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.

Technology Stocks : Dell Technologies Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Fangorn who wrote (105212)	2/26/1999 9:35:00 AM
From: Jock Hutchinson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 176387

Steve: People who claim to make 1000% percent profits over five months, claim to charge no fees, and make it known that they will answer Private Messages are soliciting business. The law on Securities fraud makes it quite clear that this sort of "innocent" posting is fraud--absent of course substantiated facts--i.e. he actually did make that kind of money for his clients. Message 8037398 The above post demonstrates the four essential elements of financial solicitation: He offers a financial service (He claims to be an adviser); He claims to have made a certain rate of return (1000% in the past five months--700% for the past twelve months); He is setting his fee (Yes, "no" charge is still a fee when a fiduciary is involved); He is offering a method whereby he can receive communication("On this thread I have tried to answer every inquisitive P.M. I have ever received and I can only hope people have learned something as a result."). If you need me to cite you the case law that justifies my charge, I will. But I advise you to be patient because I am filing a formal complaint with the SEC. Included in that will be a compilation of all of his posts. That takes quite an effort since this was his original post: Message 6323466 Thus I need to wade through over 30,000 posts. Moreover, this topic is very much relevant to this thread simply because the spectacular return of DELL in the past few years is the sort of thing that always brings in con men of various sorts. In the meantime, I suggest that you might want to provide me with relevant case law that demonstrates that the above referenced post is not soliciation. For a 1st Amendment expert like yourself, it shouldn't be too difficult.