Romney & Bain Capital face RICO charges

[Laser]

I'll email you from my Yahoo address- the links of what is germane;
as I too much of a newbie here - to be allowed to post the links myself.

You should be able to post links.

Will try again after this posting.

 

[Laser]

Greatest way to kill a legitimate conversation;
is to mock it much.

Here's one of our many websites;
with many public/fed docket item proofs

NOpe - won't let me post the link to our Petters Fraud website;
and I've been instructed not to dare try to put a link here "a par t" to get it to you.

Will have to wait until I've reached the requisite 15...

 

[Laser]

Since I'm learning the software that this thread is made of;
maybe I can post a picture chart showing the criminal ties and corruption.

Nope - won't permit that either.

 

[Laser]

Let me do this another way;
and we'll get to the 15 mandated posts along the path.

Here's what we can provide proof of rather simply.


COUNT I – 18 USC § 1957 – Engaging in monetary transactions improperly unlawfully derived
COUNT II & III – 18 USC §§ 1341 & 1343 Mail & Wire Frauds
COUNT IV – BRIBERY – 18 USC § 201 Bribery
COUNT V – 18 USC § 2314 Transportation of stolen goods, money
COUNT VI – 18 USC § 2315 – Sale or receipt of stolen goods/monies
COUNT VII – 18 USC § 152 –Bankruptcy Fraud; false oaths, bribery
COUNT VIII – 18 USC § 153 Embezzlement against Bankruptcy estates
COUNT IX – 18 USC § 154 – Adverse interest & conduct of officers
COUNT X – 18 USC § 155 – Fee agreements in Title 11 cases
COUNT XI – 18 USC §§ 1961 through and including 1965
COUNT XII – 18 USC § 1512 Intimidation of Victim/Witness
COUNT XIII – 18 USC § 1513 Retaliation Against Victim Witness
COUNT XIV – STATE FELONY VIOLATIONS §§§

 

[Laser]

Mitt should hire Sarah Palin to represent him in this case

You crack me up.

--------------------------------------

They've left an evidence trail, overwhelming, profuse and irrefutable.

Therefore - they Can NOT go to trial.

They must either quash the case from going a legitimate pathway to trial;
or quash the message/messenger.

 

[Laser]

For my 13th posting, let's discuss why one would effort to go after them for Racketeering Influenced Corruption Organizations ACT of 1970 ("RICO").

Because the DE Bankruptcy Court is vested in the federal corruption;
and hopes to bury the case.

Judge refused to let me Motion against Romney on October 24, 2012;
and withheld my brief from the record until November 6, 2012.

Then, the court turned over my petition and hearing to Romney's law firm (MNAT).

MNAT lied again. Concealed the crimes (Obstruction)
and ostracized yours truly again (Retaliation Against Victim/ Witness 18 USC 1512 and 1513)

Then the DE Bankruptcy Ordered that I'm permanently barred from seeking justice in her court.
With an order to the Clerk of Court to REFUSE my petitions for justice.

This leaves a "Prosecutorial GAP" that must be filled;
and I've become a "Private Attorney General" as per U.S. Sup. Ct case of Sedima v Imrex

 

[Laser]

Judge has provided me with rock solid proof of how obtuse (willfully blind) that court is.

Someone helping me anonymously; posted a Transcript in the docket record in 2012

It is of the March 18, 2009 hearing where the court (Again) tells me she doesn't care;
and she's not going to hear about frauds going on in the case.

Because I must first ASK the Court's permission
to inform it of crimes transpiring.

Then - Her Honor [sic] stipulates that;

If there's nothing else - I'm getting back to Tweeter!

I [c]hit you Not!

 

[Laser]

Unlike R&R Associates, this case does not involve novice bankruptcy counsel
who borrowed a form of Rule 2014 affidavit from another attorney in the firm. It instead
involves experienced bankruptcy practitioners who have filed applications to be retained as
Section 327 or Section 1103 counsel in numerous large and sophisticated Chapter 11 cases, both
in Delaware and elsewhere. TBF’s partners are well-versed in the comprehensive and ongoing
relationships analysis required of a professional employed at estate expense. And as discussed
earlier in this Motion, TBF had engaged in discussions with the Office of the United States
Trustee about replacement officers of the debtors, and was aware of the UST’s concern that the
replacement officers not be related to any of the professionals employed in the case. This, it is
respectfully submitted, is all of the intent needed to demonstrate that TBF’s Rule 2014 disclosure
violation was a fraud upon the court

 

[Laser]

Now - let's see if we can give you some links to verify our case.

eToys investors claim conflict at law firm

 

[Laser]

New York Times March 2013 OpEd verifies that Goldman Sachs burnt eToys

with the Joe Nocera article "Rigging the I.P.O. Game"

 

[Laser]

IT is NOW - officially docketed in Federal Court

Trial procedures and time to be laid out next.

 

[BDBoop]

IT is NOW - officially docketed in Federal Court

Trial procedures and time to be laid out next.

Excellent. Thanks for keeping us in the loop.

 

[BDBoop]

New York Times March 2013 OpEd verifies that Goldman Sachs burnt eToys

with the Joe Nocera article "Rigging the I.P.O. Game"

[MENTION=2926]Toro[/MENTION] - have you been following this at all?

On some level, this argument — between those who believe companies are routinely sold down the river by their underwriters and those who insist that underwriting requires a complex balancing of the interests of both company and investors — has been going on ever since. Just a couple of years ago when the social media company LinkedIn went public and the stock quickly doubled, I wrote that the company had been scammed by its underwriters, Morgan Stanley and Bank of America’s Merrill Lynch unit. Money that rightly belonged to the company had instead gone to investment clients, I argued. A number of market observers responded by saying that I lacked a nuanced understanding of the complicated dynamics between companies, investors and underwriters.

Recently, however, I came across a cache of documents related to the eToys litigation that seem to tilt the argument in favor of the skeptics. Although the documents were supposed to be under seal, they were sitting in a file at the New York County Clerk’s Office, available to anyone who asked for them. I asked.

What they clearly show is that Goldman knew exactly what it was doing when it underpriced the eToys I.P.O. — and many others as well. (According to the lawsuit, Fitt led around a dozen underwritings in 1999, several of which were also woefully underpriced.) Taken in their entirety, the e-mails and internal reports show Goldman took advantage of naïve Internet start-ups to fatten its own bottom line.

 

[KokomoJojo]

It has been an arduous quest, to get justice in this case. Everyone said it is politically motivated. If only Al Capone could be alive today and realize that "IF" you run for high political office; you might be able to get off 'Scot Free'.

I'm trying to arrest Romney's RICO Gang for organized crime issues;
which are protected by federal corruption.

The fact that the "boss" was able to actually have a chance to run for POTUS;
is a testimony to how whacked our systems have become!

and federal corruption is protected by state corruption which is far worse!

jurys have been systematically run out or reduced to insignificance removing the law from the people and placing it into the hands of the black robed priests that sit 5 feet above you.

 

[Toro]

New York Times March 2013 OpEd verifies that Goldman Sachs burnt eToys

with the Joe Nocera article "Rigging the I.P.O. Game"

[MENTION=2926]Toro[/MENTION] - have you been following this at all?

On some level, this argument — between those who believe companies are routinely sold down the river by their underwriters and those who insist that underwriting requires a complex balancing of the interests of both company and investors — has been going on ever since. Just a couple of years ago when the social media company LinkedIn went public and the stock quickly doubled, I wrote that the company had been scammed by its underwriters, Morgan Stanley and Bank of America’s Merrill Lynch unit. Money that rightly belonged to the company had instead gone to investment clients, I argued. A number of market observers responded by saying that I lacked a nuanced understanding of the complicated dynamics between companies, investors and underwriters.

Recently, however, I came across a cache of documents related to the eToys litigation that seem to tilt the argument in favor of the skeptics. Although the documents were supposed to be under seal, they were sitting in a file at the New York County Clerk’s Office, available to anyone who asked for them. I asked.

What they clearly show is that Goldman knew exactly what it was doing when it underpriced the eToys I.P.O. — and many others as well. (According to the lawsuit, Fitt led around a dozen underwritings in 1999, several of which were also woefully underpriced.) Taken in their entirety, the e-mails and internal reports show Goldman took advantage of naïve Internet start-ups to fatten its own bottom line.

This sounds to me like a case that Goldman probably will win.

I was very active during that time, and I do believe that the underwriters kept the price too low. But their job as underwriters isn't solely to get the maximum price for the companies. They do have to balance competing interests. I was buying IPOs at the time, and if every time an underwriter sold me an IPO the stock went down, I would stop buying from the firm.

The company could say that Goldman was not balancing competing interests, given the huge pop off the open. They were giving out allocations to favoured clients, which I believe they settled some time ago.

But some of this sounds like sour grapes on behalf of the company. Generally, little stock was actually sold on the initial offering, with most of the stock held by the executives, who then dumped their holdings later into the euphoria. A year or two down the road, most of these companies were bust and ceased to exist.

 

[Toro]

[MENTION=31258]BDBoop[/MENTION]

As for the claim by eToys, I can't comment since I don't know the facts and am not a bankruptcy attorney.

That article in the link, however, was very biased

 

[BDBoop]

[MENTION=31258]BDBoop[/MENTION]

As for the claim by eToys, I can't comment since I don't know the facts and am not a bankruptcy attorney.

That article in the link, however, was very biased

Is this something where you would be willing to find unbiased info to possibly see the truth that may lie somewhere in the middle?

 

[Warrior102]

Moved to Conspiracy Theories. Should anything real come of this, It will be relocated.

You should move it to the shitcan, with that shithead OP.

 

[Toro]

[MENTION=31258]BDBoop[/MENTION]

As for the claim by eToys, I can't comment since I don't know the facts and am not a bankruptcy attorney.

That article in the link, however, was very biased

Is this something where you would be willing to find unbiased info to possibly see the truth that may lie somewhere in the middle?

The article may be totally right on the substance of the case, I don't know. But I'd find another source to verify.