2late
I totally agree with the view of others that you have an agenda with posts
Correct. My agenda is to get three or four of you to understand a couple of mistakes you all keep making. No one will care if you are 95% correct. It's the 5% you keep messing up that people will remember you for.
Sadly, anyone who argues with you is labeled "shorty", a "basher", or someone with an agenda.
Law firms that argue cases before the Supreme Court don't take cases they believe they can't win.
I did not realize every case was tried in front of the Supreme Court. How about those crazy law firms that try drunk driving cases? Divorce cases? Plus, the slime law firms who will take a case just to run up some legal fees?
My post was about filing a lawsuit so that you have the ability to subpoena ledger logs and get Isaac to explain under oath why he made such a request.
You come back with some post about court cases before the Supreme Court?
The SEC finalized their investigation with a total of 230 million fraudulent shares.
The SEC's investigation was only focused on Mario's shares, the connection of those shares to Pam, and how Mario's shares entered the market. The SEC did not and had not looked into the entire number of shares the brokerages are claiming to hold for their clients. The SEC investigates individuals first...and if connected..the brokerages/broker-dealer that was used to facilitate the individual's fraud.
The DTCC doesn't have the authority to rule against the SEC or over their findings to justify lowering their own costs to correct their error.
Here's a perfect example of why I post.
Brokerage "A" just realizes they are fugged with a huge short position. Brokerage "A", by law, is supposed to enforce the Customer Protection Rule. Instead, Brokerage "A" decides to give everyone the middle finger. No buy-in, no nothing.
Brokerages often wait to be sued because no judge will ever issue a judgment that exceeds what a buy-in would of cost. EVER.
Stinky pinky, insider already tied to another fraud (Stewart), no operations, a history of bumbling, etc. For Brokerage "A", it's worth taking the chance in court.
Sadly 2Late, no one here wants to hear this. This is how legal and compliance at brokerages work.
There's nothing to argue about here unless you continue to expect everyone here to believe that the DTCC has total authority over federal securities laws and their enforcer the SEC who concluded their case
Where did I say the DTCC has authority over securities law? The DTCC wiped their hands clean and shafted the brokers in 2005. This is between the company and the brokerages who sold BCIT shares without following 15c3-3.
