Anthony @ Equity Investigations, Dear Anthony, Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Anthony @ Equity Investigations, Dear Anthony,

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (89242)	1/12/2005 9:22:23 AM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (3) of 122087

Judge Raymond Dearie severely restricted discussion of that [terrorism] investigation during witness testimony. But in its closing arguments the government made reference to that inquiry. At issue, Mr. Levine said, is whether Mr. Royer and Mr. Elgindy tried to obstruct an investigation into terrorism ties before it evolved into a more general investigation into securities fraud. This is a bold move that may come back to haunt the prosecution. If I'm the defense, I'd use this as an excuse to talk further about the terrorism backdrop. I'd say how the government targeted my client because of his heritage. That once they expended so much time and effort on him and realized he had nothing to do with terrorism they scrambled to find other things to charge him with. Yes, my client is not a very personable individual; he is boastful, exaggerates, and sometimes just plain makes things up in order to make his living. But, as we've seen in Wall Street, those are the tactics of those that promote stocks as well. As we've seen over and over again, Wall Street sheep get sheared. My client fought fire with fire. Perhaps two wrongs don't make a right but that doesn't make my client a criminal. Immoral, unethical, intimidating, perhaps, but criminal, no. --- I (personally) am not saying there were no crimes committed here. I'm not saying that Elgindy is not the type of person likely to have committed a crime based on his past convictions. I'm simply saying that the jury is human and perhaps would buy such an argument since they most likely only knew Elgindy from this trial (since mention of past convictions is often barred as being too prejudicial). The racial profiling part that is implied by the apparently aborted terrorism investigation may just be the pebble that tilts the scales to not guilty. If not, then it may end up providing grounds for an appeal. - Jeff

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next