Replies to post #7789 on SEC Charges Eleven in Stock Manipulation Ring

[crashman]

I don't know what the argument is here, but
a) IMO disclaimers carry no weight in illegal actions. Just because Terrorists announce that they might kill people, doesn't make them immune from prosecution when they actually do kill people. Therefore IHUB's (as well as the companies and promoters involved) disclaimers are invalidated the moment (if) IHUB has been used for illegal pumping of those stocks by IHUB employees or by people blessed/asked to do so by IHUB employees.
b) IHUB has/had the chance to claim innocence by distancing itself from employees accused of wrongdoing. If they continue to let MATT act as he did in the past (keep him as an employee without leave), IMO they will make themselves liable if Matt gets convicted of those crimes.

[Qone0]

Obviously, they have a responsibility to regulate EMPLOYEES (of which, Matt was one). Because of that, they have a very large legal exposure IMO if he is found guilty of using IHub for illicit gains - although he hasn't been charged with that at this time.

If you read Matt Browns indictment, manner and means, he probably has. An indictment does not contain all evidence. It's just a brief overview. When PD was bragging about having the entire world on AAGH that locked it for me. IHUB was used.

IHUB now stands directly in the path of Vicarious liability.

Suits will start to fly the moment a plea deal or guilty verdict is announced.


With regard to the actus reus principle, courts approving vicarious liability often contend that defendants voluntarily "assumed the responsibilities" the statutes imposed or had it within their power to prevent the crimes in question (see Morisette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 256 (1952)). On this basis, most (though not all) courts agree that vicarious liability is constitutional in the employer-employee context (see United States v. Park, 421 U.S. 658 (1975)) and in statutes imposing liability on vehicle owners for traffic offenses committed by those the owner permitted to use the car (see City of Chicage v. Hertz Commercial Leasing Corp., 395 N.E. 2d 1285, 1290–1291 (1978)).

You see IHUB is in a very bad position now. If they change anything they are admitting they could have prevented the scams. If they don't change, they are allowing on going scams to be carried out that they know very well how to prevent.

So they have chosen to stick their head in the sand and hope this all goes away. And plead ignorance.

But they have made one VERY bad mistake. The IRP's that were started after they were aware of Matts role. That shows they KNEW what the site was being used for.

[zztops]

gm, Lentinman: My post was directed towards I-Hub's lack of correct action after the charges were filed against the 8 defendants. I think I-hub has placed itself and Matt in additional jeopardy by allowing him to continue in his position after such serious charges were leveled.

US law calls for protective action by companies when they are faced with such situations.

I am concerned also with the language Phil uses when he debates his views--calling people idiots, and lynch mobs and in general being disrespectful of others rights is, I assume, TOU violations.

Of equal concern is the failure of the MOD of this board to control Phil's inappropriate behavior.