|
Post by alrich on May 8, 2012 7:39:58 GMT -5
BofA Could Pay Brokers Millions, Goldman and UBS Lose, MF Global Probe Request hereisthecity.com/business/business/ More than 100 of the former BofA brokers alleged in their arbitration proceedings that BofA planned to cheat them of deferred compensation worth between tens of thousands and several million dollars. Goldman loses bid to dismiss CIFG breach of contract claims. UBS loses bid to dismiss FHFA mortgage debt case.
|
|
|
Post by alrich on May 8, 2012 7:48:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by alrich on May 8, 2012 9:16:12 GMT -5
Largest International Money Laundering Network in www.marketwatch.com/story/home-ow....suit-2012-04-23Home Owners Across the Nation Sue All Bank Servicers and Their Offshore Havens; Spire Law Officially Announces Filing of Landmark Lawsuit Largest International Money Laundering Network in History Formed During Obama Administration; U.S. Banks' Theft of Home Owners' Money Laundered Through Cayman Islands, Isle of Man and Numerous Offshore-Based Affiliates NEW YORK, NY, Apr 23, 2012 (MARKETWIRE via COMTEX) -- In a lawsuit alleged to involve the largest money laundering network in United States history, Spire Law Group, LLP -- on behalf of home owners across the Country -- has filed a mass tort action in the Supreme Court of New York, County of Kings. Home owners across the country have sued every major bank servicer and their subsidiaries -- formed in countries known as havens for money laundering such as the Cayman Islands, the Isle of Man, Luxembourg and Malaysia -- alleging that while the Obama Administration was publicly encouraging loan modifications for home owners, it was privately ratifying the formation of these shell companies in violation of the United States Patriot Act, and State and Federal law. The case further alleges that through these obscure foreign companies, Bank of America, J.P. Morgan, Wells Fargo Bank, Citibank, Citigroup, One West Bank, and numerous other federally chartered banks stole hundreds of millions of dollars of home owners' money during the last decade and then laundered it through offshore companies. The complaint, Index No. 500827, was filed by Spire Law Group, LLP, and several of the Firm's affiliates and partners across the United States. Far from being ambiguous, this is a complaint that "names names." Indeed, the lawsuit identifies specific companies and the offshore countries used in this enormous money laundering scheme. Federally Chartered Banks' theft of money and their utilization of offshore tax haven subsidiaries represent potential FDIC violations, violations of New York law, and countless other legal wrongdoings under state and federal law. "The laundering of trillions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer money -- and the wrongful taking of the homes of those taxpayers -- was known by the Administration and expressly supported by it. Evidence uncovered by the plaintiffs revealed that the Administration ignored its own agencies' reports -- and reports from the Department of Homeland Security -- about this situation, dating as far back as 2010. Worse, the Administration purported to endorse a 'national bank settlement' without disclosing or having any public discourse whatsoever about the thousands of foreign tax havens now wholly owned by our nation's banks. Fortunately, no home owner is bound to enter into this fraudulent bank settlement," stated Eric J. Wittenberg of Columbus, Ohio -- a noted trial lawyer, author and student of US history -- on behalf of plaintiffs in the case. The suing home owners reveal how deeply they were defrauded by bank and governmental corruption -- and are suing for conversion, larceny, fraud, and for violations of other provisions of New York state law committed by these financial institutions and their offshore counterparts. This lawsuit explains why loans were, in general, rarely modified after 2009. It explains why the entire bank crisis worsened, crippling the economy of the United States and stripping countless home owners of their piece of the American dream. It is indeed a fact that the Administration has spent far more money stopping bank investigations, than they have investigating them. When the Administration's agencies (like the FDIC) blew the whistle, their reports were ignored. The case is styled Abeel v. Bank of America, etc., et al. -- and includes such entities as ML Banderia Cayman BRL Inc., ML Whitby Luxembourg S.A.R.L. and J.P Morgan Asset Management Luxembourg S.A. -- as well as hundreds of other obscure offshore entities somehow "owned" by federally chartered banks and formed "under the nose" of the Administration and the FDIC. Commenting further on the case, Mr. Wittenberg stated: "As if it is not bad enough that banks collect money and do not credit it to homeowners' accounts, and as if it is not bad enough that those banks then foreclose when they know they do not have a legally enforceable interest in the realty, we now learn that they have been operating under unbridled free reign given by the Administration and some states' Attorneys General in formulating this international money laundering network. Now that the light of day has been shined on it, I believe we can all rest assured that the beginning of the end of the bank crisis has arrived." All United States home owners may have the right to bring a lawsuit of this kind if they paid money to a national bank servicer during the years 2003 through 2009. One lawyer impacted by the corruption -- Mitchell J. Stein, who formerly represented the FDIC, the RTC and the FSLIC during the Savings and Loan scandal of the 1990s, and who predicted all of the foregoing in open court two years ago -- commented: "Two years ago, I remarked in open court to a Los Angeles Superior Court Judge, as well as to legislators including Senator Dianne Feinstein's office during a multitude of in-person meetings, that the ongoing violations of the Patriot Act by these financial institutions was outrageous and a breach of the public trust of unprecedented proportions," said Stein. "The size and scope of this misconduct -- stretching to far-away islands never before having standing as approved United States Bank affiliates -- is remarkable and emblematic of what we have seen," he continued. "The bank crisis represents the height of corruption and brazen behavior where our historically trusted financial institutions have no qualms about breaking the law, because they have the Administration behind them. Banks do well enough when they operate lawfully without needing to be permitted to operate as criminal enterprises that steal money from United States citizens." Additional plaintiffs' counsel Nicholas M. Moccia commented: "Having been in the trenches of the bank crisis for years, I always knew that the misconduct was being conducted by a network. When I started litigating against banks, however, I could have never imagined that it would be this extensive. I look forward to taking discovery of these thousands of obscure foreign entities and to obtaining for homeowners their constitutionally entitled injuries for this international ring of theft and deception." Comments were requested from the Attorney Generals' offices in NY, CA, NV, and MA and the White House, but no comment was provided. About Spire Law Group Spire Law Group, LLP is a national law firm whose motto is "the public should be protected -- at all costs -- from corruption in whatever form it presents itself." The Firm is comprised of lawyers nationally with more than 250-years of experience in a span of matters ranging from representing large corporations and wealthy individuals, to also representing the masses. The Firm is at the front lines litigating against government officials, banks, defunct loan pools, and now the very offshore entities where the corruption was enabled and perpetrated. WHITE KNIGHTS? Contact: James N. Fiedler, Esq. Managing Partner Spire Law Group, LLP 877-475-2448 Email Contact SOURCE: Spire Law Group, LLP finance.yahoo.com/news/home-owners-across-nation-sue-040100659.html
|
|
|
Post by alrich on May 8, 2012 12:21:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by alrich on May 9, 2012 10:48:41 GMT -5
Spire Lawyers’ Investigation Reveals Global Money Laundering Network of U.S. Banks Following 2010, the public discourse is now filled with public evidence and revelations of the unbelievable answer to this question. As a result of recent revelations of governmental and corporate corruption, Spire Lawyers have used their investigative and technological experience to unmask the size and scope of the banks' international money laundering scandal. As it turns out, the scandal did not cease in 2008, but, rather, was expanded to thousands of companies now owned by federally chartered U.S. banks and located in "money laundering havens" like the Isle of Man, the Cayman Islands, and Luxembourg. On April 17, 2012, Spire Lawyers -- on behalf of home owners nationwide -- filed the largest money laundering and theft lawsuit against all of these "bank servicers," and their foreign partners, in the Supreme Court of New York, County of Kings. The suit names more than a thousand foreign entities affiliated with Bank of America, Wells Fargo Bank, Citibank. One West Bank and countless other "bank servicers." Additional lawsuits, including qui tam actions (lawsuits brought on behalf of whistleblowers), shall be filed by Spire Lawyers as a result of this unbelievable and brazen time of governmental and corporate corruption against United States citizens. spirelawgroupllp.com/Home.html
|
|
|
Post by alrich on May 10, 2012 18:54:30 GMT -5
Two Stock Promoters, a Stock Trader, and a Securities Lawyer Sentenced to Prison for Their Roles in a $7 Million Fraudulent Stock Manipulation Scheme U.S. Department of Justice May 10, 2012 Office of Public Affairs (202) 514-2007/ (202) 514-1888 — filed under: Financial, Fraud, Press Release, White-Collar Crime WASHINGTON—Two stock promoters, a securities lawyer, and a stock trader associated with a Costa Rican brokerage firm were sentenced today in the Southern District of Florida for their participation in a stock manipulation scheme that defrauded investors in a company called CO2 Technologies, announced Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney Wifredo A. Ferrer of the Southern District of Florida, Chief Postal Inspector Guy Cottrell of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service (USPIS), and James W. McJunkin, Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s Washington Field Office. U.S. District Judge Richard W. Goldberg in Miami sentenced Michael Krome, 50, a securities attorney from New York, to 34 months in prison. Stock promoters Timothy Barham Jr., 44, of Tennessee; and Robert Weidenbaum, 46, of Miami, were sentenced by Judge Goldberg to 30 months and 26 months in prison, respectively. Krome, Barham, and Weidenbaum previously pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit securities fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud. Krome was ordered to forfeit $17,490; Barham was ordered to forfeit $250,000; and Weidenbaum was ordered to forfeit $360,000. In a separate but related case, former stock trader David Ricci, 41, was sentenced by Judge Goldberg to 18 months in prison. Ricci previously pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to commit securities fraud, wire fraud, and mail fraud. Ricci had been employed as a stock trader at Sentry Global Securities, part of a company called Red Sea Management, an offshore brokerage firm that was based in San Jose, Costa Rica. Two codefendants, Jonathan Randall Curshen, 47, the head of Red Sea Management and Sentry Global Securities; and Las Vegas stock promoter Nathan Montgomery, 31, were convicted of all counts after a two-week trial in January of this year. Curshen and Montgomery are scheduled to be sentenced by Judge Goldberg in Miami on May 11, 2012. Another codefendant, Ryan Reynolds, 40, of Dallas, awaits sentencing on his guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, wire fraud and mail fraud. Weidenbaum and Barham admitted that they and others fraudulently “pumped” the market price and demand for CO2 Tech stock through false and misleading press releases. They also admitted to engaging in secret, coordinated trades of shares of CO2 Tech stock in order to create the appearance of legitimate buying interest by legitimate investors. Ricci admitted that as the stock promoters pumped the price of the stock, Ricci and his conspirators facilitated the “dumping” of shares through the trading desk at Red Sea Management and Sentry Global Securities by selling the shares to the general investing public. Weidenbaum and Barham also admitted that they and other conspirators were paid approximately $1 million in cash to buy CO2 Tech stock in order to inflate its price. The cash was delivered to them in Miami via a private jet from an airport outside New York. The stock manipulation scheme generated approximately $7 million in illegal proceeds. Krome admitted that he participated in the conspiracy by evading federal securities registration requirements to facilitate the issuance of millions of unregistered and “free trading” shares of CO2 Tech that were used to execute the stock manipulation. According to the indictment, the plan was orchestrated by two Israeli nationals, Eric “Ariav” Weinbaum and Izahack Zigdon, who are both fugitives. Also charged was Ronny Salazar Morales, another trader at Sentry Global Securities and Red Sea Management. Salazar is also a fugitive. The case was investigated by the FBI’s Washington Field Office and the USPIS. The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorneys N. Nathan Dimock and Rina Tucker Harris of the Fraud Section in the Justice Department’s Criminal Division. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida provided significant assistance in this case. The Department of Justice acknowledges the significant assistance of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in its investigation. The criminal case originated as a referral from the SEC, which has a pending parallel civil case. The Criminal Division’s Office of International Affairs and Costa Rican authorities also provided valuable assistance. The Department of Justice has established a website for potential victims of the crime, which may be accessed at www.justice.gov/criminal/vns/caseup/, under case numbers 11-cr-20121 and 12-cr-20049. Potential victims are urged to contact the Department of Justice as directed on the website. This prosecution is part of efforts under way by the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. President Obama established the interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force to wage an aggressive, coordinated, and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. The task force includes representatives from a broad range of federal agencies, regulatory authorities, inspectors general, and state and local law enforcement who, working together, bring to bear a powerful array of criminal and civil enforcement resources. The task force is working to improve efforts across the federal executive branch and, with state and local partners, to investigate and prosecute significant financial crimes, ensure just and effective punishment for those who perpetrate financial crimes, combat discrimination in the lending and financial markets, and recover proceeds for victims of financial crimes.
|
|
|
Post by alrich on May 10, 2012 19:08:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by alrich on May 11, 2012 11:52:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by alrich on May 11, 2012 19:54:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by alrich on May 13, 2012 12:36:14 GMT -5
Published May 13, 2012, 12:05 AM Ralph Paige, East Point, Ga., letter: At last, a measure of justice for black farmers For years, African-American farmers were denied access to USDA funds and services. Now we have an opportunity to correct this wrong. By: Ralph Paige,
EAST POINT, Ga. — The 180-day period for monetary claims by black farmers against the U.S. Department of Agriculture expired last week. Friday was the last day for black farmers to file their claim form.
When these farmers filed their class-action lawsuit in the mid-1990s (Pigford v. Glickman), they were acting on what had been known for decades: namely, that blacks had been systematically discriminated against by the USDA.
The history has been bleak. When Congress created the USDA’s Farmers Home Administration in 1942, it was supposed to be the “lending institution of last resort” for farmers. It was created to save America’s family farmers as they struggled after the devastating Great Depression.
But black farmers then and up to now have never been able to access the loans and other program services in an equitable fashion. In fact, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in 1982 reported that the primary reason blacks had lost land was because of the USDA itself and the lack of services.
For example, USDA regulations state that the USDA offices are supposed provide loan applications and help farmers fill out the applications. The department is supposed to offer repayment advice and opportunities for farmers who are having trouble making their payments. And if approved for a loan, the payments are supposed to be provided in a timely fashion.
But for black farmers, few USDA offices even provided a loan application. And those that did provide the application processed them so slowly that the loan often came too late to plant that year’s crop.
Black farmers also in many instances were given a “supervised account,” where they did not get the money outright but were required to visit the USDA office to get the loan officer or supervisor to write the check.
As a result, black farmers either got loans from supply houses or banks at exceptionally high interest rates, or they went without and sought other jobs. Land often was lost and marriages were destroyed.
A settlement agreement for the class action lawsuit was approved in 1999.
Many original claimants now are deceased. There are provisions in the settlement for their next of kin or heirs to file on their behalf.
And as there is a finite sum of money for the settlement — a sum that not only has to pay the farmers but also all legal, notice and administrative expenses — the judge has ruled that no funds for successful claims will be distributed until after the claims period and the evaluation of all claims. This means that funds won’t be distributed until late 2010 or early 2013.
For years African-American farmers were denied access to USDA funds and services. Now we have an opportunity to correct this wrong.
Paige is executive director of the Federation of Southern Cooperatives Land Assistance Fund.
This column was made available through American Forum, a nonprofit media organization that works to encourage more citizen debate on important societal issues.
|
|
|
Post by alrich on May 14, 2012 14:26:35 GMT -5
www.cmkmdiamondsinc.com/ May 14, 2012 Re: Company Update and Webinars To All CMKM Shareholders: It is my duty to report to you that Mr. Jim Lowden has resigned as Secretary/Treasurer of CMKM Diamonds, Inc., effective May 10, 2012.
|
|
|
Post by alrich on May 14, 2012 15:18:11 GMT -5
By: tuscan9 14 May 2012, 03:57 PM CDT Rating: Rate this post: Msg. 1088921 of 1088922
Jump to msg. # Do cmkx'ers understand what 40 years of DERIVATIVES
have to do with them???
Do folks understand what the DERIVATIVE game did for those on Socialite Drive in the Global Uppity world of Social Cliques?
Do folks understand how many companies you shop at were started with DERIVATIVE skimmed off the top money? Free money for those MAJOR businesses?
Do you understand who might have had knowledge of this mess all these years?
Who would that have been...?
Did he/they need a vehicle...many for that matter?
Did they like seeing the Internet arrive...?
You think we didn't walk into the 'Flide of a Rifetime' as the coded person words it?
You think you don't have a fish by the tail...?
Any of you that fish know that a fish by the 'tail' is a run of a lifetime catch!!!!
got cmkx?
all I hope, as a shareholder, is that all of you Moms and Pops understand that Someone Knows what YOU HOLD....I hope YOU do!
|
|
|
Post by alrich on May 14, 2012 22:25:04 GMT -5
DoD on Millionaires Board... « Thread Started Today at 8:00pm » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This was sent to me a few minutes ago... PJ - pass this to your CMKX boards - DOD has an account here: millionaires.proboards.com/index.....ay&thread=43009I asked, can you explain? Do you mean the DoD visited WHRs through the millionaires board which revealed their IP? How did you find out? Yes - PJ the DOD went to WHR blog through the Millionaires board you have to have an account on that board to clink on it and this is the IP screenshot: -------------------------- tramp2.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=userrecentposts&user=pjPJ
|
|
|
Post by alrich on May 15, 2012 19:41:27 GMT -5
Overstock Case "Mistake"/Leak WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Read the second link It's gonna hit the fan now: www.economist.com/node/21555472media.economist.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/Plaintiffs%20Opp%20to%20MSJ.pdfThis was predicted by Byrne during the premier for "Wall Street Conspiracy"... Here's the article from The Economist... watch for something also from Rolling Stone/Bloomberg/New York Times. www.economist.com/node/21555472Short-selling litigation An enlightening mistake May 15th 2012, 18:16 by M.V. | NEW YORK A RARE slip-up by lawyers has helped to shed some rather interesting light on a high-profile legal battle, the details of which some of the largest Wall Street firms have been fighting to keep under wraps. In 2007 Overstock, a Utah-based online retailer, sued a dozen big brokers, alleging that they had caused its share price to fall sharply by helping their clients to engage in “naked” short selling. In a normal short sale, the shares are borrowed (or at least “located”) with a broker’s help before being sold. In the naked version, there is no attempt to pre-borrow the stock or even check that it exists. This can create “fails to deliver”, where the trade is not settled when it should be because there are not enough actual shares available for delivery. This messes with the laws of supply and demand, allowing shorting to take place beyond the natural limits set by the number of borrowable shares. Regulators have long frowned upon naked shorting. The rules against the practice have been tightened up a number of times over the past seven years. As the pre-trial discovery period proceeded, Overstock narrowed its focus to two firms, Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch, now part of Bank of America. Just before the case was set to go to trial in California, however, the judge dismissed it on jurisdictional grounds, ruling that not enough of the alleged wrongdoing had taken place in the state. Overstock appealed and pushed for all of the evidence to be unsealed. The defendants argued that virtually everything should remain sealed, in part because the documents contained “trade secrets”. Four media groups, including The Economist, jointly opposed a motion to seal on public-interest grounds. The judge decided that some of the documents should be released but stayed his ruling, pending appeal. That was how things stood until the end of last week, when the defendants’ lawyers sent their opposition to a plaintiffs’ motion to the other parties in the case. One of the exhibits attached to this, presumably inadvertently, was an unredacted version of an earlier filing by Overstock, opposing the defendants’ motion to seal papers. Within this exhibit is an intriguing six-page section, “Facts Defendants Improperly Seek to Seal” (pages 14-20 of this), containing excerpts of e-mails written by Goldman and Merrill employees. In a number of these, they discuss deliberately failing to settle client trades. One Merrill executive suggests the firm “might want to consider allowing…customers to fail,” to which a colleague replies: “We are going to look into that.” Another asks: “How and when can we prevent the delivery [of shares]?” In another e-mail he requests an update from a lieutenant on “how we are going to fix fails and I want to know what we nees [sic] to do to make 369 market makers fail.” In response to a question from a large client about efforts at “cleaning up” fails, a Goldman man says that “we will let you fail.” In another message, he refers to a senior colleague “really backing down from…cleaning up fails.” Compliance officers repeatedly questioned this behaviour, according to the filing. A Merrill compliance person is quoted describing it as “totally unacceptable—we are failing when we have over a million shares of stock available…Is there a blanket agreement that we allow every market maker client to continue failing even if there is enough availability?” She adds that fails need to be “cleaned up regardless of who is causing them.” The e-mails also suggest close commercial links between the two firms and at least one trading outfit that was a target of regulatory probes into shorting violations, SBA Trading. In one message, a Merrill employee forwards a sanctions order against SBA’s Scott Arenstein to a counterpart at Goldman, referring to Mr Arenstein as “our boy” and asking: “You think there will be any fallout on clearing firms?” The Overstock filing also refers to a telephone transcript in which a Merrill compliance officer and a colleague discuss the fact that Mr Arenstein’s “recycling” of short sales is “not okay”. In another e-mail, the deputy head of Goldman’s securities-lending group describes Mr Arenstein as being “the other side of a lot of our activity.” Other missives suggest a cavalier attitude to the rules. In a 2005 e-mail, the president of one of Merrill’s stock-clearing businesses responds to internal concerns about the intentional failing of short sales thus: “f**k the compliance area—procedures, schmecedures.” He has since assured the court that this statement was a joke, according to the filing. Goldman and Merrill have denied throughout that they participated in any sort of naked-shorting conspiracy. Their supporters argue that the legal action brought by Overstock is a crude tactic by Patrick Byrne, the retailer’s mercurial boss, to divert attention away from its long history of underperformance. (The firm continues to struggle, despite no longer being plagued by settlement failures.) Some question the link between failed trades and naked shorting, arguing that fails are generally the result of operational problems and other factors rather than naked nefariousness. Nevertheless, the release of the e-mail excerpts will have done the brokers no favours. They suggest that trades were being intentionally failed; that some of those involved were aware regulators would not look kindly upon some of the activity; that some of the firms’ internal policemen were unhappy with the explanations they received for the proliferation of fails; and that at least one senior executive appeared to have an unusual attitude towards compliance. The e-mails are just a very small part of the communications and other material unearthed during the four-year discovery process. If the court of appeal unstays the partial unsealing order, there will be much more to pore over, shining more light on an issue that has hitherto been as frustratingly murky as it has been controversial. www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-15/goldman-merrill-e-mails-show-naked-shorting-filing-says.html
|
|
|
Post by alrich on May 15, 2012 21:56:44 GMT -5
Subject: Goldman, Merrill E-Mails Show Naked Shorting, Filing Says www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-15/goldman-merrill-e-mails-show-naked-shorting-filing-says.html Goldman, Merrill E-Mails Show Naked Shorting, Filing Says By Karen Gullo - May 15, 2012 5:05 PM PT Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) and Merrill Lynch & Co. employees discussed helping naked short-sales by market-maker clients in e-mails the banks sought to keep secret, including one in which a Merrill official told another to ignore compliance rules, Overstock.com Inc. (OSTK) said in a court filing. The online retailer accused Merrill, now part of Bank of America Corp., and Goldman Sachs of manipulating its stock from 2005 to 2007, causing its shares to fall. Clearing operations at the banks intentionally failed to locate and deliver borrowed shares for clients shorting stocks, including two traders who were fined and suspended from the industry, Overstock’s attorneys said in court filings earlier this year. Enlarge imageThe Goldman Sachs Group Inc. headquarters in New York. Photographer: Jin Lee/Bloomberg Enlarge imageAn Overstock.com warehouse in Salt Lake City. Photographer: George Frey/Bloomberg Lawyers for Overstock, whose California state court lawsuit inSan Francisco was dismissed in January, asked a judge to make public e-mails sent in 2005 and 2006 that it said “reflect business decisions to put profits and corporate ambition over compliance” at Goldman Sachs and Merrill. The banks’ decisions to intentionally fail to deliver Overstock shares caused large- scale naked short selling of the company’s stock, according to the filing. ‘Procedures, Schmecedures’ After a Merrill executive expressed concern that a colleague intentionally failed, or didn’t complete, a short sale, an executive at the clearing unit responded with an expletive, telling the executive to ignore “the compliance area -- procedures, schmecedures,” Overstock lawyers said in the filing, citing an excerpt from a May 2005 e-mail. The Merrill executive later told a judge the statement was a joke, Overstock said in the Feb. 9 court document. An undated e-mail informed Wolverine Trading LLC, the Goldman Sachs clearing unit’s largest client, that “we will let you fail,” in response to an inquiry by Wolverine about whether there was an effort “at cleaning up” fails, according to the filing. In June 2005, Thomas Tranf*glia, then president of Merrill’s clearing unit, said in an e-mail about the possibility of failing market-maker trades, “Why would we have to borrow them? We want to fail on them,” according to the filing. “As far as I’m concerned, this is totally unacceptable -- we are failing when we have over a million shares of stock available,” another Merrill executive said in an e-mail cited by Overstock in its filing. “Is there a blanket agreement that we allow every market-maker client to continue failing even if there is enough availability?” the executive asked in the e- mail. “There needs to be some assessment done here, and fails cleaned up regardless of who is causing them.” Market Makers The vast majority of Merrill’s fails to deliver in Overstock shares correspond to market makers Scott Arenstein and Steven Hazan, Overstock’s lawyers said in the filing. Goldman Sachs purchased conversion trades, which were naked short sales, from both men through their companies, the lawyers said. An undated Goldman Sachs e-mail refers to Arenstein and his company SBA Trading “providing very aggressive liquidity to Goldman” in the form of conversion trades with Goldman Sachs’s securities lending group. Four media organizations, including Bloomberg LP, the New York Times (NYT), Wenner Media and The Economist, intervened in the Overstock case and joined the company’s request to unseal court files. Bloomberg News obtained a copy of the filing describing the e-mails. The document was filed by attorneys for Goldman Sachs and Merrill as an exhibit to another filing, said Karl Olson, an attorney for Bloomberg and other news outlets. The full text of the e-mails isn’t included in the court filing by Overstock. Proper Handling The e-mails demonstrate Bank of America’s efforts to ensure proper handling of short sale transactions, said William Halldin, a spokesman for Charlotte, North Carolina-based Bank of America. “When regulatory requirements changed in early 2005, our compliance team worked closely to implement those changes and, when necessary, address any issues that arose,” Halldin said in a phone interview. “Our employees provided testimony to explain these matters and these documents. In the end, the judge ruled in our favor” and dismissed the case. Tranf*glia is no longer at the bank and didn’t immediately respond to a voice-mail message seeking comment. Michael DuVally, a spokesman for New York-based Goldman Sachs, also didn’t immediately comment on the document. Both banks have denied any wrongdoing. Goldman Sachs and Bank of America persuaded a judge to dismiss Overstock’s lawsuit, originally filed in 2007. State court Judge John Munter in San Francisco agreed with the banks that the lawsuit had to be thrown out because none of the conduct alleged in the complaint happened in California. Wolverine Trading Wolverine Trading, a Chicago-based market making firm, didn’t return a call left in a general mail box after regular business hours. There was no answer at the firm’s San Francisco office. Arenstein and his company were fined $3.6 million in July 2007 for naked short selling by the former American Stock Exchange. He was suspended from the exchange for five years. “I have no comment on any of that,” Arenstein said by phone. Hazan agreed to pay $4 million in 2009 to settle Securities and Exchange Commission claims that the firm made naked short sales. Hazan and his New York-based Hazan Capital Management LLC were accused of betting that share prices would fall without borrowing and delivering the shares, the SEC said. Hazan was barred from working with any brokerage. Barred From Trading The New York Stock Exchange in a related action in 2009 said it barred Hazan from trading for seven years. Michael Bachner, a lawyer for Hazan, declined to comment on Overstock’s filing. In short selling, investors sell shares they have borrowed in anticipation of making a profit by purchasing stock to return to the lender after its price has fallen. In naked short selling, traders never borrow the stock and can drive down prices by flooding the market with orders to sell shares they don’t have. A “failure to deliver” or “fail” is when the short- seller doesn’t deliver the shares for a short sale prior to the trade’s settlement date, usually three days later. A “locate” refers to the ability of a broker to find shares that can be delivered on behalf of the short-seller. Options market makers at the time the e-mails were sent had an exception to trading rules requiring that borrowed shares be located. Market makers had 13 days to clear up fails. Naked Shorting In October 2008, naked shorting mostly ended after the SEC put in place rules that made it harder to short a stock without first borrowing it or locating it. Overstock lawyers said the information in the e-mails “concerns obsolete procedures from six or seven years ago that were unlawful at the time and that are further blocked by the enactment of new federal regulations in 2008.” Overstock, based in Salt Lake City, claimed in its lawsuit that large portions of its stock were the subject of naked shorting, leading to instances in which the short position in its stock exceeded the entire supply of outstanding shares. “We have to be careful not to link locates to fails [because] we have told the regulators we can’t,” an unidentified Goldman Sachs executive wrote in an undated e-mail cited in Overstock’s filing. The case is Overstock.com v. Morgan Stanley, CGC-07-460147, Superior Court of the State ofCalifornia (San Francisco). To contact the reporter on this story: Karen Gullo in San Francisco federal court atkgullo@bloomberg.net
|
|
|
Post by siriusnews on May 19, 2012 15:15:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by siriusnews on May 19, 2012 15:39:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by siriusnews on May 19, 2012 17:11:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by siriusnews on May 20, 2012 10:06:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by siriusnews on May 20, 2012 10:24:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by alrich on May 21, 2012 12:48:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by alrich on May 21, 2012 13:13:48 GMT -5
EX-99 2 ex99.htm PRESS RELEASE DATED MARCH 24, 2005 CMKM DIAMONDS COMMENTS ON SEC ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING.
Las Vegas, NV - March 24, 2005 - On March 16, 2005, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") deemed it in the public interest that a public administrative proceeding be instituted pursuant to Section 12(j) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") against CMKM Diamonds, Inc. (Pink Sheets-CMKX) to determine:
Whether CMKX is required to file with the Commission current and accurate information in periodic reports under Section 12(g); and
Whether CMKX failed to comply with Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 13a-1 and 13a-13 thereunder by failing to file required periodic reports.
CMKX, pursuant to the Commission's order has been provided 20 days in which to respond to the allegations in the order. Upon CMKX's filing of a response, a public hearing will be convened at a time and place to be fixed for purposes of taking evidence on the issues set forth in the Commission's order. At the hearing, an administrative law judge will determine whether it is necessary for the "protection of investors" to suspend or revoke the registration of CMKX's securities from the Exchange Act.
In accordance with Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act, a company that has total assets exceeding $1,000,0000 and a class of equity securities held of record by 500 or more persons must register the class of securities under the Exchange Act. CMKX (then known as Cyber Mark International Corp.) voluntarily registered its common stock under the Exchange Act in August 1999. Pursuant to Section 12g-4 of the Exchange Act, a company registered under 12g may terminate its registration requirements if the number of stockholders of record is reduced to less than 300. In July 2003, CMKX filed a Form 15 in an attempt to terminate its registration under the Exchange Act. However, this filing contained an error in the stated number of record stockholders, which was discovered by CMKX's new securities counsel in February 2005.
"When the error in the Form 15 was brought to the board's attention, it was incumbent upon us to take corrective action, regardless of CMKX's ability to file all delinquent reports within the stated 60-day timeframe. We could not continue to have a clearly inaccurate document filed with the Commission, when we knowingly had more stockholders of record than was stated in the Form 15 filing," stated Robert Maheu, co-chairman of CMKX. On February 17, 2005, CMKX filed an amended Form 15 to revoke the previous filing and reinstate its reporting obligations under the Exchange Act. Management does not believe the filing of the amended Form 15 had anything to do with the Commission's decision to institute the administrative proceeding.
CMKX believes that it is required to have its securities registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act as a result of the number of its stockholders, at least 698 in July 2003 and in excess of 2000 in February 2005. Under the current rule, the number of stockholders is determined by the number of stockholders of record. Although CMKX has securities registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act, according to the Commission CMKX is delinquent in its filings.
"We only want to comply with federal regulations and do what is right for our stockholders. If the Commission deems it in our stockholders best interest to forbid us from providing information through filings with the Commission, we will comply," stated Urban Casavant, president of CMKX. Replying to the Commission's administrative proceeding is a high priority for CMKX's management, which plans to take the following actions.
First, CMKX will be providing a response to the Commission within the time set forth in the Commission's order.
Second, CMKX acknowledges that all of its stockholders have a right to access public information on CMKX and to that extent, is prepared to present CMKX's response via a public proceeding as ordered by the Commission.
Third, CMKX believes it is in the best interest of its stockholders to be informed about the securities in which its stockholders invest. There can be no doubt securities markets best perform their function of setting fair and accurate prices where buyers and sellers have full and complete access to all material information. Recent changes to the federal securities laws mandated by The Sarbanes-Oxley Act have increased the implicit and explicit cost of providing information for reporting companies. Unfortunately, from the time of CMKX's filing of a 14C Information Statement in February 2003, CMKX has not been able to rely on either previous information or current information relating to its financial statements. As a result of its inability to provide accurate information about its financial condition, CMKX has retained the services of individuals who have been promulgated with the task of rebuilding its financial records and providing the public current periodic reports as required by Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. The implicit costs associated with Sarbanes-Oxley is that current management will not file the required periodic reports until such time as the accuracy of the information required in such reports has been verified, inclusive of the financial aspects of CMKX, stockholders equity reports, and the mining claims and other corporate assets.
Although it is CMKX's intention to continue to pursue the effectuation of periodic reports in compliance with Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act, management realizes that the Commission may prevail in suspending the registration of CMKX's securities for a period not exceeding twelve months, or revoking its registration altogether.
"Unfortunately management and others involved in CMKX's previous operations were not blessed with the trait of being perfectionists. Past professional guidance has left a void which prevented the Company's ability to prepare complete and accurate periodic reports under Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act," stated Maheu.
CMKX's stockholders should realize that among publicly traded securities, two different standards exist for providing disclosures to investors. First, companies with a class of securities registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act that are current in their obligations as a registrant ("reporting issuers") provide annual, quarterly and periodic reports on Forms 10-KSB, 10-QSB and 8-K, in addition to other reports for small business issuers such as CMKX. The second category contains companies that do not have a class of securities registered under the Exchange Act ("non-reporting companies").
Reporting issues are required to provide their stockholders and the investing public with annual audited financial statements, whereas non-reporting companies do not have to provide their stockholders or the public audited financial statements. Further, companies traded on the Pink Sheets that are not reporting issuers are not required to have audited financial statements in order to continue trading on the Pink Sheets. If the Commission were to suspend or revoke CMKX's registration under the Exchange Act, CMKX would be considered a non-reporting company and would continue to trade on the Pink Sheets. In this event, CMKX intends to provide material information to the public, when available, through press releases and postings to its website.
Casavant went on to say, "We are committed to pursuing the corporate cleanup required to allow us to provide periodic reports to our stockholders; however, in the event the SEC determines that a suspension or revocation is in order, then aside from our compliance with such order, we will utilize our best efforts to provide minimum basic information to our stockholders, allowing for CMKX to continue trading on the Pink Sheets."
Although CMKX currently anticipates being able to continue to trade on the Pink Sheets regardless of the outcome of the administrative proceeding, it is unclear at this point if the Commission will take further action in an attempt to prevent the trading of CMKX's common stock on the Pink Sheets or any other medium.
CMKX is not allowing these regulatory issues to divert management's attention from its primary operational goals of claiming new land and continuing its drilling activities. The future of CMKX lies in the continued development of its assets. Consistent with this statement, Urban Casavant added, "Creating stockholder value is a primary concern to us. We have some very positive operational things happening, both in Canada and in Ecuador, and are extremely optimistic about the future of our operations."
In the time preceding the administrative hearing, CMKX intends to continue its development activities and anticipates filing operational updates on Form 8-K, as required, when they become available.
Forward-Looking Statements:
This press release may contain statements that constitute "forward-looking statements" as defined under U.S. federal securities laws describing the reinstatement of CMKX's reporting obligations and the expected impact of these obligations on CMKX's operations. Generally, the words "believe," "expect," "intend," "estimate," "anticipate," "establish," "project" and similar expressions identify forward-looking statements, which generally are not historical in nature. Forward-looking statements are based on current expectations and assumptions that are subject to certain risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from CMKX's historical experience and its projections. Such forward-looking statements are inherently uncertain, and actual results may differ from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements. Consequently, readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date they are made.
CMKX's actual results could differ materially from such forward-looking statements because of factors such as: impact of the results of the administrative hearing on CMKX's stock price; impact of the hearing on CMKX's operations; CMKX's ability to continue to trade on the Pink Sheets; uncertain further regulatory scrutiny; the current state of operations, both in Canada and Ecuador; unavailability of documentation and corporate records; changes in the number of stockholders of record; the impact of failing to meet Exchange Act reporting requirements; the ability to rebuild financial records; timing necessary to comply with reporting requirements; lack of adequate internal controls; unforeseen capital deficiencies; unavailability of insurance; changes in the mining and metals environment, including actions of competitors; the effectiveness of CMKX's development and drilling programs; regulatory and legal changes; and other risks associated with companies in similar industries. CMKX undertakes no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements to reflect current events or circumstances after the date hereof or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.
CONTACT: CMKM Diamonds, Inc. Andrew Hill, 306-752-3755 or 877-752-3755 cmkxir@mail.casavantmining.com
|
|
|
Post by siriusnews on May 22, 2012 10:56:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by alrich on May 24, 2012 21:21:17 GMT -5
Vatican Bank head ousted as Holy See fights scandal
24 May 2012 1 VATICAN CITY (AFP)
The Vatican Bank ousted its president on Thursday after he failed to clean up the image of an institution that has come to symbolise the opacity and scandal gripping the Holy See's administration.
Ettore Gotti Tedeschi was forced to resign "for failing to carry out duties of primary importance," the Holy See said in a statement.
The president was ousted in the wake of a series of financial scandals as the Vatican tries to clean up its image and put a stop to a leak of documents.
"The board passed a unanimous no-confidence vote against the president... and believes the action is important to maintain the vitality" of the bank, the Vatican said, as internal divisions over transparency came to a head.
Gotti Tedeschi, an expert on financial ethics, was put in charge of the bank -- also known as the Institute for Religious Works (IOR) -- in 2009, in an effort on the part of the Vatican to rid the institution of scandal.
Moneyval, the Council of Europe's experts on anti-money laundering, is due to rule at the beginning of July on the whether the Holy See has managed to clean up its act and meet international monetary standards.
But the former head of Spanish bank Santander's Italian operations tasked with bringing transparency to the bank came under suspicion in 2010 when he was investigated as part of an inquiry by magistrates into money-laundering.
Gotti Tedeschi, 67, was accused of violating laws set up in 2007 that tightened rules on disclosure of financial operations to the Italian central bank in a bid to stamp out money laundering.
He was more recently also suspected of leaking documents and accused in some quarters of serving his own interests.
The board said it would seek a president who could "help the institute establish efficient and extensive relations between it and the financial community based on mutual respect of accepted international banking standards."
For now, Deputy President Ronaldo Hermann Schmitz will take over the reigns.
Gotti Tedeschi's exit comes at a tense time for the Vatican, which has had to deal over the past months with a series of leaks of sensitive documents and accusations of corruption and fraud splashed over the Italian press.
In the wake of the 2010 scandal -- which saw an Italian court temporarily seize 23 million euros ($33 million) from the IOR -- Pope Benedict XVI created a new financial authority to "prevent and oppose illegal financial activity."
The aim was to get the Vatican on to the "white list" of financially virtuous countries, but internal tensions sprang up after the Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone pushed for the new transparency law to be watered down.
It is not the first time that the IOR, which administers accounts held by religious orders, cardinals, bishops, priests and nuns, has made the headlines.
In 1982 IOR was caught up in one of Italy's biggest fraud cases when Milan's Banco Ambrosiano -- of which it was the main shareholder -- collapsed.
Banco Ambrosiano's chairman Roberto Calvi, known as "God's Banker" because of his ties with the Vatican, was found hanging from a London bridge.
|
|
|
Post by alrich on May 26, 2012 23:42:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by alrich on May 26, 2012 23:45:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by alrich on May 27, 2012 9:36:52 GMT -5
Posse Comitatus Act As Commandos Raid Tampa, US State Dept Demands Power to Declare War? Saturday, May 26, 2012 – by Anthony Wile Anthony Wile Clinton Goes Commando, Sells Diplomats as Shadow Warriors ... Clinton, wearing pearls and a silver and black blouse, climbed the stage and began to speak. And soon it all made more sense. She had an idea to sell — and to defend ... She described a vision in which shadowy U.S. and allied Special Operations Forces, working hand in hand with America's embassies and foreign governments, together play a key role in preventing low-intensity conflicts. And where prevention fails, the same commando-diplomat team goes on the attack ... – Wired (5/24/12)
It happened again at the recent Tampa-based conference, "Building the Global SOF Partnership" ...
The US military staged a mock drill in violation of 130+ years of the Posse Comitatus Act that bars domestic forces from active use on US soil.
It wasn't just the US, either. Some 90 nations supposedly participated in the drill, which aimed to "rescue" Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn, supposedly kidnapped by terrorists. There were helicopters overhead and a tactical assault showed up by water. Then special ops teams invaded a "terrorist village" near the Convention Center and rescued the mayor, who said he was grateful.
The ongoing militarization of all phases of US society via Homeland Security searches and military training exercises surely should be of concern to those who are searching for a less warlike and aggressive United States.
But the pendulum apparently continues to swing in the other direction. While the mock drill received a lot of attention in the alternative media, statements of the guest of honor, Hillary Clinton, are worthy of equivalent concern.
The Secretary of State seemed to inform the conference that the State Department now had the unilateral authority to declare a limited state of war via an expanding liaison with US Special Operations Forces. Here are some direct quotes:
... We created a new Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations that is working to put into practice lessons learned over the past decade and institutionalize a civilian surge capacity to deal with crises and hotspots.
Experts from this new bureau are working closely with Special Operations Forces around the world ... Our diplomats also saw that the UN staff in the region could be useful partners. So they worked through our team in Washington and New York to obtain new authorities for the UN officials on the ground and then link them up directly with our Special Operations Forces to share expertise and improve coordination.
The State Department and US Special Ops – a new, unelected and unaccountable power in the world? It is broader still ...
We have to keep our international cooperation going and growing at every level. Next week I'll be heading to Europe, and I'll end up in Istanbul for the second meeting of the new Global Counterterrorism Forum, which we helped launch last year. Turkey and the United States serve as the founding co-chairs, and we've been joined by nearly 30 other nations.
Who has given Ms. Clinton the brief to do such things? She characterizes these conflicts as low level but there are no guarantees they will stay that way. And what are the criteria for her mandates? And who is she to consult with? Constitutionally, only the US Congress has the right to commit US troops to war.
US President Barack Obama, through surrogates such as Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, is now claiming that his administration can commit US forces based on international (UN) mandates and the like. Congress is to be consulted only secondarily. But Clinton seems to be taking it a step further. She apparently wants the personal power to do the deed.
There are voices raised generally against these sorts of declarations. At the highest level, libertarian/GOP Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex) has used his presidential campaign to demand that the US bring home its troops and special agents from nearly 1,000 bases worldwide.
This would not suit Clinton, who is a globalist with a book to her credit entitled, It Takes a Village. She knows full well that there are plenty of questions about the so-called "war on terror" but gives credence to even its most questionable elements.
Pakistan-oriented "Opinion Maker" posted an article ("Clinton Bares All") shortly after her speech. Here's the conclusion:
Today the diplomatic meddlers have networks of NGOs (non-governmental organizations) to assist them with the process of spreading the "pork" locally and creating new false narratives which mirror the latest fashionable lies being peddled by Washington's other sources.
You see the process most completely in the fate suffered by Libya, or Syria, or that visited upon the people of Iraq. At the end of the "smart" process is nothing but war and local devastation giving the US and NATO military a foot in the door.
Now Ms. Clinton has proclaimed the right to direct that "foot in the door." The civilian and military conversation in the US is moving steadily in the wrong direction.
This should be of concern not only to US citizens who want a less warlike US but also to the world community at large.
Saturday, October 8, 2005 - 15:06 What Is the Posse Comitatus Act? Dana Somerville Ms. Somerville is a journalism and history major at Michigan State University. She is an HNN intern. Recently President Bush asked Congress to consider allowing the military to assume police functions in the event of national emergencies. In the media there have been references to a posse comitatus law that currently prevents this.
What in the world does “Posse Comitatus” mean? How does it affect ordinary citizens?
Posse comitatus is Latin for “power of the county.” The term refers to a sheriff’s common-law authority to arrange citizens into a posse in order to enforce laws. It appeared in English law in the 1400s after a riot that took place.
While in England posse comitatus referred to the grant of police powers to civilians, in America, posse comitatus refers to the military enforcement of civilian laws. Americans, from the beginning, have been leery of laws being enforced by the military.
This prejudice against the military is rooted in our experience during Colonial times. In the tumultuous years preceding the American Revolution the British military was sent to the colonies to enforce British control. In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson expressly cited the use of the British military in America as one of the colonists' central grievances: “He [the king] has kept among us, in times of peace, standing militaries without the consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to the civil power."
Once the United States was formed, Americans were determined to protect themselves from an overbearing military. The Articles of Confederation limited the role of the military. The Constitution mandated civilian control of the military, with the elected president serving as commander-in-chief.
Prior to the Posse Comitatus Act, or PCA, soldiers who took on a policing role were usually average citizens, not professional soldiers. Civilian rights were protected by the so-called Mansfield Doctrine, which gave citizens the right to sue or criminally prosecute those who abused their power as members of a posse.
During the Civil War civilian rights were eroded. President Lincoln even suspended the writ of habeas corpus. A habeas corpus petition forces the courts to produce a prisoner (the body of the person) so it can be determined if that person is being lawfully held. In voiding this right Lincoln made it clear that jailed sympathizers of the Confederacy could not use the writ of habeas corpus to compel their release from prison. Congress approved Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus (after the fact) and barred the Supreme Court from challenging the suspension of the writ. This was done in an effort to keep Confederate rebels from using the Constitution against the Union.
After the Civil War in the period known as Reconstruction federal laws were enacted further restricting the rights of the now defeated rebels. The military was sent to the Southern states in order to perform policing duties. In the election of 1876 -- the infamous contested election between Democrat Samuel Tilden and Republican Rutherford B. Hayes -- U.S. soldiers were ordered to protect the rights of black freedmen during the election. Southern Democrats claimed that in three states they truly won the military blocked their voters from voting--or scared them into voting for Hayes. Republicans said that the military merely helped black people cast ballots without intimidation. In a deal ending the controversy, Democrats agreed to concede victory to Hayes in return for the withdrawal of the military from the Southern states, among other demands. Republicans agreed.
The Posse Comitatus Act was passed in the wake of the controversial election. It was pressed by Democrats eager to ensure that in the next election the military would not be used to help black freedmen vote. The act states, “Whoever, except in cases and under such circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or by an Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute laws shall be fined no more that $10,000 or be imprisoned not more than two years, or both.” The act was passed in 1878.
|
|
|
Post by alrich on May 27, 2012 9:54:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by alrich on May 27, 2012 11:07:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by siriusnews on Jun 4, 2012 11:47:34 GMT -5
|
|