Hemi Energy Group Inc. (fka HMGP)

[1581]

If I am reading this right, and I am sure others will let me know, it is not something Hemi can control and is further evidence of NSS. Someone with better understanding may get more out of it than me. Just trying to put the issue to rest.
This is a small excerpt of a long article.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Further, and absolutely critically, unless the SEC is going to forbid the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation ("DTC") from loaning out shares that DTC does not have to lend (but "lends" anyway, creating phantom shares that are subsequently used to negatively affect the market for the victim security), "enter[ing] into a 'bona fide' arrangement to borrow the security" will be a non-event for DTC's participants.

To date there appears to be no interest at the SEC in curbing the activities of the ultimate enabling entity for market manipulation via "naked" short selling, which is DTC and its stock lending (better described as its counterfeiting and unregistered distribution) profit center. As long as DTC-supposedly a fiduciary, holding securities in trust for the owners and their representative broker dealers-is permitted to lend the same securities to multiple participants at the same time, charging fees to each participant, and all this without the knowledge or consent of the beneficial owner of the securities, market manipulation will occur. The SEC should bar DTC from lending securities. Period. Why should DTC be allowed to lend someone else's property, which DTC claims to hold in trust, without that person's informed consent, to a broker who is going to use the shares to try to diminish the value of the owner's same property-short selling against the rightful owner's financial interests-and thereby damaging the owner! It is unfathomable that the SEC would allow this to occur, all to the exclusive profit of DTC, its subsidiaries and its "participants" and to the clear detriment of everyone else. At the very least, forbid DTC from ever lending more shares of a security than it actually holds, require outside accountability, and require DTC to deliver the proceeds of such loans to the owners of the securities, not to the rightful owners' so-called "fiduciaries." This scam is unconscionable and must be stopped, and one way or another it will be stopped once the investing public finds out what is happening and how they are being victimized by this so called "Trust" and their so called "fiduciaries." It would be nice to see the SEC take the lead on this.

Again I emphasize, I see nowhere among the requirements listed in the "rules of the registered clearing agency that processed the transaction" the requirement that all non-settled trades actually be settled! Why not, in addition to the penalties stated that the clearing agency is to impose on violators, require the violators to go into the market and purchase the securities they have illegally sold short, and surrender all profits from the trade? Better yet, require the buying broker to inform his client of all settlement failures, and give the buyer the right to cancel any trade that does not timely settle. The fear of buy-in's and potential market losses therefrom will be a greater deterrent than the "penalties" suggested in the Proposed Rule. A NASD wrist slap obviously creates no terror for the industry, because today it does little if anything to deter the behavior of the violator or its peers; if this were not so, why would the same brokers and market makers get fined again and again for the same behavior? A $10,000.00 fine and "censure" is not going to deter a broker or market maker that made $500,000.00 violating the rule for which it was "penalized." It is simply a cost of doing business, and a tax deductible one at that.


http://www.rgm.com/articles/godwin.html