The question is, will US Attorney Loretta Lynch, who directed the US Attorneys in the SpongeTech case, use her direct knowledge of our case to intercede in any motion submitted to an SEC Administrative Law Judge, to stop a revocation proceeding.

Obama is expected to nominate Lynch today, to replace out-going Attorney General Eric Holder. She has been the Chair of Holder's advisory committee since last year, and Holder recommended her to succeed him.

I hope the Senate Judiciary Committee will look closely at this issue.

This is the first that I'm hearing that my Motion was denied. Hopefully, I'll find out why it was denied, and why it was announced as part of Steven's sentencing memorandum.

And yet another SEC Litigation Release gets posted today in which the details are "Intentionally omitted."

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases.shtml

LR-23076

I talked about this very action on page 16 of my petition to modify the forfeiture order. "Even more egregious examples of reckless indifference are displayed by the SEC. These examples include relevant Litigation Releases in which the details were "intentionally omitted..."

In my opinion, there likely should be more Litigation Releases in the SpongeTech case. If this latest one is related to us, I only hope it will be to shareholders' advantage. It would be nice if the self-proclaimed "Investor's Advocate" acted, you know, like the Investor's Advocate.

http://www.sec.gov/index.htm

It's been an honor, Dan. I've appreciated your unflagging support.

I join you in thanking the judges in this case, who have been steadfast in their consideration of SpongeTech shareholders.

Contrast the judicial responses to the walls of silence we have been met with from the Legislative and Executive branches.

I had a motion get docketed last week. I'm waiting to see if a hearing is scheduled. I don't know anything about a settlement, or the status of any change to the DTC lock.

With today being June 11, 2014, there were no search results found on the government forfeiture website for this case. This could be important in regards to filing a Claim.

We hold them accountable, David.

KLee,

The SEC definitely seemed more interested in the FTD's caused by the failure of long sales of loaned securities, than they did with the FTD's caused by short sales.

However, both methodologies added counterfeit shares into the market, and both likely resulted in profits being obtained by Penson's account holders who were effecting the trades.

The SEC is simply trying to hide the exposure of all relevant parties, and laying the blame on the officers in Penson's Stock Loan department, one of whom was re-positioned to continue in this activity with Penson's successor company, Apex Clearing. That, of course, was only made possible by the CBOE's Emergency Rule Change submitted to, and approved by, the SEC.

Who was primarily pulling the trigger on these trades? Was it the two brokerages I identified in December, prior to the deadline for filing objections to the Trustee's Final Report?

It's good to see the SEC taking action for Reg SHO violations.

shajandr,

Your re-post of one of my 2009 messages only demonstrates the degree to which investors were harmed by the Regulatory response to the situation they faced after the share repurchase was announced.

More precisely, we were harmed starting with the Regulatory response to the DWAC, which was created in February 2009. More than enough certs were created by the Transfer Agent, at management's direction, to then accumulate the shares for repurchase.

Opinion letters from Bomart were not necessary for those post-DWAC certs, which likely came from Cede shares previously issued. Why else was there no list of shareholders filed in the bankruptcy proceeding? Why else are brokerages unable to verify the authenticity of the shares they sold to us?

To make the surreptitious accumulation, it had to appear that the post-DWAC issuances were OIS transactions (original issuances of shares). Bomart was created to deceive the market participants into believing that these post-DWAC issuances were OIS transactions. I think Moskowitz was responsible for continuing that deception, and that is why he plead guilty. But the target of that deception was not the shareholders who were buying shares. It was the market participants who were naked shorting those shares, and the regulators who were negligently allowing that to happen.

It was fully explained. You say you've read the Pacer docs, so you should know that.

I agree that Moskowitz likely wrote the Bomart letters. I don't think I've ever said otherwise.

We agree on the fact that 144 attorney opinion letters were NOT required. So we have a fake lawyer doing legal work that was not necessary. He was probably paid in monopoly money.

Again, you totally disregard the Lazauskas Settlement, which was obtained precisely because Lazauskas DID engage in or permit the purchase of millions of dollars of the company's stock.

I doubt it.

There was no other way to complete the share repurchase than to create Bomart. A real lawyer would not have written opinion letters to remove legends from certs that came from unrestricted Cede shares. The data supports my conclusion, and the lack of share-related transparency reinforces that position. The DOJ's Share Forfeiture Order is nothing more than an attempt to forever hide the harm caused to the investing public in a larger operation designed to do just the opposite. But, noble intentions do not lessen the collateral damage this operation has caused.

No. I think it's 60 days from the initial publication date, and 30 days from the final.

Not surprising. I guess rescheduling until June 17th would have been a little too obvious.

Why do you say that millions of dollars spent repurchasing shares has nothing to do with a share buyback? I'm not following you.

I don't understand why you say it's utter nonsense, shajandr. You do realize that the Settlement Agreement between the Trustee and Frank Lazauskas is a docketed public record in the bankruptcy court, don't you?

There are some pretty sharp people here KLee. I learn from them. And you are right. There is a LOT more to this story.

Well, the trustee picked up a $490,000 Settlement from the D&O insurance provider because of the millions Lazauskas allowed to be spent repurchasing shares. Again, that is information already provided to the court.

It's fully explained in my letter to the court regarding SpongeTech's Share Reupuchase: Motive, Method, and Opportunity.

Maybe I'm not making myself clear. I studied the stock issuance directions Steven sent to Olde Monmouth, along with the opinion letters and resolutions that went with them. Those documents actually served as the basis for a significant amount of work I provided to the bankruptcy court.

I agree he raised the AS. He HAD to, to reduce the OS.

I think he also authored and submitted the Bomart opinion letters. He couldn't, at that point, get a lawyer to render an opinion on the shares. There was no need for attorney opinions.

The OS could not have been reduced, if the AS hadn't been increased. There's no law against raising the AS.

Of course the DOJ would have wanted to know, although I was too rushed to clarify myself any better than I did. Withholding information about third parties from the public is what I was alluding to.

If you save the docs, dalessan, feel free to drop me a line.

I don't think the Bomart opinion letters were even necessary. So a fictitious lawyer may have been exactly what was needed to fulfill a fictitious need for legal opinions.

Well, what guilty pleas were entered that would have third party influence? Not Metter, for the stock issuances to his wife's company. Not Cavanagh and Nicolois, whose guilty pleas were for structuring. Eisenberg, perhaps, as well as Tepfer. But I think these violations may have been post-Olde Monmouth (or post the SEC's initial Complaint).

Moskowitz, however, is a different story. In his case, though, I actually think his plea deal may have hinged on his NOT revealing third party involvement.

As far as Pensley and Halperin, what's taking so long in prosecuting their cases? Personally, I don't think those cases can be made.

All of this is just my opinion, and shooting from the cuff. I have some time constraints right now that prevent a more thorough response.

Actually, it can be VERY GOOD for shareholders.

You'll see soon enough.

dalessan,

Have you read any of my letters to the bankruptcy judge? There are several of them in the "intro" section of our message board.

Please let me know.

Thanks,
Jay

All in due time.

No, it's not the SEC's turn yet, although they probably wish it was.

"Proper discovery" is the term that was specified. Why is that? Why now?

I'm very interested in events going forward.

The bankruptcy case can be re-opened if, for example, "proper discovery" would uncover significant claims for the estate. That is but one of the options left open for us.

I've figured out what you were saying, poster, and I have reciprocated.

I'm only speaking for myself, David, and it only pertains to some of the submissions I've sent to the bankruptcy court.

However, scion's sharing of legal documents has been a tremendous resource for all of us. They have been invaluable learning tools, just as the postings from some of the members here have been highly informative and instructive, even if they represent a view with which I disagree.

I don't think that I can have any part in making those submissions available on a public message board.