It appears that the posters who responded to my suggestion that posters use their real names and have their identities made available have missed the point that " it is going to happen".
The SEC has little patience for the type of puffery that is occuring at their expense and have been quite embarrassed by the recent event wherein the false bloomberg story was posted on a stock that moved up 33% on the open.
The SEC will indeed decide that SI is a medium of investment advice and will eventually get around to suing SI to require the host to supervise the guests.
If you say this is draconian and a violation of free speech; think again. In the interests of protecting the public, the only influence the agencies have is to go after the one's that facilitate their ability to defraud; namely the beneficiary of such actions.
As SI benefits from the registration fee and ad revenue, SI will be the target. SI will come to understand that the acceptance of the registration fee of $60 to $120 constitutes a contract.
Contract law is something that SI atorney's better start brushing up on, because in my individual case, their acceptance of my $60 is in effect a contract that obligates them, that's right obligates them to supervise each and every post that may damage my company.
That contract is not just for the right to post; but also is a contract that SI will enforce its terms of usage to protect my company from false and misleading postings, and the intent to defraud or use by any means SI as a device to commit any act that may be found to be unlawful.
The DCHT thread has become the scourge of SI as posters going by the name of Francois Goelo, and Sid Turtlman have used it as a device to unlawfully slander both myself personally, and the intent to defame the company I represent.
Calling for the company to terminate its association with my company is what is known as " interference with prospective advantage, and interference with contractual obligations". Message 8894558
Tort violations continue although I have reported them repeatedly to SI Bob, who chooses to turn the other cheek, and in his word's, " I can't be expected to monitor the thousands of posts that occur each day, and it isn't my obligation to sort out the truth."
That statement will ensure my victory as we have a contract and it is indeed the obligation of SI to protect my contractuall obligations.
I have documented both my complaints and his responses and have archived them for use in court if and when the time should come that there is indeed damages to my firm that can be proven in court.
So far I have received private emails that directly implicate SI posters as " the sole reason " why they have chosen not to invest in DCHT. While that might not be considered a " provable damage", the emails will inevitably one day unveil those posters who have chosen to sell their position at a loss, as a result of unchecked abuse of the terms of usage, and the use of the DCHT thread to defame, slander and attempt to damage by intentional misrepresentation.
Once that occurs, and it will, SI will be served.
I already have the ammo I need to begin proceedings against SI, but what I don't have yet is a case that I can win in court. However, several emails have been received by the comany by posters who have demanded that my company be terminated to " rebuild their credibility".
SI continues to allow this type of defamatory and tortious activity to occur unchecked, and have repeatedly ignored attempts to have it curbed. This will be what allows me to prevail in court against SI when the time comes, because SI will be unable to use as their defense that they didn't know.
SI, clean it up, or pay the consequences; it is that simple.
Oh, and suspending my membership for calling Francois Goelo a little girl for the way he has acted while continuing to allow these tort violations is the only response I have gotten for my efforts to have SI act responsibly as the host. I can't wait to see the look on the face of the judge when he or she hears that one. |
