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: realitybytes who wrote (92806)	10/12/2005 12:33:11 AM
From: aristox	Respond to of 122087

That the prosection said they won't be charging anyone else in this case I guess does not matter. when did the prosecution say that? link, Please? Thanks

To: realitybytes who wrote (92806)	10/12/2005 12:41:43 AM
From: Bear Down	Respond to of 122087

That the prosection said they won't be charging anyone else in this case I guess does not matter. Objection: Irrelevant

To: realitybytes who wrote (92806)	10/12/2005 12:53:01 AM
From: aristox	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

as a matter of fact, the prosecution said they're considering adding charges and defendants In Elgindy Case, (after the trial) But, Of course, you already knew that ;-) Govt Considers Adding Charges, Defendants In Elgindy Case 02-16-05 11:49 AM EST asensioexposed.com That the prosection said they won't be charging anyone else in this case I guess does not matter.

To: realitybytes who wrote (92806)	10/12/2005 9:16:04 AM
From: Man on the moon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

yeah right "I will stop reading this thread", LOL- you are obsessed with it, hopping back and forth between this and the "banned" thread with your various monikers. You will not settle until people burn in hell, which only shows what kind of future the karma gods will impose on you.

To: realitybytes who wrote (92806)	10/15/2005 11:40:56 AM
From: just_a_question	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 122087

You appear to have a naive view of the United States Criminal Justice system. I think Mr. Bear Down has had an up close and personal experience based on some of his comments. Amr was found guilty in January of 2005. It is now October. The recent request for a time extension is a matter of public record. Do you consider November to be "a ways away"? Amr's camp told Mr. Mitchell the following: "Lee, I'm told sentencing is now a ways away-- again. The obvious question is "why", to which I was told, sorry, the specifics are confidential." It is fairly safe to assume that someone in the Federal Government thinks Amr has information. They want it. They are doing everything they can to get it. This includes the tactic of pushing for a harsh sentence to get Amr to crumble. Does he have any information? On what subject matter? Do they seek information on public officials? One pundit opined a prediction that is exactly what they would seek and exactly what he would provide. I tried to find the article but I don't remember his name. Does someone in the Federal Government seek information related to the mission of the Muslim-Named covert operative for which Amr is unable to obtain any significant information? Is it information related to other stock fraud participants? It could be any, all, or none of the above. Will he cooperate? It would appear he hasn't done enough or perhaps any cooperating so far. It is clear they are after more than just Amr's neck hamstrung in the tree. I think many people are watching his next move

To: realitybytes who wrote (92806)	10/16/2005 12:42:29 PM
From: just_a_question	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

Mr. Realtybytes, Are you trying to entrap members of Amr's site? You keep telling members that they will no longer be prosecuted. In a R.I.C.O. case the Statute of Limitations starts to run with the last predicate act. What is the current Statute of Limitations for a R.I.C.O. prosecution? What is the Statute of Limitations if the United States Government finds a way to tie a crime into the Patriot Act? Mr. Bear Down appears to have the opinion that the United States Government doesn't always act in a fair way. Mr. Royer certainly didn't. How many times has Amr turned into a stoolie? Do you think this time will eventually be any different when faced with spending most of his life in prison? I guess Amr is S.O.L. if Mr. Mitchell is right in his claim that Amr doesn't have any information wanted by the United States Government.