d4diddy:
"Irrelevant Edge, "you don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows."
You do if you don't know your directions.
"Did the SEC file on Loch Harris for their well known pump-n-dump scam?"
They filed an investigation to see if pr's could have influenced the stock price.
"Did the SEC question how 100 million Loch Harris shares authorized in Janurary 2000 got distributed?"
Duh, I bet they forgot to ask that question diddy. Afterall, they are not to bright according to you and lmorovan. I am sure when they were looking into the stock records of Boone and Baker, they just forgot to ask about those 100,000,000 shares.
I got this response back from the SEC on Feb. 7, 2006 when I asked them if the Loch Harris investigation was still ongoing:
"Dear Sir:
I have been advised that there is no additional publicly-available information concerning this matter. As you may be aware, SEC investigations are conducted on a nonpublic and confidential basis to ensure the integrity of the investigative process.
Sincerely,
ANN H SULZBERG
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
100 F St, NE
Washington, DC 20549-0213
(202)551-6308"
"Did the SEC dismiss all claims against Henry Blair after everyone pointed the finger at him?"
Would the below Judge be the same one that dismissed Blair?
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Argued November 7, 2000 Decided September 21, 2001
No. 00-5016
The Honorable John H. McBryde,
United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Texas,
Appellant
v.
Committee to Review Circuit Council Conduct and
Disability Orders of the Judicial Conference
of the United States, et al.,
Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia
(No. 98cv02457)
David Broiles and Arnon D. Siegel argued the cause and
filed the briefs for appellant.
William B. Schultz, Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for appellee
United States of America. David W. Ogden, Assistant Attor-
ney General, Mark B. Stern and Scott R. McIntosh, Attor-
neys, and Wilma A. Lewis, U.S. Attorney at the time the
brief was filed, were on the brief. Thomas W. Millet, Attor-
ney, U.S. Department of Justice, entered an appearance.
Robert B. Fiske, Jr. argued the cause for appellees the
Committee to Review Circuit Council Conduct and Disability
Orders of the Judicial Conference of the United States, et al.
With him on the brief was Lowell Gordon Harriss.
Before: Williams and Tatel, Circuit Judges, and
Silberman, Senior Circuit Judge.
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Williams.
Separate opinion filed by Circuit Judge Tatel, concurring
in part and dissenting in part.
Williams, Circuit Judge: On December 31, 1997 the Judi-
cial Council of the Fifth Circuit (the "Judicial Council" or
"Council"), acting under the Judicial Conduct and Disability
Act of 1980, 28 U.S.C. s 372(c) (the "Act"), imposed sanctions
on the Honorable John H. McBryde, United States District
Judge for the Northern District of Texas. The sanctions
followed a two-year investigation by a Special Committee of
the Judicial Council ("Special Committee"), including nine
days of hearings. The Committee took evidence relating to
incidents spanning the entirety of Judge McBryde's judicial
career and involving encounters with judges and lawyers both
inside and outside his courtroom. (We will consider an
example from the exhaustive record when we address Judge
McBryde's argument that the Council illegally considered the
merits of his judicial decisions.)
The investigation culminated in a 159-page report in which
the Special Committee concluded that "Judge McBryde ha[d]
engaged for a number of years in a pattern of abusive
behavior" that was " 'prejudicial to the effective and expedi-
tious administration of the business of the courts.' " Report
of the Special Committee of the Fifth Circuit Judicial Coun-
cil Regarding Complaints Against, and the Investigation
into the Conduct of, Judge John H. McBryde at 150-51 (Dec.
4, 1997) ("Committee Report") (quoting 28 U.S.C. s 372(c)).
The Report also recommended a variety of sanctions based on
the provisions of s 372(c)(6)(B): that Judge McBryde receive
a public reprimand, pursuant to subsection (v); that no new
cases be assigned to him for a year, pursuant to subsection
(iv); and that he not be allowed for three years to preside
over cases involving any of 23 lawyers who had participated in
the investigation, pursuant to subsection (vii) (providing for
"other action" considered appropriate in light of circum-
stances). See Committee Report at 152-58. The Judicial
Council endorsed the recommendations and issued an order
imposing the recommended sanctions. See In re: Matters
Involving United States District Judge John H. McBryde,
Under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, No.
95-05-372-0023 (Jud. Council 5th Cir. Dec. 31, 1997) ("Judi-
cial Council Order"). The lawyer-related disqualification be-
came effective on February 6, 1998, but the Council stayed
the reprimand and the one-year suspension pending review
by the Committee to Review Circuit Council Conduct and
Disability Orders of the Judicial Conference of the United
States (the "Review Committee"). On September 18, 1998
the Review Committee substantially affirmed the Council's
action and lifted the stay. See In re: Complaints of Judicial
Misconduct or Disability, No. 98-372-001 (Jud. Conf. U.S.
Sept. 18, 1998) ("Judicial Conference Report").
Soon thereafter Judge McBryde brought suit in district
court, claiming that the Act, both facially and as applied,
violated the due process clause and the Constitution's separa-
tion of powers doctrine.1 He also claimed that the initiation
and conduct of the investigation against him exceeded the
authority granted by the statute. Finally, he posed a First
Amendment challenge to the Act's restrictions on disclosing
__________
1 Defendants/Appellees in this case are the Review Committee;
Judge William J. Bauer, individually and as Chairman and as
member of the Review Committee; the Judicial Council; and Judge
Henry J. Politz, individually and as Chief Judge of the Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and as presiding member of the
Judicial Council, at the relevant times.
the record of the proceedings. On cross motions for sum-
mary judgment, the district court agreed with Judge
McBryde's First Amendment argument, McBryde v. Commit-
tee to Review Circuit Council Conduct and Disability Orders,
83 F. Supp. 2d 135, 171-78 (D.D.C. 1999), but rejected the
rest. Only Judge McBryde appealed; here he repeats the
essence of his remaining arguments.
Judge McBryde's claims are moot insofar as they distinc-
tively relate to the one-year suspension, which expired on
September 18, 1999, and the three-year disqualification, which
expired on February 6, 2001. Certain of the non-moot claims
are barred by the Act's preclusion of judicial review, 28
U.S.C. s 372(c)(10), namely the "as applied" and statutory
challenges; the district court was therefore without jurisdic-
tion to hear them. We vacate the district court's judgment
insofar as it addressed the moot or precluded issues. Judge
McBryde's remaining constitutional challenges fail on their
merits; we therefore affirm the district court's ruling. We
address first mootness, then preclusion, and finally the mer-
its.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
