Ollie is fine too ;-), that was my name as a trader at TP, most traders knew me that way. Last thing I want to be accused of anymore is being too formal, all the briefs you write sometimes you forget how to connect in a discussion like this one, mistake I might have made at times in the past I'll admit.
The Louie discussion got so personal so fast that the main point, discussions pro and con of trial positions and some very interesting points made here about the legal issues by a number of posters who obviously know a little bit about the law. HGM has something I need and that's how to boil it down into simple terminology, not all that easy when reading legal briefs, but it's key. HGM wrote about enterprise liability, that participants may be held accountable for their roles, even if they weren't paid by AP per se, for example maybe if they came on here and actively supported enterprise activities, but IMO intent and some knowledge of AP methods re FBI info needs to be shown. Before SI retired COMC my thread:
Subject 51389
got very personal. One reason is some of the posters are apparently close friends of the alleged racketeer Leslie Moor, likely Berber also, so Berber and Moor did have a presence here through surrogates, don't dare make statements themselves here. AP also had surrogates who played a direct role in the alleged RICO enterprise's success. Without the group of shorters posting as a whole, and also without the huge leverage of 300 AP members forcing price activity down before and after the PR short recs it would not have worked as it did. When Barry Berke said it's absurd to think AP controlled investment decisions of 300 AP subscribers, he was throwing up smoke, because the entire point was to act as a concerted team to issue PR, bash the stocks and continue to sell more, pile on, pressure prices, so the stocks wouldn't drop in an orderly manner but would crater in no time. Some AP associates are well-known; others are not, though I'd imagine AP credit card records of subscribers and trading records with time stamps of trades would show who else was trading in concert with AP. Now traders working together is not a crime, investment banks have trading departments of traders working together to read the market and execute positions, but if they're trading on non-public info, there's the problem. Makes it a rigged game when you have that kind of information that no one else does, can sit there and amass positions in advance, then put out PR and posts on SI and IHub, Yahoo, RB, etc., everyone else late top the party. Rigged, just like Berber and Moor rigged DT at sites with the commission kickbacks. Not enough to earn an honest living in the trading industry; they had to sandbag us completely by illegally tilting the system in their own interest.
Schemes were complex, must be boiled down to simple concepts, but let me tell you how this plays out in the minds of the perpetrators. One of them was Bill Young, who worked for TP and was there in Texas to negotiate the kickbacks with Berber and Moor. Well, Young admitted the kickbacks to me and m y former counsel. I said, "Look Bill, forget for a second my position, in your own opinion, what was the effect of the kickbacks on us, TP traders?" He said, "Traders never had any chance to succeed in such a massively manipulated environment." You see, what makes what makes these allegations so serious is that these people knew EXACTLY just how deceitful their conduct was, that it was sure to ruin people, but they went right ahead anyway.
These people simply are not even remotely concerned with the consequences for traders or the public. To them, we're either potential marks to be targeted and brought to heel, to be exploited by them, or enemies they need to shut down and squelch. The attacks AP and cronies sent other SI members who were long are very similar to the attacks on me at my thread. As a bunch of us here have pointed out, read enough posts and the methods start to form a pattern, and it's funny that in Net trading fraud the methods are very similar.
IMO Louie spent too much time on alleged 9/11 theories. Much more interesting to me are the charges that were brought in court, how the parties argued them and now especially how the jury is going to decide. Really, it's a landmark case in trading, first of its kind I believe, which is probably why WSJ and NYT are spending so much time covering it. |
