This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: The Federal Reserve Is Public Enemy #1 – With Bill Fleckenstein Of Greenspan’s Bubbles
Submitted by Damien Hoffman of Wall St. Cheat Sheet
Bill Fleckenstein has kept a hawk’s eye on what the government does to our economy. Most recently, Bill wrote an excellent article describing the new health care law as “the great health care bailout.”
I caught up with Bill to discuss three hot topics:
1) How the new health care law will affect our economy;
2) Whether the Fed has painted itself into a corner of low interest rates; and,
3) Whether the foreign debt crisis are an omen for what’s coming to the US.
The Federal Reserve is Public Enemy #1 with Bill Fleckenstein
(click the link for full interview)
»
- 8435 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
1 badly
2 yes
3 without a doubt
William Fleckenstein was famously and correctly described as a fraudster in the Sixth Circuit case Moross Limited Partnership vs. Fleckenstein Capital, Inc.; peruse this case here http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:RU_LZzKEgGUJ:caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/6th/052312p.pdf+fleckenstein+fraud&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESj_jlao3Jtbf8QBlVUhpnWqx8PTjqN3HWge9__usJJUIu4GyOWv-TWw1DxNAtrjRbKfwPIhpcBLuTtvPzbpsL8TT-wovLplv9y0ipVLes9oHcpcaXuJf_RcaF7wJkbhNqxvehBy&sig=AHIEtbTLI_f7wcw4c-4cF-HtKhMPRqC2Kg discover William Fleckenstein to not only have lost over 80% of an account but also to have exchanged winning trades in his managed LP for losing trades in his personal account.
And so what does this have to do with Fleckenstein's opinion? Are you saying that because he may or may not have acted fraudulently his opinion is automatically wrong? If this is the case, every opinion put out by JPM, GS etc is wrong and should be ignored.
I call your post an ad hominem attack of the most egregious variety. First class posting buddy. Since you've only been here on ZH for 3 weeks and after looking at some of your other posts, I suspect there is an agenda you're promoting on ZH.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Peruse my cited case before putting your foot in your mouth. The cited case involved both conflicts between Fraudster Fleckenstein's newsletter and his trading in LP as well as a conflict between his Corporate board positions and his trading in LP. Fleckenstein evidently pumped and dumped both his LP and his gullible newsletter subscribers for the benefit of his personal trading account.
Did you read my post? I asked you if your information makes Fleckenstein's opinion any less valid? The answer is no. What he did or didn't do in the past has no bearing on his current financial opinion. Only on whether you wish to believe him. Show me data that conflicts with the opinion. You are attempting to disparage the man so others will judge the opinion. Yell and scream all you want but that's what you're doing.
It's called an ad hominem attack and it's the refuge of those who can't argue using the facts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Don't be shrill. Your left hand isn't coordinated with your right one: "what he did...no bearing...current...opinion" doesn't consist with your next "only on whether...believe him". "Belief" by definition is not created by facts but by "credibility" or credo. Since Fleckenstein is widely known as a liar thief loser, why would anyone believe anything he says? To discern further between fact and belief, consider the following: that 2+2=4 is a widely known fact; that commodity prices are normally distributed is a belief; why this discerning between fact and belief pertains to credibility is illustrated by widely known example of FOF salesman describing to pension trustee fund drawdowns as "six sigma events": the salesman's use of "data" depends on his interest on selling the fund. Fleckenstein indisputably used his position of director and his LP and his newsletter for personal profit, so his credibility is still that of a thief and liar. Any monkey can perscribe facts and derive therefrom opinions, but his credibility depends not on his present selection and arrangement of facts but on his widely known past frauds and thefts.
Momma warned me not to argue with idiots or I would demonstrate to the world that I'm one as well. Nuff said.
Cog* -
You come off as an ass in your posts thereby damaging YOUR credibility. Fleck has an opinion which is different than a past behavior, since an opinion in the past of economic conditions can be validated. If he misbehaved in the past it is UNRELATED. Example: Tiger screwing a prostitute does not make him a bad golfer. See?
Let me summarize: You are arguing the wrong point.
My point has been and remains that the poster engaged in an ad hominem attack.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
disfigured:
Clarify your confused statement: "Fleck has an opinion which is different than [sic (from?)] a past behavior" , since opinion isn't compared with past behavior any more than fresh apples are compared to rotten oranges.
Just as your target asks, I'm wondering what makes this case of someone offering up dirt here on somebody a crime?
You think the poster "has an agenda"?
You've been going off on a few people (me included) in a completely unfounded way that is altogether incompatible with both your own guru image and prevailing mores in this community, CD.
Word.
Looks like perhaps I spoke too soon and optimistically (given the roast that ensues below.) Not that many people are actually participating . . . but I really don't understand the intensity of the effort. WTF?
"William Fleckenstein was famously and correctly described as a fraudster in the Sixth Circuit case Moross Limited Partnership vs. Fleckenstein Capital, Inc."
By whom, you?? The jury didn't seem to think so. I hate when people lose money and try to blame someone else. Another frivolous suit that got shot down and the only winners were the attorneys, as usual.
To what jury have you referred? My cited case is an appeal in Federal District Court to a summary judgement in a lower Federal District Court: juries hear neither appeals for summary judgement nor appeals of summary judgement. You are ignorant and confused.
I dissent with you: I don't "hate when people lose money and try to blame someone else" but instead hate when thieves steal money, losers lose OPM while depicting themselves to be winning traders; I also hate when known thieves and losers are used as monkeys by the organ grinders CNBC and Fox Business.
cognitis - did you even read the suit you linked? It demonstrates the US Court of Appeals upholding the circuit court's finding in favor of Fleckenstein.
Reading through the opinion tells the story of a plaintiff who lost money, and then tried to lever an expensive legal system to coerce a refund. It includes several examples of the plaintiff changing tactics by introducing new and novel arguments in response to the defendants pointing out that there were zero specific examples of "cherry picking" trades (the original plaintiff complaint). The plaintiff's expert witness arguments were dismissed by the court because (ironically) the expert witness cherry-picked data to try and prove his pro-plaintiff conclusion.
If anything, this link looks like an exoneration of Fleckenstein, and makes the plaintiff look like just another lawyer trying to score a "special deal" through legal maneuvering and fishing expeditions.
+1
+100
Facts trumping PMS yet again. Good one.
You need to peruse my argument carefully and next peruse the arguments below: the judgements were never the matter but rather Fleckenstein's character divulged in these two cases. Again, would you recommend your mother to a monkey (Fleckenstein is hairy and simian-like) who laundered $217k from his personal account to his LP only after having been menaced with a lawsuit by the limited partner? Also, would you recommend her to the same monkey who lost over 80% of the LP to trading losses even with the addition of the laundered $217k? Really, arguing for the sake of argument is inane and perhaps deceptive on your part.
As far as I can tell, your argument seems to be that anything alleged in a court filing -- no matter how far afield, and regardless of the motivations of the accuser -- should be taken as fact, and should be used to slander people.
You're aware that anyone, anywhere can allege anything in a court filing, right? And the net cost is like a $50 filing fee, plus lawyer expenses. Since in this case, the plaintiff was a lawyer, those fees would be... zero.
So, a very common tale... troublemaker levers legal system by spending fifty bucks and a bunch of threats to cause thousands of dollars of trouble and attack someone's character. Desired outcome? A payday.
The presence of those accusations - without context, btw - is then levered as "fact" by people like yourself. Forever.
Nice system.
"...the judgments were never the matter, but rather Fleckenstein's character..."; That makes my point even better than the above. Perhaps I should have just posted your own argument instead.
Peruse my post before putting your foot in mouth: I didn't cite allegations but rather admissions by Fleckenstein: Fleckenstein admitted to laundering over $217k from his personal account to the LP, and he also admitted to losing over 80% of the LP equity even after the laundering. Fleckenstein also admitted to serving on PAAS board while buying shares in PAAS for LP and also recommending the stock in newsletter, this last reprehensible act widely known as "pump and dump". Again, answer the question, would you recommend this known thief liar and incompetent loser to your mother?
Haven't you just described the behaviour of most of the actors on Wall Street? They don't even try to hide it anymore.
Just out of curosity... Are you the Plaintiff?
Cognitis,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
You may also want to look up "non sequitor".
--Popo
Popo confused "non sequitor" with "non sequitur". Aspire to the diction of the literate at risk of detecting yourself to be only a boor
Cognitis...shut the fuck up! The more you blab, the more stoopid you come off!
The case was dismissed by the court at both the trial court level and at the appellate court level. According to the appellate court the plaintiff did not have a case. Anyone can make allegations, if they can not be proved then the allegations are without merit. Note: Mr. Fleckenstein was awarded costs by the appellate court.
/Yawn.
What are the Social Security, Medicare, and virtually every other govt trust fund, Alex?
Remeber how Fleckenstein has been screaming FIRE FIRE and "The top is near" all the way from 2004 to 2007? The guy is worthless.
Well.. he was right. And right now Tyler's yelling the same thing. Is he worthless?
All broken clocks are worthless.
Complete hogwash, public enemy #1 is the public who continue to believe you can run a system that requires exponential growth for it operate. Sorry but these system have been blowing up before there were things called banks.
You have a system that used a flawed model to operate, you get about 60-80 years out it then it's lights out.
http://worlddarkestdays.blogspot.com/2010/03/why-is-financial-system-col...
You can get rid of the Fed all you want, the system will collapse.
As long as all you guys and the billions of others believe you can lend and borrow at a rate of compounding interest well good luck with all that.... Math will defeat you every time.
Hogwash??
You are giving the "Public" way too much credit for knowing anything.
Until those that weasle their way into power can be made to be uncorruptable and not greedy filth, the cycle will continue unabated.
The "Public" will continue to watch and wonder dumbfounded.
I never said the "public" are in the "know". The know absolutely nothing that I can tell. Mindless robots that can't even do simple Math.
The public is public enemy #1 whether they know it or not.
The public can get rid of the Fed but they will not have gotten rid of their problem if they do. This pyramid scheme will end just like they all do.
How many times are you going to post the same thing? Can you even comprehend a system that doesn't operate on a FR basis?
After one has been living in the hive for a long enough time, one can not imagine a world other than that of the hive. The hive has always been in existence and the world can only function as a hive world. While various parts or pieces may rotate in and out, the basic system must function as a hive and as the hive has said it will function. There are no alternatives.
In fact, one a hive member has been fully assimilated and indoctrinated, the hive member will fight to the death to defend the hive way of life and mentality. Long live the hive.
Yeah. Sure can. Worked pretty well in this country before 1913. Maybe you are unfamilar with the Greenback issuance during the War Between the States? How about the gold and silver certificates issued by the UST prior to 1913? So, yeah, I can comprehend it and I will vote for its return.
I don't understand your comment. You're quoting my question to Mako but then answering it from another point of view (if Mako shared your opinion, I obviously wouldn't have asked the question). What leads you to believe I don't know the monetary history of the US? Did you even read Mako's comments?
By now the facts are not in dispute.
The Federal Reserve System is owned by private bankers. These owners have become filthy rich while more and more Americans have become dirt poor. The private bankers have complete and secret control of the one measure of America’s economy—the currency; they print, in secret, as many issues of currency as they want, they control completely what the value of that currency is, and they decide through their political appointments how that currency will be spent, who will receive it and who will not. They game all public debt on the loans they issue out of thin air.
The regulation of all financial matters are under their complete control. And in addition to all the offices of the executive branch of the government, they control the leadership base of both political parties.
And you say that to remove the Federal Reserve would collapse the system. Just whose “system” are we talking about?
The facts are not in dispute.
Humans continue to believe lies, the lie is that they can borrow and lend to each with an attachment of compounding interest. The lie runs out after about 60-80 years and the pyramid scheme collapses.
Yes, if you eliminate the Fed right now the system would collapse in an instance... it's going to collapse anyway. It's pure Math.
- The Fed is wrong
- The government is wrong
- The pubic is wrong
They all believe you can have a system based on exponential growth long-term, they can believe whatever they want, it will indeed collapse. It's simple Math really.
In this confused world, a workable system was actually developed, summarized by Mr Jefferson, illustrated by Mr. Madison, and slammed into place by General Washington. The basic idea was to protect individual enterprise with property rights and human rights, and to prohibit destructive monopoly. The system worked until 1913 when a secret and damaging derailment occurred. It is a profound mistake to believe that returning the train to its tracks will collapse the system. The American dream was not created by nor does it rest on mathematical numbers; it only can be explained in terms of plausible human-action economics.
Ludwig von Mises, the outstanding Austrian economist and author of the magnum opus of economics, Human Action, and among many others, The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science, once said that it’s a pity most economists don’t have a better understanding of mathematics; if they did, he said, they’d appreciate how little mathematics has to do with economics.
** Edited for Content**
On-Topic : Fleck is always a good read. No one is perfect but the historical record shows on balance he is more right than wrong.
Off-Topic
Random-Walk, R.I.P.
Look matey, I know a dead theory when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.
'It's not pinin'! It's passed on! This theory is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'It's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed it to the masses it'd be pushing up the daisies! It's metabolic processes are now 'istory! It's off the twig! It's kicked the bucket, it's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-THEORY!!'
FT
By Tony Jackson
March 29,2010
... markets are only efficient - if indeed they are - in respect of information held by outsiders. But fair value accounting changes the behaviour of insiders - those running the firms - who have different information. To that extent, fundamentals affect prices, but prices also affect fundamentals.
Such an argument might seem surprising from the bone-dry Chicago school, home of Eugene Fama, the father of the efficient market hypothesis. Indeed, Professor Haresh Sapra of Chicago's Booth School of Business is at pains to stress he is not claiming that anyone is acting irrationally here.
This should not surprise us. As Thomas Kuhn, the philosopher of science, showed 50 years ago, scientists will not abandon a paradigm, however shaky it is, until a satisfactory new one comes along. For to work outside the paradigm is to abandon science.
In the quasi-science of economics, or even accounting, something similar applies. However broken the model, it must be maintained until an economic Newton or Einstein invents a better. It could be a long wait.
AM here: No need to abandon science Tony, in fact all you need do is embrace it. For in fact the efficient market hypothesis anchored by random-walk has been debunked, disproved, and lampooned. It has run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible.
The satisfactory new paradigm? Why that which has been advanced by Benoit Mandelbrot, the Fractal Man, Sterling Professor Emeritus of Mathematical Sciences at Yale University and a Fellow Emeritus at IBM's Thomas J. Watson University.
Seriously Tony, you can look it up!
And when you do implement that indispensable toolkit of opposable thumbs and frontal lobes in the service of Senor Google here, dear sir, is what you will find:
You will find that when examining price records, you will typically find a different distribution than the bell curve bandied about by the high priests of random walk.
You will find a power law relationship. Power laws exist in nature, for example, gravity weakens by the inverse power of two with its side. Power laws describe the distribution of income in the upper reaches of society. Power laws also apply to the price movements of many financial instruments. Power law distributions allow for many more price swings than would the bell curve and this 'new paradigm' fits the data for many price series.
Mandelbrot first provided evidence to this almost 50 years ago, in 1962, when he showed that a century's worth of cotton price movements did not fit the bell curve, there were too many large tails due too far too many big price swings, and these tails followed a power law.
In Mandelbrot's book, 'The Misbehavior of Markets : A Fractal View of Financial Turbulence' he references how Warren Buffet once jested that he would like to fund university chairs in the Efficient Market Hypothesis, so that the professors would train even more misguided financiers whose money he could win. He called the orthodox theory "foolish" and plain wrong. Yet none of its proponents "has ever said he was wrong, no matter how many thousands of students he sent forth misinstructed. Apparently, a reluctance to recant, and thereby to demystify the priesthood, is not limited to theologians."
Clearly reality is the tail risk.
The new paradigm Benjamin is fractals.
Natural law is based upon a "fractioning" of a larger structure into smaller structures that have not only the features of the larger structure but if scaled up will look identical to the larger structure. Mandelbrot showed this scalability by graphing long-term financial data that appeared to be discontinuous on logarithmic paper revealing a fractal relationship in markets.
Per Benoit: 'Price changes are not independent of each other.My heresy is a different, fractal kind of statistical relationship, a "long memory." Why this should be is not certain; but one can speculate. Whatever the explanation, we can confirm the phenomenon exists- and it contradicts the random-walk model. Contrary to orthodoxy, price changes are very far from following the bell curve. Such theory predicts that index swings of more than 7 percent should come once every 300,000 years; in fact, the twentieth century saw forty-eight such days. Truly, a calamitous era that insists on flaunting all predictions. Or perhaps, our assumptions are wrong.'
Mandelbrot discerned that markets exhibit a wild trait of abrupt change or discontinuity. This hierarchy of turbulence, a pattern that scales up and down with time, he describes as the Noah Effect - catastrophic, but transient. This Noah Effect is seen in the market's discontinuity : this is the pillar of fractal geometry.
The market's second wild trait - almost-cycles- he describes as prefigured in the story of the prophetic dreams of Joseph, a biblical tale of pattern recognition or long-term dependence. The Joseph effect is the influence of a long-term memory through which the past continues to influence the present.
Per Benoit: ' But how exactly do these two effects- Noah and Joseph, dependence and discontinuity - interact in markets? Answer: At least one market mechanism I identified naturally leads to the other. Suppose, for instance, that you have an "almost-trend" emerging in a stock price: a few weeks, say, in which a stock price rises seven days out of ten. The pattern must eventually break up, of course; otherwise, it would be a real trend that you could bet on continuing a few weeks, and hope to make some real money. But when the "almost-trend" finally does break, it can do so rapidly. A sudden lurch downward, perhaps. A discontinuity. Or, in the terms of the Biblical metaphor, a Noah Effect produced by Joseph-style dependence.
For some real-world examples, think about investment bubbles. They seem calamitous -but they happen all the time. Conventional economics tells us they are aberrations, "irrational" deviations from the norm, caused by a rapacious speculator, mass greed, or some other unpleasant factor. But under certain circumstances they can be entirely rational and flow from the entwined effects of long-term dependence and discontinuity.
The distribution of price changes in a financial market scales. Given that event X has happened, what are the odds that Y will happen next? With financial prices, scaling means that the odds of a massive price movement given a large one are akin to those of a large movement given a merely sizable one. Such is the confusion of scaling. It makes decisions difficult, prediction perilous, and bubbles a certainty.'
Ah but to channel a canucklehead on Bubblevision, 'Dear Anonymous Monetarist, is it actionable?'
The answer gentle reader is, Quite so! Although some methods are more equal than others.
If you were to venture into a non-descript office building and saunter into a non-descript office where the flickering tube lighting dimly illuminated the visage of the billionaire in a baseball cap with mismatched shirt and tie upon yonder bookcase you might spy some esoteric tomes laying out all manner of twists on the theme fractal...
Great coffee table fare, especially those without names on the binders, with authors such as Baumring, Lynch, Gregorius, Balliett, Johndro, Raphael, Councel, Whiteham, Foster and Bayer ... Novels usually obtained from dusty storefronts.
Bits and pieces are garnered and applied to some method usually resulting in vast longitudinal charts with squiggles and wiggles and a fair amount of confirmation bias.
One of the most advanced practitioners of these arts is the venerable Jeffery Cooper of Minyanville, a Gann student and Swing trader.
Gann is a launching point in consideration/confirmation that random walk is meant for history's dustbin, but he only scratched the surface.
Mandelbrot completely refuted random walk but it was too hard for folks to accept; hence Mr. Jackson's lament for a new paradigm.
But there is one fellow who can give you the tools to trade this half-century old theory of fractals.
His name is John Needham. The website is the danielcode.com.
Check it out and follow the trades posted the night before each trading day.
Believe what your eyes see.
Think outside the cave!
"His name is John Needham. The website is the danielcode.com."
AM, the correct web site is http://www.thedanielcode.com
"In the quasi-science of economics, or even accounting, something similar applies. However broken the model, it must be maintained until an economic Newton or Einstein invents a better. It could be a long wait."
It's even worse than it sounds. Since the vast majority of scientists and researchers are suckling the governmental, corporate and academic teats (and corporations and academia are sucking from the government teat themselves) there will be few if any apple cart models upset for a long time, regardless of how much evidence to justify doing so is presented or covered up.
Since Uncle Sam can declare any information release as a danger to national security (with no one able to question the decision) and currently any information that shows Uncle Sam or it's minions might not be acting in our best interest is being squelched, all broken models will be declared correct and then fully funded for decades. Uncle Sugar has plenty of hired thumbs available to plug new leaks in the information dam.
Very interesting comment. You must be a teacher... or something like it.
Thanks.
I very much like that - as well as your posts.
Interesting. But the link should be:
www.thedanielcode.com
The reference you gave directs one to another site, not quite so erudite.
Rally on!
....ah! I see CD beat me to it after an edit.
The truth is always worthless. I really hate writing that, however, one buys agreed upon illusion and sell ignored fact. In between the two is risk and that is what ZH is great at exposing.
Will never stop reading ZH. Keeps one honest with oneself and there smart people here.
+60
At heart, that is why I read ZH every day.
The guy who posted that decision is an utter retard. It plainly states that Fleckenstein won at trial level. The only thing they didn't win is sanctions against the Plaintiff's lawyer for bringing a frivolous appeal. Just because you don't like what somebody has to say doesn't mean you have to character assasinate:)
You're illiterate and ignorant: I didn't dispute the legal judgement of the orginal case, since I posted the appeal. What was divulged at appeal was Fleckenstein's admitting to weirdly moving money from his personal account to the LP, a movement of money today called "money laundering". Also divulged at trial were Fleckenstein's indisputable conflicts between investors and subscribers on the one hand and Fleckenstein on the other. Divulged at original trial was Fleckenstein losing over 80% of the money even after weirdly laundering over $200k to the LP. Look, to all the weird supporters of a widely known Thief Liar Loser, what is your interest in protecting this embarrassment to the managed money industry? Would anyone here really recommend this monkey, a monkey that indisputably hasn't passed Trading 101 where one learns about Stop-Losses and a monkey that launders money, to run his mother's money? Really, just stop, as you sound even worse than Fox Business or CNBC.
Did you not just argue below that no trial was but only summary judgement as I argued above? You're not only illiterate and ignorant, you're careless as well.
No moron there was no trial. Summary Judgment is a pretrial motion. The Court of Appeals is simply restating the allegations made by the plaintiff in the trial court. The trial court can only grant summary judgment if it appears there are no genuine issues of material fact on which the plaintiff could recover in front of the jury. They view the evidence presented in light most favorable to the plaintiff.
In this case even after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the plaintiff they could not see any fraud on the part of Fleckenstein. Moreover a simpleton such as yourself can't see that the facts as restated in the Court of Appeals are done so in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. There's no contradictory evidence given. Even after doing so they found the District Court did not make an error in ruling for Fleckstein.
Maybe you should go to law school rather than watching CNBC all day.
Thanks for obfuscating the facts and ignoring my post while conceding evidently my descriptions of Fleckenstein: Thief Loser Liar
Umm, no, essentially the court presented one side of the case only, as that was their job in judging the motion, and in doing so even they didn't find any fraud by Fleckenstein. It's much like if I was to go before the court alleging that you are a moron. If I filed a motion for summary judgment quoting your online postings undoubtedly the court would find for me.
LOL
"It's much like if I was to go before the court alleging that you are a moron. If I filed a motion for summary judgment quoting your online postings undoubtedly the court would find for me."
Brilliant!
In the case of HEHEHE vs Moron, I rule that Moron is in fact a (self-evident) moron, having demonstrating such by his own words.
Fleck makes a lot of sense. I appreciate his outlook on things - it's often pretty even-handed.
As for the court case, almost every corporation above a certain asset level has one or more lawsuits against it at any given time. Joe sixpack won't take the trouble to edumacate himself on finance and investing, and turns to the legal system when he feels he is wronged. The legal system, in turn, venue shops, which is a nice way of saying finding people even dumber than Joe Sixpack himself to stack the jury. I've never been selected for a jury, but have been dismissed, mostly for revealing signs of independent and critical thinking, and for my presumption of innocence as it pertained to accused parties. Like it or not, justice in America is about finding enough jurors who can be led around by the nose to bend the case one way or another.
Court cases rarely determine guilt or innocence, they determine likelihood of guilt or innocence. That's a critical distinction.
Having said that, let me say that some, perhaps many business people are greedy and unethical, and if they aren't they are susceptible to being tempted toward dishonesty, like all humans. Maybe Fleck has done some dishonest things, and maybe he's a regular Mother Theresa. Who knows? But the court case in question exonerated him, and that's good enough for me.
For those who yet demonstrably cannot discern between allegation and fact here are Statements of Fact provided by the judge of the case, the same judge who ruled in favor of Fleckenstein:
and then this:
Fleckenstein didn't contest this argument of the defense but instead argued that it hadn't been made in the initial complaint, which argument of Fleckenstein is also known as a "legal technicality":
Although the appeals judge and not an expert regulator conceded to Fleckenstein, any time someone is placing block orders especially in thinly-traded stock like PAAS facile is for any trader to assign lower buys and higher sells to a preferred account, which kind of assignment Fleckenstein evidently used.
Moron give it up. You are extracting allegations and presenting them as fact. Moreover the trial court judge upon reviewing those allegations and accepting them as fact for the purposes of reviewing the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment still didn't find that the plaintiff showed Fleckenstein acted fraudulently. Moreover the Court of Appeals approved the trial court's decision. I'll give you this much, you are persistent. You seem like one of those short little Ivy league guys with a Napoleon complex. Kind of like Geithner.
People were really on their game today!
Wheeeehhhhhhhhh!!!!
Where to begin? Mandelbrot, the DanielCode (?! WTF??), and all that other good stuff.
Seriously, has anyone ever heard of the MargaritaCode???
I'd give you the recipe......but then I'd have to short you!
Cognitis:
get a hobby
Good linux hosting option package offered by ucvhost which not only provides the best in terms of hosting packages but also believes in truly being there for the customer, 24x7. windows vps Moreover , they offer unlimited bandwidth as well as nearly 1GB storage along with database maintenance, email facility along with storage, availability of sub domain and many other important features for a very low price. ucvhost