Yeah...that's called DELUSION! When someone so completely believes in what they are doing no matter how obvious it was wrong or a lie or a scam, that is displayed as being a polite and jovial guy. Sickos are almost always smiling. What does this board have to do with MP? It shows very clearly what lurks in the shadows of these forums. Desperate skimming thieving scamming lying pull-the-wool-over your-eyes pull-the-rug-out-from-under-your-feet scumbags. And while I didn't see what personal info was released, Mike's reaction to it is just a simple diversion tactic from what this thread was about - the trading and the lying which ensued. I've been handling OPM for most of my career. If and when it was lost, there was always an explanation. Not excuses. It was a bad bet. We were overleveraged. We got in at the wrong time. But never did I make it look like it was easy - the risk was something the client has to be comfortable with right from the outset. No tears to the eyes, no riches like an international banker - just risk. Pure risk. Can you handle it? You make 19K a year and you send me 10K? To quote George Costanza: ARE YOU CRAZY??
You are obnoxious and boring. All the information in the post about your identity is publicly available on the internet. If you don't want your house displayed on Google Maps, then put a camouflage net over it.
example of what can be done to wire fraud and mail fraud. http://newyork.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel06/boilerroomfraud092906.htm Does anybody know this firm: Holston, Young, Parker & Associates?
Habeas Corpus is translated as 'You should have the body'. This thread may come to that. But at this point the more appropriate phrase would be: HABEAS PECUNIUM 'You should have the money.'
MP's not a scammer since he didn't receive any money. A scammer is someone who takes money on false pretenses. Where's the swindle? MP would only have received money if he actually made money and his client actually paid him as agreed. MP's just an extremely poor trader. One of the worst I've seen or even heard of. This notion of restitution fails to take into account the shared resposibility of both parties. I mean really now, giving someone access to your account to trade, and I mean $10,000+, after reading this or that about them on a message board? It's one thing to buy a product after reading testimonials on a message board. Usually there's a money back guarantee. And when there's not, most aren't confident enough to buy. And if the product is as good as claimed, almost invariably there's a money-back guarantee. Stop coddling the "victim" and calling MP, the pathetic trader, a scammer. Two dopes screwed up. At most, it would be nice if MP returned 50% of the money lost. But 100% says that it's ok to be a fool and we can just throw personal responsibility and due diligence out the window. Investors don't need that kind of protection. Their first line of defense is common sense. If they don't use it or ignore it for greed, tough noogies. This thread is sort of like bashing the whore who has AIDS for spreading it. All the while championing the cause for condom-free casual sex.
Actually, your analogy is closer to the truth of the law than you know. A whore who KNOWINGLY has aids and intentionally spreads it IS legally liable. That is in the casebooks. In the same way if a 'trader' is KNOWINGLY incompetent, fraudulently presents himself to be otherwise, and loses the money of someone he duped...he also has liability.
Actually, ddunbar, it's been clearly documented in this thread how this could easily be a scam by "Mike Parker" taking the opposite trades risk-free. Additionally, he could simply put on a large position (4 contracts for a 10k acct) and hope it went his way, he could take his 25% fee and run, all the while having no risk. It seems awfully likely that "Mike Parker" found himself some risk-free trading capital from an inexperienced person...
LOL. And... the John who solicts her is liable to the law, to common sense, and to the community at large. :-/ There's that damned personal resposibility and due diligence again. Is a DA or AG going to waste his or her time with this "case?" Not likely. Or as R2D2 would calculate, a 1 in 12,000,000 chance. Sounds like the same odds a dollar and a dream would give you. If only the "victim" had forwarded funds to MP and MP took a management fee already... minimally without that the case is as weak as a thread of yarn tied to a bowling ball about to have the slack let out on it. Hey I could be wrong. A DA or AG in Padokaville or Timbuktoo might not have anything better to do. But one in or near a major financial center...?