Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mmmary who wrote (3087)	5/25/2002 12:10:43 AM
From: Win-Lose-Draw	Respond to of 12465

No kidding. A short seller with that kind of foreknowledge wouldn't be pulling money out, he'd be shoving every penny he could find into the market. None of this makes sense. If he did something wrong, he should be punished, but this "terrorism" link stinks of pandering to a hysterical media hysteria and is bad for all citizens.

To: mmmary who wrote (3087)	5/25/2002 1:54:39 AM
From: EL KABONG!!!	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12465

Hi mmmary, Although in general, I agree with the gist of your post, I would offer up one comment. The brokerage account for the Elgindy children was a trust account, specifically identified as a Uniform Gift to Minor account in at least one responsible news story. My (limited) knowledge of shorting says that in order to short, one must have an unrestricted, marginable brokerage account. The children's trust account, if the news report(s) are accurate, would likely not qualify for short activities at any brokerage that I know of, including Salomon Smith Barney. Trust accounts usually come with restrictions and are usually not marginable. Therefore, even if Mr. Elgindy had advance knowledge of the 9/11 events, he likely could only have liquidated long positions in the trust account, and not initiated any short positions. Just pointing this out for argumentative purposes. <g> My own viewpoint on this aspect is that I prefer to believe that he had no advance information on the terrorist attacks, but then again, if he did, this wouldn't be the first time that Tony has disappointed those posters in the SI family who have tried really hard to believe that he's a reformed man. On the overall indictment, I'm inclined to agree with the government case simply because it involves two of their own people, and I'm certain that the FBI does not easily nor gleefully indict their own agents, as the resulting legal actions tend to reek a foul stench for many months afterward on those folks who remain behind and are completely honorable. KJC

To: mmmary who wrote (3087)	5/25/2002 4:08:43 PM
From: w molloy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12465

The 9/11 accusation does make sense.... ...if it is seen in the context of biased reporting From the latest round of news coming out of San Diego (see www.sandiegochannel.com et al), the federal prosecutor Ken Breen, who was opposing Elgindy's bail, was clearly speculating Breen said. "Perhaps Mr. Elgindy had pre-knowledge of the Sept. 11 attacks. Instead of trying to report it, he tried to profit from it." The presiding judge clearly saw it for what it was, a cheap shot Before issuing the order, Magistrate Judge John Houston said he was going to "disregard" the suggestion that Elgindy had anything to do with the terror attacks. Of course, such a distinction was lost in a report designed to whip up more hysteria, post 9/11, as the headline reveals... FBI: Elgindy May Have Known About 9/11 Attacks BTW - the headline is inaccurate. The remarks was made the federal prosecutor Breen, not the FBI. IMO The handling of this particular story is an example of the pandering of 'news services' to its advertisers. Joe Public is more likely to tune into a story with links to 9/11 than to one about another stock swindle. I'm also disappointed by the derivative nature of most other reports from the wire services and most major newspapers. San Diego News10 (their website is thesandiegochannel.com) broke the Elgindy story on Tuesday night. Their bias has perculated through. The linking of 9/11 to Elgindy's case could well backfire on the prosecutors. How could he get a fair trial if jurors see him as a terrorist as opposed to a crooked short seller? W. Quotes taken from thesandiegochannel.com