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.
What do you expect, bombarding him with e-mails.
I can understand his reply, even though if I were him, I would not have written it.
Let Rees do his thing, that what it is all about, and not about Yotty.
It only hurts if you expect you can always buy at the bottom; or if you bailed out by now. My first million shares did cost me about 6.9k, but the last 4.85 million less than 4.7k.
I don't need much of a pop to break even, and after that, I don't care much about the 1st million. If they go down to less than 0.0008, I'll pick up a few million more.
None of the e-mails nor his telephone replies (both for Yotti and Rees) are covered covered with the forward looking statement attachment.
What about that ?
Acquisition bussines model
The more I think about it the more I believe Rees could be a very smart guy.
First assumption:
Oil & Gas become a even more important commodity in the future. Yes, I think so. With China & India growing and Russia playing political oil games, this is almost a given.
Second assumption:
Small private companies can't affort to become public.
This is where Rees comes in, he/WRNW can become a vehicle to combine small private O&G companies, take them into a holding and go public. This is very very smart.
Third assumption:
If you want to get rich in the US, you have to take your company public. All the private owners that join WRNW get cash for their companies to start with, and I would bet my house on it, they also get enough share options along the way to be high & dry in a few years, assuming WRNW as a holding company does well.
I could see a scenario that after the first few mergers/closings are done, and WRNW does get some recognition, more private companies would like to join them. Rees mentioned already that he sees more opportunities than they could capatalize on just now.
After all, some investors did caugh up the money Rees needs for the Cementers/Team deals, so they must have seen some music in his plan.
At this moment it is a waiting game.
Take a look at the BPs & Exxons of this world. They have project and budget overruns which sometimes goes into years and billions of $$$$.
Why do you expect a small pinky to get it right down to the day or week, if the big guys fail to do so over and over again ?
Rees has confirmed the business strategy over and over again and stated that all is going along well. If these would be lies, anyone of us could take him to court easily, can't believe he is that stupid.
Hounding IR. Why ? By now you should know what you own.
Sending e-mails to IR and phoning the company over and over again does not add value, nor does it have an influence on the share price. If I were Rees I would just get pissed about those small investors interrupting my daily work. (As far as I am concerned we are all small investors, regardless whether you own 6, 7 or 8 digits). I don't expect Rees to be bothered with that.
If Rees does not get the job done, his job/reputation is at risk, not mine. So he's got more to loose than I have.
If he gets it done, his upside is more than mine, regardless on how many shares I own. Usually the officers of companies give themself enough share options to profit from future share rises.
My conclusion is:
a) If the company closes its mergers, we'll be fine.
b) If the company does not close any merger, we'll be in deep trouble.
It is as simple as that. IR does not have anything to do with a) nor b).
Obviously I am believing in a), otherwise I would not be here.
Tripple zero situation is definately attractive for people that want to accumulate.
I knew someone would come like this. Just to let you know, I've been interested in WRNW since beginning of the year, and what I hold can be expressed in single digit percentages of the 1B OS.
Not true as far as I can say. I put in a buy of 2.5 mill. at lunch time (at ask 0.0009) and got filled in less than 30 sec. There are plenty of shares around as fas as I can tell.
Why not ? They did so in he May 18th PR .
What is meant with Gagged ?
3Saints, got your PM, I did copy the same. Can not answer you via PM.
Why would they give dates to you, but not want them to be public. This is against SEC rules as far as I know. They are not allowed to selectively disclose information.
If it really is an empty shell, I don't care who's name is tied to who's. In this case they are all liars.
If WRNW really goes belly-up, maybe we should re-group and start a lawsuit too.
With a reverse split it will come, imo.
... can you believe is, this is all one can get from a dedicated PR guy ?
For those who like a lot of reading:
----- Original Message -----
From: wdyotty
To:
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 9:45 AM
Subject: RE: Well Renewal - Investor remarks/questions
XXXXX,
I stand by my comments and believe all continues forward and will prove positive results; and view this timing as a buying opportunity.
Best of luck in your geoscience field of endeavor.
Keep looking for the updates to shareholders.
WDY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: XXXX
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 10:00 PM
To: wdyotty; info@wellrenewal.com
Cc: drees@wellrenewal.com
Subject: Re: Well Renewal - Investor remarks/questions
Mr. Yotti,
Tonights first e-mail slipped out before I was done. So here is the rest:
On June 20th 2007 you made the following statement to another shareholder ("xx" is yours):
"If they could see beyond today and hold for even 60-90 days (at these levels) and let the stock seek its current real value (should be at 52 week highs if investors knew what I know), we would all be better off."
Well, it is almost 60 days since June 20th, and nothing has changed, except for the share price going from a closing of 0.0038 to a closing at 0.0012 today (loss of more than 2/3 !!). Do you know what the 52 week high is ? It is 0.18 $. At 1 billion shares outstanding this would value WRNW at 180 mio $. Maybe you can elaborate a little how you want to justify such market cap. Even when all the 3 M&As close, we are only talking about EBITDA of 5-10 mio $, even this would not justify a market cap. of 180 mio $. Remarks like these are too obvious stock pumping statements.
"With M&A’s, JV’s, O&G leasehold sales (look for news in this area soon) and OTCBB exchange being pursued, I’m convinced WRNW will become a major player in the O&G services arena nationwide."
I happen to work for an IOC as geoscientist, and even with all 3 acquisitions closed, WRNW is not even close to a major player in the national O&G service arena. All they can hope for is become a small independed service company, which will struggle to re-pay the debt. for years to come. Yet another stock pumping statement ?!
"As in the recent update Cementers is scheduled to close early 3rd Q."
Well, we are at mid August, this means we passed early 3rd Q already, and the closing of Cementers has not yet been anounced. Is this the "naturally" delay you talked about. Delays are not naturally, delays are due to poor planning and poor execution, or because of over-optimistic time-lines (this would fall into poor management).
"Current OS exceeds 800,000,000. But no further dilution is expected until add’l funding to close the M&A’s"
Any further information regarding the additional funding ? How does this statement compare to what you send me today ("WRNW is not selling stock") ? Is all financing done for the M&As ? What are we waiting for then ?
Well, if you made it all the way to here, thanks for the reading. I look forward to some more fundamental information regarding WRNW's current state of business and future prospects.
----- Original Message -----
From:
To: wdyotty
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 11:27 PM
Subject: Re: Well Renewal - Investor remarks/questions
Mr. Yotti,
Below you said :"necessary audits of both M&A’s naturally required more time". Does this mean WRNW will not make the end August dead line in respect to all 3 acquisitions ? What do you mean with "naturally"? On July 17th WRNW made a PR and said :" All M&A targets remain viable and are scheduled to close on or before the end of August." Is this date "naturally" slipping ? Please clarify what you mean by as soon as possible !
I don't believe that day traders are the problem, the inability of WRNW to close any deal in a reasonable time is the reason for the loss of confidence & trust in the company. The decline is share price is just a consequence of this.
You said below WRNW is not selling stock, but a few words later you say the financing is done 2/3 debt. and 1/3 equity. What equity do you mean, if not shares ?
You mentioned raising 20 mio $ is easier than several time 5 $. If WRNW is doing 20 mio. $ financing with 1/3 being shares, at 0.0025 cents a share this would mean 2.6 billion share in addition to the current float (at 0.001 it woudl require more than 6 billion shares). To me this looks like share dilution at its best.
NDA's (what is that ?) require no names. Legally I don't care what is required, if "my" company makes a PR, I expect full disclosure, not some wishy-washy hiding of names. Again, this only makes things more suspicious than would be necessary.
Investment bankers find raising big money easier than small amounts, are you joking ? One closed deal and the share price would go up. By not being able to close a single deal, the share price will stay low. Maybe this is the intention of the investment bankers anyway, to get as many low priced shares as possible.
What about the change to the OTCBB and the share price requirements (e.g. reverse split), you did not reply to any of those remarks.
Nothing of what you replied to me today increases my confidence in WRNW at its ability to successfully execute the M&A strategy. Maybe it is time for Mr.Rees to come forward with some more significant information and PRs.
----- Original Message -----
From: "wdyotty"
To:
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 10:35 AM
Subject: RE: RE: Well Renewal - Investor remarks/questions
> See below:
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 8:26 AM
> To: wdyotty
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: RE: Well Renewal - Investor remarks/questions
>
> Mr. Yotti,
>
> Thanks for your e-mail, but it did not really answer my questions, e.g.
> regarding dilution,/(WRNW is not selling stock)/ how the financing is
> done,/(financing is a combination of debt..usually 2/3 and equity for 1/3)/
> why are PRs done without
> naming the companies,/(NDA's required NO NAMES)/ why do 3 merges in parallel
> rahter than doing one
> first to prove managements ability, etc./(Investment bankers find raising
> $20M easier than $5M+ over multiple times)/.
>
> I know we are at the mercy of day-traders, and I don't care much about
> it. What I do care about is some recognizable progress on the M&As, as
> well as the move to a higher exchange. WRNW might be committed to the
> M&As, but that does not mean they get done, in-time and at finacially
> attractive terms. Being committed does'nt really mean anything, if no
> measurable progress is made.
>
> I would appreciate a reply with "some more beef on the bones".
>
> Best regards,
>
> XXXX
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: wdyotty
> Date: Monday, August 13, 2007 10:12 am
> Subject: RE: Well Renewal - Investor remarks/questions
> To:
>
>> Mr. XXXX
>>
>>
>>
>> You write as if any company can control the market place. WRNW is
>> currentlyat the mercy (it appears)
>>
>> of impatient and ignorant investors (probably day-traders
>> listening to
>> blogs) without patience. All efforts
>>
>> by management are of utmost integrity.
>>
>>
>>
>> Audits are required by OTCBB companies for M&A activities. WRNW
>> remainscommitted to all M&A prospects.
>>
>> All issues continue to move forward and are expected to close as
>> soon as
>> possible (necessary audits of both M&A's
>>
>> naturally required more time).
>>
>>
Good point, noticed exactly the same "detail".
Interesting, got almost the same reply from Yotti today (see below). I am trying to drill further down.
----- Original Message -----
From: wdyotty
To: XXX
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 10:14 AM
Subject: RE: Well Renewal - Investor remarks/questions
Mr. XXX,
You write as if any company can control the market place. WRNW is currently at the mercy (it appears)
of impatient and ignorant investors (probably day-traders listening to blogs) without patience. All efforts
by management are of utmost integrity.
Audits are required by OTCBB companies for M&A activities. WRNW remains committed to all M&A prospects.
All issues continue to move forward and are expected to close as soon as possible (necessary audits of both M&A’s naturally required more time).
Kind regards,
WDY
How do you want to do this, visit them ?
If we close any ?
Did anyone ever wonder why they try to do 3 deals in parallel, rather than one-by-one ? For the share price one closed deals is better than 3 in the works.
Maybe the investment bankers don't want this to close anytime soon, so they can enjouy cheap shares for a little longer. They would just need to delay the financing, share price drops, and things get ever cheaper for them.
Just some thoughts, ...
Yes, indeed, EBITDA. This is not the bottom line profit. I've seen a lot of companies with positive EBITDA, but negative profit AFTER ITDA. But it is the EAITDA that I am interested in, ... and will be no even close to 7 mio.
Who says we have 7 mio. in profits ?
How do you know ?
How do you know I am a lurker ? I sold 1 mio shares on 05/18/07 at 0.006, and a few here called me stupid, ... but looks like it that time around I got the math just right.
Prove me wrong! Do some better maths ! They don't have proven earnings just yet. All we've got is a EBITDA statement, that's all.
Why would WRNW go up ?
How ? "going up to 0,01-0,03 again"
Currently we have a company with little debt and little revenues. If and when any of the LOI close, we'll have a company with significant debt (6-8 mio ?), and EBITDA of about 3 mio. I am personally not intersted in EBITDA, I am interested in the bottomline after taxes and all other stuff. Will it be positive ? By how much ?
Someone posted that Rees is going to use debt financing, so he has to pay interest. 7 mio @ 10% makes 700.000 in interest, that's about a quarter of the EBITDA. Will WRNW have enough earnings to pay the debt down ? How long will it take ?
If it pops back to 0.01 Cent, we all can be very lucky, longterm they need to do equity financing, or they get killed by the debt mounting up.
I am not sure, we are still below 20, 50 & 200 day averages. Could still get back down to 0.0026.
Where did you hear this ? Did you speak to Rees or the Stoller ? Anything else is speculation, and this board seems to be full of speculations.
If you think my few posts push this thing lower, thanks for the credit (haha).
I just having fun here to see all the post and thought I throw in a few peanuts myself.
Don't believe what people post on these boards regarding whether they are long, short or neutral !!!
How do you know I sold 1 mio shares, I mis-typed, it was 10 mio shares. Wow, now I made a even better deal, once I get back in at 0.0010. Maybe I go for 75 mio shares then, with all my paper saving.
...... WRNW, do your thing ..... and the future will tell.
Feel free to speculate about my agenda. I'll by 50 mio shares if it gets down to 0.0010. I sold 1 mio shares on Friday 05/18 @0.0060, what a good move that was.
No. its heading south. Can't wait to see 0.003 !!
This is a money loosing machine.
Hopefully we see 0.0035 today !! ... and 0.0030 next week. run it down baby !!
Why would they ?
I don't get the math:
We have 10 shares and 0.01 SE, which makes 0.001SE/share. Why would anyone sell 0.005SE for just one share ? As far as I can see 0.005SE are equivalent to 5 shares.
If I were Cememter's and I know I make a profit of maybe 3 mio this year, why would I want to sell the company for anything less than a couple of times the 2007 earnings ?
I sold 2/3 of my position early yesterday, and got 1/3 back after the sell off was over.
At this moment WRNW is not much more than a shell, so what's in it for cementer's and team to get bought by a shell ?
I spoke to the CFO 10 days ago and he mentioned by year's end WRNW would be a completely different company, .... how true he was, but I did not expect this turn in events.
If Rees can pull it together, yes, this thing has huge potential (in the domestic market), but whoever is comparing WRNW to Schlumberger or Halliburton must be kidding big time.
WRNW has about 800k in cash, can someone please explain to me how they can buy 2 companies with a combined 7 mio EBITA with just 800k ? Something is not quite right here !!!
Are those investment bankers throwing money into WRNW without getting anything (equity) back ? I don't think so !!
So, if the two deals go through, yes, we might end up with a prifitable company, but with some extrem dilution too.
Is this the same Silvia Spillman ?? If so, she's got a criminal record, Goggle her !!!
IN THE MATTER OF THE REINSTATEMENT OF SPILMAN
2004 OK 79
104 P.3d 576
Case Number: SCBD-4876
Decided: 10/26/2004
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cite as: 2004 OK 79, 104 P.3d 576
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE MATTER OF THE REINSTATEMENT OF SYLVIA MCCORMICK SPILMAN TO MEMBERSHIP IN THE OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION AND TO THE ROLL OF ATTORNEYS.
PROCEEDING FOR REINSTATEMENT TO THE OKLAHOMA
BAR ASSOCIATION
¶0 Applicant, Sylvia McCormick Spilman petitioned for reinstatement to membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association following her resignation pending disciplinary proceedings. After hearing, the two-member panel of the Professional Responsibility Tribunal recommended reinstatement. After de novo review we grant the petition for reinstatement subject to petitioner's payment of costs of this proceeding in the amount of $920.64, to be paid within ninety days from the date this opinion becomes final.
Joseph R. Farris, Thayla Painter Bohn, FELDMAN, FRANDEN, WOODARD, FARRIS & BOUDREAUX, Tulsa, Oklahoma, Attorneys for Petitioner
Allen J. Welch, Assistant General Counsel, OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Attorney for Respondent
EDMONDSON, J.
¶1 June 19, 1995, this Court entered an order approving Sylvia McCormick Spilman's resignation from the Oklahoma Bar Association pending disciplinary proceedings following her jury conviction of the crime of bribery of a state's witness. Ms. Spilman was sentenced to one year in the state penitentiary and fined $1,000.00. She served eight weeks in prison before being released on parole. The conviction was affirmed by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals.
¶2 Ms. Spilman filed her petition for reinstatement on January 22, 2004, pursuant to Rule 11.1of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S. 2001, Ch. 1, App. 1-A. This is her first attempt at reinstatement. In May 2004, hearing was held before a two-member trial panel of the Professional Responsibility Tribunal, which concluded that Ms. Spilman deserved to be reinstated. The Oklahoma Bar Association did not present any witnesses against Ms. Spilman, and now urges us to grant her petition.
¶3 Recommendations of the Professional Responsibility trial panel, although entitled to great weight, are merely advisory. Matter of Reinstatement of Page, 1993 OK 165, 866 P.2d 1207; See also Matter of Page, 2004 OK 49, 94 P.3d 80. This Court exercises original and exclusive jurisdiction in bar reinstatement proceedings and applies a de novo standard of review in reaching its decision on the licensing of attorneys. Matter of Reinstatement of Kamins, 1988 OK 32, 752 P.2d 1125.
¶4 In reinstatement proceedings the burden is placed on the applicant and it is a heavy one. See Matter of Reinstatement of Wright, 1995 OK 128, 907 P.2d 1060. Rule 11.4 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S. 2001, Ch.1, App. 1-A, provides in pertinent part as follows:
An applicant for reinstatement must establish affirmatively that, if readmitted or if the suspension from practice is removed, the applicant's conduct will conform to the high standards required of a member of the Bar. The severity of the original offense and the circumstances surrounding it shall be considered in evaluating an application for reinstatement. The burden of proof, by clear and convincing evidence, in all such reinstatement proceedings shall be on the applicant. An applicant seeking such reinstatement will be required to present stronger proof of qualifications than one seeking admission for the first time. The proof presented must be sufficient to overcome the Supreme Court's former judgment adverse to the applicant. Feelings of sympathy towards the applicant must be disregarded . . . .
¶5 Additionally, Rule 11.5 provides that before an applicant may be reinstated, the Trial Panel must specifically find that the applicant: (1) possesses the good moral character entitling him to be admitted to the Oklahoma Bar Association; (2) has not engaged in any unauthorized practice of law during the period of suspension, disbarment or resignation; and (3)possesses the competency and learning in the law required for admission to practice law in Oklahoma.
¶6 We view applications seeking reinstatement to the bar with utmost seriousness. In Matter of Kamins, supra, at 1129, we set forth the following statement from the Supreme Court of Kansas in State v. Russo, 630 P.2d 711 (1981), as reflective of the nature of our consideration, and we do so again today:
It is the duty of the Supreme Court to preserve the high ethical and moral standards required before a person is entitled to enjoy the privilege to practice law. When one first petitions for admission to the bar, he must meet the qualifications required of a member of the profession. When a former attorney seeks reinstatement, he must meet an even greater burden than when he was originally admitted and must overcome the prior adverse conclusions of the court as to his fitness to practice law. (Citations omitted.) Although it may be said that Mr. Russo 'voluntarily' surrendered his certificate to practice law, the same was only done when it became apparent that disbarment was inevitable and such surrender constitutes a voluntary disbarment. The decision whether reinstatement of an attorney is justified and will be granted rests exclusively within the discretion of the court, (citations omitted) and the public interest in maintaining the integrity of the administration of justice is paramount in making such a determination. Id. at 714.
¶7 In Kamins we set forth additional factors which courts have traditionally considered relevant and significant in considering evidence presented for reinstatement. In examining that evidence we must determine: (1) applicant's demonstrated consciousness of wrongful conduct and the disrepute which that conduct brought to the profession; (2) extent of applicant's rehabilitation; (3)the seriousness of the original misconduct; (4) applicant's conduct after the resignation; (5) the time which has elapsed since the resignation; (6) applicant's character, maturity and experience at the time of discipline or resignation; and (7) the petitioner's present competence in legal skills. Id. at 1130. See also, In the Matter of Reinstatement of Clifton, 1990 OK 15, 787 P.2d 862, 863.
¶8 We conclude that petitioner carried the heavy burden of proof placed upon her. The evidence shows that she meets all the requisite criteria for reinstatement , and her petition should be granted.
¶9 Ms. Spilman was admitted to the Oklahoma Bar Association in 1988 and, until her resignation in 1995, engaged primarily in criminal defense work. She was associated with another lawyer for a short while, but for most of that time she was a sole practitioner. She had never before been the subject of discipline, and at the time of her resignation she was current in dues and in her CLE requirements.
¶10 The underlying criminal conviction arose from events in Ms. Spilman's representation of her then husband, Frank Sonnier, who was being prosecuted on charges of unlawful delivery of a controlled drug. The state originally contended that Ms. Spilman had offered to give its witness, Kimberly Johnson, a trip and money if she would be absent from the jurisdiction and would not be able to testify at Mr. Sonnier's preliminary hearing. Allegations of money being offered the witness were dismissed by the state at trial.
¶11 At the hearing before the panel, Ms. Spilman admitted that she had agreed to give the witness a trip. She testified that in the course of her interview with the witness, she (the witness) told her that the drug scene in Tulsa was terrible and she wanted to get out of the city. Ms. Spilman stated that because she had been thinking of moving back to Oregon, she told the witness that she planned to leave when Mr. Sonnier's case was over. The witness then asked if she would take her along. Ms. Spilman stated she answered, "Well, I suppose I could give you a ride somewhere, if you wanted to go west." (Tr. 42.) Ms. Spilman testified that money was never mentioned in any way nor was anything said about the witness not showing up for the preliminary hearing. The witness did not appear at the hearing; however, Ms. Spilman agreed to a continuance and the witness appeared at the rescheduled preliminary hearing, after which Mr. Sonnier was bound over.
¶12 Ms. Spilman has at all times maintained her innocence of the crime. She still does. She testified that she never intended the offer of the trip to be quid pro quo for any action or inaction by the witness; but she acknowledged that because of her casual and careless manner in speaking with the witness, her offer of a ride could have been construed as an offer of a bribe. Ms. Spilman testified that she turned down the opportunity to receive a year's deferred sentence because she believed she was innocent and she could not lie by admitting guilt to the charge. She recognized that by refusing to admit culpability the presentation of proof of her rehabilitation, a factor essential to granting reinstatement, is made an unusual challenge. When asked why she did not just admit guilt and proceed along the usual and ordinary course for a reinstatement application and show this Court that she was now rehabilitated, she responded that she had to face herself every day, and that she does not lie and could not lie to the panel. Discussing the issue of proof of rehabilitation, she concluded that the issue is a matter of trust evidenced by how she has led her life since the conviction, and how she has accepted responsibility for the action and its consequences and has corrected her behavior.
¶13 She apologized, as she has repeatedly, for the disrepute and embarrassment she had brought upon the profession. While she consistently has maintained that she does not believe she committed a crime, she candidly acknowledges that she did not conduct herself in a professional manner and her action was such that it gave the appearance of serious impropriety. She has tried through counseling sessions and introspection to understand how and why she put herself in a position which led to this disastrous consequence, and through these efforts she believes she has made important changes in her life: she has developed a more mature perspective about herself and has learned to protect herself by putting safeguards in personal interactions, she has developed a more mature and educated professional attitude so that if readmitted to the practice of law she would never again represent a family member nor perhaps even a friend, and she would be extremely mindful of discussions with witnesses and others that her conversations would not be misconstrued.
¶14 The evidence showed petitioner had delayed filing for reinstatement because of a series of unfortunate events and circumstances in her personal life. Since her resignation she has worked as a legal assistant to five attorneys and has held a variety of other jobs. She has been quite active as a volunteer in positions benefitting her church and community.
¶15 A lawyer who currently employs Ms. Spilman testified for her in person and three attorneys for whom she previously had worked vouched for her by affidavit. All attested to her good character, present moral fitness, competence, legal ability and honesty. Her duties with them had included performing clerical functions, analyzing and researching legal issues, preparing various legal documents under the supervision of the attorneys, handling money, and organizing and maintaining file systems for the office. They all expressed the utmost confidence in her character, experience and dedication to the profession, fully supporting her decision to seek reinstatement. They stated that she never had identified or held herself out as an attorney, or offered legal advice or engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, and that she had stayed abreast of developments in the law and would make a competent practitioner if readmitted. The evidence reflected that petitioner systematically reviews the Oklahoma Bar Journals and has regularly attended CLE classes since her resignation.
¶16 Two judges of the Tulsa County District Court filed affidavits on petitioner's behalf, both stating they had known petitioner for many years professionally and socially and had found her to be trustworthy and a competent attorney. They had found the allegations of her wrongdoing to be contrary to their opinions of her good moral character and they believed she has prepared herself for reinstatement.
¶17 Rather than waiting for a complaint to be filed against her, Ms. Spilman went to the Bar Association on the day following her conviction and, in a spirit of cooperation and with the desire to prevent any further discredit to the profession, notified the Office of the General Counsel that she had been convicted of a felony.
¶18 The attorney who represented petitioner in her criminal case was adamant in his belief that Ms. Spilman was innocent of the charge against her. He testified that she was one of the few criminal defendants, perhaps only three or four out of at least a thousand he had represented in twenty-seven years of practice, he believed were innocent. He also stated that he had no reservations at all about her character, honesty and qualifications to once again be a member of the bar.
¶19 The investigator for the Oklahoma Bar Association testified that petitioner was very cooperative, helpful and responsive during the investigation, and had put forth phenomenal efforts to provide the Bar with the requested information and pleadings. He interviewed fifteen witnesses regarding Ms. Spilman's character, ability to practice law and whether she had engaged in any unauthorized practice of law since her resignation. The witnesses were attorneys she knew from practicing or had worked for as a legal assistant, and personal friends. The consensus was that she had the competency, learning and ability to practice law and that she is trustworthy and has the high moral character necessary to be an attorney. Some witnesses expressed doubt about the validity of her conviction because they could not imagine petitioner engaging in unlawful conduct under any circumstances.
¶20 The Oklahoma Bar Association submits that petitioner has satisfied all requirements for reinstatement and urges this Court to grant her petition. While recognizing that the seriousness of the original misconduct cannot be ameliorated, the Bar submits that the other factors which must be weighed here, are such that the application should be approved.
¶21 We have held that "a felony conviction is not tantamount to a death sentence regarding the reinstatement of the license to practice law. Rather, each reinstatement decision is determined on a case-by-case basis, weighing all the factors. Matter of Reinstatement of Anderson, 2002 OK 64, 51 P.2d 581, 583. Also we have held that a petitioner's assertion of innocence, standing alone, is not a bar to granting reinstatement; it is merely one of the facts in addition to the conviction which we consider in our determination. Matter of Page, 866 P.2d at 1211.
¶22 It is certainly true that the burden on a petitioner seeking reinstatement is a heavy one and the more severe the offense, the heavier the burden. Each case must be reviewed on its own merits, and will fail or succeed on its peculiar circumstances and the evidence presented. Matter of Reinstatement of Cantrell, 1989 OK 165, 785 P.2d 312, 314.
¶23 Following our analysis and stern admonition in Matter of Page, 866 P.2d at 1211 that ". . . accepting bribes to pervert justice goes to the very heart of the legal system . . .and undermines the judicial system, " we consider this case involving a conviction for offering a bribe to a witness to be of utmost gravity. Our primary duty in making the determination of a petition for reinstatement is to "safeguard the interests of the public, the courts and the legal profession." Matter of Kamins, 752 P.2d at 1130.
¶24 Under the particular facts in evidence here, we agree with the Oklahoma Bar Association and the trial panel of the Professional Review Tribunal that this petitioner has satisfied all the requirements for reinstatement and her petition should be granted. Therefore, the Petition for Reinstatement of Sylvia McCormick Spilman to membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association and to the Roll of Attorneys is GRANTED and petitioner is reinstated to the practice of law in Oklahoma. Costs in the amount of $920.64 are to be paid by petitioner within ninety (90) days from the date this opinion becomes final.
This is info I got from WRNW:
04/09/07:
Quote
With the transition of new mangement, etc., we are in the process of gathering information so that within the next 3-4 weeks we will be able to put out a very comprehensive letter to all shareholders laying out all information about the company. We understand your concerns and appreciate your patience.
Unquote
Well, well, they did not make that time line !!!
03/08/07:
Quote
As for our share structure, total authorized is 500,000,000. Outstanding is 202,988,000 while the float is appox 100,000,000. Pink Sheets have been updated to reflect this information.
Unquote
From 203 mio to 562 mio shares in about 2 months !!!!
Regarding auditing the 2006 financials, why does that take several months ?