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: Pluvia who wrote (89512)	1/22/2005 9:22:02 PM
From: olivier asser	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

The only "underdogs" in all of this are to be found among those here at SI and at IA sites who were honest, who didn't arrange an enterprise of like-minded liars to defraud the rest of us. Right now, and why I'm very interested in this case, is that a US Attorney is finally standing up for those who were defrauded through an IA site and SI by a RICO enterprise. This case is the first of its kind to be brought to trial. We'll see how the jury decides, but this is still just one case. 9/11 statements have nothing to do with this case, as I've said many times. But, it's in the defense interest to contradict 9/11 allegations that do NOT form any part of the indictment, in order to evade a determination of the claims that have been brought: securities fraud, racketeering, extortion, obstruction of justice.

To: Pluvia who wrote (89512)	1/22/2005 11:48:17 PM
From: peter michaelson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 122087

what seems glaringly wrong to me, is the AUSA accused elgindy of stepping across a line that he himself seems to have clearly violated. I'd add to your comments, Pluvia, that only a man who can raise hundreds of thousands of dollars can mount a reasonable defense against the multitude of resources brought to bear by the Justice Department. The less wealthy are forced to plead guilty, which serves the Prosecution well by prejudicing the case against those who can pay for the high priced defense. Hell, the AUSA scared away most of the site members from testifying by calling them 'unindicted co-conspirators' and getting that message carried by Dow Jones. Who but a fool wants to put himself at risk by testifying for the defense? :-) I fail to see the justice in this process. The deck is stacked.