For those who have not had a chance to visit Pete Petit's website, (as mentioned in the PR yesterday) I highly suggest you do. The letter sent to the SEC at the time is very interesting. Petit took a polygraph by a guy the SEC itself has used as an expert in the field and passed. SEC asked if he would take another one given by the SEC and someone of their choosing (even though the SEC obviously respected the expert Petit had used which is why he used him) and he agreed on the condition that if he passed again the SEC would drop the case. They would not it seems. WHy take it again if the SEC would not agree? For what purpose? That's a "heads I lose tails I lose" deal. Also the brief in support of Petit;'s motion is on the site which is a good read.
There's some serious irony going on here: A convicted felon manipulates small cap stocks and the SEC is no where to be seen. On what more and more looks like a flimsy case, Petit is accused of tipping someone who ultimately achieves of profit of $9,400 and the SEC wastes taxpayer money relentlessly pursuing him. Pete's leadership has made me a bucket load of paper profits and the felon has cost me and other shareholders millions in losses, some of them, realized. Our government at work.
I feel for Earl Arrowood. He made $9400 on the trade, and now he will spend at least ten times that in legal fees clearing his name. The money probably isn't nearly as important as the stress this must be causing the man and his family either.
it is a good read..... he goes a long way to showing why the October trade should not be suspicious in any way, and therefore all the focus is on the December trade, which took place amidst numerous communications between the two..... if it weren't for the apparent attempt by Arrowood to admit he was tipped during what he thought was a plea negotiation, this case wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on... It could all come down to how that is treated by the judge.......
If you listened to the call, then you would have heard two important things said. Mr. Arrowood was suffering from alcoholism and seeking treatment at that time. His previous statements are likely to be drawn into intense scrutiny. Also, Mr. Arrowood doesn't have insurance to cover the cost of his legal defense like Mr. Petit.
Sometimes guilt or innocence boils down to $$$$. If it would save you a lot of $$$$$ to say you were guilty and get the government off your back, then do you take the cheaper and softer way by saying you are guilty, or do you stand by your principles and fight because you are innocent? It will cost Mr. Arrowood and Mr. Petit more time and more money to fight the government. The government has plenty of both to waste. I still stand behind both of these men for fighting for what is right, and what is just. I certainly would not cop a plea deal just to get the government off my back, even if it would save me a lot of $$$$ and time. Principles and reputation are still worth fighting for even if it proves to cost more $$$$.