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.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (36586)	11/17/1998 4:40:00 PM
From: accountclosed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

He never did the act that Boesky tried to entrap him. Boesky was a major customer of Drexel's. He asked that a crime (albeit a technical violation) be committed. It was not. The other pieces of proof were likewise flimsy. There was a soft dollar issue. That some of Boesky's commission dollars were in excess of normal commissions and this was supposedly proof of a payoff. There simply was no proof of a crime. There was other supposed parking unrelated to Boesky. But understand that you are talking about someone who was involved with billions of shares of stock and thousands of bond issues and stock takeovers. If on one, shares were in some trading account overnight and no one realized that the combination of accounts breached the 5% rule on reporting beneficial ownership, this does not prove a conspiracy. certainly not with boesky. and supposedly due to this parking, drexel is put out of business. drexel had come out of nowhere to be the most important firm on the street. i regretted my bank robbery analogy. how about two guys that "conspire" to j-walk, is rico invoked?

To: Ilaine who wrote (36586)	11/17/1998 4:47:00 PM
From: accountclosed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

there are securities violations that involve misstating income and stealing money from investors. the law that was involved had to do with letting the public know that you had accumulated a stake in a company and therefore might buy more of that company. the law provides for a seven day period before this had to be revealed anyway. it is possible to unknowingly accumulate such a stake. securities firms hold stock on behalf of customers all the time. to not know that two organizations actually are the same is a crime of ignorance. but again, there was no proof of any conspiracy of any sort. and no proof was even offerred that Milken and Drexel conspired. Fred Joseph didn't even know what Milken was doing. He didn't understand it. Although Joseph was chairman, Milken had so much power that he ran the show from Beverly Hills while Joseph was in NYC. Coby, there was no proof of a crime. No proof of a conspiracy.

To: Ilaine who wrote (36586)	11/17/1998 4:52:00 PM
From: accountclosed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Coby, I am not a lawyer, so it wouldn't be hard to keep me on the run if you want to. But he didn't do anything. There was no proof of anything. The underlying, unproven allegations, were in a class of securities violations that are considered technical. Drexel had no pattern or policy of trying to evade any laws. There just was no crime. I have really climbed on the soapbox. I read story after story by authors as ridiculous as Ben Stein on the subject. The linearity of issue to issue was just not there. Milken was rich and powerful, qed he was guilty. There were felons in this day and time that were as guilty as Marion Barry smoking crack cocaine that didn't get rico tossed at them. Conspiracy all over it. Records to prove it. Milken had no proof thrown at him at all.