Since a number of posters are banned here, why I'll never know, if there is nothing to hide, I'll respond to this one.
I'm looking for the illegal part though. I 'd like to know if there something illegal in that scenario?
Let's see, Peter. Tony and friends are short what they're telling InsideTruth.com and SI members is a complete scam company, a fraud, criminals running the company. AUSA Kenneth Breen alleged in his indictment that Tony and friends/associates - which has now led to two dozen criminal convictions - that this was a racketeering conspiracy orchestrated by Tony and site members. AUSA alleged that these racketeering conspirators obtained non-public information from the FBI. So, while advising the public to short and telling everyone who would listen what criminals the company is but withholding some valuable FBI info from the public, they actually negotiate with the scam companies the racketeers are warning the public are criminals. I don't see anywhere at all here at SI that any SI members were informed of these concealed negotiations at any time ever. Some disclosure bringing out the "inside truth" to the public they're trying to save.
So here is where we are: the racketeering compadres say, "Now see here Mr. XYZ CEO, we have this information that you're not a very reputable person. We're short about 250,000 shares, meaning WE, because it's not just Tony, but a few of us. We may not want to cover those borrowed shares on the open market because that would cost us a rapid spike in an illiquid stock like yours, though there was a rapid tank when we shorted, we don't believe we should suffer the same fate longs did when we sold massively. You don't want us to issue a new analysis report with the until-now-withheld info about you, do you? We'll sell more, we'll call FBI, we'll call SEC, we'll even call Sheriff J.W. Peppah and Inspector Clouseau too, just watch us. So how's about you agree to hand over those 250,000 shares at a 25% discount to the prevailing market price?"
And now, after the convictions, we hear this:
Seems very two-faced, dishonest - bad sportsmanship at best- and I wouldn't like anyone who did it personally. But that's a matter of taste...I'm looking for the illegal part though. I 'd like to know if there something illegal in that scenario?
LOLOLISSIMO, Peter! I'll quote hedgefundman's statement Monday evening, which is directed at anyone engaged in the "negotiations" for extorted share blocks:
is this possible enterprise associate a tryin' to send a message 'cause he's feared of being "next?" does he wanna shut him up, knowin' that the way to an early release is to roll babeeee, roll.
...bring back the ole days...
THE CAPS
the bold
================================>THE SHEEPLE ARROWS
commanding the sheeple to action, to go after the target, to follow the lead, to further the enterprise...
to SHEEPLE - he who doesn't learn himself from past convictions, is bound to get repeat sentences
The lack of accountability let alone remorse here from former AP associates is remarkable, considering the racketeering and extortion convictions. No one who accepted those "hard bargaining" blocks from the targeted CEO's the least bit concerned about the consequences? Profiting from extortion, now proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a federal court? |
