What the bleap? Bleap - Bleap - Bleap!!

Here is why Federal budgets should be cut to 1999 levels Immediately

2011-12-11T17:52:00.000-06:00

Central Bank Gold Agreements

The third Central Bank Gold Agreement (CBGA3)Download the latest CBGA3 sales

Change in official gold holdings (tonnes) - click to enlarge

Western central banks have more than a decade-long history of gold Agreements with each other and with the private sector. The third Central Bank Gold Agreement (CBGA3) currently in force covers the gold sales of the Eurosystem central banks, Sweden and Switzerland. Like the previous two Agreements, CBGA3 covers a five-year period, in this case from 27 September 2009 (immediately after the second Agreement expired) to 26 September 2014.

The third Central Bank Gold Agreement reaffirmed that "gold remains an important element of global monetary reserves", as was stated in the two previous Agreements.

This Agreement also included two important departures from the prior Agreements.

First, the collective ceiling was reduced so that "annual sales will not exceed 400 tonnes and total sales over this period will not exceed 2,000 tonnes", 500 tonnes lower than the 2,500 tonnes five-year ceiling provided for in the second Agreement.

As signatories to CBGA2 had significantly undersold the permitted annual ceiling in the final two years of that Agreement, the new lower ceiling did not come as a surprise to market participants and had no impact on the gold price.

The second significant difference in the Agreement recognised the fact that the IMF intended to sell 403 tonnes of gold, and stated that these sales "can be accommodated within the above ceiling". The market took this announcement in its stride, as the IMF had clearly stated beforehand that its planned sales would be conducted in a manner that would not add net new supply beyond what the market was already expecting from the official sector as a whole. In the event that the IMF is unable to arrange an off-market sale with another official sector institution, the sales will be conducted through the new CBGA3.

This third Agreement covered the 15 original signatories to CBGA2 (the European Central Bank and the national banks of Belgium, Germany, Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Finland, Sweden and Switzerland), together with the national banks of Slovenia, Cyprus, Malta, which all joined CBGA2 on (or in Slovenia's case just prior to) adopting the euro, and national bank of Slovakia.

In both the previous Agreements, signatories undertook not to increase their activities in the derivatives and lending markets above the levels of September 1999, when the first CBGA was signed. The new Agreement includes no similar commitment, although central bank activity in these fields has been very limited in recent years.

ECB Press release - Joint statement on gold, August 7th 2009

The IMF gold salesThe IMF’s Executive Board approved the sale of 403.3 tonnes in September 2009, representing one eighth of the Fund's total gold holdings. The process began with the Crockett Report in 2007, which recommended that the IMF adopt a new income model, including the establishment of an endowment, funded by the proceeds of limited and structured gold sales.

The IMF conducted the first phase of these sales in off-market deals with other central banks, thereby leaving the stock of gold in the official sector unchanged. The IMF sold a total of 222 metric tons to four central banks: the Reserve Bank of India (200 tonnes), the Central Banks of Sri Lanka and Bangladesh (10 tonnes each), and Mauritius (2 tonnes). The IMF began phased on-market sales in February 2010 and has sold around 15-20 tonnes of gold per month since that date.

IMF Press release – IMF to begin on-market sales of gold

The second Central Bank Gold Agreement (CBGA2)On March 8th 2004, the signatory banks announced the second Central Bank Gold Agreement. Like the first Agreement, CBGA2 covered a five-year period, in this case from September 27th 2004 (immediately after the expiry of the first Agreement) to September 26th 2009.

The second Agreement started by reaffirming the first clause in the 1999 Agreement: “Gold will remain an important element of global monetary reserves.” While the rest of the Agreement covered similar ground to the first, there were some important differences.

The UK signed the first Agreement but not the second (at the time the second Agreement was announced it stated that the UK government had no plans to sell gold). Greece, which was not a member of the Eurozone in 1999, did not sign the first Agreement but signed the second. Slovenia became a signatory to the second Agreement in December 2006, shortly before adopting the euro as its currency. Cyprus and Malta also joined CBGA2 just after they joined the euro.

The maximum amount of gold that the signatories could sell over the five years was 2,500 tonnes, compared to 2,000 tonnes in the first Agreement. In the first Agreement, the wording specified that annual sales would not exceed approximately 400 tonnes. The second Agreement stated that annual sales would not exceed 500 tonnes. In addition the first Agreement referred to “already decided sales” but the second referred to “sales already decided and to be decided”.

Subsequently, it became clear that the signatories had sold significantly less than the pemitted ceiling they had set themselves.

As regards gold lending, the second Agreement stated that the signatories agreed that “the total amount of their gold leasings and the total amount of their use of gold futures and options will not exceed the amounts prevailing at the start of the date of the signature of the previous Agreement”.

Observers generally believed that gold leasing had declined during the period of the first Agreement so the second Agreement gave some limited scope for expansion.

ECB Press release – Joint statement on gold, March 8th 2004

The first Central Bank Gold Agreement (CBGA1)The Central Bank Gold Agreement (also known as the Washington Agreement on Gold) was announced on September 26, 1999. It followed a period of increasing concern that uncoordinated central bank gold sales were destabilising the market, driving the gold price sharply down.

At the time, central banks held nearly a quarter of all the gold estimated to be above ground (equivalent to around 33,000 tonnes in September 1999) so their actions were of key interest to the gold market.

Much of this interest focused on the central banks of Western Europe. Many of these held - and still hold - substantial stocks of gold in their reserves. Some (Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, Switzerland and the UK) figured among those banks which had recently sold gold or announced plans to do so. At the same time, with rising demand for borrowed gold, a number of central banks were increasing their use of lending, swaps and other gold derivative instruments. Due to the workings of the gold derivatives market, an increase in gold lending normally results in additional gold being sold. That’s why this growth in lending was adding to the amount of gold supplied to the market.

In addition to the destabilising effect of these sales, market fears about central bank intentions were causing further falls in the price of gold. The market falls caused considerable pain for gold producing countries. Among these were a number of developing countries, including a significant number of those classified as HIPCs (Heavily Indebted Poor Countries).

In response to these concerns, fifteen European central banks (those of the then 11 Eurozone countries plus the European Central Bank and those of Sweden, Switzerland and the UK) drew up the first Central Bank Gold Agreement.

In it, they stated that gold would remain an important element of global monetary reserves, and agreed to limit their collective sales to 2,000 tonnes over the following five years, or around 400 tonnes a year. They also announced that their lending and use of derivatives would not increase over the same five-year period. (The signatory banks later stated that the total amount of their gold they had out on lease in September 1999 was 2,119.32 tonnes.)

The signatory banks accounted for around 45% of global gold reserves. In addition a number of other major holders - including the US, Japan, Australia, the IMF and the BIS, either informally associated themselves with the Agreement or announced at other times that they would not sell gold. Including these, the proportion of gold reserves covered by the Agreement or a similar announcement rises to around 85%.

The announcement of the Agreement came as a major surprise to the market. It prompted a sharp spike in the price over the following days, but it also removed much of the uncertainty surrounding the intentions of the official sector. Once the markets had adapted to it, a major element of instability had been effectively removed with the introduction of greater transparency.

Press release – joint statement on gold, 26th September 1999

The ECB and GoldIn one of its first pronouncements, the Governing Council of the European Central Bank (ECB) decided that the national central banks participating in the euro area should include gold in the initial transfer of foreign reserve assets to the European Central Bank. The transfer was to take place on the first day of 1999, the launch date of the euro as a single currency.

The Governing Council decided the initial transfer of foreign reserves would be to the maximum allowed amount of EUR 50 billion. This figure was adjusted downwards by deducting the shares of those EU central banks which would not participate in the euro area at the outset i.e. to a total of approximately EUR 39.46 billion.

The ECB agreed that 15% of this initial transfer should be in gold, a clear demonstration of the fact that European central bankers continued to believe that gold strengthened the balance sheet of a central bank and enhanced public confidence. The ECB indicated clearly that these transfers of gold would not affect the total consolidated gold holdings of the Eurozone. The remaining 85% was transferred in foreign currency assets. Also there was no implication that the ECB would maintain a constant ratio of 15% of its reserves in gold in the future. Indeed, despite a number of sales, gold’s share of the ECB’s total reserves has grown considerably since then due to the sharp increase in the gold price. As at September 2010, the ECB had 26% of its reserves in gold.

Top

Historical Agreements1978 - The IMF attempts to write gold out of the systemThe Second Amendment of the IMF Articles was intended to delete gold from the international monetary system. The amendment followed the failure of previous attempts to establish a new international monetary system. In particular these included the failure of European countries to force the United States to either settle its deficit in gold, or else devalue the dollar against gold.

Not only did the United States refuse to keep gold in the system, it then led a crusade against gold (while being careful to keep a very large strategic stock of gold in its own reserve, sealed off from the outside world).

This Second Amendment of the Articles barred members from fixing their exchange rates to gold and removed the obligation on members to conduct transactions in gold at the official gold price.

Symbolising the plan to drive gold out of the system, the IMF was instructed to dispose of 50 million ounces of its gold stock of 153 million ounces. It achieved this partly by sales to the market and partly by giving some gold to members in relation to their quotas.

Ironically, this exercise had the effect of spreading gold much more widely through the international community than ever before, and gave many countries a new interest in the gold market. Few countries showed any inclination to sell the gold handed to them, and in the vast majority of cases it continues to sit on their books.

Early 1960s – Central banks try to stabilise the price of goldThis “gentlemen’s agreement” among central banks - known as ‘The Gold Pool’ - was established to hold the price of gold close to the then official price of $35 an ounce. It followed a speculative attack on the dollar that brought the price up to $40 an ounce.

According to the Bank of England, “this state of affairs threatened the whole structure of exchange relationships in the western world”. The Bank, with the support of the US authorities, therefore sold gold on a substantial scale to bring the price down “to more appropriate levels”. Following a further speculative flurry the following year, in October 1961 the central banks of Western Europe agreed to cooperate with the New York Federal Reserve Bank to stabilise the market.

A period of coordinated gold purchases followed the change of market conditions. However, the Cuba missile crisis of July 1962 triggered record demands for gold on the London market, which was again met by official selling. The objective throughout was to “avoid unnecessary and disturbing fluctuations in the price of gold in the free market”.

The Bank of England’s conclusion on this experiment was that “the knowledge that the central banks were working together in the gold, as well as in the exchange markets, has helped to maintain public confidence in the existing international monetary structure”.

The central banks abolished The Gold Pool in 1968, agreeing that they would no longer supply gold to the market but transact only among themselves (at the official price). This established a two-tier system – one for private transactions, where the price fluctuated according to supply and demand, and the other for official transactions at the official price.

This agreement lasted until November 1973, when the price of gold was allowed to move freely, following the suspension of dollar convertibility into gold in August 1971.

1944 - Establishment of the IMF puts gold at the centre of the new international monetary systemThe first international agreement on gold came with the signing of the IMF’s articles of agreement in July 1944. These laid down that all member countries should establish “par values” for their currencies in terms of gold, or in terms of the US dollar which was itself defined in terms of gold.

One dollar was valued at 0.888671 gram of fine gold, or $35 an ounce. The agreement confirmed the price of gold as established by President Roosevelt in 1933. Gold became the foundation of the first international monetary system established by international agreement. It was the “glue” that held the system of exchange rates together.

To give the new IMF usable resources to enable it to start lending, members were also required to pay 25% of their subscription to the Fund in gold. Members had to buy and sell gold at the fixed price (plus or minus a margin set by the IMF). Gold was the ultimate reserve asset.

This requirement and the growth of membership resulted in IMF holdings of gold rising to 153 million ounces by 1975, at the time worth $21 billion.

2011-11-12T15:13:00.000-06:00

Why Ron Paul is the only real choice for president in 2012.

12 Facts About Money And Congress That Are So Outrageous That It Is Hard To Believe That They Are Actually True

November 8, 2011
Print Version

By Michael Snyder
BlacklistedNews.com

Do you want to get rich? Just get elected to Congress. The U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives are absolutely packed with wealthy people that are very rapidly becoming even wealthier. The collective net worth of the members of Congress is now measured in the billions of dollars. The people that we have elected to the House and Senate are absolutely swimming in money. Unfortunately, it is not easy to get elected to Congress. In this day and age you generally have to be heavily connected to those that are very wealthy to get into Congress because it takes gigantic amounts of cash to win campaigns. But if you can get in to the club, you pretty much have it made. The numbers that you are about to read are very difficult to believe and they should deeply sadden you. They show that Congress has become all about money. Congressional races are mostly financed by wealthy people, most of the people that we elect to Congress are very wealthy, and they rapidly get wealthier after they are elected. All of this money has turned our republic into something far different than our founding fathers intended.

The following are 12 statistics about money and Congress that are so outrageous that it is hard to believe that they are actually true....

#1 The collective net worth of all of the members of Congress increased by 25 percent between 2008 and 2010.
#2 The collective net worth of all of the members of Congress is now slightly over 2 billion dollars. That is "billion" with a "b".
#3 This happened during a time when the net worth of most American households was declining rapidly. According to the Federal Reserve, the collective net worth of all American households decreased by 23 percent between 2007 and 2009.
#4 The average net worth for a member of Congress is now approximately 3.8 million dollars.
#5 The net worth of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi increased by 62 percent from 2009 to 2010. In 2009 it was reported that she had a net worth of 21.7 million dollars, and in 2010 it was reported that she had a net worth of 35.2 million dollars.
#6 The top Republican in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, saw his wealth grow by 29 percent from 2009 to 2010. He is now worth approximately 9.8 million dollars.
#7 More than 50 percent of the members of the U.S. Congress are millionaires.
#8 In 2008, the average cost of winning a seat in the House of Representatives was $1.1 million and the average cost of winning a seat in the U.S. Senate was $6.5 million. Spending on political campaigns has gotten way out of control.
#9 Insider trading is perfectly legal for members of the U.S. Congress - and they refuse to pass a law that would change that.
#10 The percentage of millionaires in Congress is more than 50 times higher than the percentage of millionaires in the general population.
#11 U.S. Representative Darrell Issa is worth approximately 220 million dollars. His wealth grew by approximately 37 percent from 2009 to 2010.
#12 The wealthiest member of Congress, U.S. Representative Michael McCaul, is worth approximately 294 million dollars.

So how are members of Congress becoming so wealthy?

Well, there are lots of ways they are raking in the cash, but one especially alarming thing that goes on is that members of Congress often make investments in companies that will go up significantly if legislation that is being considered by Congress "goes the right way".

This is called a "conflict of interest", but it happens constantly in Congress and nobody seems to get into any trouble for it.

The following is video of Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes ambushing Nancy Pelosi about one particular conflict of interest involving credit card legislation. As you can see, she does not want to talk about it....
As noted above, insider trading is perfectly legal for members of Congress.

A law that would ban insider trading by members of Congress has been stalled for years on Capitol Hill.

So has this been a significant benefit to members of Congress?

Well, there has been at least one study that appears to indicate that members of Congress have been much more successful in the stock market than members of the general public have....

A 2004 study of the results of stock trading by United States Senators during the 1990s found that that senators on average beat the market by 12% a year. In sharp contrast, U.S. households on average underperformed the market by 1.4% a year and even corporate insiders on average beat the market by only about 6% a year during that period. A reasonable inference is that some Senators had access to - and were using - material nonpublic information about the companies in whose stock they trade.

Of course all of this could just be a coincidence, right?

Meanwhile, members of Congress keep telling the rest of us that we are just going to have to cut back because times are tough.

For example, during an interview with George Stephanopoulos of ABC News, Nancy Pelosi actually claimed that we should try to encourage poor people to have less children because it costs the government so much money to take care of them....

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?
PELOSI: No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.

This elitist attitude extends all the way into the White House as well. Earlier this year, Barack Obama made the following statement....

"If you’re a family trying to cut back, you might skip going out to dinner, or you might put off a vacation."

Meanwhile, the Obamas are living the high life at taxpayer expense. In a previous article I mentioned one outrageously expensive vacation taken by the Obamas that was paid for by our taxes....

"Back in August, Michelle Obama took her daughter Sasha and 40 of her friends for a vacation in Spain.
So what was the bill to the taxpayers for that little jaunt across the pond?
It is estimated that vacation alone cost U.S. taxpayers $375,000."

There is a massive disconnect between what our politicians say and what our politicians do.

The high life is good enough for them, but the rest of us have got to "cut back" and suffer becomes times are hard.

But when it comes to money and Congress, the most corrupting influence of all is probably all of the campaign money that gets thrown around.

In America today, it takes gigantic mountains of money to run a successful campaign.

Sadly, the candidate that raises the most money almost always wins. In federal elections the candidate that raises the most money wins about 90 percent of the time.

More than 5 billion dollars were spent on political campaigns back in 2008.

That represents a huge number of favors that need to be paid back.

In 2012, it is being projected that 8 billion dollars could be spent on political campaigns.

When big corporations and wealthy individuals shovel huge piles of money into political campaigns, it is generally because they expect something in return.

Most of those that get sent to Congress realize that they never would have won if wealthy donors had not showered cash on them. Most of them understand that they should not bite the hands that feed them if they want the cash to keep rolling in.

Politics in America has become a game that is played by the elite for the benefit of the elite.

Average Americans have the perception that they are involved in the process and that their opinions really matter, but mostly it is just an illusion.
It is so sad.

Meanwhile, members of Congress rapidly get wealthier and average American families continue to suffer. In fact, the standard of living in the United States has fallen farther over the past three years than at any other time that has ever been recorded in U.S. history.

But for members of Congress the good times just keep on rolling.

Just as it has been for most of human history, the rich rule over the poor.

Does anyone out there believe that we have any hope of changing this?

Wall Street Fine Tracker - Forbes.com

2011-09-15T12:53:00.001-05:00

Wall Street Fine Tracker - Forbes.com

Multimillion Dollar Fines & Settlements

Paid by Corporations

corporations with names beginning G through M

click here for corporations A to F

click here for corporations N to T

click here for corporations U to Z

compiled by George Draffan

Endgame

Note: this list is not complete.

Please send additions to Endgame

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of the political and economic issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.Section 107, the material on this site is made available without profit to those who have an interest in receiving the information for research and educational purposes.

Gemstar-TV Guide International

$67,500,000

Recently, in addition to resolving several other patent infringement lawsuits, the company paid $67.5 million to settle a group of shareholder lawsuits..." (Gemstar Agrees to $10-Million Settlement, By Sallie Hofmeister, Los Angeles Times, June 24, 2004).

Gemstar-TV Guide International

see also KMPG LLP

2004

$10,000,000

"Removing another obstacle on the road to its recovery, Gemstar-TV Guide International Inc. agreed Wednesday to pay $10 million to settle allegations by federal regulators that it overstated revenue. The money will be distributed to shareholders hurt by the Los Angeles company's questionable accounting, according to the Securities and Exchange Commission, which had accused Gemstar of inflating revenue from 1999 through 2002... In settling with the SEC, the company didn't acknowledge any wrongdoing. Yuen and Gemstar's chief financial officer, Elsie Leung, were forced out in late 2002 after the disclosure of Gemstar's accounting irregularities. Billions of dollars in shareholder value were subsequently wiped out as Gemstar's stock plunged. The SEC filed charges against the two former Gemstar executives a year ago, alleging that they overstated revenue by at least $248 million. That represents another hurdle for Gemstar: It is by law required to pay for the legal defense of the two former executives, who recently sued the company for paying their bills too slowly... Recently, in addition to resolving several other patent infringement lawsuits, the company paid $67.5 million to settle a group of shareholder lawsuits..." (Gemstar Agrees to $10-Million Settlement, By Sallie Hofmeister, Los Angeles Times, June 24, 2004).

Genentech

199?

$30,000,000

Multinational Monitor, July/August 1999

General Electric

199?

$9,500,000

Multinational Monitor, July/August 1999

General Motors

2003

$1,200,000,000

GM settles $1.2B lawsuit over car fire. "General Motors (GM) said Friday it has agreed to settle a lawsuit stemming from a 1993 car fire that resulted in a $1.2 billion punitive damage award against the automaker. GM spokeswoman Brenda Rios declined to provide details of the settlement, including the amount that GM would pay. In July 1999, a California jury ordered GM to pay $4.9 billion to six people who were burned in 1993 when their 1979 Chevrolet Malibu exploded after being hit from behind by a drunken driver. A month later, a judge cut the $4.9 billion judgment, said to be the largest product-liability decision ever, to $1.2 billion. The judge wrote that GM placed the Malibu's fuel tank behind the axle "in order to maximize profits, to the disregard of public safety." Rios said Friday that GM "remains confident in the performance of the Malibu, which has had an outstanding safety record for many years." GM had been appealing the case before reaching the settlement." (Reuters, USA Today, July 25, 2003)

Geneva Pharmaceuticals

2005

$12,700,000

"Abbott Laboratories and Geneva Pharmaceuticals Inc. have agreed to a $30.7 million nationwide settlement to refund customers and third-party payers in 18 states who claimed that the two companies had conspired to engage in anticompetitive conduct selling a drug that treats hypertension and enlarged prostate. The settlement agreement, reached earlier this month, is still subject to final court approval. The commercial version of the drug, Hytrin, is manufactured by Abbott, which will pay $18 million in the case. The generic version, called terazosin, is made by Geneva... The settlement will benefit consumers who purchased terazosin products between Oct. 15, 1995 and March 7, 2005. Between 1999 and 2001, a number of consumers filed lawsuits against Abbott and Geneva. These cases were consolidated into a single lawsuit in federal court in the Southern District of Florida. According to the federal lawsuit, Abbott wrongfully paid Geneva to delay introduction of its generic version of Hytrin and took other steps to delay competition from lower-priced generic versions of its product, harming consumers." (CBS MarketWatch, March 31, 2005)

Georgia Pacific

199?

$5,000,000

Multinational Monitor, July/August 1999

GlaxoSmithKline

2003

$90,000,000

Pharmaceutical companies Bayer AG and GlaxoSmithKline have each agreed to pay Medicaid abuse settlements to resolve allegations they overcharged the government insurance program for the poor. Bayer will pay the government about $250 million and Glaxo will pay about $90 million for failing to give the Medicaid program the lowest price charged to any consumer, according to the agreement negotiated with the U.S. Attorney's office in Boston and Medicaid fraud investigators around the country... he Globe reported that Bayer is pleading guilty to violating the Federal Prescription Drug Marketing Act and paying a criminal fine of about $5 million for alleged overcharges involving its antibiotic Cipro and its high blood pressure drug Adalat, citing unnamed federal investigators and others familiar with the case. Glaxo, which was not accused of criminal wrongdoing, is paying a civil fine for overcharges involving its anti-depressant Paxil and nasal allergy spray Flonase. The investigation focused on allegations that the companies hid their lowest prices from Medicaid by repackaging or relabeling their drugs under a middleman's name. The middleman then sold the drug at a deep discount not reported to the government. By law, the companies are required to report all their prices and then pay Medicaid a rebate if they charge anyone less than the government... All 50 states will share the settlement money. A whistleblower who alerted federal officials will also receive a share. (AP, Drug Makers Settle Medicaid Overcharges, April 18, 2003

GlaxoSmithKline

2004

$175,000,000

"Drug manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline PLC will pay $175 million to settle a class-action lawsuit brought on behalf of wholesalers of the company's anti-inflammatory drug Relafen. The antitrust settlement on Friday was submitted for review to the U.S. District Court in Boston, where the case has been pending since 2001. London-based GlaxoSmithKline was sued by consumers, health plans and pharmacies who alleged that the company tried to block cheaper generic alternatives to nonsteroidal Relafen, an arthritis medicine. "GSK continues to believe that its actions were appropriate in obtaining and enforcing its patent for Relafen," the company said in a statement. GlaxoSmithKline said its financial results for the fourth quarter, scheduled to be announced Thursday, will include a legal charge of about $403 million, including provisions for settled and outstanding Relafen cases. (GlaxoSmithKline Paying $175M in Settlement, AP, Chicago Tribune, Feb 7, 2004).

GlaxoSmithKline

2004

$2,500,000

GlaxoSmithKline Plc has agreed to release all clinical studies of its drugs to settle a lawsuit that accused it of withholding negative information about the antidepressant Paxil, the New York Attorney General's office said on Thursday. GlaxoSmithKline has agreed to pay $2.5 million and will register the results of clinical trials, detailing safety and drug effectiveness, for all studies done after Dec. 27, 2000, and relevant earlier studies, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer said. Spitzer, in a lawsuit filed in June, had accused GlaxoSmithKline of concealing studies that showed Paxil may not work when used to treat children and could lead to suicidal behavior. The lawsuit said GlaxoSmithKline had conducted at least five studies on the use of Paxil in children and adolescents, but released only one of the studies. The company said the charges are "unfounded" and said it settled to avoid costly and time-consuming litigation. GlaxoSmithKline on June 18 said it would reveal details of its clinical studies, but the settlement gives the company a formal timetable to disclose those studies, Glaxo spokeswoman Nancy Pekarek said. Summaries of the clinical studies are expected to be posted online between now and Dec. 31, 2005, Spitzer said. The drug industry has been criticized for keeping quiet about negative results from clinical trials, since bad publicity would make product marketing more difficult. GlaxoSmithKline published its Paxil studies on its corporate Website in June in response the public concerns, the company said." (Glaxo Settles Paxil 'Suicide Pill' Suit, Reuters/ABCNews.com, Aug 26, 2004).

Goldman Sachs

2002

$50,000,000

FOR MORE INFO SEE ENTRY: Citigroup - 2002 - $300,000,000

Goldman, Sachs

2003

$110,000,000

$1.4 Billion Wall Street Settlement Unveiled. "As part of the settlement, two former research analysts -- telecommunications expert Jack Grubman of Citigroup's Salomon Smith Barney and Internet expert Henry Blodget of Merrill Lynch & Co. -- agreed to pay $15 million and $4 million, respectively, and be permanently barred from the securities industry. The $1.4 billion settlement amount is among the highest ever imposed by securities regulators, and Citigroup's $400 million share of that settlement is the highest ever imposed on an individual firm. It follows a nearly two-year investigation started by Spitzer and later joined by the SEC and other state attorneys general.... Adding to Citigroup's $400 million, Merrill Lynch and Credit Suisse First Boston will each contribute $200 million toward the global settlement. The other firms -- Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.; Goldman, Sachs & Co.; Lehman Brothers Inc.; J.P. Morgan Securities Inc.; Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc.; UBS Warburg LLC; and U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray Inc. -- will pay between $125 million and $32.5 million. About $387 million will go toward a fund to benefit customers of the firms. Another $387 million will be paid to the states. In addition, the firms will pay some $433 million to fund independent research and $80 million to promote investor education. ($1.4 Billion Wall Street Settlement Unveiled, by Tamara Loomis, New York Law Journal, April 29, 2003). See also SEC Releases Brokerage Settlement Details. Associated Press, April 28, 2003.

"Six months after securities regulators and 10 of Wall Street's biggest banks signed a landmark $1.4 billion conflict-of-interest settlement, a federal judge approved the deal Friday, clearing the way for harmed investors to recoup $399 million... The SEC, industry self-regulatory groups and 25 other states eventually joined the investigation. Firms agreeing to settle included Merrill, Citigoup Inc., Morgan Stanley, J.P. Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Bear Sterns, Credit Suisse First Boston, Lehman Brothers, Piper Jaffray and UBS Warburg. Spitzer has gone on to lead regulatory probes into alleged trading abuses by mutual fund firms. In both the research and mutual fund cases, Spitzer seized on behavior long recognized by Wall Street but largely ignored by regulators. As part of the "global settlement," the firms were ordered to pay $894 million in penalties and disgorgement as well as $432.5 million to fund the purchase and distribution of independent research and $80 million to fund investor education programs." ($1.4 Billion Wall Street Settlement Approved: Federal Judge Accepts Conflict-of-Interest Deal. By Ben White, Washington Post, Nov. 1, 2003, p. E1).

The $1.4 billion settlement is divided so:

Citigroup/Salomon Smith Barney: $400,000,000

Credit Suisse First Boston: $200,000,000

Merrill Lynch: $200,000,000

Morgan Stanley: $125,000,000

Goldman Sachs Group: $110,000,000

Lehman Brothers Holdings: $80,000,000

J.P. Morgan Chase: $80,000,000

Bear Stearns: $80,000,000

UBS Warburg: $80,000,000

U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray: $32.500,000

Goldman Sachs

2004

$2,000,000

July 1, 2004: "Goldman Sachs Group agreed to pay $2 million to settle an administrative proceeding with the SEC. According to the SEC, sales traders at Goldman violated the waiting period for marketing an IPO before a registration became effective. Additionally, the SEC alleged that a Goldman executive spoke to the media about an IPO by PetroChina before an initial registration was filed. In the settlement, Goldman neither admitted nor denied the findings." (Forbes Wall Street Fine Tracker).

Graco Children’s Products

2005

$4,000,000

Graco Children’s Products Inc. has agreed to pay a record $4 million to settle charges that it belatedly reported problems with car seats, high chairs, strollers and other products that resulted in hundreds of injuries and at least six deaths.

The company also is recalling 1.2 million Graco Toddler Beds sold nationwide from 1994 to 2001. The beds are linked to scores of injuries, including more than a dozen broken bones, caused when children’s limbs were trapped in the bed’s guard rails or footboard.

The civil penalty is the largest ever imposed by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which planned to announce the settlement and recall Tuesday.

The penalty was sizable because of "the number of consumer products and the egregiousness of the failure to report," CPSC Chairman Hal Stratton said in an interview.

Under federal law, companies must immediately inform the commission after discovering any product defects that pose injury risks or violate federal safety standards. That time limit typically is interpreted as 24 hours.

But the safety agency said Graco and its subsidiary, Century Products, failed to immediately report defects in 16 different products sold from 1991 to 2002. Stratton could not say when his agency first learned of possible reporting violations...

The products — more than 12 million in all — included car seats, infant carriers, high chairs, strollers, swings and beds.

The products have been subject to seven recalls since 1997, including Tuesday’s. The commission said it expects to announce two more Graco recalls soon.

The six deaths were linked to Graco Infant Swings, 7 million of which were recalled in April 2000 after reports that babies could fall out of the seat’s leg openings or get trapped in them. More recently, 140,000 Graco Travel Lite Infant Swings were recalled in July after the company received 100 reports of children slipping out of faulty seat belts and sustaining injuries such as bloody lips, bumps and bruises.

Acquired by Rubbermaid in 1996, Exton, Pa.-based Graco is now a subsidiary of Newell Rubbermaid Inc., formed in 1999...

The penalty more than doubles the previous high of $1.75 million paid in 2001 by baby products maker Cosco Inc. and sister company Safety 1st to settle charges of not reporting product defects." (AP / MSNBC.com, March 21, 2005).

Grant Thornton LLP

2004

$1,500,000

"Grant Thornton LLP, the nation's fifth-largest accounting firm, will pay a $1.5 million fine and spend a minimum of $1 million on training its staff to better detect fraud under a settlement announced today with the Securities and Exchange Commission... Besides the fine and training requirement, the settlement prohibits Grant Thornton from doing joint audits of public companies with other firms for five years... In January, the SEC accused Grant Thornton and the Troy, Mich., accounting firm of Doeren Mayhew & Co. of contributing to an accounting fraud at MCA Financial when the Southfield, Mich.-based mortgage bank failed to disclose several million dollars in related-party transactions in its 1998 annual financial statement. The SEC also said the auditors also engaged in improper professional conduct because they failed to bring "sufficient skepticism" to the job or obtain enough evidence to support their opinion of the firm's accounting... Doeren Mayhew agreed not to accept new public-company auditing assignments for six months and to pay $115,000. Doeren Mayhew didn't admit or deny the SEC's accusations... Some of the money paid by Grant Thornton and Doeren Mayhew will be distributed to investors the SEC alleges were defrauded by slipshod audit work..." (Chicago Tribune, Aug 5, 2004).

Gulf Oil

1976

$4,000,000

Gulf Oil Corp & executives Claude Wild [resigned] Dorsey [resigned] Deering [resigned] Henry [resigned], plus executive 1975 pay reductions. Stockholder Suit relating to illegal corporate domestic money-in-politics activity. http://www.politicalmoneyline.com/cgi-win/x_vce.exe

Haarman & Reimer

199?

$50,000,000

Multinational Monitor, July/August 1999

Haarmann & Reimer

Archer Daniels Midland

Cerestar Bioproducts

Hoffmann-La Roche

Jungbunzlauer

2001

$120,500,000 total

"The European Commission fined Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Archer Daniels Midland Co (ADM), Jungbunzlauer AG, Haarmann & Reimer Corp and Cerestar Bioproducts B.V. a total of $120.5 million for participating in a price-fixing and market-sharing cartel in citric acid." (Corporate Crime Reporter, Dec 5, 2001).

Halliburton

1995

$1,200,000 fine

$2,610,000 civil penalties

"Halliburton came under fire in the early '90s for supplying Libya and Iraq with oil drilling equipment which could be used to detonate nuclear weapons. Halliburton Logging Services, a former subsidiary, was charged with shipping six pulse neutron generators through Italy to Libya. In 1995, the company pled guilty to criminal charges that it violated the U.S. ban on exports to Libya. Halliburton was fined $1.2 million and will pay $2.61 million in civil penalties." (Washington Post, July 11, 2002)

Halliburton

2002

$2,000,000 settlement

"... In February 2002 [Halliburton subsidiary Brown & Root] agreed to pay the [U.S.] government $2 million to settle charges that it inflated contract prices for maintenance and repairs at Fort Ord, a now-closed military installation near Monterey, Calif. Even had the Army known about the investigation, officials said, it would not have affected the decision to award the troop-support contract to Brown & Root. "They did not admit to any wrongdoing, and the government did not find them guilty of any wrongdoing, so legally we could not use that," said Gale Smith, spokeswoman for the Army Operations Support Command. (Associated Press, Washington Times, August 5, 2002).

Halliburton

2004

$7,500,000

"Halliburton Co. will pay $7.5 million to settle charges that it misled investors by not disclosing a 1998 accounting change at a time when Vice President Dick Cheney was CEO, officials said on Tuesday. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission said it did not charge Cheney in the case. The agency charged the Houston-based oil services group, as well as its former Chief Financial Officer Gary Morris and former Controller Robert Muchmore. The size of the penalty against Halliburton partly reflects an SEC view that company documents and information were not turned over quickly enough to SEC investigators, it said... The case focused on Halliburton's failure to disclose a change in accounting for revenue from claims against customers for construction project cost overruns, it said. The accounting change boosted Halliburton's pretax profits over several quarters in 1998 and 1999 by more than $120 million, but investors were not informed until March 2000, the SEC said... The SEC found Cheney was not involved in the accounting practice change, nor in the decision on whether to disclose it, said a lawyer for Cheney who asked not to be named. Halliburton and Muchmore agreed to a settlement, with Muchmore paying a penalty of $50,000 and the company a penalty of $7.5 million. Neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing, as is customary in SEC settlement agreements. The enforcement action against Morris is unsettled and has been filed in U.S. District Court in Houston, the SEC said... " (Halliburton Settles SEC Charge from Cheney Years, Reuters/ABCNews.com, Aug 3, 2004).

Halliburton

2005

$4,700,000,000

"Halliburton Units Exit Bankruptcy Protection. Halliburton Co., the world's largest oil field services company, said its DII Industries and Kellogg Brown & Root units exited bankruptcy protection, formalizing a $4.7-billion settlement of asbestos claims with more than 400,000 people. The units filed for bankruptcy protection in December 2003 to win court approval of the settlement with people who claimed they were exposed to asbestos or silica." (Bloomberg News, Jan 4, 2005).

HCA-The Healthcare Company (formerly known as Columbia-HCA)

2000

$840,000,000

"HCA-The Healthcare Company (formerly known as Columbia-HCA), the largest for-profit hospital chain in the United States, has agreed to plead guilty to criminal conduct and pay more than $840 million in criminal fines, civil penalties and damages for alleged unlawful billing practices... HCA will pay a total of $745 million to resolve five allegations regarding the manner in which it bills the U.S. government and the states for health care costs. The agreement does not resolve allegations that HCA unlawfully charged for the costs of running its hospitals on cost reports submitted to the government, and that it paid kickbacks to physicians to get Medicare and Medicaid patients referred to its facilities. Of the $745 million, the settlement requires HCA to pay: more than $95 million to resolve civil claims arising from the company's outpatient laboratory billing practices, which included billing to Medicare, Medicaid, the Defense Department's TRICARE health care program, and the Federal Employees' Health Benefits Program, for lab tests that were not medically necessary, not ordered by physicians, as well as other billing violations; more than $403 million to resolve civil claims arising from "upcoding," where false diagnosis codes were assigned to patient records in order to increase reimbursement to the hospitals by Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE and the Federal Employees' Health Benefits Program. The guilty plea includes one count relating to this upcoding practice; $50 million to resolve civil claims that the company illegally claimed non-reimbursable marketing and advertising costs it disguised as community education. Medicare reimburses providers for "community education" - costs to educate the community at large about public health issues - but not for advertising and marketing a hospital's services; $90 million to resolve civil claims that HCA illegally charged Medicare for non-reimbursable costs incurred in the purchase of home health agencies owned by the Olsten Corporation, as well as other agencies in Florida, Georgia and Alabama. According to the government, HCA devised an elaborate scheme to hide these costs in reimbursable "management fees" paid to third parties. In 1999, a subsidiary of Olsten Corporation, Kimberly Quality Care, entered into criminal plea agreements in three districts and paid more than $10 million in criminal fines. Olsten paid nearly $41 million as part of a civil settlement arising from its collusion with HCA for that conduct. HCA has now agreed to pay $90 million to settle this issue, and; $106 million to resolve civil claims for billing Medicare, Medicaid and TRICARE for home health visits for patients who did not qualify to receive them or were not performed and for committing other billing violations. (US DOJ, Dec 2000).

HCA-The Healthcare Company

2001

March 15, 2001 - The Justice Department filed in federal court today a document of more than 1,000 pages detailing a vast and broad scheme by HCA-The Healthcare Co. (formerly Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp.) to defraud the Medicare system of more than $400 million by making false claims in its annual "cost reports."

"The amended complaint - filed by the government today to meet a court deadline - is the latest salvo in a eight-year government investigation of Medicare cost reporting fraud by HCA and its related companies that was sparked by two "qui tam" (whistleblower) lawsuits. HCA is the nation's largest hospital company.

"The government also filed today separate complaints pursuing its longstanding investigation of the other outstanding civil issue confronting HCA: kickbacks and improper physician investment arrangements.

"If the cost report case results in a victory at trial, HCA's liability could be more than $1 billion plus an undetermined amount in penalties, because the lawsuits were brought under the False Claims Act. That federal fraud law provides that liable companies may be required to pay up to three times damages plus penalties of $5,000 to $10,000 for each false claim made to the government.

"The complaint also includes allegations of HCA cost report fraud schemes for which the government has not yet determined its monetary losses.

"A former HCA management subsidiary pleaded guilty last December to criminal charges related to many of the schemes alleged in today's complaints. HCA paid $95.3 million to settle the criminal charges, but has not yet resolved its civil liability for cost report and kickback issues. HCA's cost reporting liability will be separate from and in addition to the $745 million civil settlement reached last year on other claims.

"The breadth of the allegations and the detailed calculations of Medicare's losses are a clear signal that HCA's problems with the government are far from over," said Stephen Meagher, a San Francisco attorney with Phillips & Cohen LLP, which represents the two whistleblowers.

"The government's analysis of HCA's cost reports finds that the company set aside reserves totaling more than $400 million from 1987 to 1997 to cover claims that it knew were not allowed under Medicare reimbursement regulations. Nearly 400 past and present HCA facilities made thousands of false claims, the government found.

"The scope of the fraud alleged in the government's complaint is unprecedented," said Peter W. Chatfield, a Washington, D.C., attorney with Phillips & Cohen. "But it is in many ways a very conservative estimate of the fraud. The Justice Department has given HCA the benefit of any possible doubt on tens of millions of dollars in highly dubious claims submitted, and reserved for, by HCA."

"The government charges that HCA: Filed claims and received reimbursement for nonallowable costs such as for marketing, advertising and unrelated investments by mischaracterizing them. Billed Medicare for idle space in hospitals by claiming it was being used for patient care. Concealed overcharges and Medicare auditing errors that favored HCA facilities. Failed to implement Medicare audit adjustments in cost reports in subsequent years - continuing to claim costs that Medicare auditors previously had disallowed for reimbursement. Shifted costs to home health rehabilitation and other facilities that Medicare reimbursed at higher rates.

"The government's amended complaint also reveals for the first time details of HCA's spin off of 104 hospitals in 1987 to form HealthTrust Inc. The complaint alleges that Medicare unwittingly paid more than $100 million of the cost of that business deal. The chairman, CEO and president of HCA at that time was its current chairman, Thomas Frist." (Whistleblowers.com, March 15, 2001).

Health Master Home Health Care Inc

1998

$14,000,000

Health Master Home Heath Care Inc executive Jeannette Garrison [3 yr prison term, $11.5 restitution, fine 2.5 million]. US Dept of Justice civil and/or criminal actions relating to illegal corporate domestic money-in-politics activity. http://www.politicalmoneyline.com/cgi-win/x_vce.exe

HealthSouth Corporation

2004

$325,000,000

"HealthSouth Corp., the largest U.S. operator of rehabilitation hospitals, agreed to pay $325 million to settle charges it overbilled the government's Medicare program... HealthSouth is seeking to recover from an alleged $2.7 billion accounting fraud in which 17 ex-officers have been indicted [including] former Chief Executive Officer Richard Scrushy..." (Coalition Against Insurance fraud News, Dec 2004).

Hewlett-Packard

2006

$14,500,000

Hewlett-Packard agreed Thursday to pay $14.5 million to settle civil claims brought by the California Attorney General's Office arising from the company's board-spying scandal. The civil claims, filed alongside the settlement Thursday, included unlawful business practices and using false pretenses or lying to obtain private phone records. The civil claims are separate from the criminal charges filed in October against the former chairman of HP, Patricia Dunn, and four others involved in the spying case. The investigation was undertaken by private investigators, working for HP, who sought to find out who on HP's board of directors was leaking confidential company information to the press. (San Jose Mercury News, Dec 8, 2006).

Hoechst AG

199?

$36,000,000

Multinational Monitor, July/August 1999

Hoffmann-La Roche

1999

$500,000,000

"90 per cent of the world's vitamins are manufactured by a handful of companies, including F. Hoffman LaRoche Ltd. and Lonza AG in Switzerland, Rhone-Poulenc SA in France, BASF AG and Hoechst AG in Germany and three Japanese companies -- Takeda Chemical Industries Ltd., Eisai Co. and Daiichi Pharmaceutical Co. In the late '80s and early '90s, these conglomerates saw the price of vitamins declining too much for their liking, so they began meeting to discuss how to fix prices and divide up the world market for such vitamins as A, E, B2, B4, B5, B12, C and beta carotene.... After the cartel was busted, it received the largest fines in American judicial history, a total of US$875 billion. In Canada, it was hit with another $130 million -- also a record high... The fines were unprecedented -- F. Hoffman LaRoche alone paid US$500 million, the largest fine in American criminal history. Chinook was fined $2.25 million here and US$5 million in the States for its role in the vitamin B4 cartel... After the convictions, lawsuits were launched by animal feed, food and tablet manufacturers. Last year the cartel settled a few of the suits for US$1 billion in the States, but some of the biggest customers opted out of the settlement, feeling it was inadequate, and are continuing to pursue their own cases. In Canada, about eight lawsuits seeking more than $2 billion in total are underway." (EyeNet) See also QuackWatch.

Hoffmann-La Roche

Jungbunzlauer

Haarmann & Reimer

Archer Daniels Midland

Cerestar Bioproducts

2001

$120,500,000 total

"The European Commission fined Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Archer Daniels Midland Co (ADM), Jungbunzlauer AG, Haarmann & Reimer Corp and Cerestar Bioproducts B.V. a total of $120.5 million for participating in a price-fixing and market-sharing cartel in citric acid." (Corporate Crime Reporter, Dec 5, 2001).

Hughes Space and Communication

2003

$32,000,000

In 2003, Loral and Hughes Space and Communication were fined $32 million for illegal export of satellite technology to China. [the Hughes fine was paid by Boeing becuase by 2003 the Hughes division had been acquired by Boeing] (Seattle Times, April 8, 2006).

Hynix

2005

$185,000,000

"Samsung Electronics Company, the world's largest maker of computer memory chips, agreed Thursday to plead guilty and pay a $300 million fine for participating in a global conspiracy to fix prices, federal prosecutors said. It is the second-largest criminal antitrust fine ever levied.

The Justice Department has spent more than three years investigating Samsung of Korea, along with its competitors Hynix Semiconductor of Korea and Infineon Technologies of Germany, on charges of conspiring to fix prices of dynamic random access memory chips from April 1999 to June 2002. Both Hynix and Infineon have already pleaded guilty for their roles in the scheme.

DRAM chips are the most common type of computer memory products and are found in personal computers, hand-held devices, printers and other consumer electronics. In 2004, the market in those chips totaled $7.7 billion...

Samsung's plea agreement brings the total fines related to this investigation to $645 million. In April, Hynix pleaded guilty and agreed to pay a $185 million fine, and in October 2004, Infineon pleaded guilty and was fined $160 million. The fine against Samsung was larger because the company controls the largest portion of the DRAM market. (The single largest fine in a criminal antitrust case, $500 million, was levied in 1999 against the vitamin maker Hoffman-LaRoche.)

The one-count felony charge against Samsung Electronics and its American subsidiary, Samsung Semiconductor, will be filed in a federal district court in San Francisco in the coming weeks. The government has accused the chip companies of conspiring through telephone calls, meetings and e-mail correspondence over a period of more than three years.

Micron Technology, a memory chip maker in Boise, Idaho, has been cooperating with the Justice Department in the investigation in exchange for amnesty, said Thomas O. Barnett, acting assistant attorney general in the antitrust unit. Micron is not expected to face charges, though one Micron executive has pleaded guilty to obstruction charges.

Named as victims in the case were six American computer companies: Dell, Compaq Computer, Hewlett-Packard, Apple Computer, I.B.M. and Gateway. A related class-action civil suit brought by chip customers in 2002 is still pending...

In December 2004, four Infineon executives, T. Rudd Corwin, Peter Schaefer, Günter Hefner and Heinrich Florian, pleaded guilty to the price-fixing charges; each paid a $250,000 fine. All four men, three of whom are German citizens, also served from four to six months in federal prison.

Alfred P. Censullo, a regional sales manager for Micron, pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice in the investigation, admitting that he withheld and altered documents. Mr. Censullo, based in Boise, was sentenced to six months of home detention..." (Samsung to Pay Large Fine In Price-Fixing Conspiracy, By Laurie J. Flynn, New York Times, Oct 14, 2005).

IBM East Europe/Asia Ltd.

199?

$8,500,000

Multinational Monitor, July/August 1999

IBM

2004

$320,000,000

"I.B.M. said yesterday that it had agreed to pay $320 million to current and former employees to settle in part a class-action lawsuit over its pension plan in a case that may affect millions of workers at many companies and nonprofit organizations. Under the settlement, I.B.M.'s liability in the case will be limited to an additional $1.4 billion if the courts uphold a ruling that a new pension plan discriminates against its older workers and is illegal. The agreement came as a federal judge was preparing to rule on how much I.B.M. should pay to some 130,000 current and former employees. The judge, G. Patrick Murphy of the Federal District Court in Southern Illinois, had ruled a year ago that the company discriminated against its older workers in the 1990's when it changed its traditional pension plan twice, leaving them with what is known as a cash-balance plan. A cash-balance plan combines some features of traditional pensions with other features of 401(k) plans. Under the settlement, which must be approved by the court, I.B.M. would pay at least $300 million to current and former employees and $20 million to employees who had not been at the company long enough to earn a pension. The payment of $300 million settles all disputes that arose when I.B.M. changed its pension plan the first time, in 1995, to an interim design called a pension-equity plan..." (I.B.M. Agrees to Settle Part of Giant Pension Case, By David Cay Johnston, New York Times, September 30, 2004).

Infineon

SEE ALSO:

Samsung 2005 ENTRY

2004

$160,000,000

"Federal prosecutors announced on Wednesday that they had cracked a global cartel that had illegally fixed prices of memory chips in personal computers and servers for three years, and that one of the companies involved, Infineon Technologies, had agreed to plead guilty to one criminal count and pay a fine of $160 million... Infineon had participated in a series of discussions in the United States and elsewhere from July 1999 through June 2002 to set prices of memory equipment, known as dynamic random access memory, or DRAM. Such chips are used in an array of consumer and industrial products, including cellphones, hand-held organizers, digital cameras, television sets, games and MP3 music players. The American market for the memory equipment is about $5 billion a year. Complaints by computer makers of possible collusion in the memory equipment market led to the investigation. The computer makers that were hurt by the collusion, the government said, included Dell, Compaq, Hewlett-Packard, Apple, I.B.M. and Gateway. Officials said that in some instances, the computer makers passed the price increases on to consumers, and in other instances, they responded by limiting the amount memory in their computers... [Assistant Attorney General R. Hewitt Pate] emphasized that the investigation was continuing but declined to identify the other companies, which he called co-conspirators. He would not say how much the cartel had cost consumers and computer makers, but noted that the memory chip was among the most expensive components of computers. A related class-action lawsuit filed by the computer makers identifies the cartel's other participants as including Micron Technology, Samsung, Hynix and Nanya Technologies. Mr. Pate said that the scheme was conducted with the approval of top executives of Infineon. "There were high-level employees involved," he said. "This was not a question of a couple of low-level bad apples." He said the plea agreement offered immunity to some executives and not others, but declined to elaborate... Infineon, with headquarters in Munich, Germany, issued a statement Wednesday afternoon saying that it accepted responsibility for its role in the cartel and that it would pay the fine over the next five years. The $160 million penalty is the third-largest criminal fine under the Sherman Act and the biggest one under Attorney General John Ashcroft. (The two larger fines were levied in 1999 on two vitamin makers: $500 million against Hoffmann-La Roche and $225 million against BASF.)..." (New York Times, Sept 16, 2004).

International Paper

199?

$2,200,000

Multinational Monitor, July/August 1999

Inviva

2004

$5,000,000

"Two insurance companies will pay $20 million in a settlement that ends an investigation into charges that the companies allowed improper trading of annuities... Conseco and its successor in the variable annuities business, Inviva, agreed to the settlement with New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Regulators accused the companies of allowing some favored investors to engage in rapid trading of mutual funds linked to variable annuity products... The SEC called the settlement the first enforcement action charging insurance companies with securities fraud for allowing market time of mutual funds. The insurance companies misled investors by saying the annuities were "not designed for professional market timing organizations," according to the firms' prospectuses. But the companies marketed and sold the annuities to professional market timers anyway, according to the SEC... Conseco was accused of allowing certain hedge fund managers to do rapid, short-term trading of its mutual fund sub-accounts from 2000 through April 2003. Inviva, which bought Conseco's variable annuities business in 2002, was accused of continuing the preferential treatment for a year... Conseco will pay $15 million in restitution and Inviva will pay $5 million. Inviva will also hire a monitor to make sure the firm is complying with reforms to prevent market timing of trades of variable annuities, which provide annuities payments, a death benefit and the option to invest in the stock market through separate mutual fund accounts."

Iroquois Pipeline Operating Company

199?

$15,000,000

Multinational Monitor, July/August 1999

ITT

2007

$100,000,000

ITT "agreed to pay a $100 million penalty for illegally sending classified night-vision technology used by the U.S. military to China, Singapore and the United Kingdom...

ITT... the 12th-largest systems supplier to the U.S. military, is the first major defense contractor convicted of violating the Arms Export Control Act.

The $100 million penalty includes a $2 million criminal fine, the forfeiture of $28 million in illegal proceeds to the United States, and $20 million to the State Department.

The remaining $50 million penalty will be suspended for five years and the White Plains, N.Y.-based company can reduce it on a dollar-for-dollar basis by investing in the development and production of more advanced night-vision technology so the U.S. military can maintain its advantage on the battlefield.

The Army must approve any reduction in the suspended fine, and the government will maintain the rights to any technologies ITT develops and can share them with rival defense firms on future contracts, according to the agreement..." (AP/Cbsnews.com, March 27, 2007).

J. Ray McDermott & Co

1978

$1,000,000

FEC & Dept of Justice civil and/or criminal actions relating to illegal corporate domestic money-in-politics activity (Political Money Line).

John Morrell and Company

199?

$2,000,000

http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm1999/99july-aug/crime1.html

Johnson & Johnson

Menarini Diagnosticos

Pharmaceutica Quimica

Bayer

Abbott Laboratories

2005

16 million Euros total

"Portugal's antitrust regulator said it had fined five major US and European drug companies a total of 16 mln eur for working together to artificially fix prices.

The five firms -- Abbott Laboratories and Johnson & Johnson of the United States, Germany's Bayer AG, Italy's Menarini Diagnosticos and Switzerland's Pharmaceutica Quimica -- formed a cartel during 36 bidding processes to supply 22 hospitals in Portugal, it said. The goal of the companies was to 'prevent, restrict or falsify in a significant way competition by fixing prices', the competition authority said in a statement.

Abbott Laboratories was hit with the largest fine, 6.8 mln eur, for 34 infractions while Johnson & Johnson, which cooperated with antitrust regulator in its investigation, received the smallest fine, it added. The firm will have to pay 360,000 eur for 36 infractions. The antitrust regulator opened its investigation after a public hospital in Coimbra, Portugal's third-largest city, complained that the five firms had all proposed the same price for the same drug." (AFX News Limited, Oct 14, 2005).

JP Morgan Chase

2002

$50,000,000

FOR MORE INFO SEE ENTRY: Citigroup - 2002 - $300,000,000

J.P. Morgan Chase

2003

$80,000,000

$1.4 Billion Wall Street Settlement Unveiled. "As part of the settlement, two former research analysts -- telecommunications expert Jack Grubman of Citigroup's Salomon Smith Barney and Internet expert Henry Blodget of Merrill Lynch & Co. -- agreed to pay $15 million and $4 million, respectively, and be permanently barred from the securities industry. The $1.4 billion settlement amount is among the highest ever imposed by securities regulators, and Citigroup's $400 million share of that settlement is the highest ever imposed on an individual firm. It follows a nearly two-year investigation started by Spitzer and later joined by the SEC and other state attorneys general.... Adding to Citigroup's $400 million, Merrill Lynch and Credit Suisse First Boston will each contribute $200 million toward the global settlement. The other firms -- Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.; Goldman, Sachs & Co.; Lehman Brothers Inc.; J.P. Morgan Securities Inc.; Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc.; UBS Warburg LLC; and U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray Inc. -- will pay between $125 million and $32.5 million. About $387 million will go toward a fund to benefit customers of the firms. Another $387 million will be paid to the states. In addition, the firms will pay some $433 million to fund independent research and $80 million to promote investor education. ($1.4 Billion Wall Street Settlement Unveiled, by Tamara Loomis, New York Law Journal, April 29, 2003). See also SEC Releases Brokerage Settlement Details. Associated Press, April 28, 2003.

"Six months after securities regulators and 10 of Wall Street's biggest banks signed a landmark $1.4 billion conflict-of-interest settlement, a federal judge approved the deal Friday, clearing the way for harmed investors to recoup $399 million... The SEC, industry self-regulatory groups and 25 other states eventually joined the investigation. Firms agreeing to settle included Merrill, Citigoup Inc., Morgan Stanley, J.P. Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Bear Sterns, Credit Suisse First Boston, Lehman Brothers, Piper Jaffray and UBS Warburg. Spitzer has gone on to lead regulatory probes into alleged trading abuses by mutual fund firms. In both the research and mutual fund cases, Spitzer seized on behavior long recognized by Wall Street but largely ignored by regulators. As part of the "global settlement," the firms were ordered to pay $894 million in penalties and disgorgement as well as $432.5 million to fund the purchase and distribution of independent research and $80 million to fund investor education programs." ($1.4 Billion Wall Street Settlement Approved: Federal Judge Accepts Conflict-of-Interest Deal. By Ben White, Washington Post, Nov. 1, 2003, p. E1).

The $1.4 billion settlement is divided so:

Citigroup/Salomon Smith Barney: $400,000,000

Credit Suisse First Boston: $200,000,000

Merrill Lynch: $200,000,000

Morgan Stanley: $125,000,000

Goldman Sachs Group: $110,000,000

Lehman Brothers Holdings: $80,000,000

J.P. Morgan Chase: $80,000,000

Bear Stearns: $80,000,000

UBS Warburg: $80,000,000

U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray: $32.500,000

JP Morgan Chase

see also Morgan Stanley

2003

$135,000,000

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that J.P. Morgan Chase and Citigroup had agreed to pay a total of $255 million to settle S.E.C. allegations that they helped Enron, the collapsed energy-trading company, to fraudulently mislead investors on its financial condition. In addition, the two banking companies agreed to pay a total of $50 million to New York State and New York City to settle a similar allegations about their dealings with Enron, the Manhattan district attorney's office announced this afternoon. Without admitting or denying the commission's allegations, J.P. Morgan Chase agreed to pay $135 million and and Citigroup $120 million. The settlement also resolves the commission's charges stemming from the assistance that Citigroup provided to Dynegy, another energy-trading company, to manipulate its financial statements. "These two cases serve as yet another reminder that you can't turn a blind eye to the consequences of your actions - if you know or have reason to know that you are helping a company mislead its investors, you are in violation of the federal securities laws," Stephen M. Cutler, the director of the S.E.C.'s enforcement division, said in a statement. The S.E.C. said $236 million of the money would go to Enron investors who experienced losses because of the fraudulent finances, while $19 million would go to Dynegy investors. The Securities and Exchange Commission accused J.P. Morgan Chase and Citigroup of helping their clients to set up complex financial transactions to cover up what were in essence loans. These financial transactions, the S.E.C. said, enabled Enron and Dynegy to inflate reported cash flow from their operating activities, underreport cash flow from financing activities, and underreport debt. As a result, the S.E.C. said, Enron and Dynegy presented false and misleading pictures of their financial health and results of operations. The commission asserted that both financial institutions knew that Enron was engaging in these transactions specifically to allay concerns among investors, Wall Street analysts and credit-rating agencies about its cash flow from operating activities and outstanding debt. It also asserted that Citigroup knew that Dynegy had similar motives for its structured finance transaction. Under the agreement with the Manhattan district attorney's office, J.P. Morgan Chase and Citigroup will each pay $12.5 million to New York State and $12.5 million to New York City, as well as the costs of the investigation. As a result of these settlements, the Manhattan district attorney's office said it would not prosecute J.P. Morgan Chase or Citigroup or their employees for their involvement with Enron's financial transactions." (J.P. Morgan and Citigroup Settle Inquiries on Enron's Fraud, By Jack Lynch, New York Times, July 28, 2003).

JP Morgan Chase

2005

$2,000,000,000

"J.P. Morgan Chase, which sold billions of dollars in WorldCom bonds to the public just about a year before the telecommunications giant filed for bankruptcy, agreed today to pay $2 billion to settle investors' claims that it did not conduct adequate investigation into the company's financial condition before the securities were sold. If the court approves this settlement, the total recovered by the plaintiff in the case will exceed $6 billion. That is almost twice the previous record of $3.1 billion paid by Cendant and its accounting firm to settle a securities class action related to an accounting fraud that occurred in 1998. The settlement came, coincidently, a day after WorldCom's former chief executive, Bernard J. Ebbers, was convicted in federal court of orchestrating an $11 billion accounting fraud that pulled down the company, forcing it to file for bankruptcy protection in July 2002. J.P. Morgan Chase was the last of the major banks involved with WorldCom to settle with the New York retirement fund. The bank's lawyers had argued that it relied on financial statements vetted by WorldCom's auditor, Arthur Andersen, and that it could not have spotted the accounting fraud. The bank was a co-manager in both the 2000 and 2001 debt offerings; it sold approximately one-third of the securities offered to investors... The bank neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing under terms of the settlement... The bank had a chance to settle the case.. last year after Citigroup struck its own deal with the fund and paid $2.575 billion. But J.P. Morgan Chase chose to hang tough, arguing that digging into WorldCom's financial statements was its auditor's responsibility, not that of its bankers. That decision was costly. The $2 billion J.P. Morgan agreed to pay today amounts to a 45 percent premium to the settlement formula used by Citigroup when it settled in May..." (New York Times, March 16, 2005).

JP Morgan Chase

2005

some portion of $21,250,000

"... NASD, the brokerage industry's self-policing organization, disclosed that Citigroup, American Express Financial Advisers and J. P. Morgan Chase & Company had agreed to pay a total of $21.25 million for reported violations in sales of mutual funds." (AP / New York Times, March 24, 2005).

JP Morgan Chase

2005

$2,200,000,000

"JPMorgan Chase agreed to pay investors $2.2 billion to resolve claims it helped Enron inflate revenue by hiding debt, in the largest fraud settlement by the company's investment bankers...

JPMorgan, the third-largest U.S. bank, settled less than a week after Citigroup said it would pay $2 billion to resolve litigation sparked by the energy trader's 2001 collapse, attorney William Lerach said in an e-mailed release. Both banks were accused of helping Enron mislead investors through off-the-books partnerships. Shareholders also alleged that JPMorgan misrepresented loans as energy trades...

The agreement leaves Merrill Lynch, Credit Suisse First Boston (CSFB) and six other former Enron lenders facing claims in shareholders' $30 billion class-action lawsuit. Investors are seeking compensation after a plunge in shares of Enron, once the seventh-biggest U.S. corporation, erased about $67 billion from its market value in less than 16 months... JPMorgan in March settled allegations by WorldCom shareholders that it should have known the long-distance company was engaged in an $11 billion accounting fraud. JPMorgan agreed to pay $2 billion in the case, $630 million more than plaintiffs had sought 10 months earlier...

The JPMorgan settlement brings to $4.7 billion the total amount recovered by Enron shareholders. The agreements include Lehman Brothers' for $222.5 million, Enron directors' for $168 million and Bank of America's for $69 million.

JPMorgan and Citigroup, the world's biggest bank, agreed in July 2003 to pay a combined $255 million to settle state and federal investigations into their role in Enron's collapse. JPMorgan paid $135 million and Citibank handed over $120 million...

Enron filed the second-largest bankruptcy in U.S. history in December 2001 after disclosing hidden debt. The company emerged from bankruptcy in November with a plan to repay creditors owed $74 billion about 20 cents on the dollar by selling its assets. The company will cease to exist once the assets are sold...

A U.S. Senate committee found in December 2002 that JPMorgan bankers helped Enron design "sham" transactions to evade taxes. Senators questioned JPMorgan officials about a loan that provided $60 million in tax benefits.

The deal cloaked a $375 million loan inside a $1.4 billion fake loan, the senators said. Enron repaid $1 billion instantly, allowing the company to write off higher interest payments for tax purposes...

The next month, JPMorgan recouped as much as $654 million of losses on trades with Enron in a settlement with insurers. The bank had sued 11 insurers, including Travelers and CNA Financial's Continental Casualty, after they refused to pay $1.1 billion of surety bonds that backed energy trades JPMorgan made with Enron. The insurers claimed they were tricked into backing the loans disguised as energy trades." (Bloomberg News, June 15, 2005).

JP Morgan Securities

2003

$25,000,000

J.P. Morgan to Pay $25 Mln to Settle SEC's IPO Case. J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., a subsidiary of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., agreed to pay $25 million to settle regulatory charges that it illegally allotted shares in initial public offerings based on promises from customers to buy more shares later. The Securities and Exchange Commission charged that in 1999 and 2000, New York-based J.P. Morgan pressed customers to agree to buy shares in the ``aftermarket,'' after the IPO was completed, before allocating IPO shares to those customers. ``This case stands as a warning to all underwriters -- they cannot engage in conduct that could distort the market for IPO stocks,'' SEC enforcement chief Stephen Cutler said in a statement. The SEC and the National Association of Securities Dealers have been examining how IPO shares were allocated during the bull market of the late 1990s and 2000. In December 2001, Credit Suisse First Boston agreed to pay $100 million to settle SEC charges over its IPO allocations. Last January, FleetBoston Financial Corp. agreed to pay $28 million to settle SEC charges that its Robertson Stephens unit got kickbacks for stakes in hot IPOs. ``We are pleased that we and the SEC have settled these charges and put this matter behind us,'' J.P. Morgan spokeswoman Kristin Lemkau said. In today's case filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, the SEC alleged that some J.P. Morgan customers placed the aftermarket orders as requested and bought shares during the new issues' first few days of trading. J.P. Morgan also solicited customers to provide information about whether and in what quantity they wanted to buy aftermarket shares and indicated to certain customers that buying the shares would help them obtain large allocations of oversubscribed or hot IPOS, the SEC said. The sales team at J.P. Morgan made follow-up calls to customers who had previously expressed interest in buying aftermarket shares, the SEC said. The SEC cited an e-mail from J.P. Morgan's head of global equity capital markets stating that a customer ``owe(s) it to us to be in buying the stock today.'' Investors were interested in hot IPOs due to the profits to be made by ``flipping,'' or selling them immediately after the allocation was over in the aftermarket. The SEC alleged that J.P. Morgan was aware that some of the shares were likely to be ``flipped.'' J.P. Morgan also violated a NASD rule by persuading some of its customers to accept allocation of ``cold'' Biopure Corp. IPO shares in exchange for promises of shares in Interactive Pictures Corp., an oversubscribed IPO, according to the SEC. The alleged conduct took place between March 1999 and August 2000, according to Antonia Chion, the SEC's associate director of enforcement. (Bloomberg, October 1, 2003).

Jungbunzlauer

Haarmann & Reimer

Archer Daniels Midland

Cerestar Bioproducts

Hoffmann-La Roche

2001

$120,500,000 total

"The European Commission fined Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Archer Daniels Midland Co (ADM), Jungbunzlauer AG, Haarmann & Reimer Corp and Cerestar Bioproducts B.V. a total of $120.5 million for participating in a price-fixing and market-sharing cartel in citric acid." (Corporate Crime Reporter, Dec 5, 2001).

Ketchikan Pulp Company

199?

$3,000,000

Multinational Monitor, July/August 1999

Kimberly Home Health Care

199?

$10,080,000

Multinational Monitor, July/August 1999

KMPG

2004

$10,000,000

"Accounting giant KMPG LLP will pay $10 million to settle Securities and Exchange Commission charges of improper conduct in the firm's audit of the financial statements of Gemstar-TV Guide International. The SEC says it is the largest payment ever to the agency by an accounting firm. Bryan E. Palbaum, a former KPMG partner, was barred from working for publicly traded companies for three years, the SEC said. John M. Wong, another former partner, and Kenneth B. Janeski, a partner in KPMG's Los Angeles office, were barred from working for publicly traded companies for one year. David A. Hori, a manager in the Phoenix office, was barred from working for publicly traded companies for 18 months. In June, Gemstar-TV Guide agreed to pay $10 million to settle the SEC's accusations that the company overstated revenue by $250 million from 1999 through 2002. The Los Angeles publishing and technology company allegedly improperly reported revenue from its highly touted interactive program guide, which enables TV watchers to navigate through and select programs. During the relevant period, Gemstar licensed the technology to other companies and sold advertising space on the guide." (USAToday.com, Oct 20, 2004).

KMPG

2005

$456,000,000

"In the largest criminal tax case ever, accounting titan KPMG admitted to running fraudulent tax shelters for rich clients and settled with prosecutors for $456 million, while eight former KPMG executives and an outside lawyer were indicted Monday in New York. The scheme, which took place from 1996 to 2002, churned out $11 billion dollars in phony tax losses that cost the USA $2.5 billion in evaded taxes, the Justice Department and the IRS said. The fraud was "deliberately approved and perpetrated at the highest levels of KPMG's tax management," according to court documents unsealed Monday. Former KPMG tax partners and CPAs prepared false tax returns for more than 600 clients, issued false opinions and hid the tax shelters from the IRS, court documents show." (USA Today, AUg 29, 2005).

KMPG

2005

about 80% of $195 million

"The accounting firm KPMG and a law firm have agreed to pay $195 million to as many as 280 wealthy investors who bought four types of questionable shelters, the first major step by the two firms to deal with billions of dollars in potential civil claims.

The agreement also calls for the firms to pay the lead plaintiffs' lawyers $30 million in fees. Papers describing the settlement were filed in federal court in Newark this week; it will be presented to a judge next week for approval.

The settlement covers four tax shelters known as Blips, Flip, Opis and SOS that were sold to investors to help them evade billions of dollars in taxes. All but the SOS shelter were cited in the $456 million deferred-prosecution agreement reached last month that allowed KPMG to avoid a criminal indictment.

The settlement covers buyers of the shelters who received legal opinions or representations from KPMG and the law firm of Brown & Wood, now Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, from Jan. 1, 1996 through Sept. 14 of this year. (KPMG, however, stopped selling the questionable shelters well before that date.) KPMG used other law firms to sell the four shelters, but the settlement covers only those bought through the accounting firm and Brown & Wood.

Sidley Austin Brown & Wood will pay about 20 percent of the $195 million, according to a person briefed on the settlement. Sidley Austin Brown & Wood wrote legal opinions blessing the transactions..." (New York Times, Sept 30, 2005).

Knight Trading

2004

$79,000,000

July 7, 2004: "Knight Trading announced that it reached an agreement in principle with NASD and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for $79 million. The agreements concerns trading and conduct at Knight Securities between 1999 and 2001. Though the administrative order has not yet been finalized, Knight expects that the company "would neither admit nor deny the findings" in the agreement. The agreement in principle requires Knight to disgorge $41 million in institutional trading profits and pay $13 million in interest and $25 million in penalties." (Forbes Wall Street Fine Tracker).

Koch Industries

2000

$30,000,000

Largest US Environmental Protection Agency fine up to that time, for claims related to oil spills in six states.

Korean corporations including Haitai America, Hyundai, Korean Airlines, Samsun Airlines, Daewoo

1995

$1,600,000

Illegal political contributions, use of corporate funds and money laundering.

Kyowa Hakko Kogyo Co. Ltd.

199?

$10,000,000

Multinational Monitor, July/August 1999

LaBranche & Co

2004

"Five New York Stock Exchange trading firms have agreed to pay $242 million to settle charges of violating federal securities laws and exchange rules, the NYSE and the Securities and Exchange Commission said Tuesday. The SEC, after a joint investigation with the Big Board, said the five firms -- Bear Wagner Specialists, Fleet Specialist Inc., LaBranche & Co., Spear, Leeds & Kellogg Specialists and Van der Moolen Specialists USA -- violated securities laws and exchange rules by executing orders for their accounts ahead of orders for the public between 1999 and 2003. The firms -- known as market "specialists" for their roles bringing together buyers and sellers at the exchange -- violated their basic obligation to match orders from the public with other similar orders, and not to fill the orders via trades from their own accounts, the SEC and NYSE said. The firms agreed to the settlement without admitting or denying the allegations, the SEC said, adding that the investigation will continue, possibly targeting individuals... Under the agreement, $87.7 million of the settlement may be distributed to customers hurt by the firms' actions, according the SEC. The rest of the fines will go to the SEC and NYSE..." (NYSE firms pay $242M in trading case. The SEC says five trading firms agree to settle allegations of improper trading activities. CNN/Money, March 30, 2004).

Laidlaw

1993

$1,825,000

"Penalized $1.825 million, the state's largest penalty ever, for repeated violations including improper disposal of infectious waste and wastewater sludge (36 total)" in Pinewood, South Carolina ( Sevanick and Lipsett, Environmental Background Information Center, citing South Carolina Environmental Compliance Update, November, 1993)

Laidlaw

1994

$1,000,000

"Fined $1 million for violations including illegal handling and disposal of hazardous wastes at its commercial hazardous waste fuel blending facility" in Crowley, Louisiana. (Sevanick and Lipsett, Environmental Background Information Center, citing Laidlaw Hammered by DEQ, Louisiana Environmental Compliance Update, March, 1994)

Leeds & Kellogg Specialsts

2004

"Five New York Stock Exchange trading firms have agreed to pay $242 million to settle charges of violating federal securities laws and exchange rules, the NYSE and the Securities and Exchange Commission said Tuesday. The SEC, after a joint investigation with the Big Board, said the five firms -- Bear Wagner Specialists, Fleet Specialist Inc., LaBranche & Co., Spear, Leeds & Kellogg Specialists and Van der Moolen Specialists USA -- violated securities laws and exchange rules by executing orders for their accounts ahead of orders for the public between 1999 and 2003. The firms -- known as market "specialists" for their roles bringing together buyers and sellers at the exchange -- violated their basic obligation to match orders from the public with other similar orders, and not to fill the orders via trades from their own accounts, the SEC and NYSE said. The firms agreed to the settlement without admitting or denying the allegations, the SEC said, adding that the investigation will continue, possibly targeting individuals... Under the agreement, $87.7 million of the settlement may be distributed to customers hurt by the firms' actions, according the SEC. The rest of the fines will go to the SEC and NYSE..." (NYSE firms pay $242M in trading case. The SEC says five trading firms agree to settle allegations of improper trading activities. CNN/Money, March 30, 2004).

Lehman Brothers

2002

$50,000,000

FOR MORE INFO SEE ENTRY: Citigroup - 2002 - $300,000,000

Lehman Brothers

2003

$80,000,000

$1.4 Billion Wall Street Settlement Unveiled. "As part of the settlement, two former research analysts -- telecommunications expert Jack Grubman of Citigroup's Salomon Smith Barney and Internet expert Henry Blodget of Merrill Lynch & Co. -- agreed to pay $15 million and $4 million, respectively, and be permanently barred from the securities industry. The $1.4 billion settlement amount is among the highest ever imposed by securities regulators, and Citigroup's $400 million share of that settlement is the highest ever imposed on an individual firm. It follows a nearly two-year investigation started by Spitzer and later joined by the SEC and other state attorneys general.... Adding to Citigroup's $400 million, Merrill Lynch and Credit Suisse First Boston will each contribute $200 million toward the global settlement. The other firms -- Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.; Goldman, Sachs & Co.; Lehman Brothers Inc.; J.P. Morgan Securities Inc.; Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc.; UBS Warburg LLC; and U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray Inc. -- will pay between $125 million and $32.5 million. About $387 million will go toward a fund to benefit customers of the firms. Another $387 million will be paid to the states. In addition, the firms will pay some $433 million to fund independent research and $80 million to promote investor education. ($1.4 Billion Wall Street Settlement Unveiled, by Tamara Loomis, New York Law Journal, April 29, 2003). See also SEC Releases Brokerage Settlement Details. Associated Press, April 28, 2003.

"Six months after securities regulators and 10 of Wall Street's biggest banks signed a landmark $1.4 billion conflict-of-interest settlement, a federal judge approved the deal Friday, clearing the way for harmed investors to recoup $399 million... The SEC, industry self-regulatory groups and 25 other states eventually joined the investigation. Firms agreeing to settle included Merrill, Citigoup Inc., Morgan Stanley, J.P. Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Bear Sterns, Credit Suisse First Boston, Lehman Brothers, Piper Jaffray and UBS Warburg. Spitzer has gone on to lead regulatory probes into alleged trading abuses by mutual fund firms. In both the research and mutual fund cases, Spitzer seized on behavior long recognized by Wall Street but largely ignored by regulators. As part of the "global settlement," the firms were ordered to pay $894 million in penalties and disgorgement as well as $432.5 million to fund the purchase and distribution of independent research and $80 million to fund investor education programs." ($1.4 Billion Wall Street Settlement Approved: Federal Judge Accepts Conflict-of-Interest Deal. By Ben White, Washington Post, Nov. 1, 2003, p. E1).

The $1.4 billion settlement is divided so:

Citigroup/Salomon Smith Barney: $400,000,000

Credit Suisse First Boston: $200,000,000

Merrill Lynch: $200,000,000

Morgan Stanley: $125,000,000

Goldman Sachs Group: $110,000,000

Lehman Brothers Holdings: $80,000,000

J.P. Morgan Chase: $80,000,000

Bear Stearns: $80,000,000

UBS Warburg: $80,000,000

U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray: $32.500,000

LippoBank California

2001

$8,600,000

LippoBank California (fine paid by James Riady, 2 yrs probation, 400 hr comm.service). US Dept of Justice civil and/or criminal actions relating to illegal corporate domestic money-in-politics activity. http://www.politicalmoneyline.com/cgi-win/x_vce.exe

Litton

199?

$16,500,000

Multinational Monitor, July/August 1999

Lonza AG

199?

$10,500,000

Multinational Monitor, July/August 1999

Loral

2003

$32,000,000

In 2003, Loral and Hughes Space and Communication were fined $32 million for illegal export of satellite technology to China. [the Hughes fine was paid by Boeing becuase by 2003 the Hughes division had been acquired by Boeing] (Seattle Times, April 8, 2006).

Louisiana-Pacific

1993

$11,000,000 civil penalties

$70,000,000 required equipment

At the time, it was the largest Clean Air Act civil penalty and the second largest penalty under any U.S. environmental statutue (U.S. v. Louisiana-Pacific Foundation and Kirby Forest Industries , 1993).

Louisiana-Pacific

199?

$37,000,000

Multinational Monitor, July/August 1999

Lucas Western

199?

$18,500,000

Multinational Monitor, July/August 1999

Lucent Technologies

2003

$517,000,000

The case against Lucent dates back to November 2000, when the company alerted financial regulators about revenues it improperly recorded. S.E.C. regulators ultimately found that $511 million in revenue and $91 million in pretax income were prematurely recorded in the 2000 fiscal year, which ended Sept. 30 that year. Another $637 million and $379 million in pretax income should not have been recognized at all. Lucent subsequently restated $679 million in sales, an act that prompted 54 class-action lawsuits by investors, who said they were intentionally misled by the company. In December, Lucent settled those cases by agreeing to pay $517 million in cash and shares as compensation for shareholders, bond holders and other investors..." (Lucent Fined $25 Million by S.E.C. in Fraud Case, By Ken Belson, New York Times, May 18, 2004).

Lucent Technologies

2004

$25,000,000

"The Securities and Exchange Commission accused Lucent Technologies and nine former and current employees yesterday of fraudulently reporting nearly $1.2 billion in revenue. The agency also accused a former executive of WinStar Communications of engaging in a fraud scheme in which Lucent recorded $125 million in software sales to WinStar. The accusations, made in a civil lawsuit filed in Federal District Court in New Jersey, come after a three-year government inquiry into Lucent's inflation of its sales figures dating back to the 2000 fiscal year. Lucent, the nation's largest maker of telecommunications equipment, and three of the nine employees have agreed to settle with the government without admitting or denying wrongdoing. Lucent will not have to make any additional adjustments to its earnings statements, but it will pay a $25 million fine for not cooperating with the investigation, the largest penalty ever levied against a corporation for failure to cooperate..." (Lucent Fined $25 Million by S.E.C. in Fraud Case, By Ken Belson, New York Times, May 18, 2004).

"Federal regulators fined Lucent Technologies Inc. $25 million Monday in a settlement of civil fraud allegations after the company failed to fully cooperate in an investigation of its accounting. The Securities and Exchange Commission also charged eight former and one current executive of the telecom equipment maker, along with one former official of Winstar Communications, with securities fraud and aiding and abetting Lucent's alleged violations of securities laws in the accounting irregularities. In a civil lawsuit filed in federal court in Newark, N.J., the SEC alleged that Lucent "fraudulently and improperly" booked some $1.1 billion in revenue in 2000. The executives, pushing to increase revenue, meet sales targets and reap sales bonuses, failed to disclose incentives that Lucent gave customers to induce them to buy its products, the SEC said in the suit. In the case of Winstar, the SEC alleged that former Lucent sales executive William Plunkett and David Ackerman, a former Winstar executive vice president, engaged in a scheme that led to Lucent prematurely booking $125 million in revenue from a software licensing deal with Winstar. The scheme included post-dating letters documenting agreements between the two companies, the SEC said. Plunkett agreed in a settlement with the SEC to pay a $110,000 civil fine. Ackerman is contesting the SEC's allegations. Lucent, based in Murray Hill, N.J., neither admitted to nor denied wrongdoing in its settlement with the SEC. The company was not required to restate its earnings. It did agree not to commit future such violations." (SEC Fines Lucent Technologies $25 Million. Associated Press, May 17, 2004).

Marsh & McLennan

2005

$850,000,000

"Marsh & McLennan Companies, the largest insurance broker in the world, agreed yesterday to pay $850 million to settle a lawsuit accusing it of cheating customers by rigging prices and steering business to insurers in exchange for incentive payments. Although Marsh did not formally acknowledge any wrongdoing, Michael G. Cherkasky, the chief executive, apologized for what he called the "shameful" and "unlawful" behavior of "a few people" at the company. But he added, "We don't believe that our corporate entity has ever been involved in a pattern of covering up or a pattern of criminal behavior." The $850 million, which Marsh will pay over a four-year period, will be used to compensate about 100,000 corporations and smaller businesses whose commercial insurance it arranged from 2001 to 2004. In the days after the charges were filed in October, Marsh stopped taking incentive payments from insurers, and its chief executive, Jeffrey W. Greenberg, was forced to resign. The company agreed yesterday to fundamental changes in the way it does business. The lawsuit, brought by the New York State attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, maintained that Marsh received kickbacks from insurance companies that increased the cost of coverage for its customers and did not serve as an unbiased broker. He has also been investigating other brokers and insurance companies for similar activities, and attorneys general and insurance regulators in many other states are pursuing their own inquiries..." (Insurance Broker Settles Spitzer Suit for $850 Million, By Joseph B. Treaster, New York Times, Feb 1, 2005).

MasterCard

2003

$1,000,000,000

"A judge on Tuesday permitted lawyers to circulate the details of the surprise $1bn settlement between MasterCard and millions of US retailers in a giant lawsuit over debit card fees." (Lawyers detail $1bn MasterCard deal. By Ellen Kelleher, FT.com, April 29, 2003).

Visa USA, facing a trial over its debit card fees, said last night that it had agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit brought by retailers, two days after a similar deal was reached by MasterCard. Under the terms of the settlement, Visa will pay $2 billion to retailers and will reduce the fees it charges merchants on some debit card purchases, according to a person close to the retailers' legal team. MasterCard, under its settlement, agreed to pay $1 billion and also agreed to cut its fees, the company confirmed last night. Both will also pay $25 million immediately... Visa and MasterCard were scheduled to go to trial this week in a class-action lawsuit brought by Wal-Mart, Sears and other retailers in 1996. They contended that Visa and MasterCard used their dominance in the credit card market to force merchants to accept both credit and debit cards and to exact excessive fees on debit card transactions. Under the agreements, which Mr. Balto called one of the largest antitrust settlements ever, both Visa and MasterCard agreed to give retailers the choice of accepting one or both kinds of cards." (Jennifer Bayot, Visa to Pay Retailers $2 Billion and Cut Fees, New York Times, May 1, 2003).

McAfee

2005

$50,000,000

To settle SEC charges that McAfee inflated revenue by $622 million between 1998 and 2000 by engaging in "channel stuffing," in which McAfee, then known as Network Associates, improperly booked sales to its distributors as revenue. {eWeek, Jan 16, 2005).

MCI

see also WorldCom

2004

$19,500,000

"MCI Inc., former WorldCom Inc. Chief Executive Officer Bernard Ebbers and 18 ex-WorldCom officials agreed to pay about $51 million to settle a suit by employees who lost hundreds of millions of dollars when the long-distance telephone company collapsed... The pact, which must be approved by U.S. District Judge Denise Cote, leaves 401(k) fund trustee Merrill Lynch Trust Co., a subsidiary of Merrill Lynch & Co., as the only active defendant. A suit against ex-WorldCom Chief Financial Officer Scott Sullivan is suspended until after he is sentenced Nov. 8 for his admitted role in accounting fraud at the company. The employees of WorldCom, which emerged from bankruptcy in April as MCI, are seeking about $100 million from Merrill.. The agreement follows the $2.65 billion settlement in May of a fraud suit by WorldCom investors against Citigroup Inc. The investors, who said Citigroup sold WorldCom securities at inflated prices, have claims against a dozen other WorldCom underwriters. MCI will pay about $19.5 million as part of the settlement... MCI's share of the settlement could vanish if the U.S. bankruptcy court that supervised WorldCom's bankruptcy rules that employee shareholders occupy the same low priority for payment of debts or claims as other shareholders..." (Bloomberg.com, July 6, 2004)

Medco Health Solutions

2004

$29,000,000

"The nation's largest pharmacy benefits manager said Monday it has agreed to pay $29 million to settle allegations by 20 states that it was switching patients to medications to save itself money, not to benefit the patients. Medco Health Solutions Inc. will also be required to make a number of disclosures to prescribers and patients. Those include the minimum or actual cost savings for health plans and the difference in a patient's co-payment, the difference in side effects between prescribed and proposed medications, and Medco's financial incentives for certain drug switches..." (Medco to Pat $29M to Settle Accusations. Associated Press, ABCNews.com, April 26, 2004).

Medtronic

2007

$25,000,000

Medtronic Inc., the world's largest maker of electronic heart devices, has agreed to pay more than $75 million to settle lawsuits claiming it hid defects in its defibrillators, people with direct knowledge of the accord said.

The settlement will resolve about 2,000 claims over battery defects in Medtronic's implantable defibrillators, which automatically send electric jolts to correct heart rhythms that are potentially fatal, according to three people familiar with the agreement....

The settlement is conditioned on Medtronic's being able to get about 90 percent of the claimants to sign onto the accord, which was negotiated last month, the people said.

Battery failures and other glitches in the devices prompted voluntary recalls by Medtronic and rivals Guidant Corp. and St. Jude Medical Inc. starting in 2005, shrinking global sales of defibrillators to $5.6 billion last year from $6 billion...

Boston Scientific Corp., Guidant's parent, agreed last week to pay $195 million to satisfy about 4,000 claims that its defibrillators were defective.

The Medtronic settlement is designed to end more than 1,400 defibrillator suits that have been consolidated in federal court in Minneapolis, people familiar with the deal said. Chief U.S. District Judge James Rosenbaum is overseeing those cases. The accord also aims to end suits filed in Minnesota state courts, as well as claims not yet filed, the people said.

Medtronic sought to keep the settlement confidential so claimants could have time to decide whether to participate, the people familiar with the deal said. The company gave itself the right under the accord to pull out if it can't resolve more than 90 percent of all claims, the people said.

The devices, which cost as much as $30,000, are implanted in patients' chests and wired directly to the heart. More than 1 million people in the U.S. have heart conditions that make them susceptible to sudden cardiac death. Studies show defibrillators can reduce such fatalities by about 7 percent over five years...

Medtronic recalled 87,000 defibrillators because of battery failures. No deaths were linked to failures of the devices, according to the company. After the recall, 19,000 people had surgery to replace the defibrillators, Medtronic officials said....

Lawyers for defibrillator users contend those documents prove Medtronic officials continued selling flawed products for two years after learning in September 2003 about battery-failure glitches. Similar allegations were leveled at Guidant officials over their handling of defibrillators.

Guidant voluntarily began a recall in June 2005 that was eventually expanded to include 109,000 defibrillators. Lawyers for defibrillator patients contend the company knew as early as June 2002 that the devices were flawed and hid the defects to protect sales. The devices were linked to at least seven deaths.

St. Jude, the third-largest heart device maker, voluntarily recalled a total of 75,000 defibrillators starting in 2005. The St. Paul, Minnesota-based company launched two separate recalls, one for software errors and the other for battery failures caused by cosmic rays. None involved deaths, St. Jude officials said at the time. (Bloomberg, July 20, 2007)

Menarini Diagnosticos

Pharmaceutica Quimica

Bayer

Abbott Laboratories

Johnson & Johnson

2005

16 million Euros total

"Portugal's antitrust regulator said it had fined five major US and European drug companies a total of 16 mln eur for working together to artificially fix prices.

The five firms -- Abbott Laboratories and Johnson & Johnson of the United States, Germany's Bayer AG, Italy's Menarini Diagnosticos and Switzerland's Pharmaceutica Quimica -- formed a cartel during 36 bidding processes to supply 22 hospitals in Portugal, it said. The goal of the companies was to 'prevent, restrict or falsify in a significant way competition by fixing prices', the competition authority said in a statement.

Abbott Laboratories was hit with the largest fine, 6.8 mln eur, for 34 infractions while Johnson & Johnson, which cooperated with antitrust regulator in its investigation, received the smallest fine, it added. The firm will have to pay 360,000 eur for 36 infractions. The antitrust regulator opened its investigation after a public hospital in Coimbra, Portugal's third-largest city, complained that the five firms had all proposed the same price for the same drug." (AFX News Limited, Oct 14, 2005).

Merck

2005

$253,000,000

"A Texas jury on Friday found drug maker Merck & Co. Inc. negligent in the death of a man who took its popular painkiller Vioxx and awarded his widow $253 million in the first of thousands of Vioxx lawsuits to go to trial.

The stunning verdict was certain to be greatly reduced under Texas law, but Merck's stock fell sharply as investors feared it could set a precedent for more than 4,200 lawsuits charging that the company hid the drug's health risks.

Merck pulled Vioxx off the market in September 2004, saying its long-term usage could double users' risks of heart attack or stroke...

But the 12-member jury in Texas state court voted 10-2 that Merck should pay $24 million to Carol Ernst for mental anguish and loss of companionship and $229 million in punitive damages.

Merck attorney Jonathan Skidmore said the company would appeal the decision, but estimated that even if it is upheld the punitive damages would be trimmed to less than $2 million.

Texas law limits punitive awards to two times economic damage -- in this case $450,000 -- plus up to another $750,000. There is no financial limit for loss of companionship and mental anguish...

The arthritis drug had been taken by about 20 million people at the time of its recall and contributed more than $2.5 billion in sales for Merck in 2003, about 10 percent of the company's total revenue.

Vioxx is the trade name for rofecoxib, part of a class of drugs called NSAIDs. A type of painkiller known as a COX-2 inhibitor, it was touted as a pain and inflammation reliever that did not cause ulcers or gastrointestinal bleeding, a side effect of many NSAIDs.

Due to the pending lawsuits, Merck said at the end of last year it had set aside $675 million to help cover legal costs.

Another Vioxx trial is set to begin September 12 in New Jersey, where Merck is based.

Wall Street analysts, who have been closely watching the case in Angleton, a small town about 40 miles south of Houston, say Merck's legal woes will last for years and liability in all the cases could run into billions of dollars.

"It will cost them at least $1 billion a year for the next 10 years," said John LeCroy, an analyst at Natexis Bleichroeder..." (Reuters / Yahoo, Aug 19, 2005).

Merrill Lynch

1999

$25,000,000

"Agreed to pay $25 million in fines Wednesday for its alleged participation as a financier in the Sumitomo Corp. trading scandal that pummeled world copper markets in 1996. Along with $10 million to be paid to the London Metal Exchange (LME), the Washington-based Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) will receive $15 million, which officials believe is the first punishment the 25-year-old agency has levied against a broker for "aiding and abetting" a client's improper trading... Merrill Lynch negotiated with the two entities separately and neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing in the settlements. However, both the LME and the CFTC alleged the same thing -- that Merrill provided financing for trading that it knew to be bogus. Sumitomo trader Yasuo Hamanaka, who is now serving a prison term in Japan for fraud and forgery, lost more than $2.6 billion in unauthorized trades dating back to 1994." (Cyber Law Harvard)

Merrill Lynch

2002

$100,000,000

FOR MORE INFO SEE ENTRY: Citigroup - 2002 - $300,000,000

Merrill Lynch

2002

$100,000,000

Merrill Lynch & Co.... agreed to pay $100 million and change the way it compensates analysts to settle charges it issued misleading stock research to win investment banking business. New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer had charged Merrill with issuing overly bullish and biased research after his 10-month probe into the No. 1 U.S. brokerage. Last month, Spitzer released e-mails and other documents showing Merrill analysts... privately derided stocks they publicly touted. Spitzer's investigation -- which has widened to include most of Wall Street's biggest firms -- has given stock research a black eye and the settlement looks certain to put pressure on other firms to adopt reforms like decoupling analyst pay from investment banking deals... Merrill said the settlement represents neither evidence nor admission of wrongdoing or liability. By declining to admit wrongdoing, the firm is seeking to guard itself against a raft of class action lawsuits -- which could lead to much bigger payments... Merrill shares jumped on the news, climbing $1.43, or 3.3 percent... Other brokerage share also gained. Before the settlement, Merrill shares had fallen more than 18 percent since Spitzer revealed his probe on April 8. " (Reuters, May 21, 2002).

"Merrill will pay $48 million to New York state within 10 days. Of the remaining funds, $50 million will be available to the 49 remaining states, the District and Puerto Rico. And $2 million will go to the North American Securities Administrators Association, which has taken part in Spitzer's probe... Spitzer pledged to press ahead with his investigation into analyst behavior at other firms. The attorney general has subpoenaed at least seven other major Wall Street houses: Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co.; Credit Suisse First Boston; the Salomon Smith Barney Inc. unit of Citigroup Inc.; Lehman Brothers Inc.; Bear, Stearns & Co.; UBS Warburg; and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co." (Washington Post, May 22, 2002).

Merrill Lynch

2003

$80,000,000

"Merrill Lynch Agrees to Pay $80 Million on 2 Enron Transactions. Merrill Lynch & Co. said on Monday it finalized a previously announced agreement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission under which the financial services company will pay $80 million to settle an investigation into two transactions with failed energy trader Enron Corp. New York-based Merrill, one of several Wall Street heavyweights under Enron-related scrutiny, announced the settlement in principle last month. At issue is a $7 million deal between Enron and Merrill Lynch related to power-generating barges in Nigeria, and a series of energy trades involving Enron and Merrill's energy trading division, which has since been sold. The transactions took place in 1999. ``The resolution concludes the SEC's investigation into Enron-related matters with respect to the company,'' Merrill said in a statement. Under the agreement, Merrill neither admits nor denies wrongdoing. The firm said last month it would also consent to an injunction barring it from violating federal securities laws under the deal" (March 17, 2003, Reuters.

Merrill Lynch

2003

$200,000,000

$1.4 Billion Wall Street Settlement Unveiled. "As part of the settlement, two former research analysts -- telecommunications expert Jack Grubman of Citigroup's Salomon Smith Barney and Internet expert Henry Blodget of Merrill Lynch & Co. -- agreed to pay $15 million and $4 million, respectively, and be permanently barred from the securities industry. The $1.4 billion settlement amount is among the highest ever imposed by securities regulators, and Citigroup's $400 million share of that settlement is the highest ever imposed on an individual firm. It follows a nearly two-year investigation started by Spitzer and later joined by the SEC and other state attorneys general.... Adding to Citigroup's $400 million, Merrill Lynch and Credit Suisse First Boston will each contribute $200 million toward the global settlement. The other firms -- Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.; Goldman, Sachs & Co.; Lehman Brothers Inc.; J.P. Morgan Securities Inc.; Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc.; UBS Warburg LLC; and U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray Inc. -- will pay between $125 million and $32.5 million. About $387 million will go toward a fund to benefit customers of the firms. Another $387 million will be paid to the states. In addition, the firms will pay some $433 million to fund independent research and $80 million to promote investor education. ($1.4 Billion Wall Street Settlement Unveiled, by Tamara Loomis, New York Law Journal, April 29, 2003). See also SEC Releases Brokerage Settlement Details. Associated Press, April 28, 2003.

"Six months after securities regulators and 10 of Wall Street's biggest banks signed a landmark $1.4 billion conflict-of-interest settlement, a federal judge approved the deal Friday, clearing the way for harmed investors to recoup $399 million... The SEC, industry self-regulatory groups and 25 other states eventually joined the investigation. Firms agreeing to settle included Merrill, Citigoup Inc., Morgan Stanley, J.P. Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Bear Sterns, Credit Suisse First Boston, Lehman Brothers, Piper Jaffray and UBS Warburg. Spitzer has gone on to lead regulatory probes into alleged trading abuses by mutual fund firms. In both the research and mutual fund cases, Spitzer seized on behavior long recognized by Wall Street but largely ignored by regulators. As part of the "global settlement," the firms were ordered to pay $894 million in penalties and disgorgement as well as $432.5 million to fund the purchase and distribution of independent research and $80 million to fund investor education programs." ($1.4 Billion Wall Street Settlement Approved: Federal Judge Accepts Conflict-of-Interest Deal. By Ben White, Washington Post, Nov. 1, 2003, p. E1).

The $1.4 billion settlement is divided so:

Citigroup/Salomon Smith Barney: $400,000,000

Credit Suisse First Boston: $200,000,000

Merrill Lynch: $200,000,000

Morgan Stanley: $125,000,000

Goldman Sachs Group: $110,000,000

Lehman Brothers Holdings: $80,000,000

J.P. Morgan Chase: $80,000,000

Bear Stearns: $80,000,000

UBS Warburg: $80,000,000

U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray: $32.500,000

Merrill Lynch

2005

$13,500,000

"Merrill Lynch & Co. was fined $13.5 million by the states of New Jersey and Connecticut and the New York Stock Exchange, after a group of the company’s brokers engaged in improper market-timing of mutual funds... The NYSE said it determined that a group of brokers in Fort Lee, N.J., made more than 3,700 short-term mutual fund transactions from January through April 2002. The brokers used multiple accounts, all of which were held for a single hedge fund client, the NYSE said, and the accounts were transferred outside the firm and back in later that year.

According to a statement from the New Jersey attorney general’s office, Millennium Partners L.P. was the hedge fund involved in the incidents. The transfers and other violations continued through October 2003, with the traders involved hiding their transactions from Merrill Lynch, the exchange said. While Merrill Lynch told the brokers to stop the trades in November 2002, but the brokers did not, and Merrill Lynch failed to follow up, the NYSE said... Market timing is a practice in which shares of mutual funds are bought and sold quickly and ultimately skim profits from the fund at the expense of the long-term investors the funds were designed to serve. Brokers can use the fund’s listing of holdings to determine whether the funds will take losses on a given day, then sell the fund before the markets close and the value of each share is recomputed at the end of the session. According to the NYSE, $10 million of the fine will be paid to the state of New Jersey as part of its settlement, and another $3.5 million to the state of Connecticut as part of settlement talks there. In addition to the fine, the NYSE censured Merrill Lynch and required the brokerage review its procedures regarding the creation and retention of documents with regard to outside accounts... Several major mutual fund companies — including Alliance Capital Management, Janus Capital Group and Bank of America Corp. — paid hundreds of millions of dollars in 2003 and 2004 to settle improper trading charges brought by regulators. Fund executives, managers and traders have also been accused of wrongdoing..."(Associated Press/MSNBC.com, March 8, 2005).

MFS Investment Management

Massachusetts Financial Services

2004

$351,000,000

Massachusetts Financial Services, the U.S. fund management arm of Canada's Sun Life Financial, became the latest company to settle with regulators over alleged improper trading. MFS will pay $351 million - $225 million in restitution and fines, $125 million in fee cuts over five years and $1 million in investor education - in a deal struck with the Securities and Exchange Commission and Eliot Spitzer, New York attorney-general. John Ballen, MFS's chief executive, and Kevin Parke, its investment chief, have been banned from serving as officers or directors of public companies for three years. MFS made Robert Manning its new chief executive. Mr. Spitzer said investors had lost $175 million as a result of MFS allowing market timing of its fund shares. "Fees will continue to be a central part of our negotiations," he said. "A new fee structure is required and we will continue to scrutinize the fees of companies we are holding talks with." (Scandal fails to stem mutual fund surge, By Deborah Brewster, Financial Times, MSNBC News, Feb 6, 2004).

Microsoft

summary of antitrust settlements

(2001 to 2004)

November 2001: Reached settlement with U.S. Justice Department in landmark antitrust case. Included behavioral remedies but not monetary penalties.

2003: Settled consumer antitrust suits in 10 states, including California, for up to $1.55 billion in software vouchers.

May 2003: Paid AOL Time Warner $750 million for Netscape antitrust claims.

July 2003: Paid Immersion Corp. $26 million, settling patent-infringement claim over technology used in joysticks.

September 2003: Agreed to pay Be Inc. $23.25 million to settle antitrust lawsuit.

March 5, 2004: Settled patent dispute with AT&T for an undisclosed payment.

March 18, 2004: Settlement talks with European Commission failed, leading to $600 million fine that Microsoft plans to appeal.

April 2, 2004: Settled Sun Microsystems antitrust and patent claims for $1.6 billion.

April 12, 2004: Agreed to pay $440 million to resolve dispute with InterTrust Technologies Corp.

Source: Seattle Post-Intelligencer, April 13, 2004.

Microsoft

2003

$1,100,000,000

"A California judge on Friday gave preliminary approval to a landmark settlement under which Microsoft will pay $1.1 billion to settle a class-action suit that claimed it overcharged consumers for Windows. The ruling by San Francisco Superior Court Judge Paul Alvarado allows the settlement to proceed to the next step, during which consumers and corporations in the state will be notified that they may qualify for vouchers ranging in value from $5 to $29. The vouchers can be used to buy most hardware or software products from any manufacturer. Townsend and Townsend and Crew, the law firm that filed the suit, described Friday's ruling as "the largest recovery of a monopoly overcharge ever achieved in the United States and the largest recovery ever achieved under the antitrust laws of California."... The lawsuit, filed in February 1999, claimed that Microsoft violated California antitrust laws by overcharging by as much as $40 for every copy of the Windows 95 and 98 operating systems... The settlement affects individuals and businesses in California that bought Windows or certain Microsoft application software--including MSDOS or Windows software obtained as part of the purchase of a computer--between Feb. 18, 1995 and Dec. 15, 2001... Two-thirds of the unclaimed money will go to California public schools in a mix of donated Microsoft software and cash grants. Although the maximum value of the settlement is $1.1 billion, Microsoft could end up paying as little as $367 million in cash, which is what it would owe to California public schools if no vouchers are claimed. If all vouchers are claimed, Microsoft would be required to pay the maximum, but schools would then get nothing... Microsoft isn't the first technology company ordered to pay large sums after finding itself a class-action defendant. In 1999, Toshiba settled a billion-dollar class-action lawsuit that arose from claims that the company had sold notebooks with defective floppy drives. Immediately after the settlement, the same lawyers that pursued Toshiba sued Compaq Computer, eMachines, Hewlett-Packard, NEC and Packard Bell NEC. Microsoft said both sides had agreed to alter the settlement from the version signed in January. That version had called for 50 percent of the money Microsoft might end up giving to schools to be in the form of software vouchers. Now the settlement says that half will be general-purpose vouchers that can be used for any hardware, software, equipment or training, and the other half will be earmarked for buying software from multiple vendors."(Judge OKs $1.1 billion Microsoft deal, by Declan McCullagh, CNET News.com, July 21, 2003).

Microsoft

2003

$750,000,000

Microsoft reached a deal with AOL Time Warner in which the software maker will pay $750 million to settle a suit brought by its Netscape Communications unit. (Microsoft settles Be suit for $23 million, By Ina Fried, CNET News, September 6, 2003)

Microsoft

2003

$520,000,000

"Microsoft Corp. says it will appeal a jury's ruling that it pay more than $520 million in damages to a university and a software company because its popular Web browser infringed on a patent. The jury could have awarded as much as $1.2 billion to University of California and Eolas Technologies Inc., based in Chicago... Microsoft faces more than 30 patent-infringement lawsuits, covering digital rights management, online video game software and other technologies." (Microsoft to Appeal $520M Patent Ruling. By Mike Robinson, Associated Press, August 14, 2003).

Microsoft

2003

$23,000,000

"Microsoft announced late Friday that it will pay more than $23 million to settle an antitrust suit filed by onetime operating system rival Be. Microsoft did not admit wrongdoing in the settlement, in which Be will receive $23.2 million after attorneys' fees. The total amount Microsoft will pay was not immediately clear from a joint statement by the two companies. "Both parties are satisfied with the agreement and believe that it is fair and reasonable," the companies said in a statement. In the suit, Be had charged that Microsoft's anticompetitive efforts led to the company's destruction, with the software maker's efforts having thwarted deals that would have put the company's OS onto major name brand PCs. The move all but closes the book on Be, which has said it will shutter itself and return all its remaining assets to shareholders. The company's technology and much of its staff went to handheld maker Palm two years ago in exchange for $11 million in Palm stock. As part of the Palm deal, Be retained the rights to file suit against Microsoft, which it eventually did in February 2002. For Microsoft, the deal brings an end to another of the antitrust lawsuits hanging over the company. Earlier this year, Microsoft reached a deal with AOL Time Warner in which the software maker will pay $750 million to settle a suit brought by its Netscape Communications unit. Executives have said the company is looking to settle legal actions where it can. The company still faces a number of actions, including a pending antitrust action by the European Union, a suit by Sun Microsystems as well as consumer class-action suits in several states..." (Microsoft settles Be suit for $23 million, By Ina Fried, CNET News, September 6, 2003)

Microsoft

2003

$10,500,000

"Microsoft said on Tuesday that it would pay $10.5 million to settle an antitrust lawsuit brought by customers who claimed the software maker used its monopoly power to overcharge them for direct purchases of software. Under the settlement, U.S. consumers and businesses who bought Microsoft's software directly from the company's Web site or through direct marketing campaigns agreed to drop their charges. Microsoft, which admitted no wrongdoing, said it will pay each purchaser a portion of the price paid for software bought up until April 30, 2003. Microsoft and the plaintiff's lawyers estimated that the total value of the payout would amount to $10.5 million. The settlement, which is pending in the U.S. District Court in Maryland, must be approved by U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz... The settlement, if approved, would represent progress for Microsoft as it works to resolve remaining antitrust cases. These are based on claims that the No. 1 software company used its monopoly on PC operating systems to push prices higher or to harm rivals. Earlier this month, Microsoft settled an antitrust suit by Be /news:link>, agreeing to pay the failed software developer $23 million to drop its suit accusing Microsoft of destroying its business through anti-competitive practices. Redmond, Washington-based Microsoft also reached a $750 million settlement and strategic partnership with AOL Time Warner in May. A lawsuit brought by Sun Microsystems remains pending. In January, Microsoft settled a number of class-action lawsuits filed in California for $1.1 billion. That settlement returned money to consumers in the form of vouchers to buy computers and computer-related items. (Microsoft pays $10 million to settle suit. Reuters, Sept 30, 2003).

Microsoft

2003

$200,000,000

October 2003: "Microsoft announced yesterday that it had agreed to pay roughly $200 million to settle consumer class-action lawsuits in five states and the District of Columbia. Similar suits are pending in five other states. Executives said the settlements bring Microsoft a step closer to final resolution of its legal entanglements. Microsoft struck agreements with customers in North Carolina, Tennessee, North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas and the District of Columbia, after settlements in four other states earlier in the year. The suits all contended that Microsoft used its monopoly position to overcharge customers for software. In all its class-action settlements, Microsoft has agreed to give vouchers to customers for buying computer hardware and software, including products produced by competitors. Because a large part of such settlements often go unclaimed, Microsoft has agreed to turn over half of any unclaimed amount to needy schools. "This means we are well over halfway toward resolving our consumer class-action lawsuits," said Brad Smith, senior vice president and general counsel for Microsoft, in a teleconference with reporters and analysts. "Obviously, we still have some antitrust issues that remain but we've made important progress." Earlier in the year, Microsoft settled a claim by AOL Time Warner. Antitrust accusations against it continue in a European Union investigation as well as a legal challenge from Sun Microsystems. Massachusetts has said it plans to press on with an antitrust suit, and arguments in that case are scheduled to begin next month. In 2001, the Justice Department entered into a settlement with Microsoft of its 1998 antitrust suit that several state attorneys general, as well as some competitors and consumers, called little more than a slap on the wrist. In January, Microsoft agreed to pay up to $1.1 billion to California consumers, settling the largest class-action claim. In April, it announced a deal with Florida consumers valued around $202 million. West Virginia and Montana accepted settlements earlier this year. Microsoft has established a reserve of $1.55 billion to cover the state settlements. Mr. Smith said yesterday that the company had no plans to adjust that amount. Of the settlements announced yesterday, only those with Kansas and the District of Columbia have received preliminary court approval. The settlement in Kansas is valued at $32 million; the District of Columbia settlement at $6.2 million." (Microsoft Settles 6 More Suits, By Laurie J. Flynn, New York Times, October 29, 2003).

Microsoft

2003

$60,000,000

"Microsoft agreed to pay $60 million and to license a plaintiff's whiteboard technology following a somewhat stiffer but not yet finalized jury verdict against the software giant. The settlement, announced by SPX and its Imagexpo unit Wednesday, gives Microsoft the right to use technology covered under patent #5,206,934, "Method and apparatus for interactive computer conferencing." A U.S. district court jury in Richmond, Va., on Nov. 14 had awarded SPX $62.5 million in damages after finding that Microsoft had violated the patent with its NetMeeting software. Since the court had yet to dispense with final motions in the case, the software giant still had a window of opportunity to settle the case under more favorable terms. Microsoft has spent much of the year on the patent defensive, though the SPX verdict pales in comparison to its patent nemesis, the University of California and Eolas patent covering browser plug-in technology. "This settlement is another step in Microsoft's efforts to resolve legal conflicts, to focus on the future, and to continue building great software," company representative Stacy Drake said Friday. Microsoft has until Tuesday to pay the $60 million, which SPX said would be reduced by expenses associated with the lawsuit." (Microsoft settles in whiteboard patent dustup, By Paul Festa, CNET News, Dec 26, 2003).

Microsoft

2004

$609,000,000

"Mcrosoft Corp. was ordered by European Union regulators to pay a record 497 million-euro ($609 million) fine, share secret programming data with competitors and offer a version of Windows without a music and video player. The world's largest software maker said the ruling breaks trademark and copyright law and vowed to appeal. The EU said the company illegally used Windows, which powers 95 percent of personal computers, to quash competition from rival makers of server software and media players such as RealNetworks Inc. ``Microsoft has abused its virtual monopoly power over the PC desktop in Europe,'' European Competition Commissioner Mario Monti, 61, said at a briefing in Brussels. ``This is not a decision we have taken easily or hastily.''... The fine, which tops the 462 million euros against Swiss drugmaker Roche Holding AG in 2001, is less than 2 percent of Microsoft's $32.2 billion in sales in the year ended June 30. The company, which had $52.8 billion in cash and short-term investments as of Dec. 31, generated that much cash in about 22 days last fiscal year. The company is accused by the European Commission, the EU's regulatory arm, of deliberately restricting the ability of non- Microsoft software on larger computers to work with Windows. Microsoft's bundling of the media player with its operating system was unfair, stifles innovation in the industry and will leave consumers ``with less choice and higher prices,'' it said... If upheld, the ruling could serve as a precedent for competitors seeking changes to Windows. Analysts said the ruling could bolster efforts by competitors such as RealNetworks and Linux operating system sellers Red Hat Inc. and Novell Inc. to sell their programs... The commission is also investigating complaints about products including Windows XP and handheld computers. Microsoft is also working on a new version of Windows, code-named Longhorn, which will add additional security and search features. Analysts say the program will go on sale in two to three years and could be affected by the ruling..." (EU Imposes Curbs on Microsoft, Demands Disclosure, Bloomberg, March 24, 2004).

Microsoft

2004

$520,000,000

A federal judge yesterday upheld a jury ruling that Microsoft Corp.'s Internet Explorer Web browser infringed on a patent owned by Eolas Technologies Inc. and the University of California and ordered the company to pay $520.6 million in damages... The technology covered in the '906 patent was developed by Eolas President Michael Doyle at the University of California, San Francisco. The patent describes in part "a system allowing a user of a browser program ... to access and execute an embedded program object," or small computer programs, often referred to as "applets" or "plug-ins." Eolas, whose name is an acronym for "Embedded Objects Linked Across Systems," jointly holds the patent with the University of California. (Microsoft ordered to pay Eolas $520M in patent case, by Laura Rohde, Computerworld, Jan 14, 2004).

Microsoft

2004

$34,000,000

"Microsoft Corp. said on Tuesday it would offer as much as $34 million in product vouchers to settle a class action in Massachusetts, the latest in a series of suits claiming it broke laws on unfair competition and consumer protection. In a joint release with the plaintiffs' attorneys, Microsoft said the deal received preliminary approval from Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Judith Fabricant on Monday. Microsoft also won preliminary approval on Monday for a similar settlement in Arizona worth nearly $105 million. Microsoft has been working to put antitrust claims behind it, having settled such suits in 12 states and the District of Columbia over the past two years, for a total of more than $1.5 billion. The company has reserves set aside to pay for those settlements, the largest of which was a $1.1 billion deal with California plaintiffs in 2003. As with the Arizona settlement and other such deals it has struck across the United States, Microsoft said it will provide half of the value of any unclaimed vouchers to certain Massachusetts school districts..." (Microsoft Settles Mass. Consumer Suit, Reuters, ABCNews.com, June 29, 2004).

Microsoft

2004

$31,500,000

"Microsoft Corp. said this week that it will pay New Mexico consumers as much as $31.5 million to settle a class-action lawsuit claiming that the world's largest software maker had overcharged for software. The settlement, which received preliminary approval by New Mexico's First Judicial District Court in late July, will allow eligible class-action members to receive vouchers from Microsoft that can be used to buy any computer hardware or software from any manufacturer. The settlement is the latest since Microsoft settled class-action suits with Massachusetts and Arizona in June. Microsoft has been working to put antitrust claims behind it, having settled such suits in more than a dozen states and the District of Columbia over the past two years, for a total of more than $1.5 billion. As with the Massachusetts settlement and other such deals it has struck across the U.S., Microsoft said it will provide half the value of any unclaimed vouchers to certain New Mexico school districts... Class actions are still pending in Iowa and Wisconsin. Consumers and businesses in New Mexico that purchased Microsoft operating system and application software between December 1995 and December 2002 in that state are eligible to claim vouchers, according to the terms of the settlement." (Reuters, Aug 6, 2004).

Microsoft

2004

$1,600,000,000

"Microsoft Corp., the world's biggest software maker, agreed to pay personal-computer company Gateway Inc. $150 million over four years to resolve antitrust claims. The settlement comes after mediation that followed a U.S. government antitrust suit against Microsoft, the companies said today in a statement. Gateway sued because U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson said during that case that Microsoft's dominance had hurt Gateway. Resolving Gateway's charges helps Redmond, Washington-based Microsoft wrap up legal cases and focus on product development as sales are expected to post their slowest growth ever this year. Microsoft last month agreed to pay $60 million to Burst.com Inc. to settle a patent-infringement lawsuit and last year paid $1.6 billion to end a 10-year fight with Sun Microsystems Inc..." (Bloomberg, April 11, 2005).

Microsoft

2005

$60,000,000

"Microsoft Corp., the world's biggest software maker, agreed to pay personal-computer company Gateway Inc. $150 million over four years to resolve antitrust claims. The settlement comes after mediation that followed a U.S. government antitrust suit against Microsoft, the companies said today in a statement. Gateway sued because U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson said during that case that Microsoft's dominance had hurt Gateway. Resolving Gateway's charges helps Redmond, Washington-based Microsoft wrap up legal cases and focus on product development as sales are expected to post their slowest growth ever this year. Microsoft last month agreed to pay $60 million to Burst.com Inc. to settle a patent-infringement lawsuit and last year paid $1.6 billion to end a 10-year fight with Sun Microsystems Inc..." (Bloomberg, April 11, 2005).

Microsoft

2005

$150,000,000

"Microsoft Corp., the world's biggest software maker, agreed to pay personal-computer company Gateway Inc. $150 million over four years to resolve antitrust claims. The settlement comes after mediation that followed a U.S. government antitrust suit against Microsoft, the companies said today in a statement. Gateway sued because U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson said during that case that Microsoft's dominance had hurt Gateway. Resolving Gateway's charges helps Redmond, Washington-based Microsoft wrap up legal cases and focus on product development as sales are expected to post their slowest growth ever this year. Microsoft last month agreed to pay $60 million to Burst.com Inc. to settle a patent-infringement lawsuit and last year paid $1.6 billion to end a 10-year fight with Sun Microsystems Inc..." (Bloomberg, April 11, 2005).

Microsoft

2005

$775,000,000

"Microsoft is paying $775 million to IBM to settle an antitrust lawsuit from the mid-1990s. IBM had accused Microsoft of employing certain practices that hurt its OS/2 operating system and SmartSuite products as well as its server and hardware business." (Forbes, July 1, 2005).

Microsoft

2005

$761,000,000

"Microsoft... would pay $761 million to RealNetworks, one of the software maker's fiercest rivals and critics, to settle antitrust claims and establish a wide-ranging partnership on digital media and games... Microsoft and RealNetworks said it now made more sense for them to collaborate than fight over the placement of media software on desktop computers as they have been doing for many years. The deal is the latest in a string of settlements between Microsoft and other technology companies, and it could complicate European regulators' efforts to pursue antitrust charges against the software maker when competitors who they are meant to help are finding it more beneficial to settle than litigate. Microsoft... will make payments of $460 million and $301 million to RealNetworks, of Seattle, the first of which will be paid upfront to resolve lawsuits between the companies and the second for software and services over 18 months. Under the new partnership, Real will provide both its Rhapsody online music subscription and digital games to Microsoft's online MSN service and some games for the XBox game console..." (New York Times, October 11, 2005).

Microsoft

2006

$357,000,000

The EU fined Microsoft Corp. $357 million on Wednesday and threatened more penalties, saying the company failed to obey a 2004 antitrust order to share technical information that would allow rivals' software to communicate better with Windows. Microsoft said it would appeal the fine, which was set at 280.5 million euros, claiming the hefty amount was unfair... The European Union also said it would double fine rates to 3 million euros a day -- or $3.82 million, at current exchange rates -- starting July 31 unless the company supplies ''complete and accurate'' technical information to help rivals make software that works smoothly with its ubiquitous Windows operating system... The EU imposed daily fines of 1.5 million euros ($1.91 million) after a Dec. 15 deadline to June 20, when it decided that Microsoft was still violating EU law. In comparison, Microsoft earned $2.98 billion in the quarter ended March 31 on revenue of $10.9 billion.It has three months to pay Wednesday's fine. The EU already had levied a record 497 million euro fine on Microsoft in 2004 and ordered it to hand over communications code to rivals, saying it had deliberately tried to cripple them as it won control of the market... Kroes said she had showed restraint on the new fines, since the EU can fine a company up to 5 percent of its annual global revenue. This would mean a fine of 4.28 million euros ($5.47 million) a day out of Microsoft's daily revenue of 85.7 million euros ($109.47 million), she said." (New York Times, July 12, 2006).

Millennium Management LLC

$180,000,000

"[H]edge funds run by Millennium Management LLC and four of the firm’s top executives agreed to pay $180 million to settle charges that they violated trading rules." (Philip Mattera, The New Raiders: Hedge Funds Take on Corporate America, Corporate Research E-Letter No. 57, Jan-Feb 2006).

Mitsubishi

199?

$1,800,000

Multinational Monitor, July/August 1999

Mobil

2004

$5,500,000

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Justice today announced a settlement with Mobil Exploration and Producing U.S. Inc. worth over $5.5 million for numerous oil and produced water spills from its oil production activities on the Navajo Nation in southeastern Utah. The settlement includes a $515,000 penalty and requires the company to spend about $4.7 million on field operation improvements to reduce spill incidences. Mobil will also spend approximately $327,000 on environmental projects that include sanitation facilities and construction of a drinking water supply line extension that will provide running water to 17 of the remote residences located on the oil production fields. Currently, local residents may drive as long as an hour to fill 55 gallon drums with drinking water... In March 1998, the EPA and the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit claiming that between December 1991 and March 1999 approximately 83 spills at Mobil's oil fields reached tributaries of the San Juan River-- a violation of the federal Clean Water Act. Mobil's violations include: 1) unauthorized discharge of oil and oil and water mixtures into tributaries of the San Juan River; 2) failure to prepare and fully implement an adequate spill prevention and control plan; 3) failure to implement existing plans; 4) failure to prepare a facility response plan or conduct drills and training; 5) failure to notify the EPA of discharge events. Mobil's oil production fields are located on both sides of the San Juan River in southeast Utah on lands leased from the Navajo Nation." (US EPA news release, Aug 3, 2004).

Monsanto

2005

$1,000,000

In January 2005, "Monsanto admitted to paying a bribe of $50,000 to a senior official in the [Indonesian] Ministry of the Environment in exchange for dropping a requirement for an environmental impact statement. The company was fined $1 million by the United States Department of Justice." (Raymond Bonner, Corruption in Indonesia Is Worrying Aid Groups, New York Times, Jan 13, 2004).

Morgan Stanley

2002

$50,000,000

FOR MORE INFO SEE ENTRY: Citigroup - 2002 - $300,000,000

Morgan Stanley

2003

$50,000,000

Morgan Stanley on Monday agreed to pay $50 million to settle federal charges of mutual fund abuses as the industry scandal widened amid further withdrawals of funds by investors in Putnam Investments. Morgan Stanley (MWD) settled charges that it failed to tell investors about compensation received for selling certain mutual funds, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and National Association of Securities Dealers said. The deal followed an SEC settlement with Putnam on Thursday that it had allowed some portfolio managers and certain clients to break company rules by buying and selling mutual fund shares very quickly to profit from stale prices. Without admitting or denying the charges, as is customary on Wall Street, Morgan Stanley agreed to provide more disclosure about its relationships with mutual fund groups, the SEC said, adding it was looking at 15 brokers in relation to the Morgan Stanley charges. Morgan Stanley said in a statement it would no longer accept ``soft dollar'' payments -- the paying of brokerages services through commission revenues rather than direct fees, or hard dollar payments -- on retail sales of mutual funds. The probe of the $7 trillion mutual fund industry will expand to include the examination of soft dollar payments and mutual fund fees, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, who has spearheaded the investigations, said last week..." (Fund Scandal Widens, Morgan Stanley Fined, by Reuters, New York Times, Nov 17, 2003).

Morgan Stanley

see also JP Morgan

2003

$125,000,000

$1.4 Billion Wall Street Settlement Unveiled. "As part of the settlement, two former research analysts -- telecommunications expert Jack Grubman of Citigroup's Salomon Smith Barney and Internet expert Henry Blodget of Merrill Lynch & Co. -- agreed to pay $15 million and $4 million, respectively, and be permanently barred from the securities industry. The $1.4 billion settlement amount is among the highest ever imposed by securities regulators, and Citigroup's $400 million share of that settlement is the highest ever imposed on an individual firm. It follows a nearly two-year investigation started by Spitzer and later joined by the SEC and other state attorneys general.... Adding to Citigroup's $400 million, Merrill Lynch and Credit Suisse First Boston will each contribute $200 million toward the global settlement. The other firms -- Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.; Goldman, Sachs & Co.; Lehman Brothers Inc.; J.P. Morgan Securities Inc.; Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc.; UBS Warburg LLC; and U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray Inc. -- will pay between $125 million and $32.5 million. About $387 million will go toward a fund to benefit customers of the firms. Another $387 million will be paid to the states. In addition, the firms will pay some $433 million to fund independent research and $80 million to promote investor education. ($1.4 Billion Wall Street Settlement Unveiled, by Tamara Loomis, New York Law Journal, April 29, 2003). See also SEC Releases Brokerage Settlement Details. Associated Press, April 28, 2003.

"Six months after securities regulators and 10 of Wall Street's biggest banks signed a landmark $1.4 billion conflict-of-interest settlement, a federal judge approved the deal Friday, clearing the way for harmed investors to recoup $399 million... The SEC, industry self-regulatory groups and 25 other states eventually joined the investigation. Firms agreeing to settle included Merrill, Citigoup Inc., Morgan Stanley, J.P. Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Bear Sterns, Credit Suisse First Boston, Lehman Brothers, Piper Jaffray and UBS Warburg. Spitzer has gone on to lead regulatory probes into alleged trading abuses by mutual fund firms. In both the research and mutual fund cases, Spitzer seized on behavior long recognized by Wall Street but largely ignored by regulators. As part of the "global settlement," the firms were ordered to pay $894 million in penalties and disgorgement as well as $432.5 million to fund the purchase and distribution of independent research and $80 million to fund investor education programs." ($1.4 Billion Wall Street Settlement Approved: Federal Judge Accepts Conflict-of-Interest Deal. By Ben White, Washington Post, Nov. 1, 2003, p. E1).

The $1.4 billion settlement is divided so:

Citigroup/Salomon Smith Barney: $400,000,000

Credit Suisse First Boston: $200,000,000

Merrill Lynch: $200,000,000

Morgan Stanley: $125,000,000

Goldman Sachs Group: $110,000,000

Lehman Brothers Holdings: $80,000,000

J.P. Morgan Chase: $80,000,000

Bear Stearns: $80,000,000

UBS Warburg: $80,000,000

U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray: $32.500,000

Morgan Stanley

2004

$54,000,000

"Wall Street brokerage Morgan Stanley on Monday settled a sex discrimination suit brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for $54 million. In its lawsuit, the EEOC alleged a pattern of discrimination that denied scores of women promotions and gave higher salaries to less productive men. U.S. District Judge Richard Berman had scheduled opening statements for Monday. Eight women and four men were chosen as jurors on Friday. The CEO of Morgan Stanley and the chairperson of the EEOC, which brought the suit in 2001, had personally become involved in settlement talks over the weekend, Berman said. He said the settlement would include $12 million for Allison Schieffelin, the former Morgan Stanley bond seller who was the lead plaintiff. Morgan Stanley is to implement "far-reaching" measures — including agreeing to oversight by an outside monitor — to enhance the role of women in its work force. In addition, a retired federal judge is to oversee a $40 million claims fund for women alleging discrimination at the firm, Berman said. Also, $2 million will go to gender diversity programs... Other high-profile bias complaints against brokerages have been settled out of court. Talks in the Morgan Stanley case had collapsed last year. The EEOC had been expected to call about two dozen women to testify. Some told the EEOC that the firm withheld raises and desirable assignments from women who took maternity leave... Merrill Lynch & Co. and Smith Barney, now a unit of Citigroup, in 1998 settled discrimination cases involving hundreds of female employees. The Smith Barney case included allegations that male employees at a Long Island branch harassed female co-workers while partying in a basement "boom-boom room." (Sex Suit Costs Morgan Stanley $54M, CBSNews.com, July 12, 2004).

A breakdown of the $54 million sex discrimination settlement: $40 million will be placed in an interest-bearing claim fund for women who say they have suffered discrimination at Morgan Stanley at any time since Jan. 1, 1995. Abner J. Mikva, a former federal judge, will oversee the fund. Any remaining money will be used to pay for scholarships for women students pursuing careers in the financial services industry. $12 million will be paid to Allison Schieffelin, the lead plaintiff in the discrimination suit. $2 million will be used to fund diversity and anti-discrimination training at Morgan Stanley. (ABCNews.com, July 12, 2004).

Morgan Stanley

2004

$2,200,000

"The NASD temporarily suspended the investment bank and brokerage from registering new brokers for one week, and censured it for more than 1,800 late disclosures of reportable information about its brokers, including customer complaints and disciplinary actions by regulators." (CNNMoney.com, July 29, 2004).

Endgame

OK House Passes Income Tax Legislation for State Employes, Elected Officials | Tax Law Blog | IRS Tax Attorneys

2011-06-25T15:15:00.000-05:00

OK House Passes Income Tax Legislation for State Employes, Elected Officials | Tax Law Blog | IRS Tax Attorneys

money money money, where does it all go. Does it just evaporate.

2011-06-08T20:53:00.004-05:00

MONEY

MONEY

Since 1913, a consortium of foreign and domestic banking families hijacked control of our money supply and economy, resulting in incredible profits for themselves and trillions of dollars of cost to us, the taxpayers. It is time to end this extortion…
Source: wakeupfromyourslumber.com
Should the U.S. nationalize its own money supply?
Since the formulation of the Federal Reserve, these legally sanctioned crooks, thieves and liars have been draining America dry of both wealth and blood, thru a never ending succession of wars, police actions, interventions and “Shock and Awe” campaigns that always manage to find a convenient “boogieman” somewhere on the planet to fight, using our tax dollars and our kids.Should the U.S. nationalize its own money supply? Hell yes and the sooner, the better. It’s way past time to take back control of our money supply from the Wall Street shysters, bunko artists and con men that have deliberately manipulated our money into fabulous wealth for a handful of these Mammon worshipping gnomes.A manipulation that was all reward and no risk for the private bankers of the federal reserve, thanks to numerous bail-outs by the federal reserve, using OUR money.
Some will say this is “socialism.” If so, it will be socialism for the people and by the people and not the predatory Darwinian Socialism for the rich and connected that has been ongoing since the Warburgs, Rockefellers and Morgans of the banking industry took over this country in a bloodless coup d’état in 1913, creating the ill-named “Federal Reserve.”
A Federal Reserve that is owned by bankers in London, Berlin and Paris, as author Peter Kershaw shows in his book, “Economic Solutions.”
1) The Rothschild Family – London
2) The Rothschild Family – Berlin
3) The Lazard Brothers – Paris
4) Israel Seiff – Italy
5) Kuhn-Loeb Company – Germany
6) The Warburgs – Amsterdam
7) The Warburgs – Hamburg
8)Lehman Brothers – New York
9) Goldman & Sachs – New York
10) The Rockefeller Family – New York
Seven of the top ten stockholders located in foreign countries…
Since the formulation of the Federal Reserve, these legally sanctioned crooks, thieves and liars have been draining America dry of both wealth and blood, thru a never ending succession of wars, police actions, interventions and “Shock and Awe” campaigns that always manage to find a convenient “boogieman” somewhere on the planet to fight, using our tax dollars and our kids.
It’s time to tell these war mongers to piss off, we’re taking back what is rightfully ours and when they scream “Socialism”, hit ‘em with this list that shows Big Boy Socialism:
The Federal Reserve Act went thru in 1913. In less than a year, the U.S. had imposed on it an income tax and by 1914, WW I had started.
By 1917, the U.S. was in that war, shipping men, money and weapons overseas to prop up the British Empire. The private bankers of the federal reserve made a killing off WW I, by loaning out OUR money to both sides in the conflict.
The Great Depression of 1929 was due in no small part by the machinations of various Wall Street banks that engaged in insider trading, speculation–using OUR money–and a general money investing attitude that would make the shadiest Las Vegas poker player blush.
Bank failings and foreclosures were rampant, allowing the private bankers of the federal reserve to buy up property for pennies on the dollar.
During WW II, some of these same banks made a fortune–again–by loaning out money to both sides in the conflict.
In 1980, the Hunt Brothers of Texas got involved in trying to corner the silver market. Things didn’t quite go the way they planned and they were looking at bankruptcy, but the federal government got involved and helped the Hunt Boys get out of their self-made mess.
And what about the Savings and Loan crisis of the 1980′s? Again, these shysters got involved in off the book schemes and gambled that they could make billions by perverting the market.
Here’s whatTIME
magazine had to say about the S & L scandals:
“Devastated by a legacy of bad management, rampant fraud and inept Government supervision, more than 500 of the 3,150 federally insured thrifts had fallen into insolvency as of the beginning of last year. Because the U.S. failed to own up to the problem and launch a major rescue soon enough, the cost has now grown higher than almost anyone had imagined.Last week President Bush came forward with a long-awaited bailout plan.. “
Sound familiar? It’s “déjà vu” all over again, as the thieves run off with the loot and leave the American taxpayer with the bills. Only this time the president is Bush Jr. who’s presiding over this looting of American tax dollars.
End cost of the S & L fiasco to American taxpayers?
Over 500 BILLION DOLLARS, paid by us taxpayers.
The Federal Reserve 1998 bailout of the hedge fund known as Long Term Capital Management . Again, these financial sharpies were making money hand over fist, until Russia decided it no longer wanted to play Wall Street’s game and defaulted on its debt.
Hedge funds like LTCM, who had made tons of money by risking investments, now couldn’t stay afloat, so in rushes the Fed, using an excuse we’re hearing now, that LTCM’s collapse could endanger the financial markets.
And now we have the sub-CRIME mortgage scandals of the present. Again, some of these same Wall Street banks made a huge fortune selling worthless assets back and forth to one another. When this “Ponzi” scheme blew up in their faces, they came running to Uncle Sam, saying they need to be bailed out to prevent another Great Depression.
In the 95 years since the Federal Reserve was created, the U.S. has been involved in one Wall Street shell game after another and each and every time, when the marks wise up to their game of “Three Card Monte”, the markets implode. That’s when Wall Street and the private banks of the Federal Reserve go crying to the U.S. Treasury, begging for help. That is, after they’ve sucked all the life out of the market and moved their booty to offshore banks, away from prying eyes.
Currently, both the Fed and the U.S. Treasury are working on a plan to give even more power to the Federal Reserve.
WTF? Give more power to the same mob that helped oversee this current financial conundrum that is threatening to collapse our economy? Why?
Is it time to nationalize our money supply? Damn straight and the sooner, the better.
For starters, we could save hundreds of billions of dollars a year in interest payments. Since WE the People own the debt, we wouldn’t have to pay interest to ourselves on this debt.
Next, we’d tell foreign governments that we WILL honor any debts incurred by the federal reserve, but not any debts to any institution connected with Wall Street or the federal reserve.
Between not paying the exorbitant interest on OUR money and wiping away any debts owed to Wall Street and the Fed, We the People would have several hundred billion dollars a year, to spend on health care, infrastructure, schools and our vets.
If some Wall Street banks fail, tough tittie. Let them experience what the American public has been experiencing since the private bankers took over the nation’s money supply in 1913.
After all, with the people back in control of OUR money, bank failures wouldn’t have the shocking effect, like the Wall Street engineered Crash of 1929.
We would also remove a serious source of corruption in Congress, as it’s been shown that the banking industry donates BIG money to our Congress to get OUR reps to pass legislation that favors the banking industry, not the people whom Congress has sworn to serve.
And, the risk of wars in far away places would be diminished, since the banks would no longer stand to make a profit off the stranglehold they have on the federal reserve, by loaning out money to war mongers.
Until We the People take back control of OUR money supply, we’ll be subjected to a never ending stream of financial calamities, caused by insider trading, over the top speculation and greed on steroids. Risky investment schemes that Wall Street knows it can engage in, since the feds won’t notice what’s going on, until the fraudulent schemes start to unravel and the Big Boys need some of OUR money to stay afloat.
It’s way past time to nationalize OUR money supply and take back what is rightfully ours to do with it what WE want, not what some well-heeled banker in London or Paris wants.

Fess Up, Fed by Ron Paul

2011-06-05T21:48:00.001-05:00

Fess Up, Fed

by Ron Paul

Recently by Ron Paul: Enabling a Future American Dictator

Before the U.S House of Representatives, Committee on Financial Services, Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy & Technology Hearing on Federal Reserve Lending Disclosure: FOIA, Dodd-Frank, and the Data Dump, June 1, 2011

Today's hearing deals with one of the most pressing issues this subcommittee will face during this Congress, the issue of Federal Reserve transparency. While the Federal Reserve is still far less transparent than it should be, recent disclosures of the Federal Reserve’s lending programs have greatly increased our knowledge of the Fed's monetary policy during the height of the financial crisis.

In December 2010 and March 2011, a remarkable thing happened: the Fed disclosed information on its lending facilities and discount window operations, including who borrowed money, what amounts were loaned, maturity dates, interest rates, and collateral. It took an act of Congress, the Dodd-Frank Act, to bring about the December releases that discovered the details of the emergency lending facilities set up by the Fed during the crisis. The March 2011 disclosures covered discount window lending, the oldest Fed lending tool, whose operations had never before been disclosed. It took a three year legal battle regarding the Freedom of Information Act’s (FOIA) applicability to the Fed in order to gain access to this information. The suits brought by Bloomberg and Fox News resulted in 29,000 pages of unorganized, heavily redacted documents being provided. Combining these two data releases has given us a fuller, if still woefully incomplete, picture of the Fed’s operations during the financial crisis and the nearly $3 trillion balance sheet it has built up.

On November 25, 2008, the Fed created the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF) which was intended to "lend up to $200 billion... to holders of certain AAA-rated ABS [asset-backed securities]." When the Fed released TALF data in December of 2010, 18% of TALF loans were backed by subprime credit card and auto loan securities, 17% of TALF loans were backed by "legacy", a.k.a. troubled, commercial real estate securities, and 13% of TALF loans were backed by student loan securities. On March 11, 2008, the Fed created the Term Securities Lending Facility (TSLF) to "lend up to $200 billion...to primary dealers... secured... by... securities, including federal agency debt, federal agency residential mortgage-backed securities (MBS), and non-agency AAA/Aaa-rated private-label residential MBS." When the Fed released TSLF data in December of 2010, 26% of loans were backed by AAA/Aaa-rated securities, 17% were backed by non-AAA-rated securities, and 57% of loans were backed by collateral whose rating was not published by the Fed.

Recent news reports have brought to light the existence of a previously undisclosed Fed lending program known as "single-tranche open market operations" (ST OMO). This program loaned money at rates as low as 0.01% to major firms such as Goldman Sachs, and was essentially a free loan to these politically well-connected firms. Data about this program was not published, but instead was gleaned through examination of charts published in March as a result of the Fed's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) disclosure. The charts were found within a 327-page document which had 81% of its content redacted.

Out of the funds loaned through the Fed's credit facilities, nearly one-third was loaned to foreign banks. Some facilities and programs, such as the Mortgage-Backed Securities Purchase Program, the Commercial Paper Funding Facility, and the TSLF, provided more than half of their funding to foreign banks. During the peak of the financial crisis, up to 88% of overall discount window lending went to foreign banks, and nearly 100% of the New York Fed's discount window lending went to foreign banks.

Not surprisingly, these data disclosures have raised significant new questions about the Fed's behavior. Among many questions raised are: Why did foreign firms receive such a large percentage of Fed lending? What advantages were given to large financial institutions that had access to multiple lending facilities for prolonged periods of time? Did extending loans to non-financial firms go beyond the Fed’s emergency lending authority? Why did investors who participated in TALF have to have a relationship with the Fed’s primary dealers, and did this give an unfair advantage to wealthy investors, such as the wives of two Morgan Stanley executives? Why did the Fed set up single-tranche open-market operations (ST OMO) which gave primary dealers access to $80 billion at rates as low as 0.01%, essentially providing a direct government subsidy to these firms, and why did the Fed only disclose this information in chart form? Are there other programs that have yet to be disclosed? Why were so many pages redacted in the 327-page document that alluded to ST OMO? Can you really claim to be in compliance with FOIA when such significant portions of documents are redacted? How can we trust that this data was "not responsive" to the FOIA request? Are we to trust the non-transparent Fed that we really don't need to see that information? If the Fed claims to lend against AAA collateral and then does not, can we trust anything the Fed publishes in a press release? Can we trust that collateral classified by the Fed as AAA really is AAA?

More issues emerge from the Fed’s handling of the FOIA requests brought by Bloomberg and Fox News. The Fed used several arguments in refusing to comply. Among them was the Fed’s claim that it was a private institution and not subject to FOIA, since the documents requested were held by the New York Fed, a private bank, and thus exempt. Fortunately for the American people, the court rejected that assertion. But what exactly is the legal relationship between the private regional banks and the Board of Governors? The Fed also claimed that lending records of discount window borrowers were privileged or confidential information that could cause imminent competitive harm if disclosed, or even cause a run on banks, and therefore should be exempt from FOIA. This has been the Fed’s long-standing defense of the secrecy of the discount window. One of the judges in the case summed up the Fed’s secrecy succinctly: "[T]he risk of looking weak to competitors and shareholders is an inherent risk of market participation; information tending to increase that risk does not make the information privileged or confidential."

Given the massive amount of data released last December and this March, and the fact that much information in the March data release was redacted, it is all but certain that there remains much to be discovered about the Fed's bailouts through the discount window and its credit facilities. The Federal Reserve's actions in bailing out Wall Street through credit facilities and quantitative easing provoked a backlash among the American people and among many members of Congress. Trillions of dollars worth of loans and guarantees were provided to rich bankers and their worthless holdings of mortgage debt were snapped up by the Fed, while Main Street Americans continued to suffocate under harsh taxation and the prospect of increasing inflation. These events have awakened many Americans to the problems with the Fed's loose monetary policy, the bubbles it has created in the past, and the potential hyperinflation it might cause in the future. We should not neglect the fundamental need for more transparency of the Fed and a thorough audit that can help shed light on operations of the Federal Reserve System. We need stronger audit authority over the Fed, both looking back at previous market interventions and also ensuring that any future credit facilities, bailout vehicles, or large-scale asset purchase programs are subject to oversight.

At this hearing we hope to receive substantive answers from the Fed about its lending behavior during the worst part of the financial crisis, and we hope to receive assurances about the Fed's future compliance with the Dodd-Frank bill's requirements for public access to lending information. Aside from our ability to ask questions at the hearing, the hearing record will remain open for 30 days to allow the Fed time to respond to our written questions. At a time when the Fed's balance sheet is rapidly approaching the $3 trillion dollar mark, it is absolutely imperative that the Fed come clean with the details of its open market operations, lending operations, and asset purchases. Pumping trillions of dollars into the banking system with no oversight by Congress and no accountability to the American people cannot be allowed to continue.

See the Ron Paul File

June 3, 2011

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

The Best of Ron Paul

Back to LewRockwell.com Home Page

Homeowners should pay up or shut up. You Knew The Rules.

2011-06-05T13:43:00.000-05:00

Delinquent Homeowners to Get Mortgage Aid from Government
The Obama administration wants to help more struggling Americans stay in their homes by reducing the amount they owe on their troubled mortgages, a top Treasury official said Saturday.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/43281199/

I have no problem with homeowners getting government loans to pay down the principle on home property loans where the financing company is demanding additional payments and the company did not receive government assistance. But the homeowner must still pay these loans in full and can Not default or file bankrupcy for 7 years. And it's still better than those who owe the IRS so called back taxes, interest and penelties up the BLEAP.

Tell your congress person you want all spending bills to be 100% payed for.

Then tell them NO MORE DEBT OR THEFT.

Dear President

2010-07-19T19:37:00.008-05:00

http://www.scribd.com/doc/37958976/GOP-Pledge-to-America

Current Releases

2010-06-10T19:48:00.007-05:00

Current Releases

Latest News Release:

Gross Domestic Product for American Samoa [5/31/11]

National

International

U.S. International Trade in Goods and Services, March 2011 [5/11/11]
Summary Estimates for Multinational Companies, 2009 [04/18/11]
U.S. International Transactions: Fourth Quarter and Year 2010 [3/16/11]
U.S. International Investment Position, 2009 [6/25/10]
U.S. International Trade in Goods and Services, 2009 annual revision [6/10/10]
Foreign Investors' Spending, 2008 [6/4/09]

Regional

Local Area Personal Income, 2009 [4/21/11]
State Quarterly Personal Income, 1st quarter 2007-4th quarter 2010; State Annual Personal Income, 2010 (preliminary estimate)[3/23/10]
GDP by Metropolitan Area, Advance 2009, and Revised 2001–2008 [2/23/11]
County Estimates of Compensation by Industry, 2007-2009 [12/21/10]
State Quarterly Personal Income, 1st quarter 2009-3rd quarter 2010 [12/17/10]
Gross Domestic Product by State, Advance 2009 and Revised 1963–2008 [11/18/10]
Personal Income for Metropolitan Areas, 2009 [8/9/10]
New BEA Economic Areas For 2004 [11/17/04]

Industry

Advance Gross Domestic Product by Industry, 2010 [4/26/11]
Travel and Tourism Satellite Accounts, 4th quarter and annual 2010 [3/18/11]
Research and Development Satellite Account, 2010 [6/30/10]
Revised Statistics of Gross Domestic Product by Industry, 2005-2007 (Includes Annual Input-Output Accounts) [12/15/08]
Benchmark Input-Output Accounts of the U.S. Economy, 2002 [9/21/07]
Capital Flows in the U.S. Economy, 1997 [9/30/03]

General

2010-06-08T17:21:00.003-05:00

Documentation of U.S. Citizens Born Abroad

U.S. Department of State
Bureau of Consular Affairs

Documentation of United States Citizens Born
Abroad Who Acquire Citizenship At Birth

The birth of a child abroad to U.S. citizen parent(s) should be reported as soon as possible to the nearest American consular office for the purpose of establishing an official record of the child’s claim to U.S. citizenship at birth. The official record is in the form of a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America. This document, referred to as the Consular Report of Birth or FS-240, is considered a basic United States citizenship document. An original FS-240 is furnished to the parent(s) at the time the registration is approved.

REPORTING THE BIRTH

A Consular Report of Birth can be prepared only at an American consular office overseas while the child is under the age of 18. Usually, in order to establish the child’s citizenship under the appropriate provisions of U.S. law, the following documents must be submitted:

(1) an official record of the child’s foreign birth;
(2) evidence of the parent(s)’ U.S. citizenship (e.g., a certified birth certificate, current U.S.
passport, or Certificate of Naturalization or Citizenship);
(3) evidence of the parents’ marriage, if applicable; and
(4) affidavits of parent(s)’ residence and physical presence in the United States.

In certain cases, it may be necessary to submit additional documents, including affidavits of paternity and support, divorce decrees from prior marriages, or medical reports of blood compatibility. All evidentiary documents should be certified as true copies of the originals by the registrar of the office wherein each document was issued. A service fee of $65 is prescribed under the provisions of Title 22 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 22.1, item 9, for a Consular Report of Birth.

NOTE: Consular Reports of Birth are not available for persons born in Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Panama Canal Zone before October 1, 1979, the Philippines before July 4, 1946, American Samoa, Guam, Swains Island, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or the former U.S. Trust Territories of the Pacific Islands. Birth certificates for those areas, except the Panama Canal Zone, must be obtained from their respective offices of vital statistics. Panama Canal Zone birth certificates should be requested through the Vital Records Section of Passport Services (see address below.) The fees are the same as those for DS-1350.

DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE

Consular Report of Birth (FS-240)

On November 1, 1990, the Department of State ceased issuing multiple copies of the Consular Report of Birth (FS-240). As of that date, a new format for the FS-240 went into effect. All previously issued FS-240s are acceptable proof of U.S. citizenship (Public Law 97-241 - Aug. 24, 1982). To obtain a replacement for a lost or mutilated document, please submit a notarized written request including the original FS-240 or a notarized affidavit concerning the loss of the FS-240 and a $30 fee, payable to the “Department of State.” Mail it to the address below. The affidavit must contain the: 1) name, (2) date, and (3) place of birth of the subject; (4) a statement regarding the whereabouts of the original FS-240; and (5) be signed by the subject, parent, or legal representative.

Certification of Report of Birth (DS-1350)

If the birth was recorded in the form of a Consular Report of Birth, a Certification of Report of Birth (DS-1350) can be issued in multiple copies. The DS-1350 contains the same information as that on the new format Consular Report of Birth and is acceptable for all legal purposes. The DS-1350 is not issued overseas and can be obtained only by writing to the address below.

AMENDING/CORRECTING THE CONSULAR REPORT OF BIRTH

To amend or correct a Consular Report of Birth, submit a written request - accompanied by certified copies of all documents appropriate for effecting the change (e.g., foreign birth certificate, marriage certificate, court ordered adoption or name change, birth certificates of the adopting or legitimating parents, affidavits, etc.). The original FS-240 or replacement FS-240, or a notarized affidavit concerning its whereabouts, also must be included.

OBTAINING COPIES OF THE FS-240, DS-1350, AND PANAMA CANAL ZONE BIRTH CERTIFICATES
The DS-1350 or a replacement FS-240 can be obtained by writing to:

Vital Records Section
Passport Services
1111 19th Street, NW, Suite 510
Washington, D.C. 20522-1705

A written request must be notarized and must include a copy of valid photo identification of the requester. The written request must include:
(1) full name of child at birth (plus any adoptive names)
(2) date and place of birth
(3) names of parents
(4) serial number, if known, of the FS-240 (on those issued after November 1, 1990) if known
(5) any available passport information
(6) signature of requester and
(7) notarized affidavit for a replacement FS-240 (if applicable).
Note: For Panama Canal Zone (PCZ) birth certificates, just include items (1) through (3).

The fee for an FS-240 is $30. The fees for DS-1350 and PCZ certificates are $30 for the first copy, $20 each additional copy . Make check or bank draft drawn on a bank in the United States, or money order, payable to the "Department of State." The Department will assume no responsibility for cash lost in the mail. Documents will be provided to the person who is the subject of the Report of Birth, the subject’s parents, the subject’s legal guardian, authorized government agency, or a person who submits written authorization from the subject of the Report of Birth.

CERTIFICATE OF CITIZENSHIP ISSUED BY THE IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE

A person, who acquired United States citizenship through birth abroad to a U.S. citizen parent(s) or who acquired U.S. citizenship by derivative naturalization, may apply for a Certificate of Citizenship under the provisions of Section 341 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Application for this document may be made in the United States to the nearest office of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services in the Department of Homeland Security. Upon approval, a Certificate of Citizenship will be issued in the name of the subject, but only if that person is in the United States. Obtaining this certificate involves presentation of basically the same documentation required to obtain a Consular Report of Birth. Under law, the Consular Report of Birth and the Certificate of Citizenship are equally acceptable as proof of citizenship.

http://pennyhill.com/index.php

2010-06-06T20:36:00.003-05:00

Penny Hill Press offers same-day delivery of all publications of the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the 739-person, $91.7 million-per-year non-partisan "think tank" that works exclusively for Members and committees of the United States Congress. Purchase individual documents or become a subscriber and keep up-to-date with the latest reports released by the CRS. Best of all, subscribers save more than 70% on the cost of obtaining most CRS reports.

Abortion
Agriculture
Animals
Budget
Business
Children
Civil Rights and Liberties
Civil Service
Commemorations
Communications
Congress
Constitution
Consumers
Criminal Justice
Defense
Disabled Persons
District of Columbia
Drug Abuse
Economic Policy
Education
Elderly People
Elections
Emergency Management
Energy
Environmental Protection
Executive Branch Depts.
Families
Finance
Food
Foreign Aid
Foreign Countries & Regions
Foreign Policy
General Interest
Government Employees
Government Information
Health Policy
Housing
Humanities
Immigration
Intellectual Property
Intelligence Activities
International Affairs
International Finance
Job Training
Labor
Law
Marine Resources
Medicine
Minorities
Natural Resources
Pensions
Politics and Government
Presidents
Public Contracts
Public Lands
Regulatory Reform
Religion
Rural Affairs
Science Policy
Social Security
Social Services
Space Activities
Sports
State and Local Government
Taxation
Technology
Telecommunications
Terrorism
Trade
Transportation
United States Territories
Urban Affairs
Veterans
Water Resources
Welfare
Women's Issues

http://www.govspot.com/categories/law.htm

2010-06-06T20:15:00.000-05:00

Back to Home

Executive Branch
Judicial Branch
Legislative Branch
Local Government
State Government
World Government
Gov. Employees

Government News
Political News
Government Reports
Podcasts

Arts & Humanities
Consumer Info
Gov. Documents
Gov. Search Engines
Grants
Historic Docs.
Libraries
Museums
Statistics

Education
Employment
Health
Social Security
Other Programs

Crime/Justice
Defense Intelligence
Law

Business
Commerce
Econ/Finance
Gov. Contracting
Taxes

Environment
Food/Agriculture
Science/Technology
Transportation
Travel/Recreation

Agreements
Humanitarian Aid
Int'l Affairs
Int'l Organizations
World Gov.
World Leaders

Politics Online
Elections
Political Parties
Polls/Opinion
Political Science
Political Humor

About GovSpot

The government is still hiding most of our requests

2010-06-06T20:13:00.002-05:00



10 Most Wanted \| Table of Contents \| About the 10 Most Wanted \| Policy Recommendations \| Policy Background \| Analysis of Submissions \| Data Already Online \| Sites on the Right Track \| Suggestions for our Next 10

We asked the public to identify categories of data that should be on the Web. Hundreds of citizens responded. From that list we narrowed it down to the Ten Most Wanted.
1) Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports (Congress) -- CRS uses taxpayer dollars to produce reports on public policy issues ranging from foreign affairs to agriculture to health care. All of the reports are posted online, but access is available only to congressional offices through an intranet system. Citizens can order paper copies of the reports through their Member of Congress, but only by mail. Moreover, the general public cannot search through past reports, and a comprehensive index of the reports is not available online. (Some Members have posted some CRS reports online.) In the CDT/OMB survey, the CRS reports were the category of documents most frequently listed sought after by researchers, students, librarians, government employees, and citizens alike.
	2) Supreme Court Web site (including opinions and briefs) (Judiciary) -- The Supreme Court of Mongolia has its own official Web site, but the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't. Instead, the Court refers people to one or more of 10 different unofficial Web sites, which publish various subsets of opinions, updated with varying frequency. While Court officials have said that they are exploring the possibility of creating a Web site, there is no official source of information from the highest court in the land. In addition to opinions, the Court should post briefs, at least in cases accepted for oral argument.
3) State Department's Daily Briefing Book (State) -- Nearly every day, the State Department prepares for its press secretary a book of answers to every question that might be asked during the daily press conference. These briefing books represent considerable effort on the part of Department officials and constitute the best overview of American foreign policy positions on breaking issues at any given time. All the material is cleared for public consumption, yet if a reporter doesn't ask a question on a particular topic, the information doesn't get released.
4) Pesticide Safety Database (EPA) -- Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the EPA is required to maintain an extensive database on pesticides and pesticide "incidents" by location. This information concerns the health of millions of Americans. Right now, individuals can make a paper request for information about a particular pesticide or area of the country, but the information is not searchable online and cannot be compared across communities. Internet tools could assist in understanding and analyzing this data. Providing this information online in the form of a a searchable database, as the EPA has done with similar data sets, would enhance the public's understanding of the pesticide risks in local communities.
5) Full Text of all Congressional Hearings (Congress) -- Prompt access to written statements and hearing transcripts is essential to the public's participation in the legislative process. Printed records of hearings are often not available until a year or more after a hearing, sometimes long after legislation has been enacted or the term has ended. Some Committees regularly place witness statements and the full text of hearings online; others do not. Congressional committees should be more consistent in automating the process of posting witness statements and hearing transcripts to ensure speedy public access. Moreover, as transcripts are all word-processed, the Government Printing Office (GPO) could easily make them permanently available online (if they were provided to GPO).
6) Court Briefs (DOJ) -- The public deserves to know how the government interprets the laws. The Justice Department lawyers represent the US government and therefore are the people's lawyers. Their briefs are public documents presenting the position of the US government. Since these documents are word-processed, they could very easily be put online, starting with significant criminal and civil cases.
7) Congressional votes in searchable database (Congress)-- Congress has made roll-call votes available online in XML format, but has not yet provided a way to search votes by Member's name. Public accountability would be greatly enhanced if citizens could find out how their Members of Congress voted through an online, searchable database of recorded votes.
	8) Endangered Species Recovery Plans (DOI) -- These documents detail how the government plans to defend endangered species and eventually get them off of the endangered species list. The Fish and Wildlife Service has told us that it plans to put these 700+ documents online eventually; meanwhile, researchers, students, and concerned citizens have to pay to have them sent in paper.
	9) Official Gazette of Trademarks (DOC) -- The Official Gazette of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is the official journal relating to patents and trademarks. It has been published weekly since January 1872. In searching for a reason why this publication is not online, USPTO said it was up to GPO. GPO said that it will put online anything USPTO or any other agency asks it to.
10) Circuit Court Web Sites (Judiciary) --The federal Circuit and District Courts have been slow to embrace the Web. Only 5 of the 12 Circuit Courts of Appeals have Web sites providing access to opinions at no cost. While a number of law schools have stepped in to fill the gap, all circuit courts should have official sites providing the public with free access to court opinions. If five can do it, why can't the rest?

The Center For Democracy & Technology
1634 Eye Street NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20006
(v) +1.202.637.9800
(f) +1.202.637.0968
webmaster@cdt.org

WHY WE CARE ENOUGH TO DEMAND TRUTH FROM EXECUTIVE BRANCH

2010-05-16T10:41:00.002-05:00

bodies

gold

fires

videos

firefighter audiotape

Eric Bart compilation

anonymous compilation

flights

bodies

passenger lists

Essays

Reviews

Talks

FAQs

Papers

About

Contact

Contribute

NEVER FORGET OR BE SETTLED SHORT OF FULL TRUTH

2010-05-16T10:39:00.003-05:00

2010-03-23T21:59:00.003-05:00

2010-03-12T15:10:00.001-06:00

Click here for aurora the rabbit live.

2010-02-18T03:41:00.007-06:00

click the oovoo link on the left

Declared WITHOUT the United States.

2010-02-15T03:08:00.000-06:00

TITLE 28 > PART V > CHAPTER 115 > § 1746

Prev | Next

§ 1746. Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury

How Current is This?

Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same (other than a deposition, or an oath of office, or an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary public), such matter may, with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn declaration, certificate, verification, or statement, in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, as true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form:

(1) If executed without the United States: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)”.

(2) If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)”.

2010-02-08T14:37:00.002-06:00

WILL THESE TWO DOCUMENTS THROW PELOSI AND TOP DEMOCRATS INTO FELONY PRISON? INSTEAD OF HIDING THEIR FRAUD UPON AMERICA?

Pelosi signed two Official Certifications of Nomination for Obama and Biden at the DNC Convention last August. Read the language carefully and note the difference between them:

FIRST ONE (referencing the Constitution)

SECOND ONE (WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION)

WHY WAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENCE REMOVED ? Commenter SAYS: "Just thinking out aloud here, see what you think": Every copy I have seen online of an Hawaii CoLB has shown the place of birth as Oahu, County Honolulu. Isn’t that a little odd?

Surely one or two should be from another island or another county? Makes me think that ALL Certifications of Live Birth, Accepted OR Filed, bear that same information. (Until someone shows something different, anyway). So, the original birth certificate for a child born in Hawaii shows the details relevant to the birth, and can be amended,(CHANGE OF NAME, ADOPTION ETC.,) with amendements shown only on the original. Or, a late Certification could be applied for, (up until 1972 IIRC) whereby an out-of-state birth could be registered, and FILED. Again, this information remains on the original document... When a ‘copy’, a Certification of Live Birth is requested, it’s by no means a ‘copy’ of the original birth certificate, it’s simply a standard form on which, as we know, the parents, the parents Race and the name of the child are shown. Are you with me? The Place of Birth OAHU and the County HONOLULU may simply relate to the location of the OFFICE where the document was issued. Therefor every CoLB shows the same, Place of Birth OAHU, County, HONOLULU. AND THAT MAKES EVERYONE WHO HAS A COLB A CITIZEN OF THE US??? The next question might be, just how many people does this apply to? Thousands?

ALSO INTERESTING FOOD FOR THOUGHT (2009)

With the approaching September 9th Federal Court hearing scheduled in Santa Ana, California, in the matter of Obama providing documentation to show PROOF OF ELIGIBILITY to be in the People's House, and has any basis in reality rather than smoke and mirrors and deception, the article below might be a precursor of some very uncomfortable truths emerging.

Not just for Obama, Nancy Pelosi (as shown above) and the Democratic National Committee but also for Hawaii.

Connecting The Dots In The "Sealed Lawsuit"; Obama Conspiracy To Defraud The System:

As the trail of life becomes the interstate highway of courtroom trials for our beloved leader, Barack Obama, it is perhaps time to weave the fabric of Barack's Muslim, Kenyan, Indonesian, Hawaiian serape to explain just what he is hiding by hiring his platoon of lawyers.

Lets connect the dots, so to speak from the information we already know. This might be what is behind the Berg "sealed" lawsuit. What is taking place is indeed conspiracy as in the sense of a violation of the RICO Act. This involves the state of Hawaii and Occidental College, if not Columbia of New York and Harvard. What requires explanation in this is a generation of crime in supplanting the United States for money. It is as simple as that in local government policy being fed huge sums of money at the behest of Ford Foundation incorporating globalist policy into American culture.

Barack Obama is simply the tip of this iceberg which he desperately must conceal, along with all these other benefactors - beyond embarrassment, people will go to prison. The first task in need of explanation is why would Hawaii aid a known illegal of British birth in illegally obtaining a fake birth certificate?

The answer is: in 1961 the American public had not yet been herded by Teddy Kennedy and socialists into providing welfare benefits to illegals. Hawaii had a large population of illegals who were slave labor, but were a huge burden to the system in poverty and crime. The Hawaiian answer, as it was a Democratic state and still is, was to start registering all those foreign kids by the thousands. The purpose being to tap into all those federal hundreds of millions then which would profit the state. All of those poverty programs flowed funds into the pockets of the retailers as the golden goose pipeline.

If one makes citizens out of illegals, then Hawaii converts a debt into their asset in obtaining more funds and growing the socialist system which empowers Democratic liberals. The fact is there are hundreds of thousands of "Barack Obamas" registered in Hawaii.

Do you think even a Republican governor sitting on this explosive mess wants any of this coming out? An entire state sold out the United States for filthy lucre, because they were importing Asian slave labor. That does not make a great headline, nor, did they probably ever expect a money train welfare illegal would somehow get himself installed as President which would expose the entire Hawaiian fraud, and you know very well that all of those records would have to be gone through and verified so an Obama repeat would not occur, in all 50 states. Talk about a nightmare huh? The nightmare would be the removal of Obama under Quo Warrantus which is being attempted now and 49 other states suing Hawaii for the money it would cost to check all of their records over the Hawaiian fraud. Hawaii has always been a corrupt enclave like Rhode Island. Hawaii was the conduit in the Clinton years to get Chinese communists a stake in the United States Stock Market, to which Hawaii had the first meltdown in this scheme in costing their investors a fortune and ruining their banks.

That is why Hawaii is in collusion with Barack Obama. They were involved in massive welfare fraud and do not want this coming out. With this kind of background, in families being "informed" of the opportunities involved in engaging in illegal citizenship, one Stanley Ann Dunham, hauled her little African eastern boy to Indonesia, until the jungle fever wore off, and then dumped him into the Hawaiian system again where Grandma Dunham was stuck with the kid. Grandma Madelyn Dunham did earn some money in BankHo, her bank in Hawaii, but I suspect that the prestigious school Barry got into, was the same game that brought Barack sr. to America on a free educational route.

Barry Obama Soetero was tapping into the welfare system of Hawaii, and in knowing what twisters the Dunhams were, this takes us into Occidental College. Amusingly Occidental College, basically means round eye college as occidentals are of the European origin who reside in North and South America. The place Obama chose to be dumped into by the Dunhams, was like many of the colleges in that 1979 period in tapping into government resources of free money to "educate" foreigners.

One has to understand colleges in America do not operate to educate children. They are generally conduits of establishing globalist brainwashing into children and as dry cleaning of billions of dollars in funds in "research". For example Wisconsin has a female professor who took huge amounts of cash for global warming, and one of her subjects was studying how the Great Lakes absorbing carbon gases affected warming!

One might as well studied your bathtub water for the effect for if you look at a map you see the Great Lakes are dots compared to the oceans. There are numerous studies linked to this gravy train of funds which flow into colleges and back into corporations whose equipment and services are purchased. It is the Warren Buffett money flowing into Walmart for his Chinese investments. Except in this case it is college money laundering. So the Dunhams were adept at illegal activities in scamming the American system, so it is a conclusion strengthened by what Barack Obama has been up to with his platoon of lawyers - that he is covering something up.

Remember it is public information that Barry Obama upon going into college became Barack Hussein Obama. Liberals have explained this away as, "Barack was more intellectual sounding". Not a chance, because what was going on is this: A college career recruiter shows up and says, "Barry come to Occidental as you will have fun". Barry goes home and tells Gram Dunham he wants to go have fun. Either money is tight or the Dunhams are basic welfare swindlers and being cheap as they are, Gramma and Mama, put their heads together and say, "Hey, we can get a free education if we dust off Barack sr. being a British subject."

They tell Occidental that and Occidental says, "Great, but we need documentation". "Crapper in the wrapper, "Stan and Mad say as all they got is a bogus Hawaiian birth certificate making him American. Then Stan and Mad remember that Barry was adopted by Indonesian Papa Soetero. They tell Occidental this and provide Barry Soetero school records from Indonesia and Occidental says, "Eureka, you have struck it rich pilgrims. There is golden grants in them Indonesian hills!"

So Barry becomes Barack and Occidental gets a big ole Obama grant to go with all their other foreign student federal grants they have been milking the system for at the behest of the globalists. The problem now is, Occidental never figured their scammer would produce a person in the White House.

See this system was designed to Americanize 3rd worlders with globalist nonsense and then bury them back into Indonesia, Russia and Kenya to ruin those peoples lives. Occidental now has a huge problem as it engaged in federal student loan fraud which gave them like many of these globalist programs huge bankrolls to profit off of in exchange for Rothschild plans. None of these geniuses ever suspected a scammer scamming the system would have a parent who would eventually tap into the Ford Foundation money and fellow traveler contacts which would start opening doors, including psychiatric research doors in reprogramming a Birdie dope head in Columbia to become Barack the communist organizer of Chicago.

Stanley Ann Dunham got greedy out of necessity. She tossed Barry away in abandoning him in trying to get rid of her reminder of jungle fever, but still had this reminder turning into an eyesore dope head. She took this loser, put him into a program to "fix him", laying Bill Ayers mindset onto him, all for the purpose of making her sexual mistake into something which would soothe her troubled breast. The problem is Stanley looks like she embezzled funds from Ford to give Barry a jump start at life in making her mistake into her glory. Barry was only supposed to be the new Jesse Jackson in bringing in the black vote at the beginning. He was transformed by his programming to take the lead of self fulfillment in being President when Hillary was forced to take a dive. Not for one moment though have the Rothschilds nor Rockefellers not known Barry Soetero is dripping wet with fraud. Bill Clinton constantly hinting at "Constitutional qualifications" means in the boardrooms where these people meet, they have discussed it, have the paper trail and have Obama by his testicles that Jesse Jackson wanted to cut off. Jackson pronounced the race was now complete and there was no more need for "black affirmation" as the race has now reached the mark. The globalists know all of this and are shedding the black vote for the hispanic vote with Obama as their judas goat in betraying blacks.

The globalists know full well how precarious of position Obama is in. They know if this comes out the country will be in chaos and they know if Obama stays in office the continued economic attack on America will simply provide their conduit in establishing their global order. These financiers win no matter what as they have set this out to play out this way. Strangely Orly Taitz, the lawyer who has the best option to bring all of this out and shine a light on the sordid money fraud situation betraying the United States is a factor the globalists hope for as the more turmoil created the better it is for the global order. At the very least is this, Barack Obama is guilty of federal money fraud. As Tom Daschle and Tim Geithner just said "Ooops sorry" and paid it back, it could end there for Obama in the foreign student loans IF he had not shown a pattern for the period from 1971 to at least 1982 in passing himself off as Barry Soetero, resident of Indonesia as an adopted son from British Kenya all to tap into the American money supply. A normal moral person would never have gotten themselves into this mess, but Obama because of his programming and what that did to his phobic compulsion disorder has been ploughing on in this, using the shield of the patricians who created him as they are powerful and connected people. Occidental College opens up the door to Barack Obama declaring in writing he is not American, but foreign. This progresses to Columbia in this fraud, Barrack concludes he is owed a little summer vacation with his Pakistani buddies. He goes into Pakistan once again on an Indonesian passport which signifies again Barack Obama is Indonesian as Americans could not get into Pakistan. Obama would have probably gotten away with the money fraud, if he had not been too cheap and decided he just had to flip the bird to the American system and get into Pakistan. Those records prove he is an affirmed triple citizen of British Kenya, Indonesia and America, if not Canada registration too. Any part of which disqualifies him for President of the United States. Barack Obama is like the crook who steals a million dollars, but has to go back and pick up the bank President's pen in greed and that is the 20 dollar item that gets him busted. There are federal records for these Obama applications for funding in the Department of Education. As of Barack Obama attempting to further smear George W. Bush in releasing Bush documents, to take the heat off of Barack, the Dunham, Obama, Soetero education files are now open to the Freedom of Information act as all papers associated with a President are, as Barack Obama made this a presidential issue when he hired attorneys to cover up what was being hidden at Occidental College. This is a matter for the Justice Department as it is money fraud of college funds and it is a matter for the Republican minority in Congress to demand and hold hearings investigating this. Those records all exist and if someone destroyed them and they are missing, that is a federal crime by which Barack Obama has benefited, so he is then a guilty co conspirator in another felony. If you get money from someone illegally, and someone else burns the papers protecting you, you are just as guilty as the person who lit the match. That is how all of this ties together from Hawaiian welfare fraud, Occidental College student finance fraud and Barack Obama currency fraud defrauding the American public of funds and places of education for it's own citizens. They are coming now for America and this all traces back to the Occidental Obama.

Posted by Alan Peters at 10:22 PM

Certified COPY of Obama Kenyan Birth Certificate

2010-02-08T14:13:00.001-06:00

Lucas Smith Affidavit now filed with the US District Court - Obama Kenyan BC
September 4th, 2009

As of today, September 4, 2009, this Affidavit has been filed with the United States District Court in Southern California ~ represented by Orly Taitz.

This is a legal affidavit that declares Lucas Smith to be of sound mind and judgment. Lucas can go to jail if he lied on this affidavit.

The document (Certified COPY of Obama Kenyan Birth Certificate) you see here, once it is validated by the court, is pretty much the proverbial “smoking gun.”

lucas page 1

lucas page 2

lucas page 3
Posted by Bob Filed in Kenyan Birth Certificate, Press Release

Bloomberg, Fox and the public take on big banks and the fed

2010-01-30T20:28:00.002-06:00

See next posting below for Obama Orders to lock up the Fed

Fed Seeks to Block Release of Bank Bailout Secrets (Update1)
Share Business ExchangeTwitterFacebook| Email | Print | A A A

By Thom Weidlich and David Glovin

Jan. 12 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve asked a U.S. appeals court to block a ruling that for the first time would force the central bank to reveal the identities of financial firms that might have collapsed without the largest government bailout in U.S. history.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Manhattan will decide whether the Fed must release records of lending programs that were instituted or expanded to help banks survive the longest recession since the Great Depression. In August, a federal judge ordered that the information be released, responding to a request by Bloomberg LP, the parent of Bloomberg News.

“This case is about the identity of the borrower,” said Matthew Collette, a lawyer for the government, in oral arguments yesterday. “This is the equivalent of saying ‘I want all the loan applications that were submitted.’”

Bloomberg argued that the public has the right to know basic information about the “unprecedented and highly controversial use” of public money. Banks and the Fed warn that bailed-out lenders may be hurt if the documents are made public, causing a run or a sell-off by investors. Disclosure may hamstring the Fed’s ability to deal with another crisis, they also argued. The lower court agreed with Bloomberg.

‘Right to Know’

“The question is at what point does the government get so involved in the life of the institution that the public has a right to know?” said Charles Davis, executive director of the National Freedom of Information Coalition at the University of Missouri in Columbia. Davis isn’t involved in the lawsuit.

The ruling by the three-judge appeals panel may not come for months and is unlikely to be the final word. The loser may seek a rehearing or appeal to the full appeals court and eventually petition the U.S. Supreme Court, said Anne Weismann, chief lawyer for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, a Washington advocacy group that supports Bloomberg’s lawsuit.

New York-based Bloomberg, majority-owned by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, sued in November 2008 after the Fed refused to name the firms it lent to or disclose the amounts or assets used as collateral under its lending programs. Most were put in place in response to the financial crisis.

“Bloomberg has been trying for almost two years to break down a brick wall of secrecy in order to vindicate the public’s right to learn basic information,” Thomas Golden, an attorney for the company with Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, wrote in court filings. He said the Fed may be trying “to draw out the proceedings long enough so that the information Bloomberg seeks is no longer of interest.”

FOIA Case

The lawsuit, brought under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, came as President Barack Obama criticized the previous administration’s handling of the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program passed by Congress in October 2008. Obama has said funds were spent by the administration of former President George W. Bush with little accountability or transparency.

FOIA requires federal agencies to make government documents available to the press and public.

In arguments yesterday, Golden disputed the Fed’s contention that it doesn’t have to reveal the information because it hasn’t since its inception.

“The rules changed since 1913 with FOIA’s enactment,” he said.

Much of the debate centered on the potential harm to banks if it was revealed that they borrowed from the Fed’s so-called discount window. Collette, the government lawyer, said banks don’t do that unless they have liquidity problems.

Discount Window

Yvonne Mizusawa, a lawyer for the Fed, said that if banks stopped using the discount window because of a perceived stigma, it may affect the Fed’s ability to set monetary policy.

“This would make it much more difficult to control short- term interest rates,” Mizusawa said, citing an expert for the central bank. “The stigma results from the fact that the Federal Reserve is a backup source of liquidity.”

Golden denied that revealing the loan information will hurt banks. He said that the central bank and the Clearing House Association LLC, an industry-owned group that joined the Fed in its bid to overturn the lower court order, came up with only two examples of meltdown-related bank runs: Citigroup Inc.’s offices in Asia and Northern Rock in the U.K.

‘Wasn’t a Run’

“It’s interesting that there wasn’t a run in the U.S.,” he said. “The board has the burden at all times to prove that that competitive injury would result.”

During yesterday’s hearing, the appeals court judges asked about the “staleness” of the information Bloomberg seeks. Golden said the information would concern banks that got help from the Fed from about November 2007 to May 2008.

“This court has nothing in the record to say whether this information is stale now or not,” said Robert J. Giuffra Jr., a lawyer for the Clearing House at Sullivan & Cromwell LLP in New York. “Banks will not use the discount window if they know the information will be available in, say, 20 days.”

The Fed’s balance sheet doubled after the failure of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. on Sept. 15, 2008. That year, the Fed began extending credit directly to companies that weren’t banks for the first time since the 1930s. The amount the Fed lent, spent or guaranteed peaked at more than $7.7 trillion in March, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Loan Records

In her Aug. 24 ruling, U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska in New York said loan records are covered by FOIA and rejected the Fed’s claim that their disclosure might harm banks and shareholders. An exception to the statute that protects trade secrets and privileged or confidential financial data didn’t apply because there’s no proof banks would suffer, she said.

In its appeal, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System argued that disclosure of “highly sensitive” documents, including 231 pages of daily lending reports, threatens to stigmatize lenders and cause them “severe and irreparable competitive injury.”

Historically, the type of government documents sought in the case has been protected from public disclosure because they might reveal competitive trade secrets, Davis said. Laws governing such disclosures may be due for a change, he said, following the far-reaching U.S. bailout.

“If you are in need of a bailout and turn to the federal government and say, ‘help,’ with that comes some requirements in terms of transparency,” Davis said.

Joined in Bid

In court papers, New York-based Clearing House, which processes payments between banks, assailed the judge’s decision for what it said were legal errors, such as applying the wrong standard in weighing the exception to FOIA.

The group includes ABN Amro Bank NV, a unit of Royal Bank of Scotland Plc, Bank of America Corp., The Bank of New York Mellon Corp., Citigroup Inc., Deutsche Bank AG, HSBC Holdings Plc, JPMorgan Chase & Co., US Bancorp and Wells Fargo & Co.

More than a dozen other groups or companies filed amicus, or friend-of-the-court, briefs, including the American Society of News Editors and individual news organizations.

The judge postponed the application of her ruling to allow the appeals court to consider the case.

Also yesterday, the same appeals panel heard arguments in a lawsuit brought by News Corp. unit Fox News Network seeking similar documents. U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein in New York sided with the Fed in that case and refused to order the agency to release the documents.

‘Informed Decisions’

“The press is looking for facts so that the public can make informed decisions,” Steven Mintz, a lawyer for Fox at Mintz & Gold LLP in New York, told the panel.

Giuffra, the lawyer for the Clearing House, told the judges that he knows of no other central bank that discloses the information the media companies are seeking.

“Very few countries around the world have a Freedom of Information Act,” Dennis Jacobs, chief judge of the appeals court, responded.

The other two judges on the panel were Pierre Leval and Peter Hall.

The case is Bloomberg LP v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 09-04083, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (New York).

To contact the reporters on this story: Thom Weidlich in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Manhattan at tweidlich@bloomberg.net and; David Glovin in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York at dglovin@bloomberg.net.

C Span.org 2nd circuit court of appeals, fox news v federal reserve board, regarding freedom of information act request for list of banks borrowing fr

2010-01-30T20:00:00.004-06:00

http://cspan.org/Watch/C-SPAN.aspx Not yet listed but was replayed on cable 1-30-10

C Span.org 2nd circuit court of appeals, fox news v federal reserve board, regarding freedom of information act request for list of banks borrowing from the fed's discount window TARP funds. 01/11/2010

Listen to the testimony on cspan.org. very interesting how the fed tries to say all information is protected because the fed IS AN AGENCY of the Federal Government. Fox may end up doing what Audit The Fed legislation has failed to do. Exemption 4 states only harmful competitive information is exempt.

The workings of the fed are on trial and no one is talking about it. Former NY fed chair Timothy Franz Geithner may go to jail.

2nd Circuit Court Hears Bailout Secrecy Case
Today

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on whether to force the Federal Reserve to reveal the identities of financial institutions that may have collapsed without funds from the TARP program. Fox News and Bloomberg are seeking the records through the Freedom of Information Act.

Heneghan: Federal Reserve Under Lock Down Conditions
Posted by: "Dean Clark" maintzger@yahoo. com maintzger
Mon Jan 25, 2010 2:19 am (PST)
Saturday, January 23, 2010
ALERT: Federal Reserve Under Lock Down Conditions
Category: News and Politics
...
Awakening Americans: Behind the scenes intelligence briefings ALL
Patriot Americans MUST know...the REAL facts and truth the
corporate-controlle d mainstream media covers up
Hot EXPLOSIVE Back Breaking News
* * * EMERGENCY ALERT * * *
FEDERAL RESERVE UNDER LOCK DOWN CONDITIONS
by Tom Heneghan
International Intelligence Expert
Friday January 22, 2010
UNITED STATES of America - It can now be reported that, after a morning
meeting with the U.S. Military Joint Chiefs of Staff, President Barack
Obama has ordered a lock down of the U.S. Federal Reserve.
This action coincides with the U.S. Treasury currently operating under
emergency conditions.
Paul Volcker and Barack Obama
Emmanuel Dunand /AFP/Getty Images
Obama ordered a lock down of the Fed after a morning meeting with one of
his current Economic Advisers, former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul
Volcker, in which Volcker presented Obama with an updated audit of the
U.S. Federal Reserve, which shows DIRECT Bush-Clinton Crime Family
Syndicate THEFT of the U.S. Treasury orchestrated and enabled by the
Federal Reserve itself.
TREASON AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
Bernard Bernanke, Hank Paulson, Alan Greenspan, Timothy Geithner
George Herbert Walker Bush and Hillary Clinton
The updated audit fingers current Federal Reserve Chairman Bernard
Bernanke, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, former
BushFRAUD U.S. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, current U.S. Treasury
Secretary Timothy Geithner, and former President George Herbert Walker
Bush, along with current dysfunctional U.S. Secretary of State, loser
Hillary Rodenhurst Clinton, as the major U.S. based culprits
participating in this massive THEFT of U.S. Treasury funds aka major
FINANCIAL TERRORISM AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
CO-CONSPIRATORS BushFRAUD and Queenie
The report also fingers current British monarch Queen Elizabeth II as a
co-conspirator in massive financial wire fraud,
which dealt with massive, illegal wire transfer of STOLEN U.S. Treasury
funds to the Coutts Bank of England.
Note: Queen Elizabeth II, as well as former illegal White House occupant
George W. BushFRAUD and former Iraq dictator, the late Saddam Hussein,
had a JOINT bank account at the Coutts Bank in the United Kingdom.
Queen Elizabeth II is currently under a Royal Commission investigation
in the United Kingdom aka a $4.5 TRILLION Ponzi Scheme
that the Queen engaged in with her German relative, former illegal White
House occupant George W. BushFRAUD.
There are a lot of funds missing from the British Treasury that the
Queen has yet to account for.
Question: Could this mean an end to the House of Windsor aka the GERMAN
House of Hanover that currently rules over Great Britain?
'SMOKING GUN' EVIDENCE
Tony Blair-NSA-NASA Directly Linked to Election 2000 Coup d'état aka
Electronic Voting Manipulation and Fraud
Reference: We can also divulge that President Obama's National Security
Adviser General James Jones presented President Obama with 'Smoking Gun'
evidence linking former British Prime Minister Tony Blair aka Dunblaine
pedophile directly to a criminal conspiracy of allowing the NSA-NASA
space agency testing of election stealing satellite technology and
software on British soil that was used to STEAL the year 2000
presidential election from then Vice President, now year 2000 duly
elected President Albert Gore Jr.
General Jones also presented President Obama with evidence linking the
Blair government to PRE-knowledge of the 9/11 'BLACK OP' attacks on the
United States, including the British government's role in attempting to
keep evidence of the 9/11 script from the U.S. Intelligence community.
HIGH Treason TRAITOR
Dysfunctional U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
Note: Jones showed a previously classified British Intelligence
document, WD-199, to President Obama. This document was withheld from
President Obama by known Bush-Crime Family Syndicate business partner,
current U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Rodenhurst Clinton.
Related:
Massive Ponzi Scheme Exposed - South Pole Tilt
by Tom Heneghan
UNITED STATES of America - It can now be reported that a secret U.S.
Treasury audit of the Federal Reserve has been completed. It is now in
the hands of President Barack Obama.
Obama received the report last night at the White House despite efforts
by current White House Chief of Staff and Israeli Mossad agent Rahm
Emanuel, along with current lame duck White House legal counsel "Skull
and Bonesman" Greg Craig, as well as elements of the Department of
Homeland Security, to keep it out of Obama's hands.
Note: Obama had dinner last night in the White House with his National
Security Advisor General James Jones, former Federal Reserve Chairman
Paul Volcker, former French Ambassador to the United States Jean-David
Levitte as well as former Vice President, now year 2000 duly elected
President Albert Gore Jr.
All parties at the dinner reviewed the audit with Obama.
The audit had been ordered by U.S. Military Flag Officers over one month
ago after evidence was presented to the Military Generals that dealt
with the massive LOOTING of the U.S. Treasury.
Note: Volcker, Gore, Johnson and Levitte have operated as liaison to the
U.S. Military Flag Officers that want to bring the Bush-Clinton- Alan
Greenspan-Federal Reserve Crime Family Syndicate to justice for the HIGH
crimes they have committed against the American People, including the
U.S. Treasury THEFT and the 9/11 BLACK OP.
Item: Gore, Levitte, Volcker and Johnson also presented new 'Smoking
Gun' evidence fingering former illegal White House occupant George W.
BushFRAUD for direct collusion with U.S. CIA asset and government
employee the late Tim Osman aka Osama bin Laden in orchestrating the
9/11 scripted BLACK OP attacks on the United States.
Note: Former Vice President Gore canceled his recent speech in
Copenhagen, Denmark in order to attend the emergency White House dinner
in which the new 'Smoking Gun' evidence of TREASON was presented to
Obama. MORE
http://blogs. myspace.com/ index.cfm? fuseaction= blog.view& friendId= 147509065& blogId=521199429
We can also report that President Obama has ordered a total crack down
on the U.S. NSA (National Security Agency), which has enabled British
Intelligence to conduct sonar technology attacks on American citizens
aka Patriotic Whistleblowers who are determined to liberate their
country from this current threat aka the out-of-control British
monarchy.
We also want to reveal that the Paul Volcker audit of the Federal
Reserve fingers Federal Reserve regulators that conducted a massive
cover up for Stephen Friedman's Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the
enabling of a massive money laundry tied to illegal derivative trading
and the Bernard Madoff Ponzi Scheme, along with the noted brokerage firm
Goldman Sachs and the state of Israel.
Final note: Do not be fooled, folks, by the latest British government
'FALSE FLAG' terrorist alert. This is obviously a diversion and disguise
to prevent the World Bank from freezing all British government assets.
The truth is, folks, that, as of this hour, the U.S., French and British
Militaries are on total nuclear alert given that a final massive
financial showdown is about to occur, which could actually lead to World
War III.
Note: The U.S. Military remains on Defcon 3 alert, which was originally
triggered when President Obama's National Security Adviser General James
Jones presented evidence to President Obama that the Israeli government
of Benyamin Netanyahu had allowed up to SEVEN (7) biological 'doomsday'
bombs to be smuggled onto American soil, to be used by the U.S. NSA to
blackmail the American government and its military aka further financial
revelations of Israeli misconduct tied to the U.S. Federal Reserve
System.
* * * EMERGENCY ALERT * * *
Plus Latest Wanta Article
http://blogs. myspace.com/ index.cfm? fuseaction= blog.view& friendId= 147509065& blogId=526382254
...
TOM HENEGHAN'S EXPLOSIVE INTELLIGENCE BRIEFINGS
International Intelligence Expert, Tom Heneghan, has hundreds of highly
credible sources inside American and European Intelligence Agencies and
INTERPOL--reporting what is REALLY going on behind the scenes of the
corporate-controlle d mainstream media cover up propaganda of on-going
massive deceptions and illusions.
Overlord at Yorktown remains relentless and victorious
EVER VIGILANT 24/7
http://blogs. myspace.com/ tom_heneghan_ intel
Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)
RECENT ACTIVITY
1
New Members
2
New Photos
Visit Your Group
Sitebuilder
Build a web site
quickly & easily
with Sitebuilder.
Y! Groups blog
The place to go
to stay informed
on Groups news!
Group Charity
California Pet
Rescue: Furry
Friends Rescue
Need to Reply?
Click one of the "Reply" links to respond to a specific message in the
Daily Digest.
Create New Topic | Visit Your Group on the Web
Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Database | Polls | Members |
Calendar
MARKETPLACE
Going Green: Your Yahoo! Groups resource for green living

2010-01-25T23:15:00.001-06:00

THANKSGIVING 2009

Judge blasts bad bank, erases 525G debt

Judge KOs 525G mortgage to slap bank

By KIERAN CROWLEY, RICH WILNER and DAN MANGAN

Last Updated: 4:18 PM, November 25, 2009

Posted: 3:46 AM, November 25, 2009

A Long Island couple is home free after an outraged judge gave them an
amazing Thanksgiving present -- canceling their debt to ruthless bankers
trying to toss them out on the street.

Suffolk Judge Jeffrey Spinner wiped out $525,000 in mortgage payments
demanded by a California bank, blasting its "harsh, repugnant, shocking and
repulsive" acts.

The bombshell decision leaves Diane Yano-Horoski and her husband, Greg
Horoski, owing absolutely no money on their ranch house in East Patchogue.

Spinner pulled no punches as he smacked down the bankers at OneWest -- who
took an $814.2 million federal bailout but have a record of coldbloodedly
foreclosing on any homeowner owing money

<http://www.nypost.com/rw/nypost/2009/11/25/news/photos_stories/cropped/greg
_horoski--300x300.jpg>

YOU OWN IT: Greg Horoski won his battle to keep his Patchogue one-level
ranch home, as a judge called OneWest bank's foreclosure efforts against
Horoski and his wife "repulsive."

"The bank was so intransigent that he [the judge] decided to punish them,"
Greg Horoski, 55, said about Spinner's scathing ruling last Thursday against
OneWest and its IndyMac mortgage division.
<http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/italian_escort_bares_secrets_in_
UdGQ7AgQdtY9Og1yCHExBN>

It erased up to $291,000 in principal and $235,000 in interest and
penalties.

The Horoskis -- who had been paying only interest on their mortgage -- had
no equity in the home.

Horoski, who had begged the bankers to let him restructure the loan, said,
"I think the judge felt it was almost a personal vendetta." Dealing with the
bank, he said, was "like dealing with organized crime."

OneWest said, "We respectfully disagree with the lower court's unprecedented
ruling and we expect that it will be overturned on appeal."

It claimed it "has been extremely active in working with consumers on home
loan modifications through the Obama administration' s Home Affordable
Modification Program and other loan modification initiatives.

The bank is owned by a private equity group that purchased the failed
IndyMac bank.

Yano-Horoski, a college professor of English and cognitive reason, and
Horoski, who sells collectible dolls online, bought their 3,400-square-
foot, one-level house 15 years ago for less than $200,000.

In 2004, court records show, they refinanced, paying off their original
mortgage with part of a $292,500 sub-prime loan from Deutsche Bank. They
used what was left for health care and for his business.

The loan carried an initial adjustable interest rate of 10.375 percent,
which soared to 12.375 percent.

It eventually ended up being either owned or serviced by IndyMac, and the
bank sued the couple in July 2005 when they began having trouble making
payments because of Horoski's health problems.

After a foreclosure was approved last January, Yano-Haroski successfully
asked for a court settlement conference.

Spinner excoriated OneWest for repeatedly refusing to work out a deal, for
misleading him about the dollar amounts at stake in the case, and for its
treatment of the couple over months of hearings.

OneWest's conduct was "inequitable, unconscionable, vexatious and
opprobrious, " Spinner wrote.

He canceled the debt because the bank "must be appropriately sanctioned so
as to deter it from imposing further mortifying abuse against [the couple]."

The bank is involved in a similar case in California, where it's trying to
foreclose on an 89-year-old woman, despite two court orders telling it to
stop.kieran.crowley@ nypost.com

Read more:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/judge_kos_mortgage_to_slap_bank_28ZS1oW8Y
58z6gu1AQbWMI#ixzz3q4DAel4X

Trust does not hold the Notes, the Cash, or the Foreclosed Homes!!

I know that I just sent you this case, but I send it again with excerpts because it seems so profoundly relevant as an explanation of how banks cheat one another.

Debbie reports from the attached Deutsche Bank v BOA case that the investor banks have begun to discover the lies other banks told them. We have said this for years - the party foreclosing does not own the note. Now they learn that the trusts don’t own them either. In fact, the TRUST does not hold the Notes, the Cash, or the Foreclosed Homes!!

Excerpts from DEUTSCHE BANK, AG v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.

71. Moreover, between June 30, 2008 and August 4, 2009, BOA transferred over $1 billion to Colonial and other banks in numerous transfers of whole/round number amounts that bore no relation to any purchase of mortgages. Whole/round number transfers to purchase mortgages would be highly unusual because the aggregation of individual mortgages themselves would not typically be expected to result in whole/round number amounts.

72. Furthermore, the payments made by BOA to the Colonial IFA on a daily basis bore no relationship to the value of the mortgages being purchased. On average, BOA, on behalf of Ocala, would receive approximately $40-50 million of mortgages for purchase each day. In order to pay for those mortgages, BOA was required to pay an amount equal to the face value of the mortgages to the Colonial IFA.

73. On some days, BOA failed to transmit the funds to the Colonial IFA necessary to complete the purchase of those mortgages. For example, on February 27, 2009, BOA transmitted only $8.8 million to Colonial despite the fact that BOA’s records indicated that $54.5 million in mortgages were acquired from Colonial that day for the benefit of DB. By failing to transmit payment for the mortgages, BOA prevented Ocala from perfecting the security interests in those mortgages that was intended to serve as the primary collateral for DB’s investment. BOA nonetheless represented in daily reports to DB that the security interests had been perfected by accounting for the mortgages as collateral securing DB’s investment.

74. On other days, BOA transmitted far more money to the Colonial IFA than was warranted to purchase the mortgages that BOA’s records indicate were acquired by BOA for the benefit of Ocala. For example, on May 29, 2009, BOA transmitted the large sum of $690 million to the Colonial IFA, despite the fact that BOA’s own records indicate that only $36.7 million in mortgages were acquired from Colonial that day for the benefit of Ocala. By conducting such transfers, BOA permitted the funds invested by DB to be transferred out of Ocala without obtaining mortgages in return.

82. In connection with its duties under the Custodial Agreement, BOA agreed to provide DB with a daily report of all such mortgage loans (the “BOA Loan Reports”), and began transmitting these reports to DB in September 2008. The BOA Loan Reports listed each mortgage loan held by BOA for the benefit of DB, and noted whether the loan was either still in the physical possession of BOA or out to a prospective third party purchaser pursuant to a BOA Bailee Letter. Having assumed this additional daily reporting obligation, BOA was
required to perform it in a non-negligent manner.

83. In August 2009, after TBW collapsed, DB discovered that the BOA Loan Reports were false. For example, the August 12, 2009 BOA Loan Report showed that there was approximately $1,160,530,265 in mortgages securing DB’s investment. BOA’s own internal information, however, shows that at least $470 million of these mortgages already had been delivered and sold to Freddie Mac at least two weeks prior to the date of the BOA Loan Report and so could not have constituted collateral securing DB’s investment. Further, on information and belief, as of August 12, 2009, there were virtually no mortgages held by BOA to secure DB’s investment.

84. This false reporting of the state of the collateral securing DB’s investment began almost a year prior to TBW’s collapse. For example, on September 15, 2008, the date on which BOA delivered the first BOA Loan Report, BOA represented that the amount of mortgages securing DB’s investment was approximately $1,147,268,192. BOA’s own internal information, however, shows that only about half of these mortgages totaling about $538 million were either still on hand or had not been delivered and/or sold to Freddie Mac.

85. On information and belief, hundreds (and potentially all) of the BOA Loan Reports delivered by BOA to DB during the period between September 15, 2008 and August 4, 2009 were similarly false.

86. Had BOA properly reported the amount of mortgages securing DB’s investment, DB would have known of the under-collateralization of its investment, and could have prevented the loss of its investment.

88. In August 2009, however, after TBW and Colonial collapsed, DB discovered that BOA did not have ownership, possession, or control of virtually any of the mortgages that were listed on the BOA Loan Reports.

89. BOA has been unable to produce the mortgages that it represented to DB as being held by BOA on behalf of DB. Moreover, BOA has been unable to account for where the mortgages are or even to establish that the mortgages were ever purchased by Ocala.

90. BOA’s inability to produce or account for the mortgages that were supposed to be the collateral for DB’s investment stems from, among other things, BOA’s failure to keep records concerning the purchase and sale of mortgages on behalf of Ocala.

91. With respect to the purchase of mortgages, BOA failed to maintain the internal documentation necessary to establish Ocala’s ownership of purchased mortgages. BOA recently admitted to DB that it failed to maintain loan level detail with respect to the mortgages it purchased. As such, BOA has been unable to prove with specificity that it paid for any particular mortgage or that it was paid by third parties for particular mortgages.

92. BOA also failed to obtain documentation from third parties necessary to establish Ocala’s purchase and ownership of mortgages. BOA failed to obtain letters from Colonial confirming Colonial’s release of its security interest with respect to particular mortgages for which BOA transmitted payment to Colonial.

93. BOA’s failure to obtain such documentation was particularly egregious because BOA was fully aware that Colonial was TBW’s and/or Freddie Mac’s agent with respect to the sale of mortgages by Ocala to Freddie Mac. BOA, therefore, would have to transfer mortgages back to Colonial (as Freddie Mac’s agent) pursuant to a BOA Bailee Letter after having purchased the mortgages from Colonial (as TBW’s agent). The possibility existed that once BOA transferred the mortgages to Colonial, Colonial could assert ownership of the mortgages and refuse to either return the mortgages or remit payment received from Freddie Mac for the mortgages unless BOA could prove that Colonial’s security interest had been released. This made it even more critical that BOA document that it properly had taken the steps necessary to release Colonial’s security interest in the mortgages, and that Colonial had in fact released that interest.

94. On information and belief, Colonial, and/or the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) acting as receiver for Colonial, asserts that mortgages for which BOA claimed to have paid Colonial, and in which BOA claimed to hold a security interest on behalf of DB, in fact, belonged to Colonial. Colonial, and/or the FDIC acting as receiver for Colonial, contend that BOA never remitted payment to Colonial as required in the Colonial Bailee Letters pursuant to which the mortgages had initially been transferred by Colonial to BOA.
95. BOA also failed to maintain proper documentation and to track mortgages over which it had asserted control and that it subsequently released to prospective third-party purchasers.

96. Pursuant to Section 8 of the Custodial Agreement, BOA as Custodian was authorized to release mortgages to prospective third-party purchasers only if BOA accompanied delivery of the mortgage with a BOA Bailee Letter to be executed by the purchaser. BOA was further required to collect all transmittal letters executed by prospective third-party purchasers.

112. BOA has failed to provide DB with the vast majority of Borrowing Base Condition certificates. The few certificates that BOA provided are clearly and demonstrably false showing that DB’s investment was severely under-collateralized:
a. On May 20, 2009, BOA certified that it held mortgages worth $1,134,028,581 as DB Collateral. In reality, on May 20, 2009, BOA knew or should have known that it held or had a lien on approximately $547 million in mortgages as DB Collateral.

Liquidity Notes were adequately secured in accordance with the Ocala Agreements. If DB’s investment was not so secured, then the facility would be in violation of the Borrowing Base Condition, and this would trigger two important consequences: (1) the Secured Liquidity Notes would not be rolled over, but instead would become immediately due and payable, and/or (2) no new purchases of mortgages would be permitted, thus halting Ocala’s outlay of further cash, unless and until the Borrowing Base Condition was again satisfied.

112. BOA has failed to provide DB with the vast majority of Borrowing Base Condition certificates. The few certificates that BOA provided are clearly and demonstrably false showing that DB’s investment was severely under-collateralized:
a. On May 20, 2009, BOA certified that it held mortgages worth $1,134,028,581 as DB Collateral. In reality, on May 20, 2009, BOA knew or should have known that it held or had a lien on approximately $547 million in mortgages as DB Collateral.
b. On June 20, 2009, BOA certified that it held mortgages worth $1,208,009,892 as DB Collateral. In reality, on June 20, 2009, BOA knew or should have known that it held or had a lien on approximately $440 million in mortgages as DB Collateral.
c. On June 30, 2009, BOA certified that it held mortgages worth $1,226,886,314 as DB Collateral. In reality, on June 30, 2009, BOA knew or should have known that it held or had a lien on approximately $468 million in mortgages as DB Collateral.
d. On July 20, 2009, BOA certified that it held mortgages worth $1,216,398,908 as DB Collateral. In reality, on July 20, 2009, BOA knew or should have known that it held or had a lien on approximately $476 million in mortgages as DB Collateral.

126. On information and belief, on August 6, 2009, BOA requested that Colonial return all of the loans held by Colonial pursuant to the BOA Bailee Letters. The vast majority of these loans had been out to Colonial on BOA Bailee Letters for more than 60 days, grossly exceeding the fifteen-day limitation set forth in the BOA Bailee Letter.

127. On August 7, 2009, Colonial BancGroup disclosed that it was the target of a criminal investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice relating to its mortgage lending unit and related accounting irregularities, and that it might be placed under receivership.

128. On August 10, 2009, BOA as Indenture Trustee declared an indenture event of default stating that the notes were due and payable because of TBW’s loss of approved seller status.

129. On August 14, 2009, Colonial was closed by the Alabama State Banking Department, and the FDIC was named Receiver.

130. On August 20, 2009, the outstanding DB Secured Liquidity Notes in the amount of $1,201,785,714 held by DB became immediately due and payable. Ocala has failed to pay this amount.

131. On August 24, 2009, TBW filed for relief pursuant to Chapter 11 of the United State Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Florida.

132. To date, BOA has failed to recover any DB Collateral and to pay the amounts due to DB under the DB Secured Liquidity Notes.

2010-01-25T17:20:00.002-06:00

http://southdakotagov.wordpress.com/

jail for judges document shows judges true colors

www.bleap.blogspot.com

www.prokiev.us

http://www.aboutus.org/Jail4Judges.org

http://www.jail4judges000.org/11-extsites/sdjail4judges/

http://floridajail4judges.org/links.html

Options

Disable

Get Free Shots

southdakotagov.files.wordpress.com/20...

Southdakotagov's Weblog

Identity theft of children by Courts

Office of Professional Responsibility

South Dakota Judicial Qualifications Commission, 9 months later

with one comment

A letter from the Chairman of the South Dakota Judicial Qualifications Commission which raises a lot of questions as ‘only’ 9 months have passed.

First his letter then a letter to Senator Johnson on his concerns about the JQC and how they are going to cover it up. Everyone assumes the Courts are honest and not corrupt so this does not make sense to people that the courts are actually corrupt carrying out their own agenda ignoring the law as written.

The JQC letter from last winter are found here:

http://southdakotagov.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/senator-tim-johnson/

Dear Senator Johnson,

In reference to your last letter on the Judicial Qualifications Commission here in South Dakota, last week I heard back from them, since their letters from last winter, which I forwarded a copy to your office.

Enclosed is the letter I received, which to me sounds like they were not going to do anything but for reasons unknown they changed their mind to at least discuss it or Judge Wilber the secretary did not tell the members?

To reiterate Judge Gilbertson will not allow me to file anything with the courts without his approval. I sent the matter of Amy Lyngstad using our daughter’s identity, a federal and state crime, and he sent it back in the original envelope. Judge (ret) Anderson has copies of the sheriff’s report and credit report as does the S.D. Attorney General’s office and Yankton States Attorney. The U.S. Attorney General, and Inspector General as well as the FTC have copies too. It is a federal crime to use your child’s identity and ruin their credit with criminal acts. Except in this matter why?

The Judicial Qualifications Commission no doubt will find nothing wrong with Amy Lyngstad using our daughter’s identity while the Court looks the other way. The court is supposed to protect the children under law. You are an attorney and should know this. I do believe I sent you a copy of Judge Anderson’s Order there is nothing new about the matter. They would not allow me to get my motion file stamped on the matter of identity theft giving them plausible deniability. The Courts are not open and now they have egg on their face as what I said was true. The JQC will say it is up to the prosecutor and he has prosecutorial discretion. The Yankton States Attorney was at one time Amy Lyngstad’s Attorney. In addition I believe given the record the Court is suppressing a prosecution. Why else would you allow someone to steal their children’s identity and not be prosecuted, never mind the 1000s of bad checks and different fake and real social security numbers Amy Lyngstad has.

The JQC will blame someone else, as no one has heard of any Judge in South Dakota being disciplined. Even an internet search shows no Judge has been disciplined. Hardly believable but when the Courts are corrupt and answerable to no one that would be the end result. Judge Anderson is retired so there is little under law the JQC can do to him. The Justice Gilbertson has my motions returned so he can claim he never heard of it. 9 months later they are going to discuss the matter is absurd.

I realize this is confusing as people assume the Courts are honest and this does not happen. The Courts are to protect the children, not allow the custodial parent to ruin their credit before they even become adults and federal law is quite clear this is a federal crime which has gone unprosecuted.

The trial court has a duty to ensure the children are protected at every turn. Williams v. Williams, 425 N.W.2d 390, 393 (S.D. 1988); Jasper v. Jasper, 351 N.W.2d 114, 117 (S.D. 1984).

So why did the State Courts allow it and why is there no federal prosecution for identity theft?

Written by southdakotagov

January 2, 2010 at 5:55 pm

Senator Tim Johnson

with 2 comments

2010-01-17T19:03:00.002-06:00

HOME ~ SEARCH ~ GUEST BOOK ~ CONTACT ~ WHAT'S NEW ~ DISCLAIMER ~ SOURCE AREA

THE BEST KEPT SECRETS OF THE IRS

Introduction
In order to legally and safely beat the IRS it is necessary for you to adopt a certain frame of mind. You need to have a certain independence of mind. You need to be able to read the U.S. Constitution for yourself. You need to be able to recognize how the Supreme Court "judges" and other politicians routinely violate the Constitution. You need to realize that practically all lawyers and accountants are handmaidens of the "terrocrats" - terrorist bureaucrats or coercive government agents. If you cannot already think for yourself, you need to learn to do so. You need to be able to think and do what is contrary to the entrenched among your family and friends. You need to become the authority of your own life. These and related issues are covered in the many other reports.

The Best Kept Secrets of the IRS

The Sixteenth Amendment, supposedly giving Congress the power to collect income taxes, was never ratified. (For the compelling evidence, get the book The Law That Never Was from Common Sense Press, PO Box 1544, Billings, MT 59103.) Furthermore, the 16th Amendment, even if ratified, is just a smokescreen that doesn't grant any new taxing powers to Congress. The Supreme Court found in 1916 in the case Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co.; 240 U.S. 1, that the 16th Amendment didn't extend the taxing powers of Congress.
The Constitution does not empower Congress to delegate any function to the IRS.
The IRS is apparently a private corporation registered in Delaware.
The IRS is the Gestapo of the Federal Reserve bankers. The same sponsors pushed the Federal Reserve Act and the Sixteenth Amendment through Congress in 1913.
The purpose of the IRS is not to collect taxes but to control and terrorize people.
It is doubtful whether money collected by the IRS goes to the government. Checks received by the IRS seem to be deposited by the Federal Reserve bankers, with "FRB" (for "Federal Reserve Bank") stamped on returned checks.
Because of the limitations placed by the Constitution on the federal government, the IRS has no jurisdiction in the 50 states.
The Internal Revenue Code is not law.
The Internal Revenue Code defines the term "person" in such a way that it does not apply to most Americans.
For most Americans, the income tax is voluntary.
The federal income tax is an indirect or excise tax. The end-recipient of income cannot be liable for income tax.
The term "income" is so defined in the tax code that wages or salaries do not constitute "income."
Most corporations in America need not subject themselves to the IRS in any way.
Corporations may only withhold taxes from an employee's earnings if the employee specifically requests such withholding. No one can be legally forced to complete a W4 withholding form.
Employers who withhold part of the salaries or wages of employees against the will of the latter, commit theft.
The U.S. Constitution effectively defines "money" as gold and silver - Article I, Section 10: "No State shall make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts." The law agrees: "The terms 'lawful money' and "lawful money of the United States' shall be construed to mean gold or silver coin of the United States." (12 USC 152.) The Federal Reserve Note is not money; it is counterfeit currency. Hence receipts in Federal Reserve Notes, having no legal value, are not taxable.
It may be that most Americans can relinquish their "U.S. Citizenship" and declare themselves State Citizens, subject to neither Federal nor State income taxes.
There is a legal principle "void for vagueness." The tax code is in many parts so vague that nobody (including IRS terrocrats) can understand it. A 1991 Supreme Court case found that if someone sincerely believes that he or she doesn't have to file a tax return and pay income tax, then that person cannot be convicted of a crime. Several other courts have found accordingly.
Also in 1991, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that if someone claims they are not subject to the federal income tax, then the burden to prove the contrary is on the IRS. For most Americans the IRS can't prove this.
Filing a 1040 or other tax return involves the surrender of the Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate oneself. The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution says that no one can be forced to incriminate himself or herself.
All IRS liens and seizures are illegal.
The IRS in its totality is a violent, criminal extortion racket with no legal basis whatsover.
There are methods for protecting income and assets so that, no matter what the IRS terrocrats do, it becomes difficult for them to violate our unalienable rights to own property and the fruits of our labor. One way is to use Trusts.
In his book Tax Fraud & Evasion: The War Stories, Attorney Donald W. MacPherson exposes the IRS as a paper tiger. The probability that any individual will be prosecuted for not paying taxes to the IRS are about one in 70,000. The probability that any individual will go to jail for not paying taxes are about one in 146,000. I believe that if you follow the advice in Beat-The-IRS Manual and The Pure Trust Package, the probability of having trouble with the IRS drops close to zero.

A Call to Action
Practically everything the Federal Government does is evil, unconstitutional, criminal, and highly destructive. The IRS Gestapo plays a major role in keeping the criminal terrocrats in power. The IRS needs to be eliminated. In the words of Attorney Donald W. MacPherson, "The Beast must be destroyed." What Federal Government we need (if any) can be financed through voluntary exchange for valuable products and services produced, augmented by voluntary contributions.

Please do your patriotic duty. Finance yourself - and worthy causes and institutions of your choice. Are you going to stay in the cattle herd - or join the human race of free sovereign individuals?

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

1. Is it possible for Americans to legally stop paying income taxes?
It is possible for most Americans to legally stop paying both federal and state income taxes. This applies to most Americans who live and work in the 50 States. It does not necessarily apply to Americans working for the federal government, or those who work in federal military installations. The central issue here is federal jurisdiction which is covered under question #3. However, anyone who has entered into a contract with the IRS to pay them, has to fulfill that contract.

How the IRS tricks its victims into becoming "liable"
The IRS see it this way: By sending a 1040 tax return to the IRS, you voluntarily assess yourself, you acquiesce to IRS jurisdiction, and you become "liable" for federal income tax. Essentially, you enter into a contract with them.

Alternatively, when you open a bank account, on your signature card you sign something like, "Under penalty of perjury I certify that... The number shown on this form is my correct taxpayer identification number." The signature card (without your knowledge) may also commit you to adhere to all current and future IRS regulations. Simply by opening a bank account you condemn yourself to being a "taxpayer" and you swear that your "social security number" is your "correct taxpayer identification number."

By understanding this, you can learn how to undo it, because these supposed "contracts" with the IRS aren't valid - as explained in detail in other Tax Reports.

2. Do all Americans have to file 1040 returns? If not, which Americans have to file?
Not all Americans have to file. Americans living and working outside federal jurisdiction (basically in the 50 States) don't have to file. Those subject to federal jurisdiction (Washington DC, federal military installations, and U.S. territories like Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands) probably have to file. Once any American has filed a 1040 return, he or she has to continue to file, unless he or she takes special measures to revoke the "election" to pay income taxes. See question #4.

3. What does the U.S. Constitution say about federal jurisdiction and how does this affect who is subject to federal income tax?
Two clauses in the Constitution define federal jurisdiction:
(a) Article I, Section 8, Clause 17: "The Congress shall have the power to exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United States; and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, and other needful buildings..."
(b) Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2: "The Congress shall have the power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States..."

I have news for you, folks: The territorial and legislative jurisdiction of the U.S. Congress extends to the ten square miles of Washington DC, military installations where States have explicitly ceded authority to the federal government, and U.S. Territories such as Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands. In accordance, IRS income taxes apply (if they apply at all) to people who live and/or work in these areas, or who work for the federal government.

4. Does the Internal Revenue Code specifically tell you how to terminate or revoke your "election" to pay federal income tax?
Section 6013(g)(4) states the following: "TERMINATION OF ELECTION. - An election under this subsection shall terminate at the earliest of the following times: (A) REVOCATION BY TAXPAYERS. - If either taxpayer revokes the election, as of the first taxable year for which the last day prescribed by law for filing the return of tax under chapter 1 has not yet occurred."

ORIGINALLY, MY ANSWER TO QUESTION 4 IMPLIED "YES." HOWEVER, I WAS MISTAKEN. THE ABOVE IS REALLY AN "ELECTION" TO BE TREATED IN A DIFFERENT WAY BY THE IRS.

SO, THE CORRECT ANSWER TO QUESTION 4 IS "NO!"

5. Why, in its literature, does the IRS consistently say that the federal income tax is based on "self-assessment and voluntary compliance?"
IRS literature often uses the terms "self-assessment" and "voluntary compliance." The reason for this is that senior IRS personnel know that the law does not require most Americans to file income tax returns. The income tax does not apply to most Americans unless they voluntarily enter into a contract with the IRS. By filling out, signing, and filing an income tax return you voluntarily enter into a contract with the IRS. Once you have entered into such a contract it is not easy to get out of it. Tax abatement service companies provide the expert support to terminate the contract.

Like all government agencies, the IRS has a mission. Its mission as published in the Federal Register of March 25, 1974, includes: "The mission of the Service is to encourage and achieve the highest degree of voluntary compliance... " Do IRS Commissioners agree with the voluntary nature of federal income tax?

"Each year American taxpayers voluntarily file their tax returns and make a special effort to pay the taxes they owe." Johnnie M. Walker, IRS Commissioner, 1971, Internal Revenue 1040 Booklet.
"Our tax system is based on individual self assessment and voluntary compliance." Mortimer Caplin, IRS Commissioner, 1975 Internal Revenue Audit Manual.
"In fairness to the millions of taxpayers who voluntarily file, report all their income and pay the tax due... ." Jerome Kurtz, IRS Commissioner, 1979 Internal Revenue Annual Report.
"The IRS's primary task is to collect taxes under a voluntary compliance system." Jerome Kurtz, IRS Commissioner, 1980 Internal Revenue Annual Report.
According to Alan Stang (Taxscam: How The IRS Swindles You And What You Can Do About It), Robert J. Brann, Chief of Technical Services Branch, IRS, Washington, D.C., wrote to a "gentleman in New York" on March 11, 1981, "... In carrying out its responsibilities for administering the federal income tax laws, the Service encourages voluntary compliance by taxpayers. Voluntary compliance places on tax payers the initial responsibility for deciding whether under the law they are required to file returns, and the responsibility for paying any tax that may be due... "
"... Encourage and achieve the highest possible degree of voluntary compliance... " Harold M. Browning, IRS District Director, Hawaii, 1984.
"Let's not forget the delicate nature of the voluntary compliance tax system... " Lawrence Gibbs, IRS Commissioner, Las Vegas Review Journal, May 18, 1988.
"We don't want to lose voluntary compliance... We don't want to lose this gem of voluntary compliance." Fred Goldberg, IRS Commissioner, Money magazine, April, 1990.

During the Eighty-Third Congress in 1953, Dwight E. Avis, head of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division, Bureau of Internal Revenue, testified before the Ways and Means Committee, "Let me point this out now: Your income tax is 100 percent voluntary tax, and your liquor tax is 100 percent enforced tax. Now, the situation is as different as night and day."

The tax return for a manufacturer of tobacco products says, "The information is mandatory by statute. (26 USC 5061, 5703)." All mandatory tax returns mention penalties for not filing, for example, the Alcoholic Beverage Tax Return states, "... punishable upon conviction by a fine of not more than $100,000.00... " Check your 1040 for the statute that says you must file, and the penalty for not filing - you won't find them.

Congress has a legal research branch called the Congressional Research Service. A letter, dated June 26, 1989, from the office of Senator Daniel K. Inouye in Hawaii to a tax consultant Fred Ortiz states, that based on the research performed by the Congressional Research Service, "there is no provision which specifically and unequivocally requires an individual to pay income taxes." [Emphasis added]

Let me cite three court cases that seem to support the notion that the federal income tax is voluntary:

"Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint [seizure by distress]." Flora v. U.S., 362 U.S. 145, 176 (1959).
In case of any ambiguity of statutory construction, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the taxpayer, not the government. Greyhound Corp. v. U.S., 495 F. 2d 863 (1974).
"The taxpayer must be liable for the tax. Tax liability is a condition precedent to the demand. Merely demanding payment, even repeatedly, does not cause liability... For the condition precedent of liability to be met, there must be a lawful assessment, either a voluntary one by the taxpayer, or one procedurally proper, by the IRS. Because this country's income tax system is based on voluntary assessment, rather than distraint [seizure by distress], the Service may assess the tax only in certain circumstances and in conformity with proper procedures." Bothke v. Fluor Engineers & Construction, Inc., Ninth Circuit (1983).

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, "No person shall... be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." However, the Supreme Court has ruled:

The Fifth Amendment "applies alike to criminal and civil proceedings." McCarthy v. Anderson, 266 U.S. 34.
"There can be no question that one who files a return under oath is a witness within the meaning of the [Fifth] Amendment." Sullivan v. U.S., 15 F2nd 809.
"The information revealed in the preparation and filing of an income tax return is, for Fifth Amendment analysis, the testimony of a "witness" as that term is used herein." Garner v. U.S., 424 U.S. 648.

6. What is the significance of the 1991 Supreme Court case, Cheek vs. U.S.?
Cheek v. U.S. (No. 89-658; 1991 U.S. Lexis 348; 1991 WL 422 [U.S.]) This Supreme Court case represents a major turning point for those seeking to defend their rights against the IRS. Prior to this case, many courts applied the so-called "Cooley rule," which was effectively used to prevent people from entering evidence for their own defence in tax cases. Typically, prosecutors would file preliminary ("in limine") motions prohibiting defendants from entering evidence to defend themselves. Thus most tax prosecutions occurred in farcical kangaroo courts where the defendants were not allowed to defend themselves!

The Cheek decision changed that. Among other things it found:
(a) Defendants may enter evidence in their defense.
(b) Defendants can provide a "good faith" defense: if they sincerely believed (no matter how irrational the belief) that they didn't have to file and pay income tax, then they can't be guilty of a crime.

7. What is the significance of the 1991 Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals case, Ramon/Dolores Portillo vs. Internal Revenue?
Ramon and Dolores Portillo v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. (932 F.2d 1128 [5th Cir., 1991]) The Cheek case was a severs blow to the IRS in criminal cases. The U.S. Court of Appeals of the Fifth Circuit likewise dealt a severe blow to the IRS in civil cases. The court effectively found that in the case of an IRS assessment of tax deficiency, the burden of proof shifts to the IRS. In other words, they have to prove that you owe them money.

8. Who are the people who have most to fear from the IRS?
Those who file tax returns are most at risk. Because of the ambiguities of the Internal Revenue Code it is impossible to file a tax return without the IRS being able to nail you for filing a false return or committing perjury.

High-profile people like Leona Helmsley, Willie Nelson, and the late Red Foxx, who can be nailed as examples - providing wide media exposure.

People who use IRS-handmaiden lawyers and/or accountants to assist them in their tax affairs.

Tax protestors who stop filing and/or paying without properly terminating their contracts with the IRS.

The people who have least to fear from the IRS are those who have never entered into a contract with the IRS, those who know the weaknesses of the IRS, those who have properly "untaxed" themselves under the guidance of a competent tax abatement service company, and those who have organized their personal affairs so they don't own any assets and don't have any bank accounts the IRS or other government looters can seize.

It is important that you appreciate that the Internal Revenue Code is so complex and convoluted that nobody can understand it. This means that whatever tax return you file can be "proved" by the IRS to constitute fraud and perjury.

"Well, it's a system so utterly complex and ultimately inexplicable that half the time the tax professionals themselves aren't sure what the rules are - a system that even Albert Einstein is said to have admitted he couldn't begin to fathom. You know, it's said that his hair didn't look that way until after he experienced his first tax form." - Ronald Reagan, 1985.

Every year since 1987 Money magazine has run a contest in which 50 tax preparers complete the federal income tax return for a hypothetical family. In 1988 there were ten correct returns, in 1989 two, in 1990 one, and in 1991 zero. For the 1991 tax year the "target tax" was $26,619 - the tax amount for a correct tax return. Not one of the professional tax preparers got it right. At the low extreme, one tax preparer calculated the tax due as $16,219. She spent 25 hours on the job and charged a fee of $750. At the high extreme, another professional tax preparer calculated the tax due as $46,564. It took him 40 hours and he charged $3,000.

The contestants presumably fancied themselves as expert tax preparers, and did their utmost to win first prize. They consisted mostly of professional CPAs and former IRS agents. If you take your papers and records to two "professional tax preparers," one might calculate your tax as $16,000, and the other as $46,000! Need I say any more?

Note that if you had hired any of these professionals to prepare your tax return, the result could have been prosecution for fraud and perjury. Not one of them got it right

9. Which 6 books should you read in order to understand the IRS and to safely beat it? (Where can you get them?)

Congressman George Hansen: To Harass Our People: The IRS and Government Abuse of Power (Positive Publications, Box 23560, Washington DC 20024).
Donald W. MacPherson: Tax Fraud & Evasion: The War Stories (phone 1-800-BEAT-IRS).
Mitch Modeleski: The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue (Account for Better Citizenship, c/o PO Box 6189, San Rafael, California Republic, PZ 94903-0189/TDC).
Irwin A. Schiff: The Biggest Con: How Government is Fleecing You (Freedom Books, 60 Skiff St #300, Hamden, CT 06517).
Irwin A. Schiff: The Federal Mafia: How It Illegally Imposes and Unlawfully Collects Income Taxes (Freedom Books, 60 Skiff St #300, Hamden, CT 06517).
Alan Stang: Tax Scam: How the IRS Swindles You and What You Can Do About It (Mount Sinai Press, Research Publications, PO Box 84902, Phoenix, AZ 84902).

10. Is it possible for an informed citizen to legally and safely run rings around the IRS?
Yes. The informed citizen can beat the pants off the IRS. The best strategy might be to simply "disappear" as far as the IRS is concerned - see Report #16C: U.S. Tax Abatement Services. For extra safety it is advisable to use Trusts to safeguard assets. You may also want to use alternative banking services, as they become more available and more practical.

"Your mind will muse on the terror: "Where is the one who counted? Where is the one who weighed the tribute? Where is the one who counted the towers?" No longer will you see the insolent people, the people of an obscure speech that you cannot comprehend, stammering in a language that you cannot understand."
- Isaiah 33, verses 18-19.
"To lay with one hand the power of government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it on favored individuals... is nonetheless robbery because it is done under the forms of law and is called taxation."
- U.S. Supreme Court - Loan Association v. Topeka (1874).
"In a recent conversation with an official at the Internal Revenue Service, I was amazed when he told me that, "If the taxpayers of this country discover that the IRS operates on 90% bluff, the entire system will collapse.""
- Senator Henry Bellmon, 1969.

HOME ~ SEARCH ~ GUEST BOOK ~ CONTACT ~ WHAT'S NEW ~ DISCLAIMER ~ SOURCE AREA

Downloaded from the Personal Empowerment Resources Web-Site: http://www.mind-trek.com/

2010-01-02T23:07:00.003-06:00

Tracking changes to the White House website

By Russ Kick at 7 March, 2009, 9:14 am

————————————————————-

ProPublica has set up a page, with a feed, that monitors any changes to whitehouse.gov, recovery.gov, and financialstability.gov.

Whenever there’s a change to any page on these sites, it’s noted in the feed. You can then view the old and new versions of the page side by side, with the changes highlighted.

Most of the changes are to be expected – a new press release goes up, a policy document is posted, etc. But already some interesting changes have been caught:

White House Site Un-Slams Bush on Katrina

Also, an article on Slate focuses on the White House’s recent changes to George W. Bush’s biography, but the real story is to another change discussed in the second half of the article:

Elsewhere on Obama’s Whitehouse.gov, when it comes to Iraq policy, change is always afoot. Refugees eager for the $2 billion promised in the earlier version? I wouldn’t count on it. That whole “preventing humanitarian crisis” thing is no more, replaced in part by a curious section on defusing Iranian nukes and securing peace for Israel.

Indeed, it’s grim for Iraq. The hopeful talk of creating a sort of shining beacon on a Mesopotamian hill—supporting reconciliation, reconstruction, development, compromises, lasting stability, and (of course) federalism—is all gone. Now, instead, is a rather stark warning: “Iraq’s future is now its own responsibility.”

It’s hard to send things down the memory hole when the people have tools like this.

Welcome to AltLaw

AltLaw is a free, full-text, searchable database of U.S. case law. Currently we provide cases from:

Supreme Court, since 1805
Circuit Appeals Courts, since 1950

For more information, see About This Site

News and Announcements

Thursday, May 28, 2009: Updates are happening! Take a look at the list of cases and you'll see opinions that were released earlier this week. We still have a back-log of updates from the past few months, those will be added to the database soon.
Monday, April 27, 2009: New! We've added "snippets" of text from each case in the search results! Check it out, and let us know what you think.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009: New feature - Linked citations in case texts! See an example.

Did you know? You can also link directly to a citation with a URL like http://www.altlaw.org/cite/101+U.S.+99 (just replace the spaces in the cite with + signs).
Monday, March 30, 2009: Having trouble finding the list of cases cited by / citing to each case? They're still there -- click on the "Citations to/from this" link to the right of a case, and you'll get a page like this.
Thursday, March 26, 2009: If you're interested in downloading the entire case law collection that AltLaw uses, check out bulk.altlaw.org.
Thursday, March 19, 2009: Just a note: the database of cases has not yet been updated with new cases from 2009. We are working on this as fast as we can! Daily updates will be back again ~~within two weeks.~~ soon!
Monday, March 16, 2009: The Advanced Search feature is back! Give it a spin, and let us know if you have any problems.

Unless otherwise noted, all cases and statutes on this site are in the public domain.

Obama throws americans under the bus.

2009-12-27T14:21:00.003-06:00

Did Obama give INTERPOL more power last week?

IF THIS IS NOT A COUP OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT BY OBAMA; NOTHING IS. LETS CALL A SPADE, SPADE....... ..OBAMA IS OPERATING A SILENT COUP OF THE UNTITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND WE THE PEOPLE

Posted by Rick

Published: December 21, 2009 - 12:13 PM
Pierre is asking the question:
What the hell is going on?
Executive Order 12425
EO: AMENDING EXECUTIVE ORDER 12425 DESIGNATING INTERPOL AS A PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words "except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act" and the semicolon that immediately precedes them.
Here's the text of 2(c), which this EO now has applying to INTERPOL:
(c) Property and assets of international.....

Write to the President and remind him.. He is not speaking for everyone.

2009-12-27T14:18:00.002-06:00

Self explanatory! www.givemeliberty.org

To President Obama and all 535 voting members of the Legislature,

It is now official you are ALL corrupt:

The U.S. Post Service was established in 1775 You have had 234 years to get it right and it is broke.
Social Security was established in 1935. You have had 74 years to get it right and it is broke.
Fannie Mae was established in 1938. You have had 71 years to get it right and it is broke.
War on Poverty started in 1964. You have had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor" and they only want more.
Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. You have had 44 years to get it right and they are broke.
Freddie Mac was established in 1970. You have had 39 years to get it right and it is broke.
The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a year and we import more oil than ever before. You had 32 years to get it right and it is an abysmal failure.

You have FAILED in every "government service" you have shoved down our throats while overspending our tax dollars AND YOU WANT AMERICANS TO BELIEVE YOU CAN BE TRUSTED WITH A GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM??

Folks, keep this circulating. It is very well stated. Maybe it will end up in the e-mails of some of our "duly elected officials" in Washington !! Government employees should not be allowed to organize or join UNIONs. They already belong to the largest Union in the world. Our so called Federal Government named United States Of America, a Corporate Entity. Lets end the federal government and rebuild America in our own Image. For freedom, justice, liberty and inclusion of all american citizens. This is our country, not theirs, and we all know who they are. So called employees of the federal and state governments. Lets take it back Today.

What the bleap? Bleap - Bleap - Bleap!!

Here is why Federal budgets should be cut to 1999 levels Immediately

Wall Street Fine Tracker - Forbes.com

OK House Passes Income Tax Legislation for State Employes, Elected Officials | Tax Law Blog | IRS Tax Attorneys

money money money, where does it all go. Does it just evaporate.

Fess Up, Fed by Ron Paul

Homeowners should pay up or shut up. You Knew The Rules.

Dear President

Current Releases

Current Releases

Latest News Release:

National

International

Regional

Industry

General

Documentation of U.S. Citizens Born Abroad

http://pennyhill.com/index.php

http://www.govspot.com/categories/law.htm

The government is still hiding most of our requests

WHY WE CARE ENOUGH TO DEMAND TRUTH FROM EXECUTIVE BRANCH

NEVER FORGET OR BE SETTLED SHORT OF FULL TRUTH

Click here for aurora the rabbit live.

Declared WITHOUT the United States.

§ 1746. Unsworn declarations under penalty of per­jury

WILL THESE TWO DOCUMENTS THROW PELOSI AND TOP DEMOCRATS INTO FELONY PRISON? INSTEAD OF HIDING THEIR FRAUD UPON AMERICA?

Certified COPY of Obama Kenyan Birth Certificate

Bloomberg, Fox and the public take on big banks and the fed

C Span.org 2nd circuit court of appeals, fox news v federal reserve board, regarding freedom of information act request for list of banks borrowing fr

Southdakotagov's Weblog

Office of Professional Responsibility

South Dakota Judicial Qualifications Commission, 9 months later

Senator Tim Johnson

THE BEST KEPT SECRETS OF THE IRS

Recently Viewed

Tracking changes to the White House website

Welcome to AltLaw

News and Announcements

Information

Research

Get Involved

Obama throws americans under the bus.

Write to the President and remind him.. He is not speaking for everyone.

§ 1746. Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury