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: Janice Shell who wrote (89543)	1/23/2005 8:20:25 PM
From: rrufff	Respond to of 122087

That's exactly how it works. Judges would listen carefully to stories of good deeds, whether made up or true. At the most, all Royer could have done was put in a good word for him.

To: Janice Shell who wrote (89543)	1/23/2005 8:24:51 PM
From: olivier asser	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

AP soliciting letters from FBI agents to attempt to influence parole board decisions before he would hire that FBI agent indicates quid pro quo, something of value exchanged, which is not exactly what the defense is claiming, saying AP just "gleaned" his info from harmless communications with FBI agents, rather than promising something of value in return for specific, valuable information that was not available to the public. AP's defense in part is based on the claim that Royer didn't materially benefit from AP trading activities while at the FBI. If not, if this wasn't a pattern, then what right did AP have to expect Royer would deliver something of value to him in return for his providing something of value to Royer?