yourselves out.>>
Are you sure there is no posting limit in the jail? Maybe I should post this to the Wish List thread....
Troy
At first blush, I thought it looked good too.
I have decided to wait just a bit longer to see how things shake out from the spin off. The industry is taking a hit and may have a bit more to go. I may take a closer look if it drops back into the $8ish range.
Troy
<<You da boy, Troy!>>
But, you da man, Fred; patience and wisdom well beyond that possible by most mere mortals.
Troy
Remarkable post. I was going to suggest that it should be part of a web site related to such issues -- then I realized it was!
Troy
<<you'd be surprized what I could do.>.
That is what conzerns them. <g>
Troy
<<"I cannot help but kiss ass" I'm afraid I cannot properly word that.>>
Thankfully, some things are better left unsaid.
Troy
<<but doesn't it sound better?>>
I suppose that depends on whether one is the target of it. As with most things, it is a matter of perspective.
That said, I understand what you mean: if "idiot" sounds good, then "flaming idiot" must be great, relatively speaking, of course. With that common ground, such as it is, I am calling it a night.
Troy
<<anyone that would state that had it not been for OBL America would have invented a threat I not only consider an idiot but a flaming idiot and an asshole.>>
That may be true, but that is not what he said -- at least not the way I read it.
Out of curiosity, and I know it is commonly used, what is a flaming idiot and how does it differ from a regular idiot?
Troy
<<There is much evidence to suggest that OBL was behind the attacks, and even if he wasn't he was funding a terrorist organization that hates anyone other that those of the Islam faith.>>
I agree 100 percent with that statement and I did not see anything in his statement that was contrary to that. I did see what I perceived as rhetorical cynicism, when he said:
"Sometimes, I'm not sure they didn't."
Frankly, our government has given us much to be cynical about and much cause to react to its motives with healthy doses of skepticism and cynicism. Does that mean that what they say is wrong, inaccurate, or motivated solely by ulterior motives? No. But, it sure gives us a rational basis to suspect it.
<<I don't have to refute an idiotic statement to begin a debate.>>
Doing no more than calling it idiotic does not make it idiotic and does little, if anything, to convince anyone that it is idiotic. No one asked you to refute it, you have been asked to explain your position that the initial statement was idiotic. That seems to me to be a reasonable request.
Troy
That's also why I didn't post it -- I also am too tired and too lazy tonight to go back and look for it. I thought (for all of about 10 seconds) about looking for it, but just flat did not feel like that much detail right now. Maybe this weekend.
Troy
The statement, IMO, is far from idiotic.
There was great pressure on politicians to respond to the travesty of 9-11. It is not far fetched to posit that if there had not been good, hard evidence that OBL's organization was responsible, the self indulgent and self preservationist motives of some, if not most, politicians may have led them to create "someone" or "something" on whom or which to focus blame and responsibility.
Such a theory of "plausible believability" is a natural extension of "plausible deniability," albeit in a converse sense.
Might the basic statement be untrue? Sure, but that does not render it idiotic.
In the same context, I think it is within the realm of reason that OBL is not only dead, but that some in government know it and are intentionally withholding it because it is better politically, and even perhaps practically, for his death or life to be uncertain. If he is dead, then the public banner for a continued presence in Afghanistan is much less compelling -- not non existent, just less compelling from a PR standpoint. Similarly, if OBL is dead, there is a risk that he will be treated by some as a martyr and that they will act and react accordingly -- in ways that are not in the US's best interest or national security.
Does the fact that aspects of the theory posited above make sense make it true? No, certainly not. But it is far from idiotic to posit it.
If the initial statement was so idiotic as to not merit a response, then why respond. If you want (or are willing to accept) a debate, then make a case, not just an emotional conclusion.
Asking why you think it was idiotic was a fair question.
Troy
<<not sure who the seller is, or how much he/she/they have to sell... if they are done...>>
Lots of convertible debt out there at .40 as I recall. It may not be it, but it makes some sense.
In any event, whatever else may be true or not about this, the scope of the FAQ and Q&A is actually quite amazing, IMO.
Troy
Bug.......
Regarding
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=509556
<<The "Go to Post #" routine when reading a board now takes you to the 50 messages containing that post number rather than straight to the post itself.>>
Entering 125 in the Go to Post # box on this page
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/board.asp?board_id=908
Took me to this thread header on
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/board.asp?board_id=1125&PrevStart=125
Rather than to post 125 on Bowie.
Troy
<<I'm wondering how they can print their names at 15.>>
It is called the first amendment. It may be tacky and not very good for kids, but it is constitutionally protected.
Troy
<<Is the problem you're seeing on a specific line?>>
Yes -- on the profile page, in the favorite quote box, a single apostrophe shows up as a quote mark. Check my favorite quotes on my profile where "don't" shows up as "don"t."
<<Is there another one I'm not aware of or am not remembering?>>
There was one where the >> at the end of a line would vanish after a post went through preview. This message will confirm whether it still exists.
Edit -- it does appear to be fixed. Thanks. Guess I just had not noticed.
<<clicking on the response clears the entire new message count for whatever thread the message is on even though the othe messages have not been read.
This should only happen if the message happens to be the last one written on that board.>>
I'll check this one again.
Thanks.
Troy
Two questions and one suggestion/question:
(1) Is there some way to avoid the ' on the profile page showing up as "?
(2) any prognosis on when the << >> bug is going away?
(2) Is there some (easy) way for the mailbox entires to indicate which threads contain new mail? It sure would be nice to be able to tell in the mail box which thread contains a response, especially since clicking on the response clears the entire new message count for whatever thread the message is on even though the othe messages have not been read.
Edit PS -- is the spell checker on the fritz? "'#1111ff'" is showing up in front of misspelled words rather than them showing up in color
Troy
The docket sheet entries do not currently indciate where he will be restricted to, just that he will be "under house arrest." No big surprise there.
From the docket sheet entries it is not possible to tell whether he has yet been released. At least one reasonable interpretation of the entires is that he has not yet been released.
Troy
Now that was funny. I cannot remember, though, the last time I heard a laughing noise from my car.
<<You scored 6 out of 9. You could be wearing white lab coats and designing Detroit's new prototypes...but you're obviously too smart for that.>>
Troy
Bail systems work differently everywhere. In many, if not most places, a $2.5M bail would require either posting the entire $2.5M or paying a bondsman to do so. Bondsmen seldom, if ever, actually post the full amount -- they usually have preexisting deposits of land or cash (or are part of an insurance company licensed in that state to be a surety) that allow them to write a certain dollar volume of bonds. The bonding company becomes the surety for the bond. There are few if any bondsmen who could or would make a $2.5M bond without being fully secured with fairly liquid assets. The bondsman's fee is typically 10 percent of the bond amount, but event his will vary depending on local regulations, competition, any preexisting relationship, and risks specific to that bond.
The federal system, on the other hand, typically works a bit differently. Rather than it being one set method, as it is in most states, the judge can modify the precise terms in any given situation.
It is pretty common in federal court for a bond to some with a "10 percent cash deposit" tag. Essentially, this means that the person makes a 10 percent cash deposit with the court and becomes obligated to pay the rest if the person fails to show up. Sometimes, the court will permit the 10 percent to be made by cash or surety. In that situation, a person could make a $2.5M bond by paying a bondsman $25K (10 percent of the $250K surety bond that the bondsman would have to post).
Of course, the court could order a full cash deposit or a full surety bond, but that is pretty uncommon in federal court.
The court can (and frequently does) also order one or more cosigners; essentially, co-sureties who also agree to pay the full amount of the bond in the event the Defendant fails to appear.
If I get a chance later, I'll take a look at PACER and see if it shows anything.
Troy
<<He must easily be sailing in the $20-$30million networth range to pull that off.>>
He probably only had to put up $250K or less in actual cash. The rest is just a promise to pay if he fails to show up.
Troy