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: Yogizuna who wrote (1640)	7/16/2003 1:53:08 PM
From: CountofMoneyCristo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3143

Well, Yogi, to be frank with you, when, after those hearings, where I did not appear, my attorneys advised it was not necessary - well, when I received a copy of the Court Reporter's Transcript I was amazed that the judge in this case would give actual advice to defense counsel concerning her handling of the defense. He had issued a tentative ruling in her client's favor, and then advises her that since she was winning better for her not to say anything in court! My father is a lawyer and when he saw that he simply could not believe it. It was not an easy step requesting the court disqualify a judge, but considering what has taken place so far I had no choice. In my opinion, and I don't know why, what the reasons could be, he is prejudiced against these claims. If you look at the facts so far: 1. CyberTrader/Schwab: - I never executed an arbitration agreement; - The contract I did sign is dated January 20, 2000 - Public claims, according to the California Supreme Court in a major previous ruling, which was affirmed a few weeks after the hearing, absolutely bars arbitration of claims seeking injunctive relief under the California laws I sued under in the Complaint ...and then, disregarding all of this, the judge orders all claims to arbitration, including the public claims which the Supreme Court made clear are not arbitrable and also retroactive claims back to 1998 when I had no relationship with CyberTrader at all. And then there's the matter of my not even executing any agreement to arbitrate 2. MBT/Terra Nova - the judge sent to arbitration claims that have nothing to do with the arb agreement - the judge ignored again the Supreme Court and compelled public injunctive claims to arbitration 3. Philip Berber - Berber lies under oath and says he never did business in California when he personally cashed in as a direct result of my allegations $300-500 million, personally solicited clients and arranged for kickbacks in California at the Trading Expos in Oakland, Anaheim and Ontario and had hundreds if not thousands of California-resident clients on whose behalf I sued, and the cashing-in to Schwab he personally signed, as "attorney-in-fact," and that agreement contains in clear writing that all disputes related to the sale would take place in San Francisco, California, through what is called a "mandatory forum selection clause." - 95% of my damages took place in California ...nothing to do with California? 4. Rea/Trading Places - Rea commits perjury saying he never made any recommendations, in fact claiming this was nothing more than basically, "nothing more than a telephone call," believe it or not - Then he commits perjury by saying he threw me off TP right when in fact I was hired - Then he concocts an "agreement" he claims I made with him to litigate in Illinois, which never existed - He then says he hardly had any dealings with the California company ChatSpace, when that company supplied the investment advisory and e-commerce software, and took payments in California, under an agreement that in clear language states that those services were performed in California and to be governed by California law ...and the judge says this case has nothing to do with California. It's hard to believe but there you are. Rea right now is at risk of soon facing multiply felony counts for perjury. I hope the Court refers those charges, and he is indicted. I also hope it considers referring similar charges against Berber who swore under oath he never did any business in California - that is, when he didn't know that I had a copy of the agreement he signed with SCH and evidence of his involvement in the Expos in Cali. So, right now we just wait to see what Berber and Rea/TP state in their brief, I reply, and then how the Court rules. One thing is certain: it will be interesting. The judge says: "I don't think the State of California has any interest in this case, to tell you the truth." Look at the facts and then look at that statement and it is incomprehensible, to me anyway, but I would believe other observers aware of the facts also.