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 : The ENRON Scandal -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mephisto who wrote (1783)	1/30/2002 2:46:04 PM
From: Baldur Fjvlnisson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5185

Don't forget to email it to your Congressman.

To: Mephisto who wrote (1783)	1/30/2002 3:04:47 PM
From: The Duke of URL©	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5185

My guess: She was let off because there was no appeal rights. The law is MANDATORY ARBITRATION which I happen to feel is an unconstitutional waiver of your legal rights, but, once this judge threw it out, it should go to arbitration, where the plaintiff can get 35 cents. ML was popped on the same theory for Henry Blodgett and they settled for 400 Million!!!!! (I believe.) I assume because the attorney handling that case told them that he would appeal on the constitutional issue. They would be VERY affraid, I would think, to take that case up, even if there were a 1 in 10000 chance they would lose, the results would be devastating to them.