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: Bill Ulrich who wrote (2125)	1/18/2005 7:52:03 AM
From: rrufff	Respond to of 5425

Tough to agree or disagree without seeing the testimony. If I recall his insurance fraud case correctly, it was a fairly simple charge. It seemed that he was basically saying that he had a breakdown, etc. That might work in a more complex type case like the current one but not in one where it's pretty apparent that he had crossed the line of criminality. The thing I remember from that was several posts about how he couldn't afford to pay some relatively small amount of court costs or interest. There was some type of plea of poverty with respect to costs. It seemed to be absurd given the millions, claimed to be made through all those supposedly successful stock attacks and the later visions of all those luxury cars, mansion, foreign real estate, bling-bling, etc. This was not testimony, obviously, and I can't recall anything about his testimony so I'm merely speculating here. I suspect that type of hypocrisy comes through though on the witness stand. It's one of those things - general things you can't really describe - that comes across when you look at someone in the eye while they talk. In jury analysis, it's called "evaluating the witness' demeanor," and one of the strongest arguments for why a jury system works.