SEC Persecutes Mark Cuban for Relationship with Loose Change
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
November 18, 2008
It’s a classic example of political persecution: a billionaire entrepreneur and owner of the Dallas Mavericks who financed an antiwar film and a landmark 9/11 documentary is the target of an SEC civil suit alleging insider trading.
[Video: Bill O’Reilly tells neocon talk show hots Mike Gallagher that Cuban has no right to produce Loose Change.]
So obvious and egregious is the persecution of Cuban, the New York Times wrote on November 17: “Did Mark Cuban, the Internet entrepreneur turned owner of the Dallas Mavericks basketball team, and would-be buyer of the Chicago Cubs, violate insider trading laws in a particularly egregious fashion? Or is he the victim of a political hit job because he helped finance a movie that was scathingly critical of President Bush?”
As the New York Times points out, Cuban may have been targeted not so much for his financing of Brian De Palma’s antiwar movie, Redacted, but rather for his involvement with another controversial film: Loose Change.
...
Read more here: http://www.infowars.com/?p=6053
Full Version: SEC Persecutes Mark Cuban
QUOTE (bofors @ Nov 18 2008, 11:42 PM) 
SEC Persecutes Mark Cuban for Relationship with Loose Change
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
November 18, 2008
It’s a classic example of political persecution: a billionaire entrepreneur and owner of the Dallas Mavericks who financed an antiwar film and a landmark 9/11 documentary is the target of an SEC civil suit alleging insider trading.
[Video: Bill O’Reilly tells neocon talk show hots Mike Gallagher that Cuban has no right to produce Loose Change.]
So obvious and egregious is the persecution of Cuban, the New York Times wrote on November 17: “Did Mark Cuban, the Internet entrepreneur turned owner of the Dallas Mavericks basketball team, and would-be buyer of the Chicago Cubs, violate insider trading laws in a particularly egregious fashion? Or is he the victim of a political hit job because he helped finance a movie that was scathingly critical of President Bush?”
As the New York Times points out, Cuban may have been targeted not so much for his financing of Brian De Palma’s antiwar movie, Redacted, but rather for his involvement with another controversial film: Loose Change.
...
Read more here: http://www.infowars.com/?p=6053
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
November 18, 2008
It’s a classic example of political persecution: a billionaire entrepreneur and owner of the Dallas Mavericks who financed an antiwar film and a landmark 9/11 documentary is the target of an SEC civil suit alleging insider trading.
[Video: Bill O’Reilly tells neocon talk show hots Mike Gallagher that Cuban has no right to produce Loose Change.]
So obvious and egregious is the persecution of Cuban, the New York Times wrote on November 17: “Did Mark Cuban, the Internet entrepreneur turned owner of the Dallas Mavericks basketball team, and would-be buyer of the Chicago Cubs, violate insider trading laws in a particularly egregious fashion? Or is he the victim of a political hit job because he helped finance a movie that was scathingly critical of President Bush?”
As the New York Times points out, Cuban may have been targeted not so much for his financing of Brian De Palma’s antiwar movie, Redacted, but rather for his involvement with another controversial film: Loose Change.
...
Read more here: http://www.infowars.com/?p=6053
Yes, clearly that's the only possible explanation.
After all Martha Stewart's involvement in the 9/11 movement was why they went after her for insider trading.
Everything does not revolve around your conspiracies. If they are ruthless enough to kill all the people on 9/11 and they wanted to shut him up or punish him, why is he still alive?
Didn't we have this exact same thing a month before?
No, the SEC is going after Mark Cuban because Mark Cuban broke the law. 
Although anything to crush Loose Change's nonsense is also a good thing.
Although anything to crush Loose Change's nonsense is also a good thing.
I would like to comment,
BUT,
It got SticMAC banned so rather NOT!!
Koos
BUT,
It got SticMAC banned so rather NOT!!
Koos
QUOTE (A Nonny Moose @ Nov 30 2008, 12:26 AM)
Didn't we have this exact same thing a month before?
How did you get SticMAC banned?
You didn't read properly.......
"It got SticMAC banned...."
Koos
"It got SticMAC banned...."
Koos
QUOTE (MGJulius @ Dec 2 2008, 04:23 AM)
How did you get SticMAC banned?
QUOTE (Groot Koos @ Dec 1 2008, 06:09 PM)
I would like to comment,
BUT,
It got SticMAC banned so rather NOT!!
Koos
BUT,
It got SticMAC banned so rather NOT!!
Koos
AFAIK, people get very rarely banned here. So he must have said something very wrong.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.