Category Archives: Uncategorized

What Are You Thinking?

An open letter to candidates Vivek Ramaswamy, Amy Acton, Jon Husted, and Sherrod Brown; to V-PAC, Ohioans for Lower Costs, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the Senate Leadership Fund (SLF), and the other groups now buying the airtime in Ohio

What are you thinking? Seriously, do you hear yourselves?

You are not obscure people. One of you is a physician who served in a governor’s cabinet. One of you built impressive companies and ran for president. One of you is a sitting United States senator. One of you spent decades in the Senate and is asking Ohio to send you back. Your biographies are full of the ordinary marks of accomplishment: licenses, earnings, elections, public service in high office. None of that should require you to invent a scandal in a thirty-second spot to win an election.

And yet the ads running in your names, or in the names of committees that exist to elect you, keep choosing the invented versions.

A pro-Ramaswamy advertisement told voters that Dr. Acton’s medical training was “insufficient,” that she admitted to drug addiction or an alcohol problem, and that police later caught her mixing alcohol and prescription drugs days after she told the medical board she was “clean.” The “insufficient” note was one supervisor’s comment on a four-month internship in 1990, before she was licensed; a later evaluation on the same application called her knowledge excellent. The 1994 form bundled emotional illness, drug addiction, and alcohol into a single question, and on the separate question about dependency she answered “no”. The police call was months later, not days later. Officers recorded a verbal dispute and made no arrest. Being loud enough to upset neighbors maybe rude, it’s not usually a crime. I have now taken the time to walked through the documents. You and/or your advertisers did, too. I don’t understand your slanderous need to lie.

On the other side, Dr Acton, a Democratic Governors Association–backed ad called Mr. Ramaswamy a conman who made hundreds of millions “scamming desperate seniors” with an Alzheimer’s drug he knew did not work. The drug failed in late-stage trials. It was never approved and never sold to patients. Investors lost money, that happens in business. Patients were not peddled a bottle. Seemingly promising drugs fail in clinical trials, 90% of them. That is a real business failure, it is not the crime the commercial describes. Mr. Ramaswamy is no Elizabeth Holmes, he has brought no less than 9 medications successfully through FDA trials which, among other things, have saved lives of infants and children born with otherwise nearly always fatal congenital athymia. Those babies, and their families, don’t think he’s a drug pushing conman.

In the Senate race the same habit shows up in sharper form.

Democratic ads cut “FirstEnergy spent millions bribing public officials” against “one prominent name keeps coming up, Sen. Jon Husted,” and place him “at the center” of the largest corruption scheme in state history. He backed House Bill 6. Company money reached groups that helped his campaigns. He has not been charged with taking a bribe. The man who was sentenced was the former House speaker. FactCheck.org’s point was simple: accurate sentences, arranged to leave a false impression, are still a false impression. The claim that the bailout alone “cost you thousands” on electric bills leans on a rise that analysts attribute more to demand and energy markets than to a law that has mostly been rolled back.

Republican ads have been no more careful with Mr. Brown. One said a family of three died on I-71 because he “opened our borders to dangerous illegals.” The driver was a naturalized United States citizen. There is no evidence a Brown vote caused that crash. PolitiFact and FactCheck.org both said so. Another spot said he supports “forcing childhood sex change surgery.” He does not. A third stretched “Epstein associates” until the label covered donors with thin or disputed ties, while a Brown ad did its own stretching in the other direction with Les Wexner’s donations.

This is not a dispute about emphasis. Campaigns have always argued about records. It is a dispute about whether a sentence has to be true, a prospective office holder honest.

You may say the other side started it. You may claim voters only respond to negatives. You will say the super PAC is independent and you cannot control it. The first two are descriptions of the incentive, not a defense. The third is the oldest dodge in the business. A candidate who will not denounce a lie told on his behalf has adopted it. An “independent” committee that exists to elect one person is not a stranger to that person.

Ohio is not short of real arguments. Shutdown authority during COVID sat with the governor, not Dr. Acton, and voters can decide what they think of the advice Mike DeWine took. A failed drug trial is a fair subject if you describe the trial honestly. Data-center tax breaks, Medicaid work rules, tariffs, and House Bill 6 are all in the public record. You could run on those and still hit hard. You are choosing, instead, the version that only works if the viewer does not look up the footnote or does not care for the truth

Honorable is not a title you keep by having held an office or built a company. It is a habit: you do not say what you know is not so, and you do not stand quietly beside the people who untrue things

for you.

That habit, honor, can still be recovered. The election is not over. Early voting is only beginning. The spots already aired cannot be un-aired, but the next buy is a choice, and the choice is still yours.

Stop pretending that Ohio voters are stupid, or that we lack compassion. Neither one of these things is true.

Pull the ads that invent a dependency, a scam against patients, a bribery charge, a cause of death, or a surgery mandate. Correct them in public and ask the committees spending in your favor to do the same. Replace them with the argument you are willing to defend in a room where someone has the documents. If the case is strong, it will survive the edit. If it only works after the dates are moved and the qualifiers are cut, it was never a case.

One campaign doing this will look exposed for a week. Two campaigns doing it would change the month. Voters are not asking you to go soft. They are asking you to be accurate. That is a lower bar than exists for the offices you are seeking, and it is still within reach.

You can turn this advertising in a different direction. Nothing in the calendar prevents it. Nothing in your records requires the false version. The only thing standing between these ads and an honest campaign is the decision, which you have not yet had to make for the last time.

Make it and make Ohio a better place for you, for all of us.

Respectfully,

Michael S Spillan

A voter who would rather be persuaded than managed.

P.S. To Norm Wernet, president of the Ohio Alliance for Retired Americans: I am sorry for your wife’s suffering and your pain. My own mother suffered from dementia and you have my most profound sympathy. Please understand that you do her and yourself a great disservice with your mischaracterizations. I don’t doubt that you believe them, I was once the Crowned Prince of self deception, and I recognize it plainly in others. Please reconsider your words, the facts give lie to them and I think you are better than that. Our Ohio State University is participating in almost 1,000 clinical trials at this time. People hope to get better because of them, 850-925 of them will fail. 500 of them will be complete failures.

To Soren Aldeco: The same basically applies to you, except that your ads imply that you were a helpless child subject to forces beyond your control …somehow related to Ohio and Sherrod Brown, who has said that such decisions should be made by parents, people and their doctors. Not by the state. You were 17, and by all accounts able and intelligent when you began hormone therapy. You were 19, a legal adult under the law of Texas (where you lived), when you had the elective double mastectomy and that decision you made as a adult. You have never lived in Ohio.

Norm, Soren, I believe you are suffering, truly. I also believe your suffering is being sustained and extended by self-deception and – to some degree- misplaced projection of responsibility for that suffering onto others who had no obvious role in it. You’ve recovered from the people allegedly responsible for your decisions, it’s time to move on.

Norm, Soren, get help, I did and healed. You can, too. I’m praying for you. Mike.

On Heels of Cryto Problems, SEC Charges Eight Social Media Influencers in $100 Million Stock Manipulation Scheme Promoted on Discord and Twitter

Washington D.C., Dec. 14, 2022 —

The rise of crypto fraud hasn’t prevented the traditional stock pump and dump scheme from being attractive to modern criminals as was evident today when the Securities and Exchange Commission today announced charges against eight individuals in a $100 million securities fraud scheme in which they used the social media platforms Twitter and Discord to manipulate exchange-traded stocks.

According to the SEC, since at least January 2020, seven of the defendants promoted themselves as successful traders and cultivated hundreds of thousands of followers on Twitter and in stock trading chatrooms on Discord. These seven defendants allegedly purchased certain stocks and then encouraged their substantial social media following to buy those selected stocks by posting price targets or indicating they were buying, holding, or adding to their stock positions. The complaint alleges that when share prices and/or trading volumes rose in the promoted securities, the individuals regularly sold their shares without ever having disclosed their plans to dump the securities while they were promoting them.

“As our complaint states, the defendants used social media to amass a large following of novice investors and then took advantage of their followers by repeatedly feeding them a steady diet of misinformation, which resulted in fraudulent profits of approximately $100 million,” said Joseph Sansone, Chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s Market Abuse Unit.

“Today’s action exposes the true motivation of these alleged fraudsters and serves as another warning that investors should be wary of unsolicited advice they encounter online.”

The following seven individuals were charged with securities fraud:

Name State of Residence Twitter Handle

Perry Matlock Texas @PJ_Matlock

Edward Constantin Texas @MrZackMorris

Thomas Cooperman California @ohheytommy

Gary Deel California @notoriousalerts

Mitchell Hennessey New Jersey @Hugh_Henne

Stefan Hrvatin Florida @LadeBackk

John Rybarcyzk Texas @Ultra_Calls

The complaint further charges Daniel Knight (Twitter Handle @DipDeity), of Texas, with aiding and abetting the alleged scheme by, among other things, co-hosting a podcast in which he promoted many of the other individuals as expert traders and provided them with a forum for their manipulative statements. Knight also traded in concert with the other defendants and regularly generated profits from the manipulation.

The SEC’s complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement, of criminal profits, prejudgment interest, and civil penalties against each defendant, as well as a penny stock bar against Hrvatin. Criminal charges against all eight individuals also were filed in a parallel action brought by the Department of Justice’s Fraud Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Texas.

The SEC’s Office of Investor Education and Advocacy has issued an Investor Alert on Social Media and Investment Fraud. Investors can find additional information, including the warning signs of fraud, at Investor.gov.

Five Questions To Ask Before Investing With A Stockbroker

Whether you’re a first-time investor or have been investing for many years, there are some basic questions you should always ask before you commit your hard-earned money to an investment.

Question 1: Is the seller licensed?

Con-artists are experts at the art of persuasion, often using a variety of influence tactics tailored to the vulnerabilities of their victims. Smart investors check the background of anyone promoting an investment opportunity, even before learning about opportunity itself. While it’s usually safe to trust larger firms with more established reputations – relying on their internal oversight to keep you safe – even the biggest and best of brokerages have loosed wolves among their flocks, albeit unknowingly.

Researching brokers: Details on a broker’s background and qualifications are available for free on FINRA’s BrokerCheck website.

Researching investment advisers: The Investment Adviser Public Disclosure website provides information about investment adviser firms registered with the SEC and most state-registered investment adviser firms.

Researching SEC actions: The SEC Action Lookup – Individuals allows you to look up information about certain individuals who have been named as defendants in SEC federal court actions or respondents in SEC administrative proceedings.

If you are not sure who to contact or have any questions regarding checking the background of an investment professional, call the SEC’s toll-free investor assistance line at (800) 732-0330.

Question 2: Is the investment registered?

Any offer or sale of securities must either be registered with the SEC or exempt from registration. Registration is best because it provides investors with access to key information about the company’s management, products, services, and finances. Smart investors always check whether an investment is registered with the SEC by using the SEC’s EDGAR database or contacting the SEC’s toll-free investor assistance line at (800) 732-0330.

Question 3: How do the risks compare with the potential rewards?

The potential for greater returns comes with greater risk. Understanding this crucial trade-off between risk and reward can help you separate legitimate opportunities from unlawful schemes. Investments with greater risk may offer higher potential returns, but they may expose you to greater investment losses. Keep in mind every investment carries some degree of risk and no legitimate investment offers the best of both worlds. Many investment frauds are pitched as high return opportunities with little or no risk. It’s usually best to ignore these so-called opportunities. If you truly believe you smell a fraud, report them to the SEC, your local state securities licensing agency or state’s attorney general’s office.

Question 4: Do you understand the investment?

Many successful investors follow this rule of thumb: Never invest in something you don’t understand. Be sure to always read an investment’s prospectus or disclosure statement carefully. If you can’t understand the investment and how it will help you make money, ask a trusted financial professional for help. If you are still confused, you should think twice about investing.

This particular question, “Do you understand the investment?” has broader application. Savvy investors apply it across the investment spectrum, not just in their stock market considerations. Real estate, cryptocurrency, NFTs, the bond and commodities futures markets are all unique in their own ways, all offering potential rewards, all presenting their own potential pitfalls. If you don’t understand them, don’t invest in them until you do. Keep safe!

Question 5: Where can you turn for help?

Whether checking out an investment professional, researching an investment, or learning about new products or scams, unbiased information can be a great advantage when it comes to investing wisely. Make a habit of using the information and tools on available on reputable public sites, and take advantage of the securities regulators’ websites. If you have a question or concern about an investment, get a second opinion from a different broker or investment advisor. Remember, too, that you can contact the SEC, FINRA, or your state securities regulator for help in a crunch.

A final piece of advice: Don’t be afraid to ask questions, of the person offering the investment and others.

Any broker or advisor who fears questions, or deflects without actually answering them, either doesn’t understand the investment or doesn’t want you to understand it. The most successful Ponzi scheme of all time (excepting Social Security), was run by Bernie Madoff. A large part of his success was found in his practice of scaring investors away from asking questions by implying that if they didn’t trust him they could take their money elsewhere.

Don’t be afraid to ask your questions, and don’t be afraid to leave if you don’t get, don’t understand – or don’t like – the answers.

February 8, 2022 – Mike Spillan, Editor

IRS Abandons Facial Recognition Plans

February 7, 2022 – Mike Spillan, Editor

WASHINGTON — The IRS announced it will transition away from using a third-party service for facial recognition to help authenticate people creating new online accounts. The transition will occur over the coming weeks in order to prevent larger disruptions to taxpayers during filing season.

During the transition, the IRS says it will quickly develop and bring online an additional authentication process that does not involve facial recognition. Instead, The agency will also continue to work with its cross-government partners to develop authentication methods that protect taxpayer data and ensure broad access to online tools.

“The IRS takes taxpayer privacy and security seriously, and we understand the concerns that have been raised,” said IRS Commissioner Chuck Rettig. “Everyone should feel comfortable with how their personal information is secured, and we are quickly pursuing short-term options that do not involve facial recognition.”

Unfortunately, privacy experts have expressed additional concerns about the IRS’ “work with it’s cross-government partners” as well.

Still, the transition announced today should not interfere with the taxpayer’s ability to file their return or pay taxes owed. During this period, the IRS will continue to accept tax filings, and it has no other impact on the current tax season. People should continue to file their taxes as they normally would.

FTC Sues to Block Lockheed Martin Corporation’s $4.4 Billion Vertical Acquisition of Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings Inc.

Agency Seeks to Prevent World’s Largest Defense Contractor from Eliminating Last Independent U.S. Missile Propulsion Provider

February 1, 2022 – Mike Spillan, Editor

Today, the Federal Trade Commission sued to block Lockheed Martin Corporation’s $4.4 billion proposed vertical acquisition of Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings Inc, the last independent U.S. supplier of missile propulsion systems. Aerojet supplies advanced power, propulsion, and armament systems, which are critical components for the missiles made by Lockheed and other defense prime contractors.

The agency’s complaint alleges that if the deal is allowed to proceed, Lockheed will use its control of Aerojet to harm rival defense contractors and further consolidate multiple markets critical to national security and defense. This is the agency’s first litigated defense merger challenge in decades.“The FTC is suing to block Lockheed Martin, the world’s largest defense contractor, from eliminating Aerojet, our nation’s last independent supplier of key missile inputs,” said FTC Bureau of Competition Director Holly Vedova. “Lockheed is one of a few missile middlemen the U.S. military relies on to supply vital weapons that keep our country safe. If consummated, this deal would give Lockheed the ability to cut off other defense contractors from the critical components they need to build competing missiles. Without competitive pressure, Lockheed can jack up the price the U.S. government has to pay, while delivering lower quality and less innovation. We cannot afford to allow further concentration in markets critical to our national security and defense.”

The U.S. Department of Defense (“DoD”) reviewed the acquisition and considered the potential impacts of the transaction on national security, the nation’s industrial and technological base, competition, and innovation.

As part this assessment, the DoD facilitated a series of FTC-led interviews with DoD-impacted stakeholders. DoD’s assessment was provided to the FTC for its deliberations and final decision-making.“I deeply appreciate the collaborative relationship between DoD and FTC staff who worked closely throughout this investigation,” said Director Vedova. “The FTC determined that the proposed transaction harms competition for several weapons systems that DoD relies on to defend the nation and there is no sufficient remedy to alleviate those harms.”

Lockheed is the world’s largest defense contractor and a leading missile supplier in a highly concentrated sector. Lockheed, and its U.S missile competitors—Raytheon Technologies, Inc., Northrop Grumman Corporation, and The Boeing Company—act as missile system prime contractors to DoD. These prime contractors are key intermediaries between the U.S. government and the rest of the missile systems supply chain, including the subcontractors such as Aerojet which provide system components to them.

DoD relies on prime contractors to develop, produce, sustain, and source a variety of weapons, including missile systems, hypersonic cruise missiles, and missile defense kill vehicles. Each of these weapons depend on critical propulsion technologies of the type supplied by Aerojet.Aerojet, as a subcontractor, is the last independent U.S. supplier of critical inputs for missile systems, hypersonic cruise missiles, and missile defense kill vehicles. Aerojet and only one other competitor – Northrop Grumman – compete to provide propulsion inputs for missile systems and hypersonic cruise missiles to defense prime contractors.

Aerojet and Northrop Grumman both provide solid rocket motors for missile systems and supersonic combustion ramjets, or “scramjets,” which are air-breathing engines that propel hypersonic cruise missiles. Further, Aerojet is the only proven U.S. supplier of divert-and-attitude control systems that propel missile defense kill vehicles. Lockheed’s proposed acquisition of Aerojet would give Lockheed control over critical propulsion inputs that its rivals require to compete against Lockheed. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the proposed acquisition would give Lockheed the ability and incentive to deny, limit, or otherwise disadvantage competitors’ access to critical propulsion inputs for various weapons systems. The combined firm could disadvantage rivals by affecting the price or quality of the product, the quality of the engineering support, and the schedule and contract terms for developing and supplying it or otherwise disadvantage its rivals.

As a subcontractor, Aerojet also has had access to prime contractors’ sensitive information about technological advancements, cost, schedule, and business strategies. The FTC complaint alleges that post-acquisition, Lockheed would have an incentive to exploit its access to its rivals’ proprietary information to gain an advantage in competitions against them and that the U.S. government, in turn, would be harmed because the cost of missile systems, missile defense kill vehicles, and hypersonic cruise missiles would likely increase, innovation would be lessened, and quality would be reduced, hindering national security and defense interests.

According to the complaint, the proposed transaction could impact research and development as well as innovation into the future, which is vital to ensure that the U.S. remains a leader in these technologies. As an independent supplier, Aerojet has the incentive to allocate its research and development funds based on the potential return the funds would generate regardless of which prime contractor it is supporting.

The complaint further claims that, post-acquisition, the combined firm would be incentivized to allocate Aerojet investment dollars for the combined firm’s benefit alone, which could stifle innovation.

The Commission vote to issue the administrative complaint (a public version of which will be available and linked to this article as soon as possible) and to authorize staff to seek a preliminary injunction was 4-0.The FTC will file a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking a Preliminary Injunction to stop the deal pending an administrative trial. The administrative trial is scheduled to begin on June 16, 2022.