Replies to post #2058 on NMC Inc. (fka NMCX)

[rbtree]

Dead wrong. The testing ONLY determined the depth of the pits. PERIOD!!! Please don't alter the facts.

I assume you know how the material got there.....and it is NOT concentrates, black sands, whatever. It is waste ore, (tailings)left over from a mining operation that only recovered 2500 or so ounces. Pitiful. And deceptive that NMC and HCCA have insisted on calling the dirt "ore concentrates".

The court wasn't fooled.

[albacora]

You should post links that support your claims that nmcx has mineral value of some measure because a Federal Court and jury of 12 found other wise. Please read. Thank you.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Civil Action No.
vs. ) 03C-1507
)
MICHAEL J. PIETRZAK and MAURICE W. ) Judge Grady
FURLONG, )
)
Defendants. )
________________________________________________)
SEC’S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO THE SEC’S MOTION TO IMPOSE PERMANENT INJUNCTIONS, DISGORGEMENT, PREJUDGMENT INTEREST, CIVIL PENALTIES, OFFICER-DIRECTOR BARS AND PENNY STOCK BARS AGAINST FURLONG AND PIETRZAK, AND TO ENTER FINAL JUDGMENT AGAINST THEM

Case 1:03-cv-01507 Document 269 Filed 10/11/2007 Page 1 of 10


The jury’s responses to the verdict interrogatories indicated that it found fraud, against both defendants, on every category of assets that HCCA recorded on its balance sheet between 1996 and 2001. Further, the jury found fraud in virtually all press releases that the defendants caused HCCA to issue between 1996 and 2001. This scheme was a “pump and dump” whereby the defendants issued false “good news” press releases to pump the stock price, which they then often followed with large sales of their personal HCCA stock. It was Furlong and Pietrzak who consistently benefited from the fraud, at the expense of other shareholders. It is abundantly clear from Furlong’s and Pietrzak’s trial testimony that they lived essentially, over the 3½ year period of the fraud, from their personal stock sales in HCCA. During the fraud, they were dumping stock on an unsuspecting public based upon information that they released in the marketplace, which they knew to be false. From the jury’s verdict (including its responses to the verdict interrogatories), no other reasonable conclusion can be reached. To that end, there are no real mitigating “factors” that this Court should consider in imposing final judgment against the defendants.

Further, as rbtree points out, seismic evaluation has nothing to do with establishing mineral value PERIOD It might be a good idea for you to call the company that performed the seismic study and ask if they will provide you or anyone else with a value on the pit contence.