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: The Duke of URL© who wrote (97110)	4/12/2002 11:11:30 AM
From: Jerome	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 97611

That's twice today I was wrong...time to take the dog for a walk.....we all know about three strikes and your out..:) Jerome

To: The Duke of URL© who wrote (97110)	4/12/2002 3:42:10 PM
From: Lynn	Respond to of 97611

Dear Duke: You definitely have greater knowledge of the U.S. legal system than I. I see your point using the Monica example. Adding a twist to this statement of your's, however, I have some questions: "but it does not apply where a third party steals the item, and then gives it to someone else who could not normally steal it themselves." Let's say the person who stole the item did it on behalf of the person who could not steal it on instructions--and some type of compensation--from the person who could not steal it. I'm assuming from what you said that the evidence could still be used in court. I'm also assuming this is more like what happened in Watergate than Monicagate. Would this example, however, constitute consipiracy such that HP can blast the person who paid out of the water (in a separate case)?? Could the whole situation be used in the upcoming court case to their advantage vs. WW? Regards, Lynn