Replies to post #9268 on SEC Charges Eleven in Stock Manipulation Ring

[Risicare]

Yeah and normal people have 24 bank accounts in Hong Kong. ROFLMAO Sorry but just the tidbits released so far are extremely damning.

[Flatsixer]

No, the reason that Matt is "laying low" is because his attorneys have given him a complete rundown on the severity of these charges and have told him explicitly to avoid IHub.

Attendant to that is a forward assessment of punishment options combined with how expensive all of this will be.

To return to this board and engage posters is absurd. A few wrong words could complicate matters extensively and ONLY lead to further problems.

Honestly...If I were Matt's attorney I'd drop him as a client if he returned and posted written comments on IHub.

This ain't no game.

Not at all.

The "bloodthirsty pack of wolves that would instantly attack and accuse" here on IHub are nothing compared to the pack of wolves who presently have him by the throat and gonads.

Flatsixer

[BullNBear52]

That's a helluva lot of charges being brought up against individuals and there must be some merit to them somewhere. I'm sure there are some erroneous comments and possibly some distortions of facts, but something happened somewhere for all this to have been generated.

I guess one could argue it's all make believe. Problem is the links.

[Specalculator1]

there's no "Pack" just people that are very concerned and rightfully so. It wasn't a fix it ticket for a tail light out.

I also think innocent until proven guilty, its the law, its the American way. We are good with that and will wait for it to conclude and move on. If Matt is found not guilty, my hat is off to him and a huge weight off of everyone. Thus far just being charged with this significant level of crime and after the market has found many cheaters and the housing crises and the auto industry and Martha Stewart and the like tends to tell a larger story, that needs to be told. The timing of this information after all this time and now being out in the open is another thing. No one headed this off at the pass in this website when this actually broke loose a long time ago. We all (you me and the rest of ihub) only found out about it in June of 2009, not 2008. Thats another sweep it under the rug approach that I don't agree with, it really stinks that no one "serviced" this "public relations" issue earlier meaning there are several issues on the table, not just the charges, but the way it is or better yet "isn't" being handled in a professional manner.

Note to Advfn.