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: StockDung who wrote (8426)	6/7/2005 4:22:28 PM
From: olivier asser	Respond to of 12465

It's a droll conceit, especially considering Rea=Merlin, but there's a problem with the analogy here: Here, in effect, is what the District Court has ordered: "OK, Rea and Trading Places, you accepted bribes and so you are going to trial. But, Berber and Moor, WHO CONCEIVED OF AND PAID THE BRIBES IN THE FIRST PLACE, you two are dismissed." That's what this boils down to in simple terms. The conflict with United States Supreme Court authority the District Court's orders represents is a matter for appeal. Now don't forget I have a mountain of evidence to prove these allegations. The Court apparently referred to that when it stated that the question was not whether I would prevail but whether or not the law allows for a remedy in this instance. The Supreme Court says it does. In reality, the party in the process of losing litigation "arms and legs" is Berber, not me. He just doesn't know it yet.