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 (1561)	7/11/2003 1:19:25 PM
From: CountofMoneyCristo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3143

When did I talk about formal discovery in the courtroom? You misunderstood or perhaps I wasn't clear: I meant more in the vein of revelation than formal discovery. Obviously, that takes place long before trial. My lawyers' withdrawal is a very long story and I won't get into it in too much detail. I did file a brief related to their withdrawal with the Court. There were some serious problems with their representation, to put it mildly. Let me give you one example. In Court, during critical hearings, determining California jurisdiction over the defendants, the Harvard-educated former SEC Chief Counsel attorney representing me stated: "There's no one place where everybody can be sued, at least, on state court violations." The very last statement he made so-called representing me...MY OWN LAWYER. By doing that, he has got some serious problems. That is the kind of statement defense counsel would be expected to make, not counsel for the plaintiff. In virtually every statement he made, he completely contradicted every brief filed with the Court. It has been a very, very disappointing experience, making it extremely difficult for me to consider trusting another attorney with my case. Here's another classic remark. When the judge asked him to expound upon legal support for my position, here's what he had to say: "Yeah, the case is much too technical for me to understand exactly what went on there." Then he says: "Well, I think the only other people here are the defendants and they're going to make distinctions. I cannot - that's all I know." What can I say? I have gotten some advice from other attorneys and basically when I told them about these statements at first they did not believe a lawyer of this one's stature would actually do this; then I sent the records and they were amazed.

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (1561)	7/11/2003 1:34:51 PM
From: CountofMoneyCristo	Respond to of 3143

Incidentally, to clarify, I have not just gone out completely on a limb recently, and have been discussing the case with a number of prominent firms that I believe are worthy of faith. Not all attorneys are the same as those I unfortunately dealt with previously. So, I may make the decision to hire a trial lawyer when this case reaches trial. I do know that it is far more effective to have a lawyer pleading your case for you at trial than trying to do it yourself. But, that's a ways off. A trial would not take place for at least another 8-12 months, if not longer, depending on how long the appellate process takes, which I understand could be a long time, unfortunately. I've done my part to speed that up by filing my first brief a week early, not requesting a 60-day extension for time to file it as is each party's right. What may very well happen soon is that a class action is filed. In all likelihood, attorneys would be representing the class. I would opt out, and certainly not be lead plaintiff in that action. As for what happened before with my attorneys, well I am sure the defendants are eager to use that, to bring it up and say, "See, he blames everyone, even his own attorneys!" If they do, then they will open the door wide open to admission of facts and proceedings that normally are barred from being presented, such as statements they made before trial, and their motions seeking to avoid coming in front of the jury. For that reason, I would be surprised if they did try to argue the above. It would be a net-loss argument.