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: Dave O. who wrote (2348)	7/25/2003 2:12:16 PM
From: CountofMoneyCristo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3143

You asked whether claims were filed for many clients. I answered you. You continue to sidestep every answer and say I did not answer. In a Complaint, you accuse the defendant, through what are called allegations, understand?

To: Dave O. who wrote (2348)	7/25/2003 2:14:01 PM
From: CountofMoneyCristo	Respond to of 3143

You have yet to address SEC v. Park, which held that Internet stock picks are investment advice. Why not? Think the Court was wrong? Think the defendants might have that ruling reversed?

To: Dave O. who wrote (2348)	7/25/2003 2:21:07 PM
From: CountofMoneyCristo	Respond to of 3143

By the way Rea said TP had "no advisory function whatsoever." Even your thin argument of mere "suggestions" would fall under an advisory function. However, the evidence bears out clearly that these were securities recommendations. What did the recs have in common. Well: 1. BUY, SELL, SHORT, COVER 2. Updates on security and price in real-time 3. Statements to clients about their securities executions of the recommendations, also in real-time, updated 4. Multiple additional recommendations of the same security in real-time 5. Multiple commentaries on the performance of the securities recommendation 6. Affirming client profits on the securities recommendations I hope Rea tries to argue they weren't securities recommendations again. If he does, his hole will get a lot deeper, and he'll make it more likely that he will be facing charges based on his perjured declarations. Two questions also: 1. If Rea swears under oath that he did not use California infrastructure after early 1999, but in fact he continued to do so for more than a year later, is that perjury? 2. If Rea swears under oath that he banished me from Trading Places completely in March 2000 for "uncontrollable behavior," but in fact he hired me as a TP analyst at that time, is that perjury? Pretty straightforward questions. Or are we now going to discuss what the word "lie" means? What is the meaning of "to be"?