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: Janice Shell who wrote (2402)	1/23/2005 9:04:11 PM
From: olivier asser	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5425

I agree with Pluvia that Breen is unnaturally and dangerously obsessed with this case, and that he's blown it all out of proportion. The chief bad guy should be Royer; after all, he's the one who betrayed his agency for personal gain. Well, since I think we're all fairly assuming that AUSA does from time to time monitor statements made here, I'd like to say one thing that warms my heart: now things are changed since a few years ago, I have good company in being called names like "nutjob," "vendetta," "obsessed," "insane," etc. - a federal prosecutor :-). Welcome to the world of online fraud, Mr. Breen. If your "obsession" as it's self-servingly deemed here retains its momentum I am quite certain you'll uncover other frauds that surpass AP and Royer's, that directly targeted the public for ruin. It's no secret that I'm representing myself in RICO claims in a federal court against some others who I have alleged engaged in a repeated and consistent pattern of deceit in order to illegally profit to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars through the infrastructure of our stock markets. In reference to your statement that RICO claims/charges are "notoriously difficult to prove," on December 3 I appeared before a federal judge in Texas for oral argument re dismissal motions filed by the defendants, also motion for an injunction barring me from filing other lawsuits, to have me sanctioned for filing this one, and to have me declared a "vexatious litigant" for the nerve I had bringing these claims, though in April the defendants wrote me that they welcomed my claims being determined by a court of law in Texas. U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks stated to me - no transcript so this is from memory - "Almost all RICO claims are brought because the plaintiff can't think of anything else." Because I'm representing myself, I've of course had to make a comprehensive study of RICO law. Judge Sparks is certainly right: the vast majority of RICO claims are thrown out of court for failure to plead facts giving rise to RICO violations. RICO offenses are grave, which is why the civil and criminal penalties are quite severe; one reason why lots of parties try their luck bringing them when really the facts don't merit filing them under RICO. In Court I stated that my claims are a textbook example of RICO violation: a pattern of law-breaking through the lever and shield of legitimate American enterprise to cause injury. Though the statute requires two "predicate" racketeering acts in interstate commerce such as for example wire fraud, fraud through the Internet, in practice two won't be enough has to be enough to show consistency, organizational structure, a common plan, conspiracy, and that this was all part of a deliberate scheme and the front of legitimate institutions was an integral part of the pattern. I won't go into the publicly-filed and available details of my case, but where AP is concerned there is no way a federal judge would allow this case to proceed to trial if AUSA Kenneth Breen had not met the strict pleading requirements of RICO. I repeat: NO WAY. AP was indicted for exploiting the FBI and targeted companies for his own personal gain, in the process violating a number of statutes that form racketeering acts and then engaging in obstruction of justice to try to avoid the consequences, which is a common element I've learned of most true RICO enterprises. Without the concerted efforts of AP to corrupt the FBI agents Royer, Cleveland and Wingate those three would not be in the position they're in right now. AP gained vast wealth and power through his conduct; the real danger is people like AP corrupting legitimate institutions like the FBI, the stock markets, brokerage operations and yes, also SI, used by AP as a lever to deceive the public and carry out the schemes. And as to SI and Net trading, the vast promise of members of the public working together to trade and at the same time increase the efficiency of our stock markets, as Hedgefundman also stated, the chicanery of people like AP and Berber are a major danger. So, coming from some people here who proclaim they're in favor of the truth being told here and in the courts, I think it's really strange days indeed that bringing out what truly happened here, to punish the guilty parties and try to ensure it does not happen again, is met with a barrage of smoke and opinionated accusations all too often failing to reference the facts of the matter. On the other, considering RICO's forfeiture provisions and the alleged involvement of other AP members who have a lot to lose if AP is found guilty by the jury, not surprising after all, now is it.