To: realitybytes who wrote (92728 ) 10/9/2005 6:04:18 PM From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell Read Replies (4) | Respond to The question is why you did not dispute being extradited to New York. federal case, not a state case. All federal district courts have "jurisdiction" over "offenses" committed against the United States. Tony’s issue was venue, not “extradition” and that could only be litigated in New York, where the indictment originated. The only reason Tony was in court at all in California was that he was required to be taken before a magistrate judge in the district of the arrest immediately. One he was denied bail in California, he then had no choice but to go to New York for a review of that order. That's clearly why Breen flew across the country to New York to appear-- making sure Tony was denied bail was critical. Tony could have waived trial in Brooklyn and agreed to be tried in California, which he gladly would have done, but this waiver would have been subject to the approval of AUSA Breen who obviously would have scoffed at the idea, since he fought the change of venue motion. Elgindy could subpoena anyone he wanted.... If they needed the testimony they could have compelled it. anyone to testify. Site members were told they were all potential co-conspirators and they all had the risk of indictment hanging over their heads. Read the transcript about what Peter Michaelson went through. For example:THE WITNESS: This conspiracy theory is scaring away all. I'm pretty much the one of the few people who would be willing to stand up and tell what they think is the truth, who was part of it. A lot of people have scattered and run and tried to hide so as not to be, you know, accused or embroiled, or in some, way, shape, or form. So, it just seems, you know, the prosecution is scaring away all the witnesses including me. Message 21746805 The real issue is that nobody besides Elgindy and his close mates had anything to do with the case in the first place.
