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.

Pastimes : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (7043)	1/25/2005 12:41:28 PM
From: Bear Down	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

I think Elgindy's case had a lot more to do with being linked to restricted government databases than most stock types here understand I totally agree. it doesnt matter if it was 1% of his trades that were linked to royer. I saw an article written this morning that stated as long as he was turning in his research to FBI in hopes of the fbI getting involved, that was legal. That makes sense. It was the redefining of stock manipulation to include taking a position then turning in your research to the gov that had me wondering where the legal line is. I think if that was the case, a jury would be hard pressed to convict. I can't imagine the government wanting all the cyber sleuths to stop turning in frauds for fear of a manipulation charge if they have a position in the particular security. I haven't personally turned in a fraud since my meeting with an FBI agent who obviously has his head in his ass and maybe his hand in a certain CEO's pocket when he informed me turning in a fraud while holding a position that could profit from the government busting said fraud was in his opinion, stock manipulation.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (7043)	1/25/2005 1:03:31 PM
From: Pluvia	Respond to of 12465

well i hope so. i have the same concern expressed by bear. the gov case seemed to suggest taking a position, then exposing dd derived from public sources was criminal. sounds stupid to me, but they make the rules.. it will be interesting to see if any of the convictions upheld that position... >Short of breaking into companies to get inside information, it's hard to see how any other publicly-derived research could be questioned beyond the usual libel and slander standards. Just a layman's opinion. I think Elgindy's case had a lot more to do with being linked to restricted government databases than most stock types here understand.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (7043)	1/25/2005 10:13:02 PM
From: rrufff	Respond to of 12465

Some of the defenders of the actions of followers of A/P want to make this more complicated than it should be. Many of us deal with FBI agents. Anyone who trades stock and happens to get information from a government data base would know that this is not information upon which to trade, don't you think? Even if the information can be found elsewhere, an FBI agent handing someone information would disqualify the typical trader from dealing with that company, as a matter of common sense, let alone manipulation and criminality. Further, sharing the information with friends, paying friends or otherwise, would clearly be something that should not be done. Extortion is a pretty simple charge to understand even if done under the guise of an enterprise of internet guru and associates. It's not about picking on someone just because he outed scams. Of course, he and other gurus probably didn't help him by attacking you and others and anyone who happened to disagree with a "call."