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 : Banned.......Replies to the A@P thread. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (864)	12/17/2004 6:49:14 AM
From: rrufff	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5425

Jeff - your post is an interesting read, but as your post suggests, bias has to be eliminated and that's the function of a judge. Your interpretation is reasonable but you have an admitted bias. None of us, from those like me who merely read this board to those of you who had closer relationships with the defendant, would be picked for the jury for that reason. To me, it sounds like the judge did a good job of admonishing the jury that terrorism is not the charge. Does the jury listen and hear and perhaps not follow the charge? Precedent shows that a strong charge, as the judge gave the courtroom, is pretty good. Trials aren't perfect but new trials are rare, justifiably as we would never finish a trial, a reality show that can never be scripted and perfect. I agree with you that the defendant will come off as less than favorable to a lower middle class jury but the defense counsel likely counters that with an appearance in court of a friendly, moderately dressed face. Use of the 20/20 interview is unlikely as it's hearsay. The prosecutor could use it if it contradicted the defendant but it's unlikely that the defense could use it. It won't come down to whether the companies that were attacked were scams. It won't come down to whether or not he would have shorted them anyway. It won't come down to whether or not the information may have been available if he had done the job the right way, by hard work and research. Many of the friends of the defendant seem to think this. We don't live in a world where vigilantism is the rule of law, for better or worse, although sometimes many of us question whether this should be the case. It won't come down to whether or not the SEC used him in other cases. This is why the judge ranted about the defense wasting time with immaterial presentations. It will come down to whether the defendant obtained information illegally or obtained illegal information or extorted, etc., i.e., did the evidence comport with the counts in the indictment beyond a reasonable doubt? In a way, a juror's environment may help the defendant. 20 years ago, before the days of scandals, the word of the FBI was sacred and jurors might not question that word or tactics. However, I suspect that the key here is that the defendant is being portrayed as someone who took short cuts, who hid an innate corruption under the halo of a crusader. (I'm not making a personal judgment as I don't know the facts or the individuals well enough, but an observation as I suspect will be the way those in the courtroom will view it.) Doing "good" is subjective. Being corrupt, cutting corners in illegal and unethical ways, is more objective and easier to judge as breaching standards, i.e., guilt vs. innocence. As an aside, I didn't see whether or not the newspaper reporter testified. I was also surprised that he would be called by the defense. The constant connection with this same person raises issues that perhaps this reporter was involved with the total scheme in an inappropriate way. It would be relatively easy for the prosecutor to raise these issues, all of which would be negative for Bloomberg, Evans, even the defendant and possibly many others. I can't imagine that he would testify willingly. Lots of mistakes but it's easy to judge that here outside the courtroom. The longer it takes, the more irritated the judge and jury will become and the more likely the jury will stick to key points as I outlined above. So far, my guess, which is pretty much worthless, is that it doesn't look great for the defense. If you watch any of the major trials on tv, you can see how wrong "commentators," even very professional ones, can be in their assessment of a trial. Those of us who only get snippets can't be any better admittedly. The OJ case was a big eye-opener to the public. How many could predict the verdict there? All we can do is to judge with our own bias. But whether or not he was a good guy, justified in cutting corners, will be immaterial as even a blue collar guy knows that someone lining his pockets, shaking down or obtaining information from an FBI data base, is not something that our justice system allows.

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (864)	12/17/2004 9:07:19 AM
From: Louie_al-Arouri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5425

Man do you sugar coat it! Tony Elgindy was a chop shop broker fleecing old ladies for their lives savings for houses like Blinder Robinson. He ratted out and rolled on his co-conspirators when they got nailed by the feds for selling worthless stocks. He then exploited his "informer" status by posing as a Robin Hood working with the FBI, not a stoolie ratting out other house brokers ripping off old ladies. His 20/20 appearance was a farce. He not only scammed Lloydd Richards, he took the spoils and opened Key West, his first (investigative) front. He then went on doing, on the short side ,what he did long - con investors in manipulated tightly held markets. What stands out though was that Elgindy often chose Arab operated/owned ventures like IRID (bin Laden Group), GENI (Khashoggi & El-Bawtri) and Nassar decor venture to manipulate which suggests, since these were tightly held ventures, stock promotions/manipulation. Elgindy's "fate" will depend on whether he can be accountable for his actions. As for the ties to terrorism, the ties Elgindy has are to FINANCIERS of terrorism. The current counts Elgindy is defending were born of Breen's terrorism investigation which is still on-going. Anyone familiar with the Cantor Fitzgerald and Motley civil cases knows its a long way from "over". If your brother is visting Iraq with with bin laden's IIRO and your father set-up a web of these fronts/orgs for global terrorist Muhammad Salah and Tony himself was a self-proclaimed agent of an al Qeada "relief" front, MTHO, that took in money on SI under the guise of assistance to "Albanian Refugees" when, in fact, the money was used to transport KLA members into the US, with the assistance of Spencer Abraham, who received campaign contributions from Almoudi's AMC, an off-shoot org of Sami Al-Arian's IAP, the same AMC that Khaled Elgindy is aligned to, etc etc, one has to believe the AUSA's terror investigation is watching and learning from the Cantor Fitzgerald & Motley civil suits v. the financiers of 9/11.