Will Sachs Crony, Jay Clayton, be confirmed SEC Chair?
Last edited Tue Mar 28, 2017, 05:03 AM - Edit history (1)
Last week, we sent a request, for D.C. District Court, for a Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO"
to block nomination of Jay Clayton, to be head the SEC.
The Clerk of Court (illegally) refused to docket the item.
However, a copy was sent to various duplicitous, and other persons of note, including President Trump and USAG Sessions; which seems to possibly be delaying the confirmation vote, of Jay Clayton.
The conundrum is, should Trump drop Clayton, journos will smell the blood in the water, desiring to know the real reasons why; and ...if Clayton is confirmed ...the bleeding will be much worse, where such will bring one of the biggest Wall Street fraud cases, with unprecedented documentation of federal corruption protection ...to the fore.
Let me explain....
[br][hr][br]
BACKGROUND
1. Goldman Sachs did a $600 million fraud that caused a public company to go bankrupt, less than 2 years, after Goldman Sachs took the entity IPO.
2. A classic pump-n- dump stock fraud (spinning) scheme transpired, wjere the stock went to a predictable $80 a share; but Sachs gave its client less than $20 per.
3. Goldman Sachs breached its fiduciary duty, deliberately underpricing the stock, giving windfall profits to handpicked friends, who would then....spin back...1/2 the lottery ticket type gains.
4. Resultant of the $600 million dollar IPO fraud, the public company was put into bankruptcy, .....?by a Goldman Sachs law firm???
5. To make sure no prosecution would occur, a lessor known Goldman Sachs law firm, in Delaware, applied to the federal court, to be the public companies court appointed counsel.
6. This clandestine Goldman Sachs law firm lied, under oath, a dozen times, to keep its conflict of interest issues, hidden from the court, the creditors and the victims (such as shareholders etc)
7. But that wasnt enough, they needed a duplicitous Creditors counsel...also. So a Ponzi schemer, needing protection from prosecution, joined the fray.
8. A court appointed fiduciary (yours truly) was in the way. So they offered a million dollar bribe; which was turned down and reported.
9. Instead of arrests occurring, the fiduciary was locked out, and a partner of the Ponzi schemer, was illicitly put in the fiduciary's place - so the frauds would continue.
10. Then, Goldman Sachs secret law firm picks the Ponzi schemer to sue Goldman Sachs, in NY Supreme Court; which was Sachs suing Sachs to assure Sachs wouldn't lose.
Wall Street Fraud is Protected by FED Corruption
11. To make sure everything goes smooth, the head executive of a national firm "retroactively" retires and another secret law firm partner is arranged to become the very federal prosecutor over the cases in question.
12. A few years later, Goldman Sachs secret law firm and the Ponzi schemer - get caught, red handed, by Smoking Guns - and they confess intentionally leaving false affidavits to lie to the court.
13. But the court says it doesn't care; because these are "good ole boyz"
14. Of course, the hand picked prosecutor, being a partner of the firm committing the crimes, declines to investigate or prosecute.
15. Then, a DOJ Deputy Director, who promised justice, chooses discretion over valor, resigning.
16. A few more years later, more proof is ferreted out, of US Attorney, being a partner of the criminals.
17. This evidence is given to the Public Corruption Task Force; which chooses to shut down and disband
18. Even career federal prosecutors of the Task Force, are threatened to keep silent - Or Else!
19. A POTUS wannabe, directly benefiting from these frauds, fails multiple Presidential bids
20. Meanwhile, dozens of low level henchmen (Stanford, Dreier, Madoff, Rothstein, Petters, Vennes, Prevost, Bell, etc) are arrested and sent to prison.
21. Goldman Sachs v Goldman Sachs is permanently shut down, in New York Supreme Court and then the Delaware Bankruptcy Court (over a dozen years later).
22. Neither USAG Ashcroft, Mukasey, Holder or Lynch had the guts to touch these cases and the multi billions of dollars in fraud
23. As could be expected, a dozen issues of mayhem and homicides transpire. Including a partner in the crimes laundering $12 billion; which the feds report is only $3.7 billion
24. The reason those feds downplay the severity, is the brother of a fed prosecutor was directly involved.
25. We have to say "was", because that brother of a Assistant U.S. Attorney ...woke up dead!
Current State of Affairs
26. A new United States President and new USAG arrived; and they (appear) to have nothing to gain from protecting this case.
27. HOWEVER, the strangest thing has happened. SullCrom is one of the bad faith law firms needing "protection" from prosecution.
28. It stretches the imagination, beyond reasonable, for SullCrom to state they had.. No Idea ...all this was going on (especially since they got copies of the facts...many times ....over the years)
29. SullCrom was the New York law firm defending Goldman Sachs from being sued by Goldman Sachs Delaware law firm (via the Ponzi scheme cronies).
30. NOW.....s p e c i o u s l y ...a SullCrom partner (Jay Clayton) who worked for Goldman Sachs cases (and his wife still works for Goldman Sachs) has been nominated to be head of the SEC; which "THEY" think will assure the staunch refusals to prosecute will remain the status quo.
But they overlooked something. Being that Jay Clayton worked on behalf of Goldman Sachs, whilst also investing in Bain Capital, whilst being a partner of Sullivan & Cromwell, and a wife who worked for Goldman Sachs..
...means Jay Clayton cannot touch these cases
He would be criminally negligent! Therefore, an independent investigator/ prosecutor, must be assigned. Which is a scenario, the racketeers, have been seeking to avoid, for 16 years!
[center][font size=5 color=burnt] OOPS
[/font][/center][br][hr][br]
| 1 vote, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
| Jay Clayton will be confirmed | |
1 (100%) |
|
| No way they confirm Clayton | |
0 (0%) |
|
| I dont care | |
0 (0%) |
|
| Laser is right, they OOPsed ...big time | |
0 (0%) |
|
| 0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
| Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
|
= new reply since forum marked as read