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 (993)	12/20/2004 7:45:56 AM
From: rrufff	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5425

Jeff, Slaydick was, trying to talk about Jury Nullification and even cited opinions from noted jurists with respect to this theory. I don't disagree with the part of your post that deals with interpretation of the law. However, in your zeal to find an out, you don't seem to appreciate how the system works or how it is supposed to work. As I posted, it is the job of the jury to determine IF a law applies to the defendant. But it is a determination of FACT. Did the defendant do x,y,z which amounts to a violation of law, as instructed by the judge. If the law is clear, without a factual determination necessary, the jury will get an instruction that determines the law to be applied to the case. My posts were referring to the posts that many who used the private website here make indicating that Tony should be found innocent because he was a good guy or he was supposedly outing scams, etc. That just is not the way the system works. If perhaps the defendant were a novice and really had no idea that he was doing something illegal, you might be able to stretch a sympathy argument and jury members are human beings. The OJ case is not your typical case and I don't believe the jury here is going to treat these defendands as the OJ was treated. If he in fact, extorted or committed acts that are defined as criminal, then the jury will follow the judge's instructions, none of which will give them an out because some here think it is ok to do criminal acts in the face of someone else's criminal or manipulative acts. As for a determination under 10b-5, I do believe the issue is more a matter of law once it is determined that he, in fact, did or did not do the deeds that are alleged. I don't believe that a judge will leave it to the jury to determine whether it is appropriate to use criminal process in the securities area. This will be a legitimate issue for appeal along the lines referenced in the comment by Prof. Henning. I believe you are wrong if your point is that the jury will determine if a criminal case is proper under 10b-5. I doubt the judge will ask them to determine if the information allegedly disseminated was truthful or not. That is because the judge probably will have determined that the use of the information was the crime. He will ask the jury to determine whether or not the defendant USED the information in violation of the act and regs. No doubt that the defendant's counsel will ask for a motion to dismiss or a jury instruction based on the issue raised by Prof Henning. However, this will be an issue that is decided by the judge as a matter of law and this decision would likely be appealed if it goes against the defendant as it is a relatively unchartered area of law. But the Jury won't be able to say, "not guilty by reason of outing scams." And, of course, none of this discussion is really material to the extortion charges. Nothing novel or unusual there. It will be a factual determination. If he did what is claimed, it won't look good for him and unlikely that any appeal would be successful.