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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold and Silver Mining Stocks -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lbs1989 who wrote (2793)	10/18/2001 8:40:23 AM
From: russwinter	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4051

<site the SEC regulation you think applies.> Good question, as these ARE serious allegations she has made against me (and a few others). She needs to answer with the specific statutes involved too, not just more hot air. For instance, I wonder if the SEC has rules about US citizens coming on these lines, and telling participants that they feel a stock is a buy? And, what exactly is "cheerleading" under the statute. She mentions that one a lot. I wonder how the "cheerleading violation" is defined. And how does it constitute a securities violation? She mentioned the aspect of "both sides of the borders". Can see cite specific statutes relating to on line chat line participants discussion of stocks from another country, and what is actionable? How do securities laws define, "pump and dump". Cite the "pump and dump" reg, GT. If someone happens to mention the name of a company at some point, would that constitute the "pump" part under the reg? Or does the "pump" part only kick in when a person says he "likes" the company's prospects? Or only when he says he "really, really likes" them? Then once he crosses that line, do the laws then require that he file a full disclosure on line if he elected to sell it at some point for a profit? Would there be a holding period then under the law, so as to avoid the "treble" damages she warned about? Specifically I wonder if GT can site the "act like a stockbroker" statute? Does that mean an individual who in a former half life was a stockbroker, is not permitted to make comments on stocks at forums, or as she says, "is subjected to a different standard"? Do you have some case law about that one? Please cite it. Or how about someone who just did some homework, and shared material on line? Would that violate the "act like an analyst" statute? Under a regulatory investigation of "act like a" violations, would a person need to receive direct compensation? Would he have to state that he IS a stockbroker and solicit business in some way, even if he is not? She mentions big "ego" as being a major red flag for the "act like a" violations. Does the statute define that (puffy ego, strutting ego, cocky ego or just inflated?), so as to give regulators guidance on what to look for? Finally she mentioned posters that had a "following", or a "flock" as she called it, and accused me have having one. How is that defined, and once defined what is it's purpose under the law.

To: lbs1989 who wrote (2793)	10/18/2001 1:00:51 PM
From: IngotWeTrust	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4051

lbs1989, Far from wanting to do others DD homework for them, I will statey three general responses: 1) Seek your answers from someone who is dispassionate and unbiased. I am not that person. 2) Do not rely on just anyone's "interpretations" of said applicable regs or regulatory definitions. Try to find case law and then find a securities lawyers to interpret things that may seem obscure to you if the judgements handed down in applicable lawsuits, use legal terminolgy that seems obscure. 3) FIrst place to start individual DD research is with "compliance department" of your brokerage of choice. If you do not get satisfactory answers the FIRST TIME, then if I were you, I'd seriously consider moving my account to one that does have the answers. Not only are compliance department wo/men, no nonsense and in charge of making sure a brokerage says and does things according to ALL securities regulations, they are the same people who are present on the regular audits conducted by the regulatory securities personnel of each and every brokerage office, both equity and commodities. Compliance department personnel are responsible for bringing transactions and complaints and brokers trying to skate (or just plain being sloppy) inTO compliance with regs or their jobs are in jeapordy and cost their employers heavy fines. It may surprise you to learn, on a monthly basis some brokerages are scrutinized by regulators. These audits are not advertised in advance, nor the outcome published for the public. I wish they were. Adjustments are made to both personnel and brokerage policies as the result of these audits. THAT is a fact. Compliance department personnel know "disclosure regs" and "blue sky regs" like the back of their hands. Said compliance departments may be a little less didactic on newsletter regs, but believe me, newsletter touts/touters are highly regulated as well. They also can undoubtedly provide you with any definitions you seek regarding what constitutes being a licensed representative/broker and what does not, and give advice as to how to tell if someone is acting like a broker and if they are not. I'm not sure they will be able to provide the case law cites you seek in regards to recent enforcement actions against people acting like brokers who are not licensed. You may have to dig deeper. The climate surrounding newsletter touts and touters changed dramatically in recent years, I'd say about 5 years ago if memory serves me. Since most brokerages do NOT put out newsletters, the change in climate and interpretation of rules regarding what can be written, either on paper or in cyberspace, can be blamed as a direct contributory cause. For this reason, said related inquires/replies regarding newsletter compliance made to specific compliance department questions from this thread or elsewhere may not be as "up to snuff on cites" as those who have legal departments scrubbing written utterances by brokers prior to mailing. The internet has opened up a whole new, "can of worms" in definitions and interpretations of existing "newsletter" regulations. I do know of and have discussed with specific long-time newsletter writers this very change in regulated newsletter climate enforcement. Those in that business keep abreast of said information regarding said prosecutions, actively circulating said latest cites and info and judgements among themselves in order to stay within the letter and the spirit of the law. Never is a touter more scrutinized than when his/her newsletter touter sells before his subscribers or followers do ORRRR sells when telling subscribers to buy. Tokyo Joe's recent prosecution is one well known example to this SI-forum. I will say this: Anytime I've asked for a specific cite and given compliance 24 hours, I've ALWAYS been rewarded with the cite. Most of them even FAX cite(s) to me. By my choice two of the three I use most frequently are bricks and clicks brokerages. The third is a bricks only brokerage out of Seattle. One final thought--and this relates to Canadian G&S E&D stocks:. Only within about the last 5 years has serious and successful effort been made to bring Canadian equities into compliance with US securities laws. Since most micro-crap gold & silver E&D plays are foreign in origin, case law based on violations and subsequent rulings is not as numerous (yet?) as domestic case law involving US securities laws and enforcement actions. However, there is a landmark case against Canada's Yorkton Securities within the last 6 years which US regulators WON!!! If memory serves me correctly it was adjudicated in Massachussets, but I may have the state jurisdiction name wrong. Yorkton was fined. It was NOT a slap on the wrist fine either. Yorkton did not want it known within their Canadian borders and not many stateside knew of either the case, the verdict, the fine nor the relevance, either. Dosn't mean it didn't happen. Doesn't mean it hasn't set case law precedent. So, to answer your specific queston, lbs1989, No, I will not highlight specific posts such as you requested. My time is too valuable to divert into doing that work for you or others. I do believe evidence exists to support my beliefs and surfacing of the pump and dump issue. As I stated earlier, much earlier on this thread, I have monitored this thread (yes prior to ever posting hereupon) and others SI threads where the Canadian touters hang out to see if my two G&S plays have been "yakked up," and am pleased to say I have NOT found them here or anywhere on SI for that matter. The absences of even the appearance of pump and dump of my two "rav favs" pleases me no end. It is up to myself and others to scrutinize and deal with violations and violators. I raised the issue because I believe it to be a valid observation, ON HERE AND IN MY OPINION. AND this thread--- & other SI threads dealing primarily with Canadian micro-crap G&S E&D play touts-- I believer are a veritable whorehouse of touts and touters, some of whom are and will be found in compliance and some of whom are not. Everyone wants to make a buck by using money to make money instead of by using labor to make money for example. BUT... 1) When one knows something about an equity 2) How one shares what one knows about that equity 3) When one buys 4) When one sells 5) Why one buys 6) Why one sells... all of these activities fall under the aegis of due diligence and therefore SEC regulations, scruitiny and enforcement. Violators should beware. We all want to keep every damned dime we legitimately make, that is capitalism at its finest and our right. It is one thing to WANT and WISH FOR a level playing field. It is totally something else to move from wishing to helping see to it that that level playing field happens.