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: jlib who wrote (77721)	6/12/2002 1:05:09 AM
From: jag2002	Respond to of 122087

"A Federal district court judge is unlikely to to ignore the precedent of an appellate court opinion" The Circuits don't always agree on the interpretation of statements made in US Supreme Court Cases. Have you checked to see what the precedent is for the New York area? Seventh Circuit statements may be persuasive but aren't binding in New York. They will first look to any precedent set forth by their own Court of Appeals. They may even make the case that Seventh Circuit overstepped the intentions of the US Supreme Court . They could even try to make new precedent in this area. Read Salinas and see if you can differentiate between their decision and the statements by the Seventh Circuit. There are many twists and turns to this case. It is quite feasible that it could end up at the US Supreme Court if Elgindy doesn't cop a plea.

To: jlib who wrote (77721)	6/12/2002 1:42:03 AM
From: jag2002	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 122087

Salinas v. United States : An actionable conspiracy exists if "[t]he partners in the criminal plan . . . agree to pursue the same criminal objective. . . . [, even if the plan] calls for some conspirators to perpetration the crime and others to provide support, the supporters are as guilty as the perpetrators." US Supreme Court decision. What is the criminal objective in Elgindy's case?