Alan R. Kahn of Kahn Brothers Group Inc.seems to be a serial plaintiff. Do you have any information on Alan R. Kahn - Kahn Brothers Advisors LLC

Alan R. Kahn of Kahn Brothers Group Inc. seems to be a serial plaintiff. Must be how Alan R. Kahn of Kahn Brothers Group Inc. - makes a living.

Alan R. Kahn is the co-founder of New York investment advisory firm Kahn Brothers & Co. founded in 1978 and doing business today as Kahn Brothers Advisors LLC.

Alan R. Kahn's Firm - Kahn Brothers Advisors LLC - is said to be an employee owned investment manager with approximately $827 million in assets under management.

Kahn Brothers Advisors LLC , Alan R. Kahn primarily provides services to individuals and also manages accounts for pension and profit sharing plans, charitable organizations and corporations.

Kahn Brothers Advisors LLC , Alan R. Kahn invests in value stocks of small-cap and mid-cap companies and employs quantitative and fundamental analysis with a bottom-up stock picking approach.

Kahn Brothers Advisors LLC , Alan R. Kahn typically holds its investments for a period between three years and five years.

Kahn Brothers Advisors LLC , Alan R. Kahn left Kahn Brothers & Co. to become a private activist shareholder in a portfolio of companies ? Do you have a Whistleblower tip on Kahn Brothers Advisors LLC , Alan R. Kahn or on Kahn Brothers & Co. ?

Alan R. Kahn of Kahn Brothers Group Inc. seems to have made a career out of suing boards of companies via class action and derivative suits, and sponsoring proposals for and against management, is this true?


Alan R. Kahn of Kahn Brothers Group Inc. certainly seems to be a serial plaintiff to me.

It seems that around 60 cases were filed by Kahn Brothers Advisors LLC , Alan R. Kahn in the last 10 years alone, 23 of which were in Delaware Chancery Court.

There seems to be many cases brought by Alan R. Kahn's daughters.

Most of these cases seem to be for breach of fiduciary duty, so is this Alan R. Kahn of Kahn Brothers Group Inc.'s Specialty ?

Most of the of the Alan R. Kahn Lawsuits / Cases seem to have settled eventually, but some after protracted litigation, it would seem - what is the Real Story on all these Lawsuits over the last decade that Alan R. Kahn has filed?

There seems to be at least one case in which Alan R. Kahn filed for a TRO to enjoin the transaction, is this true? Hmmm.. it seems Alan R. Kahn's motion was denied on this.

Kahn v. Tremont was apparently filed in Delaware Chancery Court in 1991. In it, Alan R. Kahn alleged unfair treatment in connection with Tremont's purchases of NL Industries from Valhi Inc. at a time when Valhi allegedly controlled Tremont and NL Industries.

The case went to trial in 1996, where Alan R. Kahn apparently lost. Alan R. Kahn seems to have appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court, which reversed and remanded apparently because of an error having to do with the burden of persuasion applied at trial.

VC Lamb got the case on remand and opened the record more more evidence. The case settled in 1998. Much more on the Details of this Lawsuit and Every Lawsuit that Alan R. Kahn of Kahn Brothers Group Inc. filed in the last decade.

Do you have a Tip on any of the Serial Lawsuits filed by Alan R. Kahn of Kahn Brothers Group Inc. ? If so eMail me at Crystal@CrystalCox.com

Got a Tip on Alan Kahn Lawsuits, Kahn Brothers Group Inc., ?

Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Crystal@CrystalCox.com



Alan R. Kahn Knows the Investment Business. Seems Alan R. Kahn has a Long History of Filing Lawsuits

Alan R. Kahn - Kahn Brothers Group Inc.

Seems Like Alan R. Kahn loves filing lawsuits

"SEABOARD CORP.

In November 1998, Time magazine devoted nearly a quarter of Donald Bartlett and James Steele's four-part special report on corporate welfare to Seaboard, its subsidies, its treatment of its work force, and its environmental and business crimes. See also Boston Business Journal, February 1993; and Kansas City Star, April 1993.

"In 1990, Alan R. Kahn, a Wall Street investment broker and Seaboard stockholder, filed a lawsuit in Delaware seeking an accounting of the profits earned by the Breskys through their intercompany dealings.

Kahn alleged that the Breskys required Seaboard Corp. to enter into business deals with Seaboard Flour that generated "unlawful profits" for Seaboard Flour. In short, according to Kahn's allegations, the Breskys used their controlling positions in the two companies to move money from the public company to their private business... "

Source
http://www.endgame.org/dtc/s.html

Much More Coming Soon on the Many Lawsuits of Alan R. Kahn of Kahn Brothers Group Inc.,

Do You have a Tip on Alan R. Kahn - Kahn Brothers Group Inc.?
at Crystal@CrystalCox.com
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger


Alan R. Kahn, Alan Kahn

Alan R. Kahn, Alan Kahn

Request for Congressional Foreclosure Panel - STOP Creating Real Estate Victims - Real Estate Whistleblower

"URGENT need for Lawmakers to take action! Scores of HOMEOWNERS DO NOT CONTEST FORECLOSURES BECAUSE:

1. They don't have knowledge of the law in order to recognize which aspects of foreclosure are legally challengeable or even fraudulent.

2. And even those who identify wrongdoing lack funds to pay for attorneys to represent them.

3. Homeowners are told to come to foreclosure auctions with $$$$$$$ that they do not have, SO THEY STAY AWAY from foreclosure auctions.

These homeowners are oblivious about sometimes "straw buyers" and sometimes lawyers in charge of foreclosures, obtains ILLEGAL ownership of people's homes; and pay literally nothing through "credit bids;" and that those recorded deeds from such auctions are null! For these very reasons, there needs to be a probe of lawyers who file foreclosures. http://chn.ge/eU2zAm

Also, the average lay person doesn't know about legal REQUIREMENTS of "standing" that prevents their homes from being repossessed via non-existent lenders or via lenders which have no ownership of promissory notes.

Yet, COURTS ARE SUPPOSED TO ENFORCE STANDING and compliance with established laws! Illegal, defective, fraudulent foreclosures are the cause of useless property deeds for real estate sales; title insurance companies refuse coverage on foreclosed properties –and more!

Further, after certain foreclosure auctions (via simulation) result in fraudulent – NOT LENDER ACQUISITIONS, by lawyers or straw buyers, the common scenario becomes property flipping, neighborhood blight, rodents, and so on!

*
Sample of fraudulent foreclosure acts:

–Deliberately use defunct lenders, lenders without “standing” for false civil and bankruptcy foreclosure proceedings.
– Create and conceal malpractice foreclosure delays and engineer billable litigation.
– Orchestrate sham foreclosure auctions; property never acquired by lenders, but 'straw buyers’

– Commit actionable wrongs (unfair debt collection, fraud, various torts) that create lawsuits
– Self-dealing foreclosures which certain lawyers themselves obtain foreclosed properties for flipping.
–Foreclosures naming defunct lenders, illegally recorded property deeds, flipping, blighted communities.
– Unconscionably create false deficiency judgments against property owners after straw buyers acquire homes for pennies on the dollar.

Intentionally false BANKRUPTCY COURT “Motion to Lift” and “Proof of Claim” on behalf of non-existent lenders which conceals fact of “NON-SECURED” mortgage debt.

–Involved in fraudulent collection of property damage insurance, as well as mortgage-default insurance.
–Fraudulent foreclosures abet loss of property taxes to city revenue, rodents, vagrants
– Thousands of families made unlawfully homeless from null foreclosure proceedings.

*MORE info: Request for Congressional Foreclosure Panel to Examine Foreclosure Lawyers
http://www.change.org/petitions/view/request_for_congressional_foreclosure_panel_to_examine_foreclosure_lawyers# "
Barbara Ann Jackson


Note from Crystal L. Cox: As a Real Estate Broker Owner for 11 years Now.. I Say.. the Banks, Lenders, Mortgage Companies, Association of Realtors.. they ALL knew this was happening and the covered them self, they hid assets... filed corrupt bankruptcies and all the while they got Real Estate Consumers into this Mess Deliberately. Fraudulent MLS Data - Not Policed for Quality Control by Anyone... appraisals from this data that were coming way high and the banks new it .. they allowed 10% and it climbed daily.. NAR lied to consumers in Mass Fraudulent Campaigns to promote buying Real Estate NOW and be sure and us a member of the National Association of Realtors and keeps NAR in business as they continue to lobby to make those loans easier for you to get ... NAR is the TOP of the FOOD Chain in the Foreclosure Fraud Crisis...

Sue NAR in mass Class Action Lawsuits, file Criminal Charges... NAR violates Anti-Trust Laws daily and they are too rich and powerful to be Stopped.. NAR made it easy for these foreclosures.. and when the proverbial SHIT hit the fan.. NAR lobbied for buyers credits and whatever it took to KEEP you buying..

Even though NAR's Chief Economist Lied to you the whole time the Market was Falling.. NO accountability. Time to Break Down the Banks, Time to HOLD Foreclosure and Bankruptcy Attorneys Accountable for their actions and to expose what really happened in the Secondary Mortgage Market.. as so many lost so much and were Flat OUT lied to and have not Recourse..

Enough is ENOUGH
Crystal L. Cox

Also Check Out

Bruce Sewell, Apple General Counsel aids and abets Criminals and is involved in the Stealing of Inventions.

Bruce Sewell Flat Out Lies and Technology Media Eats it Up .. Cuz Bruce Sewell is a Big Wig at Apple.. So What.. Bruce Sewell is still involved in Massive Shareholder Fraud.

Bruce Sewell, Apple General Counsel Use to be a Big Player at Intel Corp. as Bruce Sewell was Intel Corps. General Counsel Before being Big Man on Campus over at Apple.

Bruce Sewell new Full Well about the Iviewit Inventors having their Technology Stolen and used by Intel Corp. and Bruce Sewell simply ignored this FACT. I assume that Bruce Sewell Apple General Counsel let APPLE know during his interview process.. what he knew.. because see Bruce Sewell wanted that Apple Job pretty bad.. and Apple . .along with Intel Corp. , Warner Bros., AOL, Sony and many other companies involved in a Massive Shareholder Fraud over the Iveiwit Stolen Patent WELL Apple stands to gain Billions over Keeping this Dirty Little Iviewit Technologies Secret. And who knows what "Payoff" or Dark Alley Deal the Corrupt Attorney Bruce Sewell made with Apple before he got is big ol' Apple Pay Check.

Bruce Sewell is Apple’s general counsel and Bruce Sewell is senior vice president of Legal and Government Affairs at APPLE. Bruce Sewell Reports to Apple’s CEO.

Bruce Sewell serves on the Apple's executive team and oversees all legal matters, including corporate governance, intellectual property, litigation and securities compliance, as well as government affairs.

So Bruce Sewell is a Very Big Deal at Apple and well In my Opinion because I have a Brain and Can Read, Well Bruce Sewell is Corrupt, is involved in Intellectual Property Infringements, Bruce Sewell has participated in cover up a Multi-Trillion Dollar Shareholder Fraud that involves Millions of Innocent Investors and Bruce Sewell is NO where Near One of the Good Guys as Bruce Sewell, in My Opinion STEALS PATENTS.. helps Major Companies like Intel and Apple to easily take inventors patents .. stomp on inventors rights and to raking in Billions .. paying off officials and well Business as usual in the Corrupt "Patent Theft" world of Bruce Sewell.

So we Know that Bruce Sewell left intel under some pretty odd and quick circumstances and well hush .. hush on that right. ?? and we can assume that Bruce Sewell let Apple know of his knowledge of the Iviewit Holdings, Iviewit Technologies Patent Theft and the fact that he knew Intel was using this Stolen Technology and helped them to cover it up.. See this WOULD be a Huge Asset for Corrupt Bruce Sewell to Bring To Apple as their new General Counsel Right? I mean Apple owes Iviewit Huge Royalties as Well Right. .and for over a Decade Now..

So the Apple Responds in Patentgate Bullshit your Reading.. well the TRUTH is APPLE general Council Bruce Sewell is Corrupt and there is NOTHING amiciable about HIM..

Apple Lies About "PatentGate" as Does Bruce Sewell.

http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=337

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1597997

So what is the "Real PatentGate" and What Dirty Deeds is Bruce Sewell, Apple General Counsel up to now with the headline of Patentgate.. ??

Got a Tip on PatentGate, or on the Corrupt Activities of D. Bruce Sewell Apple's General Counsel? if so Email me Crystal L. Cox Investigative Blogger at Crystal@CrystalCox.com

Check Out these Links for More on the Corruption of Bruce Sewell ~ Apple General Counsel...

http://www.brucesewell.com/2010/03/eliot-bernstein-of-iviewit-technologies_16.html

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1597997

Click Here for Proof that Bruce Sewell Knew Full Well of the Iviewit Stolen Technology

Click Here for SEC Complaint Naming Bruce Sewell Apple General Counsel

Also More on the Iviewit Stolen Technology at

http://www.iviewit.tv/

http://www.deniedpatent.com/

http://patentgate.blogspot.com/2006/01/iviewit-news-story.html

Posted Here by
Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox

Boulder Real Estate - Boulder Colorado Real Estate

Boulder Real Estate

Boulder Colorado Real Estate Agent.

Boulder Real Estate Market Tips, Boulder Real Estate Market Analysis.

Boulder Colorado Real Estate Broker.

Boulder Colorado News

FTC Docket 9288, May 1998.. So How Long has the FTC, SEC, DOJ Protected Intel Corp.?

Beginning Docket 9288, May 1998.. So How Long has the FTC, SEC, DOJ Protected Intel Corp.?

Over a Decade. WHAT !!

Prior Reports IGNORED by those Paid to Protect YOU???

"" Beginning Docket 9288, May 1998, various reports and analysis are submitted by this analyst to FTC now operating in voluntary civic service capacity under Department of Labor Code 3363.5. Today a decade of analysis delivers tens of Docket 9341 discovery proofs or pointers to proofs.

Many of which this audience are familiar from prior reports by this analyst submitted to U.S. Senate, Congress, State AGs and U.S. Attorneys.

Under Docket 9341 discovery rules, work from this analyst is passed by FTC Bureau of Competition to Intel for legal rebuttal.

Three Components of Monopoly Recovery

Monopoly recovery is a worldwide financial value having three main components:

1) Consumer recovery is based on the system costs of Intel Inside tied charge back for routing Intel microprocessors across state lines and inter nation boundaries inside a computer chassis. See prior analyst submissions for specific details covering the illegal aspects of this market rigging rebate fee scheme.
SEC, U.S. Senate, Congressional Committees, State Attorney Generals, U.S. Attorneys

2) Consumer recovery from monopoly price premium associated with some Intel microprocessor and PC product introductions.

3) Industrial harms which include predatory product dumping, Intel selling at a price less then average total cost, measures of variable down to average fixed cost. Finally, estimation of the marginal cost for Intel to produce a single x86 microprocessor in relation to price sought with variable cost cross check. Where price is within or lower then average fixed cost, variable or marginal cost, revenues
from those quantities are recorded as an industrial monopolization recovery value for FTC discovery.

Consumer Recovery Subset 1; kick back, in violation of Sherman Act Section 1, Section 2, Clayton Act Section 2, 3, 4, 5, 13e, 13c, 13d, Title 48, 1986 anti kickback act

Of the $26.442 billion subset of consumer recovery documented from Intel production estimates (where $42 billion total set is documented by contract), $22.657 billion or 85% is associated with Intel Inside tied charge back sum misrepresented in Intel and PC Dealer financials. That sum is split between Intel and PC Companies 50:50 for the purpose of this analysis based on the Intel Inside monopoly system metric. Yet Intel’s portion is known to increase, and PC Companies decrease, over the 15 year duration of this Intel Insider operation.

Intel financials associate Intel Inside as a marketing cost credited to PC Company micro- processor sales. When this commissionable sales value is actually an accrued Dealer rebate passed through Intel as a sales reward for Media Sales Agents taken as their fee, to sustain the supply chain’s product distribution ties between Intel, PC Dealers and Media Agent’s sales channels. Sales Channels include PC Week, PC Magazine, Computer Shopper, Family Computing, PC World, Windows Magazine, other PC and some general media.

Rebate values are sustained from back in time with forward time purchase agreements. Production short run to short run, Dealer’s microprocessor purchases are unnaturally weighted to benefit them guiding Media Agents sales preferences. Intel 1st tier Dealers purchase microprocessors in excess of end demand solely to strip margin values, including consumer transport charge, prior to reselling overage into secondary broker channels. PC Dealers who are Intel’s 1st tier brokers monopolize majority of Intel margin values, including tied charge back, sustaining their Media Sales Agent artificial attractor and the cross industry distribution tie in total.

This relationship is a financially driven one, planned and implemented for Media Sales Agents to register, meter, report level’s of Intel microprocessor flows through PC dealer channels back to Intel. That is the nature of the charge back; for media registering and reporting back channel sales flows through PC Companies to Intel. Over time the system evolved into one which accelerated Dealer product flows artificially from one Intel product generation to the next, on the weight of Intel kickback placements meant to discharge certain Dealer inventory, to end market buyers, on an Intel time schedule.

SEC, U.S. Senate, Congressional Committees, State Attorney Generals, U.S. Attorneys ""

Source of Post
Document the FTC, DOJ, SEC, State Attorney Generals, FBI and more know of and seem to be ignoring.. Go to www.CEOpaulOtellini.com document at top of blog...

Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Crystal@CrystalCox.com

FTC in Intel Settlement Talks; before July 22? Intel Closed Door Settlements with the FTC? Intel Executive Amnesty???

"FTC in Intel Settlement Talks; before July 22?

Please be advised this analyst is opposed to Intel closed door settlement with FTC on or before July 22; transparency being at issue.

Commissioners and discovery team know RICO, Sherman Act Section 1 and Section 2 per se violations are documented.

This analyst encourages the September hearing proceed accordingly for full disclosure, full remedies, consumer recovery which is a core value of the FTC’s charter.

Advantageously and for hearing efficiency, all Section 2 Rule of Reason claims lacking specific per se condemnation precedent, can be reviewed between the Section 1 and RICO Proofs, without fear of FTC 9341 overall case loss.

Including waste of Federal financial and manpower resource, further, that FCA has already been won on weight of evidence and is itself capable of recovering a portion, if not all, FTC 9341 litigation costs.

This analyst believes it important that every American know how to spot competition espionage occurring in the work place in real time, how to report in real time, how to resolve in real time and not over 18 year’s time as in my case.

In this continuing case of Intel Monopoly analysis, meant for FTC and DOJ discovery, leadership, error correction, law augments, inter Nation competition policy evolution, Intel Network, system and structural improvement, RICO and competition remedies and consumer recoveries.

In addition financial recovery of the economic damages for all targets harmed and pushed under by Intel Network, including in the Docket 9288 case obstruction are required under Intel’s DOJ antitrust compliance obligations.

That is for Intel and Network Executive Amnesty and or immunity from maximum antitrust and RICO damages. This would seem to include those associated with FTC Docket 9341.

I’d presume Intel is Participating in reversing the frame and fraud associated with Docket 9288 obstruction.

Alternatively in the face of a known obstruction in the administration of justice which includes witness tampering, fraudulent construction and white wash, the Docket 9341 clock could be reset to June 11, 1991.

June 11, 1991 is the inception of the Intel Insider Scheme enabling a complete Intel monopoly consumer recovery.

Pursuant to Docket 9341
, I am concerned that $72 billion dollars in monopolization have been calculated.

And that the worldwide consumer recoverable from Intel tied charge back, and monopoly price of up to $42 billion, will be left un-recovered or left on the negotiating table in any FTC closed door Docket 9341 settlement.

Our knowing this fact of the consumer recoverable, legitimately, consumers are due their return from Intel and Network members.

The history of Intel class actions suggests any privately litigated consumer class action will be blown or settled on disproportionate values too harms.

This attorney opinion is supported by historical evaluation, including attorneys who would take the FCA, if not for their knowledge of the history of Intel market rigging, the various corporate political, time trap and litigation hurdles.

Intel Network adverse litigation for year’s has been sand bagged, blown, thrown and settled on minor causes with slim remedies and minor financial recovery in relation to harms. Here our countries history of private antitrust litigation ends until attorneys who would risk toughest corporate, political, legal and judicial hurdles resolves itself.

FTC and DOJ can restart that tradition of private antitrust litigation with full Intel Network disclosures, monopoly encompassing remedies and recoveries, where world wide consumer recoveries are due consumers including the Federal government.

Bursting boilers and the Federal Power, Garrison Dam Disaster and the Federal Power, Bar Pilots and the Federal Power, Finance & Securities Disaster and Federal Power, broken oil well valves and the Federal Power, broken regulatory & the Federal Power; fixing broken Intel and the Federal Power, transparently, offers the potential for one of Intel’s greatest legacies.

A cornerstone on which willing members of Bar and Bench, and corporate entities, will see and take action regulation seriously. Lacking Bar and Bench free from corporate political network control, I fear broken regulatory will remain.

A functional regulatory, Bar & Bench, are required first lines of monopoly and rackets error detection and correction.

Pursuant to FCA, I will be requesting Congress and/or President Obama please assign a Federal attorney for qui tam representation.

A case to whom I am recognized Relator and hold the U.S. Attorney recovery reward letter, having been steward for many years before and following my official Relator status.

No legitimate private attorney will take the case in the face of the market rig.

Fifth, finance and investment bankers use Quanda model, with price projection tools, to model Intel revenue and margins; like media retrospectively, to play the stock up to two years in advance.

Sixth, Intel inside individual stock traders can do the same thing as I’ve demonstrated to FTC and U.S. DOJ.

Seventh, the Intel Quanda on mass weight of use, retrospectively, extended Intel’s x86 and PC market rigs to the NASDAQ; including in relation to other exchanges.

Think about it, Intel Insider ability to play the stock of Intel and PC Dealers up to two years in advance is an extreme catalyst to rig not only individual stock prices, but the NASDAQ index itself.

The Quanda was used to rig markets;
Intel had DOJ 1st report responsibility.

Eight, combination and cartel proofs exist throughout Intel economic and system structural proofs. Structural proofs are easily deciphered from their component patterns and prove intent to monopolize per se. No other conduct proofs are required.

Nine, U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission are well aware of the Section 1 per se condemnations, Section 2 per se intent, RICO, Quanda and its reliance by Intel Network as one of their many market rigging tools.

Ten, for FTC there is no risk of Docket 9341 case loss where all Section 2 Rule of Reason claims concerning access to Intel component taper, Intel benchmark rigging, false statements to Federal procurement by Intel, Dealers and Agents concealing fraudulent and monopoly costs assessed on the Federal Government computer payment claims.

All can be heard within the bracket; Section 1 structure, Section 2 intent and RICO proofs. Please consider one of multiple proofs below:

In the RICO proof below, find partial classic Intel Xeon Tanner and Xeon Copper mine economic analysis. Playing signaling revealed by the Quanda, savvy PC Dealers were informed to stick with the quasi static equilibrium and back eddy offered by Xeon Tanner, and to avoid being washed over the falls that is Xeon Cascades.

Cascades is the Intel desktop microprocessor Copper mine 256, repackaged as a high performance Xeon server product at monopoly price premium and for dumping onto AMD. Xeon Cascades was not a high performance product and by June 2000 main board suppliers serving the broker system market, had rejected it, causing Intel to cancel its retail boxed version of the Cascade product line. Cascade’s was then left to sell through Intel primary Dealer channels.

Please note that AMD Opteron code names; Sledge Hammer and Claw Hammer, follow in response to Intel Network notice of Tanner signaling and pending Cascade predatory product dumping. Dumping is relied on by Intel a lot.

Strategically to stop current competitive product flows in channels or to make it unprofitable for competitors to enter that product category.


Full Document and Source:
www.CEOpaulOtellini.com
on Top of Site...

Information by
Mike Bruzzone
Intel Case Technical Analysis since 1996
Camp Marketing Consultancy

posted Here by
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Got an Intel Insider Trading TIP?
Crystal@CrystalCox.com

V3RGE now selling surplus gaming hardware direct to public.V3RGE

V3RGE is The premier wholesaler of refurbished consumer gaming hardware

V3RGE will sell products through the Internet.

V3RGE will also sell V3RGE Products from their V3RGE retail seasonal outlet stores in East Peoria, IL, August 19, 2010:

V3RGE, the premier wholesaler and refurbisher of consumer gaming hardware will offer their products directly to the public via the internet and regional seasonal outlet stores.

Systems offered by
V3RGE will include Microsoft Xbox 360, Sony Playstation 3 and PSP, and Nintendo Wii and DS.

V3RGE will also offer gaming accessories such as OEM controllers and hard drives.
V3RGE has begun listing the products on Amazon.com with plans to expand their V3RGE eCommerce site as well.

The
V3RGE retail stores will be located in Central Illinois, to be serviced by V3RGE 's East Peoria distribution center, and will also include games and software titles for the V3RGE systems.

Bruce Sewell Apple's General Counsel is NOT doing His Job and Apple PR Lead Steve Dowling is Covering for Bruce Sewell

Headlines Read 
"Apple manager held on kickback charges"
- Hmmmm

My Guess is Paul Shin Devine is the fall guy for some BIGGER players..

I mean where is the Corrupt Bruce Sewell Fit into this One.. ?? and Come on a Million Dollars is NOTHING in the world of Apple, iPhone, and Computer Technology.. I Smell a RAT !! 

These Billionaire Companies often pay around $50 Million Just to Call off Mergers.. I mean what in the world is the REAL issue over a Million Dollars.. when Apple is Making Billions on Top of Billions from Technology they have Stolen or in using Technoloty that their Apple General Counsel KNOWS is Stolen such as the Iviewit Stolen Patent

From what I believe of Bruce Sewell, well he probably knew of Paul Shin Devine's activities and helped Paul Shin Devine pull it off.. I mean come on ... Apple PR Guy - Steve Dowling is So Absolutely full of Shit that Steve Dowling ~ Steve Dowling said in a statement. "We have zero tolerance for dishonest behavior inside or outside the company."

So Apples Lead PR Guru, Genius Dipshit Steve Dowling Flat Out Lies Saying that Apple has Zero Tolerance for Dishonest Behavior Inside or Outside of the Company.  What a Crock Steve Dowling, Apple is part of a Massive Shareholder Fraud Coverup in the Iviewit Technologies Inc. Stolen Technology and Apple General Counsel Corrupt Attorney Bruce Sewell has known of the Iviewit Scandal for a VERY Long Time.  In Fact Bruce Sewell knew of the Iviewit Scandal before Bruce Sewell Left Intel Corp. as their General Counsel under "Mysterious" circumstances.

Wonder what Apple Lead PR Genius Steve Dowling has to Say about Apple Owing Billions to the Iviewit Technologies Company. OR What APPLE PR lead Steve Dowling has to Say about Bruce Sewell Apple General Counsel and Bruce Sewell's Role in the Corrupt Intel Corp. Stealing and Using the Inviewit Technology Inventions ??? 

What Does PR Guy - Steve Dowling for Apple have to Say about the iPhone Technology that uses the Stolen Technology of the Iviewit Inventors and is VERY Known by Apple General Counsel Bruce Sewell ?

Steve Dowling Also .. and Seems to Be Serious as Steve Dowling Says it.. Well Steve Says, ""Apple is committed to the highest ethical standards in the way we do business," Apple spokesman Steve Dowling said in a statement. "  - OMG How can Steve Dowling Keep a Straight Face Saying this Crap.. ?? That is a Flat Out Lie, just Look at the History of APPLE big dicking the little guy, squashing on Inventor Rights and in some cases flat out Stealing Inventions.. or Licenses to Use them..

In Todays News, that .. Well To Me is Steaming with Back Stories and Scandals Galore.. Anyway Steve Dowling Here is Todays Apple Corruption News..

"Apple manager held on kickback charges - Apple manager arrested for alleged $1M in kickbacks"

An Apple manager was arrested Friday for allegedly accepting kickbacks from Asian suppliers, totaling more than $1 million.

Paul Shin Devine worked at Apple as a global supply manager and allegedly used his position to obtain confidential information from the company, according to the San Jose Mercury News. The information was then allegedly sold to the suppliers, helping them negotiate more favorable contracts with Apple.

"Apple is committed to the highest ethical standards in the way we do business," Apple spokesman Steve Dowling said in a statement. "We have zero tolerance for dishonest behavior inside or outside the company."

The companies involved in the kickback scheme were not named in the federal indictment, but it is known that they were suppliers of iPhone and iPod accessories.

Devine allegedly opened foreign bank accounts in his wife's name to disguise payments. It's not known at this time what tipped off the FBI and IRS to the kickback scheme or how deeply Apple was involved in the investigation.

In a separate action, Apple filed a civil suit against Devine for the kickbacks he allegedly received over several years.

Devine will appear in a San Jose court on Monday. "

Source of Post on Bruce Sewell, Paul Shin Devine, Steve Dowling
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20013665-37.html

So Paul Shin Devine - Got any Secrets On Apple or on Apple General Counsel Bruce Sewell ? If so I am All Blogger Ears and Ready to EXPOSE Bruce Sewell for the Corrupt, Evil, Technology Stealing, Criminal Assisting Gentleman that Bruce Sewell Really Is.. So Paul Shin Devine email me Crystal L. Cox ~ Investigative Blogger - Crystal@CrystalCox.com

Attention anyone Knowing Paul Shin Devine - My Guess is that Paul Shin Devine is being set up for something bigger and that Bruce Sewell Apple General Counsel Knows About it..

So If you know Paul Shin Devine - eMail me a Tip on this Story,
I know there is MORE to It... Crystal@CrystalCox.com

V3RGE - Information on V3RGE - Reviews on V3RGE.

V3RGE

V3RGE is an Online Company.  V3RGE Sells Refurbished V3RGE Consoles, V3RGE Games and V3RGE Electronics. V3RGE is undergoing major, Positive Changes.  V3RGE is undergoing expansion and positive action. V3RGE is striving for integrity and to build a quality online business.

V3RGE, more information on V3RGE Coming Soon.



V3RGE Complaints

Neuberger Berman very Interested in my Posts on Richard Chimberg and Neuberger Berman

Neuberger Berman PR Services - are You Interested?

Hmmm.. Neuberger Berman Sure interested in Posts on Richard Chimberg Today.

Remember back when Richard Chimberg PR Guy for Neuberger Berman emailed Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox (Me) and demanded I change a post on the Neuberger Berman Sale? Well since then Richard Chimberg has said no more to me and neither has in house PR Guy Randy Whitestone of Neuberger Berman.

I wonder How much Neuberger Berman pays Randy Whitestone and Richard Chimberg to do PR for them? I mean How Good Can Richard Chimberg and Randy Whitestone be if they do not even own their own dotcom, guess Randy Whitestone and Richard Chimberg were just riding the wave of the way things have always been and assume that their Cushy PR Jobs are safe..

I mean who could do better then Randy Whitestone and Richard Chimberg Right? Surely Richard Chimberg and Randall Whitestone have a handle on the Rumors Circulating about the now Infamous and Possibly Fraudulant Sale of Neuberger Berman.

So why is Neuberger Berman scouring my Industry Whistleblower Blogs Today? What is Neuberger Berman Looking for? Maybe Neuberger Berman wants to see if I Intent to write more on the Neuberger Berman Sale and the Possible Pending Lawsuits over the Neuberger Berman. I mean who knows why Neuberger Berman is on My Investigative Blogger Blogs today.

Somone from Manila, Philippines Today Searched "Neuberger Berman LLC "$30 million lawsuit" - So what's up with That.. There are so many Smoke and Mirrors with the Neuberger Berman Sale - the Bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers and well Let's Just Say if it Walks Like a A Duck... Well it's a Duck"...

The Depository Trust Company Brooklyn, New York Looking for "neuberger berman board of directors email address" - and Well they find my Sites on Neuberger Berman So What does Richard Chimberg and Randy Whitestone actually get Paid to do? Must be Neuberger Berman Press Releases, Smoke and Mirror Illusions to Pull S0mething over Somebody.. You would Think that a Hedge Fund.. or Really any Company worth over a Hundred Billion Dollars would Hire someone Better the Current Neuberger Berman PR Chumps..

Oh and someone at the California State University Searched "Neuberger Berman Scam" - So what is the Truth about Neuberger Berman and Just How many Billions was innocent Investors Scammed Out of in the Neuberger Berman Scam Sale of Smoke and Mirrors Illusions?

Got an Tips on Neuberger Berman,
Randy Whitestone, Lehman Brothers, Proskauer Rose
or Richard Chimberg?

If So email Email me, Crystal L. Cox -
Investigative Blogger - Crystal@CrystalCox.com

Eliot I. Bernstein, Iviewit Technologies Vs. The Florida Bar. Florida Supreme Court Corruption and Cover Ups over the Iviewit Stolen Patent.

"QUESTION(S) PRESENTED

1. Does this Court have the power to intercede on behalf of Petitioners' constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution when all other legal remedies instituted to protect such rights at the state level, such as access to the courts, due process and procedure and others, have all been usurped Petitioner by dubious methods employed by members of the system designed to protect such rights?

2. Does this Court have the power to intercede on behalf of Petitioner when the state courts and their self regulated attorney disciplinary system has been infiltrated and corrupted so as to turn the traditional mechanisms of protection for Petitioners' rights, against Petitioners' rights, by those charged with upholding such rights?

3. Did the Florida Supreme Court err in denying the motion for rehearing, clarification and certification?

4. Did the Florida Supreme Court not only err in decisions but in fact take actions to aid and abet members of that court and its disciplinary agencies and agents from escaping prosecution of violations of public office and conflicts of interests?

5. Did the Florida Supreme Court err in denying the petition for relief and did it also err in failing to provide an opinion or explanation?

6. Did the Florida Supreme Court err in refusing Petitioner's request for conflict of interest checks prior to considering the original petition?

7. Did the Florida Supreme Court err in failing to seek Judicial Qualifications Commission approval as requested by Petitioner prior to the ruling on the motion for rehearing, clarification and certification, in evaluating if their order to destroy the records pertinent to conflicts of interests and violation of public offices of its members, prior to record retention policies, was an attempt to obstruct due process and procedure in effort to aid and abet its members caught in conflict and does this Court have power to levy such charges against them?

8. Does the order to destroy the work product files of The Florida Bar and only return Petitioner filings to Petitioner constitute the basis for charges of obstruction of justice by this Court, as that courts efforts were designed to deny this Court all the facts and evidence in the matters now before this Court?

9. Was the Florida Supreme Court obligated to report the conflicts of interest, violations of public offices at The Florida Bar they oversight, asserted and confirmed conflicts of interests, to the proper authorities?

10. Does the failure to report constitute basis for charges by this Court against that court for failure to uphold justice and follow state law and procedure?

11. Was the Florida Supreme Court obligated to review the merits of attorney misconduct pursuant to their exclusive jurisdiction to regulate and discipline attorneys in the state of Florida?

12. Did the Florida Supreme Court err and further act as accomplice by not allowing Petitioners' complaints to be filed against public office members of Respondent caught in conflict of interest and abuse of public office?

Is such refusal of complaints against public officers against the intent of the Florida and United State constitutions when creating a complaint process to protect the public's interest from conflict of interests and abuses of public offices?

13. Did the Florida Supreme Court fail to follow judicial cannons and attorney conduct codes, in its refusal to make disclosed conflicts of interest at the Florida Supreme Court, and at the Florida civil court.

14. Should this Court take a leading role in establishing oversight to the administration of justice in the matters where the state supreme courts of the states having traditional jurisdiction are now in an adversarial role with Petitioner to block access to the legal and enforcement agencies of those states.

LIST OF PARTIES

[X] All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of all parties to the proceeding in the court whose judgment is the subject of this petition is as follows:

Iviewit Technologies, Inc., any and all affiliates both known and unknown

Iviewit Holdings, Inc., any and all affiliates both known and unknown

The Florida Bar

Christopher C. Wheeler

Matthew Triggs

Eric Turner

Lorraine Hoffman

Kelly Overstreet Johnson

Joy Bartmon

Kenneth Marvin

John Anthony Boggs "

Source of Post and Tons more Documents and Details.
http://www.iviewit.tv/supreme%20court/index.htm

Posted Here by Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox


Florida Supreme Court Corruption, Judicial Corruption.

"At SEC, the system can be deaf to Whistleblowing" - I say the SEC has Motives to NOT Listen as they Still are NOT Listening To Billion Dollar Tips.

" By Zachary A. Goldfarb
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 21, 2010

Eric Kolchinsky was an executive at Moody's, the credit rating company, when he called a top official at the Securities and Exchange Commission in September to warn that his firm might be violating securities law. He reported that Moody's was blessing mortgage-backed investments that it knew were dangerous, according to a person familiar with the conversation.

The SEC official assured Kolchinsky that someone from the agency would call him back shortly. But the call never came, Kolchinsky later told congressional investigators who were examining how the credit rating industry's failures contributed to the financial crisis. He had gone to Congress after losing patience with the SEC.

Kolchinsky is one in a series of whistleblowers who in recent years tried to tip off the SEC to potential wrongdoing, only to be ignored, misunderstood or left to wonder whether they were being listened to. The SEC has no system in place to guide how officials should handle tips and complaints from outsiders, making it difficult for investigators to take advantage of an invaluable source of information.

This failure helped to continue two of the most celebrated frauds of the last decade for several years, potentially costing unwitting investors millions of dollars. Countless others may have been left vulnerable to shysters because of warnings that went unheeded.

Since SEC Chairman Mary L. Schapiro took office last year, she has said that fixing the holes in the process for handling tips and complaints has been a top priority. But improving the way hundreds of thousands of tips are analyzed and pursued has proven difficult.

The SEC's enforcement division got back in touch with Kolchinsky about his allegations only after he told the story publicly to a congressional committee last fall, according to a person familiar with the matter.

The SEC said it responded to Kolchinsky's concerns but declined to provide details or to say how fast it did so. Moody's said it examined his allegations and found nothing improper.
The SEC has a haphazard, decentralized system for analyzing outsider information.

Tips arrive by phone, mail and e-mail to officials throughout the agency -- investor education to enforcement divisions. A study commissioned by the SEC last year and conducted by Mitre, a nonprofit group that does research for the federal government, found that the SEC lacks technology to analyze tips and complaints, as well as cohesive policies for what officials should do when they get information.

Whistleblower complaints are one of the main ways that investigators should be tipped to wrongdoing, SEC officials say, along with inconsistencies in financial filings and alerts from financial exchanges about suspicious trading patterns. But the SEC lags behind some other federal agencies in handling tips.

The Internal Revenue Service, for instance, pays reward money to whistleblowers who provide credible information about tax fraud. The Federal Trade Commission has set up a call center for tips and complaints.

On top of structural problems at the SEC, agency officials individually made mistakes in handling several recent cases, sometimes violating agency rules.

Members of Schapiro's management team said they recognized problems with the system for handling whistleblowers shortly after taking over.

"There was no uniformity to it. Every division and office had its own system of recording, tracking or handling tips and complaints. That system was pretty rudimentary," said Steve Cohen, the official tasked by Schapiro to overhaul the agency's tips, complaints and whistleblower program. "We're already working to acquire and deploy technology that centralizes all of the agency's tips and complaints so they can be sorted, reviewed, analyzed and tracked."

No shortage of witnesses

The SEC's struggles were underlined over the past two years with the revelation of two huge Ponzi schemes.

In the case of Bernard L. Madoff, whistleblowers had provided credible information to various SEC units for years.

The most prominent of these informants, a Boston financial analyst named Harry Markopolos, contacted the enforcement division on numerous occasions, according to the SEC's inspector general.

In one instance, Markopolos provided a detailed explanation of why Madoff's business was probably a fraud. Enforcement officials listened, but they dismissed him in their internal discussions. Two former enforcement officials told the inspector general that they discounted Markopolos's information because he was not an insider in Madoff's company.

Then, a few months after the Madoff scheme exploded into the headlines, the SEC exposed a second large Ponzi scheme, run by R. Allen Stanford. But that happened five years after an insider went to the SEC, warning that Stanford might be conducting a fraudulent business.

Leyla Wydler had been a vice president at Stanford's Houston-based company when she first started asking her supervisors tough questions about what the firm did with clients' money, according to her testimony before Congress last year. Her superiors were evasive, and she ultimately was fired.

After that, she went to the National Association of Securities Dealers, a private industry regulator overseen by the SEC. The NASD dismissed her concerns. Then in September 2004, she contacted the SEC's Fort Worth office, according to her congressional testimony. She followed up with a letter to an official there, questioning whether clients' money had been invested in the way Stanford said.

She never heard from the SEC again -- until January 2009, days before the SEC finally filed a case against Stanford, according to her testimony. The agency wanted to know more about her allegations. An inspector general report from June 2009 said the SEC began looking into Stanford years earlier but struggled to build a case against him.

Turning in the Tipster

In one case, it was the SEC that blew the whistle on Peter Sivere, an informant.

Sivere worked in the compliance office of New York investment bank J.P. Morgan Chase. As part of a team helping the bank furnish documents related to a 2004 SEC probe into suspected illegal trading, he found an e-mail that he thought was incriminating.

According to a subsequent report by the SEC inspector general, the e-mail said J.P. Morgan was knowingly providing hundreds of millions of dollars in credit to a firm "in the business of day trading mutual funds" -- which is illegal.

Sivere asked his superiors if this e-mail had been turned over to the SEC but did not get an answer. Instead, he was taken off the SEC project, according to the inspector general report. Sivere accessed his superiors' e-mail accounts to retrieve relevant e-mails, then contacted the SEC. He told the agency that he had relevant documents and asked whether he could receive a reward. He was told he was not eligible, but he turned over the documents anyway.

Sivere informed J.P. Morgan that he had contacted the SEC.

The company fired him, partly on the grounds that he had "sought payment from the SEC to provide documents and information to them outside of the normal scope of their investigation," according to a letter company lawyers wrote defending his dismissal. J.P. Morgan declined to comment for this article.

Sivere was shocked to learn that J.P. Morgan knew he had inquired about a bounty. He had been promised that his discussions with the SEC were confidential.

An SEC internal probe found that an investigator working on the case disclosed Sivere's information to J.P. Morgan's lawyers, violating the agency's confidentiality rules. The inspector general recommended that the SEC official who made the disclosure be referred for disciplinary action. None was taken, according to agency documents.

Retraining the Watchdog

Cohen, who is overhauling the SEC's whistleblower practices, said a database, jury-rigged from existing technology, will be in place this month to centralize all tips and complaints. Officials said that by the end of 2010, they hope to develop technology that would not only centralize the data but also automatically analyze them for patterns to help officials prioritize cases.

Currently, the SEC is setting procedures for responding to whistleblowers and is creating an office of market intelligence to coordinate how the agency's various units respond to tips.

The agency also wants to be able to reward whistleblowers, which it can only do now for insider-trading cases. The SEC has requested that Congress pass legislation giving it the ability to offer financial rewards to people who provide evidence of violations of securities law. ""

Source of Article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/20/AR2010012005125_2.html

The SEC Gets Tips that Will inevitable Cost Shareholder Millions and they HAVE No System in place to really handle these tips, yet they act like they are taking in Tips and Handling them. The Iviewit Technologies Case will one day explode into Billions in Loss and the SEC has ignored the Eliot Bernstein SEC Complaint - and has know of the Involvement of Proskauer Rose way before the Standford Billions were lost. More on the Iviewit Stolen Patent and what Companies are affected go to http://www.deniedpatent.com/ and www.Iviewit.TV

Why is there no Accountability for the SEC Insiders that let these Billion Dollar Scams Happen then after the Scam and many innocent investors lose everything, the SEC insider gets a a Really Good Job at a high profile law firm. And no one seems to raise an eyebrow.

All these Billion Dollar Investment schemes seem to have the same thing in common. They have a Mega Law Firm behind them helping them, and the Law firms such as Proskauer Rose seem to have No Accountability for the Damage they due to investors.

In the Stanford investment Scandal SEC Sjoblom went to Proskauer Rose - talk about a conflict of Interest - Proskauer Rose seems to be behind a whole lot of these Billion Dollar Scams and they never seem to be held accountable.

In the Dreier Scandal there was Proskauer Rose LLP Attorney Sheila Gowan.

In the Madoff Scandal and there is said to a woman who fled the SEC to the Law Firm Proskauer Rose and that she is fingered all over the SEC report on Madoff failures.

So the SEC seems to hire these lawyers and let them run these scams and there seems to be no REAL
regulators of any kind for the ones in place seem to be part of the organized RICO Enterprise of Criminal Lawyers and Law Firms and the US court System does not seem to be able to do anything about them.

Is the SEC Liable for Billions to Trillions of Investors money when it is Obviously, Easily proved that the SEC Ignored TIPS for Years upon Years in all these cases. Time to Sue the SEC. This Government Agent should not be above the law, it is as if they let this stuff go on - on Purpose for pay offs and cushy jobs... and year after year the same scheme plays out and no one seems to be able to bring Justice, Accountability, or Real Action from the SEC to do what the Duty of the SEC is....

Links

Sheila M. Gowan - Proskauer Rose - Iviewit
http://www.free-press-release.com/news-iviewit-trillion-fed-suit-defendant-proskauer-rose-sued-in-global-class-action-re-stanford-ponzi-1252249099.html

Standford - Proskauer Rose - Thomas Sjoblom
http://www.proskauersucks.com/2010/01/thomas-v-sjoblom-allen-stanford.html

Madoff - Proskauer Rose
http://www.proskauerrosesucks.com/2010/02/proskauer-rose-madoff-mary-shapiro-sec.html

Banks face Milan fraud charges - Deutsche Bank, JPMorgan Chase, UBS and Hypo Real Estate Holding's Depfa Bank

"" MILAN, Italy -- Deutsche Bank, JPMorgan Chase, UBS and Hypo Real Estate Holding's Depfa Bank unit have been charged with fraud linked to the sale of derivatives to the city of Milan.

Judge Simone Luerti scheduled the trial of the four firms, 11 bankers and two former city officials for May 6, Prosecutor Alfredo Robledo said after a hearing in Milan yesterday. The banks allegedly misled the city over swaps that adjusted interest payments on $2.3 billion of bonds sold in 2005.

Prosecutors across Italy are investigating banks as local and national government agencies face potential losses of 2.5 billion euros on derivatives, lawyers say. The Milan probe may also affect cases as far away as the United States, where securities firms have faced charges for price-fixing and bid-rigging in the sale of derivatives to municipalities, though not for fraud, according to former regulator Christopher "Kit" Taylor.

"This case could have repercussions over here if the trial showed deliberate intent," said Taylor, a former executive director of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, the national regulator of the municipal-bond market. "What happened in Europe was the continuation of a pattern in the US."

JPMorgan is "vigorously" defending its position against the charges, the New York-based firm said in a statement. "The employees involved in the transactions acted with the highest degree of professionalism and entirely appropriately."

UBS and "its exponents are confident that they will be able to demonstrate, in the course of the trial, that no criminal plot was conceived," the Zurich-based bank said in a separate statement.

Source
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/banks_face_milan_fraud_charges_I0S6vT78W1NjZ6vYKdsXTJ?sms_ss=ema#ixzz0iZNwfl04

Whistleblower Peter Sivere Provides Affidavit to OSHA and DOL

DOL OSHA asked that Peter Sivere provide an affidavit to them after they "heard" that the SEC said Peter Sivere requested payment for documents and information.

Click Here for Peter Siver Affidavit

""... On September 30th 2004, the Wall Street Journal.. published an article entitled Trading Class Action Suit Widens. The WSJ articl state, in part, that: Mr. Stern (of Canary Capital) asked a J.P. Morgan Banker who had been working with Mr. Stern's family for a loan to finance his hedge funds trading in the PBHG funds.

The Suit contends that Mr. Stern explained his trading systme "in detail" to the executive.
According to the lawsuit, J.P. Morgan Securities made loans to business entities tied to Canary totalling as much as $105 Million. These Loans were made to finance trades that would make Canary money when the price of PBHG funds declined.

This Subject of the WSJ article appears to be consistent with the information in the Kelleher Email.

... After the September 30th, 2004 WSJ article was published, I continued to do strategic surveillance together with my interim monitoring duties.

.. On or about October 5, 2004, I located an October 4, 2004 email in which a JPM executive referring to the September 30, 2004 WSJ article, inquires about JMP's relationship with Canary.

The Email indicates that Mr. Palmer and Davis Polk and Wardell had previously indicated that JPM had no knowledge of improper trading practices. In a response to the E-mail Mr. Palmer acknowledged that JPM assisted Canary by providing a line of credit to finance Canary's mutual fund trading.

On October 6, 2004, I located an E-mail in which JPM's President and Chief Operating Officer asked JPM's Co-General Counsel about JPM's Relationship with Canary.

On October 7, 2004, I was Terminated for Alleged inappropriate use of the firms E-mail and for not cooperating with an internal fraud investigation. The Emails referred to above were on my desk at JPM at the time I was terminated. I was not permitted to return to my desk after I was terminated... ""

Read this Full Document Click HERE

Peter Z. Sivere v. JP Morgan Chase - Department of Labor - OSHA - SEC - Canary Capital - Davis Polk - JPM Chase

August 2005 Archives

Inside the JP Morgan, Peter Sivere Whistleblower Case

"Civil Action to Protect Against Retaliation in Fraud Cases"

Lisa M. Wells - JPM Chase

Sarbanes - Oxley

Jamie Dimon

Davis Polk Investigations

When Loans were made and What We did about it...

JP Morgan provided a $150 Milloin Line of Credit to a Canary Entity Structured for Canary a series of short equity basket swaps that allowed Canary to hedge its long position in third party mutual funds.

Plaintiffs allege that JPM has liability as financier of some Canary Market timeing and late trading. ... Davis Polk seems to have claimed, in their investigation that JPM had no knowledge of late trading or improper timing...

Heritage Bank One ..

What are the Conflicts of Interest, Attorneys Protecting Each Other.. Isn't Davis Polk connected to Proskauer Rose Somehow??

Canary Capital Litigation

Investment Banking Exposure

TS&S / Investment Management Exposure

Click Here for Full Document

Howard L. Shapiro - Counsel to the Inspector General. Dan Petrole - Peter Sivere Whistleblower Smackdown. Blatant Disregard of Fraud.

SEC Investigators - OSHA Investigators - SEC OIG Report of Investigation - Industry Whistleblower - SEC Fraud and Failing the Public.

Howard L. Shapiro - Counsel to the Inspector General
Deputy Inspector General, Dan Petrole

Below is What Seems to Me Like a Whistleblower Smackdown, as the SEC Fails Over and Over to Protect Whistleblower, Consumers, Shareholders and Faild to Investigate Fraud. Is there No Accountability, Transparency or Rights on any Level?

***********

In a message dated 2/17/2010 7:55:05 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, shapiro.howard@oig.dol.gov writes:

Mr. Sivere:

The Deputy Inspector General, Dan Petrole, has asked me to respond to your recent e-mail to him, in which you state:

In light of the new public interest in this matter I would like for you to re-open this investigation. Please see the attached documentation from Mr. Heddell (signed by you on his behalf) and his reasoning for not re-opening this investigation.

Specifically, Mr. Heddell stated "our review of the SEC OIG Report of Investigation does not provide sufficient basis to revisit this determination."

Why didn't OSHA ever produce a final determination in this investigation? Did OSHA ever interview George Demos or speak directly with the SEC in regard to his allegations of me?

Upon review of the linked web pages (in your e-mail), it appears that the new public interest in this matter primarily relates to actions taken (or not taken) within the SEC, and does not provide a sufficient basis or justification for the DOL OIG to re-visit its previous determination regarding the opening of an investigation with respect to actions taken by OSHA employees.

Howard L. Shapiro
Counsel to the Inspector General "

************

From: PSivere@aol.com [mailto:PSivere@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 6:10 AM
To: Shapiro, Howard - OIG
Cc: Petrole, Daniel - OIG
Subject: Re: Request to OIG

Dear Mr. Shapiro,

Nothing in the attached Memorandum of Understating between the SEC and DOL, entered into July 29, 2008 contain any restrictions on the DOL.

Has Mr. Petrole made any attempt to discuss this matter with the SEC OIG as outlined in the MOU? The fact that my confidential information was leaked during an OSHA investigation and the DOL OIG has no interest in investigating why OSHA investigators did not or will not investigate the leak is troubling.

At a minimum the OSHA investigators should have contacted the SEC investigators to compare "facts." The SEC OIG was concerned enough to investigate their own, why won't the DOL OIG do the same? What is the downside for DOL to produce a similar report as the SEC OIG did?

Thank You,
Peter ""

************

Message from Dan Petrole to Howard L. Shapiro

"In a message dated 3/4/2010 3:16:53 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
Petrole.Daniel@oig.dol.gov writes:

Howard,

I assume that you are monitoring these e-mails. I also realize that Mr. Sivere agreed to a settlement regarding his issue. Just want to make sure you are comfortable that nothing comes back to bite us.

Dan"

************

"From: PSivere@aol.comTo: Petrole.Daniel@oig.dol.govCC: shapiro.howard@oig.dol.govSent: 3/11/2010 5:41:03 A.M. Eastern Standard TimeSubj: Re: Request to OIG

Mr. Petrole,

Leaving the settlement aside for a moment. Congress charges your agency with protecting the workers of this country. Specifically, it charges you to ensure that certain programs are administered and carried out without interference or political agendas.

Sadly, your comment below illustrates why the American people are fed up. You are in Washington to serve the people of this country. It's a sad state of affairs when the agency charged with protecting the workers of this country believe we are better protected when civil servants, like yourself, put politics before your actual mandate.

This is not a legal issue. This is a systematic breakdown of your agency and all you focus on is CYA. I purposely let your e-mail sit in my in box for the past week with the hopes of establishing some dialogue with you and your agency. Sadly, it did not happen.

Thank You,
Peter Sivere "
Posted here by
Investigative Blogger

Eliot Bernstein of Iviewit Technologies files SEC Complaint with Mary Schapiro Against Warner Brothers, AOL, Time Warner,Intel, SGI, Lockheed Martin.

Eliot Bernstein, Iviewit Technologies Filed a Detailed Complaint with the SEC, with Mary Schapiro Against Warner Brothers, AOL, Time Warner, Intel, SGI, Sony Corporation, Lockheed Martin and More.

Mary Schapiro and the SEC have been Warned in Great Detail of Major Shareholder Fraud. If you are a Shareholder of Warner Brothers, AOL, Time Warner,Intel, SGI, Sony Corporation, Lockheed Martin YOU need to be aware of the Eliot Bernstein Iviewit Complaint.

The Corporate Management of Warner Brothers, AOL, Time Warner,Intel, SGI, Sony Corporation, Lockheed Martin have known about this Liability for years and they are hiding it from you. Many of your investment firms now know of this SEC Complaint to Mary Schapiro - I have seen them on my site and Clicking through to the Enormous Amount of Details and proof in the SEC Complaint itself and at the Iviewit Technologies Website on this Iviewit Technologies Stolen Patent, www.iViewit.tv.

The SEC Complaint proves without a doubt of what will Soon be Trillion Dollar Liability to the Shareholders of Warner Brothers,AOL, Time Warner,Intel, SGI, Sony Corporation, Lockheed Martin. This will be in the Billions for Each Company, and the Shareholders of Warner Brothers, AOL, Time Warner,Intel, SGI, Sony Corporation, Lockheed Martin as well as Mary Schapiro of the SEC and the Major Law Firms involved in this Trillion Dollar Shareholder Fraud, well they will NOT be able to say they did not know, for there are well over a Thousand Documents at www.iViewit.tv that proves they have known for years.

How long will this game go on? No one can really be sure how long that Mary Schapiro of the SEC, the USPTO, the US Courts will let this continue to drag out at the expense of the shareholders of Brothers, AOL, Time Warner,Intel, SGI, Sony Corporation, Lockheed Martin. What we can see is Blatant Obvious Fraud, Obstruction of Justice and a Covering up for folks like Intel CEO Paul Otellini, Ex-General Counsel of Warner Bruce Sewell - Now the General Counsel at Apple, Jeffrey Bewkes of Warner Bros., Proskauer Rose Law Firm, Foley and Lardner Law Firm, and Many more in the SEC Complaint filed by Iviewit Technologies Eliot Bernstein.

These High Profile Law Firm and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission Keeping this information from shareholders if Unethical at best, it is Fraud and the shareholders will pay for all of this with their hard earned money as the years pile on.

Click here to Read Details of this SEC Complaint.

Eliot Bernstein of Iviewit Technologies has Filed an SEC Complaint and YOU need to Know about. Click Here for the Official SEC Complaint and Great Detail and Proof of Shareholder Fraud and Shareholder Liability cause by Neglect, Fraud and Blatantly Violations of Contracts by Warner Brothers, AOL, Time Warner,Intel, SGI, Sony Corporation, Lockheed Martin and more carry Trillions in Liability that they have seemingly reported to No One.

Eliot Bernstein SEC Complaint