Shanus-REA suit

[Peter_Spaeth]

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/libor-scandal.asp

https://www.sec.gov/news/press/2008/2008-32.htm

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Mdmtx

I didn't make it personal. You did.

Because clearly this....

Originally Posted by Mdmtx

I seem to remember a small little news story about a tiny investment firm. Something like Bernie Madoff Securities. You are correct. There could never be any large scale malfeasance in the investment world. Just tiny little deals like Bernie.

didn't sound at all condescending.

Originally Posted by Mdmtx

I merely pointed out that money corrupts and contrary to your assertion, no industry is safe from those hell bent on gaming the system.

Where did I assess that any industry was safe from fraud?

Here's part of my first post:

Originally Posted by the 'stache

There are going to be those who engage in nefarious activity in any large group of people. It's unavoidable. Money attracts the unscrupulous.

Clearly, people are not going to engage in fraudulent activity if the system is foolproof, are they? That's tantamount to walking into prison, opening a cell door, and closing it behind them.

Originally Posted by Mdmtx

Call me smartass if you want, I just pointed out facts!

If it's your belief that I stated, in essence, "fraud on a large scale was an impossibility in the investments industry", statement of fact to repudiate my assertion would look something like this:

"Bernie Madoff's ponzi scheme cost his investors an estimated $50 billion."

You didn't do that. So, don't try to demure now, ok?

[Peter_Spaeth]

We sure seem to have strayed from the jury verdict, if we ever were there at all.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

We sure seem to have strayed from the jury verdict, if we ever were there at all.

That's partly on me, Peter.

I think the jury verdict is interesting, but, as you alluded to, the whole thing is not yet set in stone, because there could be further motions submitted, or an appeal.

As things stand currently, I'd be more likely to discuss the verdict in depth if I could pour over the court transcript.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

That's partly on me, Peter.

I think the jury verdict is interesting, but, as you alluded to, the whole thing is not yet set in stone, because there could be further motions submitted, or an appeal.

As things stand currently, I'd be more likely to discuss the verdict in depth if I could pour over the court transcript.

Bill hopefully at some point they will be released, or with only minor redactions. That day is probably some time off. But even knowing what we know, and subject to the caveat about further proceedings which I noted in my post, it still seemed an event worthy of reporting and discussing. I would guess that if the defendant had a different name, we would be having a much livelier discussion.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Bill hopefully at some point they will be released, or with only minor redactions. That day is probably some time off. But even knowing what we know, and subject to the caveat about further proceedings which I noted in my post, it still seemed an event worthy of reporting and discussing. I would guess that if the defendant had a different name, we would be having a much livelier discussion.

Honestly, Peter, for my part, the name(s) involved don't have as much to do with my hesitancy to jump into this with both feet, though I could certainly see this being a factor with other posters who have had long-standing relationships with the co-defendants. I'm just somewhat leery of participating in discussions of legally determined guilt-where what we say becomes, in essence, part of public record-without knowing everything that transpired. Am I being overcautious? Probably. But absent complete information, it's too easy to misstate something, and get into hot water.

I'm probably rambling a bit, and it's possible I overreacted to Mark's post, too. I've never had any issue with him, but it sure seemed that he was being patronizing. I've been up 16 hours without sleep...

Mark, if I did misinterpret your comment, then I apologize.

Peter, I'll come back to this a little later tonight, after I've seen my pillow for a while. When I'm lucid again, I can tiptoe through my feelings on what's transpired, thus far.

[Leon]

There was only one defendant. Neither of us are lawyers but I apparently have slept at more Holiday Inns.

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Honestly, Peter, for my part, the name(s) involved don't have as much to do with my hesitancy to jump into this with both feet, though I could certainly see this being a factor with other posters who have had long-standing relationships with the co-defendants. I'm just somewhat leery of participating in discussions of legally determined guilt-where what we say becomes, in essence, part of public record-without knowing everything that transpired. Am I being overcautious? Probably. But absent complete information, it's too easy to misstate something, and get into hot water.

I'm probably rambling a bit, and it's possible I overreacted to Mark's post, too. I've never had any issue with him, but it sure seemed that he was being patronizing. I've been up 16 hours without sleep...

Mark, if I did misinterpret your comment, then I apologize.

Peter, I'll come back to this a little later tonight, after I've seen my pillow for a while. When I'm lucid again, I can tiptoe through my feelings on what's transpired, thus far.