Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Paul Herman: Victorian Ombudsman Says There's Corrupt Conduct in The Victorian Legal Services Board

    Uploaded by

    Maverick Minitries
    73 views4 pages
    The share values of the banks were wiped of billions of dollars, Ms Glass. As a member of the US SEC Whistleblowers Program, the legal services board should compensate all victims, and the shareholders. US Pension Funds for Judges and Prison Officials and teachers in Texas Massachussets California and Colorado are suing the CBA and deserve compensation, the banks admitted misconduct in the Royal Commission, ANZ Landmark admitted misconduct, CBA were fined $700m for aiding child traffickers and Al Quada, etc etc. The CBA Box Hill's Scandal with the Poker Player in Vegas is next. A federal court in Utah recently held that the Securities and Exchange Commission may bring an enforcement action based on allegedly foreign securities transactions involving non-U.S. residents if sufficient conduct occurred in the United States. The March 28, 2017 ruling in SEC v. Traffic Monsoon, LLC (D. Utah) appears to be the first decision squarely resolving whether the Dodd-Frank Act succeeded in allowing the Government to pursue such claims. The court recognized that the Act’s grant of “jurisdiction” to federal courts over enforcement actions relating to non-U.S. securities transactions had inartfully responded to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Morrison v. National Australia Bank, which had limited the substantive scope of the federal securities laws to U.S.-based transactions and had held that the extraterritorial extent of U.S. law is not a “jurisdictional” issue. But the Utah court ruled that, despite Congress’s mistake in framing Dodd-Frank’s provisions as “jurisdictional,” Congress had clearly intended to allow the SEC and the United States to sue based on conduct or effects within the United States, regardless of where the securities transactions occurred. Legal Background For several decades before the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank, courts throughout the country had allowed private plaintiffs and the Government to bring “extraterritorial” claims under the federal securities laws based on some version of the “conduct and effects” test. That test examined whether significant wrongful conduct related to the transaction had occurred in the United States or whether the wrongful conduct had had a substantial effect in the United States. Courts had also generally viewed the test as relating to subject-matter jurisdiction over extraterritorial securities claims. In 2010, the Supreme Court threw out the “conduct and effects” test and announced a new “transactional” test for determining the federal securities laws’ reach. The Morrison decision held that the securities laws apply only to alleged misstatements or omissions made “in connection with the purchase or sale of [i] a security listed on an American stock exchange, and [ii] the purchase or sale of any other security in the United States.” The Court also made clear that the scope of the federal securities laws is not a “jurisdictional” issue at all; it concerns the substance of the securities statutes. The Morrison decision was announced on June 24, 2010. On July 21, 2010 – less than one month later – President Obama signed the 850-page Dodd-Frank Act, several sections of which addressed the federal securities laws’ extraterritorial application. Section 929P(b) of the Act added language to the Securities Act and the Securities Exchange Act stating that the federal district courts “shall have jurisdiction of any action or proceeding brought or instituted by the [SEC] or the United States” alleging a securities-law violation involving: “conduct within the United States that constitutes significant steps in furtherance of the violation, even if the securities transaction occurs outside the United States and involves only foreign investors; or “conduct occurring outside the United States that has a foreseeable substantial effect within the United States” (emphasis added). Thus, the Dodd-Frank Act appeared to be an effort to rest

    Original Title

    Paul Herman: Victorian Ombudsman says there's Corrupt Conduct in the Victorian Legal Services Board

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The share values of the banks were wiped of billions of dollars, Ms Glass. As a member of the US SEC Whistleblowers Program, the legal services board should compensate all victims, and the shareholders. US Pension Funds for Judges and Prison Officials and teachers in Texas Massachussets California and Colorado are suing the CBA and deserve compensation, the banks admitted misconduct in the Royal Commission, ANZ Landmark admitted misconduct, CBA were fined $700m for aiding child traffickers and Al Quada, etc etc. The CBA Box Hill's Scandal with the Poker Player in Vegas is next. A federal court in Utah recently held that the Securities and Exchange Commission may bring an enforcement action based on allegedly foreign securities transactions involving non-U.S. residents if sufficient conduct occurred in the United States. The March 28, 2017 ruling in SEC v. Traffic Monsoon, LLC (D. Utah) appears to be the first decision squarely resolving whether the Dodd-Frank Act succeeded in allowing the Government to pursue such claims. The court recognized that the Act’s grant of “jurisdiction” to federal courts over enforcement actions relating to non-U.S. securities transactions had inartfully responded to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Morrison v. National Australia Bank, which had limited the substantive scope of the federal securities laws to U.S.-based transactions and had held that the extraterritorial extent of U.S. law is not a “jurisdictional” issue. But the Utah court ruled that, despite Congress’s mistake in framing Dodd-Frank’s provisions as “jurisdictional,” Congress had clearly intended to allow the SEC and the United States to sue based on conduct or effects within the United States, regardless of where the securities transactions occurred. Legal Background For several decades before the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank, courts throughout the country had allowed private plaintiffs and the Government to bring “extraterritorial” claims under the federal securities laws based on some version of the “conduct and effects” test. That test examined whether significant wrongful conduct related to the transaction had occurred in the United States or whether the wrongful conduct had had a substantial effect in the United States. Courts had also generally viewed the test as relating to subject-matter jurisdiction over extraterritorial securities claims. In 2010, the Supreme Court threw out the “conduct and effects” test and announced a new “transactional” test for determining the federal securities laws’ reach. The Morrison decision held that the securities laws apply only to alleged misstatements or omissions made “in connection with the purchase or sale of [i] a security listed on an American stock exchange, and [ii] the purchase or sale of any other security in the United States.” The Court also made clear that the scope of the federal securities laws is not a “jurisdictional” issue at all; it concerns the substance of the securities statutes. The Morrison decision was announced on June 24, 2010. On July 21, 2010 – less than one month later – President Obama signed the 850-page Dodd-Frank Act, several sections of which addressed the federal securities laws’ extraterritorial application. Section 929P(b) of the Act added language to the Securities Act and the Securities Exchange Act stating that the federal district courts “shall have jurisdiction of any action or proceeding brought or instituted by the [SEC] or the United States” alleging a securities-law violation involving: “conduct within the United States that constitutes significant steps in furtherance of the violation, even if the securities transaction occurs outside the United States and involves only foreign investors; or “conduct occurring outside the United States that has a foreseeable substantial effect within the United States” (emphasis added). Thus, the Dodd-Frank Act appeared to be an effort to rest

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    73 views4 pages

    Paul Herman: Victorian Ombudsman Says There's Corrupt Conduct in The Victorian Legal Services Board

    Uploaded by

    Maverick Minitries
    The share values of the banks were wiped of billions of dollars, Ms Glass. As a member of the US SEC Whistleblowers Program, the legal services board should compensate all victims, and the shareholders. US Pension Funds for Judges and Prison Officials and teachers in Texas Massachussets California and Colorado are suing the CBA and deserve compensation, the banks admitted misconduct in the Royal Commission, ANZ Landmark admitted misconduct, CBA were fined $700m for aiding child traffickers and Al Quada, etc etc. The CBA Box Hill's Scandal with the Poker Player in Vegas is next. A federal court in Utah recently held that the Securities and Exchange Commission may bring an enforcement action based on allegedly foreign securities transactions involving non-U.S. residents if sufficient conduct occurred in the United States. The March 28, 2017 ruling in SEC v. Traffic Monsoon, LLC (D. Utah) appears to be the first decision squarely resolving whether the Dodd-Frank Act succeeded in allowing the Government to pursue such claims. The court recognized that the Act’s grant of “jurisdiction” to federal courts over enforcement actions relating to non-U.S. securities transactions had inartfully responded to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Morrison v. National Australia Bank, which had limited the substantive scope of the federal securities laws to U.S.-based transactions and had held that the extraterritorial extent of U.S. law is not a “jurisdictional” issue. But the Utah court ruled that, despite Congress’s mistake in framing Dodd-Frank’s provisions as “jurisdictional,” Congress had clearly intended to allow the SEC and the United States to sue based on conduct or effects within the United States, regardless of where the securities transactions occurred. Legal Background For several decades before the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank, courts throughout the country had allowed private plaintiffs and the Government to bring “extraterritorial” claims under the federal securities laws based on some version of the “conduct and effects” test. That test examined whether significant wrongful conduct related to the transaction had occurred in the United States or whether the wrongful conduct had had a substantial effect in the United States. Courts had also generally viewed the test as relating to subject-matter jurisdiction over extraterritorial securities claims. In 2010, the Supreme Court threw out the “conduct and effects” test and announced a new “transactional” test for determining the federal securities laws’ reach. The Morrison decision held that the securities laws apply only to alleged misstatements or omissions made “in connection with the purchase or sale of [i] a security listed on an American stock exchange, and [ii] the purchase or sale of any other security in the United States.” The Court also made clear that the scope of the federal securities laws is not a “jurisdictional” issue at all; it concerns the substance of the securities statutes. The Morrison decision was announced on June 24, 2010. On July 21, 2010 – less than one month later – President Obama signed the 850-page Dodd-Frank Act, several sections of which addressed the federal securities laws’ extraterritorial application. Section 929P(b) of the Act added language to the Securities Act and the Securities Exchange Act stating that the federal district courts “shall have jurisdiction of any action or proceeding brought or instituted by the [SEC] or the United States” alleging a securities-law violation involving: “conduct within the United States that constitutes significant steps in furtherance of the violation, even if the securities transaction occurs outside the United States and involves only foreign investors; or “conduct occurring outside the United States that has a foreseeable substantial effect within the United States” (emphasis added). Thus, the Dodd-Frank Act appeared to be an effort to rest

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 4

    Paul Herman

    0408 332 057

    -----Original Message-----

    From: ombudvic@ombudsman.vic.gov.au [mailto:ombudvic@ombudsman.vic.gov.au]

    Sent: Tuesday, 25 August 2015 12:03 PM

    To: paulherman@bigpond.com.au

    Subject: Your complaint to the Victorian Ombudsman

    |------------------------------------+------------------------------------|

    | 25 August 2015 | File No: C/15/13967 |

    |------------------------------------+------------------------------------|

    Mr Paul Herman

    Via email: paulherman@bigpond.com.au

    Dear Mr Herman

    Your complaint to the Victorian Ombudsman

    Thank you for your online complaint received by this office on 21 August

    2015 about the Victorian Legal Services Board. You ask that our office

    investigate whether the Board is required to pay compensation to

    shareholders and customers of banks due to leaks of information and

    breaches of privacy. While the nature of your complaint is unclear, it

    appears you may be referring to corrupt conduct.

    While the Ombudsman can consider complaints about most Victorian government
    agencies and local councils (including the Legal Services Board and

    Commissioner), under section 15(1) of the Ombudsman Act 1973, she is not

    able to consider complaints alleging corrupt conduct.

    The Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (IBAC) is the body

    that is responsible for investigating complaints about alleged corruption. Should you wish to discuss
    your complaint further, you can contact IBAC at:

    Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission

    GPO Box 24234

    Melbourne VIC 3000

    Telephone: 1300 735 135

    Email: info@ibac.vic.gov.au

    It is also unclear whether you have raised a formal complaint with the

    Board about its staff. You can complain to the Board at:

    Legal Services Board and Commissioner

    Postal: GPO Box 492 Melbourne 3001

    Telephone: 03 9679 8001

    Email: admin@lsbc.vic.gov.au

    Website: www.lsbc.vic.gov.au

    Furthermore, the Ombudsman does not make legally binding determinations

    such as the awarding of compensation. Should you wish to pursue

    compensation you may wish to consider seeking legal advice about these

    concerns.
    If you have any queries, you are welcome to contact this office on 9613

    6222 or 1800 806 314 (regional callers only). Please quote reference number

    C/15/13967.

    Yours sincerely

    Adam Clair

    Investigation Officer

    The following information was submitted on the Victorian Ombudsman website:

    Your Details

    Are you making an anonymous complaint? No

    Can your details be provided to a third party? Title Mr First Name Paul Surname Herman Gender Male
    Country AU State/Territory QLD Postcode 4218 City Broadbeach Address (Line 1) private Address (Line
    2) private Address (Line 3)private Phone (Business Hours) 075570415 Phone (After Hours) 075570415
    E-mail Address paulherman@bigpond.com.au

    Other Details First Name

    National Australia Bank Shareholders Shareholder Foundation Inc

    92108 San Diego 1858779554

    Which agency are you complaining about? Victorian Legal Services Board

    Details of your complaint

    Kindly investigate if the Legal Services Board owes compensation to shareholders and bank customers
    for breaking their own privacy law called "Part 7". Word on the street says they leak information to
    "debt collection lawyers". I want to take some information to the Queensland Crime Commission
    about the NAB therefore it'll help if you investigated the leaks to the board's friends about share
    market sensitive information.
    What outcome are you seeking?

    Class action compensation. Attached is the NAB Whistleblower story. Who is the law society talking
    to?

    How did you hear about the Victorian Ombudsman? Referral by MP

    3 Attachments

    Preview attachment williams hitman threat.JPG

    [Image]

    Preview attachment whistleblowers australia logo.JPG

    [Image]

    Preview attachment nab whistleblower 21 feb 2015.JPG

    [Image]

    You might also like