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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Anthony @ Equity Investigations, Dear Anthony, -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JRandleman who wrote (76698)	5/26/2002 9:38:15 AM
From: Doug R	Respond to of 122087

lessee... $600/mo from just 100 subscribers is $700k per year. No idea how many there are but 100 is probably a low number. Free stock to buy off negative attacks had to amount to $millions when sold into the short covering bounces. From what I've read in the last few days it seems that a good deal of real research work to legally uncover corporate malfeasance was accomplished by paying subscribers. In essence these people were paying him AND working for him in order that he make more money. What he provided (which was deemed to be worth $600/mo by those thrillseekers willing to participate in an obviously questionable "enterprise") was a conduit into a thin layer of the market with access to media and the corporate structure of very low-tier and questionable companies. Nonpublic information he received from the FBI database was illegally used to build his appearance of credibility or acumen and thus build a following of greedy and/or naive people with a blurry concept of propriety. Yep...looks like a smalltime scam that, due to a unique combination of circumstances, grew too large to go unnoticed for too long.

To: JRandleman who wrote (76698)	5/26/2002 1:40:41 PM
From: (Bob) Zumbrunnen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

..coordinated the release of negative, and sometimes false* information with short selling in a manner designed to exaggerate the negative market sentiment for the stock.'* I stand corrected. I haven't been able to load that PDF (or any PDF lately, for that matter) so I was relying on cut/pasted text I'd read. My uneducated guess is that the prosecution will try to prove the "sometimes false" part as that in itself would be considered a separate crime. Correct? Or will they skip it because it'd be necessary and darned near impossible to prove "knowingly false"? Again, uneducated guess.