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 (3806)	7/19/1998 11:43:00 AM
From: Binder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9440

Dusty, I am not certain, but probably have a pretty good idea of to which case(s) you are referring... If it is the one I think it is, it is ALL a moot point now, imho. You have a nice day. Binder

To: Dusty who wrote (3806)	7/19/1998 12:05:00 PM
From: Ga Bard	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9440

Dusty, I am very familiar with the case you speak of and I even know the names of who got caught in the sting, why and so for. Also I have talked to other attorneys outside that case and even to character references at wall street who speak highly of the individual. I think you should try to see why one case was severed out of 52 or more. It just is not normal once filed. Apparently the trading logs submitted showed no profit if so where is the case. Since we are only wanna be attorneys I try to get my information from real attorneys instead of reading and interpretating. I even pay a securities attorney $240.00 an hour here in Atlanta to just answer my questions. Remember ignorance is no excuse. They is always those that will believe the lies just depends on the sales job. Again who has the best attorney wins or who has the undoubtable evidence. Remember just have to cast a shadow of doubt. Motive, burden of proof, etc. GB