That is not what I said, it was your interpretation of what I said. I even corrected you on it but you refused to pay attention to the truth.
Excuse me, but you have been slandering me since May of 2001, do you really think that you can win in court when I present your many false statements about me and your libelous web site. Go ahead and sue me, but do it in New York so I can present my case against you without you getting out of it on personal jurisdiction.
As to whether or not you could be a member of the enterprise, you need to do some legal research:
Mary claims she does not have a profit motive so can not be a part of the “Enterprise” and tries to distance herself from the idea of her knowing Elgindy while patterning herself after him and defending him publically. I believe that she is wrong and I base my belief upon the applicable areas of the following ruling by Chief Justice Rehnquist which he delivered to the Court in the case of the NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN, INC., etc., et al., PETITIONERS v. JOSEPH SCHEIDLER et al. from January 24, 1994 in which Justice Rehnquist made the following statements:
“We are required once again to interpret the provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) chapter of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (OCCA), Pub. L. 91-452, Title IX, 84 Stat. 941, as amended, 18 U.S.C. §§§§ 1961-1968 (1988 ed. and Supp. IV). Section 1962(c) prohibits any person associated with an enterprise from conducting its affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity. We granted certiorari to determine whether RICO requires proof that either the racketeering enterprise or the predicate acts of racketeering were motivated by an economic purpose. We hold that RICO requires no such economic motive.”
“We turn to the question of whether the racketeering enterprise or the racketeering predicate acts must be accompanied by an underlying economic motive. Section 1962(c) makes it unlawful "for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt." Section 1961(1) defines "pattern of racketeering activity" to include conduct that is "chargeable" or "indictable" under a host of state and federal laws. [n.4] RICO broadly defines-enterprise" in §§ 1961(4) to "includ[e] any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity." Nowhere in either §§ 1962(c), or in the RICO definitions in §§ 1961, is there any indication that an economic motive is required.”
“The phrase "any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce" comes the closest of any language in subsection (c) to suggesting a need for an economic motive. Arguably an enterprise engaged in interstate or foreign commerce would have a profit seeking motive, but the language in §§ 1962(c) does not stop there; it includes enterprises whose activities "affect" interstate or foreign commerce. Webster's Third New International Dictionary 35 (1969) defines "affect" as "to have a detrimental influence on--used especially in the phrase affecting commerce." An enterprise surely can have a detrimental influence on interstate or foreign commerce without having its own profit seeking motives.”
“We do not believe that the usage of the term "enterprise" in subsections (a) and (b) leads to the inference that an economic motive is required in subsection (c).” The term "enterprise" in subsections (a) and (b) plays a different role in the structure of those subsections than it does in subsection (c).”.
“By contrast, the "enterprise" in subsection (c) connotes generally the vehicle through which the unlawful pattern of racketeering activity is committed, rather than the victim of that activity. Subsection (c) makes it unlawful for "any person employed by or associated with any enterprise . . . to conduct or participate . . . in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity. . . ." Consequently, since the enterprise in subsection (c) is not being acquired, it need not have a property interest that can be acquired nor an economic motive for engaging in illegal activity; it need only be an association in fact that engages in a pattern of racketeering activity. [n.5] Nothing in subsections (a) and (b) directs us to a contrary conclusion.”
“Congress has not, either in the definitional section or in the operative language, required that an "enterprise" in §§ 1962(c) have an economic motive.”
“We hold only that RICO contains no economic motive requirement.”
supct.law.cornell.edu
Mary has promoted Anthony Elgindy’s web site, insidetruth.com, in various chat forums on the Internet. Posting under her alias “mmmary” on Silicon Investor, Mary has publicly admitted to putting up pages of Elgindy’s website, Insidetruth.com, on her own website after it was taken down in the wake of Elgindy’s indictment and she actively encourages people to go and view it. On May 31, 2002 she posted,:
“InsideTruth.com. . .I tried to get the site up as best I could from Google cache and the way back machine. It's not perfect and definitely is not complete. This is so people can easily see his reports. Google cache is tough to get to and the way back machine is slow, outdated and incomplete”. . . mary.cc
Message 17543420
Here is another post on June 6, 2002:
“His reports are here. mary.cc This is just a copy of them and not a very good copy at that.”
Message 17565946
In this post Mary Cummins made disparaging remarks against prosecutor Kenneth Breen. This particular message intimates that she knows Anthony well enough to know what Anthony did or did not know. How can she say, “I’m very sure that tony has no preknowledge?” How could she possibly be that sure? And her comments about Mr. Breen are out of line as well where she stated, “the sleazy and misleading comments made by Breen.” As to her comments about Tony selling his kids accounts, she said, “if he was trying to trade his kids accounts based on preknowledge, why didn't he actually do it if he knew?” It has been made public that he did sell those accounts and send the money back to Lebanon through the Canadian Brokerage Global Securities in Vancouver:
Message 17563241
Mary Cummins calls the prosecution (Kenneth Breen, et al), “liars” in this post:
“The 911 charges also make his stay in jail a lot less pleasant besides the fact that no matter what the judge says, I'm sure it's one of the factors keeping him in jail without bail and perhaps even added to the RICO charges and forfeitures. I think that the President has given the FBI more lenient rules for dealing with 911 associates. I think the FBI wanted to be able to use these more lenient rules with tony. Maybe that's why the FBI was recording his conversations with his attorney. That's definitely not allowed normally as per attorney/client privilege. . . In the end it may help Tony's case as it makes the prosecution look down and dirty. It also makes them out to be liars. The government KNEW back in October that no one shorted 911.”
Message 17776173
Mary, while claiming not to know Elgindy, expressed admiration for several short sellers in this post:
“I don't know anthony personally . . .but I used to read his board. I'm not a member of tony's site. I read sir aurics board, truthseekers posts. I learned how to do research by studying their reports. I love insidetruth.com”
ragingbull.lycos.com
On June 8, 2002, Mary defended Elgindy again saying she will get his address in jail and write to him:
“Yes, don't anyone forget about him. He hasn't even had a fair trial yet, if he ever could after those bull 911 accusations and the smear campaign. After reading the indictment a few times now and looking at what little evidence I can find, there are huge holes in this case. A lot of things make no sense. I wish Tony could speak up for himself here but of course I understand. . . Right now I think he's still in San Diego jail. They will be transfering him to New York soon I guess. I will get his address at that time and post it here. Maybe we can mail him though I don't know if he'd write back. . .I can't even imagine what he's probably going through. I bet he wishes he could post and bash the *&%$ out of all the promoters here dancing on his grave.”
Message 17575592
Here is a blatant show of familiarity and support of Anthony Elgindy posted July 28, 2002 by Mary Cummins:
“People have already sent letters of support to Tony . . .I want to thank all of you who sent the letters. Most of his supporters are obviously reading the board but not posting on it. I don't blame them after the way you guys attack me. I suggest to any pro Tony people NOT to post here. You'll just get a bunch of burned stock promoters, pump and dumpers and poor investors attacking you for supporting someone who foiled their scams. . . I haven't read all the public posts to me today. I have things to do and will read the rest later. . .Thanks again for the letters, emails and PMs. If you could send direct to that address, that'd be great but I will forward them for you also.”
Message 17804526
Previous to the above message on July 26, 2002, Mary had posted the following message on Silicon Investor boards on Auric Goldfinger’s Short List and also on Elgindy’s Shortseller thread:
“Attn: Anthony Elgindy supporters
For those who have been inquiring about how to provide assistance, we have established an address where you can send your support. THIS IS NOT a solicitation for funds. There is NO trust fund yet established. This is a solicitation for something more precious than money. It is a solicitation for your most personal thoughts about how this man helped you understand the markets, how he may have helped save you money or how he may have changed your life.”
“This information will be accepted ONLY with NAME and ADDRESS so that there can be no allegations of fraud. The letters will be presented to the Court at a time not yet determined. All letters will, if possible, receive a response from Tony personally.”
“Please do not send anything to his lawyer or anywhere else. That is why this address has been established. Your name and address will not be used for any other purpose than what is set forth here, and will not be sold or misused.
Thank you, and God Bless....”
“Anthony Pacific
P.O.Box 140963
Orlando, FL 32814"
Message 17799241 (Auric Goldfinger’s short seller thread)
Message 17799216 (Elgindy’s short seller thread)
Mary has been quoted in at least two articles (in the Union Tribune), that I know of, where she is defending Elgindy after his arrest, (why would anyone who doesn’t know a person, put themselves on the line to publically defend a convicted fraud and accused RICO defendant? And how does she “know” how Tony felt?):
“I know Tony felt like he was on the government's side," says Mary Cummins, an investor who followed his comments on the Web. "He took great pleasure when they finally won a court verdict against the suspect company. It's just amazing that they are now claiming that he used the FBI."
Message 17611103
"His reports taught investors how to spot stock scams and loser investments," said Mary Cummins, who dabbles in the stock market in Los Angeles. "I learned how to do proper due diligence by reading his reports. I learned how to check out management and the company's supposed claims."
uniontrib.com |
