|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Aug 8, 2014 6:25:39 GMT -5
19 hours agomedicalpete said:Late Wednesday night Bank of America made the sudden decision to give the U.S. the biggest financial settlement ever, nearly $17 billion to be paid to the Justice Department, for their role in causing the financial crisis. seagull Mini ModWonder why. www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/08/05/federal-spending-transparency-money-missing/13485581/ amperstand medicalpete Avatar 11 hours ago medicalpete said:Late Wednesday night Bank of America made the sudden decision to give the U.S. the biggest financial settlement ever, nearly $17 billion to be paid to the Justice Department, for their role in causing the financial crisis. I am not a defender of the big banks, but while the above message is true, it leaves out some important facts that otherwise could lead to some misconceptions: 1) It is true that BOA is negotiating the penalty 2) From the news article I read, I have the impression that if negotiations do not work out, BOA may withdraw their 'voluntary' settlement and more legal wrangling will ensue. 3) BOA is the third or fourth major bank to face fines and penalties - they are not the sole bank and cause of the debacle of 2008. 4) Other major banks have already been fined and those settlements have been reached. Just sayin'
|
|
|
Post by John Winston Lennon O'Boogie on Aug 8, 2014 6:43:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by John Winston Lennon O'Boogie on Aug 8, 2014 9:38:33 GMT -5
A crackdown on European banks by U.S. regulators that has resulted in a string of huge fines has European Central Bank officials concerned that the stiff penalties could further destabilize Europe’s already fragile banking system.
Specifically, ECB officials are worried that banks facing big U.S. fines don’t have enough capital on hand to pay the penalties, according to banking officials who spoke to Dow Jones Newswires.
To address those concerns, the ECB is reportedly considering adding elements to Europe’s version of bank stress tests to determine whether the biggest European banks are prepared to withstand big penalties levied by U.S. regulators.
Depending on how the new test is administered, it could require European banks to maintain higher capital levels.
The issue has come into stark relief following reports that the U.S. is seeking a $10 billion penalty against big French bank BNP Paribas for routinely violating U.S. sanctions by doing business with outlaw countries such as Iran and Sudan.
The U.S. has increasingly been cracking down on European banks that do a lot of business in the U.S. and have allegedly been flouting U.S. banking laws.
Credit Suisse (CS) felt the wrath last month, pleading guilty to criminal charges and accepting a $2 billion fine for helping wealthy Americans evade taxes by hiding money in secret Swiss accounts.
The guilty plea, which was demanded by U.S. regulators, was the first guilty plea by a big bank in more than a decade and a sign that U.S. investigators are getting serious about ending illegal activities by European banks.
U.S. regulators are reportedly seeking a guilty plea from BNP, as well.
In addition to BNP, a handful of other European banks are also under investigation for allegedly breaking the law by conducting transactions for nations facing U.S. sanctions. Other banks are facing scrutiny by U.S. and British investigators for allegedly manipulating benchmark interest rates. There’s also a long-running investigation into allegations that some big European banks helped rig currency markets.
Some European regulators have complained that the U.S. fines ignore the fact that European banks are acting within European laws and banking regulations.
In response to the reported BNP fine, Christian Noyer, the governor of the Bank of France, said BNP's alleged actions didn't violate European or French laws.
“We have indeed verified that all the transactions were in line with EU and French rules, regulations and directives,” Noyer said at a news conference. “So there have been no breaches.”
The European stress tests are being conducted on 124 banks by the ECB and the European Banking Authority with results due in October. Banks that fail will need to raise more capital in case of future losses tied either to another economic downturn or large penalties.
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Aug 8, 2014 16:10:00 GMT -5
nada999999 DIAMOND JEDI WARLORD Post by nada999999 on about an hour ago
Why do you think TPTB pays for Transferonline with a web portal? There are layers of security encryption on it. The best way for notification is in an electronic form. If you think Tyler and its partners in Alabama are paying for it with Amway purchases you are sadly mistaken imho
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Aug 8, 2014 16:11:50 GMT -5
drillbit DIAMOND JEDI WARLORD Post by drillbit on 57 minutes ago
I was hoping for Mary Kay Cosmetics and a pink Cadillac.
On a serious note, I contend that all of this CEO/board stuff is nothing but misdirection. It is curious that large amounts of money have been paid for many lawyers and our transfer agent. Just one EX. I am sure that an interpleader was enacted in 05 and that takes money. What makes me believe same? I have a 60 year friendship with a sitting Federal Judge and he said that the mailings and USA TODAY international posting, in the Summer of 06, had to be that action. No one takes that action without a d*mnn good reason as it identifies proper ownership of any assets.
|
|
|
Post by JoeRockss on Aug 9, 2014 6:27:41 GMT -5
Aug 4, 2013 at 12:15pmsptrader said: CMKM has NO claims, they have all expired, except for the 1010 claims held by Emerson Koch and he has shown no interest in developing them with CMKM.... thus the new company direction proposed by SK.. jmho
unconfused1
lol.. Alabama... In the bankrupt city of Birmingham/Jefferson County... And we "are looking for business credibility".....
And unless you are Creek or Seminole, there is no casino business in Fla or Al to get into...
CMKM will NEVER force a SHORT SQUEEZE because Maheu already did...
The end of this story is as unbelievable as the beginning (signs in Vegas, ticker on the car, got cmkx?? jeff does!!
If CMKM ever trades again it will be worth nothing to anyone but holders of newly issued preferred shares (insiders) if any get issued..
Common shareholders get reversed into oblivion...
I trust(ed) Mr. Maheu and by extension Al Hodges..
SK is a caboose in this train and he is playing his part well..
jmho
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Aug 15, 2014 21:36:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by timonesock on Aug 15, 2014 21:47:58 GMT -5
What was rescheduled and what happened today?
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Aug 15, 2014 22:21:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by timonesock on Aug 16, 2014 7:38:05 GMT -5
Thanks for the reply!
I have been lurking just too lazy to sign in lol!
|
|
|
Post by JoeRockss on Aug 19, 2014 10:17:52 GMT -5
8-17-14 - PAPAJACK: The only way we will ever see a [currency] RV is everything changing. No more Cabal, no more IRS, no more slave masters. So who are you going to be paying taxes to? The same criminals that have enslaved Americans since 1871? Everything will change, so why are you going to hire a tax professional that knows less about the new system than you do? How about the British Royalty legal fraud system are you going to trust their LAWYERS or are you going to educate yourselves? If your not already doing your homework do you think these criminals will just go away and quit stealing? It's time to grow up and pay attention this isn't your great grandfathers America anymore, you better trust GOD and check everything else. Lock and Load, buy the real precious metal LEAD, and know how to use it because if you don't protect yourself and your family who will while the rats are being rounded up and arrested. Freedom isn't free it's a responsibility!!!!! The TRUTH will make you free!!!! Remember the key TRN's, and New Republic. Another key follow the BRICS, they got tired of the criminals also, Remember we already won, we just have to walk it out. Stay thirsty my friends. Harv
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Aug 20, 2014 7:48:34 GMT -5
email fr willie wizard...
Short-selling litigationShort-selling litigation An enlightening mistake May 15th 2012, 18:16 by M.V. | NEW YORK A RARE slip-up by lawyers has helped to shed some rather interesting light on a high-profile legal battle, the details of which some of the largest Wall Street firms have been fighting to keep under wraps. In 2007 Overstock, a Utah-based online retailer, sued a dozen big brokers, alleging that they had caused its share price to fall sharply by helping their clients to engage in “naked” short selling. In a normal short sale, the shares are borrowed (or at least “located”) with a broker’s help before being sold. In the naked version, there is no attempt to pre-borrow the stock or even check that it exists. This can create “fails to deliver”, where the trade is not settled when it should be because there are not enough actual shares available for delivery. This messes with the laws of supply and demand, allowing shorting to take place beyond the natural limits set by the number of borrowable shares. Regulators have long frowned upon naked shorting. The rules against the practice have been tightened up a number of times over the past seven years. As the pre-trial discovery period proceeded, Overstock narrowed its focus to two firms, Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch, now part of Bank of America. Just before the case was set to go to trial in California, however, the judge dismissed it on jurisdictional grounds, ruling that not enough of the alleged wrongdoing had taken place in the state. Overstock appealed and pushed for all of the evidence to be unsealed. The defendants argued that virtually everything should remain sealed, in part because the documents contained “trade secrets”. Four media groups, including The Economist, jointly opposed a motion to seal on public-interest grounds. The judge decided that some of the documents should be released but stayed his ruling, pending appeal. That was how things stood until the end of last week, when the defendants’ lawyers sent their opposition to a plaintiffs’ motion to the other parties in the case. One of the exhibits attached to this, presumably inadvertently, was an unredacted version of an earlier filing by Overstock, opposing the defendants’ motion to seal papers. Within this exhibit is an intriguing six-page section, “Facts Defendants Improperly Seek to Seal” (pages 14-20 of this media.economist.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/Plaintiffs%20Opp%20to%20MSJ.pdf media.economist.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/Plaintiffs%20Opp%20to%20MSJ.pdf ), containing excerpts of e-mails written by Goldman and Merrill employees. In a number of these, they discuss deliberately failing to settle client trades. One Merrill executive suggests the firm “might want to consider allowing…customers to fail,” to which a colleague replies: “We are going to look into that.” Another asks: “How and when can we prevent the delivery [of shares]?” In another e-mail he requests an update from a lieutenant on “how we are going to fix fails and I want to know what we nees [sic] to do to make 369 market makers fail.” In response to a question from a large client about efforts at “cleaning up” fails, a Goldman man says that “we will let you fail.” In another message, he refers to a senior colleague “really backing down from…cleaning up fails.” Compliance officers repeatedly questioned this behaviour, according to the filing. A Merrill compliance person is quoted describing it as “totally unacceptable—we are failing when we have over a million shares of stock available…Is there a blanket agreement that we allow every market maker client to continue failing even if there is enough availability?” She adds that fails need to be “cleaned up regardless of who is causing them.” The e-mails also suggest close commercial links between the two firms and at least one trading outfit that was a target of regulatory probes into shorting violations, SBA Trading. In one message, a Merrill employee forwards a sanctions order against SBA’s Scott Arenstein to a counterpart at Goldman, referring to Mr Arenstein as “our boy” and asking: “You think there will be any fallout on clearing firms?” The Overstock filing also refers to a telephone transcript in which a Merrill compliance officer and a colleague discuss the fact that Mr Arenstein’s “recycling” of short sales is “not okay”. In another e-mail, the deputy head of Goldman’s securities-lending group describes Mr Arenstein as being “the other side of a lot of our activity.” Other missives suggest a cavalier attitude to the rules. In a 2005 e-mail, the president of one of Merrill’s stock-clearing businesses responds to internal concerns about the intentional failing of short sales thus: “f*ck the compliance area—procedures, schmecedures.” He has since assured the court that this statement was a joke, according to the filing. Goldman and Merrill have denied throughout that they participated in any sort of naked-shorting conspiracy. Their supporters argue that the legal action brought by Overstock is a crude tactic by Patrick Byrne, the retailer’s mercurial boss, to divert attention away from its long history of underperformance. (The firm continues to struggle, despite no longer being plagued by settlement failures.) Some question the link between failed trades and naked shorting, arguing that fails are generally the result of operational problems and other factors rather than naked nefariousness. Nevertheless, the release of the e-mail excerpts will have done the brokers no favours. They suggest that trades were being intentionally failed; that some of those involved were aware regulators would not look kindly upon some of the activity; that some of the firms’ internal policemen were unhappy with the explanations they received for the proliferation of fails; and that at least one senior executive appeared to have an unusual attitude towards compliance. The e-mails are just a very small part of the communications and other material unearthed during the four-year discovery process. If the court of appeal unstays the partial unsealing order, there will be much more to pore over, shining more light on an issue that has hitherto been as frustratingly murky as it has been controversial. www.economist.com/node/21555472
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Aug 22, 2014 13:32:05 GMT -5
We invested around ten years ago, give or take for individual investors. Since then we've seen race cars, motorcycles, tractor trucks, hummers, expensive properties come and go. We've seen people come and go, including some gurus, some criminals, personalities, fellow investors, people brought in to fix our plight and who left us as confused and empty handed as the day they arrived. We've seen a whole bunch of high-level developing situations vaguely identified for us, like NSS, DeBeers, currency revaluations, new currencies, bad actors arrested that we haven't heard about, borkers, bankers, shady operators, poor world leaders, and government realignments that are allegedly caused by some mystical not-ready-for-plebeians-to-understand programs, and of course, untold riches that would make us "unwashed masses" (or more simply put, we who are currently not worthy of even a simple explanation or way to independently verify any of this) a large part of the new financial ruling class of the world. The point? We aren't one step closer to having one thin dime in our hands after ten years of all this conversations about "tomorrow", "next week", or "soon"...much less mega-millions of dollars we keep being told are just one step away. Me personally, I'm not feeling the love...to be honest if this picture represented our situation, I'm not sure if we are the guy strapped backward on a mule in the desert, or the mule with a guy on our backs and a bottle of water dangled from a stick six inches from our nose in a desert...
|
|
|
Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Aug 27, 2014 8:18:49 GMT -5
I have always believed & have stated so, that CMKM Diamomds was dumped square into the lap of Steve kirkpatrick... AFTER the "Tyler Crew" were done with all the easy pickin's and low hanging fruit. Dumped into his lap with as many "Promises and Misinformation", as was handed to the CMKX shareholders. SK's greatest disadvantage was his ignorance, of the CMKX saga, and his "trust" in those who were feeding him contaminated meat. Warnings of "Red Flags" were offered.. but ignored. Go figure. portrush Administrato 23 hours ago Well, giving Steve the benefit of doubt... He's said to have been personally footing the bill for all these things for the three years he's been there already. Any monies that have come in we're said to have gone to attorneys. No, he didn't have full understanding of CMKX when he took over. When I met with him in person, he had a lot of history to catch up on. He owned up to that and had the character to say so. Shareholders inundated him with "their info"...such as it was. He has said he was told the WF suit was a slam dunk due to the evidence and just about 6 months before trial...never anticipated such delay. Lawsuit revenue then, and now (in several forms) is the key to funding his company's future. Originally, he came on to "get to the bottom" of whatever was happening, for the sake of shareholders. Only after time and lack of discovery did his public message change. Only he can answer why...but these are things mentioned in his webinars. pr portrush AdministratoHe's been funding some things personally (he says) and revenue from assets (properties) regained from insiders have been sold off to pay attorneys, taxes and some expenses. He's not taken a salary--as he has stated publicly. Most assuredly he's posting IOU's for when the company (at some point in time) can reimburse him for his time and expenses paid out of his pocket. He has said he's working for "free"...but I think its more of a deferred compensation arrangement. Free would mean there is never a reimbursement for his time. Candidly, I wouldn't do it without some kind of remuneration at some point, so I don't begrudge him one bit or one dime if it is reasonable. Even though I'm not a fan of the direction its gone, the workman is worthy of his hire. I won't paint him in borrowed robes, but a lot of people take shots at him being a "car wash salesman" and in doing so, cleverly or unknowingly leave out one word that makes a big difference; "system." pr *******edited to add the posts PR was responding to......*********
|
|
|
Post by portrush on Aug 27, 2014 9:00:44 GMT -5
Single,
You've copied my responses without the original questions they address...so it's slightly out of context. In short, these should be deemed supportive and not derisive. I differ with some opinions, and scratch my head with some strategies. Yet he is an intelligent man, moreso than many give him credit, and my interaction with him almost always left me with that impression. The fact that he hasn't thrown in the towel in spite of the adversity is laudible, albeit not profitable. He appears staunchly against anything remotely CMKM and that is disappointing to many, while insightful to others. Only time will tell which was right.
pr
|
|