Posted at www.supertraderalmanac.com ("TRADE OF THE WEEK")

UPDATED 19980325

COMMENT 1998-253

Time to editorialize a little bit again;

One of the more disturbing articles I have seen published of late was in the December, 1997 edition of "Futures" magazine in the "SOUND OFF!" section under the title of "Fraud Prevention".

The article was purportedly written by a former 6 year CFTC investigator with the Division of Enforcement of the CFTC, James M. Flagg of Valencia, CA.

Mr. Flagg states in the article, "After completing a lengthy investigation of a company that would include going to the firm to apply for a job, calling the firm on a recorded telephone line to see what representations the sales reps were making, checking with the IRS to find out what income was made and taxes were paid, and interviewing customers who had lost money, the CFTC would proceed to close down a firm and freeze the assets of the subject of the investigation."

"[T]his would mean the customers did not have access to their money and could not do any further trading. Many customers needed that money but would have to wait until a court could determine if the defendants had violated the Commodity Exchange Act and for the receiver to make a distribution. This can take months or years. In some cases, customers were left out of the final distribution made by the CFTC nominated receiver because the records maintained . . . were vague and incomplete."

Mr. Flagg suggests that customers should keep good records so that, " . . . if the firm closes and is forced into bankruptcy, or if a regulator such as the CFTC closes the firm and liquidates the proceeds, you will be able to get at least a small percentage of your investment returned."

Following the article to its conclusion;

"Even though the CFTC would do everything possible, such as send investigators to pose as investors, or apply for work and tape phone calls to monitor sales representations, they could do nothing if an investor could not show that they were a customer or were unable to show what was invested and/or returned to them."

I wanted to wait a couple of months before replying to this article.

I wanted to wait to see if any other American Citizens were as outraged as I.

No one else seems offended by the fact that an employee of the federal government might "pose as" someone the employee is not in order to accomplish a task that otherwise would not be possible were the employee acting as himself and in good faith.

In other words, no one is concerned that government agents might engage in fraud so long as the fraud in which they engage might identify and uncover those who might engage in fraud.

Indeed, "Futures" magazine itself titled its article, "Fraud Prevention"!

Why has no one asked, when Mr. Flagg and/or his minions went ". . . to the firm to apply for a job", what Mr. Flagg and friends wrote on their employment applications?

Did they disclose their employment as CFTC investigators (unlikely) or did they knowingly and intentionally conceal and hide such information from their prospective employers (likely)?

I have recently read that the public attorney is investigating the infamous Ms. Linda Tripp for fraud. Her "crime" was that she failed to reveal on an employment application a previous arrest in which no charges had been filed.

Was the fraud of Mr. Flagg and his cohorts not deliberately, by Mr. Flagg's own admission, meant to deceive the employer into hiring the CFTC investigators so that they might, as trusted employees, further deceive and report on the activities of the targeted Citizen?

If Mr. Flagg and the CFTC had to wait, as Mr. Flagg admits, until a court decided if the Commodity Exchange Act had been violated, does such guesswork not suggest that the investigations were conducted without Fourth Amendment probable cause?

Who were the employers Mr. Flagg admitted he and his CFTC cohorts defrauded by "posing" as someone they were not?

Where are copies of the employment applications Mr. Flagg admitted filling out as a condition of employment?

Do Mr. Flagg's employment applications and all others filled out by any and all other CFTC employees / investigators contain false or misleading statements as was alleged against Ms. Tripp?

If Mr. Flagg has misrepresented his employment status in an employment application, where are his fraudulent actions authorized in the Constitution for the united States of America, the Commodity Exchange Act, the CFTC policy manual, or any other controlling legal authority?

If Mr. Flagg has misrepresented his employment status in an employment application to a prospective employer, has Mr. Flagg not violated Section 9 of the Commodity Exchange Act, the violation of which is a felony offense, for having made fraudulent statements made on a written document?

If Mr. Flagg engaged in fraudulent activity not authorized by the Commodity Exchange Act or other lawful authority, did Mr. Flagg not engage in activity beyond that for which immunity might be personally extended to Mr. Flagg?

If CFTC employees will so readily misrepresent information on employment applications, how is the CFTC to be assured that the CFTC's own employee applications contain valid and truthful statements?

If the CFTC will engage in fraudulent activity to accomplish its means in the one instance, what is to prevent the CFTC from engaging in fraudulent activity in any other instance?

How many other fraudulent scams does the CFTC operate?

How many other Citizens have been defrauded by the CFTC?

Who were the CFTC Officers who condoned the fraudulent activity of Mr. Flagg?

How many other CFTC employees were aware of such deceptive schemes?

Who were the CFTC employees who were only "following orders" and who failed to protest and report to lawful authorities such fraudulent activity?

Can Ms. Born and all CFTC Officers and Commissioners claim that they are unaware of Mr. Flagg's activities given the public disclosure of Mr. Flagg's admissions of fraudulent activity and inclusion of said admissions in the "Futures" magazine article?

Has Ms. Brooksly Born, CFTC Chairperson, reported the activities of Mr. Flagg and other CFTC investigators to the proper lawful authorities?

Is such report not required by law and a felony offense for all CFTC employees who failed to make such report and who had knowledge of the unlawful activity?

Were CFTC employees coerced into not reporting such activity to the proper lawful authorities?

If so, is each CFTC employee who had knowledge of CFTC's fraudulent activity and who then stood silent not culpable for failure to protect the integrity and trust of WE The People?

Is government fraud against WE The People to be condoned while fraud against the government in which one might unknowingly and innocently participate (such as committing perjury when signing one's income tax return) to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law?

Did employees of the CFTC not engage in a conspiracy to defraud American employers?

Was such fraud collusion?

Is such activity not subject to RICO?

Were the United States mails used to defraud potential employers and to communicate to "Futures" magazine?

Does such use of the mail not constitute mail fraud?

Which do you think is the better choice, when WE The People are accountable to government, or when government is accountable to WE The People?

Which state of affairs do you believe exists now in our country?

Which was the intent of our Founding Fathers?

I have been studying our state of affairs for the last decade or so and how the government was able to lien my unalienable right to publish my book without government interference.

I feel blessed because my experience with the government's attempt to censor my book has led me to the beautiful concepts of our Founding Father's original intentions. I otherwise would have never visited these ideals, having been educated in the public school system.

I believe I thus speak from first-hand experience, having felt the entirety of the unlimited resources of government oppression.

How many other acts of oppression does government engage in against The People in circumstances which are not as clearly stated as the supposed "protection" I am afforded by the First Amendment?

When Citizens enter into public service, Article VI of the Constitution for the United States of America requires the execution of an Oath of Office by which the Citizen swears to uphold the Constitution.

This Oath of Office is the sacred bond between the People and the public servant.

When government employees fail to uphold the Constitution, do they not violate their Oath of Office?

Is such violation of one's Oath of Office not perjury?

Did Mr. Flagg not perjure his Oath of Office?

What are the consequences of perjury by a public servant?

If there are to be none, then for what reason is the Oath of Office required?

Is perjury of Oath of Office by a President to be treated any differently than perjury of Oath of Office by Mr. Flagg?

Who is the United States Attorney at the Department of Justice who will prosecute Mr. Flagg and his fellow scalawags, including, especially, those who implemented and/or supervised such fraudulent schemes, for fraud and perjury of Oath of Office?

Just a couple of more questions;

Where have we before heard that the "end justifies the means"?

Are you not deeply disturbed by Mr. Flagg's total failure to recognize the shame of his activities?

The disgrace of his actions has apparently not even occurred to him.

How can the CFTC ever again claim the moral authority to police the Citzenry when it admittedly teaches its own employees how to engage in the same fraudulent activity it seeks to prevent?

If you have done your best to instill a strong moral compass in your children, would you rather they work for the CFTC and be tutored by Mr. Flagg or as an intern for the President and be tutored by the Commander in Chief?

Tough choice!

Many might go with the President, for one might at least reap a good book contract out of the deal.

Just a few thoughts on a Wednesday afternoon.

If you want to learn more of our Constitution and of my ordeal and reasons for my quite strong feelings, you may wish to visit www.busprod.com/censorship

UPDATED 19980325

COMMENT 1998-254

And it is the CFTC and NFA that demand ethics classes on registrants???

Pardon me, but shouldn't WE The People not first be demanding that government employees have a fundamental understanding of the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, Oath of Office, and unalienable rights prior to assuming their positions of authority?

Again, are We The People accountable to government or is government accountable to WE The People?

Does anybody give a damn?