So should manipulative shorting or criminal activities on the short side be looked over, forgiven or even encouraged as a check on scamming by CEO's?
Interesting exchange between Patchie and someone who apparently is defending someone whose actions led to federal multi-count conviction based primarily on shorting while wrongfully obtaining FBI data and also extorting CEO's, i.e., allegations of free shares to cover shorts and call off the dogs.
========================================================
To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (101672) 12/2/2007 7:42:11 PM
From: Patchie 1 Recommendation of 101707
Jeff...If nothing else you are consistent. While you call individuals with clean track records criminals, you take convicted criminals and argue that they are victims. seems your lovefest with Elgindy and Antar remains. LMAO
BTW...I hear Jeff Dahmer was just misunderstood as well if you want to fight for his cause and credibility as well (same name and all)
To: Patchie who wrote (101692) 12/3/2007 11:44:00 AM
From: Patchie 2 Recommendations of 101707
Jeff...It was pointed out to me by a wonderful observer that should Elgindy become successful in his appeal the Fed's will most assuredly put him up for retrial. They may even have more against him this time around.
That being said...Can we again expect to see you testify on behalf of this recidivist again?
Tell me, do you really condone the use of non-public information obtained by crooked Federal Authorities to trade off? Do you have different standards of insider trading whereby company executives can not trade on the non-public information they have but crooks like Elgindy can work closely with crooked federal employees and bribe them for inside information to trade from? I believe teh old transcripts from his site have Elgindy telling people that this is NON-Public and not to discuss what was identified - later erasing the tapes to insure the evidence was not available (but it was LOL)
To: Patchie who wrote (101694) 12/3/2007 1:26:02 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell of 101707
Appeals are based on points of law, not fact. If someone did not get a fair trial, yes, unless they were railroaded, the judge is likely going to order a retrial instead of just setting the guy free.
What you seem to not understand here is the concept of double jeopardy. If you are charged with 100 counts of something, are convicted on four of them, and win a retrial on appeal-- you can only be retried on the four guilty counts! Sure the government could decide to tack on another few hundred *new* counts, but that would wreak of throwing things at the wall to see what stuck and only backfire, IMO (i.e. if you believed so strongly these are crimes now, why not when you first filed suit?) [Note: I'm unsure if these new counts could actually be added to the retried suit or would have to be served as a separate suit.]
If there's a retrial, I'm not sure what I'd have to offer as a witness. I was not a member of Tony's site and had no access to it. I, like SI Bob, don't think he got a fair trial at all. I cringe most of the time when people bring up race as an excuse, but race truly was an issue here. I can't imagine what it must be like to be labeled -- in print nationwide right after 9-11 -- as a suspected terrorist. And then to be flown 3000 miles across the country to be tried at Ground 0, that's mind-boggling.
As for the rest of your message, it's obvious you've not read the transcripts nor the appeal carefully.
There's more documentation to come, so stay tuned.
- Jeff
To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (101700) 12/3/2007 1:28:06 PM
From: Patchie 2 Recommendations of 101707
Jeff, I am sure tony is feeding you all the one sided info we need to read.
Never did respond to the question: In a retrial will you again testify on behalf of the twice convicted criminal?
To: Patchie who wrote (101701) 12/3/2007 1:32:44 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell of 101704
If asked to testify, yes of course I would. I suppose I could testify about people like you and the scammy stocks you support and how we need people like Tony and threads like this, sleuths like Floydie, reporters like Gary Weiss, and reformed felons like Sam Antar to balance things out.
- Jeff
To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (101702) 12/3/2007 1:40:13 PM
From: Patchie 2 Recommendations of 101704
Good for you. I am proud of you. You not only pledged alliance with convicted criminals once...you admit you will do it again and again.
Lets see, Tony (convicted of Securities Fraud and Insurance Fraud); Sam Antar (Convicted of Securities Fraud) ---- Good honorable guys.
Dave Patch -- brought market reforms to outdated short selling rules --- Bad guy scam artist.
BTW...Didn't Tony obtain his information illegally and then trade on that information while informing a network of paid subscribers the same information to create a market trade event? Better watch it, I have some of those transcripts where Tony and say...John Fiero are discussing illegally obtained information and how to capitalize on it.
A second thought, has any of Sam's work ever been validated by a Regulator or Federal Authority? NOPE!!!! It is all pomp and circumstance. Come to think of it, Weiss hasn't done much in the last decade that is of any value either has he. As for Floydie...He really is good at Google and Yahoo searches, I'll give him that much.
L M A O
Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read
To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (101702) 12/3/2007 1:41:30 PM
From: Patchie 1 Recommendation of 101704
Were you asked before and did you actually testify? I am hearing you may have cowarded it - is that true? |
