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 (2124)	7/23/2003 6:26:57 PM
From: CountofMoneyCristo	Respond to of 3143

Let's modify the award: if these claims win, whether or not I personally do, you'll get your Pepsi. It's more likely that a jury would be unbiased than an arbitration panel specifically empowered to completely ignore "all factual or legal reasoning," limit discovery and witnesses, and not least include a broker - but no, so sorry, no traders - on the panel making the judgment. If that isn't rigged I don't know what is. It makes a laughingstock out of the whole idea of neutral, efficient arbitration. And I am not an enemy of neutral arbitration per se, as one of my forebears pioneered neutral arbitration between nations before the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague: asser.nl ...for his devoted work in establishing the Permanent Court of Arbitration during the first Hague Peace Conference of 1899. The difference between that Court and NASD arbitration is that no one is forced into arbitration before the Court; it is strictly voluntary. A tremendous difference.