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.

Non-Tech : Auric Goldfinger's Short List -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tim Luke who wrote (5662)	8/17/2000 8:38:16 AM
From: sommovigo	Respond to of 19428

Tim, Take a closer look at Auric's identity. Look at what the discovery phase of ZiaSun's case against Auric came up with, look at who were plaintiffs. Now, if Auric wasn't who ZiaSun's discovery found him to be, then Auric's attorney would simply have been able to prove that and he would not have been a defendant. Worthington, however, WAS a defendant. Now read the NASD manual, especially the parts about rules governing brokers communicating with the public, especially over the internet and electronic media, ESPECIALLY over internet message boards and chat rooms. Then read Sections 9, 10, 15, 18, 20, and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and also read rules 10b-3 and 10b-5. In terms of raising an eyebrow, you'd need a face covered in eyebrows so that you could raise enough of them to cover the list of possible violations that this guy may be guilty of. And his sidekick, his "oddjob", his Sancho Panza... Floyd Schneider - he and Auric are close enough to share the same attorney - I'm wondering if Auric is guilty of any of the violations of the aforementioned sections, then is Floyd guilty of the aiding and abetting clauses of that Act? I wonder how many other Auric lemmings may get pushed through the meat grinder on this one?