POST 2 OF 2
And no doubt about it, Apex Capital deserves to determine whether or not posts by others should be censored because they are âextremely LIBELOUSâ. You see, Apex Capital is a professional, as he informs us in his posting of 14 Oct 2005 10:58 am EST:
One of the downsides, of being a professional, is that you are expected to waste time on silly niggling little formalities like due diligence. If you are a regulator, lawyer, accountant, or financial advisor, you are expected to make sure your clients, markets, and public arenât bilked in massive frauds like the spectacular collapse of the recent Refco IPO. If you are a CTA (Commodities Trading Advisor), you are expected to make sure that your clearing futures broker doesnât steal the funds of your clients, and doesnât lose them in a bankruptcy caused by trading losses of other customers, or caused by trading losses of embezzlers, thieves, and frauds disguised as customers. The wonderful thing about life on Mt. Olympus, with Apex Capital and Brandonf and other superior beings, is that it eliminates the need for such due diligence. If the deposits are insured by the exchanges, then why bother? If the broker does fail, and the exchanges refuse to make good on any losses suffered by your clients, then you can just throw a temper tantrum, and expect them to cave just as easily as Elite Trader does when Apex threatens a libel suit.
So it is pretty obvious that Apex Capital did not and could not have performed due diligence in selecting a clearing futures broker for his clients, because if he had performed that due diligence, then he would have known that segregated customer funds are not guaranteed, by exchanges or by any other party, against broker bankruptcy or embezzlement.
Letâs take another look at professional Apex Capitalâs professional credentials:
What, me worry? Any reasonable person, reading these words, would read it to mean that Apex Capital clears other peopleâs money through Refco. Apexâs use of the word âbusinessâ adds to the impression that he uses Refco to clear other peopleâs money, not just his own. Apex, in stating that he uses Refco, âas I do with several other FCMsâ, implies that since he uses them all in the same way as he uses Refco, he runs client money thru Refco, just as he runs it thru his other FCMs. See, look, Apex Capital trusts Refco futures just as much as he trusts all the other FCMs, so you gaping primates and Chicken Littles and sissy-boys should just follow his example, instead of worrying and thinking and doubting, and polluting these boards with your primitive clicks and grunts.
I realize I am only an amateur, so maybe it was wrong for me to share my thoughts. I did make a posting criticizing Apex Capital for breach of duty to his clients. This was based on my belief that he told us he clears other peopleâs money through Refco, while relying upon his delusion that futures accounts are guaranteed against broker bankruptcy and embezzlement.
Apex responded with various demands and vague public accusations that I libelled him, but he failed to give any specific indication as to exactly which statements were untrue. Maybe it was part of his litigation strategy to be cagey about revealing exactly what it was that I did wrong. It appears he lacked the self-control required to pursue such a strategy, because in less than 24 hours, he finally broke down and got specific:
Apex, however, did not accurately quote me. He omitted part of my sentence, in such a way as to alter my meaning. This particular sentence, from my original text, which Apex persuaded Baron to delete, read:
Apex omitted the underlined portion. Apex also misspelled the word ârecklesslyâ.
So then Apex demanded an apology. And he persuaded Baron to delete my discussion of Apex clearing other peopleâs money thru Refco. And then, he persuaded Baron to delete it from other postings of other ET members who quoted me. And then, incredibly, Apex re-posted my deleted text in full, as a quotation in a new posting of his very own, so that he could further attack me for it. I guess what Apex needs is not so much to censor libel, but rather, to achieve full control and domination over the forum; my allegedly libeous text was OK, provided he gets to control where and when and how to post it. And then, I guess he must have reconsidered, because now that posting, made by Apex Himself, has also been deleted from ET. I guess it just goes to show you that even Apex can make mistakes. After all, Heâs only a deity.
Well, it looks like there was an innocent misunderstanding, as to whether or not Apex cleared other peopleâs money thru Refco. But do I owe Apex an apology? I mean, after all, I think the misunderstanding was his fault, because his own posting did give the impression that he did clear other peopleâs money thru Refco.
Did I libel Apex? Iâm quite sure I didnât, because innocent misunderstandings are never libel. Libel only applies to maliciously false factual statements, but my statement was not maliciously false, regardless of who was to blame for the misunderstanding. So I think that Apex owes ME an apology, for falsely accusing ME of libel. Does anybody think that I should sue him? Or use the threat of suit to manipulate Baron into censorship?
The coolest thing about Refco is that when they embezzle or defraud, and then get caught, then lickity-split, they just go out and rip off somebody else, so that they can return the loot to their previous victim. At least until now. I mean, they really do try. The CEO just got caught in a $400 million dollar fraud against Refco, so in a matter of hours, he flim-flammed an Austrian bank into loaning him that amount, collateralized by his soon-to-be worthless and de-listed and bankrupt Refco stock, so that he could pay back the loot to Refco. Talk about robbing Peter to pay Paul. This guy Bennett isnât just a fraud. Heâs got a 10th degree black-belt in fraud.
You would think that since the CEO did return the loot, all would be forgiven, at least here in the U.S.A. Iâm sure every right-minded patriotic American admired the CEO for sticking it to a bunch of ignorant foreigners, who probably opposed the war in Iraq anyway. The prosecutors were, unfortunately, unpatriotic, unforgiving meanies, so they arrested the CEO, took $50 million in bail, and confined him to his penthouse wearing an ankle bracelet. I guess giving back the loot doesnât cleanse you of your criminality, after all.
Anyway, its just like in the 1990s, when Refco embezzled from segregated customer funds in futures accounts, and used the money to pay Refcoâs debts. The scheme saved Refco from bankrupcy in the 1990s, and so, it was able to return the money to customer accounts, $123 million dollars, no harm, no foul. The company lived on, so that it could one day steal and steal again. The scheme worked so well, that they âborrowedâ segregated customer funds again. And again. And again. And again⦠The CFTC found that Refco did it on a routine, almost daily basis, and Refco consented to the findings and paid a million dollar fine, but neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing. If you are in finance, then crime pays. Extremely well. Million dollar fine? Cost of doing business. Zdreq quoted Lucky Luciano, visiting the NYSE floor, who commented âI joined the wrong mob.â
Make no mistake about it, in legal terms, this was embezzlement. If Refco had gone under, it would have been unable to restore the embezzled customer funds, and so those customers would have been stuck, just like the Austrian Bank. Deliberate, unlawful, unauthorized, undisclosed "borrowing" from segregated customer accounts is EXACTLY the same thing as embezzlement. Embezzlement includes the unauthorized USE of money later returned. Embezzlement is a broader concept than that of taking and keeping.
If we take Apex at his word, that he didnât clear other peopleâs money thru Refco, then it is still clear that Apex cleared other peopleâs money thru other clearing futures brokers. And it is still clear that he erroneously believed that the exchanges would guarantee client funds against bankruptcy of his other clearing brokers. So it is still clear that he failed to perform due diligence to protect his clients from the absence of any guarantee against bankruptcy of futures brokers other than Refco. He could not have performed due diligence to protect his clients against that threat, if he didnât know that the threat existed.
Quite a professional.
And no doubt about it, Apex Capital deserves to determine whether or not posts by others should be censored because they are âextremely LIBELOUSâ. You see, Apex Capital is a professional, as he informs us in his posting of 14 Oct 2005 10:58 am EST:
One of the downsides, of being a professional, is that you are expected to waste time on silly niggling little formalities like due diligence. If you are a regulator, lawyer, accountant, or financial advisor, you are expected to make sure your clients, markets, and public arenât bilked in massive frauds like the spectacular collapse of the recent Refco IPO. If you are a CTA (Commodities Trading Advisor), you are expected to make sure that your clearing futures broker doesnât steal the funds of your clients, and doesnât lose them in a bankruptcy caused by trading losses of other customers, or caused by trading losses of embezzlers, thieves, and frauds disguised as customers. The wonderful thing about life on Mt. Olympus, with Apex Capital and Brandonf and other superior beings, is that it eliminates the need for such due diligence. If the deposits are insured by the exchanges, then why bother? If the broker does fail, and the exchanges refuse to make good on any losses suffered by your clients, then you can just throw a temper tantrum, and expect them to cave just as easily as Elite Trader does when Apex threatens a libel suit.
So it is pretty obvious that Apex Capital did not and could not have performed due diligence in selecting a clearing futures broker for his clients, because if he had performed that due diligence, then he would have known that segregated customer funds are not guaranteed, by exchanges or by any other party, against broker bankruptcy or embezzlement.
Letâs take another look at professional Apex Capitalâs professional credentials:
What, me worry? Any reasonable person, reading these words, would read it to mean that Apex Capital clears other peopleâs money through Refco. Apexâs use of the word âbusinessâ adds to the impression that he uses Refco to clear other peopleâs money, not just his own. Apex, in stating that he uses Refco, âas I do with several other FCMsâ, implies that since he uses them all in the same way as he uses Refco, he runs client money thru Refco, just as he runs it thru his other FCMs. See, look, Apex Capital trusts Refco futures just as much as he trusts all the other FCMs, so you gaping primates and Chicken Littles and sissy-boys should just follow his example, instead of worrying and thinking and doubting, and polluting these boards with your primitive clicks and grunts.
I realize I am only an amateur, so maybe it was wrong for me to share my thoughts. I did make a posting criticizing Apex Capital for breach of duty to his clients. This was based on my belief that he told us he clears other peopleâs money through Refco, while relying upon his delusion that futures accounts are guaranteed against broker bankruptcy and embezzlement.
Apex responded with various demands and vague public accusations that I libelled him, but he failed to give any specific indication as to exactly which statements were untrue. Maybe it was part of his litigation strategy to be cagey about revealing exactly what it was that I did wrong. It appears he lacked the self-control required to pursue such a strategy, because in less than 24 hours, he finally broke down and got specific:
Apex, however, did not accurately quote me. He omitted part of my sentence, in such a way as to alter my meaning. This particular sentence, from my original text, which Apex persuaded Baron to delete, read:
Apex omitted the underlined portion. Apex also misspelled the word ârecklesslyâ.
So then Apex demanded an apology. And he persuaded Baron to delete my discussion of Apex clearing other peopleâs money thru Refco. And then, he persuaded Baron to delete it from other postings of other ET members who quoted me. And then, incredibly, Apex re-posted my deleted text in full, as a quotation in a new posting of his very own, so that he could further attack me for it. I guess what Apex needs is not so much to censor libel, but rather, to achieve full control and domination over the forum; my allegedly libeous text was OK, provided he gets to control where and when and how to post it. And then, I guess he must have reconsidered, because now that posting, made by Apex Himself, has also been deleted from ET. I guess it just goes to show you that even Apex can make mistakes. After all, Heâs only a deity.
Well, it looks like there was an innocent misunderstanding, as to whether or not Apex cleared other peopleâs money thru Refco. But do I owe Apex an apology? I mean, after all, I think the misunderstanding was his fault, because his own posting did give the impression that he did clear other peopleâs money thru Refco.
Did I libel Apex? Iâm quite sure I didnât, because innocent misunderstandings are never libel. Libel only applies to maliciously false factual statements, but my statement was not maliciously false, regardless of who was to blame for the misunderstanding. So I think that Apex owes ME an apology, for falsely accusing ME of libel. Does anybody think that I should sue him? Or use the threat of suit to manipulate Baron into censorship?
The coolest thing about Refco is that when they embezzle or defraud, and then get caught, then lickity-split, they just go out and rip off somebody else, so that they can return the loot to their previous victim. At least until now. I mean, they really do try. The CEO just got caught in a $400 million dollar fraud against Refco, so in a matter of hours, he flim-flammed an Austrian bank into loaning him that amount, collateralized by his soon-to-be worthless and de-listed and bankrupt Refco stock, so that he could pay back the loot to Refco. Talk about robbing Peter to pay Paul. This guy Bennett isnât just a fraud. Heâs got a 10th degree black-belt in fraud.
You would think that since the CEO did return the loot, all would be forgiven, at least here in the U.S.A. Iâm sure every right-minded patriotic American admired the CEO for sticking it to a bunch of ignorant foreigners, who probably opposed the war in Iraq anyway. The prosecutors were, unfortunately, unpatriotic, unforgiving meanies, so they arrested the CEO, took $50 million in bail, and confined him to his penthouse wearing an ankle bracelet. I guess giving back the loot doesnât cleanse you of your criminality, after all.
Anyway, its just like in the 1990s, when Refco embezzled from segregated customer funds in futures accounts, and used the money to pay Refcoâs debts. The scheme saved Refco from bankrupcy in the 1990s, and so, it was able to return the money to customer accounts, $123 million dollars, no harm, no foul. The company lived on, so that it could one day steal and steal again. The scheme worked so well, that they âborrowedâ segregated customer funds again. And again. And again. And again⦠The CFTC found that Refco did it on a routine, almost daily basis, and Refco consented to the findings and paid a million dollar fine, but neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing. If you are in finance, then crime pays. Extremely well. Million dollar fine? Cost of doing business. Zdreq quoted Lucky Luciano, visiting the NYSE floor, who commented âI joined the wrong mob.â
Make no mistake about it, in legal terms, this was embezzlement. If Refco had gone under, it would have been unable to restore the embezzled customer funds, and so those customers would have been stuck, just like the Austrian Bank. Deliberate, unlawful, unauthorized, undisclosed "borrowing" from segregated customer accounts is EXACTLY the same thing as embezzlement. Embezzlement includes the unauthorized USE of money later returned. Embezzlement is a broader concept than that of taking and keeping.
If we take Apex at his word, that he didnât clear other peopleâs money thru Refco, then it is still clear that Apex cleared other peopleâs money thru other clearing futures brokers. And it is still clear that he erroneously believed that the exchanges would guarantee client funds against bankruptcy of his other clearing brokers. So it is still clear that he failed to perform due diligence to protect his clients from the absence of any guarantee against bankruptcy of futures brokers other than Refco. He could not have performed due diligence to protect his clients against that threat, if he didnât know that the threat existed.
Quite a professional.
