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: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (1513)	7/10/2003 9:25:52 PM
From: CountofMoneyCristo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3143

I got this far through your post when I decided to respond. I'll read the rest in a minute, because your posts are interesting. League of Count's enemies. Like others here, now I'm paranoid. If my allegations are true then there has been a wide-ranging conspiracy in trading, whereby a few callous and greed-filled individuals deliberately set out to betray the trust and destroy the lives of thousands of innocent citizens. And you start calling me names, like others. Look here, I think at this point the SI community, the honest people who might still remain here, should take the following into account: I said I would sue these people and I have, proceedings now pending before the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco and the First District Court of Appeal. I did what I assured this community I would so. On the other hand, those who accuse me of libel, etc., etc. etc. have not at any time taken any action against me. Now why is that? Why are all the defendants running scared from a trial by jury? I would think that if my claims were baseless they would have counter-sued and filed motions to sanction me for bringing frivolous claims. Even the $15 billion corporation Schwab has proven by its actions that it does not prefer to be in a courtroom with me opposing it in this action. Now why is that? The answers are self-evident. Ok, on to the rest of your post

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (1513)	7/10/2003 9:31:35 PM
From: CountofMoneyCristo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3143

The rest of your post was a quick read, as I have heard that before here. Some answers for you: It seems the Courts don't agree with you, first of all, and the defendants clearly are quite concerned as well, because they are allergic to a jury. If your argument held water, they would have answered my Complaint and fought it out in Court. Bu they did not do so, quite the contrary. End of story to that point. You call me "sloppy." Well, I am now drafting and filing briefs on my own, against some of the most talented legal minds in California. So far, it is not I but defense counsel who have lost their tempers at this "upstart pro se plaintiff who thinks he would dare file anything against us." That's the reasonable indication of what I have read from their submissions, and their completely preposterous motion to strike and for sanctions. We'll see what the Courts decide. I will let you all know as soon as they do. I have great confidence in them. By the way, I do believe the defendants think my father is drafting the briefs for me. LOL! As if he had any time in his retirement, considering his public service. If this delusion serves to make you feel better, so be it.

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (1513)	7/11/2003 8:12:53 AM
From: Dave O.	Respond to of 3143

< Mrs. McKie wouldn't give a rat's ass if I paid $1000 a day for advice, if I continued to follow that bad advice, it isn't anybody's fault but mine. > The above is so very true!! I would say anyone who continued to follow advice that apparently continually proved to be "bad" or wrong would be foolish to continue to follow advice from the same sources. < Three issues that I have with your approach are: 1. You do not take personal responsibility for your actions 2. You are very sloppy in how you attack those who you perceive have harmed you. 3. You get defensive when you perceive that anyone questions your methods or motives. > Very well said on all 3 points above! And #1 has been made here by a number of posters. I think most people would, and do, take responsibility for decisions they make consciously.

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (1513)	7/11/2003 4:06:26 PM
From: Yogizuna	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3143

>>> As far as the blame for the losses based on bad advice, I use the Mrs. McKie rule. The Mrs. McKie rule is simple. Would Mrs. McKie give me a pass for the losses or would I bear full responsibility in her eyes. Mrs. McKie wouldn't give a rat's ass if I paid $1000 a day for advice, if I continued to follow that bad advice, it isn't anybody's fault but mine. <<< You people just do not seem to get it. Taking "personal responsibility" has nothing to do with any illegal and or immoral activities going on behind the scenes which could contribute to the client's losses without their consent or knowledge. It's as simple as that. If the defendant's illegal actions caused any losses in the accounts of their customers, they should be found guilty and made to pay for their misdeeds.