Dale, answers to your questions...
Just a few questions on these figures since you and AP are posting them repeatedly:
The chart is not being posted "repeatedly," but rather was one time re-posted because the first one was not readable.
What is the source for these numbers? How do we know who made what?
The information is taken from different trial documents and court filings, primarily forfeiture filings by the prosecution and defense, and government exhibits....specifically GX-2575, GX-2576, GX-2577, GX-2578, GX-2580, GX-2582, GX-2583, GX-2584, GX-2585, and GX-2598, GX-2574, GX-2579, and GX-2581. Remember they issued subpoena's en masse in January, 2003 for all trading records form a vast number of site members.
Were these people all site members trading Anthony's calls, or was he trading for them somehow?
Tony was not trading for anyone's account other than his own, and you can be sure that if he was, the government would have found an additional charge and added it to the indictment just as they added the trading against advice and frontrunning based on a minute's time difference.
If they should be held accountable for ill-gotten gains, then doesn't that support the argument that the trades were improper?
In his own chart he indicates that they were *not* all site members; some were connected to other co-defendants. Remember one of the co-defendants had his own private chat room that was unknown to Tony. Profits that were derived from any illegal activity, if there was any, from that chat room would have been unforeseeable and unknown to Tony since no one seems to dispute that Tony was not aware of the existence of that chat room until long after the initial indictment.
In that chart Tony is simply pointing out the inequity of the government's request, and in doing so he believes he shows the tunnel vision on the part of the prosecutor to make Tony and only Tony the target. Tony has not commented directly on the guilt or innocence of Daws because his trial never took place, and what would have come out as evidence in his trial will possibly *never* be known, other than through a new trial for Tony. Regarding his own guilt, he has been more than vocal, but clearly understands that the issue of his guilt has been decided by a jury for now so *yes*, this chart presumes there is for now a finding of guilt for him and several other defendants. This chart is about sentencing only. One of the amendments to our constitution is the Eighth Amendment---->addressed in his trial summary, newest version in post number 93096. Strict proportionality between a crime and its punishment is not required by the Eighth Amendment, but an extreme disparity between the crime and the sentence offends the Eighth Amendment. If ever there was such an extreme disparity, this is it.
I wasn't going to raise these points, but the debate needs some balance in the wake of this repetition.
Rational debate and inquiry is always welcome, and in fact is what this is all about. Tony strongly feels the facts of this case were kept under a cloud of secrecy for too long, and Tony's intention as far as I know in posting this information is to make public that which should be public. These posts are for his many supporters, friends and site members, many of whom who privately have made contact with him since he began posting, including offers from legal counsel who found his trial summary full of fruitful appellate issues. Unlike OJ, Tony never wants to be "not guilty because of a technicality." He wants those who know him to understand what this case was about from his perspective, and make their own decisions about how and why this case was prosecuted, how many "victims" his actions created, and how many people benefited and were helped forever by his warnings peppered with exaggeration and obnoxious language that "made you look" and thus made you get his message.
No, he is *not* trying to influence any sentence. That's what his lawyers are for, and to think a federal judge or law clerk has nothing better to do than read SI is foolishness.
=====
Some additional "legaleze" related to sentence proportionality.
Proportionality is based generally on review of gravity of offense and comparing sentences imposed on other criminals and for other crimes in the jurisdiction.
A sentence that is grossly disproportionate to the crime committed violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
The constitutionality of a sentence under the Eighth Amendment is determined by analyzing three factors:
(1) the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty;
(2) the comparison with the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction; and
(3) where appropriate, the comparison with sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions.
===== |
