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 (90001)	1/25/2005 11:29:16 PM
From: olivier asser	Respond to of 122087

Those arguments were made and rejected by the jury...one reason maybe being Tony set up Royer with his own capital to trade in an account...I'm sure Tony did that for everyone he knew... 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.

To: Janice Shell who wrote (90001)	1/25/2005 11:36:57 PM
From: Pluvia	Respond to of 122087

i absolutely agree... with so many complex charges to consider, it seems the jury was in way over their head. >>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.

To: Janice Shell who wrote (90001)	1/26/2005 12:20:48 AM
From: rrufff	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

If a lawyer friend of yours hands you a draft of a merger contract and asks you to give him an opinion on it, would you then trade on the information? Let's assume there is nothing "wrong" with him asking you to give him some advice given your expertise. Not wanting to wait for your answer, it is clear that your would be trading on inside information. Similarly, you couldn't give it to your friends, associates or others, whether paying or not. This is the point that many here miss. 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. This is one thing I wondered about. I would assume that his attorney would have made a motion for severance. Perhaps he thought he would get a better shake by being on the "side" of the FBI. It's ok to second guess. It's like asking whether the manager of the Sox should have let Pedro pitch that last inning to the Yankees the year before last. It's interesting to discuss but it won't help on appeal. (If he did ask for a separate trial, and can prove prejudice, then he would have a shot on appeal IMO.) Factors are judicial economy, etc. I suspect that his attorney decided to go with this first trial. There are other defendants and they are getting a second trial. I am guessing here but my guess is that Anthony's lawyer wanted this trial with the FBI guy. Why didn't Tony get hia trial separated from Royer's? In my opinion, that was a fatal error. Most defendants don't think they have done (very much) wrong and most are convicted. I think that was because, right or wrong, Tony felt they'd done nothing wrong. lol, well nothing much wrong. A jury is much more sympathetic. Extortion is easy to understand. A judge would have harder to convince that some type of "good deed" was intended in this scheme. You're way off here. 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.

To: Janice Shell who wrote (90001)	1/26/2005 1:07:46 AM
From: Kevin Podsiadlik	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 122087

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. Maybe it was because for the insurance fraud thing, Tony had a trial opposite a judge alone and that didn't work out so well for him. Ironically, given what I recall of his approach to that case, it seems to me he'd have been better off going with a jury trial on that one.