|
Post by siriusnews on Feb 21, 2012 19:02:11 GMT -5
good post Al got a link
|
|
|
Post by alrich on Feb 21, 2012 21:04:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by alrich on Feb 22, 2012 11:03:49 GMT -5
Feb. 16, 2012, 11:46 p.m. EST Lehman Bros subpoenas Geithner in JP Morgan Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. LEHMQ and its creditors late Thursday said they want to subpoena Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to question him under oath over allegations J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., (JPM) illegally siphoned billions of dollars from the collapsing investment bank in the days before it filed for the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history. In a filing accompanying Lehman's filing, made in U.S. District Court in Washington, Lehman's official committee of unsecured creditors said Geithner has thus far refused to comply with an Aug. 9, 2011, subpoena, and it wants a court to force Geithner to give a deposition by a March 16 deadline. "Despite being a crucial fact witness on these issues, Secretary Geithner has refused to appear at a deposition in accordance with a valid subpoena issued by the Committee," the committee's lawyers said in the filing. Geithner was president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York at the time of the Lehman collapse. The Treasury Department didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. The committee said in its filing that it also wants to question then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, but that he too has turned the request down. It said it will handle the Paulson matter separately. Geithner, the committee said in its filing, had more than 35 phone conversations with then-Lehman Chief Executive Richard Fuld and more than 10 with J.P. Morgan Chief Executive Jamie Dimon in the week before Lehman's September 2008 bankruptcy filing. Lawyers for Lehman subpoenaed Geithner as part of its civil lawsuit against J.P. Morgan claiming Dimon and other top executives used inside knowledge to take advantage of Lehman as its financial state worsened. The weekend before Lehman's monumental bankruptcy filing, the Geithner-led New York Fed became the meeting place for Wall Street titans and Washington policy makers trying to sort things out. "The Department of the Treasury now turns its back on the President's commitment to transparency as it refuses to provide the creditors of Lehman Brothers with key evidence from the current Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy F. Geithner, who was a crucial witness to certain key events at issue in the creditors' litigation with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A," the committee said in its court papers. Lehman Brothers sued J.P. Morgan in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan in May 2011, charging the bank demanded over $8.6 billion in collateral in September 2008, triggering a liquidity squeeze that contributed to Lehman Brothers' collapse. The estate is hoping to recoup billions in collateral the bank demanded, and other damages. J.P. Morgan, which served as Lehman's clearing bank, countersued, claiming Lehman tricked it into lending $70 billion in the days following the investment bank's September 2008 collapse and left it with toxic securities that Lehman's own traders referred to as "goat poo." J.P. Morgan says Lehman led it to believe it would be repaid the $70 billion advanced to keep Lehman's broker-dealer business afloat in the days surrounding Lehman's historic bankruptcy filing and the sale of its core business to Barclays PLC (BCS). Both sides, in court filings, have denied wrongdoing. In recent months discovery has heated up with both sides issuing subpoenas. Lehman wants to question Min Euoo-sung former chairman and chief executive of Korea Development Bank, a key potential bidder for Lehman weeks and months leading up to its bankruptcy, to testify under oath. Lehman claims J.P. Morgan sought to advise KDB with respect to the Lehman deal and its lawyers want to ask Min if J.P. Morgan may have learned that it wasn't going to bid for Lehman before that information became public, prompting the bank's call for more collateral. Meanwhile lawyers for J.P. Morgan have sought to question former executives at Lehman's European subsidiary about the investment bank's decision-making process, including information about Lehman's infamous "goat poo," otherwise known as RACERS securities. Lehman's Chapter 11 filing on Sept. 15, 2008, marked the largest U.S. bankruptcy case filed. Now, more than three years later, Lehman's bankruptcy odyssey continues. Late last year, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge James Peck approved Lehman's historic $65 billion creditor-payback plan, which should be put into motion in the coming weeks or months. ("Lehman Brothers Subpoenas Geithner In J.P. Morgan Fight," at 10:55 p.m. EST Thursday, misstated the year Lehman originally sued J.P. Morgan in the 10th paragraph. The correct version follows.) Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. /quotes/zigman/138080 LEHMQ -0.80% and its creditors late Thursday said they want to subpoena Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to question him under oath over allegations J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (JPM) illegally siphoned billions of dollars from the collapsing investment bank in the days before it filed for the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history. In a filing accompanying Lehman's filing, made in U.S. District Court in Washington, Lehman's official committee of unsecured creditors said Geithner has thus far refused to comply with an Aug. 9, 2011, subpoena, and it wants a court to force Geithner to give a deposition by a March 16 deadline. "Despite being a crucial fact witness on these issues, Secretary Geithner has refused to appear at a deposition in accordance with a valid subpoena issued by the Committee," the committee's lawyers said in the filing. Geithner was president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York at the time of the Lehman collapse. The Treasury Department didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. The committee said in its filing that it also wants to question then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, but that he too has turned the request down. It said it will handle the Paulson matter separately. Geithner, the committee said in its filing, had more than 35 phone conversations with then-Lehman Chief Executive Richard Fuld and more than 10 with J.P. Morgan Chief Executive Jamie Dimon in the week before Lehman's September 2008 bankruptcy filing. Lawyers for Lehman subpoenaed Geithner as part of its civil lawsuit against J.P. Morgan claiming Dimon and other top executives used inside knowledge to take advantage of Lehman as its financial state worsened. The weekend before Lehman's monumental bankruptcy filing, the Geithner-led New York Fed became the meeting place for Wall Street titans and Washington policy makers trying to sort things out. "The Department of the Treasury now turns its back on the President's commitment to transparency as it refuses to provide the creditors of Lehman Brothers with key evidence from the current Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy F. Geithner, who was a crucial witness to certain key events at issue in the creditors' litigation with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A," the committee said in its court papers. Lehman Brothers sued J.P. Morgan in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan in May 2010, charging the bank demanded over $8.6 billion in collateral in September 2008, triggering a liquidity squeeze that contributed to Lehman Brothers' collapse. The estate is hoping to recoup billions in collateral the bank demanded, and other damages. J.P. Morgan, which served as Lehman's clearing bank, countersued, claiming Lehman tricked it into lending $70 billion in the days following the investment bank's September 2008 collapse and left it with toxic securities that Lehman's own traders referred to as "goat poo." J.P. Morgan says Lehman led it to believe it would be repaid the $70 billion advanced to keep Lehman's broker-dealer business afloat in the days surrounding Lehman's historic bankruptcy filing and the sale of its core business to Barclays PLC (BCS). Both sides, in court filings, have denied wrongdoing. In recent months discovery has heated up with both sides issuing subpoenas. Lehman wants to question Min Euoo-sung former chairman and chief executive of Korea Development Bank, a key potential bidder for Lehman weeks and months leading up to its bankruptcy, to testify under oath. Lehman claims J.P. Morgan sought to advise KDB with respect to the Lehman deal and its lawyers want to ask Min if J.P. Morgan may have learned that it wasn't going to bid for Lehman before that information became public, prompting the bank's call for more collateral. Meanwhile lawyers for J.P. Morgan have sought to question former executives at Lehman's European subsidiary about the investment bank's decision-making process, including information about Lehman's infamous "goat poo," otherwise known as RACERS securities. Lehman's Chapter 11 filing on Sept. 15, 2008, marked the largest U.S. bankruptcy case filed. The investment bank's collapse triggered a panic, and credit markets froze virtually overnight. The Federal Reserve and Treasury, which had argued they didn't have the authority to save Lehman, then moved to save insurance giant American International Group Inc. from following Lehman into bankruptcy. Now, more than three years later, Lehman's bankruptcy odyssey continues. Late last year, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge James Peck approved Lehman's historic $65 billion creditor-payback plan, which should be put into motion in the coming weeks or months. www.marketwatch.com/story/lehman-bros-subpoenas-geithner-in-jp-morgan-row-2012-02-16
|
|
|
Post by siriusnews on Feb 23, 2012 17:59:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by alrich on Feb 24, 2012 13:35:31 GMT -5
MOFO'S www.sec.gov/news/speech.shtml Feb. 24, 2012 Shining a Light on Expenditures of Shareholder Money Commissioner Luis A. Aguilar Feb. 24, 2012 Remarks at the Practising Law Institute’s SEC Speaks Chairman Mary L. Schapiro
|
|
|
Post by alrich on Feb 25, 2012 23:04:25 GMT -5
June 22, 2004, was another good day for CMKM Diamond Inc. More than 3.2 billion shares of company stock were traded. On the same day, less than 1.7 billion shares traded on the Nasdaq and 1.4 billion on the New York Stock Exchange. CMKM had traded more shares that day than the NYSE and Nasdaq combined! Just a few days earlier, on June 16, the stock had traded more than 4.2 billion shares. Market interest in the little company from Saskatchewan spotlighted a phenomenon in the making: the rapidly growing popularity of penny stocks. Read more: www.investopedia.com/articles/trading/04/072804.asp#ixzz1nSPkOKld
|
|
|
Post by alrich on Feb 25, 2012 23:33:36 GMT -5
Nice Graphs on this website Figure 1 – Over-the-Counter Bulletin Board (OTCBB) volumes from 1990 to 2004 (est). Chasing the Establishment Figure 2 – Volumes for the Nasdaq and OTCBB. OTCBB volume grew 8900 percent between 1993 and 2003, eclipsing both the Nasdaq (638 percent) and NYSE (512 percent) volume increases by a wide margin. Volumes on the Pink Sheets (where CMKM Diamonds traded) have grown even faster. In 1998, roughly 9 billion shares traded, and by 2003, volumes had soared to 187.5 billion--an incredible increase of more than 2000% in just five years. In 2004, Pink Sheet volumes were set to surpass 700 billion, blowing past both the OTCBB and Nasdaq, thanks in part to companies like CMKM. Figure 3 – Meteoric rise in trading volumes on the Pink Sheets. Pennies for Dollars However, there is a big difference when dollar volumes of the various exchanges are compared. In 2003, volume for the OTCBB was an average of 1,060,949,618 shares per day, and average daily dollar volume was $159,551,840. That's an average price of $0.15 per share. The average 2003 share price on the Pink Sheets was $0.14. By contrast, in the same year, the average daily share price on the Nasdaq was $16.61 and the average daily share price on the NYSE was $27.50. Consider this: in 2003 and 2004, shares in CMKM traded between 0.002 and 0.0001 cents. At 0.0001 cents per share, a million shares cost you $100. If you were lucky enough to catch a ride when the stock moved to 0.005 cents, which it did on occasion, and if there were enough buyers to get you out of your position, you would make a cool $4,900 profit. Figure 4 – OTCCB (purple) and Pink Sheet (pink) volumes compared. However, if you were on the wrong side of the trade and bought at 0.005 cents, you would see your $100 dwindle to just $2 when the stock dropped back down to 0.0001 cents. And if you had a $20,000 position at 0.0001 cents you would have to sell 200 million shares to get out. In the sub-penny abyss, a few thousand dollars of buying or selling can significantly sway share values. Advertisement - Article continues below. A company like CMKM is simply not the place to entrust any money you can't afford to lose. It hasn't filed any reports with the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) since March 2003, and obtaining reliable corporate information is a challenge at best. But how many stock values fluctuate 5000% or more in a day? Growing Pains Mike Ser of data provider Alphatrade.com said in an interview that the company has witnessed exponential growth in subscribers for penny stock data provided by the Pink Sheets and OTCBB. Alphatrade is one of a limited number of providers of both level I and II penny stock data. (Level II is necessary for those who want to watch market maker activity and follow trades as they occur, giving traders an in-depth indication of market strength or weakness.) One of the problems with this exponential rise in popularity occurs in tracking share volumes. The Pink Sheets and OTCBB are limited by binary reporting systems that 'max out' at 4.295 billion shares, and the largest number a binary system can display is 32 digits. If it reports volumes larger than that, the data gets distorted. Counters either revert back to zero or provide incorrect volume data. Only a new reporting system could rectify this problem. Carl Giangrasso of the Pink Sheets commented that this distortion is due to the variety of sources supplying raw data. The problem began to emerge in 2003 with the rising popularity and commensurate volumes of penny stocks--and all data providers are in the same boat. Fortunately, this only affects extreme volume sub-penny stocks. The Pink Sheets has come a long way since the days of the "penny dreadfuls" and written reports, Giangrasso says. It now provides an electronic quotation system and a facility for market markers to electronically execute orders. Finding a Method in the Penny Mayhem How does one trade penny stocks? Are there any techniques that work best? Technical analysis that uses indicators and statistics to forecast price movements is one possible approach. But due to the novelty of the penny phenomenon, technicians have not had the time to build a strategy--assuming anyone is interested in doing so. As far as analyzing sub-penny stocks, it would require a new system for charting and monitoring to determine the significance of a 0.0001-cent move, and there is no telling whether or not it would work. Trading these types of stocks is like throwing darts. Place your order and hope you hit the bull's-eye. Stocks trading for less than $5 have, for the most part, been shunned by the technical analysis community. Volumes of less than 400,000 to 500,000 shares a day make analysis unreliable and liquidity a challenge for trading any size. But as volumes explode, this problem will be mitigated. Will technical charting techniques work on a stock trading at $0.20 with an average volume of 1 million shares per day? As long as trading is not concentrated in the hands of a few and mass-market psychology is dominant, there is no reason why charting techniques shouldn't work. An accomplished trader himself, Ser says that news and rumors are the major forces driving penny stock price movement. Online message boards and chatrooms play a significant part, and press releases have the potential to cause large price swings. Traditional charting methods just don't work. Ser's favored trading technique involves getting to know the stock and how it responds to news and rumors. The greater the buzz on the street, the more potential there is for a large price move. Level II tells him how many market makers are involved and how they are working the stock. This is reflected in how much stock is trading at various price levels and who is buying or selling. It helps determine which direction the stock may be heading. For stocks in the $1 - $5 range, technical analysis begins to make sense when there is sufficient volume, Ser says. He likes to see at least 400,000 to 500,000 shares trade per day, but that depends on whether the stock has a tight price spread. However, it is possible to make money on wider spreads buying at the bid and selling at the ask for a small profit, but that is a riskier strategy. Ser has spoken with a number of traders who don't have a lot of money to trade ($500- $1,000), and they say they like penny stocks because they can take much larger position sizes than on the larger exchanges. But it's a different strategy, more akin to gambling than investing or trading. As you do when you go to Las Vegas, take only as much money as you are willing to lose. When it's gone, you go home. The final group of penny players are amateur investors who have not heard of level II and are buying to hold in hopes that the stock makes a big discovery, Ser says. But while an investment in the vast majority of penny stocks will never hit a home run, it's fun to dream. Conclusion Trading penny stocks is certainly not for all investors. But it might be just right for those who are looking for something off the well-worn investment or trading paths. Just don't bet too much on it. Read more: www.investopedia.com/articles/trading/04/072804.asp#ixzz1nSQohijC
|
|
|
Post by alrich on Feb 28, 2012 15:40:45 GMT -5
Gewerter Motion Feb 27 2012 « Thread Started Today at 12:02pm » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case: 11-17802 02/27/2012 ID: 8082383 DktEntry: 15 Page: 1 of 7
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE No. 11-17802 COMMISSION, DC No.: 3:11-mc-80214-JSW(EDL) Plaintiff/Respondent, U.S. District Court, Northern District of vs. California
DC No. 2:08-cv-00437-LRH-RJJ HAROLD P. GEWERTER; HAROLD U.S. District Court for Nevada, Las P. GEWERTER, ESQ., LTD. Vegas
Appellants/ Appellants ________________________________ _____ CMKM DIAMONDS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
APPELLANTS’OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL AS MOOT
WENDY E. MILLER, ESQ. HAROLD P. GEWERTER, ESQ. California Bar No. 181654 Nevada Bar No. 499 Law Office of Wendy E. Miller Harold P. Gewerter, Esq., Ltd. 10364 Almayo Ave. #106 5440 West Sahara Ave., Suite 105 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Las Vegas, NV 89146 wemesq@gmail.com harold@gewerterlaw.com (949) 400-8913 (702)382-1714 (310) 943-1972 Fax (702) 382-1759 Fax
Attorneys for Appellants Harold P. Gewerter and Harold P. Gewerter, Esq.,
Ltd.
Case: 11-17802 02/27/2012 ID: 8082383 DktEntry: 15 Page: 2 of 7
I. INTRODUCTION
Appellants Harold P. Gewerter and Harold P. Gewerter, Esq., Ltd., an
attorney and his professional corporation, are appealing of the denial of
Appellants’ motion to quash a subpoena seeking their attorney-client trust account
records from their bank. Appellants are not parties to the underlying lawsuit,
which is pending in Las Vegas, Nevada. Immediately after Appellants’ motion to
stay enforcement of the subject subpoena pending appeal was denied, the
subpoenaed documents were produced to Plaintiff/Respondent Securities and
Exchange Commission.
Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the
appeal is now moot, as the documents have already been produced. Respondent
urges the Court to ignore the controlling cases on this issue: Church of Scientology
v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 13 n.6, 113 S. Ct. 447 (1992)( appeal not moot as the
court has the power to order an agency to return or destroy any copies of
subpoenaed materials it may have in its possession) as well as the law of this case,
SEC v. CMKM Diamonds, Inc., 656 F.3d 829, 830-831 (9th Cir. Nev. 2011)
(appellant Gewerter has standing to seek immediate review of the district court's
order denying his motion to quash). The law is well-settled that Appellants’
appeal is not moot, and Appellants have standing to appeal. The motion to dismiss
must be denied.
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In 2005, Respondent, Securities and Exchange Commission successfully
revoked the registration of each class of securities of Defendant CMKM
Diamonds, Inc. Three years later, it filed an action in the District of Nevada, case
No. 2:08-cv-00437-LRH-RJJ, seeking injunctive and monetary relief against the
defendants, obtaining a judgment against Defendant John Edwards in 2009.
Judgments have now been entered against all of the defendants.
Appellant Harold P. Gewerter is an attorney licensed by the State of Nevada,
- 2 -
Case: 11-17802 02/27/2012 ID: 8082383 DktEntry: 15 Page: 3 of 7
practicing in Las Vegas, Nevada. He is the sole shareholder of appellant Harold P.
Gewerter, Esq., Ltd., a Nevada professional corporation. As required by the
Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.15, Appellants maintain an
attorney-client trust account, Account No. 263033342, at Bank of the West in Las
Vegas, Nevada. The account was opened in Las Vegas, and at all times the
account has been located in Las Vegas. Mr. Gewerter uses a single trust account
for all of his clients. The funds are not segregated by client.
On or about January 25, 2010, Harold Gewerter received a letter from Bank
of the West Legal Department in Omaha, Nebraska, informing him that the
Securities and Exchange Commission was subpoenaing all records from his trust
account from 2008 to the present, as well as copies of records from his opening of
the account.
Appellants elected to seek protection in the Nevada Court not only to quash
the subpoena, but also prevent Respondent from taking any further steps to invade
both their privacy and their clients’ privacy, or to invade the attorney-client
privilege. On June 18, 2010, the Court denied Moving Non-Parties’ motion to
quash, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear a motion to quash a subpoena
issued by a different court.
Appellants appealed the Court’s order, and on August 26, 2011, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, and, concurring with
Eighth and the D.C. Circuits, held that the issuing court, and not the court where
the underlying action is pending, has the authority to consider motions to quash or
modify subpoenas under Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See SEC
v. CMKM Diamonds, Inc., 656 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. Nev. 2011). The Court of
Appeals also held that the court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal of the denial of
the motion to quash the subpoena. Id. at 831.
Appellants then immediately moved to quash the subpoena in the Northern
District of California. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D.
- 3 -
Case: 11-17802 02/27/2012 ID: 8082383 DktEntry: 15 Page: 4 of 7
Laporte. At the hearing of the motion on October 18, 2011, Judge Laporte found
that there was a protected privacy interest, but denied the motion to quash. Instead,
Judge Laporte signed a protective order attempting to limit Respondent’s use of the
records to its collection efforts in the above-captioned matter. Relief from the
Magistrate’s Order was denied on November 15, 2011. Appellants have appealed
the order denying their motion to quash.
Upon receipt of Appellants’ notice of appeal, the SEC immediately
contacted Bank of the West, demanding that Bank of the West comply with the
subpoena. Bank of the West complied, and has furnished the records to
Respondent. Respondent now contends the appeal is moot.
III. THE APPEAL HAS NOT BEEN RENDERED MOOT BY
PRODUCTION OF THE SUBPOENAED DOCUMENTS
The production of the bank documents by Bank of the West does not render this
appeal moot. "The test for mootness of an appeal is whether the appellate court
can give the appellant any effective relief in the event that it decides the matter on
the merits in his favor. If it can grant such relief, the matter is not moot." Garcia v.
Lawn, 805 F.2d 1400, 1402 (9th Cir. 1986). As explained in Church of
Scientology v. United States , 506 U.S. 9, 13 n.6, 113 S. Ct. 447 (1992), where it is
too late to prevent, or to provide a fully satisfactory remedy for, the invasion of
privacy that occurred when the government obtained information on certain tapes,
a court has power to effectuate a partial remedy by ordering the government to
destroy or return any and all copies it may have in its possession. The availability
of this possible remedy is sufficient to prevent an appeal from a summons
enforcement order from being moot.
Here, Appellants seek the return or destruction of their bank records. This
remedy is not fully satisfactory, but it will prevent future harm as well, by
preventing the government from examining the bank records of every attorney who
ever represents a judgment debtor, without any limitation. An established
- 4 -
Case: 11-17802 02/27/2012 ID: 8082383 DktEntry: 15 Page: 5 of 7
exception to mootness applies where "(1) the challenged action is in its duration
too short to be fully litigated prior to cessation or expiration; and (2) there is a
reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be subject to the same
action again." Fed. Election Comm'n v. Wis. Right to Life, Inc ., 551 U.S. 449, 462,
127 S. Ct. 2652, 168 L. Ed. 2d 329 (2007) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted)(i.e. is capable of repetition but evades review). Appellants have current
and prior clients involved in SEC proceedings, therefore there is a concrete
possibility that the SEC will again subpoena Appellants’ trust account records in
connection with enforcement of judgment proceedings. A party would be
effectively deprived of his right to appeal the denial of a motion to quash, because
stays are rarely granted, and the documents are usually produced before the appeal
could be heard. Therefore, even if the appeal were moot, it would still fall under
the exception above.
Finally, the cases cited by Respondent are either inapplicable or do not stand for
the proposition that Respondent contends. There is no legal basis for the
contention that in Church of Scientology v. United States , 506 U.S. 9, 113 S. Ct.
447 (1992), is limited to cases where the challenging party had a right to appeal
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291. Truckstop.net LLC v. Sprint Corp., 547 F.3d 1065,
1068 (9th Cir. 2008) held that there is no right to an interlocutory appeal where the
party has the right to appeal the final judgment. It is completely inapplicable to
this case. The court in United States v. Krane, 625 F.3d 568 (9th Cir. Wash. 2010)
held that the appeal was moot because the underlying subpoena was moot. There
had been no compliance with the subject subpoena.
Finally, Respondent seems to argue that Appellants are judicially estopped
from denying the mootness of the appeal, based on their arguments in their motion
for stay of enforcement of the subpoena. This is not at all true. See Reed Elsevier,
Inc. v. Muchnick, 130 S. Ct. 1237, 1249, 176 L. Ed. 2d 18 (2010) ("[W]e decline to
apply judicial estoppel. . . . [T]hat doctrine typically applies when, among other
- 5 -
Case: 11-17802 02/27/2012 ID: 8082383 DktEntry: 15 Page: 6 of 7
things, a 'party has succeeded in persuading a court to accept that party's
earlier position, so that judicial acceptance of an inconsistent position in a
later proceeding would create the perception that either the first or the second
court was misled.'" (quoting New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 750, 121 S.
Ct. 1808, 149 L. Ed. 2d 968 (2001))(emphasis added). The Court has never
accepted Appellants’ position, therefore it is perfectly acceptable for Appellants to
argue that the appeal is not moot.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Appellants respectfully request that the Court deny
Respondents’ motion to dismiss the appeal as moot.
Dated February 27, 2012 /s/ Wendy E. Miller _________________________ Wendy E. Miller Attorney for Appellants/Appellants Harold P. Gewerter and Harold P. Gewerter, Esq., Ltd.
|
|
|
Post by alrich on Feb 29, 2012 13:32:53 GMT -5
MUST WATCH!! News Video from FoxNews. Geithner Is A Criminal! So How Is It He COULD Face « Thread Started Today at 3:18am » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Geithner Is A Criminal! So How Is It He COULD Face Criminal Charges? www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXO5bElqnqg&feature=youtu.beMUST WATCH!! News Video from FoxNews
|
|
|
Post by siriusnews on Mar 1, 2012 10:12:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by alrich on Mar 2, 2012 11:51:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by siriusnews on Mar 6, 2012 16:55:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by siriusnews on Mar 8, 2012 20:59:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by siriusnews on Mar 9, 2012 12:27:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by alrich on Mar 9, 2012 12:59:49 GMT -5
EXCELLENT NEWS ON OSTK !
|
|
|
Post by alrich on Mar 9, 2012 13:12:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by siriusnews on Mar 10, 2012 11:49:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by siriusnews on Mar 14, 2012 11:12:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by alrich on Mar 14, 2012 12:39:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by siriusnews on Mar 14, 2012 14:38:41 GMT -5
I can only hope the main stream media will finally investigate and report about the new movie that has the Goldman Sachs evidence. The documentary shows how Goldman Sachs sold FAKE stock into pension funds. The movie is www.TheWallStreetConspiracy.com let me repeat that again. " Goldman Sachs sold FAKE stock into the pension funds and stock market. All clearly explained in the new documentary called " The Wall Street Conspiracy " Richard SiriusNews
|
|
|
Post by siriusnews on Mar 14, 2012 15:13:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by alrich on Mar 16, 2012 13:46:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by alrich on Mar 16, 2012 14:51:57 GMT -5
Three Individuals Charged in Connection with $51 Million Stock Loan Fraud Scheme www.fbi.gov/sandiego
|
|
|
Post by alrich on Mar 16, 2012 15:20:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by siriusnews on Mar 18, 2012 1:19:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by siriusnews on Mar 18, 2012 15:19:53 GMT -5
11 more days before we get to hear back from the SEC/DOJ and Lawyer Keith Staub in regards to Al Hodges and the CMKX case. Needs to be filed by March 29th, 2012 I look forward to listening to the BS presented by the SEC/DOJ as they have to respond to Al Hodges 44 page document he filed, which I thought was great. I'm sure it will be the same ole BS we cannot Sue Christopher/Shapiro and the others as they are the Government and the DTCC is privately owned, by who other but the Brokerage houses, yes the DTCC is owned by the same criminals who NSS CMKX stock. Who is the Brokerage houses that privately own the DTCC = Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Ameritrade, BofA and on and on the list of brokerage houses. This is all clearly explained how the Goldman Sachs of the world own the DTCC, it is all talked about by experts in the new documentary - The Wall Street Conspiracy. Hope you will all go watch this powerful documentary. here is the link www.TheWallStreetConspiracy.com If you are a CMKX shareholder or a shareholder of any stock, you need to watch this movie. As for the CMKX shareholders that have been following the Al Hodges case and also the cmkx story, and you have not watched this video, well that is just mind boggling. Richard SiriusNews
|
|
|
Post by siriusnews on Mar 18, 2012 16:22:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by siriusnews on Mar 18, 2012 23:58:12 GMT -5
posted some pic's on twitter @twwwatching siriusnews_com @stockshockmovie look for the twitpics tweets
|
|
|
Post by alrich on Mar 19, 2012 8:55:46 GMT -5
hereisthecity.com/ Rajarathnam's insider trading ring, said during a pre-trial hearing in the US Friday that an unnamed Goldman employee was secretly taped passing information to Rajaratnam US federal prosecutors have caught another (unnamed) Goldman staffer on a wiretap - allegedly leaking inside information to Raj Rajaratnam (prosecutors) know that there is a person at Goldman Sachs who has leaked inside information on at least two securities, on Apple and Intel, to Mr. Rajaratnam.
|
|
|
Post by siriusnews on Mar 19, 2012 11:05:05 GMT -5
This story talks about people stepping up and telling the truth. The next wave of truth telling needs to come from TV news as they have been covering up for the Banks and perhaps the biggest story to ever be told has now come out. A new documentary called The Wall Street Conspiracy, which was just released March 1st, 2012 in a NYC movie screening. The movie shows Lawyers and experts, thru discovery getting the evidence on Goldman Sachs and brokerage houses selling FAKE stock into pension funds. Let me repeat that. Goldman Sachs sold COUNTERFEIT STOCK knowingly into pension funds to rob its clients. It is all shown in this powerful new documentary www.TheWallStreetConspiracy.com How is this not all over TV news right now? When is the news media going to do its job and report this story as these experts have done the media's job and its investigative reporting. When will the News Media report this huge story or is the new media going to continue to keep taking the banks money to remain silent. Richard SiriusNews
|
|