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 (1518)	7/10/2003 9:41:42 PM
From: CountofMoneyCristo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3143

the answers are less self-evident than you suggest. The New York Times "suggested" them, TWICE; the Defendants have not filed counter-claims and are running for the hills, committing obvious, provable perjury in the process. (That's right, we shall see what the Court of Appeal decides on that score.) There are some defendants beginning I believe to take these claims seriously. Others, I do certainly hope they continue until the verdict comes back to underestimate them, and me. That has been an advantage in this action that has proven quite valuable. I do sincerely hope it continues.

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (1518)	7/10/2003 9:47:11 PM
From: CountofMoneyCristo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3143

You know, if the defendants were paying any attention, they would come here and PM all of you and implore you to stop antagonizing the case, because every post here that does give me a huge boost of energy to keep going. So, please keep 'em coming! They keep me sharp. You, Jorj, and many others here helped me thoroughly prepare what was in store. In that respect, and I say this in all candor, I owe you a debt of gratitude, and to SI. The arguments I am using now in Court, well, many of them were formulated thanks to our discussions. They have been priceless. So don't clam up on me now!