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 : Georgia Bard's Corner -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dusty who wrote (3805)	7/19/1998 11:55:00 AM
From: Ga Bard	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9440

Well depends ... I use that site too which is a good site. The statement is mostly legal opinion and not of mine but the attorneys I talk to on line and off. Interpretation of stock fraud is a criminal not a civil case. Civil cases typically arise out of a criminal case. Civil cases are to check anyone associated for profit to disengorge the profits to the plantiffs. They have to prove the persons named made a profit during the time of the alleged infraction. Not that they were a part of it. Guilt by association. The publicly written about case of Ron Reece for example he lied when he stated he had taken no compensate when in fact he had. The chances of getting that case severed from the original case is not an option. However I do agree that a past and character do weight greatly in court. If an individual has a history of lies and deception not to mention numerous civil suits I think it speaks for itself. Flight is another consideration. Like a woman who claims she is being harrassed and threatened the law says nothing lillegally has been done. Only if you catch the person in the act is it clear cut but still caught they will have they day in court that is our justice system. Most victims want them to have their say and see them again in court eye to eye. GB