Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
An attorney can correspond w/ the other side w/o waiving his client's rights.
Pro se'ers are the fuzzy area. I don't know if one waives personal jurisdiction by communicating directly w/ plaintiff's instate attorney. Someone posted info the other day that said it doesn't take very much. A simple email or phone call could do it.
For those contesting jurisdiction, IMO your suggestion here is not a good idea. How can one claim no jurisdiction then turn around before the judge even rules on this and demand discovery material? Seek an attorney's advice.
One can post his own online and maybe unsealed docs. It's not clear whether defendants would be given access to sealed records on others.
A person could request plaintiff or the court to direct plaintiff to provide a copy on specific type of records which are being made unavailable. He could also file a motion to have records unsealed. There may be other options.
Um, you still don't get it. In the US, a judge only makes decisions on issues specifically brought to his attention by the parties. He doesn't mind read, present either side's case, or go off fantasizing.
Unless sealed, court documents are property of the general public. Regardless of your threats, anyone has the right to obtain a copy. Go ahead and report him or others for seeking court docs to the FBI and OK AG. They could use a good laugh.
what possible motivation could be driving you?
In the US, it's a defendant's responsibility to stay abreast of all activity in a court case. Documents filed could easily influence someone's defense strategy. Should another defendant support plaintiff's allegations against others listed, they would be expected to defend themselves w/o additional prompting.
Whoever files a document is supposed to send a copy to all parties. OK court rules though allow a judge to waive this requirement when there's a lot of defendants. In this situation, I don't see a rule that says plaintiff must absorb the costs/manpower for distributing other parties' documents.
Fed call is a margin call. Sure, broker-dealers can get margin calls if another broker-dealer or clearing house extends them credit. Fed call is not the term for forcing a broker-dealer to cover a short or naked short if that's what you're thinking about.
Um, margin calls is a term that refers to both maintenance calls and Reg T calls (aka fed call).
The shares have to be covered. Remember, the feds suspended the buyin requirement on this stock.
MMs can legally naked short when creating a market. So, those fills should be valid. If the judge declares one's supposed NSS holdings acquired from an MM as invalid, he may be SOL. If left untouched, there's still the buyin suspension hurdle.
Hmmm, pretty weird back to the other judge. lol
Can't successfully sue a job title in the US either. Plaintiff needs to list a real person or legal entity (i.e. corporation, LLC, Trust, etc) by name.
If he doesn't know this info, he can use fictitious names such as JOHN DOES 1-10 and ROES CORPORATIONS 1-10. In the writeup, he would say these people/companies will be named later as their true identities are uncovered. Unless the plaintiff sues a real person or legal entity, there won't be a binding judgment.
Apparently, the legal system in your country is way different than ours. So, it's not surprising you have a hard time understanding the way things work in the US.
Sure, but you're still being accused of participating in fraud. Read the section that wasn't dismissed.
the DTCC appears to me to be on the defendant list..
No, they aren't. That entry is not a named person or a legal entity. Not surprised you don't get it.
Here's an analogy. You hire a plumber to unclog some pipes. After the work is completed, he tries several times to collect payment w/ no success. So, he decides to file a lawsuit and names your toilet as the defendant rather than you. Assuming the judge is stupid and doesn't throw out the case, you have no legal obligation as the owner to defend or pay any judgment made against the toilet.
Same applies there. Go ahead and try to hold their computer system accountable.
Saying the DTC forced this action doesn't make sense.
The system supposedly still has a number of FTDs. Let's assume Megas' story is true that those who have stock canceled can take action against their brokers. After the lawsuit, the DTC and brokers will be in the same situation they were before filing. The only way I can see the DTC recommending this idea is if cancellation voids delivery requirement, or Megas cuts more certs.
ohbull said the idea came from Legacy. That's more believable because they weren't tied up in the mess.
Okay, your response here still supports it can be amended. Which Oklahoma statute or court rule states the plaintiff needs a judge's permission prior to doing this?
since BCIT is domiciled there
The corporate address is a UPS mailbox. Does that pass the domicile test in Oklahoma?
They can still modify the petition so that it contains the correct allegations. Should the judge rule against you, the plaintiff has requested award of attorney fees too. If a person settles ahead of time, he could use this as a negotiating point.
please make sure you add the proper info not just what you want to tell ppl.hard to understand just half of the comments.
Um, please take this comment here to heart when writing your own posts.
The petition requests the court order defendants to pay plaintiff's attorney fees.
US District Court, District of Nevada (federal court)
LR 9010. ATTORNEYS - NOTICE OF APPEARANCE.
Any corporation, partnership or other business entity, except when acting as a bankruptcy trustee for a corporation or partnership, shall be represented only by an attorney.
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/CourtRules/USDCR.html
Yeah, it's pretty weird. Probably something you'll always remember. :o)
If you want to follow along, the case is online here:
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/getcaseinformation.asp?submitted=true&number=CJ-2007-3181+...
Responses, answers, etc from defendants are being sealed. Not too many documents available online to review, but maybe your friend has access.
Hi chisox, here ya go: http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=18949027
Counts #2-5 were dismissed w/o prejudice. You still have #1.
ohbull, one of Megas' homeboyz, claimed the idea came from the MM who supposedly chats regularly w/ him.
This maneuvre, which btw was MM Mark's idea actually and also btw lynnb et al.. he has never seen this done in ten years as a MM!... unprecedented me says! he-he-he
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=19198802
Event
Friday, June 15, 2007 at 10:00 AM
APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO OBJECT TO JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT(MOD) Bryan C. Dixon
No, I don't.
Hurd may be able to successfully argue that West has no standing. Nevada law requires at least one-fourth of the BoD be elected annually by a majority vote of its stockholders. How long has it been since an annual or special shareholder meeting was held to do this? Without regular meetings, did Urbie have the authority to appoint West to the BoD as his successor?
He better hope the judge doesn't slap him for practicing law w/o a license.
Do I need an attorney to appear in court?
No, you do not need an attorney to appear in court, however, individual parties appearing in proper person are required to follow local court rules You can also do research at the Law Library. Professional businesses and corporations may not be represented by anyone other than a licensed attorney.
http://www.co.clark.nv.us/ClarkCountyCourts/faq.html
Rule 7.42. Appearances in proper person; entry of appearance.
(a) Unless appearing by an attorney regularly admitted to practice law in Nevada and in good standing, no entry of appearance or pleading purporting to be signed by any party to an action may be recognized or given any force or effect by any district court unless the same is signed by the party, with the signer’s address and telephone number, if any. Except when otherwise specifically provided by rule or statute, pleadings need not be verified or accompanied by affidavit.
(b) A corporation may not appear in proper person.
[As amended, effective October 13, 2005.]
http://www.co.clark.nv.us/ClarkCountyCourts/rules.html
No one can legally naked short EXCEPT for MMs. They are specifically exempted from locating a borrow before shorting when creating a bona-fide market. If they weren't allowed to do this, a lot of stocks would barely trade and would be pretty volatile.
Guess you don't understand the concept of NSS. When someone naked shorts, he doesn't locate a borrow. MMs can legally do this to create a market.
When traders whine about heavy NSS occurring in their favorite pennies what they're usually seeing is something else like heavy dilution, financiers shorting against CDs, etc. BCIT though is an oddball case.
No, they won't. Feds haven't lifted the buyin suspension. From what people have posted, brokers believe their customers' shares are real. If you're unsuccessful defending yourself, the broker could say: "Sorry, it's your problem not ours."
Sure, dilution sucks. By making the DTC and broker-dealers adversaries, Megas runs a big risk of not having this stock ever trade again.
Huh? Come on, this is pretty basic stuff. You should have learned this by now. MMs can legally naked short stocks to make a market. They aren't allowed to do it on unsolicited pinkies or greys.
Megas cut certs for ~270M as part of the Pino et al settlement. The rest of the 525M o/s was issued mostly to himself.
If you expect Megas to lead a group fight against brokers, IMO you're going to be very disappointed. He could have fixed this problem by cutting more certs to cover the extra FTDs a long time ago but chose this route instead.
Okay, thanks. At least you have that email to help support that your stock is real.
If you're so concerned about this, then stick to unsolicited pinkies and grey market stocks. The MMs aren't allowed to naked short those. There's plenty out there.
The plaintiff dismissed those. /eom/
Didn't you learn from the last time massive letter writing doesn't work. The feds haven't lifted the buyin requirement right? So, you might as well talk to the wall.
Yup, they're partial shareholders. Exchanges and banks hold a larger percentage of ownership. Surely, you don't think they held a shareholder meeting to vote on what happened to BCIT.
Just like we don't have a say in the ongoing operations of a company whose stock we own, they don't either. It falls on the shoulders of the officers and elected BoD. Most, or even all of them, work in the industry. For BCIT, the decision may have been handled at a lower level.
the fact is that etrades responses are inconsistent...
Yeah, that's typical. Discount brokers don't seem to put sharp people on their customer service desks. It could be that they're just inexperienced. At mine, reps handle routine stuff okay but run to someone else whenever it's more complicated.
Okay, you make 4.02. Does the new CUSIP actually show up in your account or only in this email? Are you a named defendant in the recent lawsuit?
Hi, BuyTex. The second comment is the direct opposite of the first. If he said "some" or "most" brokers in the first, then the second wouldn't have been inconsistent. Confused now? LOL
Brokers usually aren't the stumbling block on stock exchanges. The problem normally lies w/ the TA or the DTC. Rocketred's broker said it was the DTC which makes sense.
Okay, thanks. /eom/
Did they say why DTCC wouldn't allow it?