Naked Shorting-Hedge Fund & Market Maker manipulation? Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Naked Shorting-Hedge Fund & Market Maker manipulation?

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

From: basserdan	3/5/2009 8:49:11 AM
	2 Recommendations of 5034

“If only there were a pattern” Dr. Jim DeCosta to the SEC: Ms. Florence Harmon Acting Secretary Securities and Exchange Commission 100 F. Street, NE Washington, DC 20549-9303 Re: Release No. 34-58773; File No. 87-30-08 – Amendment to Regulation SHO Interim Final Temporary Rule Dear Sirs, In noticing the vast disparity between the text of the ’33 and ’34 Acts in regards to fraudulent naked short sales and what the associated SEC enforcement policies appear to be I thought it would be prudent to see what the “official” policies and “official” mindset of the SEC are in this regard. I would think that the “official” policies and mindset of the SEC would be those that the SEC revealed to an appellate court judge while under oath via an amicus curiae brief in an abusive naked short selling case brought against the DTCC. When called on the carpet for their policies I assumed it would be very difficult for the SEC to “backpedal” and claim later that a certain policy or mindset was not their “official” policy at all. The following are the pertinent excerpts from the Nanopierce v. DTCC abusive naked short selling case that the SEC “volunteered” to file this brief in. My comments/critiques/suggestions for change are in red and in parentheses. Emphasis may have been added via bold letters, capital letters or underlining. Remember these are the “official” statements of the SEC made in a legal context. (basserdan's bolding for emphasis) The purpose of the brief was to convince the appellate court judge to not let the case go on to the discovery process. The question needs to be asked as to why the SEC would go well out of their way to prevent this case to advance to the point wherein the allegations of massive levels of unaddressed failures to deliver had put the share price of the corporation into a death spiral could be proven or disproven. Ironically it was the failure of the SEC to provide their congressionally mandated “comprehensive oversight” of the DTCC while using their “plenary rulemaking authority” to prevent these abuses as well as the failure of the DTCC to act as “the tool whose foundation was built upon the provision of investor protection” to follow their Section 17 A congressional mandate that forced this corporation to seek justice through litigation in the first place. Once they did seek justice through this route due to the “regulatory vacuum” they were forced to operate in sure enough both of the parties that failed to perform their congressionally mandated duties “tag teamed” up together to shoot down this attempt at seeking justice due to their regulatory lapse. One should be aware that the SEC did not write this amicus curiae brief. They signed it. Almost all of the phraseology comes right off of the DTCC and NSCC website as well as the comment letters written by the DTCC in regards to this subject. Theoretically an amicus brief is supposed to be written by an “independent” party as a “friend of the court” that may have expertise in a complex subject matter that might help the court render the proper verdict. Oddly enough writing your own amicus brief is a little bit reminiscent of an abusive hedge fund writing an analytical “hatchet job” on a corporation it is trying to bankrupt and then asking a corrupt analytical firm to sign off on it as being their own. “If only there were a pattern” to all of these abusive acts! BRIEF OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, AMICUS CURIAE, ON THE ISSUE ADDRESSED continued below: sec.gov

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next