Anthony @ Equity Investigations, Dear Anthony, Message Board

STOCKTALK

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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Anthony @ Equity Investigations, Dear Anthony,

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Anthony@Pacific who started this subject	5/26/2002 3:37:12 AM
From: Sword	of 122087

Goren v. New Vision International, Inc., 156 F.3d 721 (7th cir. 1998) "The Seventh Circuit stated that it had always applied the rule announced in Salinas, but then went on to state that a defendant can be held liable under §1962(d) only when the plaintiff alleges and establishes "(1) that each defendant agree to . . . to participate in the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity and (2) that each defendant agreed that someone would commit at least two predicate acts to accomplish those goals." Neither of these have been or can be established for the greater membership of the "investment club" since they did not happen. If any members conspired in the way the indictment states, then they could be held responsible. But to my knowledge, no member did any such thing. That is why no other members were charged or arrested, even those that directly worked in the AP offices. -Sword

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next