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.
Now why in gods name would I want to share any information with you or any of the other bashers on this web site?
Because the purpose of message boards is to discuss the stock in question and exchange information?
Just a WAG, naturally.
Will Mario once again be nipping off to play with the butterflies in Papua New Guinea?
I suppose they could appeal. But can the prosecution do that in a criminal case? The defense certainly can.
If no appeal is possible, the defendants will walk. They won't be retried because that would be double jeopardy.
Embarrassment at the SEC:
Statement by Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Christopher Cox Concerning Subpoenas of Journalists
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2006-24
Washington, D.C., Feb. 27, 2006 — SEC Chairman Christopher Cox issued the following statement in response to media reports over the weekend that the agency had "ordered columnists at two Dow Jones publications to provide information about conversations that they had with stock traders and analysts":
The issuance of a subpoena to a journalist which seeks to compel production of his or her notes and records of conversations with sources is highly unusual. Until the appearance of media reports this weekend, neither the Chairman of the SEC, the General Counsel, the Office of Public Affairs, nor any Commissioner was apprised of or consulted in connection with a decision to take such an extraordinary step. The sensitive issues that such a subpoena raises are of sufficient importance that they should, and will be, considered and decided by the Commission before this matter proceeds further."
http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2006-24.htm
A disgrace. And a great pity. They richly deserved to go to jail. Hackman probably will, of course.
They were sooooo lucky the prosecution screwed up so badly.
Sean Flanagan, Daniel Chapman, Herbert Jacobi--case dismissed
LOL!! That's hilarious!!
3 months and it has accounted for barely over half the O/S. Do you really think they will get certs for more than 600 billion shares faxed in?
In the next two weeks, no less. The Ides of March are looming. Will the deadline be extended yet again?
LOLOL!!
...as the anachronism that many claim you are.
You're the only one making that claim, far as I know. You just can't keep away from the personal attacks, can you?
Just outta curiosity, why'd you decide to abandon the CMKX board in favor of this one?
That's my opinion, not because you claim to have gone to Wellesley or claim to have a PH D, etc. Clearly, Truthseeker has posted often how people's claims with respec to these type of things are not always as they may be in real life. Besides a PH.D. from Wellesley does not make someone more qualified than a dentist to discuss Naked Short Scamming or the intricacies of the Settlement process.
Time for bed, rruffy. My degrees can easily be confirmed online. Many doubters have been obliged to admit defeat on that point.
And...don't look now, but Wellesley's never conferred a Ph.D on anyone. It's one of the Seven Sister colleges. Some have graduate programs; Wellesley doesn't.
I specifically commented on your comments re DeCosta. They were very silly and of the ilk "Can you prove it? He should have known that?" etc.
I'll say it again: you can't have read the whole post. His letter was riddled with errors of fact.
Why is it that you get so vehement and so upset when the subject of Naked Short Scamming is discussed?
I'm not. That's just what you want to think. Feel free to do so.
stop trying to stop the trend, the encouraging trend...
Trends lead by the incompetent, or by the self-interested (Essay and others), can be exceedingly dangerous. I could cite examples, but I'm sure you can guess what they'd be.
I read before I answered. In the same spirit, I could say that many believe you're a pompous windbag, but that I certainly don't agree.
LOLOLOLISSIMO!
lol, what's so disgraceful about my "history"? I consider it quite honorable. To say the very least.
And what's wrong with my "background"? You object to people who went to Wellesley? To Ph.Ds? To art historians? To WASPs?
And I think I refuted the substance of DeCosta's "idea", such as it was, pretty effectively. You're the one who doesn't want to take his letter point by point.
I'm forced to conclude that you merely applaud the "idea", no matter how badly argued, because it supports your own ideas. Maybe. It was really hard to tell what the guy was trying to say.
I've already commented on your "comments." They are not comments on the substance of the article.
They most certainly were. I pointed out many of DeCosta's errors of fact and interpretation.
But then maybe you just don't like to read long posts?
do you consider it "libel" if someone is called a stock promoter, "paid" in the context of stock market or SEC discussion, merely because that person posts favorably about the stock on a message board?
Yes.
Nor do I, but I love it.
Are you familiar with the phrase "consider the source"? As a research scholar, I naturally had to be able to separate good sources from bad.
I'm not one of the "it must be true because I read it in a book and it was what I already thought" gang.
When I see an article that makes sense and convinces me of its merit, I don't go out and try to find out little tidbits to post about that author.
lol, what do you find "illogical" about my posts? Let's take my commentary on De Costa's nonsense to begin with.
And of course I've managed to "convince" quite a few people over the years, some of them employees of the SEC.
Being a "paid basher" without making disclosure would be as illegal as being a paid tout without making disclosure, obviously.
Very few trade below .0001. Yes, if I wanted to dump shares for tax purposes, I would. But, otherwise, why the heck would I do it?
Some CMKXers made out like bandits. They loaded up at 0.00006 or 0.00007 and sold at 0.00009 or even 0.0001. Not bad, eh?
You want me to discuss the "substance" of Gayle Essary's "work" as a sleazy promoter, or Patchie's as his puppet?
Surely you've read enough of Floydie's posts about Essary not to agree with me? Or does your new favorite word--"hypocrisy"--come into play here?
The math makes .0001 x .0002 the ideal setting.
I'll agree with you on that. It's ideal for CEOs who want to dump gigantic amounts of stock on the market. That's what Urbie did. It took a long time for CMKX to sink below 0.0001. And all the time, as dilution increased by hundreds of billions, Urbie was able to introduce stock on the market at 0.0001 or perhaps a little less, depending on what kind of deal he had going with whoever was doing the dumping for him.
I have a great deal of "technical knowledge" of what constitutes grammatically correct, comprehensible writing.
I've already got those on my list. They look....different.
Shell, GET OFF THIS THREAD. I am weary of your arrogance and your gaudy hypocrisy.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=9897390
"Gaudy hypocrisy"!! LOVE IT!!
What's "arrogant" about objecting to people who libel me?
Have you forgotten that I've been here on and off since August or September? Have you forgotten that I've contributed some DD that no one else was able to find?
Too much Gayle Essary and Dave Patch not good.
Retail doesn't participate under .0001, except perhaps for a tax sale.
Nope. CMKX traded below 0.0001 for months. Many many people bought and sold at those levels.
I am saying that. I am also saying that your posts are NOT well-written.
That statement is, of course, objectively untrue. De Costa is semi-literate. But you're entitled to your opinions, subjective and petulant as they may be.
Toxic financing is a problem. Advance shorting into convertible or discount financing is a problem. I agree. Let's prevent the hedge funds, MM's, CEO's, touts and associated traders from doing it.
Fine. Supposedly the SEC's working on the PIPES problem, but as always they're taking their time. They've busted a few toxic financiers lately, at least.
Don't worry, dear, I'm not going to sue you. But you should be aware that you shouldn't go around accusing people of breaking the law.
I'm afraid it really IS libel.
Certainly I "know that". Call anyone in the finance biz and ask if they've ever heard of "cellar boxing".
Jim has already told you, very briefly, what's wrong with his theory. Many stocks, including CMKX, have traded well below 0.0001. If you're really interested in this issue, do some searches for the topic. Go back two or three years, to the time it first began to circulate. You'll find lots of intelligent discussion.
LOLOL!!
Are you seriously saying that DeCosta's letter (NOT "article") is "well-written"?? You haven't actually read it, have you?
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=9894956
No going there, and will not be sucked into a debate with people (Jim & Janice) who are here becaused they are hired to do so.
Now I'm afraid that IS libel.
They fail to provide proof that it doesn't exist.
I'm sorry, but it's impossible to prove a negative. That said, I've never claimed it doesn't exist; my contention is that the real problem is toxic financing, not naked shorting.
As you very well know.
Full of what? As Jim's pointed out, we have a very good track record.
What, exactly, do you mean by "bought-interest".
You're moving closer and close to libel, you know.
Maybe you are, but it is one sad way to make money!!!!
What is?