Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Technology Stocks : Solucorp Industries (SLUP - OTCBB) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: aauhaa who wrote (3390)	11/17/1999 11:43:00 AM
From: iunum	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3679

you can ask by e mail, membership@siliconinvestor.com how long they suspend for overuse. GUys, it's not a plot against us slurpies, hawkeye per se, or the constitution. they do periodic sweeps for overusage.. that's all.

To: aauhaa who wrote (3390)	11/23/1999 9:14:00 AM
From: hawkeye	Respond to of 3679

"THE VIRTUALLY UNTRAMMELED AND UNREVIEWABLE POWER IT WOULD VEST IN A REGULATORY AGENCY." MORE TEACHINGS FROM CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST. Here is a further part of the Sloan v. SEC decision that SHOWS THAT the proper interpretation of the SEC's "temporary suspension" authority requires that the SEC TO TELL ALL ON THE 11TH DAY what evidence it had that caused it to suspend trading.!!!!! (THIS A LITTLE LEGALISTIC, BUT HAWKEYE TRY TO MAKE IT UNDERSTANDABLE BY ALL , MAYBE EVEN THE SEC!!!] In Samuel Sloan v SEC, the SEC argued that its interpretation of 12(k) should be upheld because the Congress was "aware" of how the SEC was [ab]using its section 12(k) ["Temporary Suspension"] authority at the time when Congress subsequently amended the same he statute that contained 12(k). The SEC argued that if Congress had disagreed with the SEC's interpretation, Congress would have changed the statute. The following is the Court's response to that argument. It shows that a paramount concern of the Supreme Court about the SEC's abuse of its 12(k) authority was that it would make the SEC's action in suspending a stock unreviewable by a court. JUST LIKE IT HAS BEEN IN THE SOLUCORP CASE!!! Because the SEC does not put its cards on the table after the 10 day suspension, no one knows what the charges are and no one knows what the evidence is. "We are extremely hesitant to presume general congressional awareness of the Commission's construction based only upon a few isolated statements in the thousands of pages of legislative documents. That language in a Committee Report, without additional indication of more widespread congressional awareness, is simply not sufficient to invoke the presumption in a case such as this. For here its invocation WOULD RESULT IN A CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE WHICH not only IS AT ODDS WITH THE LANGUAGE of the section in question AND THE PATTERN OF THE STATUTE taken as a whole, but also IS EXTREMELY FAR REACHING IN TERMS OF THE VIRTUALLY UNTRAMMELED AND UNREVIEWABLE POWER IT WOULD VEST IN A REGULATORY AGENCY." ishius.com Message 11898892 Message 11894052