e.g. "IBM Eclipse Foundation" or "racketeering"
"Dark pools" used for currency, bribes, coercion and undue influence
Rigged Leader v. Facebook, likely crashed NASDAQ
New! Jan. 23, 2014 Fig. B—Leader v. Facebook judges Roberts, Lourie, Moore, Wallach and Stark were/are all heavily invested in Fidelity and T.Rowe Price "dark pool" Facebook funds, yet failed to mention it during the proceedings. Disclosure of even the appearance of impropriety is required by the Code of Conduct. Tellingly, Justice Roberts recused himself from the Microsoft v. i4i case because of his Microsoft holdings and his relationship to Thomas G. Hungar, Gibson Dunn LLP, Facebook's attorney as well as attorney to the Federal Circuit Bar Association (FCBA). The FCBA failed to mention this conflict when they filed their Request motion in Leader v. Facebook on Sep. 11, 2012. Microsoft is one of Facebook's largest investors, and is a member of the FCBA "Leaders Circle." The judicial and attorney conflicts of interest not disclosed in Leader v. Facebook are off the charts.As of Jun. 30, 2012, Fidelity Contrafund had invested $413,476,551 in Facebook. Of the 16 Fidelity funds tallied by Morningstar, Fidelity's total investment was $818,228,924. Much, if not all, of Fidelity's investing occured in "dark pool" pre-IPO period brokered by Goldman Sachs. As of Jun. 30, Goldman Sach's holding had dropped to $21,910,983. However, Goldman Sachs had already dumped $914,000,000 of its shares at Day 3 of the IPO, on May 26, 2012. See Fig. 3. below.
Excel spreadsheet (*.xls)
Demos, T. (Aug. 24, 2012). Who Else Has A Big Bet on Facebook. The Wall Street Journal, provides a top 10 table of mutual fund investors. Now familiar Facebook cartel actors include Goldman Sachs at No. 1, Fidelity 3rd, T.Rowe Price 4th, Morgan Stanley 5th, Blackrock 6th and Vanguard 9th.
AFP/Getty Images
The math alone proves the corruption
Given T.Rowe Price's very public "dark pools" pre-IPO investing, the specter of collusion looms large. This is especially true since the "dark pools" investing started only after Schapiro blessed the now infamous 500-shareholder exemption. That unprecedented exemption was used by Goldman Sachs as the excuse to sell T.RowePrice hundreds of millions of dollars of private Facebook stock, in an unregulated, secret, "dark pools" market. T.Rowe Mary liked these funds so well that she gorged herself on up to $45 million worth.
Schapiro's conduct signals that she was not about to be left out of the stock scam of the century. After all, a presidential pardon for her sins was probably promised as her backstop. Such conduct would explain why the President doesn't fire anyone in his many scandals. Those people were likely just following orders.
This verifies that these fund managers were coordinating their "dark pools" agenda. So much for arm's length, transparent public markets, Entire Fairness and the Business Judgment Rule. (Those rules are only for the rest of us poor saps who respect and follow the Rule of Law.) No market can operate freely when the market makers are colluding. Also evident is that selected senior government regulators at the S.E.C., Commerce, HHS and the judiciary were invited to play, and they did.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts had investments in Fidelity Contrafund K (FCNKX) and T. Rowe Price Science & Technology Fund (PRSCX), and others, at the same time when the Leader v. Facebook Petition for Writ of Certiorari came before him on Nov. 16, 2012. This is in addition to his close mentoring relationship to Facebook's attorney, Thomas G. Hungar, Gibson Dunn LLP. Keep in mind that in 2011 Roberts had recused himself in the Microsoft v. i4i patent case, presumably because of his relationship to Hungar (who was counsel of record for Microsoft) and his Microsoft holdings. So, Roberts understands the conflict of interest rules, he just chose not to follow them in Leader v. Facebook.
The Fidelity and T. Rowe Price funds not only held substantial investments in Facebook "dark pools" stock, but they also held investments in 17 Facebook cartel collaborators, including athenahealth,1 Microsoft,5 Goldman Sachs,2 Dropbox,6 IBM,5 JPMorgan,2 LinkedIn,5 Morgan Stanley,2 State Street Corp,2 Tesla Motors,3 Baidu (China),4 and Mail.ru (Russia),4
LEGEND: 1Obamacare, HealthCare.gov, Todd Y. Park, Edward Y. Park, Michelle Obama, Robert Kocher MD, National Economic Council, HHS, CGI Federal, Booz Allen, Ann H. Lamont, David A. Ebersman; 2bank bailout;3energy stimulus; 4money laundering & stock fraud; 5intellectual property theft; and 6data theft.See PERT Chart.Leader v. Facebook Federal Circuit Judges Kimberly A. Moore and Evan J. Wallach also hold Fidelity Contrafund K. Judge Moore also holds the Fidelity Spartan US Bond Index Investor Fund (FBIDX) which reads like a Facebook "dark pools" Who's Who. When combined with Federal Circuit Judge Alan D. Lourie's substantial dark pool investments, the trifecta of all three judges involved in Leader Technologies' appeal was complete (click here to jump to the Judge Lourie section below).
New! Jan. 21, 2014—Leader v. Facebook Chief Justice Roberts and District Court Judge Leonard P. Stark share uniquely a Fidelity "dark pool" investment in Fidelity Spartan 500 Index. This fund includes no less than 12 Facebook cronies, including the Fidelity slush fund, euphamistically named "Fidelity Cash Central Fund." See Weiss, M. (Jun. 01, 2011). Fidelity's Danoff Bets on Facebook. Bloomberg.
Is Danoff one of the real life Wolves of Wall Street? It appears so.
These judges had a clear and present duty to recuse themselves, instead of betraying the public's trust for their own greed. Others in the administration holding the Fidelity Contrafund were Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Federal Election Commission Secretary John H. Sullivan, Education's Carmel M. Martin, and Health & Human Service's Howard K. Koh. The skids for this widespread agenda were well greased.
The core ethical rule is for a judge to "avoid even the appearance of impropriety" in order to maintain the trust of the American people. How much more lawless can these judges and federal officials be?
Ellis tied to Facebook cartel: AFI investigators quickly discovered that Judge Ellis has aligned his financial interests with the Facebook cartel and should recuse himself. Too many judges throw up their hands when asked about keeping track of stocks in their mutual funds. We have concluded that such bluster probably telegraphs that they are concealing misconduct. Rembrandt's attorney is Fish & Richardson LLP.
This mutual fund stock information is easy to find. Each fund is required by law to publish its holdings regularly. For example, here are T. Rowe Price's and Fidelity's websites. Alternatively, one can simply Google the name or symbol of the fund (e.g., FCNTX – Fidelity Contrafund), select the Morningstar URL choice, click "Filings," then select "Semi-Annual" or "Annual Report."
Since 2006, federal judges have been required to keep a "Mandatory Conflict Screening" database. Here's the policy for the DC Circuit. Given the ready availability of the stock data, adding that information to one's conflicts database is not difficult. However, not a single court in Leader v. Facebook has disclosed its conflicts screening database in response to FOIA requests, or even in response to a motion to do so.
Ellis' Facebook Bedfellows: Judge Ellis' IRAs hold stock in Facebook directly as well as in "dark pools." In addition, his Facebook cartel holdings include LinkedIn, Zynga, Groupon, Mail.ru (Russia) (aka DST, Digital Sky, Yuri Milner, oligarch Alisher Usmanov), Tesla Motors, Dropbox, Workday, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Microsoft, ComScore, IBM, Wal-Mart, Verisign, Baidu, T.Rowe Price, and even HealthCare.gov architect Todd Y. Park's Athenahealth (which associates National Venture Capital Association directors Ann H. Lamont. Robert C. Ketterson [Fidelity] and James W. Breyer, as well as Obama's National Economic Council member and Obamacare architect, Robert Kocher, as well as Facebook CFO David A. Ebersman). This list doesn't even count the now familiar law firms associated with these companies, including Gibson Dunn LLP, Perkins Coie LLP, Fenwick & West LLP, Weil Gotshal LLP, Latham & Watkins LLP, Blank Rome LLP, White & Case LLP and Cooley Godward LLP. Jump to Fig. 9 to read the Judge Ellis investigation results below. (This evidence is suitable for citizen ethics complaints. It is your right and duty not to remain silent about this misconduct.)
News Flash!—S.E.C. Chair Mary L. Schapiro stock records render the Facebook IPO a sham. Jump. to Fig. 8 below to see the hard evidence for yourself.
Jan. 10, 2014—More Dark Pool Infections. Obama's U.S. Attorney Designate Debo P. Adegbile appears to be infected with undisclosed Facebook "dark pools." Are "dark pool" infections crippling the Obama White House? Click here to see Adegbile's financial disclosure.
ORIGINAL POST
(Jan. 7, 2014)—Wall Street "dark pools" are hidden from Main Street by definition. Dark pool stock trades are concealed from the public. As such, U.S. judges and government officials who participate in such pools violate fundamental tenants of public accountability and transparency to "avoid even the appearance of impropriety."[1] Despite the clear rules, the judges in Leader v. Facebook did not disclose even a single share of their substantial Facebook "dark pool" holdings.[2]
Root of Washington's Dysfunction
We at AFI now believe that these "dark pools," sometimes called "black pools," are at the root of the dysfunction in Washington D.C. Many there carry this hidden agenda, just hoping they "get out of Dodge" before the chickens come home to roost. Everyone has Facebook investment dirt on everyone else, Republican and Democrat.
What better way to silence one's opponent than the threat of exposing his unethical investing conduct? We also believe that Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.'s flip-flop on Obamacare will be traced to some threat or other leveled against him regarding his Facebook "dark pool" holdings by his protégé, Facebook's Leader v. Facebook appeals attorney, Thomas G. Hungar, Gibson Dunn LLP. Hungar is a central player in the Leader v. Facebook improprieties.
Normally insiders in an IPO are "locked up" and are not permitted to dump their stock like this. Such actions signal lack of confidence and will depress the trading price, which it did.
T.Rowe Mary's S.E.C. gave a blessing to this practice. Insider Morgan Stanley was given sole discretion to allow insiders to sell before the end of the lock up period.
The fraud here is in Schapiro's and the S.E.C.'s many conflicting associations with these insiders, including: (1) James W. Breyer, associated with S.E.C. Chief Counsel Thomas J. Kim, National Venture Capital Association and Barack Obama via Latham & Watkins LLP and Harvard; Juri Milner, associated with former National Economic Council director Lawrence "Larry" Summers; Meritech Management, i.e., Ann H. Lamont associated with Obama CTO Todd Y. Park and S.E.C. Chief Counsel Thomas J. Kim via Latham & Watkins LLP; Goldman Sachs, notoriously associated with Juri Milner, Moscow, and bailed out by Larry Summers and Barack Obama; and Morgan Stanley, also bailed out by Larry Summers and Barack Obama... for starters.
No public hearings were conducted on the S.E.C. Facebook exemption from the 500-shareholder rule. (Gee Beav, was that wrong? We're sorry.... Bwahaha, Cha Ching, Suckers!!!)
Abuse of the public trust is an ugly thing
Did we mention that Hungar was counsel to the Federal Circuit prior to the Leader v. Facebook case? Despite this profound conflict of interest, the judges and Hungar were all silent about their prior relationships, in violation of every rule of fair play.
T.Rowe Mary speaks with forked tongue
President Obama's S.E.C. appointee Mary L. Schapiro promised to clean up dark pools. Instead, she appears to have aided and abetted the largest dark pools scam in history. See Fig. 2.
Schapiro dove in head first with 51 personal investments in Facebook pre-IPO interests—more than anyone else in the 2009 Obama cabinet. Twenty-seven (27) of Schapiro's investments are in T.RowePrice that purchased 5.2% of Facebook.[3] Just a few months before her appointment, S.E.C. chief counsel, Thomas J. Kim gave Facebook an unprecedented exemption from the well-settled 500-shareholder rule. This rule declares that any company with more than 500 shareholders and $10 million in assets is a de facto public company and subject to public disclosure of their stock sales.[4]
The first problem with this exemption is that Thomas J. Kim is a former Harvard Law classmate of Barack Obama. He also worked previously for Latham & Watkins LLP, counsel to Facebook's then chairman and largest shareholder, James W. Breyer, and the National Venture Capital Association, whose directors included Fidelity's Robert C. Ketterson, Vanguard's Anne Rockhold and Athenahealth/Castlight Health (Obamacare)'s Ann H. Lamont. These people are the presumptive "dark pool" ring leaders, along with Lawrence "Larry" Summers and his head gopher, Sheryl K. Sandberg, COO of Facebook.
The second problem is the exemption itself. The 500-shareholder rule is one of the most enforced rules on the books. It prevents shysters from setting up their own private +stock markets—just the sort of thing that happened in the 1930's. Neverthless, Kim issued the ruling without even a public hearing.
S.E.C. Exemption Grossly Abused
Facebook’s underwriters Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan grossly abused the Kim exemption. They used it as their permission to sell billions of dollars of private Facebook stock promoted by the same dark pools that T.Rowe Mary publicly decried. Billions of dollars of those shares were even sold to Russian oligarchs allied with Goldman Sachs and Lawrence "Larry" Summers in Moscow.[5]
The S.E.C. Chairman's Deception:
Schapiro says she believes in investor protection, transparency, accountability, and disclosure, however...
She secretly invested in 51 Facebook "dark pools"
On Jan. 15, 2009, Mary L. Schapiro told Congress:
"We need an SEC that is the investors’ advocate… to vigorously prosecute those who have broken the law and cheated investors"
"Second, I want to reengage the SEC with the people we serve, namely investors. The investor community, from the largest pension fund to the family who has scrimped and saved in their 401(k) or 529 plan, needs to feel they have someone on their side, that they can go to the SEC for advice, to seek redress, or to have their opinions heard. Third, as I work to deepen the SEC’s commitment to investor protection, transparency, accountability, and disclosure."[6]
On Oct. 21, 2009, Mary L. Schapiro convened an all-hands-on-deck meeting about Dark Pool Regulation and said:
"In recent years, a large number of dark pools have entered the markets, and now represent a significant source of liquidity in U.S.-listed stocks. Given the growth of dark pools, this lack of transparency could create a two-tiered market that deprives the public of information about stock prices and liquidity . . . Transparency is a cornerstone of the U.S. securities market. That is why I asked the staff earlier this year to begin a comprehensive review of dark pools, as well as other types of dark liquidity" (emphasis added).[7]
On Jan. 20, 2010, Mary L. Schapiro remarked on her concerns about dark pools at the 37th Annual Securities Regulation Institute meeting in Coronado, California:
"Already we have proposed rules that would effectively prohibit broker-dealers from providing customers with "unfiltered" access to an exchange or alternative trading system. We have proposed rules that would strengthen our regulation of dark pools of liquidity” (emphasis added).[8]
On Mar. 10, 2011, Mary L. Schapiro told Congress:
"After the flash crash [market swung 1,000 pts. down, then back up, in one day], I had many foreign regulators call me just horrified. What happened? What are you going to do? How are you going to prevent this? I mean, there was more international interest in that event directed into my office than I have seen in my two years at the SEC, with the possible exception of international accounting standards. It suggests to me that there is deep concern everywhere—and other markets are starting to see the kind of market structure we have developed with the prevalence of dark pools and more fractured and fragmented trading" (emphasis added).[9]
" . . . more than 30 dark pools, three electronic communication networks (ECNs), and more than 200 internalizing broker-dealers. Currently, more than 30 percent of the volume in U.S.-listed equities is executed in venues that do not display their liquidity or make it generally available to the public, reflecting an increase over the last year."
"The continuing growth of trading in dark pools and other types of dark venues can challenge the quality of the market’s price-discovery function. And the complexity of the market structure sometimes makes it difficult for even sophisticated investors to pursue their own best interests" (emphasis added).[10]
On, May 18, 2012, Mary L. Schapiro’s dark pool investments began cashing in after the Facebook IPO. See Fig. 3 above.
Hidden "dark pool" agendas destroy public confidence
T.Rowe Mary talked a good game, but failed to deliver. As telling as any misstep in this ethical wasteland, Schapiro as S.E.C. Chairman, failed to require Facebook to disclose these "dark pool" risks in the pre-IPO S-1 Disclosure, even though her own fund, T.RowePrice, had acquired a 5.2% ownership stake in Facebook.[11] Worse, she abused the public trust by engaging in the very secret investing schemes she told the American people she would protect them from. To the investing world, Chairman Schapiro's empty words are analogous to the President's lies about healthcare and keeping one's doctor.
Thank you Leader Technologies
Concurrently with Chairman Schapiro, Commerce Secretary Rebecca M. Blank and Patent Office Director David J. Kappos, and all the judges in Leader v. Facebook participated in Schapiro's Facebook IPO dark pools, including T.Rowe Price, Fidelity, Vanguard, TIAA-CREF, Blackrock, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs.
Ignored Conflicts Disclosure Motion
On Sep. 5, 2012, Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam filed a friend of the court (amicus curiae) motion asking all the Federal Circuit judges to disclose their financial conflicts of interest. The court ignored her motion.[12]
If the Leader v. Facebook judges had not behaved so badly and so illegally, it is unlikely that this dark pools scheme would have come to light. It all started with District Court Judge Leonard P. Stark’s misconduct in Leader v. Facebook and has fanned out from there. Every freedom-loving American should contact Leader Technologies with words of support, encouragement and resolve not to rest until justice is served
Hidden investments by judges make bad justice
Everyone knows that judge bias and hidden agendas destroy equal treatment before the law.
Chairman Schapiro cleverly stalled her S.E.C. investigations into "dark pools" until all her Facebook friends had cashed out, including the Leader v. Facebook judges. Alan D. Lourie, the presiding judge in Leader v. Facebook holds up to $14.4 million in 24 dark pools [These judges do find ways to take care of themselves, don't they?], including five (5) T.RowePrice pools. The judges, including Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., appear to have run interference for her and the rest of the Facebook cartel; to guard against a Leader Technologies victory. Even so, these actors could not completely control the jury, which found Facebook guilty of patent infringement on 11 of 11 counts. Leader’s victory would have ruined their promised IPO payday.
Sadly, with a cooperative judge and a grossly deceptive expert witness in Dr. Saul Greenberg, Facebook confused the jury on the Pfaff Electronics and Group One legal tests for on-sale bar. These bad actors cajoled an unfounded on-sale bar ruling which was sustained on appeal by the fellow "dark pool" Federal Circuit appeals panel, led by Alan D. Lourie.
The U.S. Constitution now looks to Congress—"the People's Body"—to fix this gross injustice spewing from two branches of government, the Executive and Judicial.
Judge Alan D. Lourie, Leader v. Facebook Presiding judge, had 24 holdings valued up to $13.9 million in Facebook "Dark Pools"—he chose personal greed over justice
Investigations into Judge Lourie's T.RowePrice holdings have taken a strange turn. Significant ties were uncovered with key actors in the HealthCare.gov debacle, as well as with Facebook officers, directors and investors. See Judge Lourie's financial disclosure below, Figure 5. In summary, Judge Lourie's investment ties him to Marc Andreessen (Facebook director), Todd Y. Park (HealthCare.gov architect, Castlight Health, Athenahealth), Ann H. Lamont (Meritech Investment - early Facebook pump and dumper), Athenahealth, Castlight Health), David A. Ebersman (Facebook CTO), Castlight Health, Athenahealth, HealthCare.gov and Robert Kocher (Obamacare architect, National Economic Council, Athenahealth director).
Judge Alan D. Lourie, Federal Circuit, Leader v. Facebook, Financial Disclosure
Keep Congress Informed
(Also file Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests as well. It is your constitutional right. Use it or lose it.) These citizen requests carry the weight of law. Keep your mailing receipts and correspondence. Even if they stonewall you, stonewalls are evidence in and of themselves. T.Rowe Mary and her accomplices must be exposed.
Also, file a complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice Inspector General. Ask why our top law enforcement officer, Eric H. Holder, does not investigate for possible criminal wrongdoing by the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission. Ask why Attorney General Eric H. Holder holds 22 Facebook "dark pools" including five (5) T.Rowe Price funds.
Be sure to provide your Congressperson and Senators with regular updates about the Leader v. Facebook property confiscation injustice and this blog. Ask for a meeting to brief them and ask them to act and correct this abuse of fundamental constitutional property rights. This information will help them and their staff members get up to speed when the matter comes before Congress formally. A growing national bipartisan group is determined to make sure it does.
If this property rights case is not worthy of our full advocacy, then none is, in our opinion. We will not find a cleaner, more clear-cut case to advocate.
Don't procrastinate. If not you, who? If not now, when?
If you need additional information for your briefings, just post your request in the comments and we'll post the link to the documents in reply.
* * *
Eric H. Holder, U.S. Attorney General, Facebook Cartel Conflicts, Financial Disclosure
Fig. 6—Attorney General Eric H. Holder holds at least 16 Facebook "dark pool" investments. This makes him conflicted on any matters related to Facebook or Facebook bankers, including JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, among others. Click here to download a PDF directly.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., U.S. Supreme Court, Leader v. Facebook, Financial Disclosure
Fig. 7—Chief Justice John G. Roberts holds at least 21 Facebook "dark pool" investments. This makes him conflicted on any matters related to Leader v. Facebook. Click here to download a PDF directly.
S.E.C. Chair Mary L. Schapiro, Financial Disclosure
Fig. 8—S.E.C. Chairman Mary L. Schaprio holds at least 51 Facebook "dark pool" investments. New research proves that some of those funds held direct investments in Facebook. This evidence renders the Facebook IPO a complete sham, and Schapiro's conduct fraudulent. Click here to download a PDF directly.
Thomas S. Ellis, III, Financial Disclosure, Rembrandt Social Media v. Facebook (E.D. Virginia)
Fig. 9—Thomas S. Ellis, III holds at least 21 Facebook "dark pool" investments. He presides over the case Rembrandt Social Media, LP v. Facebook, Inc. et al, 1:13-cv-00158-TSE-TRJ (E.D.V. 2013). New research proves that some of those funds are holding Facebook stock directly, in addition to dozens of stocks in the Facebook cartel. This evidence demands Judge Ellis's immediate recusal and sanction. Click here to download a PDF directly.
Footnotes/Evidence:
[1] Guide to Judicial Ethics: Canon 2: "[a] judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities."
"Canon 3C(3)(c) provides that a financial interest means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small . . . Ownership of even one share of stock by the judge’s spouse would require disqualification." (p.20-2) (emphasis added).Guide to Judiciary Policy. (Sep. 05, 2013). Vol. 2, Ethics and Judicial Conduct, Pt. B, Ethics Advisory Opinions, Ch. 2, Published Advisory Opinions, U.S. Courts, transmittal 02-014, last rev. Sep. 5, 2013. U.S. Courts.
[2] Leader v. Facebook Summary: Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Leader Technologies, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 12-617 (U.S. Supreme Court Nov. 16, 2012).
[3] T.Rowe Mary sanctioned Facebook's securities fraud: AFI. (Dec. 20, 2013). Securities Commission Chair Mary L. Schapiro Knew Facebook Was a Fraud. Americans for Innovation. ("Securities Chair Mary L. Schapiro knew Facebook and its IPO were frauds – Schapiro sanctioned the 500-shareholder exemption so her 51 Facebook fund boats would all float in the IPO."). HTML.
[4] Facebook IPO "Pump & Dump:" AFI. (Mar. 28, 2013). The Real Facebook - A Portrait of Corruption. Americans for Innovation. (SEC counsel cleared the way for the Facebook "pump and dump” scheme in 2008.). HTML.
[5] Congressional Briefing: Briefing. (Oct. 19, 2012). Briefing for Representative Jim Jordan (OH) - House Oversight Committee—American and Russian Opportunists Undermining U.S. Sovereignty and Corrupting U.S. Financial and Judicial Systems. U.S. Congress.
[6] T.Rowe Mary (Schapiro) Testimony, Jan. 15, 2009: S. Hrg. 111-32. (Jan. 15, 2009). Nomination of Mary L. Schapiro for Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Hearing of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate, Y 4.B 22/3, Jan. 15, 2009, p. 12, 13. GPO.
[7] T.Rowe Mary Testimony, Oct. 21, 2009: Mary L. Schapiro. (Oct. 21, 2009). Speech by SEC Chairman: Statement on Dark Pool Regulation Before the Commission Open Meeting by Chairman Mary L. Schapiro, Oct. 21, 2009. Securities & Exchange Commission. HTML.
[8] T.Rowe Mary Testimony, Jan. 20, 2010: Mary L. Schapiro. (Jan. 20, 2010). Speech by SEC Chairman: Embracing the Change by Chairman Mary L. Schapiro, Jan. 20, 2010. Securities & Exchange Commission. HTML.
[9] T.Rowe Mary Testimony, Mar. 10, 2011: S. Hrg. 112-25. (Mar. 10, 2011). Testimony of Mary L. Schapiro, Chairman, U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission, Hearing, Subcommittee on Securities, Insurance, and Investment of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate, 112th Congress, Mar. 10, 2011, Y 4.B 22/3, p. 21, ¶7. GPO.
[11] Facebook S-1 Disclosure, 8th Amendment: S-1 Amendment No. 8. (May 17, 2012). Facebook Amendment No. 8 to Registration Statement. SEC Edgar.
[12] [Court ignored] Motion to compel Federal Circuit to disclose financial conflicts of interest: Motion to Compel Each Member Of The Federal Circuit To Disclose Conflicts Of Interest in Leader v. Facebook by Amicus Curiae Lakshmi Arunachalam, PhD, Sep. 5, 2012.
Benjamin Franklin once said, “Your net worth to the world is usually determined by what remains after your bad habits are subtracted from your ...bull-shit? facebook
ReplyDeleteFound this legal shell game wording in one of Judge Lourie's T.Rowe Price Funds:
ReplyDelete++++++++
T.ROWE PRICE HIGH YIELD FD (IRA) (PRHYX) where Lourie parked up to $500,000
++++++++
http://individual.troweprice.com/gcFiles/pdf/trhyf.pdf
On April 27, 2012, this fund closed to new investors. This is just weeks before the Facebook IPO.
Now, read this lawyer shell game language on page 37 of Lourie's fund:
"A fund may purchase the securities of another investment company to temporarily gain exposure to a portion of the market while awaiting purchase of securities or as an efficient means of gaining exposure to a particular asset class. The fund might also purchase shares of another investment company to gain exposure to the securities in the investment company’s portfolio at times when the fund may not be able to buy those securities directly."
September 29,2008
ReplyDeleteOBAMA says the era of greed and irresponsibility on wall street and in Washington has led us to a financial crisis since the great depression, After tacking office, Obama spoke of the need to reform the industry saying we want a risk regulator :- increased capital requirements :- we need a consumer financial protection agency :- we need to change wall street's culture : But it was all BULL-SHIT Obama rejects setting compensation limits on global banks, And buy mid 2010 the administrations reforms were weak its a wall street government and Obama was in on it???? Obama was just a SUCK UP FOR LARRY SUMMERS Timothy Geithner Henry Paulson and THE FACEBOOK CLUB President Obama's own S.E.C. appointee Mary L. Schapiro was in on it to evidence shows that during the SEC’s so-called pre-IPO oversight of Facebook, Mary L. Schapiro, Chair of the SEC and her staff, were colluding with Facebook-friendly third party funds. They were using insider knowledge to position their personal holdings for a big IPO payday rip-off. OBAMA'S: Shapiro allowed GOLDMAN SACHS to make unregulated markets in facebook stock to james breyer.
Larry Summers was very vocal he thought regulation was bad Goldman sachs sold at least $3.1 billion worth of toxic CDOs in the first half of 2006 . Henry Paulson secretary of the treasury to get the job Paulson had to sell his $485 million of Goldman Sachs stock when he went to work for the government but he didn't have to pay any taxes on it it saved him $$$ 50 million $$$. The 2008 finance crisis was not an accident it was caused by an out of control industry and at the wheel was chief economic advisor Larry Summers Henry Paulson of Goldman Sachs and Geithner to pay Goldman Sachs 100 cents on the dollar Paulson and Bernanke ask congress for $700 billion to bail out the banks. BUT NO BAILOUT FOR LEHMAN BROTHERS GONE AND THE ORDERS CAME FROM GOLDMAN SACHS NOT TO BAIL THEM OUT?? just so Goldman Sachs can be number ONE? .. YOU SUCK UP OBAMA and not a single senior financial executive had been prosecuted or arrested for fraud The Obama administration has made no attempt to recover any compensation pay out, The global impact of this did BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars of damage The power that Larry Summers wields over THE FACEBOOK CLUB makes meaningless the notion of investor democracy. Facebook IPO is a scam of the highest order. Mary L. Schapiro was in on it .
ReplyDeleteI just got off the phone with an American inventor who thought he was teaming up with a big law firm to go after several big infringers who had ripped off his invention. Half way through the litigation, this firm made up some excuse to bail out on him. Guess what company that firm is representing now? The BIG INFRINGER.
ReplyDeleteb
That appears to be part of the big patent litigation law firm billing mill game. They take on a small inventor client, sue the deep pockets firm, then cut some secret deal on the side to drop the inventor in exchange for cash and prizes ... and for a promise of future work. The real American inventor gets screwed.
Our US law firms are morally bankrupt and out of control folks. They are going to poison the well of innovation at this rate. What self-respecting inventor will go to these assholes now that we know how they are cheating their own clients? Excuse the French.
...just like Fenwick & West LLP slipped Leader Technologies' client file to Accel Partners LLP, James W. Breyer and the PayPal Mafia. This venture capital theft of trade secrets is Silicon Valley's and Boston's best kept secret. It's all done under the guise of nondisclosure agreements that these people use for toilet paper once the inventor has left their offices having shared their idea.
DeleteHow many times have you heard this BS from a VC? I won't sign your nondisclosure agreement, but you can trust me that I won't share it, because if I did, we'd get a bad reputation and no one would come to us with new ideas. Yeh right. Like inventors are networked and talk among themselves. The financial and tech press never publicize such theft because they get business from these VCs. If you cooperate (bend over) in their bubble, you get funded. If you resist, you have a fatal flaw as a human being and are sent packing, and asked to close the door behind you.
Mike this case has been dead for almost 2 years now. Really time to move on. And mutual fund holdings are not conflicts of interest. Very well settled law.
ReplyDeleteThere you go again Jill, a drive by comment full of speculation and false statements. Since we allow anonymous postings, the speculation about your identity could be just as wild as your "Mike." Bloggers learned long ago that the crooks always try to make their posts personal and filled with innuendo. They never make arguments. They only make haughty, declarative statements to try and cajole the unsuspecting. Indeed, facts and truth are their enemies.
DeleteYour declarative statement "Very well settled law" on mutual funds is hardly a convincing argument. Judicial disclosure is not a game where judges get to see how close to the ethical line they can get without breaking the law. To the contrary, they are to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. I'll give you a legal reference since you don't seem to know the law very well.
Canon 2 - http://www.uscourts.gov/RulesAndPolicies/CodesOfConduct/CodeConductUnitedStatesJudges.aspx
The rules on mutual funds are 4 pages long. Hardly straightforward. They are full of exemptions.
http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/conduct/Vol02B-Ch02.pdf
You Facebook law firms gave extremely corrupt advice to these people about these holdings. The chickens are coming home to roost. I'll bet they're all calling you now that their misconduct is being exposed.
You, Jill..know nothing about freedom,we believe.
ReplyDelete“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”
Your credibility is in question Jill. You stated in a previous post, “Now you can attack me for being a Facebook defender (I have no role with the company) and an attorney (I'm not).” I am curious what your role really is?
ReplyDeleteYou would have us believe that the judges involved with this case are just naïve little worms that have no clue nor do they want to know what they are investing in! They all just seem to have miraculously picked the same mutual funds that just, again, miraculously, have Facebook stock in them! By the way you kept saying if you, “swap out "Facebook" for any other large tech company in this blog (Yahoo, Oracle, Google, Dell, Apple, etc.) and you would end up with virtually identical "dark pool" holdings”. The problem is you can’t swap out Facebook! Hence the “Dark Pools”!
The rule for mutual funds says they are only exempt if they are not managed by the judge. Since there has been so much publicity about these funds and the justices are mandated to be appraised of all their finances to the third degree a reasonable person would surmise that these judges are not the naïve little worms that you would have us believe that allow “Fate” to select their investments, for themselves and family.
One other question, if this bothers you so much and you have no role with Facebook and are not an attorney, you apparently have not really followed this case, to even know the facts that have been brought forth! You seemed to be coached on what to say because you only bring innuendos to try and divert attention from the real facts.
You seem to know Mr. McKibben, as you tried to make this personal by your last post. Really!!!!!!!!!!
8-O
The ethical question is simple: "Did any judge or judicial employee (or their family members to the third degree of relationship) hold shares in Facebook interests that would bring his/her impartiality into question."
ReplyDeleteA related question is "Did any judge or judicial employee have personal relationships with Facebook interests that would bring his/her impartiality into question."
If so, that judge or judicial employee must disclose and recuse. In any event, remember that the entire Federal Circuit was represented by Thomas G. Hungar, Gibson Dunn LLP (Facebook's Leader v. Facebook attorney) in a 2010 Federal Circuit Bar Association ethics matter. Facebook investments or not, the whole court had a duty to disclose and recuse nonetheless. No amount of misdirection about mutual funds can hide these parallel facts.
This ethical issue is a serious question of public confidence in the objectivity of the judicial system. Judge bias will destroy the judicial system faster than any other problem.
Facebook has turned the judicial ethics rules into cheap parlor tricks. The Facebook cartel played this game by hiding the Facebook stock and related interests inside many mutual funds to try and skirt the rule. This grossly violates the basic principle of the judicial cannon of ethics to AVOID EVEN THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY. We can't make these letters big enough. ALL ETHICS LAW is founded on this principle.
The mutual fund rule was a general rule with lots of exceptions, and does not apply in Leader v. Facebook for multiple reasons. Most importantly, the rule was not meant to be a license for the kinds of sneaky activity that the Facebook cabal is trying to hide behind.
The mutual fund exemption does NOT apply to:
(1) most IRAs;
(2) funds that issue regular reports where the judge knows or should know the stocks in his portfolio;
(3) funds with notorious activity (like T.RowePrice and Fidelity pre-IPO Facebook investing);
(4) undisclosed purchases of "dark" instruments which conceal activity subject to transparency laws;
(5) law firm 401(k) retirement accounts;
(6) funds where stocks are held in the judge's (or spouse) name —"even one share"; and
(7) funds where there is an appearance of impropriety.
All of the funds analyzed by AFI investigators issue at least bi-annual reports (some monthly) and they're all online and freely accessible to the public, including to the judges. Judges have no excuse for ignorance about the investment holdings. In fact, the rules say that given their position of public trust, their ethical requirements are higher. In any event, the Wall Street Journal shouted out about the T. Rowe Price and Fidelity pre-IPO Facebook investing. Even my dog knew about it.
Remember, the general ethical rule is, in colloquial terms, the SMELL TEST, which any reasonable person knows. Do the judge's actions avoid even the appearance of impropriety? If the law these Facebook defenders are citing do not pass the smell test, then that law is probably unconstitutional since the Canons and Judicial Ethics policy cited above say otherwise, and clearly so.
The judicial branch is supposed to be "self-policing." However, we're seeing no self-policing in Leader v. Facebook. These judges are turning a blind eye to all of Facebook's sins.
Here are those ethical rules again, just in case Jill missed them:
CODE OF CONDUCT FOR UNITED STATES JUDGES
http://www.uscourts.gov/RulesAndPolicies/CodesOfConduct/CodeConductUnitedStatesJudges.aspx
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Ethics & Judicial Conduct, Vol. 2B, Ch. 2
http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/conduct/Vol02B-Ch02.pdf
The laws, ethical guidelines, and historical precedences are clear.
ReplyDeleteIt's a very simple issue of judges not having conflicts of interests in cases they are hearing. In the Leader v. Facebook case, AFI has proven with public records that the judges involved in the case were not clean. This must be corrected. The damage has gotten out of control.
It is simply stated to Moses in Exodus (chapter 18, verse 21): "You shall seek out from among all the people capable men who fear God, trustworthy men who spurn ill-gotten gain. Set these over them as chiefs of thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens, and let them judge the people at all times..."
The Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges and Guide to Judiciary Policy explicitly demand the same values, This is not complicated.
Citing the bible, perhaps the most morally bankrupt text of all time, really does not lend credibility to any argument.
DeleteSo Jill, since by your comment you appear to reject the moral basis for Western civilization and American law, on what then do you base your moral judgments? You certainly make sweeping references to laws founded on Judeo-Christian principles when it suits you. Is that just for effect?
DeleteSince Jill rejects the Bible, maybe she would support just common sense. It is a serious risk for a judge to be impartial if he or she has a vested interest in one side of a case.
ReplyDeleteI hope Jill has the opportunity to go to court someday where the judge has a vested interest in her own opponent. Maybe then Jill would understand the fundamental need of an impartial judge.