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 : Brokerage-Chat Site Securities Fraud: A Lawsuit -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Yogizuna who wrote (1336)	7/2/2003 10:55:48 AM
From: CountofMoneyCristo	Respond to of 3143

Gray give him more than 2 minutes lol.

To: Yogizuna who wrote (1336)	7/2/2003 11:04:01 AM
From: CountofMoneyCristo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3143

Have you all noticed what various professors and attorneys have said about yesterday's rulings? Well, here are some quotes: washingtonpost.com Lawyer Jacob H. Zamansky, who won one of the first analyst-related arbitration cases, called Pollack's opinion "harsh" but said he agreed with the decision: "These are non-Merrill customers who could not show that they relied on the research. . . . They are people trying to take advantage of a situation the New York attorney general revealed." nytimes.com Arbitration lawyers contend that the decision will not affect their cases and that it was dismissed for good reason: the plaintiffs were not Merrill Lynch clients and never claimed to have actually read and relied on Mr. Blodget's research in making their decisions. "These guys were jumping on the bandwagon," said Jacob Zamansky, an arbitration lawyer. "You have to show reliance, that's where the battle will be fought I raised reliance yesterday. You know, I am amazed that the attorneys handling the case did not argue reliance. But a major factor here is the investors suing Merrill were not clients of Merrill - which makes all the difference. In my case, we most certainly were directly clients of the investment advisors and brokers. They owed us a duty not to set out to defraud us.

To: Yogizuna who wrote (1336)	7/2/2003 5:26:01 PM
From: Dave O.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3143

I didn't reply to the aforementioned post because it didn't warrant a reply. But to answer now ... < Have you ever bought a lottery ticket in a lottery that had no prize ? > No, I think state lotteries are governed by a gaming commission and there ARE prizes. < Have you ever gambled with a person who cheats ? > Again, I think casinos operate under certain laws of the state they are located. Now, try to COMPREHEND this ... no one FORCES me to buy a ticket to a lottery and no one FORCES me to gamble in a casino. I know people who bet on sporting events and they pay money to Las Vegas handicappers. But, many times they CHOOSE to NOT play the games the "advisor" recommended. It IS a CHOICE. Just because they pay money for advice doesn't mean they need to act on the advice given. They are free to pass on any, or all, selections just as one can pass on stock picks given by a stock investing service. This isn't rocket science Yogi!