Help me out here. These people want him dead because they lost money. What’s up with that? How is that any different than the millions that lost life savings in BSC, what about LEH, FNM, FRE, AIG, etc, etc, etc. Oh they’ll say Madoff stole it. Well they handed over the funds willingly. Where is the theft in that? They’ll say cause he lied about the financial operations. How is that any different than AIG, LEH, BSC, FNM, FRE???

Again, this is just silly. Ok so then they’ll point to the illegality of the ponzi scheme. Wait a minute, how can a ponzi scheme be illegal if our own government is running the biggest one ever constructed? And unlike Madoffs ponzi, social security isn’t voluntary. So if you believe Madoff is a thief, what is our government? TEN TIMES WORSE. You want to stone Madoff, what should we be doing with our government?

SCREW POLITICS AS ASSOCIATED WITH THE AVERAGE “JOE SIX PACK” PUBLIC INVESTOR!!!!

Marv Eatinger

Anonymous Says:
February 21st, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Bottom line…Not only did the SEC look the other way, so did Congress……BOTH SIDES…

http://www.investigatethesec.com/drupal-5.5/?q=StockgateToday

Fire Chairman Cox, What about Firing an Enabling
Congress? January 6, 2009

David Patch

The NY Post headlines today read ‘CONGRESS PROBES HOW SEC BLEW IT’. This in response to a voluntary House Financial Services Committee hearing held yesterday to interview witnesses regarding the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme. It is the $50 Billion Madoff Ponzi scheme that has been the most recent nail in the coffin for our nations top securities regulator as the SEC missed detection of the scheme for better than a decade despite red flags and outside complaints and allegations that such a scheme was taking place.

But while this hearing had its high points it was more a disappointment to those smart enough to understand what the capital market regulatory structure consists of.

Called in to testify with regards to the SEC’s shortcomings with regards to Bernie Madoff was not SEC Chairman Chris Cox or any of the four appointed Commissioners. Called in to testify was not Linda Thomsen, Director of the Division of Enforcement or any of his top staff members. Called in to testify was not Lori Richards, Director of the SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and examinations or any of her staff. Nope, who the House Financial Services Committee on Capital Markets called in to testify was David Kotz Inspector General for the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Now well not everybody from the investing public should understand the role an Inspector General plays in our federal government you would expect that the House Financial Services Committee with responsibility for oversight of the US capital markets and the Securities and Exchange Commission would understand what role this office plays. In fact, just in case the Committee members were unclear, OIG Kotz opened up his presentation identifying to the members and the public exactly who he is and what role he plays at the SEC.

Kotz plays the role equivalent to internal affairs at a police department. He responds to and investigates claims of wrong doing by employees of the Commission and their contractors and provides reports and recommendations based on those findings. Repeatedly Kotz reminded the members that his office only responds to complaints filed against the SEC and is not part of the SEC organizational structure that goes out to member firms and investment advisors and audits these business operations. He inspects and audits only those who inspect and audit but Congress was not listening.

Unfortunately it took nearly 3 hours of the 3.5 hour session for the members to grasp this concept as one by one the members sat up in their seats when called upon and postured for their constituents by belaboring over why David Kotz and his office did not respond to the red flags presented to the Commission. How could David Kotz and his predecessor miss such warnings and allow so many victims to lose their life savings?

It was embarrassing to witness the uninformed members of the House Financial Services committee speak. Clearly few knew even the remotest thing about what they spoke and were speaking from the note cards provided them by equally misinformed staffers. The members sounded sincere in their concern for the victims; at least sincere enough to get a few more contributions from constituents, but what they said was child speak, valueless grandstanding at a time when leadership was required.

For 3.5 hours the members voiced little substance and exposed what little they really knew about our capital markets and how it is regulated.

By the third hour the members finally realized that they were addressing the wrong person but by then it was too late. All credibility was lost long before Pennsylvania Representative Paul Kanjorski, Committee Chair closed the session for this witness panel.

A campaign point each member fit into their rhetoric was that of how and why could an agency like the SEC miss what was happening. How did this all happen despite the red flags and despite the written and detailed complaints filed by third parties who investigated the matters? After repeated questioning as to whether there were people complicit within the SEC or whether a quid pro quo was pulled on behalf Madoff one Representative Brad Sherman finally asked whether OIG Kotz whether he thought the entire SEC staff should all tender their resignations. Out of political correctness the question was just as quickly rescinded.

For me I would follow up that question and ask, why haven’t the American people started asking the same about our distinguished members of Congress?

Congress has oversight over the SEC as well as the capital markets and what has been abundantly clear since the days of Eliot Spitzer; the SEC has been asleep at the switch when it comes to detecting and brining enforcement to major players in white collar fraud. Where were the House Financial Services Committee members and the Senate Banking Committee members who were expected to oversee and make the necessary adjustments after the SEC was first exposed as being captured?

In 2003 a petition went up, http://www.investigatethesec.com, that accused the SEC of regulator bias and mismanagement pertaining to Wall Street fraud. More than ten thousand investors signed the petition and those names were presented to Congress. Records show that members of Congress monitored the site making it impossible to deny they were aware of public sentiments regarding the SEC’s performance.

Did Congress act on the concerns presented or did they act as they accused the SEC of acting; irresponsibly?

Like the SEC’s failure to act on Madoff evidence, the members of Congress failed to take the issues seriously and limited their efforts to mere window dressing. The members solicited aides to write letters to the SEC on behalf of their constituents and asked for explanations into certain dealings caring not what the response would be. When responses were returned from the SEC the members simply wrote them off as acceptable despite glaring evidence that the response was pure fiction. A response comprised of fiction should be a red flag but Congress ignored them.

By 2005 more sites dedicated to the SEC failures developed. One site in particular focused on presenting the arguments that the SEC was a captured regulator of Wall Street and sought out to prove just that. The site, http://www.deepcapture.com was likewise well read by Congress and provided documented evidence of fraud that was being purposely overlooked by the SEC.

Even still, Congress allowed the SEC to do what they do. Annual Congressional oversight hearings on the state of the US Capital markets, on hedge funds, and on investor protection were met with little fan fare and little focus on what was being missed or how the public perceived the performance of the SEC. Change was not forthcoming because congress played down the need for change.

Today everybody wants to blame the subprime fiasco, the banking blowups, the federal bailout, everything wrong with the US economy and our capital markets on greed. They would be right in their assertions but not all inclusive in directing responsibility.

Yes the banks, yes Madoff, yes the hedge funds, all failed us due to the need for self-enrichment by greedy CEO’s and investment managers. But Congress likewise is to blame for putting the interests of this nation at risk for the almighty dollar. The dollar that comes to them as a campaign contribution and the dollar that comes as a perk from a friendly lobbyist.

The Congressional oversight committees failed to reel in a sinking federal agency because it was not in their self-interests to take charge. Too much personal money would be lost in necessary change.

While the present SEC Commissioners are relatively new to their respective posts that cannot be said about the present members of Congress. These members in capital market oversight should not be asking whether it would be prudent for each of the SEC staff to tender their resignations. Instead, these members should be considering

tendering theirs.

Then again,

Monday was voting day on Capital Hill as Congressional raises were up for the taking. In a year where our nation’s economy suffered so dearly, and a year where Congress put every employee at risk of losing their job, these members voted on whether to take a cost of living pay raise at taxpayer expense.

In the wake of Congressmen labeling CEO’s across this country as greedy and irresponsible this Congress simply took more money.

Fire em.

Fire em all!

—– Original Message —–
From: marv eatinger
To: oig@sec.gov ; hawked@sec.gov ; chairmanoffice@sec.gov ; fraud@gao.gov ; casework@grassley.senate.gov ; lee@leeterry.com
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 1:22 PM
Subject: SEC REGULATORY CONTROL CONCERNING UNITED STATES EQUITY MARKETS?

Dear SEC OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL:

I have never received a reply to your email dated january 12, 2009 10:24 AM.

Marv Eatinger
========================================================================================================

—– Original Message —–
From: OIG
To: marv eatinger
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 10:24 AM
Subject: RE: WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO DEMOCRATIC CAPITALISM AND REGULATORY CONTROL IN ORDER TO INSURE CREDIBILITY IN UNITED STATES PUBLIC EQUITY MARKETS??????????

Dear Mr. Eatinger,

Thank you for your recent emails to the Office of Inspector General. We appreciate your bringing the information contained in your email to our attention. We will review the information you have provided and will reply back to you.

Sincerely,

Natasha Dandridge
Legal Assistant
On behalf of the Office of Inspector General

of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

——————————————————————————–

From: marv eatinger [mailto:maeating@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 11:49 AM
To: OIG; Hawke, Daniel; CHAIRMANOFFICE; fraud@gao.gov; casework@grassley.senate.gov; Casey, Kathleen; aguilarl@sec.gov; Paredes, Troy A.; Walter, Elisse; CFLETTERS; “brandon barford”
Cc: Kara.scannell@wsj.com
Subject: Fw: WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO DEMOCRATIC CAPITALISM AND REGULATORY CONTROL IN ORDER TO INSURE CREDIBILITY IN UNITED STATES PUBLIC EQUITY MARKETS??????????

JOANNE: UNDERSTAND THAT THE INFORMATION THAT I SENT TO JENSVOLD IN THE SEPTEMBER 19, 1998 FED EX PACKAGE, INCLUDED COPIES OF THE “NON-PUBLIC” COMPUTER PRINT OUT SENT TO ME BY MISTAKE BY THE SEC. THESE COPIES SHOWED HOW MARIO V. MIRABELLI MANIPULATED DALECO’S PUBLIC FILINGS FOR 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987 & 1988 INTO DIFFERENT BRANCHES OF THE SEC DIVISION OF CORPORATION FINANCE IN ORDER TO CIRCUMVENT SEC SCRUTINY!

THE FOLLOWING CERTIFIED LETTERS TO THE WALL STREET JOURNAL (ALLANNA SULLIVAN) ALSO DISAPPEARED WITHOUT A TRACE, TRACERS WERE SENT AND CAME BACK “NO RECORD”:

AUG. 1, 1998 – Z576952930, OCT. 6, 1998 – Z185651154, FEB. 19, 1999 – Z576951152 & MARCH 17, 1999 – PRIORITY MAIL #0304 79900002 7769 4274. REGISTERED LETTER #R829468548 TO WALL STREET JOURNAL (ALLANNA SULLIVAN) RECEIPT CAME BACK WITH “NO” RECEIVED DATE.

FEDERAL EXPRESS PACKAGE TO ROBERT SKIRNICK DATED JAN. 11, 1999 TRACKING NO. 809575017901 TO MEREDITH COHEN GREENFOGEL & SKIRNICK NEW YORK – PROOF OF DELIVERY CAME BACK SHOWING THAT “M FUKIN” AT 63 WALL STREET ON JAN. 12, 1999 at 10:24 AM RECEIVED AND SIGNED FOR THIS PACKAGE. “M FUKIN” NEVER WORKED FOR MEREDITH COHEN GREENFOGEL & SKIRNICK AND ROBERT SKIRNICK NEVER RECEIVED MY FEDERAL EXPRESS PACKAGE AND FEDERAL EXPRESS WOULD NEVER VIA THEIR COMPLAINT PROCESS EXPLAIN WHAT HAPPENED TO THIS PACKAGE RECEIVED BY “M FUKIN”!

ALL OF THE ABOVE COMMUNICATIONS HAD A COPY OF THE “NON-PUBLIC” COMPUTER PRINT OUT SENT TO MARV EATINGER BY THE SEC MISTAKE IN 1991.

==============================================================================
—– Original Message —–
From: marv eatinger
To: fraudnet@gao.gov
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2000 8:35 AM
Subject: Fw: DALECO RESOURCES CORPORATION (otc-dlov)

—– Original Message —–
From: marv eatinger
To: oig@sec.gov
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 9:34 PM
Subject: DALECO RESOURCES CORPORATION (otc-dlov)

I received a letter dated October 5, 1998, from Jon D. Jensvold in answer to my letter dated September 11, 1998. He stated that based upon his review of my letter dated September 11, 1998, (received on September 21, 1998) that he could discern no indication of misconduct on the part of any employees of the Securities and Exchange Commission while employed at the Commission. This was all in regards to a public company named Daleco Resources Corporation which was listed on the NASDAQ stock exchange. He further stated that the documents indicate, however, that a former Commission employee, Mario V. Mirabelli, who left the Commission in 1973, may have engaged in misconduct while employed in the private sector from the mid-1980’s to 1991.

I have had a conversation with a former branch manager in the Division of Corporate Finance. The consensus of opinion seems to be that inside (SEC employee) help was necessary in order to guarantee that Daleco Resources Corporation filing sequence with the SEC would not be derailed.

I am pursuing this possibility. If I come up with concrete proof of SEC employee participation in this fraud I will relay this information the SEC.

Sincerely,
Marv Eatinger

http://bailoutsleuth.com/

http://www.investigatethesec.com/drupal-5.5/?q=StockgateToday

Fire Chairman Cox, What about Firing an Enabling
Congress? January 6, 2009

David Patch

The NY Post headlines today read ‘CONGRESS PROBES HOW SEC BLEW IT’. This in response to a voluntary House Financial Services Committee hearing held yesterday to interview witnesses regarding the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme. It is the $50 Billion Madoff Ponzi scheme that has been the most recent nail in the coffin for our nations top securities regulator as the SEC missed detection of the scheme for better than a decade despite red flags and outside complaints and allegations that such a scheme was taking place.

But while this hearing had its high points it was more a disappointment to those smart enough to understand what the capital market regulatory structure consists of.

Called in to testify with regards to the SEC’s shortcomings with regards to Bernie Madoff was not SEC Chairman Chris Cox or any of the four appointed Commissioners. Called in to testify was not Linda Thomsen, Director of the Division of Enforcement or any of his top staff members. Called in to testify was not Lori Richards, Director of the SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and examinations or any of her staff. Nope, who the House Financial Services Committee on Capital Markets called in to testify was David Kotz Inspector General for the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Now well not everybody from the investing public should understand the role an Inspector General plays in our federal government you would expect that the House Financial Services Committee with responsibility for oversight of the US capital markets and the Securities and Exchange Commission would understand what role this office plays. In fact, just in case the Committee members were unclear, OIG Kotz opened up his presentation identifying to the members and the public exactly who he is and what role he plays at the SEC.

Kotz plays the role equivalent to internal affairs at a police department. He responds to and investigates claims of wrong doing by employees of the Commission and their contractors and provides reports and recommendations based on those findings. Repeatedly Kotz reminded the members that his office only responds to complaints filed against the SEC and is not part of the SEC organizational structure that goes out to member firms and investment advisors and audits these business operations. He inspects and audits only those who inspect and audit but Congress was not listening.

Unfortunately it took nearly 3 hours of the 3.5 hour session for the members to grasp this concept as one by one the members sat up in their seats when called upon and postured for their constituents by belaboring over why David Kotz and his office did not respond to the red flags presented to the Commission. How could David Kotz and his predecessor miss such warnings and allow so many victims to lose their life savings?

It was embarrassing to witness the uninformed members of the House Financial Services committee speak. Clearly few knew even the remotest thing about what they spoke and were speaking from the note cards provided them by equally misinformed staffers. The members sounded sincere in their concern for the victims; at least sincere enough to get a few more contributions from constituents, but what they said was child speak, valueless grandstanding at a time when leadership was required.

For 3.5 hours the members voiced little substance and exposed what little they really knew about our capital markets and how it is regulated.

By the third hour the members finally realized that they were addressing the wrong person but by then it was too late. All credibility was lost long before Pennsylvania Representative Paul Kanjorski, Committee Chair closed the session for this witness panel.

A campaign point each member fit into their rhetoric was that of how and why could an agency like the SEC miss what was happening. How did this all happen despite the red flags and despite the written and detailed complaints filed by third parties who investigated the matters? After repeated questioning as to whether there were people complicit within the SEC or whether a quid pro quo was pulled on behalf Madoff one Representative Brad Sherman finally asked whether OIG Kotz whether he thought the entire SEC staff should all tender their resignations. Out of political correctness the question was just as quickly rescinded.

For me I would follow up that question and ask, why haven’t the American people started asking the same about our distinguished members of Congress?

Congress has oversight over the SEC as well as the capital markets and what has been abundantly clear since the days of Eliot Spitzer; the SEC has been asleep at the switch when it comes to detecting and brining enforcement to major players in white collar fraud. Where were the House Financial Services Committee members and the Senate Banking Committee members who were expected to oversee and make the necessary adjustments after the SEC was first exposed as being captured?

In 2003 a petition went up, http://www.investigatethesec.com, that accused the SEC of regulator bias and mismanagement pertaining to Wall Street fraud. More than ten thousand investors signed the petition and those names were presented to Congress. Records show that members of Congress monitored the site making it impossible to deny they were aware of public sentiments regarding the SEC’s performance.

Did Congress act on the concerns presented or did they act as they accused the SEC of acting; irresponsibly?

Like the SEC’s failure to act on Madoff evidence, the members of Congress failed to take the issues seriously and limited their efforts to mere window dressing. The members solicited aides to write letters to the SEC on behalf of their constituents and asked for explanations into certain dealings caring not what the response would be. When responses were returned from the SEC the members simply wrote them off as acceptable despite glaring evidence that the response was pure fiction. A response comprised of fiction should be a red flag but Congress ignored them.

By 2005 more sites dedicated to the SEC failures developed. One site in particular focused on presenting the arguments that the SEC was a captured regulator of Wall Street and sought out to prove just that. The site, http://www.deepcapture.com was likewise well read by Congress and provided documented evidence of fraud that was being purposely overlooked by the SEC.

Even still, Congress allowed the SEC to do what they do. Annual Congressional oversight hearings on the state of the US Capital markets, on hedge funds, and on investor protection were met with little fan fare and little focus on what was being missed or how the public perceived the performance of the SEC. Change was not forthcoming because congress played down the need for change.

Today everybody wants to blame the subprime fiasco, the banking blowups, the federal bailout, everything wrong with the US economy and our capital markets on greed. They would be right in their assertions but not all inclusive in directing responsibility.

Yes the banks, yes Madoff, yes the hedge funds, all failed us due to the need for self-enrichment by greedy CEO’s and investment managers. But Congress likewise is to blame for putting the interests of this nation at risk for the almighty dollar. The dollar that comes to them as a campaign contribution and the dollar that comes as a perk from a friendly lobbyist.

The Congressional oversight committees failed to reel in a sinking federal agency because it was not in their self-interests to take charge. Too much personal money would be lost in necessary change.

While the present SEC Commissioners are relatively new to their respective posts that cannot be said about the present members of Congress. These members in capital market oversight should not be asking whether it would be prudent for each of the SEC staff to tender their resignations. Instead, these members should be considering

tendering theirs.

Then again,

Monday was voting day on Capital Hill as Congressional raises were up for the taking. In a year where our nation’s economy suffered so dearly, and a year where Congress put every employee at risk of losing their job, these members voted on whether to take a cost of living pay raise at taxpayer expense.

In the wake of Congressmen labeling CEO’s across this country as greedy and irresponsible this Congress simply took more money.

Fire em.

Fire em all!

President Barack Obama was the third-ranking recipient among lawmakers, with $31,750 collected from company employees during his presidential bid while $4,600 was from Stanford himself.

Obama’s presidential rival, Arizona GOP Sen. John McCain, was the fifth highest recipient with $28,150.

On the whole, Democrats benefited more from the Stanford largesse. Of the $2.4 million in donations tied to the firm since 2000, 65% was directed towards Democrats. Of the nearly $1 million donated by Standford and his wife, Susan, 78% was directed to Democrats.

(For more on Stanford’s influence in Washington, read this story in Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal.)

According to CRP’s report, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee was the top recipient of Stanford funds with $965,500, although all House and Senate campaign operations benefited from donations. The Republican National Committee also received $161,000.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/02/19/stanfords-political-investments-obama-mccain-dodd-ney-delay/

February 19, 2009, 2:46 pm
Stanford’s Political Investments: Obama, McCain, Dodd, Ney, DeLay…

Susan Davis reports on politics.

More than 100 members of Congress—past and present—as well as congressional campaign committees and the national parties benefited from political donations from the political action committee or employees of Stanford Financial Group since 2000, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The Securities and Exchange Commission charged the firm’s head, R. Allen Stanford, on Tuesday with orchestrating a $8 billion fraud. Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal reported on Stanford’s status as an “international cricket sponsor, Washington political donor and private banker to Latin America’s wealthy.” (For the full story, click HERE.)

President Barack Obama was the third-ranking recipient among lawmakers, with $31,750 collected from company employees during his presidential bid while $4,600 was from Stanford himself.

Obama’s presidential rival, Arizona GOP Sen. John McCain, was the fifth highest recipient with $28,150.

On the whole, Democrats benefited more from the Stanford largesse. Of the $2.4 million in donations tied to the firm since 2000, 65% was directed towards Democrats. Of the nearly $1 million donated by Standford and his wife, Susan, 78% was directed to Democrats.

(For more on Stanford’s influence in Washington, read this story in Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal.)

According to CRP’s report, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee was the top recipient of Stanford funds with $965,500, although all House and Senate campaign operations benefited from donations. The Republican National Committee also received $161,000.

Among lawmakers, Florida Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson and Texas Republican Rep. Pete Sessions were the top two recipients, with $46,000 and $41,000 respectively.

Also cracking the top 10 are former GOP Rep. Bob Ney of Ohio and former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas, as well as Senate Banking Chairman Chris Dodd of Connecticut, New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer, and Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn.
Permalink | Trackback URL: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/02/19/stanfords-political-investments-obama-mccain-dodd-ney-delay/trackback/
Save & Share: Share on Facebook | Del.icio.us | Digg this | Email This | Print
Read more: Congress, Ethics, Political Parties

Settle the trades – force buy ins – will put money in the pockets of every American stockholder who will be more than happy to “stimulate” the economy…

This isn’t hard – settle all the trades will transfer wealth back from the evil doers to the people who have been robbed….

“In recent days, some lawmakers have sought to distance themselves from Mr. Stanford. Among them is Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat of Florida, who received more money from Mr. Stanford and his employees than any other lawmaker: $45,900, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Mr. Nelson’s office said he was donating the money to charity.

Another lawmaker, Representative Pete Sessions, Republican of Texas, received $41,375 in such donations. He also went on two council trips, totaling more than $10,000 in expenses, according to Legistorm, a group that tracks lawmaker travel disclosure forms.

Mr. Sessions’s spokeswoman, Emily Davis, told Bloomberg News this week that Mr. Sessions did not know Mr. Stanford personally. But that account was called into question when the Web site Talking Points Memo published a photograph showing the two men talking during a trip to Antigua. (Ms. Davis declined to comment on Friday.)”

Re: Who croaks next?

Another lawmaker, Representative Pete Sessions, Republican of Texas, received $41,375 in such donations. He also went on two council trips, totaling more than $10,000 in expenses, according to Legistorm, a group that tracks lawmaker travel disclosure forms.

Mr. Sessions’s spokeswoman, Emily Davis, told Bloomberg News this week that Mr. Sessions did not know Mr. Stanford personally. But that account was called into question when the Web site Talking Points Memo published a photograph showing the two men talking during a trip to Antigua. (Ms. Davis declined to comment on Friday.)

http://www.theledger.com/article/20090221/ZNYT01/902213015?Title=Fraud-Case-Shakes-a-Billionaire-x2019-s-Caribbean-Realm

If the Senator could blatantly lie about something as small as this, what else could he be lying about? And we think that they will do something about naked shorting?? Think again!! Only jailtime and reparations will suffice!!! NOTHING LESS!!!

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

It is now crystal clear that our clearance and settlement system has been hijacked by the financial interests of the DTCC “participants”/owners that administer our clearance and settlement system. The modus operandi is actually not that difficult to get your arms around. When the seller of securities absolutely refuses to deliver that which she or he sold a “failure to deliver” (FTD) occurs.

Because the authors of UCC Article 8 knew that the DTCC had 15 separate responsibilities/mandates to quickly address FTDs meant to intentionally drive down the share price of corporations (share price manipulation) it deemed it safe to allow the accounting measures used to denote FTDs on the books of the “participants”/owners of the DTCC which are known as “securities entitlements” to be readily sellable as if they were real shares which they certainly are not. In essence they were designed to be mere accounting measures representing “IOUs” to denote the existence of an FTD in the day or two time period in between “settlement date” and the date that delivery is finally made in the case of “legitimate”/unintentional delivery delays. But what happens if that time period lapses and the seller of shares still hasn’t made delivery of that which it sold?

Clever opportunistic hedge funds and DTCC “participants” noticed that DTCC management was willing to shirk all 15 of those responsibilities/mandates in order to accommodate the financial interests of its abusive bosses and their hedge fund “guests” wishing to secretly reroute the investment funds of less financially sophisticated investors into their own wallets.

In reality when the seller of securities absolutely refuses to deliver that which it sold then there is only one “cure”. That is to force the delivery of the missing shares by “buying-in” the missing shares out of the open market and sending them to the purchaser of the missing shares and sending the bill to the party refusing to make delivery. It’s that easy and more importantly it is the ONLY cure.

The problem is that the power to execute these “buy-ins” is concentrated on the shoulders of the management teams of the DTCC and its NSCC subdivision that happen to be the employees of those committing these thefts. This is referred to as a conflict of interest. As these readily sellable “securities entitlements” invisibly accumulate in the share structures of U.S. corporations unfortunate enough to be targeted for one of these abusive naked short selling attacks or “bear raids” then their share price gets artificially manipulated lower.

THE MECHANICS

The mechanics of this crime wave are not too difficult to grasp and the design of the fraud is actually quite impressive. With the refusal to execute “buy-ins” by the NSCC management these “securities entitlements” accumulate in the share structures of corporations and predictably pressure the share price downwards. Why? Because being readily sellable they add directly to the “supply” of readily sellable legitimate shares plus the “supply” of readily sellable of readily sellable but mere “securities entitlements”.

Although Congress mandated that our clearance and settlement system be founded upon “delivery versus payment” or “DVP” over the years NSCC management has illegally converted this foundation to one of mere “collateralization versus payment” or “CVP”. They did this to accommodate the financial interests of their abusive participants. As the share price predictably drops from this “oversupply” then the collateralization requirements of the monetary value of the debt also drop which results in the investor’s money being shunted to those selling nonexistent shares and continually refusing to deliver that which they sold. This conversion to a CVP-based system provides the world wide incentive to SELECTIVELY attack and destroy U.S. corporations deemed by these criminals to be an easy prey. Most of the rest of the world’s clearance and settlement systems are properly based on DVP which affords development stage corporations domiciled there protection.

It has recently come to the attention of the investing public that the SEC mandated to provide “investor protection and market integrity” has been found, for one reason or another, to be sleeping on the job. This is not to disparage the efforts of the usually younger SEC staff members that have not been “captured” by the financial interests of those they are supposed to be regulating.

Thus to date these crimes have not been addressed and these readily sellable “securities entitlements” that have been allowed to accumulate in the share structures of certain U.S. corporations are ACTIVELY manipulating downwards the share prices of these corporations and the value of the investments made therein as we speak.

THE SOLUTION

The solution is a no-brainer as there is only one known “cure”. The first job of those chosen by the Obama administration to take over the duties of the SEC and current SROs (self-regulatory organizations) needs to be to finally provide the much overdue “cure” to these now archaic “securities entitlements” by forcibly buying them in so that the investors who don’t even realize that what they paid for never did get delivered can finally receive that which they paid for.

This is not a very complex issue and the lack of complexity of this only solution available reveals just to what degree our regulators have been “captured” in the past to accommodate the financial interests of even the criminal elements active in our markets. If there is even a debate as to the appropriateness of this only solution then it will only confirm that the new Obama administration is going to maintain the corrupt status quo. This will serve as a test as to whether our markets are safe to once again participate in. Investor confidence cannot become any more anemic than it currently is.

THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THIS ONLY SOLUTION IN LIGHT OF OUR CURRENT FINANCIAL MORASSE

Today’s financial problems include the lack of investor confidence, increasing unemployment rates, regulatory apathy, etc. A mandatory buy-in of an archaic FTDs is a very special animal. First of all they automatically zero in on the party pulling the trigger on these abusive naked short sales. Like a heat-seeking missile they selectively land in the lap of the securities fraudsters no matter where in the world they are operating from.

Secondly, there is no “collateral damage” because the clean players on Wall Street don’t get bought-in. Thirdly, they are “balanced” by nature. Those misbehaving to a slight degree are forced to deliver the small amount of securities they have previously refused to deliver. Those guilty of stealing massive amounts of money from unknowing investors will be forced to deliver massive amounts of securities. Buy-ins basically force these criminals to open up their wallets and to deploy the stolen funds back into the market in order to finally deliver that which they have previously refused to deliver. Again, this is not a complex issue.

The result will be the selective culling out of these criminals in a “balanced” manner. Unfortunately our current corrupt DTCC-administered clearance and settlement system’s policies have resulted in a form of natural selection promoting the “survival of the corruptest”. These special attributes of mandated buy-ins will provide yet a further test for this new group of regulators. Why? Because once again when the seller of securities absolutely refuses to deliver that which it sold then there is one and only one “cure” and that is a buy-in.

Note that the relatively defenseless development stage U.S. corporations are typically the targets for these attacks. Unfortunately they also represent the growth engine for employment opportunities in the U.S. which are currently greatly in need of the shot of adrenalin that mandated buy-ins would provide.

Keeping in mind that due to the CVP foundation illegally being incorporated into our DTCC-administered clearance and settlement system it is the U.S. corporations SELECTIVELY targeted for these worldwide attacks. This is regardless of these corporations’ importance to homeland security or to our overall financial infrastructure. In fact with the current state of the world the more important a corporation is to the U.S. the more likely it will be targeted for destruction by those not particularly enamored with the U.S. The result is the pitting of the greed of a relative handful of Wall Street criminals against the protection of U.S. citizens whether they be active investors or not.

Will this new group of regulators provide this one and only one cure or will they facilitate the maintenance of the corrupt status quo involving merely refusing to deliver that which they sell in order to predictably reroute the funds of unknowing investors into their own wallets? The very special nature of mandated buy-ins identifies the criminals, protects the innocent and acts in a “balanced” manner proportional to the level of criminal activity that has been engaged in.

In retrospect, in what other industry besides Wall Street could we even be engaging in this discussion of the appropriateness to provide the only “cure” available in the midst of trillions of dollars of thefts being committed associated with the sellers of goods merely refusing to deliver that which they sell? What more appropriate form of truly meaningful deterrence to committing these crimes could there be than that provided by the fear of untimely buy-ins? If it’s not too much “inconvenience” can we count on you new regulators to give us not only our financial system back but some protection from those wishing us harm?

“And right on cue, GE plummetted to below $10.00/share over the past few days making this extremely risky bet quite profitable. Smart regulators would be looking into the trading history of those placing this bet to see if the investors engaged in a scheme to manipulate the price for profit.”

Read the rest of this article. I think these guys will cut of their nose to spite their own face and make money. This corruption is so Blatant its not even funny!! Yet it still continues without ceasing.

http://www.investigatethesec.com/drupal-5.5/?q=node/602

“We have no evidence to indicate securities were purchased for customer accounts,” said Irving Picard, the court-appointed trustee overseeing the liquidation of Madoff’s assets.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/29299885

You see what you think and for sure let ole Leroy boy know what you think!
http://www.stockwatch.com/swnet/newsit/newsit_newsit.aspx?bid=Z-U:OSTK-1576435&symbol=OSTK&news_region=U

Bush I & II, Clinton-I & likely II as well as Obama are all on the end of strings pulled by the same hands. Carter was also one of the gang only he messed up so bad because his jumping around tangled the strings up. Reagan was a surprise but filling his crew with puppets took care of that flub up.

The way I see things, Wallstreet controls both parties, despite the best intentions of any one politician.

The classic was the corrupt Richard Shelby (he was caught) who fought us tooth and nail. He served time as a democrat and time as a republican.

http://www.faulkingtruth.com/Articles/LettersToEditor/1037.html

To take the income Merrill Lynch produced from Abusive Naked Shorting out of the company’s bank account before the public demands their stolen money back?

http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2009/01/30/merrill-lynch-pay-it-back-baby/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29286993/