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: hedgefundman who wrote (87853)	11/13/2004 12:27:33 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 122087

Hedgefundman, you are making several assumptions that are far from being givens. 1. As regards possessing classified information, you may recall the case of former CIA Director John M. Deutch. Classified information was found on his home unsecured computer. That's one step "worse" than with Elgindy, who simply was passed what he was told was information from FBI files. As we've seen from media reports, some of that information was fabricated. Deutsch was heavily criticized, but he wasn't arrested. So, IMO, possession doesn't seem to be much of an issue here. Use of the information does ("conspiracy to defraud the United States" by using the ill-gotten information for monetary gain). 2. If Elgindy did extort money from companies, that would certainly go to show misuse of information. However, Elgindy is not specifically charged with extortion. And even if the government does show Elgindy did try to extort companies he was targeting, they'd still have to show in order to make their case, IMO, that said information was not otherwise publicly available (Chris Byron goes one step further to argue you can't misuse true information that is used in a lawful way). If companies decide to sue Elgindy themselves, then this distinction would become moot. 3. From all accounts of people who knew Elgindy, he was, at least from a monetary point of view, primarily out for himself. This whole notion people like you have that there was some large well-organized attack on innocent companies is foolish. The fact you even use the word "sheeple" implies these people blindly followed Elgindy as opposed to were part of some orchestrated group-think. In other words, while Elgindy was certainly helped by numerous individuals as to what companies were suspect, most of whom did excellent work, Elgindy answered only to himself. 4. As per #4, Elgindy may face further action by others who come to believe they might now have a strong case against him, but the odds, IMO, this branches out to people who were members of his site will be slim to none. For example, if Elgindy does get convicted, he'll likely be wiped out, so what would companies gain from going after him? And if they aren't going to go after Elgindy, they certainly aren't going to go after his former site members. 5. Given that we're not even talking a national conspiracy, your assumption that this might lead into a worldwide conspiracy is, at best, wishful thinking. - Jeff

To: hedgefundman who wrote (87853)	11/13/2004 1:36:28 PM
From: Nazbuster	Respond to of 122087

hedgefundman, I'll assume you're being sincere about wanting to debate issues. I'll also assume you were not a member of Tony's site and that, for better or worse, leaves you with only your powers of deduction to try to grasp what might have transpired, a situation most of us are in. Unfortunately, too many confuse deduction with actual knowledge. (Luckygirl come to mind? If she can't find it on the net, it doesn't exist. If it's printed on the net, it's true.) It's easy to assume that the indictment accurately portrays what transpired in the chat room. I was a member and can say that from my perspective, I'm embarrassed and shocked at the inaccuracy and biased slant of the charges. For example, from the indictment: "Once the decision was made to disseminate the information publicly, ELGINDY and his subscribers also posted it on various Internet bulletin boards, chat rooms and on related websites, often assuming fictitious identities to do so." Uhhhh.. doh! Isn't that what SI and RB are all about? Don't we ALL have ficticious identities? Also, "The subscribers, including EDNY Subscribers, passed a portion of their profits back to ELGINDY in the form of subscription fees." This is absurd on the face. First of all, not everyone profited. Secondly, the web site charged MEMBERSHIP fees, not profit sharing fees, just as every other private site does, including SiliconInvestor. Painting those fees as dirty money is absurd. This one really is ludicrous: "For the purpose of advancing his illegal stock trading schemes, the defendant AMR I. ELGINDY and other co-conspirators communicated with other short sellers nationwide..." "To facilitate these communications, ELGINDY founded Pacific Equity Investigations, which operated a public website named InsideTruth.com, and a subscription e-mail service and website named AnthonyPacific.com." "The service provider for ELGINDY’s websites was Electronic Information Management Systems (“EIMS”), an Internet hosting service operated by a co-conspirator from his home in Melbourne, Florida." You all know why Tony created Anthonypacific.com. He stated it publically on SI in advance of creating the site. The calls were getting TOO CROWDED with SI exposure. If all the people Tony communicated with were co-conspirators BEFORE creating the site, I guess you all need to turn yourselves in. As far as "co-conspirator" owner of EIMS, I believe he plead guilty to a charge because he erased logs one day when Tony asked him to and the govt. considered that an offense. SInce he had a business, new home, and new baby, he was too afraid of a long prison sentence and agreed to a guilty plea. That's my understanding. I'm out of time this morning -- an appt -- but still think the indictment is full of fluff. I don't know about the extortion issues and am eager to see the evidence. I am curious why the indictment refuses to name all the other companies involved other than Seaview and Nuclear Solutions....