June 28, 2018
To all Commissioners and to whom it may concern,
First. I must express my disappointment with regard to the proposed whistleblower rule changes, which were not just proposed earlier today, with a notation that comments would be accepted for 60 days following the proposed rule changes appearing in the Federal Register, they were also summarily approved by the Commission an hour later.
As I write this, I cannot submit this letter officially, because it is not even on your website and has no case or file number associated with it. Still the Commission approved them while offering no notice to the public. There's nothing Democratic about that process...
While I have not digested the proposed rule changes completely, there is one aspect that is repeated with respect to the various "clarifications" the OWB has proposed, in that they are not in the best interest of whistleblowers, and for the most part, are vague in that they allow for any individual perception of events to determine the outcome of a claim.
The one standout to me, whom happens to be as a whistleblower who submitted 3 claims in 2016, and is in his third year of waiting for a decision which I had been told to expect by year end 2016, is in the request to clarify the definition of "independent analysis."
I have been subjected to retaliation of the non employer related type. I even included a plea for help within the claims I submitted. And received no help whatsoever.
The Commission wants people to come forward, but whistleblower retaliation laws do not protect a retail investor, who discovers a scheme intended to wipe out the investors in the stock he or she owns.
Such an investor is then fair game for retaliation and there is nothing anyone will do about it. This is true of EVERY RETAIL INVESTOR. WE RISK OUR VERY LIVES REPORTING INFORMATION TO THE COMMISSION, WITHOUT KNOWING THE RISKS INVOLVED.
Until the whistleblower ends up DEAD, there's no crime in the eyes of the law. The STASI were experts at forcing whistleblowers to commit suicide...they still are. Retail tipsters are ducks in a barrel...
i did not know when I submitted information to the Commission and encouraged others to do so as well, that my life would be completely destroyed or that it could cost me my life.
I do now. I know that the assassins are ex STASI and that they are employed at the US Dept of Homeland Security. I know they hacked the SEC and it was me that notified the Commission that it was hacked, and by whom, a year before it was made public.
I know why DHS was not notified immediately...it was because the hackers IP traced back to DHS. I also know it was not a test portion of the EDGAR system, but was instead the whistleblower database they were after.
I know this because of everything else they've done to date. Things that are established facts, that cannot be denied and have been admitted to in some instances. I have thousands of documents of evidence and yet not one investigator has ever asked for a statement, looked at the evidence nor so much as attempted to contact me.
I have attempted to report these things to every imaginable agent. At least five attempts to Chairman Clayton, and perhaps a hundred through the TCR portal as I was instructed by the OWB, when I tried reporting directly what I had found.
Even those instances in which I requested a personal.or human response, I received none.
Now the OWB seeks to clarify what is considered to be "independent analysis."
The proposed change however does NOT seek clarification, rather it seeks to completely change the law as it is written.
The law states specifically that information from a person's own research, including information derived from public sources, is acceptable.
The proposed law would end any claim the resulted from the Independent data analysis of public information, justifying the denial with an absurd reason that the SEC "COULD HAVE" discovered the wrongdoing on its own?
As an example, i was on the phone with an SEC investigator discussing one case, when I happened to be experiencing a different trading issue.
I told the investigator to pull up the symbol on level 2, and his response was that he did not have access to level 2.
Of course, if the SEC had allowed him access to level 2 quotes, the SEC "COULD HAVE" made the discovery on its own, but it did not. I sent him screenshots via email while discussing an unrelated case.
Three award eligible cases were posted as a result of that conversation. This new rule would allow for the denial of my claims based on what the SEC "COULD HAVE" figured out because of the public nature of the information.
It seems not only to be a proposal to halt such reporting, but also claims...including my own, after waiting more than two years for a decision. That is not fair. At the very least there should be a grandfather Clausewitz respect to existing claims
If this proposed clarification stands not only will the SEC have stolen the award I should have received well before the dictatorship-like approval of the change in the law, it will tarnish the intent of the program.
Chairman Clayton stated that he looked forward to public comments on these changes, and the changes were then adopted before the public could comment!
I have a feeling I'm being screwed after waiting all this time, because I figured something out...and saw something and said something, that no one else noticed.
The SEC was able to put a halt to what was happening, which limited the damage done to investors and our markets...and now after everyone has been paid, the SEC seeks to minimize the information I provided by saying it could have figured it out on its own...not even should have...COULD HAVE!
I've already had my life destroyed. To change the rules now to prevent an award payout is not just wrong, it's evil.
Dom LaViola
StockShortData.com