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 : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (7229)	2/9/2005 6:54:13 PM
From: jbIII	Respond to of 12465

Hmm, I wonder if Judith knows ?? According to Network Solutions, a domain-registration firm, on Sept. 16, 2003, the NFI-info site was created with a "dot com" appendage. The creator identified Bob O'Brien as the owner of the site and gave an address in Las Vegas, which turned out to be the location for a strip club called Cheetah's I may just have to do some investigating myself. In the course of DueDilligence , naturally. :)

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (7229)	2/9/2005 7:31:32 PM
From: StockDung	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

WHOIS information for nfi-info.com: [whois.joker.com] domain: nfi-info.com status: hold,invalid-address organization: NFI-Info owner: Bob Obrien email: bobobrien12345@hotmail.com title: President address: 2112 Western Ave city: Las Vegas state: NV postal-code: 89121 country: US admin-c: bobobrien12345@hotmail.com#0 tech-c: bobobrien12345@hotmail.com#0 billing-c: bobobrien12345@hotmail.com#0 nserver: ns1.az-web.com nserver: ns2.az-web.com registrar: JORE-1 created: 2003-09-16 17:47:04 UTC JORE-1 modified: 2004-04-13 05:24:14 UTC JORE-1 expires: 2005-09-16 13:46:50 UTC source: joker.com

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (7229)	2/9/2005 7:47:10 PM
From: StockDung	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

Friday, March 28, 1997 Strippers bare woes in lawsuit Exotic dancers seek $30,000 each to cover back pay and tips they say are due them the past two years. By Caren Benjamin Review-Journal Las Vegas strippers have filed a lawsuit charging topless clubs with illegal labor practices for not paying them minimum wage and forcing them to share their tips with club owners. Filed Thursday in District Court, the lawsuit asks for class-action status to cover all exotic dancers who have worked in Las Vegas clubs the past two years. Only Cheetah's Lounge and Crazy Horse Too are named in the complaint, but other unnamed clubs could be liable if a judge grants class-action status. The unnamed strippers in the case received only tips for their work at the clubs, according to attorney Ara Shirinian. In return for being allowed to work at the clubs, the strippers are required to "tip-out" at the end of shifts by giving the club owner $30, according to the lawsuit. The practice of requiring this payment is illegal under Nevada law, Shirinian claimed. "I don't know any plumber who has to pay a $100 dollars to work on someone's house," he said. Also, he said most adult clubs consider the strippers "independent contractors," which means they are exempt from minimum wage rules. But the clubs set strict standards of behavior that belies their independence claim, he said. For example, the lawsuit claims strippers must accept any drink bought for them by a patron. Turning down a drink is punishable by a $5 fine. Smoking in front of customers could cost a dancer $10 and dancing too close to a customer could cost $20. Strippers are required to entice customers into buying them drinks and are prohibited from dating or socializing with customers outside of work, the suit claims. They are not paid overtime but are often required to work shifts longer than eight hours and are only allowed to leave the premises with permission of the management. The lawsuit asks for about $30,000 per stripper to cover back pay and paid-out tips for the past two years. Shirinian estimates there would be 600 eligible class members at Cheetah's and Crazy Horse Too alone. "All we are asking is they get paid the same as waiters and busboys who get tips but don't have to share them. We are asking to be treated like any other service professions in this town," Shirinian said. Officials at Cheetah's and Crazy Horse Too said they had not seen the lawsuit and could not comment at this time.

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (7229)	2/21/2005 11:05:40 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12465

Re: 2/?/05 - Bob O'Brien's interview with Carol Remond of Dow Jones Bob O'Brien's interview with Carol Remond of Dow Jones Email is Carol.Remond@dowjones.com Bob O'Brien speaks with the press - a summary I spoke at some length this morning with reporter from Dow Jones. She seemed troubled by the idea that I have chosen to remain anonymous. I pointed out that I have several attorney friends that indicated that was a prudent choice, as I didn't want a horse head in my bed one morning. She seemed to feel that it brought my message into question - she really seemed to dislike the idea that nobody else was troubled by it, that I was completely up-front as to why I had made that choice, and that it was common knowledge that I used a pseudonym for privacy reasons. We discussed the Reg SHO problem, and her position was that the system seemed to be working, and that the Reg SHO list had all sorts of plausible explanations - none of which she was able to articulate for specific examples I brought up. I pointed out that the preliminary list had been circulated as of Dec. 3, and that many of the companies that had been on the list as of that date were still on it today. I also asked what her logic was for pardoning the failures up to January 7, 2005, given that there had been rules against naked shorting for 71 years. She was non-responsive to that. We chatted about the foreign exchanges, and I articulated my theory that they were being used as a pretense by offshore hedge funds to fail to deliver - "waiting on Berlin time" as 'twere. She indicated that the SEC and the NASD had gone to Germany and satisfied themselves that no naked shorting was going on through Germany - I pointed out that I didn't say that they were naked shorting through Germany, but rather using the German exchanges as a pretense for failing. She didn't like that and instead went back to her statement, attempting, I believe, to attribute it to me. I corrected her. This seemed adversarial at this point, and I inquired why a highly intelligent, obviously informed person would be deliberately introducing fallacious arguments and attempting to re-configure my statements so that they seemed pejorative. She indicated that she thought it was dishonest of me to be Bob O'Brien rather than using my real name. I asked why that changed the truth of the message. She didn't have much to say about that, other than that I could be some sort of a stock tout or trader or something - to which I responded how did running an advocacy ad with no symbols on it constitute a stock tout - no answer from her. We then discussed who the contributors were for NCANS, I invited her to check the Yahoo message boards so that she could see all the small investors who had posted "I sent my check" messages." She seemed really stuck on the notion that it was all some sort of a scam. Dave Patch, who runs investigatethesec.com, and who has been very helpful in bringing me up to speed on the abuses, and Gary Vallenotti, CEO of Jag Media, were both introduced to the discussion - she seemed very interested in whether they were members of NCANS or not. I indicated that they hadn't donated, but I considered them members - hey guys, you want to be members? Anyway, she then wanted to know if we were registered or licensed anywhere, and I indicated that I wasn't aware of any registration or license we required, and asked her if she did? She didn't, but acted as though we should have been. Interesting. The topic returned to why I was a rat bastard for not wanting the bad guys on Wall Street to have my home address and phone number. I again pointed out that not all the players on the street played by the King's rules. She poo pooed that, and went back to what I "should" do in order to have "credibility" - I again asked why the messenger was so important when the message was so important. No reply. She indicated that if you were going to write to the president, you should be willing to sign it. I asked where the etiquette rules were as I'd misplaced my copy - there was a conspicuous lack of amusement from her end. She brought up the Cheetah Club and BVI locations of the www.nfi-info.net website registration, and seemed annoyed at my sense of humor. I can understand that not everyone has the same sense of humor, or any, for that manner. I think it's safe to say at this point that this was fairly adversarial - there wasn't a lot of interest in hearing about the issue, but rather a non-stop barrage of "when did you stop beating your wife" sorts of questions. We then moved to who was involved in creating the ad, and I indicated that it was an agency that had asked to remain anonymous. She hated that. Wanted to know if we had any high profile contributors - I said all would be revealed on our schedule. She asked if I'd ever heard of some other coalition, and I said I thought I had heard of something from years ago that was linked in some way to some penny stock scammers, but I could be wrong - it was a long time ago and it was an email exchange that it was mentioned in. She seemed to feel that had significance, but couldn't articulate why. We then again returned to why I was suspect as I wouldn't say who I really was. We discussed Rocker Partners, and I indicated that they were presumed to be the large short in NFI - she reframed some of my statements, and I corrected her and indicated that I wouldn't say anything libelous about Mr. Rocker. She went back to who had threatened me, and wanted to know if I was saying that Rocker was threatening me. I replied that I was saying no such thing. And so on. We went back to why I thought that there was a problem with naked shorting. I pointed out that Reg SHO was proof of fail to delivers being fact, not theory. We then went round and round on whether there was definitive proof that the DTCC and the NYSE and the NASD and the NASDAQ and the SEC were covering up a systemic problem. I asked what she would need other than a list of companies where the laws on the books for 71 years had been violated. She didn't have an answer for that. She asked for Mary's phone number, which I got back to her with. Wanted to know how many checks we'd received. I told her somewhere between 50 and 100 - I wasn't sure as I'm not handling that. She wanted again to know how many members we had, I said 150-200 or so, but growing rapidly. I think it's safe to say that my chances of having dinner with Carol are slim at this point. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, but I detected an agenda that didn't have a lot in common with telling an impartial story. So we can all assume that she will not be depicting me with a cape and a little mask, defending the downtrodden. I hope I'm wrong, and that I misunderstood. Perhaps anyone that sent in donations can email her so she knows that real people are really upset about this and really sent money. Maybe then she'll get that we really are mad as hell and aren't going to take it any Copyright © 2005 NCANS.net ncans.net