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: peter michaelson who wrote (90076)	1/26/2005 1:39:43 PM
From: peter michaelson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

Pretty much off topic, but it's a fact that I keep returning to in my mind and this has suddenly become a very thoughtful forum. Naked shorting is fully legal in Canada and, I believe, in the U.K. My understanding is that the issue has been looked at by regulators in the U.K. and they decided to let it continue since actual cases of abuse were so rare and illegal for other reasons in any case.

To: peter michaelson who wrote (90076)	1/26/2005 1:50:47 PM
From: Pluvia	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 122087

like you, i wasn't judging the behavior for legality, only morality. it's not just that he accepted the hospitality, but he involved his wife also. i don't think this is what "scam busters do" in my mind when you and your wife accept the hospitality and the guy's stock, you're entrusted and have given your word to work with this person... if you get home, call authorities, give them the stock and the guy gets busted... different story... but to keep the stock, profit from the stock sale, and the short sale, and do everything to get the guy thrown in jail? there's no honor in that... i think you can both bust scams AND act honorably... >>Isn't this pretty much what scam-busting shorts do when they are most successful? Is it illegal somehow? The part that seems immoral is accepting the guy's hospitality and pretending to go along with him. Seems very two-faced, dishonest - bad sportsmanship at best- and I wouldn't like anyone who did it personally. But that's a matter of taste. I'm looking for the illegal part though. I 'd like to know if there something illegal in that scenario?

To: peter michaelson who wrote (90076)	1/26/2005 2:00:08 PM
From: tool dude	Respond to of 122087

PM dude I wub ew!

To: peter michaelson who wrote (90076)	1/26/2005 2:39:10 PM
From: olivier asser	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 122087

Since a number of posters are banned here, why I'll never know, if there is nothing to hide, I'll respond to this one. I'm looking for the illegal part though. I 'd like to know if there something illegal in that scenario? Let's see, Peter. Tony and friends are short what they're telling InsideTruth.com and SI members is a complete scam company, a fraud, criminals running the company. AUSA Kenneth Breen alleged in his indictment that Tony and friends/associates - which has now led to two dozen criminal convictions - that this was a racketeering conspiracy orchestrated by Tony and site members. AUSA alleged that these racketeering conspirators obtained non-public information from the FBI. So, while advising the public to short and telling everyone who would listen what criminals the company is but withholding some valuable FBI info from the public, they actually *negotiate with the scam companies the racketeers are warning the public are criminals*. I don't see anywhere at all here at SI that any SI members were informed of these concealed negotiations at any time ever. Some disclosure bringing out the "inside truth" to the public they're trying to save. So here is where we are: the racketeering compadres say, "Now see here Mr. XYZ CEO, we have this information that you're not a very reputable person. We're short about 250,000 shares, meaning WE, because it's not just Tony, but a few of us. We may not want to cover those borrowed shares on the open market because that would cost us a rapid spike in an illiquid stock like yours, though there was a rapid tank when we shorted, we don't believe we should suffer the same fate longs did when we sold massively. You don't want us to issue a new analysis report with the until-now-withheld info about you, do you? We'll sell more, we'll call FBI, we'll call SEC, we'll even call Sheriff J.W. Peppah and Inspector Clouseau too, just watch us. So how's about you agree to hand over those 250,000 shares at a 25% discount to the prevailing market price?" And now, after the convictions, we hear this: Seems very two-faced, dishonest - bad sportsmanship at best- and I wouldn't like anyone who did it personally. But that's a matter of taste...I'm looking for the illegal part though. I 'd like to know if there something illegal in that scenario? LOLOLISSIMO, Peter! I'll quote hedgefundman's statement Monday evening, which is directed at anyone engaged in the "negotiations" for extorted share blocks: is this possible enterprise associate a tryin' to send a message 'cause he's feared of being "next?" does he wanna shut him up, knowin' that the way to an early release is to roll babeeee, roll. ...bring back the ole days... THE CAPS the bold ================================>THE SHEEPLE ARROWS commanding the sheeple to action, to go after the target, to follow the lead, to further the enterprise... to SHEEPLE - he who doesn't learn himself from past convictions, is bound to get repeat sentences The lack of accountability let alone remorse here from former AP associates is remarkable, considering the racketeering and extortion convictions. No one who accepted those "hard bargaining" blocks from the targeted CEO's the least bit concerned about the consequences? Profiting from extortion, now proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a federal court?