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: JustTradeEm who wrote (72)	6/27/2001 7:02:11 PM
From: CountofMoneyCristo	Respond to of 3143

Joe, I am not attacking anyone here. Also, there are others who were well-respected at SI, notably TokyoJoe, Jonathan Lebed and Jenna. I leave you all to draw your own conclusions on the value of that here and now. I never launched a thread before. I do it now because I had hoped it would encourage traders to come forward, and to understand that this is a matter touching on all here at SI. Concerning multiple aliases here at SI during the course of this discussion the past year, I think it is a critical matter. The use of multiple aliases is well-known in this field. It is deceitful - and also, sadly, the standard in our field. To many have used the easy clock of Internet anonymity to plot abuse. Charming droll little lies. That is a foundation of all of this. Yet these are not minor lies; they are major ones, and they have helped along cheats in their efforts to hurt a great many decent and honorable people. What we cannot have are plaintiffs who are tainted in this manner. Perhaps that will greatly narrow down the pool of plaintiffs. We shall see. However, for my part, I want to stand beside fellow plaintiffs whom I can respect, those whom I feel are trustworthy and sincere. I do not wish to be a part of a group that will fall apart at the first hint of difficulty, either. Lawsuits can be ugly at times. This case is no exception. However, that will not prevent a fair hearing of these issues. Not now. On another subject, some legal observers may wonder why I posts here concerning this matter. i have not discussed anything that has not already been discussed here at SI previously. In fact, I made the request for plaintiffs earlier as well. That time, there was no complaint. Strange that now there is. I reiterate that nothing of a privileged nature shall be discussed here, but I did wish to allow defrauded traders the opportunity of knowing that something is being done now, and that if they wish to play a part in this process, then would they please contact me as soon as possible. I am going to contact Counsel today and raise the concerns about legal privilege and the ramifications on discovery that have been brought up here at SI. I will ask him if I may post his response concerning this important issue. We'll then go from there. In the meantime, the information I requested did not include specific details such as trading records. I merely requested general information. Many have already responded and you will be hearing from me within a few days. To the rest of you who are now on the fence, uncertain, I want to tell you now that I understand if you wish to wait. One thing I think we all know: the legal system does not operate at light speed. However, it has been a long time in coming, this effort, and the sooner we are together the better for all. The attacks have already begun. I would think that those of you who wish to be a part of this process would want to retain this team of lawyers without delay. Regards, Olivier