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.
GO USC TROJANS - #1
GO USC - #1 FIGHT ON!!!!
Can't fry one who is already off the stage (you are just fooling yourself if you believe otherwise) Whoever you try to use will just be an imposter :-0
PS Phil - that's why I'm now teflon coated LMAO!!
"Dumbass" - you're simply not nice (was that the best you could do?) and the companies who support this site don't like that type of trash talk.
It's a TUO,too, so you'll be stuck here in my place, soon
Time to go - 'Insults are effective only where emotion is present'.
No it hasn't and you've been TOS'd, again
I found the way out!
AKvetch:
It's you that 'don't get it!' Goodbye One last post for your education:
The "founder" of the edig board and frequent poster here, chwdr, and others, made it clear (even if that was their 'opinion') that payment was a probable condition of full reinstatement. I never posted 'misinformation," and in fact, chwdr re-confirmed the condition. Chwdr does not deny his post and Matt never posted to the contrary (despite my repeated posts AND private e-mails to him) - why would you pursue the challenge?. Do you have any information to the contrary? If so, post your facts.
1. Despite my repeated requests, Matt refused to address why he suspended me 'in the first place,' other than that, in his opinion, I need time to cool off. I did not. I never violated a TOU. Nevertheless, more than sufficient time has passed and there is no objectively justifiable basis for continuing the suspenion nor the reinstatement of my full posting rights.
My 'attitude' is certainly better than many here (those who are not forced to be here if I may add). My 'attitude' is just fine. Let me post the truth and let me post challenges to those who do not - that, of course, is the American way.
2. You still don't understand the concept of privacy - by posting the link YOU posted, YOU violated my privacy rights NO MATTER what may be out and available on the web. I (the holder of my rights can post whatever about me - you do not have that right). You may go to one of my sites and educate yourself, but why post the link here? Your purpose? It was so transparent that even Matt saw through it and I believe removed your offensive and tortious post. Others who thought that they were smart by posting information without the link, while perhaps less tortious, are just as obnoxious and wrong.
3. I did nothing to lose or otherwise jepordize my "grandfathered" position. If this is just about money, all Matt had to do was say so directly and with the proper inducement, matters would have been worked out.
You have not read the e-mails I have sent to Matt nor his responses. Neither have your reviewed those that have been sent to others (those who "own" IHUB). Do you really believe that all is posted here? Of course, not.
$$$ for IHUB? Not much if the advertisors are contacted, read the Jailhouse posts, view the filth that is posted here, and pull their ads-or don't you think something like that can happen? Do you believe that conservative companies like Fidelity, AT&T, 21st Century want their good corporate names associated with posts in 'The Jailhouse?' I do not.
It's time for Matt and the 'others' to focus on this place and clean out the scum. If that means Cal_Law needs to go to benefit the others, I concur with Spock:
1. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few;
http://www.ask.co.uk/ix.asp?q=Mr%2E+Spock+quote+%22Needs+of+the+many%22&ac=none&xx=0&qid....
2. Without followers, evil cannot spread;
"And The Children Shall Lead," stardate 5029.5.
2. There's a certain inefficiency in constantly questioning me on things you've already made up your mind about.
"The Corbomite Maneuver," stardate 1514.0.
3. Insults are effective only where emotion is present.
"Who Mourns for Adonais?" stardate 3468.1
http://www.allscifi.com/aridor/Iboard.asp?celebrity=Mr.+Spock
IH Admin [Matt] FYI-Please advise:
Posted by: CAL_LAW
In reply to: chwdrhed who wrote msg# 29702
Date:12/30/2003 5:40:05 PM
Post #of 29718
chwdrhed: I was accused of mis-stating the FACT of your post.
I only reposted it to provide the poster with the source.
He thought it was a joke. I did not. You confirmed that you were not joking.
1. My attitude is controlled - if you review the posts, I don't slander and libel other posters or use profane/insulting language. You allow others to post that way - why? I want posters to post the truth/facts or clearly state that they are posting opinion. When they don't, I want to be able to point that out to other readers. If a poster says something now (contrary to their prior posts) why isn't their prior post (we call that an 'inconsistent statement') relevant? If there has been some intervening event, then the poster can and should explain.
2. Cassie will never be ignored, she invites the response she receives, and certainly not only from me. If she is so important to this site, so be it. Many others disagree. She is twisted and has the 'attitude.' We may disagree, but that is MY OPINION. If I cannot state my opinions here, why post?
3. I will not pay for the "privilege" of posting.
If you don't want Cal_Law here, that is your choice.
At this stage, there appears no more for me to say, so unless my posting privileges are fully restored, then I do not see any reason or purpose for posting further.
chwdrhed: I was accused of mis-stating the FACT of your post.
I only reposted it to provide the poster with the source.
He thought it was a joke. I did not. You confirmed that you were not joking.
1. My attitude is controlled - if you review the posts, I don't slander and libel other posters or use profane/insulting language. You allow others to post that way - why? I want posters to post the truth/facts or clearly state that they are posting opinion. When they don't, I want to be able to point that out to other readers. If a poster says something now (contrary to their prior posts) why isn't their prior post (we call that an 'inconsistent statement') relevant? If there has been some intervening event, then the poster can and should explain.
2. Cassie will never be ignored, she invites the response she receives, and certainly not only from me. If she is so important to this site, so be it. Many others disagree. She is twisted and has the 'attitude.' We may disagree, but that is MY OPINION. If I cannot state my opinions here, why post?
3. I will not pay for the "privilege" of posting.
If you don't want Cal_Law here, that is your choice.
At this stage, there appears no more for me to say, so unless my posting privileges are fully restored, then I do not see any reason or purpose for posting further.
AKvetch:one LAST post for you to read:
"Posted by: chwdrhed
In reply to: CAL_LAW who wrote msg# 29216
Date:12/19/2003 2:50:07 PM
Post #of 29672
I got a hunch that if you ponied up for a 1 year sub and promised to be a good boy you could get out of here...soon.
One fly in the ointment, however, is that old Matty has flown the coop for the weekend I believe. So you might have to get comfy til then.
But by all means post a reply to one of Matt's posts and offer the deal. Don't forget both parts. They equally important.
If you need anything just ring the bell."
Your apology, now, please!
Matt
Check your email (you should have more than one).
I will not repost or republish the very posts I previously demanded be removed.
Goodbye.
Matt: FYI
Cassandra and AKvetch, this is my last post to you.
Knowing that, I'm certain that you will post something (or many times) to try and invoke a response. I will not play your games.
Cassandra, as you will no doubt soon learn, it was YOUR postings on RB and here (along with your associate AKvetch) that each and both qualify as the illegal violation of privacy (not to mention other and actionable torts).
While I'm certain that you cannot fathom the quality of your breaches, some necessary legal reading is in your best interests. You seem to enjoy Find Law. That may be a good place to start. But, I do suggest that you consult with your legal counsel who will obviously be better prepared to educate you regarding this area of the law.
While information may be "available," the fact the you posted it and a "link" is the violation in and of itself. I did not consent to your posts and demanded that you retract them. I demanded that IHUB take action to remove the posts and not republish your violations. You and IHUB chose not to avail yourselves of that safe harbor. Not a wise choice, indeed.
I will no longer post to you or your alter egos/aliases. No doubt others will.
You have again passed the bounds of any reasonable conduct (remember your conduct on RB? - I certainly do).
I'm proud to be me - obviously you want to play hide and seek.
Fortunately, I can learn all I need to know - sources are many and eager.
And, legal and related resources are certainly at my beck and call.
Enjoy the ride. I plan to ;-0
This may be a good place to start;
Article I, section 1 of the California Constitution is an enumeration of the "inalienable rights" of all Californians. "Privacy" is declared to be among those rights. Typical of broad constitutional declarations of rights, the section does not define "privacy" or explain its relationship to other rights or interests. Nor does it specify how or against whom the right of privacy is to be safeguarded...In summary, the Privacy Initiative in article I, section 1 of the California Constitution creates a right of action against private as well as government entities.
As explained in Shulman, in addition to a tort cause of action for invasion of privacy, which can be pled on a number of different factual bases, there is also a separate constitutionally based cause of action for invasion of privacy. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 1;Shulman, supra.) The Supreme Court stated that the two sources of protection for privacy, common law and the state Constitution, are not unrelated. Specifically, the court explained that none of its prior decisions suggested that "the conceptual framework developed for resolving privacy claims under the California Constitution was intended to supplant the common law tort analysis or preclude its independent development." ( Ibid. )
"A 'reasonable' expectation of privacy is an objective entitlement founded on broadly based and widely accepted community norms," and "the presence or absence of opportunities to consent voluntarily to activities impacting privacy interests obviously affects the expectations of the participant."
Additionally, I strong urge you to review the laws of libel and slander and the related torts. It makes good reading and should also provide you with ideas on how to avoid the legal potholes some like to dig for themselves.
There is much more, but you need a legal education and that will take years.
By the way Cassandra, your choice of an alias speaks clearly about your intent:
"Cassandra-prophet of doom-Greek"
http://www.babynameworld.com/c.asp
Cassandra and AKvetch, this is my last post to you.
Knowing that, I'm certain that you will post something (or many times) to try and invoke a response. I will not play your games.
Cassandra, as you will no doubt soon learn, it was YOUR postings on RB and here (along with your associate AKvetch) that each and both qualify as the illegal violation of privacy (not to mention other and actionable torts).
While I'm certain that you cannot fathom the quality of your breaches, some necessary legal reading is in your best interests. You seem to enjoy Find Law. That may be a good place to start. But, I do suggest that you consult with your legal counsel who will obviously be better prepared to educate you regarding this area of the law.
While information may be "available," the fact the you posted it and a "link" is the violation in and of itself. I did not consent to your posts and demanded that you retract them. I demanded that IHUB take action to remove the posts and not republish your violations. You and IHUB chose not to avail yourselves of that safe harbor. Not a wise choice, indeed.
I will no longer post to you or your alter egos/aliases. No doubt others will.
You have again passed the bounds of any reasonable conduct (remember your conduct on RB? - I certainly do).
I'm proud to be me - obviously you want to play hide and seek.
Fortunately, I can learn all I need to know - sources are many and eager.
And, legal and related resources are certainly at my beck and call.
Enjoy the ride. I plan to ;-0
This may be a good place to start;
Article I, section 1 of the California Constitution is an enumeration of the "inalienable rights" of all Californians. "Privacy" is declared to be among those rights. Typical of broad constitutional declarations of rights, the section does not define "privacy" or explain its relationship to other rights or interests. Nor does it specify how or against whom the right of privacy is to be safeguarded...In summary, the Privacy Initiative in article I, section 1 of the California Constitution creates a right of action against private as well as government entities.
As explained in Shulman, in addition to a tort cause of action for invasion of privacy, which can be pled on a number of different factual bases, there is also a separate constitutionally based cause of action for invasion of privacy. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 1;Shulman, supra.) The Supreme Court stated that the two sources of protection for privacy, common law and the state Constitution, are not unrelated. Specifically, the court explained that none of its prior decisions suggested that "the conceptual framework developed for resolving privacy claims under the California Constitution was intended to supplant the common law tort analysis or preclude its independent development." ( Ibid. )
"A 'reasonable' expectation of privacy is an objective entitlement founded on broadly based and widely accepted community norms," and "the presence or absence of opportunities to consent voluntarily to activities impacting privacy interests obviously affects the expectations of the participant."
Additionally, I strong urge you to review the laws of libel and slander and the related torts. It makes good reading and should also provide you with ideas on how to avoid the legal potholes some like to dig for themselves.
There is much more, but you need a legal education and that will take years.
By the way Cassandra, your choice of an alias speaks clearly about your intent:
"Cassandra-prophet of doom-Greek"
http://www.babynameworld.com/c.asp
Cytotekk:
You are one unusual character.
The "or???" simply meant if he was not going to act, what else could be done (by me or someone else at IHUB, for example). I do not imply what I may or may not do - I have found it best to do or not do (as the case may be).
And for those that care, Palm Springs was great until last evening when the rain came (Rancho Mirage to be precise). Cold and very windy today.
And, no, I do not play Bingo or any of those silly games.
I enjoy the change.
Some of those here could clearly use a change of pace.
and the "s" was not left off by me - it was cutoff because IHUB limits the number of characters in the signature. thank you for pointing out the limitation so I could make the change.
IH Admin [Matt]
Dear "Bud;"
"Or get picked on,,," does not equal outright attacks and violations of rights of privacy.
Or did I miss something?
& thank you for finally resonding.
Now, when I am out of this looney bin?
If you want to me leave IHUB, just say so.
Cal_law will leave and not post here if that is what YOU want.
Otherwise, let's all get back to business.
Enough is enough!
I have surely served my "time" as the faqs suggest.
"Started By: IH Admin [Matt]
Assistants: None
Created: 5/4/2000 11:37:52 PM
This thread is designed to allow those members who get suspended a place to talk. Or get picked on. Or negotiate a deal with me to get out.
Instructions for those new to the Jail program:
1) If you have gone to post and see the red alert saying "Your account has been suspended. You can only post to the Jail," then you are in the right place. ok i'm here
2) Check in here with me by posting a message to me (a REPLY to a post of mine). i've already done this many times
3) Figure out what you did wrong (often, you already know). not
4) Negotiate a deal and/or serve your time. i have served my time
You can be here in two different scenarios:
1) I could be using the Jail as a temporary holding tank while you cool off and we get a few things straight (this is often the case) ok, then, it's past time to let me out
2) I've thrown you in here because you are spamming, being an dolt, using multiple aliases, etc and you'll have to cut a deal with me and/or serve time i did none of these things and I have served time
Whatever you do, do NOT sign up for another account to circumvent your suspension.
FAQ:
Q: Should I send you a private msg to discuss this? Why are you ignoring me?
A: No, post on this board to me. All discussions/negotiations need to be done publicly. i have
Q: Do you warn before you suspend people? you did not
A: No, it's probably obvious what you got suspended for. If not, ask on the board. i did and you did not respond
Q: Who are all these people talking about phresh phish?
A: I have no idea, but be careful of anybody offering "free" soap. don't care
Q: What if I think you are wrong about suspending me?
A: I'm rarely wrong, but you are welcome to challenge me. don't care
IH Admin [Matt]
I believe that it is now time for you to take immediate and deliberate action regarding various posts by AKvetch and Cassandra.
Deliberate and intentional violations of rights of privacy here (by them) should not and cannot be tolerated. They attack here and you do nothing, or at least, so it seems. Why?
You may not have liked my direct confrontations with certain posters (but that was a matter of style and never a violation of their rights of privacy).
Will you act or???
Cassandra:
When I'm no longer restricted to this board and I have regained PMs, I will respond to your questions.
Enjoy your holiday and learn to lighten up a bit-I certainly have
No, I was in Palm Springs on a laptop. Ever hear of that technology?
Guess you're just not so clever.
Yes, I have never hidden who I am, and you?
Guess we know who you are.
And finally, I did receive that PM threatening me - multiple aliases by certain posters here is too obvious.
Enjoy the holidays, I am
Churak:
When will I finally be released from here?
Wishing you a very HAPPY HOLIDAY and a HAPPY 2004! Click or paste into your browser, the card link below.
http://www.jacquielawson.com/viewcard.asp?code=2678440951
Best Holiday Wishes,
Nathan B. Hoffman
HOFFMAN & ASSOCIATES
Your alias, "a chronic, whining complainer", tells it just like it is
"rent-a-desk?" So wrong, but jealous of my success?
Must be the truth, not fiction!
I do quite well, but I pick my clients and their causes better than you choose your fights '-)
Happy Hannukah to you and yours ;-0
IH Admin [Matt]
When I return to my office on the 29th, I sincerly hope that you will have rested and returned to work with a clear mind.
May I also expect to be released?
I've been at IHub since May 07, 2001 and you put me in jail two weeks ago.
Don't you agree that I've served my time especially given my time 'in" with IHub?
Happy holidays.
http://www.asgodom.de/nikolaus/flashfilm.html
Instructions for those new to the Jail program:
1) Yes
2) Done
3) OK
4) Haven't I?
You can be here in two different scenarios:
1) I'm not just cool, but freezing
2) I have
IH ADMIN [Matt}
Haven't I already served my time?
If not, clear instructions, please.
#25359
#29344
#29325
etc.
Apparently you have not seen my posts (because I made the mistake of not posting in response to your posts).
Please advise at your convenience:
IH Admin [Matt],
Are you here or not?
Posters keep saying that you are "out on the slopes," yet I see limited posts by IH Admin [Matt]. I presume that is you, right?
Ever gonna post telling me when, where, how, why etc?
Or have you decided to keep me in your own private commmunity forever?
Let's get it on and over with now and forever, you game or not?
IH Admin [Matt],
Since you simply do not bother to post to me, will you join us (Joyce and me) for lunch or should we simply write IHUB off?
Too much time has passed and I've served my spell.
Again, should I post that get out of jail free card I located or???
IH Admin [Matt],
Post your apology, lift the unlawful sanctions and I will begin posting again.
I will postpone lunch, too. You would like Joyce. She has a way of getting things done for her friends.
Apparently you do, too!
I'm game are you?
Greg S - this is my last available post for the day.
So your "sage" counsel is to lie, cheat etc to secure the "privilege" of posting on a chat board?
Neither sage nor acceptable counsel in my book.
I look for the real truth and not the fiction as I pass through these boards.
Don't you agree?
Enjoy the balance of your weekend.
They ARE watching:
http://users.chartertn.net/tonytemplin/FBI_eyes/
Greg s:
No and for the last time, I did NOT create a second alias. I like Cal-Law just fine. I have the same "handle" at RB and Agora. No NEED for any others unlike those who cannot tell the difference between truth and fiction, for example.
Peabody was set up (given my signature) by my son (who is 23 by the way) - in part, I'm sure, because he was frustrated with my "dedication" to this site and my rantings about certain posters and administrators. He was at my office and used one of my computers - he prefers the G4.
You can falsely chant the mantra all you want, but it will not change the FACT, that my son was Peabody and is ARH26.
Anyways, I was placed in jail long before the "Peabody" incident and without evening knowinig the "charge" (I presume someone wanted to halt my responsive postings-but, I don't know that and I admit it's only a guess).
Believe what you want, I know the truth.
IH Admin [Matt]
When will my release from Jail officially take place?
I cannot yet post and the graphic still shows that I am in jail.
It is the holidays - do I need to find and post a "get of jail free card?" I understand that one is floating around in cyberspace.
Please post.
When will my release from Jail officially take place?
I cannot yet post and the graphic still shows that I am in jail.
Thank you! I'm told, most modestly, that I am always good
And I will try to behave - have you asked Cass and OWD3 for the same?
I do NOT have another alias and I most certainly am not nor have I ever been BillyCal!
Matt/Churak:
Please either set me free to post removing your imposed sanctions or tell me that you won't. Either way, I deserve your answer.
Perhaps you enjoy these games - I do not.
I expect your first candid and responsive post, please.
My "gift" is at #29257
Matt:
Is this gift my key out of here?
http://dancingbush.com/
or this?
http://www.kromig.com/
or this?
http://home.mn.rr.com/t1camp1/Focus.swf
or this?
Q. What's six inches long, two inches wide, and
drives women wild?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A. Money
or this?
Boneland.com - Pumpkin Carver 3 - Humor, stress relief and funny cartoons in flash animation with jokes, games, downloads, mu..
Ok, now, let me out
It's warm and fuzzy here-don't know if its worth $90 of my money for the privilege of having to deal again with Cassy - others seem to have taken over that role quite well.
You and Matt KNOW that someone will ALWAYS be there to remind the world of her, IMO, warped view of the e.Digital world and the EDIG stock.
Charge or jail them, they will continue here, on Agora, Yahoo, RB and elsewhere. Posts will be made and re-posted-as it was at it will always be.
Chwdrhed:
So...this is about money! He wants my $90.00. No more grandfathers - guess I should have known that
"Lasted"? do you mean kept here against my will
chwdrhed:
what do I have to pay so that he'll "cave" and I get out of this 'cave, jail?'
You have my info, so let me know, PLEASE!
Offer: let me out of jail and
1. no more e-mails;
2. no lunch; and
3. for certain, we will never kiss and make up.
AND Churak, help me out here buddy
AND Ford31: "Posted by: Ford31
In reply to: CAL_LAW who wrote msg# 29096
Date:12/18/2003 8:02:01 PM
Post #of 29157
cal law......give it up ol' Bud .....it ain't gonna work...Matt's been blackmailed by old cas ass andra...bin dat way fer a longgggg time"
Well maybe, but I don't see how that will help me out of here.
Posted by: chwdrhed
In reply to: AKvetch who wrote msg# 29133
Date:12/18/2003 9:08:37 PM
Post #of 29157
I fear the worst.
Then help me out of here so I can help ;-0
I wanna be a Monday morning quaterback
My last post for the day (three clicks and poof I lost my magic
Get me to the Half Way House and/or back to the boards, please, without further delay.
1. Peabody was my SON, Adam. Had you asked, HE would have responded and provided you with the info. He heard me rant over this improper "suspension" and wanted to spoof, not woof, the site. Please send your immediate apology to him-Adam R. Hoffman (dob 3-26-80).
2. Not bravado, fact.
3. You are this time and you haven't even stated ONE basis for alleged violation of TOU.
Now, let's get to the point (you have carefully so far avoided): what is the alleged basis of the violation and when will you retract and apologize (for this ONE time when you are wrong)?
I do NOT lie. You should look inward - just who is flexing?
I did NOT! Now, let's get back to the point, please rather than "attacking" me (and you going to put yourself, Cassy and the others who participated in yesterday's improper posts in jail, now, too?).
I did not violate any TOU. Tell me what you believe justifies this circumstance.
AND, do not wait to post to me when I have no remaining posts.
Just because I was grandfathered on this site is no basis for treating me this way.
My good friends here at 21st Century Insurance (do you know where Woodland Hills, CA is?- I went to high school with a vice president of public relations there and we lunch together once a month) would never treat anyone they way you are treating me.
Now, let's focus and get back on point - remove the restrictions, please, and let me post again.
Churak and WTMHouston, your assistance please. Apparently, Mat is not available.
I'm hoping that neither will be NECESSARY, but, of course, like any good lawyer, I will reserve all my rights to remedy this wrong
matt; you did not answer any of my messages - ok, again, and just why did you put me here? None of my posts on IHUB violated any TOS/TOU. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, none were removed either. Please explain and promptly reinstate my posting privileges.
EDIG was not sued and is NOT part of the scam!
Calpers, the biggest U.S. public pension fund, filed a lawsuit on Tuesday against the New York Stock Exchange (news - web sites) and its specialist trading firms, claiming that widespread fraud and lax oversight cost investors millions of dollars.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, comes three months after Calpers' protests helped push out former NYSE Chairman Richard Grasso following the disclosure of his $188 million compensation package.
The pension fund alleged that specialists, in conjunction with the NYSE, routinely engaged in "wide-ranging manipulative, self-dealing, deceptive and misleading conduct" that hurt public investors seeking to trade stocks.
This lawsuit detailed three types of improper trades allegedly conducted by the NYSE specialist firms, including "freezing" the display of prices on a given stock so a firm could trade for its own account before executing investor orders.
It also claimed "front-running," when a firm uses its knowledge of pending orders to trade ahead of their completion, and "inter-positioning," when a firm fails to match buy and sell orders in order to get a better price on a stock itself.
Calpers' president Sean Harrigan at the news conference to announce the lawsuit said that the NYSE had "looked the other way" when trading rules were violated. "We intend to seek recovery of every single dollar lost (news - Y! TV)," he said.
The firms named in the suit include LaBranche & Co. Inc. (NYSE:LAB - news); Van der Moolen (NYSE:VDM - news) (VDMN.AS); Spear Leeds & Kellogg, which is owned by Goldman Sachs Group (NYSE:GS - news); Fleet Specialist Inc., a division of FleetBoston Financial Corp. (NYSE:FBF - news); Bear Wagner Specialists, partly owned by Bear Stearns & Co. (NYSE:BSC - news); Susquehanna Specialists Inc. and Susquehanna International Group LLC; and Performance Specialist Group.
A spokesman for Goldman Sachs had no comment while a spokesman for Susquehanna said the two companies should not have been named in the lawsuit.
"We believe that there is no factual basis for our inclusion in this lawsuit," said Todd Silverberg, general counsel for Susquehanna International Group.
A NYSE spokesman had no comment.
Calpers is one of Wall Street's largest customers, with a $154 billion portfolio managed on behalf of the state (news - Y! TV)'s public work force.
Calpers, known formally as the California Public Employees' Retirement System, said it would seek to expand its lawsuit into a class-action (news - Y! TV) case involving potentially millions of investors who bought or sold shares in NYSE-listed companies during the past five years.
Calpers is represented by Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, the leading U.S. class-action law firm.
"Wherever you see Bill Lerach involved as lead counsel, you're talking about real money," said Patrick McGurn, special counsel for Institutional Shareholder Services, which advises large institutional investors, including Calpers, on corporate governance matters.
McGurn noted that many large investors, including mutual fund giant Fidelity Investments, are dissatisfied with efforts at the NYSE to reform itself.
"California and some other states feel their concerns are not being addressed with this reform effort," McGurn said. "A lot of mainstream investors question the current trading structure at the Big Board."
A BAD YEAR
In April, the NYSE launched its own investigation into whether at least two of its specialists may have engaged in trading shares ahead of clients in a possible abuse of the exchange's trading system.
California State Controller Steve Westly said the exchange needs a better trading system. "Our patience has run out," Westly said. "The NYSE must take responsibility for its failure to govern itself."
The lawsuit comes at a particularly tricky time for the exchange. On Wednesday, the Securities and Exchange Commission (news - web sites) is slated to vote on new Chairman John Reed's governance proposals.
While passage of the reforms is expected, the measures have come under fire for Reed's refusal to specifically ask for the NYSE chairman and CEO jobs to be split. The SEC had no comment on the Calpers lawsuit.
News of the suit dragged down shares of publicly traded specialist firms. LaBranche shares fell 7.1 percent to close at $9.32 on the New York Stock Exchange, and Van der Moolen's NYSE-listed shares closed down 6.7 percent at $8.12. (Additional reporting by Nicole Maestri, Jake Keaveny and Chris Sanders in New York, Kevin Drawbaugh in Washington)