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: semperfijarhead who wrote (76846)	5/27/2002 12:49:04 AM
From: Captain Jack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

Even more laughs here; Subject 52950 Unbelieveable some can know or believe he did any of the things he is charged with and still defend the turd... Still,, Bubba will love him...LOL

To: semperfijarhead who wrote (76846)	5/27/2002 12:49:29 AM
From: CountofMoneyCristo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

I don't believe you need to have a crime that you know you can bring to a conviction in order to bring up a set of circumstances at a sentencing or bail hearing. The key here is the code of ethics by which all lawyers who have taken the oath as members of the bar are required to abide. If this prosecutor has thrown out reckless charges without any evidentiary foundation, then he has corrupted the legal process, and should face the consequences for this outrageous behavior. How would any of you like to have prosecutors throwing out baseless accusations at you during legal proceedings? Today it is A.; tomorrow it may be you. Not every individual indicted by the government is guilty of all charges formally placed. Keep that in mind when judging the behavior of this prosecutor.

To: semperfijarhead who wrote (76846)	5/27/2002 12:54:51 AM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

FOOD FOR THOUGHT: You know it could be possible that the government, by making a 9/11-related allegation, brought this into the trial consciousness as a tactic to gain more information. For example, lots of folks might be ambivalent about the case were it simply a matter of stock manipulation. They might not come forward with information. However, given the herdlike nature, power and influence of the media (not only in America), the prosecution tying in 9/11 intensifies, to the very greatest degree, awareness to and want to help with the overall case. Remember, the government, at this stage, wants as many doors to open as possible, not only with Elgindy's stock manipulation case. This would especially be true if the government prosecutors think information relative to the financial behavior of 9/11 can be discovered from Elgindy's particular prosecution. The mere inclusion of 9/11 into the case enhances a likelihood that more folks will step forward with information. And regarding terrorism, aside from catching the perpetrators, the government wants as much information as can be learned.