themovingsale.net

Friday, December 12, 2008

Top broker and Wall Street adviser Bernard L. Madoff, aged 70, was arrested and charged by the FBI on Thursday with a single count of securities fraud, also known as stock fraud and investment fraud. He allegedly told senior employees of his firm on Wednesday that his $50 billion business “is all just one big lie” and that it was “basically, a giant Ponzi scheme (since at least 2005).” Mr. Madoff faces up to 20 years imprisonment and a fine of up to $5 million. FBI agent Theodore Cacioppi said Mr. Madoff’s investment advisory business had “deceived investors by operating a securities business in which he traded and lost investor money, and then paid certain investors purported returns on investment with the principal received from other, different investors, which resulted in investors’ losses of approximately $50 billion dollars.”

The former chairman of the Nasdaq Stock Market is also the founder and primary owner of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, the closely-held market-making firm he launched in 1960. The firm is one of the top market maker firms on Wall Street. He founded his family firm with an initial investment of $5,000, after attending Hofstra University Law School. He saved the money earned from a job lifeguarding at Rockaway Beach in Queens and a part time job installing underground sprinkler systems.

A force in Wall Street trading for nearly 50 years, he has been active in the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD), a self-regulatory organization for the U.S. securities industry. His firm was one of the five most active firms in the development of the NASDAQ, having been known for “paying for order flow,” in other word paying a broker to execute a customer’s order through Madoff. He argued that the payment to the broker did not alter the price that the customer received. He ran the investment advisory as a secretive business, however.

Dan Horwitz, counsel of Mr. Madoff, in an interview, said that “he is a longstanding leader in the financial-services industry with an unblemished record; he is a person of integrity; he intends to fight to get through this unfortunate event.” Mr. Madoff was released on his own recognizance on the same day of his arrest, after his 2 sons turned him in, and posting $10 million bail secured by his Manhattan apartment. Without entering any plea, the Court set the preliminary hearing for January 12.

Madoff’s hedge fund scheme may rank among the biggest fraud in history. When former energy trading giant Enron filed for bankruptcy in 2001, one of the largest at the time, it had $63.4 billion in assets. The scheme would dwarf past Ponzis, and it would further be nearly five times the telecommunication company WorldCom fraud and bankruptcy proceedings in 2002.

The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a separate civil suit on Thursday against Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities and its eponymous founder Mr. Madoff. It was docketed as “U.S. v. Madoff,” 08-MAG-02735, by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Manhattan). SEC, New York associate director of enforcement, Andrew M. Calamari, asked the judge to issue seizure orders on the firm and its assets, and appoint a receiver. The SEC pleads, among others, that “it was an ongoing $50 billion swindle; our complaint alleges a stunning fraud that appears to be of epic proportions.” It further accused the defendant of “paying returns to certain investors out of the principal received from other, different investors” for years. Madoff’s hedge fund business had previously claimed to have served between 11 and 25 clients and had $17.1 billion in assets under management. But virtually all of the assets were missing.

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York Louis L. Stanton on Thursday appointed Lee Richards, a Manhattan lawyer, as the firm’s receiver. A hearing is set for Friday, for a ruling on the SEC’s petition to grant plenary powers to the receiver over the entire firm, and an absolute asset sequestration.

Doug Kass, president of hedge fund Seabreeze Partners Management said that “this is a major blow to confidence that is already shattered — anyone on the fence will probably try to take their money out.”

Thursday, October 2, 2008

While nearly all mainstream coverage of the 2008 Presidential election has focused on the Democratic and Republican candidates, the race for the White House also includes independents and third-party candidates. These prospects represent a variety of views that may not be acknowledged by the major party platforms.

Wikinews has reached out to these candidates throughout the campaign and now presents an interview with Donald K. Allen of Youngstown, Ohio, an independent presidential candidate who registered with the Federal Election Committee in January 2007. He says that his three major policies are “1. Take care of America and Americans first. 2. Turn our economy around. 3. Secure our borders.”

Allen was previously interviewed by Wikinews, although the previous interview was only five questions long, and did not go into the candidate’s policy in much detail. As a result, Wikinews has decided to do a more in depth interview, which is available below.

Saturday, April 17, 2010

Journalist, counselor, painter, and US 2012 Presidential candidate Joe Schriner of Cleveland, Ohio took some time to discuss his campaign with Wikinews in an interview.

Schriner previously ran for president in 2000, 2004, and 2008, but failed to gain much traction in the races. He announced his candidacy for the 2012 race immediately following the 2008 election. Schriner refers to himself as the “Average Joe” candidate, and advocates a pro-life and pro-environmentalist platform. He has been the subject of numerous newspaper articles, and has published public policy papers exploring solutions to American issues.

Wikinews reporter William Saturn? talks with Schriner and discusses his campaign.

Friday, March 31, 2006

Canada has become the first western country to freeze aid and cut diplomatic ties to Palestine after the Palestinian Legislative Council installed a government led by Hamas. No other country has yet followed through on threats to end aid to the Palestinian Authority. Aid may still go to Palestine through the United Nations.

The Canadian Arab Federation head, Faraj Nakhleh, later expressed his dismay at the decision, which he says will harm the interests of the 3.5 million Palestinians who are at risk of starvation.

Thursday, January 27, 2005

PORTO ALEGRE-RS, Brazil —The fifth World Social Forum (WSF) has kicked off in Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul state, Brazil. The Forum is back in its original home, Porto Alegre, after last year being held in Mumbai, India. The event was opened January 26, 2005 and it is scheduled to continue until January 31.

The World Social Forum is an annual meeting organized by left organizations, mainly from Brazil. It discuss strategies to fight back against the neo-liberalism, capitalism and imperialism. According to the organizers “The World Social Forum is an open meeting place where groups and movements of civil society opposed to neo-liberalism and a world dominated by capital or by any form of imperialism, but engaged in building a planetary society centred on the human person, come together to pursue their thinking, to debate ideas democratically, for formulate proposals, share their experiences freely and network for effective action.”

Just under 6000 different groups and organizations will participate in the six day event which joins discussions, protests and festivals.

Both the Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez are to be guests at the forum; however the reception of the two leaders is set to be quite different. Da Silva (commonly referred to as Lula) has faced criticism from the leftists set to make up the majority of participants at the forum due to the allegedly weak results of the government social politics and the way the government conducts the Economy. This is in stark contrast to the reception that he received at the 2003 forum (also in Porto Alegre), where he was hailed as a hero.

Hugo Chávez on the other hand is set to receive a warmer welcome for enforcing a 2001 law allowing for the expropriation of idle agricultural land from large estates. However, the government of Venezuela has also received criticism for what some feel to be intimidation of journalists and other anti-democratic acts.

This year the event has been tarnished by the Brazilian journalist Políbio Braga, who alleges illicit negotiations between the World Social Forum and GP Equipamentos Elétricos Ltd, a Brazilian company contracted to work on the infrastructure for the forum. He also accuses the Brazilian government of trying to stop the police investigation into the matter.

In 2006 the forum is scheduled to be held in Venezuela and/or simultaneously in different cities around the world.

Saturday, December 23, 2006

On December 22, 2006 Microsoft has announced that it has extended its warranty for all Xbox 360 video game consoles to one year in the United States. While this one year warranty applies to all Xbox 360 software as well, Xbox 360 accessories will still carry their original 90 day warranty.

According to a statement by Microsoft:

“Customers that experience hardware issues with their Xbox 360 within one year of purchase will have their consoles repaired at no cost. Moreover, the new warranty policy is retroactive, so consumers that may have already paid for out-of-warranty Xbox 360 repair within one year of the console’s purchase will be eligible for reimbursement of their console repair charges.”

This extension should help ease customers’ minds who have been concerned with the Xbox 360’s reputation for hardware failures. A partial list of hardware issues can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360_technical_problems

People who have paid for Xbox 360 repair will be automatically distributed a reimbursement check in about 10 weeks from the present date.

Previously in September, 2006, Microsoft had waived the cost for repairs on all Xbox 360 consoles made before January 1, 2006, and refunded any fees already paid.

A full description of the updated warranty can be found here: http://www.xbox.com/en-US/support/systemsetup/xbox360/resources/warranty.htm

Sunday, September 8, 2013

File:Prof. Scott Lucas 1.jpg

The United States President Barack Obama announced last Saturday he was seeking Congressional authorisation for military intervention in Syria.

Looking for more-qualified input, Wikinews interviewed: professor Scott Lucas, an expert in American Studies, from the UK’s University of Birmingham; the President of the International American Council on the Middle East, Majid Rafizadeh; and, professor Eyal Zisser, a Syrian expert, from Tel Aviv University.

Discussing the risks involved with US military intervention in Syria, Wikinews posed a range of questions to these experts on the region’s political climate.

((Wikinews)) Is it possible for the US to take military action to deter further use of chemical weapons without getting dragged into the civil war?

• Prof. Scott Lucas: The US is already involved in the civil war — the question is to what extent.

The US has given political support to the opposition and insurgency since late 2011, and from summer 2012, it has pursued covert support to the opposition fighters.

However, the Obama Administration has been hesitant about overt support for insurgents throughout the conflict, and that has affected co-ordination of covert efforts. In June, the Administration finally said it would provide overt military assistance, but then pulled back and failed to deliver any public aid.

Had it not been for the August, 21 chemical weapons attack, that position would have persisted.

• Majid Rafizadeh: It depends on the scope of the military operation. If United States conducts limited military operation, as the adminstration argues, and if US only targets some of the Syrian government’s military installments, it is less likely that United States will be drawn into the Syria’s civil war. It would be a political suicide for Syria, Iran or Hezbollah to respond.

On the other hand, if Assad observes that the balance of power is tilting against him inside the country, he might use chemical weapons in the future despite US limited strikes.

• Prof. Eyal Zisser: Yes, it[sic] the attack is limited. And If the Americans only use missiles. They can cause severe damage, but leave Assad in his palace, and not being dragged into the civil war.

((WN)) Will military intervention from the US affect long term relations between the United States and Russia?

• SL: Of course, significant military intervention by Washington will affect relations between the US and Russia, but the long-term effect cannot be predicted.

It is dependent on Russia’s reaction — so far, Moscow has been able to pressure the US into caution, but a decision for intervention by the US might call Russia’s bluff, so to speak, and force some caution by the Russians. Already, Moscow has said it will not join a fight against any US military action.

And, of course, the long-term relationship is dependent on the political and military success of any US intervention.

• MR: Military intervention, in the classic sense of putting troops on the ground, will definitely affect US-Russian long term political relationships. It might heighten the diplomatic tensions. However, the limited military operation is less likely [to] change US-Russian long term economic, geopolitical, and political relationships.
• EZ: No. They need each other in many other places of the world. Russia knows that the US is a super power and will not be interested in a real conflict with Washington.

((WN)) The British Parliament voted against military intervention in Syria, do you think this has affected their relations with the United States?

• SL: No — had the Obama Administration been united and decisive for intervention, there might have been some effect. But the Obama Administration’s divisions mean its first priority is getting some coherence in Washington, rather than blaming London.
• MR: I don’t think so. I believe that [the] UK has been [the] staunchest ally of the United States for decades. One instance of opposing parliamentary vote will not have impact on US-UK relations.
• EZ: Maybe. But Britain is not an important power any more, so the affect will be only in the symbolic field.

((WN)) Russian President Vladimir Putin has said Russia could back Syrian intervention if there was conclusive proof of regime guilt. What sort of evidence would be needed and can this level of assurance be given?

• SL: This is not a scientific question — we already have extensive evidence establishing the near-certainty of major regime attacks with chemical weapons on 7 towns on August 21.

Putin’s statement was a political move: it ostensibly re-confirmed the Russian opposition to US intervention while giving Moscow a way to step back if the UN inspectors return a damning report.

• MR: It is difficult, if not impossible, to provide Moscow with the evidence that they are looking for. In order to provide that specific information several criterions should be met. First of all, the soil of the location where the alleged chemical weapons are used, should immediately be examined after the incident. The Syrian government has not allowed immediate access to these places and usually reports come out days after. Second, and more fundamentally, a concrete and observable evidence is needed for Russia showing that Assad’s government has used it as opposed to the rebels.
• EZ: No the Russians are not after the truth but after their interests even if Assad admits that he used such weapon the Russians will be against any intervention.

((WN)) Would US military intervention on Syria be a violation of International law?

• SL: This is a grey area, especially as there will not be an endorsement by the United Nations Security Council. Supporters of the action say it can be justified under the recent doctrine of humanitarian intervention, but that is more a political rather than legal judgement.
• MR: Legally speaking, it is [in] violation of [the] United Nations Charter. According to [the] UN Charter, use of force is permitted only in case of self-defense or UNSC’s [United Nations Security Council] approval. Neither of these two cases apply for US use of military force against Syria. However, this does not mean that our current international law is devoid of any shortcomings. The International system has some shortcomings because of the structure of the UNSC, where one member can veto a resolution and block actions.
• EZ: Technically — yes because they did not get an approval from the UN.

((WN)) Does the United States seem to be wanting to engage in regime change in Syria as opposed to preventing further chemical attacks?

• SL: No, the Obama Administration has been uncertain about — and many of its members opposed to — regime change, and that is still the situation. The military, in particular, is opposed to significant, long-term intervention because of its concerns over a fragmented, diverse opposition and what happens if Assad falls.
• MR: If there was an efficient alternative to Assad, US would have seen the regime change to its political benefits and interests. However, United States does not seem to have articulated any precise agenda towards Syria yet. The policy is more ” Wait and See” policy; observing and reacting as things unfold in Syria and the region.
• EZ: No Obama does not want it, he finds himself being dragged into a war he has no interest in.