Government Accountability Office (GAO) Response To Deep Capture

    Lest someone claim that I am but a DC-hostile, fed-fighting small “l” libertarian, let me be the first to say: Much respect goes to the GAO for their response to a Deep Capture story.

    Readers of Deep Capture may have noticed that, while I may not be on the best of terms with some federal institutions (e.g., the SEC), I have sought to be respectful to individuals serving the public in whatever capacity, and especially, to those institutions which appear to me to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. For example, recently I wrote of the Congressional Research Service, “The CRS is one of the most respected institutions in Washington, DC, and its output is universally considered non-partisan, objective, and thorough” (“It Only Hurts When I Laugh“). And in June of 2008, in an essay (“So You Say You Want a Revolution?“) now linked to dozens of times through this site, I wrote of the GAO:

    Another place you can turn is the United States Government Accountability Office. The GAO is probably the most respectable group in DC (setting aside the military). When Congress needs a non-partisan, no-bullshit answer to any question, they turn to the GAO. Write Chuck Young at youngc1@gao.gov and let him know about your interest in naked short selling and the general issues raised in DeepCapture.com.

    Notwithstanding such general warm sentiments Deep Capture feels towards the GAO, a recent GAO publication (“Securities and Exchange Commission: Oversight of U.S. Equities Market Clearing Agencies“) disappointed my Deep Capture colleague, Mark Mitchell, enough for him to write a fairly scathing analysis of it (“Our Watchdogs and the Financial Scandal of the Century“).

    Today the GAO’s Orice Williams (“Director, Financial Markets and Community Investment, US GAO”) has responded to Mark Mitchell’s story, to the great credit of the GAO and Ms. Williams herself. Because one can fairly read her intent to be one of public response (Ms. Williams has, in fact, posted this in the comments on Mark’s story), out of courtesy to Ms. Williams and respect for her organization I am reproducing her response here, in full, so that it not be lost among the comments of others.

    ———- Forwarded message ———-
    From: Orice M Williams
    Date: Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 4:12 PM
    Subject: Mr. Mitchell,
    To: mitch0033@gmail.com

    Mr. Mitchell,

    On March 26, 2009, GAO issued a correspondence entitled Securities and Exchange Commission: Oversight of U.S. Equities Market Clearing Agencies. It was an interim product of an ongoing study on Regulation SHO and not, as mistakenly stated in the article, a report on the findings of an “investigation.” The March 2009 correspondence was issued as an interim product to provide Congress and the public with a descriptive overview of how U.S. clearing agencies settle and clear equities securities trades and how SEC oversees the clearing and settlement systems of these agencies through its examination process. Therefore, the information provided was descriptive and not intended to evaluate SEC’s oversight of clearing agencies or to provide detailed information on examination findings. Further, as is the case with all GAO reports, the March 2009 correspondence provided an introduction that explained why GAO did this work. In this case, as noted in the letter, GAO did this work because of the importance of an effective clearance and settlement process. This is our standard reporting format and is neither strange nor uncommon. GAO’s final report on Regulation SHO and SEC’s efforts to address failures to deliver and naked short selling will be issued in May 2009.

    I have posted this information as a response to your article. However, I also wanted to bring it to your attention.

    Regards,
    Orice

    Orice M. Williams
    Director
    Financial Markets and Community Investment
    US GAO

    If I know Mark, he may have something to write in reply. In the meantime, however, the publication of this GAO letter is required, I believe, by those very principles of journalistic integrity which Deep Capture was established to illustrate and defend.

    And to Ms. Williams I say: Much respect indeed.

    This post was written by:

    - who has written 157 posts on Deep Capture.

    I am a concerned citizen who has been focused on systemic instability since 2004.

    Contact the author

    109 Responses to “Government Accountability Office (GAO) Response To Deep Capture”

    1. MightyUnderdog says:

      I’m way off-topic here, but look what the CIA is doing.

      http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090408/us_time/08599189008400

      We’re doomed.

    2. tommytoyz says:

      The GOA report starts like this:

      Subject: Securities and Exchange Commission: Oversight of U.S. Equities Market Clearing
      Agencies
      ——————————————-
      So I hope the 1st issue in their final report will be to describe that settlement failures are only possible because the SEC fails to oversee the clearing agencies – which are all SROs – and failed to implement 17a of the SEA of 1934.

      Under Sections 19(g) and 19(h) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, an SRO is required to,
      1) comply with the provisions of the Securities Exchange Act, the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, and its own rules (collectively, the “Governing Rules”); and
      2) to enforce that its members, and persons associated with its members, comply with the Governing Rules.

    3. buybuybuy says:

      Glad to hear someone in the federal government is interested. Especially after today`s SEC meeting. All I got from it was “naked shorting is not a problem” and “we might do something about the uptick thingy if it don`t cost too much”. I can only laugh about all the talk about how shorting leads to “fair price discovery”. Where is their empirical evidence for that? Some crooks “discovered” that they could make a killing driving prices down. “Fair” prices are what someone is willing to pay for a stock. Since we don`t know if we are buying a real stock or a “Securities Entitlement” (an IOU from the DTCC that supposedly mirrors the legal rights of ownership of the actual stock), a “fair price” is undiscoverable in my opinion.

    4. Robert Wahl says:

      Fraud in stock trading of U. S. shares can never be eliminated without making short selling in any case illegal and where the SEC has a central computer keeping track of which broker has control of shares by number assigned to each share and approving all trades based on selling broker being in control of the shares sold and where the buying broker is now assigned control of those shares.

    5. davidn says:

      I have long maintained that the need for a central depository has long passed. The continuous net settlement system makes since, to minimize the number of shares that have to be moved each day, but why do they need to be registered to the mysterious private partnership Cede & Co. and why do we need the DTC?

      Since everything is chits in a computer, it would be trivially easy to move ACTUAL REGISTERED OWNERSHIP to the buying brokerage rather than some clearing brokerage or depository.

      You could even use the DTC’s computers to continue to manage the process, but they would be recording actual ownership rather than beneficial ownership.

      Then the buying brokerage would be in a position to be audited to see if they own enough shares to satisfy their obligations to clients.

    6. tommytoyz says:

      Dear MR. Young:

      On FEB 26, 2009, the GAO published a summary letter which includes a description of the SEC’s efforts to ensure the reliability and efficiency of the clearance and settlement system through its examination program for clearing agencies. I am disappointed by how the report paints an inaccurate picture of this, because it omits critical key information.

      While the GAO summary letter does accurately describe the legal framework of the clearance and settlement system and the SEC’s authority and efforts to ensure reliability and efficiency, the letter omits what the SEC has failed to do. No investigation is needed to determine these omissions as most are clearly obvious to even a casual observer.

      - Settlement failures are occurring
      - Settlement failures happen because the SEC is not enforcing settlement rules
      - Settlement failures happen because the SROs are not enforcing settlement rules
      - Settlement failures continue to happen because the SEC does no compel the SROs to enforce settlement rules
      - There are no exemptions or legal excuses for causing settlement failures, regardless of reason
      - Settlement failures are possible because settlement and clearing are divorced and not linked
      - 17A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 mandates the linking of clearance and settlement
      - The SEC has not made any rules to ensure that clearance and settlement are linked
      - The SROs have not made any rules to ensure that clearance and settlement are linked
      - The SEC does not even know why settlement failures occur because it does not obtain or maintain that data. Speculating on reasons just that on the part of the SEC, is pure speculation.
      - REG SHO does not enforce settlement rules, it only seeks to mitigate their number and duration after the settlement violations have already occurred.

      Thus, in my opinion, the report should make these distinction to the reader, lest the reader be misled into thinking that the theoretical description is in fact the actual way clearance and settlement functions in this country. Claiming to describe a road without mentioning the large boulders, potholes, misplaced signs and other hazards would be a misleading description of the road.

      Attached is an audit request recently sent to the SEC’s Office of Inspector General, which explains these things in detail. I would be happy to talk with any of the GAOs staff or provide any documentation I may have to support the information contained here or in the audit request and to assist the the GAO in any way I can.

      Sincerely,
      Thomas Vallarino – President, National Investor Protection Coalition

    7. Sixth Monkey says:

      Well Doc…at least the GAO didn’t call you a black hearted Irish loon and tell you to bugger off!!

      Now how does that voting machine in DTC work again?

      They are so on the ropes!!!!

    8. anonymous says:

      One has only to look at the markets and the current economic crisis to see that we have the same situation as in the crash of the last century. The same entities, with different names, are doing the same thing. Black pools, naked shorting, captured media, unemployment, bankruptcy, forclosures, interlocking directorates via relationships in goverment and business.
      It is all worse because now there are more complications with the very worst of the offenders in positions of authority creating debt the taxpayer is made to pay either through inflation or higher taxes.
      The gurus have been called to testify and they are treated as if they were innocent bystanders in this.

      The laws that were put in place after the Great Depression to stop this from happening again were destroyed.

      No company should be given taxpayer money more than they have paid in taxes.. That would eliminate a lot of the hogs at the trough.

    9. Fintas says:

      Apparently the GAO believes that there is NO URGENCY as they take their time to come out with a report in May. Now that MIGHT be acceptable if this problem was in it’s incipient stages. However as most know this topic has been out there for YEARS. What we need are those who are PRO ACTIVE and NOT REACTIVE and more importantly we do not need those who go to committe when in CRISIS. Conclusion Ms Williams let’s not wait till the house has burned down before you assess there was a risk of fire. Get the report out and do it quickly. Then put the WEIGHT of the GAO on those in place to fix it and enforce the laws.

    10. Fintas says:

      On an aside any who caught that foolishness with Becky Qwik of Cnbc and Steve Forbes as Steve was being pro active against naked short selling and Ms Quick was doing the counter using Chanos and her so called devils advocate. MS QWIK there are times to shut up and listen and allow an informed guest tell the truth versus your defense of a known short seller and his coeterie. I suggest many write to CNBC advertisers to stop that insanity. Ms QWIK and those who are like her that give cover to those who have participated in the destruction of the financial markets and the like should be REMOVED. Her job is to interview NOT give her opinion or her defense of ILLEGAL activity.

    11. sean says:

      Maybe some justice may come out of all of this afterall…MAYBE!!

      AIG Shareholders Class Action Amended to Include Geithner, Paulson and Cox as Defendants
      http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/aig-shareholders-class-action-amended-to-include-geithner-paulson-and-cox-as-defendants/

      AIG Shareholders Class Action Amended to Include Geithner, Paulson and Cox as Defendants
      April 9, 2009
      AIG SHAREHOLDERS CLASS ACTION AMENDED TO INCLUDE GEITHNER,
      PAULSON AND COX AS DEFENDANTS

      New Complaint Charges Cover-up by Government Officials

      AIG HEAD LIDDY RUNS FROM PROCESS SERVERS

      (Los Angeles, Ca., April 8, 2009). Freedom Watch, the government watchdog that protects individual liberties over government and corporate illegalities, today amended its $200 billion dollar class action derivative shareholders suit today against AIG and its directors to include two successive Secretaries of the Treasury, Henry Paulson and Timothy Geithner, as well as former SEC Chairman Christopher Cox, as defendants in the lawsuit. The suit is pending in Los Angeles federal court.

      The inspiration for this amendment was information disclosed by University of Missouri professor, William K. Black, on the Bill Moyers’ PBS television show last Friday, where he implicated these government officials in a massive cover up of the banking scandal, mostly for the benefit of Goldman Sachs, the former employer of both Paulson and Geithner, in which they held a significant financial interest. As for Cox, his reckless and intentionally impotent oversight at the SEC is the basis for the claim against him.

      The complaint charges these defendants with violating the constitutional rights of the shareholders by denying them the right to their property; the shares themselves. Under a Supreme Court case, United States v. Bivens, they can be sued in their individual capacities, even though the acts took place during their tenure as government officials.

      Finally, while the company AIG was served with the initial complaint, CEO and Director Edward Liddy has on three occasions “run” from process servers trying to serve him with the complaint, telling AIG security not to allow the process servers into his office suite. “This is an absolute disgrace,” stated Freedom Watch Chairman and General Counsel Larry Klayman. “It shows the complete lack of respect AIG and its directors have for the Rule of Law. Liddy can run but he cannot hide. It’s only a matter of time before he and his co-horts, along with Geithner, Paulson and Cox, will be held accountable by the American people, not compromised politicians in Washington, D.C., like Barney Frank Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, who yesterday refused to answer a legitimate question from a Harvard student who inquired why he and his committee failed to oversee the banking scandal” Klayman added.

      CLICK HERE for a copy of the amended complaint, which was filed today.

    12. sean says:

      Dr. Decosta your opinion on the above lawsuit please. TIA.

    13. Dr. Jim DeCosta says:

      Another approach to addressing abusive naked short selling crimes is to focus on the lack of warning given to prospective investors that they might be contemplating investing in a corporation that has so many unaddressed failures to deliver hidden in their share structure that this corporation has all but been preordained to die an early death.

      As I see it we’re headed back into “comment period” mode yet once again. After reviewing the reply of the SEC Enforcement Division to the recent SEC Inspector General’s scathing report on their lack of following up on abusive naked short selling complaints it becomes pretty obvious that whatever any new legislation contains it’s not going to be enforced. Enough already! The Inspector General’s formal audit made 11 separate recommendations 10 of which got a middle finger from the Enforcement Division and one was found to have merit.

      The audit cites that over 5,000 complaints were made in regards to abusive naked short selling activity yet NOT ONE enforcement action resulted. Note that in this arena history has clearly shown us that it is very, very dangerous for a corporation under attack to file a complaint to either an SRO or the SEC. More often than not the corporation reaching out for help will find itself the subject of a retaliatory investigation. For all we know that 5,000 number could have been 25,000 but I’m sure that wouldn’t have made a change to the number of follow up enforcement actions being pursued.

      Equally disturbing was the fact that of the 900 recommendations for enforcement actions coming out of the “SROs” like FINRA not one involved abusive naked short selling. Now wait a minute I may have been born at night but it wasn’t last night. What is behind this little “2-step” being performed by FINRA and the SEC Enforcement Division because statistically the chances of this happening without some aspect of either central planning or some form of collusion is about 1 in a gazillion?

      No issue in the history of the SEC or the SROs has received this level of investor outrage than that involving abusive naked short selling yet all complaints seem to be summarily dismissed “due to lack of available evidence”. This is exactly where this new approach to fighting this crime wave may bear fruit. The 1933 Securities Act (“The Disclosure Act”) mandates the release of this “EVIDENCE” because it is extremely “material” to the prognosis for any investment. Hence the term “The Disclosure Act”. In fact, there is no other information concerning the prognosis for an investment into a corporation that could be more “material” than knowing that the corporation being considered has already been preordained to die an early death because of the presence of the share price depressant effect of a gazillion invisible readily sellable “securities entitlements”.

      Note that due to the phraseology used in UCC Article 8-501 the “securities entitlements” that result from each and every UNADDRESSED failure to deliver must be treated such that its holder “be entitled to exercise all of the rights and property interest of that security”. In essence each and every failure to deliver results in the “issuance” of what amounts to be a “share” of a corporation. It is a rather odd species of a “share” in that TECHNICALLY it has no “legal owner” and TECHNICALLY it is not “outstanding”. But don’t be fooled it has all of the share price depressant effect of a legitimate “share” issued by a corporation. People don’t realize that abusive naked short sellers for all intents and purposes “issue” incredibly damaging “shares” every time they refuse to deliver that which they sell. Since these rather odd but incredibly damaging “shares” are not TECHNICALLY “outstanding” they are rendered invisible to both prospective investors as well as the management of a corporation. That’s why this “disclosure” is so critical.

      The thesis here is that the SEC and the SROs will be given two choices. They can either tell the world that the markets in many of our securities have been “rigged” from the get-go and further depress the already anemic level of investor confidence or they can whisper to the “authors” of these naked short positions that you had a great run but I think it’s time to cover these “open positions” lest there be nobody willing to invest in our markets.

    14. ted says:

      It all makes sense when you stop thinking of the SEC as regulators and start thinking of them as Wallstreet’s PR firm.

      Battle likely on SEC’s proposal to limit short selling

      CFA Institute Financial NewsBrief | 04/09/2009

      In a 5-0 decision, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission decided to revisit a Depression-era rule that limits short selling in a down market. However, comments from the agency’s two Republican commissioners indicate the proposal is not likely to sail through. Commissioner Troy Paredes said restrictions on naked short selling along with other rules might be enough. Commissioner Kathleen Casey said she is not convinced that repealing the uptick rule contributed to the market turmoil of last year.

    15. Dr. Jim DeCosta says:

      In defense of the SEC I could be persuaded that they’re very well-meaning and upright but maybe THEY JUST DON’T GET IT YET. Each and every failure to deliver that has not been bought-in yet results in an “accounting measure” or “IOU” known as a “securities entitlement”. These are not “shares” of a corporation; they merely denote a failed delivery obligation. Something bad has happened an investor paid for property and the seller of the property failed to deliver it in the previously agreed upon timeframe.

      Along comes UCC 8-501 that states that the holder of a “securities entitlement” (IOU) must be treated as having the ability “to exercise all of the rights and property interest that comprise that security”. Why did the authors of UCC 8 promote counterfeiting like this?

      On Wall Street the nominee of the DTC “Cede and Co.” has volunteered to serve in the role of the “legal owner” of all shares held in “street name” in order to vastly streamline the clearance and settlement of shares. UCC Article 8-501 served as a reminder to the DTC that although you are TECHNICALLY the legal owner you have to allow the purchaser of those shares, the “securities entitlement” holder, to exercise all of the rights attached to the ownership of a share. After all, it’s his share you’re just acting as the “legal owner” for streamlining purposes.

      All of a sudden this mere IOU has for all intents and purposed been converted into a “share” because except for the “legal ownership” title there isn’t anything to a “share” that is over and above that which is contained in a “securities entitlement”. State laws say that only the board of directors of a corporation can “issue” shares. Now we have abusive naked short sellers “issuing” shares albeit without a “legal owner”. Does CEDE and CO. own these “shares”? No, nobody legally owns them.

      Think of a “share” issued by a corporation’s board of directors as a “varsity share” with “legal ownership” attached. This odd species of “ownerless” shares are “junior varsity shares” and unfortunately for investors and management teams they’re invisible.

      If we put this into slow motion what the heck just happened? A mere IOU just got converted into a “share” that nobody legally owns. Although it is a “junior varsity share” it packs the same share price depressant effect of a “varsity share”. Is this what the authors of UCC 8 envisioned? Of course not, they knew that the NSCC has the congressional mandate “to act in the public interest, provide investor protection and to “promptly settle” all securities transactions as well as in possession of 15 of the 16 sources of empowerment to execute “buy-ins” if these “junior varsity shares” lasted longer than a day or two past the previously agreed upon “settlement date”.

      Why were the “junior varsity shares” even allowed to be “issued” by those failing to deliver that which they sold? Because there truly are reasons for legitimate ultra short termed delays in making delivery by T+3 and these needed to be accounted for. There was also the “Cede and Co.” acting as the “legal owner” issue cited above.

      The authors of UCC Article-8 in their wildest dreams would have never guessed that the NSCC management with all of these congressional mandates and sources of empowerment to execute buy-ins would pretend to be “powerless” to execute buy-ins. The authors of UCC-8 also knew that the SEC was there with the mandate to provide “comprehensive oversight” over the DTCC and its subdivisions and they also had “plenary rulemaking authority” in this arena. Further to that the SEC had the congressional mandate “to provide investor protection and market integrity”.

      The authors of UCC-8 also incorporated their own “safety nets” into UCC-8. They mandated that the issuers of these IOUs known as “securities entitlements” OBTAIN and MAINTAIN the securities needing to back up the “securities entitlements” being issued. They also forbade the issuance of “securities entitlements” when the number of “securities entitlements” currently in circulation when added to the number of legitimate “shares” outstanding would exceed the number of “authorized shares” as reflected in a corporation’s charter. Yet to this day nobody on Wall Street keeps a tally so that these computations can be made. Keeping a tally would be tantamount to having knowledge of this massive “industry within an industry” designed to reroute the investment funds of U.S. citizens into the wallets of those that refuse to deliver the securities that they sell for a living.

      The fact that these “junior varsity shares” being “issued” by those refusing to deliver that which they sell are invisible to the investing public and to the management of a corporation has allowed these thefts to prosper for decades.

      Don’t get faked out by the “legal ownership” issue. Something doesn’t need to have a “legal owner” in order to facilitate the theft of trillions of dollars. The NSCC management will constantly come out with dissertations on why investors need to concentrate on the fact that TECHNICALLY the “legal ownership” is not increased nor are the number of shares TECHNICALLY “outstanding” increased. Don’t continue to fall for it you investors and you regulators and UNCONFLICTED SROs.

    16. Dr. Jim DeCosta says:

      I think that right now would be an excellent time for the SROs and the SEC to come forward and state that you know you guys were right. We never really thought about things in that light and it makes a lot of sense.

      How can you look at those graphs of Sears Holdings and Lehman Brothers and not come to the conclusion that something tricky is going on here?

    17. ted says:

      I think the SEC “gets it”. The problem is they are “in on it.”

      The evidence is overwhelming that you are deluding yourself to ever expect them to do anything.

    18. Dr. Jim DeCosta says:

      You do have to admit that it is pretty clever for a criminal to sell nonexistent shares all day long, fail to deliver that which was sold and then hand out an IOU/”securities entitlement” to the defrauded buyer. Then they let UCC 8-501 inadvertently convert the IOU/”securities entitlement” into (excepting for the invisible “legal ownership” issues) that which was owed to the defrauded buyer unable to see the invisible “legal ownership” issues.

    19. Anonymous says:

      Not only does the SEC get it, we just need to keep reminding our elected official we GET IT also. The SEC has had years of our heads stuck in the sand and now that we have pulled it out and our voicing our opinions and letting them know we know, in time the masses will be heard.

    20. Fred says:

      Let’s just keep banging the “failure to deliver” drum. Ban the phrase “short selling” from our discourse.

      Jim de Costa, I really applaud and respect all the time and research you have devoted to this matter. We have learned a lot from you. But I believe we need to condense the message to short sound bytes. We can’t expect large numbers of people to understand all the intricacies that your treatises go into.

      The bottom line is simple: require delivery of real shares to a buyer who provides real money. Keep banging on that.

      Secondly, follow Patrick’s lead about regulation of our clearing system, as required explicitly by the 1934 Act. And point out (following Patrick) that the recent government review of regulation shows NO regulation of the clearing system.

    21. Dr. Jim DeCosta says:

      Fred,

      I wish it were that easy to just have a picket sign saying “Ban delivery failures” and walk outside of the SEC building all day long. At some point in time somebody in authority needs to learn the granular detail of HOW the bad guys are defrauding us. All of the loopholes need to be identified and simultaneously shut down otherwise the cockroaches merely scurry over to the next available loophole. It’s becoming more and more obvious that Congress is going to be the only route. At the SEC meeting yesterday the only possible solution to these crimes (mandatory pre-borrows) wasn’t even mentioned as one of the 5 choices.

      Wall Street is complex enough that he who has the greater knowledge of the “granular details” is going to win because it only takes one line in UCC 8-501 for example to enable and to also cover-up massive levels of theft.

    22. tommytoyz says:

      Dear Orice M Williams:

      On FEB 26, 2009, the GAO published a summary letter which includes a description of the SEC’s efforts to ensure the reliability and efficiency of the clearance and settlement system through its examination program for clearing agencies. I am disappointed by how the report paints an inaccurate picture of this, because it omits critical key information.

      While the GAO summary letter does describe some of the legal framework of the clearance and settlement system and the SEC’s authority and efforts to ensure reliability and efficiency, the letter omits crucial parts of the legal frame work and what the SEC has failed to do. No investigation is needed to determine these omissions as most are clearly obvious to even a casual observer.

      First of all, no description of the transfer or immobilization of securities in depositories and through clearing agents is complete without mentioning the the role of the Uniform Commercial Code in this area. That is because the transfer of securities and the role of intermediaries including depositories is the sole jurisdiction of state law, explicitly reserved for them. The states have adopted the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) for this purpose.

      While it is true that the SEC is only responsible for regulating federal securities laws, the UCC does fall into their enforcement jurisdiction indirectly because the UCC is part of the governing rules for the SROs which the SEC is responsible regulate and ensure that they enforce all governing rules.

      However, it is clear that the SEC and the SROs are knowingly not enforcing provisions of the UCC. Among them:

      Uniform Commercial Code

      § 8-501. SECURITIES ACCOUNT; ACQUISITION OF SECURITY ENTITLEMENT FROM SECURITIES INTERMEDIARY.

      (a) “Securities account” means an account to which a financial asset is or may be credited in accordance with an agreement ..” (agreement = Settlement agreement)….(financial asset = security)

      This is how the SEC has tries to explain, excuse and justify settlement violations in the court filing that you have investigated, using 8-501 of the UCC as “authority” (red are my comments):

      Quote SEC:

      “It is . . . entirely possible that a securities intermediary might make entries in
      a customer’s account reflecting that customer’s acquisition of a certain
      security at a time when the securities intermediary did not itself happen to
      hold any units of that security (true, but only before settlement date).”

      “The person from whom the securities intermediary bought the security might have failed to deliver and it might have taken some time to clear up the problem (that is a possible reason for the fail, but not a legal excuse to treat the account in violation of 8-501 – the cause and the violation are two separate things. The settlement date is part of the agreement and thus crediting “securities entitlements” that reflect unsettled securities rather than settled securities after settlement date is not treating the account as agreed) . . .. U.C.C. 8-501, Official Comment 3 (Emphasis added)”

      The first sentence has nothing to do with the second. The 1st sentence also creates the appearance that it is always true, when it is only true in a very limited way (before settlement) – misleading by omission. These are typical SEC and Wall Street tactics.

      Notice that in the Amicus papers you have investigated, the SEC makes no mention of federal laws that allow settlement failures. That is because there are none. As the SEC starts saying that they deal with enforcement of settlement rules via REG SHO – that too is a misrepresentation because REG SHO deals with settlement failures after they have already happened. It is of no consequence what the “locate” or “pre-borrow” requirements are for short sales or is some naked short sales are allowed – because settlement must always occur as contracted. This is in federal rules (15c6-1) and in the UCC (8-501). Any truthful statement on the part of the SEC and SROs would admit that they simply do not enforce settlement rules and laws in any meaningful way and rely on counter party trust and discipline instead.

      If Settlement rules and laws were enforced, they wouldn’t occur. Even to a casual observer it is clear that:

      - Settlement failures are occurring
      - Settlement failures happen because the SEC is not enforcing settlement rules
      - Settlement failures happen because the SROs are not enforcing settlement rules
      - Settlement failures continue to happen because the SEC does no compel the SROs to enforce settlement rules
      - There are no exemptions or legal excuses for causing settlement failures
      - Settlement failures are possible because settlement and clearing are divorced and not linked
      - 17A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 mandates the linking of clearance and settlement
      - The SEC has not made any rules to ensure that clearance and settlement are linked
      - The SROs have not made any rules to ensure that clearance and settlement are linked
      - REG SHO does not enforce settlement rules, it only seeks them after the settlement violations have already occurred.

      In addition, the SEC does not even know why settlement failures occur because the SEC does not even obtain or maintain that data. The causes for settlement failures are pure speculation on the part of the SEC, as they’ve admitted in an FOIA responses that they do not have the data.

      Thus, in my opinion, the final report should include what has been omitted thus far in the summary letter.

      - Role of the UCC
      - Settlement failures are prohibited by both state and federal rules and laws
      - The regulatory lapse that allows settlement failures is the lack of enforcement of settlement laws

      Describing a road without mentioning the large boulders, potholes, misplaced signs and the cliff ending would be a misleading description of the road.

      If there was only one recommendation or question the GOA can make, it is: Why does the SEC not obtain and maintain “Fails to Receive” (FTR) data? This is one data point that would be proof positive of settlement failures and not mere “Fails to Deliver” (FTD). There is a big difference between an FTD and a settlement failure, the latter of which is only indicated by FTRs. If one knew for certain the number of settlement failures by security, that would unravel the entire “hide Waldo” game conducted by Wall Street and the SEC. It would show violations to REG T and many others. The disinterest or even complicit nature of the SEC to allow settlement failures, despite rules and laws to the contrary, is indicative by this failure to obtain FTR data that is available by merely for the asking on the part of the SEC.

      Attached is an audit request recently sent to the SEC’s Office of Inspector General, which explains these things in detail. I would be happy to talk with any of the GAOs staff or provide any documentation I may have to support the information contained here or in the audit request and to assist the the GAO in any way I can.

      Sincerely,
      Thomas Vallarino – President, National Investor Protection Coalition

    23. Dr. Jim DeCosta says:

      The SEC’s “Office of the Inspector General” (OIG) just released a blistering report on the failure of the SEC’s Enforcement Division to follow up on complaints associated with abusive naked short selling crimes. This is from the SEC’s Enforcement Division’s reply to the findings of the SEC’s Inspector General’s report (my comments are in parentheses)

      Enforcement’s Comments: February 17, 2009
      This letter is in response to Audit Report No. 450, regarding Practices Related to Naked Short Sale Complaints and Referrals.
      Market manipulation effected by abusive “naked” short selling (“NSS”) — like manipulation in all its other forms — is an issue that the Enforcement Division takes very seriously.

      (If so then why haven’t ANY of the 5,000-plus complaints received resulted in even ONE enforcement action? What are the ratios of complaints received to enforcement actions instituted for the other types of “manipulations”? Why the disparity? Is it because an insider trading case is not liable to expose the pandemic corruption present in our clearance and settlement system? Does it have to do with not wanting to rock the boat or to disturb the corrupt status quo because of the employment opportunities available after your SEC tenure i.e. the “revolving door” theory?)

      However, as the Report confirms, “naked” short sales, i.e., selling short without having borrowed the securities to make delivery, can occur for legitimate reasons, without any sort of manipulative intent. In addition, the mere fact that a stock may experience “failures to deliver” does not imply a violation of the federal securities laws. Indeed, a fail may occur as a result of a long sale (i.e., a sale of owned securities) as well as a short sale.

      (This is very true as many “short sales” are INTENTIONALLY mislabeled as “long sales” to bypass the unavailability of a “borrow” or usurious borrowing fees particularly in “hard to borrow” (expensive to borrow) securities.)

      In recent months, a small but vocal cadre of advocates has emerged decrying the practice and suggesting that it has damaging market effects. But there is hardly unanimity in the investment community or the financial media on either the prevalence, or the dangers, of “naked” short selling.

      (What does unanimity in the investment community or amongst the financial media in regards to the prevalence or danger of naked short selling have to do with the SEC’s provision of the congressionally mandated “investor protection and market integrity”?)

      The Commission has repeatedly stressed the fact that the practice can provide needed market liquidity in certain circumstances. For instance, market makers sometimes engage in legitimate “naked” short selling when there is high buying demand in a security.

      (This is true but these very same theoretically “bona fide” MMs are nowhere to be found when the share price drops and it becomes time to close these “open positions”. The “bona fide MM exemption” from making pre-borrows or “locates” before making admittedly naked short sales was to be accessed ONLY by MMs injecting this “liquidity” BOTH when there were order imbalances characterized by buy orders dwarfing sell orders in upwardly moving markets AND sell orders dwarfing buy orders in downward moving markets.)

      Still others view the threat posed by “naked” short selling as wildly exaggerated, and point to instances in which allegations of abusive “naked” short selling were used to cover up other management malfeasance, like the dumping on the market of large blocks of unregistered shares. We have recently alleged such behavior in the widely-discussed CMKM Diamonds litigation.

      (If by chance certain NSCC participants that were aware of this “dumping” of unregistered shares by management decided instead of reporting it to the SEC to “ride along” and dump truckloads of nonexistent shares to exacerbate the share price depressant effect of management’s dumping and financially benefit in a synergistic fashion then would that not be considered abusive naked short selling by the NSCC participants regardless of how badly management was behaving?)

      Other fraud defendants have also attempted to portray depressed stock prices as the work of clandestine short sellers.

      Despite its assertions regarding the potential danger of “naked” short selling and the growing interest in the subject, the Report can cite to no bona fide studies or empirical data regarding the practice’s market impact.

      (Dr. Leslie Boni’s report in 2004 clearly outlined the existence of massive amounts of “intentional” or “strategic” delivery failures held at the DTCC “intending” to depress share prices in corporations targeted for an attack. By the way how many “bona fide” studies has the SEC commissioned into studying the “market impact” of abusive naked short selling?

      Does one need to commission a formal study to look at the share price depressant effect of vastly increasing the “supply” of readily sellable “securities entitlements” above and beyond the number of shares legally “issued”? Does one need to commission a study of the share price depressant effect of neutralizing the share price buoying effect of buy orders that gets cancelled via matching naked short sell orders before they are allowed to interact with the ambient “supply” to determine share price through the share price “discovery” process? Can one not imagine the share price depressant effect of SIMULTANEOUSLY increasing the “supply” variable while decreasing the “effective demand” variable with “effective demand” referring to the portion of the “demand” variable allowed to interact with the supply variable? Do we really need yet another “bona fide” study to illustrate the role of “supply” and “demand” in determining share prices?)

      The Division of Trading and Markets debunks the theory that NSS creates “counterfeit” or “phantom” shares.

      (How would one best characterize the readily sellable “securities entitlements” that result from delivery failures that UCC Article-8-501 mandates the holders of be “entitled to exercise all of the rights and property interest of that security”? Are these not essentially “phantom shares” that TECHNICALLY have no “legal owner” nor TECHNICALLY are they “outstanding”? I would think “phantom shares” fits the bill quite well as they are invisible to the investing public as well as to management of the corporation under attack. Since these “phantom shares” if you will are above and beyond the number of shares already “outstanding” then you can see how the “supply” variable of all that is readily sellable whether legitimate shares or phantom shares “issued” by naked short sellers is artificially MANIPULATED upwards by the refusal to deliver the securities that one sells.

      What you people at the SEC and the SROs are either failing to grasp or failing to acknowledge is that due to the phraseology used in UCC 8-501 each and every failure to deliver results essentially in the “issuance” of an odd species of readily sellable “share” that TECHNICALLY has no “legal owner” and TECHNICALLY is not “outstanding”. But it has all of the share price depressant effect of a legitimate “share” issued by a corporation’s board of directors. Its invisibility (phantom-like nature) plays into the hands of the abusive naked short sellers that essentially “issue” them every time they refuse to deliver that which they sell. As mentioned their share price depressant effect comes from the fact that they are indeed readily sellable (as mandated by 8-501) and their numbers are above and beyond the number of shares previously “issued and outstanding”.)

      The Report cites to the emergency orders, final rules, and interim final temporary rules addressing short selling, including “naked” short selling that the Commission issued in July, September, and October of 2008. When it issued each of these rules, the Commission noted in its releases that the purpose of the emergency actions was to address the lack of market confidence and investor fears that short selling, including legitimate short selling, could exacerbate the current financial crisis by creating downward price momentum unrelated to the fundamental financials of issuers.

      As the Commission has noted in its releases, NSCC reports that 99% (by dollar value) of all trades settle on time, or within the standard T+3 settlement cycle.

      (Delivery failures are routinely “housed” outside of the NSCC via “ex-clearing arrangements” and are often illegally “crossed” to co-conspirators on T+2 so as not to qualify as an FTD. Plenty of share price depressant damage can be delivered between T+0 and T+3.)

      It is important to note that a fail to deliver occurs even where a security settles one day late. As the Commission noted in its October interim final temporary rule release adopting Rule 204T, more than half of all fails to deliver and 70% of all fails to deliver positions are closed out within two settlement days after T+3 (two days late). The vast majority of fails to deliver are closed out within five days after T+3.

      (Again, part of the problem is that “crossing” a naked short position to a co-conspirator also appears to “close out” a failed delivery position.)

      While the Commission recently strengthened the close-out requirements because it is concerned about the impact of persistent fails on market confidence, these fails to deliver are not necessarily the result of illicit activity, such as abusive “naked” short selling. As noted above, there may be legitimate reasons for fails to deliver, including mechanical errors or processing delays.

      (That is no doubt what happened to Lehman Brothers whose failure to deliver rate when up to a level 57-times its prior high. They got “mechanical errored” to death.)

      Thus, while the Commission has recognized that timely settlement of trades is important for market integrity and investor confidence, the Commission’s recent rulemaking in this area recognizes that trades do fail (whether from long sales or short sales) but that fails should not persist.

      The Division of Enforcement is called upon to police the massive U.S. securities markets with decidedly limited resources and, in order to fulfill our mission of investor protection, we must intelligently leverage those resources.

      (i.e. even though we’ve not recently asked for more money from the government we don’t have the budget to provide investor protection.)

      As manager of the Enforcement Complaint Center (ECC), the Office of Internet Enforcement (OIE) is under the same mandate with respect to its limited staff.

      In order to derive the maximum value from the investor complaints it handles, OIE is charged with prioritizing and passing on for further investigation complaints that contain the most facially compelling information regarding possible violations of the federal securities laws, the material most likely to trigger Enforcement investigations leading to filed actions. This is accomplished by focusing on complaints with a high likelihood of accuracy and credibility (like those of purported insiders or scam victims), those whose information can be readily vetted (i.e., visible price swings in a possible manipulation or insider trading allegation), or those involving demonstrated, immediate investor hazard in the current market environment (Ponzi schemes, improper sales of auction-rate securities).
      The ECC receives all sorts of communications. Investor complaints run the gamut from the painstakingly specific and well-researched to the speculative and fanciful. So-called “Level II” complaints – that is, assertions of market manipulation or distortion from retail investors based purely on observations of private computer terminals – rely on simple trading snapshots and are really no more reliable an indicator of fraud than a dart tossed at a dartboard full of company names.
      Other types of complaints, like those based on direct in-person or electronic solicitation, for example, are far more likely to paint a coherent picture for investigators.
      As the Report notes, a large number of the complaints received provide no support for the allegations.

      (By definition, there is no “supporting evidence” accessible to those being defrauded by the piling up of invisible “securities entitlements”/”phantom shares” in the share structure of accompany under attack. But when 70% of a corporation’s “float” turns over every day while your share price is falling off of a cliff then I would think circumstantial evidence would play a role. How else might you explain 95% of the trades occurring at the offer every day while the share price drops 10% every day? The fact that these “phantom shares” are invisible to the investing public underlines the need for the SEC with the authority to review trading data do so with abusive naked short selling in mind. The SROs refuse to monitor for bona fide MM exemption abuses and “ex-clearing frauds; they claim it’s your job.)

      For instance, some complaints merely state that no one should be permitted to sell stock that they do not own. However, legitimate short selling by definition is the sale of a security that the seller does not own. Other complaints allege that a specific issuer’s price has declined and the complainant believes the decline must be the result of “naked” short selling, even though the complainant cannot know if the price decline is due to “naked” short selling, legitimate short selling where the seller has borrowed and timely delivered securities, or other legitimate price discovery mechanisms. For instance, price declines may occur because owners of the security may have sold their securities in response to unfavorable financial information or unfavorable news about the issuer or the issuer’s particular industry.

      The best sources for information on violations relating to “naked” short selling is the SRO, which has primary responsibility for surveillance of its trading. And we receive a large number of referrals from the SROs, addressing all forms of alleged investment misconduct. It is telling that, of the 900 SRO referrals Enforcement received during the Report’s 18-month survey period, none involved the practice of “naked” short selling. That is to say, the people closest to the trading, with the deepest understanding of and best access to the data, did not see and refer any of the large-scale, damaging “naked” short sale abuse about which the Report hypothesizes.

      (Has it occurred to the SEC that this might have something to do with the fact that the financial beneficiaries of these thefts are the NSCC participants and members of FINRA and that there are conflicts of interest beyond description in our clearance and settlement system that the SEC with “comprehensive oversight” as well as “plenary rulemaking authority” has failed to address?)

    24. Dr. Jim DeCosta says:

      “REGULATORY UNDERLAPPING”

      When you review the research on abusive naked short selling you’ll recognize that none of the SROs, regulators, exchanges or congressional oversight committee members seem to think that they are the primary “securities cop” in this arena.

      According to the SEC: “The best sources for information on violations relating to “naked” short selling is the SRO, which has primary responsibility for surveillance of its trading”. This leads us to the SROs which are FINRA and the NSCC subdivision of the DTCC.

      Here’s the DTCC’s take:
      General Counsel Thompson: “Naked short selling, or short selling, is a trading activity. We don’t have any power or legal authority to regulate or stop short selling, naked or otherwise. We also have no power to force member firms to close out or resolve fails to deliver. That power is reserved for the SEC and the markets, be it the NYSE, Nasdaq, Amex, or any of the other markets. The fact is we don’t even see whether a sale is short or not. That’s something only the markets see. NSCC just gets “buys” and “sells,” and it’s our job to try and clear and settle those trades”.
      This sends us back to the SEC and the exchanges. But wait a minute the OTC stocks most often attacked don’t have an “exchange” and the SEC already said that it’s not their job.
      I recently called FINRA and had a conversation with a mid-level very polite guy there. He had never heard of the DTCC. I asked him who owns FINRA. He stated that nobody does and that it is basically an aggregation of member brokerage firms that act as an SRO.
      When you approach the exchanges they assert that they don’t have the trading data right in front of them on a real time basis which is needed to address these crimes but they will act upon referrals by the SROs. Recall how the main SRO “FINRA” out of their last 900 referrals not one of them was related to abusive naked short selling. If you don’t generate the referrals then obviously there will be no enforcement activity.
      What we’re left with in regards to abusive naked short selling crimes is a gigantic circle of excuses why monitoring for these abuses are not any one party’s responsibility.
      Here’s a link to the recent Office of the Inspector General’s audit results reaming the SEC Enforcement’s Division for not following up on the complaints made by corporations and investors in regards to abusive naked short selling activity. Note in the rebuttal of the Enforcement Division starting on page 40 the absolute disdain that the Enforcement Division has developed against the deepcapture.com types of market reformers and how it literally oozes out onto the paper. The Inspector General’s audit showed that of over 5,000 complaints (a record for the SEC) not one made it to the enforcement action stage. What did you deepcapture.commers do to tweak them off so bad?
      http://www.sec-oig.gov/Reports/AuditsInspections/2009/450.pdf
      MEMO TO SEC:
      1) Exactly whose job is it to make sure that MMs accessing the “bona fide MM exemption” from pre-borrowing or making “locates” are doing it legally i.e. they’re buying back what they previously sold as share prices drop.
      2) Exactly whose job is it to buy-in delivery failures when it becomes obvious that the seller of securities had no intent whatsoever to deliver that which he sold?
      3) Exactly whose job is it to monitor for “ex-clearing” abuses wherein corrupt clearing firms “pair off” and promise not to buy-in each other’s delivery failures and thereby indefinitely postponing the “settlement” of the trade as forbidden by 15c 6-1 (’34 Act).
      4) Exactly whose job is it to make sure that the investor protection aspects of UCC 8 like the forbidding of “Overissuances” and the need to OBTAIN and MAINTAIN the securities to back of the “securities entitlements” you’ve issued.
      5) Exactly whose job is it to keep a tally of the number of “securities entitlements” already “issued” and are present in the share structure of a corporation.
      6) Whose job is it to tally those held in these “ex-clearing” arrangements?

    25. Dr. Jim DeCosta says:

      After quizzing the various regulators, SROs, exchanges and representatives of the congressional oversight committee members the common denominator of what I get back as to exactly who is responsible for policing abusive naked short selling frauds is that we leave it up to the front line SROs (the NSCC and FINRA) because of the complexity involved and the superior view they enjoy of the trading data due to their proximity.

      Who are the financial beneficiaries of these thefts? They are the “participants” of the NSCC and the “members” of FINRA which are basically one and the same. They have merely leveraged their superior knowledge base of complex matters. Madoff did the same. This brings us back to the concept of the fox guarding the henhouse. How do you level the playing field? You put down your pitchfork, get organized and pick up a securities law book and make up for the disparity associated with the complexity issues.

    26. Dr. Jim DeCosta says:

      You can’t hold it against a member of a congressional oversight committee member or a staff member at the SEC who have responsibilities in so many different arenas besides abusive naked short selling to not have the time to fully comprehend this discipline. The ability of the phraseology of UCC 8-501 to convert an IOU into what is for all practical purposes the underlying security of the IOU is tricky beyond belief. Of course there are going to be a handful of abusive NSCC participants and abusive FINRA members that have figured this out this paradox and told their hedge fund buddies about it. That’s the reward you get for acquiring a superior knowledge base in a complex arena. The problem is that they have fiduciary duties of care owing to the investors that they volunteered to act as the “legal owner” of all securities held in “street name” for in the case of the DTC and the mandate of an SRO like FINRA “to create and enforce regulations pertaining to the “business conduct” of its members/participants”.

    27. clearthinker says:

      lest we not forget

      Gary Aguirre wanted to depose John Mack

      fired by the SEC

      Markopolous

      brought the Madoff case on a silver platter to the SEC

      ignored by the SEC

      The SEC claims there is no empirical data to support the idea that abusive short sales brought LEH down –

      we KNOW they are lying

      The SEC claims there was good reason to eliminate the uptick rule in 2007

      we KNOW it ACCELERATED the market’s decline

      They are still putting out the same line about short sellers and this ridiculous notion of “price discovery”…I guess that’s the new buzz word. Short sellers are the undeputized volunteer price police and America should thank them….

      Are you kidding me?

      We don’t need any round table discussions and public comment periods…

      We need a new regulator – now

    28. Jim Hall says:

      Yes, clearthinker, the goddamn SEC should dictate the terms.

      Terms that benefit the real investors in this country.

      Shall we be so stupid as to let the ‘industry’ dictate the terms?

      Time will tell.

    29. Anonymous says:

      clearthinker,
      Excellent post. Now let put that in perspective. The SEC will do anything to protect the NSS and hedgefunds, not the investors as they were sworn to protect. All their actions(regulation that help the NSS’ers)/and in-actions(lack of regulation of the existing rules and going after the criminals when they have their criminality handed to them on a silver platter) reflect their tight relationships with the market manipulators….

    30. Dr. Jim DeCosta says:

      I can’t help but wonder what was going through SEC Inspector General David Kotz’s brain when he uncovered the fact that of the 2 main “securities cops” that are supposed to be monitoring for abusive naked short selling frauds one (the SEC) got over 5,000 complaints that resulted in ZERO “enforcement actions” and the other “FINRA” sent out 900 recommendations for “enforcement actions” and ZERO of them were related to abusive naked short selling frauds. Just what is so “special” about this particular form of share price manipulation such that it gets treated with kid gloves by these “securities cops”? What makes it so much different than “pump and dumps” or insider trading frauds?

      All you have to do is look at the financial beneficiaries of these various forms of theft. Only the “banksters” that are members of “FINRA”, the DTCC and of course their unregulated hedge fund “guests” are able to establish and collateralize massive naked short positions usually through corrupt market makers willing to rent out space under their “umbrella of immunity” from having to perform pre-borrows or “locates” before making admittedly naked short sales.

      You have to be in a position to provide “juice” to a corrupt MM in order to operate from a spot under that umbrella. In the case of abusive naked short selling the rental fee for these spots is paid via “order flow”. Abusive naked short selling is an “inside job”. Corrupt corporate “pump and dumpers” or insider traders at Microsoft aren’t invited. They are not in a position to provide massive levels of “order flow” that abusive MMs can convert into cash.

      Poor Inspector General Kotz had to be questioning himself as to what kind of cabal he had unearthed. So what does he do? He recommends 11 courses of action. The SEC Enforcement Division responds to his recommendations and gives him the middle finger on 10 of the 11. They write back to IG Kotz claiming:

      “Despite its assertions regarding the potential danger of “naked” short selling and the growing interest in the subject, the Report can cite to no bona fide studies or empirical data regarding the practice’s market impact. The Division of Trading and Markets debunks the theory that NSS creates “counterfeit” or “phantom” shares”.

      Let’s not forget this little gem either: “But there is hardly unanimity in the investment community or the financial media on either the prevalence, or the dangers, of “naked” short selling”.

      So I guess the defense for their lack of action amounts to stating that Herb Greenburg says abusive naked short selling is no big deal and manipulating the “supply” of readily sellable “shares” vastly upwards at the same time you manipulate the “effective demand” downwards is probably not that damaging to corporations and the investments made therein. Let’s not forget also that the readily sellable odd species of “shares” with no TECHNICAL “legal owner” and that is TECHNICALLY “outstanding” that is essentially “issued” with each failure to deliver due to the phraseology used in UCC 8-501 cannot be characterized as a “phantom share” despite its being invisible to both management and prospective investors and packing all of the dilutional damage that a legitimate “share” does. Hang in there IG Kotz and welcome to this massive “industry within an industry” we refer to as of abusive naked short selling! As Dr. Byrne would say IG Kotz has made it down the “rabbit hole”.

    31. ww2player says:

      EXCELLENT POSTS!!!!

      Now if we can just find someone who will actually do something to hold the SEC’s feet to the fire. Congress seems the only hope, but they are pretty busy creating trillion $$ spending bills that they don’t even read. Maybe some brave congressman could slip in some stronger enforcement rules.

      I am forwarding alot of this information to my Congressmen. Maybe DeMint will take an interest in this.

      Thank You for the information you guys have posted and your efforts in fighting this crooked scheme dumped on honest investors.

    32. Marv Eatinger says:

      How in the hell can the regulatory authorities for publicly traded equities look the other way when it concerns “NAKED SHORT SELLING” WITH THE ABILITY TO COVER THOSE NAKED SHORT SHARESTHAT WERE SOLD NAKED SHORT THREE YEARS EARLIER, THREE YEARS LATER BY STAGING ACTUALTRADES AND THEN ADDING TWO EXTERNALLY ADDED ZEROS TO THE VOLUME OF THESE ACTUAL TRADES!! You therefore have covered 5,000,000 plus “NAKED SHORT SALES” of Daleco Resources Corp three years later, with 1/100 of the actual volume of shares that were sold “NAKED SHORT” !! Who will ever pay any capital gains taxes on this transaction, since the transaction has been able to circumvent any scrutiny by any regulatory authority in the United States?

      Marv Eatinger

      —– Original Message —–
      From: marv eatinger
      To: ENFORCEMENT ; Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov
      Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 7:42 PM
      Subject: DALECO RESOURCES CORP – WALL STREET EQUITIES, INC. – JB OXFORD & CO – JB OXFORD HOLDINGS – J.B. OXFORD SUBSIDIARY “NATIONAL CLEARING CORP.”

      Dear Regulatory Authorities For Publicly Traded Equities On United States Markets:
      Was Wall Street Equities, Inc. who was one of Daleco Resources Corp Market Makers from March 1, 2000 to August 1, 2000 while Daleco was delisted to the Pink Sheets from the OTCBB market, involved in “Naked Short Selling” of Daleco’s common stock and the fraudulent addition of TWO ZEROS to all of Daleco’s actual trades from March 1, 2000 to August 1, 2000 while Daleco was using two symbols of DLOV & DLVO while listed only the Pink Sheets????

      Is it like BIRDS OF A FEATHER FLOCK TOGETHER?

      Sincerely,

      Marv Eatinger
      =================================================================
      The following hypothesis is presented for evaluation:

      From approximately December 1, 1996 through January of 1997 Daleco Resources Corp had more than 9,000,000 Regulation “S” shares traded on the NASDAQ Market. WAS WALL STREET EQUITIES, INC. (DISCOUNT BROKER IN NEW YORK) ONE OF DALECO RESOURCES CORP MARKET MAKERS? How was Wall Street Equities, Inc. of Rhode Island connected to Wall Street Equities, Inc. of New York?

      On February 24, 1998 (official record) Daleco Resources Corp effected a 1 for 10 reverse split of its common stock. Prior to this February 24, 1998 date Daleco Resources Corp issued a press release stating that the effective date for the 1 for 10 reverse split was February 17, 1998! There is good evidence that Daleco was able to disguise and hide from the SEC in Daleco’s public filings, that this 1 for 10 reverse split ever took place. IS IT POSSIBLE THAT DALECO RESOURCES CORP HAD AN OFFICIAL EFFECTIVE REVERSE SPLIT DATE OF FEBRUARY 24, 1998 (DALECO’S PUBLIC FILINGS WITH THE SEC), BUT ALSO HAD AN EFFECTIVE REVERSE SPLIT DATE OF FEBRUARY 17, 1998 (AS CHANGED WITH ITS CHARTER IN DELAWARE WITH FILING ON FEB. 17, 1998 WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF DELAWARE’S OFFICE) AS PART OF A DUAL AGENDA? INSTEAD OF A 1 FOR 10 REVERSE SPLIT, IT MIGHT BE CONSTRUED AS A 1 FOR 100 REVERSE SPLIT AS PART OF A DUAL AGENDA?

      From March 1, 2000 to August 1, 2000 (while Daleco Resources Corp was deleted from the OTCBB and only listed on the Pink Sheets) Daleco Resources Corp had trading volume of 13,451,000 as shown on http://www.moneycentral.com historical data. http://WWW.YAHOO.COM finance shows Daleco’s (symbol DLOV.OB) total trading volume for the period starting March 1, 2000 to August 1, 2000 as 144,500 shares. So, as associated with some certain area of regulatory control for public equities, Daleco Resources Corp would appear to have traded a total volume of 13,451,000 shares from March 1, 2000 to August 1, 2000, when in fact Daleco Resources Corp only traded a total volume of 144,500 shares DURING THIS PERIOD OF TIME!

      FACT: UNDER ONE OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED DUAL AGENDAS DALECO RESOURCES CORP HAD TWO ZEROS ADDED TO THEIR ACTUAL DAILY TRADING VOLUME FROM MARCH 1, 2000 TO AUGUST 1, 2000 WHILE DALECO WAS ONLY LISTED ON THE PINK SHEETS AND USING TWO SYMBOLS OF “DLOV” AND “DLVO” !

      During the period of time from March 1, 2000 to August 1, 2000 Wall Street Equities, Inc. (discount broker in New York) was one of four market makers for Daleco Resources Corp while trading on the Pink Sheets.

      IN APRIL OF YEAR 2002 WALL STREET EQUITIES, INC. SOLD ALL OF THEIR ACCOUNTS TO J.B. OXFORD AND WENT OUT OF BUSINESS!!!!!
      [ "J.B. Oxford, which sold off its main operations in 2004 as regulators closed in, did not return calls seeking comment." ]

      ================================================

      ARCHIVED RECORD…ID# 89337
      Wall Street Equities, Inc.
      Purpose: INVESTMSNT MANAGEMENT, ACQUISITIONS, FINANCIAL SERVICES,CAPITAL GROWTH AND ACQUISITION.
      General Information
      Status: RC
      Charter: DBC
      Chapter: TITLE: 7-1.1-51
      State: RHODE ISLAND
      Duration: PERPETUAL
      File Date: 04/29/1996
      Effective Date:N/A
      Last Report Date: N/A
      Archived Date: 09/20/1999
      ====================================

      Publication: Business Wire
      Publication Date: 03-APR-02
      Format: Online – approximately words
      Delivery: Immediate Online Access

      Article Excerpt
      Business Editors

      LOS ANGELES–(BUSINESS WIRE)–April 3, 2002

      With Its Fourth Acquisition, JB Oxford to Gain 3,800 Accounts

      and $140 Million in Customer Assets

      JB Oxford Holdings, Inc. (Nasdaq:JBOH), which through its JB Oxford & Company subsidiary is a leading provider of discount brokerage services to clients nationwide, has signed an asset purchase agreement to purchase the customer accounts of Wall Street Equities, Inc., a New York-based discount brokerage firm. Under the terms of the all-stock transaction, JB Oxford & Company…

      =================
      —– Original Message —–
      From: “Ron Franz”
      To:
      Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 10:13 AM
      Subject: Re: [CSI Website Query: daily volume figures multiplied by 100 - symbol DLOV]

      >I had them remove the extra digits.
      > Yahoo should have it corrected by this afternoon.
      > Please let me know if you do not see the corrections.
      > Thank You,
      >
      >
      > marv@mitec.net wrote:
      >> Regarding:
      >> Data Error Report
      >>
      >>
      >> Message:
      >> On March 7, 2000 the following web sites showed volume for the day for DLOV – Daleco Resources CP of 2,300 shares: FinancialWeb.com and Quicken.com.
      >>
      >> On March 8, 2000 the following web sites showed volume for the day for DLOV – Daleco Resources CP of 26,200 shares: FinancialWeb.com, Quicken.com and MSN Money Central.com.
      >>
      >> On March 13, 2000 Barchart.com showed DLOV – Daleco Resources Corp volume for the day as 2,000 shares.
      >>
      >> Daleco Resources Corp was deleted from the OTCBB to the Pink Sheets on February 22, 2000 to be effective on February 28, 2000. Yahoo Finance & MoneyCentral web sites are presently the only web sites that I can find that show Historical Volume figures for the time period of March 1, 2000 to August 1, 2000 when Daleco Resources Corp was listed only on the Pink Sheets.
      >>
      >> Yahoo Finance Historical Volume figures for the above mentioned dates is shown as follows:
      >> March 7, 2000——————–230,000 shares
      >>
      >> March 8, 2000——————2,620,000 shares
      >>
      >> March 13, 2000——————200,000 shares
      >>
      >> Apparently from the period starting March 1, 2000 to August 1, 2000, all trades that took place in Daleco’s stock had two zeros added to the daily trading volume!
      >>
      >>
      >> From:
      >> marv@mitec.net

    33. clearthinker says:

      Folks – I am directing ALL info to Senator Kaufman (D-Delaware). The time for sending notes to FINRA, the SEC is past. Send them cc’s of everything you send to Kaufman, Specter, Tester etc…so they have no way of wriggling out of it by saying “no one told us”. They aren’t going to do anything for us, unless CONGRESS FORCES THEM TO.

      The SEC has made it CRYSTAL CLEAR that they are here to defend short sellers, stop buy ins, and will use catch phrases like “price discovery” to try to confuse the issues.

      The Ascencio video is compelling to say the least- why even bother to locate, borrow or deliver….just sell….just sell…..

      The empirical data that PROVES the relationship of failed trades and the accelerated collapse of Bear and Lehman is irrefutable – yet the SEC won’t talk about it , instead they talk about the wonderful things that shorts bring to our markets.

      The way they handled the Aguirre matter and the Markopolous/Madoff material PROVES that they cannot regulate our markets. The rot is too deep.
      The ridiculous and paltry fines they have dished out to people who have stolen 100x the amount of the fine PROVES their loyalty.

      It is either stupidity or corruption at work. Take your pick. The battle lines have been decided. It’s up to Congress now…

    34. Dr. Jim DeCosta says:

      WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE FROM THE “BIGCOS” OF THE WORLD?

      If not for the lack of education one natural ally in this battle against abusive naked short selling thefts would be the large non-Wall Street corporations that grow by acquisition. As brilliant as the management teams and members of the boards of directors of these corporate giants are I would doubt that 1% of these people understand how badly their corporations and the investors therein are getting screwed every single time they do a share swap (non-cash) acquisition.

      Let’s refer to these corporate giants as “Bigcos” and the companies they acquire as “Littlecos”. Let’s assume that a “Bigco” spots a bargain in the form of a “Littleco” trading at bargain basement price levels. “Littleco” has 100 million shares “outstanding” and all are held in “street name” at the DTCC. They currently have 80 million shares in a failed to be delivered status. This means that investors bought and paid for 180 million shares of “Littleco” but 80 million were bogus and resulted in the issuance of 80 million readily sellable “securities entitlements” by the DTCC as per UCC 8-501.

      If “Bigco” tenders an offer for one of their shares for each share of “Littleco” tendered and the deal is approved by shareholders and the 2 boards then unbeknownst to “Bigco” the DTCC and its “participants” will convert the 80 million readily sellable “securities entitlements” of “Littleco” into 80 million readily sellable “securities entitlements” of “Bigco”. When they approved of this acquisition neither the BOD nor shareholders of “Bigco” received a “heads up” from the DTCC or its “participants” that their acquisition actually cost them 180 million readily sellable “shares” of “Bigco” and not the 100 million price that they were voting on.

      Why weren’t they warned? If the DTCC or its “participants” were to have warned them then the existence of this massive “industry within an industry” associated with abusive naked short selling and unaddressed delivery failures would have been revealed. They had to refuse to make public this very “material” information that they were in possession of.

      These “EXTRA” 80 million “INVISIBLE/PHANTOM” shares will add directly to the “supply” of legitimate “Bigco” shares already “outstanding” and will depress the share price of “Bigco” again unbeknownst to the management and investors of “Bigco” as well as the previous shareholders of “Littleco”. Nobody is going to admit to the previous shareholders of “Littleco” that they bought and paid full retail price for nothing but air.

      Why was “Littleco” trading at such bargain basement share price levels as to attract the attention of “Bigco”? It’s partially due to the share price depressant effect of those 80 million readily sellable “securities entitlements” poisoning the share structure of “Littleco”. Why can’t the brilliant management team and BOD of the “Bigcos” of the world comprehend that every failure to deliver in the “Littlecos” of the world that hasn’t been promptly bought-in results in the “issuance” of a “securities entitlement”. Due to the phraseology of UCC Article 8-501 the clearing firms holding these mere “securities entitlements” must treat the entitlement holder to be able “to exercise all of the rights and property interest of that security” he is “entitled” to.

      In essence every yet to be bought in delivery failure results in the “issuance” of an odd species of “phantom share”. It is “phantom-like” because it is invisible to its purchaser, to the management team of the “Littlecos” of the world and to the “Bigcos” of the world. Although it TECHNICALLY is not “outstanding” and TECHNICALLY has no “legal owner” it packs all of the share price depressant effect of a legitimate “share” from a dilutional point of view. That’s right; abusive naked short sellers in essence “issue” an odd species of incredibly damaging share every time they refuse to deliver the securities that they sold.

      One would think that the shareholders and the brilliant management teams of the “Bigcos” of the world would be absolutely outraged by this theft of their market capitalization by the DTCC “participants” and FINRA “members” that refuse to deliver the securities that they sold. Once educated I think that these financial behemoths and their political ties would be excellent allies in fighting this crime wave.

    35. MightyUnderdog says:

      International newsmedia is beginning to pick up on what DeepCapture has been reporting all along:

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/apr/08/cramer-roubini-mad-money-bear-sterns

    36. Dr. Jim DeCosta says:

      In all fairness I’ll now present the rebuttal to the above post by the abusive naked short selling community.

      “Well, in actuality Dr. D those that failed to deliver shares in “Littleco” are still on the hook to “EVENTUALLY” cover their new naked short position in “Bigco”.”

      Rebuttal to the rebuttal: If you never had to cover your archaic naked short position in “Littleco” then why the heck would you ever have to cover your fresh new naked short position in “Bigco”. If the NSCC management with the congressional mandate “to act in the public interest, provide investor protection and “promptly settle” all securities transactions as well as being in possession of 15 of the 16 sources of empowerment to execute buy-ins has the audacity to plead to be “powerless” to execute buy-ins which are the only solution available when the sellers of securities refuse to deliver that which they sold then no, you will never have to cover that naked short position in “Bigco”.

    37. Sarge says:

      I’m just happy to see that I’m not the only person out there who thinks the argument that short selling helps with “price discovery” is a heaping load of BS.

    38. clearthinker says:

      And Dr. De costa is spot on. The continued existence of “entitlements” in addition to legitimate shares further depresses the stock.

      The stock is initially depressed as supply overwhelms demand and the price drops. So, for example, a stock, XYZ has 50MM authorized, but there are 30MM IOUs in the system. So the total outstanding is 80MM now. Let’s say the company has good news. Now, instead of 50MM legitimate shares trading on the news, there are an extra 30MM IOUs that can be sold into the system that the buying demand must absorb.

      So the shorts get a 2 for 1. The only way to solve this is to settle ALL trades and BUY in ALL FAILS and restore the authorized floats to where they should be.

      What is so hard about this? I can’t believe we are having to twist peoples arms to have people given what they have paid for, instead of an IOU. I cant’ believe the states have not, years ago, interceded and resolved this.

      They fight us because the solution is VERY expensive for them….

      I, for one, could care less.

      SETTLE THE TRADES….Selling IOUs should be a felony offense, it’s no different than counterfeting.

      And this price discovery by short sellers? What a stinking pile of ________……..

    39. Dr. Jim DeCosta says:

      clearthinker,

      The same holds true if bad news should befall a corporation. If the bad news is of a nature that 10% of all of the previous purchasers of a stock would sell because of the news then 8 million shares would hit the market instead of 5 million. Those “EXTRA” shares/entitlements above and beyond that which is already “outstanding” dampens the share price buoying effect of good news and exacerbates the share price depressant effect of bad news.

    40. Dr. Jim DeCosta says:

      clearthinker,

      The effect cited above is yet further exacerbated when you think in terms of a corporation’s “float” of readily sellable securities. A company with 100 million shares “outstanding” may only have a readily sellable “float” of 20 million shares. If there are 60 million readily sellable “securities entitlements” resulting from FTDs then the “float” of that which is readily sellable has quadrupled to 80 million shares. It is the “float” that interacts with the ambient “demand” to determine share price through the share price discovery process.

      Due to the phraseology used in UCC 8-501 these “EXTRA” 60 MILLION “securities entitlements” result in the “issuance” of 60 million “phantom shares” that TECHNICALLY aren’t “outstanding” so the number of shares “outstanding” remains at 100 million. If the # of “outstanding” shares would have gone up to 160 million shares then thesse fraudswould have been revealed long ago because we all have visibility in the 10 Qs and 10 Ks of that which is “outstanding”. This rather odd species of “shares” issued with each and every FTD is a bit confusing because they’re invisible, not “outstanding” and there is no “legal owner” of them.

    41. Dr. Jim DeCosta says:

      clearthinker,

      That’s why it’s so criminal when the SEC, FINRA and the DTCC in their correspondences tell investors to “Concentrate on the # of shares TECHNICALLY “outstanding” when considering abusive naked short selling”. They proffer that since the # of shares TECHNICALLY “outstanding” doesn’t increase then there can’t be any damages associated with abusive naked short selling crimes. This statement would be true if it was the number of shares TECHNICALLY “outstanding” that was doing the interacting with the “demand” variable to determine share prices but it isn’t.

      There’s a form of fraud referred to as misrepresentation wherein that which is being said intentionally misleads the recipient of the message usually resulting in the financial betterment of those doing the talking and to the financial detriment to those doing the listening.

      It becomes particularly heinous when those doing the misrepresenting are the “securities cops” mandated “to act in the public interest, provide investor protection and promptly settle all securities transactions”.

    42. Dr. Jim DeCosta says:

      Speaking of misrepresentations, here’s two from the SEC just last week:

      “Despite its (the SEC’s Inspector General) assertions regarding the potential danger of “naked” short selling and the growing interest in the subject, the Report can cite to no bona fide studies or empirical data regarding the practice’s market impact. The Division of Trading and Markets debunks the theory that NSS creates “counterfeit” or “phantom” shares”.

      Let’s not forget this little gem either: “But there is hardly unanimity in the investment community or the financial media on either the prevalence, or the dangers, of “naked” short selling”.

    43. Yesquire says:

      Not that it is possible to be too hard on the SEC for its role in this massive fraud, but I think some of the reasons asserted for its position on NSS are off the mark.

      Going back to the days of Reg SHO, the SEC has obviously known the extent of the NSS problem and viewed its primary role as covering it up to prevent a systemic collapse. They publicly stated so when they grandfathered the infinitely smaller number of FTDs which existed at that time.

      Wall St., I am sure, has deluded itself into thinking that the world cannot exist without it, and that people could not buy and sell stock without brokers, prime brokers, market makers, and the DTCC.

      And capitalism as they know it would come to an end. As for the rest of us, their passing will barely be noted.

      If the full extent of the FTD problem were ever made known to the general public, they would be calling for the heads of all of these “indispensable” people on spits lining the entire length of I-95.

      Last night I put my TV throw-up pot next to the recliner and watched some CNBC program with a bunch of bankers talking about how to fix the economy. They all said that limits on employee compensation was a terrible idea. Apparently all of the blithering idiots who dreamed up the CDO, CDS, subprime mortgages, and credit card fees, destroying their own industry and crippling the world economy in the process, are still commanding eight figure salaries in New York. Good thing that throw up pot was nearby.

      Also, we apparently need more “liquidity”, which as I think I understood the usage of the term, means we need more idiots with more money than they know what to do with (or, better yet, somebody else’s money to play with) to spend trillions to buy paper assets having an obvious true value somewhere between one-ply and two-ply toilet paper.

      The SEC should be water-boarded until they repent and view their function to be insuring that our capital markets efficiently allocate capital to those businesses and industries out of which will grow the future. If, in that process, the volume of trades on Wall St. declines to 1950 levels, who living west of the Hudson cares?

    44. Marv Eatinger says:

      534 Dirksen Senate Office Building
      Washington, D.C. 20510
      P: (202) 224-7391
      F: (202) 224-5137

      Text Only

      Home

      Please complete the form below to send the Committee an e-mail message.

      If you provide an e-mail address, you will receive an automated confirmation that your message was sent, but do not reply to the e-mailed confirmation as it is sent from a separate e-mail account that does not accept incoming messages.

      Again, complete the boxes below to contact the committee. We appreciate hearing from you.

      Prefix: Mr. Mrs. Ms. Miss Mr. & Mrs. Dr. Prof.
      First Name :: Last Name :: Suffix ::
      Address 1 ::
      Address 2 ::
      City ::
      State :: Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut DC Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana N. Carolina N. Dakota Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island S. Carolina S. Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virgin Islands Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Zip ::
      Email ::
      Issue ::
      Message :: Think about it: Daleco Resources Corp – The ability to sell “naked short” 5,000,000 common shares in 1996 & 1997 and cover these naked short sales three years later while delisted to the Pink Sheets with 50,000 actual trades and then the addition of two externally added zeros. Just the same as printing money and you never pay taxes on the gain! And, was this the first time that this crime ever took place?

      Marv Eatinger

      —– Original Message —–
      From: marv eatinger
      To: chairmanoffice@sec.gov ; hawked@sec.gov ; CFLETTERS ; fraud@gao.gov ; casework@grassley.senate.gov ; caseyk@sec.gov ; aguilarl@sec.gov ; paredest@sec.gov ; waltere@sec.gov ; brandon_barford@banking.senate.gov ; lee@leeterry.com ; oig@sec.gov ; president@whitehouse.gov
      Cc: Kara.scannell@wsj.com
      Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 6:48 PM
      Subject: SMOKE AND MIRRORS?

      Statement From Chairman Schapiro on Proposed Budget for SEC
      FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
      2009-37
      Washington, D.C., Feb. 26, 2009 — The following is a statement from SEC Chairman Mary L. Schapiro regarding the President’s FY 2010 budget request for the SEC, which represents a 13 percent increase over its FY 2008 budget:

      “The President’s requested budget increase for the SEC would enable us to increase our staff and use new technology to pursue risk-based approaches that would better detect fraud and ensure stronger oversight of the nation’s securities markets. We appreciate these additional resources that would help strengthen and reinvigorate the SEC and rededicate our commitment to the protection of investors.”

      # # #

      http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2009/2009-37.htm

      ===============================================

      Dear Ms Schapiro:

      Marv Eatinger filed an 86 item complaint package with the SEC in August of 1989, and another complaint by email (more than one email – GAO control no. 42822) to the Miami SEC branch office in November of 2001. The August of 1989 complaint had to do with a public company named Daleco Resources Corporation, and the November of 2001 complaint had to do with a public company named Regency Affiliates, Inc. In both cases my complaints were submitted after substantial due diligence on my part. I explained to Dan Hawke in July of 2006 how Daleco Resources Corporation was knowledgeable when filing public reports in order to file their public reports so that the red flags that would require a review and possible investigation would be circumvented using Daleco’s proprietary SEC filing knowledge. It also appears that Regency Affiliates, Inc. had certain proprietary knowledge as to how to avoid SEC scrutiny of a particular item in a public filing.

      Your above statement intrigues me ["would enable us to increase our staff and use new technology to pursue risk-based approaches"] ! In my case as concerning Daleco Resources Corporation and Regency Affiliates, Inc., I gave the SEC actual facts that proved securities fraud had been committed in filings! These facts were gained from my due diligence of associated publicly filed documents that took place over a considerable period of time.

      My question to the SEC is as follows: Will the new budget increase ["would enable us to increase our staff and use new technology to pursue risk-based approaches"] allow the SEC to discover public corporate fraud without the use of complaints submitted by public investors? And if not, should the SEC have taken more seriously public investor due diligence complaints of securities fraud submitted prior to this new budget? Would “new technology to pursue risk-based approaches” guarantee that the SEC would pursue public corporation fraud that transcends “political” considerations as to the ramifications of any investigation and prosecution of the perpetrators of this corporate fraud?

      Marv Eatinger

      Up to 10,000 characters

      Thank you for contacting the Committee! [SENT FEBRUARY 27, 2009 11:00 AM CST]

    45. Marv Eatinger says:

      —– Original Message —–
      From: marv eatinger
      To: mitch0033@gmail.com
      Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 5:59 PM
      Subject: DALECO RESOURCES CORP – THE BOWLES OF UNREGULATED CAPITALISM AND MISCREANTS ASSOCIATED WITH UNREGULATED CAPITALISM

      —– Original Message —–
      From: marv eatinger
      To: nazaretha@sec.gov ; caseyk@sec.gov ; hawked@sec.gov ; CSEEAST@INTERACTIVEDATA.COM ; camposr@sec.gov
      Cc: j.heller@wsj.com ; t.cullen@wsj.com ; d.bernard@wsj.com ; newseditors@wsj.com
      Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 5:18 PM
      Subject: Fw: DALECO RESOURCES CORP – THE BOWELS OF THE REGULATORY SYSTEM FOR PUBLICLY TRADED STOCKS?

      DEAR CSEAST AT INTERACTIVEDATA.COM:

      AS OF AUGUST 10, 2007, I HAVE NEVER RECEIVED A RESPONSE PER YOUR EMAIL (COPY SHOWN BELOW) DATED OCTOBER 27, 2006 AT 4:16 PM!

      Sincerely,
      Marv Eatinger

      —– Original Message —–
      From: marv eatinger
      To: camposr@sec.gov ; nazaretha@sec.gov ; caseyk@sec.gov
      Cc: j.heller@wsj.com ; t.cullen@wsj.com ; d.bernard@wsj.com ; newseditors@wsj.com
      Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 5:42 PM
      Subject: Fw: DALECO RESOURCES CORP – THE BOWELS OF THE REGULATORY SYSTEM FOR PUBLICLY TRADED STOCKS?

      —– Original Message —–
      From: marv eatinger
      To: fraud@gao.gov
      Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 5:31 PM
      Subject: Fw: DALECO RESOURCES CORP – THE BOWELS OF THE REGULATORY SYSTEM FOR PUBLICLY TRADED STOCKS?

      —– Original Message —–
      From: marv eatinger
      To: senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov ; BRANDON_barford@banking.senate.gov
      Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 5:16 PM
      Subject: Fw: DALECO RESOURCES CORP – THE BOWELS OF THE REGULATORY SYSTEM FOR PUBLICLY TRADED STOCKS?

      —– Original Message —–
      From: marv eatinger
      To: atkinsp@sec.gov
      Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 5:14 PM
      Subject: Fw: DALECO RESOURCES CORP – THE BOWELS OF THE REGULATORY SYSTEM FOR PUBLICLY TRADED STOCKS?

      —– Original Message —–
      From: marv eatinger
      To: hawked@sec.gov
      Cc: Matt Bassett ; BJKOZLEN@aol.com
      Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 4:32 PM
      Subject: Fw: DALECO RESOURCES CORP – THE BOWELS OF THE REGULATORY SYSTEM FOR PUBLICLY TRADED STOCKS?

      —– Original Message —–
      From: marv eatinger
      To: mail@crsp.uchicago.edu ; philip.long@yale.edu
      Cc: franzese@ou.edu
      Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 4:19 PM
      Subject: Fw: DALECO RESOURCES CORP – THE BOWELS OF THE REGULATORY SYSTEM FOR PUBLICLY TRADED STOCKS?

      “In 1999, CRSP is justly considered the best provider by far of US corporate actions information. Specifically, we
      diligently track name changes and name identifiers, and distributions of shares, cash, rights, spin-offs, mergers and
      liquidation payments. As a result, the history and quality of CRSP capital return, income return and total return
      numbers are unsurpassed.”

      DEAR UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO CRSP.UCHICAGO.EDU:

      REFER TO PERMNO #78387 (DALECO RESOURCES, INC.) AS FOLLOWS:

      Company Information: DALECO RESOURCES INC
      17 WILMONT MEWS FL 5
      WEST CHESTER, PA 19382-3243

      Status: NOT IN GOOD STANDING
      Registered Agent: DALE M CHEPULIS
      4999 LUSK LANE
      DOUBLE OAK, TX 75028
      Registered Agent Resignation Date:
      State of Incorporation: TX
      File Number: 0112441900
      Charter/COA Date: August 22, 1989
      Charter/COA Type: Charter
      Taxpayer Number: 17522921778

      FROM THE ABOVE PRESENTATION YOU CAN SEE THAT DALECO RESOURCES INC WAS AND IS INCORPORATED IN TEXAS AS OF
      AUGUST 22, 1989. DALECO RESOURCES INC WAS NEVER REGISTERED AS A PUBLIC COMPANY AND NEVER SOLD ANY STOCK
      AS A PUBLIC CORPORATION.

      MY QUESTION TO CRSP.UCHICAGO.EDU IS AS FOLLOWS: SINCE DALECO RESOURCES INC WAS NEVER A PUBLIC COMPANY,
      HOW WERE THEY EVER ASSIGNED A “PERMNO #78387″ IN 1998? IS THIS PERMNO #78387 ASSOCIATED WITH CUSIP #23437P109
      WHICH WAS DALECO RESOURCES CORP CUSIP NO. PRIOR TO THE ONE OR TWO EFFECTIVE 1 FOR 10 REVERSE SPLITS
      MANIPULATED BY DALECO RESOURCES CORP IN FEBRUARY OF 1998?

      A REPLY WOULD BE APPRECIATED.

      Sincerely,
      Marv Eatinger
      ========================================================================

      —– Original Message —–
      From: marv eatinger
      To: mail@crsp.uchicago.edu
      Cc: franzese@ou.edu
      Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2006 8:09 PM
      Subject: Fw: DALECO RESOURCES CORP – THE BOWELS OF THE REGULATORY SYSTEM FOR PUBLICLY TRADED STOCKS?

      CRSP.UCHICAGO.EDU:

      ENCLOSED YOU WILL FIND SOME INFORMATION CONCERNING A PUBLIC COMPANY NAMED DALECO RESOURCES CORP OR DALECO RESOURCES CORPORATION OR DALECO RESOURCES, INC.

      CRSP THROUGH YEAR 1998 SHOWS DALECO RESOURCES, INC. WITH A CRSP NUMBER OF 78387. DOES THIS CRSP NUMBER OF 78387 REALIZE THE EFFECT OF DALECO RESOURCES CORP APPARENT EFFECTIVE REVERSE 1 FOR 10 COMMON STOCK SPLIT DATES OF FEBRUARY 17, 1998 AND FEBRUARY 24, 1998? NOTICE THAT DALECO RESOURCES CORP NEVER USED CUSIP NUMBER OF 23437P208 (POST REVERSE SPLIT CUSIP NUMBER AS COMPARED TO 23437P109 PRE REVERSE SPLIT NUMBER) ON ANY OF DALECO’S FORM 12B-25 FILINGS WITH THE SEC AFTER FEBRUARY 24, 1998 (COPIES OF 12B-25 FILINGS SHOWN BELOW)!

      IN THE 23 YEARS THAT I HAVE BEEN AN INVESTOR IN DALECO RESOURCES CORP (ELECTRONIC HEADER OF ALL SEC FILINGS) OR DALECO RESOURCES CORPORATION (SHOWN IN BODY TEXT OF ALL SEC FILINGS), DALECO RESOURCES, INC. NEVER ENTERED THE PICTURE AS A CORPORATE NAME!

      Thanks,
      Marv Eatinger

      =====================================================================================
      —– Original Message —–
      From: marv eatinger
      To: CSEast@interactivedata.com ; Rosenblat, Carol I. ; hawked@sec.gov
      Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 6:10 PM
      Subject: DALECO RESOURCES CORP – THE BOWELS OF THE REGULATORY SYSTEM FOR PUBLICLY TRADED STOCKS?

      CSEast@interactivedata.com:

      THANK YOU FOR YOUR REPLY OF OCTOBER 27, 2006 4:16 PM AND OCTOBER 06, 2006 8:31 AM. DOV AMIR (DAMIR@ARGONET.NET)
      HAD AT LEAST A 29 YEAR MANAGERIAL POSITION AS CEO AND PRESIDENT (ONE OF TWO FOUNDERS) WITH DALECO RESOURCES CORP. DOV AMIR RESIGNED AS OF OCTOBER 1, 2006. IT APPEARS THAT THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF DALECO’S 1 FOR 10 REVERSE SPLIT IN FEBRUARY OF 1998 WAS SOMEHOW – SOMEWAY PRESENTED TO CERTAIN REGULATORY AUTHORITIES AS HAVING TWO EFFECTIVE DATES, FEBRUARY 17, 1998 AND FEBRUARY 24, 1998!

      Marv Eatinger
      =============================================================================================================================
      “On February 17, 1998 by BUSINESS WIRE (BW1566) Wayne, Pa. and REUTERS (15:46 02-17-98) Wayne, Pa. Daleco Resources Corp issued a Press Release that included the following information: In the annual meeting held on Feb. 16, 1998 the shareholders overwhelmingly approved the board of directors proposed amendment for a ten for one reverse split of the company’s common shares.

      The effective date for the reverse stock split is Feb. 17, 1998.”
      ===============================================================================================

      “FROM 10KSB REPORT FILED BY DALECO RESOURCES CORP ON MAY 18, 1999 WITH THE SEC – PAGE 39 – NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEARS ENDED SEPT. 30, 1998, 1997 AND 1996: Item k.
      k. Reverse Stock Split

      Effective February 24, 1998, the majority of
      stockholders of the Company approved a reverse
      ten-for-one stock split. The effect of the reverse
      stock split has been retroactively reflected in these
      financial statements. All reference to the number of
      common and preferred shares, stock options, warrants,
      and per share amounts elsewhere in these financial
      statements and related footnotes have been restated
      as appropriate to reflect the effect of the reverse
      split for all periods presented.”
      ============================================================================================================================
      —– Original Message —–
      From:
      To:
      Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 4:16 PM
      Subject: Re: CREDIBILITY OF DATA AVAILABLE OVER INTERNET WEB SITES FOR PUBLIC INVESTORS?

      > Thank you for corresponding with Customer Service East via e-mail.
      > We are researching your request and will respond as soon as we are able.
      ================================================================

      —– Original Message —–
      From: marv eatinger
      To: DAMIR@ARGONET.NET
      Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 6:56 PM
      Subject: DALECO RESOURCES CORP – OTCBB SYMBOL- DLOV

      Dov Amir:

      ON FEBRUARY 23, 1998 DALECO RES CORP (SYMBOL-DLOV) TRADED 11,900 SHARES (www.yahoo.com). IF THIS TRADE WOULD HAVE BEEN SHOWN ON http://WWW.BIGCHARTS.COM HISTORICAL VOLUME FOR DALECO RES CORP ON FEBRUARY 23, 1998, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN SHOWN AS APPROXIMATELY 119,000 SHARES!

      THE STATEMENT COPIED FROM THE BELOW BIGCHARTS.COM SCREEN “DLOV not traded on Monday, February 23, 1998″ IS MISLEADING AND NOT TECHNICALLY CORRECT!

      MY QUESTION IS AS FOLLOWS: WHY DID “BIG CHARTS” ELIMINATE ALL HISTORICAL PRICE AND VOLUME DATA FOR DALECO RES CORP (SYMBOL-DLOV) PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 24, 1998?

      Marv Eatinger

      ================================================================

      BELOW CHART COPIED FROM BIGCHARTS.MARKETWATCH.COM/HISTORICAL/:
      This Historical Quotes tool allows you to look up a security’s exact closing price.
      Simply type in the symbol and a historical date to view a quote and mini chart for that security.

      Enter Symbol: Enter Date:

      DLOV not traded on
      Monday, February 23, 1998

      This Historical Quotes tool allows you to look up a security’s exact closing price.
      Simply type in the symbol and a historical date to view a quote and mini chart for that security.

      ====================================================================================MARKETWATCH.COM:

      WHY DID “BIG CHARTS” ELIMINATE ALL HISTORICAL PRICE AND VOLUME DATA FOR DALECO RES CORP (SYMBOL-DLOV) PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 24, 1998? THE FOLLOWING LINK WILL GIVE YOU A BRIEF SUMMARY OF DALECO RESOURCES CORP START UP BUSINESS PLAN IN THE YEAR OF 1977.
      LINK: 142 The latest 10-QSB report shows that as of Decembe virgule 19 Feb 2004
      5:51 PM EST

      ============================================================================
      DALECO RESOURCES CORP DID A 1 FOR 10 REVERSE SPLIT EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 23 OR 24 OF 1998. WHY DOES “BIG CHARTS” ELIMINATE ALL INFORMATION AS TO DALECO RESOURCES CORP PUBLIC TRADING DATA PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 24, 1998? BEFORE AND AFTER THE REVERSE SPLIT, DALECO RESOURCES CORP WAS LISTED ON THE NASDAQ SMALL CAP STOCK MARKET UNTIL THE CLOSE OF TRADING ON JANUARY 27, 1999!

      BELOW CHARTS COPIED FROM BIGCHARTS.MARKETWATCH.COM/HISTORICAL/:
      This Historical Quotes tool allows you to look up a security’s exact closing price.
      Simply type in the symbol and a historical date to view a quote and mini chart for that security.

      Enter Symbol: Enter Date:

      DLOV not traded on
      Monday, February 23, 1998

      This Historical Quotes tool allows you to look up a security’s exact closing price.
      Simply type in the symbol and a historical date to view a quote and mini chart for that security.

      Enter Symbol: Enter Date:

      Daleco Res Corp
      Tuesday, February 24, 1998

      Closing Price: 1.125
      Open: 1.75
      High: 1.75
      Low: 1.00
      Volume: 19,300
      Go To Charting

      No Splits

      2-Month Daily Chart of Daleco Res Corp

      1 FOR 10 REVERSE SPLIT EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 23? OR FEBRUARY 24? 1998! ABOVE CHARTS IMPLY THAT NO REVERSE SPLIT EVER TOOK PLACE WITH THE ELIMINATION OF FEBRUARY 23, 1998 AND BEFORE TRADING DATA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      =============================================================================================================

      FROM “REASONS FOR THE AMENDMENT” FILED AS PART OF DALECO RESOURCES CORP DEF 14A WHICH WAS FILED WITH THE SEC ON JANUARY 20, 1998:

      REASONS FOR THE AMENDMENT

      The Board of Directors believes the Amendment is desirable for several
      reasons. The National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotation
      Stock Market (“NASDAQ”) has announced changes to its Small Cap Market listing
      requirements which are to be effective February 23, 1998, which includes:
      500,000 shares in the public float, a market value of the public float in excess
      of $1,000,000, more than two market makers, 300 holders of 100 shares or more,
      and a minimum bid price of $1.00. According to NASDAQ’s new requirements, the
      new price requirement will provide a safeguard against certain market activity
      associated with low-priced securities, and will enhance the credibility of the
      market. The bid price for the Common Stock of the Company has over the past year
      been below $1.00 primarily due to the conversion of the Company’s Regulation S
      Debentures into Common Stock which substantially diluted the price of the stock.
      Prior to the first quarter of Fiscal 1997, the Company’s Common Stock
      customarily traded in or above the $1.00 range. The Reverse Stock Split is
      intended to help the Company meet the $1.00 minimum bid price standard for the
      NASDAQ Small Cap Market. The Company believes that it already meets the other
      requirements for listing on the NASDAQ Small Cap Market, such as more than two
      market makers (the Company has over five) and more than 300 shareholders holding
      100 shares or more, more than 500,000 share in the public float (after giving
      effect to the Reverse Stock Split), and a market value of the public float in
      excess of $1,000,000. The proposed Reverse Stock Split would not affect the
      Company’s ability to meet any of these criteria and would allow the Company to
      meet the $1.00 per share bid price criteria which it presently does not. There
      can be no assurance that any or all of these effects will occur, including,
      without limitation, that the market price per New Share of Common Stock after
      the Reverse Stock Split will be ten times the market price per Old Share of
      Common Stock before the Reverse Stock Split, or that such price will either
      exceed or remain in excess of the $1.00 minimum bid price as required by NASDAQ.
      ================================================================
      On February 17, 1998 by BUSINESS WIRE (BW1566) Wayne, Pa. and REUTERS (15:46 02-17-98) Wayne, Pa. Daleco Resources Corp issued a Press Release that included the following information: In the annual meeting held on Feb. 16, 1998 the shareholders overwhelmingly approved the board of directors proposed amendment for a ten for one reverse split of the company’s common shares.

      The effective date for the reverse stock split is Feb. 17, 1998.

      ================================================================
      FROM 10KSB REPORT FILED BY DALECO RESOURCES CORP ON MAY 18, 1999 WITH THE SEC – PAGE 39 – NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEARS ENDED SEPT. 30, 1998, 1997 AND 1996: Item k.
      k. Reverse Stock Split

      Effective February 24, 1998, the majority of
      stockholders of the Company approved a reverse
      ten-for-one stock split. The effect of the reverse
      stock split has been retroactively reflected in these
      financial statements. All reference to the number of
      common and preferred shares, stock options, warrants,
      and per share amounts elsewhere in these financial
      statements and related footnotes have been restated
      as appropriate to reflect the effect of the reverse
      split for all periods presented.
      ================================================================
      So, here you have the stockholders leaving the annual stockholders meeting of Daleco Resources Corp on
      February 16, 1998 thinking THAT the effective date of the 10 for 1 reverse split is February 17, 1998, when
      according to item k. shown above, the ACTUAL effective date for this reverse split was FEB. 24, 1998!!!!
      DID THIS ALL HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE SALE OF REGULATION “S” SHARES IN DEC. OF 1996 AND JAN. OF 1997 AND
      THE ADDING OF TWO ZEROS TO DALECO’S TRADING VOLUME FROM MARCH 1, 2000 TO AUGUST 1, 2000 WHILE DALECO
      RESOURCES CORP WAS DELISTED TO THE “PINK SHEETS”?
      ADDING TWO ZEROS (PINK SHEETS MARCH 1, 2000 TO AUGUST 1,2000
      Below you will find copies of the historical volume for Daleco Resources Corp on the following days: March 7, 2000 March 8, 2000 March 9, 2000 March 10, 2000 March 13, 2000 March 14, 2000 Why do the volume figures on http://www.moneycentral.com show two more zeros on the daily TRADING volume figures as compared to the daily trading volume figures shown on http://www.yahoo.com ? FROM HISTORICAL VOLUME FOR DALECO RESOURCES CORP http://WWW.MONEYCENTRAL.COM SYMBOL DLOV ON http://WWW.MONEYCENTRAL.COM VOLUME 3/14/2000 0.1563 0.1563 0.1563 0.1563 230,000 3/13/2000 0.7500 0.7500 0.7500 0.7500 200,000 3/10/2000 0.1250 0.1250 0.1250 0.1250 0 3/9/2000 0.1250 0.1250 0.1250 0.1250 30,000 3/8/2000 0.7500 0.1250 0.1250 0.1250 2,620,000 3/7/2000 0.5000 0.1250 0.1250 0.1250 230,000 =========================================================== DALECO RESOURCES CORPORATION (OTCBB) FORM 12(b)-25 SEC FILINGS USING CUSIP NO. 23437P109 AS A REFERENCE: FORM 12(b)-25 CUSIP NO. 23437P109 FORM 12(b)-25 SEC FILING DATE NT 10-Q YES FEB. 11, 2005 NT 10-K NONE DEC. 28, 2004 NT 10-K YES DEC. 29, 2003 NT 10-K YES DEC. 30, 2002 NT 10-K YES DEC. 27, 2001 NT 10-K YES DEC. 28, 2000 NT 10-K NONE DEC. 29, 1999 NT 10-Q YES AUG. 13, 1999 NT 10-K NONE DEC. 30, 1998

    46. Marv Eatinger says:

      DALECO RESOURCES CORPORATION (OTCBB) FORM 12(b)-25 SEC FILINGS USING CUSIP NO. 23437P109 AS A REFERENCE: FORM 12(b)-25 CUSIP NO. 23437P109 FORM 12(b)-25 SEC FILING DATE NT 10-Q YES FEB. 11, 2005 NT 10-K NONE DEC. 28, 2004 NT 10-K YES DEC. 29, 2003 NT 10-K YES DEC. 30, 2002 NT 10-K YES DEC. 27, 2001 NT 10-K YES DEC. 28, 2000 NT 10-K NONE DEC. 29, 1999 NT 10-Q YES AUG. 13, 1999 NT 10-K NONE DEC. 30, 1998

      DALECO RESOURCES CORP CIRCUMVENTED SEC SCRUTINY IN ITS PUBLIC FILINGS AS TO DALECO’S 1 FOR 10 REVERSE COMMON STOCK SPLIT EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 24, 1998 BY MANIPULATING DALECO’S 12b-25 LATE FILING FORMS WITH THE SEC AND NEVER SHOWING DALECO’S POST 1 FOR 10 REVERSE SPLIT EFFECTIVE FEB. 24, 1998 CUSIP NO. OF 23437P208 IN ANY OF DALECO’S SUBSEQUENT FILINGS WITH THE SEC!!!

      Marv Eatinger

    47. Marv Eatinger says:

      —– Original Message —–
      From: marv eatinger
      To: hawked@sec.gov ; chairmanoffice@sec.gov ; CFLETTERS ; fraud@gao.gov ; casework@grassley.senate.gov ; caseyk@sec.gov ; aguilarl@sec.gov ; paredest@sec.gov ; waltere@sec.gov ; brandon_barford@banking.senate.gov ; lee@leeterry.com ; oig@sec.gov
      Cc: Kara.scannell@wsj.com ; ENFORCEMENT
      Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 7:15 PM
      Subject: INTESTINAL FORTITUDE!

      Dear Securities and Exchange Commission:
      I am impressed with the sudden ability of the SEC to file charges against Hedge Funds and their operators. It would seem that from a “political” point of view the sudden interest in prosecuting Hedge Funds is appropriate. My question to the SEC is as follows: When is the SEC going to expose two public companies named Daleco Resources Corporation and Regency Affiliates, Inc. for on going securities fraud in the case of Daleco Resources Corporation starting in the United States on May 31, 1984 (20-F report) and Regency Affiliates, Inc. at least starting on April 1, 1996 (Regency’s first 10-K electronic report with the SEC)?

      In order for the SEC to gain credibility in that the SEC is capable of carrying out their mandate to prosecute civil violations of the rules and regulations governing the United States public equity markets, the SEC needs to “bite the bullet” and pursue with intestinal fortitude the fraud that goes straight to the bowels of the United States regulatory system for publicly traded stocks!

      Marv Eatinger

      SEC Protecting Investors, Markets During Credit Crisis [February 25, 2009 http://WWW.SEC.GOV
      During the current turmoil in the credit markets, the SEC has worked closely with other regulators in the U.S. and around the world to protect investors and the markets.

      SEC Actions During Credit Crisis
      2008 Annual Report

      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Other News:

      SEC Charges Two New York Residents For Misappropriating More Than $500 Million in Investment Scheme
      SEC Obtains Emergency Asset Freeze to Halt $30 Million "Fund of Funds" Investment Scheme
      SEC Charges Unregistered Hedge Fund with Fraud
      SEC Statement on the Case Against R. Allen Stanford | INFORMATION FOR INVESTORS
      =============================================================================
      Marv Eatinger Says:
      February 15th, 2009 at 8:04 am
      The Madoff scheme is a tragedy, but it is only the tip of the ice berg. Daleco Resources Corporation goes straight to the bowels of the regulatory system for publicly traded equities. Daleco represents how professionals who hold themselves out as legitimate and law abiding use proprietary information gained from being employed by the SEC and take that information to a private practice and use it to line their own pockets and circumvent SEC scrutiny of public corporation fraud! The regulatory system for publicly traded equities needs a total reworking!

      Marv Eatinger ( I have posted details of Daleco’s and Regency's fraudulent business plan on http://www.ragingbull.com symbol DLOV (for Daleco) and symbol RAFI (for Regency) message board posts by “virgule” and http://www.yahoo.com finance message board for symbol “DLOV.OB” posts by “m_68114″ )

      IF YOU REMEMBER FROM MY POSTS AND SUBMISSION OF AN 86 ITEM COMPLAINT PACKAGE WITH THE LOS ANGELES BRANCH OF THE SEC IN AUGUST OF 1989:

      1. THE ILLEGAL POOLING OF INTERESTS AMALGAMATION BETWEEN UNITED WESTLAND & REEF RESOURCES IN CANADA IN NOVEMBER OF 1981.

      2. THE MERGER IN NEVADA ON OCT. 1, 1983 OF WESTLANDS RESOURCES CORPORATION (NEVADA) & REEF RESOURCES CORPORATION (NEVADA) THAT IS RECORDED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF NEVADA AS A MERGER THAT WAS OFFICIAL AS OF JAN. 25, 1984. [ THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE NEVER KNEW THAT THE MERGER WAS EFFECTIVE ON OCT. 1, 1983. OCT. 1, 1983 WAS DALECO RESOURCES CORP (UNITED WESTLAND RESOURCES LTD.) START OF ITS 1984 FISCAL YEAR!!! ]

      3. THE FRAUDULENT ACCOUNTING CONSPIRACY THAT TOOK PLACE BETWEEN UNITED WESTLAND (NOW DALECO) & COOPERS & LYBRAND ACCOUNTING FIRM AS DALECO’S AUDITORS. ALL MADE POSSIBLE BY THE FRAUDULENT ACTS COMMITTED IN ITEMS 1 & 2 ABOVE.

      3a. THE MANIPULATION OF DALECO’S SEC FILINGS (20-F, 10-K, 10-Q ETC.) FOR 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, & 1988 BY SHEA & GOULD LAW FIRM AND ITS MANAGING PARTNER MARIO V. MIRABELLI IN ORDER TO CIRCUMVENT SEC SCRUTINY AS TO DALECO’S FRAUDULENT BEGINNINGS (FILINGS WERE MANIPULATED INTO BRANCHES 1,3, 4 & 5 OF THE DIVISION OF CORPORATE FINANCE).

      4. ON NOV. 11, 1992 DALECO RESOURCES CORPORATION FILED A PRELIMINARY PROSPECTUS WITH THE SEC FOR THE ISSUE OF 3,000,000 COMMON SHARES. THE UNDERWRITERS FOR THIS ISSUE WERE TO BE MEYERS, POLLOCK, ROBBINS INC. THE SEC APPARENTLY NEVER APPROVED THIS ISSUE.

      New York County District Attorney’s Office
      Manhattan District Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau announced that MICHAEL PLOSHNICK, the president of MEYERS POLLOCK ROBBINS INC., has pleaded guilty today to …
      manhattanda.org/whatsnew/press/2000-10-04.shtml – 11k – Cached – Similar pages

      5. NOVEMBER OF 1995 DALECO RESOURCES CORPORATION BARRON’S – MARKET WEEK ADVERTISEMENT (NOV. 27, 1995 – MW15) THAT ON NOV. 17, 1995 DALECO ACQUIRED SUSTAINABLE FOREST INDUSTRIES, INC. – TELEPHONE NO. 516-357-9759 HEMPSTEAD, LONG ISLAND. I CALLED THIS NUMBER AND GOT A RECEPTIONIST WHO TOLD ME THAT THIS WAS THE OFFICE OF A CLEANING COMPANY THAT DID CLEANING FOR 5 DIFFERENT COMPANIES. 6 MONTHS LATER I CALLED THE SAME TELEPHONE NUMBER AND THE RECEPTIONIST TOLD ME THAT THIS WAS THE OFFICE FOR A FIRM THAT SOLD EMERGING COMPANY STOCKS (MY OPINION – A BOILER ROOM OPERATION).

      6. ON MARCH 17, 1996 DALECO RESOURCES CORPORATION ENTERS INTO A CONSULTING AGREEMENT WITH DEVEN RESOURCES, INC.

      7. ON MARCH 19, 1996 DALECO RESOURCES CORPORATION ENTERS INTO A CONSULTING AGREEMENT WITH AVONWOOD CAPITAL CORPORATION.

      8. ON OCTOBER 1, 1996 DALECO RESOURCES CORPORATION BECOMES A DOMESTIC UNITED STATES COMPANY INCORPORATED IN DELAWARE AND EFFECTIVE OCT. 1, 1996 MERGES WITH DEVEN RESOURCES, INC.

      9. DECEMBER 1996 THROUGH JANUARY 1997 REGULATION “S” SHARES THAT DALECO SUPPOSEDLY SOLD TO “FOREIGN INVESTORS” ARE BEING SOLD BACK INTO THE NASDAQ MARKET BY THOSE SUPPOSED “FOREIGN INVESTORS”. (9,000,000 PLUS REG “S” SHARES)

      10. SOMETIME IN 1996 OR 1997 DALECO HAS AT LEAST 5,000,000 COMMON SHARES BEING SOLD “NAKED SHORT”.

      11. EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 17, 1998 DALECO RECORDS WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF DELAWARE A 1 FOR 10 REVERSE COMMON STOCK SPLIT.

      12. EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 24, 1998 DALECO RECORDS IN ALL FUTURE SEC FILINGS A 1 FOR 10 REVERSE COMMON STOCK SPLIT.

      13. ON FEBRUARY 24, 1998 DALECO’S NEW CUSIP NO. BECOMES 23437P208. HOWEVER, DALECO IN ALL FUTURE SEC FILINGS NEVER USES THIS NEW CUSIP NO. BUT USES THE OBSOLETE CUSIP NO. OF 23437P109. THIS MAKES IT POSSIBLE FOR DALECO TO CIRCUMVENT SEC SCRUTINY AS TO THE FEB. 24, 1998 1 FOR 10 REVERSE SPLIT.

      14. IN EFFECT THE ABOVE (ITEM 11. & 12.) TWO 1 FOR 10 REVERSE SPLITS WOULD APPEAR AS A 1 FOR 100 REVERSE SPLIT OF THE ORIGINAL COMMON SHARES ON HISTORIC RECORDS IN CERTAIN REGULATORY AGENCIES. SEE COVERING OF “NAKED SHORT SALES” WITH THE ADDITION OF TWO ZEROS IN ITEM 15. BELOW!

      15. FEBRUARY 28, 2000 THROUGH AUGUST 1, 2000 WHILE DALECO IS DELISTED TO THE “PINK SHEETS” AND USING TWO ACTIVE SYMBOLS OF “DLOV & DLVO”, DALECO STAGES ACTUAL TRADES FOR ITS COMMON STOCK AND ADDS TWO ZEROS TO THESE DAILY TRADES IN ORDER TO COVER 1/100 OF THE VOLUME OF COMMON SHARES THAT WERE SOLD “NAKED SHORT” IN 1996 AND/OR 1997.

      16. ALL OF THE ABOVE VIOLATIONS HAVE MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR DALECO RESOURCES CORPORATION TO FILE REPORTS WITH THE SEC THAT ARE FREE OF MISLEADING & DECEPTIVE STATEMENTS!

      Rule 10b-5: Employment of Manipulative and Deceptive Practices”:
      It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails or of any facility of any national securities exchange,
      (a) To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud,
      (b) To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or
      (c) To engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person,
      in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.

    48. Dr. Jim DeCosta says:

      I was just thinking of the appropriateness of the characterization of these readily sellable “securities entitlements” that are in essence caused to be “issued” by naked short sellers when they refuse to deliver that which they sold as being “phantom shares”. Since the phraseology used in UCC 8-501 mandates that “securities entitlement holders” be allowed “to exercise all of the rights and property interest that comprise that security” then they are definitely some type of “share” as they are readily sellable and are credited to the accounts of their purchasers when they order and pay for “shares”.

      The dictionary defines “phantom” as: “Something apparently seen, heard, or sensed but having no physical reality”. Can you “see” these “phantom shares” that abusive naked short sellers cause the “issuance” of? Sure you can they are represented on monthly brokerage statements as “securities held long”. Can you “sense” them? Boy can you ever sense them in a corporation’s share structure when truckloads of buy orders fail to lift the offer.

      Do they have a “physical reality”? Well, not really because there is no paper-certificated “share” held in a DTC vault to justify their existence. Besides that they are TECHNICALLY not “outstanding” and they TECHNICALLY have no “legal owner”. I think the characterization of them as being “phantom shares” is 100% bang on.

      The SEC sure seems to have an issue with them being characterized as “phantom shares”, however, as just last week they announced: “The Division of Trading and Markets debunks the theory that NSS creates “counterfeit” or “phantom” shares”.”

      If you recall a “securities entitlement” was just designed to be an ultra short-lived “accounting measure” denoting a failed delivery obligation of a “legitimate” nature i.e. associated with a temporary delay in delivery. It’s an IOU. If we can agree that the number of shares TECHNICALLY “outstanding” in a corporation’s share structure is not that critical to an investor since it’s only a portion of the “supply’ of shares (phantom or legitimate) that interacts with the “demand” for shares to determine share price then things can get real “spooky” when you realize that for all intents and purposes from an investor’s point of view this IOU gets magically transformed into that which is owed i.e. any type of “share” that has attached to it the ability “to exercise the rights and property interest that comprise that security”.

      Wow, that’s scary; having the ability to pay your debts by causing the issuance of invisible to the public and to the management of the corporation “phantom shares” as per UCC-8 that neither the purchaser nor the management team’s transfer agent can tell from a real “share”. Now that’s slick! The IOU denoting the existence of a debt magically becoming payment for the debt just because of the phraseology chosen in one tiny law.

      That’s why the authors of UCC-8 incorporated the forbidding of “overissuances” and the mandate for “securities intermediaries” to OBTAIN and MAINTAIN these “financial assets” in numbers sufficient to back up the “securities entitlements”/”phantom shares” being issued. Now as to why all of the “securities cops” whether it be the NSCC, FINRA or the SEC absolutely refuse to monitor for the compliance with these “safety net” aspects to a rather dangerously-worded UCC-8 is a different matter entirely.

    49. clearthinker says:

      Heck I think I will pay my taxes with an IOU….and the government can pay their employees with all of our IOUs and they can take the IOUs to the store and buy milk and eggs with the IOUs….

      I guess since our dollar is nothing more than an IOU, they like the idea

    50. Marv Eatinger says:

      —– Original Message —–
      From: marv eatinger
      To: mitch0033@gmail.com ; fraud@gao.gov ; Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov ; hawked@sec.gov ; chairmanoffice@sec.gov ; CFLETTERS ; casework@grassley.senate.gov ; caseyk@sec.gov ; aguilarl@sec.gov ; ENFORCEMENT ; brandon_barford@banking.senate.gov ; oig@sec.gov
      Cc: Kara.scannell@wsj.com
      Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 6:15 PM
      Subject: DEMOCRATIC CAPITALISM AS ASSOCIATED WITH “THE AMERICAN DREAM” !

      http://www.deepcapture.com – The Federal Government needs to listen to the investors in public corporations in order to overcome that agency’s inability to regulate the public equity markets in a manner that would promote confidence by the investing public that the system (democratic capitalism) is a level playing field!!!
      Marv Eatinger
      Marv Eatinger Says:
      April 10th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
      534 Dirksen Senate Office Building
      Washington, D.C. 20510
      P: (202) 224-7391
      F: (202) 224-5137

      Text Only

      Home

      Please complete the form below to send the Committee an e-mail message.

      If you provide an e-mail address, you will receive an automated confirmation that your message was sent, but do not reply to the e-mailed confirmation as it is sent from a separate e-mail account that does not accept incoming messages.

      Again, complete the boxes below to contact the committee. We appreciate hearing from you.

      Prefix: Mr. Mrs. Ms. Miss Mr. & Mrs. Dr. Prof.
      First Name :: Last Name :: Suffix ::
      Address 1 ::
      Address 2 ::
      City ::
      State :: Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut DC Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana N. Carolina N. Dakota Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island S. Carolina S. Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virgin Islands Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Zip ::
      Email ::
      Issue ::
      Message :: Think about it: Daleco Resources Corp – The ability to sell “naked short” 5,000,000 common shares in 1996 & 1997 and cover these naked short sales three years later while delisted to the Pink Sheets with 50,000 actual trades and then the addition of two externally added zeros. Just the same as printing money and you never pay taxes on the gain! And, was this the first time that this crime ever took place?

      Marv Eatinger

      —– Original Message —–
      From: marv eatinger
      To: chairmanoffice@sec.gov ; hawked@sec.gov ; CFLETTERS ; fraud@gao.gov ; casework@grassley.senate.gov ; caseyk@sec.gov ; aguilarl@sec.gov ; paredest@sec.gov ; waltere@sec.gov ; brandon_barford@banking.senate.gov ; lee@leeterry.com ; oig@sec.gov ; president@whitehouse.gov
      Cc: Kara.scannell@wsj.com
      Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 6:48 PM
      Subject: SMOKE AND MIRRORS?

      Statement From Chairman Schapiro on Proposed Budget for SEC
      FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
      2009-37
      Washington, D.C., Feb. 26, 2009 — The following is a statement from SEC Chairman Mary L. Schapiro regarding the President’s FY 2010 budget request for the SEC, which represents a 13 percent increase over its FY 2008 budget:

      “The President’s requested budget increase for the SEC would enable us to increase our staff and use new technology to pursue risk-based approaches that would better detect fraud and ensure stronger oversight of the nation’s securities markets. We appreciate these additional resources that would help strengthen and reinvigorate the SEC and rededicate our commitment to the protection of investors.”

      # # #

      http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2009/2009-37.htm

      ===============================================

      Dear Ms Schapiro:

      Marv Eatinger filed an 86 item complaint package with the SEC in August of 1989, and another complaint by email (more than one email – GAO control no. 42822) to the Miami SEC branch office in November of 2001. The August of 1989 complaint had to do with a public company named Daleco Resources Corporation, and the November of 2001 complaint had to do with a public company named Regency Affiliates, Inc. In both cases my complaints were submitted after substantial due diligence on my part. I explained to Dan Hawke in July of 2006 how Daleco Resources Corporation was knowledgeable when filing public reports in order to file their public reports so that the red flags that would require a review and possible investigation would be circumvented using Daleco’s proprietary SEC filing knowledge. It also appears that Regency Affiliates, Inc. had certain proprietary knowledge as to how to avoid SEC scrutiny of a particular item in a public filing.

      Your above statement intrigues me ["would enable us to increase our staff and use new technology to pursue risk-based approaches"] ! In my case as concerning Daleco Resources Corporation and Regency Affiliates, Inc., I gave the SEC actual facts that proved securities fraud had been committed in filings! These facts were gained from my due diligence of associated publicly filed documents that took place over a considerable period of time.

      My question to the SEC is as follows: Will the new budget increase ["would enable us to increase our staff and use new technology to pursue risk-based approaches"] allow the SEC to discover public corporate fraud without the use of complaints submitted by public investors? And if not, should the SEC have taken more seriously public investor due diligence complaints of securities fraud submitted prior to this new budget? Would “new technology to pursue risk-based approaches” guarantee that the SEC would pursue public corporation fraud that transcends “political” considerations as to the ramifications of any investigation and prosecution of the perpetrators of this corporate fraud?

      Marv Eatinger

      Up to 10,000 characters

      Thank you for contacting the Committee! [SENT FEBRUARY 27, 2009 11:00 AM CST]

      Marv Eatinger Says:
      April 10th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
      —– Original Message —–
      From: marv eatinger
      To: mitch0033@gmail.com
      Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 5:59 PM
      Subject: DALECO RESOURCES CORP – THE BOWLES OF UNREGULATED CAPITALISM AND MISCREANTS ASSOCIATED WITH UNREGULATED CAPITALISM

      —– Original Message —–
      From: marv eatinger
      To: nazaretha@sec.gov ; caseyk@sec.gov ; hawked@sec.gov ; CSEEAST@INTERACTIVEDATA.COM ; camposr@sec.gov
      Cc: j.heller@wsj.com ; t.cullen@wsj.com ; d.bernard@wsj.com ; newseditors@wsj.com
      Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 5:18 PM
      Subject: Fw: DALECO RESOURCES CORP – THE BOWELS OF THE REGULATORY SYSTEM FOR PUBLICLY TRADED STOCKS?

      DEAR CSEAST AT INTERACTIVEDATA.COM:

      AS OF AUGUST 10, 2007, I HAVE NEVER RECEIVED A RESPONSE PER YOUR EMAIL (COPY SHOWN BELOW) DATED OCTOBER 27, 2006 AT 4:16 PM!

      Sincerely,
      Marv Eatinger

      —– Original Message —–
      From: marv eatinger
      To: camposr@sec.gov ; nazaretha@sec.gov ; caseyk@sec.gov
      Cc: j.heller@wsj.com ; t.cullen@wsj.com ; d.bernard@wsj.com ; newseditors@wsj.com
      Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 5:42 PM
      Subject: Fw: DALECO RESOURCES CORP – THE BOWELS OF THE REGULATORY SYSTEM FOR PUBLICLY TRADED STOCKS?

      —– Original Message —–
      From: marv eatinger
      To: fraud@gao.gov
      Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 5:31 PM
      Subject: Fw: DALECO RESOURCES CORP – THE BOWELS OF THE REGULATORY SYSTEM FOR PUBLICLY TRADED STOCKS?

      —– Original Message —–
      From: marv eatinger
      To: senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov ; BRANDON_barford@banking.senate.gov
      Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 5:16 PM
      Subject: Fw: DALECO RESOURCES CORP – THE BOWELS OF THE REGULATORY SYSTEM FOR PUBLICLY TRADED STOCKS?

      —– Original Message —–
      From: marv eatinger
      To: atkinsp@sec.gov
      Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 5:14 PM
      Subject: Fw: DALECO RESOURCES CORP – THE BOWELS OF THE REGULATORY SYSTEM FOR PUBLICLY TRADED STOCKS?

      —– Original Message —–
      From: marv eatinger
      To: hawked@sec.gov
      Cc: Matt Bassett ; BJKOZLEN@aol.com
      Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 4:32 PM
      Subject: Fw: DALECO RESOURCES CORP – THE BOWELS OF THE REGULATORY SYSTEM FOR PUBLICLY TRADED STOCKS?

      —– Original Message —–
      From: marv eatinger
      To: mail@crsp.uchicago.edu ; philip.long@yale.edu
      Cc: franzese@ou.edu
      Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 4:19 PM
      Subject: Fw: DALECO RESOURCES CORP – THE BOWELS OF THE REGULATORY SYSTEM FOR PUBLICLY TRADED STOCKS?

      “In 1999, CRSP is justly considered the best provider by far of US corporate actions information. Specifically, we
      diligently track name changes and name identifiers, and distributions of shares, cash, rights, spin-offs, mergers and
      liquidation payments. As a result, the history and quality of CRSP capital return, income return and total return
      numbers are unsurpassed.”

      DEAR UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO CRSP.UCHICAGO.EDU:

      REFER TO PERMNO #78387 (DALECO RESOURCES, INC.) AS FOLLOWS:

      Company Information: DALECO RESOURCES INC
      17 WILMONT MEWS FL 5
      WEST CHESTER, PA 19382-3243

      Status: NOT IN GOOD STANDING
      Registered Agent: DALE M CHEPULIS
      4999 LUSK LANE
      DOUBLE OAK, TX 75028
      Registered Agent Resignation Date:
      State of Incorporation: TX
      File Number: 0112441900
      Charter/COA Date: August 22, 1989
      Charter/COA Type: Charter
      Taxpayer Number: 17522921778

      FROM THE ABOVE PRESENTATION YOU CAN SEE THAT DALECO RESOURCES INC WAS AND IS INCORPORATED IN TEXAS AS OF
      AUGUST 22, 1989. DALECO RESOURCES INC WAS NEVER REGISTERED AS A PUBLIC COMPANY AND NEVER SOLD ANY STOCK
      AS A PUBLIC CORPORATION.

      MY QUESTION TO CRSP.UCHICAGO.EDU IS AS FOLLOWS: SINCE DALECO RESOURCES INC WAS NEVER A PUBLIC COMPANY,
      HOW WERE THEY EVER ASSIGNED A “PERMNO #78387″ IN 1998? IS THIS PERMNO #78387 ASSOCIATED WITH CUSIP #23437P109
      WHICH WAS DALECO RESOURCES CORP CUSIP NO. PRIOR TO THE ONE OR TWO EFFECTIVE 1 FOR 10 REVERSE SPLITS
      MANIPULATED BY DALECO RESOURCES CORP IN FEBRUARY OF 1998?

      A REPLY WOULD BE APPRECIATED.

      Sincerely,
      Marv Eatinger
      ========================================================================

      —– Original Message —–
      From: marv eatinger
      To: mail@crsp.uchicago.edu
      Cc: franzese@ou.edu
      Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2006 8:09 PM
      Subject: Fw: DALECO RESOURCES CORP – THE BOWELS OF THE REGULATORY SYSTEM FOR PUBLICLY TRADED STOCKS?

      CRSP.UCHICAGO.EDU:

      ENCLOSED YOU WILL FIND SOME INFORMATION CONCERNING A PUBLIC COMPANY NAMED DALECO RESOURCES CORP OR DALECO RESOURCES CORPORATION OR DALECO RESOURCES, INC.

      CRSP THROUGH YEAR 1998 SHOWS DALECO RESOURCES, INC. WITH A CRSP NUMBER OF 78387. DOES THIS CRSP NUMBER OF 78387 REALIZE THE EFFECT OF DALECO RESOURCES CORP APPARENT EFFECTIVE REVERSE 1 FOR 10 COMMON STOCK SPLIT DATES OF FEBRUARY 17, 1998 AND FEBRUARY 24, 1998? NOTICE THAT DALECO RESOURCES CORP NEVER USED CUSIP NUMBER OF 23437P208 (POST REVERSE SPLIT CUSIP NUMBER AS COMPARED TO 23437P109 PRE REVERSE SPLIT NUMBER) ON ANY OF DALECO’S FORM 12B-25 FILINGS WITH THE SEC AFTER FEBRUARY 24, 1998 (COPIES OF 12B-25 FILINGS SHOWN BELOW)!

      IN THE 23 YEARS THAT I HAVE BEEN AN INVESTOR IN DALECO RESOURCES CORP (ELECTRONIC HEADER OF ALL SEC FILINGS) OR DALECO RESOURCES CORPORATION (SHOWN IN BODY TEXT OF ALL SEC FILINGS), DALECO RESOURCES, INC. NEVER ENTERED THE PICTURE AS A CORPORATE NAME!

      Thanks,
      Marv Eatinger

      =====================================================================================
      —– Original Message —–
      From: marv eatinger
      To: CSEast@interactivedata.com ; Rosenblat, Carol I. ; hawked@sec.gov
      Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 6:10 PM
      Subject: DALECO RESOURCES CORP – THE BOWELS OF THE REGULATORY SYSTEM FOR PUBLICLY TRADED STOCKS?

      CSEast@interactivedata.com:

      THANK YOU FOR YOUR REPLY OF OCTOBER 27, 2006 4:16 PM AND OCTOBER 06, 2006 8:31 AM. DOV AMIR (DAMIR@ARGONET.NET)
      HAD AT LEAST A 29 YEAR MANAGERIAL POSITION AS CEO AND PRESIDENT (ONE OF TWO FOUNDERS) WITH DALECO RESOURCES CORP. DOV AMIR RESIGNED AS OF OCTOBER 1, 2006. IT APPEARS THAT THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF DALECO’S 1 FOR 10 REVERSE SPLIT IN FEBRUARY OF 1998 WAS SOMEHOW – SOMEWAY PRESENTED TO CERTAIN REGULATORY AUTHORITIES AS HAVING TWO EFFECTIVE DATES, FEBRUARY 17, 1998 AND FEBRUARY 24, 1998!

      Marv Eatinger
      =============================================================================================================================
      “On February 17, 1998 by BUSINESS WIRE (BW1566) Wayne, Pa. and REUTERS (15:46 02-17-98) Wayne, Pa. Daleco Resources Corp issued a Press Release that included the following information: In the annual meeting held on Feb. 16, 1998 the shareholders overwhelmingly approved the board of directors proposed amendment for a ten for one reverse split of the company’s common shares.

      The effective date for the reverse stock split is Feb. 17, 1998.”
      ===============================================================================================

      “FROM 10KSB REPORT FILED BY DALECO RESOURCES CORP ON MAY 18, 1999 WITH THE SEC – PAGE 39 – NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEARS ENDED SEPT. 30, 1998, 1997 AND 1996: Item k.
      k. Reverse Stock Split

      Effective February 24, 1998, the majority of
      stockholders of the Company approved a reverse
      ten-for-one stock split. The effect of the reverse
      stock split has been retroactively reflected in these
      financial statements. All reference to the number of
      common and preferred shares, stock options, warrants,
      and per share amounts elsewhere in these financial
      statements and related footnotes have been restated
      as appropriate to reflect the effect of the reverse
      split for all periods presented.”
      ============================================================================================================================
      —– Original Message —–
      From:
      To:
      Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 4:16 PM
      Subject: Re: CREDIBILITY OF DATA AVAILABLE OVER INTERNET WEB SITES FOR PUBLIC INVESTORS?

      > Thank you for corresponding with Customer Service East via e-mail.
      > We are researching your request and will respond as soon as we are able.
      ================================================================

      —– Original Message —–
      From: marv eatinger
      To: DAMIR@ARGONET.NET
      Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 6:56 PM
      Subject: DALECO RESOURCES CORP – OTCBB SYMBOL- DLOV

      Dov Amir:

      ON FEBRUARY 23, 1998 DALECO RES CORP (SYMBOL-DLOV) TRADED 11,900 SHARES (www.yahoo.com). IF THIS TRADE WOULD HAVE BEEN SHOWN ON http://WWW.BIGCHARTS.COM HISTORICAL VOLUME FOR DALECO RES CORP ON FEBRUARY 23, 1998, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN SHOWN AS APPROXIMATELY 119,000 SHARES!

      THE STATEMENT COPIED FROM THE BELOW BIGCHARTS.COM SCREEN “DLOV not traded on Monday, February 23, 1998″ IS MISLEADING AND NOT TECHNICALLY CORRECT!

      MY QUESTION IS AS FOLLOWS: WHY DID “BIG CHARTS” ELIMINATE ALL HISTORICAL PRICE AND VOLUME DATA FOR DALECO RES CORP (SYMBOL-DLOV) PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 24, 1998?

      Marv Eatinger

      ================================================================

      BELOW CHART COPIED FROM BIGCHARTS.MARKETWATCH.COM/HISTORICAL/:
      This Historical Quotes tool allows you to look up a security’s exact closing price.
      Simply type in the symbol and a historical date to view a quote and mini chart for that security.

      Enter Symbol: Enter Date:

      DLOV not traded on
      Monday, February 23, 1998

      This Historical Quotes tool allows you to look up a security’s exact closing price.
      Simply type in the symbol and a historical date to view a quote and mini chart for that security.

      ====================================================================================MARKETWATCH.COM:

      WHY DID “BIG CHARTS” ELIMINATE ALL HISTORICAL PRICE AND VOLUME DATA FOR DALECO RES CORP (SYMBOL-DLOV) PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 24, 1998? THE FOLLOWING LINK WILL GIVE YOU A BRIEF SUMMARY OF DALECO RESOURCES CORP START UP BUSINESS PLAN IN THE YEAR OF 1977.
      LINK: 142 The latest 10-QSB report shows that as of Decembe virgule 19 Feb 2004
      5:51 PM EST

      ============================================================================
      DALECO RESOURCES CORP DID A 1 FOR 10 REVERSE SPLIT EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 23 OR 24 OF 1998. WHY DOES “BIG CHARTS” ELIMINATE ALL INFORMATION AS TO DALECO RESOURCES CORP PUBLIC TRADING DATA PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 24, 1998? BEFORE AND AFTER THE REVERSE SPLIT, DALECO RESOURCES CORP WAS LISTED ON THE NASDAQ SMALL CAP STOCK MARKET UNTIL THE CLOSE OF TRADING ON JANUARY 27, 1999!

      BELOW CHARTS COPIED FROM BIGCHARTS.MARKETWATCH.COM/HISTORICAL/:
      This Historical Quotes tool allows you to look up a security’s exact closing price.
      Simply type in the symbol and a historical date to view a quote and mini chart for that security.

      Enter Symbol: Enter Date:

      DLOV not traded on
      Monday, February 23, 1998

      This Historical Quotes tool allows you to look up a security’s exact closing price.
      Simply type in the symbol and a historical date to view a quote and mini chart for that security.

      Enter Symbol: Enter Date:

      Daleco Res Corp
      Tuesday, February 24, 1998

      Closing Price: 1.125
      Open: 1.75
      High: 1.75
      Low: 1.00
      Volume: 19,300
      Go To Charting

      No Splits

      2-Month Daily Chart of Daleco Res Corp

      1 FOR 10 REVERSE SPLIT EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 23? OR FEBRUARY 24? 1998! ABOVE CHARTS IMPLY THAT NO REVERSE SPLIT EVER TOOK PLACE WITH THE ELIMINATION OF FEBRUARY 23, 1998 AND BEFORE TRADING DATA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      =============================================================================================================

      FROM “REASONS FOR THE AMENDMENT” FILED AS PART OF DALECO RESOURCES CORP DEF 14A WHICH WAS FILED WITH THE SEC ON JANUARY 20, 1998:

      REASONS FOR THE AMENDMENT

      The Board of Directors believes the Amendment is desirable for several
      reasons. The National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotation
      Stock Market (”NASDAQ”) has announced changes to its Small Cap Market listing
      requirements which are to be effective February 23, 1998, which includes:
      500,000 shares in the public float, a market value of the public float in excess
      of $1,000,000, more than two market makers, 300 holders of 100 shares or more,
      and a minimum bid price of $1.00. According to NASDAQ’s new requirements, the
      new price requirement will provide a safeguard against certain market activity
      associated with low-priced securities, and will enhance the credibility of the
      market. The bid price for the Common Stock of the Company has over the past year
      been below $1.00 primarily due to the conversion of the Company’s Regulation S
      Debentures into Common Stock which substantially diluted the price of the stock.
      Prior to the first quarter of Fiscal 1997, the Company’s Common Stock
      customarily traded in or above the $1.00 range. The Reverse Stock Split is
      intended to help the Company meet the $1.00 minimum bid price standard for the
      NASDAQ Small Cap Market. The Company believes that it already meets the other
      requirements for listing on the NASDAQ Small Cap Market, such as more than two
      market makers (the Company has over five) and more than 300 shareholders holding
      100 shares or more, more than 500,000 share in the public float (after giving
      effect to the Reverse Stock Split), and a market value of the public float in
      excess of $1,000,000. The proposed Reverse Stock Split would not affect the
      Company’s ability to meet any of these criteria and would allow the Company to
      meet the $1.00 per share bid price criteria which it presently does not. There
      can be no assurance that any or all of these effects will occur, including,
      without limitation, that the market price per New Share of Common Stock after
      the Reverse Stock Split will be ten times the market price per Old Share of
      Common Stock before the Reverse Stock Split, or that such price will either
      exceed or remain in excess of the $1.00 minimum bid price as required by NASDAQ.
      ================================================================
      On February 17, 1998 by BUSINESS WIRE (BW1566) Wayne, Pa. and REUTERS (15:46 02-17-98) Wayne, Pa. Daleco Resources Corp issued a Press Release that included the following information: In the annual meeting held on Feb. 16, 1998 the shareholders overwhelmingly approved the board of directors proposed amendment for a ten for one reverse split of the company’s common shares.

      The effective date for the reverse stock split is Feb. 17, 1998.

      ================================================================
      FROM 10KSB REPORT FILED BY DALECO RESOURCES CORP ON MAY 18, 1999 WITH THE SEC – PAGE 39 – NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEARS ENDED SEPT. 30, 1998, 1997 AND 1996: Item k.
      k. Reverse Stock Split

      Effective February 24, 1998, the majority of
      stockholders of the Company approved a reverse
      ten-for-one stock split. The effect of the reverse
      stock split has been retroactively reflected in these
      financial statements. All reference to the number of
      common and preferred shares, stock options, warrants,
      and per share amounts elsewhere in these financial
      statements and related footnotes have been restated
      as appropriate to reflect the effect of the reverse
      split for all periods presented.
      ================================================================
      So, here you have the stockholders leaving the annual stockholders meeting of Daleco Resources Corp on
      February 16, 1998 thinking THAT the effective date of the 10 for 1 reverse split is February 17, 1998, when
      according to item k. shown above, the ACTUAL effective date for this reverse split was FEB. 24, 1998!!!!
      DID THIS ALL HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE SALE OF REGULATION “S” SHARES IN DEC. OF 1996 AND JAN. OF 1997 AND
      THE ADDING OF TWO ZEROS TO DALECO’S TRADING VOLUME FROM MARCH 1, 2000 TO AUGUST 1, 2000 WHILE DALECO
      RESOURCES CORP WAS DELISTED TO THE “PINK SHEETS”?
      ADDING TWO ZEROS (PINK SHEETS MARCH 1, 2000 TO AUGUST 1,2000
      Below you will find copies of the historical volume for Daleco Resources Corp on the following days: March 7, 2000 March 8, 2000 March 9, 2000 March 10, 2000 March 13, 2000 March 14, 2000 Why do the volume figures on http://www.moneycentral.com show two more zeros on the daily TRADING volume figures as compared to the daily trading volume figures shown on http://www.yahoo.com ? FROM HISTORICAL VOLUME FOR DALECO RESOURCES CORP http://WWW.MONEYCENTRAL.COM SYMBOL DLOV ON http://WWW.MONEYCENTRAL.COM VOLUME 3/14/2000 0.1563 0.1563 0.1563 0.1563 230,000 3/13/2000 0.7500 0.7500 0.7500 0.7500 200,000 3/10/2000 0.1250 0.1250 0.1250 0.1250 0 3/9/2000 0.1250 0.1250 0.1250 0.1250 30,000 3/8/2000 0.7500 0.1250 0.1250 0.1250 2,620,000 3/7/2000 0.5000 0.1250 0.1250 0.1250 230,000 =========================================================== DALECO RESOURCES CORPORATION (OTCBB) FORM 12(b)-25 SEC FILINGS USING CUSIP NO. 23437P109 AS A REFERENCE: FORM 12(b)-25 CUSIP NO. 23437P109 FORM 12(b)-25 SEC FILING DATE NT 10-Q YES FEB. 11, 2005 NT 10-K NONE DEC. 28, 2004 NT 10-K YES DEC. 29, 2003 NT 10-K YES DEC. 30, 2002 NT 10-K YES DEC. 27, 2001 NT 10-K YES DEC. 28, 2000 NT 10-K NONE DEC. 29, 1999 NT 10-Q YES AUG. 13, 1999 NT 10-K NONE DEC. 30, 1998

      Marv Eatinger Says:
      April 10th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
      DALECO RESOURCES CORPORATION (OTCBB) FORM 12(b)-25 SEC FILINGS USING CUSIP NO. 23437P109 AS A REFERENCE: FORM 12(b)-25 CUSIP NO. 23437P109 FORM 12(b)-25 SEC FILING DATE NT 10-Q YES FEB. 11, 2005 NT 10-K NONE DEC. 28, 2004 NT 10-K YES DEC. 29, 2003 NT 10-K YES DEC. 30, 2002 NT 10-K YES DEC. 27, 2001 NT 10-K YES DEC. 28, 2000 NT 10-K NONE DEC. 29, 1999 NT 10-Q YES AUG. 13, 1999 NT 10-K NONE DEC. 30, 1998

      DALECO RESOURCES CORP CIRCUMVENTED SEC SCRUTINY IN ITS PUBLIC FILINGS AS TO DALECO’S 1 FOR 10 REVERSE COMMON STOCK SPLIT EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 24, 1998 BY MANIPULATING DALECO’S 12b-25 LATE FILING FORMS WITH THE SEC AND NEVER SHOWING DALECO’S POST 1 FOR 10 REVERSE SPLIT EFFECTIVE FEB. 24, 1998 CUSIP NO. OF 23437P208 IN ANY OF DALECO’S SUBSEQUENT FILINGS WITH THE SEC!!!

      Marv Eatinger

      Marv Eatinger Says:
      April 10th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
      —– Original Message —–
      From: marv eatinger
      To: hawked@sec.gov ; chairmanoffice@sec.gov ; CFLETTERS ; fraud@gao.gov ; casework@grassley.senate.gov ; caseyk@sec.gov ; aguilarl@sec.gov ; paredest@sec.gov ; waltere@sec.gov ; brandon_barford@banking.senate.gov ; lee@leeterry.com ; oig@sec.gov
      Cc: Kara.scannell@wsj.com ; ENFORCEMENT
      Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 7:15 PM
      Subject: INTESTINAL FORTITUDE!

      Dear Securities and Exchange Commission:
      I am impressed with the sudden ability of the SEC to file charges against Hedge Funds and their operators. It would seem that from a “political” point of view the sudden interest in prosecuting Hedge Funds is appropriate. My question to the SEC is as follows: When is the SEC going to expose two public companies named Daleco Resources Corporation and Regency Affiliates, Inc. for on going securities fraud in the case of Daleco Resources Corporation starting in the United States on May 31, 1984 (20-F report) and Regency Affiliates, Inc. at least starting on April 1, 1996 (Regency’s first 10-K electronic report with the SEC)?

      In order for the SEC to gain credibility in that the SEC is capable of carrying out their mandate to prosecute civil violations of the rules and regulations governing the United States public equity markets, the SEC needs to “bite the bullet” and pursue with intestinal fortitude the fraud that goes straight to the bowels of the United States regulatory system for publicly traded stocks!

      Marv Eatinger

      SEC Protecting Investors, Markets During Credit Crisis [February 25, 2009 http://WWW.SEC.GOV
      During the current turmoil in the credit markets, the SEC has worked closely with other regulators in the U.S. and around the world to protect investors and the markets.

      SEC Actions During Credit Crisis
      2008 Annual Report

      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Other News:

      SEC Charges Two New York Residents For Misappropriating More Than $500 Million in Investment Scheme
      SEC Obtains Emergency Asset Freeze to Halt $30 Million "Fund of Funds" Investment Scheme
      SEC Charges Unregistered Hedge Fund with Fraud
      SEC Statement on the Case Against R. Allen Stanford | INFORMATION FOR INVESTORS
      =============================================================================
      Marv Eatinger Says:
      February 15th, 2009 at 8:04 am
      The Madoff scheme is a tragedy, but it is only the tip of the ice berg. Daleco Resources Corporation goes straight to the bowels of the regulatory system for publicly traded equities. Daleco represents how professionals who hold themselves out as legitimate and law abiding use proprietary information gained from being employed by the SEC and take that information to a private practice and use it to line their own pockets and circumvent SEC scrutiny of public corporation fraud! The regulatory system for publicly traded equities needs a total reworking!

      Marv Eatinger ( I have posted details of Daleco’s and Regency's fraudulent business plan on http://www.ragingbull.com symbol DLOV (for Daleco) and symbol RAFI (for Regency) message board posts by “virgule” and http://www.yahoo.com finance message board for symbol “DLOV.OB” posts by “m_68114″ )

      IF YOU REMEMBER FROM MY POSTS AND SUBMISSION OF AN 86 ITEM COMPLAINT PACKAGE WITH THE LOS ANGELES BRANCH OF THE SEC IN AUGUST OF 1989:

      1. THE ILLEGAL POOLING OF INTERESTS AMALGAMATION BETWEEN UNITED WESTLAND & REEF RESOURCES IN CANADA IN NOVEMBER OF 1981.

      2. THE MERGER IN NEVADA ON OCT. 1, 1983 OF WESTLANDS RESOURCES CORPORATION (NEVADA) & REEF RESOURCES CORPORATION (NEVADA) THAT IS RECORDED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF NEVADA AS A MERGER THAT WAS OFFICIAL AS OF JAN. 25, 1984. [ THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE NEVER KNEW THAT THE MERGER WAS EFFECTIVE ON OCT. 1, 1983. OCT. 1, 1983 WAS DALECO RESOURCES CORP (UNITED WESTLAND RESOURCES LTD.) START OF ITS 1984 FISCAL YEAR!!! ]

      3. THE FRAUDULENT ACCOUNTING CONSPIRACY THAT TOOK PLACE BETWEEN UNITED WESTLAND (NOW DALECO) & COOPERS & LYBRAND ACCOUNTING FIRM AS DALECO’S AUDITORS. ALL MADE POSSIBLE BY THE FRAUDULENT ACTS COMMITTED IN ITEMS 1 & 2 ABOVE.

      3a. THE MANIPULATION OF DALECO’S SEC FILINGS (20-F, 10-K, 10-Q ETC.) FOR 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, & 1988 BY SHEA & GOULD LAW FIRM AND ITS MANAGING PARTNER MARIO V. MIRABELLI IN ORDER TO CIRCUMVENT SEC SCRUTINY AS TO DALECO’S FRAUDULENT BEGINNINGS (FILINGS WERE MANIPULATED INTO BRANCHES 1,3, 4 & 5 OF THE DIVISION OF CORPORATE FINANCE).

      4. ON NOV. 11, 1992 DALECO RESOURCES CORPORATION FILED A PRELIMINARY PROSPECTUS WITH THE SEC FOR THE ISSUE OF 3,000,000 COMMON SHARES. THE UNDERWRITERS FOR THIS ISSUE WERE TO BE MEYERS, POLLOCK, ROBBINS INC. THE SEC APPARENTLY NEVER APPROVED THIS ISSUE.

      New York County District Attorney’s Office
      Manhattan District Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau announced that MICHAEL PLOSHNICK, the president of MEYERS POLLOCK ROBBINS INC., has pleaded guilty today to …
      manhattanda.org/whatsnew/press/2000-10-04.shtml – 11k – Cached – Similar pages

      5. NOVEMBER OF 1995 DALECO RESOURCES CORPORATION BARRON’S – MARKET WEEK ADVERTISEMENT (NOV. 27, 1995 – MW15) THAT ON NOV. 17, 1995 DALECO ACQUIRED SUSTAINABLE FOREST INDUSTRIES, INC. – TELEPHONE NO. 516-357-9759 HEMPSTEAD, LONG ISLAND. I CALLED THIS NUMBER AND GOT A RECEPTIONIST WHO TOLD ME THAT THIS WAS THE OFFICE OF A CLEANING COMPANY THAT DID CLEANING FOR 5 DIFFERENT COMPANIES. 6 MONTHS LATER I CALLED THE SAME TELEPHONE NUMBER AND THE RECEPTIONIST TOLD ME THAT THIS WAS THE OFFICE FOR A FIRM THAT SOLD EMERGING COMPANY STOCKS (MY OPINION – A BOILER ROOM OPERATION).

      6. ON MARCH 17, 1996 DALECO RESOURCES CORPORATION ENTERS INTO A CONSULTING AGREEMENT WITH DEVEN RESOURCES, INC.

      7. ON MARCH 19, 1996 DALECO RESOURCES CORPORATION ENTERS INTO A CONSULTING AGREEMENT WITH AVONWOOD CAPITAL CORPORATION.

      8. ON OCTOBER 1, 1996 DALECO RESOURCES CORPORATION BECOMES A DOMESTIC UNITED STATES COMPANY INCORPORATED IN DELAWARE AND EFFECTIVE OCT. 1, 1996 MERGES WITH DEVEN RESOURCES, INC.

      9. DECEMBER 1996 THROUGH JANUARY 1997 REGULATION “S” SHARES THAT DALECO SUPPOSEDLY SOLD TO “FOREIGN INVESTORS” ARE BEING SOLD BACK INTO THE NASDAQ MARKET BY THOSE SUPPOSED “FOREIGN INVESTORS”. (9,000,000 PLUS REG “S” SHARES)

      10. SOMETIME IN 1996 OR 1997 DALECO HAS AT LEAST 5,000,000 COMMON SHARES BEING SOLD “NAKED SHORT”.

      11. EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 17, 1998 DALECO RECORDS WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF DELAWARE A 1 FOR 10 REVERSE COMMON STOCK SPLIT.

      12. EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 24, 1998 DALECO RECORDS IN ALL FUTURE SEC FILINGS A 1 FOR 10 REVERSE COMMON STOCK SPLIT.

      13. ON FEBRUARY 24, 1998 DALECO’S NEW CUSIP NO. BECOMES 23437P208. HOWEVER, DALECO IN ALL FUTURE SEC FILINGS NEVER USES THIS NEW CUSIP NO. BUT USES THE OBSOLETE CUSIP NO. OF 23437P109. THIS MAKES IT POSSIBLE FOR DALECO TO CIRCUMVENT SEC SCRUTINY AS TO THE FEB. 24, 1998 1 FOR 10 REVERSE SPLIT.

      14. IN EFFECT THE ABOVE (ITEM 11. & 12.) TWO 1 FOR 10 REVERSE SPLITS WOULD APPEAR AS A 1 FOR 100 REVERSE SPLIT OF THE ORIGINAL COMMON SHARES ON HISTORIC RECORDS IN CERTAIN REGULATORY AGENCIES. SEE COVERING OF “NAKED SHORT SALES” WITH THE ADDITION OF TWO ZEROS IN ITEM 15. BELOW!

      15. FEBRUARY 28, 2000 THROUGH AUGUST 1, 2000 WHILE DALECO IS DELISTED TO THE “PINK SHEETS” AND USING TWO ACTIVE SYMBOLS OF “DLOV & DLVO”, DALECO STAGES ACTUAL TRADES FOR ITS COMMON STOCK AND ADDS TWO ZEROS TO THESE DAILY TRADES IN ORDER TO COVER 1/100 OF THE VOLUME OF COMMON SHARES THAT WERE SOLD “NAKED SHORT” IN 1996 AND/OR 1997.

      16. ALL OF THE ABOVE VIOLATIONS HAVE MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR DALECO RESOURCES CORPORATION TO FILE REPORTS WITH THE SEC THAT ARE FREE OF MISLEADING & DECEPTIVE STATEMENTS!

      Rule 10b-5: Employment of Manipulative and Deceptive Practices”:
      It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails or of any facility of any national securities exchange,
      (a) To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud,
      (b) To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or
      (c) To engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person,
      in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.

    51. Sarge says:

      Our dollar isn’t even a good IOU anymore, it hasn’t been exchangeable for equivalent gold since 1968.

    52. Fintas says:

      First Jim Hall. I was speaking to God the other day and he told me his last name wasn’t DAMN. Second: It would appear that for reasons of SURVIVAL many equities have not been forced to be bought in for if that were to happen it would only collapse many who were being used as conduit. That could also be a reason why a big co doesn’t make lots of noise or in fact a ge simply doesn’t go to market and use their cash to buy up x amount of float and thus trigger a Volkswagen/Porche type event. Bottom line is that we need NEW CHAMPIONS to ENFORCE the LAW and enuf with the talking BUT unfortunately it must be done in an orderly time line or we will destroy the system.

    53. Jim Hall says:

      Tell Him I said ‘Hi’, Fintas.

    54. sean says:

      Be careful April 15th…
      I know lots of people are planning to protest and I know the organizers are stressing a lawful demonstration. However it is very easy to incite a crowd into violence. I think peaceful demonstrations can work. Just keep an eye on your own personal safety. Here is what happened in Thailand this weekend:

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1169244/Calls-revolution-Tourists-warned-stay-away-violent-protesters-Bangkoks-streets-forcing-PM-flee.html

      From the investors village board!!!

    55. iStandUp says:

      …All Things Considered, April 9, 2009 · Investor Warren Buffett’s holding company, Berkshire Hathaway, has been downgraded by the credit-rating agency Moody’s. Buffett happens to be Moody’s largest shareholder.

      ( http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102929266 )

      In this radio report on Thursday April 8th, it is reported that Buffet invested in Goldman Sachs.

      Here is a report on the $5 Billion investment.

      Since Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway has a $5 Billion dollar investment in Goldman Sachs, it appears Buffet now has 5 Billion reasons not to openly speak about Naked Short Selling.

    56. iStandUp says:

      Here is the link to a story about Berkshire Hathaway investing $5 Billion dollars in Goldman Sachs:

      http://www.cnbc.com/id/26859155/

    57. iStandUp says:

      …. Following the Money Trail…

      Al Gore is reported to have invested his money in a Hedge Fund:

      “Al Gore has $35 million invested with hedge fund Capricorn Investment Group.

      The investment is proof of how the former vice president has grown his wealth. In 2000, Gore disclosed he had $2 million in a personal finance report.

      Since losing the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush, Gore has become a crusader for the environment. His book and movie “An Inconvenient Truth” won him the Nobel Peace Prize.

      The former Tennessee senator has also become an in-demand public speaker able to command $175,000 per engagement. His net worth is estimated to be over $100 million.

      Ex-EBay President Jeffrey Skoll started Capricorn Investment in late 2001.

      Bloomberg first reported the story.”
      ( http://www.hedgefund.net/publicnews/default.aspx?story=8489 )

      —————-

      …Following the Money Trail…..

      Al Gore is reported to have started a Hedge Fund:

      “Trade Like Al Gore
      Updated from Dec. 8, 2008

      What do you get when you combine politics and business?

      You get Generation Investment Management, the hedge fund founded by Al Gore, 45th vice president of the U.S., and David Blood, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, a division of Goldman Sachs(GS Quote). Their fund, which has the nickname of “Blood and Gore,” has reportedly outperformed its benchmarks historically.

      Al Gore, who is also a senior advisor to Google(GOOG Quote), which recentlyproposed a $4.4 Trillion U.S. energy plan involving the replacement of all coal-fired and oil-fired electricity generation with natural gas and renewable electricity. Google, which is down around 60% for the year, had its target price lowered by Bank of America last week from $650 to $500 due to lower guidance. The stock has a P/E ratio of 16, which is in line with other search engine companies such as Yahoo!(YHOO Quote), with a 17 P/E. Google has a PEG ratio of 0.68, which is below the industry average of 0.78. ”
      ( http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/newsanalysis/stockpickr/10451904.html?cm_ven=YAHOO&cm_cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA )

    58. iStandUp says:

      …. Following the Money Trail…

      Who Started a Hedge Fund?:

      – Clinton Secretary of State MADELEINE ALBRIGHT reported to have started a Hedge Fund

      – along with RICHARD BREEDEN, FORMER Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission

      Look Who’s Starting a Hedge Fund!
      Madeleine Albright’s money machine.

      By Daniel GrossPosted Monday, Jan. 22, 2007, at 6:11 PM ET

      Long before Washington even had a K Street, public servants have been cashing in via the private sector. Till recently, there was no better way to monetize government service that a late career switch to lobbying or law. But now there’s a new business for the over-the-hill Washington player: hedge funds.

      As Lynnley Browning reported in the New York Times last Friday, Richard Breeden, former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, is now a hedge-fund manager, complete with $500 million under management, a Cayman Islands registry, and an office in hedge-fund capital Greenwich, Conn.—even though he “has no investing experience.” Browning reported that, “Mr. Breeden is now perhaps the most senior former government official ever to run a hedge fund.”
      Related in Slate

      In March 2005, Brendan Koerner explained how Applebee’s became the nation’s largest casual-dining chain. In September 2004, Daniel Gross wrote about Richard Breeden’s report on Conrad Black’s Hollinger shenanigans. Last summer, Gross wrote about Citigroup’s Geo-Political Risk Index.

      But not for long. Last week, Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who has the same amount of investing experience as Breeden (zero)—announced the formation of an emerging-markets hedge fund. Albright Capital Management is backed with $329 million in seed money from PGGM, a Dutch pension.

      ( http://www.slate.com/id/2158031/?nav=ais )

    59. iStandUp says:

      …. Following the Money Trail…

      Former Vice President Dan Quayle works for a Hedge Fund:

      “In addition to acting as highly paid greeters, former government officials can also function as doorkeepers. Firms like Cerberus and D.E. Shaw, which started life as rapid-trading hedge funds, are evolving into asset managers that seek long-term returns by buying and selling entire companies. In many instances, the less-crowded foreign markets offer the most compelling opportunities. Cerberus’ list of holdings includes regulated foreign companies such as Air Canada and banks in Japan and Germany. Given the political issues that frequently surround international investments, funds need gray-haired globe-trotters to smooth the way. (Here’s how another Cerberus employee, former Vice President Dan Quayle, describes his role at the fund: “travels throughout the US, Europe and Asia to meet with the heads of investment banks, corporations, buyout shops, potential investors, and other business leaders.”) D.E. Shaw, the world’s third-largest hedge fund, has similarly global ambitions. Who better to take along on forays into new markets than former treasury secretary, Harvard University president, and current Financial Times columnist Larry Summers? ”

      ( http://www.slate.com/id/2158031/?nav=ais )

    60. iStandUp says:

      …. Following the Money Trail…

      Who is working for Hedge Funds:

      – Clinton Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers
      – Bush Treasury Secretary John Snow

      “Albright and Breeden are following what has become a well-worn path. In October, mammoth hedge fund/private-equity firm D.E. Shaw appointed Clinton Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers as a part-time managing director, and Cerberus Capital, another mammoth hedge-fund/private-equity firm, named departing Bush Treasury Secretary John Snow as chairman. ”

      ( http://www.slate.com/id/2158031/?nav=ais )

    61. iStandUp says:

      …. Following the Money Trail…

      Former first daughter Chelsea Clinton works for a Hedge Fund:

      “Chelsea Clinton in new hedge fund gig
      Former first daughter ditching her consulting job at McKinsey & Co. for lucrative spot at Avenue Capital Group.
      November 3 2006: 5:13 PM EST

      NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — Former first daughter Chelsea Clinton has joined Avenue Capital Group, a hedge fund manager whose founder has contributed to many Democratic Party campaigns, a person familiar with the matter said on Friday.

      People familiar with the matter reported that Clinton, 26, is quitting her job at the consulting firm McKinsey & Co. and will take a position at the New York-based hedge fund Avenue Capital Group.
      NEWSMAKERS

      Avenue Capital, which was formed in 1995, manages about $12 billion in assets and employs more than 240 people, according to the company. The firm focuses on distressed and undervalued credit-related securities, bank loans and private investments.

      A spokesperson for Avenue Capital would not comment on the report, saying the company does not discuss its employees.

      Avenue, co-founded by Marc Lasry and Sonia Gardner, focuses its investment on distressed securities. Morgan Stanley (Charts) this week bought a minority stake in Avenue.

      Before working at McKinsey, Clinton graduated from Stanford University in 2001 and then studied philosophy at Oxford University.

      Avenue Capital founders Lasry and Gardner both donated to her mother’s New York Senate re-election campaign, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

      Well-known in hedge fund circles, Lasry has contributed to political campaigns for Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Bill Bradley, John Kerry and other Democrats in recent years, federal election records show. However, Lasry has also contributed lesser amounts to campaigns for President George W. Bush, the records show.
      ….”

      ( http://money.cnn.com/2006/11/03/news/newsmakers/clinton_fund/index.htm )

    62. iStandUp says:

      …. Following the Money Trail…

      Bill Clinton, Former President – Hedge funds were big donors to Mr. Clinton’s foundation over the years.

      “Clinton Foundation Got Big Lift From Hedge Funds
      Tuesday, December 23, 2008 : Permalink

      New York Times Blogs – Bill Clinton has plenty of friends in high finance.

      Lifting a longstanding cloak of secrecy, the former president last week released a complete list of about 208,000 donors to his foundation as part of an agreement to check against possible conflicts, as his wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, is in line to become the next secretary of state.

      While the list has been heavily scrutinized from a geopolitical perspective, it is also interesting to note how many heavy hitters from the financial world were contributors.

      Hedge funds were big donors to Mr. Clinton’s organization over the years. The Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, the charitable arm of the United Kingdom-based activist hedge fund, gave more than $25 million to the Clinton foundation, making it one of the top two donors on the list, along with Unitaid, an international organization that fights H.I.V and AIDS.

      Other contributors from the hedge fund world included EIM Group’s Arpad Busson; Julian Robertson, the founder of Tiger Management; and Sterling Stamos Capital Management, the hedge fund founded by New York Mets owner Fred Wilpon, who was recently stung by Bernard Madoff’s fraud. Each gave between $1 million to $5 million, records show.”

      ( http://www.hedgeco.net/news/12/2008/clinton-foundation-got-big-lift-from-hedge-funds.html )

    63. iStandUp says:

      …. Following the Money Trail…

      – Senator Joseph Biden Family in Hedge Fund Business…

      Hunter Biden, Senator’s Son, Leaves Hedge Fund Job (Update1)

      By Jenny Strasburg and Jesse Westbrook

      Jan. 17 (Bloomberg) — R. Hunter Biden, a Washington lobbyist and son of U.S. presidential candidate Senator Joseph Biden, stepped down from daily management of Paradigm Global Advisors LLC, which he owns with his uncle, James Biden.

      Paradigm, a New York-based firm that has invested $500 million of its clients’ money in hedge funds, named Charles Provini, 60, president. Biden, 36, took over as interim chief executive officer in May before buying a majority stake with James Biden, 57, the brother of the Democratic senator from Delaware. …
      ….

      Former government leaders including ex-U.S. Treasury secretaries John Snow and Lawrence Summers have joined hedge funds in recent years. Chelsea Clinton, daughter of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and the former president, last year joined New York-based hedge- fund manager Avenue Capital Group as an analyst.

      Hedge-Fund Oversight

      Senator Biden’s office did not return a call seeking comment.

      Joe Biden, 64, is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The judiciary committee in the past year has held hearings on SEC oversight of hedge funds and so-called naked short-selling, or the practice by some hedge-fund managers of selling shares in companies they don’t own.

      The senator’s oldest son, Democrat Joseph “Beau” Biden, 37, is the attorney general of Delaware and a former federal prosecutor in Philadelphia.

      Hunter Biden said he and his father have not discussed details of his Paradigm management role or ownership.
      ( http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aKJhGIn.Z1O4&refer=home )

    64. iStandUp says:

      …. Following the Money Trail…

      Presidential Candidates Flock to Hedge-Fund Enclave
      May 29, 2007, 7:45 am

      Senator John McCain did it. Former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts did it. President Bill Clinton, on behalf of his wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, did it. They all made recent pilgrimages to Greenwich, the leafy Connecticut suburb that is home to an inordinate number of hedge funds and, increasingly, a required stop on the presidential fund-raising tour, The New York Times reports.

      As Connecticut’s richest town, Greenwich has always held some allure for politicians looking to raise money and make influential friends. But the richest of the town’s 61,000 residents are being wooed more than ever — and The Times noted that Greenwich money is increasingly going to Democrats, a reflection of national trends.

      The intersection of hedge funds and presidential politics has been a source of much fascination lately. The interest was further piqued by a high-powered fund-raiser earlier this month for Barack Obama at the $25 million Greenwich mansion of the hedge fund heavyweight Paul Tudor Jones II. (A local newspaper said the model Tyra Banks attended.) John Edwards has also garnered attention for his advisory work at Fortress Investment Group, a firm that runs hedge funds and private equity funds.

      ( http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/29/presidential-candidates-flock-to-hedge-fund-enclave/ )

    65. iStandUp says:

      …. Following the Money Trail…
      Former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina worked for Hedge Fund….

      Hedge-Fund Ties Help Edwards Campaign
      Firms Increase Political Gifts

      By John Solomon and Alec MacGillis
      Washington Post Staff Writers
      Monday, April 23, 2007; Page A01

      Two years ago, former senator John Edwards of North Carolina, gearing up for his second run at the Democratic presidential nomination, gave a speech decrying the “two different economies in this country: one for wealthy insiders and then one for everybody else.”

      Four months later, he began working for the kind of firm that to many Wall Street critics embodies the economy of wealthy insiders — a hedge fund.

      Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards has raised at least $167,700 from individuals associated with Fortress Investment Group, a New York-based hedge fund that hired the former North Carolina senator as an adviser in the fall of 2005.

      Edwards became a consultant for Fortress Investment Group, a New York-based firm known mainly for its hedge funds, just as the funds were gaining prominence in the financial world — and in the public consciousness, where awe over their outsize returns has mixed with misgivings about a rarefied industry that is, on the whole, run by and for extremely wealthy people and operates largely in secrecy.

      A midsize but growing player in the hedge fund industry with more than $30 billion in assets, Fortress was the first hedge fund manager to go public, thereby subjecting itself to far more scrutiny. But it was an unusual choice of employment for Edwards, who for years has decried offshore tax shelters as part of his broader campaign to reduce inequality. While Fortress was incorporated in Delaware, its hedge funds were incorporated in the Cayman Islands, enabling its partners and foreign investors to defer or avoid paying U.S. taxes.

      Fortress announced Edwards’s hiring as an adviser in a brief statement in October 2005. Neither Edwards — who ended his consulting deal when he launched his presidential campaign in December — nor the firm will say how much he earned or what he did.

      But his ties to Fortress were suggested by the first round of campaign finance reports released last week. They showed that Edwards raised $167,460 in donations from Fortress employees for his 2008 presidential campaign, his largest source of support from a single company.

      ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/22/AR2007042201339.html )

    66. iStandUp says:

      …. Following the Money Trail…
      GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romney is an investor in the Goldman Sachs Global Opportunities Fund Hedge Fund….

      Even rich guys like Mitt Romney can’t escape the subprime meltdown

      Posted Aug 15th 2007 3:22PM by Jonathan Berr
      Filed under: Other issues, Goldman Sachs Group (GS), Politics, Housing

      GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney probably could have used the help of the big government bureaucrats he often rails against to help him escape the subprime mortgage meltdown, according to TheStreet.com.

      Romney is one of the investors in the Goldman Sachs Global Opportunities Fund, the hedge fund that Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS) and others recently propped up with $3 billion in investments, the site says. Exactly how badly the former Massachusetts governor got burned isn’t clear. Like all politicians, his investments are held in a blind trust, and his spokesman told TheStreet.com (where I used to work) that all investment decisions were made without his knowledge.

      But the political ironies in this story are numerous.

      For one thing, Romney is arguing that he’s the type of conservative who believes that government should get the heck out of the way of business so that the free market can sort out everything no matter how painful that may be in the short run.

      This type of hands-off approach to regulation encouraged banks to make risky loans to people who couldn’t afford them, creating the subprime mortgage mess. You have to wonder whether these guys still think hedge funds shouldn’t be regulated.

      Of course, any decline in his hedge fund investments isn’t going to hurt Romney, reportedly worth about $250 million. Maybe he might give some thought to those who aren’t so lucky.

      ( http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/08/15/even-rich-guys-like-mitt-romney-cant-escape-the-subprime-meltdo/ )

    67. Jim Hall says:

      OK, how do I start one of these hedgefund thingies?

      I think I qualify too!

    68. mhelburn says:

      Romney was sucessful pulling the Olympics out of debt. That takes special skills.

      I believe that even the Democrats are going to have buyer’s remorse. Instead of saying, “I should have had a V-8″, people are thinking we should have had someone in office who couldn’t have been fooled by the fast-talking bankers.

      I think Romney would want to see what the CDS debacle was all about before giving the participants money. Paul would have said, “You got yourselves into this mess, fix it.” Likely, there were side letters written with the CDS. The CDS were likely just paper to allow the banks to show the regulators that they were hedged so that their balances wouldn’t look so bad. It simply does not make sense that one of the biggest insurers would underwrite so much debt without some sort of protection. If they did, they need to go bankrupt and get their house in order by eliminating those geniuses who got them into this situation.

      The President needs to know what the CDS were all about. He is taking it at face value that there was not fraud involved. AIG has helped companies escape taxation with reinsurance for years and the tax payer is expected to bail them out. It is just ludicrous.

    69. iStandUp says:

      …. Following the Money Trail…

      Cuomo Turns to Hedge Fund and It Pays Off
      Dima Gavrysh/Associated Press

      Andrew M. Cuomo’s campaign for New York State attorney general invested in a hedge fund run by some of his biggest financial backers.

      Article Tools Sponsored By
      By RUSS BUETTNER
      Published: October 6, 2006

      Two years ago, Andrew M. Cuomo put more than half of his campaign treasury into a hedge fund, making him one of the few New York politicians to invest campaign money in anything riskier than a sure bet.

      In the case of Mr. Cuomo, the Democratic candidate for attorney general, the hedge fund was directed by one of his largest financial backers, a man who also handled Mr. Cuomo’s personal money. The investment of $750,000 turned out to be all upside, with a return of nearly 20 percent after one year.

      Mr. Cuomo’s experience is a rarity in an arena where most campaigns, focused on their short-term needs, keep their money in conservative vehicles like savings accounts.

      Investing campaign money in hedge funds also presents special concerns, government watchdogs say, because of their unregulated nature. Given the secrecy of such funds, who can say, they ask, whether a high return reflects a smart bet or simply a campaign supporter’s efforts to evade contribution limits by padding the return of a favored campaign account.

      “There’s no way to know what’s going on with a hedge fund,” said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a Washington-based nonpartisan group that works to reduce the influence of money in politics. “The candidate knows, and the hedge fund manager knows, but the public doesn’t.”

      In Mr. Cuomo’s case, one of the hedge fund’s three founders, his wife and officers of the fund — known as EnTrust Capital Partners L.P. — have donated nearly $175,000 to the last two Cuomo campaigns.

      Mr. Cuomo’s campaign said that the EnTrust fund was “low volatility,” adding that Mr. Cuomo had not received any guarantee of positive returns.

      Wendy Katz, a spokeswoman for the campaign, wrote in an e-mail message to The New York Times, “The rationale for investing campaign funds in a hedge fund is the same rationale employed by nonprofits, universities (for example, Harvard and Columbia), state and city public pension funds and charitable foundations for investing in hedge funds, which is to grow the asset and maximize returns.”

      The Cuomo campaign, however, was given special consideration by EnTrust. It gave the campaign one of 35 slots in the fund that federal regulations allow for investors who do not meet minimum total asset requirements, which in the case of the campaign would generally be $5 million. EnTrust also waived its usual minimum investment requirement of $1 million.

    70. sean says:

      Goldman Sachs is getting ready to sell shares of their stock to repay the Governmant so they will not have to cut bonuses this year. What a coincidence that their stock price is going thru the roof even in a down market!! Can you say manipulation!!! Read the following since this site won’t allow me to post it!!

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/5137489/Goldman-Sachs-hires-law-firm-to-shut-bloggers-site.html

      Goldman Sachs hires law firm to shut blogger’s site
      Goldman Sachs is attempting to shut down a dissident blogger who is extremely critical of the investment bank, its board members and its practices.

    71. sean says:

      Taken from the aforementioned Website

      Monday, April 13, 2009
      Is Goldman Sachs Manipulating the Stock Market? – It Sure Looks Like It
      There was a very interesting article on Zero Hedge the other day. In the data provided, I noticed that Goldman Sachs traded more for their Principal account than the next 14 firms COMBINED. And the next 14 were no slouches . . . Citi, JP Morgan UBS, Credit Suisse, Merrill, Barclays, Deutsche Bank, BNP Paribas, etc.

      I mention this because it seems a bit coincidental that the markets have skyrocket during this very same period, and Goldman Sachs’ stock price has jumped more than 70% to just about back to where our dear friend Warren Buffet bought in. Their stock prices has more than doubled the performace of any of the US markets!

      It’s also interesting that this 74% meteoric rise comes when Goldman Sachs has decided to sell stock to pay back the TARP dollars . . . even though they told us they didn’t need the money. Obviously, Lord Blankfein, you needed the money because you don’t have it to pay back . . . and you don’t even have the billions you got from AIG.

      And one final note. Wasn’t it Lord Blankfein that told us the billions they got from AIG were not material? If so, why do they need to sell stock to pension funds and other fiduciary pockets of money in order to repay TARP?

      I just don’t get it. Doesn’t any at the SEC consider who is trading and what they are trading? You’ve got one company, Goldman Sachs, trading for their own account in Program Trading, more than the next 14 largest firms combined.

      The SEC is only concerned with the uptick rule these days, and how to design more ways for companies like Goldman Sachs to take advantage of the markets.

      Here’s a link to the article I referenced above – http://zerohedge.blogspot.com/2009/04/incredibly-shrinking-market-liquidity.html

    72. iStandUp says:

      …. Following the Money Trail…
      United States Representative, Richard Baker…

      Congressman May Take Hedge Fund Lobbying Post
      January 15, 2008, 7:33 am

      The $2 trillion hedge fund industry’s main lobbying group was talking with a United States Representative, Richard Baker, about possibly naming him as its president, a spokeswoman for the lawmaker told Reuters Monday.

      The Louisiana Republican, a key lawmaker for years on the House Financial Services Committee, which oversees hedge funds, has disclosed to the ethics committee of the House of Representatives that he is negotiating for the job at the Managed Funds Association.

      Mr. Baker, a Republican from Louisiana, would have to resign from Congress to take the job.
      ( http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/baker-may-leave-congress-for-hedge-fund-lobbying-post/?scp=5&sq=Baker )

    73. iStandUp says:

      …Resignation [of United States Representative, Richard Baker]

      On January 15, 2008, Baker announced his intention to resign from Congress to take a lobbying position with the Managed Funds Association. He left office on February 2, 2008.[2] This triggered a special election, won by Democrat Don Cazayoux, who defeated Republican and former Democrat Woody Jenkins.[3]

      On February 2, the day of Baker’s resignation from Congress, he and former congressional opponent Ned Randolph were inducted into the Louisiana Political Museum and Hall of Fame in Winnfield.

      ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Baker_(politician) )

    74. iStandUp says:

      …. Following the Money Trail…

      Rahm Emanuel, Former Investment Banker

      President-elect Barack Obama’s choice to be his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, is already widely known in the halls of Washington for serving as an adviser to President Clinton, and most recently as a congressman from Illinois. But in between those two roles, Mr. Emanuel made millions of dollars on Wall Street as an investment banker with Wasserstein Perella, as the boutique firm was known at the time.

      Despite having little experience or education in finance, Mr. Emanuel became a managing director at the firm’s Chicago office in 1999, helping to bring in business and seal deals.

      According to a 2003 article in The Chicago Tribune, Mr. Emanuel was brought in by one of the firm’s founders, Bruce Wasserstein, who was one of President Clinton’s most active fund-raisers on Wall Street and is now the head of Lazard.
      ….

      The Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks campaign finance trends, notes that in the 2008 election cycle, he was the House’s No. 1 recipient of contributions from hedge funds, private equity firms and the broader securities and investment industry — a group that it points out is “not the most popular of industries in the current economy.”

      ( http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/rahm-emanuel-former-investment-banker/ )

    75. Dr. Jim DeCosta says:

      The following is from the summary piece of a document I’m working on. Hopefully it has some educational value for you:

      In summary, due to the phraseology used in UCC Article 8-501 each and every failure to deliver on Wall Street “COMPELS” the issuance of incredibly damaging “securities entitlements”/“phantom shares”. Besides insatiable greed what else “COMPELLED” FINRA, the NSCC, the DTCC and the SEC to abandon their various congressional mandates to provide investor protection via executing prompt “buy-ins” AFTER the issuance of these “phantom shares” was found out to be in error due to the intentional nature of their issuers’ refusal to deliver that which they previously sold to U.S. investors?

      This entire issue is one of “timing”. As per UCC-Article 8 the “securities entitlement”/“phantom share” must be issued when the delivery failure occurs. The default presumption of the NSCC is that there is a “legitimate” ultra-short termed delivery delay holding up delivery. If the presumption was wrong and it was an intentional refusal to deliver then it’s too late because the DTCC, the NSCC, FINRA and the SEC have removed all of the “backstops”/safety valves that UCC-8 and Congress had in place should securities fraudsters sell securities and later absolutely refuse to deliver that which they sold.

      The most critical “backstop” removed involves the refusal of the NSCC management to “buy-in” the delivery failure AFTER the delivery failure was proved to be illegitimate/intentional in nature. The prompt execution of “buy-ins” is critical for two main reasons. First of all the fear of being “bought-in” is the main source of truly meaningful deterrence to committing these thefts. Secondly, when a criminal intentionally refuses to deliver the securities that he already sold a “buy-in” is the ONLY cure known to result in the purchaser of shares getting delivery of that which he already paid for.

      The solution to these crimes is so pathetically obvious that the refusal to implement it is approaching criminality. Since Wall Street crooks decided to rid the system of all of the “backstop/safety valve” measures available AFTER “phantom shares” are mistakenly issued subsequent to intentional delivery failures then failures to deliver must obviously be disallowed and “firm pre-borrows” must be executed before any sale labeled “short sale” and the shares must be in place for a T+3 delivery before any sale labeled “long sale” is processed.

      Any failure to deliver that sneaks through the cracks must be promptly “bought-in” the second it becomes obvious that the seller of shares had no intent to deliver that which he sold i.e. perhaps on T+6 or so. The simplicity of these solutions and the refusal to provide them illustrates just how corrupt the NSCC, FINRA and the SEC have become in their failure to provide investor protection from abusive naked short selling frauds.

      The recent SEC Inspector General’s report showing that of over 5,000 complaints lodged with the SEC in regards to abusive naked short selling thefts ZERO resulted in enforcement actions. The report also revealed that of over 900 recommendations for enforcement actions made by FINRA ZERO had to do with naked short selling frauds.

      Do those statistics seem a little bit aberrant? Actually they’re right in line with the Evans, Geczy, Musto and Reed (2003) study revealing that only one-eighth of 1% of even “mandated” buy-ins ever get executed on Wall Street. They also jive nicely with the fact that as Lehman Brother’s share price fell completely off of a cliff their level of failures to deliver WENT UP 57-FOLD COMPARED TO THEIR PREVIOUS HIGH.

      When you combine this with the NSCC management with the congressional mandate “to act in the public interest, provide investor protection and “promptly settle” all securities transactions as well as 15 of the 16 sources of legal empowerment to execute “buy-ins” (the only source of deterrence and the only cure available) having the audacity to plead to be “powerless” to provide this deterrence and cure then one can clearly see why these abusive naked short selling frauds have become pandemic in nature. When you toss in the unfortunate phraseology utilized in UCC Article-8 mandating the issuance of “phantom shares” every single time a delivery failure occurs whether it be of a legitimate nature or not then you can surely recognize all of the makings for the largest “fraud on the market” in the history of our markets.

    76. Marv Eatinger says:

      RICHARD C. BREEDEN: JUST ANOTHER EX GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE (CHAIRMAN OF THE SEC) CASHING IN !

      By Daniel Gross Posted Monday, Jan. 22, 2007, at 6:11 PM ET (COPIED FROM http://WWW.DEEPCAPTURE.COM)

      “”Long before Washington even had a K Street, public servants have been cashing in via the private sector. Till recently, there was no better way to monetize government service that a late career switch to lobbying or law. But now there’s a new business for the over-the-hill Washington player: hedge funds.

      As Lynnley Browning reported in the New York Times last Friday, Richard Breeden, former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, is now a hedge-fund manager, complete with $500 million under management, a Cayman Islands registry, and an office in hedge-fund capital Greenwich, Conn.—even though he “has no investing experience.” Browning reported that, “Mr. Breeden is now perhaps the most senior former government official ever to run a hedge fund.”
      Related in Slate.”"

      ===========================================================

      —– Original Message —–
      From: marv eatinger
      To: LCeynowa@aicpa.org
      Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 4:42 PM
      Subject: Fw: Daleco Resources Corporation

      —– Original Message —–
      From: marv eatinger
      To: fraud@uspis.gov
      Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 10:09 AM
      Subject: Fw: Daleco Resources Corporation

      —– Original Message —–
      From: marv eatinger
      To: chairmanoffice@sec.gov
      Cc: fraudnet@gao.gov
      Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 8:59 PM
      Subject: Fw: Daleco Resources Corporation

      —– Original Message —–
      From: marv eatinger
      To: askdoj@usdoj.gov
      Cc: criminal.division@usdoj.gov
      Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 8:57 PM
      Subject: Daleco Resources Corporation

      Department of Justice Certified Mail #7001 1940 0007 4553 9364

      April 20, 2002

      Criminal Division

      950 Pennsylvania Ave.

      Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

      Attention: Fraud & Racketeering Sections

      Dear Sirs:

      Enclosed you will find copies of the following letters. You may already have copies of some of these letters. This package is being sent to you as a refresher concerning Daleco Resources Corporation (claim no. 95-52791-1):

      a) Letter from the SEC counsel to the Inspector General dated September 11, 1998.

      b) Letter to the SEC counsel to the Inspector General dated October 1, 1998.

      c) Letter from the SEC counsel to the Inspector General dated October 5, 1998.

      d) Letter to Shea & Gould law firm dated September 20, 1993.

      e) Letter to Shea & Gould law firm dated January 21, 1994.

      f) Letter to Coopers & Lybrand accounting firm dated April 28, 1997.

      Sincerely,

      Marv Eatinger

      Dear Criminal Division-Racketeering and Fraud Sections of the United States Department of Justice:

      On April 20, 2002 I sent you certified package #7001 1940 0007 4553 9364 mailed from the Hy-Vee store post office at 132nd and Dodge Street in Omaha, Nebraska. Enclosed (above) you will find a copy of the cover letter that was included with that package. On May 4, 2002 I received PS Form 3811 (Domestic Return Receipt) in my mail. The label (3-1/4 inches long) that was bonded to item 2. Article Number block (label had #7001 1940 0007 4553 9364 printed on it) had been removed. The area that this label had been located (after a couple of days essentially bonded to) on was not the same color shade as the rest of the Return Receipt, which made it obvious that to remove this label you would have had to have used other than a fingernail or sharp instrument to process this removal. This package was received by Ernest L. Parker (by rubber stamp) on April 29, 2002. Ernest L. Parker is employed in the Justice Management Division of the Department of Justice.

      On May 6, 2002 I went to the US Post Office branch on 85th and West Center Road in Omaha, Nebraska in order to attempt to get an explanation as to what happened to the above mentioned certified number label that disappeared from my Domestic Return Receipt.

      In the past I have had a number of problems with packages that I have sent concerning Daleco Resources Corporation (claim no. 95-52791-1) to various entities. The last four certified packages that I have sent to the Wall Street Journal disappeared without a trace. The return receipt for some packages that I have sent to the SEC has come back with the receival stamp dated that the package was received the day before I mailed it. These are just two examples of which there are a number of other examples. I quit sending certified mail in the fall of 1999 and bought a computer for the sole purpose of sending email instead of certified mail. Then on April 20, 2002 I decided to send one more certified package to the US Department of Justice-Criminal Division.

      The US Post Office Branch on West Center Road (manager) put certified mail #7001 1940 0007 4553 9364 into the US Government Direct Query-Intranet-”Quick” Search system and came up with the fact that my certified mail #7001 1940 0007 4553 9364 had been received and signed for (not rubber stamped) by a Warren Stokes whose address was Justice Dept. 20530. I cannot find a Warren Stokes anywhere in the DOJ phone book nor the DOJ email address book. I called two people named Stokes out of the five that are listed in the DOJ phone book, and they said as far as they knew there is no Warren Stokes that works for the DOJ. I thought that he might be a special prosecutor brought in by the DOJ to work on special cases, but I cannot find any lawyers named Warren Stokes in the United States except one in North Dakota that does divorce cases.

      So, my problem and question is as follows: Was my certified mail #7001 1940 0007 4553 9364 received and signed for (not rubber stamped) by an entity at the Justice Department that was not in a legal sense authorized to receive a certified mail package of this nature?

      Sincerely,

      Marv Eatinger

      ============================================================

      —– Original Message —–
      From: marv eatinger
      To: Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov ; CFLETTERS ; ENFORCEMENT ; fraudnet@gao.gov ; chairmanoffice@sec.gov
      Cc: president@whitehouse.gov ; vicepresident@whitehouse.gov
      Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 6:50 PM
      Subject: Fw: Daleco Resources Corporation

      Dear Regulatory Authorities:

      As I have communicated a number of times in the past, the information presented below actually happened. Mario V. Mirabelli the managing partner of Shea & Gould Law Firm (Dissolved in January of 1994 in a special night meeting of partners!) Washington DC, was the facility in the second instance (Coopers & Lybrand Accounting Firm being the facility in the first instance) that made it possible for Daleco Resources Corporation to carry out and, to this point in time, succeed in its business plan of tax fraud and securities fraud (among a few other transgressive actions)! The timely application of the scales of justice are now a questionable result!

      Sincerely,
      Marv Eatinger

      —– Original Message —–
      From: marv eatinger
      To: ettubuy@aol.com [ALFONSO KNOLL - TERRA SILEX HOLDINGS LTD.]
      Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 5:16 PM
      Subject: Fw: Daleco Resources Corporation

      Alfonso: I am not out to take a legitimate investor group down the tubes! However, I feel that I do have an intrinsic vested interest in Dov Amir!
      Sincerely,
      Marv Eatinger

      —– Original Message —–
      From: marv eatinger
      To: jklaben@equivest.com [ RICHARD C. BREEDEN ]
      Cc: fraudnet@gao.gov
      Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2002 5:10 PM
      Subject: Fw: Daleco Resources Corporation

      Please forward this e-mail to Richard C. Breeden: Thank You

      Dear Mr. Breeden:
      Again, do you really believe that the SEC has no part in the Enron debacle? This e-mail conforms to my e-mail sent to you earlier today!
      Sincerely,
      Marv Eatinger

      —– Original Message —–
      From: marv eatinger
      To: ettubuy@aol.com [ ALFONSO KNOLL - TERRA SILEX HOLDINGS LTD. ]
      Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 6:56 PM
      Subject: Fw: Daleco Resources Corporation

      —– Original Message —–
      From: marv eatinger
      To: gnovinskie@netreach.net [ GARY NOVINSKIE - PRESIDENT OF DALECO RESOURCES CORP ]
      Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 7:29 PM
      Subject: Fw: Daleco Resources Corporation

      Dear Gary: Please forward this E-mail to Dov Amir. Since I have been a stockholder in Daleco Resources Corp for the last 18 years, I feel that Lou and Dov’s interests and my interests are closely entwined!

      Sincerely,
      Marv Eatinger

      —– Original Message —–
      From: marv eatinger
      To: Senator@bennelson.Senate.gov
      Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 4:56 PM
      Subject: Fw: Daleco Resources Corporation

      —– Original Message —–
      From: marv eatinger
      To: letters@nytimes.com
      Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 4:53 PM
      Subject: Fw: Daleco Resources Corporation

      —– Original Message —–
      From: marv eatinger
      To: fraudnet@gao.gov
      Sent: Monday, October 23, 2000 9:36 AM
      Subject: Fw: Daleco Resources Corporation

      —– Original Message —–
      From: marv eatinger
      To: oig@sec.gov
      Sent: Monday, October 23, 2000 6:24 AM
      Subject: Fw: Daleco Resources Corporation

      —– Original Message —–
      From: marv eatinger
      To: cfletters@sec.gov
      Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2000 10:25 PM
      Subject: Daleco Resources Corporation

      On April 13, 1989, at 9:18 AM CDT I called the Securities and Exchange Commission office in New York (212-264-1614). I asked the lady that I talked to if there had been any form 13G filings for Daleco Resources Corporation over the last five years. She got on her computer and told me that Faye Hackman filed a form 13G in September of 1984 and that Gene Hackman filed a form 13G in December of 1984. On July 23, 1989, I filed a complaint package consisting of 86 items with the Denver Colorado branch of the SEC. They forwarded this package to the Los Angeles branch.

      If you look at page 2 of the summary (Daleco Resources-Money They Stole) item 9, you will notice my information as to the above mentioned 13G filings.

      In September of 1991, I received a letter dated September 23, 1991 (8-2795), from Betty Thompson (for Virginia Nabinett) with an enclosed copy of Daleco Resources Corporation’s Workload Inquiry (ID-746967) dated August 30, 1991. This was a computer print out covering Daleco’s SEC filings. This print out (first page) shows that Faye Hackman filed a 13G form received on April 15, 1985, and Gene Hackman filed a 13G form which was received on February 19, 1985.

      In August or September of 1989 Lou Erlich and Dov Amir would have become aware of the fact that I had filed an 86 item complaint package with the SEC.

      I can prove my allegations that a former SEC lawyer manipulated Daleco’s public filings with the SEC. I need the SEC to tell me how the above mentioned 13G filings of Faye and Gene Hackman could be shown on the SEC computer screen on April 13, 1989, as September of 1984 and December of 1984 and yet, the same computer print out (Workload Inquiry) over two years later (August 30, 1991) would show the dates on these filings as April and February of 1985?

      This change in dates would determine whether the Hackman’s reported their more than 5% ownership of Daleco Resources Corporation (United Westland Resources Ltd.) with their 1984 tax filings or their 1985 tax filings. This would not have been of any importance to Lou and Dov until they became aware of my filing an 86 item complaint package with the SEC. They would then have to be concerned that if the SEC went back and looked at the filings, that these filings would agree with what was reported to the IRS.

      Simply put, if the 5% ownership would have been recorded in 1984 the IRS would have learned one year earlier that United Westland Resources Ltd. (Canada) was the parent company of Westland Resources Corporation (Nevada). As far as fraud is concerned this time frame meant everything.

      I get the feeling that there was a conspiracy between a former SEC employee and an employee or employees who were or are still working for the SEC!

      Sincerely,
      Marv Eatinger

      PS: THE SEC DID NOT KNOW ABOUT UNITED WESTLAND RESOURCES LTD. UNTIL THE 1985 10K (SEPT. 30, 1985) REPORT WAS FILED AND WENT TO BRANCH 5 OF THE DIVISION OF CORPORATE FINANCE (the 1984 10K report which was filed in branch 4 of the Division Of Corporate Finance was never looked at by the SEC and the 20F filing on May 31, 1984, was closed out for review in branch 3 of the Division Of Corporate Finance on the same day that it was filed!), AND THIS REPORT WAS ISOLATED IN BRANCH FIVE OF THE DIVISION OF CORPORATE FINANCE! THE 1985 10K REPORT (FIRST PAGE) WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT UNITED WESTLAND RESOURCES LTD. SHOWED THAT IT WAS LISTED ON THE NASDAQ STOCK EXCHANGE

    77. Dr. Jim DeCosta says:

      With all of these ex-SEC employees exiting through this “revolving door” from the SEC to the hedge fund community or investment banks where jobs are waiting for them that pay 10-times as much you have to keep in mind that the big salary is not related to brain capacity but to the connections retained at the SEC should the new employer get into a bind.

      There obviously should be a law forbidding SEC employees from being employed by those that they recently regulated for “X” amount of time because the only SEC guys getting offered these jobs are those that didn’t “rock the boat” and disturb the corrupt status quo while at the SEC. Many are only getting paid for services already rendered.

    78. Dr. Jim DeCosta says:

      One version of a “service already rendered” might be the refusal to follow up on EACH of over 5,000 abusive naked short selling complaints.

    79. Al says:

      I like seeing the financials rally as much as the next guy… but why does Goldman Sachs get a free lunch with no media scrutiny?

      http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Goldman-1Q-earnings-surpass-apf-14915037.html

      All the headlines this evening are screaming that Goldman has knocked the ball out of the park on earnings. But all you have to do is read the FULL ARTICLE, and it is clearly apparent to even those only capable of basic math, that this was a big earnings miss. I am wondering if it is just because Goldman has such clout on Wall St & Pennsylvania Ave, that none of the financial media are willing to speak about the facts here.

      When Goldman changed from an investment bank to a consumer bank, they also changed their fiscal year. The 1st quarter fiscal year (previously) began Dec 1st. When they changed, the fiscal year began Jan 1st. So their December 2008 numbers stand alone, not recorded in the 1st quarter report, but reported separately. December had a loss of $2.15/share. The 1st quarter gain was reported as $3.39/share, well above analyst estimates of $1.64/share.

      So if you deduct that $2.15 loss from the $3.39 gain, well then the REAL EARNINGS are only $1.24/share, a 40 cent miss.

      No wonder they have to sell $5-billion in shares to pay back TARP… if anybody picks up on this, things could get ugly.

    80. Al says:

      CUT & PAST FROM ARTICLE IN MY PRIOR POST:

      When Goldman became a bank holding company last fall amid the mushrooming credit crisis, it switched its reporting cycle so its fiscal quarters were in line with calendar quarters beginning Jan. 1. To adjust its reporting schedule, Goldman began fiscal 2009 on Jan. 1 instead of Dec. 1 of last year. The bank said for the month of December, which fell between the change in reporting cycles, it lost $1 billion, or $2.15 per share.

      Shifting the start of its fiscal year certainly helped the bank’s overall results, said Denise Valentine, senior analyst at Aite Group, a Boston-based research firm.

      “It’s a little bit of fancy footwork, but for the market as a whole it’s good news and it was needed,” she said. “When your star does well or does what is expected, you breathe a little easier.”

      Valentine was quick to note that other areas outside of Goldman’s fixed income and currency businesses showed some pain during the quarter.

      Investment banking revenue totaled $823 million, down 30 percent year-over-year as far fewer merger deals were done. Its asset management revenue declined 28 percent to $949 million.

    81. sean says:

      We should learn a look from the gentleman!!!

      Monday, April 13, 2009
      Mike Morgan v. Goldman Sachs – Complaint and Summons

      David didn’t beat Goliath by waiting till Goliath threw the first punch, so we thought that strategy worked pretty well . . . and we decided to follow it. Today we filed a Complaint in the United States District Court against Goldman Sachs.

      You can view the documents:

      Complaint – Mike Morgan v. Goldman Sachs – Click Here

      Summons – Click Here

      And here is the content of an email received from Go Daddy regarding our domain name:

      Dear Parties,

      Per the legal documents provided, the following domain names have been placed on Registrar-Lock:

      GOLDMANSACHS13.COM, GOLDMANSACHS666.COM

      The domain names will remain locked during the pending legal proceeding. The lock on the domain names shall expire automatically 1) Upon GoDaddy.com’s receipt of an order dismissing or suspending the case 2) Upon the expiration of the domain nameregistration including the Redemption Grace and Pending Delete Periods at the registry.

      Thank you,

      Shannon McDonald
      Domain Services
      GoDaddy.com, Inc.

    82. iStandUp says:

      …. Following the Money Trail…

      Friday, April 10, 2009
      Lawrence Summers: Positive economic news few months away

      Lawrence Summers, a top economic adviser to President Barack Obama, told the Economic Club of Washington that the country is likely to see positive economic signs in the next few months despite continuing job losses and frozen lending markets.

      An economy that performs like a ball rolling off a table’s edge is likely to end this year, Summers said. “I think we can be reasonably confident that that’s going to end in the next few months,” he said. But he added that, “How strong, how rapid the return will be – that’s a less clear question.”
      ( http://www.bizjournals.com/albuquerque/stories/2009/04/06/daily46.html )

    83. iStandUp says:

      …. Following the Money Trail…

      Cabinet members who got into the Hedge Fund business

      -Richard Breeden, former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, is now a hedge-fund manager.

      -Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (Clinton Administration) started an emerging-markets hedge fund called- Albright Capital Management. Albright has no prior investing experience.

      -Former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers (Clinton Administration) took a job as managing director at the private-equity firm D.E. Shaw.

      -Former Treasury Secretary John Snow (Bush Administration) was appointed chairman at the hedge-fund/private-equity firm, Cerberus Capital.

      -Former Vice President Dan Quale (Bush Sr.) also took a job with Cerberus Capital.

      -Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger is said to have a roll advising hedge funds “on how geopolitical events affect their investments.”

      There’s no doubt about it, we are seeing capitalism at its finest. Famed hedge fund manager, George Soros said that “hedge funds are the market now.” He also said that “the heavy use of debt to leverage up financial transactions could prove damaging when and if the economy stumbles.”

      Posted by John Mugarian on April 19, 2007 11:41 AM

      ( http://www.johnmugarian.com/2007/04/cabinet_members_who_got_into_t.html )

    84. iStandUp says:

      …. Following the Money Trail…

      “[Steve] Rattner to join Obama administration as auto advisor

      The Quadrangle Group’s co-founder and managing principal will step down from the firm to assume his new role with the US government, where he will advise Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and National Economic Council director Lawrence Summers on the auto industry.

      Posted – 23 Feb 2009 19:30 GMT
      updated – 23 Feb 2009 19:33 GMT

      Christopher Witkowsky

      Steve Rattner, a co-founder of media-focused private equity firm Quadrangle Group, is joining the US Department of Treasury as an advisor on the automotive sector.

      Rattner, who will leave Quadrangle for the new role with the administration of US President Barack Obama, will directly advise Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and National Economic Council director Lawrence Summers.

      Joshua Steiner, co-founder of Quadrangle, and Michael Huber, who joined the firm in 2000 at its inception, will serve as the firm’s co-presidents.

      “The Obama administration’s selection of Steve [Rattner] represents … a rare opportunity for him to help facilitate our country’s economic recovery,” the firm said in a statement. “While we will clearly miss Steve, we recognise the utmost importance of this appointment.”

      Both Steiner and Huber were previously colleagues of Rattner’s at Lazard Frères, where Rattner was deputy chairman and deputy chief executive officer. The two were members of Lazard’s media and telecommunications group, which Rattner founded. Huber was also with Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, where he worked in the media and telecommunications groups.

      Rattner was the top candidate for the role of “car czar” in the Obama administration, but the US President nixed that idea earlier this month in favour of creating a task force led by the Treasury secretary on the industry’s restructuring.

      Specifically, the task force will administer a more than $17 billion bailout of General Motors and Cerberus Capital Management-backed Chrysler. The two companies submitted restructuring plans recently as part of their obligations under the bailout plan that will determine future government support.

      Rattner has been a major political donor to Democratic candidates in the US, including handing over more than $18,000 to Obama’s presidential campaign last year, and thousands of dollars to the Democrat Senatorial campaign committee in 2007, according to records from campaignmoney.com

      Quadrangle manages more than $6 billion of capital, and invests between $100 million and $250 million in media and communications companies. The firm has completed more than 20 investments. ”
      ( http://www.privateequityonline.com/Article.aspx?article=34534&hashID=CFE5D6E3128987E03C0A6CF174F18CD3B5A80BAE )

    85. iStandUp says:

      …. Following the Money Trail…

      Rep. Jerry Lewis and Cerberus Capital Management Connection…

      “The congressman & the hedge fund

      By Matt Kelley, USA TODAY
      Posted 1/19/2006 12:09 AM Updated 1/19/2006 12:23 AM

      One day after a New York investment group raised $110,000 for Republican Rep. Jerry Lewis, the House passed a defense spending bill that preserved $160 million for a Navy project critical to the firm. The man who protected the Navy money? Lewis.

      [Picture - Text Caption below...]
      Rep. Jerry Lewis says Cerberus’ fundraising efforts helped him win the House Appropriations’ chair but insists he did nothing improper. Rep. Jerry Lewis says Cerberus’ fundraising efforts helped him win the House Appropriations’ chair but insists he did nothing improper.
      Gerald Herbert, AP

      The fundraiser, which took place July 7, 2003, and the subsequent vote illustrate the kind of relationship between congressman and contributor that’s under increased scrutiny in the nation’s capital.

      A fellow California Republican, Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, resigned in November after admitting he helped steer Pentagon contracts to two of four businessmen who paid him more than $2.4 million in bribes. Former top GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty last month to using gifts and political donations in a conspiracy to bribe public officials. Both investigations continue.

      Nothing is illegal about government contractors giving political money to lawmakers who help them, unless both sides agree to exchange campaign donations for votes.

      Lewis, 71, insists he did nothing improper. “I’m darn sensitive to make certain we keep arm’s length from certain efforts” by political donors to influence legislation, Lewis said.

      Both Lewis and the investment company, Cerberus Capital Management, benefited from the relationship. Eighteen months after the fundraiser and the House vote, Lewis won the chairmanship of the Appropriations Committee. He acknowledges that the fundraising efforts of Cerberus “played a very significant role” in winning the post. The ties between Cerberus and Lewis, a 14-term congressman from Redlands, Calif., have not been publicly examined before.

      In the opinion of Larry Noble, executive director of the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics in Washington, the timing of the fundraiser within days of a favorable vote “looks like influence buying.” Noble is a former chief lawyer for the Federal Election Commission.

      None of the people connected to Cerberus had ever given money to either Lewis or his political action committee before the fundraiser or the vote on the bill Lewis sponsored, a USA TODAY analysis of their political contributions shows.

      Cerberus, its lawyers and lobbyists declined to comment, despite repeated requests over the past three months.

      ‘Unstable’ program in peril
      Created in 1992, Cerberus is a hedge fund, a type of private investment group that’s not regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. It’s named after the mythical, three-headed dog guarding the gates of Hades.

      Often called a “vulture fund,” Cerberus invests mainly in companies in or on the verge of bankruptcy, buying those firms’ bonds in the hopes of converting them into cash or stock in a revived company. In 2000, the company hired former vice president Dan Quayle as a top executive.

      In 2003, Cerberus owned more than $140 million in stock and bonds of the bankrupt telecommunications giant WorldCom, financial records show. Its stake in the company, which had filed for bankruptcy protection the previous year, was large enough that a Cerberus executive joined the board of directors of MCI, the company’s post-bankruptcy name.

      MCI has been a major subcontractor since 2000 on an $8.8 billion project to build a secure computer network for the Navy and Marines. According to a House Appropriations Committee report in 2002, the program had “been unstable since its inception in 1999.
      ………

      See Whole Article at:
      ( http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-01-19-cerberus-cover_x.htm )

    86. iStandUp says:

      …. Following the Money Trail…

      President Barack Obama is surrounded by people with direct connections to the Hedge Fund Industry:

      – Joe Biden, Vice President of United States – Family Hedge Fund – Paradigm Global Advisors LLC, which is owned by son R. Hunter Biden and brother James Biden.

      – Rahm Emanuel, Chief of Staff for President Barack Obama – Former Investment Banker – “In the 2008 election cycle, he was the House’s No. 1 recipient of contributions from hedge funds, private equity firms and the broader securities and investment industry…”

      – Lawrence Summers, a Top Economic Adviser for President Barack Obama – Cerberus Capital

      – Steve Rattner, auto advisor – Co-founder of media-focused private equity firm Quadrangle Group – joining the US Department of Treasury as an advisor on the automotive sector.

      NOTE: I expect this list to grow as I learn more…

    87. Jim Hall says:

      iStandUp , you may wish to become familiar with a certain Tony Podesta and his connection to a brother (John) working for Obama and some unnamed hedgefund (I’m sure you could uncover it):

      http://insidertrading.procon.org/viewanswers.asp?questionID=1039

    88. Jim Hall says:

      iStandup, Lest the ever-stealthy Soros continue to reap adulation from a fawning press but evade our radar:

      http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2008/eu_soros_01_24.asp

    89. Jim Hall says:

      Larger issues of hedgefunds involved in fomenting political ‘instability’:

      http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/hedge_funds_politics_and_the_m.html

      Thought: I’ve yet to find a site that aggregates politicians by hedgefund involvement in either a tabular or graphical way, but it sure would be nice to peruse. Any web developers out there?

      Meantime, these are things I’ve tripped over and offer up for collective consideration…

    90. iStandUp says:

      …. Following the Money Trail…

      Former U.S. Senator John Breaux… one of a growing cadre of lobbyists being hired by U.S. hedge funds…

      Hedge Funds Hire Lobbyists for Inside Tips on U.S.
      Bloomberg.com

      March 16 (Bloomberg) — Former U.S. Senator John Breaux, who retired in January, is still walking the halls of Congress. Instead of brokering deals with lawmakers, he’s serving as a pipeline for a New York hedge fund. Breaux, a Louisiana Democrat, is one of a growing cadre of lobbyists being hired by U.S. hedge funds to provide instant tips on the progress of potentially market-moving legislation, from the settlement of asbestos lawsuits to allowing oil drilling in an Alaskan refuge. It’s a legal way of letting investors benefit from information gleaned from private conversations with lawmakers and aides. And it’s a new twist in Washington lobbying because it has nothing to do with influencing laws or policy.

      “Anything that affects a company’s profitability from a legislative standpoint is information that’s important,” says Breaux, 61, who works for both the Clinton Group Inc. hedge fund in Manhattan and Patton Boggs LLP, Washington’s top lobbying firm by revenue.

      Hedge funds, which often pursue high-risk, high-yield investments for wealthy clients, are taking on lobbyists such as Breaux to provide political intelligence that allows the funds to buy and sell company stock on information before it’s widely known.

      The practice is taking place under the radar, because federal disclosure rules only require a person to register as a lobbyist and disclose clients when active efforts are made to affect legislation. And hedge funds aren’t interested in talking about it: Companies among the 25 biggest funds, including the Clinton Group, which has no connection to former President Bill Clinton, declined to comment for this story.

      `Everything Is for Sale’

      “It’s a burgeoning area of work,” says Tony Podesta, 61, a Democratic strategist, lobbyist and the brother of John Podesta, a former chief of staff to President Clinton. Tony’s firm, PodestaMattoon, has a hedge-fund client he won’t name. “They would have a different view of this if we had to register,” he says.

      Federal rules prohibit Breaux from lobbying former colleagues for at least a year. There’s nothing stopping him from a lunch, cocktail, workout or phone call to Capitol Hill that might yield a tradable tip for a hedge fund.

      “In Washington, everything is for sale,” says Gary Ruskin, 40, director of the Portland, Oregon-based Congress Accountability Project, a group founded by consumer and political activist Ralph Nader that monitors congressional ethics. “That includes investment advice.”

      Boosting Egos

      Jonathan Slade, 46, a Washington lobbyist whose clients include New York-based investment firm and hedge fund GoldenTree Asset Management LP, takes advantage of Wall Street’s prestige on Capitol Hill. Slade says he likes to set up conference calls and meetings between congressional staffers and the hedge fund executives. It helps boost Washington egos, he says.

      “They think it’s cool talking to someone on Wall Street, especially if it is a big player,” says Slade, who spent four years as a congressional aide before becoming a lobbyist in 1986 and is now a principal with the Washington-based Cormac Group. “They ask them, `What’s Wall Street saying?’ They love that.”
      ….”
      ( http://www.spinwatch.org.uk/-news-by-category-mainmenu-9/157-us-politics/830-hedge-funds-hire-lobbyists-for-inside-tips-on-us-legislation )

    91. iStandUp says:

      …. Following the Money Trail…

      Former Senator Sununu Appointed to BNY ConvergEx Board of Managers

      By Cristina McEachern
      February 26, 2009
      BNY ConvergEx announced that former U.S. Senator John Sununu has been appointed to BNY ConvergEx Holding’s Board of Managers.

      In a statement Joseph Velli, chairman and chief executive officer of BNY ConvergEx Group, said, “We are very pleased to add John to our board. His experience as a thoughtful leader and champion of innovation makes him an ideal match for ConvergEx’s entrepreneurial spirit.”

      Sununu is currently a member of the Congressional Oversight Panel, which was created to oversee the spending of the Troubled Asset Relief (TARP) funds and provide regulatory reform recommendations.

      Sununu was elected Senator from New Hampshire in 2002 and served on the Finance Committee; the Joint Economic Committee; the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs; the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation; the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; and the Committee on Foreign Relations.

      ( http://www.advancedtrading.com/algorithms/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=214600230 )

    92. iStandUp says:

      …. Following the Money Trail…

      Former U.S. Senator John Breaux (D-Louisiana)…

      No ‘flying beneath radar’ for hedge funds

      By Jeff Benjamin
      February 13, 2007, 9:58 AM EST

      The hedge fund industry got a reminder from former U.S. Senator John Breaux (D-Louisiana) that the days of flying beneath the regulatory radar screen are over and that the industry needs to do a better job of getting out ahead of important regulatory matters.

      Mr. Breaux, who retired from the Senate in 2005 and is now senior counsel at the Washington law firm of Patton Boggs LLP, was the keynote luncheon speaker in Key Biscayne, Fla., where the Managed Funds Association has gathered this week for its annual networking conference.

      “At a certain point (in an industry’s evolution) it can no longer have the attitude that it’s good to be under the radar,” he told an audience of more than 500 attendees.

      “If you don’t have time to be involved in what’s happening in Washington, you need somebody there on your behalf.”

      The message echoed an underlying theme of the conference that the $1.2 trillion hedge fund industry should brace for increased regulatory scrutiny.

      ( http://www.investmentnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070213/REG/70213002 )

    93. iStandUp says:

      …. Following the Money Trail…

      Obama meets panel of economic advisers…

      FACTBOX-Obama meets panel of economic advisers
      Mon Jul 28, 2008 8:34pm IST

      July 28 (Reuters) – Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has convened a panel of advisers on Monday to talk about the top issue for American voters — the faltering U.S. economy.

      Here is a list of those taking part:

      * Bill Bradley – Former U.S. senator from New Jersey (1979-1997); managing director of Allen & Co

      * Warren Buffett – Chairman and chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway

      * Anna Burger – International secretary-treasurer of Service Employees International Union and chair of new labor federation Change to Win

      * Jon Corzine – Governor of New Jersey; former chairman and chief executive of investment firm Goldman Sachs; U.S. Senator (2001-2006)

      * William Daley – U.S. Secretary of Commerce in the administration of former President Bill Clinton; Midwest chairman of JPMorgan Chase

      * James Dimon – Chairman and chief executive JPMorgan Chase

      * William Donaldson – Former chairman of U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (2003-2005); former chairman and chief executive of New York Stock Exchange; co-founder of investment banking firm Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette

      * Indra Nooyi- Chief executive of PepsiCo

      * Paul O’Neill – Former U.S. Treasury Secretary in the administration of President George W. Bush; special adviser to The Blackstone Group; former chairman and chief executive of Alcoa Inc.

      * Federico Pena – U.S. secretary of transportation and energy in the Clinton administration; managing director of private equity investment firm Vestar Capital Partners

      * Penny Pritzker – Chairman and founder of Classic Residence by Hyatt

      * Robert Reich – U.S. Labor Secretary in the Clinton administration; professor of public policy at University of California at Berkeley

      * Robert Rubin – Chairman and director of executive committee of Citigroup; U.S. Treasury Secretary in the Clinton administration

      * Eric Schmidt – Google chief executive

      * William Spriggs – Professor and Chair of Department of Economics, Howard University

      * Lawrence Summers – U.S. Treasury Secretary in the Clinton administration; former president of Harvard University; managing director of investment and technology development firm D.E. Shaw

      * John Sweeney – President of nation’s largest labor federation, AFL-CIO

      * Laura Tyson – Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers in the Clinton administration; Professor, Haas School of Business at University of California at Berkeley

      * Paul Volcker – Former chairman of U.S. Federal Reserve (1979-1987) (Reporting by Deborah Charles, editing by Jackie Frank)

      ( http://in.reuters.com/article/marketsNewsUS/idINN2826665520080728 )

    94. iStandUp says:

      …. Following the Money Trail…

      Former U.S. Senator and Ambassador to Germany Dan Coats…

      Secretive Cerberus keeps a high profile on K Street
      By Laurie Bennett
      September 4, 2008 at 10:27am

      Cerberus Capital Management, once touted for its daring investments in Chrysler and GMAC, is now struggling to avoid tremendous losses, according to The New York Times.

      Yesterday, Chrysler announced that U.S. sales fell by a third last month. In a one-two punch, GMAC said yesterday that its home loan division would dismiss 60 percent of its employees – 5,000 people – in an effort to minimize losses caused by the mortgage crisis.

      As the Times notes, company CEO Stephen A. Feinberg, who founded the hedge fund with $10 million in 1992, keeps a low profile.

      But in Washington, Cerberus maintains a major presence, paying seven lobbying firms and former U.S. Sen. Jake Garn to represent its interests before Congress.

      Former Treasury counsel Arnold I. Havens, now a partner with Jones Walker, represents the firm on banking and transportation issues.

      Former U.S. senator and ambassador to Germany Dan Coats, now senior counsel at King & Spalding, represents Cerberus on banking regulation.

      Patton Boggs argues for the company on auto emissions legislation. Stanley B. Parrish, former chief of staff to Sen. Orrin Hatch, represents it on auto-related matters.

      Cerberus itself has registered as a lobbyist. The company reported spending $2.5 million on lobbying activities last year.

      The company has worked against hedge fund regulation and has supported members of Congress who feel the same way. When Sen. Richard Shelby, then chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, criticized hege funds in 2003, Cerberus threw a fundraiser for Shelby’s leadership PAC. Ine a single day, The Hill reported, company executives and colleagues contributed $99,500.

      Thus far in 2008, company execs are among the top contributors to Republican congressmen Tom Reynolds, Joe Knollenberg and Fred Upton. They have also given to two Michigan Democrats who hold sway on auto legislation: Sen. Carl Levin and Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick of Detroit.

      ( http://news.muckety.com/2008/09/04/secretive-cerberus-keeps-a-high-profile-on-k-street/4811 )

    95. iStandUp says:

      …. Following the Money Trail…

      Chuck Hagel, former U.S. Senator from Nebraska…

      Hagel heads to McCarthy

      Chuck Hagel, former U.S. Senator from Nebraska, has agreed to join Omaha, Nev.-based private equity firm McCarthy Group as a senior advisor. He will maintain offices in Omaha and Washington, D.C.

      ( http://www.pewnews.com/story.asp?sectioncode=39&storycode=46712&c=1 )

    96. iStandUp says:

      …. Following the Money Trail…

      Wendy Gramm, wife of the former U.S. Senator from Texas Phil Gramm.


      We also know that large numbers of the politically well connected were bought and paid for by Enron. Virtually every legislator and office holder of consequence in the State of Texas received campaign contributions from Enron. Likewise, at the national level Enron and its partner in crime, auditing firm Arthur Andersen, spread their largesse far and wide in a largely successful attempt to free the company from federal oversight and regulation. Perhaps the most egregious example of the corrupting effect of these contributions is the case of Wendy Gramm, wife of the former U.S. Senator from Texas Phil Gramm.

      Wendy Gramm served as chairwoman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission from 1988 to 1993. Shortly before her departure from this post she pushed through a key regulatory exemption that ensured that Enron’s electricity trading operations would not be subject to CFTC oversight. Five weeks later she was appointed to a lucrative post on the Enron board of directors. Meanwhile, her husband Phil was collecting campaign contributions from Enron that totaled nearly $100,000. Ms. Gramm served on the audit committee of the Enron board. Obviously, with her background and experience, she was in a good position to understand that Enron was misleading the public about the financial condition of the company. Perhaps this is why Phil Gramm chose not to run for reelection this year.

      ( http://irascibleprofessor.com/comments-01-28-02-epr.htm )

    97. iStandUp says:

      …. Following the Money Trail…

      Former U.S. senator and Law & Order television star Fred Thompson…

      Also not selling are any of Nasdaq’s corporate officers and directors. One of the more notable directors is former U.S. senator and Law & Order television star Fred Thompson. Thompson was named to Nasdaq’s board last May and owns 7,541 shares.

      ( http://www.thestreet.com/_tsclsii/markets/matthewgoldstein/10207941_2.html )

    98. iStandUp says:

      …. Following the Money Trail…

      Greenspan, Rubin and Summers Silenced The Woman Who Could Have Prevented This Financial Mess…

      The Woman Who Could Have Prevented This Financial Mess Was Silenced by Greenspan, Rubin and Summers

      By Katrina vanden Heuvel, TheNation.com. Posted October 11, 2008.

      A sad tale emerges of willfully arrogant behavior designed to undermine a wise woman’s good judgment.

      “Break the Glass” was the code-name high-level Treasury Department figures gave the $700 billion bailout; it was to be used only as a last-resort measure.

      Now millions have been sprayed and damaged by broken glass.

      But more than a decade ago, a woman you’re likely never to have heard of, Brooksley Born, head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission — a federal agency that regulates options and futures trading — was the oracle whose warnings about the dangerous boom in derivatives trading just might have averted the calamitous bust now engulfing the US and global markets. Instead she was met with scorn, condescension and outright anger by former Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan, former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and his deputy Lawrence Summers. In fact, Greenspan, the man some affectionately called “The Oracle,” spent his political capital cheerleading these disastrous financial instruments.

      On Thursday, the New York Times ran a masterful and revealing front page article exposing the culpability of Greenspan, Rubin and Summers for the era of dangerous turbulence we live in.

      What these “three marketeers” — as they were called in a 1999 Time magazine cover story — were adept at was peddling the timebombs at the heart of this complex crisis: exotic and opaque financial instruments known as derivatives — contracts intended to hedge against risk and whose values are derived from underlying assets. To cut to the quick, Greenspan, Rubin and Summers opposed regulating them. “Proposals to bring even minimalist regulation were basically rebuffed by Greenspan and various people in the Treasury,” recalls Alan Blinder, a former Federal Reserve board member and economist at Princeton University, in the Times article.

      In 1997, Brooksley Born warned in congressional testimony that unregulated trading in derivatives could “threaten our regulated markets or, indeed, our economy without any federal agency knowing about it.” Born called for greater transparency — disclosure of trades and reserves as a buffer against losses.

      Instead of heeding this oracle’s warnings, Greenspan, Rubin & Summers rushed to silence her. As the Times story reveals, Born’s wise warnings “incited fierce opposition” from Greenspan and Rubin who “concluded that merely discussing new rules threatened the derivatives market.” Greenspan deployed condescension and told Born she didn’t know what she doing and she’d cause a financial crisis. (A senior Commission director who worked with Born suggests that Greenspan and the guys didn’t like her independence. ” Brooksley was this woman who was not playing tennis with these guys and not having lunch with these guys. There was a little bit of the feeling that this woman was not of Wall Street.”)

      In early 1998, according to the Times story, one of the guys, Larry Summers, called Born to “chastise her for taking steps he said would lead to a financial crisis. But Born kept at it, unwilling to let arrogant men undermine her good judgment. But it got tougher out there. In June 1998, Greenspan, Rubin and the then head of the SEC, Arthur Levitt, Jr., called on Congress “to prevent Ms. Born from acting until more senior regulators developed their own recommendations.” (Levitt now says he regrets that decision.) Months later, the huge hedge fund Long Term Capital Management nearly collapsed — confirming some of Born’s warnings. (Bets on derivatives were a key reason.)

      “Despite that event,” the Times reports, ” Congress (apparently as a result of Greenspan & Summer’s urging, influence-peddling and pressure) “froze” Born’s Commissions’ regulatory authority. The next year, Born left as head of the Commission. Born did not talk to the Times for their article.

      What emerges is a story of reckless, willful and arrogant action and behavior designed to undermine a wise woman’s good judgment. The three marketeers’ disdain for modest regulation of new and risky financial instruments reveals a faith-based fundamentalist approach to the management of markets and risk. If there is any accountability left in our system, Greenspan, Rubin and Summers should not be telling anyone how to run anything. Instead, Barack Obama might do well to bring back Brooksley Born and promote to his team economists who haven’t contributed to the ugly mess we’re in.

      Katrina vanden Heuvel is editor of The Nation.

      ( http://www.alternet.org/workplace/102559/the_woman_who_could_have_prevented_this_financial_mess_was_silenced_by_greenspan,_rubin_and_summers/ )

    99. Jim Hall says:

      A delectable tidbit about one of the major hucksters of voodoo economics, Alan Greenbacks, and a hedgefund tryst:

      http://www.cnbc.com/id/22659152

    100. Marv Eatinger says:

      —– Original Message —–
      From: marv eatinger
      To: fraud@gao.gov ; CFLETTERS ; Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov ; hawked@sec.gov ; casework@grassley.senate.gov ; caseyk@sec.gov ; aguilarl@sec.gov ; ENFORCEMENT ; brandon_barford@banking.senate.gov ; oig@sec.gov ; lee@leeterry.com ; mitch0033@gmail.com ; info@teamemerald.com ; ra-erwebmaster@state.pa.us
      Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 5:56 PM
      Subject: “DUE DILIGENCE” VERSUS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS VERSUS DALECO RESOURCES CORP PUBLIC STOCKHOLDERS LEGAL RECOURSE CONCERNING SECURITIES FRAUD!!!!

      “DUE DILIGENCE” VERSUS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 1 minute ago Marv Eatinger Says:
      April 15th, 2009 at 8:54 am
      Anonymous – reply to your response #20:

      If a fraud is on going, every time an event is created in order to cover up a past fraudulent act the statute of limitations is tolled & starts over.

      “In cases where a cause of action has been fraudulently concealed, the statute of limitations is tolled until the action is, or could have been, discovered through the exercise of due diligence. ”

      Daleco Resources Corp committed many frauds. It all started in May of 1984 with their 20F filing with the SEC. An ex-SEC lawyer (MARIO V. MIRABELLI NOW WITH PATTON BOGGS) who was the managing partner of Shea & Gould law firm took his proprietary knowledge of how the SEC handles the filings of public companies and manipulated Daleco’s SEC filings for the years of 1984, 1985, 1986 & 1988 into different branches of the Division of Corporate Finance in order to cover up the accounting fraud that Daleco’s management conspired with its auditors (COOPERS & LYBRAND ACCOUNTING FIRM) in order to steal at least $30,000,000 + of oil & gas properties and leave the public stockholders without a clue as to what actually happened. Shea & Gould dissolved with a special night meeting of partners in January of 1994, one week after I had sent them my third certified letter over a period of two years. They never answered any of my certified letters!

      In January of 1991 the fraud division of the Fresno California IRS service center sent me a letter assigning a claim no. 95-52791-1 to my submission of 19 form #211’s having to do with entities associated with Daleco Resources Corp. In the letter of assigning the above IRS claim number the IRS stated that “As soon as we have completed our investigation and evaluation, we will notify you. Please let us know if you change your address.” This letter was signed by Theron C. Polivka Director, of the Service Center. To this day I have not been able to find out what has happened to my claim number and is it active or not active!

      It is always possible that the Federal Government would just as soon look the other way because Daleco exposes all the loopholes and weaknesses of the regulatory authorities in the 1980’s & 1990’s. But this case is on going and that is why I am committed to hang in there.

      Marv Eatinger

      “In cases where a cause of action has been fraudulently concealed, the statute of limitations is tolled until the action is, or could have been, discovered through the exercise of due diligence. ”

      IF SEC SCRUTINY (SEC “DUE DILIGENCE”) OF DALECO’S VIOLATIONS CONCERNING SECURITIES FRAUD WAS CIRCUMVENTED BY MARIO V. MIRABELLI’S (SHEA & GOULD LAW FIRM) ABILITY & PROPRIETARY KNOWLEDGE OF HOW THE SEC HANDLES PUBLIC CORPORATION FILINGS, WOULD A COURT OF LAW DECIDE THAT PUBLIC INVESTORS IN DALECO RESOURCES CORP HAD NO RECOURSE BECAUSE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN ITS COURSE? IF THE SEC HAD NO IDEA AS TO DALECO’S SECURITIES FRAUD VIOLATIONS, COULD A PUBLIC STOCKHOLDER IN DALECO BE EXPECTED TO PERFORM A LEGAL ASPECT CALLED “DUE DILIGENCE” ??

    101. iStandUp says:

      Following the Money Trail
      ——————————————–

      - Former U.S. Senator Tom Daschle’s…
      $1 million-a-year consulting contract with the New York-based firm [InterMedia Advisors LLC.]

      - Former President Bush and ex-U.K. Prime Minister John Major have advised the firm [Washington-based Carlyle Group]

      - John Snow as its chairman and former Vice President Dan Quayle as chairman of its international unit [Cerberus Capital Management LP].

      - French president Nicholas Sarkozy’s half brother, Olivier Sarkozy, works alongside Quarles at Carlyle Group as head of Carlyle’s Global Financial Services group.

      ——–
      Wednesday, February 4, 2009
      The Revolving Door Between Wall Street and Upper Echelon Government

      Bloomberg recaps, the goings on:

      Former U.S. Senator Tom Daschle’s…$1 million-a-year consulting contract with the New York-based firm [InterMedia Advisors LLC.]highlights how buyout firms often turn to former politicians to court investors and make deals. Former President George H.W. Bush, ex-Treasury Secretary John Snow and former Senate Majority Leader William Frist have all worked for private-equity funds…

      Washington-based Carlyle Group helped pioneer the use of former government officials as fund raisers and dealmakers. Former President Bush and ex-U.K. Prime Minister John Major have advised the firm, and its ranks currently include former U.S. Treasury Undersecretary Randal Quarles.

      Cerberus Capital Management LP, the New York-based firm that owns Chrysler LLC, counts John Snow as its chairman and former Vice President Dan Quayle as chairman of its international unit.

      Not to be forgotten is that French president Nicholas Sarkozy’s half brother, Olivier Sarkozy, works alongside Quarles at Carlyle Group as head of Carlyle’s Global Financial Services group.

      Labels: CarlyleGroup, OliverSakozy, RandalQuarles, TomDaschle

      ( http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/labels/RandalQuarles.html )

    102. iStandUp says:

      Following the Money Trail
      ——————————————–

      former U.S. Senator Adlai Stevenson III Co-Founder of HuaMei Capital Co. (HMCC)….

      HuaMei Capital Co. (HMCC), a financial services advisory firm based in Chicago with three offices in China, began operations earlier this year. It is a unique 50-50 U.S.-China joint venture. The company’s founders, former U.S. Senator Adlai Stevenson III and Leo Melamed, Chairman Emeritus of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, discussed HMCC’s goals in a recent conversation.

      ( http://www.thedeal.com/pdf/EOC_Winter07.pdf )

      ================================

      HuaMei Capital Company principals and officers ….

      OUR TEAM

      HMCC was organized in May 2005 by Adlai E. Stevenson III, former U.S. Senator and chairman of SC&M Investment Management Corporation and Co-Chairman of Stevenson, Melamed & Associates, Leo Melamed, chairman and CEO of Melamed & Associates, co-chairman of Stevenson, Melamed & Associates and the recognized founder of financial futures markets, Roger Kumar, an analyst and fund manager who is president of SC&M Investment Management Corporation, and Phillip Goldstick, a former Illinois legislator and advisor to government officials and chairman of G Equity Investment Group, Ltd., a registered broker-dealer participating in Private Placements.

      ( http://www.huameicapital.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=4&Itemid=5 )

      =======================================

      Adlai E. Stevenson, 78, a former US Senator, is Chairman of SC&M Investment Management Company and Chairman of the Adlai Stevenson Center on Democracy.

      http://www.adlai3.com

    103. iStandUp says:

      Following the Money Trail
      ——————————————–

      Former U.S. Senator Connie Mack is joining the board of directors of American Momentum Bank

      ( http://www.bizjournals.com/tampabay/stories/2007/03/05/daily51.html )

    104. iStandUp says:

      …. Following the Money Trail…

      Former United States Senator John Edward Sununu…

      …has joined the board of a subsidiary to Bank of New York Mellon — a firm that, in addition to receiving bailout funds, has been hired by the Treasury Department to administer the program.

      —-
      The Sprintin’ Sununu Board Game
      By Dean Barker, Blue Hampshire
      March 4, 2009 – 05:00 am

      View the original

      The Sprintin’ Sununu Board Game, 1st Edition.

      The Sprintin’ Sununu Board Game 2nd Edition:

      NEW YORK, Feb. 25 PRNewswire-FirstCall — BNY ConvergEx Group, LLC, a leading provider of global agency brokerage and investment technology solutions, today announced that former United States Senator John Edward Sununu has been appointed to the Board of Managers of ConvergEx Holdings, LLC, the holding company of BNY ConvergEx Group.

      …He currently is a member of the Congressional Oversight Panel created to oversee the expenditure of Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds and to provide recommendations on regulatory reform.

      The Sprintin’ Sununu Board Game, 2nd Edition (recalled):
      John Sununu, who serves on the Congressional Oversight Panel monitoring the government’s bailout progam, has joined the board of a subsidiary to Bank of New York Mellon — a firm that, in addition to receiving bailout funds, has been hired by the Treasury Department to administer the program.

      ( http://www.politicker.com/new-hampshire/62553/sprintin-sununu-board-game )

    105. Jim Hall says:

      iStandup,in which direction is the momentum for the American Momentum Bank?

    106. ELENA says:

      Hello. I am wondering if you’d be interested in doing a website link swap? I see your blog: and my blog are based mostly around the same subject matter. I’d really like to switch links or perhaps guest author a write-up for you. Here is my personal e-mail:. Please make sure to contact me if you’re even remotely interested. Thank you so much.

    Trackbacks/Pingbacks


    Leave a Reply

    • Popular
    • Latest
    • Comments
    • Tags
    • Subscribe

    Related Sites