MANIPULATION IS RAMPANT --- Can We Stop It? 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.

Pastimes : MANIPULATION IS RAMPANT --- Can We Stop It?

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: HairBall who wrote (353)	6/15/2002 8:01:11 PM
From: LPS5	Read Replies (2) of 589

As long as you mean the government should not sue on a civil level I agree. Yes, that's what I mean. However, individuals should be allowed to sue if necessary. Absolutely - the pursuit of individual remedies by individuals should supercede all. And I strongly agree that all fraud should be treated as a crime and prosecuted at whatever level is necessary to obtain the conviction and with many companies this requires federal prosecution due to the limitations of a state’s jurisdiction. I'd asked this question on this thread awhile back, and received no answer: anyone know what crimes are identified as federal in nature in the Constitution? It's the answer to that question which makes me specify that fraud should only be pursued at the state level or lower. (Which is, incidentally, not to suggest that a number of states couldn't sue simultaneously.) Not only because it's not Constitutional to pursue them at higher levels...but also because I'm personally sure that there'd be a higher degree of scrutiny, and a higher conviction rate for true fraudsters and criminally coercive firms/individuals if justice were pursued at a/some lower level(s). Want to take a stab at what the Constitution specifically identifies as federal crimes? I'm sure you'll find it interesting. The lacking regulations and built in loopholes encourage third party administrators and investment facilitators not to mention the employers to take advantage of the employees. What do you think of the argument that (a) individuals are culpable for doing their own due diligence and that (b) unless information was misrepresented - i.e., fraudulent in nature - merely not telling them what was happening isn't a crime, but instead a matter of private corporate policy? LPS5

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next