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.
Ok, now does this all tie back to my original comment....that I was thinking about looking into possible suits against individuals who conduct themselves as you do?
You see, I love the law. You love investment work (as do I as well). It's my nature to question everything. Of course I'm curious whether your conduct is legally appropriate, it's how I eat lol. To me, everythng is a fact. I have never, personally, seen facts that you presented to me (your conduct). So I starting trying to fit it a legal category and had the urge to become familiar. Make sense? My professional curiosity DOES NOT MEAN I "want" to sue you lol.
Yes, speech is a whooooole other issue lol.
There are many forms of interference, since there are many types of relationships that exist in the complex world of investing. My relationship with the company, your relationship with the company, the relationship between you and I, etc. I'm unfamiliar with "tortious interference", can you explain? Actions are tortious when they create damage to the person that require damages in the form of "compensatoin" for the most part. There are very few claims that fall under both tort and another field of law. A good example of a hybrid are implied warranties. Some jurisdictions allow the suit to be brought in tort and/or contract. Most only allow contract.
I think you may be extremely interested in an legal encyclopedia. I refer "American Jurisprudence." They are sometimes used as actualy authority and are an excellent guide in obtaining the "general" law throughout the united states.
I can also refer an ALR which will list all case decisions on a certain issue after you read the Amjur. With those two books as your tools you be very accurate in your statements.
http://www.westlaw.com
Paim chart..looks like a bounce is due soon to the .004 area. I'm loading up here.
http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui
Only trade to make money, I don't hold to lose it.
Proving what state an alias lives in depends on the quality of the attorney. I know you live in California lol.
What are you talking about I'm "getting warmer." I was trying to assist you haha.
You're ok.
Yes? I was not talking about defamation at that time. I was thinking more along the lines of "interference." If a jurisdictional issue arose (assuming I didn't sue you in your own state) in any type of cause then I'd only have to show that you live in a different state that I do. Diversity does not apply to only defamation cases lol, it applies to all federal court cases unless a federal question exists. Anyway, I gotta hit the sack. Sleep well.
Yes jurisdiction can become complicated, believe it! I'm sure the case you are referring to is "cited" to in "basher" cases because the facts are "basher" facts. However, the principle that two individuals must be in seperate states has been the law for a very long time and it is the constitution which stands as the controlling precedent.
I'd have to read your case, but it seems I'd only have to prove what has always been required, diversity. What is the interesting legal debate today is how the internet interplays with the diversity principle. :)
Um, the plaintiff upped $140 and filed it. And obviously I'm referring to Federal District Court. As I hope you know, the Supremes only hear the cases they want to hear.
Janice, I will explain. Diversity complaints must allege a certain amount of $$ as ONE requirement. There are other requirements as well, such as actual diversity. Further, it is true the Supremes hear cases ad hoc. However, there are several paths to the supremes. To name a couple, through state heiarchy and upon federal questions (which as a "legal" definition).
That would be "attorneys". And if anyone in your firm heard you make this pronouncement, I doubt you'd ever make partner.
I type all day long, much more than you. I don't have time to proof read a message board. Now a true legal document would be absolutely perfect. I'm sure you are making sure all your writing is perfect since you are communicating with me haha. My firm is comprised of mostly young individuals. I'm not 27 by the way...I'm 33...and maybe I am partner???? Maybe I own the practice???
I’d prefer it if you stop communicating with me, since you can’t communicate in a civil manner.
LOLOLOLOLISSIMO!! I suggest you take a look in the mirror. The incivility is almost entirely on your side. It began with your idiotic suggestion that you might sue me for helping bust a scam.
I suggested that there may be a claim against you, such as there has been in the past. I'm curious if there may be an interference question with your practices. When I have time I may research. This did not start with me. You laughed, then challenged me...in response to me asking the board to support statements of law with citations.
"Perhaps you should use your own. Remember, you're the guy who suggested that he should sue me for my role in exposing the MTEI scam, without even thinking of the applicable statute of limitation"
I never once mentioned "mtei" or stated that anybody should sue you. Please advise the record.
"fyi, the state with the longest statutory limit on filing for defamation is Connecticut, at seven years. In most of the country, though, it's one or two years.Don't bother to thank me."
Don't worry, I have nothing to thank you about. You never asked me to address a SOL question regarding defamation, you had asked what happens when you sue a bunch of people.
You did stated one component of jurisdiction, "diversity." However, a court must answer other questions to resolve a jurisdictional question. Both subject matter and personal jurisdiction must be addressed, not to mention exclusive and perferred jurisdiction issues. You assumed a Diversity action in your question. So what's the question? You sued several people in different states, hmmmm.....I still don't know your question. Please read back. Further, even a jurisdictional issue question needs more information. Jurisdiction can be a very complex legal question.
"English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them."
First, since I have not adequately researched this area of law (defamation, alias, internet, message board), I have made no assertions whether you can or not bring the cause of action you mention. I never said you can or can not. I want to make that clear!!!!!
Questions for you:
1. Although your statement is accurate please cite, otherwise it is worthless.
2. Is your statement from a statute? Is it common law? Is it from a legal dictionary? Is it from a secondary source such as a legal leaflet or treatise or encyclopedia? All sources apply a completely different force of law .
3. Depending on whether your source is binding or secondary, is there case law giving a legal definition of "a named or identifiable individual or individuals"? Hmm, I would gather to say almost anybody on here is identifiable, but that is a guess, since I'm not citing legal authority.
4. "identifiable" to whom? To who the statement was made? To another person? To the person who made the statement? Haha, see, this is why there are lawyers.
Thx, Jc
I never got to see what you said since your post was deleted. Interesting.
Janice,
I practice in the "elder law" and "employment" fields. A medical Doctor (other than a Doctor of law) specializes in a specific medical field. Because he/she may focus in one field, he is unlikely to have the knowledge to give a medical diagnosis. HOWEVER, he will have a general medical knowledge to any almost any field.
So goes with an Attorney. I specialize in the above mentioned fields. I have general legal knowledge of most fields. “General” legal knowledge is NOT, "what happens when a suit is filed against a bunch of people." Any answer anybody gives in response to that question is legally inadequate. As a matter of fact, it would be malpractice to give a legal answer upon your question. It's more complicated than you assume through your question haha. Sigh, nobody understand attorneys in what they "actually do." HOWEVER, it could be that you have self taught yourself enough lawyering skills and have answered such a question. I highly doubt that, to a degree of 99%. Legal knowledge is not gathered from reading an article, or a self help book. You have to jump on Westlaw or LexusNexus to STATE ANYTHING!!!!!!!!!!! Just leave your attempt at testing me alone, you'd be better off. Unless you want to pay me for a legal analysis.
p.s. How did your hypothetical claim even get in Federal Court. Do you know how a case gets into federal court? What Federal Court are you referring to? District? Supreme? There are just to many questions without looking at an actual file to say anything in response.
Another note. Younger attorney’s are more effective than almost any older attorney, since they usually become lazy and lose brain capacity past the age of 40 (yes scientific reports confirm this). As a matter of fact, I fight zealously for older attorney’s who succumb to requiring assistance in my field, who can’t fight for themselves. I fight for a LOT of 50+ year old women haha.
I’d prefer it if you stop communicating with me, since you can’t communicate in a civil manner. Probably for the same reason you are not married. (yes there is a reason you are not married, whether you declare your decision personal or not). My time is worth more than your time, since I get paid for doing something I love.
You are 50 something and ignorant. :) Your question needs to be absolutely specific my dear.
Hopefully I can offend you this time. Are you laughing because I'm young with a mind? If so, that is absolutely pathetic of you. You are 50+ and still without a mind, other than your brain is capable of putting together strings of gossip.
What happens when a copmlaint is filed against a # of aliases in federal court? Short answer to such an incomplete question is........the other people get sued if you file against them in federal court.
Nancy, do you even know how to get into federal court? Your question is vague, which means more than ambigious. What happens procedurally? What happens substantively? Are you talking about joinder? Intervention? What is your question??????????? What are the facts alleged in the complaint on each alias? I'd need the entire case file to answer that question.
You must always have a factual pattern to ask ANY legal question. You can't just say, "what happens when you sue in federal court." Um, asnwer is.... you do just that..you sue them. C'mon, use that noggin.
I made a nice dime of glkce. :)
haha, yes I did offend you. You are high on your horse. I stated that you have zero legal education and anything you state that contains a legal conclusion or prediction is fluff. You may have a vast knowledge of "general" things to say about your area of interest. That knowledge may include a basic financial, legal, and transactional understand. Additionally, you have knowledge of the events that have taken place. Essentially, you are a detective using your basic knowledge to follow leads. You are a good detective so be proud. Learn to accept criticism. Further, you have more knowledge of any determinative facts (although you do not know what determinative facts are) You certainly do not have the training to predict, or state, actual legal consequences of any fact that has occurred or will occur. It's like a layman (you and me) making a medical diagnosis.
Now, how would anybody take offense to that....considering you are a layman in legal construction? I would never respond in such a manner if a Dr. told me I didn't have the knowledge to draw my own medical diagnosis. Legal construction is not the ability to say "oh the law is yada yada." On top of that, I do not claim that I know more than you in a general sense (I'm still trying to accept you made such a childish statement). I promise I know WAAAAAAAY more than anybody on this board when it comes general legal principals to anything said on this board, including yourself. One great term to follow in life is "always acknowledge what you know and what you do not know."
I am completely open to reading what you write, in fact I'm interested to find out if Nancy Drew (you) can solve the mystery.
Janice,
I'm sorry I offended you. It's obvious I did since you corrected a typo. I enjoy reading your post as much as the next. Relax kiddo.
Yes Janice, I'm aware it's detailed lol. Because of what I do for a living, it's natural that I expect those who make legal statements give legal support.
I would never trust, rely, go foward upon an "explaination" from you, unless it were a legal explaination (eg. brief, memorandum), or you were a practioner familiar in this specific field of law and I knew you personally. Please don't take offense. There are many issues involved. It would take me a week to give an analysis on any single statement lol.
I'm not here to watchdog anything, as the rest I'm merely an observer enjoying the conversation. Just support statements made. :)
Normally agent status exists when there is a principle. I'm sure Bishop and those authorized (at PAIM) to delegate responsibilities have ZERO relationship. Thus no principle/agent relaitonship exists. Bishops legal classification would be termed either no status, or an "officious intermeddler", defined as an individual who confers a benefit upon another when the other never requested the benefit. I would hardly classify him as the latter lol.
No offense, I'm hardly going to go spend hours of legal research to dig up information so that you can be persuade. The legal burden is on you unless you contact an attorney, with payment of fee in hand I'm sure.
Before you abbreviate, please spell out the acronym first. Perhaps you could do so for UPL?
I never said he was. I was only informing him not to. Making legal assertions in this environment can become boarderline.
Exactly. These are pennies people.
Jim,
Are you an attorney? I am! Can you give legal support as to why a publications against an alias cannot support a cause of action in libel? Is this statutory/interpretation or are you basing your judgement on common law? Or is it both? Which state's law applies on the internet (once we know that we can determine a definition)? Or is it federal law?
Further, once you determine the controlling jurisdiction can you provide a layman's legal opinion regarding constitutes "libel" on the internet, if it does at all?
Finally, if the statement does establish libel, are there any affirmative or other defenses available to the speaker?
I would refrain from making statement of law without relevant legal support. I'm neither a basher or long. I'm only informing you to not practice law without a license.
Jc law.
Janice,
I'm new to the bar! :) Thus my name.
****PAIM CHART*****
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=12321008
This is looking pretty damn good.
Can you still call in trades to ameritrade? they are short!
This better? Faith, are you a hottie? :) Where are you from? lol.
Faith, are you a hottie? :) Where are you from? lol.
Think .005 bid will be touched tomorrow?
Well said!!!
In all seriousness, why do you think that is?
Yes, I would appreciate that haha. Then go ahead and expose whoever.
KK, When replying to my posts please use proper language. I can barely tell what you were attempting to say in your message. Anyhoo, I'm saying that Ms. Shell should expose fraudulent companies that are not "hot" at the moment.
For instance, she exposed a company with a PPS of 1.70? Immediately afterward the stock fell to .20. Lots of people were injured. I'm half tempted to do some legal research to determine if I could bring a claim against her on behalf of MANY.
Now, in contrast. If she would have exposed that company before everybody was "on it." She would have minimized her impact on the "avg" joe, yet exposed a fraud before it could hurt somebody.
Her practices are unethical. Her practices cause damage to individuals. Damages should be compensated.
If I were in a fraud, that I believed was real, then popped in Janice, and her appearance in return caused me to lose the farm. I would be absolutely up in arms. She is not a protector of investors. She's a woman with a grudge, because at one point in time she got burned. Now she's picking battles with companies that have stocks that catch her attention (only because of an active PPS) without considering the actual investor.
I don't know "who" but somebody did, look at the trading tape in last 20 minutes of the day.
I just don't get a rats ass if the company is real or not. When I care about fundamentals, I don't go looking for penny's. Get real Janice. Only a damn idiot would invest thousands in a penny really thinking it will shoot $5. 2 years ago you were an idiot and a virgin to the market, then you got smart.
I'm tempted to be a vigilante against your efforts. You cause as much grief as the con's themselves.
I read the article that is essentially dedicated to you. I completely disagree with your practice. This is a world of gambling on charts, volume, even fake information (because yes it makes a stock go up). This is the nature of the market. 2 years ago you were a stupid person, then you got smart but you have a huge grudge rather than take it for what it's worth.
If you want to save people, LOOK AT STOCKS THAT ARE IDLE and expose them rather than those that are currently moving. You would save so many people so much pain, yet help so many people before anybody ever finds out about the company to begin with. You see, the shady companies will always exist. Put your efforts where damages has not been done "yet." I would praise you for that. You just want the thrill involved in a fast stock, yet you do not consider anybody but yourself. I just don't get it Janice.
I believe anybody who buys approx. 400m shares knows more than we do! Somebody is willing to risk nearly a milliong dollars. Something is up!