To: jmhollen who wrote (2603 ) 10/12/1999 3:45:00 PM From: Dee Jay Read Replies (1) | Respond to
those interested in getting on Stockett's latest train heading towards wealth ought to read the SEC AL Judge's decision in the Hudson Investment Fund/Hudson Management/Hudson Advisors/Stockett matter which included entities Neuropro Nevada (a company that never existed except in Stockett's own words)/IPO/Hightec/Sinclare et al.sec.gov sec.gov Honesty is a basic quality required of securities His intent, demonstrated in the various business dealings described in the record, was to eventually gain control of the Hudson Fund and use it to manipulate stock prices in companies in which he and his partners held an interest. He had already swept the Hudson Respondents into his web of deceit, but he never consummated the big-money deal that would have triggered his takeover of the Hudson Respondents' business and fostered his potentially massive fraud. Mr. Stockett's misconduct was, therefore, the root of the evil in this case. There are no mitigating factors. Mr. Stockett denies anyThere is a substantial likelihood that Mr. Stockett will commit future violations of the securities laws. Over the last decade, Mr.Stockett's sole occupation has involved investors, investing, and seeking out capital. It is also relevant, if not determinative, on the issue of the appropriateness of a sanction in the public interest that Mr. Stockett has a significant disciplinary history in the securities industry. The public interest, therefore, requires the imposition of a harsh sanction against Mr. Stockett. This is commonly referred to as an industry-wide bar or "collateral bar." The Commission recently decided that it had the authority to issue such collateral bars against respondents "in cases where it is contrary to the public interest to allow someone to serve in any capacity in the securities industry." Meyer Blinder, 65 SEC Docket 1970, 1981 (Oct. 1, 1997). Two factors to consider inMr. Stockett's activities necessarily "flowed across" the various securities professions and posed a significant risk of harm to the investing public.immediate and comprehensive response in order to protect the public interest...." no money penalty should be issued against the Hudson Respondents. The Respondents' acts and omissions involved fraudulent and deceitful conduct and posed a significant risk of substantial losses to investors. Mr. Stockett's conduct, however, exhibited a higher level of scienter and egregiousness.The evidence is that Mr. Stockett intended to continue and expand his course of fraudulent and manipulative conduct. He has been disciplined by three government bodies for prior violative conduct and has, generally, demonstrated a reckless disregard of regulatory requirements. It is overwhelmingly likely that Mr. Stockett will violate the securities laws in the future, which emphasizes the need to deter him from doing so. (emphasis supplied by me throughout)
