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.

Non-Tech : Auric Goldfinger's Short List -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: StockDung who wrote (16835)	1/21/2006 7:05:25 PM
From: afrayem onigwecher	Read Replies (17) \| Respond to of 19428

Smart Video foe Hamouth says he is being watched 2006-01-20 15:01 ET - Street Wire by Stockwatch Business Reporter Smart Video Technologies Inc.'s court opponent, West Vancouver promoter Rene Hamouth, is in court again. He is not suing Smart Video, or any other company, however. This time Mr. Hamouth is suing the Canadian government and the Municipality of West Vancouver for invasion of privacy. Mr. Hamouth claims West Vancouver police have tapped his phone, bugged his house and followed him around town. He says the government is "illegally investigating" him and is eavesdropping on him at every chance. He also says CSIS, the Canadian spy agency, has been spying on him since 2004. The suit names the Attorney General of Canada, the Municipality of West Vancouver and West Vancouver chief of police Grant Churchill as defendants. The suit also names six John Does, all members of the RCMP and the West Vancouver Police. Nobody will say why investigators could have bugged Mr. Hamouth's house. Not his lawyer, not the police and not the government. "I can't comment on the merits of the claim," says Keitha Elvin-Jensen, the government lawyer. The West Vancouver Police department declined to comment on the matter. The lawsuit of few details Mr. Hamouth's lawsuit does not contain many details of the alleged invasion of privacy. For example it does not say what led Mr. Hamouth to believe the government planted listening devices in his walls. Based on the lack of detail, government lawyers asked a judge to toss the suit earlier this month. The judge did not throw the suit out, but he did order Mr. Hamouth to include more information. "In its original form, the statement of claim, for the most part, fails to state the material facts," B.C. Supreme Court Justice Thomas Melnick said. The phone, the VCR, the TV and the computer are bugged In what details are available, Mr. Hamouth claims his phone calls are monitored and the electronics in his house are bugged. Mr. Hamouth says somebody has "compromised" his VCR, TV and computer and they do not work properly. He says he has other electrical problems stemming from "bugging, wiring and other electronic surveillance devices." Apparently his plumbing has even suffered a diversion "which can not be attributed to any lawful conduct." Mr. Hamouth also complains plainclothes police are regularly watching outside his house. When he leaves he says they follow him and photograph anybody he meets. A threat to national security? Mr. Hamouth says CSIS and the police have never told him what they are investigating. He claims the police and CSIS sent him letters in late 2004 telling him he was under investigation, but nobody said why. "At no time has there existed reasonable grounds on which [Mr. Hamouth] could be suspected of constituting a threat to national security," Mr. Hamouth's lawyer says in court filings. Mr. Hamouth also says his bank, CIBC, stopped doing business with him after government agents had a talk with his banker. The judge gave Mr. Hamouth until Jan. 26 to refile his lawsuit. Mr. Hamouth sued Smart Video Mr. Hamouth is a veteran of many civil suits. Last June he sued Smart Video, an OTC Bulletin Board listing, for libel. He said the company damaged his reputation when it told his broker he was illegally trading the stock. He lost that suit. In another suit Mr. Hamouth claimed New York stock promoter Lev Zaidenberg ripped him off in the collapse of OTC-BB listing Constellation 3D Inc. Regards, Jeremy Yaseniuk SKYLINE INVESTOR RELATIONS Phone: 604.733.3356 Toll Free: 1.866.433.3356 ********************************************************************* Skyline Investor Relations (Skyline) is an investor relations firm. Information has been obtained from sources considered to be reliable, but we do not guarantee that it is accurate or complete. This material is not an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any securities. Skyline and its affiliates, officers, directors and agents have been compensated by its clients to perform shareholder and investor relation services. Each contract varies in duration, services performed and compensation received. This information is not an endorsement of the Company by Skyline. Skyline is not responsible for any claims made by the Company. Investors should independently investigate and fully understand all risks before investing. Statements included may contain forward looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation reform ACT of 1995. Such statements involve a number of risks and uncertainties. Further information on potential factors that may affect each Company's financial results can be found in their specific Financial Reports, which are filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and or the British Columbia Securities Commission (BCSC). *********************************************************************

To: StockDung who wrote (16835)	1/22/2006 1:53:54 PM
From: scion	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 19428

THE BALONEY BLITZKRIEG MARCHES ON: garyweiss.blogspot.com Since there seems to be such a high level of interest, as evidenced by the comments I received before I even broached the issue, I guess I'll toss in my two cents on all this "naked shorting" baloney. I devote a chapter to the subject in Wall Street Versus America, but here's the executive summary: First let's be clear about something: short selling, "naked" or not, is good for investors. That's a proven fact that has been demonstrated time and time again. However, since short-selling wagers on stocks declining, it is viewed as almost un-American and has been used as a scapegoat since the Crash of 1929 and before. However, you need short-selling if you want to have smoothly running, efficient markets. You need that negative input in the process of pricing stocks. Unfortunately, the mechanics of short-selling have always made it hard to short the stocks that require shorting the most -- illiquid, frequently manipulated, microcap stocks. The Securities and Exchange Commission, via Regulation SHO, actually made it harder for professional traders to short microcaps. That's because to do so you have to do it by "naked" shorting, and SHO pretty well stomps that out. The SEC should have made it easier to short crap stocks. Instead they made it harder. Now is that dumb, or what? I personally have never shorted a stock and I think it is foolish for amateur investors to try -- almost as dumb as it is to speculate in microcaps. But hey, if you're going to bet on the damn things, you should have the ability to short them as well as buy them, just as you can with large-cap stocks. And if that drives down the price of the stocks -- so much the better. If the companies are any good, the shorting gives investors an opportunity to buy them at discount prices. I love a bargain, don't you? So it's really very simple, but the short-bashers have swathed the whole thing in baloney so much, gummed up the debate with so many red herrings and distortions and incorrect assumptions, that it's really a shame. The shame is that a lot of the people who are most upset about shorting of their fave companies would actually benefit the most if it were allowed to flourish. After all, these are great companies, right? And if their companies aren't so great, their beef should be with the companies, not the shorts. In my book I go into detail on this, but that's the summary. One thing I find disturbing about this naked shorting business lately is how the anti-naked-shorts have engaged in some really underhanded, cynical tactics to advance their stupid cause. Lately they've been -- oh my, how unique this is! -- bashing the media left and right. For example, I've seen circulated on the Internet supposed exchanges of correspondence and communications from reporters (note this post and others on the SABEW blog). The transparent aim is to drum up a phony hate-media hysteria. Note the reference to an unrelated payola scandal in this anti-shorting website, replete with this swill: How many journalists do you think Wall Street pays off every year to write agenda articles? 1% of the total? 2%? 5%? 10%? If there are 500 financial journalists in NY and the surrounding areas, 2% would be 10. Anyone naive enough to think this is an isolated issue is living in a fool's paradise. This kind of bonehead rhetoric is typical of the Baloney Brigade. And as for the ranting by Overstock's Patrick Byrne about Sith Lords and such -- the only journalistic issue that I see is that some people in the media have actually taken it seriously. I saw one broadcast journalist, a gent I respect, actually give a platform to some of this silliness. Journalists have a duty to their readers and viewers to call that kind of rhetoric what it is -- baloney. Funny how I keep coming back to that word. garyweiss.blogspot.com