Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
questionable sources, though I do not disagree that people could share your opinion. For that matter we could probably find similar dis for any research house.
I bot a number of their income ideas and made money on all but one.
Interesting that you lay out such a certain judgement. Are there other facts?
The judge ordered that Porter and his company "...shall be, and hereby are, enjoined from any and all future violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5"; and "...shall pay the Clerk of the Court the sum of $1,312,620 together with judgment interest thereon." And: "Defendant Frank Porter Stansberry shall pay a civil penalty in the amount of $120,000 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)(B)(iii)."
The judge described Porter's work as (quoting from the judge's decision) "a fraud scheme whereby victims were induced to pay $1,000 each for a 'sure thing' stock tip allegedly based upon 'inside information"....”
The judge also noted that "...Stansberry’s conduct undoubtedly involved deliberate fraud, making statements that he knew to be false." And: "the Court does not find that Stansberry recognizes his factual culpability and, indeed, finds that he testified falsely at trial."
So the guy was actually found guilty. There you go, real evidence to support a claim although this is peanuts relative to most of the so called scam artists.
Does this fraud that there is evidence of here then commit the rest of a "body of work" to the same judgement? I mean the guy is still "in business".
