From: Gail E. Boliver
Sent: May 15, 2006
Subject: File No. SR-NASD-2003-158

Dear Madam or Sir:

I would like an opportunity to comment on the above proposed Rule Filing in the ordinary course of your review. At the outset, let me suggest that the rule is changing the face of arbitration and making it more litigious (more court like). The fundamental purpose of arbitration is simplicity, cost efficient, and equitable resolution of disputes. Even today, it is far from that goal. Some of the proposed changes will make the process more cumbersome, costly, and prohibitive for some investors (especially those with the greatest losses.

Specifically, the “motion” practice is quite unnecessary and contrary to arbitration. Statute of Limitation issues are also “technical” for the level of training for most arbitrators (who many times sit in states where they DO NOT RESIDE. This increases the likelihood that they do not understand the sophisticated rules on statute of limitations (and many courts have trouble with the concept as it applies to securities). When does an action “commence” when a Limited Partnership is to run for 10-20 years (as an example).

Thank you for the opportunity to comment at this level at this time.

Gail E. Boliver
Boliver Law Firm
2414 S. 2nd. St.
Marshalltown, IA. 50158