One who intends to leave others better off for his having existed.


“Mr. Hartzman has no justification for publishing this confidential and proprietary information” - Wells Fargo

The Federal Reserve, owned by its member banks, led by Ben Bernanke, approved Wachovia’s merger with Wells Fargo on October 12, 2008, knowing of unreported Fed loans to both companies without disclosure to the public, shareholders and most company employees, which justifies Federal Reserve subpoenas concerning my case, as the Fed refused to disclose the initial loan information, and has actively not enforced its legal imposed regulatory duties.

Wachovia and Wells Fargo executives among others, were aware of the illegally unreported loans at the time of the merger, and therefore engaged in insider trading, knowing what other shareholders didn't, which I reported to Wells Fargo’s ethics line, which Wells has refused to disclose.

That the Federal Reserve and other federal regulatory bodies have chosen not to enforce the law before, during and after my identity was disclosed on Wells Fargo's internal email systems and phone records, I needed to resort to other and all means to "Cause Information to be Provided", defend my honor and credibility by publicly disseminating information, as I was abandoned by those who were supposed to enforce the law.

If I had not gone public, my family would be in more personal danger than not having done so. If I had not gone public, no one would have reason to believe anything I was saying, as regulators didn’t and are not disclosing anything related to the issue. By going public and Wells Fargo not debunking what I disseminated, I saved the value of my reputation and ability to earn future income, while showing my case has merit against a system which worked to suppress the information and not enforce the law, which no one at the federal level has yet chosen to do.
On Thursday, November 14, 2013, Common Dreams' Andrea Germanos reported;

"… on Tuesday, November 12, 2013, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff of Manhattan said the DoJ's "unconvincing" excuses for not prosecuting individuals were "technically and morally suspect."

"[Not] a single high level executive has been successfully prosecuted in connection with the recent financial crisis..." Rakoff said.

While the DoJ has not said that all the top executives are innocent in the lead-up to the financial crisis, it "has offered one or another excuse for not criminally prosecuting them—excuses that, on inspection, appear unconvincing,” the Financial Times reports Judge Rakoff as saying.

…Ultimately, "the failure of the government to bring to justice those responsible for such a massive fraud speaks greatly to weaknesses in our prosecutorial system that need to be addressed," he said.

And "to federal judges who take an oath to apply the law equally to the rich and the poor, this excuse, sometimes labeled the 'too big to jail excuse,' is mindboggling in what it says about the department's disregard of fundamental legal principles," he continued.

…In 2011 Rakoff made what was described as a "historic" decision when he rejected a $285 million settlement the SEC sought with Citigroup because it was too lenient and would have blocked an "overriding public interest in knowing the truth." His full ruling, Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi wrote at the time, "read like a political document, serving not just as a rejection of this one deal but as a broad and unequivocal indictment of the regulatory system as a whole."
I believed my family was in physical danger, as my anonymity was compromised by Wells Fargo’s ethics line investigators. Management limited/censored my actions. Wells Fargo wouldn't admit to wrongdoing or correct an ongoing fraud on the public and its clients.

Wells Fargo management retaliated on multiple occasions in various ways which reduced my income and my ability to do business with clients under fiduciary relationships. The NC State Securities Division found enough merit to forward my complaints into the black hole of federal regulators. The US regulatory infrastructure wouldn't do anything, including the SEC, the Federal Reserve, the FBI and FINRA, while not saying whether there were any investigations etc...

American regulatory authorities won’t say whether a case exists, or whether a case is opened or closed, even though I contacted the government during and after interactions with Wells Fargo management, leaving myself and loved ones at risk of reprisal.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

By attempting to censor/redact/manipulate/restrict public records filed with state and federal authorities, Wells Fargo has proposed a violation my constitutional first amendment rights. My use of any information channel, including emails to Littler Mendelson’s attorneys, is justified by the US Constitution’s first amendment.

That I am a participant in investigations and proceedings in which Wells Fargo’s attorney’s are defending and trying to cover up illegal activity, while governmental and non-governmental agencies who’s actions have been shown to protect Too Big To Fail banks and our nation’s political and business elite by prior restraint and censorship of what the general public should be aware of, and is  due to the capture/control of our nation’s political and regulatory infrastructure, also justifies my actions.

The general public was misled, therefore the public had and has an interest to know.

FINRA didn't act on Envision, an ongoing fraud and violation of multiple FINRA and SEC rules and securities laws, in which Wells Fargo’s workforce was and is being asked to repeatedly recommit fraud on Wells Fargo’s clients.
Adapted from;

Participation in a Sarbanes/Oxley investigation or proceeding deserves the broadest possible protection, even when the participation involves disclosure of what would otherwise be privileged and confidential information.

The “participation clause” provides that an employer may not retaliate against an employee because the employee has participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding or hearing under Sarbanes/Oxley.

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals stated in Bernadine R. Vaughn v. Epworth Villa, United State Ct of Appeals, 10th Cir., No.07-6005, “We fail to see how this language places the kind of obligation on the employee that the district court here imposed – the obligation to resort only to honest and loyal conduct in advancing a claim unless the employee proves that it is necessary to resort to other means.”

Actions by employees as they participate in investigations or proceedings, even when those actions may appear egregious on the surface, may nonetheless be considered “protected activity.”

Once an activity is considered protected, an employer will be required to provide a legitimate and facially non-retaliatory reason for its adverse action."
KPMG was/is the auditor for both Wachovia and Wells Fargo, and the NC State Board of CPA Examiners retaliated with a board chaired by a KPMG partner

US regulators/law enforcement/congress/DOJ refused to act, therefore the public had an interest to know. Our lives were in danger, I jumped through all the hoops I was supposed to, and the authorities abandoned us.

The only other information channel was to go public, which was a last resort after having tried all the other channels of causing the investigation/proceeding to take place, after my anonymity was compromised by Wells Fargo.

My whistleblowing was a protected activity, and a captured regulatory infrastructure ignored violations to not cause harm to Too Big To Fail Banks, as the US Attorney General and others have publicly admitted under oath.
Adapted from;

In Munsey- Guttman-Passaic Valley, protection for raising concerns through unofficial channels was legitimate as there wasn’t a contention that the complaints were frivolous or brought in abuse of the statute.

The court found the Complainant acted in good faith based on strongly and seriously held beliefs, and communications through unofficial channels was warranted and fully protected under whistleblower provisions.

As long as a complaint is made outside the formal reporting channels and in good faith, and was not frivolous, it was protected. In Passaic Valley, cited above, the Third Circuit affirmed saying: protection would be largely hollow if it were restricted to the point of filing a formal complaint with the appropriate external law enforcement agency. Employees should not be discouraged from the normal route of pursuing internal remedies before going public with their good faith allegations.

The Senate Conference Report approving the language of §806 explicitly cited to Passaic Valley as the controlling standard for SOX.

...the standard for judging whether an employee’s subjective or objective beliefs that his or her disclosures implicate the misconduct or frauds identified under SOX is not the “definitively and specifically relates to a violation” standard, but rather the “frivolous or brought in abuse of the statute” standard. As intended by Congress, Guttman and Passaic Valley control the legal interpretation of the scope of protected activity.

...There was never any precedent under the Guttman-Passaic Valley line of cases that conditioned employee protections on a sophisticated understanding of the law.

...The law was also designed to protect “channels of information.” The law did not want to endorse any policy or precedent that would chill employee speech. ...While employers are encouraged to establish channels for raising compliance concerns, they cannot impose a chain of command to limit how employees raise protected concerns.

...The Third Circuit addressed these issues in Passaic Valley, saying, "The whistle-blower provision was enacted for the broad remedial purpose of shielding employees from retaliatory actions taken against them by management to discourage or to punish employee efforts to bring the corporation into compliance... [A]n employee’s non-frivolous complaint should not have to be guaranteed to withstand the scrutiny of in-house or external review in order to merit protection under §507(a) for the obvious reason that such a standard would chill employee initiatives in bringing to light perceived discrepancies in the workings of their agency.":

...permitting an employer to scrutinize the validity of an employee’s protected disclosures in the light of fraud standards or “materiality” standards would be an abuse of discretion.

The standard is straightforward: Were the complaints frivolous or not? Were the complaints raised in order to “abuse the statute?” Any other standard would defeat the primary purpose of §806 and the laws upon which it is modeled. These laws were designed to protect “channels of communication,” not to ensure that employees raise sophisticated or well documented allegations.”
I presented a set of facts that implicates Wells Fargo and other institutions of securities fraud and insider trading and not one federal authority did anything about it, which means not one federal authority probably will. The more the public knows of the illegalities Wells Fargo’s attorneys are defending, the safer my family is. If past is prologue, those who have committed the crimes I filed with federal authorities are probably going to get away with them, as the entire financial industry has done so to date.

I have and will continue to publicly disclose “WFA’s confidential and proprietary information”, as we have “suffered direct and proximate harm as a result of the commission of a Federal offense", after Wells Fargo violated my anonymity in response to a protected act under Sarbanes Oxley, placing my family in jeopardy as Federal Regulatory authorities did and are doing nothing to provide for our safety, as doing so without enforcing the law would have been and would be an admission of guilt of non-action by the same authorities, which to me, means my family is in much more danger than a witness whose cooperation is invited by those charged with upholding the law.

In an era of what looks like a near universal deceit, going public with my case was/is the right thing to do for my family and country. When our nation’s regulatory authorities chose to ignore, not investigate and not prosecute publicly known wrongdoing across the board, I felt and feel justified in publicly disseminating information of unlawfulness to whoever will read and/or listen.

The proceedings to date have been rigged against justice with the passive approval of overwhelmingly most our society’s for-profit news industry, and backed up by active non-enforcement by our system's authorities.

As I believe I have been set up to lose unfairly, I intend to let as many people know about it as possible to defend my family and what I thought was a just society.

No comments: