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 (89095)	1/4/2005 9:41:27 AM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 122087

Since Royer felt scammed by Webtel (where it was not just his but his friends' and family's money), it's easy to see how he was motivated to go after stock fraud. We all know it's rampant so we should all applaud his desire. Considering that Tony was probably the most vociferous and active voice against stock scams at the time, and proclaimed to have a successful track record exposing them, it's understandable why Royer felt comfortable contacting him. Many people that have worked for the SEC go into the private sector as lawyers that defend alleged scammers -- where I am sure their fees for one case dwarf what they made at the SEC -- so I see nothing wrong with Royer planning to retire from the FBI and work with Tony. The defense is going to have to show that Royer had good intentions but made bad choices in choosing Elgindy and, by extension, Cleveland. Royer certainly didn't authorize his confidential information being made as public as it was via Tony's web site. He certainly didn't count on Tony being unable to keep his mouth shut or, worse, allegedly holding it over the heads of those being investigated. But that was Tony's style regardless of where he got his information. Tony was never shy about saying he was going to get rich shorting "turds", so how he used what he got should have been no surprise as well. Like I keep saying, juries often make their decisions based on context. As an extreme example, murder is a crime but killing someone in self-defense is not. What makes this case more difficult to predict is that the subject matter is rarely applied in criminal cases, so you are going to have to get everyone to agree the acts were not just violations of civil law, but criminal as well. - Jeff