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 (1588)	7/11/2003 3:16:55 PM
From: CountofMoneyCristo	Respond to of 3143

Good questions, Jorj, but those are not going to be answered here. Not yet. Those are answers for a courtroom. I'm not about to give those answers when I know very well they will be asked in Court. Sorry.

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (1588)	7/11/2003 3:20:10 PM
From: CountofMoneyCristo	Respond to of 3143

You keep saying that this was investment advice. Were these people certified investment advisors? If not, did they represent themselves as such? Good question, because Rea has committed perjury along these lines, saying he never gave advice or recommendations. Here's an answer for you, nice try though: sec.gov Before submitting his settlement offer, Park moved to dismiss the Commission's Complaint, arguing primarily that, since he dispensed his stock picks and investment advice over the Internet, he was not an "investment adviser" within the meaning of the Investment Advisers Act and that the antifraud provisions of that Act could not be constitutionally applied to him. The District Court denied Park's motion to dismiss in its entirety and held that the Commission's Complaint sufficiently alleged that Park was an "investment adviser" under the Advisers Act and that Park was subject to that Act's antifraud provisions. (SEC v. Park a/k/a Tokyo Joe, and Tokyo Joe's Societe Anonyme Corp., 99 F. Supp. 2d 889 (N.D. Ill. 2000).