Replies to post #8086 on SEC Charges Eleven in Stock Manipulation Ring

[shortsinthesand]

len, so then you think Ih admin let this multiple alias of EVO's slide for two years just by coincidence and non observation that another poster on Ih had the exact same yellow Lamborghini?

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/profile.asp?user=86330

I say and think Matt was well aware and did in FACT use IH for as stated as FACT in the indicments.

So there you have it I think one way and you think another way! It will be up to the courts and jury to render a verdic here. What you and I have to say will have no bearing on the trial!

regards

[goodolboy]

Len, the utilization of Ihub was specifically stated in the charges against Matt. So, I am unsure why you would even challenge that aspect.

Why hasn't Ihub been charged? Why should they be? I doubt that Ihub was developed to be an illegal scamming operation, nor do I believe the new owner of Ihub intends for it to be one either. The fact that it was used to facilitate illegal activities do not justify any charges brought against it. That would be akin to charging Microsoft with fraud because Outlook Express allowed some Nigerian scam email to defraud someone.

The problem here at Ihub is the action (or lack there of) taken by ADVFN after the charges were made public. Any other company would have removed Matt from his position until such time the court has made a determination of Matt's fate.

ADVFN chose to allow Matt to continue as if he did nothing wrong in essense condoning his behavior. And, as I have posted before, this position taken by them allows one to objectively make that small leap to assuming complicity on ADVFN's part.