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.
In the past tense maybe, however there are some present tenses that can really hurt. And one could always split hairs about the past value and the time value of money. Or else why would anyone advocate a "refund plus interest" solution?
Why would anyone who has us completely trapped in a "no man's land" offer us more than the original investment?
For the broker's entertainment, for them to avoid future risk, because people can lose more on a stock than they paid for it (looking at the time value of the locked up money alone)?
Because BCIT is either such a tiny issue that no one else cares about it or it is so huge that it would crush the Earth's crust, if it ever traded again.
The key to the whole case is through the looking glass. Black is white and white is black. I don't want to be cryptic, but that's the way it is.
No lock, no name change, no revocation, no "clerical errors" just a lot of willfully neglecting to perform duties and/or wilfully misconducts themselves without reasonable excuse or justification.
And if not willful then it was purposeful and there is no statue of limitations on fraud. So correct the "errors" or aid an abet.
BCIT Post of the day, voted by the people I have heard from today by a wide margin. Who had access to what and when? And most importantly how and why?
BCITers raised a question yesterday and there is was answered. Or was it? And what does it mean?
Go BCITers, doing a fine job in the past 30-30-90 days.
Woulda, shoulda, coulda, yadda, yadda, yadda. once again the dealers have to deliver what they sold. Doubt few here want to sell. The irony is a cover would have been cheaper in 2005.
This is either small potatoes, or it is a big deal, pick whichever way you want to argue it. Will not matter in the long run.
JS: I read a draft of the settlement nearly two years ago
your post from 2008
How interesting having access to the settlement for two years before the rest of us.
Maybe that was the source of you havinga file for six months beore it became public posts from yesterday.
For BCIT, find any FINRA ads that state they will perform clerical errors to confuse the markets in a security when ordered to do so by the DTCC, then cover up the reasons, and start a cooperative web of deceit with the SEC. And when someone points this out to them they will say they will do nothing.
If this comes down to fraud and being warned and doing nothing could trigger that as a finding there is no statute of limitations.
That has been posted before.
And what is it called when a group of people collude to do something?
It's on the tip of my tongue. I wish I went to law school.
Maybe a reason for the FINRA-DTCC "clerical errors" that they seem to not ever be able to understand themselves or explain. And when explained to them they get all huffy and defensive.
FINRA, correct the "clerical error" when it is pointed out to you!
For BCIT a special little tip: Plenty of data recovery services all over the world from the US to Thailand, if the data wants to be recovered. Ask people in the hard drive business or others that may need to collect things like this that seem to be gone.
you are sorry for what?
and afraid not of what?
Are you saying Pam was to blame? that she is no not to blame?
Sorry I am used to reading posts where you quote exactly what you are responding to, so have to read the tea leaves of those two brief statements.
yes, that you had access to the file that lead to the Pam charges for 6 months before it came out, that it was no big deal, that Pam was not to blame. Yep
yes, entertaining, both amazing and entertaining that you claim to have just lost the files you used to brag about having.
yes, FINRA and who made the ads, that's been covered before. Are you reading any of this?
Please show me the FINRA ad where they state that when they will screw up and harm a stock that they will do nothing to correct a mistake and in essence protect the brokers with fraud?
Plenty of evidence to go with and without any ads
in any event.
Thanks for the input, keep it coming.
Agree, see other response, they either know and can repeat what they said or they are hiding based upon someone else's advice.
I agree a bunch of you BCITers, a legal team, and some publicity could make a mockery of their past claims and present communications.
suggest some mocking European press about how corrupt or inept the US regulators are.
My guess is whomever claimed that FINRA did all those good and cool things has been shown the door and the shredders and burn barrels are running full time at FINRA. So showing they have no proof of what they said could get interesting for them. There best defense may be to claim they are clueless about their own communications, A hell of a defense.
Keep at it, copies of the video do exist and can become part of a legal action. Plenty of print ads out there in secondhand bookstores. Clipping services can find ads that have run. Like someone else posted alternatives are always open here when so much lieing and diversion from stated purposes happen.
No someone else is going to make FINRA show commercials as to what they claimed they said. FINRA requires companies to store what they claim regarding stocks, would be very funny.
Possible more instructive if FINRA destroyed evidence and does not follow rules and laws.
FINRA is into defensible territory and they know it and will through several more temper tantrums until whomever minds them reigns them in. But in their thrashing about they may not want to square up dealing with what they stated to all publicly a short time ago.
Look at FINRA as a delinquent teen, not wanting to do what is right and unable to remember what they said elsewhere. Peer pressure? I do not care what they claim made them do it, FINRA is not doing right at the moment and is most unhappy about being exposed.
More to come on this...
So hard to tell if the alphaeit soup regulators SEC, FINRA, etc.) are playing stupid to provide cover or are stupid. However once an error is pointed out how do they react?
Does the SEC correct communications to the US Senate?
Does FINRA explain AND correct the "clerical error?"
Interesting clerical error that can never be understood, explained or corrected.
And there we cross the line from malfeasance to fraud, not correcting something that you should have done, when it should have been clear to you that it was wrong at the time it happened.
FINRA seems embarrassed to be caught out, so they are either really stupid to not correct their simple little error or they are stupid to open up such an obvious can of worms.
And to the RISK departments at the brokers, your best advice at this moment is to do nothing while the evidence builds for slam dunk legal cases? see posts like actual lose vs. provable loss and enforcing the Customer Protection Rule.
Nice FINRA PR may explain enough for you to start down the what they claim and what they do route, where it ran, print and broadcast, and who made their campaign. And that was just 3-5 mins. looking on google
Discovery can be a fun part of a legal action, so enjoy yourself. and oh so relevant to BCIT this past week with FINRA not caring about their clerical errors, explaining how they happened or when they will be corrected. Plenty of questions to ask FINRA to explain and that list will grow.
FINRA Expands Investor Education Outreach with Integrated, Multimedia Advertising Campaign Aimed at Baby Boomers
http://www.finra.org/Newsroom/NewsReleases/2007/P037460
Re FINRA ads, can see what existed in print, magazines or newspapers, or as part of a discovery process, should it ever come to a lawsuit or some other process, like a FOIA, ads are often recorded by the broadcasters as part of the billing process, sort of a proof of life ran without glitches, they will still exist in some form and the agency that wrote and created it should also have copies. FINRA may try to run the virtual shredders, but most legal departments require some data retention and that alone means you may be able to get a copy from them.
We have all seen the ads and that may be enough to find someone to look for teh proof of what they claim or claimed. And I doubt any of us have seen an ad that says they did not mean what they said. So the last ads are still in effect. Not a lawyer, but I am sure there are some that could inform along these lines of approach.
Of wrap it back in on them make a complaint with them or some other watchdog, that their public claims do not match their actions, past and present. Would be funny to see the letter from them saying they cannot investigate themselves, or that someone else says that FINRA cannot ever be investigated.
Apparently they think they are above the law and regulation, but people with not so hot approval ratings, Congress, can be moved by obvious misuse or abuse of power and one can imagine scenarios where the sweeping brush of reform is more of a threat then doing what you are supposed to be doing or claim to do for people.
And the "clerical error" was never fixed.
Several obvious things here that should or could be corrected, clerical error fixed, BCIT cleared of revocation, DTCC lock lifted, SEC letter to Sec. Grassley corrected.
Hard to say if such trail of obvious correctable yet never corrected mistakes is malfeasance, incompetence, or fraud, but that so many try to turn a simple solution into some supposed insolvable mystery...
Ah the both ways defense! Energy Source is revoked, no it's not, but BCIT is delinquent. If BCIT is delinquent I am sure the SEC will wait a few days for it to get current.
If BCIT is not revoked and we know now it is not, the clock resets back to 2009, sure some filings may need to be updated, but the "clerical error" or errors were never explained. The regulators were never keen on explaining much because this is too big to allow covering or too small to matter.
Ladies and gentleman, the both ways defense.
End of discussion!
If the big brokers are not holding certs and the DTC does not have bad certs, why would this be still locked due to the "bad certs" being out there?
Where are these "bad certs"?
Or is that another "clerical error"?
Sorry,you said it would never happen, about 48 hours ago, now you say it is all meaningless, so not buying any of what you are saying about how this means nothing.
A whole round of "I have a cert and where are your certs for me?" communications can now go to the brokers. And brokers and people can now buy certs. Is that a meaningful development in any legal proceedings now or in the future?
All sorts of excuses are falling off of the table. Been keeping a list? Addressed in the past few months:
The DTCC does not have any bearing on this stock.
The brokers tried to have it both ways using the lock as an excuse to not deliver certs.
That there are few certs in the Cede pile.
That there is a TA.
Pammy is still not the TA and never was.
That certs are available.
I could go on, but some seem to want the glass to be half shattered rather than half full or half empty even.
Now I want certificates. yes, me also, anything else is a distraction. Pretty darn basic.
yep, if making people complete a contractual obligation is the "end of the world" then we are all in a heap of hurt. How dare people insist that they get the certs that they bought in a revoked stock, the US and Nevada laws be damned.
I have not asked my broker for anything other then if I had real shares and when I could have my certs.
If I never had any shares and "cannot deliver them" because I do not or ever want to buy them, then I would try to distract from the simplicity of this.
We bought shares, deliver them.
DTCC says Empire is not the TA, they claim the fraud TA Pam is, maybe that is the "clerical error" the DTC used to prevent us from trading.
DTC makes simple errors that they will not correct, the SEC writes untruthful letters to US Senators and refuses to change or correct them if and when they find out what they should have know was wrong.
Either these people need to leave so real people can do their job or we may have even worse a butcher with his finger on the scales, people making all this little tiny "mistakes" that they never get around to correcting.
DTCC uses Pam as an excuse, she gets a slap on the wrist and everyone in malfeasanceville is happy for another day.
JS often claimed that naked short selling did not exist, if it did it was by accident, maybe it happened with "real stocks" but not in the pinks, and if it was done it was only done to make the security "more liquid". Possibly a few other "explanations"
Not sure what the excuse, distraction, du jour may be from JS, but that is a lot of shares sold that do not exist. And yes none of it is legal. Fraud upon fraud.
would appear that The SEC do not know the answers to the question we may need to start a list of questions that the SEC cannot seem to answer or does not want to answer. Seems like an active strategy to not know or state anything and then hide behind a wall of purposeful confusion.
malfeasance or fraud by the SEC, some choice,
they can play the idiot game over BCIT, but they cannot hide on both sides of a question like "how many shareholders are there?"
If they know that what they wrote or told a US Senator was wrong, what did they know that it was wrong and when did they know it? When did they correct their communications to the Senator? Have they not yet figured out what they wrote was wrong? If they are told what they wrote is wrong will they retract and rewrite that letter? Knowing now that something was wrong and doing nothing now about it? That would have to be more malfeasance or fraud.
They can play the clod and dunderhead, but not for long.
The DTC still claims Pammy is the TA!? Glad they have made themselves irrelevant in this matter, if the best they could do was hide behind Pammy the fraudster.