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.
Technology Stocks : The New QUALCOMM - Coming Into Buy Range
QCOM 170.90-1.3%Nov 7 9:30 AM EST
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: carranza2 who wrote (912)8/19/2007 10:00:51 AM
From: limtex  Read Replies (1) of 9129
 
carra - 29th August, 2007 - You are right about the damage that has beee done to shareholders and by whom.

And whatever we might think about it on these boards Rudi and presumably the magisistrate think that Q is guilty of everything he wrote about in his judgment including "deadly intent" and "hold to hostage" etc.

So three questions now remain and I would be grateful for your view:-

1. Have you ever seen or heard of anything before the non-criminal courts as bad as what is contained in Rudis judgement? If so what was the fine/condequences?

2. What is the biggest fine you have ever heard of in a non-criminal case? And what is the limit if any that can be imposed here?

3. Is there an appeal from the fine/judgment of Rudi and can it be heard to cover points of fact or findings or must it be confined to points of law? And what is the time period?

Best,

L
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