The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Corruption]

Yes, you should trust your school system and its staff members with your special-needs child who they use as bait to try to catch a sexual predator.

"A school board cannot avoid summary judgment as a matter of law when a school administrator willfully ignores a plan to use a 14-year-old special needs student as bait to catch a student with a known history of sexual and violent misconduct, and as a result, the student is sodomized," reads the federal brief filed in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals late today.

You got that down here folks?

Your school administration thinks it has the right to use your 14 year old kid as bait to catch a sexual predator they know is in their school building with their consent.

They devise such a plan (which, I might add, cannot come with said "bait's" consent because she's not of age to give consent) and then blow it on top of that and she gets raped.

Yeah.

The first crime was the arrogation of a right to use the girl as bait in the first instance.  If no act had occurred beyond that it should still be a criminal felony.  But no, it gets better!  Not only did they set this up they then failed to put anyone in the bathroom where the alleged "bait" was supposed to result in a "catch" and the girl was in fact raped.

And for this we have a lawsuit instead of felony criminal charges laid against everyone in the school that knew about or participated in it, and the school is (as usual) trying to duck responsibility, civilly or otherwise.

**** you all among the so-called "prosecutors" and "law enforcement" in Alabama who have failed to indict everyone responsible.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

You know, it's never the original event -- it's always the cover up.  Obstruction of justice, evidence tampering, destruction of official records, you know, all those things that get you.  And it looks like it might "get" Hitlery this time.

A former State Department official has told lawmakers that Hillary Clinton allies privately removed politically damaging documents before turning over files to the supposedly independent board investigating the Benghazi terror attack.

That's probably a crime.

And since her chief of staff was allegedly overseeing this, guess who fries for it?  Not just them -- Hillary too.

Of course the State Department is denying it.  I'd deny it too, considering that at best it's career-ending and at worst it might get you some time in Club Fed.

According to The Daily Signal report, Maxwell walked in on the weekend session on a Sunday afternoon after hearing about it. He reportedly claims he saw stacks of documents when he arrived as well as an office director who worked for him -- but who hadn't told him about the assignment. 

Maxwell reportedly claimed she told him they were instructed to go through the stacks and pull out items that could put anybody in the NEA "front office" or seventh floor -- where the secretary's office is -- in a "bad light." 

Maxwell said he "didn't feel good about it" and left a short time later. 

Hoh hoh hoh hoh hoh.....

Bill Still has picked up on it too.

This is gonna get interesting....

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

From the CFTC, effective allegedly today:

Rule 575. Disruptive Practices Prohibited
All orders must be entered for the purpose of executing bona fide transactions. Additionally, all non-actionable messages must be entered in good faith for legitimate purposes.
A. No person shall enter or cause to be entered an order with the intent, at the time of order entry, to cancel the order before execution or to modify the order to avoid execution;
B. No Person shall enter or cause to be entered an actionable or non-actionable message or messages with intent to mislead other market participants;
C. No Person shall enter or cause to be entered an actionable or non-actionable message or messages with intent to overload, delay, or disrupt the systems of the Exchange or other market participants; and
D. No person shall enter or cause to be entered an actionable or non-actionable message with intent to disrupt, or with reckless disregard for the adverse impact on, the orderly conduct of trading or the fair execution of transactions.

To the extent applicable, the provisions of this Rule apply to open outcry trading as well as electronic trading activity. Further, the provisions of this Rule apply to all market states, including the pre-opening period, the closing period and all trading sessions.

So let me see if I get this right.

Several years after I posted a Youtube video over a holiday in which I showed clearly (by video evidence) orders being entered that were simply intended to be canceled, years after this started, all of which is in direct violation of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, 15 USC §78i(a), we now have a "rule"

Let me remind you what that law says:

(a) Transactions relating to purchase or sale of security
It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of any facility of any national securities exchange, or for any member of a national securities exchange—
(1) For the purpose of creating a false or misleading appearance of active trading in any security other than a government security, or a false or misleading appearance with respect to the market for any such security,
(A) to effect any transaction in such security which involves no change in the beneficial ownership thereof, or
(B) to enter an order or orders for the purchase of such security with the knowledge that an order or orders of substantially the same size, at substantially the same time, and at substantially the same price, for the sale of any such security, has been or will be entered by or for the same or different parties, or
(C) to enter any order or orders for the sale of any such security with the knowledge that an order or orders of substantially the same size, at substantially the same time, and at substantially the same price, for the purchase of such security, has been or will be entered by or for the same or different parties.
(2) To effect, alone or with 1 or more other persons, a series of transactions in any security registered on a national securities exchange, any security not so registered, or in connection with any security-based swap or security-based swap agreement with respect to such security creating actual or apparent active trading in such security, or raising or depressing the price of such security, for the purpose of inducing the purchase or sale of such security by others.

In other words all of this activity is already illegal.

And has been for about 80 years.

(Oh, by the way, why is there an exemption for manipulation of the market for a government security?)

Yet we need a rule to stop what has been able to generate (under that same law) actual legal sanction (not just a "rule") since the Securities and Exchange Act went into effect.

Are you ready to admit that the entire ****ing market is nothing other than a scam, given that nobody will enforce black-letter anti-fraud provisions that have been on the books for 80 ****ing years?

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

As they say, heh heh heh....

Two independent journalists have confirmed with the San Francisco Police Department that Anita Sarkeesian, a video game social justice warrior, may have used false pretenses to raise money for her non-profit entity. The police have said that she has not contacted them as she claimed after receiving a Twitter death threat in August. Under Federal law, this may put her on the hook for felony wire fraud.

Wait, what?

Video game social justice warriors?

Yes, they apparently exist.  You know, people who argue that it's so damned unfair that {women|minorities|gays|whoever} are {underrepresented|victims of misogyny|harassed} in {whatever} -- in this case, video games.

Really.

There are actually people who do this.  Some of them even set up allegedly "non profit" entities to "benefit" their cause.

But....

It is broadly illegal (at a felony level) to raise money under false pretense.

It appears that this woman claimed she had received death threats and that she had reported them to the cops.  Making death threats is in fact a crime.  But -- it appears -- there were no actual threats and no report was made.

I don't play video games, but a lot of people do.  And apparently the grievance industry is alive and well there, complete with people making a "career" out of it.

This one might get cut a bit short....

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Well, except for perhaps a little market-rigging....

The banks communicated using electronic chat rooms and other means of private communication, typically submitting identical rate quotes beginning at least in 2009, the Alaska fund said.

...

“This could not have happened without some form of advanced coordination,” the Alaska fund said in its complaint, filed in a federal court in Manhattan. “Even if reporting banks always responded similarly to market conditions, the odds against contributors unilaterally submitting the exact same quotes down to the thousandth of a basis point are astronomical. Yet, this happened almost every single day between at least 2009 and December 2012.”

Gee, nothing to see here, move right along.

There's no way that people would submit different quotes if they weren't coordinating, right?  Every gasoline store charges exactly the same, every gallon of milk, dozen eggs, pound of beef -- all exactly the same.

And this is all natural market forces?

Hoh hoh hoh.....

Who was involved?  Pick a name, any name:

The fund also named as defendants Deutsche Bank AG (DBK), BNP Paribas SA (BNP), HSBC Holdings Plc (HSBA), Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc, Credit Suisse Group AG (CSGN), UBS (UBSN), Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS), Nomura Holdings Inc. (8604), Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC) and JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) and ICAP.

But remember, nobody committed any crimes.

So said Gary Johnson, among others.

smiley....

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access
Get Adobe Flash player
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be reproduced or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media or for commercial use.

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.