Slashdot Mirror

found online, not vouching for its accuracy

Independent verification of FBI Anon claims

1995: Martin Indyk, Dennis Ross, Izaac Herzog, and an unidentified Israeli representative meet to discuss the possibility of Bill Clinton pardoning Marc Rich in exchange for Rich funding the PLO, a Muslim terrorist organization committed to Israel's destruction.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/p...

Qatar would buy a stake in Marc Rich's company Glencore after his death, and Qatar and Glencore would operate in concert afterwards.

2000: Marc Rich associate Michael Steinhardt controls the DLC and Progressive Policy Institute.
http://www.deepcapture.com/200...

2003: George Soros and Morton Halperin placed John Podesta as founding head of the Center for American Progress.
http://www.discoverthenetworks... https://archive.is/Gb2FV

Under Podesta's watch, unknown persons placed accused Hamas fundraiser Faiz Shakir as Vice President of the Center for American Progress and chief editor of Think Progress. In 2011 Faiz Shakir and Wajahat Ali produced the report "Fear Inc." smearing national security analysts and political activists who oppose the Muslim Brotherhood, including liberal Muslims.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fp... https://archive.is/tOxwC

Online rumors have attempted to connect the art trading of John Podesta's brother Tony Podesta with Qatari art purchases of works by Damien Hirst and Jeff Koons who have been hosted by Qatar Museums.
http://qz.com/764975/qatars-oi...

The Podesta Group lobbyied for Qatar Petroleum in 2013.
https://www.desmogblog.com/201...

2004: The Awan brothers begin employment in the US Congress and will work under Robert Wexler, Xavier Becerra, Gregory Meeks, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and others before they are exposed as a spy ring in 2017.
http://www.politico.com/story/...

2005: Unknown persons placed Emad Shahin and Juliette Kayyem in the Dubai Initiative which produced propaganda to promote the Muslim Brotherhood using the name and reputation of Harvard University.
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvar...
Emad Shahin was convincted in absentia of aiding Hamas and Iran to overthrow the Egyptian government.
http://emadshahin.com/?p=1839
https://news.vice.com/article/...
Juliette Kayyem advocated for Qatari state television network Al-Jazeera and wrote "The War On Terror Is Over" to discourage continued resistance to al-Qaeda.
https://www.boston.com/bostong...
https://www.boston.com/bostong...

2005: Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal paid Georgetown University $20 million to continue hosting John Esposito's Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, which was originally founded in 1993 with a grant from PLO board member Hasib Sabagh

Google will be intertwined with government in no time; they practically are now.

Google is Not What It Seems

Sourcewatch: International Crisis Group

When The Bad Guys Came To Town

derp derp derp BUT ITS NOT THE GOVERNMENT CENSORING YOU IT'S A PRIVATE COMPANY DERRRP

Posting anonymously b/c of mod points, but it sounds like he wasn't exactly a good guy. (My username is captnjohnny1618.)

http://www.deepcapture.com/201...

Yes, he did be against the overvaluation of the market. The shifty thing though is that he utilized resources that nearly 100% of people didn't have access to and ultimately designed a financial object that was certainly going to fail, ensuring a huge return on his investment. Instead of calling attention and trying to fix this major major problem that would have an effect not just on our economy and our people, but economies and people around the world, he decided to take advantage of it and make a huge amount of money at the expense of millions. (If he had done that, while at the same time making a huge amount of noise about the ways he saw the economy about to fail, this would be a different conversation).

A comparable situation in our field would be a computer person ("hacker") with significant inroads to some big chip maker (Intel let's say) identifies a weak point in the chip design exposing some hugely powerful zero day attack. He helps designs a complex "fix" that ultimately looks like it will solve the issue, yet doesn't even come close, and starts selling that to the chip company for a few millions of dollars. The complexity of it helps to obscure (for a spell) the reality that it is actually a worthless patch, and he has maintained enough separation from the issue to deny at least some of the responsibility. Selling this makes a lot of money for a lot of people, but this guys waits a little longer to cash in for himself.

Where it really gets shifty is that this guy knows that the fix is going to fail and it's only a matter of time, so he starts betting on the fix failing (in reality, he starts "hedging" on it, which is complicated and I don't understand all of its intricacies). Lots of it. So when the fix fails, as he knew it would and maybe even planned it to, he gets to cash in, and look like one of the smart ones who saw it coming.

In reality he saw it coming because he had a big hand in creating it.

Now in IT/CS/etc. we call that guy a huge dick for not telling the rest of the world about the problem and letting the free software community try and come up with a fix. If he had even remotely tried to peddle his BS fix, it would've been noticed and obvious, and people would accuse him of attempted fraud. If he tried to somehow pretend like he didn't have a responsibility to tell everyone, politicians and lawyers would be all over him with some trumped up charges that feign social responsibility, when it reality are just trying to recover the money this guy took from them. This guy just doesn't have to put up with that shit because all of those politicians and lawyers are his buddies and probably walked away pretty ok from all of this while the rest of us have to sit around and pick up the pieces.

TL;DR: You didn't have some great insight into the problem if you win by betting on a fixed fight where you knew the outcome... and helped set up the fight... and helped invent boxing.

He hasn't bought a law yet that he broke.

Actually, he did. http://www.deepcapture.com/?s=...

I find it hard to believe that the management of HP failed to uncover fraud of this magnitude during their evaluation in the purchase of Autonomy.

Really? In an era where regulators can't tell when a company's books are cooked, let a former Nasdaq chairman can run the largest Ponzi ever, and let insider traders and naked (aka illegal) short sellers cripple businesses and lives (mostly) unworried, I fail to see what makes you think that HP's staff and lawyers might do a better job at identifying cooked books.

You'll find plenty here:

http://www.deepcapture.com/tag/wikipedia/

The real issue is when Wikipedia editors actively obfuscate well researched but highly inconvenient (for some anyway) facts:

http://www.deepcapture.com/tag/wikipedia/

I think you mean dick...

Nah, OP probably meant a naked short seller.

http://www.deepcapture.com/introduction-to-the-deep-capture-analysis/

You forgot Naked Short Sellers.

Try this one. It is a long story, and the Wikipedia thing is only a small part of it, but it does give the story.

By the way, it took me about 10 seconds to find this article using Google and the phrases "wikipedia" and "naked short selling". I am sure with a little real effort you can find more.

http://www.deepcapture.com/the-story-of-deep-capture-by-mark-mitchell/

What actually happens to shares that fail to deliver? Well, that question can best be answered by folks actually doing the cypherin', Perhaps there are different means that can be used. But the best explanation is the "window call flip", which basically is stock kiting. Simply put, I sell to you. In the prescribed period of time, I owe you real shares. Instead, I show you a "confirm" that I bought shares from another participant. Imagine, say, five or fifty five participants, all in a circle. As you can imagine, a tremendous number of shares can float between participants without ever landing in one spot.

Now, motivation. Why does it happen? Why aren't there "buy ins" as referenced for these Brokerage firms? The answer is rather simple. Money. The procedure stipulates that, if Broker X fails to deliver 100,000 shares in the prescribed period of time to Broker Y, "Y" can go into the market place and buy those shares, AND THEN SEND THE BILL TO X!!!!! The trader would go to the representative offer, and indicate he wants certificates. That offer would probably move away, making the trader to go to the next offer, and so on. The market for the stock, especially if it's a small issue (they usually are), would explode until the order is filled. At the same time, trading desks all over the country would be screaming "XXXX buy in coming", and the demand would sky rocket. As the reader can see, this becomes a very expensive proposition. And once 'X', sees the bill, he would most likely retaliate, and buy in "Y' on another issue.

Selling something, at least representing something as for sale, taking money for said item, and then, just pocketing the money is serious enough. But the damage done to the issuing company is at least as severe. Think of this failure as a secondary offering never approved by the company's Board of Directors, signed off on by the SEC, or benefiting the company.

Admittedly that comes from Patrick Byrne's web site.

An excerpt from here.

FTDs can be caused in several ways, but they commonly result from short sales in which the seller does not borrow or even locate the stock he sells (the infamous "naked" short sales). Regardless of how an FTD occurs, for each share not delivered the system creates a "phantom" entitlement the market treats as a real share. These "phantom shares" are supposed to be temporary in duration and few in number. Loopholes, however, are exploited on such a scale, and phantom shares are so persistent, they are corrupting the U.S. equity markets in three ways.

And from here:

The phrase "short positions at the clearing corporation" refers to "failures to deliver" (FTDS), which effectively increase the net supply of an issue in circulation and, by definition, depress price. This price depression is, of course, more significant for small and medium cap companies than for large cap companies with greater liquidity.
...

Unfortunately, the drama associated with this clash has drawn attention away from the uncomfortable fact that illegal, unsettled trades are a large and growing problem in U.S. equity markets. Those unsettled trades threaten the corporate voting system, the viability of small companies, and market integrity as a whole. Large unsettled trades persist because of loopholes in stock market institutions and apathy on the part of those charged with enforcing existing regulations.

Also a paper (PDF) from the Cato Institute.

And back to Byrne.

I personally don't think naked shorts represent the cause or even a cause of the current situation,

That is a tinyURL link to http://www.deepcapture.com/the-enigma/, a page by someone with a deep hatred toward Gary Weiss.

As the Wall Street Journal itself reported, the SEC has ordered two dozen hedge funds to turn over trading records as part of its investigation into possible short-seller manipulation of six big financial institutions - American International Group, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley, Washington Mutual, and Merrill Lynch.

The SEC has never in history prosecuted a major case against a short seller, and there is no reason to believe that it is actually going to nail someone now. But it is not difficult to see why the SEC feels that is has no choice but to investigate.

... Aside from Washington Mutual, Bank of America, Fannie Mae, MBIA, Ambac, and close to 50 smaller financial firms - not to mention a couple hundred non-financial companies - have appeared on the SEC-mandated "threshold" list of companies whose stock has "failed to deliver" in excessive quantities.

That, too, is very good evidence of illegal market manipulation.

...

If a company has weaknesses that can be blown out of proportion with help from the media, and if hedge funds blast the company with phantom stock, then pause, then blast again, then pause, then blast again - over and over - for a couple of months, then the company's share price can soon be in the single digits. - without ever having appeared on the SEC's threshold list.

Unsurprisingly, the data through June shows this blast-pause-blast pattern in the stocks of nearly ever major financial institution that has been wiped off the map, and quite a few that were in death spirals before the SEC temporarily banned short-selling. Very often, huge failures to deliver have occurred in stretches of precisely five days - just long enough to keep a stock off the threshold list.

...

At this point, the SEC finally came to realize what was happening to Lehman. It realized that similar madness had destroyed Bear Stearns. It realized that AIG, Citigroup, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Bank of America and fifty other financial companies were getting clobbered in exactly the same fashion.

Clearly, naked short selling posed a real threat to the stability of the financial system. So the SEC issued an emergency order forcing hedge funds to borrow real stock before they sold it. No more saying "Yeah, my cousin Louie has the stock in a drawer somewhere." No more naked short selling.