Digital Brand Media and Marketing Group Inc (DBMM)

[MU_Redskin1]

SEC DOEnforcement CONSPIRACY & CORRUPTION was reveled by the Inspector General and third party forensic investigators! Department of Enforcement spying on or covertly obtaining Judiciary emails seems pretty corrupt to me! Those harmed have grounds for a class action lawsuit imo.

https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/second-commission-statement-relating-certain-administrative-adjudications

Second Commission Statement Relating to Certain Administrative Adjudications
The Commission

June 2, 2023

On April 5, 2022, the Commission issued a Statement Relating to Certain Administrative Adjudications (the “April 5 Statement”) describing a control deficiency related to the separation of enforcement and adjudicatory functions within the agency’s system for administrative adjudication. As the April 5 Statement explained, for a period of time, certain databases maintained by our Office of the Secretary (“OS”) were not configured to restrict access by staff from our Division of Enforcement (“Enforcement”) to memoranda drafted by staff from the Adjudication Group (“Adjudication”) in our Office of the General Counsel (“OGC”). As a result, in a number of adjudicatory matters, administrative support staff from Enforcement responsible for maintaining Enforcement’s case files accessed Adjudication memoranda via OS’s databases. In many instances, those administrative staff also emailed Adjudication memoranda to other administrative staff for potential upload to Enforcement databases; once uploaded, the memoranda became accessible more broadly to Enforcement staff.

When it was discovered that Enforcement staff had access to Adjudication memoranda, the Commissioners were notified, as was the Commission’s Office of Inspector General. As the April 5 Statement explained, the Chair immediately directed the implementation of remedial measures, including enhanced access controls, to ensure that Enforcement staff would no longer be able to access these memoranda in the OS databases or through the Enforcement databases to which they may have been uploaded. The Chair also initiated a comprehensive internal review to assess the scope and potential impact of the control deficiency. This review has been conducted by experienced investigative staff from the Division of Examinations under the supervision of the Commission’s General Counsel (the “review team”). As noted in the April 5 Statement, the review team has been supported by Berkeley Research Group, LLC, a consulting firm retained by OGC that includes a team of experienced investigators and forensic analysts.

The April 5 Statement disclosed the review team’s findings regarding two matters arising from administrative adjudicatory proceedings as to which challenges were pending in the federal courts. In the April 5 Statement, the Commission also committed to releasing information about additional affected matters. We are now releasing the below statement from the review team, which provides additional information about the two matters discussed in the April 5 Statement, as well as findings regarding additional adjudicatory matters that are currently pending before us. Those matters include 28 matters as to which one or more Adjudication memoranda specific to a particular matter were accessed by Enforcement administrative staff, as well as 61 additional matters in which one or more Adjudication memoranda broadly applicable to numerous pending matters were accessed by Enforcement administrative staff.

We deeply regret that the agency’s internal systems lacked sufficient safeguards surrounding access to Adjudication memoranda, and we are continuing our work to ensure that, going forward, work product from the Adjudication staff is appropriately safeguarded. We take this lapse in controls very seriously and are committed to both informing the public about the scope of this issue and preventing any similar lapses in the future.

The information presented below is based on the work of the review team. We will release additional findings from the review team as appropriate

12. Digital Brand Media & Marketing Group, Inc. and Intellicell Biosciences, Inc., Admin. Proc. 3-17990

The Commission issued an OIP in this matter on May 16, 2017.[83] In June 2017, an ALJ issued an initial decision, finding respondent Intellicell in default, determining that it had violated the Exchange Act by failing to file required periodic reports, and directing that the registration of all classes of its securities should be revoked. In October 2017, the Commission issued an order providing that the ALJ’s decision regarding Intellicell had become the final decision of the Commission.[84] In November 2017, the ALJ issued an initial decision finding that respondent Digital Brand Media had violated the Exchange Act by failing to file required periodic reports and directing that the registration of all classes of its securities should be revoked.[85] Days later, the Commission issued an order remanding for additional proceedings all pending adjudicatory matters; that order encompassed proceedings like this one in which final Commission opinions had issued as to at least one respondent but the time to seek further review of those decisions had not yet expired.[86]

In February 2018, the ALJ ratified the initial decision as to Intellicell.[87] Before the ALJ had completed reconsideration of the initial decision as to Digital Brand Media, the Commission assigned the entire matter (encompassing both respondents) to a new ALJ for further reconsideration in light of Lucia. The new ALJ issued initial decisions as to each respondent in November 2019, finding (1) that Intellicell remained in default, and (2) that although Digital Brand Media had failed to timely file its required periodic reports, the company had become and remained current in its reporting requirements and therefore that no sanctions should be imposed.[88] Enforcement appealed the decision regarding Digital Brand Media to the Commission, where the matter remains pending as to both respondents.

As detailed in Exhibit 2, an administrative staff member in Enforcement accessed one case-specific Adjudication memorandum relating to the Digital Brand Media matter. That individual emailed the memorandum to other administrative staff, who uploaded it to the Digital Brand Media case file in the Enforcement Centralized Database. The administrative staff member also uploaded another Adjudication memorandum to the same case file, though that memorandum was not related to the Digital Brand Media matter.[89]

The review team found no evidence that any of the individuals assigned to investigate and prosecute the Digital Brand Media matter ever accessed or took any action influenced by these memoranda. The review team also found no evidence that any of these individuals contacted or communicated with the Adjudication staff advising the Commission in its decision-making in this matter.

The Department of Enforcement was taking advantage of a security flaw in the Adjudication database to screw and suppress defendant rights to a fair and expedient decision by the SEC Commissioners!

Tragic and Criminal, I hope some of these crooked Prosecutors are reprimanded or fired!

My last comment on this SEC bull$hit, time to move on we have bigger fish to fry!

GLTA DBMM 2.0!

Cheers, Red