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: Buckey who wrote (93910)	3/4/2006 10:38:57 AM
From: SI Bob	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 122087

The esteemed Government's position is interesting. As is the whole article. There are aspects covered both pro and con that I was previously unaware of. But this part sent a chill right through my spine: to lash out by impugning the government's integrity is unjust Ummmm... Excuse me? Last I heard, "The Government" pretty much has to turn the other cheek whenever one of its citizens does that. No reprisals for anything we say about The Government. [long-winded rant covering, among other things, the "fight or flight" instinct, freedom of speech (lowercase intentional), and my own opinion of how deserving the government's integrity is of impugning, all deleted] Free the nasty Arab guy.

To: Buckey who wrote (93910)	3/4/2006 1:22:42 PM
From: scion	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

So what length of sentences are recommended for the other defendants? six other defendants have also been convicted in the case and are awaiting sentencing. .... "Applying what the government believes to be the appropriate guidelines analysis, the guidelines imprisonment range for this defendant is life," the U.S. prosecutor claims.

To: Buckey who wrote (93910)	3/4/2006 3:44:46 PM
From: tool dude	Respond to of 122087

"Perhaps most tellingly, at least from the perspective of the prosecutor, Mr. Elgindy's sentencing memorandum "eschews any mention of the extraordinary scope of the corruption of governmental functions that lies at the heart of this case." It seems to me the "extraordinary scope of the corruption of governmental functions" more than anything else was the over 1500 illegal searches that the government says in their memo compromised undercover agents, numerous investigations, etc., yet strangely enough NONE of them were viewed seriously enough to warrant a SINGLE CHARGE against Royer directly, OTHER than those connected with the Elgindy case, nor were any of those compromised cases mentioned in the trial. SURELY, were there ANY VICTIMS OF ANY KIND, the government would have paraded them in front of the jury, but from reading the transcript their case seemed to be devoid of ANY victims. Perhaps the government, IF really worried about governmental corruption, should be looking at additional charges for Mr. Royer, Ms. Wingate, and Mr. Cleveland, who admitted to being involved with Mr. Royer long before Tony ever heard their names. I also wonder what was REALLY contained in those mysterious RC Chat logs that we have heard about but without a trial for Daws we may never really see? One thing we do know from the trial is that Tony never knew about RC Chat. The fact that Mr. Royer used the FBI database as his own personal search engine had nothing to do with Tony and is indeed a sad commentary about the character of Jeff Royer. It is also interesting to me if no one else, that obviously Jeff Royer passed all the preliminary FBI testing that surely took place, fooled a lot of smart people within his own agency, yet no one believes he was able to convince Elgindy that he was doing something good for his country? Tony, with an ego the size of Mt. Rushmore and clearly had worked for years with law enforcement? I didn't read anything in that transcript, excluding testimony from Cleveland who admitted to being a liar and was proven so by SEC witnesses, that showed Tony asked Royer for ANYTHING or gave Royer ANYTHING, other than expenses for a trip. I don't see anywhere in the government response where they address the fact that they got a conviction on charges that were impossible to have happened. It sounds to me like this is response from someone who is trying to clean up a mess left by his predecessors and he's doing his job the best he can. I wonder if Mr. Webb knows that just recently the very circuit where Mr. Elgindy is being sentenced upheld a sentence that hammered a plea agreement after believing the agreement was not sufficient punishment. I wonder if Mr. Cleveland knows about that case? I am sure Mr. Daws' lawyer does. I also wonder whether this new prosecutor will be asked by the Judge to answer the obvious question, "Who do you want me to believe, Cleveland, a liar and convicted cocaine dealer, or your own SEC witnesses?" The job of this Judge is to read the documents filed, review the transcript, and sentence each defendant to a term "sufficient but not greater than necessary." It sounds like he is taking that task quite seriously.

To: Buckey who wrote (93910)	3/4/2006 7:24:32 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 122087

Lee's article, as the title implies, is a summary of the prosecution's 88-page sentencing memorandum. I would hope that if/when Lee gets a copy of the 117 page defense version he would write an article on that as well. Anyone who has read the transcripts or even some of the key pieces I posted here knows that Cleveland plotted with Royer to get Tony involved and that Tony took a long time to warm up to them-- and did so because they convinced him he was helping the government. So you go from a guy with a swelled ego from his pride in helping the US government to one the US government keeps trying to prove was an anti-US financial terrorist. How downright bizarre. - Jeff