Let me read your post in detail before I send a comprehensive response, but I'll say this:
You obviously know that it's much more effective to present arguments in colloqial language, get people laughing at the completely ridiculous behavior of the defendants and they are history. I've learned a great deal reading your posts, reading them until Si reinstated me and now as well, I consider you a friend. Facts all on your own side is one thing; law and motion before trial of course must be formally presented; but in the end you have to boil down these sophisticated confidence schemes into short and sweet statements, make complex legal and factual concepts easily understandable to a jury, who may or may not be stock market experts. That's key. As you said they'll claim it's "jest bidness," or "t'aint me," or as Senor Veritasseeker just said why would everyone pay $2.5 mill and trade on the advice, come on - their schemes were complex and they think because they did it through the Net and Internet law is in its infancy there won't be any consequences at all for lying and defrauding the public and in AP's case also the federal government, which is damned serious, using the FBI in this way as alleged, big deal for AUSA and FBI to go after their own as they have, they must be mortified...especially that testimony Royer gave about how maybe he promised to uphold the Constitution but not FBI rules, oh OK, LOLISSIMO, as you said amigo.
Mr. Breen, look into the others, and charge them, please. One day in 1998 the Internet had such vast promise; it's people like those we're discussing who have caused such incredible damage to so many of us, and as you alleged, and I have, they did it through legitimate American enterprise, RICo causes of action, which makes it much, much worse. |
