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: hawkeye who wrote (3429)	11/23/1999 9:26:00 AM
From: hawkeye	Respond to of 3679

IF THE SEC FILES A CASE THAT IS NOTHING MORE THAN THEIR BOGUS ACCOUNTING COMPLAINT -- THIS IS A CASE WORTHY OF AN INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST OF THE HIGHEST CALIBER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "OPINION: WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge: SIX YEARS AGO the Securities and Exchange Commission found that two accountants had engaged in "improper professional conduct" in violation of the Commission's Rule 2(e)(1)(ii), 17 CFR 201.102(e)(1)(ii). After review in this court we [returned] the case to the Commission, holding that it had failed to adequately explain its interpretation of the rule. ...The Commission has evidently been unable to do so, voicing instead a multiplicity of inconsistent interpretations. In view of the Commission's inability to make any progress toward offering a single interpretation, and signs that the Commission is unlikely soon to make such progress, we are driven to the remedy reserved for rare cases of an agency's persistent failure to explain itself, and [return] the case with instructions to dismiss the proceedings. DAVID J. CHECKOSKY AND NORMAN A. ALDRICH, PETITIONERS, v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, RESPONDENT, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, 139 F.3d 221; 1998 A "CASE" SIMILAR TO THE "CASE" AGAINST SOLUCORP HAS ALREADY BEEN CRITICIZED IN LEGAL PERIODICALS READ BY GOVERNMENT PROSECUTORS. "Similar broad and overlapping enforcement schemes exist in connection with securities regulation, health care fraud, government contracting, and environmental compliance. Thus, prosecutors enjoy a combination of the broadest possible set of investigatory tools and a smorgasbord of Title 18 and civil remedial measures with which to threaten targets and those around them. We have, in effect, criminalized the regulatory regimes of government such that: ... An investor is indicted for intentionally and knowingly making two false financial statements to banks; ONE FINANCIAL STATEMENT CARRIED A DISCLAIMER regarding the allegedly misleading information and THE OTHER WAS FOUND TO BE "IMPROPER" BECAUSE OF AN ACCOUNTING METHOD THE GOVERNMENT DISPUTED. The defendant was prosecuted for intentional misconduct though all relevant information had been accounted for in defendant's tax returns and through defendant's testimony in a bankruptcy proceeding as it had been described in the financial statements." criminaljustice.org