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.

Technology Stocks : Compaq -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Night Writer who wrote (95274)	2/15/2002 12:54:53 PM
From: The Duke of URL©	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 97611

Point well taken. But it is not the bank's or the insurance companies or the sec or the fcc attorneys of which I speak. No one ever criticizes them, no one ever blames them, it is the attorney for the "little guy" who I hasten to defend, and not for the attorney's sake but for the "little guy's" sake. If just one of those (say some retired old couple in Florida) had been allowed to pop Citi corp for using an unlicenced teller to switch them out of their federally insured savings account* to the bank run mutual fund that had 90% Enron-type stock in it, so that the bank could use the proceeds of the sale to pay back the hidden loan they made, NONE OF THIS WOULD EVER HAVE HAPPENED. Sure litigation is terrible, but sometimes it is like polio vaccine, a little dose creates the resistance to the epidemic. *This exact type of fact situation was dismissed out of court in 1994. On the theory (simplistically put) that the FED rules trump the SEC rules. A precursore to the erosion of Glass Stegal. Glass Stegal was revoked by the Gramm, Rudman, Blyly (sp) Act in 2000. And yes that is Wendy's Husband.