Not Much Bounty for SEC Whistleblower Program - SEC's Enforcement Division - Peter Sivere - Whistleblowers Are Ignored

"" For more than 20 years, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has had a program in place to reward whistleblowers who provide the agency with information about insider trading. But a new audit by the SEC Office of Inspector General (OIG) reveals that the program has almost never been used, is barely recognized inside or outside the SEC, and has fundamental design flaws.

It turns out the SEC has received very few applications in the past two decades for bounties under the program -- and only five people have actually received payments since the program first began:

Design Flaws in the Bounty Program

The OIG also found that the program suffers from the following deficiencies: it's poorly recognized by the public and even within the SEC; the criteria for judging bounty applications is overly vague; the SEC does not have good internal policies to guide staff in reviewing bounty applications; the SEC rarely provides whistleblowers with status reports on their applications (a problem we've also heard about at other IG offices); once the applications are passed on, there are no systems in place to ensure that they are processed in an adequate and timely fashion; and the documentation for bounty referrals is often incomplete.

Many Whistleblowers Are Ignored or Even Subjected to Retaliation

POGO previously reported on anecdotal evidence of the problems described by the SEC OIG.

Writing for Politics Daily, we described how one whistleblower was retaliated against after inquiring whether he would be eligible to receive a bounty payment under the SEC's program. Peter Sivere, who at the time was working as a compliance officer at JPMorgan, first approached the SEC with evidence showing that his employer had failed to disclose documents sought in a wide-ranging SEC probe into a practice known as market timing. He was told that he didn't qualify for a bounty payment, but he provided the information anyway.

But instead of protecting Peter Sivere, the SEC enforcement attorney investigating the matter told JPMorgan's counsel about Peter Sivere's initial inquiry about a cash payment. JPMorgan's counsel then used this information to disparage Peter Sivere's whistleblower credentials at a proceeding before the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, in which Peter Sivere had contended that JPMorgan retaliated against him after he went to the SEC.

A subsequent investigation by the SEC OIG found that the enforcement attorney, George Demos , had violated agency rules by disclosing non-public information in an ongoing investigation, and recommended that disciplinary action be taken. George Demos left the SEC shortly thereafter and is now running for Congress.

OIG's Recommendations

To help correct the many deficiencies in the whistleblower bounty program, the OIG's latest audit recommended that the SEC's Enforcement Division develop a communications plan to publicize its existence; post the application on its website with clear instructions for the whistleblower; establish better policies to follow up with the whistleblower once the complaint is received; develop specific criteria for recommending bounty awards; improve its internal controls for tracking tips and complaints; require that a bounty file with minimum documentation be created for each application; and incorporate best practices from comparable programs run by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Internal Revenue Services (IRS).

Congressional Reforms and Problems with Other Bounty Programs

In the meantime, Congress is also considering legislation to improve the SEC's whistleblower bounty program. The financial regulatory overhaul bill passed by the House last fall included a provision to authorize the SEC to award bounty payments tied to any judicial or administrative action brought by the SEC (i.e., not just insider trading cases) that results in monetary sanctions of over $1 million.

The provision also enables the whistleblower to receive up to 30 percent of the amount recovered (the current limit is 10 percent).

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd's (D-CT) bill would go even further, ensuring that the whistleblower receives no less than 10 percent of the monetary sanctions, and allowing the whistleblower to appeal any aspect of the SEC's decision, including whether, to whom, and in what amount to make the award.

We applaud these legislative fixes and hope that the final bill reflects the stronger language proposed by the Senate. However, the SEC should also learn from the shortcomings in comparable whistleblower reward programs run by other agencies.

While the False Claims Act has resulted in over $20 billion in recoveries since 1986, the IRS's program to reward whistleblowers who spot tax problems in their workplace shares some of the same problems uncovered by the SEC OIG.

The IRS program, which was established under the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, enables whistleblowers to receive between 15 and 30 percent of the collected proceeds.

However, a recent audit by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration found that the IRS's Whistleblower Office does not have a good system in place to manage and track cases, and that no awards have actually been paid out under the new program, in part because the claims can take over a decade to process.

One well-known whistleblower who's still waiting to hear whether he will receive an award is former UBS employee Brad Birkenfeld, who was sentenced to 40 months in prison after he attempted to inform the IRS and DOJ about his role in soliciting wealthy Americans to evade taxes through services provided by the Swiss bank.

Although his ordeal isn't necessarily a reflection on the IRS program, it does highlight the dangers often faced by individuals who blow the whistle on corporate wrongdoing.

In any event, the SEC could use all the help it can get when it comes to handling whistleblower complaints, and we hope that the OIG's recommendations and Congress's legislation will finally enable the SEC to give whistleblowers the protection and recognition they deserve.

-- Michael Smallberg  ""Sourcehttp://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2010/04/if-the-sec-has-a-whistleblower-program-but-nobody-ever-uses-it-does-it-really-exist.html

Blowing the Whistle On Fraud - Exposing Corruption - Calling Out Wrong Doers - Powerful Whistleblower Site...

Great Whistleblower Blog on Department of Justice Fraud, Oversight, Lack of Staff to Look into Fraud Alerts, Corrupt Judges, Above the Law Judicial Cronies and Lots More...

"" ..site was created because in my opinion the False Claims Act and other remedies available to ordinary citizens to combat waste, fraud, special interests and abuse that is taking place in this country are a joke.

The Department of Justice takes less than 1% of the fraud cases presented to them due to lack of staff. If the case succeeds, the Department of Justice gets over 75% of the reward. It should be the other way around.

If the Department of Justice passes on the case i.e. it is so unconcerned with the defrauding of the American citizen, then the person who brought the fraud to the attention of society and risked his or her job, family, time and money to right the wrongs that the government created but refuses to fix should get 75% of the reward for their trouble.

I believe that the doctrine of sovereign immunity and qualified sovereign immunity is illegal, and that every judge who upholds the illegal doctrine of sovereign immunity be placed in jail for treason.

I also believe that any judge who interprets the 11th amendment as barring a person from suing the state in which he or she resides, be put in jail for treason and given remedial reading lessons because obviously the judge had trouble understanding the words the founders put in front of him or her.

Yes it is treason. Sovereign immunity is a doctrine based on English law that tried to make it into the Constitution 2x but was rejected by our founders both times. So the Judiciary did — illegally — what the founders refused to do which is to create a 2 tiered legal system where some people and entities are more equal than others.

In fact I don’t know why the Judiciary didn’t just rename America — Animal Farm. If you want a system that is just, then everyone must be subject to the same consequences for bad behavior.

The people who create the law in America have absolutely no right or authority to insulate themselves or other “special people” from the laws everyone is supposed to be subject to. America is a country by the people and for the people. I think our government and our judiciary would best remember that. ""

Folks Sites like this One are Part of the Solution... Check out the Link Below and Lend your support to this Amazing Whistleblower Exposing Corruption, Providing Solutions, Exposing Fraud, Exposing Corrupt Judges, Calling Out the Department of Justice for Not Doing their Job.. Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox says WOW.. I am Impressed... this Woman is Amazing and I Encourage you to read the site below and to FIND your Voice - Speak Up - Now is Time. NO law enforcement, Law Maker, Judge, Or Attorney Should Be Above the Law...

Click Here to Read this Amazing Whistleblower Report ....

Iviewit Stolen Patent Case - On What or Whose Authority is P. Stephen Lamont Acting On?

Why is Stephen Lamont Threatening to End the Affairs of Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox? Why is Stephen Lamont Demanding that I Copy him on my emails to anyone regarding the Iviewit Company?

Why in the World would Stephen Lamont Threat my Life, and my "Affairs", just because I posted a document and words THAT were NOT mine... ???

Does Stephen Lamont have the Legal Authority
to Speak on behalf of the Iviewit Company?

Can P. Stephen Lamont Legally File Federal Documents to QUASH Eliot Bernstein's Motion .. when Mr. Lamont was Fired, Long .. Long ago ?

Iviewit, Eliot Bernstein Says:

" Lamont was not approved by any board, as the board disbanded illegally and without noticing the shareholders and so I hired lamont and offered him stock in the company. Later we learned from Garber and other law firms that we could not act on behalf of Iviewit in official capacity until the books and corporate records were fixed, approximately 50k and that is why lamont claims he was advised by counsel to work outside the company and not as an officer, as he legally was never an officer."

More on Iviewit.. and Lamont
http://www.deniedpatent.com/2010/02/p-stephen-lamont-friend-or-foe-of.html

Posted by
Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox
Industry Whistleblower

This is not My Story .. it is However, the Greatest Patent Story every Told, and well I find it intriguing So I post about it.. I Found the Information on www.Iviewit.TV where the story has been running for 8 Years.

I link to that site in Which Stephen Lamont also promotes.

SO why threaten me for posting information from that site and directly from the REAL owner .. and one of the Inventors of the Iviewit Patent.. Why Terrorize me for simply reading a Website and posting pieces of it on my site and linking to the site...??

Why has, P. Stephen Lamont, an Alleged Former CEO of Iviewit Technologies Inc. Threatened me for posting information that is not mine.

And it is Reported to ME that Stephen Lamont has Joined and or Created a Hate Group, and is actively recruiting others to join him in this group that is threatening to Incarcerate me, Burn Me at the Stake, Ruin Me, and Telling Lie upon Lie about me.. and my Business.. all because I Posted Excerpts from the Iviewit Website.

I just don't Understand. I have no Bad intentions.
I am simply writing about an 8 Year Old Stolen Patent Story
that is and has been already on the Web for 8 years....

Not my Story...
I am Just a Modern Day
Investigate Journalist.. which means
I Read..
I Post...
that Simple..

More on the Iviewit Stolen Patent Case at
www.DeniedPatent.com and at www.iViewit.TV

Crystal Cox Blog
a Special Note to POST
for the Concerned Reader
that May wonder Why the "Authorities" do NOTHING about threats on people's lives..

well folks they don't want to, don't know how to or your LIFE and quality of life means nothing to them.. because I can tell you that Homeland Security, DHS.gov, and the Department of Justice is Reading this Stuff...

I can See them on my Stat Counter.. DHS was on this site today .. will they do anything ??? or are they simply investigating the Messenger and NOT the Message... they seem to just Observe while bad things happen.. kind of like today's news Out of Seattle where the 3 Guards Watched the Young Black woman beaten almost to death and did nothing...

I have been getting tips, and researching stories for awhile now, and definitely under the Watch of the DHS.gov and the Dept. Of Justice Web Server, the VERY scary part is they don't do anything or take action on Obvious Threats to People's Lives or Injustice. They simply seem to put the messenger on Watch, when Really it is NOT my Story. A couple of Years of this and I can tell you once again - that these folks read this stuff.. and they make no attempt to help .. even when I email them and ask for help...

So Don't Worry.. DHS and the Dept. of Justice may be here looking to Investigate ME and not really caring about the Illegal Behavior or Death Threats Coming from the Actual Source of the Facts.. or the Truth on the Case .. the Real Crimes and Criminals...


Crystal L. Cox


Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger

This one is as of Sept. 09 P. Stephen Lamont acting as if he is still CEO of the Iviewit Company. Who Really has the RIGHT to act on Behalf of Iviewit

"CEO Lamont Demands Federal Intervention

CEO Lamont Demands Federal Intervention Category: Web, HTML, Tech
IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC.

........

P. Stephen Lamont
Chief Executive Officer
Direct Dial: 914-217-0038

By Overnight Mail (o), Facsimile (f) and Certified Delivery (c)

September 23, 2009

The Hon. Eric H. Holder, Jr. (o) The Hon. Preet Bharara (c)
Attorney General of the United States United States Attorney for
Office of the Attorney General District of New York
United States Department of Justice United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. One St. Andrews Plaza
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 New York, New York 10007

Hon. William M. Welch II (c) The Hon. John L. Sampson (f)
Chief, Public Integrity Unit Chairman, New York State Senate
United States Department of Justice Judiciary Committee
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W 409 Legislative Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 Albany, NY 12247


RE: Request for Federal Intervention into Allegations of Corruption and Appointment of Federal Monitor.

Gentlemen:

By way of introduction, I am P. Stephen Lamont, Chief Executive Officer of Iviewit Holdings, Inc., and its subsidiaries, affiliates, and related parties (“Iviewit”), and pursuant to my fiduciary duties, I respectfully request your offices to: (i) attend the New York State Senate’s Standing Committee on the Judiciary’s Thursday, September 24, 2009 hearing concerning The Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee (“1st DDC”), the grievance committees of the various Judicial Districts (collectively, the “DDC’s”), and the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct (“CJC”), where you will hear testimony related to the commission of Federal crimes by and between and the 1st DDC, the DCC’s, the CJC and aggrieved citizens of the State of New York; (ii) once you have digested such testimony, and by the body(ies) of appropriate jurisdiction, the eventual issuance of a temporary injunction and a preliminary injunction enjoining the State of New York from further administration of the 1st DDC, the DDC’s, and the CJC and the insertion of a Federal monitor to administer such agencies in lieu of State administration; and (iii) the appointment of a Special Prosecutor to investigate such allegations of the commission of Federal crimes and the eventual prosecution of same.

As a case in point, the following describes the experiences of Iviewit with the aforementioned New York State agencies:

I. Iviewit Technology

The series of events proximate to the instant circumstances herein surrounds the sabotage of the multimedia inventions of Iviewit and the further alleged cover-up of that patent sabotage by the many attorneys, public officers, and members of the judiciary within and outside of the State of New York.

To begin, I would like to make it clear that Iviewit is not referring to some rudimentary software that will be rendered obsolete as newer versions emerge, but that the Iviewit video scaling and image overlay systems (“IP”) are THE backbone, enabling technologies for the encoding and transmission of video and images across all networks and viewable on all display devices, an elegant upstream solution (towards the content creator) of reconfiguring video frames to unlock bandwidth, processing, and storage constraints presently in use by cable MSO’s, satellite MSO’s, telco MSO’s, and terrestrial networks, among a host of others. On the imaging side, presently in use by all those hardware manufacturers of image and/or video capture devices and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Mars Rover images), Iviewit stakes the claim as the inventors of digital zoom.

II. ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE COMPLAINTS FILED

1st DDC

In or about February 2003, and in my capacity as Chief Executive Officer of Iviewit, I was a party to attorney misconduct complaints against Kenneth Rubenstein of Proskauer Rose LLP (“Proskauer”), Proskauer, Raymond A. Joao, Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolf & Schlissel LLP (“MLG”) filed with the 1st DDC, that were mired in undisclosed conflicts, improprieties, and violations of public offices of the 1st DDC from the outset. The attorney discipline response of Rubenstein was authored by Steven C. Krane of Proskauer who, upon information and belief, held positions at the 1st DDC and other disciplinary agencies at the time of the response making his representation a conflict of interest and violation of public offices.

In or about June 2003, and in my capacity of Chief Executive Officer of Iviewit, I was a party to a complaint against Steven C. Krane (“Krane”) for the above referenced conflicts and improprieties in the response for Rubenstein that imparted same on the now merged Joao complaint.

In or about June 2004, and in my capacity of Chief Executive Officer of Iviewit, I was a party to a complaint against Thomas J. Cahill, Chief Counsel of the 1st DDC, filed with the 1st DDC, Special Inquiry #2004.1122, as a result of Cahill’s knowing and willful false information supplied to Iviewit in an effort to protect Krane, that had since been stalled under the direction of persons unknown, and sat incommunicado in the offices of Special Counsel, Martin R. Gold, for investigation.

In or about June 2004, I was an individual movant in a Motion to the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department (“First Department Court”), inter alia, to begin immediate investigation of complaints against the above referenced attorneys and counselors-at-law. Subsequently, the First Department Court granted the Motion and in an unpublished order it was determined to move the complaints of Rubenstein, Proskauer, Krane, MLG, and Joao to the Appellate Division Second Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee (“2nd DDC”) as a result of conflicts and the appearance of impropriety. After thorough review of the subject matter, the First Department Court ordered the immediate investigation of the complaints against each attorney involved – Rubenstein M2820, Joao M3212, and Krane M3198, while the First Department Court ordered the Cahill complaint for a Special Inquiry #2004.1122 by Gold.

2nd DDC

On or about October 2004, the 2nd DDC summarily dismissed the complaints against Rubenstein, Proskauer, MLG, Joao and Krane, failing to conduct the First Department Court’s ordered investigation. In a discussion with Diana Maxwell Kearse, Chief Counsel of the 2nd DDC, Kearse stated that she and the 2nd DDC are not subject to the jurisdiction of the First Department Court and therefore could do as they please, or words to that effect; Kearse factually defies the Orders of the First Department Court so as to preclude the complaints against Rubenstein, Joao, and Krane.

DAMAGES SUFFERED

Were it not for Iviewit’s discovery of the conflict of interest and appearance of impropriety in Krane’s response for Rubenstein and Proskauer, the attorneys would have received discipline by reprimand, suspension, or disbarment, where such discipline would have been positively reflected in a variety of complaints across domestic and international agencies, but particularly the Iviewit intellectual property investigation being conducted by Harry I. Moatz, the Director of the Office of Enrollment and Discipline of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Were it not for the stalling of the Rubenstein and Joao complaints at the 1st DDC, and the unpublished nature of the First Department Court’s order, the transfer to an equally conflicted 2nd DDC, and the dismissal of the Rubenstein, Proskauer, Joao, Meltzer and Krane complaints by the 2nd DDC in reckless disregard for the Order of the First Department Court, Iviewit shareholders would not have suffered the damages of:

Emotional distress; and
Loss of consortium with their families; and
On a personal note, lost savings in the amount of approximately One Million Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($1,250,000); and
Lost value of the equity interest in the capital stock in Iviewit Holdings, Inc. in an amount that can approach One Trillion Dollars ($1,000,000,000,000).

Consequently, considering the above set of circumstances, the state of affairs in New York will never right itself absent Federal intervention, and Iviewit again respectfully requests: (i) the attendance, by individuals at your discretion, at the New York State’s Thursday, September 24, 2009 hearing; (ii) and once familiar with the state of affairs, the appointment of a Federal monitor to administer the 1st DDC, the DDC’s, and the CJC; and (iii) the appointment of a Special Prosecutor to investigate and prosecute the commission of these Federal crimes.

Thank you for your attention to these matters, and Iviewit looks forward to your earliest replies.

Very truly yours,

IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC.

....By:
Chief Executive Officer

Reply to Address:

35 Locust Avenue
Rye, N.Y. 10580



Cc: The Hon. David A. Paterson (c)
New York State Governor
Office of the Governor of New York State
State Capitol
Albany, New York 12224

The Hon. Boyd M. Johnson III (c)
Deputy United States Attorney for the
Southern District of New York
Public Corruption Unit
United States Department of Justice
One St. Andrew’s Plaza
New York, New York 10007

The Hon. Andrew M. Cuomo (c)
New York State Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General of New York State
The Capitol
Albany, New York 12224-0341

The Hon. Loretta Preska (c)
Chief U. S. District Judge
United States Courthouse
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
New York, New York 10007-1312

The Hon. Luis A. Gonzales (c)
Presiding Justice, New York State Appellate Division, 1st Dept.
27 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10010

The Hon. Joseph M. Demarest, Jr. (c)
Assistant Director in Charge, New York Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation
26 Federal Plaza, 23rd Floor
New York, New York 10278-0004

Source of Above QUOTE
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=114167543&blogId=511391360
Lamont - Iviewit
More on the Trillion Dollar Iviewit Stolen Patent at
www.Iviewit.TV - Eliot Bernstein's Website or
www.DeniedPatent.com the Blog of Crystal L. Cox Industry Whistleblower
Crystal L. Cox