Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulators

Index of forum topics, talk to us.

Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulator

Postby admin » Thu Jul 07, 2011 1:12 pm

not legal advice, but you CAN file private criminal charges yourself if the police refuse to get involved:
from http://www.bcrevolution.ca/filing_priva ... cution.htm

If you have reasonable grounds to believe an offence has been committed contrary to a provincial or federal statute [i.e. Criminal Code of Canada], a regulation made under that statute, or a municipal bylaw, you may prosecute the offender yourself. Before launching a private prosecution, you may want to make a complaint to the police. If the police refuse to lay charges and you believe there is enough evidence of an offence to support a conviction, you may lay your own charges.

Prosecutions consist of five (5) basic parts:

Laying the information

issuing the summons

serving the summons

setting the trial date

the trial

1. Laying the Information

The first step is to go to a justice of the peace (JP) at your local court and sign a form on which you set out the details of the alleged offence. This form is called an "information," and you are referred to as the "informant." The JP then asks you to swear that this statement is true, and the JP signs his or her name as a witness. This process is called "swearing the information." Formal charges have now been laid.


Draft the charges with care, because inaccurate information may hurt your chances of a successful prosecution. Often the JP will draft the charges for you, or you may wish to fill out the form with the help of a lawyer. Here are some tips:


The forms used for provincial offences are different from those for federal offences, so be sure you get the right one.

Be sure to lay the information promptly. Under the Ontario Provincial Offences Act and the summary conviction provisions of the Criminal Code, you have only six months from the time an offence occurred to lay the charges. Some statutes have shorter or longer limitation periods.

Be precise. It is safest to follow the wording of the statute describing the offence (e.g., the Highway Traffic Act) as closely as possible.

State the specific date and place where the offence occurred, and give the name of the accused in full. If the accused is a corporation, use the full corporate name.

When the information relates to more than one breach of the law, set out each offence in a separate "count" (separately numbered paragraphs each setting out all the details of one offence).

When laying charges under the Highway Traffic Act against the registered owner of a motor vehicle, set out not only the section of the Act that was violated but also that the violation occurred contrary to section 207, the section that makes the owner liable for violations by the driver.

2. Issuing the Summons

The JP has no discretion in swearing the information – he or she can't refuse to do it. However, the JP does have discretion not to take the next step: issuing the summons to the accused. The summons is a copy of the information that also states the time and place where the accused must appear to answer the charges.


JPs are mainly used to issuing summonses for the police, and some JPs may be reluctant to issue a summons requested by a private citizen. The JP can ask you probing questions, so it is advisable to be well prepared when you visit the JP to swear the information, and even to bring a lawyer with you if you anticipate difficulty.


If the JP issues the summons, he or she will usually make it "returnable" in about two to four weeks' time. At least two weeks should be allowed, so there is enough to serve the summons on the accused. The "return date" will not be the trial date, but the date when the prosecutor and the accused appear in court to set a date for the trial.


3. Serving the Summons on the Accused

Serving the summons means delivering the summons to the accused. Serving a summons is generally valid only if it is done by a designated person – usually a police officer. [The staff of the county and district sheriff's offices are also peace officers, and for a fee they may serve summonses for you. Give them the summons as early as possible and follow up with them to check that the summons has been filed.]


To be on the safe side, it's a good idea to also personally deliver or mail a copy of the summons to the accused. Even though the accused is not required to respond, many people do not know this and will come to court. Once the accused or his or her lawyer appears in court, the accused is bound by the summons, even if he or she need not have appeared.


Once a summons has been served, the person who served it must fill out and sign an "affidavit of service" on the back of a copy of the summons. This affidavit sets out the identity of the person served with the summons, and the time and place the summons was served. It is then up to you to make sure the copy of the summons with its affidavit of service is filed in the proper court before the return date (this will mean chasing up the police officer or whoever served the summons).


4. Setting the Trial Date

On the return date, the informant and the accused or their lawyers meet to set a trial date. Choose a date far enough away to give you time to prepare, and to give the accused written notice of all the documents you intend to use as evidence. (Otherwise the documents may be inadmissible.) Also make sure you choose a date when all your witnesses are available.

The court will set a trial date and adjourn the case to that day.


If the accused does not turn up on the return date, the court will go ahead anyway and set a date for the trial. But if the affidavit of service has not been filed with the court, the court will not proceed, and a new summons will have to be issued.
==============================


A brief glance at the broader history of criminal prosecution may help
to put this article in its proper context. For the purposes of this section,
it is useful to divide English history into four periods. 12
1. The first age of private prosecution (seventh to tenth
centuries). During this period criminal prosecutions were almost entirely
private. Prosecution was at least partially motivated by the possibility of
monetary compensation. Until at least the late tenth century, those
convicted of crime were not ordinarily hanged, incarcerated, or otherwise
punished, but instead owed the victim compensation (bot) or, in homicide
cases, owed the victim's family the deceased's wergild, a monetary payment
that varied with the deceased's social status.6 13

2. The rise of presentment (tenth to fourteenth centuries).
Starting in the late tenth century, Anglo-Saxon kings began to change the
nature of criminal prosecution. Aethelred's third code, promulgated around
1000, required the twelve leading thanes (nobles) of a wapentake (district)
to accuse and arrest those suspected of crime in their locality.7 This
procedure seems to foreshadow presentment, which, according to some
historians, did not became a routine part of judicial administration until
almost two centuries later, during the reign of Henry II. Under the
presentment procedure, leading men were chosen from each locality and were
required to present (that is, report) on oath crimes committed in their
neighborhoods. These leading men were known as the presenting jury, which is
the ancestor of the grand jury. Like the medieval trial (petit) jury, the
presenting jury was self-informing.8 Little or no evidence was presented in
court. The jurors were expected to gather information informally before they
came to court and to present their conclusions to the judges. 14

The nature of criminal penalties also began to change during this
period. As early as the late tenth century, bot seems to have been payable
to church, king, or community at large rather than to the injured kin.9
There is also archaeological evidence that the death penalty was frequently
imposed in the eleventh century.10 By the late twelfth century, these
changes were firmly entrenched and are regularly attested to by the
surviving records. Hanging and fines payable to the king were the only
criminal penalties regularly imposed in royal courts. In addition, hanging
was usually accompanied by forfeiture of land and chattels. 15

Although presentment and noncompensatory punishments were
becoming increasingly important, no English king even attempted to abolish
private prosecutions, which by the late eleventh century were called
"appeals." In fact, until the turn of the fourteenth century, presentments
were confined almost exclusively to homicide and theft,11 and nearly all
accusations of rape, mayhem,12 wounding, false imprisonment, assault and
battery were brought by way of appeal, as were large numbers of homicide and
theft cases. Although the legal sanction for crime was death or fines
payable to the king, victims (and their families) could appeal and use the
threat of legally imposed hanging or fines to induce compensatory monetary
settlements. By the end of the thirteenth century, however, the appeal was
becoming much less common, and presentment had become the way nearly all
crimes were prosecuted. 16

3. The return of private prosecution (fourteenth to nineteenth
centuries). As noted above, twelfth- and thirteenth-century juries (both
presenting juries and trial juries) were largely self-informing. During the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, however, for reasons that have yet to be
fully explained, juries became more passive.13 Trial juries began to rely on
evidence that parties presented in court, and the presenting jury (now
called the grand jury) less frequently made accusations based on its own
knowledge. Instead, the grand jury primarily screened accusations made by
others, declaring "true bill" of accusations ("indictments") it approved.14
Although these prosecutions were formally brought in the name of the Crown,
the predominance of victim initiative suggests that they are properly
classified as private prosecutions.15 Nevertheless, royal officials did
provide investigative assistance. From the late twelfth century, the coroner
had been gathering evidence in homicide cases.16 Justices of the peace
performed a similar function for other crimes from, at latest, the sixteenth
century, and possibly as early as the fourteenth.17 17

4. The age of public prosecution (nineteenth century to present).
In the nineteenth century, partly in response to the growing problem of
urban crime, pressure began to mount for public prosecution. Victims
frequently did not prosecute because it was expensive, time consuming, and
brought few benefits other than the satisfaction of revenge or justice.18 As
a result, by the mid-nineteenth century, most prosecutions were private in
name only, as the "private" prosecutor was in most instances a policeman.
Nevertheless, public prosecution was perceived as a threat to liberty, and
Parliament did not pass legislation to set up a national system of public
prosecutors until 1879.19 Even this statute did not fundamentally undermine
private prosecution, because public prosecutors had very limited
authority.20 It was only with the passage of the 1985 Prosecution of
Offenses Act that England established an effective system of public
prosecution, and even this legislation preserved a limited right of private
prosecution.21 In America, public prosecution seems to have become common
somewhat earlier.22 18

=========================


26.1 Introduction
The relationship between the private citizen, as prosecutor, and the
Attorney General, who has exclusive authority to represent the public in
court1, has been described as follows2:

The right of a private citizen to lay an information, and the right
and duty of the Attorney General to supervise criminal prosecutions are both
fundamental parts of our criminal justice system.

The right of a citizen to institute a prosecution for a breach of the law
has been called "a valuable constitutional safeguard against inertia or
partiality on the part of authority"3. However, this right can be abused. It
is sometimes necessary for the Attorney General to intervene and conduct or
stay the prosecution to prevent the harms that may flow from such
prosecutions, for example: 1) the harm suffered by a defendant who is
factually innocent; 2) the harm to the court system caused by a frivolous
prosecution4.


Please note that it is a well known fact in the Province of British Columbia, the secret policy directive of the Attorney General's office, is "not to proceed on any private prosecution", and there are many examples of their interference in cases where of overwhelming evidence of criminal wrongdoing was demonstrated to a Justice of the Peace. [Stay in tune with BCREVOLUTION for examples]

Both of the excuses raised above, on behalf of the Attorney General to quash a private prosecution, fail to consider that the private party must FIRST present his/her evidence of the charge(s) to a Justice of the Peace, who themselves are already direct appointees of the government.

It therefore belies all common sense for the Attorney General to assert that "Private Prosecutions" are in any way MORE harmful to the innocent, or frivolous, than the thousands of Prosecutions THEY themselves commence on a daily basis.

An impartial Justice of the piece is more than qualified in making the lawful determination of facts; AS IS A JURY, WHICH OUR LAW OF THE LAND (Eternal Magna Carta) states is our inherent right before we can be imprisoned, or our property seized.

It is THE JURY OF OUR PEERS that is our greatest safeguard against harm to the innocent.

See below (as you read this government document) how the government is continuing to obstruct justice, and encroach on your unalienable right to bring the guilty to justice under our common law, as preserved in our Great Charter of Liberties, 1215, 1297.
=============================================================



This chapter explains the law on initiating and conducting private
prosecutions. It also explains when the Attorney General of Canada may and
should intervene either to conduct or stay such prosecutions.

26.2 Origin of Private Prosecutions
A private citizen's right to initiate and conduct a private prosecution
originates in the early common law. From the early Middle Ages to the 17th
century, private prosecutions were the main way to enforce the criminal law.
Indeed, private citizens were responsible for preserving the peace and
maintaining the law5:

[U]nder the English common law, crimes were regarded originally as
being committed not against the state but against a particular person or
family. It followed that the victim or some relative would initiate and
conduct the prosecution against the offender ...

Another feature of the English common law was the view that it was not
[actually] the privilege but the duty [by right] of the private citizen to preserve the
King's Peace and bring offenders to justice6.

Because of the increase in courts and cases in the Middle Ages, the King
began to appoint King's Attorneys to intervene in matters of particular
interest to the King. Intervention took two forms. The King could initiate
and conduct certain prosecutions through a personal representative. The King
could also intervene in cases begun by a private prosecutor where the matter
was of special concern to the King. By intervening, the King's Attorney
could then conduct or stop the proceedings7. As the English common law
developed, the role of Crown law officers grew. Still, private prosecutions
were allowed. To this day they are recognized in several English statutes8.

26.3 Foundation for Private Prosecutions in Canadian Law
No Criminal Code provision expressly authorizes private prosecutions.
Several provisions, however, impliedly recognize such proceedings. Except
where the Attorney General's consent is required, section 504 of the Code
permits anyone to lay an information. As well, the definitions of
"prosecutor" in sections 2 and 785 make it clear that someone other than the Attorney General may institute proceedings. These provisions apply to
proceedings under the Code and all other federal acts9.

Prior to the 2002 amendments to the Criminal Code10, courts had held: a) a
private citizen may institute and conduct a prosecution under federal
legislation without the knowledge or participation of the Attorney General
of Canada;11 b) clear and specific language is required to abolish private
prosecutions under a federal statute.12

Pursuant to the 2002 amendments, however, important limitations were
introduced on the right of a private citizen to institute proceedings.
Section 507.1 of the Code requires a justice receiving such an information
to refer it to a judge or designated justice, and requires notice to the
Attorney General and an opportunity for the Attorney General to participate
in a hearing to determine whether a summons or warrant for the arrest of the
accused shall issue. In summary conviction proceedings, the private
prosecutor controls the proceedings from start to finish unless the Attorney
General intervenes. In indictable matters, a private prosecutor may conduct
the trial, including the preliminary inquiry. However, the private
prosecutor requires a judge's consent under subsection 574(3) of the Code to
prefer an indictment.

26.4 Authority of the Attorney General of Canada to Intervene in Private
Prosecutions

At common law the Attorney General could intervene in private prosecutions
and either conduct the prosecution or enter a nolle prosequi (the
traditional power of the Attorney General to stop proceedings)13. Under
section 5 of the Department of Justice Act, the Attorney General of Canada
is "entrusted with the powers and charged with the duties that belong to the
Office of the Attorney General of England by law or usage, insofar as those
powers and duties are applicable to Canada".

[There is absolutely no such thing as a "common law" right of an "Attorney General" to stop a proceeding at their whim. Our common law has always been based on Rule of Law, and the equality of ALL under the law.

Their assertion is a complete fabrication, and misdirection of the true common law, which is the law for the people, not the re-written half-drunken ramblings [precedents] of government puppet judges who will sell their own soul for 30 pieces of silver.] [LINK to Judges]


The Criminal Code provides that the Attorney General of Canada and Attorneys
General of the provinces share responsibility for conducting prosecutions.
However, several Supreme Court of Canada decisions have made it clear that
the authority of provincial Attorneys General to prosecute under federal
statutes, including the Criminal Code, is given by the Code. Their authority
does not flow from any constitutional principle based on subsection 92(14)14
or from some historic role15. The provincial prosecutorial role is assigned
through legislation by Parliament, not constitutionally entrenched.

Section 2 of the Criminal Code assigns prosecutorial roles as follows:

"Attorney General"

1.. with respect to proceedings to which this Act applies, means the
Attorney General or Solicitor General of the province in which those
proceedings are taken and includes his lawful deputy, and

2.. with respect to

1.. the Yukon Territory, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, or

2.. proceedings commenced at the instance of the Government of Canada
and conducted by or on behalf of that Government in respect of a
contravention of a conspiracy or attempt to contravene or counselling the
contravention of any Act of Parliament other than this Act or any regulation
made under any such Act, means the Attorney General of Canada and includes
his lawful deputy.
Under this definition, it follows that if a private individual lays an
information, the Attorney General of Canada lacks authority to intervene in
the case, whether to conduct or stay the proceedings. This is because the
proceedings were not "commenced at the instance of the Government of
Canada"16.

This lack of authority for the Attorney General of Canada to intervene
applies only to prosecutions brought in a province. According to the
definition set out above, the Attorney General of Canada has full authority
to start and stop proceedings and intervene in private prosecutions brought
in the Northwest Territories, the Yukon Territory, and Nunavut.

"Attorney General" is defined somewhat differently for drug prosecutions.
Section 2 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act states as follows:

"Attorney General" means

1.. the Attorney General of Canada, and includes their lawful deputy; or

2.. with respect to proceedings commenced at the instance of the
government of a province and conducted by or on behalf of that government,
the Attorney General of that province, and includes their lawful deputy.
Pursuant to this definition, the Attorney General of Canada has authority to
intervene in private prosecutions of drug matters throughout the country.

Another source of the Attorney General's power to intervene in private
prosecutions may be found in section 579.1 of the Criminal Code. This
section was added in 1994 to give the Attorney General of Canada authority
to intervene in private prosecutions commenced under federal statutes other
than Criminal Code, where the provincial Attorney General has not
intervened.

Section 579.01 was added to the Criminal Code in 2002 to permit the Attorney
General to intervene in the proceedings without staying them. Under this
provision the Attorney General may call witnesses, examine and cross-examine
witnesses, present evidence and make submissions without actually conducting
the proceedings.

26.5 Statement of Policy
26.5.1 Private Prosecutions in the Yukon Territory, the Northwest
Territories, and Nunavut
The Attorney General has the responsibility to ensure that all criminal
prosecutions are in the public interest. The Attorney General must also
ensure that it is appropriate to permit private prosecutions to remain in
private hands.

When considering whether to intervene, Crown counsel should consult with the
Prosecution Group Head and consider the following:

1.. the need to strike an appropriate balance between the right of the
private citizen to initiate and conduct a prosecution as a safeguard in the
justice system, and the responsibility of the Attorney General of Canada for
the proper administration of justice in the territories;

2.. the seriousness of the offence - generally, the more serious, the more
likely it is that the Attorney General should intervene;

3.. whether there is sufficient evidence to justify continuing the
prosecution, that is, whether there is a reasonable prospect of conviction
based on the available evidence;

4.. whether a consideration of the public interest criteria described in
Part V, Chapter 15, "The Decision to Prosecute", leads to the conclusion
that the public interest would not be served by continuing the proceedings;

5.. whether there is a reasonable basis to believe that the decision to
prosecute was made for improper personal or oblique motives, or that it
otherwise may constitute an abuse of the court's process such that, even if
the prosecution were to proceed, it would not be appropriate to permit it to
remain in the hands of a private prosecutor; and

6.. whether, given the nature of the alleged offence or the issues to be
determined at trial, it is in the interests of the proper administration of
justice for the prosecution to remain in private hands.
Whenever the Attorney General intervenes, the decision to continue or stay
the proceedings should be made in accordance with the criteria set out in
Part V, Chapter 15, "The Decision to Prosecute".

In some cases, it may be difficult to assess whether there is sufficient
evidence to justify continuing the proceedings, because no police
investigation preceded the laying of charges. If so, it will in most
instances be appropriate for the Attorney General to intervene, request an
adjournment, and ask the RCMP to investigate. It may, in some situations, be
necessary to stay proceedings while the investigation is conducted. After
the investigation, Crown counsel should assess whether to commence
proceedings in accordance with the criteria set out in Part V, Chapter 15,
"The Decision to Prosecute". If a decision is reached not to prosecute,
subsequent proceedings brought privately should, in the absence of unusual
circumstances, be taken over on behalf of the Attorney General and stayed.

26.5.2 Private Prosecutions in the Provinces
As noted above, the Attorney General of Canada has a limited authority to
intervene in private prosecutions in the provinces. Where such authority
exists, it should be exercised on the same basis as outlined in s. 26.5.1
above.

The Government of Canada may still have an interest in certain proceedings.
Many private prosecutions are commenced on the basis of an enforcement
scheme found in regulatory enactments such as the Fisheries Act. Charges of
this nature ought to be brought to the attention of the Regional Director,
as it may be appropriate to bring enforcement or policy concerns to the
attention of the Attorney General of the province so that provincial
authorities can then make an informed decision about intervening.

26.6 Consultation With Senior Management
Where an issue concerning the conduct or potential termination of a private
prosecution needs to be resolved, Crown counsel should refer the matter to
the Senior Regional Director who, in cases of particular public interest,
should confer with the Assistant Deputy Attorney General (Criminal Law)
before making a decision.

26.7 Case References
Re Bradley and The Queen (1975), 9 O.R. (2d) 161 (Ont. C.A.): Where the
interests of justice require, the Attorney General may intervene and take
over a private prosecution of a summary conviction offence.

MacIssac v. Motor Coach Ind. Ltd., [1982] 5 W.W.R. 391 (Man. C.A.): Since
the word "prosecutor" includes the informant or counsel for the informant,
it is incontestable that a private prosecution can take place in the absence
of intervention by the Crown.

Re Hamilton and The Queen (1986), 30 C.C.C. (3d) 65 (B.C.S.C.): An
intervention by the Attorney General in a private prosecution does not
contravene section 7 of the Charter.

Campbell v. A.G. of Ontario (1987), 31 C.C.C. (3d) 289; aff'd. 35 C.C.C.
(3d) 480 (C.A.): The court cannot review a decision by the Attorney General
to stay a private prosecution, absent flagrant impropriety.

Re Faber and the Queen (1987), 38 C.C.C. (3d) 49 (Que. S.C.): A decision to
stay does not infringe sections 7 or 15 of the Charter.

Chartrand v. Quebec (Min. of Justice) (1986), 55 C.R. (3d) 97 (Que. S.C.):
Ministerial decisions, whether based on a statute, a prerogative, or the
common law, are reviewable by virtue of section 32 of the Charter.
Therefore, the Attorney General's decision to intervene and stay a private
prosecution is also reviewable.

R. v. Cathcart and Maclean (1988), 207 A.P.R. 267 (N.S.S.C.): A superior
court judge does not need to approve a private prosecution of a hybrid
offence. An order under subsection 504(3) [now subsection 574(3)] of the
Criminal Code is required only after the accused has been committed to stand
trial on an indictable offence.

Osiowy v. Linn (1988), 67 Sask. R. 215 (Sask. Q.B.), sub nom. R. v. Osiowy
(1989), 50 C.C.C. (3d) 189 (Sask. C.A.): The Attorney General's discretion
to intervene and stay a private prosecution was upheld.

Kostuch (Informant) v. Alberta (Attorney General) (1995), 101 C.C.C. (3d)
321 (Alta. C.A.): The court will not interfere with the Attorney General's
exercise of discretion to intervene in a private prosecution unless there
has been a "flagrant impropriety".

Werring v. B.C. (Attorney General) (1997), 122 C.C.C. (3d) 343 (B.C.C.A.):
An informant seeking judicial review of Attorney General's decision to stay
a private prosecution is not entitled to cross-examine the prosecutor who
entered the stay without showing a basis for the belief that such
cross-examination would show flagrant impropriety by the Crown


source:http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/dept/pub/fps/fpd/ch26.html#26
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3058
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulator

Postby admin » Mon Jun 27, 2011 9:23 am

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail. ... &utm_term=

The costly consequences of inadequate supervision

Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP
Ellen Bessner and Jessica Zagar
Canada
June 7 2011
A recent decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Straus Estate v. Decaire, 2011 ONSC 1157 (“Straus”) serves to reiterate the importance of ensuring that compliance policies and proper training of sales representatives are practiced at the branch level. This is yet another cautionary tale for dealers of the importance of providing oversight and ensuring compliance policies not only exist, but are functionally implemented throughout the organization. A full copy of the case is available here.

In Straus, the plaintiffs sought damages for losses sustained from an “off-book” investment opportunity recommended by the advisor that was neither part of the dealers’ registered mutual fund financial products, nor suitable for the plaintiffs.1

The dealers argued that the terms of their contract with the advisor was limited to the sale of the dealers’ mutual funds and that the plaintiffs knew that the investment opportunity was not a mutual fund and beyond the authority of the advisor as mutual fund representative of the dealers.

Despite finding that the plaintiffs were aware that the investment opportunity was not a mutual fund investment, the trial judge denied the dealers’ defence and found them vicariously liable for the plaintiffs’ losses. The conduct of the dealers in failing to maintain proper compliance practices played an important role in the trial judge’s reasons for finding the dealers vicariously liable. According to the trial judge, even a “superficial inquiry” by the governance officer would have revealed that the advisor was actively engaged in off-book activity.

While the plaintiffs’ request for punitive damages was denied, the trial judge took the rare step of awarding the plaintiffs substantially all of their costs (full indemnity costs) to restore the plaintiffs to their original financial position, in effect punishing the defendants for being motivated by profit through the exploitation of trust and for the defendants’ assertion at trial that the plaintiffs were the authors of their own misfortune.

(nearly every case of financial abuse I have seen carries that "you were the author of your own misfortune" defence by the industry. I am pleased to see in this case the investment dealer being punished for such a false and bullying tactic. If one checks the advertising, the promises implied, the terms used to mislead and misinform the public by most investment sellers, they will soon learn that the industry practices the world's best "bait and switch", to do financial violence to customers. see http://www.examiner.com/crime-in-calgary/larry-elford for a full explanation of the industry bait and switch)
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3058
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulator

Postby admin » Sat Jun 25, 2011 9:07 am

WALL STREET JOURNAL

BUSINESS
JUNE 25, 2011
Madoff Trustee Raises J.P. Morgan Claims to $19 Billion

By DAN FITZPATRICK
The trustee seeking to recover money for Bernard Madoff's victims filed an amended complaint Friday that increases the damages being sought from J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. to $19 billion from $5.4 billion.

The amended lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleges that J.P. Morgan ignored or dismissed warning signs about the Madoff fraud even as it earned hundreds of millions of dollars from its relationship with the firm.
The trustee, Irving Picard, made similar allegations when he filed a first complaint against J.P. Morgan last year.
The damage request jumped by $13.6 billion because the amended complaint includes life-to-date damages and a jury demand, said a spokeswoman for the trustee. The trustee separately is seeking the recovery of $400 million in allegedly fraudulent transfers and "at least" $500 million in revenue J.P. Morgan made "off the back of Madoff's victims."

New evidence cited by the trustee includes an unnamed financial institution that "in or about" 1997 assigned an investigator to examine Mr. Madoff's many transactions with J.P. Morgan.
This investigator questioned Mr. Madoff's employees, and the unnamed financial institution closed its own Madoff account after "having failed to receive a satisfactory explanation for the suspicious account activity," according to the complaint. The trustee said the investigator "would have contacted" J.P. Morgan Chase about the transactions.

A J.P. Morgan spokeswoman said the amended complaint is "meritless and is based on distortions of both the relevant facts and the governing law." J.P. Morgan "did not know about or in any way become party to the fraud orchestrated by Bernard Madoff."
There is a detailed description in the amended complaint of Mr. Madoff's relationship with Sterling Equities, a real-estate firm founded by New York Mets owner Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz. Sterling was among Mr. Madoff's biggest customers and also a private banking customer of J.P. Morgan. Sterling Equities has denied any knowledge of the fraud.
Write to Dan Fitzpatrick at dan.fitzpatrick@wsj.com
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3058
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulator

Postby admin » Tue May 03, 2011 3:51 pm

Deutsche Bank Accused Of Massive Mortgage Fraud, Sued for $1 Billion By U.S. Government

First Posted: 05/ 3/11 04:35 PM ET Updated: 05/ 3/11 04:42 PM ET

SHARE THIS STORY

The Justice Department sued Deutsche Bank AG, one of the world's 10 biggest banks by assets, on Tuesday for at least $1 billion for defrauding taxpayers by "repeatedly" lying to a federal agency when securing taxpayer-backed insurance for thousands of shoddy mortgages.

MortgageIT, a subsidiary of Germany's largest lender, egregiously violated federal rules that came with government backing on more than 39,000 mortgages worth more than $5 billion since 1999, according to the lawsuit filed in Manhattan federal court.

By funneling risky mortgages to the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Federal Housing Administration, MortgageIT's loans were guaranteed with the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. A third of those mortgages, or about 12,500, have since defaulted, leaving the government on the hook.

On more than 3,100 of its FHA-guaranteed mortgages that have defaulted, HUD has paid more than $386 million in claims to the owners of the mortgage debt, according to the lawsuit. More than two-thirds of those mortgages defaulted within two years of origination.

As of February, more than 7,500 additional mortgages, with more than $888 million in unpaid principal balances, also had defaulted without HUD paying any claims. About half of those defaulted within the first two years.

The agency expects to pay "at least hundreds of millions of dollars" in additional claims as more risky mortgages default in the months and years ahead, according to the lawsuit.

Meanwhile, Deutsche Bank made "substantial profits" by selling these loans to investors, the suit claims. Federal authorities identified some of the MortgageIT practices that now form the basis of its suit as far back as 2003. Despite warnings, the problems continued.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Justice Department is seeking damages three times the amount HUD has already shelled out for defaulted mortgages with allegedly fraudulently-obtained government insurance, plus additional penalties for each mortgage that broke federal rules.

While private investors have thus far faced a long, slow war battling lenders and connected Wall Street firms to buy back toxic mortgages investors claim were sold to them fraudulently, the government's suit is fairly straightforward. As part of the FHA program MortgageIT participated in, lenders are required to annually certify that they check basic records like borrowers' incomes, credit history and employment record. The lenders also are required to review loans that quickly default to guard against sloppy lending practices, and act in the government's best interests because taxpayers are bearing the risks for potentially poor loans.

Deutsche did none of those things, according to the lawsuit.

The lender "recklessly selected mortgages that violated program rules in blatant disregard of whether borrowers could make mortgage payments," the government claims. "While Deutsche Bank and MortgageIT profited from the resale of these government-insured mortgages, thousands of American homeowners have faced default and eviction."

Deutsche acquired MortgageIT for about $430 million in January 2007. At the time, Deutsche said MortgageIT was "one of the fastest-growing and largest residential mortgage loan originators in the U.S." and would help the bank expand its mortgage securitization business.

On Tuesday, a Deutsche spokeswoman, Renee Calabro, said that "close to 90 percent of the activity" alleged in the lawsuit occurred prior to the bank's purchase of the lending unit.

"We believe the claims against MortgageIT and Deutsche Bank are unreasonable and unfair, and we intend to defend against the action vigorously," Calabro said in a statement.

From 2007 through early 2009, Robert Khuzami, the current head of enforcement at the Securities and Exchange Commission, served as Deutsche's lawyer overseeing regulatory matters and investigations. He was not named in the Justice Department's suit.

In the suit, authorities spelled out a variety of alleged abuses that paint the Deutsche subsidiary as a reckless lender that employed minimal oversight over its operations. When alert employees raised concerns over violations, upper management, including the president of MortgageIT at the time, failed to act, the suit claims.

The firm's president knew there were problems with its loan underwriting as early as 2005, according to the lawsuit.

Upper management at MortgageIT "knowingly, wantonly, and recklessly permitted egregious underwriting violations to continue unabated," the lawsuit alleges. "These failures caused the government millions of dollars in losses."

In one example of the firm's reckless attitude, an outside auditor’s reports that found "serious underwriting violations" at MortgageIT were “literally stuffed in a closet and left unread and unopened" in 2004, according to the suit.

The firm should have had up to eight employees reviewing loans it peddled to FHA. Instead, it never employed more than one person, the suit claims. By the end of 2007, that one person was producing loans, instead of reviewing them.

On three separate occasions in 2003, 2004 and 2006 the firm was told by federal authorities to fix its deficient review practices. Each time, MortgageIT said it had complied. And each time, it lied, the suit claims.

Twice in 2005, employees at the firm went to upper management to complain about poor underwriting practices. Management did nothing, the suit claims.

The lawsuit follows two separate reports this year by HUD's inspector general. In one, the internal watchdog faulted the agency for its poor oversight of FHA-approved lenders. In the other, it found that more than 49 percent of loans underwritten by FHA-approved lenders in a sample did not conform to the agency's requirements.

"These companies repeatedly and brazenly breached the public trust," said Preet Bharara, the U.S. Attorney in Manhattan. "This lawsuit sends them -- and other lenders -- the message that they cannot get away with lies and recklessness. They cannot casually assign the prospect of being caught to the cost of doing business."
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3058
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulator

Postby admin » Tue May 03, 2011 9:15 am

5Judges05_small.jpg

(photo not related to case described, illustrative only)

Justice Binnie observed that “protracted litigation has become the sport of kings in the sense that only kings or equivalent can afford it. Those who inflict it on others in the hope of significant personal gain and fail can generally expect adverse cost consequences.”


Case Name:
Kerr v. Danier Leather Inc.

Douglas Kerr, S. Grace Kerr and James Frederick Durst,
Appellants;
v.
Danier Leather Inc., Jeffrey Wortsman and Bryan Tatoff,
Respondents, and
Ontario Securities Commission, Intervener.

[2007] S.C.J. No. 44
2007 SCC 44.
File No.: 31321.

Supreme Court of Canada

Heard: March 20, 2007;
Judgment: October 12, 2007.

The quote "has become the sport of Kings" from Justice Binnie above is interesting in what it says about our legal system in Canada. It has become well known that the layers of "protection" for people who cause financial violence against the vulnerable are just getting better for the financial violators.

They most often cannot be brought to justice by regulators since the regulators are chosen and paid by the financial violators themselves. Self regulators are simply worse, and have no duty to care for the public interest. Police have neither the time, nor the talent to deal with financial violation. (RCMP IMET budget $17 mil for entire country) This leaves the civil court process to level the playing field for the population, and this "sport of kings" insight is fair comment by Justice Binnie. It coincides with candid commentary by Chief Justice Beverley McLaughlin, saying that monopoly powers granted to the legal profession may be misused for the benefit of the profession rather than the benefit of the public.)
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3058
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulator

Postby admin » Fri Apr 29, 2011 7:50 pm

Screen shot 2011-04-29 at 8.50.17 PM.png

CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Immunity of Commission and officers
141. (1) No action or other proceeding for damages shall be instituted against the Commission or any member thereof, or any employee or agent of the Commission for any act done in good faith in the performance or intended performance of any duty or in the exercise or the intended exercise of any power under Ontario securities law, or for any neglect or default in the performance or exercise in good faith of such duty or power. R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5, s. 141 (1); 1994, c. 11, s. 377 (1).

(with a track record consisting of thousands of examples where the public has been damaged while benefitting the industry, and the regulator.......I believe that proof of "bad faith", or gross negligence, or even conscious wrongdoing on the part of securities regulators is simply a matter of time, the right lawyer, and the right claimant or class of claimants.)

If you are aware of a law firm who might look at a case where damages could go into ten figures I would like to be put in touch with this firm regarding a potential class action. please contact me at aworks@shaw.ca

If you are an industry participant with evidence of conscious wrongdoing and damage to the public interest by securites regulators or self regulators, pelase forward in confidence to

Public Interest Leaks

Suite 309,
440-10816 Macleod Trail SE
Willow Park Village
Calgary, Alberta T2J 5N8
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3058
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulator

Postby admin » Wed Apr 27, 2011 11:38 pm

The short version of this news story is that WEALTHSTREET AND CONCRETE EQUITIES CLIENTS SHOULD GET THEIR MONEY BACK FROM THE ALBERTA SECURITIES COMMISSION (ASC)

First (of three points) was a Calgary Herald story recently about the ASC levying fines and penalties against various securities violators. Two items overlooked in the story: First being that most ASC fines are simply Public Relations exercises and are all too often not collected, and second, that whenever they are collected the ASC KEEPS the money for itself, rather than making sure that the people who were abused get anything.

This is a failure of ethical as well as professional practices on the part of the ASC.

Second is information available on approximately 5000 examples of "decisions" made by the ASC to grant exemptions to our securities laws to investment firms. Firms including Goldman Sachs as well as thousands of others, who have used these special permissions to take advantage of a trusting and vulnerable public. These have damaged Albertans by billions. (Asset Backed Commercial paper sold here being just one single example that cost billions)

These exemptions are usually done in private, between the investment firm and the commission, (which is paid by the investment firms), and it makes one wonder why there is no public notice to those unfortunate consumers who end up owning tainted products or advice.

Today, an article about WEALTHSTREET INC doing public investment seminars for twenty years. The Calgary Herald's article says that the ASC claimed that "this person was not registered". I have to wonder if the reporter considered asking the ASC why WEALTHSTREET was ever allowed to operate for twenty years without being registered. It was another of a series of articles that seems to apologize for the ASC instead of reporting on them.

This failed system is costing the province of Alberta billions of dollars, and making the corresponding billions easier for people like Goldman Sachs and other giant corporations to make by coming to Alberta to prey upon Albertan's.

Combined, the failures, conflicts of interest and paper record of preferential treatment towards investment industry funding players, and against the protection of the Alberta public, reflects very poorly on the ethics and the professionalism of the Alberta Securities Commission. It speaks to the possibility of investors in WEALTHSTREET and CONCRETE EQUITIES, among many, many other investments turned bad, to recover their money by pursuing the ASC with class action, as investors in Quebec have done with success.


Larry Elford, Financial Fraud Investigator, former, CFP, CIM, FCSI, Associate Portfolio Manager
Lethbridge

web sites referenced regarding decisions to allow corporations to violate our laws: http://www.albertasecurities.com/Inside ... rders.aspx

web site for Montreal Gazette article about securities commissions being held liable for investor losses from being inept, corrupt or simply asleep....... http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Fin ... story.html

web site for alberta truth telling investment expert who fees similar legal action could be filed against the Alberta Securities Commission to gain not only Concrete Equities, and WEALTHSTREET clients money back, but thousands of abused Albertans for thousands of other legal tricks played for money by the ASC http://www.albertafraud.com
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3058
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulator

Postby admin » Wed Apr 27, 2011 5:30 pm

Financial regulators held accountable


THE GAZETTEJANUARY 24, 2011


In a turnaround that few of Vincent Lacroix's victims expected they'd ever see, last week all 9,200 of them learned they can expect to recover nearly all the money they lost when the fraud-riddled Norbourg empire crashed in 2005.

An agreement in principle with the institutions targeted in the investors' class-action lawsuit -and they include the Quebec securities regulator and two prominent accounting firms -means investors will see $55 million, money they thought was lost.

For investors who were fleeced out of their retirement savings, this is obviously great news. It also heralds a new trend in investor empowerment, some experts say.

For the price of a class-action civil suit, investors can head into battle against fraudulent investment companies. They now have the means to fight back, to be reimbursed or to win compensation.

The $55 million provided in the out-of-court agreement comes in addition to the $32 million in compensation paid by the Autorite des marches financiers from its indemnity fund to 925 Norbourg victims in 2007 and $26 million from the liquidation of Norbourg assets and tax refunds from Revenue Quebec. The total amounts to nearly 100 per cent of the capital lost in the fraud, a nearly unheard-of rate of recuperation.

The downside to the agreement -and it's a big one -is that there will be no public accounting of the role of the securities regulator or the accounting firms and the trust companies involved, Concentra and Northern Trust Company Canada.

The defendants, in return for signing the agreement, made no admission of guilt, and they are under no requirement to discuss in any way their role in the Norbourg meltdown. The public is the worse off for this. There are lessons to be drawn from the debacle, but we don't have any way of knowing what they are.

Unanswered questions are piled up in a dark corner, the biggest being: How efficient an overseer is the province's securities regulator? It seems safe enough to have a few doubts about how much authority the Commission des valuers mobilieres could wield as one of four financial-industry regulators that were collapsed to form the Autorite des marches financiers in 2004. But we should also know more about what kind of improvements the AMF brought in. What became of its inaugural promise to investigate and prosecute cases of fraud rather than negotiate settlements? That seems to have gone by the by.

Investors depended on the professionalism and vigilance of the AMF and of well-known accounting firms to safeguard their money. Was their confidence misplaced? In essence, what went wrong?

Perhaps the lawsuit will prove its worth in another way: A large, scary payout is not something the defendants would want to find themselves part of again.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3058
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulators

Postby admin » Tue Mar 08, 2011 6:23 pm

apply the following to banks, for mutual funds, gouging, world's highest fees etc, etc. Use your imagination.

The Supreme Court of Canada has held that an agreement to lessen competition "unduly" requires proof of the following two elements:
Don Houston - Paper - Conspiracy Claims - May 2005.doc
2.
1. a moderate degree of market power among the parties to the agreement, and
2. behaviour that tends to reduce competition or limit entry in the relevant market.1
It is not necessary that the agreement actually result in an undue lessening of competition. Nor is it necessary that the parties to the agreement intend to lessen competition unduly. The offence will be made out where the parties to the agreement intended to enter the agreement, which, if carried out, would likely result in the requisite undue lessening of competition. A conspiracy can be inferred from circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence of communications or an agreement between the parties is not necessary for the offence to be proved.

Full document found at : http://www.fmc-law.com/upload/en/public ... y_2005.pdf
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3058
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulators

Postby admin » Mon Mar 07, 2011 6:09 pm

regarding the forum topic on failures to act by the Canadian Competition Bureau:

http://www.fmc-law.com/upload/en/public ... y_2005.pdf

The link enclosed was suggested as a private remedy by a competition bureau employee. I suspect the comp bureau itself could be named in a class action that addresses the misrepresentations and misleading claims and names used by the investment industry to help them dupe customers.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3058
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulators

Postby admin » Thu Mar 03, 2011 10:37 am

Madoff Investor Sues U.S. for Negligence, Seeks $270000

Wednesday, March 2, 2011
(Updates with government immunity in seventh paragraph.)
March 2 (Bloomberg) -- An investor in Bernard L. Madoff's Ponzi scheme sued the U.S., alleging the Securities and Exchange Commission failed to protect him and demanding at least $269,693 in compensation for his losses.
"The SEC turned a blind eye to Madoff's scheme after a plethora of warnings and red flags," Paul Kaye, 40, a lighting technician from New York state, said in a complaint filed Feb. 28 in federal court in Manhattan. "The SEC owed a duty of care to all Madoff investors."
Kaye's suit followed earlier allegations by Madoff investors that the government loses its sovereign immunity from lawsuits if its agencies are negligent. The Litwin Foundation sued the SEC in September for $19 million plus damages.
A similar lawsuit was filed in 2009 by Phyllis Molchatsky, a disabled retiree and single mother who lost $1.7 million. There are 12 cases related to the Molchatsky suit assigned to U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain in Manhattan.
The SEC received at least eight complaints or warnings about Madoff from 1992 to 2008, when the fraud was exposed, Kaye said. During formal probes and "numerous" informal inquiries, the regulator disregarded its policy of reviewing information in tips and complaints before drawing conclusions about their legitimacy, he said, citing a 2009 report by the SEC's inspector general.
The SEC "admitted its gross negligence through an internal investigation" conducted by the inspector general, Kaye said. Florence Harmon, a spokeswoman for the SEC, declined to comment.
Government Immunity
Government agencies can't be sued for doing their jobs, unless they don't follow their own rules. They remain immune from lawsuits if they were exercising judgment, even if they were wrong, the U.S. said in a memorandum supporting a 2009 request to a judge to dismiss the Molchatsky suit.
A federal judge in Los Angeles last month dismissed a suit against the U.S. and SEC, saying the plaintiffs couldn't identify "mandatory directives" that the SEC failed to follow in conducting its investigations of Madoff.
"The pronouncements that plaintiffs identify do not affect the government's discretionary function defense," U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson said in his decision.
In December, the trustee liquidating Madoff's firm, Irving Picard, sued David M. Becker, a former chief SEC lawyer, for $1.5 million. Becker inherited about $2 million from his parents' Madoff account in 2004. Becker said in a Feb. 25 letter to Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives that the SEC's ethics counsel didn't question Becker's impartiality in doing Madoff work.
At the time of his arrest, Madoff's account statements reflected 4,900 accounts with $65 billion in nonexistent balances. Investors lost about $20 billion in principal.
The case is Kaye v. U.S., 11-cv-1370, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).
--With assistance from Bob Van Voris and Patricia Hurtado in New York, and Jesse Hamilton in Washington. Editors: Andrew Dunn, Glenn Holdcraft
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3058
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulators

Postby admin » Sun Feb 13, 2011 11:17 am

Subject: Manitoba Securities Act - Offences and Penalties
Reply-To: hjrbr@shaw.ca


PART XIII
OFFENCES AND PENALTIES

General offences

136(1) Every person or company that
(a) makes a statement in any material, evidence, or information submitted or given under this Act or the regulations to the commission, its representative, or the Director, or to any person appointed to make an investigation or audit under this Act, that, at the time, and in the light of the circumstances under which it is made, is false or misleading with respect to any material fact or that omits to state any material fact, the omission of which makes the statement false or misleading; or
(b) makes a statement in any application, report, prospectus, return, financial statement or other document, required to be filed or furnished under this Act or the regulations that, at the time, and in the light of the circumstances under which it is made, is false or misleading with respect to any material fact, or that omits to state any material fact, the omission of which makes the statement false or misleading; or
(c) contravenes this Act, the regulations or a rule specified in a regulation under clause 149(cc); or
(d) fails to observe or comply with any order, direction or other requirement made under this Act or the regulations;
is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than $5,000,000. or imprisonment for a term of not more than five years less a day, or both.


======================================================================================


What if a mutual fund company publishes written material for public consumption or has media publish the article and knowingly misrepresents
factual information about its operations, policies, investing actions, etc. for the purpose of elevating its public image?


As you can see from the above, articles published and/or distributed for public consumption which are not sent to the Regulators for filing
are not covered under this portion of the Act.


In other words, say what you want to say in public. The public can deal with misrepresentations themselves.

Proof of such misrepresentation (deliberate lying) is available to interested parties.


"Deception by design", the ways of the financial industry.


RBR
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3058
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulators

Postby admin » Thu Jan 06, 2011 6:19 pm

Picture 9.png
We are seeing corporations, regulators and some government participants "eating the system from within". Feeding voraciously as if they were a giant internal parasitic organism.

I believe this last two decades of the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st Century will be remembered in history as time when infectious greed ran rampant in corporations, in finance, in regulatory oversight, in ratings agencies, in all levels of government.

It is only for history to decide whether there will be even a glance at justice for the untold trillions of dollars stolen by insiders, or whether those who create our laws will yet again be found to be "above" our laws.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3058
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Civil or Criminal Actions against companies or regulators

Postby admin » Thu Jan 06, 2011 5:55 pm

** Media News ** - BREAKING NEWS - Norbourg victims, AMF could settle $160M lawsuit out of court

by: Paul Delean, The Montreal Gazette, Thursday, January 6, 2010

Investors victimized in the collapse of Norbourg mutual funds in 2005 finally may be on the verge or recouping part of their stake.

Negotiations are under way to reach a settlement in the $160-million class-action suit filed on behalf of all Norbourg victims and scheduled to begin this month in Superior Court in Montreal, a source close to the talks confirmed.

The lawsuit, which targeted Quebec securities regulator L'Autorité des Marchés Financiers (AMF) as well as accounting and other companies that were controlled by or did business with Norbourg and its former head Vincent Lacroix, is due to begin Jan. 31 and take up 12 court days a month for 16 months.

"There's no agreement at this moment," the source told The Gazette on Thursday. "The case could still go ahead. But chances are reduced."

Though there'd been rumours the AMF had received in-house advice to settle with the claimants, it gave a contrary signal last month when it decided to appeal a Superior Court judgment from November that ordered it to provide upwards of $7 million in compensation to 138 Norbourg investors whose original claims were denied.

Judge Bernard Godbout had concluded there was no grounds for denying the group.

Norbourg had 9,200 investors when it was shut down in 2005. The AMF agreed to indemnify 925 of them in 2007, paying $31 million from its financial-services compensation fund.

........please read the article online at - http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Vic ... story.html
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3058
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Legal Actions against companies or regulators

Postby admin » Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:33 pm

images.jpeg
images.jpeg (18.93 KiB) Viewed 11154 times
It is December 2010 and I am just marvelling at how "much more" the self serving, abusive and often fraudulent actions prevail by "professional" people, groups and institutions in Canada and the USA. In the USA they allow some transparency into things, and also some prosecutions. In Canada we are so tightly knit, so interconnected that corruption, cronyism and conflicts of interest seem to be an accepted standard practice. It is a form of "financial segregation" which keeps elite power groups getting richer, and the middle class paying for it. Anyone who does not play along is shunned, banned and eliminated from the respective business or profession.

I will upgrade the title for this flogg topic from "legal actions" to "Civil or Criminal Actions" against those who violate the public trust, who sell out the public for profit, for loyalty, for some other gain or consideration. It seems that this is what makes too much of the Canadian world go round. I know that I am dreaming in technicolor to expect something to change in my lifetime, but it never hurts to have a goal in life.

I started complaining about my financial services industry (brokers) in the 1990's after seeing how the "big swinging dicks" (a title given to them by the Edmonton RBC sales manager, Don Milligan, a very old school guy) made their money. Mostly by misinforming trusting and vulnerable clients, often elderly clients who had given them their complete faith and trust. Earn their trust and then abuse it for maximum commissions. That was the game to an entire industry of stock and mutual fund salespeople. It happened about 80% of the time while I watched. Now that I am retired I see it happening (based on sales stats from industry) about 90% of the time. Very abusive. Very obvious.

All parties in the game look the other way. Just like watching the cigarette industry 60 years ago. Or like the Catholic church on abuse 50 years ago. I guess there will come a day when these new forms of abuse are no longer tolerated. When prosecutions, and civil action can and will be common for bankers, regulators, politicians, as well as bureaucrats who sell out the public interest for some kind of gain to themselves. To remain "part of the group".

I find it painful to sit and watch the billions of dollars go missing from investment clients returns while a greedy and morally bankrupt industry keep stuffing money into their own pockets as fast as they can. They don't know whether the law is five years of fifty five years away from catching up with them, but it will come, and until it does, they act like a group of gangsters in an LA riot, when they learn that the police are afraid to come into the neighborhood.

I have to thank them for making my case easier though. For making it more and more obvious that crime, abuse, corruption, conflicts and cronyism is "the way of the middle age white man". I had a hard time engaging people when first talking about it in the 1990's. Markets were so damn good that virtually nobody cared. "Steal?? who cares, my investments are going up."

Today it is a different world. Today we are starting to see glimpses of virtually "everyone" trying to get in on the game. Right up to my local politicians, provincial, and up to Congress in our neighbours land. Almost no one is surprised anymore, and almost nothing is considered to be too unethical to be practiced. Sell out the public for money or power, and there is virtually "nobody" who can stop us, seems to be the rallying cry. They are probably right in these times. Lets hope times change.

You should have seen the scramble in my own city, for council and mayor jobs. I could not figure out any attraction whatsoever. Until I learned that our council had jobbed out about $52 million in consulting contracts over recent years. That is a lot of friends, a lot of loyalties, that can arise from spreading or spending that kind of money. Private business has been done without open transparency among our council members, with nary a thought that they ought not to have their own fingers in the jar......after all, who can stop them?

Provincially, our province (Alberta) has been governed by the same party for nearly 40 years, and the selling out of the public interest is rampant and nearly complete by those who have stayed too long. Financial regulations are now in the hands of friends and elites who are so far above having to follow the law, that we may never get it back. Our health care system is being stolen by bureaucrats being paid on the bonus system to save money here and there by cutting on the actual delivery of medical care, while increasing their own private bonus's for doing so. A virtual private money grab for fat folks who suck at the public trough, lie and cheat to gain their loyalty points and move up the ladder. It is so sad.

I still hold out hope. I look forward to a day when the political porkers will be marched in front of a judge and held to account for selling out the public interest. The cases are too numerous to even begin to count. It might take a private makeover of the judicial system, to allow such radical concepts as justice to enter the arena, but it could happen.

I begin with the financial industry, and very quickly find myself looking into the eyes of political leaders, finance ministers who look the other way for points. Or for worse.

See http://www.albertafraud.com for a single billion dollar example of political sellout of the public interest. There are a thousand from where than one came from. Each and every one ignored. Each and every one brushed aside by those people at the top whose corruption is so complete that they do not even think about having to follow the law anymore. What a shame. What a bit of entertainment. What kind of ending will we see?
The image enclosed gives me the best visual I could find of what certain politicians, bureaucrats etc act like once they come into a bit of power. A money grab machine for those on the inside.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3058
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

PreviousNext

Return to Click here to view forums

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron