http://www.nypost.com/seven/08112009/gossip/pagesix/madoff_wowed_kid_probers_183931.htm

On our dime!

http://www.sealab2021x.com/season-2/bizarro/

mina mar group and their info on nss
« Thread Started Today at 10:50am »

——————————————————————————–
I just read the mina mar group and their info on nss, it’s the first section and I’ve never heard it explained this way… very interesting. I pulled some out that I thought made a lot of sense w/Stock A but you should read the whole thing…wow IMO

As long as the victim company can continue to pay the monthly burn rate, then the game plan becomes to make some of the strategic moves that hundreds of victim companies have been forced into doing which includes name changes, CUSIP # changes, cancel/reissue procedures, dividend distributions, amending of by-laws and Articles of Corporation, etc. Nevada domiciled companies usually cancel all of their shares in the system, both real and fake, and force shareholders and their b/ds to PROVE the ownership of the old “real” shares before they get a new “real” share. Many also file their civil suits at this time also. This indirect forcing of hundreds of U.S. micro cap corporations to go through all of these extraneous hoops and hurdles as a means to survive, whether it be due to regulatory apathy or lack of resources, is probably one of the biggest black eyes the U.S. financial systems have ever sustained. In a perfect world it would be the regulators that periodically audit the “C” and “D” sub-accounts at the DTCC, the proprietary accounts of the MMs, clearing firms, and Canadian b/ds, and force the buy-in of counterfeit shares, many of which are hiding behind altered CUSIP #s, that are detected above the Rule 11830 guidelines for allowable “failed deliveries” of one half of 1% of the shares issued. U.S. micro cap corporations should not have to periodically “purge” their share structure of counterfeit electronic book entries but if the regulators will not do it then management has a fiduciary duty to do it.

A lot of management teams become overwhelmed with grief and guilt in regards to the huge increase in the number of shares issued and outstanding that have accumulated during their “watch”. The truth however is that as long as management made the proper corporate governance moves throughout this ordeal then a huge number of resultant shares issued and outstanding is unavoidable and often indicative of an astronomically high naked short position and is nothing to be ashamed of. These massive naked short positions need to be looked upon as huge assets that need to be developed. Hopefully the regulators will come to grips with the reality of naked short selling and tactics like “Cellar boxing” and quickly address this fraud that has decimated thousands of U.S. micro cap corporations and the tens of millions of U.S. investors therein.

http://minamargroup.org/Library.html

Financial Times coverage of PeeQwat

Pequot referred to SEC 45 times in four years

By Brooke Masters in New York

Published: August 11 2009 00:50 | Last updated: August 11 2009 00:50

Stock exchange monitors referred Pequot Capital Management to the Securities and Exchange Commission for possible securities violations, including insider trading, at least 45 times between 2005 and this year, the commission has revealed in a letter to the US Congress.

The SEC is probing allegations that Arthur Samberg, the hedge fund’s chairman, received privileged information from a Microsoft employee in 2001 and used it to generate profits of $14m. The SEC has not filed any charges against anyone in the case.

An earlier Pequot investigation was shut down in 2006 and became the subject of Senate hearings chaired by Charles Grassley, Republican Senator, who asked for the SEC letter with the referral information, which he released on Monday.

Gary Aguirre, a former SEC employee who worked on the first inquiry, has claimed he was fired for pursuing powerful Wall Street figures.

The Pequot investigation was reopened in January after information surfaced that appeared to suggest Mr Samberg had obtained private information ahead of Microsoft’s April 2001 earnings announcement from David Zilkha, a Microsoft employee who was about to join Pequot.

Mr Samberg told investors in May he was winding down Pequot’s business because “the continuing investigation [has] cast a cloud over the firm and [has] become a source of personal distraction”. The group has spun off several units but Mr Samberg is not involved with them.

A spokesman for Mr Samberg and the original Pequot declined to comment, as did the SEC.

The 45 referrals mentioning Pequot occurred over four years during which the hedge fund engaged in more than 300,000 trades. The two main US stock exchange monitors make a total of roughly 330 referrals a year to the SEC, their spokesmen said.

Mary Schapiro, SEC chairman, also said in the letter to Mr Grassley that the SEC was working to improve its system for analysing tips and referrals.

“For years, I’ve urged the SEC to change its culture and step up enforcement. If it’s turning the corner culturally, better automated systems to show . . . potential problems at individual firms will help enforcement,” Mr Grassley said.

Separately, Finra, the industry group that regulates brokers, fined Credit Suisse $275,000 for failing to post independent stock research on its website, as required by the 2003 research analyst settlement, which expired last month.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b4a427fc-8603-11de-98de-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1

We’re patiently awaiting your defense of Cramer. Are you going to try to spin this as Mark Mitchell fiction also? Are we just misreading upstanding, ethical Cramer’s words? … just more dots that help paint the overall picture!

“RIMM good! Us hate good! Mom and Pop investors, retirement funds good! Us hate them. They morons. Us hammer RIMM. Make RIMM go down. Steal their life savings. Us love to steal!”

Great piece. Thanks for bringing the true Jim Cramer to light once again for those who may not have seen the video of Jim admitting to criminal market manipulation in his own words.

Another very telling Bizarro statement by Cramer from that video was the following:

“If I wanted it to go lower, I would hit and offer, hit and offer, hit and offer. I could get a stock like RIMM for maybe – that might cost me $15-$20 million annually to knock RIMM down. But it would be fabulous because it would beleaguer all the moron longs who were also keying on Research in Motion.

We’re seeing that. Again, when your company’s in a survival mode it’s really important to defeat Research in Motion. You get the Pisanis of the world and the people talking about it as if there’s something wrong with RIMM. Then you would call the Journal and you get the bozo reporter on Research in Motion, and you would feed that Palm’s got a killer it’s gonna give away.

These are all the things you must do on a day like today. And if you’re not doing it, maybe you shouldn’t be in the game.”

The organization has prowess aplenty for chasing the smaller ponzi’s, e.g., the occasional creep from NJ, but what about Goldman and the hedgefunds like those of Loeb and Chanos?

Straining at gnats while swallowing camels?

And, where the h-e-doublehockeysticks is that uptick rule?