"BGII" - Suborned Perjury & Crimes of BREEN & Cleveland
By Anthony Elgindy
Next we move on to stock BGII....
During the trial, Ken Breen presented evidence of both alleged "manipulation" and "inside-trading" in "BGII" through testimony from his star witness Derrick Cleveland. In my appeal I claimed that I was guilty of neither since Royer did NOT perform any searches with regard to BGII and that I was the source of any and ALL information about BGII posted on my AP site, since I am the one who started the SEC's investigation into BGII. The govt in their reply to my appeal claims that my "argument simply ignores Cleveland's testimony." ...........
So lets go ahead and dig up his testimony and not "ignore it", shall we ??
Not only will I show suborned perjury about BGII but that Cleveland's testimony couldn't possibly be true and that Breen knew it all along.....
In my "pre-sentence" report by the probation dept, they assigned BGII a loss of $2,451,958 of its $11 million plus number, the largest single loss alleged in the PSR, BGII accounts for more than 1/3 of the government's revised and rejected $ 3 million plus gain figure ascribed to me. It likely bears the same proportion of the $ 1.56 million figure proffered in their chart the government appended to it's March 23, 2006 letter and which served as the basis for the forfeiture judgment. (A 1010)
Like I said, the ONLY evidence regarding BGII is Cleveland's testimony that he learned of "raids" by the "Texas Rangers" and of an SEC investigation into BGII from Royer in Dec 2001 and that he passed on that information. (Tr 908-10) Here it is, all of it.
BREEN DIRECT/CLEVELAND :
Q: Have you heard of a company called BGI industries?
A: Yes
Q: How did you refer to it?
A: BGII
Q: Was that the ticker symbol ?
A: Yes
Q: Do you remember how the site --well, was it an AP site stock ?
A: Yes
Q: Do you remember how the site became interested ?
A: Yes, it was another stock that was moving up rapidly, price was going up quite a bit on a daily basis and the site got interested as to why the stock was making moves that it was moving.
Q: Did you do any research on it?
A: Yes
Q: What did you do ?
A: Again, I followed my normal procedure of going to the SEC web site, Edgar, and pulling the financials to get the names and other information to give to Mr. Royer.
Q: Did you give the names to Mr. Royer?
A: Yes
Q: While he was still an FBI agent ?
A: Yes
Q: Did he provide you with information ?
A: Yes
Q: When approximately was this ?
A: BGI the play was around --started around I think, November, December 2001.
Q: What information did he provide you with?
A: I had him run the CEO of the company, a gentleman by the name of Reid Funderburk and he came back with nothing on Funderburk but shortly thereafter that in a few days, after that he had come to me and or called me and let me know that he had just gotten off the phone with the Texas Rangers and they had begun raiding some of BGI's different places where they had their charity machines and also seizing some of their funds.
Q: Who are the Texas Rangers ?
A: Texas Rangers are - it is a law enforcement people in the state of Texas THE COURT: Is it akin to like the state troopers in another jurisdiction?
A: Yes
Q: Now again, when he provided you this information was Mr. Royer still an FBI agent
A: Yes
Q: Did he provide you with any other information in this time frame?
A: Yes
Q: What did he provide you with?
A: He told me that the SEC was looking at BGI Informally at that time.
Q: What did you do with this information?
A: I gave the information to Mr. Elgindy, I gave the information to Mr. Daws, I gave it Quack and I gave it to Nico.
Q: What information did you give them ?
A: That the -- that BGI, different places where they had their machines was being raided by the Texas Rangers, that the machines were being seized, that different bank accounts they had were being seized and that the SEC was informally looking at them.
Q: Did you tell them where you received the information ?
A: yes
Q: What did you tell them in that regard?
A: That the information had come from Jeff
Q: Do you remember what it was that Mr. Elgindy did with that information ?
A: he eventually put some of it out to the site . It seems like it took a little while but eventually it went out to the site.
Q: After receiving the additional information from Mr. Royer did you get additional information ?
A: yes
Q: What did you hear next?
A: That the SEC investigation had become an official SEC investigation, it was no longer informal, it was official and also he informed me that the raids and the seizures were still taking place.
Q: when did you receive this information ?
A: I received this information, it was early to mid December 2001.
Q: And the SEC information, was that received in the same time frame ?
A: Yes
Q: Who did you communicate this new information to?
A: Mr. Elgindy, Mr. Daws, Quack and Nico.
Q: Did Mr. Elgindy release any of the information on the AP site?
A: Eventually he did, yes.
(Tr 908-910) No evidence of any phone calls with anyone at the SEC or with the Texas Rangers was introduced. According to (GX-JL-1) Agent Royer did no searches related to BGII. The information about the Texas Rangers came from a newspaper article in October 2001 that was available on the internet. ( DX 3534(article) DX 5322 is an email from Mr. Elgindy to SEC atty. Brent Baker containing that article.
Moreover, nobody at the SEC was "informally looking at them" because SEC Branch Chief of Enforcement, Douglas Gortimer testified that no one at the SEC was looking at this company until agent Royer told Gortimer about the InsideTruth.com report.
Furthermore Cleveland's testimony that Mr. Royer had told him that the SEC investigation had become an "official investigation" in December of 2001 was a lie. SEC Atty Gortimer, testified that the formal investigation into BGII was started and based on the InsideTruth.com report about BGII that I wrote and then published in January of 2002.(DX 12120)
Q: Id like to ask you about a stock called BGII. That is the symbol. And do you recall the business of BGII ?
A: Yes
Q: what was that ?
A: They were in the business of putting eight liners or gambling machines in Seven-Elevens and road-stops, rest-stops and things like that.
Q: Do you recall, I think you talked about that there was an investigation that began based on information obtained by Mr. Elgindy and other people who worked with Mr. Elgindy on the site?
A: I believe that the opening of the informal investigation was based on their report that was on InsideTruth.com
(TR 3640) Mr. Gortimer then testified that nobody at the SEC had been looking at BGII until he had read Mr. Elgindy's report.
Q: And there was no ongoing SEC investigation at all, as far as you know, nobody at the SEC was looking at this company until Agent Royer told you about it, correct?
A: Right, it was opened after he told me about the InsideTruth.com report.
(TR 36__ ) With regard to the manipulation allegations, Mr. Gortimer testified that BGII stock's price plummeted not because of any manipulation by Mr. Elgindy, but because the truth became known to the public, truth that was first published in Mr. Elgindy's Insidetruth.com report that was then mirrored in the news.
Q: The stock price plummeted correct ?
A: Yes
Q: And it plummeted because the article in the newspaper disclosing some of the things that were already in the insidetruth.com website. It plummeted before we brought our action. I think there was also an article in the newspaper but either way it did fall not too long after this came out.
Q: You recall -- I think you said the information in the article was the same information as InsideTruth?
A: I dont know if it was all identical but very similar.
Q: There was no doubt in your mind it was falling because the truth of the company was coming out, correct ?
A: It was falling because it showed the company was not telling the truth earlier.
Q: So investors saw that they were investing in was , in fact, not what they expected it to be correct ?
A: Yes (TR 3640-42)
As the testimony above shows, BREEN had unlimited access to both Cleveland and Gortimer , since they were both govt witnesses, yet BREEN still put Cleveland on the stand and had Cleveland testify to things that couldnt possibly be true. That is a illegal, it is unethical and it is a crime.. It is a felony and it is enough to disbar Breen and put him in jail where he belongs.
BREEN also had unlimited access to Cleveland's trading records, along with all access data and records. he knew when Mr. Cleveland traded and when the investigations began, yet he chose to pursue and elicit this testimony anyway.
The truth of the matter is that it was my truthful exposure of the stock on InsideTruth.com that caused the SEC to open it's investigation into BGII, and the stock's correction in price.
As this court has said previously, "Where the prosecution knew or should have known of the perjury, the conviction must be set aside, if there is any reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury, (US v Wallach, 935 F.2d 445, C.A.2, (NY), 1991, US v Seck, 48 Fed Appx 827, 2002) |
