Park & Halpern (P&H)

[wow_happens28]

Larry, I am replying to you here because the board is dead and I missed sending you this at happy hour.

The "Fun House", "Drummer and Missy's" and The Crossroads" Have all gone rather quiet in the last year. I can understand Crossroads, Myth can get rather rude in PM's, both to me and POS, and who knows who else. Drummer and Missy's because Missy can be a jerk. But your board has always been friendly. Is it that we are getting old and newer posters shy away from our old music? Or is it the political situation just has many depressed? I have a feeling it is our old age. What do you think?

[Capt_Nemo]

I was number 13 on that list Tim, but goofed and signed twice and they deleted them both, A filter for manipulation of the petition

[timhyma]

Online petition against Naked Shorting

Totals overview
Number of people that signed our petition:
5593

Number of companies that signed our petition
43

http://www.investigatethesec.com/totalPetition.php

[gotmilk]

To: Park & Halpern
- - - - - - - - - -
Subject: Help me and help yourself(s) :o)

I need to demo a search program that reduces verbose documents
into a copy of it that only includes the complete lines containing
only singles words and phrases as you choose to be searched for.

A single file is created containing all the lines in the same order
as they appear in the original.

The program simply opens the file, looks at a line and if it contains
any of the words or phrases you made into a list for me to work with,
then that line is written to the output file.

This is just repeated over and over, reading the next lines.

Only text as you are now reading is searched for, as all images
and special formatting stuff editors use like making letters bold
will not be in the results file, just simple lines of text.

All I need is a link to the document, and a list of words and phrases
of interest. No limit to number of search items.

As first try it would be best if anyone selected an article already
posted on this board, and we just do a test to see the results.

Doug

[gotmilk]

(Found this on another board) SEC approves ruling...

I don't follow this kind of stuff, so if its worthly info
then please anyone do a follow up/through. Also, seems like
a just-the-opposite ruling was made. "The SEC also approved
[wich loosens] short sale regulations on..."

SEC approves rule to curb short selling abuses
http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/newsfinder/pulseone.asp?dateid=38161.4281597222-815435292&doctyp...
10:16am 06/23/04
WASHINGTON (CBS.MW) -- The Securities and Exchange Commission
approved a new rule aimed at preventing abusive short selling.
The rule requires all short sale trades be settled within
13 consecutive days after the transaction. This rule mirrors
an existing regulation for long sale transactions. The SEC
also approved a new pilot program which loosens short sale
regulations on companies that trade within the Russell 3000.

[gotmilk]

As we need an update from Park & Halpern, let me fill in
what is called sleeze info from Raging Bull.

But then, it might have "legs"...

(follows is my reply to that "news")

By: gotmilk
---------------------------------------------------------------
(This msg. is a reply to 27506 by gapper2.)
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=HABE&read=27506
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dateline NBC & StockGate (or) CNBC (or)...
moneycentral.msn.com/investor/home.asp (or)...
msn.com (or)... ©2004 Microsoft Corporation
(or)
Dateline is a news program,
news is news, good or bad,
but actually, bad news sells more ads than good news,
but, all the above others need...
- a solid & stable investing market
even if its a house of cards,
keep bad news covered...

Doug

[Capt_Nemo]

NASD Notice to Members 04-23

NASD Seeks Comment On (1) Amending its Minor Rule Violation Plan
(MRVP) to Include Failure Timely to Submit Amendments to the Uniform
Termination Notice for Securities Industry Registration (Form U5); and (2)
Adopting a Rule to Create an Inactive Disclosure Review Registration Status;
Comment Period Expires April 19, 2004

Executive Summary

In July 2002, an NASD task force (the Public Information Review or PIR Task
Force) initiated a comprehensive review of disciplinary and other information
that NASD makes public, including the information released under NASD
Interpretive Material 8310-2 (IM-8310-2). NASD is requesting comment from
its members and other interested parties on two of the PIR Task Force's
recommendations: (1) expanding the coverage of NASD's MRVP to include
the failure to amend the Uniform Termination Notice for Securities Industry
Registration (Form U5) in a timely manner; and (2) creating an "Inactive
Disclosure Review" (Inactive DR) registration status that would require a
registered individual to cease all activities requiring registration and prohibit that
individual from functioning in any capacity requiring registration until the member
either reports or updates a disclosure item on a Uniform Application for
Securities Industry Registration or Transfer (Form U4) or provides the
disclosure documentation requested for that individual. These proposals are part
of a multi-pronged effort to help ensure that members make required
disclosures on all Uniform Forms in a timely manner.1

Action Requested

NASD encourages all interested parties to comment on these two proposals.
Comments must be received by April 19, 2004. Members and interested
persons can submit their comments using the following methods:

* mailing in the checklist (Attachment A)

* mailing in written comments

* e-mailing written comments to [e-mail]

* submitting comments using the online form at the NASD Web Site
(www.nasdr.com)

If you decide to submit comments using both the checklist and one of the other
methods listed above, please indicate that in your submissions. The checklist
and/or hard copy comments should be mailed to:

Barbara Z. Sweeney
Office of the Corporate Secretary
NASD
1735 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006-1500

Important Notes: The only comments that will be considered are those
submitted pursuant to the methods described above. All comments received in
response to this Notice will be made available to the public on the NASD Web
Site. Generally, comments will be posted on the NASD Web Site one week
after the end of the comment period. See Notice to Members 03-73.

Before becoming effective, a rule change must be authorized for filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) by the NASD Board, and then
must be approved by the SEC, following publication for public comment in the
Federal Register.

Questions/Further Information

As noted above, hard copy comments should be mailed to Barbara Z.
Sweeney. Questions concerning this Notice may be directed to Victoria M.
Pawelski, Assistant Chief Counsel and Assistant Director, Registration and
Disclosure, at [phone]; or Shirley H. Weiss, Associate General
Counsel, Office of General Counsel, Regulatory Policy and Oversight, at (202)
728-8844.

MRVP

In 1984, the SEC adopted amendments to Rule 19d-1(c) under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) to allow self-regulatory organizations to
adopt, with SEC approval, plans for the disposition of minor violations of
rules.2 In 1993, pursuant to this Rule, NASD established an MRVP.3 The
purpose of the MRVP is to provide for a meaningful sanction for the violation of
a rule when the initiation of a disciplinary proceeding through the formal
complaint process would be more costly and time-consuming than would be
warranted. The MRVP provides an efficient means by which to deter violations
of rules while maintaining procedural rights for disciplined persons. NASD's
MRVP currently is described in Rule 9216(b), which authorizes NASD to
impose a fine of $2,500 or less on any member or associated person for a
minor violation of the rules identified in NASD Interpretive Material 9216 (IM-
9216).4

Notwithstanding the inclusion of a particular violation in IM-9216, NASD staff
retains full discretion to institute disciplinary proceedings based on all of the
facts and circumstances. NASD staff reviews the number and seriousness of the
violations, as well as the previous disciplinary history of the respondent to
determine if a matter is appropriate for disposition under the MRVP and to
determine the amount of the fine. Further, once NASD has issued an MRVP
letter against an individual or member firm, it may, at its discretion, issue
progressively higher fines for all subsequent minor violations of rules within the
next 24-month period or initiate more formal disciplinary proceedings. Minor
rule violations currently are not reportable on an individual's Form U4 or U5 or
a member firm's Form BD and, accordingly, do not appear on their respective
Central Registration Depository (CRD) records.5

Among other things, the current MRVP includes failure timely to submit
amendments to the Form U4, as required by Article V, Section 2(c) of the
NASD By-Laws, and failure timely to submit amendments to the Form BD, as
required by Article IV, Section 1(c) of the NASD By-Laws. NASD proposes
to amend its MRVP to include failure timely to submit amendments to the Form
U5, as required by Article V, Section 3(a) of the NASD By-Laws. Sanctions
imposed pursuant to the proposed amendment to the MRVP would be in
addition to late fees that currently may be imposed for late filings, including the
recently adopted amendment to Schedule A of the NASD By-Laws, which
provides for a $10 per day late fee up to a maximum charge of $300 for
submitting late disclosure filings.

Inactive Disclosure Review Registration Status

Currently, when a member fails after repeated requests to report or update a
disclosure item on a Form U4 on behalf of a registered person or to provide
adequate disclosure documentation in response to NASD staff requests, the
registered person continues to have an "Approved" registration status and may
continue to function as a registered person, notwithstanding that his or her Form
U4 may not be current or complete.

To address this situation, the PIR Task Force recommended that NASD
implement an "Inactive Disclosure Review" registration status (also referred to
as Inactive DR) that would place the registration of a person whose firm has
failed to meet a Form U4 reporting requirement, or to provide requested
disclosure documentation, in an inactive status and, as a result, such person
would be prohibited from engaging in sales or other activities that require
registration until the reporting deficiency is cured or information request is met.

Article V, Section 2(c) of the NASD By-Laws requires every application for
registration filed with NASD to be kept current at all times by supplementary
amendments. Amendments to Forms U4 must be filed not later than 30 days
after learning of facts or circumstances giving rise to a reporting obligation. If the
amendment being filed involves a statutory disqualification as defined in
Exchange Act Sections 3(a)(39) and 15(b)(4), it must be filed not later than 10
days after the disqualification occurs.

Under the proposed rule, failure to make a timely report would initiate the
Inactive DR process. The member would receive notice from NASD staff that it
has 30 days to comply with a request by NASD staff to report a disclosure
event, update a previously reported disclosure event, or provide documentation
of a potential or actual disclosure event as requested. Staff would continue its
current policy of exercising discretion to grant extensions of time in exceptional
cases or accept, in lieu of required documentation, correspondence that
provides NASD staff with an adequate explanation as to why compliance with a
request is not feasible within that time frame (e.g., difficulty in obtaining court
documents despite good faith efforts). If a member fails to comply with a
request (or provide an adequate explanation as to why compliance is not
feasible) within 30 days, NASD staff would send the member a final notice
giving the member an additional 10 days to comply.

If the member fails to comply within the additional 10 days, the registered
person would be placed in an inactive status.6 Members will also receive notice
when an individual becomes inactive. Any person whose registration has been
deemed inactive under the proposed rule will be required to cease all activities
as a registered person and will be prohibited from performing any duties and
functioning in any capacity requiring registration until such time as the employing
member either updates the person's Form U4 as required or provides the
requested documentation to NASD staff. NASD would administratively
terminate an individual whose registration has been inactive for two years.

The proposed Inactive Disclosure Review registration status is part of a multi-
pronged effort by NASD to help ensure that firms timely update Forms U4 and
U5, as required by the NASD By-Laws. The proposed 30-day and additional
10-day notice provisions are designed to give firms adequate notice and time to
resolve or cure any deficiencies before the person at issue is deemed inactive.
NASD staff also plans to provide members with information about this process
on the NASD Web Site. Although the proposed rule will address only the
registration status of the registered person, the noncompliant member also will
be subject to imposition of late filing fees and potential disciplinary action, as
appropriate, based on the facts and circumstances presented.


Endnotes

1 This effort includes the newly established late disclosure fee, which was
another recommendation of the PIR Task Force. See Exchange Act Rel. No.
49224 (Feb. 11, 2004), 69 Fed. Reg. 7833 (Feb. 19, 2004) (File No. SR-
NASD-2003-192). See also Notice to Members 04-09 (March 2004).

2 See Exchange Act Rel. No. 21013 (June 1, 1984), 49 Fed. Reg.
23833 (June 8, 1984).

3 See Exchange Act Rel. No. 44512 (July 3, 2001), 66 Fed. Reg. 36812
(July 13, 2001) (File No. SR-NASD-00-39).

4 NASD recently filed a rule change to expand the MRVP by adding six
additional violations. The proposed additions are: (1) violation of the
Intermarket Trading System (ITS) trade-through rule; (2) violation of the locked
and crossed markets rule; (3) violation of the Trade Reporting and Compliance
Engine (TRACE) system transaction reporting requirement; (4) violation of the
Alternate Display Facility (ADF) transaction reporting requirement; (5) violation
of the standards applicable to communications with the public; and (6) failure to
provide or update firm contact information as required by NASD rules. See
SR-NASD-2004-25 (Feb. 10, 2004). NASD also recently issued guidance
concerning the application of NASD's MRVP to each of the rules specified in
the MRVP. See Notice to Members 04-19 (March 2004).

5 Firms and individuals should consult with their own legal counsel as
needed to determine whether any particular matter must be reported on Forms
BD, U4, or U5.

6 The Inactive DR status would be similar to the existing Continuing
Education (CE) Inactive status (Rule 1120) and the Fingerprint Inactive status
(Rule 1140).


Attachment A

Request For Comment Checklist

(1) MRVP

Should NASD amend IM-9216 (MRVP) to include failure timely to submit
amendments to the Form U5 (as required by Article V, Section 3(a) of the
NASD By-Laws), to be consistent with existing provisions regarding the failure
timely to submit amendments to Forms U4 and BD?

(1) Inactive Disclosure Review

(a) Should NASD adopt a rule creating an Inactive Disclosure Review
registration status for registered persons whose employing member fails timely
to report or update a disclosure item on behalf of the registered person and/or
fails to provide requested documentation to NASD staff (and fails to provide
adequate justification for failing to make such report)?

(b) If so, do the proposed 30-day and supplemental 10-day notice provisions
provide adequate time for members to report matters or otherwise resolve
deficiencies?

(c) Do you have any additional comments or suggestions?


http://www.investrend.com/articles/frame.asp?sUrl=http://www.nasdr.com/2610_2004.asp#04-03

[Capt_Nemo]

Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa SEC is going to take the MM by their hand, and help them get their systems in order to meet rule 3370 LMAO,
http://www.investrend.com/articles/frame.asp?sUrl=http://www.nasdr.com/2610_2004.asp#04-03

NASD Notice to Members 04-21

NASD Provides Further Guidance on Amendments to NASD Rule 3370—
Affirmative Determination Requirements

Executive Summary

On November 14, 2003, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
approved amendments to Rule 3370 (Prompt Receipt and Delivery of
Securities—the "affirmative determination requirements") that expand the scope
of the affirmative determination requirements to include orders from non-
member broker-dealers.1 On February 18, 2004, NASD delayed the effective
date of these amendments to April 1, 2004, to provide additional time to permit
members to make technological changes to their systems to comply with the
new requirements.2 In this Notice, NASD staff is providing additional guidance
to assist members in their implementation of the new amendments.

Questions/Further Information

Questions concerning this Notice may be directed to Gary L. Goldsholle,
Associate Vice President and Associate General Counsel, Regulatory Policy
and Oversight (RPO), at [phone]; or Patricia M. Albrecht, Assistant
General Counsel, RPO, [phone].

Background and Discussion

Under the new amendments to Rule 3370, members now are responsible for
making an affirmative determination when receiving orders from non-member
broker-dealers. Members have sought clarification concerning the scope of
these new responsibilities, including whether orders received in response to a
quote displayed on an inter-dealer quotation system, exchange, or other
quotation medium would trigger the requirements under the Rule.

NASD Rule 3370(b)(2) states that a member may not accept a short sale order
from a customer or non-member broker-dealer unless it has made an affirmative
determination that it will receive delivery of the security from the customer or
non-member broker-dealer or that the member can borrow the security on
behalf of the customer or non-member broker-dealer for delivery by settlement
date. NASD staff is clarifying that the amendments to the affirmative
determination requirements apply to all orders from non-member broker-
dealers, whether received manually via the telephone or electronically. The
amendments, however, would not apply to those orders executed by the
member as an arm's length transaction. It is NASD staff's view that arm's
length transactions are defined by the absence of a commercial relationship
between the non-member broker-dealer and the member. Thus, the following
relationships would not be considered arm's length: (1) arrangements in which a
non-member broker-dealer's order flow is sent to a member; (2) pre-existing
understandings between a non-member broker-dealer and a member regarding
the execution of orders; (3) reciprocal business arrangements between a non-
member broker-dealer and a member; (4) de facto relationships between a
non-member broker-dealer and the member evidenced by the pattern or
volume of order flow; or (5) any instance where an order sent by a non-
member broker-dealer is to be handled or "worked" by a member.
Furthermore, an arm's length transaction is not necessarily determined on an
order-by-order basis. Members are cautioned that execution of an order from a
non-member broker-dealer against its displayed quote may not be deemed an
arm's length transaction if the totality of the circumstances of the relationship
between the member and the non-member broker-dealer indicate a commercial
relationship.3 The concept of an arm's length transaction is intended to draw a
distinction between those situations in which the member is acting merely as the
buyer—as opposed to the facilitator—in respect of a non-member broker-
dealer's order flow.

NASD also wishes to clarify that any member operating an electronic
communications network (ECN) or alternative trading system (ATS) shall be
responsible for ensuring compliance with Rule 3370 with respect to orders, if
any, executed by non-member broker-dealers on or through the ECN or ATS.

Lastly, NASD wishes to remind members that, under the affirmative
determination requirements, the information necessary for a member to make an
affirmative determination must be provided on an order-by-order basis. A
member may not rely on a blanket representation from a non-member broker-
dealer or customer that all orders it provides are long sales or that it otherwise
has met the affirmative determination requirements. In addition, while a member
may rely on assurances from a non-member broker-dealer or customer that
such party can deliver the securities within three business days to the member
(or on the member's behalf where the member has subsequently sold the
securities to a third party),4 a member may only do so when such reliance is
reasonable. For example, where a member knows or has reason to believe that
a non-member broker-dealer's or customer's prior assurances resulted in a
failure to deliver, continued reliance on assurances from such non-member
broker-dealer or customer may not be reasonable. Accordingly, in those
situations, a member would be required to meet its affirmative determination
requirements by locating the stock before accepting a short sale order.5


Endnotes

1 File No. SR-NASD-2001-85; SEC Release No. 34-48788 (Nov. 14,
2003); 68 F.R. 65978 (Nov. 24, 2003); See NASD Notice to Members 04-
03 (January 2004).

2 File No. SR-NASD-2004-031, SEC Release No. 34-49285 (Feb.
19, 2004); 69 F.R. 8717 (Feb. 25, 2004); See NASD Notice to Members
04-08 (February 2004).

3 Accordingly, in circumstances where (i) a non-member broker-dealer
may seek to execute against a member's displayed quote, (ii) such transaction
would not be viewed as an arm's length transaction, and (iii) the member does
not have the capacity to handle such automated or phoned orders in a manner
that comports with both their obligations under Rule 3370 and the firm quote
obligations of Rule 3320, the member should consider avoiding counterparty
trading relationships with non-member broker-dealers in favor of accepting
orders on a handled-basis where the member could comply with Rule 3370. It
shall not be deemed a violation of Rule 3320 for a member, in response to an
order from a non-member broker-dealer seeking to execute against the
member's displayed quote, to reject the order based on the fact that such
member will only accept such order flow on a handled-basis, provided that, (i)
the member makes such restriction known to the non-member broker-dealer
promptly upon receipt of the order; (ii) this restriction applies to all orders of the
non-member broker-dealer and is not applied on an order-by-order basis; and
(iii) such restriction applies generally to the order flow received by the member
from all non-member broker-dealers.

4 See Rule 3370(b)(4)(B)(i).

5 See Rule 3370(b)(4)(B)(ii).

©2004. NASD. All rights reserved. Notices to Members attempt to present
information to readers in a format that is easily understandable. However,
please be aware that, in case of any misunderstanding, the rule language
prevails.

[Capt_Nemo]

March 17, 2004. (FinancialWire) The CEO Council has announced it has been invited by The National Small Public Company Leadership Council to participate in a private meeting with Members of the U.S. Congress and staff regarding Sarbanes-Oxley, as well as other issues impacting small emerging growth companies. The meeting will take place on April 1 and attendance is by private invitation only.
CEO Council members from CorpHQ Inc. (OTC: COHQ), Cybertel Communications Inc. (OTCBB: CYTP) and Circle Group Holdings Inc. (OTCBB: CRGQ) will also attend a series of meetings on Capitol Hill to discuss the Sarbanes-Oxley law and its impact on small public companies.
“Sarbanes-Oxley is a well intentioned law that needs to be ‘right-sized’ for small business issuers,” said Steve Crane, Director and Political Action Committee Chair of The CEO Council. “As it stands today, the yearly cost of SOX compliance is beyond the means of thousands of small public companies. If this law is allowed to stand, these companies will have no choice but to become unregulated entities or worse.”
Crane added, “While the intent of SOX is to better regulate issuers and to protect investors, the net effect will be to drive small issuers away from regulation which history has shown causes a profoundly negative impact to shareholder value. Small public companies are a vital part of the U.S. economy and we need regulations that both protect investors and enhance the capital formation process. It is for these reasons, among others, that we will submit our recommendations for amending Sarbanes-Oxley as it relates to small issuers.”
“This is the best opportunity yet to lobby the people that have the power to make positive changes in the regulatory environment for small public companies. Send me your comments so I can make sure that your voice is heard,” said Crane.
All Small Business Issuers and their investors and capital markets practitioners are urged to submit their comments and recommendations to The CEO Council, either by email to [e-mail] or at the Council website at www.ceocouncil.net .
Investrend Communications, Inc., is a founding member of the CEO Council.
For up-to-the-minute news, features and links click on http://www.financialwire.net

[gotmilk]

I'am not up to speed if the silver issue here has any bearing
on the focus of this board, but what I have read about a place
that is a clearing house for where you buy & sell silver,
that the physical silver represented by the amount listed
as existing on paper are similiar to naked shorting of stocks.

I have no desire to discuss this on this board, but only posted
that very short post incase Mr. Park comes into contact with
the man Bill Murphy of GATA I mentioned in the past.

marcos, and Bob Johnson & gold_tutor on SI, are the experts.

Doug

[BullNBear52]

lol. Hunt Brothers ring a bell.

[gotmilk]

From: [e-mail]
To:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General
State of New York
120 Broadway Avenue
New York, NY 10271

February 19, 2004

Dear Attorney General Spitzer:

... regarding the manipulation of the silver market.
... [by] 2006 the manipulation of [silver] markets will have
been exposed and acknowledged.
...
From the many letters you have received, you must know
about Ted Butler by now. I hope you will meet him to learn
how you can quickly get to the bottom of this matter.

Best regards,

Bill Murphy
Chairman, Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee (gata.org)

[Capt_Nemo]

I agree Phil!!!!! naked shorting is the most low budget , cheesy, thing that can be done to stocks. I DON'T short never have, never will, There are some companies out there that think their chit don't stink, and continually, put out bullchit fluff Pr's saying this and saying that, and nothing ever materializes!!!!! All crap to suck in investors so they can dump worthless shares. Them, I have no sympathy for, and they make their bed they can sleep in it, I just posted it as a , take what you like and leave the rest!!!!!!, Most shorting sucks wind!!! IMHO>>>

[Phil(Hot Rod Chevy)]

Rick,

Let me see if I understand this correctly.

Asensio wants to be able to freely short sell equities without obtaining a borrow?

What kind of shit are those idiots smoking?

Why would anyone think they should be allowed to sell something they don't own? Or haven't borrowed?

I can't sell you a car I don't own. Or a tool. Or anything. So why should stocks be any different?

Asensio and associates must be on some kind of wacky weed for sure.

Naked short selling is wrong, plain and simple, and has to be eliminated.

Period.

Have fun,
Phil

[Capt_Nemo]

Just ran across this guy on a new search engine!!!



From: Asensio & Company, Inc. [[e-mail]]
Sent: December 17, 2003
To: [e-mail]
Subject: File No. S7-23-03



Jonathan G. Katz
Secretary
Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549-0609

Re: Comment letter on proposed Regulation SHO File No. S7-23-03

Dear Mr. Katz:

This letter serves to comment on the proposed Regulation SHO that would, among other things, require short sellers in all equity securities to locate securities to borrow before selling and would impose strict delivery requirements on securities where many sellers have failed to deliver the securities. We believe that the proposed rules incorporated in Regulation SHO are harmful to investors and should not be implemented. In fact, we are of the opinion that all plus tick and borrowing regulations and restrictions regarding short sales should be lifted.

Wall Street earns its living by persuading Americans to take risks with their savings. This work requires balance between conservatism and speculation; between personal and societal interests. However, company managements, stock brokers and analysts, even Wall Street's captive regulators, have large incentives to promote stocks to Americans. The media, with no independent knowledge, relies on these promotional elements to source story material. As a result, investors are left to fend against these powerful forces entirely by themselves.

We are one of the nation's most experienced and largest short sellers. Our work has proven that short sale plus tick and borrow rules cause market inefficiencies. The people who lose are every working and saving American. The stability and strength of every American's job and savings is directly and materially harmed by the misallocation of the nation's capital resources that results from market inefficiency.

Existing rules limit short sales on down ticks and require short sellers to borrow stock before they sell. These rules restrict the freedom and amount of capital short sellers can allocate. No such restrictions exist on stock purchases. Also, short sellers are not considered "investors" under federal securities laws and as a result have no enforceable standing to protect themselves against companies engaged in fraudulent activities that cause the public harm. These rules and judicial prejudices already exist in the markets. They are the reason that Wall Street's short selling community is under-capitalized and under staffed. As a result, Wall Street's stock brokerage and underwriting constituents are unopposed both in promoting stocks to America and in lobbying Congress.

For over ten years we have specialized in identifying stocks that Wall Street has over-promoted. We have been productively involved with many of the major recent corporate scandals. We uncovered the Michael Schoenberg/Dreyfus scandal that found improper trading by Schonberg in the Dreyfus funds he managed. We uncovered the Winstar Communications, Inc. (bankrupt and de-listed) accounting scandal and the involvement of the Salomon Smith Barney analyst Jack Grubman. We were the first to report on Arthur Andersen's fraudulent WorldCom audit. We have advised the U.S. Congress in conducting an investigation of the American Stock Exchange ("AMEX") that led to a United States General Accounting Office ("GAO") report on the problems we identified at the AMEX and the resignation of the AMEX's president and two members of its Board and the permanent bar of a major AMEX specialist. This provides us with a great deal of experience in short selling media coverage and regulatory treatment.

The stock promotion trade needs no further government protection. Numerous individuals, who are in positions of authority or influence throughout U.S. society including government and the media, serve as directors and/or large shareholders of highly questionable and potentially fraudulent companies. These individuals may not be direct participants in the questionable activity, but the companies use these individuals' notoriety to increase a questionable companies' legitimacy. For example, Jack Anderson, a Pulitzer Prize winner, is a director and owns 100,000 shares of H-Quotient, Inc. (OTC: HQNT.OB, $0.72) a highly questionable penny-stock company. William Seidman currently a commentator for CNBC and former chairman of the Resolution Trust Company serves as a director of LML Payment Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: LMLP, $5.35) a failed financial payment processing company. U.S. Senator George Allen of Virginia served as a director of Xybernaut Corporation (NASDAQ: XYBR, $1.67) a failed developer of "wearable computer technology." Finally, we were the first to report William Webster's highly questionable involvement in U.S. Technologies, Inc. (OTC: USXX.PK, $0.0001). Although the general press did not sufficiently understand the significance of U.S. Technologies' questionable dealings, the incident ultimately led to former SEC Chairman Pitt's resignation. It is interesting to note that the Wall Street Journal defends Mr. Webster's role in U.S. Technologies. All of this illustrates the need for the SEC to allow free competition between stock promoters and short sellers which we call investor advocates.

We believe that the following are essential elements in any plan to improve the freedom and fairness of U.S. capital markets:

1) Decentralize the SEC's Enforcement authority away from its politically-appointed Washington, D.C. based Commissioners to the Chief Enforcement Officer at its local branches. Currently the only way an enforcement action can be commenced by the SEC is with the formal approval of the SEC's Commissioners. In fact, SEC investigators can not even commence a formal investigation without formal Commission approval. These commissioners are politically appointed. It is commonplace for the SEC to use its wholly unsupervised and uncontrolled prosecutorial discretion to cause companies that should be investigated and enforcement that should be initiated to be ignored.

2) Eliminate the regulatory bias against investors who oppose Wall Street's unreasonable stock schemes (these include the up-tick restrictions, the stock borrowing requirement and the exclusion of short sellers from the protections granted to other investors under the anti-fraud provisions of securities laws). This would allow for short sellers to sell the stock short in the same way as any buyer of a stock. In addition, including short-sellers under the anti-fraud provisions of securities laws would allow short sellers legal remedies to fight fraudulent stock promotions in the same way holders of stock have legal remedies to protect themselves from companies engaged in fraudulent activity.

3) Establish listing requirements that prevent public companies from filing speech-based lawsuits against analysts, media or other public commentators who criticize its management or have opposing opinions concerning the value of its publicly traded securities. Publicly traded companies should be subject to public scrutiny. It is wrong for public companies who obtain money from the public and who promote themselves to the public use the public's own money to limit public speech.

Certain amounts of fair speculation are symbols of confidence and robust economic activity. However, society is not well served when unbridled speculation is allowed to funnel savings towards non-productive areas with questionable value. This benefits too few, too greatly and too wrongly. This is what short-sellers challenge. Not the system but those who abuse the system. There is great value and potential in America's economy. Despite being unwisely and prejudicially hampered by out-dated restrictions, short-sellers are the only participants in our free markets that have a vested interest in opposing excessive stock promotions. America's capital deserves the protection that can only be afforded by well-capitalized short sellers with the freedoms and resources to challenge unreasonable and excessive stock promotions.

Sincerely,
ASENSIO & COMPANY, INC.

__________________________
Manuel P. Asensio
Chairman, President and
Chief Executive Officer

http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/s72303/asensio121703.htm


Stock Market Scams

by Christopher Mayer

[June 6, 2001]

An important part of the argument for free markets is the idea that the market is self-regulating. In other words, a free market would develop its own ways of protecting consumers and enforcing fair play. This development is one of the more intriguing aspects of a free market. In the absence of a government authority or agency, private groups emerge that efficiently provide services that might normally be provided by governments.

Given the ubiquitous nature of government in today’s world, the opportunity to witness this development is somewhat rare. The flurry of government regulatory bodies would seem to crowd out any entrepreneurial efforts in this area. Who wants to compete with the Securities and Exchange Commission, for example? When the SEC gives its blessing to a process, stamping it with approval, what incentive do investors have to seek out something more? And certainly, they do not have the option of something less, since participation in SEC rules is not a voluntary choice.

Therefore, when someone comes along and succeeds in showing us how they were able to provide a service to investors that far exceeds what a government agency (in this case, the SEC) can do, it deserves our attention. One of the market’s basic forces, self-interest, spurred this entrepreneur in a direction that benefits investors enormously and, in the process, enriches his own enterprise. As Mises tirelessly explained, profit and social gain are not antagonists in life’s dramas; they indelibly form the fabric of a progressing economy.

The entrepreneur in question is Manuel Asensio and the company he founded: Asensio & Company. In his new book Sold Short: Uncovering Deception in the Markets, Asensio invites readers along for a fascinating tour of recent stock promotions and stock frauds that went on undetected by the SEC and that cost investors millions. Asensio has made it his business to uncover these deceptions and to profit thereby. In his self-interested pursuit of profit, he provides tremendous benefits for all investors, who don’t even have to pay him for his services.

How can this be? Make a profit and provide a service for free? Asensio profits from uncovering stock fraud by performing transactions that are much-reviled on Wall Street. Asensio is a professional short seller. He sells stock that he does not own and promises to buy the stock back at a later date. This is no different conceptually from what any merchant does when he sells something and delivers it later. In both cases, a profit is made when the sales price is greater than the entrepreneur's cost to deliver the goods.

So, Asensio sells the stock of some company that he has determined to be a promotion—that is, a stock that owes its valuation primarily to the dissemination of misleading or false information. Asensio writes, "A stock promotion . . . is a stock whose price is not based on fundamentals—on the company’s actual sales and profits and an assessment of the future potential of its business—but solely on the ability of its promoters to conjure up schemes to sell its shares." These companies form the primary field for Asensio’s short selling campaigns.

After the stock is sold, Asensio makes his case public, and, if and when the stock takes a dive, he buys it back for pennies on the dollar, pocketing the difference. Sometimes, he doesn’t have to buy the stock back at all because it becomes totally worthless and the company ceases to exist.

Earlier, it was noted that investors do not have to pay Asensio for his research, and this is largely true. Anybody can go to his Web site and see his recent reports. It only helps Asensio’s cause to have his reports widely disseminated. However, the investor that holds a stock that becomes one of Asensio’s targets does "pay" in the sense that the value of the investment is worth much less than before Asensio came along.

Ultimately, someone would have had to bear the brunt of the loss from promotional stocks, assuming that such things cannot go on forever. So even here, it is probably better for the investor to know now. As Asensio notes, "A bum stock is like a straying partner: You may not want to hear about it, but you need to know."

Critics will undoubtedly say that such practices are subject to abuse and that there is nothing to prevent anyone from disseminating negative information about a company that is false. Certainly, this has happened and will continue to happen, whether there is a government watchdog or not. Asensio notes such past events, such as the fake news item in 1999 that damaged PairGain Technologies, and the college student who, in August 2000, circulated a phony story about Emulex that caused its stock to crater.

In a libertarian society, there would be no law against saying false things. While the morality of such acts can surely be questioned, the legal right to say them must be defended. As Rothbard wrote in The Ethics of Liberty, "For in that libertarian society, since everyone would know that false stories are legal, there would be far more skepticism on the part of the reading or listening public, who would insist on far more proof and would believe fewer derogatory stories than they do now." The same principle would apply to the stock market.

A free market in securities would be like a free market in any other good or service. The participants would have to consider a variety of information, including the quality and source of that information. When a consumer buys a car, he typically does a lot of upfront work before a purchase is made. Different cars are test-driven; various publications are consulted; and friends, family, and other people all contribute in forming the consumer’s opinion.

Also, people don’t generally rush out and sell their cars when someone disseminates negative information. Why should it be any different in the stock market? Any new information should be checked out and investigated. The purchase and sale of any stock should come only after much thinking and research. If consumers are unwilling or unable to perform such due diligence when it comes to their own hard-earned money, then they can take their chances in entrusting its care to some other party, which should still involve quite a bit of upfront work. Alternatively, they do not have to invest in the market at all.

There is a general desire to try to make life easier. Fine, but there is no way in which government agencies can wave wands and do away with criminal activity. So why not explore ways to improve the market without a government watchdog? Markets have been heavily regulated for quite some time now, and it has not prevented the stock promotions that fill volumes of financial history, nor has it prevented investors from losing money. A free-market alternative would not completely prevent these things either, but it would provide gains in efficiency and provide the added benefit that society no longer has to bear the costs of maintaining a plethora of government regulatory bodies that it does not endorse or need, much less understand.

Asensio gives us a model of what the regulator–entrepreneur of the stock market might look like. Asensio’s firm scours the investment world in search of stock promotions. His firm performs extensive research before issuing its sell recommendations. In the process, Asensio has uncovered numerous cases of outright fraud.

Many of the frauds run deep. These promoters have savvy lawyers and close working relationships with the SEC, to keep the company out of trouble long enough for the principals to make a lot of money. In his book, Asensio asks rhetorically, "How can any state regulator watch all these deals and check every fact?" Quite obviously, especially after reading Asensio’s book, no regulator can.

And even if they could, the investor might not want to trust the SEC (or any regulator) entirely. As Asensio explains, "One of the principles that allows us to sell short and publicly disseminate opinions comes from the Supreme Court decision Ray Dirks v. the SEC in the early 1980s.

"The SEC had censured Dirks in 1973 for issuing reports to his clients about an incipient scandal at Equity Funding—a scandal that Dirks is credited with uncovering. That’s right. The SEC sided with the then-almighty NYSE, which didn’t want its members uncovering fraud." The Supreme Court overturned the censure, but one has to wonder what the SEC was thinking.

In addition to compromised regulators, short sellers are also hampered by antiquated regulations. According to Asensio, these regulations were adopted in 1934, when the crash of 1929 was still a vivid memory. "They appeared in response to accusations that short sellers had caused the crash by manipulating the market." In reality, these regulations hamper the ability of the market to efficiently price securities.

For example, one of these regulations "force[s] short sellers to go through the pointless ritual of ‘borrowing’ stock to short." Ironically, this has the effect of aiding stock promoters, who register shares in cash accounts or offshore accounts, making them difficult or impossible to borrow. There are several other rules, all of which have the effect of hampering short sellers.

Asensio is not unaware of his role in the market from the point of view discussed here. He has a short section in his book titled "A Free Market Solution to Persistent Stock Fraud." He writes, "I’d like short sellers to be free to work, win or lose, independently of sometimes compromised regulators and sleazy lawyers. . . . I believe more than ever that, in the end, the free market system is capable of weeding out misinformation by itself."

-----------

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=696

[Capt_Nemo]

Dr. DeCosta's 12-30-03 Addendum to the SEC:

http://antibasher.freeservers.com/
Securities and Exchange Commission:
450 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20549-0609

Re: File # S7-23-03

Dear Mr. Katz,

This is an addendum to my first comment letter re: Reg SHO.
While strolling through the SEC.gov website this morning I noted some direct quotes from the introductory paragraph of the entire website.

The introduction was entitled "THE INVESTOR'S ADVOCATE: HOW THE SEC PROTECTS INVESTORS AND MAINTAINS MARKET INTEGRITY".

Boy, does this title ever hit home in our discussions on naked short selling abuses and the necessity of the SEC to address them. The very first line of this introduction to the entire SEC website is this,
"The primary mission of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is to protect investors and maintain the integrity of the securities markets.
Wow, considering the irrefutable fact that the naked short selling abuses currently in existence in our markets represent the single largest fraud, from a monetary point of view, being perpetrated on U.S. investors and the one fraud with the most deleterious effect on market integrity, then one might presuppose that the SEC would be all over this problem as hinted to in their mission statement quoted above.
Yet only 1% of the cases brought by the SEC deal with issuers whose share price was crushed by the sale of nonexistent entities.

The article goes on to say, "The laws and rules that govern the securities industry in the United States derive from a simple and straightforward concept: all investors, whether large institutions or private individuals, should have access to certain basic facts about an investment prior to buying it.

Can I go way out on a limb and infer that one "basic fact about an investment" that would be handy to know "prior to buying" shares would be that there are, let's say, three times as many "counterfeit electronic book entries" in existence at the DTCC and/or in "proprietary accounts" of unethical market makers and clearing firms, than are issued and outstanding in the share capitalization of the issuing firm?

This introductory article goes on to say, "The main purposes of these laws can be reduced to two common-sense notions:

·Companies publicly offering securities for investment dollars must tell the public the truth about their businesses, the securities they are selling, and the risks involved in investing.

People who sell and trade securities – brokers, dealers, and exchanges – must treat investors fairly and honestly, putting investors' interests first."

That last sentence, in a nutshell, IS The 1934 Securities Exchange Act.

"Putting investors interest first", is that what happens when a b/d "rents" out his client's retirement account shares or his childrens' college education fund shares to the NSCC in order to be used to allow the trade involving the sale of nonexistent shares by the mortal enemy of a client's investment, the naked short seller, to clear and settle and thus become a "counterfeit electronic book entry" at the DTCC?
Is that also what happens when in the course of a dividend distribution, the DTCC allows these "counterfeit electronic book entries" to give birth to yet more "counterfeit electronic book entries" in order to cover up the initial fraudulent sale of nonexistent entities?

The article goes on to say that, "SROs, which are overseen by the SEC, are the front line in regulating broker-dealers.

Well, what kind of job are the SROs like the DTCC and the NASD doing on this front?

The article continues, "Major pieces of legislation, such as the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the Investment Company Act of 1940, provide the framework for the SEC's oversight of the securities markets."
The question arises as to why the SEC never seems to want to invoke the power or mandate given them by the '34 Exchange Act".
In several different spots the "34 Act" instructs the SEC to "buy-in under a guaranteed delivery basis" shares which fall into the "open position" category.
These include shares for which "good delivery" was either never made or in which "good delivery" was effected by a borrowed share that was not returned in a timely manner.

Later in the article can be found the following section:

Common violations that may lead to SEC investigations include:
insider trading: buying or selling a security in breach of a relationship of trust and confidence while in possession of material, non-public information about the security;

·misrepresentation or omission of important information about securities;

·manipulating the market prices of securities;
·stealing customers' funds or securities;

·violating broker-dealers' responsibility to treat customers fairly; and
·sale of securities without proper registration.

Let's review these six most common violations that induce SEC investigations one by one and see their relevance to naked short selling.

In regards to the first one, is not naked short selling by definition the selling of nonexistent entities masquerading as "securities" by Wall Street "professionals" and their coconspirators who do indeed possess nonpublic information, the visibility of the buy and sell orders, and use it to their advantage.

This "insider" information has much more utility in defrauding investors than the CEO of a corporation will ever have.

These market makers and clearing firm employees are the ULTIMATE INSIDERS with a superior visibility of, access to, and knowledge of "the system".

In regards to item #2, does not the DTCC's and SEC's failure to publish the number of "open positions" or existing naked short positions in a security tantamount to "omission of important information about securities".
How about an "SPL" list (Securities Position Listing) sold by the DTCC to issuers qualifying as "misrepresentation of important information about securities".

In regards to item #3, the entire world is cognizant of the "manipulation of the market prices of securities" via market maker manipulative techniques as well as the oversupply of stock that can be sold at any instant in time caused by naked short selling.

In regards to item 4, naked short selling IS the "stealing of a customer's fund or securities", by definition.

Item 5 involves the violation of a broker/dealer's responsibility to treat customers fairly. This obviously occurs in naked short selling.

Item 6 involves the selling of securities without registration which is exactly what occurs in naked short selling.
Those "counterfeit electronic book entries" are not registered nor do they qualify for any exemptions from registration.

So there you have it.

Naked short selling fits very nicely into EACH of the 6 main categories of violations that typically lead to SEC investigations.
Yet only 1% of the SEC's investigations are dedicated to these frauds.

SOMETHING DOESN'T ADD UP!

THERE ARE TWO GIGANTIC FLAWS WITHIN THE PROPOSED REG SHO.
THE FIRST INVOLVES HOW THE SEC HAS CLEVERLY NOT DIRECTLY ADDRESSED HOW THEY ARE GOING TO DEAL WITH THE MASSIVE PREEXISTING NAKED SHORT POSITIONS CURRENTLY IN EXISTENCE.

ARE THEY GOING TO TAKE THE MORAL HIGH ROAD AND BUY IN THESE "OPEN POSITIONS" IMMEDIATELY OR ARE THEY GOING TO COWER TO THE WALL STREET FRATERNITY SYSTEM YET AGAIN AND NOT ADDRESS THESE PREEXISTING "OPEN POSITIONS"?
THE SECOND MAJOR WEAKNESS IS THE LACK OF APPLICABILITY OF RULE 203'S INVOCATION OF RULE 11830'S PARAMETERS FOR QUALIFYING FOR THE "SAFE HARBOR" OF THE "RESTRICTED LISTS.

AS IT IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN, THE SEC HAS CHOSEN ONCE AGAIN TO ABANDON THE U.S. INVESTORS OWNING SHARES OF NON-REPORTING COMPANIES.
THE QUESTION BECOMES WHY ARE THE U.S. INVESTORS THAT FREELY CHOOSE TO INVEST IN NONREPORTING COMPANIES NOT AFFORDED THE SAME PROTECTION AS U.S. INVESTORS THAT INVEST IN REPORTING COMPANIES?

IT IS NOT IN THE SEC'S PURVIEW TO INDIRECTLY DICTATE INVESTMENT CHOICES VIA "REGULATORY ARBITRAGE". THE INVESTORS IN NONREPORTING SECURITIES NEED THE PROTECTION PROMISED IN THE 1934 SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT, PERIOD!
THE '34 EXCHANGE ACT CLEARLY ALLOWS SMALL COMPANIES TO OPERATE UNDER A 12-g EXEMPTION FROM REGISTRATION AND FILING REQUIREMENTS FOR A REASON.

THE SEC'S AS WELL AS WALL STREET'S IN GENERAL STEREOTYPICAL VISION OF ALL NONREPORTING PINK SHEETED COMPANIES AS BEING SCAMS HAS TO BE ENDED RIGHT NOW!

In this post-Sarbanes-Oxley era, many legitimate development stage companies simply cannot afford to be compliant with all of the Sarbanes-Oxley parameters that prove to be particularly usurious to small companies.
This does not make them a "pump and dump"!

I have to relate to you a phone call I just had this morning with an attorney from the SEC. This gentleman is a very bright man and is very conscientious.
He is one of the "good guys". We chatted for almost an hour about the securities laws, naked short selling and a host of other subjects related to Reg SHO.
I saw where our philosophies were starting to drift away from each others so I asked him point blank why an investor that prefers investing in nonreporting pink sheeted stocks would be afforded less protection from manipulation in Reg SHO than an investor in General Motors.
His answer, which came in the form of a question, was why would anybody buy stock in a nonreporting company?
I had to ask my question again and I got the exact same "answer" again.

That 30-second question and answer period was, in effect, my last 21 years of researching naked short selling, in a microcosm.

THE SEC JUST DOESN'T GET IT! THEIR JOB, AS RELATED IN THEIR MISSION STATEMENT, IS TO PROTECT INVESTORS, NO MATTER WHAT THEIR INVESTMENT PHILOSOPHY IS.

"The primary mission of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is to protect investors and maintain the integrity of the securities markets".
I don't see anything in that mission statement that addresses reporting or nonreporting securities.

Every naked short selling fraudster on earth knows that this is the attitude of the SEC towards these smaller companies trading on the Pink Sheets and OTCBB.
They make their livings based on this very consistent stereotypical attitude of the SEC. The knowledge of this stereotypical attitude in the SEC that all of these corporations are scams until proven otherwise allows these fraudsters to place gigantic "bets" against these corporations.

The fraudsters committing these crimes know, with 100% certainty, that the SEC will not be riding in on a white horse to save these "scammy" companies and their investors.

This engrained stereotypical attitude won't permit it. It is a mindset.

I don't want to be overly critical of you at the SEC but please open up your minds to entertain the thought that this engrained attitude IS THE PROBLEM.
It provides the "lever" that these fraudsters need.

It creates their niche.

What complicates matters is that you at the SEC don't realize that this stereotypical attitude is the problem.
This "stereotypical attitude" is a giant crowbar that provides the fraudsters with leverage.

Naked short sellers rely on this attitude, they have made billions of dollars from U.S. micro cap investors because of the existence of this attitude.
It is integral to their success. It provides the key to our wallets.

Where did this "attitude" come from? You guys are the cops, you deal on a daily basis with the worst of the worst and these smaller trading venues provide plenty of opportunity for the bad guys. It's only natural that stereotypes will develop.

One thing you have to realize is that the OTCBB and Pink Sheets host nearly 7,500 companies and they are surely not all "bad apples".

THE ROLE OF THE GUARANTEED DELIVERY BUY-IN MANDATED BY THE 1934 SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT (chapter 68)
The "Guaranteed delivery buy-in" as mandated by Congress, is an extremely well thought out solution to the fraudulent sales of nonexistent entities that only faintly resemble "shares".

Some reasons for this include:

1) It provides a level of DETERRENCE to these fraudulent activities. U.S. micro cap investors are tired of watching the perhaps 1% of the naked short selling fraudsters that do get caught being fined $20,000 for stealing $5 million from naive investors and signing off on an Acceptance, Waiver, and Consent (AWC) form.

This is not DETERRENCE, this is an ENGRAVED INVITATION TO COMMIT FRAUD.

2) The proceeds of the theft actually get returned to the victims of the theft. I realize that the SEC is not a court of equity. It is the giant pile of investors' money that is used to cover these naked short positions.
In the Sedona case, the SEC fines Rhino advisors $1 million.
The alleged fraudsters pay the fine with the pile of money allegedly taken from investors.

Where does this leave the investors? Now the SEC has the investors' money, so what! Is the SEC going to take that money and only put 1% of it towards the fight against naked short sellers? I'd say the alleged naked short selling fraudsters made out like a bandit in this scenario.

3) Guaranteed delivery buy-ins are "DIAGNOSTIC", the bill for the bought in shares will with 100% certainty, land in the lap of the actual naked short sellers and their accomplices within the market making and clearing firms.
This is unlike other legal mechanics wherein the cops work hard to try to find out the identity of the bad guys.

4) Guaranteed delivery buy-ins are also "CURATIVE" from an accounting point of view. Upon their completion there really is a legitimate "share"/"package of rights" in existence that corresponds to every monthly brokerage entry "IMPLYING" the ownership of a legitimate share.

Imagine that, a "real" share certificate to back up every share implied as being owned on a monthly statement.

5) Guaranteed delivery buy-ins have PROPORTIONALITY. The financial penalty incurred by the fraudsters will be PROPORTIONATE to the crimes they previously committed.
Fraudsters that have sold 100 million nonexistent entities and thus have accumulated a large pile of investors' money in front of them will have to spend a lot more than those that are naked short 1,000 shares.

6) Guaranteed delivery buy ins are FORENSICALLY DIAGNOSTIC.
Many market makers and Wall Street "professionals" claim that naked short selling doesn't exist and it is only used as an excuse for inept corporate management. Fine!
IF THIS IS TRUE THEN THERE WILL BE NO BUY-INS TO EFFECT AND THE TRUTH WILL BE KNOWN! That's the beauty of buy-ins, only the bad guys are afraid of them and the cloak of invisibility within which these people need to operate will be lifted.

The light of day really is the best disinfectant!

7) Guaranteed delivery buy-ins are ECONOMIC FROM A REGULATORY POINT OF VIEW.
They act like a thousand regulators without the matching payroll.
If economics is part of the reason for the lack of regulatory attention, then this is a godsend.

8) Guaranteed delivery buy-ins act like BLIND JUSTICE.
There is no wiggle room for would be extenuating circumstances. The message being sent will be to only sell that which really exists. As the old naked short selling aphorism goes, "He who sells what isn't his'n buys it back or goes to prison".

There are a dozen other benefits of guaranteed delivery buy-ins that I listed in my first book on naked short selling that I won't address now. They truly are an incredible vehicle with many beneficial side effects.
Unfortunately, the guaranteed delivery buy-ins have no effect on the thousands of micro cap corporations that have already become insolvent and no longer trade due to naked short selling attacks or "bear raids".

Perhaps the bad guys will have already won these battles due to the difficulty of exhuming these corporate remains and identifying the victim shareholders.

At first glance, it seems that there would be a long and tortuous journey for the SEC to go from being the problem to solving the problem. Not true.

First address the preexisting "open positions" that have crushed all of these corporations and the lives of their shareholders and then level up the playing field for the future.
The SROs underneath you have way too many conflicts of interest in place to address these issues.

Please take the high road this time!

Sincerely,

Dr. Jim DeCosta and Associates
Consultants to Victim Corporations
[phone]

[Phil(Hot Rod Chevy)]

To all, a must read:


Testimony Concerning
The Involvement of Organized Crime
on Wall Street


http://www.sec.gov/news/testimony/ts142000.htm

Have fun,
Phil

[Capt_Nemo]

SEC approves NYSE reforms
Votes to accept governance structure, rules at Big Board
By David Weidner, CBS.MarketWatch.com
Last Update: 4:06 PM ET Dec. 17, 2003







NEW YORK (CBS.MW) -- The Securities and Exchange Commission on Wednesday approved the most sweeping reforms in the 211-year history of the New York Stock Exchange.



CBS MARKETWATCH TOP NEWS
U.S. stocks finish mixed as Dow turns positive
China Life, Orbitz IPOs debut
SEC approves NYSE's sweeping reforms
Oil futures close at pre-Iraq war level on supply data
Gold futures closes near $413 at an eight-year high




Free! Sign up here to receive our After the Bell Report e-Newsletter!






The controversial reforms, which include a reconstituted board and new corporate governance measures aimed at eliminating conflicts of interest, come after nearly nine months of intense debate and scandal.

That scandal led to the September ouster of Richard Grasso as the exchange's chairman and CEO over his $187 million pay package and the emergency hiring of ex-Citicorp senior executive John Reed a few days later.

"The NYSE's governance structure allowed too great a consolidation of executive authority in the chairman and CEO, with unfortunate results," said SEC Chairman William Donaldson as the regulatory panel convened to vote on the reforms.

The exchange under Reed as interim chairman and CEO "has made a strong -- and speedy -- effort to address the governance problems it has faced," Donaldson said.

In opening remarks, he said Reed and the NYSE also have agreed to name a separate chief executive and chairman to lead the exchange on a permanent basis. Critics had called for the jobs to be made separate, but such a provision wasn't part of the package of reforms that Reed unveiled in early November.

Board members also praised the reform effort but said the SEC needed to revisit its relationship with so-called "SROs," or self-regulated organizations. Commissioner Roel Campos called for the SEC to study the effectiveness of SROs.

The reforms, however, failed to assuage some critics. On Tuesday, the California Public Employees' Retirement System, the nation's biggest pension fund, said the reforms don't go far enough to separate the regulatory arm of the exchange.

CalPERS filed suit against the NYSE, claiming it ignored improper trading practices by specialists on the trading floor. See full story.

Moore's 'frustration'

North Carolina Treasurer Richard Moore said Wednesday he will not join the CalPERS suit. Moore, who was named to a newly formed NYSE executive committee earlier this month, said the allegations "are not new" but that he shares CalPERS' frustration at the slow pace of the SEC's investigation into improper trading at the NYSE.

Moore also asked Reed in a letter to reconsider splitting the regulatory arm of the exchange from the business side.

"If the New York Stock Exchange and its specialist system truly add value to the marketplace, then it will be far better served by having someone with true independence both police it and defend its business practices," Moore wrote.

Separate boards

Among the changes approved Wednesday is the creation of a board of eight independent directors -- they would not be regulated directly by the exchange or work on the exchange -- and a second board composed of executives who would include broker/dealers, specialists, floor brokers, a state treasurer, a private fund company executive and listed company CEOs.

The board of directors would set compensation and oversee the regulatory side of the business. The executive board would meet at least six times a year and advise the board. It would have a standing market performance committee and a committee that decides for which stocks specialists are responsible.

Donaldson said he's asked the SEC staff whether it should have on-site staff at the NYSE.

The new board

Named to the new board of directors are two current board members: former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, 66, and Herbert Allison Jr., 60, chairman of pension giant TIAA-CREF. They are the two newest members of the board, having been named this year.

Also nominated are Euan Baird, chairman of Rolls-Royce; Marshall Carter, former chairman and CEO of State Street Bank; Shirley Ann Jackson, president of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; James McDonald, CEO of the charitable foundation Rockefeller & Co.; Robert Shapiro, former CEO of Monsanto; and Dennis Weatherstone, former chairman and CEO of J.P. Morgan.

David Weidner covers Wall Street for CBS MarketWatch.com.

http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7BFD935CB5%2DE288%2D40A6%2D9DF3%2DFAC32478F1D1%7D&am...

[Capt_Nemo]

I do to Tim, I signed it and so far only 38 people have signed and 2 companies!!!!!

[timhyma]

NP- Hope it helps bring a little justice to the system <g>.

[Capt_Nemo]

I have seen the site Tim, but not the complaint part, Thanks man!!!!!

[timhyma]

You guys see this site?
http://www.investigatethesec.com/

[Capt_Nemo]

December 2, 2003. (FinancialWire) Naked short selling, which apparently robs American investors thousands, perhaps millions of dollars every day, is causing an uproar in Britain.
In the U.S., the controversy, the subject of Regulation SHO, which is available at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission website through January 5, has embroiled at least 119 public companies, including some 13 brokers, including Ameritrade Holding Corp. (NASDAQ: AMTD), Deutsche Bank AG (NYSE: DB), and E*Trade Group, Inc. (NYSE: ET). The London controversy centers on Room Service (LSE: RSV).
Britains Financial Services Authority is considering a “crack down” on short-selling after being alerted to a massive short position in an AIM-listed company which has left a group of private investors claiming
unfair treatment, according to the British press.
Press reports said the city watchdog said it had taken a "keen interest" in the case and was "working closely" with the London Stock Exchange to see whether regulations had been breached.
Room Service, a cash shell, had been founded to operate an online food delivery service, and a huge short position by Evolution Beeson Gregory, a market-maker in the company, is believed to have developed.
It is estimated that the broker has sold stock more than the entire value of Room Service, equaling as much as 162% of the company. Because of that, Evolution has been unable to deliver shares, the investors group has alleged. Of course in the U.S., that is an every day occurrence in an untold number of stocks.
The FSA had investigated short selling earlier in the year, and stated that the practice has a “positive impact” on the market, sounding a bit like the “anonymous” detractors recently quoted by BusinessWeek. Now it says it is launching an inquiry into “extreme short-selling.”
In March, the FSA imposed disclosure rules on short-selling after a review of the practice.
Some thirteen on the list of 119 U.S. companies, such as FleetBoston (NYSE: FBF), Goldman, Sachs & Co. (NYSE: GS), Knight Securities, LP (NASDAQ: NITE), Ladenburg Thalmann & Co., Inc. (AMEX: LHS), M. H. Myerson & Co., Inc. (NASDAQ: MHMY), Olde / H&R Block (NYSE: HRB), Charles Schwab (NYSE: SCH), Toronto-Dominion’s (NYSE: TD), TD Waterhouse Group and vFinance, Inc. (OTCBB: VFIN). A.G. Edwards, Inc. (NYSE: AGE), Ameritrade Holding Corp. (NASDAQ: AMTD), Deutsche Bank AG (NYSE: DB), and E*Trade Group, Inc. (NYSE: ET), have been accused by one or more public companies as allegedly participating in short selling activities or abuses, or of failing to settle trades.
The SEC said that comments should be sent by hard copy or e-mail, but not by both methods. Comments sent by hard copy should be submitted in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549-0609.
Comments also may be submitted electronically at the following E-mail address: [e-mail]. All comment letters should refer to File No. S7-23-03. Comments submitted by e-mail should include the file number in the subject line. Comment letters received will be available for public inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549. Electronically submitted comment letters will be posted on the Commission's Internet web site (http://www.sec.gov).
Observers have said that trades to not settle because broker-dealers do not effect buy-ins, as required by law, and that there is an unspoken understanding that any brokerage that tries to force a buy-in will be retaliated against.
Some 106 companies among the 119 named to date have issued press releases or been named in the media as having been victimized, or as taking various actions, either alone or in concert with other companies, to oppose manipulative trading in the form of illegal naked short selling. The actions have ranged from lawsuits to withdrawals and threatened withdrawals from the electronic trading system managed by the Depository Trust & Clearing Corp., to withdrawals from toxic financings, to the issuance of dividends or name changes designed to squeeze manipulators, to joining associations or networks or to contacting regulatory authorities to provide documentation of abuses or otherwise complain.
The complete list of those 106 companies include Advanced Viral Research Corp. (OTCBB: ADVR), AdZone Research, Inc. (OTCBB: ADZR), Amazon Natural Treasures (OTC: ANTD), America's Senior Financial Services (OTCBB: AMSE), American Ammunition, Inc. (OTCBB: AAMI), AngelCiti Entertainment (OTCBB: AGLC), ATSI Communications, Inc. (OTC: ATSC), Federal Agricultural Mortgage / Farmer Mac (NYSE: AGM) Allied Capital (NYSE: ALD), American Motorcycle (OTC: AMCYV), American International Industries (OTCBB: AMIN), Ameri-Dream (OTC: AMDR), Adirondack Pure Springs Mt. Water Co. (OTCBB: APSW), Bluebook International (OTCBB: BBIC), Blue Industries (OTCBB: BLIIV), Bentley Communications (OTCBB: BTLY), BIFS Technologies Corporation (OTCBB: BIFT), Biocurex (OTCBB: BOCX). Broadleaf Capital Partners, Inc. (OTCBB: BDLF), Chattem, Inc. (NASDAQ: CHTT), Critical Home Care (OTCBB: CCLH), Composite Holdings (OTC: COHIA), CyberDigital, Inc. (OTCBB: CYBD). Diamond International Group (OTCBB: DMND), Dobson Communications Corp. (NASDAQ: DCEL), Eagle Tech Communications (OTC: EATC), Edgetech Services (OTCBB: EDGH);
Also, Endovasc Ltd. (OTCBB: EVSC), Enviro-Energy Corporation (OTCBB: ENGY), Environmental Products & Technologies (OTC: EPTC), EPIXTAR Corp. (OTCBB: EPXR), eResearchTechnologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: ERES), Flight Safety Technologies (OTCBB: FLST), Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE), FreeStar Technologies (OTCBB: FSRCE), Geotec Thermal Generators, Inc. (OTCBB: GETC), Genesis Intermedia (OTC: GENI), GeneMax Corp. (OTCBB: GMXX), Global Explorations Inc (OTC: GXXL), Global Path (OTCBB: GBPI), GloTech Industries, Inc. (OTCBB: GTHI), Green Dolphin Systems (OTCBB: GLDS), Group Management (OTCBB: GPMT), Hop-On (OTC: HPON), H-Quotient, Inc., (OTCBB: HQNT), Hyperdynamics Corp. (OTCBB: HYPD), International Biochem (OTCBB: IBCL), Intergold Corp. (OTCBB: IGCO), International Broadcasting Corporation (OTCBB: IBCS), InternetStudios, Inc. (OTCBB: ISTO), ITIS Holdings (OTCBB: ITHH), Investco Corp. (OTCBB: IVCO), Lair Holdings (OTC: LAIR), Lifeline BioTechnologies Inc. (OTC: LBTT), Life Energy & Technology (OTCBB: LETH), MBIA (NYSE: MBI);
Also, MegaMania Interactive (OTC: MNIA), MetaSource Group, Inc. (OTCBB: MTSR), Midastrade.com (OTC: MIDS), Make Your Move (OTCBB: MKMV), Medinah Minerals (OTC: MDMN), MSM Jewelry Corp. (OTC: MSMC), Nanopierce Technologies, Inc. (OTCBB: NPCT), Nutra Pharmaceutical (OTCBB: NPHC), Nutek (OTCBB: NUTK), Navigator Ventures (OTC: NVGV), Orbit E-Commerce, Inc. (OTCBB: OECI), Pitts & Spitts (OTC: PSPP), Sales OnLine Direct (OTCBB: PAID), Pacel Corp. (OTCBB: PACC), PayStar Corporation (OTC: PYST), Petrogen Corp. (OTCBB: PTGC), Pinnacle Business Management (OTC: PCBM), Premier Development & Investment, Inc. (OTCBB: PDVN), PrimeHoldings.com, Inc. (OTC: PRIM), Phlo Corporation (OTCBB: PHLC), Resourcing Solutions (OTC: RESG), Reed Holdings (OTC: RDHC), Rocky Mountain Energy Corp. (OTCBB: RMECE), RTIN Holdings (OTCBB: RTNHE), Saflink Corp. (NASDAQ: SFLK), Safe Travel Care (OTCBB: SFTVV), Sedona Corp. (OTCBB: SDNA);
Also, Sionix Corp. (OTCBB: SINX), Sonoran Energy (OTCBB: SNRN), Starmax Technologies (OTC: SMXIF), Storage Suites America (OTC: SSUA), Suncomm Technologies (OTC: STEH), Sports Resorts International (NASDAQ: SPRI), Technology Logistics (OTC: TLOS), Swiss Medica, Inc. (OTCBB: SWME), Ten Stix, Inc. (OTCBB: TNTI), Tidelands Oil (OTCBB: TIDE), Titan Construction (OTC: TTCS), Trezac Corp. (OTCBB: TRZAV), Universal Express, Inc. (OTCBB: USXP), Valesc Holdings, Inc. (OTCBB: VLSHV), Vega Atlantic (OTCBB: VGAC), Viragen (AMEX: VRA), Viragen International (OTCBB: VGNI), Vista Continental Corporation, (OTCBB: VICC), Viva International (OTCBB: VIVI), Vtex Energy (OTCBB: VXENE) and Wizzard Software (OTCBB: WIZD), WorldTradeShow.com (OTC: WTSW) and Y3K Secure Enterprise Software, Inc. (OTCBB: YTHK).
http://www.investrend.com/articles/article.asp?analystId=0&id=6037&topicId=160&level=160

[gotmilk]

"Don't fight the Fed" superseded by #reply-19552582

[gotmilk]

A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing. (or).....

A sheep in wolf's clothing walking among the wolves.
#reply-19546852
... is it that easy to place oneself in danger?

[gotmilk]

110% On Topic - I'll do it myself...

The following URL is dedicated to those whom lead, not follow.
aka - Park & Halpern, BobZ & Sheriff Matt

http://www.jefren.com
Free legal forms that corporate lawyers can download
and
SEC News Digest Reports - also free

These legal forms are intended for corporate lawyers
and securities lawyers. If you are not a lawyer or law librarian
or paralegal, we strongly recommend that you consult
your own lawyer before using any of these legal forms.

... buried within these SEC News Digests is invaluable information.

At least this information would be invaluable if it were organized
in a meaningful way ... or if it you could easily search through it.

We decided to do something about it.

We have organized all the material in the SEC News Digests
so you can find what you are looking for.

And we have also made the material completely searchable.

Each Monday our editors analyze the SEC News Digests
from the previous week and organize all the material
by subject matter into five News Digest Reports as follows:
...

[Phil(Hot Rod Chevy)]

Ian,

I agree one hundred percent.

My wife and I spent the weekend in DC a couple of weeks ago.

On SAT. we drove from Alexandria to Georgetown, made a wrong turn and ended up downtown. Took us forever to get out because of the traffic and closed streets. All for lunch by the water.

On Sunday, we drove about three blocks, took the Metro to the station we wanted, took in the Arlington cemetary, including the Arlington House, the Lincoln memorial, the Vietnam memorial, the Korean war memorial, the construction of the WWII memorial, walked on the concrete bottom of the relecting pond, (the one Ginny ran thru in the movie Forrest Gump, it has been drained for the winter), and the Washington monument. Took the Metro back to the station where my car was parked, and drove three blocks back to the motel. It was great. I think it cost $4.40 for both of us round trip. It would have cost more than that to park the truck. And I would have had to find a place to park. Driving around in DC sucks.

Have fun,
Phil

[Ian Park]

Doug...trust me, nothing is too far with the Metro. I took the Metro everywhere I went. One station was a few hundred feet from the SEC Headquarters, another a few feet from Capitol Hill. Only a fool walks in D.C. I take the Metro! LOL

[Capt_Nemo]

Thats it, A story on shoes??????????????? Hell I thought there was sumpin really bad happening haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[gotmilk]

Good Golly Capt_Molly and Keep A Knockin...

Hint: Don't walk those miles in his "shoes."

Gata Bill wanted to make a good impression, so he wore
his best suit and decided his worn dress shoes didn't have
a good enough shine so he bought brand new shoes to wear,

Once there he was surprised the distance one had to walk
between buildings, as it was much greater than expected.

New shoes + first day lots of walking in them = hurt & pain

Best if Ian selects ahead of time good worn in dress shoes,
and for January incase cold rain or wet snow, stuff for that.

d:oug

[Capt_Nemo]

HEY Doug!!!! Would you like to clear this up?????

"""""""Please don't make the mistake Gata Bill made.

Hint: Don't walk those miles in his "shoes."

I'll wait a few hours to see if any old farts, or maybe the
Sheriff Batty Matty new fart can realize this important advice.

I doubt it, so i'll post that important "What NOT to do." later.

D:oug

[Capt_Nemo]

Ian!!! This follows what we have going on!!! I like it!!!

SEC chairman sets out mutual fund reforms
By Andrei Postelnicu in Boca Raton, Florida and Adrian Michaels in New York
Published: November 7 2003 16:08 / Last Updated: November 7 2003 16:08


William Donaldson on Friday launched a scathing attack on the US securities industry, travelling to its own annual conference in Florida to deliver blistering criticism of its behaviour in the wave of financial scandals.


The chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the chief US financial regulator, detailed a "laundry list of industry wrongdoing" citing ten objectives (see below) to an audience of 500 executives at the Securities Industry Association gathering in Boca Raton.

Mr Donaldson was speaking amid almost daily revelations of wrongdoing in US mutual fund trades, in which securities houses are implicated heavily. This scandal followed "analysts' conflicts, IPO [initial public offering] abuses, the failures to give investors the...discounts to which they were entitled, sales practice abuses, and the hidden incentives some brokers have when fabouring one mutual fund over another".

"I am left with the conclusion that these occurrences represent a fundamental betrayal of our nation's investors, and are symptomatic of a disease that has afflicted far too many in the industry," Mr Donaldson said.

The speech challenged executives to restore public confidence and outlined the steps that the SEC was taking to reform practices and find wrongdoers. Mr Donaldson's words were a strong rebuttal to critics that say the agency has been slow to react and not done enough.

"The matters that we are investigating highlight conduct that violates the very principles of trust and fairness that represent the foundation...of our equity markets." he said. "The headlines sap investor trust and confidence...the industry now bears a higher burden to earn the trust of investors."

Mr Donaldson admitted the SEC had not led the way. "Clearly we weren't there first," he said. Eliot Spitzer, New York's attorney-general, brought the first cases involving mutual fund trading abuses, and has been a persistent critic of elements of the SEC.

The SEC chairman said the agency was changing. In particular, he had ordered a review of how it handles tips from whistleblowers. The SEC's enforcement chief in Boston quit this week after his office was slow to follow stories of wrongdoing at Putnam Investments.

Mr Donaldson said the securities industry was stuck in a "legal and ethical quagmire". He challenged it to "raise the ethical bar, and not lower it", threatening action if the industry did not change.

The mutual fund industry was also criticised by Mr Donaldson. He said the SEC had to question whether it suffered from structural weaknesses that needed to be addressed. He said: "No reform is off the table".

Stuart Kaswell, a securities lawyer at the conference, said the SEC chairman "spoke the truth and people would expect no less".

Donaldson's ten objectives

Ensure mechanisms are in place for compliance with laws, including hiring chief compliance officer

Make rules to prohibit abusive activity, including late trading

Pursue aggressive enforcement

Develop SEC surveillance tools

Urge industry to adopt ethical standards

Make effective mutual fund governance structure

Address conflicts of broker-dealers in marketing mutual funds

Address conflicts of investment advisers in managing mutual funds

Improve disclosure to investors, including fee disclosure

Ensure greater oversight over unregulated entities


http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=106...

[gotmilk]

"...a week long trip to Washington, D.C."

Ian,

I'am sure that there are enough old farts reading this board
that have some insight on "Washington, D.C. in January" :o)

The Good, Bad & Ugly for eating, sleeping and sightseeing.

As for my advice, i'll switch from a gotmilk to Gata Nut # 1
and warn you of a BIG mistake Gata Bill Murphy walked into.

Not only did it slow his efforts after he arrived, but caused him
pain & suffering both while he met with people during and after
he left and returned home to continue his Walking his Talk.

Please don't make the mistake Gata Bill made.

Hint: Don't walk those miles in his "shoes."

I'll wait a few hours to see if any old farts, or maybe the
Sheriff Batty Matty new fart can realize this important advice.

I doubt it, so i'll post that important "What NOT to do." later.

D:oug

[Ian Park]

Update for everyone:


I am planning to make a week long trip to Washington, D.C. in January during which I will be aggressively spearheading my effort to improve and restructure the OTC Bulletin Board. I will likely be meeting with with one or more of the SEC Commissioners, executive staff of NASD Regulation, Congressman Oxley and the House Committee on Financial Services, and others who are involved with the OTCBB.

[Phil(Hot Rod Chevy)]

SEC Blasts NYSE Oversight
Of 'Specialist' Trading Firms

http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=1679351

Have fun,
Phil

[BullNBear52]

Hey I liked the guy! He told CSFB to go screw if they were going to feed him to the sharks.

[Capt_Nemo]

Mistrial, Should read MONEY, What a bunch of chit, The almighty $$$$ comes through again!!!!! America, ya gotta love the way things work!!! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[BullNBear52]

I followed this suit with some interest and I'm of the impression that CSFB kind of left him out to dry. They didn't tell him about the subpoena for one.

It was kind of humorous and I felt the juror was absolutely correct, (I would have done the same thing) when he didn't show up for deliberations one day because he was at the hospital with his wife having their first baby.

Way to go dad!

[BullNBear52]

Quattrone's Case Ends in Mistrial
By Paul Thomasch

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A mistrial was declared in the criminal case of Frank Quattrone on Friday after jurors failed to decide whether the one-time star banker tried to obstruct federal investigations into how some of biggest stock offerings in history were allocated to investors.

Quattrone, a mustachioed 48-year-old who is the most powerful financial figure in years to face criminal trial, showed little emotion when the mistrial was announced.


While he declined to comment, his attorney said the defense was unhappy with the outcome.


"We are disappointed because Frank Quattrone is innocent," John Keker said. "Frank Quattrone is a man of integrity, a man who followed the rules."


The U.S. Attorney's office, which brought both the Quattrone and Martha Stewart (news - web sites) cases, said no decision had been made on whether there would be another trial to decide if Quattrone obstructed justice by ordering staff at his former bank, Credit Suisse First Boston, to destroy documents.


U.S. District Judge Richard Owen began the 18th day of the trial by urging jurors to deliberate for "a couple of hours" to try to break the deadlock in the case. The jury of six men and five women previously sent the court two notes -- the most recent one coming late Thursday -- saying they were unable to reach a verdict.


The mistrial was declared just after 12:30 EDT (1630 GMT).


"Everybody had a strong belief in their position," juror Mayo Villalona said after court was adjourned.


In the final count, eight jurors found Quattrone guilty of obstructing a grand jury investigation; five found him guilty of obstructing an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (news - web sites); and eight found him guilty of witness tampering, according to Villalona.


"EVASIVE" WITNESS


Quattrone, accompanied by a pack of friends and family during the trial, was among the first bankers to see the coming technology bonanza and once generated so much revenue and buzz he had his own press team.


But by late 2000, the market for hot stock offerings had dried up, and investigators began looking at whether shares of the most popular initial public offerings had been doled out to hedge funds in exchange for kickbacks.


As the SEC and a federal grand jury were investigating whether CSFB unfairly allocated shares, Quattrone forwarded an e-mail written by a subordinate that ordered staff to "clean up" their files. Quattrone has said he was unaware that investigators had subpoenaed anything in CSFB's investment banking records when he forwarded the e-mail.


Hoping to use the charm that once earned him more than $120 million in salary and bonus to make his case, Quattrone took the witness stand during the trial's second week.


But juror Villalona, who voted not guilty on all charges, said Quattrone's testimony hurt his chances for acquittal.


"If he would not have been sitting up there, he would have been found not guilty in two minutes," said Villalona, who said the financier seemed "evasive" during cross examination.


Under questioning by the prosecution Quattrone was forced to admit he played a role in the allocation of hot stocks at CSFB, backtracking on earlier testimony.





On several other occasions during his cross examination, he parsed words with Assistant U.S. Attorney Steven Peikin, said his recollection was unclear and asked that the question be read back to him by the court reporter.

At one point during the testimony, Peikin said "I don't want to argue with you. I just want to ask you a question."

Quattrone may hold up better the second time around, if the prosecution decides to bring the case again. For starters, said legal experts, he may be able to concede under friendly direct examination that he played some role in allocations.

U.S. prosecutors would be stuck trying to prove that Quattrone intended to obstruct the investigations when he forwarded one e-mail.

"There was no hard evidence," said Villalona. "If there is more evidence, they have to bring it."

Judge Owen set a Nov. 5 status conference to determine how the case will proceed.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=568&e=3&u=/nm/20031024/bs_nm/crime_quatt...

[Capt_Nemo]

Og goawddddddddddddddddd Gold ones haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Dougy , you are killing me, Oh special one!!!!

[gotmilk]

Sheriff Matt told us to put your feet to the fire,
just as he wants us to put his feet to them flames.
You can borrow his asbestos socks that he started wearing
right after i started telling Matt that he is sometimes batty :o)

[Ian Park]

Yeah yeah, cut me some slack here, lol. There are few updates on this initiatve -- only that I intend to launch on November 10th, and am currently seeking out sponsors...

And don't worry, I'll be contacting you "gold" guys within time...

[gotmilk]

oops, i just reread the iBox and all that extra stuff is gone....
.... but it was there before and i assumed it was still was there,
so i didn't go there to check if it was still there before i said that
it was still there... Now you might be seeing why Sheriff Matt
has me on his "must read" People Marked :o) :o) :o) :o) :o) :o)

[gotmilk]

Thanks. Would it be helpful to readers of this board if you
started putting into this board's iBox status material?

That phase "Too much is never enough." is tongue in cheek,
but hopefully you have already encountered those hard lessons,
and learned from them as mistakes, that too much information
is sometimes unhelpful, and actually becomes an hindrance.

For example, my help for you at #msg-1553283 was not taken
by you since you did not include it on your list. But them i never
received any feedback from you about it so maybe you simply
saw too much babble and moved on to other things needing your
attention of which you have already not enough time to do them.

But them might you mentioned it in this board's iBox is very
very unlikely :o) but gosh, your iBox here is filled up with extra
stuff not specific to your efforts in the sense of what i as a reader
needs to know. Example, those "sayings" do invigerate you and
help you move forward, but to others its clutter not wanted, and
might prevent a reading of the iBox.

Yes, others also are short on time and refuse to read what is extra
and not needed stuff no matter your high regard for its value, its stuff
more personal to your mood and emotions that should not be assumed
to be transfered to others. They already have their own "world."

Now this is babble and you might have already exited this post.

If so then this post makes it point without a delivery :o)

[Ian Park]

Investors Hub, Silicon Investor, Traders Nation, Investrend, Stockpatrol.com, OTCBB Pulse, Richard Altomare (USXP).....

That's who I'm looking at right now...

[gotmilk]

Please list those already on your radar screen.

[Ian Park]

I'm currently looking for sites/businesses/organizations that would be interested in sponsoring this initiative. Does anyone have any ideas of who might be interested? Just post and let me know! Sites and organizations w/ investors/traders would be the best...

[Churak]

http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=1601358

[Capt_Nemo]

Haaaaaaaaaaa Damn , doesn't that sound familiar Ian,LOL, Money is the one thing they understand!! Take that, and one has caught their attention!!!! Good article, but weird link, twice when I click on it, first it took me to travlzoo, vacation specials, second time i was reading, and it just disappeared??? Ghosts!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ian Park]

So Sue Me
What's the best way to punish corporate criminals? With lawsuits, not prison sentences.
by Daniel Gross

Check it out:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2088790/