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 (3427)	7/21/2002 7:01:18 PM
From: Win-Lose-Draw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12465

He's been charged with 911 associations he has? what charge? in what court? please provide a link showing a 911-related indictment. if there is no such indictment then there is no such charge. why are you exaggerating like this? is this some kind of attempt to poison the well and claim he can't get a fair trial? this isn't semantics: this is complete misrepresentation on your part.

To: mmmary who wrote (3427)	7/21/2002 7:03:36 PM
From: Bear Down	Respond to of 12465

do you ride without a helmet? methinks you banged yer noggin one too many times.

To: mmmary who wrote (3427)	7/21/2002 11:00:11 PM
From: dacoola	Respond to of 12465

For God"s sake, Breen made this statement in the arraignment and bail hearing. Only a good prosecutor would have exposed an alarmed signal from his broker that he put a sell order in on 9/10. I very seriously doubt that this thing will come up at trial. I sold quite a bunch of QTEK on 9/10 and the FBI hasn't knocked yet. Elgindy has NOT been accused of the 911 thing.....he had a broker who was alarmed and notified the SEC. He isn't a terrorist, he's just an old fashioned crook.