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: Nazbuster who wrote (89933)	1/25/2005 9:21:01 PM
From: olivier asser	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 122087

Am I going to be banned for this thread if I respond in full? Because I certainly would like to.

To: Nazbuster who wrote (89933)	1/25/2005 9:33:00 PM
From: olivier asser	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 122087

sparse facts A jury just convicted multiple parties of some two dozen serious federal crimes based on sparse facts? they speak the truth about most of these issues from my perspective. Pluvia and Truthseeker have lied here repeatedly, making claims before the convictions that were disproved here by posts going back six years. Tony was either a fool or ignorant or unethical when he allowed an FBI agent to feed him information. I'm not sure I'd know that was horribly wrong since I'd respect the agent's authority to pass out the information. It's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a federal court that AP induced Royer to hand over information. And you say FBI forced AP to take the free FBI database and use it to extort OTC companies? OK. Did Hansen know at the time that erasing the logs was a felony? Ignorance of the law is not an admissible defense in such a case. Did Royer lead him into doing so? Apparently so. That's only "apparent" to those who associated with AP; it's not quite apparent to the jury who just found AP guilty of a dozen serious federal crimes. cut Tony some slack. There were people here including janice who said last night he deserved no second chance. I say even if it's his fourth he does, because I believe he's very talented, took the wrong road, and can turn it all around if he realizes the mistakes he made. His supporters here are not helping him at all by acting as if FBI made him do it, loco argument which makes no sense at all; do him a favor by admitting he did some very wrong things and now what can he do to make amends. For starters, name everyone else involved. Second, propose to finally give of himself to the public with no prospect of financial reward for doing so, be selfless now, show remorse, which I believed Tony's reaction in court yesterday showed, and why I had sympathy for his present position, and especially that of his family, a very sad day all things considered, so much talent just totally wasted.

To: Nazbuster who wrote (89933)	1/25/2005 9:33:37 PM
From: rrufff	Respond to of 122087

With all due respect, your post is one of a friend or associate as it has no factual basis to the trial as reported here. I imagine that Scott Peterson's mother would write a similar post in a discussion about his trial.

To: Nazbuster who wrote (89933)	1/25/2005 11:22:57 PM
From: Janice Shell	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 122087

I agree. I don't think Tony "induced" Royer to do anything. I think Royer was out to cancel his debts, however he could. His initial contact was Cleveland. And if I were in contact with an FBI agent who told me it was perfectly okay for him to give me information, I guess I'd buy into that. What many here may have missed is that the fact that Tony told his site members that he was getting information from the FBI strongly suggests that he felt Royer was allowed to give him that information. Why didn't Tony get hia trial separated from Royer's? In my opinion, that was a fatal error. I think that was because, right or wrong, Tony felt they'd done nothing wrong. lol, well nothing much wrong. And why did Tony want a jury trial? Much of this case turned on points of law that jurors may or may not understand. In his place, I'd certainly have waived right to trial by jury, especially if I didn't plan on testifying. There's a lot wrong with this whole process. I hope we'll have the opportunity to see a transcript of all the testimony.