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: Anthony@Pacific who wrote (93092)	11/2/2005 12:18:37 PM
From: Anthony@Pacific	Respond to of 122087

Anthony's words, posted on his behalf. Bob Zumbrunnen aka SI Bob ------------------------------------------------- “The Jury Charge” Dear Folks, In this case, there are dozens and dozens of issues that are significant enough and fatal enough to warrant a complete reversal of the verdicts against me. I have raised some of the issues here on SI, and one of the places in the trial that is a fertile ground for appellate issues is are the jury charges themselves, for a jury can only follow the instructions provided to them. One of the most obvious issues is the language about criminal records. It is found on page 8839, line 2: The fact that some criminal records are “publicly” available in the sense that they can be found in a public place if a person is looking for them, knows where they are being kept, and has the information required as a practical matter to link the records to specific individuals connected to particular companies, does not necessarily mean that these records are “public” for the purposes of the insider trading laws. IS FURTHER COMMENT EVEN NECESSARY? I am now going to address another issue. There are NO PROVISIONS in the jury instructions allowing for honest research and due diligence. As we were going over the jury instructions, I was compelled to write to the Court about this glaring deficiency. I offered a hypothetical scenario to make my point. Let’s say you buy 1000 shares of ABC Corp. at $10.00 per share. You realize that the company is located nearby, so on the way home you stop at their location. The door is locked, blinds are drawn, and as you peek in, you find the office is empty. Nothing at all. No desks, no product, no people, just empty office space. You get in your car and race home, calling your broker on the way telling him to sell your 1000 shares. He does, and you get out at $9.00 a share, with a small loss. Your broker asks what’s wrong, and you tell him. He suggests that you should short the stock. If what you have told him is true, then you would profit if the stock price were to fall further. You take his advice, and short 1000 shares at $9.00. You then contact both the SEC and FBI and advise them that you have information of a possible scam that they might be interested in. A day later, an SEC attorney and an FBI agent call you back. They inquire about your information and both sound genuinely interested and want to stay in touch after taking down all your information. Have you done anything wrong? You wouldn’t think so, correct? Well according to the jury instructions you would be guilty of inside trading. You have information that arguably no one has, nor could have, unless YOU told them or unless they took the EXACT same action you took, and did their own due diligence and research. The jury charge on page 8838, line 12-19 states as follows: Information becomes public when disclosed to achieve a broad dissemination to the investing public generally and without favoring any special person or group; or when, although known only by a few persons, their trading on it has caused the information to be fully impounded or reflected in the price of a particular stock. To constitute non-public information, information must be specific and more private than general rumor. A fair and reasonable person reading that language would feel obligated to issue a world-wide press release every time he/she got additional information that is “more specific and more private than general rumor.” This is simply wrong. Peace, Anthony