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 : Banned.......Replies to the A@P thread. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rrufff who wrote (3503)	4/17/2005 11:33:42 AM
From: olivier asser	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5425

The AP conviction was a wake-up call to corrupt Internet investment advisers, but it seems the guilty parties decided they'd rather hang-up rather than maybe get traced. You know, rruff, call me truly naive, but I always thought that when you (not you personally but meaning "someone" or "one") came to court you told the truth if required, you didn't file perjured affidavits, you didn't say "I never did business in California in my personal capacity" when you in fact personally earned $330 million in a San Francisco business deal (Philip Berber), you didn't say "Trading Places never had any advisory function whatsoever" when you issued hundreds of recommendations daily to thousands of clients for fees (Chris Rea), you didn't file in court saying "Plaintiff sued [numerous parties] all to no avail" when you know the opposite is true (Berber and Leslie Moor), you didn't send a plaintiff an e-mail describing in specific detail an Austin, Texas meeting executing kickback payments and then swear in an affidavit that "I...have never engaged in business in the State of Texas" (Rea), you didn't use an IA website to solicit clients for two unlicensed Texas stock brokers, accept bribes from them and then claim under oath that "I...have never conducted substantial business through the Internet to individuals or entities in the State of Texas" (Rea), and, you don't appear in federal court through speakerphone and first say, "We never went to Texas ever, Your Honor," and then 10 minutes later say, "We only went there once" (Rea). So, I guess you live and learn: some people have no respect whatsoever for the judicial system. And these cretins have actually called me a "menace to the judicial system." I remember there was a poster on my thread that not long ago said this case could easily go ballistic on the defendants. We just saw the AP trial go ballistic on a large number of Internet IA conspirators. During the 12/3/04 hearing in Austin federal court, when I stated that Rea had already committed blatant perjury. Judge Sparks delivered this opinion from the bench: "Not telling the truth in a federal court is a very serious matter." If their series of false statements in the courts is any indication, my adversaries, the IA's and the unlicensed stock brokers, do not seem to agree with Judge Sparks. Let's see if their farrago of lies finally catches up with them, and they learn an unforgettable lesson. I can tell you that obviously they are steaming as you said; otherwise they wouldn't have lost their tempers and made the mistake of trying to get injunctions against me as their opening salvo in Texas (denied). Maybe a surprise that instead of enjoining me, the Court ordered Trading Places to appear through counsel or else game over default would have been entered. Now why would any Court threaten to enter default in favor of a plaintiff if that plaintiff were a "menace to the judicial system"? And now we see some new tactics, anything but actually stand up in court and take the risk of a direct denial. Since I verified my allegations under penalty of perjury, maybe Berber, Moor, Rea and Trading Places will finally answer also under penalty of perjury - and then we find out who's been playing games with the courts for the past 3 years. By the way, if you want a sign that they're losing it, here was Rea's opening statement on 12/3/04 in open court, on the speakerphone, "Your Honor, this is all very...psychological." I am not kidding, that word, "psychological," LOL - you should have seen the looks on everyone in Court when he said that, thinking he was completely loco. On the other hand, Judge Sparks gave me a similar look when I made the mistake of wrapping up oral argument by saying I'm not Geoffrey Chaucer - "Canterbury Tales" fame - didn't make all of these detailed allegations up. Better not make any literary allusions again :-). The other time I got a similar reaction was when I filed a pleading including this text: Nemo auditur suam propriam turpitudinem allegans. ("He who alleges his own turpitude is never heard.") - Legal Proverb Attributed to Ancient Rome I was referring to Berber and Moor using their own failure to be licensed as brokers to evade jurisdiction. I learned maybe I shouldn't have done that citing Latin proverbs (even though I also cited the US Supreme Court saying the same thing: "No man may take advantage of his own wrong. Deeply rooted in our jurisprudence, this principle has been applied in many diverse classes of cases in both law and equity courts." See Glus (1959).) Word of advice for any of you ever in court, in fact from the first law book I ever got, which to my detriment I ignored that time: don't quote Latin to courts! don't make grandiose statements like that, write plain language briefs like Hemingway would - which is easier said than done sometimes considering the subject matter, but it's key. The strategy worked well back in the days when the gurus could chase you from board to board and personally attack. The conviction was a wake-up call and they are just steaming.