Skip to content

Avery's News & Info

News and Info collected far and wide

Category Archives: Justice

CMKX Shareholders Coalition: Multi-Trillion Dollar Class Action Suit Filed Against SEC, Complaint for Declaratory Judgement, and for Damages for Violation of Civil Rights
marketwire

Press Release Source: CMKX Shareholders Coalition On Monday March 15, 2010, 9:00 am EDT

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA–(Marketwire – 03/15/10) – United States District Court, Central District of California

Case number: CV10-00031 January 8, 2010

A Bivens Class Action law suit seeking $3.87 trillion in damages was filed on January 10, 2010 against five present and five past Security and Exchange Commission commissioners. A. Clifton Hodges of Hodges and Associates, Pasadena, Ca., filed the suit on behalf of seven named plaintiffs and “all others similarly situated”.

The suit alleges CMKM Diamonds, Inc. was used as a vehicle in a joint sting operation conducted by the SEC, the Department of Justice (DoJ) of the United States, Robert A. Maheu and others. The suit contends between June 1, 2004 and October 28, 2005 “a total of 2.25 trillion ‘phantom’ shares of CMKM Diamonds, Inc. were sold into the public market through legitimate brokers, illegitimate brokers and dealers, market-makers, hedge funds, ex clearing transactions and private transactions.”

The class action suit further alleges the ‘Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of Justice, with assistance from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), believed and developed evidence that said short sellers were utilizing their activities to illegally launder moneys, wrongfully export moneys, avoid payment of taxes, and to support terrorist operations.’

The twenty-page complaint states the SEC, DoJ and the DHS, “consented to, facilitated and supported the conferences between Robert A. Maheu and his associates on the one hand and the wrongdoing short sellers on the other, all for the purpose of settling the potential liability of said wrongdoers with consent of the US Government and a representation of no criminal prosecution for such illegal sales.”

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/CMKX-Shareholders-Coalition-iw-3194779771.html?x=0&.v=1

http://www.examiner.com/x-9341-Manhattan-Headlines-Examiner~y2010m3d30-C…

Editor’s Note: Tim has done a first-rate job of summarising the essential points of the CMKM Case for the general reader.

S.E.C. COMMISSIONERS AT RECEIVING END OF WORLD’S BIGGEST-EVER LAWSUIT
As the United States continues to fracture in every way imaginable, most citizens are unable to keep up with the never-ending hodgepodge of government corruption. Each day, a new larger-than-life scandal emerges, and in the short mind span of news media, there is always a bigger and better story to chase. Right now, the hot button issue for mainstream news outlets is healthcare reform, and its myriad implications for our society; this doubtlessly ensures the aforementioned media will continue to overlook unprecedented accusations brought forth in a recent $3.87 trillion lawsuit against U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary L. Shapiro, as well as several other current and former SEC commissioners, among others.

This Bivens action suit represents the largest fraud case in world history, and was filed in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California, on January 8th by Pasadena attorney Al Hodges; in his complaint, made on behalf of CMKM Diamonds shareholders, Hodges alleges that:

• [Complaint paragraph 31] During the period of June 1, 2004 through October 28, 2005 a total of 2.25 Trillion “phantom” shares of CMKM Diamonds Inc, was sold into the public market through legitimate brokers, illegitimate brokers and dealers, market makers, hedge funds, ex-clearing transactions and private transactions” The sales of the majority of such shares were at all times known to the Securities and Exchange Commission, including Defendants herein”.

• [Complaint paragraph 32] At some date prior to June 1, 2004 the Securities and Exchange Commission in concert with the Department of Justice of the United States, together combined with Robert A. Maheu and others to utilize CMKM Diamonds, Inc. for the purpose of trapping a number of widely disbursed entities and persons who were believed to be engaged in naked short selling of CMKM Diamonds Inc. stock and cellar boxing the company.

The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of Justice, with assistance from the Department of Homeland Security, believed and developed evidence that said short sellers were utilizing their activities to illegally launder moneys, wrongfully export moneys, avoid payment of taxes, and to support foreign terrorist operations.

To fulfill the plan to criminally trap such wrongdoers, the Securities and Exchange Commission, with assistance from the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security:

(a) Assisted in and approved the retention of Roger Glenn, an ex-SEC trial attorney and drafter of Sarbanes-Oxley, to join CMKM Diamonds Inc. for the purpose of verifying claims value, increasing authorized shares of stock to 800,000,000,000, and supervising from the inside of the company;

(b) Encouraged the company to expand its promotional activities, assisted in the set up of the “racing activities” of the company, and underwrote a substantial portion of the cost of such activities;

(c) Consented to, facilitated, and supported the sale of certain company claims to several foreign corporations;

(d) Consented to, facilitated, and supported the conferences between Robert A. Maheu and his associates on the one hand, and the wrongdoing short sellers on the other, all for the purpose of settling the potential liability of said wrongdoers with consent of the U. S. Government and a representation of no criminal prosecution for such illegal sales;

(e) Consented to, facilitated, and supported the declaration of dividends payable by the company to each common shareholder of CMKM Diamonds, Inc.

(f) Consented to, facilitated, and supported the distribution of shares of CIM, a private company owned by Urban Casavant, as a stock dividend, including consent and approval of distribution of said shares to holders of more than 1.4 Trillion shares of CMKM Diamonds, Inc. common stock.
Based on these assertions, CMKM was used by the U.S. government as part of a covert sting operation – unbeknownst to shareholders – to apprehend criminals for their offenses. However, instead of prosecuting most of them, restitution deals were apparently cut:…

http://www.free-press-release.com/news-cmkx-cmkm-diamonds-inc-hodges-associates-interim-update-on-3-87-trillion-sec-lawsuit-4-27-2010-1272419724.html

CMKX TREK – http://cmkxtrek.blogspot.com/2010/04/attention-cmkx-shareholders-hodges-and.html
Cmkx20Ten – http://cmkx20ten.blogspot.com/
Facebook.com – Cmkx Shareholder

House Homeland Security Committee held a hearing titled “Turning Spy Satellites on the Homeland: the Privacy and Civil Liberties Implications of the National Applications Office.” Witnesses testified about plans by the Department of Homeland Security to open a new office called the National Applications Office (NAO) charged with civil and domestic intelligence gathering. The NAO would facilitate access to satellite imagery for domestic work such as tracking hurricane damage, monitoring climate change, and creating topographical maps but also would be the conduit for all requests for domestic use of spy satellite information – including information destined for emergency response, border control and law enforcement agencies.

C-SPAN

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/200849-1

 

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/assets/swf/CSPANPlayer.swf?pid=200849-1

Tags: , , ,

 

From Wall Street Journal

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704657304575539872944767984.html

Imagine if a leader within the tea party movement were able to persuade its members to establish a third political party. Imagine he succeeded—overwhelmingly—and that as their leader he stood a real chance of winning the presidency. Then imagine that in anticipation of his electoral victory, the Democrats and Republicans quickly modified an existing antidiscrimination law so that he could be convicted for statements he made on the campaign trail.

All of this seems impossible in a 21st-century liberal democracy. But it is exactly what is happening in Holland to Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders.

Mr. Wilders came onto the political scene in September 2004 when he broke from the Liberal Party to found the Freedom Party. He did this partly as a response to Turkey’s bid to join the European Union, and also in reaction to the rise of political Islam in the Netherlands.

No one has ever accused Mr. Wilders of being diplomatic. He’s famously compared the Quran to “Mein Kampf” and described it as a “fascist book,” he’s called Muhammad “the devil,” and he’s proposed policies—such as banning the construction of mosques and taxing women who wear the burqa—to halt further Islamification.

A

t first, Mr. Wilders was dismissed as a far right-wing extremist. But since splitting from the Liberal Party six years ago, his star has only risen. In the national elections held in November 2006, his party won nine seats in parliament. When the Dutch government fell again this year, June elections saw his party take 24 seats in the 150-seat body.

This has spooked Dutch parliamentarians, particularly those wedded to multiculturalism. That’s why, in the fall of 2009, they modified Article 137C and 137D of the Penal Code to make it possible for far-left organizations to take Mr. Wilders to court on grounds of “inciting hatred” against Muslims.

Article 137C of the penal code now states that anyone “who publicly, verbally or in writing or image, deliberately expresses himself in anyway insulting of a group of people because of their race, their religion or belief . . . will be punished with a prison sentence of at the most one year or a fine of third category.” It continues: “If the offense is committed by a person who makes it his profession or habit, or by two or more people in association, a prison sentence of at the most two years or a fine of fourth category will be imposed.”

And so since Oct. 4, Mr. Wilders has filed into court to defend himself in this blasphemy trial. If he loses—and the chances are high, given that the presiding judges haven’t been subtle about their bias against him—he will face fines or time in jail. (When Mr. Wilders said he would not speak at the trial, Judge Jan Moors accused him of being “good at making statements, but then avoiding the discussion” they provoke.)

How is it possible that a mature European liberal democracy is prosecuting an elected member of parliament for his political opinions on the most pressing issue of the day—namely, Islamic fundamentalism? There are three main reasons.

First, there is the matter of traditional politicians’ discomfort with Mr. Wilders. Historically, the Netherlands has insisted on the idea of “consensus.” Though on paper this means compromise, in practice it has meant conformity of thought and a refusal to rock the boat on controversial issues.

No issue has tested this comfortable consensus more than the ascent of Islam, first presented by immigrants from Morocco and Turkey in the 1960s and 1970s, and then by asylum-seekers and refugees from various Muslim countries beginning in the 1990s. Most elites responded by preaching “tolerance.” Give Muslim immigrants benefits and wait until they voluntarily integrate, their argument goes. Even if that process would take generations—even when it became apparent that some Muslims practiced female genital mutilation and honor killings, and imams openly urged their congregations to reject Dutch culture and law—citizens were not to criticize Islam.

A growing segment of the population—including Mr. Wilders and me, when I was a member of parliament from 2003 to 2006—doubted this facile and dangerous idea of “tolerance.” This upset politicians, professors, journalists and other opinion-makers who tried to make us untouchables.

There were exceptions: Brave people in media, business and even in the military supported me politically, often behind the scenes. Still, I eventually left the country due to a combination of frustration with the campaign of ostracism and the extreme threats I faced from Islamists who wanted to kill me. Mr. Wilders, however, endured.

The second reason Mr. Wilders is on trial is the electoral power of Muslims in the Netherlands’ four major cities. During local elections in March 2006, Muslim immigrants for the first time acted as an unofficial power bloc that could make or break a major Dutch party.

The supposed victims of Dutch discrimination were now a force to reckon with. Thus, major parties including Labor and the Christian Democrats—dominant since World War II—now support policies like increased immigration from Muslim countries and welfare benefits for Muslim voters. And they turn a blind eye to the implementation of informal Shariah law, particularly concerning the treatment of women.

Third, there are the efforts of countries in the Organization of the Islamic Conference to silence the European debate about Islam. One strategy used by the 57 OIC countries is to treat Muslim immigrants to Europe as satellite communities by establishing Muslim cultural organizations, mosques and Islamic centers, and by insisting on dual citizenship. Their other strategy is to pressure international organizations and the European Union to adopt resolutions to punish anyone who engages in “hate speech” against religion. The bill used to prosecute Mr. Wilders is the national version of what OIC diplomats peddle at the U.N. and EU.

The implications of this trial are enormous. In the short term, it could bring the simmering tensions between Holland’s approximately one million Muslims and the 1.4 million voters who elected Mr. Wilders to a boil. The Netherlands has seen its share of Islamist violence before and could well see violent confrontations again.

On a more fundamental level, this trial—even if Mr. Wilders wins—could silence the brave critics of radical Islam. The West is in a war of ideas against political Islam. If free speech is not protected in Europe, we’re already losing.

Ms. Ali, a former member of the Dutch parliament, is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of “Nomad: From Islam to America—A Personal Journey through the Clash of Civilizations” (Free Press, 2010).

 

From Reason Mag

http://reason.com/blog/2009/01/30/limiting-free-speech-in-hollan

Limiting Free Speech in Holland

| January 30, 2009

A muddled piece from Ian Buruma in today’s The New York Times, arguing, as far as I can make out, that anti-Islam Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders, recently charged with incitement after comparing the Koran to Mein Kampf, should not be defended because he is a boorish racist who doesn’t himself believe in free speech. And while Buruma, a Dutch citizen, rightfully criticizes the hypocrisies of Wilders (as I did here and here), he spends little time debating the morality and efficacy of the statutes under which he is being charged. As Buruma points out, Dutch law forbids speech that “deliberately insults people on the grounds of their race, religion, beliefs or sexual orientation.” (The race, religion, and sexual orientation stuff is pretty standard in European hate crime law, but I was unaware that in the Netherlands it’s apparently against the law to “insult” someone’s “beliefs.”)

Comparing a book that billions hold sacred to Hitler’s murderous tract is more than an exercise in literary criticism; it suggests that those who believe in the Koran are like Nazis, and an all-out war against them would be justified. This kind of thinking, presumably, is what the Dutch law court is seeking to check.

One of the misconceptions that muddle the West’s debate over Islam and free speech is the idea that people should be totally free to insult. Free speech is never that absolute. Even – or perhaps especially – in America, where citizens are protected by the First Amendment, there are certain words and opinions that no civilized person would utter, and others that open the speaker to civil charges.

This does not mean that religious beliefs should be above criticism. And sometimes criticism will be taken as an insult where none is intended. In that case the critic should get the benefit of the doubt. Likening the Koran to “Mein Kampf” would not seem to fall into that category.

If Mr. Wilders were to confine his remarks to those Muslims who do harm freedom of speech by using violence against critics and apostates, he would have a valid point.

So it is a “misconception” that “people should be totally free to insult?” Well why not, in a few brief sentences, explain just how a democratic country should establish limits on free expression? But instead, Buruma ends his piece with a typically mealy-mouthed declaration that he’s “not so sure” that the charges against Wilders strike a blow for democracy, though he is clearly less concerned with the European compulsion to prosecute thought criminals than he is with the potential elevation of Wilders to martyr status.

Buruma, who last year called Ayaan Hirsi Ali an “enlightenment fundamentalist,” wants us to know that he believes in freedom, largely disagrees with the prosecution of Wilders (though he doesn’t register any objection to the Dutch hate crimes law), and thinks that the “boundaries” to free expression are trespassed when a minority group is judged to have been offended. In other words, it’s unclear just what he believes (other than his reading of Wilders as an Islamophobic troglodyte).

If Buruma agrees with Dutch ideas of free speech “boundaries,” he should come out and say it. Instead, he offers a robust denunciation of Wilders’ reductive view of Islam (how brave!) and entirely avoids the question that matters: Where does a democratic country get off dragging controversial politicians before the court?

Bonus quote: Gerard Spong, the lawyer who filed the charges, said that managing to successfully instigate court proceedings against Wilders is his “finest hour.” “The American President Barack Obama said ‘we are free in diversity’ but you can’t have diversity if you brand one group as extremists,” he told reporters.

Tags: , ,

From
————
By Muriel Kane
Friday, April 8th, 2011 — 8:21 pm

A year ago, Albert Gonzalez confessed to having led an operation that stole more than 130 million credit and debit card numbers by hacking into computers at TJ Maxx and other retailers and was sentenced to twenty years in prison. Now he wants his conviction overturned on the grounds that the US Secret Service authorized him to do it.

In a habeas corpus petition filed on March 24, Gonzales writes, “I still believe that I was acting on behalf of the United States Secret Service and that I was authorized and directed to engage in the conduct I committed as part of my assignment to gather intelligence and seek out international cybercriminals. … I now know and understand that I have been used as a scapegoat to cover someone’s mistakes.”

(The full petition is available here.)

According to The Register, however, “Gonzalez, 29, who escaped jail time back in 2004 over his involvement in the sale of 1.5 million stolen credit and ATM card numbers while a member of the Shadowcrew group by ratting out his erstwhile partners in cybercrime, went on to bigger and better things. While supposedly working for the Secret Service, he acted as ringleader in a massive credit card theft and laundering operation involving an estimated 170 million credit cards between around July 2005 and his arrest in May 2008.”

Gonzalez himself claims that the Secret Service “treated me like one of their own” and that he was even invited to brief the government agents on malware and other security vulnerabilities. “All of this inflated my ego and made me feel very important and made me feel like I was really a part of the Secret Service with the backing and support of the Government Agency,” he writes. “One day I was unknown and nothing and the next day I am being hailed as a genius.”

Gonzalez alleges that everything he did was controlled by the Secret Service and that he expected them to step in after he was arrested by Miami police in 2008 “and take custody of me and squash the charges.” He also says his former lawyers never told him he could use a “Public Authority defense” — arguing that he had government approval to commit his crimes — and that he would not have pleaded guilty if he had known.

One of those lawyers, Rene Palomino, disputes this claim, insisting, “He was given the opportunity of a lifetime to work for the Secret Service. He chose to become a criminal, bottom line, and become a double agent working both sides — the criminal side and the legal side.”

The Register largely agrees, writing that “the petition provides a fascinating insight into the life of a cybercrime informant and cites example that would support the contention that Secret Service informants turned a blind eye to some low-level scams carried out by Gonzalez. … It’s a much bigger stretch, however, to come away with the conclusion that the Secret Service had granted Gonzalez carte blanche to carry out the biggest cybercrime operation ever uncovered.”

Adding an additional twist to the story, Gonzales claims that his lawyers failed to file a motion to suppress evidence obtained from a Ukrainian vendor of stolen card data who was allegedly tortured by Turkish officials to obtain access to data on his computer which implicated Gonzalez.

Palomino says he was unable to do anything because Gonzalez’s parents didn’t have the money to pay for him to fly to Turkey to investigate the matter. He also insists, “We researched the issue regarding the evidence, and there were no grounds for suppression.”

Image from the US Secret Service, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

from

http://www.blacknews.com/news/black_mother_jailed_sending_kids_white_school101.shtml

By Dr. Boyce Watkins

Black Mother Jailed

Nationwide (January 26, 2011) — An Ohio mother of two was sentenced to 10 days in jail and placed on three years probation after sending her kids to a school district in which they did not live. Kelly Williams-Bolar was sentenced by Judge Patricia Cosgrove on Tuesday and will begin serving her sentence immediately.

The jury deliberated for seven hours and the courtroom was packed as the sentence was handed down. She was convicted on two counts of tampering with court records after registering her two girls as living with Williams Bolar’s father when they actually lived with her. The family lived in the housing projects in Akron, Ohio, and the father’s address was in nearby Copley Township.

Additionally, Williams-Bolar’s father, Edward L. Williams, was charged with a fourth-degree felony of grand theft, in which he and his daughter are charged with defrauding the school system for two years of educational services for their girls. The court determined that sending their children to the wrong school was worth $30,500 in tuition.

When I read about this case, a few thoughts went through my mind. First, it’s clear that the court is trying to make Kelly Williams-Bolar into an example. Even the judge in the case, Patricia Cosgrove, said that her sentence was appropriate ”so that others who think they might defraud the school system perhaps will think twice.”

Secondly, it’s interesting how courts find it convenient to make someone into an example when they happen to be poor and black. I’d love to see how they prosecute wealthy white women who commit the same offense. Oh, I forgot: Most wealthy white women don’t have to send their kids to the schools located near the projects.

Third, I’m not sure why the court is treating this law-abiding mom like a thug who ran into a building with a shotgun and robbed the district of $30,000. Instead, they could simply subtract the amount it costs for her kids to go to the second school from the amount that would be spent for them to attend the first one. I’m sure the difference would still be substantial, since American educational apartheid dictates that schools in poorer neighborhoods are of significantly less quality than other schools. The racial divisions within American schools are nothing less than a blatant and consistent human rights violation and should certainly be treated as such.

A final interesting blow by Judge Cosgrove that reflects the experience of marginalized African Americans in the criminal justice system relates to Williams-Bolar’s quest to obtain a teaching degree. The single mother was in school studying to become a teacher so that she could create a better life for her girls. But that won’t happen for her family now, given that the judge has all but shut the door on her chance to fulfill her dream:

”Because of the felony conviction, you will not be allowed to get your teaching degree under Ohio law as it stands today,” the judge said. ”The court’s taking into consideration that is also a punishment that you will have to serve.”

This case is a textbook example of everything that remains racially wrong with America’s educational, economic and criminal justice systems. Let’s start from the top: Had Ms. Williams-Bolar been white, she likely would never have been prosecuted for this crime in the first place (I’d love for them to show me a white woman in that area who’s gone to jail for the same crime). She also is statistically not as likely to be living in a housing project with the need to break an unjust law in order to create a better life for her daughters. Being black is also correlated with the fact that Williams-Bolar likely didn’t have the resources to hire the kinds of attorneys who could get her out of this mess (since the average black family’s wealth is roughly 1/10 that of white families). Finally, economic inequality is impactful here because that’s the reason that Williams-Bolar’s school district likely has fewer resources than the school she chose for her kids. In other words, black people have been historically robbed of our economic opportunities, leading to a two-tiered reality that we are then imprisoned for attempting to alleviate. That, my friends, is American Racism 101.

This case is also an example of how racial-inequality created during slavery and Jim Crow continues to cripple our nation to this day. There is no logical reason on earth why this mother of two should be dehumanized by going to jail and be left permanently marginalized from future economic and educational opportunities. Even if you believe in the laws that keep poor kids trapped in underperforming schools, the idea that this woman should be sent to jail for demanding educational access is simply ridiculous.

Dr. Boyce Watkins is a social commentator, and a scholar in residence in the entrepreneurship and innovation unit at Syracuse University. Read his blog at http://drboycespeaks.blogspot.com