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: Jon Tara who wrote (1372)	7/3/2003 6:57:19 PM
From: CountofMoneyCristo	Respond to of 3143

Frankly, I think anybody could have thrown darts, picked any arbitrary entry point and any arbitrary holding period, and made money. Like I said earlier, the brokers and sites have some explaining to do that while there were so many opportunities the majority of their clients nevertheless were wiped out. Now why is that? Why hire me at TP, to advise more than 500 clients, if I was such a poor trader? This is what I mean when I say inconvenient facts. It's too long a story to get into why traders went to sites, I did before briefly, and that will surely come up at trial. One answer is that the brokers and sites each funneled their clients to the other, kept them in the shooting gallery where they would be defrauded. They did this mostly through scare tactics and especially their inherent prestige - this especially where the brokerage firms are concerned. We are not talking some barker in a circus; these are NASD and SIPC members. Clients are entitled to expect that those in that position do not deliberately defraud their clients. By the way, I'll add something here, as I think you may be interested in this new development: Today I learned that a prominent law firm has been involved in the kickback scheme, drafting the actual kickback contracts. That law firm I am going to name: JENKINS & GILCHRIST. I have irrefutable proof of this - and now so does Philip Berber's attorney, who happens to work for that same firm in California. How do I know? It's right there in the contract - their name. Problems indeed... Like I said, the longer this goes on the more is going to come out. This kind of scheme was wide-ranging and there are a lot of players yet to be identified who played ball, were instrumental in carrying it out. Hence, why the Complaint names DOE defendants. Jenkins & Gilchrist can shortly expect me to amend the Complaint to name them. That firm has the honor of being the first DOE defendant to be named as such. I'm even giving them the chance to know my intentions in advance. Hint to Jenkins: you have offices in California. I don't think you will successfully avoid jurisdiction of the California courts. Then again, I am merely an ignorant pro se plaintiff, so maybe I am wrong? We'll see, won't we...