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 (12149)	4/22/2016 12:08:36 PM
From: SI User	Respond to of 12465

Can the short and distort consipracy nutjobs quote you on that? And, btw, I see "janice shell" on the list. For 20 years people have been trying to figure out who she really is. I even asked her myself in person if she were a real person or a composite of many people using that name. Even she didn't know.

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (12149)	4/22/2016 12:16:03 PM
From: SI Dave	Respond to of 12465

That was one of the points of our objection; that they can definitively ascertain the recipients of the contested dividend by subpoenaing the member firms. Violating the privacy of anonymous internet posters, some of who may have received the dividend, some of whom did not and some of who have never even owned the stock is most certainly not an appropriate means to ascertain identities, even if they are entitled to them by law. They effectively said that going the definitive route of subpoenaing the information from the regulated member firms was too much trouble for them. They throw in some unsubstantiated allegations that some of the posters may have been involved with promoting the stock (which would seem to be an issued for the SEC if there are 17(b) violations - COR has no apparent standing in the matter) and that some of the posters may have been involved in other nefarious activities or had knowledge of those who did in connection with the contested dividend. iHub doesn't have any opinion on the merits of their claims regarding the contested dividends; the subpoena is another matter and simply lacks any rational basis, much less a legal one.