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: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (92427)	9/8/2005 11:54:30 PM
From: Bill Ulrich	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 122087

What we haven't seen is what the judge specifically wrote about this decision. Those decisions are made on many many other factors, aside from 'The Amount' ; the $41K. Those factors include, neither exclusively nor comprehensively, issues like prior record, liklihood to repeat, even Def's attitude presented to Court during proceedings, conduct whilst under arrest ... like using fake IDs. Lots of stuff we don't know. Maybe A@P rubbed the judge the wrong way by acting in Court like he did here on the threads? It can be "armchaired" a lot here on the threads, but bottom line is that the judge didn't just pick this out of his backside. There have only been affidavits presented here towards the amount issue, not the actual words of the judge regarding details of this decision. Ya think Tony maybe pissed off the Judge, maybe possibly perhaps even ... and turned $41K into $12Mil? It's not as cut 'n' dried as just 'The Amount'. Judges human, too, (you and I even had a lawyer who explained that <g>). I suspect ... just MHO and a bit of experience w/ courts/lawyers, is that part of that $12Mil from $41K is $11Mil + and some change for 'asshole' penalty.