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 : A@P VOTE: Guilty or Innocent? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: peter michaelson who wrote (328)	6/8/2002 1:48:02 PM
From: Bear Down	Respond to of 717

However, Bear, I am posting not so much to protest the legal treatment, but rather the treatment in the press and on these message boards. The treatment by the press of high profile criminal cases has never been fair. Luckily they don't rule the day when all is said and done. To be honest, you could have picked a better cause to start your campaign of righteousness over. I guess to me it is akin to using the Varian/Day, Delfino case as a starting point for a free speech argument. Neither day/Delfino or Tony Elgindy make a great poster child for the morally righteous causes they would like the world to believe they represent. And personally, I don't think a single issue of 911 was used in making any decisions regarding tony's bail or forfieture. I think the case speaks for itself and seizure during RICO proceedings is exactly why they passed that law so i guess that should have been expected. I agree forfeiture laws are ridicuolous in this country that preaches the right to private property. But Tony's goods have not been forfeited yet, they hare being held pending a civil action. Again, i think it only fair to let the system try and see what he is or isn't entitled to keep. And I also agree that he should certainly be left access to use any and all his funds for his legal defense (only) until at which time the process deems them illgotten gains that are subject to forfieture. I don't believe holding him in jail hurts his oppurtunity to defend himself, taking his money if he has access to none, would. But something tells me tony has enough people like you willing to help him with legal bills if necessary to make sure he gets a good defense (hint, hire a new lawyer already). PS....wasn't there like 30 k still left in ADSP relief fund? Is that now the Elgindy defense fund?

To: peter michaelson who wrote (328)	6/8/2002 4:11:46 PM
From: Smiling Bob	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 717

All of his assets were seized without trial and his ability to defend himself is thereby severely diminished. If he acquired these assets profiting from smear campaigns launched against others without them being able to defend themselves, he deserves to lose every cent and some. Your scumbag, greedy friend would stop at nothing to put another $$ in his pocket. I'm sure he'd sell you out in a heartbeat as well. His own MOTHER had to sue him. While I don't think there's any 9/11 connection, I do find it very hard to believe he wouldn't seek illegally obtained FBI info if the opportunity arose. It certainly wouldn't be the first time he's crossed the line. It's incredulous to see anyone suggest amr's interests were anything other than filling his pockets. He wasn't posting on SI to help anyone. He was first and foremost here to draw subscribers. He wasn't shorting stocks to help anyone but himself. The humanitarian in him didn't drive him to post negative info on companies and people. I certainly know why he posted on my thread, and it wasn't to save any refugees. If his posts on SI opened up anyone's eyes as to the inner-workings of wall street, that was only because the reader was either ignorant or naive. That same reader might feel indebted to amr and maybe believe that he was of good repute. Possibly even inclined to subscribe and help his cause. A la Jerry Falwell/Jim Baker/ Creflo Dollar?