Obama, McCain, Kerry and Graham support Muslim Brotherhood
User ID: 45110394
08/19/2013 09:41 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
McCain presidential bid supported by Chevron while Chevron caught in Enron-style fraud and energy price control. Follow the money and quest for world domination.
I just came across the article in article about Chevron's amassing information on the activists and lawyers that supported the plaintiff's in the Ecuador environmental suit - after which Chevron has sued to try to piece together some conspiracy theory. [link to www.commondreams.org (secure)]
People would normally find such "attack the messenger/opposition" conduct shocking, but I am not surprised - because Chevron sued me after I sued Chevron for massive Sarbanes Oxley fraud.
I think you will be very interested in the information below (and attached).
My Sarbanes Oxley whistleblower litigation with Chevron Corporation, exposed FERC and SEC fraud directly related to crude oil and gas pricing, and I believe that the fraud represents "the crime of the century" in that it exposed Enron-type fraud at the highest levels of Chevron Corporation (off-balance sheet liabilities, failures to detect material weaknesses in accounting and controls, price manipulation, and CEO and CFO SEC 10K and 10Q falsifications) while Chevron revenues were (and still are) over $1 billion per day. This while keeping the US and European economies in stagnation and debt with high energy prices. The involvement in the cover-up of the financial crimes by Rudy Guiliani's law firm as defense counsel is also noteworthy, along with the expected 'scorched earth' litigation tactics including defamation, threats, ongoing false statements, and alteration of critical evidentiary documents.
I think a significant, yet quite telling upshot from my litigation saga is that although I provided reams of detailed evidence related to fraud and oil price control at Chevron on a 'silver platter' to government agencies, neither the SEC or the FBI would investigate the matter. Like the Department of Justice's refusal to investigate or prosecute bank fraud here in the US, perhaps they have considered Chevron as "too big to fail" or "too big to jail". In retrospect, I also think Chevron may be too good of a [necessary] partner in achieving Washington's global domination goals, particularly in Europe and the Mideast.
I would direct you to the Federal Court records in H-06-3810 and H-07-3236. I would also suggest investigation into Chevron ties to Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.
I provide a historical synopsis of the saga below: I would specifically direct your attention to the Timeline spreadsheet that I have attached for a historical overview of the matter.
I am a 30 year veteran of the energy industry (State of Texas Oil and Gas Royalty Auditor, Conoco, Shell, PG&E, and Chevron) who was terminated by Chevron in 2004 as a result of my refusal to participate in significant and ongoing fraud discovered while I was employed at Chevron Pipe Line (CPL). Among other things, our regulatory affairs/finance group uncovered accounting errors that revealed that Chevron Pipe Line had overstated the value of its pipeline assets, overcollected hundreds of millions of dollars of pipeline transportation revenues, and had underpaid hundreds of millions of dollars in federal oil and gas royalties owed to the United States' Minerals Management Service. Moreover, CPL had engaged in ongoing hiding of off-balance sheet liabilities and other fraud.
My previous direct supervisor was the CFO of Chevron Pipe Line, who went on to become Manager of Investor Relations for Chevron Corporation. in 2006.
While Manager of Investor Relations, she, and Chevron's CEO and CFO co-conducted numerous Wall Street analyst conference calls and made representations regarding the veracity of the company's financial statements and internal accounting controls (similar to the basis for Ken Lay/Schilling/Fastow securities fraud convictions regarding false and misleading statement in analyst/investor guidance conference calls) . [link to www.chron.com]
My original SOX whistleblower complaint and subsequent federal litigation (H-06-3810) pointed out very specific SOX violations, and that Chevron's CEO and CFO have falsely certified SEC 10Q reports stating compliance with SOX Act requirements in 2003 and forward. In addition, Chevron continued to file false 10Q certifications in 2007 and following, after I had filed my federal litigation in Houston enumerating issues of fraud). I have attached a synopsis of my 2006 litigation and Chevron's SEC 10Q and 10K reports filed in 2007. I also attach a 'declaration' (vs. affidavit) provided by Chevron Pipeline's subsequent CFO in defense of my first SOX complaint - which actually contends that Chevron corporation can not be held liable for the accounting violations (such as inaccurate treatment of off-balance sheet liabilities) of a subsidiary such as Chevron Pipeline (CPL) - because CPL is not a covered entity by the SOX Act. (This is the same argument that Enron made about accounting irregularities and off-balance sheet liabilities of its subsidiaries. The Dodd-Frank Act and various court findings have clarified that corporate subsidiaries are absolutely required to comply with the mandates of Sarbanes-Oxley).
As you may know, SOX proscribed significant punishment for false certifications by corporate CEOs and CFOs on company 10Ks and 10Qs of SOX compliance including criminal penalties of 20 years imprisonment. 18 USC 1001 was also revised and included that SOX fraud and subsequent false statements made, and the alteration of documents in the subsequent litigation by Chevron and/or Bracewell and Giuliani LLP also carried their own criminal penalties. (See Attorney General Directive info attached). Chevron executives falsely certified SOX compliance when they knew compliance did not exist; further they asserted that it had disclosed 'all fraud whether material or not, known by management with any control of financial reporting', when fraud was clearly known by my previous supervisor and was outlined in federal litigation prior to Chevron's SEC 10K and 10Q reporting in 2006 and forward.
I provided a copy of the litigation enumerating the fraud and compliance issues to the SEC Enforcement Office in Ft. Worth, Texas in 2006. After several years of pro se litigation, I followed up with the SEC in 2009 with a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to find out what had/had not been done to review the matter. Only after my FOIA request was I contacted (the very next day) by SEC enforcement attorneys. They informed me that they had just then reviewed the information in the court records online, and determined that there was not enough information to warrant an investigation. I sent a letter on March 1, 2009 urging the SEC to investigate the issues. Attached to the letter was significant additional evidence of the FERC and SEC fraud. I also provided affadavits and transcripts of deposition testimony given to Chevron. The SEC OIG recently concluded that the Fort Worth office was inept in its response(s) to complaints of fraud, (see attached) and would not investigate tips of significant fraud because the office was only looking at 'slam dunks' ie - small issues and corporations that would not fight the allegations. www.sec.gov/foia/docs/oig-516-redacted.pdf
Regarding disposition of my original SOX complaint (H-06-3810): Chevron had feigned participation in its own mandatory arbitration process for over a year after after I was terminated. Chevron then communicated to my attorney that it would not attend arbitration and suggested litigation. When I filed litigation, Chevron claimed a statute of limitations defense and requested numerous stays of all discovery. At the time, the view of the SOX statute of limitations was 90 days after a significant incident of discrimination or retaliation. In 2006, however, the Supreme Court consolidated various circuit court opinions and found in Burlington Northern v. White that any action that would dissuade an employee from making a claim constituted an actionable incident of discrimination. Chevron and Giuliani's litigation conduct certainly qualified under the new law. Chevron ultimately prevailed in its original statute of limitations defense however, and the [Reagan appointed] federal judge granted its motion for summary judgment in March, 2007 (finding that the date I was terminated started the limitations period).
However, during the Department of Labor and federal case litigation process, Chevron/Bracewell and Giuliani had produced completely blacked out pages/covers to my personnel file, lied directly in various filings and in oral hearings to judges about its discovery/document production and other issues, and failed to serve me filings and notices of Oral hearings set by Chevron on more than 10 occasions. Chevron also formally breached its own arbitration agreement by opposing my Motion to Compel Arbitration in H-06-3810, after it had responded to discovery not 6 weeks prior - that Chevron was willing to arbitrate. Arbitration would have required limited/basic discovery that Chevron knew would quickly expose its fraud and cover up.
Because the Federal judge's Order granting summary judgment on the statute of limitations issue in H-06-3810 mandated that I 'administratively exhaust' (by going back through the OSHA/DOL process) - the claims ofillegal litigation conduct, direct perjury, and breach of [the mandatory employee arbitration] that occurred during the initial litigation process, I filed a second SOX complaint in May, 2007 (attached). That complaint was made within the SOX 90 day statue of limitations (the 'clock' set in motion after specific retaliatory events). The complaint also drew upon the 2006 Supreme Court decision in Burlington Northern v. White which clarified the definition(s) of discrimination and retaliation, which had previously varied widely in the federal circuit courts. The second SOX complaint complied with the judge's order in H-06-3810, and re-listed (reiterated) the very specific Chevron Pipeline FERC accounting violations and the Chevron corporation SEC SOX violations, which according to Chevron's responses to requests for admissions in H-06-3810, had not been corrected and were therefore ongoing and unabated.
The second SOX complaint (May, 2007) sat with the Department of Labor for several months, and the DOL eventually provided a copy to Chevron and requested a formal response from Chevron and Chevron Pipeline in the fall of 2007 (after numerous 2007 Wall St. analyst conference calls and SEC 10Q reporting). Upon receiving the very detailed and irrefutable list of violations and cover up actions taken by its law firm, and understanding that they could no longer claim a statute of limitations bar, Chevron/Bracewell and Giuliani immediately filed an Injunction against me in federal court (H-07-3236) to stop the Department of Labor evidentiary hearing process. The Injunction also implored the federal judge to demand that I withdraw any requests for arbitration, to eliminate the possibility of producing already identified documentary evidence of its fraud and cover up. Chevron argued that the second SOX complaint was barred by res judicata, because 1) it [only] raised the 'very same issues' as the first complaint, and 2) the summary judgment in the first case (statute of limitations bar) eliminated any cause of action for a second case.
The Injunction lawsuit was culminated with a very expedited Oral hearing in November, 2007 (which had been set for a date before which Chevron would have to produce any documents in my second SOX matter before theDepartment of Labor). True to form, Chevron did not serve me notice of that Oral Hearing, even though it was directed to by the Judge's Order .(See the belated notice of oral hearing above, and oral hearing transcript in H-07-3236 - if you can access federal court records online. Because I was not present or represented, Chevron again made numerous false and misleading statements to the federal judge in the oral hearing, and the judge granted Chevron's Injunction.
The whistleblower litigation conduct proved that Chevron was willing to produce altered documents in response to discovery, brazenly lie directly and repeatedly to judges, and not provide service/copies and notice of hearings in order avoid exposure of the voluminous evidence that proves its fraud and cover-up, ensuring one sided ex parte communication throughout the litigation process. In the SOX Act, Congress proscribed specific criminal penalties to widened obstruction of justice actions related to possible cover up conduct in a proceedings related to or which even contemplate a federal review of corporate financial fraud, in order to prevent the kind of cover up and obstruction that occurred after the Enron fiasco.
It it noteworthy that after the criminal litigation conduct and its own liability in this matter by defense counsel Bracewell and Giuliani LLP, the law firm's top national SOX attorney that handled Chevron's defense (Eden Sholeen) was terminated (in early 2008) - either as a result of the criminal litigation conduct, or to provide some level of plausible deniability for Chevron's executives, or both. Ms. Sholeen immediately went to work for ExxonMobil.
My previous direct supervisor - Chevron's Manager or Investor Relations (Irene Melitas) was also immediately removed from her position as Manager of Investor Relations with Chevron in late 2007 - after Chevron received my second SOX complaint. All information linking her to the CEO and CFO analyst conference calls (or even mentioning her by name) was quickly removed from the Chevron website. (I downloaded some of that Wall St./investor conference call info before it was removed and is attached above).
I have filed affidavits and provided over nine hours of deposition testimony under oath regarding my personal knowledge of Chevron's fraud. And although I have no personal knowledge of inappropriate external influence, there is related political information indirectly connected with the fraud: Chevron's primary Washington lobbyist (Wayne Berman of the Ogilvy firm) became John McCain's national campaign finance chairman in 2008 and reportedly contributed to the nomination of Sarah Palin, who had granted numerous oil and gas related concessions to Chevron while governor of the state of Alaska. Chevron hold significant oil/gas leasehold rights, including in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Rudy Giuliani dropped out of contention in 2008 after Chevron's lobbyist was hired to finance the McCain campaign. Mr. Guiliani's firm previously and has subsequently represented Chevron in numerous legal matters.
There are several indirect and anecdotal elements of these issues. You may remember that the price of crude oil rose inexplicably during the 2008 campaign (related to 'speculation' and other factors), and the McCain/Palin campaign mantra became 'drill baby drill'. Economists believe the crude oil price spike was actually a significant 'root cause' of the mortgage and financial/liquidity crisis significantly because Americans could not afford to pay both 1) mortgages 2) $4 gasoline, doubled utility expenses, and related increases in the costs of other necessities.
Higher crude oil prices directly affect the cost of gasoline, home heating oil, manufacturing and electric power generation. According to the EIA, 96% of transportation relies on oil, 43% of industrial product, 21% of residential and commercial, and (only) 3% of electric power. However, if oil prices rise, then so does the price of natural gas, which is used to fuel 14% of electric power generation, 73% of residential and commercial, and 39% of industrial production. (Source: EIA, U.S. Primary Energy Consumption by Source and Sector, 2004). Energy pricing and related impacts are also significant contributors to the current federal deficit.
Chevron revenues reached approximately one billion dollars per day in 2008. Accordingly, any (even 'billion dollar' range) financial penalties the SEC could eventually assess - are almost laughable to Chevron. The only real threat to Chevron Corporation and its executives is/was the criminal liablities associated with SEC violations. The frantic attempts at cover up by both Chevron and counsel Bracewell and Giuliani in this matter are truly remarkable - and in addition to being felony actions themselves, provide additional circumstantial related to its 'consciousness of guilt' and cover up. After the SOX litigation was squashed in late 2007, (and perhaps as a result of the criminal liability it exposed), Chevron Corporation's CFO (Steve Crowe), and CEO (David O'Reilly) quietly retired in 2008 and 2009, respectively.
Another issue of significant concern to Chevron that was exposed in the litigation was its control of crude oil supply and pipeline distribution systems sufficient to artificially influence oil price speculation.(Senator Carl Levin has started in the right direction with some of his staff's research and reporting over the last few years -see Wolverine Pipeline Study in Michigan at [link to levin.senate.gov] The Levin studies conclude that if companies are able to acquire FERC approval of pipeline rates, distribution facilities (tanks etc) and market practices (the fraud exposed in the SOX litigation), there is little else to prevent commodity price manipulation and speculation. Just one of Chevron's onshore tank facilities controls approximately 25% of oil production from the offshore Gulf of Mexico. [link to www.chevron-pipeline.com] Ironically, the oil and natural gas that is produced from federal waters offshore Gulf of Mexico belongs to the people of the United States, and if not fraudulently used/abused (against the people to whom it belongs); its trillions of dollars of value could solve a myriad of national and state financial issues. Ostensibly, willful fraud by an energy company's executives could violated the fiduciary duty the company owes to the United States as a trusting lessor of the country's oil and gas reserves. Proof of the fraud could allow the US to renegotiate or revoke oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere.
The economic devastation and 'ripple effects' of the 2008 oil price spike on the world economy are undeniable. In recognition of the significant impact of energy prices on individuals and state governments, and on federal government spending and deficits, and widespread manufacturing and other business failures and unemployment, the DOJ has recently announced an effort to investigate energy fraud and pricing. [link to www.justice.gov] www.stopfraud.gov.
I provided this information to the DOJ's Federal Fraud Enforcement Task Force on July 1, 2011, and received a call from the Task Force's Executive Director (Robb Adkins) on July 13, advising me that this was the precise type of information the DOJ could use to investigate and prove energy price fraud. Mr. Adkins has since left the DOJ and returned to private practice in San Diego. I received a phone call from Acting Director John Arteberry with the DOJ in November, 2011. He informed me that he checked with the FBI, and they did not have any of the information or documents I had provided to the Houston office from 2006-2008. Mr. Arteberry advised that I provide the information to the FBI again, as the FBI is the primary investigative arm for the DOJ. I again provided all of the attached information, along with my deposition testimony and other documents to the FBI in 2012. Since that time, both the SEC and the FBI have refused to investigate this matter. Ostensibly, Chevron has been deemed 'too big to fail' or too big to investigate. I was later informed that the SEC and FBI (and DOJ) have no interest in pursuing large corporations for financial crimes.
Chevron has stayed consistent in its strategies of intimidation and to 'sue the victims' (as it did in my case with the filing of a permanent injunction in H-07-3236) - when it filed a RICO matter against the people of Ecuador and its attorneys. [link to www.nytimes.com] It is ironic that Chevron chose to file a RICO matter against Ecuador, when it is Chevron that could well be charged with oil and gas price 'concurrence' and corrupt practices under the RICO Act, to devastating effect on jobs and the economy. Oil and gas prices are still largely controlled by major producers, who have succeeded in blaming higher prices on 'supply and demand' and world geo-political events and uncertainties, and even the Obama administration.
I have included the timeline of events that track the fraud and its economic impact and potential political influence by (excel file) attachment to this email. I have also included some litigation discovery responses which were directed at Chevron and Giuliani's attempts to manipulate oil and gas prices, defraud shareholders the government, and the American public, using natural resources actually owned by the people of the United States.
Lauren, please feel free to let me know if you have any questions or would like additional information, or pass on this information to those who may be interested in exposing this matter.
I think this information links significantly with the financial crisis engineered in 2008.
I am hopeful that exposure of such significant financial crimes and the lack of enforcement by US agencies charged with protecting investors and the energy consuming public, can assist in showing how the combined efforts of business and government are keeping the world population in economic servitude.
User ID: 44913777
08/20/2013 12:58 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
|1||Could Mccain and Graham be behind the WH call leaks?||02/15/17|
|2||Body language expert speculates McCain & Graham may be more than just friends!||2d 18h|
|3||Give me one good reason not to trust Hillary, McCain, Graham, Pelosi, or Ryan?||1d 19h|
|4||Whats up with McCain and graham||02/10/17|
|5||Who else thinks McCain and Graham are the LEAKERS?||02/15/17|