Universal Express Inc fka USXP

[StockdungU]

What Bud Burrell did not tell is he was a paid consultant of USXP and did not disclose his compensation he received from the scam.

Bud Burrell: "The first company that I am aware of that actually made a documented complaint on naked short selling in its stock was a company called Universal Express. And it has been roundly slandered by the SEC. It's been sued. They have actually been the only company to actually sue the SEC in federal court. And the bottom line is, they're now going to 11th Circuit. And could I tell you something? " ncans.net
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CFRN Investigates: Interview with Bud Burrell, Part 3

Dwayne: . . . Radio Network. And my special guest this morning is industry expert Mr. Bud Burrell. Mr. Burrell is an expert in the area of naked short selling counterfeit shares on Wall Street. We've had several interesting discussions so far this week. And it is a pleasure and an honor to welcome you back to the show again this morning. Good morning Bud. You're live on CFRN.

Bud Burrell: Thank you Dwayne.

D: How are you today?

BB: Very good.

D: Great. I've got your e-mails. I'm gonna get, that's some good stuff there. I'm gonna get it posted on the website.

BB: I'd be happy to have you do that. I could give you a lot more too.

D: Okay. You send them over and I'll post them.

BB: Very good.

D: Tell me where you want to go this morning?

BB: Well first of all, one topic that I would like to get forward to your CMKX related listeners is where they're going after CMKX. That's one point. And the other thing I'd like to talk about is I would like to try to address some of the questions, I know, you've gotten online directly. Not just related to CMKX, but about some of the technical issues involved in the shorting scandal. Uh, C -

D: Now, I've got that same question. I've been asking that question for quite some time.

BB: Uh-huh.

D: What, is there life after CMKX? Because so many people seem to be, they have this tunnel vision for CMKX as being the only way they're ever going to prosper. And I don't want to, I don't want to rain on anybody's parade, but I have to. I'm in a position where I have to ask, well what if it doesn't happen? Then what?

BB: Can I tell you, whether it happens or not. What CMKX has caused to be created is the largest and most active and cohesive group of shareholders behind a single stock in this cause. If not, it may be a more cohesive group than all shareholders in all these causes. And if they've acquired a standing, a platform for comment and a position, then I bluntly think it would be a tragic waste if all they did was focus on CMKX. And then after its settlement, allow themselves to be dissolved. Bluntly, the cause needs the CMKX group to remain cohesive for its own leaders to emerge from the cause and to continue on. Because bluntly, for CMKX short position, while I'm certain it's the largest one at depository trust, is hardly the only one. And there are literally millions of shareholders who've seen their assets stripped from them by this group of criminal manipulators. Which is highly, highly interlinked. And the bottom line is that at this particular point, CMKX really has the potential, irrespective of what comes out of this, you know, rumored settlement, to be a force. And I'd like to encourage all of the CMKX shareholders, their activists and their followers, to stay together as a unit. I would not let the CMKX name disappear. I would keep it in the face of the regulators and the market. You know, not for months or not for weeks or months, but for years after this is, you know, comes to some resolution, good or bad. That's the first point I would like to make.

D: Okay. Well let me, let's expound on that.

BB: Yeah.

D: Now, I provide a forum, Christian Traders Online forum, and I've asked the question, hey once the CMKX issue is over, are you all going to leave? Are you gonna stick around? And of course everybody says well we're gonna stick around. But you know, people will need a central meeting place, a point of connectivity, a point of contact if we are going to continue in this effort beyond CMKX to effectively correct the wrongs on Wall Street. So I encourage, or I'll just make this statement. Christian Traders, the online forum, will be around for, till Jesus comes back. And I'll leave it at that.

BB: Well I think it's a very, very important issue. Again, I don't think anyone has the perspective on all of the cases, both nationally and internationally. And I could tell you, there is no other unit like the CMKX community group. And maybe become CMKX shareholders opposing counterfeiting.

D: I have never seen a body of investors come together the way the CMKX shareholders have. It really boggles my mind. It does.

BB: Well it's very interesting. Irrespective of whether or not, you know, Irvin Casanvant is good, bad or indifferent, a criminal or not. Irrespective of his taste in some of his professional associates previously and currently. This community, the shareholder community, is again, there's nothing like it in the industry right now. And bluntly, 65,000 shareholders have traction. And that doesn't even note, can count how many shareholders are offshore that we don't, that no one even knows about. Or people who bought their stock through X clearing and no one knows about. I've got to tell you, that many people. If just a, if just 5,000 of the CMKX shareholders would file pro se, meaning self-represented lawsuits, in federal district court over the counterfeiting issue and naked short selling, bluntly it would break the back of the U.S. federal court system entirely. 5,000 lawsuits. The SEC told Sedona directly that they could not handle 50 Sedona type cases. 50. Try to imagine what would happen if 500 CMKX shareholders filed or groups totaling 500 filed 500 lawsuits in every district court in America over the issue of counterfeiting. It would create a fire storm. And [indiscernible] right now.

D: Tell me this Bud. Let's say I want to start a movement today. And you've got me thinking. And perhaps I will. I've got several attorneys on retainer. If I wanted to file such an action as you're speaking of, how would I go about it? When I call up my attorney, what would I say to him?

BB: Say you're, the attorney can't represent the person pro se. They can't even be involved in the drafting of the thing. But he might be able to give them model complaints.

D: Uh-hmm.

BB: Bluntly they're ou there.

D: Okay.

BB: Eagle Tech Communications is one example. Represented itself pro se when the SEC moved to deregister Eagle Tech.

D: What would be the basis of my case?

BB: Your basis is that you were defrauded a value. Remember you have to specify how much money you lost specifically because of the misconduct.

D: Misconduct by who?

BB: The, you could name one of the brokers. The broker dealer that put you into CMKX or one of the parties you know have been guilty of manipulating CMKX.

D: Okay.

BB: And then at that point, put a, list 100 John Does after the first, you know, real names you have. At that particular point, you've opened a Pandora's Box. Because believe me, the CMKX manipulation has to include the rating hedge funds, their supporting broker dealers, the clearing houses, the brokerage firms, depository trusts, the SEC itself. And the bottom line is at this particular point, again, there's nothing like the CMKX shareholder group out there. And it would be a tragedy if that group came together. And bluntly I tell you too, the reason there's even a rumor of a prospective settlement is the fear that is within the CMKX company itself that these shareholders are gonna rise up and figuratively lynch them. Illegally or criminally, you know, civilly, if they don't do the right thing to take care of those shareholders. And you know, something that, that fear is the only reason anyone's gonna get, if they get anything. The only reason they will ever have gotten it is because they acted in a unified manner for a specific objective.

D: Okay. Now Debbie, I just saw your comment pop up on my screen. I would like to ask you, Noah, Van, Sandera if he's willing to get together this afternoon, once we adjourn from this broadcast and put your heads together. Let's get our, let's get our ducks lined up. And let's do exactly what Bud is encouraging us to do. Because the problem is folks, there's too many Americans sitting back and doing absolutely nothing. Or they're going to chat rooms or message boards and they're whining all day. Okay, it's time to stop whining. It's time to get up and do something. So I challenge you guys. I don't challenge you. I encourage you. I ask you to support me in this. Help me put it together. And let's move forward.

BB: I'm gonna do one more thing today too. I supported several authors, one of whom has written a book that is looking for a publisher right now. It's called Assassins on Wall Street. And the bottom line is at this particular juncture, I provided him with an enormous amount of historical communications on these topics. And Dwayne, I'm gonna give these to you to be put up on your website.

D: Okay.

BB: These are literally hundreds of articles.

D: Okay. You're gonna e-mail those to me?

BB: I am. They include not just my work, but everything that I've seen that was appropriate in the space for some three plus odd years that I supported the Wes Christian and John O'Quinn team.

D: You know, a question keeps popping up on my screen. Are you still a consultant to Wes Christian?

BB: Only indirectly. They've had some budget issues. And the point that I look at my particular contribution to the cause, I told him that, you know, I would not [indiscernible] a direct supporter unless, especially after some other issues that came up. But um, I am friendly with Wes. And I don't think he is the core of what's going on with some of the legal issues here. He's clearly been instrumental. He's the only game in town. I'll say this to you that way. Until some other law firm, an attorney, emerge who put their real money on the table and produce real results. Um, I'm not gonna be supporting any specific counsel. Now I would say to you one point. See a lot has been made of the fact that they've been slapped down a number of times in their legal actions. They won't be slapped down on Sedona Corporation. I can tell you Rod Young is not going to be slapped down whether Wes Christian and his guys are still supporting him or now. They are now currently. But they did not in the delisting, deregistration actions. What I would say to you is that this is exactly what happened to all of the plaintiffs' lawyers in the silicone breast implant cases and the tobacco cases. They went through years of being defeated, you know, facing motions to dismiss. Motions to change venue. Motions against standing. Being forced into discovery finally and then having the parties refuse to provide discovery. Having those parties in turn be forced to go into court to get a motion to compel discovery. I mean, so the pattern you've seen and the responses of the defendants here are exactly what's happened in every major plaintiffs' action in history. And too much has been made of the fact that these guys have not been successfully generally in court, except on the. They have gotten production of discovery on Eagle Tech Communications. And I won't talk about this here, but I will tell you that that discovery produced in, for Eagle Tech included accounts that no one even knew the importance of at the depository trust.

D: Now, Bud, you're obviously not a newcomer to this whole issue. You've been onto this for some time. Tell us exactly what you said to the president of the American Stock Exchange back in July of 2000?

BB: I happened to be the number two person in a small dot com. I had very specific IT credentials. You'll see that in my CV which I'll send to you.

D: Okay.

BB: A company CEO was under investigation by the SEC for beginning in `96. This was never disclosed to me. I only found it out as a result of litigation some three years later. It's the only litigation I've ever been in related to my work. And it was not for anything related to the company. I had a dispute with him over an employment agreement. But I did it specifically to gain discovery. Cause what they had purportedly done was to destroy the books and records of the corporation inadvertently by discard. The real issue was several of the officers and directors of the company had taken out, ripped the books and records of the company. They provided them to me. They had previously provided them to the SEC. The SEC refused to act. I provided it to the SEC, again stonewalled, no action. And it was clear to me that in watching how the company developed that not only was there insider selling, which was proven by the transfer agent later. You know, two, three years later. But there also was a partnership between the pump and dump sellers and the short sellers. The short sellers control the access of the pump and dump players to the market. And what they basically had done, they acted like they were adversaries when in fact they were, they were right and left hands of the same problem.

D: Partners in crime so to speak?

BB: As they are today. Every deal out there. Now the bottom line is I was very, I caught the NASD lying to me about a spamming allegations they had made against the company.

D: Uh-hmm.

BB: We had done a corporate strategic partnership with a major telecommunications company. We had the gold standard of, you know, of vendors to Sun, Cisco, Quest, Oracle, EMC. We were the first Cisco and EMC corporate strategic partnerships with a non-venture backed company. And the result was the company eventually bankrupted some five months after I left. But in mid-July 2000, it became apparent to me the NASD was blocking the American Stock Exchange from getting access to the best or, you know, credentialed technology listings. When I caught the NASD in the lie to me, which I documented in the form of an affidavit I provided to my counsel and which has been sent to the White House, among many others. I called the head of, the then head of listings with the American Stock Exchange and asked for a meeting with Peter Quick who was then the AMEX President. I knew most of the people on the exchange from the years I spent in New York and the trading I had done on that floor. I came up and I told them about the issue of the NASD obstructing my listing application to go to the AMEX. And I wanted the AMEX not NASDAQ. Because I'd seen the NASDAQ manipulations. And I told Peter Quick that DTC was dirty on the shorting issue. I did not know when I told him this that he was on the board of DTC. He subsequently resigned from that board. I can't say I'm the only reason that happened. But I can promise you that that was on the back of his mind in terms of it being a contributing element to his resignation. As a result, when the first lawsuits came down against DTC, he wasn't named. All the other directors were, but not him. Now I say this to you because, because it's some, if this kind of corruption is pervasive at that level, and if industry officials know that they can't even say something about it when they are running a major exchange, then you and I as individual shareholders or small individual operators have no chance. The only way we can have a chance is to act in a unified manner and to raise our voices basically. Civilized behavior is meaningless to these people. They're sociopathic in their conduct. They're arrogance is without boundary. In fact I can only attribute their arrogance to one, one issue. Someone in the regulatory, some group of people in the regulatory processes have told them that they've got a pass for this kind of behavior. That's got to stop. And as I've said yesterday, in my first conversation with you Dwayne.

D: Uh-hmm.

BB: This cat is out of the bag.

D: What was the president's response to you?

BB: He blushed and then he left the office.

D: And that's it?

BB: Yeah. After that, the head of listings who's been, since left the exchange, told me. He said, well you probably embarrassed him. And I said, I didn't, it wasn't my intention. It was just to make him aware of the fact that there's people out there. I wasn't surely the only one, who knew that there was a manipulation of the markets going on at that point in time. This was July 2000. And one of the things I'll give you to put up on your website is the affidavit I prepared for my counsel in which I articulated the catching, the specific market regulation person at the NASD I caught lying to me. And it was unnecessary. All they had to do was tell me they had a problem with my CEO, which I think was the underlying issue. And instead they left me hanging out. If they'd told me that they had him under investigation, I would've removed him as CEO. Put him on the sidelines. Instead they allowed, you know, a $350 million company to be destroyed. You know what? They don't care. 155 people put out of work. Now magnify the 155 people, it was an average number, which is not unrepresentative, times the six or seven thousand dot coms that were bankrupted by the short raiding related to the crash. Which was really a raid. And you have some real, you know. Susan Trimbath, the woman who was the DTC speaker on the podium said, well you know, $6 billion a day in fails. Pretty soon you're up to some real money. So that's my particular format on that.

D: Well, uh, you're really opening our eyes to so many things. And I've got some questions for you.

BB: Uh-huh.

D: That have come across. And I'm not going to pick and choose. The list is not too terribly long. So I'm just gonna start at the top and give them to you exactly the way they came in. What is the likelihood that the DTC will be successful in removing paper certificates from the market? Furthermore what can we do to stop this?

BB: Eventually in order, the grand long term goal of all the settlement entities and the brokers clearing houses [indiscernible] is to go to a complete electronic paperless system. With the ultimate goal of reaching a point where we have a thing called straight through processing. Sometimes know by the initial STP. Which is effectively instantaneous delivery versus payment. What the custodians have shown themselves to be is irresponsible. And the reason a lot of this hasn't happened already is because too much money is being made off of the electronic manipulation of these positions in the various depositories. Not just in this country, but overseas. If you want, you know, support for that, Schroder, the German Prime Minister, removed the head of the Frankfurt Stock Exchange for criminal lending of securities.

D: Now can you define criminal lending of securities for us?

BB: It means he was lending securities under traditional margin rules were not lendable. He was lending stock from cash accounts. And from type 2 institutional safekeeping cash accounts. From excess margin positions. He was even lending restricted stocks before the restriction came off the stock. It wasn't just stocks he was lending too. What you have to know is that this shorting issue, this electronic counterfeiting is pervasive to the fixed income markets. Indeed, quietly it may be bigger in the fixed income markets which are, dwarf the equity markets. Than anyone has any idea of. So the point is that right now, this objective of straight through processing, there's nothing wrong with that. Bluntly I've been asked to run an exchange platform service provider from Switzerland which offers just that. But guess what? You can't short on that exchange.

D: Hmm.

BB: Why? Because if you're instantaneously settling, you can't sell something that's not in, that hasn't been dematerialized in the system. And if you sell it, it's out of your account instantly. And you pay for it instantly because you can only sell it, okay, if the buyer has real cash and the same custodian structure to buy the stock for cash.

D: So would that be, would that be an unhealthy thing for the markets if people were no longer able to short a stock?

BB: There's no one that knows the answer to that. The type of, a lot of the hypothetical arguments about short selling have come from academics.

D: Uh-hmm.

BB: Most of whom have, don't have any practical experience actually trading securities and are not aware of the manipulations that can occur in short selling. And the key is right now that no one's goal here is to see stocks trade on wider spread with less liquidity. But having said that, there's some price trade off point where creating artificial liquidity to narrow spreads, okay, increases volatility in the market generally. And one of the great canards of the SEC and NASD is they had to protect the short sellers against manipulative players on the long side. Well who's protecting the long players? Who's, why would a person who has bought a share for log term appreciation allow those shares to be loaned to someone who's betting against that very appreciation? It's illogical. There's a reason why we had the securities restrictions on short selling. To go back to the `33 and `34 acts. And it's because bluntly, nothing hypothetical, no objective opinion. There were short sale raiders operating in both the `29 and `37 crashes that operated in large pools holding hands conspiratorially. And those pools were so effective, they crashed the stock market 90% of its value. Okay, essentially without even owning the stock. Now this was where, you know, the 30, our great grandfathers and great grandmothers weren't idiots. And the rules in the `33 and `34 acts that prohibited short selling are there specifically for a reason. And that reason is that they cannot have it both ways. Short selling was prohibited and needed to be limited because they knew that it was subject to grotesque manipulation. It's just that simple. And for the chutzpah in the situation is that these new guys, these new lawyer regulators, again none of whom have had a real job in their lives. Okay, not one. Okay, those guys are sitting there making these arbitrary judgments about what's gonna be good for the market. Okay, just as right now they're experimenting with 1,000 of the most liquid stocks with no, eliminating short sale rules entirely.

D: Uh-hmm.

BB: Could I tell you something? That's gonna be a catastrophe. Why don't they let someone run a parallel test right to it, that allows no shorting of a stock? None.

D: Uh-hmm.

BB: You know why? Cause they're afraid of the result.

D: And what would that result be?

BB: It would mean that only real shareholders would be in the market.

D: Uh-hmm.

BB: Okay? And I'm not saying that's the optimal solution. But compare the results of the two markets if you pull the short sellers out of it.

D: Well in my opinion, only real shareholders should be in the market.

BB: Well it's a very interesting thing. The hedge funds have been created off of these academic constructs of market neutral strategies. Everyone's trying to get a return they don't deserve for risk, for less risk than they, than is being taken appropriately. I would tell you at this juncture, clearly, okay, these rule changes that have been made, have been made to accommodate a small part of the total investment community. It's the hedge funds. They're 7% or 8% of total assets in this country. And what they're gonna drive is a move from an American investment away from investment for long term return, which has been the backbone of small company structure. To what is called in Europe, an arbitrage economy. When I first came on Wall Street in 1973, there was no capital markets in Europe. There wasn't, there wasn't even long term fixed income paper. There was five year term notes and that was it. There was no such thing as an equity market or a long term bond market. And what the hedge funds are trying to drive is giving them control of the economic marketplace. And if it happens, there will never again be another Microsoft. Another Intel. Another Cisco. Another Oracle. Those are parallel underlying issue. And that is the venture capital community does not want small public companies to have, small public companies to exist, one. Or entrepreneurs to have capital structure, capital formation alternatives to them. Now the practical issue is, there isn't enough venture capital in this country to support the creative drive of Americans. You know, if all these companies fail, you bet. It's the old Babe Ruth analogy. If you want to hit home runs, you better be able to strike out a lot. They are trying to eliminate strike outs from the market. And it's economically impossible. Now a good example is, particularly one of the largest venture firms and extremely recognized and credible is a firm called Draper Fisher Jervitson out of Silicone Valley. They're a global firm.

D: Uh-hmm.

BB: Draper Fisher brags that they get 12,000 business plans submitted to them a year.

D: Wow.

BB: How many do they fund? Fifteen.

D: Hmm.

BB: Now does that mean that those other, of the other plans left that they didn't fund that there were no credible ideas, no creative force? You'd have to then remember what happened with Bill Gates when he founded Microsoft. I heard every slander he could have directed at him by the very people. There's no new slanders in the short selling arena. Dates with a college dropout. This guy's never gonna beat IBM. Yada, yada, yada. Okay? Larry Ellison, Larry Ellison's a lunatic. He can't be trusted to go to the bathroom by himself. Okay? He'll never build a company. Well let me tell you something, 60% of all the millionaires in this country didn't graduate from high school. 60% of all millionaires in this country have been bankrupt not once but twice.

D: Ben Franklin went bankrupt five times.

BB: Five times. Could I tell you something? If they tried to screw around with the fundamental economics of the American entrepreneurial architecture. And the entire, and to try to destroy the capital formation process as it's existed for, you know, a hundred years for small public companies. Okay. They're gonna destroy the small company job formation process. Now one statistic that they never like to hear be bandied about is the Fortune 1000 in the last four years has dematerialized 40 million jobs. Where do the jobs come from that, to replace the jobs liquidated by the major companies from the small public company arena? Any politician who ever has the nerve to say this to me is gonna get it shoved down his throat. It's economic illiteracy. And I say this to you because you know, this is a passionate issue. They want to, they want to screw around with this, they better be ready to take the personal, not institutional, but personal responsibility for the destruction of American capital markets for small public companies.

D: Hmm.

BB: So. This is a hot button for me so.

D: Well I understand. But I'm, I am, I'm such an incredible proponent for the small business, the small businessman. Not even so much into the public arena, but-

BB: All small public, all small companies, you bet.

D: Yeah, when a little restaurant opens up in my neighborhood and I go in and I meet the mom and pop, or the young couple that are starting it, I know how difficult it is to start a business and to be successful and to be profitable. So not only do I give them my business, but I tell my friends. I mean, that kind of, that's the way I was raised.

BB: Could I tell you something?

D: Sure.

BB: That's the story of Kentucky Fried Chicken.

D: Oh really?

BB: Harlan Sanders started Kentucky, was a twice bankrupt food product salesman. You know, this is a food processing product salesman. He came up with the concept of Kentucky Fried Chicken cooked in this, you know, pressurized steamer. He was on the US Highway 25, which was the main road from Chicago to Florida that people drove down every, you know, winter. He opened up his first store with his first social security check at age 65. The rest was rote.

D: He was 65 when he opened it?

BB: 65 when he opened the store that he finally got the equation right on.

D: Well I tell you what, after Greenspan's comments this morning a lot of 65 year old people are gonna have to start opening some kind of business.

BB: That's right.

D: Because the government is getty ready to rob everybody of their retirement. And I am, I was so upset this morning when I read those comments. I mean, you know, people have worked all of their lives. Lived the American Dream. Did the right things. You know, went to work, paid their taxes -

BB: Put their money away.

D: Put their money away. Yeah. All the things that good Americans should do. They finally reach the golden years, retirement. And the government snatches it out from under them. I'm up, now I've still got a ways to go to retirement. I'm only 47. I was one of the latter day baby boomers. But the first baby boomer retires next year.

BB: I could tell you right now that they're messing around with the found, causing a revolution in this country. You know, I look at what Greenspan did. What he did in loosening money out to the 2001 World Trade Center event was genius. It's the only reason we haven't been through a 30's style depression in this country. But having said that, the world elitist financiers do not believe that America should be allowed to be so dominant financially. This country's economy drives the world. You want a perspective on size? Our economy is ten times larger than the economy of Britain. Ten times. If this country were to stop consuming foreign product, the world would collapse financially.

D: I agree. And -

BB: It'd be worse than, it'd be a worse effect than what happened in `29, cause we weren't the principal consumer of the world's quality products and goods.

D: I mean, there's not a day that goes by on this radio network that I do not remind every listener why this country is as blessed as it is. And how if we're not careful, God can remove his hand and his covering from us just as quickly as he put it underneath us.

BB: Well as I said, you know, my concern is back in 1787 a man named Alexander Tyler wrote a book on the American democracy. And he said in that book, democracies have a lifespan of 200 years. And he's decided that from the Greek examples. And it's, you know, as another great commentator, P.J. O'Rourke said you know, democracy, the government of a democracy must be more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

D: I like that. Next question on the list and this may already be in the e-mail that you've sent me. Someone wants to know the link to the transcripts for the recent conference in D.C.?

BB: It is, it's on the nasa.org website. Go into www.nasaa.org.

D: Okay. And that'll give us a complete transcript?

BB: Yeah. The electronic transcript. So you can pull the link up right there. And eventually there will be, they'll make available written transcripts, I'm sure, for a fee.

D: Okay. Next question. Let's say company XYZ is trading on the OTC at 50 cents a share and has an outstanding share count of 50 million. One day Shorty starts running them into the ground until they are forced onto the pink sheets. This only makes Shorty continue his raid until the stock is .001. Can some insiders or the CEO step in and buy the outstanding shares? Then can XYZ PR they are paying $1 per share as a divident or buyout next week. What would happen and has it ever happened?

BB: To the best of my knowledge, it's never been allowed to happen. There's been repeated instances where companies that were subject to shorting had a potential buyer come to them. And when the buy, transaction was about to be coming through, the SEC would deregister the company, thereby killing the deal. There is an absolute concerted and orchestrated effort to protect the short sellers if things go against them.

D: Why? Why, why are we so determined to -

BB: Again, it's corruption. There's no other answer. I'm afraid that the Americans. You know, American society as a whole, Enron and WorldCom were. Could I tell you they were speed bumps compared to what has gone on in the short selling scandal.

D: Yeah. Are there still any active cases in process against the DTC?

BB: Yes, there are two.

D: Two?

BB: Yeah. And the bottom line is, there will be more. I believe at some point the states themselves will sue them. Because there's, here's the core question. Why should any company be denied the right to access and have knowledge of its investors by name? CD & Co and DTC would block that access. They do block that access. And there's a thing called the customer protection rule in the Securities Acts of `33 and `30. There's elements in `34 too. That say that a company must communicate with its shareholders on a timely basis as part of the regulation of fair DISCLOSURE that was implemented in 2000. The bottom line is at this point what has happened is, there's a concerted attack on the rights of shareholders as owners of an asset. They want to be able to give other people the right to counterfeit their shares. To vote shares that don't exist. To deny companies the right to access their shareholders on two corporate communications issues. And it is completely, you know, it stinks to high heaven. And the bottom line is at some point. You know, I stepped away from this on two separate occasions after receiving threats against myself. And I will tell you something. I'm not gonna be threatened again. And not by any nameless, faceless, gutless, you know, scum. This is not gonna happen. But I would tell you something. These people are behaving with this arrogance because someone in the regulatory structure has told them they're getting a pass. And you know what? Those regulators that have been guilty of this are aiding and abetting in the commission of Class B and Class A federal felonies. And they should be facing life in prison. Tricky part about it is you can't. If the American public knew how much money has been stolen from them by how small a group of people. How much money has been stolen from their retirement systems. We would be seeding a revolution in this country.

D: Well my call for a Deep Throat from inside the DTC still stands. I bring it up on the air quite often. And I've yet to have anyone take me up on that.

BB: I would say that you need to keep that call out there. One of the supporters, a former chairman of the DTC, has been a supporter of Wes Christian's. The woman who outed the 341 company survey where they found excess voting rights on all 341 companies of a survey, is a former director of Depository Trust.

D: Hmm.

BB: You got to keep those calls out there. I've talked to former Depository Trust officials who are appalled by what's going on at Depository Trust. They feel it's a, that their entire life's work has been humiliated by these people. And at some point, they can talk about the greater good, but you're dealing with socialist Stalinist analogies. To make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs. That was a Nazareth argument against the certificate only delivery. They had to stop that. They had 300 companies that had applied to go to certificate only delivery. Well you know, their goals of straight through processing and electronic paperless systems was gonna be shot in the head. Well guess what? Is that more important than the fundamental integrity of our system? Hardly. And she was basically making a very condescending, socialist argument. Okay? Which I consider to be un-Christian. And she can say what she wants. But the bottom line is she was saying, well if we have to see a few small public companies be bankrupted because they've been. You know, if that's for the, we may have to allow that to happen for the greater good of straight through processing. This is insanity. You know, and people must stand up on their hind legs. I will say this. I've come to the conclusion that there's enough information out there now that if someone isn't on board with this cause about stopping this abuse.

D: Uh-hmm.

BB: They're not part of the solution. They're part of the problem.

D: I agree.

BB: Open your mouths. The only way we're gonna fix this is through enough people to scream loudly enough, this must stop.

D: I agree. And the solution, or the quickest solution -

BB: God hates a coward. That's my old favorite line.

D: Well you know, it's true. Gideon, Gideon tried to take that route and God wouldn't hear of it. He says you're going to war. Now you made a comment the other day about urban, buying back 700 billion shares of CMKX. Was that a rumor and -

BB: Pure rumor. And he doesn't confirm it. But he says he's no longer the controlling shareholder. This was fed to me yesterday by a former IR person.

D: Okay.

BB: And, like I said, one of the problems CMKX has had is they should've gone reporting. That alone would've outed this entire crisis. But for whatever reason, I think that some of the parties involved in CMKX had managed to, you know, dirty their skirts. And it's a tragedy because the bottom line is, I do believe that eventually people will go to prison over CMKX.

D: Hmm.

BB: But I don't know who. And I sure as hell don't know when. Generally speaking.

D: Uh-hmm.

BB: The SEC and the government take small steps slowly. They're just now, I saw the indictment yesterday. Give you some perspective on timing. They indicted a pump and dump artist who ripped $43 million out of his own company. Dumping shares from offshore accounts he controlled. Somehow they got access to the offshore account information control positions.

D: Uh-hmm.

BB: And when he did it, he took out $43 million. Well they just indicted him for this conduct in `99, 2000.

D: Uh-hmm.

BB: Just indicted him. What's the date today guys? It's November 2005.

D: Wow.

BB: Six years.

D: Well the government is typically slow to move. But I can say this, once they do lock and load, uh, things can happen.

BB: Problem is that the government right now is taking a position that is intended to accomplish two objectives. One is to get the bad guy, great. But you know what they've also done is during that period of time when they conducted their, you know, very slow investigations, the civil rights of the abused shareholders have all expired. The statute of limitations has gone by. Why did they do that? Cause they don't want all the civil suits flooding the federal district courts. This has been a systematic pattern throughout all of these cases. The federal government, you know, typically. I've never seen a federal government investigation take less than two years, unless it's on something like Enron.

D: Uh-hmm.

BB: And like I say to you, all of you. And I say this to every person who listens in on the Christian Financial Radio Network. This is no accident. These things move like molasses because it's serving someone's interest. And the interest they're serving is the court system. Because they are terrified of 5,000 lawsuits coming in over the issue of naked shorting and counterfeiting. The SEC itself. I could break their back. If I had $10 million I'd break their back tomorrow. I'd file 5,000 actions in 400 courts nationally.

D: Uh-hmm.

BB: I'd start Appeals Court actions. You know, cause the Circuit Courts. And the bottom line is that, you know what? The whole system would lock up. These guys don't have the capacity or the technical skills to process that kind of paper. These guys aren't IBM. They're not Microsoft. Okay? Microsoft if, you know, look at the attack. More money by a factor of ten has been spent by the government for suing Microsoft than was spent pursuing Osama bin Laden.

D: Well now that is an interesting point.

BB: Okay? So where are their priorities? Well the only people, there's only one group of people who can change their priorities and that's the people who've been the victims of having their retirement accounts raped. And I say that with absolute focus.

D: So a two point plan. File the suits and request your certificates

BB: Correct. You have no choice. But if you don't get your certificate, you're playing into the hands of the scum.

D: Hmm. Now another question. I understand that the comment about CMKX trying to get a settlement for the shareholders is fear they will lynch Urban or something similar was your opinion. And the listener is asking the question, do you know Urban? If so, do you think that he would need this kind of prodding? He has a reputation with his shareholders of wanting to do the right thing. And since we don't ever get any news, people tend to hang on every word. And this listener just wanted to know if you could maybe clarify that?

BB: I do not know Urban. I have never spoken to anyone connected to him, except the former IR for the company. When I was at, he got my number. He was given my number actually by Dr. Jim DeCosta.

D: Oh, Dr. D. Yes. I've have him on the show before.

BB: Dr. Jim is very knowledgeable. And he's very commercial. He's not really interested in doing this unless he gets paid for it. I've, bluntly I have to take the same approach. At age 59 I don't have a lot of pro bono time to give anybody.

D: Yeah. Cause they're getting ready to steal your retirement from you.

BB: Yeah, exactly. And the point I'm trying to make to you all is that, you know, there's an old line. If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck and it looks like a duck, it's probably a duck. Okay? I say to all of you. Okay, you have to be not only skeptical, but demanding. I'm not saying that CMKX doesn't have assets. I don't think Roger Glenn was sent into the company by Citi Group to determine whether or not there were assets. He just wanted to know how big the assets were. But I could be wrong. You know what? There's been so many lies told by so many people here. That there are people including me, you know, just say step away. And that doesn't mean I don't believe in the CMKX shareholders and the community. But, you know, you guys have got to be looking at life after CMKX. I mean, to allow yourselves to be diasporaed out to the rest of the world and stop talking to one another would be a bigger tragedy than CMKX, you know, whether it lives or dies.

D: Well I had a listener this morning, or someone in our live trading room. They uh, they said because of what's transpired, they're never gonna put another dime into the markets.

BB: Yeah, could I tell you that I've heard that hundreds of times. American investor confidence has been decimated. And the tragedy is, many of the, you know, you don't know this. But the friends and family round, first round when you weren't, the companies weren't even eligible for venture capital is what has caused all these companies you depend upon today to be formed. Bill Gates got his original money. My God, you know, his original funding was 25 grand. It came from friends and family.

D: What a wonderful story that is.

BB: It is. That's not even the greatest part of the Microsoft story. It's how many millions of people he made millionaires.

D: He did. He really did.

BB: Try to imagine. He's made ten people billionaires. He's made ten, he's made hundred people centi millionaires. That's $100 million.

D: Uh-hmm.

BB: He's made, I don't even know how many peoples he's turned into, made $10 million for. And I know that the number of millionaires is a million.

D: That's, that -

BB: I mean these are staggering numbers. You know, this is the whole issue.

D: And this came out of a garage. This was, this was the American Dream as it was meant to be.

BB: That's correct. Well guess what? That'll never happen again in our system.

D: Hmm.

BB: Not without the venture. If you go to a venture capital guy today for $3 million with a start up idea, he'll want 80% of the company, anti-dilution provisions, dual liquidity event priorities. My God. Might as well be dealing with armed robbery.

D: Uh, a Shylock I think -

BB: That's right. They are finding ways to try to circumvent. They think because of the 70's and 80's which they've benefited from, but didn't have a great deal to do with. That they're entitled to a 35% return on their capital per annum. And they're gonna get it, no matter what it costs anybody else.

D: If they have to steal it.

BB: Yeah, that's right.

D: Okay. Another listener asks can you elaborate a little bit more on the 5th Amendment concerning naked shorting?

BB: I have given you some articles on the 5th Amendment. The 5th Amendment is the particular part of the Constitution that protects property rights. I've talked to this point directly. A stock is actually, a stock certificate is actually a grant of rights to the holder, the owner.

D: Correct.

BB: And the bottom line is, there's an orchestrated attack on property rights in this country. You've seen it in the eminent domain suits in New London, Connecticut. Now also in Riviera Beach, Florida. But that's not where it stops. There's been a, they want to be able to parse your rights to the right to have, the meaning of title. A share is a, is a form of title. And believe me, if they say that they have the right to take owners take control of title without your knowledge or understanding. And to lend that title to other people as an asset without your approval. To create counterfeit longs and allow people to vote shares they own no, in companies they have no legitimate interest in. Believe me, the 5th Amendment is what this whole thing can come down to. And there are, there is one Circuit Court appeal that's gonna be structured off of that issue, pertaining to one company. The first company that I am aware of that actually made a documented complaint on naked short selling in its stock was a company called Universal Express. And it has been roundly slandered by the SEC. It's been sued. They have actually been the only company to actually sue the SEC in federal court. And the bottom line is, they're now going to 11th Circuit. And could I tell you something?

D: You bet.

BB: These guys have a case. I've seen their statistical evidence. They asked the SEC for help. The SEC told them to pound sand. Work it out with the market makers. Well the market maker had no intention of allowing them to work it out. None.

D: Hmm.

BB: I say this to you because at some particular point in time, people are not going to put up with this anymore. And the bottom line is, you know, the entire Bill of Rights is under assault. Every day.

D: I agree.

BB: And the key is right now, somebody's got to stop that.

D: Someone commented that the Federal Reserve itself has become unconstitutional. Now also let me clear this up. I made a mistake. When I mentioned that Dr. D had been on the radio show before, you were referring to a gentleman by the name of DeCosta, correct?

BB: Right. I think he's an oral surgeon in either Portland now? Portland, Oregon.

D: Okay. The gentleman who was on my show who goes by Dr. D on the message boards is Frank Hudson out of Kentucky.

BB: Yeah. I don't know him.

D: Okay. Yeah, he has been on the show. And apparently he has done a tremendous amount of due diligence. And he's a bit of a go to guy I think for a lot of CMKX shareholders. I haven't spoken with him personally in probably a year now. Okay. Now here's a question from Debbie. And I'm at the end of my list -

BB: Well -

D: Today. But I love this question, Debbie. Do you think the recent turnover at the SEC is going to truly clean house? Or have we simply put new lipstick on the same pig?

BB: That's a horrible thing to say. But I'm afraid you're right, Debbie. Bluntly I think that you're seeing an exit of a lot of senior, 11 or 12 senior officials have left just in the last six months. And I think part of it is they're getting out of Dodge before the lynch mob shows up. And bluntly, it began with Steve Cutler, but and Nazareth now of course is an SEC Commissioner which appalls everyone I know.

D: Let me ask you this. If I were, if I were willing to -

BB: Well I have to tell you what. Nazareth is well married. She's married to the Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank.

D: Hmm.

BB: Little fact a lot of people are not aware of.

D: I didn't know that.

BB: Or seemed to ignore.

D: If I were to arrange a conference, possibly here in the Phoenix area with some people like yourself and Dave Patch, possibly MARK FAULK. Fly those guys in. Would you be willing to sit down and, and do a meeting?

BB: In a minute. In a minute.

D: Okay. And then we could video that.

BB: You know, bluntly I'll tell you, when I found out you were located here locally, forgive me, but I didn't know that you were local.

D: Uh-hmm.

BB: I've been in Phoenix Scottsdale residence since `92.

D: Oh okay. I've been here since `86.

BB: Well I had many, many friends here going back to the 70's. And I would be happy to, by the way, I know every person you just mentioned.

D: Do you?

BB: Yeah. Dave Patch and I are good friends.

D: Okay then.

BB: MARK FAULK and I have had plentiful communications so.

D: Yeah, when you, it's when you Google my name on, I think one of the first things that comes up and it kind of freaked me out one day. Because I wasn't familiar with it. I was quoted I guess on the Faulking Truth. Which by the way is F-A-U-L-K-I-N-G. And somehow that got ranked real high in Google when you put my name in there.

BB: Uh-huh. Well MARK is a good man. You know, his family and professional background comes from, you know, I would call it entertainment production. I think that, you know, he is bluntly working with at least two different people to produce scripts for movies and made for TV event, documentaries. I have great respect for MARK. David Patch is the most important communicator outside of possibly myself to come into this issue. He does the stock aid today pieces. I have been a close supporter of Dave from the beginning. I'm the person that wrote, I sent you a piece in which I'm, I first communicated with him back in April of 2003. At which point in time he was talking about a billion dollar fraud. I said, well I said you've got the fraud right. But it's a trillion dollars. And [indiscernible] actually I said it could be as much as three and a half to four trillion. And I explained why. And that piece is something that should get some traction on your website. You'll see it.

D: Okay. Well I'm gonna ask Noah or Van or Debbie or someone to organize all those articles you sent me on the message board and get those up today. And you know Bud, you've been very kind to come on the radio. But our listeners love it. Will you come back again next week?

BB: Yes, absolutely.

D: Okay.

BB: Especially after you get some of the articles up and they can see it. You know, bluntly I will tell everyone, I stepped away from this for awhile, not for my security, but for that of my family. And I've realized now the best security I can have is to have a group like the people who listen into your show know I'm here and know that if anything happens to me, they can raise bloody hell with the people who are supposed to be responsible.

D: Alright Bud.

BB: Fair enough.

D: We're gonna keep you in our prayers brother, because you are making some statements that, that could well as you said, there have been threats so. Lot of good praying folks listening to this radio show today. And I encourage each and every one of you to keep Bud in your prayers. And keep the future of our nation, our economy, keep it in your prayers. God did indeed create the greatest nation on the face of the Earth. And folks, if we don't get up off of our couch and start doing something about it, we're gonna all be speaking Chinese.

BB: Let me give you a tip real quickly.

D: Sure.

BB: I did my concentrations when I was at West Point, as a cadet. And one of them was China. And I'll tell you right now that the Chinese are coming on like a freight train. And we either clean up the corruption in this country or they're gonna absolutely decapitate us within 20 years. That means your children are going to be speaking Mandarin. I bluntly have told all of my relatives kids to learn how to speak Mandarin. Cause the juncture I see right now, I see no leadership in this country. And I would give you one last talking point about the cohesion and the unity of the CMKX shareholder group. Whether you know how to write formally or not.

D: Uh-hmm.

BB: If each CMKX shareholder and each listener on this show were to simply write a one paragraph letter to their congressman and senators. One paragraph. Doesn't have to be technically sophisticated. But say this is, this corruption must stop. And send it to the press, send it to their, you know, just get on the fax machine and spend five minutes sending a one paragraph protest to every person in this country that has any authority. You know what would happen? In a year these guys' offices, they wouldn't be able to hold the paper in their offices. It doesn't take a lot of work. I've done radically more than that. But I've got traction now. And this issue has traction. It isn't going to go away. But you can make a difference about how fast somebody does something about it by you know, quietly screaming. What's a quiet scream? Don't talk. Put it in writing. If you can write a question to Dwayne about what's going on here, write a one paragraph. That's five sentences. Five sentences. Opening, three sentences of body and a closing. And say stop the crap. Okay?

D: Yeah.

BB: Cause if you don't do that, we're all, we're all done.

D: Hey Bud on behalf of all the listeners of CFRN and all the members of Christian Traders and every American investor that has been ripped off and robbed, we owe you an incredible debt of gratitude for taking the time to come on the air, share your knowledge, your experience with us. And together, and listen to me folks. If we work together, we can make a difference. And Bud I will talk to you Monday morning at 8:00 a.m. Arizona time, 10:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time.

BB: Alright. Take care everyone.

D: God bless. Thanks so much Bud.

BB: Bye.