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 : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (4084)	3/21/2002 5:54:31 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 21057

Take care.....

To: Lane3 who wrote (4084)	3/21/2002 5:57:21 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

I'm sure it is cold comfort, but that is probably better than nothing. There, I put in a period. Are you happy now?

To: Lane3 who wrote (4084)	3/21/2002 6:12:25 PM
From: Poet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

That is wonderful news. I am very pleased she has standing to sue. Though what a terrible situation. I'm very glad that Noel and Knoller got the book thrown at them.

To: Lane3 who wrote (4084)	3/21/2002 6:47:24 PM
From: J. C. Dithers	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

I am uncomfortable with this trendy idea of following up criminal trials with civil suits on the same matter. It smacks too much to me of a sneaky way to get around double-jeopardy. As much as I despise O. J. Simpson, I thought that when he got his not guilty verdict that should end his jeopardy. He, in effect, went on trial twice for the same crime. There is criminal law, and there is civil law, and I am thinking that one ought not to be eligible to be punished twice. (I was more than happy to see the dog owners get the book thrown at them -- in criminal court).