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 (3173)	5/29/2002 8:28:33 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

you might add to the flight risk that he apparently had a foreign passport, that it appears that much of his money is in a Canadian brokerage and out of reach of the US without complex proceedings but freely available to him if he left the country (if it were in the US we could freeze it. But not in Canada), that he apparently had or was acquiring property in Lebanon and had transferred substantial funds there, and that his house here was apparently already seized or up for grabs, so he had nothing to lose there by leaving. Plus noting that since his activies are mostly carried out over the internet he could go to any almost any country and set up shop there all over again, doing just what he had been doing, and thumb his nose at the US law. I would say the judge was quite right to find him a flight risk, frankly.

To: mmmary who wrote (3173)	5/29/2002 8:37:27 PM
From: Stockbull	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

What would have to happen mmmary for you to consider him a flight risk,,Maybe waving airline tickets in their face when they picked him up??????

To: mmmary who wrote (3173)	5/29/2002 9:01:10 PM
From: EL KABONG!!!	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12465

Hi mmmary, I don't think anyone is insinuating that you have done anything wrong, or have a criminal past. They're just trying to impress upon you the gravity of Tony's current situation, and the gravity of what he has done, and what it is alleged he has done. Regarding the weapon(s)/ ammunition, that were confiscated from his home... This is likely a clear violation of the terms of his earlier release from prison. Whether or not he was aware of the presence of any weapons/ammunition, this incident alone is sufficient to have him returned to incarceration on a parole/probation violation. Regarding his being deemed a flight risk... a) He may have known that a possibility existed that he was going back to prison because: ..1) he was aware of possible violation(s) of probation/parole ..2) he was aware of the FBI investigation and Grand Jury investigation in NYC ..3) he was aware of a piddling NASD complaint against him that was recently resolved in his favor b) Being knowledgeable of a) above: ..1) he had a U-Haul travel trailer in his residence ..2) he had recently liquidated his children's investment account(s) ..3) he has dual citizenship ..4) he has multiple passports (one is USA, and one is foreign, Egypt I believe) ..5) he recently bought a residence in a foreign country (Lebanon) which has no extradition treaty with the USA ..6) he recently transferred large sums of capital to said foreign country ..7) his reasons for staying in the USA would be tenuous at best in light of any perceived risks of incarceration For the above reasons, the judge in the case had to make a determination of flight risk. He decided against Tony. While anyone can argue that any one of the above factors by itself might be coincidental, and not sufficient grounds to detain him indefinitely, taken collectively those same factors could be highly indicative of someone preparing to flee. The judge likely did not make his decision on any one factor, but took the entire situation into perspective. In other words, the jurist looked at the forest and not just the individual trees... KJC

To: mmmary who wrote (3173)	5/29/2002 10:49:25 PM
From: heronwater	Respond to of 12465

mmmary, I had no doubt you were squeeky clean. You have the right to bear arms. Anthony as a convicted felon on parole, did not. It is a matter of right and wrong. Something Anthony did not have the ability to decipher. The judge made the proper decision as per the flight risk. The argument that some are presenting that the government or whomever is "out to get him" and all other conspiracy stories, is ridiculous. Anthony got caught in his own web. Unfortunately, he caught too many others in that web. Quit trying to put words in my mouth and twist what I'm saying Not possible, your foot is too big.