http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Feds-New-charges-pending-apf-662585536.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=6&asset=&ccode=

sec?

What sec?

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/05/cohens-ex-wife-stuns-lawyer-by-dropping-him/

However, If I could anhiliate them all simultaneously, that would be ideal.

Not that the ‘paid-for’ press would do that…

1. Standard Investment Chartered v FINRA: I address specifics in my commentary NASDAQ Sale: Why Would Schapiro and FINRA Execs Lie?

http://www.senseoncents.com/2009/10/nasdaq-sale-why-would-schapiro-and-finra-execs-lie/

2. Amerivet Securities v. FINRA: this complaint alleges many things about FINRA, including that FINRA invested funds from its own internal investment portfolio in Bernie Madoff.

I was a guest on a Fox Business panel in mid-September that addressed this complaint. I think you will find the attached video clip enlightening. It deserves much wider dissemination.

Attorney Claims Wall Street’s Cop, FINRA, Invested in Madoff

http://www.senseoncents.com/2009/09/attorney-claims-wall-streets-cop-finra-invested-in-madoff/

In turn I hosted Attorney Richard Greenfield on my own weekly internet radio show in mid-October and he had other pearls of wisdom and insight which I captured in my commentary, Attorney Richard Greenfield Brands Mary Schapiro and FINRA Execs as “Liars”

http://www.senseoncents.com/2009/10/attorney-richard-greenfield-brands-mary-schapiro-and-finra-execs-as-liars/

I strongly believe this material is compelling, factual, and worthy of widespread distribution.

America deserves the truth.

I believe that what we are being subjected to is nothing short of corporate homicide and all those who have participated in these malicious acts against the shareholders of these targeted companies should be exposed and prosecuted for what is clearly criminal activity.

I applaud you and Deep Capture for your ongoing efforts to educate the investing public as to what is really happening within our markets. Bravo!!

Could they appear any less concerned?

http://www.fcic.gov
(NOTE: This website is still >> BLANK…
>> I hope this is not an indication of NON-Transparency coming out of this Commission??? )

Their budget seems small > $8 Million – See article below….

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

Financial-meltdown commission sets first hearings
December 22, 2009 | 2:12 pm

The panel set up by Congress to tell us why the financial-system meltdown happened — i.e., who and what to blame — will hold its first hearings Jan. 13 and 14 in Washington.

The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, chaired by former California Treasurer Phil Angelides, said today the initial hearings will focus on the “causes and current state of the financial crisis.”

The witness list is pending, a spokeswoman said. (So is the commission’s website, still a blank page at this point.)

Congress is expecting a final report from the 10-member, bipartisan commission by Dec. 15, 2010. The panel has a budget of $8 million.
– Tom Petruno

Wall Street Waits as SEC Fails to Bring Madoff-Inspired Reforms Share Business ExchangeTwitterFacebook| Email | Print | A A A
By Jesse Westbrook
Dec. 30 (Bloomberg) — Mary Schapiro, chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, said she wanted to show that her agency was cracking down after missing Bernard Madoff’s $65 billion Ponzi scheme. In May, she proposed that almost 10,000 money managers undergo surprise inspections to make sure they weren’t ripping off clients.
“Investors are looking to the SEC to assure the safekeeping of their assets,” Schapiro said at the time. “We cannot let them down.”
On Dec. 16, she settled for something less sweeping. Schapiro joined four other commissioners in approving a rule that requires about 1,600 U.S. fund managers to submit to unannounced audits, 83 percent fewer than seven months ago. The revision came after lobbying by fund companies, including executives from T. Rowe Price Group Inc., who met with Schapiro, and Legg Mason Inc., who met with another commissioner, SEC records show.
The diminished inspections rule is one of at least four Schapiro announced as a way to protect investors and boost confidence, then later scaled back or delayed. In August, she bought herself more time on a rule to rein in short-sellers, after lobbying by hedge funds. In October, Schapiro put off plans to give investors more power to decide who sits on corporate boards after the U.S. Chamber of Commerce questioned the SEC’s jurisdiction.
‘Driving Hard’
“I’ve been driving people very, very hard in this building,” Schapiro said in a Dec. 22 interview. “We just don’t have the capacity to move any faster. We’re still at, I think, a very good pace.”
Schapiro became SEC chairman in January, having been nominated by President-elect Barack Obama to attack Wall Street’s “culture of greed” and bring the “new ideas, new reforms and new spirit of accountability” to an agency whose failures, Obama said, helped spur the 2008 market meltdown.
In her first year in office, Schapiro’s found that issuing proposals is easier than completing rules. “You get zero points in history for what you proposed,” said former SEC Chairman Richard Breeden, who now manages a hedge fund that tries to remove directors at companies he says are underperforming. “You get points for what you get over the goal line.”
The SEC under Schapiro, 54, has suffered some setbacks, including a public humiliation in September by a federal judge who called a proposed $33 million settlement of an enforcement case with Bank of America Corp. a “contrivance.”

Democratic Relations

read rest of article in link below..

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=afUo_v5lEmwc&pos=11

Those noneconomic “bid tappings” are fairly diagnostic that somebody is concerned about a preexisting naked short position. Remember these “open positions” need to be collateralized on a daily marked to market basis. You’ll almost always see them on a large volume day within five minutes of the close. Without an “uptick rule” the crooks can easily knock out the high bid and any underlying bids. For those that don’t watch the intra-day trading they’ll come home to learn that their stock is down perhaps 20% on heavy volume. This is a sell signal to many.

Yesterday on this forum we chatted a bit on the various forms of “self-generated leverage” that these crooks have. In the example there was a company with 100 million shares “outstanding” and a naked short position of 80 million shares. This means people bought and paid for and think they “own” 180 million shares. Let’s assume that 5% of the people that come home from work and see that their stock was down 20% on heavy volume decide to sell the next morning. This means that 9 million shares are going to be for sale the next morning even though perhaps the stock was up all day except for the last 5 minutes wherein it was artificially MANIPULATED lower.

Abusive short sellers can flood the share structure with readily sellable share price depressing “security entitlements” with ease. Think of these “extra shares” as an extra 3 feet of new snow on top of the mountain. Then the Internet bashers,corrupt analysts, manipulative traders banging bids or corrupt financial reporters can induce the avalanche to take off down the mountain.

I’ve had an opportunity over the years to write extensively on the psychology of abusive naked short selling. It’s fascinating in that some of these see themselves as “shareholder advocates.They assert that destroying a U.S. corporation and stealing the money of its shareholders will prevent future investors from losing money to the supposed scamsters that run the company. They’ll enter into contractual relationships with the buyers of securities to deliver that which they are selling by T+3 then they’ll sell nonexistent securities to these buyers and refuse to deliver that which they just contracted to deliver. Intentionally stealing the funds of existing investors to theoretically protect future investors is an interesting way to think about it. The obvious question arises as to what happens when the diagnosis of the corporation being destroyed as being a “scam” is made in error. There is no malpractice insurance on Wall Street to cover these situations. Thus errant diagnoses to the thieves is no big deal.