Do you see reference made to a corporation, or terrorists in that longs-kick-shorts post you assert was posted by ravenseye? Your allegations and threat in post #454 can't possibly be applicable to that post. You're reaching into the realm of absurdity, again. The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines the word "refuge" as:
1 : shelter or protection from danger or distress
2 : a place that provides shelter or protection
3 : something to which one has recourse in difficulty
Your unfounded allegations and threat were posted 12/10/2004 @ 11:34:33 AM in #454 and I was banned from your gated community the Anthony @ Equity Investigations, Dear Anthony, board 12/11/2004 after 3:57:12 AM per my post #88713 because I asked "Same Evans?" and a quoted link. Are you the a@p_moderator? Evans is a sore subject for you, isn't he Truthseeker?
Message 13228206
Message 13228257
Message 13228409
Message 13228450
Message 13229476
I really do understand why my question about EVANs scared the a@p moderator enough to ban me in the event it's true the press was used in a conspiratorial manner. As a professed truthseeker you really should deal with matters of truth and not false allegations like you have made about me. Only 2 of the following 5 were missing in action on the xybr message board the day of the above links, must be another coincidence huh?
From: Anthony@Pacific
4.) As of Jan 1, 2001, I am related and connected to The Truthseeker, Pluvia, Mr Pink, & Sir Auric. Each is a member of the private site.
siliconinvestor.com
You still have not told me why tony posted 4/21/2001 you're a paid basher when he posted his Notice of termination of all association with The Truthseeker. If you don't tell me, I'm left to assume the truth hurts you too much! Come on truthseeker (cough cough) spit out the truth instead of targeting me with your false allegations and threats!
Message 15699947
This was an interesting read written by your consociate Remond thanks to 'nowandthen' post #523 today, don't you agree?
Prosecutors and defense lawyers late Friday argued in front of judge Dearie - without the jurors present - about the defense's plan to have former members of Elgindy's private investment Web site testify. Prosecutors argued that they should be allowed to interview the potential witnesses before they took the stand, particularly because of the potential danger of self-incrimination.
The government has previously alleged that members of the Web site may have been engaged in the same crimes as Elgindy, Royer and others are charged with. A number of unidentified Web site members have been fingered by the prosecution as unindicted co-conspirators and could potentially be charged in the case if the government chose to.
Message 20849840 |
