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.

Pastimes : Brokerage-Chat Site Securities Fraud: A Lawsuit -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: CountofMoneyCristo who wrote (64)	6/27/2001 5:58:41 PM
From: CountofMoneyCristo	Respond to of 3143

I would wish to add the following: this discussion has taken place here on SI for a long, long time. It did not begin this spring. Far from it: it began over a year ago, and the evidence I made available then, to both the SEC and Congress. The national press also. They have done very little to halt the fraud. Through this process, I have become very disappointed with government inaction. Many more day traders have been destroyed in the past year, and the government had this information at their disposal. They had the power to halt this activity then. They neglected to use it. Those who have discussed it here, I would like to believe that you are honorable and that you not mislead members here using several different identities. In a process discussing matters of exactly this nature - brokerages and sites operating as one though representing themselves as separate, unaffiliated entities - this is critical. O.A.

To: CountofMoneyCristo who wrote (64)	6/27/2001 6:22:05 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3143

If you have done so, posting under multiple identities here, then I would rather you were not a fellow plaintiff. Who are you to say who gets to be a fellow plaintiff? and why does posting under multiple aliases exclude someone from the class? And the fact that you insinuate that Leeza was being deceptive is absurd. For crissakes man, she uses the alias Leeza ze viphre, if she was trying to deceive she would have used something that wasn't quite so obvious. The real question is whether or not she posted under multiple aliases at the same time. Sheesh

To: CountofMoneyCristo who wrote (64)	6/27/2001 6:27:59 PM
From: JustTradeEm	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3143

I would wish to state to all here now that anyone who has posted under multiple aliases at SI will certainly be excluded from any legal action going forward. Olivier, I don't quite understand your recent attacks on some well respected members of SI. In reading Leeza's posts, contrary to your reaction, I did not get the impression that she was steering anyone away from participation. I agreed with her opinion that information should be provided directly to counsel. I assume they will canvass the potential class for participants; yet, it seems you are taking that on your shoulders. I also believe that in canvassing the potential class, they would inquire about multiple aliases and make a determination of what impact that would have on participation, if any. If your cause is noble, concentrate on the cause and permit others to share opinions openly. JB