by Mark Faulk
Commentary - Aug 18, 2006
From now on, don't believe a word of anything the SEC tells you.
Chances are, they're lying. In a courtroom, they call it "impeaching
the witness," Attorneys refers to it as the "Once a liar, always a
liar" scenario.
Over a year and a half after the story of a little company called
Global Links Corp. was first reported by the late Gayle Essary at
FinancialWire.net, Dave Patch of investigatethesec.com has exposed
major fraud on Wall Street, and a blatant cover-up by the SEC. In
that story, which was cited by Senator Bob Bennett in a Senate
Banking Committee hearing in March of 2005, where he questioned then
SEC Chairman William Bennett about naked short selling, 50 million
shares were traded in the first two days after a single shareholder,
Robert Simpson, bought every single share. In fact, another
shareholder, Paul Flotos, bought 15% of Global Links stockafter
Simpson bought 100% of the company, and both shareholders registered
their purchases with the SEC, claiming 115% combined ownership in a
company that was still trading tens of millions of shares on a daily
basis.
Now, Dave Patch has received, through the Freedom of Information Act,
SEC records confirming that over ten million counterfeit shares of
Global Links stock were dumped into the market immediately after the
company did a reverse split and reduced the total share count to just
over one million real shares. The brokers sold millions upon millions
of fake shares, and the SEC covered it up. In fact, almost six
million shares still remained undelivered as of the end of 2005. In
classic cover-up mode, by calling the counterfeit shares "long fails"
instead of "short fails," the recent list only shows 6,800 shares
short for Global Links. So…only 6,800 counterfeit "short fails," but
millions of "long fails." It's pure distortion of the facts, it's
disinformation, sleight of hand. A fail is a fail is a fail.
I repeat: Don't believe a word of anything the SEC tells you.
There are several ways that an attorney can discredit an individual
in a court of law. According to Wikipedia:
Bias-- The individual is biased against one party or in favor of the
other.
Inconsistent Statement-- The witness has made two or more conflicting
statements. By exposing his conflicting statements, you reduce his
credibility.
Character-- Show that the witness has a community-recognized
reputation for dishonesty.
Prior Criminal Acts-- If the witness has committed any crime
involving dishonesty (i.e. larceny-by-trick, embezzlement, fraud,
etc.) then the prior conviction is admissible under every
circumstance. The judge cannot refuse this evidence because it is so
probative of dishonesty.
Bias? Conflicting statements? A reputation for dishonesty? Prior
criminal acts?
Try "all of the above."
The SEC has been caught covering up fraud, plain and simple. And if
they've done it once, chances are they've done it a thousand times.
Once a liar, always a liar. If there's any justice left in America
whatsoever, Congress will launch an immediate investigation into this
scandal, and the media coverage will trigger a public outcry that
will topple the hierarchy from Wall Street to Washington.
But what about the major media? Will they jump all over this story
and expose the SEC and the Wall Street elite who are robbing
shareholders blind? Will NBC, CNBC, CBS, AOL/Time Warner, or FOX
protect America against the corruption on Wall Street, or are they
somehow also "biased against one party or in favor of the other?" For
starters, the New York Stock Exchange sits on the board of directors
of every one of those news organizations, and all of the top
brokerage firms and investment banks fill out the majority of the
remaining seats.
In short, every single major news organization in America is
controlled by Wall Street.
The only mainstream writer to discuss the Global Links story was
Carol Remond, and in a July 26, 2005 article called Global Links
Corp: The Real Story the Faulking Truth discredited her as a liar who
printed quotes that company never made, and who dismissed the 60
million shares traded in two days (when NO shares should have been
available for sell at any price) as brokerage firms legally shorting
the stock to "instill liquidity in the market."
How do you use the excuse of instilling liquidity in the market for a
stock that DOESN'T HAVE A SINGLE SHARE FOR SALE?
This is the SEC's own response to "Does NSCC's stock borrow program
create counterfeit shares?":
"NSCC's stock borrow program, as approved by the Commission, permits
NSCC to borrow securities from its participants for the purpose of
completing settlements only if participants have made those
securities available to NSCC for this purpose and those securities
are on deposit in the participant's account at DTC."
Over a year ago, we put it this way: "Where did those brokers expect
to find the shares to cover those trades, since they DIDN'T EXIST?
Answer: they didn't expect to cover those trades, just as they
haven't covered trades in thousands of other companies' stock for
years. They expect the SEC and DTC to just let them get away with
criminal counterfeiting, because THAT'S HOW IT'S ALWAYS BEEN."
And now, Dave Patch has the evidence in his hands that makes that
statement look prophetic. THEY STILL HADN'T DELIVERED THE MAJORITY OF
THOSE SHARES A YEAR AND A HALF LATER, AND THE SEC KNEW IT, AND
COVERED IT UP. In the words of Bud Burrell, "the Dave Patch article
makes this `game over.' This kind of brutal arrogance is nothing more
or less than simple treason."
In Bob O'Brien's article Dave Patch Exposes SEC Colluding With Wall
Street To Defraud Investors, O'Brien facetiously says "I suppose that
it is possible that the SEC ignored Bennett's instruction to
Donaldson to look into Global Links and figure out what was going
on," and follows it with the comment "It isn't remotely likely."
The SEC knew, they were fully aware of the Global Links situation,
and they covered it up. In fact, while they allowed brokers to sell
millions upon millions of counterfeit shares, they were busy
investigating Global Links - trying to discredit the company itself.
In our June 26, 2005 article, company representative Pat Donahoo said,
"At present, the Company is cooperating with SEC requests for
information. All of their requests, thus far, seem to be directed at
potential company wrongdoing, and nothing has been mentioned of any
victimization of the company or its shareholders. It feels like they
would rather find any way to blame everything on somebody else,
rather than accept responsibility for something that should never
have happened. It's a pretty scary feeling for a country where
freedom is supposed to be a reality!"
Why did the SEC go after the company instead of following up on
Senator Bennett's request to investigate evidence of naked short
selling in the Global Links case?
Why didn't they investigate Etrade, who was singled out by Wells
Fargo Bank as the main culprit in the failure to deliver shares to
investors trying to get their certificates?
Why didn't they go after the DTC, who allowed millions of shares to
be traded when NOT ONE share was available in the NCSS stock borrow
pool?
Why didn't they investigate Carol Remond, who lied about Global Links
in her articles, and clearly slanted her coverage to cover up the
fraud committed by Wall Street?
Why did they fail to even respond to numerous investor inquiries
about failures to deliver stock in certificate form? One shareholder
was told by his broker that his certificates "somehow got `stuck' in
the system," and another was informed that "the stock had a chill on
it."
This reeks of a massive cover-up, one that extends all the way from
Wall Street to the SEC, and one that implicates those in Congress who
have allowed it to continue unchecked. Wall Street robbed America,
the SEC covered the tracks, and the media concocted the alibis. And
Congress turned a blind eye to the entire robbery.
One more time, for good measure: If it's happened once, then it's
happened a thousand times.
Once a liar, always a liar, and that's the Faulking Truth
