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 (92744)	10/9/2005 8:08:28 PM
From: peter michaelson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

One thing I have to say, in all my naivete......regardless of whether justice was served int his particular trial, it remains a wondeful miracle of justice that each and every word of this trial are available for all to see. That's a beautiful thing, imo.

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (92744)	10/10/2005 1:27:45 AM
From: Dale Baker	Respond to of 122087

No offense to Peter, but do you think it would have made any positive difference for 10 more of him to appear on the stand to get rattled by Breen? I didn't think he made much of a contribution to Tony's defense, not because he didn't want to, the testimony just didn't come across as very convincing after the cross. Tony needed a solid anti-smoking gun witness and he didn't have one. Who else could have stepped in to play that role?

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (92744)	10/10/2005 1:28:22 AM
From: realitybytes	Respond to of 122087

Jeffrey you are focusing on the minutia instead of the big picture. Maybe you are right about the California extradition thing, I do believe he could have fought the extradition and had a hearing on it, but maybe I am wrong. That however is a small point. The reason it was brought up was because of some sort of blind assumption that Elgindy could not get a fair trial in New York. There is nothing to suggest that he did not get a fair trial. There is nothing to suggest the jury acted with vengeance or anything beyond deciding upon the facts. They did not convict Elgindy on everything, they only convicted on what they felt they had evidence to show. It's a con game to suggest that some mystery witness could have testified for Elgindy that did not show up to trial. Elgindy has not suggested any specific thing that anyone could say that would change the outcome of the trial. Why? Because nobody could. He could ask for all the character witnesses he wanted, and that would have zero effect on the out come. Why? Elgindy was shown to have confidential FBI information. Nobody disputes this as fact. Elgindy was show to have asked for FBI information to be removed from the logs. His webmaster says he did this for him too. Nobody disputes this as fact. Elgindy was shown to repeatedly call up CEOs and accuse them of operating scam companies. Nobody disputes this as fact. Paul Brown paid Elgindy lower than market price shares. Nobody disputes this as fact. After Elgindy was paid, he stopped shorting NSOL and had everyone he could control stop shorting NSOL Nobody disputes this as fact. After Elgindy was given every opportunity to present why he was not guilty of the charges, a jury of his peers after reviewing all the evidence decided unanimously he was guilty of the charges. The jury was not dumb or foolish or unschooled in Stockmarket, as evidenced by them finding Elgindy NOT guilty on many of the charges. Jeffery the undisputed facts prove Elgindy’s guilt. The Judge and Jury acted accordingly. There are not a bunch of cowering witnesses that were part of the extortion and stealing of FBI information. The people doing that went to trial. There were two published indictments, everyone understood the charges. The trial took place over 2 years after the event, its not like Elgindy did not have time to prepare. The problem was Elgindy's actions, and then the evidence that showed the actions. Peter Michaelson, Elgindy's star witness, testified he asked Royer how he managed to not "cross the line" with what he was doing with Elgindy. After he said that, Michaelson understands his folly and does the most pathetic dance to attempt to remove it. Its a false dilemma to suggest that some other witness could have come in. What were they going to say? Were they somehow going to retract the facts? Facts don't just retract. Elgindy was getting a feed of confidential information on which he traded on, and which he extorted shares from a CEO. Those facts don't change. Jeffery why do you think Elgindy stopped shorting NSOL? Don't tell me because he found out that Brown was not a felon, because Elgindy maintains the company was a Scam, regardless of that. So why would Elgindy stop shorting a scam? The facts show he was given stock, which would give him a guaranteed profit if he convinced others to buy it. He did just that, he told others to buy it, from himself. Then he told them to stop shorting it? Again why? The answer the jury concluded was because he extorted the CEO. A quid pro quo extortion. I will call off the beatings if you pay me off. It was a scam stock he insists, so why did he stop shorting NSOL? Elgindy had all the logs, and clearly there were tapes of the phone calls played in court. So why is he so concerned on what the FBI saved or did not. Are the logs going to change? Notice how Elgindy does not say...the Log for Day X was never available, and the FBI was on the site then, and there is not record of it. Did you notice that? What log files are missing? Any? Somehow I think its all a con game smoke screen. Elgindy can go on and on about how the government charged him with crimes they could not prove. The problem is what they did show, anyone reading the transcripts will be shocked by how clear the evidence was. Its not even close. You want to think that Elgindy did things that helped people and that he was a good guy and how interesting it all was when he was posting. That’s fine. I don’t think anyone would dispute he was a character. But none of that makes any difference in this case. NONE OF IT. He took stolen FBI data, traded upon it, to enrich himself through extortion. What can you say that will change that? What could ANYONE say to change those facts presented in court? I think if you think about it, you may understand. Lets not get confused. Elgindy was not convicted for shorting. Elgindy was not convicted for trading within a group Elgindy was not convicted for finding public information and using that for trading Elgindy was not convicted for having truthful information that he was able to generate that was not known to the greater investing community. IE Hedge fund type proprietary Due Diligence. Elgindy’s case is of no significance to any other Shorting type trader, unless you go about taking stolen FBI information, then extorting shares from CEOs. Elgindy was unique and his crimes are unique to him, and of no importance to any other shorters.

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (92744)	10/10/2005 8:53:43 PM
From: Lee Webb	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

Jeff: The government issued subpoenas for almost every site members’ history early on in the case, and obtained their records from Global Trading as well. Am I correct in assuming that you meant Global Securities Corp. rather than Global Trading? Are you aware of any mention in the public record of approximately how many members had Global Securities accounts? The government itself said exactly the opposite when they continually said members were potentially unindicted co-conspirators, and then when they finally issued the BIG LIST of names, that too was not made public. Again, are you aware of any mention in the public record of this big list, even in general terms? Lee lwebb@stockwatch.com