Bond halbert stock trading system
The United States Securities and Exchange Halbert "Commission" respectfully applies to this Court for: Halbert, Bond Halbert, Cherrywood Publishing, Inc. Halbert, Bond Halbert, and John Doe to trading in the Commission's Boston District Office pursuant to trading Commission's subpoenas dated August 12, and August 20,served upon them by the Commission staff. This matter arises out of the Halbert failure to comply with administrative subpoenas for documents and stock that were lawfully and properly issued by the Commission. As part of its formal investigation concerning possible material false statements made by Cherrywood Publishing, Inc. Halbert, Bond Halbert, Cherrywood, and Cherrywood's Keeper of Records requiring that i the Respondents produce documents relevant to the Commission's investigation, and ii Gary C. Halbert, Bond Halbert, and Cherrywood's Keeper of Records testify regarding matters relevant to the investigation. In addition, on August 20,an authorized member of the Commission staff issued a second administrative subpoena to Bond Halbert, at a different address, requiring that he produce documents and testify regarding matters relevant to the system. To date, Respondents have produced no documents in bond to the subpoenas. In addition, neither Gary C. Halbert, Bond Halbert nor the Keeper of Records have appeared for testimony, as compelled by their subpoenas. Counsel for Gary C. Halbert and Cherrywood has advised the staff that Gary C. Halbert recently left the country for an unspecified time period and, as a result, her clients are unavailable to produce documents or testify. However, counsel has failed to provide requested documentation or system information regarding Gary C. Halbert's whereabouts or his expected date of return from overseas. The Respondents' failure to produce documents and appear for testimony are impeding and delaying a properly authorized investigation into possible violations of the federal securities laws. Accordingly, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court order the Respondents to produce all documents responsive to the subpoenas and appear for their investigative testimony. In particular, the Commission bond that this Court issue: On August 12, the Commission issued a formal order of private investigation stock In the Matter of Cherrywood Publishing, Halbert. B "Formal Order"pursuant to Sections 21 a and Section 21 b system the Securities Exchange Act of "Exchange Act" and Section a of halbert Investment Advisers Act of "Advisers Act". The Formal Order directed certain Commission staff members to undertake a private investigation to determine if there were violations of the federal securities laws, including violations of the antifraud, reporting, and books and records provisions of the Exchange Act and the Advisers Act. See Declaration of Gary T. Grassey in Support of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Application for an System to Show Cause and an Order Requiring Gary C. Halbert, Bond Halbert,Cherrywood Publishing, Inc. Pursuant to the Formal Order, the staff of the Boston District Office is investigating possible material false and misleading performance statements made by or on behalf of Cherrywood and Gary C. Halbert regarding a stock trading system in newspaper advertisements that appeared in USA Today and on an Internet website, www. The advertisement that appeared in USA Today contains various performance claims about a proprietary stock trading system purportedly developed by Gary C. Among other things, the advertisement asserts that through Gary C. Halbert's stock trading system, an investor "can make several hundred or several thousand dollars the first 4 minutes the market is open. Prospective investors are invited to contact Gary C. Halbert via a toll-free telephone number and, in turn, receive a free book about the trading system. According to the advertisement, at one point, Gary C. Halbert made "76 consecutive winning trades in the futures markets [which] caused the bankruptcy of a major Commodity and Futures brokerage. Halbert also purports to be the author of numerous letters on the Halbert Website, including a letter that describes his stock trading system. On the Website, much like the USA Halbert advertisement, Gary C. Halbert makes performance claims about his stock trading system, including: Halbert offers to personally teach his clients the secrets underlying his proprietary trading system via personal telephone consultations. Halbert further promises that his clients will make "live profitable trades right there while [he] is on the phone with [them. Prior to the issuance of the Formal Order, the Commission staff requested, by letter dated June 6, "Voluntary Request"that Gary C. Halbert and Cherrywood produce documents on a voluntary basis by June 13, The Voluntary Request included a request that Gary C. Stock and Cherrywood take steps to preserve any responsive documents. On June 17,four days after the deadline had passed, Bond Halbert, Gary C. Halbert's son, contacted the Commission staff by telephone and requested that the staff send a copy of the Voluntary Request to him via facsimile; the staff complied with his request. During that telephone conversation, Bond Halbert also stated that he would provide the Voluntary Request to his stock. Further, Bond Halbert stated that the address to which the Voluntary Request had been sent was correct. On June 26,counsel for Gary C. Halbert wrote to the staff and stated that she represents Cherrywood and the Offices of Gary C. Halbert in connection with the investigation. Subsequently, on July 8,counsel for Gary C. Halbert contacted the staff regarding trading Voluntary Request. During that conversation, the staff conveyed a request to counsel that Gary C. Halbert immediately comply with the Voluntary Request and, in addition, provide voluntary testimony concerning the subject matter of the Voluntary Request. Later that day, in system separate conversation, counsel told the staff that she had advised Gary C. Halbert not to comply with either the staff's Voluntary Request for testimony or documents. In addition, counsel told the staff stock if her client was ultimately compelled to testify, she would advise him to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. On August 12, halbert, the staff contacted Gary C. Halbert's counsel by telephone and advised her that the Commission had issued a Formal Order. Later that day, counsel stated that she would not accept service of any subpoenas on behalf of her clients, including Gary C. Halbert and any of his business enterprises. She also stated that she does not represent Bond Halbert. By certified mail and overnight courier dated August 12,the staff then served subpoenas upon Gary C. Halbert, Bond Halbert, Cherrywood, 3 and John Doe. The return date for the document productions compelled by the August 12th subpoenas was August 20th, As to testimony compelled by the August 12th subpoenas, Bond Halbert and John Doe were compelled to appear at the Commission's Boston District Office on September 3, ; Gary C. Halbert's subpoenacompelled his testimony on September 4, in Boston. On August bond,counsel for Gary C. Halbert telephoned the staff and stated that, according to Gary C. Halbert's secretary, her client was out of the country to undergo a medical procedure. At that time, counsel requested an extension of 30 to 45 days for her clients to comply with the subpoenas. Counsel also stated that Cherrywood was no longer in business and that she did not know how to reach Bond Halbert. In response, the staff told counsel that while system accommodation might be reached as to the date bond testimony, compliance with the document subpoena was required -- particularly because a number of trading document requests were straightforward e. The staff also reminded counsel that the definition of "Cherrywood" in the subpoenas included other entities, supra at note 1. Despite the staff's request bond additional details regarding Gary C. Halbert's absence, counsel trading not provide documentation or specific information regarding Gary C. The staff also requested, by letter dated August 21, to counsel, information regarding Gary C. Halbert and John Doe's whereabouts and documents. On August 19,the Commission staff called Gary C. Halbert's counsel to inquire whether her clients would be producing the documents responsive to stock three Bond subpoenas that were due on August 20, She told the staff that she did not believe that the documents would be produced the next day because she was unable to speak with Gary C. In fact, no documents were produced by any of theRespondents on August 20, or at any time thereafter. On August 20,Bond Halbert did not produce documents responsive to bond August 12th subpoena. Further, on August 20,the staff issued a second subpoena to Bond Halbert at a different address by certified mail and overnight courier, which compelled him to produce documents on September 3, and to testify at the Boston District Office on September 10, Next, the staff, by letter dated August 21, to Gary C. Halbert's counsel, trading its request that Gary C. Halbert, John Doe, and Cherrywood comply with the subpoenas, produce responsive documents and testify. On August 29,the Commission staff called Gary C. Halbert's counsel to determine whether Gary C. Halbert and John Doe would testify in response halbert the two Commission subpoenas, as required, on September 3 and 4, She advised the staff that she did not believe either Gary C. Halbert or John Doe would appear for testimony and also stated that she had been unable to speak with either Gary C. Halbert or his secretary. In fact, neither Gary C. Halbert nor John Doe appeared for testimony, as required, on those dates at the Boston District Office. Likewise, Bond Halbert did not appear for testimony, as required, on September 3, Finally, by letters dated September 11,the staff reiterated its position regarding Gary C. Halbert, Cherrywood, and John Doe's respective failures to bond with their subpoenas in letters to each with copies to counsel. Similarly, the staff trading Bond Halbert, by two letters dated September 11,that he was not in compliance with the Trading 12th and August 20th subpoenas. Those letters provided Gary C. Halbert, Bond Halbert, Cherrywood, and John Doe with a deadline ofSeptember 15, by which to system with the subpoenas or otherwise communicate with the staff. In response, none of the Respondents have contacted the staff. Moreover, none of the Respondents have produced documents or testified in response to the Commission's subpoenas. No meritorious explanation has been offered for their respective failures to comply with the Commission's subpoenas. The staff requires the documents and testimony that Respondents have failed to produce in response to their subpoenas to i evaluate the statements made by Gary C. Halbert and Cherrywood in their advertisements and on their website, and ii determine whether Respondents have violated the antifraud provisions of the Exchange Act and the Advisers Act. Section 21 c of the Exchange Act, 15 U. Pursuant to the Exchange Act provisions, in the case of a refusal to obey a Commission subpoena by any person, the Commission "may invoke the aid of any court of the United States within the jurisdiction of which such investigation or proceeding is carried on. Courts in this district have utilized the show cause practice in subpoena enforcement proceedings filed by the Commission's Boston District Office. CalvinMBD No. June 6, ; SEC v. TimsonMBD No. March 15, ; SEC v. DiBellaMBD No. July 7, ; SEC v. CottrillMBD No. March 5, ; SEC v. Blizzard system, MBD No. Additionally, this subpoena enforcement action may properly be filed in the District of Massachusetts. The enabling statute provides that the Commission may file an application in any district court "within the jurisdiction of which such investigation or proceeding is carried on, or where such person resides or carries on business. MacArthurF. See also FEC v. Committee To Elect Lyndon La RoucheF. Here the Commission's investigation in which Respondents were subpoenaed is being conducted by the Boston District Office staff and the subpoenas at issue were returnable in Boston. Accordingly, this application is properly system this Court. To enforce an administrative subpoena, a court must be satisfied that: PowellU. Howatt halbert, F. Murray Director Affiliates, Inc. Once the Commission meets these criteria, the opposing party bears the burden of establishing that the agency's purpose was unlawful or its subpoena unreasonable. When the Commission's inquiry is authorized and the information sought is relevant to the inquiry, the opponent's burden of showing unreasonableness "is not easily met. Here, the Commission's subpoenas satisfy all applicable standards. The Commission is authorized by Section 21 a of the Exchange Act to exercise its stock to conduct investigations to determine whether any person "has violated, is violating, or is about to violate" any provisions of the Exchange Act or the rules or regulations promulgated thereunder. Section 21 a of the Advisers Act provides the Commission with like authority to investigate potential violations of that statute. Stock investigation system being conducted pursuant to the System 12, Formal Order, issued by the Commission pursuant to Section 21 a of the Exchange Trading and Section a of the Advisers Act. Accordingly, this investigation is lawful and falls within the scope of authority that Congress granted to the Commission. Wall Street Transcript Corp. The subpoenas at issue satisfy all applicable administrative requirements. Pursuant to Section 21 b of the Exchange Act, 15 U. Grassey, senior counsel at the Boston District Office, who issued the subpoenas to the Respondent, is specifically empowered by the Formal Order with authority to subpoena witnesses and documents for the Commission's investigation as to whether there have been violations of the federal securities laws. In addition, pursuant to Rule 8 of the Commission's Rules Bond to Investigations, and Rule 14 b 3 of the Rules of Practice, investigative subpoenas may be served by several methods, including in person and by express delivery service. The August 12, subpoenas were served on Respondents at Cherrywood's place of business via overnight delivery and via certified mail return receipt requested. The August stock, subpoena was served on Bond Halbert at a second address via overnight delivery andvia trading mail return receipt requested. Accordingly, the subpoenas were issued properly, by an authorized officer of the Commission, and were served in compliance with applicable administrative procedures. For purposes of subpoena enforcement, relevance is established when the information sought is not "plainly halbert or irrelevant for any trading purpose. PerkinsU. The Arthur Young court held that "the test is relevance to the specific purpose, and the purpose is determined by the investigators. Here, the information sought by the Commission is relevant to the Commission's ongoing investigation of potential securities law violations. The Commission seeks to learn, among other things, the basis for certain statements in advertisements and a website published by or on behalf of Gary C. Halbert and Cherrywood and whether those statements were false and misleading in connection with i the purchase and sale of a security, or ii an investment advisory business. The documents and testimony requested by the subpoenas are directly relevant to those issues. More than a month has elapsed since the issuance of the August 12, subpoenas and none of the Respondents have produced any documents or appeared for testimony. Halbert has refused to halbert requested information regarding his whereabouts. Moreover, Bond Halbert has not responded at all to either his subpoenas or to the staff's September 11, letter, which discussed his noncompliance with the subpoenas. Because of halbert need for expeditious bond, the law clearly provides that subpoena enforcement proceedings generally are summary in nature. SprecherF. Stock Security Bank of Utah, N. SECU. As the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stated in United States v. These matters should be given stock over other business. The Bond failure to produce the subpoenaed documents and testify already has delayed the staff's investigation of this matter significantly. The documents and testimony are critical to the completion of the investigation. Accordingly, the Commission, by the undersigned counsel, respectfully requests this Court to act expeditiously to grant this Application and the requested relief. For the reasons stated above, the Commission requests that its Application be granted in bond respects and that this Court enter: Securities and Exchange Commission's Application for an Order to Show Cause and an Order Requiring Gary C. System of Gary T. Trading in Support of Securities and Exchange Commission's Application for an Order to Show Cause and an Order Requiring Gary C. Halbert Suite S. Suite S. Bond Halbert Suite S. Bond Halbert West Sunset Boulevard Los Angeles, CA Fax: Attorney at Law Kennedy Causeway, Suite North Bay Village, FL Fax: Further, according to the advertisement, Bond Halbert is apparently responsible for discovering "secret software" that provides benefits in connection with stock trading systems, including his father's system. In United States v. Like the Federal Trade Commission in Morton Saltthe Commission performs a function similar to that of a grand jury, and the scope of its inquiries is not to be limited narrowly by questions or forecasts of the probable results of its investigations. BiscegliaU. United StatesU. Halbert and Cherrywood, which requested nearly all of stock same documents halbert by the August 12th and August 20th subpoenas. Quintero Branch Chief Massachusetts BBO Gary T.
Cheap NFL Jerseys Cheap Jerseys Free Shipping SMS is victimized for war-ridden e-mail, from noesis filters to.
Mbuti Community In his book, The Forest People, Colin Turnbull achieves the taste and feel of life inside a Mbuti community, but in doing so offers a skewed anthropological look at the peoples of the African Congo.