SEC has violated the 4th and 5th Amendments, and caused massive losses to a private equity fund's investors.  
SEC v. Small Business Capital Corp.
Hello,

Background
I am in a lawsuit with the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission ("SEC").  Here is my background information:  After graduating from college in '85 and a four year stint serving Uncle Sam as a Naval Officer that ended in late '89, I worked for the U.S. Small Business Administration for two years in the early 90's after I finished graduate school. For the next fifteen years I worked for banks and started my own company, with a continued focus on SBA lending.  In late 2011 I became a director of a troubled California chartered bank after special approval from the FDIC that is required for troubled banks by FDIC and the California Department of Financial Institutions.  I had to quit that position in late June 2012 on the day of a surprise injunction against my companies.  Probably my only claims to any kind of fame before this lawsuit were earning a few medals and ribbons for my navy service, and a few years later being invited to a national talk show after I tackled a bank robber (he claimed to have a gun and I didn't want anyone to get shot so I took the big leap) at the bank I worked at, and held him until the police arrived.

Legal Issue
My SEC lawsuit involves specialty mortgage investment funds that I founded and managed, and which had about 300 investors. These funds were ostensibly exempt from SEC registration requirements, per guidance that we received from both the State of California and our attorneys.  Why am I in this SEC l lawsuit?  SEC, of course, would want the world to believe their story.  However, the hard truth of this matter is that I am in this lawsuit because 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.  So, even though the FDIC approved me to serve on a bank board, and even though at least five federal and state regulatory agencies had all of my company's financial information, and even just hours after Wells Fargo Bank pre-approved my companies for a $30,000,000 business line of credit, SEC still thought it fit to initiate a surprise injunction and receivership by way of sealed court pleadings which included scores of SEC's false financial illustrations about my companies, and to seize tens of millions of dollars from myself and 300 investors as though it were all hot drug trade money.  Are we all living in America as we thought we know it, or in some third world country now?

SEC Admits to its Actions, but not to the fact that they were fraud or gross misconduct
I'm not kidding - see SEC's admission, and SEC's 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 their 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.  According to the SEC, their Enforcement CPA is such an expert, and so knowledgeable about accounting, that his SEC job description is four pages long and it shows that he holds unparalleled accounting expertise and experience with audits, analysis, and reconciling financial statements.  You be the judge if SEC and their CPA could make an "error" of adding distributions and investments together in his analysis for three consecutive years in a row.

SEC thinks the public is very gullible and has no reason to ever suspect their intentions
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 businesses 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 official SEC records under Freedom of Information Act filings. 

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 target small private companies who have much more limited resources to fight SEC fraud and gross misconduct, and it's easier to generate press releases making SEC look like heroes this way than it is to go after corporate executives behind scandals like insider trading and mortgage fraud, stuff like that of the Wall Street firms who employ so many ex-SEC attorneys after they get a few years experience working for SEC.
 
There's more...

How SEC stacked its deck with a little unlawful help
If you are SEC, to help win your case at any cost, you will ask the Court to employ a receiver by way of false licensing about him
SEC falsely represented the receiver to all parties as a CPA.  He is an unlicensed analyst, not a CPA.  Only after I informed the Court that the receiver is not a CPA (neither the SEC or the receiver informed the court of the receiver's false licensing description) did SEC admit this.  However, my research then discovered that this fraud runs even deeper.  This receiver falsely advertised himself as a CPA before his first (
of many) government lawsuits, going all the way back to 2003.  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 person has made $10,000,000 or more in compensation since shortly after his false CPA advertisement in continuous federal receivership appointments.  He is under investigation by the CFA institute for falsely calling himself a CPA, which discredits both designations.  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.  There is no such license in the United States as a "licensed CFA".  This was just yet another false licensing description by the SEC.  Are you getting a picture of the pattern of how deep SEC's fraud and misconduct runs?  SEC asked the Court to waive bonding requirements for the receiver for reasons unknown.  Is the picture getting clearer here how deep SEC's fraud and misconduct runs?  The same SEC CPA who used sealed false financial illustrations in the lawsuit which took my assets under a surprise seizure, and tens of millions of dollars from hundreds of investors,  is also involved in the other SEC lawsuit where the receiver was falsely labeled a licensed CPA.  Can you smell the foul stench of a couple of sewer rats here yet gorging on the inside and the outside of the carcass of the road kill that the SEC CPA helped create, and their chosen receiver circled his wagons around?

Fund Investors Don't Buy SEC's or the Receiver's Stories
Fund investors early in this lawsuit picked up on the foul stench coming from SEC and the receiver.  They 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 of myself, the person who SEC accused of creating and managing a Ponzi scheme.  The judge has cast these court submissions aside with little, or no, explanation.  Is it just possible that a federal judge is going to liberally construe as facts the presentations of SEC, a federal agency, yet hold with scepticism  the presentations of a party representing themselves who has been prejudicially labeled in sealed court submissions a "Ponzi" by SEC (since SEC had all of my personal bank accounts frozen I have been forced to represent myself in court)?  Is it just possible that federal judges are going to look the other way at a receiver's and SEC's false licensing misconduct when they have become familiar faces to each other while attending the same conferences and commonly sitting with each other on the same panels over the years?

Warning to you that SEC gets down and dirty if you decide to fight them
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.  SEC even made an outrageous claim to the court that I was witness tampering with my own wife.  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 spent much effort to depose my wife, also.  SEC attorneys are so callous and so low-handed that one of their lead attorneys, Lynn Dean, even put the obituary of my wife's recently deceased father into Dean's exhibits of their court papers when they were trying to depose her.

SEC and its Administrative Kangaroo Court
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.  Every
month for the past half year I have been forced to spend countless hours preparing and submitting more pleadings to SEC, or if not I lose whatever rights I might be able to assert in SEC's kangaroo court (Submission 1, Submission 2, Submission 3, Submission 4, Submission 5, Submission 6).  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.  There is an excellent recent example of the fraud which occurs with agency administrative law.  A few years ago Pacific Gas & Electric had a massive gas line explosion that killed many people in San Bruno, CA.  This utility is one of the largest in the country, and with a stock market capitalization of billions of dollars.  The Daily Post ran a story on 9-16-14 of how executives from this utility and senior public employees from the state agency are collaborating in civil, if not criminal, misconduct to influence administrative law decisions in PG & E's favor.  

The five elected Commissioners and the Secretary of the SEC will shortly review my petition to rebut their administrative proceedings, and which boils these issues down to the essential elements.  If the Commissioners and the Secretary do not agree that there has been very questionable conduct by SEC Enforcement personnel, then capitalism is surely on its way to a slow and painful death in the U.S. at the hands of the regulators ("SEC") of capital markets.

Wrap up
No private party, only a federal agency, could ever have this done and gotten away with it for so long now.  Everybody tells me "Good luck to you, Mark, fighting the federal government".  Well, somebody has to do it.  SEC picked the wrong honey badger to fight with.


4th Amendment -  enacted to prevent falsely based seizure (false pretense) by government, such as has occurred in this SEC lawsuit:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

5th Amendment - enacted to ensure due process and equal protection for citizens, which has been violated in this SEC lawsuit: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution


 

Website Builder