I am in a lawsuit with the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission ("SEC").
Why? A corrupt SEC CPA during an exam, either on his own or on orders from persons that he reported to, and as part of SEC's preparation for a sealed lawsuit I never saw coming, added the DISTRIBUTIONS of my investment funds to NEW INVESTMENTS and overstated our distributions by 54% to make us look like we needed money from new members and were a Ponzi scheme. That's right - the SEC CPA added money that went out to new money that came in and then said this new grossly overstated amount - in SEC's sworn court statements - was the amount that actually went out, and even though nowhere near that amount actually went out.
I'm not kidding - click here and you will see SEC's admission, click here to see SEC and their CPA lying that that they made this mistake "in good faith". Pardon my French here...this may be the biggest crock of shit lie ever used in a court of law by a federal agency and a CPA. Their financial illustrations are something that could never come about in error. Reconciling fund tax returns and financial statements takes substantial work and there are exact and precise accounting reconciliation methods used by SEC auditors to ensure "mistakes" like this never happen, unless they are deliberate. Ask your own CPA. Here is the actual job description for this SEC CPA. It shows that he holds unparalleled accounting expertise. You be the judge if SEC and their CPA could make this mistake three years in a row for their exam.
So SEC would like the public - you and I included - the same SEC who is in charge of monitoring the financial statements of tens of thousands of business in the United States - to believe that adding together money that went out of my investment fund to money that came into that fund, and calling it all again "distributions" was just an accident. Does this look like government fraud to you?This corrupt SEC CPA, Roger Boudreau, is so good at what he does, and such an expert in accounting according to the SEC, that he has made more than $1,000,000 of taxpayer income over the past five years according to government records (see attached). His job description is six pages long and outlines that he is a foremost government expert in accounting, audits, and analysis work.
Why you ask has SEC done all of this? Because they're still not over their Madoff embarrassment and it's a lot easier to frame a small private company and generate press releases making them look like heroes than it is to go after their Wall Street buddies, where so many SEC employees work after getting a few years experience working for SEC.
SEC falsely represented the receiver to all parties as a CPA; see attached. He is an unlicensed analyst, not a CPA. Only after I informed the Court that the receiver admitted to me that he had allowed SEC to call him a CPA, but that he is not a CPA, did SEC also admit this; see attached. However, then it was discovered that this fraud runs deep, and receiver has also falsely advertised himself as a CPA before his first (of many) government lawsuits. Are you starting to see a theme to SEC's actions here yet? Using false financial illustrations and then falsely calling the guy they asked the court to appoint to manage tens of millions of dollars and to "investigate" a CPA when he never was?
This same guy has has made $10,000,000 or more in compensation since shortly after his false CPA advertisement incontinuous federal receivership appointments; see attached. He is now under investigation by the CFA institute for falsely calling himself a CPA, which discredits both designations (see attached).
After admitting that the receiver is not actually a CPA, SEC's Senior Trial Counsel in this lawsuit appears to have then falsely represented the receiver as a licensed CFA to the California State Bar; see attached. There is no such license in the United States as a "licensed CFA".
Are you getting the picture here how deep SEC's fraud and misconduct runs?
SEC asked the Court to waive bonding requirements for the receiver for reasons unknown; see attached.
Is the picture getting clearer here how deep SEC's fraud and misconduct runs?
Fund investors have provided hundreds of sworn declarations and letters to the court of their belief in fraud and gross misconduct of SEC and the receiver - and not me, the person who SEC accused of running a Ponzi scheme. The judge has cast these aside with little, or no, explanation. Is it just possible that a federal judge is going to take the side of SEC, a federal agency, over that of a party representing themselves (since SEC had all of my personal bank accounts frozen, also, I have been forced to represent myself in court).
SEC does not like any party, especially one who is unrepresented by attorneys, fighting back against them. Their legal actions are usually settled at the time that they are announced (i.e., see http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2014/34-73064.pdf). SEC tried to sanction me for filing court pleadings showing their false financial illustrations, and showing these to fund investors. A magistrate (not the same judge as involved in the lawsuit) denied SEC's request after 19 minutes of oral arguments. This was in spite of SEC's hundreds of pages of legal pleadings and citations, and a half dozen SEC attorneys working feverishly on their legal filings for weeks before the court hearing.
SEC runs a kangaroo administrative court system to gain through their own back door what they cannot, or have not, accomplished in civil court. SEC's administrative judges appear to rubber stamp approval of any request of their own employees, totally ignoring even the fact of manufactured financial illustrations and gross misconduct of their own employees; see attached. A well known and respected legal scholar, Philip Hamburger of Columbia University, within just the past few months has published the book "Is Administrative Law Unlawful" showing a very questionable Constitutional basis to such Agency court systems, and in fact shows how similar kangaroo courts in history have led to the downfall of societies (the Roman Empire no less) from the insularity and insurrections these "agency" courts cause. Not kidding here; see attached article published recently in the well respected Economist.