From: Cox SMTP west [opticalseti@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 4:20 PM
To: rule-comments@sec.gov
Subject: S7-23-03:

So you want to talk about it some more.  You want to collect comments about an 
abusive practice which you have allowed to continue for years without intervention 
on your behalf, and you want us to recognize these proposed rule changes as 
indicative of your willingness to address the issues which face today's investors.  Congratu-fucking-lations.  Do you think all small investors are idiots?  If you 
cared about stopping the abusive practice of naked shorting it would have been 
stopped years ago when investors began complaining to you.  Instead you ignored us.  
You ignored your own mission statement in order to protect your own job security.  
The truth is that if you really put in effective rules to protect investors, the 
disgorgement fees which you collect and the number of cases that you prosecute 
would decline as a result.  You would have been too effective then, wouldn't you?
 
The SEC is a disgrace and you have insulted my intelligence long enough.  Do you 
really want to stop naked shorting abuses?  Demand all trades be settled on all 
books at all brokers and the DTCC within the next week.  Any trades that are not 
settled will be dealt with by stripping the licenses of the brokers who refuse to 
comply with a mandatory buy-in of any securities which are naked-short.  That's  
it.  If the E*Trades and the Charles Schwabs and the Nite Securities of the industry 
care about keeping their licenses, they would then find a way at any cost to police 
themselves.  This doesn't need a comment period.  This doesn't need more discussion.  
This needs an organization which is true to it's founding mission of protecting the 
investor, rather than protecting the "good old boys" of the securities industry.  
In the gambling industry, a casino's license is stripped if they are found cheating.  
Of course, the gaming commission doesn't collect disgorgement fees, because it is 
more interested in being an effective regulatory body.
 
Do you think that making more rules will protect us when you don't even effectively 
enforce the rules that you have in place now?  You aren't serious about protecting 
us.  Maybe it's time that we as investors find an institution that is willing to 
protect us.  Evolve or perish as an institution....the choice is yours.
 
 
Sincerely,
 
Michael Montague