Replies to post #2306 on Loch Harris (Old)

[ontheedge01]

Imo:

No Imo, I do not recall this email, but I do recall you and I talking on the phone, do you recall that conversation?

I have had over 50 emails in the last two days concerning you posting the email headers that you claim went to MP and then somehow I answered them and then I later emailed claiming we were talking to different people that we did not know.

There certainly are inconsistency's with the subject header and the date header's. I have had many examples sent to me, and in every case, everything matched, not so in your emails.

Here are your headers:
Subj: RE: Question
Date: 5/9/01 10:29:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: [e-mail] (Robert Stewart)
To: [e-mail] ('[e-mail]')


From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 4:32 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Question

Why are the subjects different??
Look at the date lines, completely different!
The from field is a completely different format.

I have not trusted you since our last conversation on the phone. My feeling about you was right on. You can dish out stuff, and call people liars, and love Christ, and post lies, and do it all in the name of Christ.

I could not help but grin at your complete jumping out of your skin about the email I asked you if you remember sending. Do you remember how you first felt when you read it? I want you to really think hard about how you felt Imo. Did you feel like someone had posted a lie for all ( on these boards ) to see. Remember how you could not type fast enough to fire back at me, remember? It outraged you, it made your blood pressure go up, you felt violated, your stomach was releasing acid, you were probably sick to your stomach, does any of this sound a little familiar?

Then you must know how I felt the first time I read your lieing post about me answering a an email you sent to MP. I can catch and pitch Imo. I have never been so upset with anyone as I was with you trying to manipulate two emails into some sick theory or point you wanted to make at any cost. One needs to know how one makes others feel, anyone who has met me, or knows me, knows I would have never answered an Email addressed to MP, and anyone that would believe such a farce has not ever met me.

Scarednomore, I received a copy of one of your post today, from one of the other people you met that day in Austin, if I have offended you by doing unto Imo as he has me, I apologize. I take things said about me that are untrue, rather personal. I wanted him to feel what he has inflected on me. Sometimes in doing that, the message is better delivered.

Imo, a better point for ALL to read and understand follows below, and I was there on every occasion that was called, no matter where I had to go. I stood before the court the Judge, Mark Baker, Charles Blackwell, and all their attorneys. I did so becuase it was my obligation to get the BEST outcome for all we shareholders. I never said I would be there, and did not show, I never said you can count on me, and then hid, I did what any other shareholder would have done, had he or she been in my shoes. There were five of us, plus two attorneys, fighting for the same cause. As you read the below copy and paste, think really hard what it is saying.


The below is from the court filings:



74. The reaction of the shareholders and the Class appears to support
the proposed settlement. Notice to the shareholders was widespread. See Counsel
Aff. Para.Para. 40-48. Notwithstanding the breadth of notice, only eight
shareholders - who stated that they own 5,100 shares, 24,000 shares, 5,000
shares, 650 shares, 5,000 shares, 4,500 shares, 2,800 shares, and 2,000 shares
of Loch Harris, requested exclusion from the Class.(7) Second Cantor Aff. Ex. D.
Only one shareholder - Mr. Liviu D. Morovan - sent a letter expressing his
"intention to appear before the Court on May 30, 2003 with the purpose of
objecting" to the settlement. Id. at Ex. A (letter from Mr. Morovan dated May
16, 2003). Ultimately, Mr. Liviu D. Morovan did not appear or object at the May
30, 2003 hearing; and therefore, among all the Loch Harris shareholders, there
is not a single objection pursuant to the parameters that the Court set forth in
its Preliminary Order.

75. Quite a number of people have sent informal letters to the Court.
All of the letters that express concerns about any substantive aspects of the
settlement - a veritable deluge - are from a Mr. Liviu Morovan, apparently the
father of Mr. Liviu D. Morovan. Because Mr. Liviu D. Morovan informed the Court
of his "intention to appear at the hearing and object but the senior Mr. Morovan
did not, the Court will treat the senior Mr. Morovan's letters as informal
advisory communications only and not "objections."(8) The senior Mr. Morovan
also opted out of the Class; and stated in his opt-out request that he

---------------

7 These people's Loch Harris shares (approximately 50,000 in total)
represent an insubstantial portion - i.e., about 1/100th of 1% - of the nearly
500 million Loch Harris shares outstanding.

8 On the day before the May 30, 2003 final approval hearing, the two Messrs.
Morovan faxed a joint letter to the Court asking for additional time "to prepare
and mail in a statement" that may or may not amount to an objection. At the May
30, 2003 hearing, the Court denied this request on the ground that the deadline
for making written objections is long passed (May 16, 2003) and the Court will
not lightly postpone arguments scheduled to be made at the final approval
hearing to which many shareholders traveled from around the country.

Ontheedge01