almost a 1000 bucks spent today to bring on more selling.
ask still at .04 and above. Should of saved it for stocking stuffers.

Sorry, wrong board.

>>>>>¶<<<<< VERY LAST POST from me on this Board...

http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=188625

Posted by: Francois+Goelo
In reply to: IH Admin (Matt) who wrote msg# 6304 Date: 9/27/2001 2:02:26 AM
Post # of 6305

***¶*** Matt, you haven't got a Clue...

Congratulation for having fallen for it Line, Hook and Sinker... I have the feeling that you won't get too many people to help you from the Grassroots level to build up your business again, when they discover they can be discarded at the first opportunity, even though they built "YOUR" Flagship Stock Thread on iHUB... I know you want to sell out and you'd like to have the Stock Flagship looking Nice and Pretty, money being a strong motivator for you...

SHAME on you, you INGRATE, when you bend to the will of proven LIARS and FRAUDSTERS (with 6 years Probation) and their Supporters...

Sent by PM: Rich McBride Date: 9/21/2001 3:28:04 PM

Frank

I will e-mail it to Huff and he will post over at RB.
I have started to PM it to everybody and Matt will be
back.

Enjoy the little power you have, while you still have
it.

Rich

http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=188289

Glad to see Frank controlled.

http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=187614

A breath of fresh air

http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=188300

People lets enforce the rules. It's our job to let Matt
know. If he gets tossed enough he will go through the
suspension process.

Rich McBride

**********************************************************

http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=188129

Matt, what's your current Price and how much can you be bought for, not that you're worth anything, in my view??...

I have now terminated all my Boards here and will advise Posters of the NEW Message Board on which they'll be re-started... Matt, Greedy Opportunist, don't ever BEG me again to open a thread here when it was a barely moving (Post #3,200) Message Board because I'll tell you to EFF Yourself...

JMHO, F. Goelo + + +

***¶*** PETITION against Market Makers Manipulating OTC-BB's...


I have recently read and became signatory #1043 of the online petition:

"Boycott the OTC"

hosted on the web by PetitionOnline.com, the free online petition
service, at:

http://www.PetitionOnline.com/mm12/

I personally agree with the intent of this petition and I suggest you spare a moment, take a look and consider signing yourself.

JMHO, F. Goelo + + +

Kiosk Business article link that Gamecom ticker: GAMZ is mentioned in.

http://www.kioskbusiness.com/articles/article3.html

Greg

¶ PittFalls of Shorting from Canada....

BCSC in the matter of National Bank's Pacific Int'l

National Bank of Canada
NA
Shares issued 188,728,712
2001-07-10 close $28.7
Tuesday Jul 10 2001

News Release

See B.C. Securities Commission (BCSEC) News Release
Mr. Steve Wilson reports

In the matter of Pacific International Securities Inc. and in the matter of Max
Meier, Lawrence Hugh Mcquid, Jean-Paul Phillipe Bachellerie, Robert Hebert
Blades, Germain Carriere, John Todd Eymann, Alberto John Quattrociocchi,
Martin J. Reynolds and Theresa Mary Sheenan.
Notice of hearing under Section 161
1. Take notice that a hearing will be held at the 12th floor hearing room, 701 West
Georgia St., Vancouver, B.C., to give the respondents an opportunity to be
heard, before the British Columbia Securities Commission determines whether it is
in the public interest to make the following orders:
1.1 the respondents' respective registrations be restricted, or that conditions be
imposed on the respondents as registrants, pursuant to Section 161(1)(f) of the
Securities Act, RSBC 1996, c. 418;
1.2 the directors resign any position they hold as a director or officer of any issuer,
and that they be prohibited from becoming or acting as a director or officer of any
issuer, pursuant to Section 161(1)(d) of the act;
1.3 the respondents pay an administrative penalty, pursuant to Section 162 of the
act;
1.4 the respondents pay prescribed fees or charges for the costs of or related to
the hearing, pursuant to Section 174 of the act; and
1.5 such further and other orders as the commission may deem appropriate in the
circumstances.
2. And take notice that the executive director will ask the commission to consider
the following facts and allegations in makings its determinations.
The parties
3. Pacific International Securities Inc. is a company incorporated under the laws of
British Columbia, with its head office in Vancouver, B.C. It was incorporated as
D.J. Hall and Company Inc. on June 12, 1981. It changed its name to Pacific
International on Sept. 6, 1983. It was registered under the act as a broker from
Oct. 23, 1981, to Dec. 31, 1999, and has been an investment dealer since Jan. 1,
2000. It has been a member of the Vancouver Stock Exchange, now the
Canadian Venture Exchange, since October, 1981, and a member of the
Investment Dealers Association of Canada (the IDA) since June, 1987.
4. Mr. Meier co-founded Pacific International. He has been a director from
August, 1983, until the present. He was president and chief executive officer from
August, 1983, until in or about May, 2001, and chairman and chief executive
officer from May, 2001. As such, he has overseen Pacific International's overall
management since August, 1983.
5. Mr. McQuid joined Pacific International in October, 1985. From January,
1986, until July, 1997, he was its chief financial officer and was, at all times
material to this notice, the designated compliance officer of Pacific International
under Sections 47 and 65 of the Securities Rules, B.C. Reg. 194/97 and the
predecessor sections. From July, 1997, until in or about May, 2001, he was chief
operating officer. He was senior vice-president from January, 1986, until in or
about May, 2001. He has been senior vice-president, administration, from in or
about May, 2001. He has been a director of Pacific International from January,
1986, until the present.
6. Mr. Bachellerie joined Pacific International in September, 1995. He has been a
director from July, 1997, to the present. He was a vice-president and chief
financial officer from July, 1997, until in or about May, 2001. From in or about
May, 2001, he has been president and chief operating officer of Pacific
International.
7. Mr. Blades joined Pacific International in June, 1987. He has been a
vice-president from October, 1990, until the present, and a director of Pacific
International from April, 1992, until the present.
8. Mr. Carriere has been a director of Pacific International from May, 1998, until
the present. He is the president and chief operating officer of National Bank
Financial Ltd., which holds an equity interest in Pacific International.
9. Mr. Eymann co-founded Pacific International. He has been a director from
April, 1984, until the present. He was the executive vice-president of Pacific
International from April, 1984, until in or about May, 2001. From May, 2001, he
has been vice-chairman of Pacific International.
10. Mr. Quattrociocchi was a vice-president of Pacific International from June,
1991, until September, 1998, a director from April, 1992, until the present and a
senior vice-president from September, 1998, until in or about May, 2001,
overseeing the sales and research portfolios at Pacific International. From in or
about May, 2001, he has been executive vice-president of Pacific International.
11. Mr. Reynolds was the chairman and a director of Pacific International from
June, 1994. He resigned as chairman in October, 1998, and as a director in
March, 1999.
12. Ms. Sheehan was a registered representative since February, 1991, at Pacific
International. She has been a director of Pacific International from August, 1993,
until the present, and a vice-president from August, 1997, until the present.
Pacific International's business
13. In 1993, Pacific International's commissions from accounts trading in securities
listed or quoted in the United States totalled approximately $2.3-million
(approximately 14 per cent of total commission revenue). By Dec. 31, 1999, its
commissions from this activity increased to $19.2-million annually (approximately
67 per cent of its total commission revenue), 82 per cent of which was generated
by only 15 out of Pacific International's 85 registered representatives, and 80 per
cent of which came from non-resident accounts. This increase indicates that the
respondents had a business strategy to encourage the development of this
business.
14. From July 1, 1995, until at least Dec. 31, 1999, certain clients of Pacific
International, most of which were not resident in Canada, operated U.S. dollar
accounts, which traded securities listed or quoted in the U.S.
15. The accounts include accounts mentioned in indictments issued in the United
States, as well as a sample of accounts at Pacific International generating the
largest commission revenue in the period from Jan. 1, 1999, to June 30, 1999.
The sample was chosen from 368 accounts on the basis that accounts generating
the largest revenue are the most active, would have the greatest effect on Pacific
International's revenues and should have attracted the most compliance attention.
Indictments, complaints and investigations
16. On March 28, 1997, May 21, 1998, June 15, 1999, and June 18, 1999, the
United States Department of Justice filed indictments naming clients of Pacific
International, citing their trading through certain of the accounts, and alleging
breaches of American securities laws.
17. During the material time, the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission named accounts or clients of Pacific International in civil complaints.
18. On July 11, 1998, the Vancouver Stock Exchange issued a citation against
J.C. Hauchecorne, a registered representative of Pacific International, involving
activity related to the indictments.
19. Pacific International knew or ought to have known of some or all of the
indictments, the complaints, the citation, and some or all of the behaviour which
led to them. This information ought to have led Pacific International to conduct
internal reviews of the trading in U.S. markets and account opening activities and
to address the compliance deficiencies which those reviews should have revealed.
This did not happen and the compliance deficiencies continued.
Account activity
20. Throughout the material time, certain of the accounts displayed activities and
characteristics that would have caused a reasonable registrant to investigate the
owners and operations of the accounts, because each activity, alone or in
combination, is potentially a symptom of illegal conduct or conduct contrary to the
public interest, including money laundering and share manipulation.
20.1 Some accounts were owned or operated by non-residents and residents of
Canada who were experienced market participants, such as insiders, control
persons, promoters or persons engaged in investor relations activities. Others
were persons registered or formerly registered to trade in securities in the United
States or elsewhere. The trading of foreign stocks in British Columbia by
non-residents should have prompted Pacific International to question the
motivation of those clients.
20.2 Some accounts were owned, operated by or associated with persons with
criminal or regulatory histories. Particulars of certain individuals with criminal or
regulatory histories who owned, operated or were associated with accounts at
Pacific International include the following.
Randolph Beimel
May, 1997: Fined $150,000 and barred from NASD.
Gerald Burns
May, 1988 - December, 1991: In prison on fraud conviction related to sale of
unregistered securities.
September, 1997: SEC complaint (together with Angel Lorie) regarding
defrauding Spanish citizens.
October, 1998: Barred in Florida from acting as officer or director of any public
issuer, a $100,000 civil penalty, and disgorgement of $2.7-million.
June, 1999: SEC barred Mr. Burns from participation in any offering of a penny
stock.
Subsequently implicated in Cambridge International Bank and Trust Company
matter.
Jimmy Ray Carter
August, 1992: Fined $300,000 and barred from NASD for selling shares that
were neither registered or exempt from registration. Also charged unfair prices to
customers.
Anthony Elgindy
1997: NASD suspension for one year and $30,000 fine.
1998: Registration revoked by NASD for failure to pay monies in previously
executed settlement agreement.
Joseph Garofalo
Violations of antifraud provisions of U.S. Securities and Exchange Act.
May, 1993: Permanent injunction resulting from an SEC complaint.
Richard Gladstone
July, 1991: Fined $150,000 by the NASD and barred from any association with
any member of NASD.
Brokerage firm (Morgan Gladstone) expelled from NASD.
Paul Harary
1990: Convicted of criminal fraud.
David Hesterman
May, 1998: Criminal indictment filed for securities fraud.
1984: Conviction for securities fraud.
Steven Keyser
November, 1987: Permanent injunction and disgorgement order pursuant to an
SEC complaint.
Ms. Lorie
September, 1997: SEC action banning Ms. Lorie from participating in penny
stock offerings and from associating with any broker, dealer, investment adviser or
investment company.
Salvatore Mazzeo
October, 1997: Plead guilty to attempted enterprise corruption.
Todd Moore
May, 1997: SEC complaint regarding Members Service Corporation.
Maurice Rind
August, 1990: SEC complaint regarding securities fraud in connection with
collapse of ZZZZ Best Company.
1976: Sentenced to 18 months in prison and fined $10,000 for conspiracy to
violate federal securities laws, mail fraud and other violations.
Shalom Weiss
Indicted in April, 1998, on racketeering and money laundering charges. Convicted
in November, 1999. Sentenced to consecutive prison sentences totalling 845
years and restitution of over $100-million.
20.3 Some accounts were cash accounts and ran significant debit balances.
20.4 Some accounts consistently received in, or transferred out, or both, by
physical or electronic delivery, large blocks of stocks traded on the NASD OTC
Bulletin Board.
20.5 Sale proceeds from some accounts were frequently distributed to third
parties.
20.6 Some clients frequently paid significant fees so that they could receive cash
from sales before the settlement date.
20.7 Cash was transferred in and out of some accounts with little or no intervening
trading activity between the receipt and transfer of cash.
Pacific International's failure to screen its clients
21. Pacific International failed to fulfill the requirements of various rules and
statutes to ensure it had proper client information as follows.
21.1 Client verification procedures in the accounts frequently did not satisfy the
requirements of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, SC 1991, c. 26,
P-24.5, and the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Regulations SOR
93-75.
21.2 Some account opening documents lacked certain information, such as proper
client identification or other essential facts.
21.3 Trading and other activity occurred in some accounts before a designated
partner, director or officer approved the opening of the account, as required by
CDNX Rule F.1.01.3 (formerly VSE Rule F.1.01.c) and IDA Regulation 1300.2.
22. Clients received into their accounts securities that were ostensibly issued under
American registration exemptions and then disposed of those securities into U.S.
markets. Pacific International failed to make reasonable inquiries to determine
whether its clients were not illegally distributing those securities.
Demands for production
23. Pacific International received numerous requests during the material time for
production of information from commission staff and the Vancouver Stock
Exchange relating to the accounts.
The respondents' failure to take action
24.1 Pacific International's compliance and operations staff identified and
documented some or all of the activity, the screening deficiencies and the
distributions. In addition, the respondents knew, or ought to have known, of the
indictments, the complaints, the demands and that the Vancouver Stock Exchange
was investigating certain of the accounts and the owners of those accounts.
24.2 Given the increasing financial importance of trading by its clients in securities
listed or quoted in the U.S. to Pacific International's business during the material
time, and the active nature of the accounts, the respondents knew or ought to have
known of the activity and should have taken steps to make inquiries whether the
accounts were being used for illegal or abusive trading.
24.3 Despite this, no or inadequate steps were taken by the respondents or any of
them to make the necessary inquiries.
American registration
25. Given the nature and extent of its U.S. business, Pacific International ought, as
set out in VSE Notice to Members No. 18/94 and IDA Bulletin No. 2537, to
have been registered to trade in the United States as a broker dealer pursuant to
both federal and state law or either of them, and would then have been subject to
the requirements of American law in trading on behalf of its clients, including being
a member of the NASD.
26. By not seeking registration and joining the NASD, Pacific International
avoided the scrutiny of the NASD and avoided complying with the rules and
requirements of the NASD, which could have assisted it in its gatekeeper and
compliance functions.
Breaches of the act and rules
27. The respondents breached the following provisions of the act, the rules and
SRO requirements.
27.1 Pacific International failed to learn and the directors failed to cause it to learn
the essential facts about Pacific International's clients holding accounts, including
especially, but not exclusively, their identity, reputation, and reasons for retaining
Pacific International, when the respondents knew, or ought to have known,
information that caused, or ought to have caused, doubt whether certain of Pacific
International's clients were of good business or financial reputation, contrary to
Section 48 of the rules or Section 43 of B.C. Reg. 270/86, VSE Rules F.1.04,
F.1.01, VSE By-law 5.01(2) and IDA Regulation 1300.1(a).
27.2 The information the respondents knew or ought to have known included:
27.2.1 the activity;
27.2.2 the distributions;
27.2.3 the indictments, the complaints and the demands;
27.2.4 the screening deficiencies;
27.2.5 the issuance of the VSE citation against J.C. Hauchecorne; and,
27.2.6 the reviews conducted by its compliance and operations staff.
27.3 The respondents failed to establish and apply written prudent business
procedures for dealing with clients, particularly those holding accounts, including
supervising the registered representatives or the investment advisers employed by
Pacific International, in compliance with the act and the regulations, contrary to s.
44 of the rules and Section 40 of B.C. Reg. 270/86, VSE Rule F.2.01 and IDA
Regulation 1300.1(b).
Conduct contrary to the public interest
28. The respondents acted contrary to the public interest by:
28.1 failing to establish and apply adequate procedures to identify, investigate, halt
and prevent, where appropriate, the activity, screening deficiencies and the
American dispositions;
28.2 failing to supervise properly or at all the conduct of its investment advisers
and registered representatives;
28.3 failing to ensure that it was not assisting its clients to dispose of restricted
securities into American securities markets; and
28.4 failing to become a member of the NASD for better scrutiny of its U.S.
business.
29. The directors failed to fulfill their obligations under the act and rules or to
exercise the care, diligence and skill of a reasonably prudent person, contrary to
Sections 118 and 135 of the Company Act, RSBC 1996, c. 62.
30. The directors failed to ensure that Pacific International's conduct, business and
affairs complied with all applicable laws, regulations, rules and bylaws.
31. The respondents failed to fulfill their roles as gatekeepers in the securities
industry.
Executive committee and senior officer responsibility
32. All of the individual respondents except for Ms. Sheehan were members of
the executive committee of the board of directors and bore added responsibility
for the conduct of Pacific International's business and its management, including
ensuring that Pacific International's compliance procedures were adequate, were
in place and were followed.
33. Mr. McQuid, as the senior officer most directly responsible for compliance at
Pacific International in the material time, and Mr. Meier, as the senior officer he
reported to, were more particularly responsible for compliance procedures at
Pacific International.
Notice
34. Take notice that the commission will hold a hearing to provide the respondents
with an opportunity to be represented by counsel, lead evidence and submit
representations. The respondents or their counsel are requested to advise the
commission of their intention to answer this notice of hearing before the
commission by contacting the secretary of the commission.
35. And take notice that the respondents or their counsel are required to attend at
the 12th Floor, 701 West Georgia St., Vancouver, B.C., on Sept. 19, 2001, at
10 a.m., if they wish to be heard before the commission fixes a date for the
hearing.
36. And take notice that determinations may be made in this matter if the
respondents or their counsel do not appear at the set date hearing or the hearing.
(c) Copyright 2001 Canjex Publishing Ltd. http://www.canada-stockwatch.com

***¶*** Naked shorting sanctioned, broker fined:


http://www.nasdr.com/pdf-text/0106dis.txt



Firms Expelled, Individual Sanctioned

Falcon Trading Group, Inc. (CRD #30361, Boca Raton, Florida), Sovereign
Equity Management Corp. (CRD #20016, Deerfield Beach, Florida), and Glen
Thomas Vittor (CRD #1565323, Registered Principal, Deerfield Beach, Florida)
were fined $1 million, jointly and severally. In addition, the firms were expelled
from NASD membership and Vittor was barred from association with any NASD
member in any capacity. The sanctions were based on findings that the
respondents effected short sales for the firms' own accounts and failed to make an
affirmative determination that the firms could borrow the securities or otherwise
provide for delivery of the securities by the settlement date. The findings also
stated that the respondents, in cooperation with others, attempted to obtain stock
at below-market prices through the use of threats and coercion, and that, through
naked short sales and extortion, the respondents participated in a manipulation of
the market for those securities. (NASD Case #CAF980002)

¶ Are Stock Bashers really trying to "Save Investors"?....

http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/msg.gsp?msgid=15954679

To:Stock Watcher who wrote (45538)
From: Bill Fortune III Saturday, Jun 16, 2001 6:01 PM
Respond to of 45540

Hey Neil and all. On the lighter side:
Some hallmarks of investor rescuers!

1) Did you ever lose time from work or time with the family due to saving investors?
2) Has saving investors ever made your home life unhappy?
3) Did saving investors affect your reputation?
4) Have you ever felt remorse after saving investors?
5) Did you ever save investors in order to get a euphoric high?
6) Did saving investors cause a decrease in your ambition or efficiency?
7) After saving investors, did you feel you must return as soon as possible and to save some more?
8) After a save, did you have a strong urge to return and save some more?
9) Do you often save investors until your last friend is gone?
10) Have you ever sold anything just to be able to save investors?
11) Were you reluctant to use "saving knowledge" for the rich and famous investors?
12) Did saving investors make you careless of the welfare of yourself and your family?
13) Did you ever save investors longer than you had planned?
14) Have you ever saved investors to escape worry or trouble of your own?
15) Have you ever committed, or considered committing, an illegal act just to save investors?
16) Did saving investors cause difficulty in sleeping?
17) Would you rather save investors instead of eating?
18) Do arguments, disappointments or frustrations create within you an urge to save investors?
19) Did you ever have an urge to celebrate your good abilities by a few hours of saving investors?
20) Have you ever considered self destruction or suicide as a result of your saving investors?

Most compulsive rescuers will answer Yes to at least 7 questions!

And
The Stock Basher JIG!..
http://raketik.com/workshop2/workshop.html

Regards,

Bill

¶ Deceptives Practices by Brokerages and Message Boards...

http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/msg.gsp?msgid=15844917

What this law means, among other things, is that any licensed brokerage firm engaged in deceptive or manipulative business practices is in violation of the law. Examples of illegal practices might be:
1. engaging in agreements with unlicensed entities such as chat sites which could be construed to have the intent to manipulate traders for benefit of the brokerage firm and the chat site;

2. either directing or persuading chat sites to offer specific recommendations, or to design their "trader education" or "trader training" around the interests of the brokerage and chat site;

3. a licensed firm such as a brokerage extending any undisclosed compensation or kickbacks to a chat site as a reward for cooperation in generating commissions revenues;

4. Encouraging chat sites to manipulate traders, interfering in any way with a chat site in order to further the practice of scalping a high volume of trades, and dividing the proceeds with that chat site;

5. any artifice, scheme or deceit in any forum - and if sent by US Mail then this would constitute mail fraud, a felony - intentionally designed to mislead clients about the true nature of the ownership and direction of a chat site, for the purposes of cloaking the true intent and interests of a chat site from clients who would otherwise believe recommendations were being made in good faith, free from external bias and interference against their own best interests.

These are but a few of the practices specifically prohibited by this Act. I would restate what was published in the headline story of The New York Times Money&Business Section on October 15, after my extensive interviews with Assistant Business and Financial Editor, Gretchen Morgenson:

Payment for customer orders is common among brokerage firms. But the Securities and Exchange Commission requires such deals to be disclosed to customers, and the National Association of Securities Dealers prohibits the payment of such referral fees to unregistered individuals or entities like chat rooms.

To support his assertion, Mr. Asser points to two e-mail messages from [the chat site] Trading-places to brokerage firms discussing the terms of such deals. One message, written last May to an electronic brokerage firm specializing in futures, says that Trading- places will be paid $6 for each round- trip trade - trades getting in and out of a position - by a client referred by the Web site. The other e-mail message, to another futures broker, confirmed discussions with Trading- places about the Web site receiving $5 per round-trip trade by a Trading- places participant...

One of those firms, CyberCorp, a subsidiary of the Charles Schwab Corporation, said late Friday that it was reviewing its relationship with Trading-places.

Bloomberg reported the following October 16:

Asser claims Rea discussed terms with brokerage firms under which Rea would receive a fee for directing his subscribers to them -- a practice that would be illegal without disclosure to subscribers.

These issues are quite clear: any brokerage who has paid a chat site in compensation for generating or :"churning" stock trades has violated the law. Both the brokerage firm and the chat site would be liable for any and all damages which accrued from this activity, including punitive sanctions. For example, any broker and/or chat site operating a business according to the following process would be in clear and blatant violation, under current Federal Securities Law:

Chat Sites and Instant-execution Broker-dealers, and How the Intent to Defraud Day Traders May Be Carried Out in the Modern Era

1. A day trader joins a chat site, where he/she may be asked to provide privileged information about which broker he/she currently uses;

2. The site recommends one or more brokers, with whom the site has made illegal payment-for-order-flow agreements;

3. The trader becomes a client of the recommended broker;

4. The broker reports to the chat site the account has been opened;

5. The brokerage and/or chat site may "train" the trader in the hopes he/she does not go bankrupt too soon;

6. The site issues countless buy and sell advisories, in an effort to rack up as high a trading volume of its members for commissions as possible;

7. For providing this commission revenue stream, the broker pays the chat site a percentage of all commissions (often as high as 30%).

All perfectly despicable.

All absolutely and completely illegal in the United States.

All continuing to take place right now, today, at many well-known chat sites and brokerage firms - all moral concerns, ethical dilemmas and securities laws bedamned.

It is time for this particularly pernicious form of abuse to be halted, immediately. Many of us are working to this end and will continue to keep you informed of our progress.

Sincerely,

Olivier L. F. Asser

¶ LAWS on Transactions by investment advisers....

http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/msg.gsp?msgid=15844728

Here is the applicable law concerning actions we have outlined here and elsewhere. You may wish to pay especially close attention to the specific prohibitions specifically outlined by this Act of Congress that I have emphasized in bold type:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/80b-6.html

United States Code
TITLE 15 - COMMERCE AND TRADE
CHAPTER 2D - INVESTMENT COMPANIES AND ADVISERS
SUBCHAPTER II - INVESTMENT ADVISERS

Sec. 80b-6. Prohibited transactions by investment advisers

It shall be unlawful for any investment adviser by use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, directly or indirectly -

(1) to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud any client or prospective client;

(2) to engage in any transaction, practice, or course of business which operates as a fraud or deceit upon any client or prospective client;

(3) acting as principal for his own account, knowingly to sell any security to or purchase any security from a client, or acting as broker for a person other than such client, knowingly to effect any sale or purchase of any security for the account of such client, without disclosing to such client in writing before the completion of such transaction the capacity in which he is acting and obtaining the consent of the client to such
transaction. The prohibitions of this paragraph shall not apply to any transaction with a customer of a broker or dealer if such broker or dealer is not acting as an investment adviser in relation to such transaction.

(4) to engage in any act, practice, or course of business which is fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative.

The Commission shall,for the purposes of this paragraph (4) by rules and regulations define, and prescribe means reasonably designed to prevent, such acts, practices, and courses of business as are fraudulent,deceptive, or manipulative.

Geezer, if there are NO Shorting RULES for OTCBB,...

as you say, how can there be any misconduct to report?....

The $5.00 minimum price may not be a NASD or SEC Rule, but it's a Rule of Thumb used by a majority of Brokers, as the minimum acceptable for margin trading, which is an integral part of shorting...

JMHO, F. Goelo + + +

Francois, the point is that short selling on the OTCBB is not regulated. Rule 3350 does not apply. You seem to be saying that NASDAQ rules apply to the OTCBB. That is not the case, the OTCBB is separate from the NASDAQ. It is only a quotation medium and does not have the same obligations as the NASDAQ for Market Makers. Also, there are no SEC regulations covering shorting of OTCBB securities.

However, if you have any evidence of misconduct by a market maker you should contact NASD Regulation at:

http://www.nasdr.com/2170.htm

I would appreciate it if you could direct me to the rule or regulation that states that stocks under $5.00 can't be shorted. I have seen this stated quite often but can't find the rule anywhere. It is probably just an urban legend.

Geezer, perhaps you missed the Point...

and I am glad I discussed this matter at length with a NASDAQ Officer... I know that the "uptick" Rule doesn't apply to the OTCBB market and that stocks trading below $5.00 cannot be shorted - in theory - because they're non marginable...

Of course, we both know that the larger shorters use their friendly MM account directly to "naked short" and that few of the Rules are respected by the rogue MM's...

Here is Rule 3350(a)(3), for instance:

Similarly, bona fide market making would exclude activity that is related to speculative selling strategies of the member or investment decisions of the firm and is disproportionate to the usual market making patterns or practices of the member in that security. The Association does not anticipate that a firm could properly take advantage of its market maker exemption to effectuate such speculative or investment short selling decisions. Disproportionate short selling in a market making account to effectuate such strategies will be viewed by the Association as inappropriate activity that does not represent bona fide market making and would therefore be in violation of Rule 3350.

Are you trying to tell me, with regards to OTCBB stocks, that:

bona fide market making would include activity that is related to speculative selling strategies of the member or investment decisions of the firm and is disproportionate to the usual market making patterns or practices of the member in that security.

The Association anticipates that a firm could properly take advantage of its market maker exemption to effectuate such speculative or investment short selling decisions. Disproportionate short selling in a market making account to effectuate such strategies will be viewed by the Association as appropriate activity that represents bona fide market making and would therefore Not be in violation of Rule 3350.

If you really think the foregoing is allowed for OTCBB stocks, I suggest you call NASD/SEC and ask them about the complaints recently made against certain MM's violating such Rules and what is being done about it...

JMHO, F. Goelo + + +

Francois, I clicked on the following link to your post on S.I.;

http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/msg.gsp?msgid=15763903

It appears that you do not understand that Rule IM-3350, the Short Sale Rule, applies only to Nasdaq National Market securities and does not apply to OTCBB securities. I am sure that you will want to correct the misleading impression that you have created.

Marty, go ahead, post what you want...

I don't recall deleting a single post here and number gaps are caused by Spam posts that seem to be on an "automatic deletion" Schedule...

FG

GB, coming along nicely and shareholders managed...

to get a couple MM's abusing the trading of SEVU in trouble with SEC and NASDAQ, according to what I heard recently and the change in their trading patterns...

http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/msg.gsp?msgid=15763903

I also like this one...

http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=110796

JMHO, F. Goelo + + +

¶*** The SEC, the MM's and the Shorting Bashers...

Medinah Minerals (MDMN)

By: jmcjmc $$$$
Reply To: None Saturday, 19 May 2001 at 4:25 PM EDT
Post #34706 of 34762

Per the SEC, changes are coming for the penny market. The following information, if you invest in penny stocks, you will find to be a breathe of fresh air. It's about time.

Around the first week of May, 2001, I read a post from someone who got an email back from a guy at the SEC. I called the guy for questions. It turned out that naked shorting/manipulation wasn't up his alley.

However, we talked for 10-15 minutes about naked shorting/manipulation. He had to ask me exactly what naked shorting meant. I explained the entire situation with information on the companies that are fighting the "short", he was intrigued. He even said "wow, how do they do that" (sell virtual shares). I said I could email you some "stuff". I did. A couple days later I emailed him to ask if he could give me a name and a number of someone closer to the action. He did a little better. I received a call from an SEC official on 5-15, that seemed to me, said maybe more than she should have. I spoke to the same official on 5-18. Here is what she said.

I would like to mention the demeanor of this person I talked to - imo, giddy and excited to be in the middle of this. First, she said she has received 4,000 complaints from investors about shorting/manip in the penny arena. Those 4,000, I'm not sure if that was the total or just what she has seen. Obviousley, tons came from pcbm but the complaints were in general. I did not inquire specifically about pcbm, but as I talked about all the companies that are asking for cert pulls, companies doing dividends etc, I passed the name on of a few companies. She is aware of all of them.

Here is the current situation. She told me to watch the SEC website for proposed rule changes for the penny market. She said she wished they could have gotten them out already, but they should be out this summer. She said they want feedback, (I think that last 90 days) both positive and negative feedback.

I asked a few point blank questions, and to my surprise, they were answered - in flying colors I might add.lol I asked if she thought that naked short selling is happening to the point of manipulation. The answer was yes. She said "We are completely aware of what's going on out there". I asked her to what extent are some issues being shorted. She said "We are seeing indications where the short has gone beyond the entire O/S." Now, if she would have laughed and said "No, there is no way the manipulation goes to that extent." Mine, and all of our hearts would have sunk. What this means is that, we're not nuts to have thought the mm's have been doing this to the extent we thought. We were right all along.

So we started talking about rules. First, for the otcbb market, rule 15c211 really doesn't seem to be effective or enforced. There is a problem with it. MM's are not closing out and going even monthly like they are suppose to. This is about when, w/o me asking, she was giddy and told me she would love to tell me the changes in the proposal are but she can't. In regards to pink sheets, worse yet. She said that the SEC doesn't govern the buyback/go even stuff with the pinks but she said to the best of her knowledge there are no rules pertaining to that with pink sheeters.

She is aware that there is a "movement" from us investors trying to nab the shorts. I asked her if she thought the mm's are aware that "we" are onto them. She laughed and said "I don't know, I would think so."
Asking about the actual process of busting the shorts and creating a buy-in, that was not up her alley. But as we know, pcbm is right on the doorstep along with numerous other companies. She told me I could call anytime, I will see if I could possibly get a name and number of someone at the SEC who can talk about the mechanics of a buy in.

She brought up another rule that isn't being followed. Rule 153c-3. Yes, someone else is being naughty too--your broker. They are required to have you sign a release in order to allow the broker to lend your shares out with your margin accounts. Have you ever signed one of those? She laughed and said "That particular rule isn't being followed."

Now, regarding the proposed changes, I asked how long it can take to make actual changes. She said they are in a tough spot right now because they have no chairman at the SEC at this point. So, who know's. The situation is, those changes when they do happen, won't affect companies that are now battling a short position. Again, many companies are doing what they can legally to get it busted. Along with pcbm, I understand there are others knocking on the door.

The situation as I see it is twofold. One, and this should be foremost, is that change is coming to the penny world that should make this game somewhat fair. THAT is huge. Secondly, as I mentioned, with tons and tons of circumstantial evidence, and now what the SEC confirms, it shows we were on the right track all this time.

Here's a couple of thoughts I have. One is, the mm's have been playing this game a long time. Guess why it's coming to an end? Answer--the net. The forum, unity, gumption lol, brains, have all come together. The rule changes have come too late to save the mm's from themselves. I believe we will go into the next era of investing which we can dub "The big bang theory."

So the mm's know we're onto them. With this issue and others, here's a thought I have as far as there game plan. Are they manipulating these prices so low (in pcbm's situation the price is now at 4 ecnts) that when there is a run to 6 cents, 8, 10, 12 cents, won't there be a ton of sellers? Do you think they think they damn near have a cap on 20 cents? 500% return, damn nice right? Well, there will be sellers, the problem is we own the float as much as 10 times over. We will decide what they should pay us.

Note to bashers: Wake up and die right. The writing is on the wall. No one needs you people, you're completely worthless failures. Information good or bad will be discussed by the longs, sure as #### don't need you to stick your lousy attitude into it. I suggest you think about finding a stock that has a huge short and invest. Quit battling against change in the penny market.

In regards to paid bashers: There is a plan for you guys too. If any investors out there believe that a particular basher is paid who hits it really really hard. Email the board name and one post # to jmcjmc99@yahoo.com. (The pcbm board needs not to do this, you all know I know everyone here)

Feel free to post this on any board where there is beleived to be heavy shorting and manipulation. Good luck all.

Well he is still the chair so I was assume he will be back. No replacement has been sought.

:=) Gary Swancey

I agree but i don't think he's allowed to be here. I am sorry that happened, I think that he makes some really good posts. Oh well, I'll just skip the reposting of the articles, there's a lot of new rules I think, and since I don't understand what the heck is going on anymore, I'll just keep my posting to a minimum.

I read it and most I already from reading them before. The Chair should make the decision on what you wish to do here.

:=) Gary Swancey

okay, I guess this is the right thread, but it seems a shame that Francois isn't here to particpate.

here's a link about short selling and what's legal and illegal, by an ex market maker. He has a lot of articles, I'll try and post them one by one when i get the time. I'll post this one to get some feedback, and if no one objects, I'll start posting others.

http://www.streetsideinvestor.com/getexec.php3?989432319&tott

Francois ... how is the war and exposure with the short selling bashers and sort selling basher adovates going?

:=) Gary Swancey
Contracted Independent Investor Relations for
CBQI & DTGI, compensated a monthly cash fee
http://www.marketex.net/compensate.htm

IM-3350 SHORT SALE RULE....

http://www.investorshub.com/beta/read_msg.asp?message_id=94512

Re: GENI - "The Anatomy of a Pump & Dump"

http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/msg.gsp?msgid=15725706

Humbly report, FG, don't recall a single instance in which "call in yer certs" increased or even helped hold up the share price.

If anything, as far as I can humbly tell, stock of companies that do come out with this kind of PR tends to go south, in a big hurry, and stay there.

But nevermind, you already know all that. Now that I humbly think about it, don't even know why am I telling you.

So excuse the interruption, and please carry on, interesting to watch what your hands are doing behind your back while you talk.

Cheers,

Svejk

Taking Control of the Short Sellers by GENI....

GenesisIntermedia Issues Letter to Shareholders
LOS ANGELES--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 25, 2001--

GenesisIntermedia.com Inc. (Nasdaq/NM: GENI - news; Frankfurt: GIA) today announced that it has issued the following letter to its shareholders:

Dear Fellow GENI stockholder:

It is my pleasure to report to you that we are continuing to implement strategies to grow Centerlinq, Car Rental Direct and Genesis Media Group, as well as identify new opportunities for expansion. We envision growing the company's operations, thus increasing shareholder value, through capitalizing on acquisition opportunities and through the continued practice of entering into strategic alliances and joint ventures that help gain market share, new resources and expanded competencies for GENI and subsidiaries.

We want to be able to continue to provide you with a healthy share price. We believe the best way to do this is by following through with our initiatives to build Centerlinq, Car Rental Direct, Genesis Media Group and future acquisitions. Recent cash infusions into GENI and our subsidiaries will be used for this purpose.

I would also like to thank both our individual and institutional investors for your continued support of GENI. Companies like ours that are striving to create value for their shareholders, and for consumers and the business community, need to stay focused on long-term vision in order to achieve their goals. Lately, there have been a number of companies that have had to turn part of their attention away from growth strategies in order to combat increasingly heavy pressure from ``short selling.''

In our case, according to reports published by Bloomberg L.P., out of 21 million GENI shares outstanding, there was a total short position of approximately 4.6 million shares. That is why we are asking for your help.

The Short Selling Process and Its Effects

One thing to remember about short selling; those who are doing it do NOT own the stock. Short sellers are not aligned with the interests of the company or of its shareholders. They borrow your stock from your broker, and need to return it at a later date. If the stock price goes down, the short sellers then buy stock in the market at the lower price, and return the stock they borrowed from the broker -- that's how the short sellers make a profit.

By selling first and buying later, short sellers benefit from stock prices going down instead of up. This makes their interest in our company directly opposite from what most of our stockholders want -- i.e. for the price to go up. We are all working toward increased share price, while short sellers are looking for a decrease. If there is a lot of short selling, the supply of our shares may exceed demand for our shares, causing the stock price to go down. Short sellers bet on that. In effect, short sellers could make money by selling enough stock short to artificially increase the volume of selling, which then drives down the market price.

Short Sellers Borrow The Stock From You

Short sellers borrow the stock from shareholders, whether or not the shareholders are aware of it. If your shares are registered in your broker's name (commonly referred to as ``street name'') instead of your name, or if your shares are held in a margin account, your broker might have loaned your shares of GENI or other investment to the short sellers. When shares are held in street name, the broker is the legal owner of record and can loan your stock to anyone without your permission.

Many companies currently in the marketplace are experiencing a high volume of short selling. Unfortunately, we are no exception. The amount of short selling compared to the trading volume in our stock is unusually high. A large short position, like the one that currently exists for GENI stock, has the ability to significantly push down the price of a stock.

Taking Control of the Short Sellers

Short sales occur when traders borrow stock from brokers that is either registered in ``street name'' or held in margin accounts. The less the inventory of stock held in street name and margin accounts, the less shares available to borrow, thus reducing the likelihood of short selling. If enough stock is taken out of street name and margin accounts, short sellers will have difficulty maintaining the current volume of short sales. As fellow GENI shareholders, we are asking that you help secure your investment.

Contact your broker and have your shares taken out of street name or put into a cash account. Your ability to deal with your investment as you want does not change. You still own the stock, and you still make decisions regarding your investment. The only change would be that your shares would not be held in your broker's name anymore, and they would be in a cash account.

By doing this, a short seller would not be able to borrow your stock for short sales without your permission. Also, when your stock is held in a margin account, brokers can loan it out. Transferring your shares into a cash account is an easy way to safeguard your investment.

There is no disadvantage for stockholders who have their investments registered in their own names or held in cash accounts. There will possibly be some administrative functions that you would need to carry out to effect this change, such as paperwork and nominal charges in conjunction with re-registering or moving your shares. When you want to sell, you would have to send your broker instructions to move the stock back into street name or into a margin account, and the broker may ask you to sign some transfer documents. Overall, though, it is a small price to pay for relieving the heavy short selling pressure on the stock that you own.

We're asking our shareholder base to respond immediately. Short selling works to all shareholders' detriment, and we would like to see an immediate reduction in the short selling pressure on GENI stock. We intend to work with our transfer agent and participating brokers to make the process of re-registering your shares or moving them into cash accounts now as quick and easy as practicable. If you have any questions about this process, please call Robert Bleckman at GenesisIntermedia, 818/902-4397, for assistance.

Again, we are looking forward to maintaining our shareholders as partners in growth. We greatly appreciate your support and your belief in us as we build a company that creates value for shareholders and value for consumers and business.

Sincerely,


Ramy El-Batrawi
Chairman and CEO

This document contains certain forward-looking statements that are subject to risks and uncertainties. For such statements, GenesisIntermedia.com claims the protection of the safe harbor for forward-looking statements contained in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Actual events or results may differ materially from those discussed in forward-looking statements as a result of various factors discussed in GenesisIntermedia.com's Annual Report on Form 10(K) for the year ended December 31, 2000 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The contents herein shall not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy nor shall there be any sale of these securities in any state or jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to registration or qualification under the securities laws of any state or jurisdiction.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact:
GenesisIntermedia.com Inc.
Robert Bleckman, 818/902-4397
robertb@genesisintermedia.com

The system needs to be torn down and rebuilt. This is a corrupt system favoring the MarketMaker.Since when does capitalism allow fopr a market to be made and not created by demand ?
I love penny stocks but have learned to despise the game which goes along with it: hence, the Market Maker.
There is a reason why pennystocks cant hold highs or even find good support...they continually go down slowly and always, always take your money...lol.
Thanks

NEW RULES FOR SHORT SELLING?

http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=MMMANIP&read=12409

Theoretically, Short selling should be balanced by the buying back of shares by the previous Short sellers, when they cover their positions. "Every Short Sale creates a Buy, to be filled at a later date".

Not So In Our OTCBB Markets

It seems that our Market Makers (MMs) are habitually selling Short positions they do not have. Attention has recently been called to a case where shareholders bought up their company's float ... or so they thought, only to find their actions had NO effect of the stock. Why? Because phantom shares were involved for millions of shares sold Short. The shares being "bought back" didn't exist any more than did the phantom shares that were sold.

The Market Makers have grown so accustomed to selling short, dropping the share price, then covering by buying back at a lower price that they created, that they do this even when there are no shares available to sell, or with companies that are legitimate and on the rise.

If a company does not go belly up, these Market Makers are supposed to account for and return all the shares they sold short. They are unable to just "walk away" as they so often do when a disreputable company on the pink sheets disappears without a trace. They are caught in what is called a "Short Squeeze", or, a situation where the share price starts to go up on legitimate news despite the best MM
Manipulations. So, what to do?

Here is where the Longs get their "bad attitude" toward the "Short sellers" ... there is no equilibrium brought to the price as we expect to happen when previous Shorts become Longs, having to buy back shares. Why
not?

Because, when the Short sellers are the Market Makers who are in a position minute by minute to move the share price wherever they want to, they simply move the price down so they can buy their shares to cover their previous short sales as cheaply as they can. This "Naked Shorting" is supposed to be illegal. So is most of the other MM behavior that has helped make the Stock Market the deadliest game in town.

The days of the "Short Squeeze" are over. Market Makers have learned how to avoid getting caught with their proverbial "pants down".

Let's look at one case, where a Bulletin Board stock has applied for a NASDAQ listing and is waiting for news of acceptance ..This situation should warn off most Prudent Market Makers who would expect that the odds are against such a company willingly subjecting themselves to NASDAQ Discovery if there is nothing but hot air behind their closed doors.

So, this company waits for a NASDAQ listing while the MMs do their daily thing, moving the share price up and down and around their own money producing transactions. Unfortunately, greed enters into the picture. The MMs misjudge shareholder sentiment or the company or the chances of the listing happening this time around. These MMs continue to sell the shares Short, anticipating a drop into the 1s and 2s, and are successful in eliminating all but the most hardy and convinced of those shareholders who still hold on to their
shares due to conviction and much research which shows them the company is legitimate … and ready to explode onto the Market.

As the company continues to insist the lack of substantial news results from many non-disclosure agreements with unnamed manufacturers, the Market Makers feel unafraid to continue to sell more shares, increasing their naked Short positions as the profits from their previous month don't carry over into a new month. At some point rumors of contracts, impending announcements, and NASDAQ approval filters down to these Market Makers. Where there should logically be a situation where the previous Short Sellers are scrambling to cover their positions before the announcements and NASDAQ approval hits the street, we see something interesting …instead of the share price going up as normally responsive to this situation, it unexplainably goes DOWN. Not only does the price fall, but it falls beneath that magic number of 5, the price needed for the stock to be listed and traded on the NASDAQ exchange! And, this happens on a day where the company has issued detailed information about ! Near future prospects, including their own position - which looks excellent!

Now we see the MMM at its best. NASDAQ supposedly needs a company stock to be trading for a minimum share price of 5, for 5 days straight before this stock can be listed on the NASDAQ exchange. The MMs, caught in what should be "Short Squeeze", need to keep this stock on the OTC/BB exchange until they can find a way to repay those shares they sold short. After months and months of manipulating this stock in order to shake the individual shareholders from their shares, these MMs find themselves in a situation where there is no time left for them to cover their Shorts … not if this stock gets listed elsewhere … like on NASDAQ … so, they must keep the stock dipping and closing under the magic number 5 every 5th day until they can buy more time in which to replace those short shares.

There is no logical way for those brokers to get shares cheap any more to cover their shorts. There never was a logical explanation for the shares of this company trading beneath 15 for more than one week but it was taken down into the threes and fours by the end of the Market Maker run. How long are they now going to be able to continue to drop this price every 5th day in order to keep this cash cow on the Boards for their own use? How many honest and hard working people are going to continue to lose money while this
manipulation is allowed to go on?

Think about all the money that was lost by inexperienced shareholders who were too frightened by the gyrations caused by the Market Makers who are supposed to ONLY facilitate trading. Think about the future of the entire Market. What happens if too many irate Baby Boomers present this and situations such as this to the SEC, NASDAQ, and Dow Jones, demanding answers and explanations for the loss of their retirement money?

Why are investors required to deliver the shares of sold securities to their brokers within 3 days of their sale? Why must these same investors pay for shares they purchase within only 3 days? What is the reason for putting such pressure on the investors if there is NO TIME LIMIT on MARKETMAKERS for replacing shares they sell short? Why are these MMs totally excused from providing these shares if a company goes out of business or disappears? This is a great incentive for MMs to knock Bulletin Board and Pink Sheet companies out of business, isn't it? The demise of a company means the MMs are excused from buying back cheap shares or any shares that they previously sold short, adding to their monthly profits, and likely adding to the demise of that company.

On-line trading is here - and it has brought new information to those who trade for themselves. Shareholders are becoming smarter, researching their companies before investing, and now researching those who have access to their money once it is invested. As one of these people, I don't look kindly upon thieves who are stealing from me, whether or not they wear "white collars."

We are considering new rules for Short Selling?

What about first putting into place the most important rule… that of honesty, before getting fancy with the many ways a security can be sold Short?

And, before this, how about cleaning up this disgusting situation before the entire Stock Market becomes a
free-for-all?
=================================================================

:))

CYBERSMEARING: INTERNET PRIVACY VS. ACCOUNTABILITY

http://www.gcwf.com/articles/interest/interest_31.html

Perhaps it has happened to you. You may be at risk of it right now. If your reputation is important to you or your business, its consequences can be particularly painful. It may even be happening to you right now without your knowledge. It is called "CYBERSMEARING" and it exists in the gray area where Internet anonymity has outpaced the response time of the law and mainstream business.

Men's Room Wall Meets Wall Street

In this explosive growth of the Internet lies a threat that can reach businesses and individuals alike, but can be particularly harmful to publicly-traded companies. Recent months have seen a disturbing increase in instances of the Internet being used to victimize businesses through an abuse called cybersmearing.

Cybersmearing is the practice of using the Internet to broadly and rapidly disseminate defamatory and false statements about a chosen target. Targets can include both businesses and individuals. When the target is your business, the consequences can be particularly painful. Small startups may find a cybersmearing campaign interfering with efforts to raise private funds. Publicly-traded companies can instantly find themselves on the defensive, trying to rebut unfounded accusations made by anonymous accusers. Perhaps most threatening is the rising trend in cybersmear tactics to manipulate stock prices. Even the best efforts to inform investors of the strengths of a company can quickly be undone by the cloud of suspicion a cybersmear campaign can create overnight.

Founders of a startup company may work years to prepare for an IPO and hen breathe a sigh of relief when their company is well received by the markets. However, their dreams of rising stock prices and millions in increasing market capitalization may be shattered by someone they have never heard of, cannot identify, and who has no market expertise or credentials whatsoever.

As daunting as it may sound, that is often the hallmark of a blindsiding cybersmear campaign. Just when a startup is positioned to realize its market potential, its name begins appearing on Internet-based bulletin boards. Postings relating to the startup may number in the thousands and can be blatantly defamatory - often with no factual basis whatsoever.

Regardless of the falsity of the accusations levied, they successfully create a cloud of suspicion surrounding the company. Investors without resources to conduct their own due diligence and with numerous startup offerings from which to choose may avoid the stock based on the cloud of suspicion. The stock begins to decline and the authors of the cybersmear postings, who often are shortsellers, cash in. If the company fights back with accurate responses, the responses often are distorted or are insufficient to eliminate the suspicion. If the company is silent, the postings utilize the silence as confirmation of the accusations.

How Can Bart Simpson Ruin Your Company?

The threat of cybersmear tactics is further complicated by the anonymity of the Internet. Often, individuals engaged in these tactics hide behind several layers of false identities. They commonly identify themselves only by character names borrowed from television shows like the Simpsons, movies like the James Bond series or even names based on political scandals. The struggling startup may encounter indefatigable downward pressure, created by an online identity known only as Bart Simpson. In addition to using a fictitious character name, the mudslinger uses a variety of means to evade efforts to locate him or her, including registering Internet service to a false name and leaving trails of false addresses. These "hit-and-hide" tactics are often nothing more than an elaborate effort to avoid accountability. Unfortunately, they often work, especially when the victimized company cannot persevere long enough to reveal its accuser.

***¶*** ANATOMY of a SHORT and DISTORT Scheme....

http://www.investorshub.com/beta/read_msg.asp?message_id=41217

***¶*** KEEPING your CERTS SAFE at HOME...

Let us hold your 144 cert for safekeeping!

No matter where you go in the USA, you are told that you can not short against 144 restricted stock. That is about as true as you can not short an OTC stock. All stock can be shorted if it is in a brokerage account, which will show up in the broker’s long position.

As a service most brokerages are more than happy to hold a certificate for you in their vault. That way should you decide to register the 144, they would at least have the certificate on hand and only the form 4 plus a signature verification document would be all that is required. That can easily be done by fax or email. But is it wise to have a brokerage firm hold a 144 certificate for you in safekeeping? Is it really safe?

Well take today for example. I was watching a security, which I have 3 year restricted 144 stock. Now I had placed that 200,000 shares of 144 in certificate form into a brokerage house that told me they would glad to hold for me in their vault. So I did not sign it but just put sent it in to the broker to hold for me. Of course, I then see the 200,000 shares in my account on my monthly portfolio statement. The statement also notes they are restricted and the equity has no value by the denoted N/A under the Price column and thus no market value across the board. Now based on that statement the brokerage's long position just increased in accordance to my portfolio statement.

Now I realize and know the float is only 240,000 but it has traded the float over the past week and I could not understand where they were getting the stock to roll the bid every 30 – 90 seconds. (“Rolling the Tape”) So I called a broker and surprisingly was informed there was a big seller. Now how could that be since there was no large positions except 144 holders that I knew of at all. Further checking, I discovered there was plenty of stock in the long position of the clearinghouse! In other words, my restricted shares were now showing up in the Broker’s long position that MMs, MIMs, offshore and other players of the market can legally short against. (“Shorting Against the Box”)

A Brokerage’s Long Position is the available stock in the brokerage house accounts that can be shorted against that has not already been shorted. In other words, all stock in a Brokerage’s accounts can be shorted against, restricted or unrestricted. Thus the infamous “Air Shares” suddenly becomes “Restricted Air Shares” if the 144 holder happens to place a restricted certificate in their brokerage house for safe keeping. Because the share amount shows up as shares in the holder’s account, the brokerage shows all shares on the report as a long position for the brokerage.

Lets say that a brokerage house has in its accounts 1,000,000 shares, which is their long position to hopefully sell at a higher price. Of that say 500,000 is restricted that they are merely holding for 144 holders. The brokerage still shows a long position of 1,000,000. If someone plays the market and ”short against the box,” say 500,000 shares then the long position would reduce to 500,000 shares. Basically, they have shorted the unrestricted and have the restricted to go or vice versa. Now say another broker needs to borrow some of the long position to short and make an orderly market. Then the other 500,000 shares can be loaned out and thus shorted against the brokerage’s long position.

Restricted or not, signed or not, giving a broker a certificate for any reason is like putting a T-Bone steak (raw or cooked to whatever preference) on the floor and asking your dog to guard it. When you get back you will discover all that is left is the bone and the dog is still chewing on it. Please note, the dog is waging his tail and loves you to death but will growl at you if you try to even take the bone back. Expect a terrible hassle just to get what is left.

What does the Internet do? They merely start screaming P&D, or some other wild card to justify the stock price and the blame is no where close to the actual events of what has occurred. Now it may very well be 144 stock but not the 144 holders selling it. Most likely they are under the old belief you can’t short 144, which is apparently bogus.

Say a stock is trading at $10.00 a share. A 144 holder places his restricted stock certificate at his broker for safekeeping. The 144 holder now does not have to worry about trying to keep up with the certificate because they feel it is safe hands. Well, the MMs and MIM once the long position is out can just sell the fired out of the stock thus pre-selling the 144. Seems strange but the broker basically just nailed their client who they are suppose to be looking out for by the way. Just like the dog started eating the second you walked out the door.

Now the MIM has sold you out high and the price plummets. Watching with disbelief, you scratch your head on what happen to the stock price. Who in their right mind would be selling the stock, you ask yourself? Now you are ready to sell a bit once the legend is lifted and the price is 80% down from where you first put it into the brokerage house. Your brokerage house will be more than happy to sell the stock for you for a commission or buy it from you. Eventually, it makes back to whoever sold for you so they get the difference from when they pre-sold it for you much higher and can cover in getting you to sell at the low price. Still chewing on the bone in another words. But do not think about trying to pull that cert. Oh man the dog will used whatever they can to stop that from happening.

Bottom line is the 144 holder could not sell the 144 and was trying to be responsible and protect his interest. Heck, the 144 holder did not even sign the certificate nor even file a form 4 if they could. Unknowingly, they just shot themselves in the foot allowing a brokerage to hold their restricted security certificate and guard their investment.

When I called today to pull the certificate out and have it mailed back to me, I was informed of a numerous scenarios about getting my certificate. I was told it would take 6 weeks because the certificate was in the brokerage’s name. How could that be because the legend was still on the certificate and I had not signed it or even filed a form 4. The more I pressed on that issue I was later told that they had my original certificate and it was not in the brokerage’s name or street name. I was told they had talk to the company legal counsel and I was later told that did not happen especially after I did inquire to the counsel. I was told I needed the CUSIP numbers (I did not know you needed both restricted and unrestricted CUSIPs!), the certificate number and a reason for calling my certificate back.

Man I was blown away. My reason was became I owned the flipping certificate and I wanted back. I got both the CUSIP numbers and the certificate number to send in the written-signed request for my certificate. I even gave my Federal Express Account number so I could get the certificate back to me registered mail.

At the end of the day, I have discovered that anything in a brokerage account, restricted or unrestricted, is a long position and can be shorted. Supply and demand now is basically potential supply and demand. I was told today the “Rolling the Tape” I had been witnessing was, “Keeping the market honest.” Talk about an oxymoron or a contradiction in terms. But very few days come along where a light bulb come on or a 2x4 hits you in the head awakening you to the reality of the market.

Never put more into a brokerage account that you are willing to sell. Greed is putting in more shares than you are willing to let go of in a short term basis. They stock you do not intend to sell will be sold one way or another as long as it is in the brokerage account and thus showing up on the brokerage's long position.

I have to wonder how many people unknowingly realize that by putting their 144 certificates in their brokerage house, they actually are shooting themselves in the foot? Are they aware the market is actually about to nail them financially? How many stocks have been nailed not by 144 holders selling but putting their certificate in the hands of their broker for safe keeping and someone else sells for them? Could account for a tremendous MM oversell from what I have learned today.

Not only that, have you ever sent a certificate in to a brokerage house and it is free trading? Ever watch the selling that occurs prior to the 3 days to clear before you can sell. Envision this … you send in a certificate for say 100K shares and are informed it takes 3 days to get good delivery to street name. The broker upon receiving the certificate can short the stock. Who cares about fundamentals or anything? They got a certificate.

Hey, this is based on events today that I experienced and I could possibly be wrong. However, at 10:48 AM when I called for that 144 certificate the last “Rolling the Tape” occurred at 10:47 AM. The rest of the information in this composition was obtained by speaking to professional brokers. It was quite an eye opening experience and explains to me how a lot of stocks fall and no one lied because they have not sold a share. Nothing more than that someone else selling "Restricted Air Shares" causing the downward movement and looking for the holder to sell at the low price.

#1 Rule of the Market: Sell High (even if it is not your stock) and buy low (especially if it is the holders of the stock you sold against)




:=) Gary Swancey

Dafamation In Canadian Cyberspace

http://www.angelfire.com/ca2/defamation/introduction.html

gb2k:))

Investor Perils from Canadian Short Sales & Media Disinformation

http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/Exchange/1371/Shortsales.html

gb2k:))

TODAYS NEWS!!! $1 Million Fine for Illegal Short Sales, Market Manipulation and Extortion

NASD Regulation Bars John Fiero, Expels Fiero Brothers, Inc., and Imposes $1 Million Fine for Illegal Short Sales, Market Manipulation and Extortion

WASHINGTON, Jan. 8 /PRNewswire/ -- NASD Regulation, Inc., today announced that a NASD Regulation Hearing Panelbarred John Fiero, expelled his firm, Fiero Brothers, Inc. and ordered a fine of $1 million for engaging in a fraudulent short selling, extortion and manipulation scheme.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/010108/dc_nasd_ex.html

On Feb. 6, 1998, NASD Regulation filed a complaint against Fiero and other co-conspirators alleging that they colluded to drive down the price of 10 Nasdaq securities underwritten by now-defunct Hanover Sterling & Co. during January 1995, and February 1995, through illegal short selling of those securities. This ``bear raid' scheme involved Fiero and others obtaining nearly 1 million shares, units and warrants from Hanover Sterling at below market prices through the use of threats and coercion to cover their illegally-created short positions. Ultimately, the short selling scheme led to the failure of Hanover Sterling on Feb. 24, 1995, which was quickly followed by the collapse of its clearing firm, Adler, Coleman Clearing Corp., and the appointment of a Security Investors Protection Corporation trustee for Adler Coleman.

In the decision, the Hearing Panel found that Fiero participated in an extortion scheme by purchasing $12.1 million of securities from Hanover, at prices $866,500 below the then-prevailing market price. Fiero used these securities to cover his firm's short positions, and resold the rest, primarily to other short sellers involved in the scheme. Hanover agreed to sell the discounted securities to Fiero in attempt to end the shorting of the stocks.

The Hearing Panel also found that Fiero violated short selling rules from Jan. 20 through Feb 23, 1995 by failing to make the required affirmative determinations prior to engaging in short sales of the Hanover Sterling stocks. NASD rules restrict ``naked' short sales, that is selling a stock short without ensuring that the stock can be borrowed or otherwise provided for by settlement date, also known as an affirmative determination. The Hearing Panel concluded that Fiero was not entitled to the market maker exemption from the affirmative determination rule during the time his firm wasregistered as a market maker because it was not engaged in bona fide market- making
transactions. Fiero manipulated the market for the Hanover securities through his purchases and resale of the extorted stock and his illegal, naked short selling.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

gb2k:))

¶ Naked and Covered Shorting...

http://www.investorshub.com/beta/read_msg.asp?message_id=33332

¶ Market Makers Manipulation....

http://www.stopmmm.com/whatismmm.htm

Keep up the good work. Keep up the documentation too... it will make the SEC's job much easier, and it will educate the public when the mainstream media seeks a new "big story" after this election coverage blows over. Have you seen the post on Cede & Co?

Founder: The Free and Clear Foundations of Earth, Chairman & CEO Penny King Productions, The Free and Clear Bancorporation, Senior Trustee; The Free and Clear Fund. www.iexchange.com top analyst!

Oh No I do not think or believe that the red flags are only on the OTC ... NASDAQ as a whole however, My specific focus is to show that manipulation does exist and how it exist. But it is worse in the OTC because of non regulation ... My solution is to let OTC come under the same regulations as the other NASDAQ markets since they have to pay the same legal and accounting costs to compliy with the SEC.

Seems unfair that the OTCs have to report but they can't get a fair market such as Analyst, Broker Support, Media coverage like CNBC, etc.

Naive I am not I grant you ... But all I did in the 10 red flags is show the flags and then document each one with a verifying post and lastly showed where I tracked levelII four 4 days of which 2 were the weekend and not at the end of the month. All of the flags showed up.

I have done it on NASDAQ NM, SC and OTC.

:-0 Gary

Do you think it's just the OTC market this happens in? Boy, if so, you really don't know the money changing profession. I still have not heard from CBQI, and I have since been offering 3x book for companies, not 10X, since the value of the dollar seems to be getting better and better, while the value of speculation and promised earnings seems to be getting worse. Call me if you'd like to chat some time...Gabe 240-683-8844. I do respect what you have done in trying to clean up this industry, perhaps the best way is for every investor in the country (world) to go on strike, sell out all thier holdings back to the market makers, and let them eat all the fish they have fried.

Founder: The Free and Clear Foundations of Earth, Chairman & CEO Penny King Productions, The Free and Clear Bancorporation, Senior Trustee; The Free and Clear Fund, and Janitor for the Global Morass of Debt Instruments.

***¶*** NASD Board Approves OTCBB Order Delivery System...

On October 5, 2000, the NASD Board of Governors approved the creation of an automated order delivery system for the OTC Bulletin Board (OTCBB) in a continuing effort to promote a fair and efficient marketplace.This initiative will be submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for public comment and approval. We will continue to update you on progress regarding SEC approval and plans for implementation via the OTCBB website.

The OTCBB has experienced significant growth in volume, positions, securities, and market participation in the past ten years despite the quotation service's lack of trading automation. The OTCBB has made significant strides in making measurable market improvements in the past three years, including: 1) the implementation of the Eligibility Rule, which requires each OTCBB issuer to be fully registered with the SEC (or appropriate banking or insurance regulator) and be current in its filings; and, 2) the upcoming launch of a Limit Order Protection pilot program (pending SEC approval), which prohibits member firms from trading ahead of customer limit orders.

The need for an automated order delivery system for the OTCBB has arisen due to increased trading activity in this market, and the accompanying regulatory concerns and operational difficulties. The primary objectives of providing an order delivery and execution system for the OTCBB are:

+ to increase execution speed of customer orders, which, in turn, should provide a better opportunity for best execution:
to enable market participants to contact each other electronically to send orders, execute orders, and force a market participant to move its quote in order to unlock the market;

+ to enable the NASDR to extend the locked/crossed market rule to the OTCBB since an order-delivery and execution system with a liability component is an essential tool for implementation of that rule;

+ to complement the changing volume and trading behavior in the OTCBB, and to provide the infrastructure necessary to enact new rules aimed at investor protection.

The system will be built to accept directed liability orders only. Specifically, via Nasdaq Workstation II, an NASD member firm would be able to enter a priced order targeted to a market maker at the market maker's quoted price or better. The system would then send a pop-up message to the market maker's Nasdaq Workstation II terminal(s) alerting the market maker to the presence of a liability order. The market maker would then be obligated to execute the liability order up to the size of its quoted price, unless the market maker is in the process of executing another limit order at the same price. The market maker would generally have three minutes to take action on the order before it times out, and the order entry party would be able to cancel the order after 10 seconds.

The NASD believes that providing automated access to the market will further efforts to make the OTCBB a more efficient and orderly marketplace for investors and market participants alike.

***#3*** BEWARE of DTC, a/k/a CEDE & Co....

http://www.investorshub.com/beta/read_msg.asp?message_id=17003

***#2*** DTC: Get your CERTS NOW!!....

http://www.investorshub.com/beta/read_msg.asp?message_id=16995

***#1*** Wanna Know about Depository Trust Co?....

http://www.investorshub.com/beta/read_msg.asp?message_id=16994

Who will be the People's Voice?

I do not profess to know the opinions of the entire Internet commonalty, nor even a diminutive fraction thereof. However, based upon my limited observation what is wrong with someone or a site stepping up to being the voice of the people? Not twisting the information but Including all the mistakes, misconceptions, and ignorance.

I have always believe the voice of the people can and should play a significant role in the shaping of the market since we are the ones that are supply the capital in our attempts to invest. The truth is simple as this: if public opinions are not drawn forth and amplified for all to hear, they will play little role in any market change process. Without people voicing their concerns, top officials will be left with relatively unfettered power to craft the market in their discretion. Heck, the OTC is a prime example. The companies have to file and they are forced to trade in an unregulated market.

As leaders of the market, the SEC and other government regulators should indeed drive the process and development of the market to meet the new age of information. However, should they not also speak on behalf of the populace? Also shouldn’t their actions reasonably reflect the concerned voices of the small investor, expressed by the latter after reviewing ample, balanced and accurate information of the populace concerns? Aside from a few small scenarios, there has been a lot of underlying basis opinions by the small ignorant investor that have brought out many a possible wrong doing schemes.

In order to give proper weight to the opinions of the Internet populace of small investors, in my judgment, will require a three-step process.

First, the small investor must be provided with enough unbiased and accurate information to arrive at well-founded opinions and investment decisions. Of utmost relevance are detailed facts on shorting, 144s, SOP for the operation of the market, legal and historical information, etc. Another words give the small investor the ability to realistically assess the options for investing in the market. Without widely disseminated, impartial sources of information, investors cannot maximize their participation in the market. This is not available in the unregulated OTC market except for edgars and the rules of the market 1933 & 1934, which requires a legal degree and no two SEC attornies agree on the laws. But it could be broken down into a forum where it could be explained as an FAQ.

Second, why not have a market related site to draw forth and amplify public opinions. To do so effectively, a concerted effort is required on the part of political bodies, SEC, NASD and the media. Presently, the Internet and its random sites are all that is available. OTCNN was, and I say was, such a medium with Jack Burney. Historically, small investors and legit start-up and development companies have endured a long legacy of injustice by the unregulated OTC regime, and some may be too afraid to voice opposition to the OTC market’s existing policies. Others, weary and frustrated by a long period of unresponsive regulation, may simply want the market to move forward, conserving their voices until it produces a result. Of course education, geographic, linguistic and regulatory barriers may also present obstacles to voicing a concern.

Though it is clear that gathering and reproducing public opinion as Jack Burney attempted to do obviously is far from easy. It is nevertheless, I believe, an essential task to be undertaken in a pledged democracy. Commendable projects have already been undertaken by some Internet mediums to disseminate opinions and encourage public opinion right, wrong, or indifferent. The unregulated OTC market is becoming a paramount concern. Publication and broadcasting of investor opinions not only serves to inform the market of the public will, it also educates other Investors and helps them to arrive at informed opinions of their own. Again, right, wrong or indifferent but what else do they have since most realize that brokers say buy when they are selling and sell when they are buying and very little profit comes from the professionals.

The third and final step in the process of weighing the populace will and opinions is that political decision-makers need to listen. So how do you get the rightful ears to perk up like bird-dogs (southern slang)? It takes the voices of people being redundantly disseminated till someone listens. Plain and simple, regardless of content but especially if the content has a solid underlying basis for the opinion or concern expressed.

Of course the champion for the people is going to come under fire. Janice Shell is one such voice that brings clarity and critical thinking on the other side of the coin. Not all manipulation is by the Market Makers but the Market Makers Blue Sheets will disclose the manipulation. So the focus regardless has to be directed to the source, which is the market makers.

Bottomline is someone has to step up to the plate with an honest endeavor to provide the people with an impartial vessel to air their concerns and to foster public discussion on the topic at hand. That is what the constitution is all about. Isn’t the American way of the people, by the people and for the people.

Gary Swancey

Where did Jack Burney go? The People’s Voice

OTCNN made its mark on the Internet because it had an independent columnist/individual who stood up and relayed the people’s voices. Jack Burney proved that in a ominous world of vicious deception, mediocrity, brain-washing and sheep herding that he possessed the fortitude and concern to step up to the plate and voice what the people had to say. There was no mediocrity in his messages as he raised the questions so necessary to expose possible wrong doings in the heart of the market itself.

On October 26, 2000 when I called OTCNN and asked the following question, "Does Giando work for a Market Maker?” and “Where was Jack Burney?” I was informed they did not know about Giando but that Jack was no longer with them. Giando’s columns are like reading the most insulting propaganda I believe I have ever read on the Internet. I am not going to get off on a tangent here, mainly because the articles and columns by Giando reflect John von Neumann’s quote -- There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about.

To me, Jack Burney single handily made the popularity of OTCNN because of his willingness to convey what the people had/were saying. He never colored it or twist it but instead posted the voice’s of the people. The outcries of the sheep (small investors) being slaughter by the possible wickedness of the market itself (Market Makers).

Has Jack Burney been silenced is what I would like to know? Were there movements by the market to silence him as was OTCBB site MM Reports? Once the public learned they could track the MMs by their own reports they were no longer free and now had a cost $7.00 a day for what you can get free on just about any real time quote service. However, the format was changed also to a reference number on the reporting. Totally worthless report because it only showed time and sells. When the public began using the reports did the market have these reports silenced?

In our society oppression causes people to cry out “foul” over and over again, but do they ever really get heard. Jack was making a difference not trying to find excuses for voices that were crying out but merely published the “underlying basis” each voice submitted. Why? Because he allowed the world to see what the crying was all about and what precise examples were given for the outcry, unlike the columns now. No Fluff, No BS sidestepping or trying to answer the concern, or attempting to shape it into anything other than what was conveyed. Basically, just pure 100% expression of what the people had to say and why they felt that way.

Prof. Kay Schlozman (Political Science)-"A fundamental question in any democracy is, from whom - and what - does the government hear?"

Public opinion consists of those views held by ordinary citizens that are openly expressed. Public officials have many means of gauging public opinion but increasingly have relied on public opinion polls to make this determination. The Internet and Jack Burney have brought the voices of the small investor into the light. It was obvious Jack was greatly concerned with public opinion knowing it has an important influence on government even though it ordinarily does not directly determine what officials will do. However, did market officials silence Jack’s campaign of public opinion, because it was working primarily to impose limits and directions on the choices?

Have the people been silenced again?

Jack, if you are out there and ever read this, I personally appreciate all your integrity and noble efforts.

Gary Swancey

Heavily Shorted VS Normal Market Bid/Ask machinations

I will try to briefly respond to your question about the bid/ask machinations in the market. I am by no means an expert and have simply learned out of necessity to understand basically what is going on sometimes. I will discuss a typical market (part I); and a heavily-shorted one (part II).

Part I - Typical Bid/Ask Pricing of The Stock

If you had level II you would know right away what I have been talking about in past posts because it shows what is really going on in a particular stock's marketplace resulting in the bid/ask you see on the screen (level I). A simple way to explain it is the stock's price is kind of like a see-saw; one seat buy, one seat sell. If the weight is more heavily on the buy side the price goes up, chasing the supply-demand curve up to the notch where the weight is more evenly distributed on the see-saw. The converse happens when the weight is more heavily on the sell side.

Level II actually shows how all the bids and asks are queuing up to each seat on the see-saw, including the id of who (which MM's) are responsible for the weight distribution. As I understand it the bid/ask reported on level I are the sustainable bid and ask prices. That is why on quote.com, for example, they report the bid (sustainable) and the best bid. And also, that's why you can have sales that are outside of the bid/ask range and yet see the bid ask remain the same before during and after that sale. Quote.com is worth watching for awhile to understand what I am talking about. It turns yellow with each sale showing which side of the bid ask the negotiated sale was made. (If you click on the data area it reveals the bid ask info. I talk about.)

In what I call a normally-motivated market it is easier to understand how stock prices are set. I mean basically, in NASDAQ, the several mm's are trying to make a market and are competing for the client buyers/sellers' business. They establish and live off the spread between the buy and the sell. A bigger buyer or seller will try out different MM's and to succeed in keeping their business they need to make sales and buys to keep their customers happy.

NASDAQ relies on the competition between MM's to self-regulate market action. In other words, in a competitive market the different MM's competing for the business will keep each other honest. Apparently there are also rules about their behavior. Thus, on level II you can see the different MM's trying to make a market on a stock, each one's current bid and ask, and also the current demand associated with the position. These guys make sales and purchases back and forth which we commonly see (in level I) as the general market in the stock.

Thus, if several MM's have customers that want to buy the stock; more than want to sell, then they raise their bid price (their want ads) because that will probably get more sell offers by walking up the demand-supply curve. If they have several clients that want to sell, more than want to buy, then they lower their offer (their for sale signs) to interest more buyers. Its a pretty efficient system, and the different MM's negotiate with each other pretty quickly, and can move large volumes of shares as the price moves up and down the supply demand curve.

Now, all the above is more complicated than described above and MM's can establish different spreads, can take out stop-loss orders by moving the price rapidly - particularly in lightly traded markets; and can move the market in the manner and timing of their buys and sells. But I won't get into any more detail; there are plenty of books with all the gory details.

It gets more interesting when the shorting of shares is introduced into the above mix.

Part II - Buying/selling in shorted markets

When a market is heavily shorted like tdfx (2.6 M shorted shares in 10M float market), what is "normal" bid/ask behavior gets altered (influenced) by the changed motivations of the trading participants. Now there still may be be numerous (short-covering) buyers, but to get the business they put out lots of "want ads" that show a buying interest but only at a lowering price than what is being offered.

Thus, you will often see a sale at the bid price and then the bid will be lowered, as if the only people wanting to buy this dog are less and less willing to give up good money for it. Sales at the offer price, or at a negotiated in between the bid/offer price become rarer, but when made the bid price is often lowered. This is because the purchaser's (shorter's) primary motivation is to buy shares, yes, but at the lowest price the can get them at.

What also happens is that these "differently-motivated" MM's will have a stockpile of the stock and they will sell these shares to each other (back and forth) at the bid price or lower. In this way they can actually create a falling market, that results in a lowering price, frees up sellers willing to duck out, and of course gets them their covering shares at lower prices.

Eventually, if they dry up the pool of shareholders willing to sell, they allow the price to rise a bit (by staying off the bid for a while) and then lower the boom again (shaking the tree); or simply keep pounding the stock down using the 2 basic techniques above to free up more scared sellers. Of course, if shareholders refused to sell or called in their certificates the short positions would be in deep do-do. But that rarely happens because of the lack of organization among shareholders. (It takes less effort to sell or sit back and blame the company, than to actually do something and try and organize with other investors.)

All the above works best in a lightly-traded market, where there is believable doubt that can be created about the prospects of the underlying company, where good news can be contested, and where big buyers are unlikely to jump in and be a "fly in the ointment" of the above carefully-orchestrated trading activities.

In sum, look for buying at the bid, light trading, the size of the short position, consistent downward price walking behavior, shaking of the tree price behavior, etc. You know, look for a lot of the things we have been seeing on this stock over the last 3-4 months. This indeed has been a good learning experience for me. I plan on using my lessons to make a lot more money in the future with the knowledge gained.

The only reason I have continually banged away at trading behavior as the cause of the price fall is because all the board discussions were looking for the cause of the fall in numerous places outside of the market. My main point remains that this short-term price fall is most likely (and largely) trader-induced.

Credit for post to davewashdc

:-0

Gary

PAINTING the TAPE Article ... by Stephen Rappaport
http://www.baresearch.com/freemain060799.htm

Analysts Do It, Traders Do It, Even Educated Individual Investors Do It!
Why Technical Analysis Is the Security Analysis of the Future

There was a time when technical analysis was akin to tea leaf reading. Fundamental analysts scoffed at the idea that you could determine the future direction and trend of stock prices by looking at past price patterns. Those days have changed. The investment world is being revolutionized by a new phenomena, the emergence of the individual investor and technical analysis is a big part of that revolution.

First things first, what is technical analysis? In its simplest form, technical analysis is the study of past price patterns. Technical analysts believe that certain price patterns repeat over time. Understanding and identifying these price patterns should lead to many profitable trading opportunities. That is the theory.

In practice technical analysis is all about understanding supply and demand. After all, a stock price is little more than a graphic illustration of the relationship between supply and demand. For example, when a stock is well liked demand for that stock will generally out strip supply. The result should be a big run-up in price. There is an indirect relationship between price and the willingness of investors to chase the stock. Demand slows yet supply remains constant and prices fall. This "cycle" has been played-out since the beginning of time, price is all about supply and demand. Technical analysis is the study of supply and demand.

In recent years Wall Street has warmed to the idea of technical analysis. All of the major and regional brokerage firms have well funded technical analysis departments. Indeed, most of the talking heads for the major Wall Street firms, that is, those that appear in the media regularly are technical analysts. For example, Prudential Securities' Ralph Accampora and Merrill Lynch's Walter Murphy are noted technical analysts.

How did this happen? To a large extent Wall Street was forced to become more in tune with technical analysis because of the advent of futures. Well before the stock market crash of 1987, futures trading began to played an increasingly large role in the day-to-day and week-to-week direction of stocks. By definition futures traders are speculators and are very concerned about short term fluctuations in supply and demand. With few exceptions, major futures traders use technical analysis to determine trading opportunities. Often when these traders are interviewed on CNBC you will hear them talking about price action and supply and demand, not the underlying fundamentals.

Okay, Wall Street does it, professional futures traders do it ? but the most important development over the past three years is the proliferation of individual investors using technical analysis. In fact, modern "day trading" is based on the notion that certain technical patterns yielding low risk trading opportunities occur several times per day. Day traders attempt to capitalize on these opportunities using technical analysis.

If you visit the most popular investing web sites you will find the message boards littered with talk of head and shoulder tops, stochastic buy signals and MACD roll-overs. To be sure, much of the move to technical analysis can be attributed to the information technology revolution. As corporations have invested more funds in their Internet web sites, the individual investor has become empowered. Many web sites offer rich technical analysis content that had previously been available only to large institutional investors.

But that is only half of the story. Today individual investors can buy software programs that very accurately target proven technical price patterns and characteristics. The market for this type of technical analysis software is exploding as more investors take charge of their financial futures and begin trading their own accounts via on-line brokers. Wall Street can no longer ignore the importance of this new generation of "traders".

That is the good news. The bad news is the emergence of technical analysis means that far more often once proven technical price patterns fail. Trading is a zero sum game, that is, for every trader that wins, another trader must lose. Typically, the winning traders are seasoned veterans. They know exactly what stocks are being touted by investing web sites and what stocks are highly rated by technical analysis software programs. In fact, professionals will often "paint the tape" to skew the odds in their favor. Painting the tape is the technical name for the process of building bull and bear traps. These traps are designed to make unsophisticated investors believe a new trend has developed when in fact, the old trend remains valid. Unsuspecting investors will rush to add positions only to see the stock price quickly reverse. This practice causes wild volatility.

Is the emergence of technical analysis for individuals a good or bad thing? Any time individual investors are placed on the same footing as professionals it is a good thing. Successful investing is about gathering information. To make informed decisions individual investors need to be aware that technical analysis plays a large role in the stock market but they must also be aware that "trading" is a zero sum game. To trade with professionals it is important to learn how to identify real and false technical signals. Understanding the basics of technical analysis is not enough. Education is key. - by Stephen Rappaport

Specific FUD Cards

Specific Reasons from following FUDs for nearly four years have open my eyes on why OTCs carry such a large oversell. The bottomline is the MMs are making the market primarily for the "Business TO Failure" (BTF) and profit on the business failure. Simple as that…

So in addition to the basic general causes of business failure, public companies have the MMs and the FUDs (internet public image vessel) to contend with on a daily basis. This composition is merely an observation of what I believe to be the Specific Reasons for MMs and FUDs doing what they do with such massive interest.

Lets look at some of the primary factors used by FUDs. In most small start-up businesses, management inexperience or poor decision-making ability is the chief problem of the failing enterprise. FUDs will pick up on that and so do the Market Makers. It is up to the management of the company to realize they do have enemies that will profit from their ignorance, incompetence and in abilities.

Management Incompetence Card. This is a favorite card of FUDs because it can be supported statistics so the odds are in their favor. Even Dun & Bradstreet statistics show that 50 percent of the business failures are attributed to the incompetence of the top management. Sometimes the top management of the small business does not have the capacity to operate it successfully. On CBQI this is where the first FUD has really tried to make a home run on a foul ball. He merely states Bart lacks the leadership ability and knowledge necessary to make the business work. Of course he can always support his opinion that many top managers simply do not have what it takes to run a small enterprise.

First he attacked Jon Harris who had the resume clearly showing experience and competence. Once John did not go to Washington he merely just transferred the same FUD tactic to Bart and Pat. However, he has not specifically played as heavily with John Moran and Quantum Net. So now came the lack of experience card.

Lack of Experience Card Once John was out of the way this is where the FUD tactics went next. Why because a lot of OTC top managers need to have experience in the field they want to enter. Bart being an attorney just fed into this FUD tactic. Even though Bart has been extremely successful in his field, once he expanded into another "unrelated field" that jetfueled (pun intented) the FUD tactic because the play is Bart knows little or nothing about the field he is pursuing.

Now the FUD tactic steered away from the argument that top management did not possess the managerial experience required building and operating a functional organization. Without competent leadership to make managerial decisions, the business is doomed is the basis of this tactic. I believe a solid argument could be made that Bart has had experience in this area and has demonstrated it well especially with the acquisition of Quantum Net.

Finally, this part of the card has been tagged a bit but the second FUD’s arrival. Basically Bart may have unbalanced experience that creates problems for the business. Ideally, the top management should have adequate technical ability (a working knowledge of the physical operations of the business; sufficient conceptual ability); the power to visualize, coordinate, and integrate the various operations of the business into a synergistic whole. So management also needs the skill to manage the people in the organization and motivate them to higher levels of performance. This has really not been played well but only touched on.

Again the underlying basis for this FUD card/tactic can easily be a survey of business owners conducted by Dun & Bradstreet, which suggested that the successful owner needs "balanced experience" in purchasing, production and products, attracting customers, and handling finances. The attorney top management (Bart) turned IT infrastructure CEO may not be able to focus on the production aspect of the operation to the exclusion of the selling function so he would be guilty of unbalanced management. Proof could be that it shows up in the business as terrible sales revenues and no contracts or new business.

SO as you can see the "Poor Management Card" is based on incompetence and lack of experience with the top management of a company, which in fact causes over 90 per cent of all business failures in any given year!

Poor Financial Control Card. Sound overall management is the key to a small company's success, and effective managers realize that any successful business venture requires proper financial control. (The "Burn Rate") Why? Because the margin for error in managing finances is especially small for most small businesses. This FUD tactic has three notable pitfalls affecting a small business' financial health. They are commonly known as: under capitalization, lax Customer credit policies, and over investing in fixed assets.

Lack of Capital. Many start up companies make the mistake of beginning their businesses on a "shoestring," which is the fatal error leading to business failure. FUDs really play this card effectively as the oversell by the MM grows. Market makers and FUDs realize that management tend to be overly optimistic, and, as a result, they often misjudge the requirements of going into business. SO the oversell and FUDs basically seems, to me at least, to focus on one particular objective. Since the company does not have enough money, then force the company to borrow money from banks, shareholder/investor friends or especially the loan sharks that deal in OTC start up companies that take stock as collateral. This basically results in a loss of profits through interest rates not to mention the share price hammered by the dilution of the stock collateral. These debentures always seem to have special terms that eventually causes the sacrifice of profits through loss of discount and loss of share price. If the MMs and FUDs are successful they have merely cause the management to give the company away to the OTC loan sharks. Another words: End of story. FUDs and MMs make a mint on the oversell.

Lax Customer Credit. The pressure for a small business to sell on credit is intense. The manager may believe that they can gain a competitive edge by granting credit, or she may feel forced to keep up with competitors who already sell on credit. Whatever the case, the management must control credit sales carefully and failure to do so can devastate a small company's financial health. Once this shows in the filing the FUDs go to work for they realize poor credit practices are common to many small business bankruptcies. Before creating a policy of credit sales, the small business manager should ask herself two questions: Do I have enough capital to support credit sales? and Do I know how to collect? Because of the lag between the sale of an item and the actual collection of the proceeds, a credit policy requires additional capital. Usually, if credit terms are 30 days, an additional capital investment equal to 45 days' sales is required. A FUD example would be if company sells $16,000 per month in cash, the implementation of credit sales may require an additional $24,000 in capital to continue operations. They can also make a point that credit collecting can be an extremely difficult task requiring a great deal of skill and persistence. Some people are simply not good collectors, and this results in uncollected accounts and therefore lower net profits.

Over investing in Fixed Assets. Many small business managers invest in an inordinate amount of capital in land, buildings, equipment, and other fixed assets. This money normally comes from working capital or borrowing, so when expansion is needed most, no funds exist to finance it. This is not the case with CBQI.

Failure to Plan Card. So many OTC top management types do not realize the importance of proper planning to their firm's success. Failing to plan the company's future at the outset will have a devastating effect on its existence. This failure to plan that weakens the entire company often manifests itself in two ways: lack of a strategic plan and unplanned expansion. CBQI has not been remotely quilty of this FUD Card. They have definitely had a plan.

Lack of a Strategic Plan. A strategic plan plots the overall direction of the company and identifies methods for maximizing its strengths and overcoming its weaknesses. It addresses questions such as:

· What business am I in?
· What are my strengths and weaknesses?
· Who are my customers?
· What are they buying?
· Who are my competitors?
· What are their strengths and weaknesses?
Again CBQ has addressed this on numerous occasions.

Unplanned Expansion Card. Growth is a natural, healthy, and desirable part of any business enterprise, but it must be planned carefully. Ideally, retained earnings or by capital contributions from the owner should finance expansion (note: here Bart exercised options in the .50 price range but his options were $2.125 rarely have I seen this in an OTC). Most OTCs end up borrowing at least a portion of the capital investment. Expansion usually requires major changes in organizational structure, business practices such as inventory and financial control procedures, personnel assignments, and perhaps-other areas. But the most important change occurs in managerial expertise. This is why the Quantum Net acquisition has played a major role in this tactic. As the business increases in size and complexity, problems tend to increase in proportion, and top management must learn to deal with this. The pedigree resume fo John Moran nails this card.

Inappropriate Location Card This was nailed in the spring of 2000 when the corporate offices were moved to Washington DC. For any business choosing the right location is partly an act and partly a science. Too often, business locations are selected without proper study, investigation, and planning. Some beginning companies choose a particular location just because they noticed a vacant building or where they happen to be like somewhere in Oklahoma when LA would best best suited. But the location question is much too critical to leave to chance.

Another factor to consider in selecting location is the amount of rent to be paid. Although it is prudent not to pay an excessive amount for rent, top management should weigh the cost against the location's effect on sales volume or client base. So, location has two important features: what it costs and what it generates in sales volume.

Lack of Inventory Control Card. Normally, the largest investment an OTC must make is in inventory. However, inventory control is one of the most neglected of all the top managerial responsibilities. Insufficient inventory levels result in out of stock scenarios causing customers to become disillusioned and not return. A more common situation is that the manager not only has too much inventory but also too much of the wrong type of inventory. (Suntea vs Alavache) Many OTCs have an excessive amount of working capital tied up in an accumulation of needless inventory. CBQI does not have this problem. Another inventory management problem encountered by OTCs is improper pricing. Most OTCs tend to under price their goods and services, resulting in lower revenues and profits. OTCs often provide faster, more personalized service or unique products, but they fail to charge enough for them.

Improper Attitudes Card. A number of obstacles to success may arise from the attitude of top management. CBQI has done this or at least I know BART has by calling him every flipping day just about. Bart knows he must be prepared to work hard and make sacrifices. Success requires hard work and a lot of it. To date I have yet to hear the fatal mistake of saying, "I'm the boss and I can take off whenever I please." This is a red flag to me because it demonstrates lack of enthusiasm and guidance, sp to me the business is likely to fail. Also Bart has not show another red flag of overextending himself. He seems to have his outside interest in a good balance in public speaking and other various scenarios. However, I have called at 6:00 PM and got him in his office every now and again to see if his is always there. Sometimes, as I have found, is good but all the time is a red flag. Also if I can reach him all the time then I would have to wonder what the devil is he doing. So bottom line I feel he is well balanced in the overextending scenario.

Finally, does he demonstrate and practice ethical behavior. To date I have not caught a lie, or contradiction. This is extremely important to me because OTCs who practice deceit may profit in the short run, but, in the long run, they usually lose and so do we.

Remember this whole composition is merely my assessment of observations. Hey I could be totally wrong.

Gary

10 Red Flags of Market Maker Manipulation (MMM) or Maintaining an Orderly Market

Now first let me give a few principals as my underlying basis on a few market principles within this communication as a prelude to what someone was asking me for my opinion. Especially since a few were wanting my opinion or view. The following happens a lot in CBQI's trading log history since December 8, 1999. Oh and just for what it is worth, in my experience, Market Makers typically do not carry inventories in OTCs, especially thinly traded securities. When they do carry inventories the stock rises so they can sell their inventories. However, the following are my 10 Red Flags for MMM (Market Maker Manipulation) I have observed since I have been trading:

Cross-Trading is the control by one or only a few brokers who match purchases and sales to drive up or down the stock price which ever way benefits them. According to Forbes' 07/29/96 Article on Market Makers this is the hallmark of penny stock manipulation … As an example to this there was a 1200 cross Friday at 11:23, which I was tied up and did not commentary on but these two post demonstrate the double prints that occur in a trading log Ragingbull CBQI Post #9583 & CBQI Post #9601

Boxing where a broker will position himself on both the ask and the bid, which is the heart of penny stock manipulation according to Business Week's 1996 Article: The Mob on Wallstreet eliminating competing market makers and allowing only cooperating brokers to bid on stocks, the result is a kind of rigged auction. As an example of this the following these three posts show an example of "Boxing" Ragingbull CBQI Post #9567, 9602 & 9603

Stock Call Signals which appear to be small share blocks of stock typically 100, 200 and 300 to get a supply of stock another MM or broker to help with an "Oversell", which is the amount of shares sold by a Market Maker that were not bought. Market Makers buy on the bid and selling on the ask, which is an automatic buy low sell high advantage for them same as being the house in a casino. As an example of this the following these three posts show an example of "Stock Calls" Ragingbull CBQI Posts #9594, 9610 & 9611.

Locking is when the MM on the ask moves to the bid in an attempt to back the bidding MM off to drive the price of the stock down. Thus by attacking the bid, both the bid and the ask are the same price. Sometimes a stock will stay locked for sometime if the bidding Market Maker does not move off the bid wanting more stock. Last time it Locked was on 1-03-2000 here is the log … Ragingbull CBQI Post #9263 The morning starts out at 07:30:51AM with a market (Bid-Ask) of 0.750-0.781 25x25 (a 3 cent spread) then at 09:40:56AM it gets another MM on the 0.750-0:781 25x25 quote. Then the short lived rapid fire of trades begin 09:58:11 1000 0.75
09:58:12 1500 0.75
09:58:16 500 0.75
09:58:16 1500 0.75
09:58:17 0.750-0.750 25x25
09:58:24 2500 0.75
09:58:25 0.719-0.750 25x25
09:58:35 2500 0.75
09:59:36 0.719-0.830 25x25 to finish up with an 11 cent spread in 90 seconds once the bidding MM backed off.

Nothing Done / No Fills is applied to your order and market makers trade ahead of you or flat out wont fill no matter what regardless of complaints, but if persistent will eventually get a fill as demonstrated in these two posts. Ragingbull CBQI Post #8127 & 8169 Plus here is a post on the time frame of not getting good delivery on CBQI stock Ragingbull CBQI Post # 9692

Buy orders at the Ask Filled on the bid, which is used to show weakness in the trading thus an investor's buy is shown as an investor sell as demonstrated in Ragingbull CBQI Post #9817

Excessive spreads between bid and ask prices; as demonstrated in red flag #4 it is also demonstrated on October 4, 2000 at 10:14:57 0.656-0.813 25x25 a 15 cent spread that is a 20% spread on the ask where it remained the rest of the day as shown in Ragingbull CBQI Post #9263

Oversell grows daily, which is where the market makers sell more stock than they have bought. 10-05-2000 T&S Report 70% Oversell according to Best Effort Ragingbull CBQI Post #9531 & 10-06-2000 T&S Report 31% Oversell according to best effort Ragingbull CBQI Post #9681

The Churn is market makers trading where most of the volume (59% according to Forbes' 07/29/96 Article on Market Makers) is among themselves. This is demonstrated in the trading around 11:00am on 10-04-2000 in Ragingbull CBQI Post #9353 and even earlier on 09-26-2000 in Ragingbull CBQI Post #8138

FUDs are posters (Usually anonymous posters) posting deliberate false and misleading rumors (rumor-mongering) in an attempt to deflate the stock price by instilling Fear, Uncertainty, & Doubt. (Could these be Market Maker or short voices) and of course attack with the same nonsense such as myself being a scamster as posted in Ragingbull CBQI Post #9223. But if you track the posting to the trading you will make an interesting observation as in post Ragingbull CBQI Post #10319 & 10320 However, a little history on Jetfuel is on Ragingbull CBQI Post #9257 & part 2 9260. Next is an interesting observation post on Stock_Whiz's arrival in Ragingbull CBQI Post #10321 with even more background observations in Ragingbull CBQI Post #9255 but according to Stock Whiz I am doing more harm than good tracking the stock and posting it. ??? I have to ask harm to who, exposing possible MMM by my commentary of the trading. Exposing what I feel is a wrong doing with an underlying basis to what I post. Next is an old Professional basher that always seems to show up when HRZG is on the bid comes out of retirement to make 7 posts then leaves and hasn’t posted since … hmmm… Ragingbul Post #9179 Oh a another just pop in and pop out Ragingbull CBQI Post #10326 who was posting along with and chartman that evaded the thread when MASH was on the bid.
These 10 red flag tactics, I have watched in CBQ since December 1999 and have tried documented each. Most of this was documented under Georgia_Bard from April to I believe July that has gotten deleted. Also the Market Maker reports were stopped in April, which I complained about. Here are my three letters of concern Short Selling and Naked Shorting, Selective Disclosure & Insider Trading, & on 8-10-2000 at 9:49PM Market Maker Report Changes. I believe the reason was because the MMs discovered they were actually reporting what they were doing. The OTC is unregulated and thus they do not have to fill an order or report a short position.

OTC Shorting Note: Someone once asked me about shorting an OTC. Well, we all know it is suppose to be illegal but in a phone conversation with a shorter, I was informed Bruno with Farsight was who he used. The gentleman would Front Load then Pump(Stretch the facts positive) Dump into the hype volume then Short once the momentum backed off and if necessary Bash on being lied to by the company. This is why I wrote the P&D vs S&D. Of course I am probably the focus of a character assassination by this Florida shorter. (What else is new?) BTW I had an account with Farsight and I did not know you could short an OTC through them.

Oh and to complain about it to NASD when you flat see this going on you get the following even when you are using the MM Report the OTC BB use to put out. I made a similar post to this one on April 6, 2000 and it is deleted so I will post this message on several boards. Anyway Listless tried to do what we are suppose to do and complain to NASD. Here is what happened…

April 1, 2000 A CBQI poster stated, I entered a complaint with the NASD regarding this matter.Ragingbull CBQI Post #3505. However according to the transfer agent’s numbers on August 25, 2000 only about 259,217 cannot be accounted for an thus has to be the dilution factor of the filed 144 through June 30, 2000. Sort shoots a hole in what he was told.

April 3, 2000 this same poster posts, … I just got a call from the NASD. Silicon Investor Post

April 7, 2000 (day after the 3100 share $3.00 walk down) this same poster posted, I spoke with a market regulator from the NASD last week regarding CBQI / the regulator threw the last four or five 144's back at me. / The Reg. didn't seem interested to hear the specifics. Silicone Investor CBQI Post

An example of red flag trading: Another interesting scenario is WDCO sold for the longest time this last week (first week in October). Especially on the October the 5th 2000 and boxed (2) the stock prior to noon as I showed in the T&S For Oct. 5, 2000 Ragingbull CBQI Post #9531 and note when the FUDs (10) show up. WDCO remains boxed (2) the rest of the day selling stock.

Then on the open of the 6th WDCO boxes (2) again Ragingbull CBQI Post #9567 by 10:35 WMIN is now boxing (2) with HILL on the bid Ragingbull CBQI Post #9598. Then WMIN unboxes the stock but remains on the bid as WDCO hits the Ask again in an possible attempt to hold it down Ragingbull CBQI Post #9607 if you follow my commentary when it hit a buck after numerous stock calls WDCO got help at 10:52 AM by a Market Maker Wall consisting of NITE, HRZG, MASH & PGON on the ask at $1.03 as HILL jumps on the bid at $1.00 as per Ragingbull CBQI Post #9608. Up until 10:55AM fills and stock calls (3) erupted Ragingbull CBQI Post #9610 By 10:57 HILL flips from the bid to the ask Ragingbull CBQI Post #9614 then single handily HILL drops the ask down on 9,100 shares to .875 by 11:03. The oversell (8) was a stout 41,900 on a 100K volume half day as posted in Ragingbull CBQI Post #9622. Was this one of the tactics for manipulation or an orderly market? The stock had little activity after this until 2:20PM when WDCO boxed (2) it again Ragingbull CBQI Post #9649 MASH stepped on the Ask with him by 2:29 PM Ragingbull CBQI Post #9653. Now that the stock had little activity a canceled shows up on a 1200 cross trade (1) earlier in the day Ragingbull CBQI Post #9678 . Ended up closing with a 11 cent spread 12% spread (7) .82x.93 at the bell Friday Ragingbull CBQI Post #9681

The on Monday morning MASH stepped off the Ask leaving WDCO alone boxing (2) Ragingbull CBQI #9810 until HILL takes the Ask leaving WDCO alone on the bid Ragingbull CBQI Post #9814 upon which orders on the Ask were being filled on the bid (6) Ragingbull CBQI Post #9817 then just after lunch WDCO begins taking the ask down Ragingbull CBQI Post #9824 then just after 2 o'clock MHMY got on the Ask with HILL and WDCO still on the bid Ragingbull CBQI Post #9851 which I then predicted a stock call (3) and it came while I was posting Ragingbull CBQI Post #9852 and the ended up 6% Undersell Ragingbull CBQI Post #9861 but people were posting they finally got their fills (5) Ragingbull CBQI Post #9857 & 9859

Also when WDCO had it Boxed, a 100 share call came out after every fill until he got help. Check the trading on Friday October 6, 2000 that was proof of the MM stock call signals (3) to me.

Anyway, though I am bored and have converted trading activity to a Bullfight it is exactly what it is to be honest. I follow the trading daily and post it as best as I can keep up with it for a documented proof on line.

Also now do you see why I am attacked by every evil on the Internet and accused of every wrong doing in the world. You do not make posts like this and NOT take any heat by the types that live in this reality. (BTW I called it and I was right )

Are small investors merely creatures of manipulation?

Gary Swancey