SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Brokerage-Chat Site Securities Fraud: A Lawsuit
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Dave O. who wrote (1312)6/29/2003 4:56:05 PM
From: CountofMoneyCristo  Read Replies (1) of 3143
 
Good luck, you're going to need it.


Luck has nothing to do with it. What is it with these gambling analogies?

If you believe that brokers and investment advisers conspiring to defraud can be excused because their clients hit a key to buy or sell then you misread the law and the requirements of fiduciaries. Wall Street investment banks just settled Eliot Spitzer and SEC's false investment advice litigation for more than $1 billion - and have set aside billions more to settle civil litigation resulting from the same charges. Did anyone hold a gun to the heads of American investors to buy or sell? Yet the investment banks recognize their liability and how.

Now you want to compare the false investment advice in the Wall Street litigation with the claims made in my case, then pay attention to three factors that make my claims, in some ways, much worse:

1. Unlike in the Wall Street litigation, I and thousands of others did not trade on free investment advice; we paid quite a lot of money for it;
2. A majority of claimants suffered not partial losses, but were completely ruined, losing 100% of their capital;
3. The defendants have abused federal government procedures in an attempt to destroy one they defrauded.

It is funny that you persist in trying to excuse what the defendants did. In time, we'll see if a jury agrees with you, that everything they did was completely fine, what a clever scheme, isn't it great how they destroyed thousands of clients who trusted them and walked away with $500-800 million?

You know, if the defendants were so confident in the defense you propose, then they would not be running scared from a trial by jury. Some of the best legal minds in the country and they are desperate to avoid facing me down in court. I wonder why? Maybe it's because legal maneuvering can only go so far when there is a mountain of inconvenient and damning facts standing in the way.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News