Replies to post #7855 on SEC Charges Eleven in Stock Manipulation Ring

[Qone0]

I still doubt it because it remains a fact that IHub can allow anything and everything IMO - just as the phone company or Outlook email do.

This would be correct if IHUB's boards were like yahoo where the company gives no direction or promotion.

IHUB however, directs and promotes through its home page top lists, board emails, member marking, paid news exposure, IRP's ect.

This has opened them up to vicarious liability to the scams, they are not just a phone. They have "assumed responsibilities" because of the promotional nature of the site.

This will play very badly in a civil trial. IMO.

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

[ordinarydude]

"I agree with your post (almost) entirely, but remember your own word was "probably". That does not mean "certainly"."

Do you, by any chance, own a "dictionary"? If so...look up the word "allegation".

Ordinary