http://www.newser.com/story/57203/cash-rich-italian-mafia-grows-in-recession.html

New Businessweek article:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_18/b4129000840714.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily

‘The Connecticut state treasurer, Denise Nappier, who controls a $20 billion retirement fund, called for you to step down today. The Service Employees International Union has mounted a campaign against you, in part because BofA is said to be actively lobbying against the Employee Free Choice Act, which would eliminate the secret ballot in union elections.
First of all, the SEIU would like to unionize Bank of America, and so I think they have an ulterior motive. And then secondly, I was told that the state of Connecticut owns 1.4 million shares [of BofA]. I own around 5 million, so I’m going to outvote her.’

MoveOn involved as well (though you don’t see that in that story?? Why??). You need to go here to see the nexus:

http://www.seiu.org/2009/04/tens-of-thousands-of-taxpayers-to-protest-at-100s-of-bank-of-america-branches-nationwide.php

Conclusion: George Soros is behind much of the union-forming fomenting with BAC through MoveOn. Gee, do you think George might be shorting the bank/country/world? Wouldn’t he love to cripple BAC? Worker’s rights? Think George really cares?

“Banks Aren’t Yet in the Clear
Analysts see several reasons why the recent strong earnings reports by the likes of Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs may not be repeated”

THIS ARTICLE QUOTES MOB-OWNED ANALYST DONN VICKERY – GRADIENT ANALYTICS.
WHEN WILL THESE GOONS GO AWAY?

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_17/b4128019360698.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily

But I think they are onto something/someone…

And, what’s worse, is that the administration seems to regard him as some type of Yoda while the (Times/WSJ) press lionizes him.

Here’s our new sister site:

http://www.soroswatch.com/

On the other hand, the use of the word “SALE” might cripple or prevent the WALL STREET COUNTERFEIT MACHINE from operating.

How the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times Buried the Madoff Scandal for at Least Four Years
By EAMONN FINGLETON

An old maxim has it that newspaper editors separate the wheat from the chaff, then print the chaff. By this standard, the editors of the Wall Street Journal showed special deftness in their handling of the Madoff affair.

They used the occasion of whistleblower Harry Markopolos’ testimony in Washington in February to address seemingly every minuscule detail of the scam. They even published an irrelevant, if lovingly crafted, floor plan of the Madoff firm’s office in the Midtown Manhattan Lipstick building. Yet, in all their apparent desire to “flood the zone” (maybe they were angling for a Pulitzer!), one detail was missing. Not a word of explanation was offered about the curious role played by the Journal’s own Washington-based investi­gative reporter John R. Wilke.

As Markopolos’ written testimony made clear, Wilke long ago knew the score. As far back as 2005, he had been entrusted with Markopolos’ now famous dossier raising no less than 29 red flags about Madoff. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that, on the strength of an afternoon’s research, a good reporter could have worked up any one of Markopolos’ points into a cracker of a front-page story. Taken as a whole, the dossier represented the biggest “career development opportunity” any journalist has been handed since Deep Throat delivered the goods on Richard Nixon to Woodward and Bernstein a generation ago.

There are differing accounts of what happened next. According to Markopolos, Wilke was hot to trot but needed the blessing of higher-ups. And, unfortunately, the Journal’s “news” operation is apparently run much like an Amtrak marshaling yard. As months turned into years, Markopolos’ 29 red flags festered like so many rotten tomatoes in some desk jockey’s in-tray. Other sources, however, place the blame firmly on Wilke’s shoulders. Apparently, he started to dig but lost heart because there was so little publicly available information on Madoff’s modus operandi.

It is all very puzzling. The question, of course, is why would Markopolos lie about something like this? And then there is the simple fact that his testimony on other, more weighty matters has already been resoundingly vindicated.

What is not in dispute is that, to the Journal’s eternal shame, the story eventually came out only after an avalanche of redemptions left Bernie with nowhere to hide and he turned himself in. In the interim, by remaining silent, the Journal played a devastatingly ignominious role in one of the biggest and most brazen scams in history.

If the Journal’s shame is particularly acute, virtually no one in the wider American financial journalism profession emerges from this fiasco with much credit.

One dog that snoozed in its kennel was the New York Times. The Madoff scam was, of course, a local story for the Times, not least because Times editors undoubtedly knew many of Madoff’s victims socially. It is surprising, to say the least, that no Times person ever seems to have sensed there was something fishy going on in the Lipstick building. The Upper East Side was buzzing with rumors about his apparently sensational investment returns. Many a New York socialite either had money invested with him – and boasted of it in a loud stage whisper – or at least wanted to do so.

Yet it was only on the day of Madoff’s arrest that the Times condescended to inform its readers that many of his more alert peers had sensed he was a fake all along. For years, he had been pegged as an outright Ponzi artist by Goldman Sachs and Credit Suisse, for instance, and he was blacklisted also at Deutsche Bank, Merrill Lynch, and UBS. Indeed, as far back as 1991, CounterPunch contributor Pam Martens, in her capacity as a Wall Street broker, had told him she was on to his game and had so advised a client. For thousands of aggrieved Times readers, who lost their life savings in Bernie’s financial Bates Motel, the question is why they were the last to know.

For the rest of the story..

http://www.counterpunch.org/fingleton04232009.html

You stated:
“Securities scholars argue as to whether a “loan” from the SBPs “lending pool” that involves the transference of “legal ownership” is a “loan” or a “sale”. The DTCC argues vehemently that it is a “loan” and therefore they have the right to credit the account of the “lender” with a “long position”/”securities entitlement” to denote his “right” to call in the “loan”. If it were characterized as a “sale” because of the transfer of ownership then the DTCC would have no right to credit the donor firm with a “securities entitlement”.”

Interesting…. Here are some thoughts that came to mind while reading this paragraph………….

Yesterday as I was writing the first draft of the WALL STREET PONZI SCHEME, I noted in my mind and in the text that the BUYER’s brokerage statement says he is long xxxx shares, even though HIS MONEY was NEVER USED to buy long shares…. His Money was placed in an interest-bearing-account.

By calling the shares used to cure the FTD a LOAN, the DTCC can allow the BUYER’s Money to remain in an interest-bearing-account so the Wall Street Criminals can divert this money into their pockets. The use of the word “LOAN” also allows the Wall Street Criminals to counterfeit more and more shares to drive the stock price down, which then gives them the ability to steal the BUYER’s money.

On the other hand, IF the DTCC referred to the shares used to cure FTDs as a “SALE,” then the money in the interest-bearing-account would have to be transferred to the firm SELLING the shares to the BUYER.

So it appears that the use of the word “LOAN” enables the WALL STREET COUNTERFEIT MACHINE to operate efficiently – creates the greatest amount of income for the Wall Street Criminals – allows the Criminals to leverage the BUYER’s money to its greatest extent.

On the other hand, the use of the word “SALE” might cripple or prevent the WALL STREET COUNTERFEIT MACHINE was operating.

In studying abusive naked short selling frauds you need to appreciate the role of this financial accounting term referred to as a “long position” in a corporation’s shares. First of all it has nothing to do with the “legal ownership” of the “shares” of a corporation. On Wall Street the party inscribed on a transfer agent’s “record of ownership” is the “legal owner” of those shares. The investor/purchaser of the shares held in “street name” at the DTCC becomes the “beneficial owner” of that which he purchased. When it comes to these rather peculiar “long positions”/”securities entitlements” nobody “legally owns” them. They have “holders” but no “legal owners”. That’s what makes them invisible to prospective investors and a corporation’s management team.

In reviewing how the NSCC’s “Automated Stock Borrow Program” (SBP) operates we saw how the lending of a (conveniently) impossible to trace parcel of shares from the SBP’s self-replenishing “lending pool” of securities done in order to “cure” a failure to deliver resulted in the buying party in a transaction involving a delivery failure receiving the borrowed shares. Along with the borrowed shares came the “legal owner” title. Unfortunately for “long” investors the specific investor whose shares were chosen to “cure” the delivery failure cannot be identified and told that he just lost “ownership” of that which he purchased.

We also saw how the brokerage firm who “donated” the shares chosen to cure the delivery failure was awarded a “long position”/”securities entitlement” theoretically denoting his right to demand those loaned out shares back at a time of his choosing. This one “loan” resulted in the transference of “legal ownership” of a given parcel of shares to the recipient as well as the generation of a separate “long position” out of thin air. UCC-8-501 then came along and empowered the “holder” of this “long position”/”securities entitlement” (the “donor” brokerage firm FBO his client the investor) to “exercise all of the rights and property interest of the “shares” that got sent electronically to the new “legal owner”. So now we have 2 separate parties being allowed “to exercise all of the rights and responsibilities that comprise the SAME parcel of securities”.

The new “legal owner” of this particular “parcel” of shares now has all of the right in the world to “re-donate” this same parcel of impossible to trace shares right back into the same lending pool of securities it just came out of as if it never left in the first place. Once it is chosen to “cure” a delivery failure then 3 separate parties will be allowed “to exercise all of the rights and property interest that comprise that security”. The “legal owner” title will go to the most recent party receiving the borrowed shares.

All of the rest of the parties that at one time held the “legal owner” title to this one parcel of shares now become “co-beneficial owners”. FINRA, the DTCC, the NSCC and the SEC have no problem whatsoever in this “counterfeiting machine” known as the NSCC’s SBP even though after a period of time perhaps a dozen different “co-beneficial owners” have the right to sell that SAME parcel of shares. Apparently all of these SROs and regulators have no problem with the obvious share price depressant effect associated with the massive increase in the “supply” of that which by law (UCC-8-501) must be treated as being readily sellable.

When the DTCC and NSCC get sued for the facilitation of naked short selling crimes and “counterfeiting” abuses associated with their SBP the SEC always shows up with an “amicus curiae” brief recommending to the judge to dismiss the case because we at the SEC find no problem with how the SBP operates. They insanely claim to the judge that the SBP does not serve to “counterfeit” shares because the number of shares “legally owned” does not go up in number. That’s an interesting claim for the party with the congressional mandate to provide investor protection and market integrity.

Of course the number of shares “legally owned” and “outstanding” does not go up in number but the number of “legally owned” shares is only one part of the “supply” variable that interacts with the “demand” variable to determine share price. The “supply” variable also includes all of these readily sellable “long positions”/”securities entitlements” that DTCC participants are creating right and left via not only SBP loans but also via every single delivery failure that the NSCC management pretends to be “powerless” to buy-in even after it becomes obvious that the seller of securities had no intent whatsoever to deliver in the first place.

We also see this “long position” terminology on an investor’s monthly brokerage statement wherein even if the investor’s clearing firm never did get delivery of that which its client purchased the client is still awarded a “long position” in the “securities held long” column. You have to keep in mind that these “long positions” being awarded all over the place are over and above the number of shares already “outstanding” and they TECNICALLY have no “legal owner”; instead they have “holders” referred to as “security entitlement holders”.

Securities scholars argue as to whether a “loan” from the SBPs “lending pool” that involves the transference of “legal ownership” is a “loan” or a “sale”. The DTCC argues vehemently that it is a “loan” and therefore they have the right to credit the account of the “lender” with a “long position”/”securities entitlement” to denote his “right” to call in the “loan”. If it were characterized as a “sale” because of the transfer of ownership then the DTCC would have no right to credit the donor firm with a “securities entitlement”.

A financial arrangement referred to as a “repurchase agreement” bridges this gap in that in an “RA” the seller retains the right to buy the shares back within a given amount of time. Repurchase agreements are used all the time to mask delivery failures and to facilitate naked short selling thefts. If the seller has the right to buy it back then why not just keep the shares and “hypothecate” the shares to the counterparty. “Hypothecation” refers to pledging shares without delivering them.

The net-net of all of this is that the granting of “long positions” is very tricky and easily abused and those with a superior working knowledge of how things operate on Wall Street can absolutely run circles around Joe Sixpack. That’s why we have theoretically UNCONFLICTED SROs and UNCONFLICTED regulators THEORETICALLY protecting Joe and his family. If they refuse to do so for any of a variety of reasons then the investment funds of Joe and his family will easily be rerouted into the wallet of those “banksters” committing these thefts while leveraging their superior working knowledge of sometimes complex financial arrangements.

The ability of Wall Street insiders to credit these nebulous “long positions” to the accounts of investors in and of itself is not that damaging. But when you factor in UCC-8-501’s mandate for clearing firms holding these “long positions”/”securities entitlements” created out of thin air to allow their “holders” to “exercise all of the rights and property interest that comprise that security then you have laid the foundation for massive levels of theft of an unknowing investor’s money by those with this superior working knowledge.

Jim Hall, I got a kick out of those links you posted, especially this one:

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/21/another-view-tighten-short-selling-rules-for-now/?hp

I was tempted to leave a comment on that story when I read it, but I noticed that everything that I had to say had already been said by the vast majority of the other responses already posted.

http://www.avaresearch.com/article_details-76.html

Is anyone familiar with the Stutz Motor Car company? The shorts tried to drive his company out of business because they could smell blood as competitors went to assembly lines, but Alan Aloysius Ryan stood firm, hitting every share with a buy.

Suddenly, one day in 1920, he announced to the world that he owned 105% of the outstanding shares and that he wanted the sellers to deliver him his shares.

The clearing brokerages stood to be bankrupted as they stood as the middle men who facilitated the short sales, even though there weren’t enough shares to deliver.

The NYSE decided to protect their own, even setting up a “protective committee” to protect their members. Despite the threat of criminal proceedings, they delisted the company and set the price that Ryan had to sell the naked shorts shares at. The price was far below the highest price he paid to buy the shares in his own company. They banned the private sales he tried to set up with shorts anxious to cover at $500 – $1,000 per share (stock traded $391 before being delisted), because they said he couldn’t do a private sale when sales were halted.

The exchange argued that they were above any court and they charged Ryan with “conduct or proceeding inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade”. His crime? Asking for the sellers to deliver what they sold to him. He complained that the governors of the NYSE exchange were the same people naked shorting his company and it was unfair for them to act as judge and jury. He tried to quit the exchange and they said he couldn’t quit because he was under investigation.

The company was under pressure from creditors and much of the stock he bought and that had to sell at a lower price was bought on credit. His debts got intertwined with the debts of the company and he and the company went bankrupt. The same groups that lent him money were able to collapse him into bankruptcy as the shares he provided as collateral, which no longer traded had no collateral value. He was forced to sell the stock at 2% of the high price he paid for it.

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9806E5D81131E03ABC4953DFB266838B639EDE
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9B03E0D71131E03ABC4E53DFB266838B639EDE
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9507EEDD1E31E03ABC4C52DFB266838B639EDE
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9404E6DB133FE432A25754C1A9629C946195D6CF
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9C03EFDB133AE03ABC4952DFB066838B639EDE
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9B06E6DD1130EE3ABC4152DFB7668389639EDE
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9C03E7DA1639EE3ABC4C51DFB066838B639EDE
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9F0CEED91E3EEE3ABC4951DFB7678389639EDE

Looking with the benefit of history, you can’t help if there was a conspiracy against him by competitors, creditors and naked shorts, all from the same group, that saw great value in getting rid of a privately controlled competitor. You also wonder if this was already happening in 1920, how much more savvy and powerful the families that control Wallstreet have become in the intervening 89 years.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=GoMOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=2oEDAAAAIBAJ&dq=naked-short-selling&pg=2694%2C2821195

It’s chilling to see the industry saw this coming and decided to screw the little guy and American small business and their employees anyway.

It makes me wonder how many other possible good guys from the industry like this Roxie are out there to help the cause.

I can just imagine people in the industry talking among themselves “I can’t believe congress doesn’t close this loophole, but other brokerages are grabbing these billions in investor money, so I may as well, too.”

Then they extend the scheme beyond penny stocks to big stocks, bonds, etc. over the decades until finally they crash the whole country’s economy.

I have saved the images from this link – thanks DCN – and plan on extracting the TEXT from this article and posting it here for everyones use.

“Naked short selling does not require the selling broker dealer to deliver any stock and that is part of the deal on the onset.”

Part of the deal on the onset? The buying and selling brokerage have contractuallly agreed not to have a delivery?

This was written in 1988 by the owner of a securities firm (Roxie Webb). Someone from Deep Capture should contact him to see if he knows how x-clearing arrangements are set up.

http://roxiewebbsecuritiesmanagement.com/history.html

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=GoMOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=2oEDAAAAIBAJ&dq=naked-short-selling&pg=2694%2C2821195

The basic idea:

1. You purchase a share
2. Your broker and the crooked seller both think it will go down. Rather than ask for the share to be delivered, your broker keeps your money and collects interest on it.
3. Eventually, the crooked seller overwhelms all buying and bankrupts the company. Your broker has to give your purchase money to the crooked seller now.

The technique is used to bankrupt any company that isn’t profitable and which is thinly traded enough that the crooked seller can influence the price.

He may have just gotten overwhelmed or have been involved in the genesis of the issues.

Can’t say, but let’s stay tuned.

All suggestions for correcting it or for improving it are welcome!

The Corrupt Market Makers and their Corrupt Hedge Fund Guests with the help of the Corrupted Clearance and Settlement System here in the United States have devised a New Type of PONZI SCHEME….
…Instead of stealing money from their investors, they steal money from unsuspecting buyers of long shares of stock.

With this New Type of PONZI SCHEME, Corrupt Market Makers and Corrupt Hedge Funds steal money from Long investors via ABUSIVE NAKED SHORT COUNTERFEIT SELLING while at the same time damaging or destroying Corporations subjected to their COUNTERFEIT SELLING….

One way to describe a PONZI SCHEME is:

“So you borrow from Peter, you pay Paul. Then you borrow from John to pay Peter. It just keeps going on and on, until the whole thing collapses of its own weight.” (Vinny Catalano on NPR.org)

This is HOW The NEW WALL STREET PONZI SCHEME works…

A Corrupt Wall Street Firm using the THE WALL STREET COUNTERFEIT MACHINE takes an order from Peter-Long-Shares for xxxx long shares in company ABCD. (We will call this Corrupt Wall Street Firm, Take-Your-Money-and-DELIVER-NO-SHARES.)

Instead of selling xxxx shares of company ABCD to Peter-Long-Shares, they take Peter-Long-Shares’ Money and put it in an interest bearing account with the intent of NEVER DELIVERING xxxx shares of Company ABCD to Peter-Long-Shares.

Since the firm Take-Your-Money-and-DELIVER-NO-SHARES, did NOT Own, and did NOT Borrow shares of ABCD Company, it sells Counterfeit Shares to Peter-Long-Shares.

The STOCK SHARES sold to Peter-Long-Shares were:

- NOT Owned
- NOT Borrowed
- NOT Delivered
- WILL NEVER BE DELIVERED

And CORRUPT Clearance and Settlement System allows Peter-Long-Shares’ stock account to SHOW Delivery of Long shares even though his money sits in an Interest-Bearing-Account unused to buy long shares in ABCD.

Because the Clearance and Settlement System FRAUDULENTLY guarantees delivery in 3 days, Peter-Long-Shares receives a confirmation that his order for long shares in ABCD was filled. And the next monthly brokerage account statement FRAUDULENTLY states xxxx long shares of ABCD were Delivered to his stock account.

Even though Peter-Long-Shares paid 100% of the cost for xxxx long shares in ABCD (plus a commission fee) – HIS MONEY was NEVER USED to BUY Long Shares of ABCD, and the intent of the SELLER, Take-Your-Money-and-DELIVER-NO-SHARES, was to NEVER DELIVER ANY LONG SHARES to Peter-Long-Shares’s stock account.

At this point TWO IMPORTANT QUESTIONS Must be Asked?

1.) What happens to Peter-Long-Shares’ money that was NEVER USED TO BUY LONG SHARES in ABCD?…
…That now sits in a money-bearing-account whose interest is Not given to Peter, but instead is given to a brokerage company?

2.) And what did Take-Your-Money-and-DELIVER-NO-SHARES “SELL” to Peter-Long-Shares?
… when it Did NOT OWN, Did NOT BORROW, NEVER DELIVERED and NEVER INTENDS TO DELIVER REAL SHARES of ABCD to Peter-Long-Shares in exchange for cash payment at 100% the cost of xxxx long shares in ABCD?

This is where the brilliant design of THE WALL STREET COUNTERFEIT MACHINE by Wall Street Criminals (and protected by the captured SEC) allow corrupt Wall Street Players to operate a PONZI SCHEME with impunity day after day, year after year.

The CORRUPT CLEARANCE AND SETTLEMENT SYSTEM has been converted from the Congress Mandated “DVP” to the illegal “CVP”:

- DVP: “Delivery Versus Payment” (LEGAL)

- Payment by Buyer at 100% the Cost of Stock Shares

…To Receive…
- Delivery of Real Company Shares

…Was ILLEGALLY Converted To…

- CVP: “Collateralization Versus Payment” – (ILLEGAL)

- Payment by Buyer at 100% the Cost of Stock Shares

…To Receive…
- Delivery of Counterfeit Company Shares to fulfill the Fraudulent 3 Day Delivery Guarantee
- Buyer’s money NOT USED to buy Real Shares of Company Stock
- Buyer’s money put in an interest-bearing-account
- Buyer is essentially Sold a FUTURES CONTRACT, in which the SELLER promises to buy and then deliver Real Shares at some unspecified future date to replace the Counterfeit Shares created for delivery to Buyers account.
(NOTE: The CORRUPT CLEARANCE AND SETTLEMENT SYSTEM allows the Seller of Counterfeit Shares to NEVER DELIVER real shares, since there is NO TIME LIMIT for delivery. )
- With the ILLEGAL Collateralization System, the SELLER is allowed to gain access to the Buyer’s Money BEFORE the Seller Buys and Delivers Real Shares of Company Stock to Buyer who make a Payment at 100% the Cost of the Company Shares.

This is the NEW WALL STREET PONZI SCHEME that the SEC and NSCC “securities cops” allow the Brilliant Wall Street Criminals to operate day after day, year after year with impunity.

The CORRUPT MARKET MAKERS along with their CORRUPT HEDGE FUND GUESTS are allowed by the “Securities Cops” to “sell” Counterfeit Shares of Company Stock, which is mis-leadingly called “Naked Short Selling”, to unsuspecting buyers of real stock shares under the cover of the Fraudulent 3 Day Delivery Guarantee, and the monthly Fraudulent Brokerage Statements received by Buyers showing they have real long shares.

But UNREPORTED and HIDDEN by the “Securities Cops” is the simple fact that the CORRUPT MARKET MAKERS along with their CORRUPT HEDGE FUND GUESTS are allowed to gain access to the Buyers Money without requiring them to BUY REALS SHARES AND DELIVER REAL SHARES of company stock shares to the Buyer (even though the Buyer paid 100% of the Cost of REAL Company Stock Shares).

With this NEW WALL STREET PONZI SCHEME, the Corrupt Hedge Funds do not steal money from their investors…

… instead they steals money from unsuspecting Buyers of Real Shares of Stock, who are unknowingly sold Counterfeit Shares of a company stock, and whose money is eventually diverted into the pockets of Corrupt Market Makers and Corrupt Hedge Funds so they can pay themselves and/or their investors more money – robbing Peter-Long-Shares to Pay Take-Your-Money-and-DELIVER-NO-SHARES and their investors.

The Corrupt Hedge Funds selling Counterfeit Shares of stock are NOT Brilliant Stock Pickers…

… they are merely Brilliant Wall Street Criminals with a NEW PONZI SCHEME who are protected by the “Securities Cops,” the SEC and the NSCC.

What could be simpler than selling Counterfeit Shares of Stock, setting up Counterfeit Short Positions with these Counterfeit Shares, and Stealing the Cash Money that was Never used to Buy Real Shares?

This NEW PONZI SCHEME is a win-win for all the Corrupt Market Makers and their Hedge Funds Guests:

- They make “Easy Money” on their Counterfeit Short Positions by increasing the supply of shares for sale to make their Short Positions Self-Fulfilling – Increasing Supply of Stock Shares AUTOMATICALLY LOWERS PRICE.
(This is illegal, criminal manipulation of a stock)

- And They make “Easy Money” by taking the Cash Money supplied by the Buyers for Real Shares of Stock, which were NEVER Bought and NEVER Delivered.
(This is illegal use, illegal diverstion of the buyers money)

And unlike a classic Ponzi Scheme, this NEW WALL STREET PONZI SCHEME will NOT COLLAPSE until and unless the Wall Street Security Cops declare these ILLEGAL Actions a CRIME… At this moment, the SEC and the NCSS are the great protectors of this NEW WALL STREET PONZI SCHEME.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/MENA/mena.html

What if the two parties are actually one party (two sides of the same coin) and they try to divide us with phony left / right issues when the real issue is that a criminal syndicate runs the country and is bleeding the average person dry?

I think arms, drugs and money laundering through the market are all part of the same criminal syndicate.

He’s the one that broke the story that while the DEA banned drugs to keep prices high, the CIA was bringing them into the country to fund their unauthorized arms activities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Webb

“On the morning of December 10th 2004, 49 year old, Gary Webb was found dead in his modest, recently sold Carmichael, California home. Webb allegedly died from two *self-inflicted* gunshot wounds to the head from a .38 caliber pistol. The Sacramento coroner, Mr. Lyons, hastily ruled Webb’s death a suicide heralded by his now infamous pronouncement: “It’s unusual in a suicide case to have two shots,” he said, “but it has been done in the past, and it is in fact a distinct possibility.”

The graft and secrecy that has taken this country down has been going on for generations of Presidents, providing funding for covert activities, money laundering, and dirty tricks.

Link that ties the S&L takedown, taxpayer costs to Bush I, his friends, the CIA and the Mob. The GSE’s are huge and the lax policies could have made it possible to steal from the mortgage funders as it was possible to get bogus loans from the S&Ls.

Considering that Kellerman had been at FRE for sometime, he did know a lot…
Today: David Kellermann acting CFO of Freddie Mac has committed “suicide”. He has been questioned about what’s going on at Freddie Mac. Maybe he had something to say that would be damaging? Have a look at this if you have time. Part 2 starts out with the same introduction, but about 2 minutes in, the story goes into more details that aren’t included in Part 1. http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/411.html

Would like to know what his FRE experience was prior to that.

Did he recommend the CDS/CDO involvement?

Freddie Mac acting CFO apparent suicide: reports
Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:18am EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – David Kellermann, the chief financial officer of mortgage giant Freddie Mac, was found dead in his Virginia home on Wednesday, an apparent suicide, police said and CNN said..

Kellermann, 41, was discovered before dawn in his suburban Washington home in Fairfax County, Virginia, police said. They did not confirm the exact cause of death but CNN said it had confirmed he had committed suicide.

FROM HIS BIO>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
David Kellermann’s Summary
Financial services executive with close to 20 years of experience, starting with the day-to-day line valuation, trading, and investing of complex mortgage-backed instruments, debt, and interest-rate derivatives, including swaps, swaptions, options, and futures. With that critical experience, I have succeeded at an ever-increasing level of responsibility in managing a Company with $1 + trillion balance sheet.

My definition of success is the full utilization of my experience and abilities, and those of a carefully chosen and trained team along the lines of excellence.

David Kellermann’s Specialties:
Complex financial instrument valuations, Corporate Finance, and Public Company Accounting and Reporting.

David Kellermann’s Experience
Interim Chief Financial Officer
Freddie Mac
(Public Company; 1001-5000 employees; FRE; Financial Services industry)
September 2008 — Present (8 months)
Responsible for internal and external financial management, disclosure and reporting for $1.8 trillion balance sheet of complex financial instruments and insurance contracts.
Responsible for numerous activities that support the financial management of the Company, including; global equity investor relations; capital structure decisions and management, planning, budgeting, and forecasting; and internal controls.

“I am frustrated beyond belief.

We’re talking to ourselves and you are pretending to be here.

I really do not understand what’s going on.

Previous witness said, you guys, as an agency, act like you are deaf, dumb and blind…

And I figured you were coming here, you were going to testify to Congress…

You have told us nothing.
And I believe that’s your intention.

I figured you’d leave your blindfolds and your duct tape and your earplugs behind, but you seem to be wearing them today …

What the heck went on?

Your mission, you said, was to protect investors.
And to detect fraud quickly.

How’d that work out?
What went wrong? …

It seems to me with all of your investigators…

One guy with a few friends and helpers discovered this thing nearly a decade ago, led you to this pile of dung that is Bernie Madoff, and stuck your nose in it, and you couldn’t figure it out!

You couldn’t find your backside with two hands if the lights were on!

Could you explain yourselves?

You have single handedly defused the American public of any sense of confidence in our financial markets, if you are the watchdogs.

You have totally and thoroughly failed in your mission. Don’t you get it?…

What happened here? …

Do we start with hear no evil? See no evil? Or do no evil?
Take your pick.”

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOKSkaQoF_I&feature=PlayList&p=BB8182F8E40ACD74&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=34 )

( Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-New York, 5th District, Bayside – on 02/05/09. His spoken words to members of the SEC during a hearing on the Madoff Fraud.)

http://jutiagroup.com/2009/04/20/they-have-to-blame-someone/

They must be feeling some pressure. Keep it up folks. Write/call your representative invertebrate in Washingtub today!

“A systematic attack on the American economic system”

Manipulators on Wall Street get exposed via a new movie “Stock Shock” coming out on DVD in June. Dr. Trimbath makes an appearance and lays it out.

Watch the trailer here: http://stockshockmovie.com/

From the webpage…..