| From: Anthony@Pacific | 9/14/2005 5:46:49 PM |
| | Read Replies (2) of 109666 |
| |
Another post from Anthony:
--------------------------------------------------------
Dear Folks,
The SEC in March 2004 ruled that the NASD didn't have enough evidence to support allegations that I had manipulated the price of Saf-T-Lok Inc. and overturned the $50,000 fine levied against me by the NASD. The NASD filed an almost unprecedented appeal of that decision in May 2004.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia recently heard oral arguments on this matter. The substance of those arguments was provided in a recent Washington Post article on September 9, 2005.
I take particular satisfaction in the following two statements:
"This is an extraordinary attempt to expand their authority," Eric Summergrad, the SEC's deputy solicitor general, told a three-judge panel.
Judge Harry Edwards rebuked the NASD, saying "the SEC is clearly the higher tribunal." He said "we don't allow lower tribunals to challenge higher tribunals who have authority over them. We just don't."
I will reserve any further comments on the specifics of this case and/or the ramifications of any decision until the esteemed panel of Judges issue their written ruling. In the meantime, I am providing the brief I filed, pro se, in reply to the NASD appeal. This brief was filed and received on
May 4, 2005 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Stay tuned. There is more to come.
Peace,
Anthony
------------------------------------------------------------
I'm scanning the cited brief and will post a link to it when I'm able to. If anyone else already has it in PDF or another format, please post a link to it or email it to me at bobz@investorshub.com so I can put it on the server for public viewing.
Bob Zumbrunnen |
