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: Dale Baker who wrote (92444)	9/9/2005 12:57:17 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

The Elgindy case is interesting on many levels. Obviously anyone who either reads or posts on SI, let alone on this thread, likely feels some connection. Then there's the 9-11 subtext. Do you think it's a coincidence that Tony was tried in the same court as the majority of those accused of terrorism? Jurisdiction is a constant theme in cases brought against message board posters; Tony's case takes it to the absolute extreme. Next you have interpretations of SEC regulations. The way it was laid out for the jury, any of us who, in the course of our due diligence that led to us taking a position, found dirt on companies and posted it here on SI -- as opposed to via something resembling a press release -- would be liable for insider trading. Not only that, we'd be liable for any money anyone made from acting on our findings. One needs to understand that the jury had no familiarity with message (and live chat) boards. They likely never shorted a stock or even day traded. There's a good chance they never imagined the sort of stuff you can dig up on people if you know your way around the net. As you'll see from the transcripts, there was a dearth of people who testified on Tony's behalf about how the above all work. Why? Because the government warned them that what they said could be used against them. As I keep saying, given the overly broad interpretation of SEC regulations, these witnesses were literally risking huge fines and jail time. I totally understand why they'd want to stay off the stand. Tony wouldn't be in that position if it weren't for his own personal conduct in the first place. True. But between totally bogus 9-11 allegations, questionable jurisdiction, overly broad interpretations of SEC regulations, and witness intimidation, there's more than enough material to discuss separate and apart from Tony himself. - Jeff

To: Dale Baker who wrote (92444)	9/9/2005 6:12:43 PM
From: LPS5	Respond to of 122087

[S]ome of the same voices who will object to the courts going too far are the first to stand up and cheer when the DOJ is given more and more power to pursue agendas they approve of. That's a terrific point, Dale. Though I've enjoyed this thread throughout the years, I distinctly recall this forum as one were far greater power for regulatory authorities - in particular, those of a governmental nature, as opposed to SROs - was heavily endorsed. Hopefully the nature of the creeping state is laid bare by this case, if not others; it's a terribly unfortunate situation, at any rate. e