The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: santahog on May 09, 2012, 09:02:05 PM
-
http://libertarianreview.us/2012/05/04/gop-threw-2012-election-to-obama-in-2009-multi-billion-dollar-ponzi-scheme-involving-romney-and-son/
GOP Threw 2012 Election to Obama in 2009, Multi-billion dollar ponzi scheme involving Romney and Son
As reported here and here several weeks ago, we reported that Romney would certainly be disqualified or discredited as a Presidential candidate for the 2012 election due to fraud and other crimes against the American Taxpayer and the US Government.
As far back as 2009, nearly concurrent with the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scandal, the GOP knew, beyond any doubt, that Mitt Romney was seriously involved with a Ponzi scheme, to the tune of $8.5 BILLION dollars.
In February of 2009, the Washington Post revealed that the SEC was alleging $8 Billion in savings fraud by Allen Stanford AND HIS COLLEAGUES, read Mitt Romney and Son, of lying about investments and CDs in a Ponzi scheme concerning staggering amounts of investor’s money, partnerships in which they invested upon collapse of the fraud.
“”We are alleging a fraud of shocking magnitude that has spread its tentacles throughout the world,” Rose Romero, director of the SEC’s Fort Worth office, said in a statement.”
Despite the actions of the SEC in this case,
“A few months after the Ponzi scheme collapsed, a firm financed by Mitt Romney and run by his son and chief fundraiser partnered with the three men and created a new “wealth management business” as a subsidiary.”
So what do we know?
We know that Stanford has a PAC which has contributed large amounts of money to lawmakers annually.
We know that over $400,000 of that money was tied directly into the Madoff Ponzi scandal.
We know that one is only sentenced if FOUND GUILTY:
“Sentencing has been set for June 14, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 8A before Judge Hittner. Stanford faces a maximum prison sentence of 20 years for the count of conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud, each count of wire and mail fraud, and the count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, and five years for the count of conspiracy to obstruct an SEC investigation and the count of obstruction of an SEC investigation.”
Victims of this Ponzi scheme have been asked to fill out ‘Victim Impact Statement/Financial Crime’ and have not, as yet, received compensation or restoration of fraudulently stolen funds.
We know that Romney lied about the specifics of the Stanford Fraud and still created a joint ‘wealth management system’ with criminals
“Mitt Romney, his son Tagg, and Romney’s chief fundraiser, Spencer Zwick, have extensive financial and political ties to three men who allegedly participated in an $8.5 billion Ponzi scheme. A few months after the Ponzi scheme collapsed, a firm financed by Mitt Romney and run by his son and chief fundraiser partnered with the three men and created a new “wealth management business” as a subsidiary.”
Whereas the ‘screwing’ those ‘poor guys took’ actually was court ordered forfeiture:
“According to the indictment, which also seeks forfeiture from all the defendants (18 U.S.C. §§981(a)(1)(c) and 982(a)(1)), Stanford and his co-defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud investors who purchased approximately $7 billion in certificates of deposit administered by Stanford International Bank Ltd. (SIBL), an offshore bank controlled by Stanford and located on the island of Antigua. Stanford and his co-defendants allegedly misused and misappropriated most of those investor assets, including diverting more than $1.6 billion into undisclosed personal loans to Stanford himself, while misrepresenting to investors SIBL’s financial condition, its investment strategy and the extent of its regulatory oversight by Antiguan authorities.
“Also according to the indictment, Stanford, Pendergest-Holt and King conspired to conceal the fraud from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in order to fend off an SEC investigation. King allegedly provided Stanford and others with confidential information that he had received from an official SEC inquiry into a possible fraud on investors by SIBL so that additional false representations concerning SIBL’s financial health and Antiguan regulatory oversight could be made. In addition, Stanford, Pendergest-Holt and others allegedly agreed that Pendergest-Holt would provide false information to the SEC about the true value of SIBL’s investment portfolio. See copy of Indictment below.”
We know that the charges are many and serious:
Background: On June 19, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas unsealed a 21-count indictment returned by a federal grand jury on June 18, 2009, against defendants Robert Allen Stanford, Laura Pendergest-Holt, Gilberto Lopez, Mark Kuhrt, and Leroy King, charging each with one count of conspiracy to commit mail, wire and securities fraud (Count 1: 18 U.S.C. § 371); seven counts of wire fraud (Count 2: 18 U.S.C. § 1343); ten counts of mail fraud (Counts 9-18: 18 U.S.C.§ 1341), and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering (Count 21: 18 U.S.C. §1956(h)) stemming from a $7 billion investment fraud scheme. The indictment also charges Stanford, Pendergest-Holt and King with one count of conspiracy to obstruct a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation (Count 19: 18 U.S.C. §371) and one count of obstruction of an SEC investigation (Count 20: 18 U.S.C.§1505).
We know that Romney has no intention of protecting citizens and investors from further Ponzi schemes:
“The revelation about Romney’s ties to the Stanford ponzi scheme unmask the risks associated with removing new investor protections. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform law, a reform Romney says he will repeal if he wins the presidency, attempts to address future Ponzi schemes by enacting new protections for whistleblowers to alert authorities when they find evidence of fraud. The law also creates a new Investor Advocate and Investor Advisory Committee within the Securities and Exchange Commission to detect and investigate future Ponzi schemes.”
As early as 2009, with the scandal of a major PAC being involved with leading Republican Mitt Romney, an honest vetting by the GOP would certainly have disqualified him from GOP support for the Presidential elections. However, if the GOP, who in 2008 adopted the identical platform as the Democratic Party reworded, WANTED to throw the election to Barack Obama, they could hardly do more to guarantee it for 2012.
As Crooks and Liars states:
So to review, we have Mitt Romney coughing up $10 million to help start a firm that hired three brokers who sold bogus CDs for Stanford Financial and made some decent money on the deal, too. Not only that, but Spencer Zwick the lead fundraiser for Romney’s campaign is a principal in the Solamere Capital firm along with these Stanford brokers. Spencer Zwick does business as SJZ, LLC, and has been paid over $2 million in fees by the Romney campaign.
Since sentencing of the first convict begins in June of 2012, it is guaranteed to blow up as a major campaign issue leading into August, September and November of this year, and will affect the GOP campaigns.
The criminal fraud not only of Madoff and Stanford, but of the major banks and Wall Street firms has so overwhelmed the economy of this country that voters will be hard pressed to give the office to one so deeply connected to these evils.
The GOP knew these things before Obama was elected.
The GOP is, one more time, throwing the election into Obama’s lap.
Check out the author’s personal website: margaretschaut.com
Source: The Libertarian Review (http://s.tt/1aV6k)
-
This allegation is six months old...
-
Sounds like Dem generated BS to take attention off the actual, proven crimes of the current regime.
-
Ron Paul 2012
-
I went and looked at it later and noticed that it was a Ron Paul related site..
Makes me doubt the cred on this. That said, we don't have to go back to the S&L business (John Glenn, Neil Bush) to find examples to suggest the possibility.
If it's true, it sure needs to be known now, before the Convention.
-
Do you want BO to win ?
-
If there is real dirt to be found, you can be sure BHO's team will find it...and if there isn't enough real dirt, they will manufacture some.
Best all the skeletons get found before there is a commitment.....
However, I doubt this is very much real dirt. The guys Romney became partners with likely weren't dirty in the Ponsi deal. And it is no match for the associations BHO has had over the years....but then there won't be a peep about BHO's...again.
-
I wish some of the real dirt would stick to obama and his 43 cars
-
Do you want BO to win ?
Do you want to wait till it's too late to do anything about it?
We can do it just like the Democrats. The press will ignore all of it anyway.. We're golden..
-
Do you want to wait till it's too late to do anything about it?
We can do it just like the Democrats. The press will ignore all of it anyway.. We're golden..
F*cking the only guy who seems to have a chance to BEAT BO doesn't seem to be the brightest idea I ever heard.
And if you think the gutless stupid sheep in this country would vote for some one who would make a real difference you're on crack.
-
F*cking the only guy who seems to have a chance to BEAT BO doesn't seem to be the brightest idea I ever heard.
And if you think the gutless stupid sheep in this country would vote for some one who would make a real difference you're on crack.
So which one are you, "See No Evil" or "Hear No Evil"?
If you think me asking the question is a problem, look at yoru own consistant reaction to anything I've written here for the last few months. If you won't treat me with respect, why do you think anybody else should?
(Door open, knock yourself out.. Vomit on the keyboard for me. I'll watch..)
Like I said, kick back, it'll happen.. We're good!
-
The part you don't seem to get is that Romney, since he is not a card carrying communist who associates with self confessed , and convicted bomb planting terrorists, could sacrifice sheep and virgin's and still be a much better choice than BO.
As for my reaction to your posts, why should I be respectful toward comments that show you haven't studied the subject when I have ?
There may be no such thing as a dumb question, but ignorant / uninformed statements don't deserve respect.
-
The part you don't seem to get is that Romney, since he is not a card carrying communist who associates with self confessed , and convicted bomb planting terrorists, could sacrifice sheep and virgin's and still be a much better choice than BO.
As for my reaction to your posts, why should I be respectful toward comments that show you haven't studied the subject when I have ?
There may be no such thing as a dumb question, but ignorant / uninformed statements don't deserve respect.
Two points..
1. I don't know if you got the information but (if he gets the nomination in Tampa) I'll vote for Romney for this reason..
It's not that Romney is "that good", because he's not.. It's that Obama is "THAT BAD".
It goes against everything in me, and should he win, I'll fight to replace him in 2016, unless he shows me that he has changed his mind about his policy views on the 2A and others as well, of his past.
2. My instinct is to remind you and all of us that worse than a "Know It All" is one who is immodest, but the two character flaws are rarely found separately. I've seen no evidence of an exception to that rule here..
But since most people already know that, I probably wouldn't bother pointing that out.. It wouldn't change anything in those so afflicted..
I post things like this here for the sake of discussion, so that I can learn from civil discussion . If you see the topic as beneath your superior understanding of all things, I suggest that you don't participate in the otherwise civil discussion, thus not soiling your superiority by association with unworthiness to such as yourself..
While I wouldn't expect such as yourself to give consideration to a suggestion from someone as lowly and simple as myself, this is my simple, modest suggestion..
-
Two points..
1. I don't know if you got the information but (if he gets the nomination in Tampa) I'll vote for Romney for this reason..
It's not that Romney is "that good", because he's not.. It's that Obama is "THAT BAD".
It goes against everything in me, and should he win, I'll fight to replace him in 2016, unless he shows me that he has changed his mind about his policy views on the 2A and others as well, of his past.
You give our fellow voters far to much credit. You will not get a "better" candidate in 2016.
I will bet you right now that if Romney wins the election, he will get 55% or less of the vote.
The people WANT "smoke mirrors, and feel good BS. They don't want "personal responsibility", they want some one telling them they are victims, of evil banks, evil corporations, etc.
As an example I point to Greece, less than a week after the election they were proposing Anti austerity legislation for their bankrupt economy.
Not, "How can we save it ?", but instead "How can we milk it for the most before the Germans quit propping it up ?"
2. My instinct is to remind you and all of us that worse than a "Know It All" is one who is immodest, but the two character flaws are rarely found separately. I've seen no evidence of an exception to that rule here..
But since most people already know that, I probably wouldn't bother pointing that out.. It wouldn't change anything in those so afflicted..
Animals,women and liberals work on instinct, and feelings.
Sensible people rely on information and reason.
I post things like this here for the sake of discussion, so that I can learn from civil discussion . If you see the topic as beneath your superior understanding of all things, I suggest that you don't participate in the otherwise civil discussion, thus not soiling your superiority by association with unworthiness to such as yourself..
While I wouldn't expect such as yourself to give consideration to a suggestion from someone as lowly and simple as myself, this is my simple, modest suggestion..
Thank you.
-
Now isn't that more fun than parsing "Go to hell, jackass"?
-
Now isn't that more fun than parsing "Go to hell, jackass"?
Yes, but I'm not usually offered such low hanging fruit.
It's just the same drum I've been beating for years.
"Don't get your hopes up, the average voter is ignorant, selfish, and greedy.
They will vote what makes them feel good now and to Hell with tomorrows consequences."
-
...
"Don't get your hopes up, the average voter is ignorant, selfish, and greedy.
They will vote what makes them feel good now and to Hell with tomorrows consequences."
I've noticed.. It doesn't change anything for me though. I'm not dropping my expectations or standards for the Electorate or Candidates, either one. If I did, I'd be as guilty as they are..
I tried the Ex-Pat in South America thing. My conscience wouldn't let mt do it. But by God, we're playing for keeps, and I'm not gonna take some sub-standard BS out of Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, (my first choice) or "Patriot Act"-Jeff Sessions, and I'm not shutting up about it just because you like to stand on your porch and bark.
I'll tell you something else.. I'll keep asking questions and not necessarily accepting the answers offered if the smoke keeps coming up.. You snot off at me over my persistence over this NDAA BS and anything else that smells like it. If States are still doing blocking manuvers over it, I'll take a hint from them over you. There may be other people, somewhere on Earth that know more about some things than you do. I'm equally as sure that you would agree, of only in theory.. ::)
You are a smug bastard.. That's not to say I dislike you. There is a time and a place for it, it's just somebody elses time and place.. I've had about all I can digest out of you for a while, though you're more welcome to spew anything you feel the urge to regurgitate onto the keyboard. Don't mind me of I mirror it back to you. Fair enough?
I know you have to have the last word. I've known alot of women like that. The floor is yours.. (Just make damn sure you mop it up when you're done..) ;D
-
I've noticed.. It doesn't change anything for me though. I'm not dropping my expectations or standards for the Electorate or Candidates, either one. If I did, I'd be as guilty as they are..
I tried the Ex-Pat in South America thing. My conscience wouldn't let mt do it. But by God, we're playing for keeps, and I'm not gonna take some sub-standard BS out of Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, (my first choice) or "Patriot Act"-Jeff Sessions, and I'm not shutting up about it just because you like to stand on your porch and bark.
I'll tell you something else.. I'll keep asking questions and not necessarily accepting the answers offered if the smoke keeps coming up.. You snot off at me over my persistence over this NDAA BS and anything else that smells like it. If States are still doing blocking manuvers over it, I'll take a hint from them over you. There may be other people, somewhere on Earth that know more about some things than you do. I'm equally as sure that you would agree, of only in theory.. ::)
You are a smug bastard.. That's not to say I dislike you. There is a time and a place for it, it's just somebody elses time and place.. I've had about all I can digest out of you for a while, though you're more welcome to spew anything you feel the urge to regurgitate onto the keyboard. Don't mind me of I mirror it back to you. Fair enough?
I know you have to have the last word. I've known alot of women like that. The floor is yours.. (Just make damn sure you mop it up when you're done..) ;D
So what you are saying is that you agree with me, but I'm a big meany ? ::)