Colonial Restarts Damaged Oil Pipeline Following Deadly Blast - British Columbia at risk.

November 7, 2016.

On Sunday, Colonial Pipeline announced that the blast-damaged gas line in rural Alabama had been restarted.

In a statement, Colonial said that the country's largest gasoline line resumed service at 5:45 Sunday morning and noted that supplies should return to normal to Atlanta by Monday, November 7. However, it will likely take several days for the delivery supply chain to return to normal.

The pipeline was shut down on Monday, October 31 following a massive explosion that left several workers injured and one dead at the scene.

The Georgia-based company and government officials determined the cause of the explosion to be accidental — a track hoe struck the pipeline in error which then ignited the fiery blaze.

On Tuesday, Alabama Governor Robert Bentley also declared a state of emergency in case of a severe gas shortage.

The blast, which sent flames and thick black smoke soaring over the forest, happened about a mile west of where the pipeline ruptured in September, Gov. Robert Bentley said in a statement. (AP Photo/Brynn Anderson)

According to the National Safety Board will continue to investigate what was Colonial's second pipeline rupture and shutdown in the past two months.

In Friday's statement, Colonial said, "Our focus remains on ensuring the safety of the public, personnel on location, and supporting our colleagues and their families who have been impacted. Our deepest condolences go out to the family and loved ones of the deceased, and our thoughts and prayers remain with the four individuals who were injured and who continue to receive care."Now this being reported how long will it be before we in British Columbia have the same set of problems now that the recipe for disaster with Kinder Morgan ET AL pipe line expansion and the Northern LNG Project go through. We will kiss our Tourism Industry goodbye when and where we have a major accident as large amounts of workers on these projects are either drunk or stoned on serious drugs that includes politicians and senior management in the Provincial Government of British Columbia who are always high on drugs and are unqualified to run the numerous ministries as they are political appointments of "Crooked Christy Clark and her henchmen" .

Its just a matter of time till we see a massive oil spill like the Exon Valdez 26 years ago which still has not recovered after 11 million gallons that's more than 43 million liters  of oil spilled into Prince William Sound that destroyed hundreds of thousands of majestic animals from Sea Otters to Killer Whales. You’d think nearly three decades would be long enough for the wildlife to recover, but some populations took a harder hit than others. 

Take killer whales, also known as orcas.

They’re the subject of a new National Geographic investigative documentary produced by reporter J.J. Kelley exploring the effects of the Exxon Valdez spill on this highly intelligent animal. “News always goes in and covers the immediate,” Kelley says, “but what about the long-term fallout?”

Two pods of orcas were caught up directly in the spill. One, the so-called resident orcas, lost 14 of its 36 members after the spill. These fish-eating orcas still haven’t recovered. Even worse off is the “transient” pod—orcas that feed on seals and other marine mammals living in the sound. The "Chugach transients," as they're called, are the stars of this three part documentary.

Before the spill, they numbered 22. Nine immediately disappeared and were presumed dead, likely from ingesting or inhaling oil. Another six went missing. Now the transients are down to seven. Not one calf has been born since the spill, and the two remaining females are too old to reproduce. The pod will soon die off.

So Crooked Christy Clark you should resign as premier of British Columbia and quit Politics before you ruin the Province of British Columbia for ever . The Federal Government and Your emergency plans are a joke and will not work. You cannot even deal with a 200,000 liter  from a sunken tug how do you expect us the people to allow you to run British Columbia into the ground and cheat all British Columbian's out of our majestic province and turn Vancouver Harbor into a cesspool.

Providence files another antitrust lawsuit against Bank of Nova Scotia Et Al this time over U.S. Treasury securities

Providence files another antitrust lawsuit against Bank of Nova Scotia Et Al  this time over U.S. Treasury securities
October, 16, 2015, - 10:26am

NEW YORK - The City of Providence has joined nearly 30 other separate plaintiffs in filing its own class action lawsuit against a group of banks over their alleged “collusion” in auctions of U.S. Treasury securities.

Providence filed its 34-page complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Sept. 29. Pomerantz LLP, a securities law firm headquartered in New York City, is representing the city in the proposed class action.

The city, which has filed various other antitrust lawsuits in recent years, is suing for violations of the Sherman Act, Clayton Act, Commodity Exchange Act and state common law against the banks, each of which is or was a “primary dealer” in Treasury securities, according to the city’s complaint.

The named defendant banks include: Bank of Nova Scotia, New York Agency; BMO Capital Markets Corp.; BNP Paribas Securities Corp.; Barclays Capital Inc.; Cantor Fitzgerald & Co.; Citigroup Global Markets Inc.; Commerz Markets LLC, formerly known as Dresdner Kleinwort Securities LLC; Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC; Daiwa Capital Markets America Inc.; Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.; Goldman, Sachs & Co.; HSBC Securities (USA) Inc.; Jefferies LLC; J.P. Morgan Securities LLC; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.; Mizuho Securities USA Inc.; Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC; Nomura Securities International Inc.; RBC Capital Markets LLC; RBS Securities Inc.; SG Americas Securities LLC; TD Securities (USA) LLC; and UBS Securities LLC.

Providence argues in its complaint that the defendants’ collusion in auctions of Treasury securities, along with derivative financial products related to Treasury securities, such as futures and options, have hurt it financially.

Treasury securities are debt instruments issued by the U.S. Treasury Department, which regularly borrows to help finance the debt of the U.S. federal government. About two-thirds of the U.S. government’s debt is held in Treasury securities.

As of June, the Treasury securities market was estimated to be $12.5 trillion.

“Treasury securities are a bedrock of the U.S. financial system: their sales raise money to fund the government, and the rates attached to their sales affect a range of borrowing costs, including home mortgages, auto loans, credit cards, corporate bonds, and state and local bonds,” Providence explained in its complaint.

Such securities are sold at auctions, for which all relevant information is announced several days in advance.

In the days before an auction, a primary dealer that plans to purchase Treasury securities at the auction may sell the securities to its customers. A “primary dealer” is a financial institution selected by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York as a trading counter party, either a U.S. chartered bank subject to official supervision by bank supervisors or broker-dealers registered with and supervised by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The primary dealer then may buy at the auction to cover these sales, pocketing the difference in sale and purchase price, or spread, as profit.

Primary dealers are the largest group of purchasers at Treasury securities auctions, and they are the only parties required to participate in all such auctions and to make reasonable markets for the FRBNY.

“As primary dealers, defendants thus collectively occupy a unique position in the world’s financial markets and have voluntarily assumed a special obligation with respect to the implementation of U.S. monetary policy,” Providence noted in its filing.

“Defendants, however, repeatedly abused their position by colluding to manipulate auctions of Treasury securities and pricing of Treasury securities during the when-issued market.”

The city contends that by exchanging confidential customer information, the defendant banks were able to “coordinate their trading strategies.”

As a result, they allegedly artificially inflated prices of Treasury securities they sold to customers in the when-issued market and manipulated auction bidding to artificially deflate the prices at which they purchased Treasury securities to cover orders placed pre-auction in the when-issued market.

“Part of this collusion was agreed upon through the very communication methods that conspirators, including many of the primary dealers, exploited for colluding to manipulate other financial markets and benchmarks, including foreign exchange, the London InterBank Offered Rate (‘LIBOR’), and the leading benchmark for fixed rates on interest-rate derivatives and swaps worldwide (‘ISDAFIX’),” Providence wrote in its action.

“These communication methods, including, without limitation, instant messaging, electronic chatrooms and telephonic methods, were difficult to track and trace. Consequently, defendants were able to maximize, through collusion and at expense of the class, their own profits.”

According to its lawsuit, Providence “directly transacted” in Treasury instruments with one or more of the defendant banks during the class period.

“As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ collusive and manipulative activities, Providence was injured in its business or property,” the city wrote, noting that it believes there are “at least thousands” of class members.

“Reasonable due diligence could not have uncovered defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ manipulative conspiracy.”

In a stipulation and order filed by Judge Paul G. Gardephe Wednesday, the defendant banks’ time to answer, move or otherwise respond to Providence’s complaint has been suspended until an order is entered consolidating any related actions.

Providence’s case and 27 other, recently-filed cases all are based on the same conduct by many of the same defendants.

The initial complaint, State-Boston Retirement System v. Bank of Nova Scotia, New York Agency, et al., was filed in the Southern District of New York July 23. Twenty-six other related cases were subsequently filed between July 24 and Sept. 28.

In its case, Providence seeks damages, to the maximum extent allowed under federal antitrust laws, and that a joint and several judgment in favor of it and the class be entered against the defendants in an amount to be trebled.

The city also wants the banks permanently enjoined from “entering into any other conspiracy or combination having a similar purpose or effect, and from adopting or following any practice, plan, program or device having a similar purpose or effect.”

It also seeks pre- and post-judgment interest, costs and attorneys’ fees.

The action is Providence’s most recent filing in what appears to be a growing interest in antitrust litigation.

Since 2012, the city has teamed up with private law firms -- most notably, prominent plaintiffs firm Motley Rice -- to file more than a dozen antitrust lawsuits in federal court.

Those cases allege companies are “scheming” to keep generic versions of their prescription drugs off the market by agreeing to so-called “pay-for-delay” settlements.

In such deals -- sometimes referred to as reverse payment patent settlements -- brand-name drug makers pay their generic competitors to keep cheaper alternatives off the market.

Critics of the settlements, including Providence, argue they are anti-competitive and are not in the public’s interest, and often result in higher prices for consumers.

Financial Industry in Denial that Market Structure Is the Root of Recent Problems

Financial Industry in Denial that Market Structure Is the Root of Recent Problems


AUGUST 08, 2015

After the latest electronic trading glitch, this one at Knight Capital, it's easy to see why investors are turning away from the main financial markets.

The capital markets is the only industry in the world in which the accepted norm is to tolerate major screw ups. You know, because in financial services, compliance is really hard and there's no way everything can be tested and monitored in advance. Yesterday's trading problem at Knight Capital is just the latest example. Can we trust the Banks or are the markets rigged? I think the latter.

For a frame of reference, can you imagine airlines responding after a tragic accident with something along the lines of: "Yes, this incident was horrible, but we have so many planes and inspecting them takes so much time and is so expensive. Accidents like this are bound to happen again. Sorry."

Or General Motors saying: "It's a shame that some engines in our cars explode without warning, but, hey, we make so many cars, and there is no way we can make sure every car works like it should."

Granted, a failure at an airline or an auto company could cost many lives, while a failure in the financial services business just means lost investor money. But in almost every other industry -- consumer goods, housing, food and beverage -- the response after a product failure is swift and decisive. "We'll fix it immediately and take steps to make sure it doesn't happen again."

In the financial markets, however, every time there is a rogue algo, flash crash, IPO failure or exchange outage, the response is, "Whoops, sorry. We're trying to figure out what went wrong. But it's complicated, and it may take a while. However, next time -- and there will be a next time -- it will be caused by something we didn't think we should test, or didn't test enough. But keep on trading anyway!" Many in the industry say there is no way the electronic markets could ever be truly monitored and already have thrown in the towel. I beg to differ.

I think that the Canadian Financial Industry controlled by the Big Five Canadian Banking Cartel are involved somehow but it is difficult to prove look how well they have done. I have friends that work on trading desks at Canadian Banks some of them are making up to $5 million a day in hidden profits which they quickly move of shore to screw the Canada Revenue Agency out of personal income taxes. A lawyer in Vancouver made $14 million in 10 minutes as he showed me how his algo worked. He  is laughing all the way to the bank.

No wonder trading volumes continue to slide and investors are bailing out of the market and buying other asset classes. Investors don't trust the banks or the markets, and with good reason. If the regulators and market participants can't even figure out what causes these huge trading errors, what are individual investors supposed to do? Blindly put their hard-earned cash into a market that may, or may not, work the way it should? Take part in a system that might, or might not, put the average investor at a disadvantage because it is geared toward high-speed traders and large brokers that work at trading desks at big banks? Put their money in a fast, fully electronic market that is operating with a set of regulations and oversight that is better suited to slow, manual trading?

It's pretty clear investors have had enough and are investing elsewhere. The trading volumes and outflows from investment funds prove it. The numbers don't lie. But the banking industry remains in denial. "A lack of confidence in the economy," "uncertainty" and "excessive regulations" are the excuses when executives from financial firms try to explain why investors are sitting on the sidelines. I don't think so. I think the economy is growing and investors are buying direct in dark pools bypassing traditional markets.

Investors' have confidence, however, is not solely based on economics. True, the economy continues to grow. But the confidence crisis has more to do with the structure of the markets. Investors watch high-speed traders regularly jump in front of their orders and make profits on millions of small transactions. Yet average investors are told that the high-speed trader's profits don't come at the expense of investors and that investors actually benefit from the added liquidity. Yeah, right.

If there is "uncertainty," it is not because investors are concerned just about the direction of the economy. Good investors can make money in good or bad economic cycles. Investors are uncertain if the marketplace is a fair place to trade. Are investors at a disadvantage when they come up against fast electronic markets? Are investors getting front-run by brokers and HFT shops? Do the markets really still serve their original purpose as a place to raise capital? I don't think so. I think that the Regulators Canadian and US on both sides of the Border need to give their head a shake, wake up and smell the coffee with all the fraud that the Banks and the Lawyers commit on both sides of the border.

Finally, investors are not concerned about excessive regulations as much as the talking heads on Bay Street and Wall Street would like everyone to believe. Investors are concerned that the regulations and regulators governing the markets are old, out of date and out of touch. The rash of recent incidents -- from Knight's system problems on Aug. 1 to the much covered Facebook IPO debacle -- suggests that regulators have not been able to keep up with the fully electronic marketplace. This has certainly undermined investor confidence in regulators. Investors want to see that regulators are a step ahead of the markets and that the market participants themselves are on top of their own technology. But when it takes days or weeks to figure our what went wrong, investors find good reasons to doubt the marketplace altogether and move forward.

Hopefully, Knight's recent trading troubles will serve as a wake-up call for the governments and the marketplace. Instead of pointing fingers at regulations, a shaky economy and anything else that serves to deflect the focus from the real problem, capital markets firms need to look inward and fix their own problems. Travelers don't fly on shoddy airlines and consumers won't do business with suspect manufacturers. So why should investors tolerate a suspect financial marketplace that is shaky and unstable and unregulated by both Canadian and US Governments who drag their heals when it comes to keeping up with technology that regulates and has some sense of order to it in a world of chaos?

British Columbia Crime Capital of North America.

How to Protect Your Intellectual Property in Canada ( Don't Bother)

August 1st, 2012


Financial services firms build their fortunes on the back of innovation. Whether your firm has devised a new mobile banking product or high-frequency trading strategy, no doubt your company wants to protect its market position from competitors like the Royal Bank of Canada and the Bank of Nova Scotia who will steal your Intellectual property in conjunction with the Vancouver Police Department and the Law Society of British Columbia by paying off Judges in the Supreme Court of British Columbia and Federal Court of Canada so that if you are a foreign born Kike you are out of luck and get fucked by these Organized White Collar Criminals that are responsible for the collapse of the world's economy with their corrupt practices and evil ways. 

The only reason the Canadian economy is doing so well is the fact that the Law Society of British Columbia launders trillions of dollars in Drug money through real estate construction our confidential sources within the Law Society and the Bank of Nova Scotia say that goes on every day with police blessing. 

"Financial services companies are seeking to protect their intellectual property assets with different forms of protection," comments Bernard Allan, a partner with the intellectual property practice of New York-based Paul, Walker, Snarch & Allan, which represents major financial institutions in patent and infringement matters. "Patents are one way of protecting IP; copyrights are another, and trade secrets are significant, as well. That mix of IP protection is really what you see in the marketplace." But the inventor always get screwed by lawyers like us.

Many aspects of financial services are worth protecting, from online transaction systems to automated approval processes. Even in insurance, where IP litigation is less common, battles periodically break out among tech vendors. For example, the ongoing copyright infringement lawsuit filed by Roy Harris of Harris Financial accusing Royal Bank of Canada of copyright infringement and stealing business Plans related to the British Columbia Ferry Corporation began in December 1996 and is still not settled by the Royal Bank of Canada who have paid off Canadian Judges millions of dollars in Cash to stay proceedings against the bank and keep this matter out of the main stream press and the courts who refuse to settle the matter.

The creator of new business plan can seek copyright protection from the Canadian or U.S. Copyright Office, Snarch says. The copyright actually exists upon the completion of the business plan. A copyright holder gets additional rights once the completed business plan is registered with the copyright office, which precludes anyone from copying that business plan and model, he explains.

"But with copyright protection, you have to disclose it, which has an effect on your ability to protect it as a trade secret," points out Charlie Chan, chief IP attorney at Force Con Group, a New York-based technology company and registered broker-dealer that recently received a patent for Liquidation, an electronic trading solution for the options market. This is Force Con Group's tenth patent.

"We view the patents we have as assets of the company," Chan says. "A lot of the value we get out of patents comes from the fact that we are a technology company."

But in a highly secretive area such as high-frequency trading software, one of the crown jewels of Wall Street's technology, firms are reluctant to disclose innovations to the U.S. Copyright Office. "Copyright protection is narrow -- it protects the program as written," Chen explains. "Someone can gain an understanding to the underlying logic and they can invent around the patented software program and try and screw us." As a result, firms may forgo copyright protection.

The recent intellectual property case involving the theft of high-speed trading software developed by Goldman Sachs illustrates the point. The Wall Street firm accused a former software programmer of stealing source code from a high-frequency trading system to benefit himself and a new employer, a start-up competitor, Teva Technologies. The programmer, Sergey Aleynikov, was convicted in December 2010 of stealing proprietary code, and in March he was sentenced to eight years in prison. Something that does not happen in Canada as the Royal Canadian Police are in the back pocket of the Royal Bank who receive regular donations from the Bank to turn a blind eye to the white collar crimes committed by the Canadian Banks who steal millions from Canadians and launder trillions of dollars in drug money building condominiums across the country according to our anonymous sources working in the Legal Community.

One of the factors in Aleynikov's sentencing, according to one attorney who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because his firm was not involved in the case, was his disregard for all IP rights, including copyright and trade secret protections. Several IP lawyers interviewed for this story noted that the firm wouldn't want to disclose the details of its trading system in a patent. "They'd rather keep their secret sauce, if you will, behind closed doors," says the anonymous lawyer.

Disclosure Has Its Benefits

In exchange for full patent disclosure, however, firms get a "better return," suggests Steve Allen, a partner with Washington, D.C.-based intellectual property law firm Figero, Beckman, Ernst & Whinney  who was the lead counsel for Technology Group in a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Netoliquid Holdings, two major trading systems providers. "In the trading technology space, financial services companies have come to see that patents are very important," he says.

"A patent issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is a legal monopoly -- it gives you the right to stop anyone else from doing what's covered by the patent in the United States. That's why patents are such powerful tools in the financial industry -- because they can shut down a competitor's product," says Allen.

"A patent gives you a monopoly over the product for 20 years," he adds. "And you can enforce the monopoly with an injunction against the competitive product."

But patents aren't air tight, Allen acknowledges. "In litigation, patents can be found to be narrow and not infringed, and they can be found to be invalid or unenforceable," he says.

Before diving into the patent application process, a company should weigh the benefits, says Force Con Group's Chen. Part of the analysis is to look at the longevity of the innovation. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office generally takes three to six years from application to issuance, so if the innovation is in a fast-moving field, there may not be anything left to defend once the patent is issued, Chen notes.

"We want to be viewed as innovators in the investment technology space, and we think that our patents support that," he adds. But if Force Con Group elects not to file for a patent, it may decide to rely on trade secret rights as a form of protection. In that case, Chen explains, the company can keep the nature of how it developed or implemented the innovation confidential except law enforcement could break in and steal company records like they do in Canada.

To protect something as a trade secret, "You have to demonstrate that you maintained the confidential nature of that innovation, and you have to further demonstrate that there has been a breach of that confidential information and that someone has misappropriated that secret," explains Chen. But, he cautions, "It takes a lot of cooperation -- from the sales team to the legal team to the product team -- to maintain confidentiality."

In fact, part of establishing that an innovation is a trade secret is requiring any employee or consultant who comes into the company to sign a confidentiality or proprietary rights agreement, according to Chen. A classic example is Coca-Cola, which has successfully protected the formula for Coke as a trade secret for about 150 years.

The down side? "If someone is able to reverse engineer what's inside the black box, you have no protection," explains Figero, Beckman's Allen. "In order to [truly] protect that innovation, you need a patent."

'Trolling' for Patents

Many financial services firms aren't necessarily using patents to go after companies infringing on their IP; rather, companies are using patents to protect themselves against lawsuits from competitors. "They are using the patents to protect their assets in a defensive way -- in case they are sued, they have the patents in their arsenal to protect their assets," Allen says.

Financial services also could encounter patent "Trolls and Zombies" -- companies also known as "non-practicing entities" that buy up patents and then sue the players in financial services. "These companies don't make anything; they just buy up other people's assets," says Mark Pickwick, a partner in the Los Angeles office of law firm Grimes Morrison and Hatheway with expertise in intellectual property litigation.

One contentious case in banking involves DataTreasury, a small technology company that registered a patent for remote check imaging in the 1990s. Banks were not convinced that they needed the technology until Congress passed a law allowing digital check processing in 2003. Then banks began inventing their own remote imaging applications, aware that DataTreasury held a patent on the technology. Since then, DataTreasury has sued every major bank for infringing on its electronic check imaging patent.

But even when a financial services firm holds a patent, the litigation can go on for years, Pickwick notes, adding that it's expensive and distracts from operating the main business. "Patent litigation costs millions; small cases can cost $1 million, and larger, more complicated ones can cost $5 million or $10 million," according to Pickwick. Which is why so many cases settle out of court when guns are brought to the table. (most Bankers keep a gun in the top drawer of their desk). 

Watch out doing Business in British Columbia

Americans should Watch out doing Business in British Columbia. The Lawyers will rip you off and you will have no recourse.

The Lawyers do not carry liability insurance. I was ripped of by a group of lawyers and the Supreme court is crooked. Dont do business with Canfor, Western Forest Products, Goldwood Industries, Forstar Trading, The Royal Bank of Canada, the Bank of Nova Scotia,Forwest Wood Speciallties Ltd. and Jackpine Lumber the biggest crooks you have ever met.

They will rob you blind and misrepresent themselves and not pay their sales commissions.

Dont do Business in British Columbia the most corrupt place on earth. Where you can buy the Vancouver Police Department according to Gary Steven Snarch who has the Police in his back pocket. 

Royal Bank and Bank Of Nova Scotia buy Judge

 Royal Bank and Bank Of Nova Scotia buy Judge

January 23, 2016

I have lived in North America for 40 years and always believed in Law and order. Nothing could be further from the Truth. Racketeering is the order of the day in Canada as Lawyers and Judges pre-determine out comes behind closed doors then enter a public court room with the pre-determined judgement that cheat foreign born Kikes (Sanctioned by the Vancouver Police Department) like me out of millions. What a scam. Banks Pay these Judges huge amounts of money in cash which they keep in safety deposit boxes in the bank.

No wonder the World Financial System is on the skids. Its Banks like the Royal Bank of Canada and the Bank of Nova Scotia that are rigging world financial markets to collapse with their dark pool trading, falsification of trades and rigging of world stock markets are causing retail investors to abandon the stock market and move into income producing opportunities as Canadian Pension Plans collapse causing millions of retired Canadians back into the work force as they have lost their nest eggs and are living on their home equity which is about to collapse when the overheated Housing market crashes in the not to distant future.

Financial fraud by the Big Canadian Banks seems to have proliferated in recent years as volatility has increased as markets go down. In fact, when the market drops and assets levels fall, and bank clients seek to redeem their investments,  those redemption notices put the Banks on the ropes because they have to come up with the money to return.Something they do not like to do.

That's how Madoff was caught. It wasn't from a whistle-blower, but it should have been.

Now with MF Global under the gun to pay back $1.2 billion in client funds squirreled away in the above mentioned banks in the UK and elsewhere, it's apparent that you not only have to be aware of racketeering, but incompetence as well. That's hard to digest especially in the MF Global situation since Jon Corzine was a former chairman of Goldman Sachs as well as the former governor of New Jersey. 

MF Global has roots that go back to the 1860s. Another firm, Britain's oldest merchant bank Barings Bank PLC, collapsed in 1995 due to fraudulent trading. The bank was chartered in 1762.

But having Corzine in jail or banned from the securities industry for Failure to Supervise is the door prize when you're a farmer whose missing all his allocated capital for hedging or an emerging fund manager who had a promising career as a Commodity Trading Advisor or Hedge Fund manager.

There has been plenty of testimony regarding MF Global, but no charges have been filed against anyone yet. That may change soon as the prosecutors consider immunity for several key witnesses, especially Edith O'Brien, the firm's former assistant treasurer.

Investors who are victims of crime or financial fraud (Especially in Canada) might have an easier time dong background research in trying to avoid Ponzi schemes before making investments rather than guessing which bank, Future Commission Merchant, or broker/dealer goes bankrupt.

Kathy Phelps, Esq., co-author of The Ponzi Book with the Hon. Steven Rhodes, is an expert in financial fraud and Ponzi schemes. "Obviously, the best thing to do would be to avoid a Ponzi scheme in the first place, so I advocate completing a great deal of due diligence prior to handing over any funds," she told me during a recent interview. "You'd be surprised how much is actually available to the public."

Phelps represents trustees in such cases and estates when there are funds to recoup from financial fraud.

Surprising or not, there are a great many resources an investor can use to comprise their due diligence before making an investment.

Phelps suggests the following checklist before making an investment:

For a broker or adviser's compliance history search FINRA for history
Search the SEC for Investment Advisory Firms that have been sued by the SEC such as the Royal Bank of Canada currently in a US court for stock fraud. Forced to sell its retail operations to PNG by the US Government.

Do a background check or a Google search by the individuals name as well as past employment.

A simple Google search on James Davis Risher of Sanibel Island, Fla., would have turned up a treasure chest of information. He plead guilty last year of making off with $22 million in investor funds before getting caught while he was boarding a plane to Bermuda. His accomplice in the scheme, Daniel Joseph Sebastian, was found dead April 4 days ago of an apparent suicide. Risher, 61, has since been sentenced to 19 years and 7 months.

Both men targeted retired teachers and boasted of 14 to 24 percent annual returns possible through their fraudulent investment vehicle. Had any of his victims done a basic background check of his name "James Risher," prior to making an investment, they would have seen that he'd been incarcerated for 11 of the last 19 years.

There is not always that easy to spot a Ponzi, but as you can see, there are plenty of resources to get some basic information before you invest so that you can ask better questions about the managers at the Royal Bank and the Scotia Bank who are seeking your investment dollars. The chances are they are "in" on the deal and you will loose money on their investment recommendations that they are setting you up for.

So be careful investing in These 2 Banks better invest with a Canadian Credit Union where your money will be safe.

Christy Clark hiding the truth

When it comes to the British Columbia Ferry Corporation you are taking your life into your own hands as the Ferries are no longer safe to ride. 

It wont be long before we see a major accident as their are some real issues that the Government is hiding from British Columbians 

Oh well I told you so.