Promoter States that Posting Negative Info, Even if True, Will Lead to RICO Charges

.

This is the same person that has been pumping and hyping the PLNI stock, including many false and misleading statements about the company:

http://theworm06.blogspot.com/2005/12/plni-history-of-false-and-misleading.html

http://theworm06.blogspot.com/2005/12/plni-promoter-attempts-to-justify.html

He continues to blame the evil market makers and the short sellers for the 80% drop in the stock price of PLNI, even though PLNI has issued approximately 1 billion shares in the last year (500 million in only the last 3 months alone), increasing shares outstanding to 2.3 billion - while at the same time publicly stating that the company is in a buyback program. The promoter's comments are in bold below. Make sure you read the last paragraph. Details of this promoter's dozens of hyping and pumping posted messages on various message boards will be chronicled in a special report on this blog in the near future:



http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=PLNI&read=27447


By: rrm_btdt
24 Dec 2005, 02:31 PM EST
Msg. 27447 of 27448Jump to msg. #

I believe that there are posters here involved in a scheme to depress the price of PLNI. It's just my personal opinion. It is also my belief that these people need not be in a for-profit basis enterprise to be held liable.

I base my belief upon the applicable areas of the following ruling by Chief Justice Rehnquist which he delivered to the Court in the case of the NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN, INC., etc., et al., PETITIONERS v. JOSEPH SCHEIDLER et al. from January 24, 1994 in which Justice Rehnquist made the following statements:

“We are required once again to interpret the provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) chapter of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (OCCA), Pub. L. 91-452, Title IX, 84 Stat. 941, as amended, 18 U.S.C. §§§§ 1961-1968 (1988 ed. and Supp. IV). Section 1962(c) prohibits any person associated with an enterprise from conducting its affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity. We granted certiorari to determine whether RICO requires proof that either the racketeering enterprise or the predicate acts of racketeering were motivated by an economic purpose. We hold that RICO requires no such economic motive.”

“We turn to the question of whether the racketeering enterprise or the racketeering predicate acts must be accompanied by an underlying economic motive. Section 1962(c) makes it unlawful "for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt." Section 1961(1) defines "pattern of racketeering activity" to include conduct that is "chargeable" or "indictable" under a host of state and federal laws. [n.4] RICO broadly defines-enterprise" in §§ 1961(4) to "includ[e] any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity." Nowhere in either §§ 1962(c), or in the RICO definitions in §§ 1961, is there any indication that an economic motive is required.”

“The phrase "any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce" comes the closest of any language in subsection (c) to suggesting a need for an economic motive. Arguably an enterprise engaged in interstate or foreign commerce would have a profit seeking motive, but the language in §§ 1962(c) does not stop there; it includes enterprises whose activities "affect" interstate or foreign commerce. Webster's Third New International Dictionary 35 (1969) defines "affect" as "to have a detrimental influence on--used especially in the phrase affecting commerce." An enterprise surely can have a detrimental influence on interstate or foreign commerce without having its own profit seeking motives.”

“We do not believe that the usage of the term "enterprise" in subsections (a) and (b) leads to the inference that an economic motive is required in subsection (c).” The term "enterprise" in subsections (a) and (b) plays a different role in the structure of those subsections than it does in subsection (c).”.

“By contrast, the "enterprise" in subsection (c) connotes generally the vehicle through which the unlawful pattern of racketeering activity is committed, rather than the victim of that activity. Subsection (c) makes it unlawful for "any person employed by or associated with any enterprise . . . to conduct or participate . . . in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity. . . ." Consequently, since the enterprise in subsection (c) is not being acquired, it need not have a property interest that can be acquired nor an economic motive for engaging in illegal activity; it need only be an association in fact that engages in a pattern of racketeering activity. [n.5] Nothing in subsections (a) and (b) directs us to a contrary conclusion.”

“Congress has not, either in the definitional section or in the operative language, required that an "enterprise" in §§ 1962(c) have an economic motive.”

“We hold only that RICO contains no economic motive requirement.”

Thus, if someone is providing negative information here with or without a profit motive, and has a resulting negative influence on the stock price, they could be vulnerable to action. This does not refer to persons who have a clearly stated voluntary disclosure, and whose comments are purely venting of emotion or frustration. But I would say it does apply to posters would post old or outdated company information and then ask questions to create negative innuendo, or straight bash posts such as "HO HO HO .0001" etc.

JMHO

rrm

(Voluntary Disclosure: Position- Long; ST Rating- Strong Buy)




________________________________________________