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 (90324)	1/28/2005 12:38:46 AM
From: olivier asser	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

OK, let's for the sake of argument assume as you propose that under the law there are different kinds of RICO conspirators, that some get a free pass if they violated the law because someone asked them to do it, as so many otherwise law-abiding citizens are wont to do when asked to commit multiple crimes. Are we to believe that an FBI agent with virtually nil trading experience concocted the trading and extortion scheme and then contacted Tony? Royer was the mastermind? "As for who sought whom is a question that probably wasn't that important. If you are part of an enterprise, it doesn't matter if you seek it or the other conspirators seek you." I think it makes an enormous difference.

To: Janice Shell who wrote (90324)	1/28/2005 12:42:25 AM
From: rrufff	Respond to of 122087

What you think is fine and it's your opinion. However, if each of us were to make up our own set of laws based on some sort of justification that we think what we are doing is right, then you would eliminate crime for the most part. You would still have the same number of acts that used to be called "crime." You'd have no reason to exist because each of the touts you attack certainly must think as you do. LOL - just tongue in cheek, but you need to kick back and realize how off base your "opinion" is.