Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
The Powers That Be
OMG you have got to be sheeting me>???LOL
APOLOGIA 3/24/12
On New years eve, nearly three months ago now, I advised that Iraq is “… now a sovereign country, [and] will have an internationally recognized and tradable currency by January 1, 2012.” Premised on that understanding, I further advised that “…distribution of the CMKM pay-outs is truly imminent – with-in hours/days.” While I verily believed that information, and the conclusions based thereon, that condition has not yet come to pass. Although it was and remains true that Iraq is a sovereign country and does have internationally recognized currency, it does not yet have internationally re-valued tradable currency. My conclusions, while based on verified information, were premature; for that, I humbly apologize. I know the consternation and concern that has been caused; I assure you that that was never my intent, so I apologize for that as well.
In spite of this delay, I can still affirm to you that there was simply no other way to accomplish what will become the new foundation of this great country, and establish the agenda for its rebirth in form and fashion as originally set forth in the US Constitution. As I have previously stated, we continue to be confronted by the vilest, most contemptible, well financed forces for evil on the planet – and we have won! I know, all these months later, that while that might seem like an idle boast; it merely reflects the mighty struggle that has been raging in the shadows. Further, it reflects the concern and diligence of TPTB who are leaving no stone unturned to ensure that when all payees receive their funds, their funds will be safe.
Again, I apologize for prematurely advising that the currency re-set was essentially finished on 12/31/11, and expressing my opinion that if any “… additional delays are encountered, …… they will be de minimus in both time and substance.
Sincerely,
A. Clifton Hodges (CSBN 046803)
HODGES AND ASSOCIATES
Al is giving them every chance to settle and still save face
IMO
well lets get er done
Shouldn't they of had their chit together by now!!??.I mean how long does it take to file a simple brief???..They are stalling for some reason IMO
Mr. Staub Plaintiffs will not oppose,
A. Clifton Hodges (CSBN 046803)
HODGES AND ASSOCIATES
4510 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd., Suite 201
Westlake Village, CA 91362
TEL: (805) 371-7515
FAX: (805) 371-7514
E-Mail: al@hodgesandassociates.com
From: Staub, Keith (USACAC) [mailto:Keith.Staub@usdoj.gov]
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 4:17 PM
To: Al
Subject: Anderson
Mr. Hodges:
The federal defendants intend to file a motion for an extension of 30 days in which to file their answering brief. Please advise if plaintiffs intend to oppose or not. Thanks.
Keith M. Staub
Assistant U.S. Attorney
United States Attorney's Office
300 N. Los Angeles Street, # 7516
Los Angeles, CA 90012
(213) 894-7423
fax: (213) 894-7819
he works for the city highway dept
my cousin lives in renton
lol it's like early July here
so many records were set in Maine over the last few days the weathermen just gave up..lol it was in the hundreds of records set!
Tuesday: Patchy fog before 7am. Otherwise, mostly sunny, with a high near 67. West wind between 3 and 7 mph.
could be a hot summer for you folks!
It's insane!..I was in my tee shirt today sweating!! it is going to be 75F here Wednesday the birds drained our feeder twice today
3 year olds are more mature today then when we were growing up
I am Sure JB doesn't see anything wrong with Robo signing either lol
took it about 5 weeks ago..it was 50F today and the rest of the week
is going to be in the 60-70F range..Just plain CRAZY for up here this time of year!!>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://forecast.weather.gov/MapClick.php?map.x=203&map.y=47&site=CAR&FcstType=text&zmx=1&zmy=1
FBI building insider trading cases on 120 people
February 28, 20124: The FBI is investigating suspected criminal insider trading on Wall Street. AFP
FEDERAL authorities are seeking to build insider trading cases against roughly 120 individuals on and off Wall Street in an expanding criminal insider trading investigation that has shaken the financial and corporate worlds.
The disclosure - the first time authorities have quantified the number of people under scrutiny - comes on the heels of a string of successful prosecutions of insider trading.
Since late 2009, prosecutors have charged 66 individuals at hedge funds and other companies with insider trading and won 57 convictions or guilty pleas.
"We've identified them, and now of course we have to build a case around that," David Chaves, a senior FBI agent, said Monday in an interview following a presentation to reporters at FBI headquarters in Manhattan.
During the presentation, just blocks from Wall Street, the FBI unveiled a one-minute public service announcement against insider trading featuring actor Michael Douglas, whose fictional character Gordon Gekko in the 1987 movie "Wall Street" popularized the line: "Greed, for lack of a better word, is good."
The government currently is investigating whether roughly 240 individuals, including hedge-fund traders and company insiders, improperly shared insider information, said Chaves.
Roughly half of those, or 120, are "targets," meaning the government believes they have violated insider-trading laws and is actively building cases against them, according to Chaves, who oversees one of two white-collar crime squads handling the New York-based insider trading investigations.
The rest are what the FBI calls "subjects," meaning investigators believe they could have committed crimes and have approached them or could do so to build cases.
The large number of "targets" of the investigation - dubbed "Perfect Hedge" by FBI agents - illustrates that the insider trading probe is broader and deeper than previously believed and potentially the most expansive of its kind in modern history.
In the major 1980s insider trading cases, "generally the number of people in a particular ring, you could count on both hands," said Barry Goldsmith, a lawyer who back then was a chief litigation counsel in the SEC's enforcement division.
The current rings are much broader, involving bankers, analysts, corporate insiders, consultants and traders, he said.
Monday's disclosure indicates that arrests could move into new firms on Wall Street and US corporations, and could continue for several more years.
In the past year, the government has won a number of insider trading convictions, using wiretaps and other investigative methods once confined to terrorist and drug cases.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/fbi-building-insider-trading-cases-on-120-people/story-e6frf7lf-1226284202497
it is really simple..All I want is Justice..If that means perp walks and no money it works for me...Where is old Urban these days anyhoo??
He sure is stealthy
It's a rigged game JB and I don't like the odds they offer..the house always wins..and yes i got caught up in the hype of CMKX back in the summer of 2004 with the announcment of Rog the Dodge and the kimberlite.....all that led to Al and the biggest lawsuit in the history of the markets...
and we DID do the Largest CERT PULL in the history of the world..So yes I say it ain't over till it's over
I Do JB I have a 180,000 waterfront cottage I own and a 120,000 duplex with no mortgage and producing 14,000 revenue a year for me.FK the stock market and all the crooks running it
imo
Investors don't matter anymore JB and haven't for some time now..this is the monster in the room>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
High-Frequency Trading
Updated: Oct. 10, 2011
Computerized trading of stocks first became a significant part of the Wall Street scene in the 1980s, when it was blamed for exacerbating the market plunges in October 1987. Since then, the computers involved have grown vastly more powerful and the algorithms that guide their trading vastly more sophisticated.
For years, high-frequency trading firms have operated in the shadows, often far from Wall Street, trading stocks at warp speed and reaping billions while criticism rose that they were damaging markets and hurting ordinary investors. Now they are stepping into the light to buff their image with regulators, the public and other investors.
After quietly growing to account for about 60 percent of the seven billion shares that change hands daily on United States stock markets, the firms are trying to stave off the regulators who are proposing to curb their activities. To make their case, the firms have formed their first industry trade group, hired former Securities and Exchange Commission staff members and spent nearly $2 million in the last few years on Washington lobbying and contributions to lawmakers. Some even want to be called “automated trading professionals” rather than high-frequency traders.
High-frequency techniques are used by Wall Street banks and hedge funds, but it is new independent firms that account for the bulk of this new kind of activity. Most of them were founded in the last 10 to 12 years. Many are still relatively small, employing a dozen to a hundred people, though some have as many as 250.
Trading mostly with their owners’ money, they scoop up hundreds or thousands of shares in one transaction, only to offload them less than a second later before buying more. They can move millions of shares around in minutes, earning a tenth of a penny off each share.
As a group, they earned $12.9 billion in profit in 2009 and 2010, according to the Tabb Group, a specialist on the markets.
The S.E.C. started to think these firms needed tighter controls in early 2009 when analysts for the first time began to point to the sector’s billions in profit, and critics wondered whether their technological firepower gave them an unfair advantage.
The scrutiny intensified after the May 6, 2010, flash crash, one of the most abrupt market moves in recent history, when stocks plunged some 700 points in minutes before recovering.
Regulators did not blame high-frequency traders for causing the sell-off. But some firms may have exacerbated the decline by switching off their machines and withdrawing from the market. As the number of buyers dropped drastically, so too did the stock prices.
By late 2011 regulators in the United States and overseas were cracking down on computerized high-speed trading, worried that as it spreads around the globe it is making market swings worse.
Most on wall street are corrupt..just look at goldman sachs it's a den of thieves read this and learn something for once JB>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How Goldman Sachs Created the Food Crisis
Don't blame American appetites, rising oil prices, or genetically modified crops for rising food prices. Wall Street's at fault for the spiraling cost of food.
Blankfiend doing GODS WORK
Demand and supply certainly matter. But there's another reason why food across the world has become so expensive: Wall Street greed.
It took the brilliant minds of Goldman Sachs to realize the simple truth that nothing is more valuable than our daily bread. And where there's value, there's money to be made. In 1991, Goldman bankers, led by their prescient president Gary Cohn, came up with a new kind of investment product, a derivative that tracked 24 raw materials, from precious metals and energy to coffee, cocoa, cattle, corn, hogs, soy, and wheat. They weighted the investment value of each element, blended and commingled the parts into sums, then reduced what had been a complicated collection of real things into a mathematical formula that could be expressed as a single manifestation, to be known henceforth as the Goldman Sachs Commodity Index (GSCI).
For just under a decade, the GSCI remained a relatively static investment vehicle, as bankers remained more interested in risk and collateralized debt than in anything that could be literally sowed or reaped. Then, in 1999, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission deregulated futures markets. All of a sudden, bankers could take as large a position in grains as they liked, an opportunity that had, since the Great Depression, only been available to those who actually had something to do with the production of our food.
Change was coming to the great grain exchanges of Chicago, Minneapolis, and Kansas City -- which for 150 years had helped to moderate the peaks and valleys of global food prices. Farming may seem bucolic, but it is an inherently volatile industry, subject to the vicissitudes of weather, disease, and disaster. The grain futures trading system pioneered after the American Civil War by the founders of Archer Daniels Midland, General Mills, and Pillsbury helped to establish America as a financial juggernaut to rival and eventually surpass Europe. The grain markets also insulated American farmers and millers from the inherent risks of their profession. The basic idea was the "forward contract," an agreement between sellers and buyers of wheat for a reasonable bushel price -- even before that bushel had been grown. Not only did a grain "future" help to keep the price of a loaf of bread at the bakery -- or later, the supermarket -- stable, but the market allowed farmers to hedge against lean times, and to invest in their farms and businesses. The result: Over the course of the 20th century, the real price of wheat decreased (despite a hiccup or two, particularly during the 1970s inflationary spiral), spurring the development of American agribusiness. After World War II, the United States was routinely producing a grain surplus, which became an essential element of its Cold War political, economic, and humanitarian strategies -- not to mention the fact that American grain fed millions of hungry people across the world.
Futures markets traditionally included two kinds of players. On one side were the farmers, the millers, and the warehousemen, market players who have a real, physical stake in wheat. This group not only includes corn growers in Iowa or wheat farmers in Nebraska, but major multinational corporations like Pizza Hut, Kraft, Nestlé, Sara Lee, Tyson Foods, and McDonald's -- whose New York Stock Exchange shares rise and fall on their ability to bring food to peoples' car windows, doorsteps, and supermarket shelves at competitive prices. These market participants are called "bona fide" hedgers, because they actually need to buy and sell cereals.
On the other side is the speculator. The speculator neither produces nor consumes corn or soy or wheat, and wouldn't have a place to put the 20 tons of cereal he might buy at any given moment if ever it were delivered. Speculators make money through traditional market behavior, the arbitrage of buying low and selling high. And the physical stakeholders in grain futures have as a general rule welcomed traditional speculators to their market, for their endless stream of buy and sell orders gives the market its liquidity and provides bona fide hedgers a way to manage risk by allowing them to sell and buy just as they pleased.
But Goldman's index perverted the symmetry of this system. The structure of the GSCI paid no heed to the centuries-old buy-sell/sell-buy patterns. This newfangled derivative product was "long only," which meant the product was constructed to buy commodities, and only buy. At the bottom of this "long-only" strategy lay an intent to transform an investment in commodities (previously the purview of specialists) into something that looked a great deal like an investment in a stock -- the kind of asset class wherein anyone could park their money and let it accrue for decades (along the lines of General Electric or Apple). Once the commodity market had been made to look more like the stock market, bankers could expect new influxes of ready cash. But the long-only strategy possessed a flaw, at least for those of us who eat. The GSCI did not include a mechanism to sell or "short" a commodity.
This imbalance undermined the innate structure of the commodities markets, requiring bankers to buy and keep buying -- no matter what the price. Every time the due date of a long-only commodity index futures contract neared, bankers were required to "roll" their multi-billion dollar backlog of buy orders over into the next futures contract, two or three months down the line. And since the deflationary impact of shorting a position simply wasn't part of the GSCI, professional grain traders could make a killing by anticipating the market fluctuations these "rolls" would inevitably cause. "I make a living off the dumb money," commodity trader Emil van Essen told Businessweek last year. Commodity traders employed by the banks that had created the commodity index funds in the first place rode the tides of profit.
Bankers recognized a good system when they saw it, and dozens of speculative non-physical hedgers followed Goldman's lead and joined the commodities index game, including Barclays, Deutsche Bank, Pimco, JP Morgan Chase, AIG, Bear Stearns, and Lehman Brothers, to name but a few purveyors of commodity index funds. The scene had been set for food inflation that would eventually catch unawares some of the largest milling, processing, and retailing corporations in the United States, and send shockwaves throughout the world.
The money tells the story. Since the bursting of the tech bubble in 2000, there has been a 50-fold increase in dollars invested in commodity index funds. To put the phenomenon in real terms: In 2003, the commodities futures market still totaled a sleepy $13 billion. But when the global financial crisis sent investors running scared in early 2008, and as dollars, pounds, and euros evaded investor confidence, commodities -- including food -- seemed like the last, best place for hedge, pension, and sovereign wealth funds to park their cash. "You had people who had no clue what commodities were all about suddenly buying commodities," an analyst from the United States Department of Agriculture told me. In the first 55 days of 2008, speculators poured $55 billion into commodity markets, and by July, $318 billion was roiling the markets. Food inflation has remained steady since.
The money flowed, and the bankers were ready with a sparkling new casino of food derivatives. Spearheaded by oil and gas prices (the dominant commodities of the index funds) the new investment products ignited the markets of all the other indexed commodities, which led to a problem familiar to those versed in the history of tulips, dot-coms, and cheap real estate: a food bubble. Hard red spring wheat, which usually trades in the $4 to $6 dollar range per 60-pound bushel, broke all previous records as the futures contract climbed into the teens and kept on going until it topped $25. And so, from 2005 to 2008, the worldwide price of food rose 80 percent -- and has kept rising. "It's unprecedented how much investment capital we've seen in commodity markets," Kendell Keith, president of the National Grain and Feed Association, told me. "There's no question there's been speculation." In a recently published briefing note, Olivier De Schutter, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, concluded that in 2008 "a significant portion of the price spike was due to the emergence of a speculative bubble."
What was happening to the grain markets was not the result of "speculation" in the traditional sense of buying low and selling high. Today, along with the cumulative index, the Standard & Poors GSCI provides 219 distinct index "tickers," so investors can boot up their Bloomberg system and bet on everything from palladium to soybean oil, biofuels to feeder cattle. But the boom in new speculative opportunities in global grain, edible oil, and livestock markets has created a vicious cycle. The more the price of food commodities increases, the more money pours into the sector, and the higher prices rise. Indeed, from 2003 to 2008, the volume of index fund speculation increased by 1,900 percent. "What we are experiencing is a demand shock coming from a new category of participant in the commodities futures markets," hedge fund Michael Masters testified before Congress in the midst of the 2008 food crisis.
The result of Wall Street's venture into grain and feed and livestock has been a shock to the global food production and delivery system. Not only does the world's food supply have to contend with constricted supply and increased demand for real grain, but investment bankers have engineered an artificial upward pull on the price of grain futures. The result: Imaginary wheat dominates the price of real wheat, as speculators (traditionally one-fifth of the market) now outnumber bona-fide hedgers four-to-one.
Today, bankers and traders sit at the top of the food chain -- the carnivores of the system, devouring everyone and everything below. Near the bottom toils the farmer. For him, the rising price of grain should have been a windfall, but speculation has also created spikes in everything the farmer must buy to grow his grain -- from seed to fertilizer to diesel fuel. At the very bottom lies the consumer. The average American, who spends roughly 8 to 12 percent of her weekly paycheck on food, did not immediately feel the crunch of rising costs. But for the roughly 2-billion people across the world who spend more than 50 percent of their income on food, the effects have been staggering: 250 million people joined the ranks of the hungry in 2008, bringing the total of the world's "food insecure" to a peak of 1 billion -- a number never seen before.
What's the solution? The last time I visited the Minneapolis Grain Exchange, I asked a handful of wheat brokers what would happen if the U.S. government simply outlawed long-only trading in food commodities for investment banks. Their reaction: laughter. One phone call to a bona-fide hedger like Cargill or Archer Daniels Midland and one secret swap of assets, and a bank's stake in the futures market is indistinguishable from that of an international wheat buyer. What if the government outlawed all long-only derivative products, I asked? Once again, laughter. Problem solved with another phone call, this time to a trading office in London or Hong Kong; the new food derivative markets have reached supranational proportions, beyond the reach of sovereign law.
Volatility in the food markets has also trashed what might have been a great opportunity for global cooperation. The higher the cost of corn, soy, rice, and wheat, the more the grain producing-nations of the world should cooperate in order to ensure that panicked (and generally poorer) grain-importing nations do not spark ever more dramatic contagions of food inflation and political upheaval. Instead, nervous countries have responded instead with me-first policies, from export bans to grain hoarding to neo-mercantilist land grabs in Africa. And efforts by concerned activists or international agencies to curb grain speculation have gone nowhere. All the while, the index funds continue to prosper, the bankers pocket the profits, and the world's poor teeter on the brink of starvation.
imo
Insider trading and naked short selling are two completely different animals, Jimmy.
The point being they are two thing done by corrupt and unethical Borkers
It really boils down to right and wrong honest and criminal..
At least we are fighting for justice
It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out the world is tilted toward the crooks right now Ie..wall street and WASHINGTON...
It stands to reason that their must be some powerful HONEST rich folks that feel the same way out there!?
I don't think it will matter after the trial anyhoo..Pat will have enough money to buy them..lol
It sure looks like the shorts would love to get it under 5.00 but i doubt they dare!? being watched and all?
Oh so if pat had a better business he wouldn't get robbed?
I smell trouble coming very soon>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>...
On Goldman Executive Greg Smith's Brave Departure
Wall Street is buzzing this morning about a resignation – a historic one. Greg Smith, the executive director and head of Goldman Sachs’s United States equity derivatives business in Europe, the Middle East and Africa, not only decided to quit Goldman, he decided to do it in the New York Times, eloquently deconstructing the firm’s moral slide in a lengthy op-ed piece.
The essence of Smith’s piece is devastating. He points to one simple, specific problem in the company: the fact that Goldman routinely screws its own clients. Anyone familiar with the report prepared by Senator Carl Levin’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations will recognize the jargon Smith points to in this line, in which he talks about what one has to do to become a leader in today’s Goldman:
Execute on the firm’s "axes," which is Goldman-speak for persuading your clients to invest in the stocks or other products that we are trying to get rid of because they are not seen as having a lot of potential profit.
We heard about "axes" before in the tales about loser mortgage-derivative products like Timberwolf – that Goldman gave incentives to executives to unload its most toxic crap on clients. It was one thing to read about it in a Senate report, but here we have it from one of the firm’s own directors. He goes further, talking about the ways in which Goldman executives derided their own clients as fools and dupes:
It makes me ill how callously people talk about ripping their clients off. Over the last 12 months I have seen five different managing directors refer to their own clients as "muppets," sometimes over internal e-mail. Even after the S.E.C., Fabulous Fab, Abacus, God’s work, Carl Levin, Vampire Squids? No humility? I mean, come on.
The resignation will have an effect on Goldman’s business. The firm’s share price opened this morning at 124.52; it’s down to 120.72 as of this writing (it dropped two percent while I was writing this blog), and it will probably dive further. Why? Because you can stack all the exposés on Goldman you want by degenerates like me and the McClatchy group, and you can even have a Senate subcommittee call for your executives to be tried for perjury, but that doesn’t necessarily move the Street.
But when one of the firm’s own partners is saying out loud that his company liked to "rip the eyeballs out" of "muppets" like you, then you start to wonder if maybe this firm is the best choice for managing your money. Hence we see headlines this morning like this item from Forbes.com: "Greg Smith Quits, Should Clients Fire Goldman Sachs?"
This always had to be the endgame for reforming Wall Street. It was never going to happen by having the government sweep through and impose a wave of draconian new regulations, although a more vigorous enforcement of existing laws might have helped. Nor could the Occupy protests or even a monster wave of civil lawsuits hope to really change the screw-your-clients, screw-everybody, grab-what-you-can culture of the modern financial services industry.
Real change was always going to have to come from within Wall Street itself, and the surest way for that to happen is for the managers of pension funds and union retirement funds and other institutional investors to see that the Goldmans of the world aren't just arrogant sleazebags, they’re also not terribly good at managing your money. As Smith writes:
It astounds me how little senior management gets a basic truth: If clients don't trust you they will eventually stop doing business with you. It doesn't matter how smart you are… These days, the most common question I get from junior analysts about derivatives is, "How much money did we make off the client" It bothers me every time I hear it, because it is a clear reflection of what they are observing from their leaders about the way they should behave.
Banking, and finance, is a business that has to be first and foremost about trust. The reason you're paying your broker/money manager such exorbitant sums is because that’s the value of integrity and honesty: You're paying for the comfort of knowing he has your best interests at heart.
But what we’ve found out in the last years is that these Too-Big-To-Fail megabanks like Goldman no longer see the margin in being truly trustworthy. The game now is about getting paid as much as possible and as quickly as possible, and if your client doesn’t like the way you managed his money, well, fuck him – let him try to find someone else on the market to deal him straight.
These guys have lost the fear of going out of business, because they can’t go out of business. After all, our government won’t let them. Beyond the bailouts, they’re all subsisting daily on massive loads of free cash from the Fed. No one can touch them, and sadly, most of the biggest institutional clients see getting clipped for a few points by Goldman or Chase as the cost of doing business.
The only way to break this cycle, since our government doesn't seem to want to end its habit of financially supporting fraud-committing, repeat-offending, client-fleecing banks, is for these big "muppet" clients to start taking their business elsewhere. Right now, many clients stay because they think that even if Goldman takes a bite out of them here and there, the bank still has the smartest guys in the room. But as Forbes writes this morning, this incident may turn Goldman into such a pariah that the best young bankers won't want to work there anymore:
Until a wave of talented people leave Goldman and go work for some other bank, many clients will stick with Goldman and hope for the best. That's why the biggest threat to Goldman's survival is that Smith’s departure — and the reasons he publicized so nicely in his Times op-ed — leads to a wider talent exodus.
Anyway, Smith's op-ed is a brave and thoughtful piece of writing:
My proudest moments in life — getting a full scholarship to go from South Africa to Stanford University, being selected as a Rhodes Scholar national finalist, winning a bronze medal for table tennis at the Maccabiah Games in Israel, known as the Jewish Olympics — have all come through hard work, with no shortcuts. Goldman Sachs today has become too much about shortcuts and not enough about achievement. It just doesn’t feel right to me anymore.
There are a lot of people who just want to tear Wall Street down and start over again, but what Smith did in this piece was show that people like him can be part of the solution. What he did couldn’t have been easy – kudos to him, and let's hope the inevitable blowback sent his way won't be too rough.
Update: Well, the blowback is already here. The Wall Street Journal this morning has stooped already to helping Goldman smear Smith. Here's their take:
Goldman is taking issue with other elements of Mr. Smith’s piece.
“We disagree with the views expressed, which we don’t think reflect the way we run our business,” a Goldman spokeswoman said. “In our view, we will only be successful if our clients are successful. This fundamental truth lies at the heart of how we conduct ourselves.”
Mr. Smith described himself as an executive director and head of Goldman’s U.S. equity derivatives business in Europe, the Middle East and Africa.
A person familiar with the matter said Mr. Smith’s role is actually vice president, a relatively junior position held by thousands of Goldman employees around the world. And Mr. Smith is the only employee in the derivatives business that he heads, this person said.
You just knew that sooner or later, the bank was going to come out and say that Smith was actually a janitor in Goldman's Mozambique office or something. It's just surprising they did it so quickly.
Anyone who reads these critiques and even thinks about believing them should go back and look at Senator Levin's report on Goldman. There's backup in there for all of Smith's allegations, from the bit about the axes to the derogatory comments about clients (only in the Levin report, they weren't "muppets," but a "white elephant, flying pig, and unicorn all at once"). All of this is in internal emails that were published long ago. The only difference now is that it's coming from one of Goldman's own people.
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/a-goldman-executives-brave-departure-20120314#ixzz1pJmoXRF4
It's coming to a head JB hope you're on the right side of it!?
Today: A slight chance of snow showers before 2pm, then a slight chance of rain and snow showers between 2pm and 3pm, then a slight chance of rain showers after 3pm. Mostly cloudy, with a high near 37. Wind chill values as low as -3. South wind around 9 mph. Chance of precipitation is 20%.
Plaintiffs - Appellants, D.C. No. 8:10-cv-00031-JVS-
Well It SEEMS we have an honest judge out there on our side Hmmmm
MLG v. Central District of California,
Santa Ana
CHRISTOPHER COX, an individual; et
al
ORDER
Defendants - Appellees.
Before: Peter L. Shaw, Appellate Commissioner.
The renewed motion for summary affirmance of this appeal is denied
because the arguments raised in the opening brief are sufficiently substantial to
warrant further consideration by a merits panel.
See United States v. Hooton, 693
F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (stating standard).
Appellees’ request to stay the briefing schedule pending disposition of the
motion for summary affirmance is denied as moot.
The answering brief is due 30 days after the date of this order. The optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering brief.
: MOTION DENIED