" 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
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
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
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 ""
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 "
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
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
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
Real Estate Consumer Smackdown - Bernie Hassan, Weichert Realty and Real Estate Consumer Joel Stern
Bernie Hassan Manager of Weichert Realty in South Easton MA - Continues his Real Estate Consumer Smackdown
Bernie Hassan Manager of Weichert Realty in South Easton MA Says,
"" From: Bernie Hassan [mailto:bhassan@briarwoodrealestate.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 1:12 PM
To: Stern, Joel
I think that you are acting out of anger.
I am not the person who harmed you. I do not even know you. You lash out with threats that if taken wrong could get you in trouble. Why would you threaten me personally?? I do not know you. As I stated before.. we strive for excellence and we do train and manage from that viewpoint.
You may not agree but there are many of us around the country that do. I have issue with the real estate industry as well. I do believe that we need to have better advocates of the consumer of which my company and my agents are. Sorry to hear about your unfortunate situation as I said before. But, threatening someone you do not know is not wise.
Bernie Hassan-Mgr.
Weichert Realtors,Briarwood Real Estate ""
Real Estate Consumers are upset, no one is Listening, if the Manager of the company who harmed you won't hear you where to you go. NAR at a ANY level is NOT listening, State Laws and Federal Laws are Impossible to enforce with NAR Affiliations, E and O insurance and other Billion Dollar Super Powers that NAR is supported by.
No ONE Realtor did not Do this... But ONE REALTOR can be a part of fixing it instead of simply being a part of the Real Estate Consumer Smackdown. Joel Stern is One of Millions of Frustrated Real Estate Consumers, NAR needs to Change and ANY Realtor, especially a Manager of a Chain 0r Franchise such as Bernie Hassan Manager of Weichert Realty in South Easton MA - well they need to make sure of what they are saying to the real estate consumer and what TRUTH or FACT this information is Really Based on. z
GONE are the Days of Real Estate Victims hiding in their homes because of the bad things done to them, no more do consumers have to swallow that jagged pill of Yes I have tons of Proof, Yes the Realtor broke the Law BUT No one will hold them accountable so I will suffer in silence - lose everything and just go away so you can't see my pain and suffering....
Those Days ARE Gone... We Give Voice to Real Estate Victims.
We hear their Cries for Help, We POST their Proof, We post the
documents that Prove the Law was Broken, the Realtor lied and that NAR
will do NOTHING about it at any level and that NAR lobbys for things such
as Mandatory E and O insurance - to make sure they are successful at their consumer smackdown.. and Insult to Injury, years of Fighting you are FORCED to "Settle" to save your life and life of your family and then THEY make you sign something that says you won't talk about it.. .this way other unsuspecting Real Estate Victims will fall into the same trap. This is BULL.
Blogs, Investigative Blogs are HERE and Real Estate Consumers Do have a Voice and these private email smackdowns and threats are no more PRIVATE.
Ok so to the Above JOEL Stern says to Bernie Hassan Manager of Weichert Realty
"" Dear Sir:
I am not engaging in any ad hominem attacks. My whole point in initiating this exchange was to rebut your unsubstantiated claims that dual agency is a viable, worthwhile practice.
By way of concrete example, I pointed out that your company harmed me significantly by defending agents whose ADMITTED actions were contrary to state disclosure statutes. This, in effect, means that Weichert’s management considers statutory violations to be inconsequential.
The public has every right to know about your company’s formal (not merely lip-service) position in such matters, since it has a direct bearing on its treatment of clients and the degree of responsibility it feels toward them.
Your claim that dual agency can be practiced successfully flies in the face of everyday practice, which consistently shows a shocking failure to comply with mandatory disclosure rules nationwide (as corroborated in the NAR’s own surveys, among other studies).
If you can prove me wrong and are able to justify Weichert’s—and the NAR’s—use of dual agency, affiliated business arrangements, and other such one-stop shopping practices, please do so with concrete facts and statistics. Exactly how are you serving the public interest through such practices?
Joel Stern ""
posted by
Investigative Blogger
Real Estate Whistleblower
Crystal L. Cox
More at www.RealtorSucks.com on this ONE
Click Here for More on Bernie Hassan and Joel Stern
Bernie Hassan Manager of Weichert Realty
Bernie Hassan Manager of Weichert Realty in South Easton MA Says,
"" From: Bernie Hassan [mailto:bhassan@briarwoodrealestate.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 1:12 PM
To: Stern, Joel
I think that you are acting out of anger.
I am not the person who harmed you. I do not even know you. You lash out with threats that if taken wrong could get you in trouble. Why would you threaten me personally?? I do not know you. As I stated before.. we strive for excellence and we do train and manage from that viewpoint.
You may not agree but there are many of us around the country that do. I have issue with the real estate industry as well. I do believe that we need to have better advocates of the consumer of which my company and my agents are. Sorry to hear about your unfortunate situation as I said before. But, threatening someone you do not know is not wise.
Bernie Hassan-Mgr.
Weichert Realtors,Briarwood Real Estate ""
Real Estate Consumers are upset, no one is Listening, if the Manager of the company who harmed you won't hear you where to you go. NAR at a ANY level is NOT listening, State Laws and Federal Laws are Impossible to enforce with NAR Affiliations, E and O insurance and other Billion Dollar Super Powers that NAR is supported by.
No ONE Realtor did not Do this... But ONE REALTOR can be a part of fixing it instead of simply being a part of the Real Estate Consumer Smackdown. Joel Stern is One of Millions of Frustrated Real Estate Consumers, NAR needs to Change and ANY Realtor, especially a Manager of a Chain 0r Franchise such as Bernie Hassan Manager of Weichert Realty in South Easton MA - well they need to make sure of what they are saying to the real estate consumer and what TRUTH or FACT this information is Really Based on. z
GONE are the Days of Real Estate Victims hiding in their homes because of the bad things done to them, no more do consumers have to swallow that jagged pill of Yes I have tons of Proof, Yes the Realtor broke the Law BUT No one will hold them accountable so I will suffer in silence - lose everything and just go away so you can't see my pain and suffering....
Those Days ARE Gone... We Give Voice to Real Estate Victims.
We hear their Cries for Help, We POST their Proof, We post the
documents that Prove the Law was Broken, the Realtor lied and that NAR
will do NOTHING about it at any level and that NAR lobbys for things such
as Mandatory E and O insurance - to make sure they are successful at their consumer smackdown.. and Insult to Injury, years of Fighting you are FORCED to "Settle" to save your life and life of your family and then THEY make you sign something that says you won't talk about it.. .this way other unsuspecting Real Estate Victims will fall into the same trap. This is BULL.
Blogs, Investigative Blogs are HERE and Real Estate Consumers Do have a Voice and these private email smackdowns and threats are no more PRIVATE.
Ok so to the Above JOEL Stern says to Bernie Hassan Manager of Weichert Realty
"" Dear Sir:
I am not engaging in any ad hominem attacks. My whole point in initiating this exchange was to rebut your unsubstantiated claims that dual agency is a viable, worthwhile practice.
By way of concrete example, I pointed out that your company harmed me significantly by defending agents whose ADMITTED actions were contrary to state disclosure statutes. This, in effect, means that Weichert’s management considers statutory violations to be inconsequential.
The public has every right to know about your company’s formal (not merely lip-service) position in such matters, since it has a direct bearing on its treatment of clients and the degree of responsibility it feels toward them.
Your claim that dual agency can be practiced successfully flies in the face of everyday practice, which consistently shows a shocking failure to comply with mandatory disclosure rules nationwide (as corroborated in the NAR’s own surveys, among other studies).
If you can prove me wrong and are able to justify Weichert’s—and the NAR’s—use of dual agency, affiliated business arrangements, and other such one-stop shopping practices, please do so with concrete facts and statistics. Exactly how are you serving the public interest through such practices?
Joel Stern ""
posted by
Investigative Blogger
Real Estate Whistleblower
Crystal L. Cox
More at www.RealtorSucks.com on this ONE
Click Here for More on Bernie Hassan and Joel Stern
Bernie Hassan Manager of Weichert Realty
Bernie Hassan - Weichert Realty, part of the Problem - or Part of the Solution? Joel Stern and Bernie Hassan.
So What is Joel Stern - Real Estate Consumer's Ax To Grind with Bernie Hassan, With Weichert Realty and Just How "Silly" is it?
Bernie Hassan - Weichert Realty Says to
Real Estate Consumer Joel Stern:
" Apparently you have an ax to grind and it’s not with me or any of my agents. Clearly by your email and the list of people you are connecting me to have an issue. While I do feel badly about how you were treated you seem to want to make a hard and fast case that the entire industry is corrupt when that is not the case. Again we have been successful with our well trained and managed staff.
All contracts can be written subject to legal review. It is an accepted and worthwhile practice that allows attorney’s to have a say in a client contract after the offer is written and accepted by the seller prior to a P&S agreement where legal counsel has more input.
Maybe you should not be so one way with your thinking.
Bernie "
JOEL Stern's Response to Bernie Hassan
"" Dear Mr. Hassan:
Yes, I certainly do have an ax to grind, not on my own account but on behalf of the countless millions of victimized citzens whose legitimate right to fair and competent representations has been flouted for some 15 years, even since dual agency and other unconscionable practices were foisted on the unsuspecting public by the NAR lobby and its lickspittles in government and so-called regulatory bodies.
Did you actually read Ken Harney’s article that I sent you? If so, you must have seen that the NAR’s OWN surveys over the past decade showed that the GREAT MAJORITY of real estate agents are violating their statutory obligations vis-à-vis clients.
Do you think this happens by sheer accident, or is this pattern indicative of a longstanding systemic problem in the real estate industry, which seems to consider itself beyond all legal and ethical restraint, judging from its deplorable record of compliance with the law?
If the widespread occurrence of statutory violations by agents is not proof of widespread incompetence at the least, or deliberate deception of consumers in the worst case, please tell me what it does mean?
I should mention that unlike in New Jersey, contracts in most states do not require legal review for final approval. And even if this practice were instituted nationwide, do you think the majority of financially strapped citizens have the wherewithal to afford high-price legal expertise to review every contract they sign to purchase a house, a car, or other costly item?
I’m talking here about real life, not about some abstract right that cannot be exercised in common practice, where clients normally rely on the advice of fiduciaries to guide them through complex procedures.
Do you believe that consumers in the housing market are being adequately served by state real estate commissions whose membership largely comprises agents and real estate attorneys affiliated with the industry they are tasked with regulating and punishing in the event of violations?
Since you failed to answer even a single one of the questions I sent to you, but limit yourself to pious generalities about the overall integrity of the real estate industry without producing any substantive evidence for this assertion, I will continue to maintain that the NAR lobby is shot through with corruption and conflicts of interest that have played a major role in precipitating the housing bubbles and ultimately the economic crisis. Your industry is long-overdue for public exposure and an overhaul of its harmful practices. ""
posted here by
Real Estate Industry Whistleblower
Crystal L. Cox
Click here for More on Bernie Hassan and Joel Stern
Crystal COx
Bernie Hassan - Weichert Realty Says to
Real Estate Consumer Joel Stern:
" Apparently you have an ax to grind and it’s not with me or any of my agents. Clearly by your email and the list of people you are connecting me to have an issue. While I do feel badly about how you were treated you seem to want to make a hard and fast case that the entire industry is corrupt when that is not the case. Again we have been successful with our well trained and managed staff.
All contracts can be written subject to legal review. It is an accepted and worthwhile practice that allows attorney’s to have a say in a client contract after the offer is written and accepted by the seller prior to a P&S agreement where legal counsel has more input.
Maybe you should not be so one way with your thinking.
Bernie "
JOEL Stern's Response to Bernie Hassan
"" Dear Mr. Hassan:
Yes, I certainly do have an ax to grind, not on my own account but on behalf of the countless millions of victimized citzens whose legitimate right to fair and competent representations has been flouted for some 15 years, even since dual agency and other unconscionable practices were foisted on the unsuspecting public by the NAR lobby and its lickspittles in government and so-called regulatory bodies.
Did you actually read Ken Harney’s article that I sent you? If so, you must have seen that the NAR’s OWN surveys over the past decade showed that the GREAT MAJORITY of real estate agents are violating their statutory obligations vis-à-vis clients.
Do you think this happens by sheer accident, or is this pattern indicative of a longstanding systemic problem in the real estate industry, which seems to consider itself beyond all legal and ethical restraint, judging from its deplorable record of compliance with the law?
If the widespread occurrence of statutory violations by agents is not proof of widespread incompetence at the least, or deliberate deception of consumers in the worst case, please tell me what it does mean?
I should mention that unlike in New Jersey, contracts in most states do not require legal review for final approval. And even if this practice were instituted nationwide, do you think the majority of financially strapped citizens have the wherewithal to afford high-price legal expertise to review every contract they sign to purchase a house, a car, or other costly item?
I’m talking here about real life, not about some abstract right that cannot be exercised in common practice, where clients normally rely on the advice of fiduciaries to guide them through complex procedures.
Do you believe that consumers in the housing market are being adequately served by state real estate commissions whose membership largely comprises agents and real estate attorneys affiliated with the industry they are tasked with regulating and punishing in the event of violations?
Since you failed to answer even a single one of the questions I sent to you, but limit yourself to pious generalities about the overall integrity of the real estate industry without producing any substantive evidence for this assertion, I will continue to maintain that the NAR lobby is shot through with corruption and conflicts of interest that have played a major role in precipitating the housing bubbles and ultimately the economic crisis. Your industry is long-overdue for public exposure and an overhaul of its harmful practices. ""
posted here by
Real Estate Industry Whistleblower
Crystal L. Cox
Click here for More on Bernie Hassan and Joel Stern
Crystal COx
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)