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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Galapagos Islands -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mph who wrote (47863)	9/29/2003 11:11:38 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 57110

Being a semi porn director and all. :-) semi? :-)

To: mph who wrote (47863)	9/29/2003 11:56:43 PM
From: gypsees	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 57110

Dolts or not, I can see where this would be puzzling since the laws are already in place and an injunction against violation would therefore seem superfluous. Inept immediately comes to mind ;o) Doesn't a court have the right to lower the boom if you break any laws when on probation to begin with? Since I'm a perfect angel and not in the legal profession, I've never had any experience with that sort of thing <g>.. Just seems like really poor use of language.

To: mph who wrote (47863)	9/30/2003 12:36:26 AM
From: Alan Smithee	Respond to of 57110

Being in the semi-porn biz, I really don't have much familiarity with SEC enforcement proceedings. I'd have to guess, however, that a permanent injunction against violating a specific rule would give the SEC more clout if there is a future violation. They'd be in a position to file suit in US District Court alleging a violation of the consent decree. If that language was in a settlement entered in a court case, on the other hand, violation would be a contempt, and the SEC could go back into court asking the judge to impose a variety of sanctions for the contempt.