Sten & Breen
by Anthony Elgindy
Message 24337507
To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (102700)
2/22/2008 6:26:16 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell 1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) of 102710
Sten & Breen
by Anthony Elgindy
Greetings to all,
RE: UPDATE / APPEAL
Just thought I’d pop in and say hello and stuff. First off, I wanted to let everyone know that the Oral Arguments on my appeal have been moved again & as soon as I get the new date I will post it here.(hopefully in March).Secondly I wanted to share something else, something that I think will, perhaps, be of great interest to folks in general but of much greater concern to certain individuals and their co-conspirators...especially as this case relates to the events of 9/11...
Everyone now knows that in this case, immediately after my arrest, back in May of 2002, a NY prosecutor named Kenneth Breen flew across the country and appeared in court in San Diego, at my bail hearing, to object against my application for bail. At this hearing he stood there and without a scintilla of evidence, stated in open court that I knew about "9/11 before it happened and instead of reporting it, I tried to profit from it".. Allegations that were not true, and allegations that he knew, at that very time, weren't true. BREEN said this because he knew it would instantly transform me from who I was and how I was seen in the market into something that I was not instantly, as a result, my bail was denied.
It took me another 4 months to finally get bail but Breen's remarks took on a life of their own and then engulfed every aspect of this case and it continues to this very day..........
Although everyone in the govt knew back then as they do now that his comments were TOTALLY bogus and that no such connection or link ever existed it NEVER mattered..BREEN was steadfastly committed to his bullshit and he was committed to turning me into a "terrorist" even though he knew it was all a lie. A lie that he himself created out of thin air.
Unfortunately, this bullshit not only prejudiced my trial but it also destroyed any chance I ever had to get a fair trial, either in the courtroom or in the public.. The non-stop barrage of totally unfounded and false incendiary and prejudicial "9/11" and "terrorism" tainted allegations that were made repeatedly in public and throughout the trial caused two attempts on my life, once during the trial itself and the second time the night before I was scheduled to be transferred back to California from NY's MCC.
[You can see a detailed presentation of much of this evidence laid out in both of my appellate briefs, currently pending in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals]
During the trial I was attacked by a 300 lb. brainless thug, named Ronny Petrino who believed that I was a "rich terrorist" attacked me on Jan 1, 2005 with steal padlocks tied to a sock....The second attack occurred in October 2006 by another inmate who used a metal pipe on the last night I was in the general population in NY's MCC...
To demonstrate just one example of lies and criminal intent to prejudice everyone , including the court itself, against me, here is a little side-bar from the trial in which BREEN, the Lead prosecutor in my case along with former SEC attorney, John Sten fabricate a lie and a story about me, just before Sten is called to testify and is put on the stand. Jon Sten was the SEC attorney that I worked with to help the SEC figure out what kind of scam broker, Mike Zaman and former AUSA Drew Pitt were perpetrating on the public in an obscure little stock called Conectysis...The very same stock promotion that caused Zaman to threaten to kill me....The SEC even made those allegations formally at the time......
Here BREEN, in a private and later "sealed" side-bar tells the Court and judge that former SEC attorney, John Sten had investigated my shorting and trading activity after the 1st WTC b0mbing, which occurred in February of 1993.. As you will see the reaction is strong from the judge..................however there is a problem with all of this, but first you should read what occurred, first;;
[12-16-04 TRIAL TRANSCRIPT]
5912
1 (Sidebar.)
2 MR. BREEN: I was just talking to Mr. Sten in
3 the hallway and something that came up.
4 THE COURT: Mr. Who?
5 MR. BREEN: Mr. Sten.
6 MR. BERKE: You know we are calling in Bressman,
7 he flew in from Washington. We have to get to Bressman.
8 We didn't know if he was coming or not.
9 THE COURT: The out-of-town guy goes first.
10 Bressman.
11 MR. BERKE: He it here now.
12 THE COURT: Do them both.
13 MR. BREEN: Mr. Sten brought something up that
14 he hasn't mentioned before and I thought that he should
15 and I bring it up to warn everyone and I told Mr. Sten to
16 not say what he told me under any circumstances, but
17 apparently, as part of an investigation he worked on,
18 there was some accusations that a short selling group that
19 included Mr. Elgindy might have actually known about and
20 traded ahead of the first bombing of the World Trade
21 Center. I told him not to mention it.
22 MR. GERZOG: The '93?
23 MR. BREEN: The date, that's what he told me.
24 He knows not to go into it. I wanted everybody to know
25 that that he wouldn't go near it. I told him not to
Anthony Frisolone, CRR
Official US District Court Reporter
5913
1 answer any question, just stop to turn to you, Your Honor,
2 but this is --
3 THE COURT: Fake a heart attack.
4 MR. BREEN: I'll take a heart attack.
5 THE COURT: If he says it, I'll have a heart
6 attack so, okay.
7 MR. BERKE: We'll all get to enjoy our holidays.
8 My joke was --
9 MR. GERZOG: Scrambling to explain.
10 MR. BERKE: Stop. My joke was that there would
11 have to be a mistrial and the trial would end.
12 THE COURT: Is that to clarify?
13 MR. BERKE: That is what I meant. I'm not that
14 quick.
15 MR. LEVINE: February 12th.
16 MR. BERKE: I ask that everything we discuss be
17 under seal.
18 THE COURT: That's very interesting. But, yes,
19 of course.
Its pretty interesting stuff isn’t it ?? Pretty incredible,, in fact....Here is BREEN doing it once again, not only did he manage to link me to the tragedy of the WTC attacks of 9/11/2001....here he is telling the judge that I was also investigated for the same type of thing during the very 1st attacks on the WTC, 8 years earlier, in February of 1993 !!!
Here we have John Sten and ken Breen linking me to the first b0mbing in 1993 of the WTC, in a side-bar which was promptly sealed and NEVER disclosed to me or anyone in the public ever before...
There is just one problem with all of this, It is all a lie. In fact nothing that Breen said or that John Sten claimed could have possibly been true.........In February of 1993 I was a retail stock broker peddling penny stocks to the public at the now defunct firm that was known as Armstrong McKinley.....then in June of 1993 until Dec of 2004 I was on disability, never working as a trader, much less a "short-seller".
In Fact, My first short sale of my entire life occurred in October 1995, after Key West Securities was cleared for trading.. My 1st short sale of my entire life happened 2 1/2 years after the 1993 b0mbing of the WTC........
Breen and Sten lied again..
Message 24338223
To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (102709) 2/23/2008 12:37:20 AM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell 1 Recommendation of 102710
"BGII" - Suborned Perjury & Crimes of BREEN & Cleveland
By Anthony Elgindy
Next we move on to stock BGII....
During the trial, Ken Breen presented evidence of both alleged "manipulation" and "inside-trading" in "BGII" through testimony from his star witness Derrick Cleveland. In my appeal I claimed that I was guilty of neither since Royer did NOT perform any searches with regard to BGII and that I was the source of any and ALL information about BGII posted on my AP site, since I am the one who started the SEC's investigation into BGII. The govt in their reply to my appeal claims that my "argument simply ignores Cleveland's testimony." ...........
So lets go ahead and dig up his testimony and not "ignore it", shall we ??
Not only will I show suborned perjury about BGII but that Cleveland's testimony couldn't possibly be true and that Breen knew it all along.....
In my "pre-sentence" report by the probation dept, they assigned BGII a loss of $2,451,958 of its $11 million plus number, the largest single loss alleged in the PSR, BGII accounts for more than 1/3 of the government's revised and rejected $ 3 million plus gain figure ascribed to me. It likely bears the same proportion of the $ 1.56 million figure proffered in their chart the government appended to it's March 23, 2006 letter and which served as the basis for the forfeiture judgment. (A 1010)
Like I said, the ONLY evidence regarding BGII is Cleveland's testimony that he learned of "raids" by the "Texas Rangers" and of an SEC investigation into BGII from Royer in Dec 2001 and that he passed on that information. (Tr 908-10) Here it is, all of it.
BREEN DIRECT/CLEVELAND :
Q: Have you heard of a company called BGI industries?
A: Yes
Q: How did you refer to it?
A: BGII
Q: Was that the ticker symbol ?
A: Yes
Q: Do you remember how the site --well, was it an AP site stock ?
A: Yes
Q: Do you remember how the site became interested ?
A: Yes, it was another stock that was moving up rapidly, price was going up quite a bit on a daily basis and the site got interested as to why the stock was making moves that it was moving.
Q: Did you do any research on it?
A: Yes
Q: What did you do ?
A: Again, I followed my normal procedure of going to the SEC web site, Edgar, and pulling the financials to get the names and other information to give to Mr. Royer.
Q: Did you give the names to Mr. Royer?
A: Yes
Q: While he was still an FBI agent ?
A: Yes
Q: Did he provide you with information ?
A: Yes
Q: When approximately was this ?
A: BGI the play was around --started around I think, November, December 2001.
Q: What information did he provide you with?
A: I had him run the CEO of the company, a gentleman by the name of Reid Funderburk and he came back with nothing on Funderburk but shortly thereafter that in a few days, after that he had come to me and or called me and let me know that he had just gotten off the phone with the Texas Rangers and they had begun raiding some of BGI's different places where they had their charity machines and also seizing some of their funds.
Q: Who are the Texas Rangers ?
A: Texas Rangers are - it is a law enforcement people in the state of Texas THE COURT: Is it akin to like the state troopers in another jurisdiction?
A: Yes
Q: Now again, when he provided you this information was Mr. Royer still an FBI agent
A: Yes
Q: Did he provide you with any other information in this time frame?
A: Yes
Q: What did he provide you with?
A: He told me that the SEC was looking at BGI Informally at that time.
Q: What did you do with this information?
A: I gave the information to Mr. Elgindy, I gave the information to Mr. Daws, I gave it Quack and I gave it to Nico.
Q: What information did you give them ?
A: That the -- that BGI, different places where they had their machines was being raided by the Texas Rangers, that the machines were being seized, that different bank accounts they had were being seized and that the SEC was informally looking at them.
Q: Did you tell them where you received the information ?
A: yes
Q: What did you tell them in that regard?
A: That the information had come from Jeff
Q: Do you remember what it was that Mr. Elgindy did with that information ?
A: he eventually put some of it out to the site . It seems like it took a little while but eventually it went out to the site.
Q: After receiving the additional information from Mr. Royer did you get additional information ?
A: yes
Q: What did you hear next?
A: That the SEC investigation had become an official SEC investigation, it was no longer informal, it was official and also he informed me that the raids and the seizures were still taking place.
Q: when did you receive this information ?
A: I received this information, it was early to mid December 2001.
Q: And the SEC information, was that received in the same time frame ?
A: Yes
Q: Who did you communicate this new information to?
A: Mr. Elgindy, Mr. Daws, Quack and Nico.
Q: Did Mr. Elgindy release any of the information on the AP site?
A: Eventually he did, yes.
(Tr 908-910) No evidence of any phone calls with anyone at the SEC or with the Texas Rangers was introduced. According to (GX-JL-1) Agent Royer did no searches related to BGII. The information about the Texas Rangers came from a newspaper article in October 2001 that was available on the internet. ( DX 3534(article) DX 5322 is an email from Mr. Elgindy to SEC atty. Brent Baker containing that article.
Moreover, nobody at the SEC was "informally looking at them" because SEC Branch Chief of Enforcement, Douglas Gortimer testified that no one at the SEC was looking at this company until agent Royer told Gortimer about the InsideTruth.com report.
Furthermore Cleveland's testimony that Mr. Royer had told him that the SEC investigation had become an "official investigation" in December of 2001 was a lie. SEC Atty Gortimer, testified that the formal investigation into BGII was started and based on the InsideTruth.com report about BGII that I wrote and then published in January of 2002.(DX 12120)
Q: Id like to ask you about a stock called BGII. That is the symbol. And do you recall the business of BGII ?
A: Yes
Q: what was that ?
A: They were in the business of putting eight liners or gambling machines in Seven-Elevens and road-stops, rest-stops and things like that.
Q: Do you recall, I think you talked about that there was an investigation that began based on information obtained by Mr. Elgindy and other people who worked with Mr. Elgindy on the site?
A: I believe that the opening of the informal investigation was based on their report that was on InsideTruth.com
(TR 3640) Mr. Gortimer then testified that nobody at the SEC had been looking at BGII until he had read Mr. Elgindy's report.
Q: And there was no ongoing SEC investigation at all, as far as you know, nobody at the SEC was looking at this company until Agent Royer told you about it, correct?
A: Right, it was opened after he told me about the InsideTruth.com report.
(TR 36__ ) With regard to the manipulation allegations, Mr. Gortimer testified that BGII stock's price plummeted not because of any manipulation by Mr. Elgindy, but because the truth became known to the public, truth that was first published in Mr. Elgindy's Insidetruth.com report that was then mirrored in the news.
Q: The stock price plummeted correct ?
A: Yes
Q: And it plummeted because the article in the newspaper disclosing some of the things that were already in the insidetruth.com website. It plummeted before we brought our action. I think there was also an article in the newspaper but either way it did fall not too long after this came out.
Q: You recall -- I think you said the information in the article was the same information as InsideTruth?
A: I dont know if it was all identical but very similar.
Q: There was no doubt in your mind it was falling because the truth of the company was coming out, correct ?
A: It was falling because it showed the company was not telling the truth earlier.
Q: So investors saw that they were investing in was , in fact, not what they expected it to be correct ?
A: Yes (TR 3640-42)
As the testimony above shows, BREEN had unlimited access to both Cleveland and Gortimer , since they were both govt witnesses, yet BREEN still put Cleveland on the stand and had Cleveland testify to things that couldnt possibly be true. That is a illegal, it is unethical and it is a crime.. It is a felony and it is enough to disbar Breen and put him in jail where he belongs.
BREEN also had unlimited access to Cleveland's trading records, along with all access data and records. he knew when Mr. Cleveland traded and when the investigations began, yet he chose to pursue and elicit this testimony anyway.
The truth of the matter is that it was my truthful exposure of the stock on InsideTruth.com that caused the SEC to open it's investigation into BGII, and the stock's correction in price.
As this court has said previously, "Where the prosecution knew or should have known of the perjury, the conviction must be set aside, if there is any reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury, (US v Wallach, 935 F.2d 445, C.A.2, (NY), 1991, US v Seck, 48 Fed Appx 827, 2002) |
