Judge Otis D. Wright II of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California has vacated the hearing in this matter that had been scheduled for March 5, 2010 at 3 pm
US Commodities Futures Trading Commission
Where is a lawyer when you need one? :^)
Can US readers help me out here?
The legal dictionary says to vacate means to void, annul, set aside – I think this is comparable to what I would understand as cancelling or staying the hearing.
If it means cancel it can be for all kinds of reasons. The court ran overtime, a court employee is ill or unavailable…
This was to be a hearing on “Issuance of Order to Show Cause Why Defendants Should Not Be Held in Contempt.”
The civil case against Gordon Driver/Axcess Automation/Funds was filed by the CTFC and the SEC in May 2009.
In December 2009 Gordon Driver, Â a Canadian living in the US, made a deal with the SEC.
A Freelton man accused of running a $14-million Ponzi scheme has agreed to turn over his “ill-gotten gains” and pay a penalty following a settlement reached with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
Gordon Driver and his company, Axcess Automation, reached the agreement just days after the SEC had gone to a California court seeking a contempt order against Driver for not complying with previous court-ordered requirements.
The SEC was also asking the judge to consider jail time as a possible sanction against Driver if he was found guilty of contempt.
Has Gordon Driver and the SEC had a hearing to determine the money he has to turn over and the amount he faces in fines?
Another question for US friends.
If the SEC makes a deal, does that void the action the CFTC is taking?
100+ people, mostly in Canada, many connected to Crossroads Christian Communications Inc. lost a lot of money.
Gordon Driver, David Rutledge and Steven Taylor were given a cease and desist order by the Ontario Securities and Exchange Commission even though funds where not traded in Canada.
If the SEC deal with Driver had been approved by the court (California) wouldn’t the settlement be posted on the SEC website?
A lot of people were harmed in this ponzi scheme, Ron and Reynold Mainse of Crossroads have not only admitted being finders, but also admitted investing. It must be very difficult to not see justice for Axcess victims unnamed and silent in this scam.
As the OSC order says:
AND WHEREAS pursuant to subsection 127(8) of the Securities Act, satisfactory information has not been provided to the Commission by any of the Respondents
The case number for the SEC is Civil Action No. CV 09-3410 ODW
The case number for the CFTC is Case No. 09-CV-0578 ODW (RZx)
You have to understand the bigger picture. Huntley Street is a zionist, liberal, ecumenist/interfaith [aka R.C. friendly]. One of the previous hosts was”Father” Bob Macdougall. They propel the “message” bible, alpha, the “shack”, they featured Todd Bentley as legit, Jim Cantelon regularly spews out venomous tirades against Iran, calling for “measures”. Today – watch online – he was falling all over himself calling Israel the “bastion of stability in the M.E.” Operation “Cast Lead” anyone? Indeed, the bible labels Jerusalem “Sodom and Egypt, where they murdered our Lord.” The “holy land”?? “Holy” means kadosh – sanctified by the Lord. God forsook that idolatrous land in 70 AD – just as Jesus said.
They feature Joe Amaral – a “Dr.” who illuminates us into such heresies like Jesus wore funeral clothes as a baby (the Greek says diapers), and that the walls are the original ones. Josephus reported Jerusalem was plowed and over a million SEMITIC Jews (not the fake Ashkenazi Japhethites who call themselves sons of Shem and Eber. They are Khazars.) The walls were built by the ROMANS. And after that by the Muslims.
The show is rife with error and they love to have it so. This disaster in Haiti is a goldmine for them, and all the family are back out in the open, as if they were ever off payroll! The ponzi scam will be swept under the rug, due to the fact that the shadow govt will see to it. Why do you think Harper (Christian??) married a NON-Christian Ashkenazi?
If a regular citizen sold securities [wow -5% return per WEEK] w/o a license, which were obviously a scam, I betcha they would do jail time.
Not so for the zionist connected ecumenist “emerging church” Purpose Driven TACF fake holy spirit pro-war pro-Israel 911-ers. Gee, kerosene dissolves concrete and melts girders – who woulda thunk it.
They have powerful friends, they influence voters. Wolves.
Bene – please correct typos, I tried to but was unable : )
Fixed.
Caught a bit of Reynold Mainse on set, I don’t get the use of the proverberial ‘we.’
Quite the audacity showing.
Ron in his mea culpa said that Reynold and Kathy left Crossroads a year and a half ago.
Uh huh.
‘We?’ Interesting sense of ownership/entitlement for someone off the show.
If only accountants could talk…
Yes – hopefully a Bell will ring somewhere.
Thought this may be of interest to those following this blog.
Due to my background and also since I know several investors, Mr. Driver allowed me to evaluate his proprietary trading software. My evaluation took place over a 3 week period which saw different types of trading markets. I found Mr. Driver’s software to be quite robust and consistent. I am convinced he would have been able to get the returns that are suggested in different articles. Reading the past news releases, I am also convinced there is much more to this story that, for whatever reason, has not yet been reported. My curiosity has been whetted to learn the full story.
I am saddened for the investors as it seems as though they are being robbed of an opportunity that many of us never get access to participate in.
Sincerely,
Two Cents
Hi Two Cents:
“I am convinced he would have been able to get the returns that are suggested in different articles.”
I read one that was available online.
Mr. Driver believes his software gets more than 100% return rate.
The SEC and CFTC believe otherwise.
There may be more to the story, meantime investors are out 14 million dollars, Mr. Driver couldn’t pay his lawyer for a civil trial, has a public defender for any potential criminal charges.
If you know investors, do you know if they have been paid back?
Doesn’t the fact that Driver doesn’t have the acumen to
finance his own defence tell you anything about his
investment skills? If he can’t manage his own personal
financial situation, what’s he doing with the money
of others?
The SEC complaint on their website says $10 million was paid back to investors. An investor would not be a victim if he received his investment back. BD you are not reporting the truth.
Gordon: You are free to use your own name – BD
Gordon:
Link?
The OSC continued it’s order against you into 2010 last week.
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/April2010/15/c2905.html
The CFTC case file hasn’t been updated since your hearing was vacated.
I don’t mind updating your case Gordon, but I’ll need the link.
Question for you Gordon (True):
The SEC Complaint May 2009 has 4 claims for relief.
The following don’t appear to have been dealt with.
What happened with these?
1) Violations of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act (Against all Defendants)
2) Violations of Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act (Against Driver)Fraud in the Offer or Sale of Securities
3) Violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act
(Against All Defendants)
This one is in the California court system as ruled on December 14/09. Permanent injunction.
4) Fraud in Connection with the Purchase or Sale of Securities
Violations of Section 1O(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 Thereunder (Against All Defendants)
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-cacdce/case_no-2:2009cv03410/case_id-444153/
To show the chutzpah of these guys, Ron Mainse [now absolved of any criminality (?) ] said today on 100 St .. “100 Huntley St goal for May2010 is 6000 new members at $30/mo. What gall. $180,000/mo just for new members. HOW MANY THEY GOT ALREADY????
They have ZERO shame in begging/demanding $. They just finished 2 weeks of crying for money. Now they’re on another fund raising scam. It’s all about money. They do NOT propogate the true gospel [some of their guests do] but feature Anglican CoE [gay rights] blurbs. I am 100% glad I am not in their shoes. They are in a very influential powerful position, but abuse this by whitewashing heresy as “accomodating”. They also are military/industrial complex advocates ie kerosene brought down the twin towers and WTC7 which was about 600 ft tall and not hit by any plane lol. And what was nano-thermite doing in the dust?
Ron Mainse has a degree in Commerce lol, so was he SO innocent at honestly believing a 5% interest PER WEEK investment could be legit? That is, some ridiculous rate of return, especially compounding! It would not be 260% /yr but much bigger. http://www.benedictionblogson.com/2009/10/13/ron-mainse-appears-on-100-huntley-street-to-speak-about-alleged-ponzi-scheme/
Let’s try again and I hope this message posts.
Lawrence,
Take into account all those who stopped giving because
of the Ponzi scheme, those who have died and those
who cannot afford to contribute because of more
pressing situations at home and the whole endeavour
probably has membership levels close to last year’s
numbers.
As I see it, they’re probably not further ahead than
they were at this time last year.
I hope this helps answer how many do they
may have as members.
BD, yes, I do know investors who received funds. In fact the SEC/CFTC say over 10 million was returned. To me, a lot would have been dispersed. To give this proper perspective it would be interesting to know how many got back a portion, full amount or even more than full amount invested.
Lawrence, articles I read suggested 1%-5% per week return. When doing calculations of possible annual returns, please keep this in mind instead of presuming 5% every week. Also, I don’t recall reading anything about compounding periods.
More importantly, I was able to test the software last Thursday afternoon for a couple of hours. Keep in mind there was a lot of market volatility. Using the software, I was up over 250%. I thought maybe I could trade without the software. At which point I started to lose more than win and ended the day up 180%. Just wish it was a real account.
My previous testing showed that 1%-5% was very possible. It is up to you if you want to believe this. Some people do get these kinds of returns, but some I know don’t broadcast it to a lot of people (sometimes the few close friends they tell start to brag, then they learn their lesson). I have an acquaintance who did 800+% recently in a series of transactions. He put a lot of time and effort into this. It is possible.
One general rule in investing that these people have is that they never invest more than they can afford to lose, no matter how good the return appears to be. You never know when a transaction can turn south. There are never any guarantees, but there are opportunities if one looks.
I’ve been told that when people who are not use to getting big returns are offered big returns, often times they start to get greedy and invest more than they can afford to lose. Best to take it slow and steady. If it is good, there will be plenty of harvest in the field. We live in a world of abundance. With this analogy, most farmers I know get a multiple times return on their crops compared to what they sowed.
Just my ‘Two Cents’.
(there have been some problems with the comment section, I apologize, the tech company is on it, so I’ve posted this for Two Cents. Thanks for your patience. – BD)
Two Cents:
Do you have the link from the SEC where it indicates 10 mil has been returned?
I have asked on a couple of occasions and no one saying this 10 million has been returned can provide evidence.
Thanks.
Looks like some truth is coming out.
Truth is what we are looking for. If you were an investor in the driver Ponzi scam, and want to know more information, we need to put together some sort of common meeting where all concerned can come together to hear something.
The people who brought you into the investment are quiet, not saying anything i’m sure for fear of legal action against them and potential legal action, but investors need to hear something.
Investors were brought into this investment with a charisma and excitment based somewhat on the strength of the character of the finders, presidents of huntley street, well known and what should have been trustworthy people who did their homework.
did finders (you know who they are) pay everything back into a fund in a lawyers account somewhere, if so where? Did they gain anything? have they sold everything they bought with their ill gotten gain? how come no communication?
Just because your a christian doesn’t mean you roll over and be quiet, you do what is right in the eyes of God and fight for what is rightfullly yours. Most investors worked hard for what they invested, they did not borrow from the bank like I heard the finders might have done. It was money invested for a purpose, truly believing that what they had been told was true and accurate?
If you want more info as an investor, give your information to benediction so we can set up a meeting with all those who got cheated millions of dollars.
…wondering
Bene – would you please pass my contact email onto Wondering – I am a legit investor in the Driver scheme – I wrote 2xs before but have not had a reply as of yet – thanks for doing this – hopefully something good comes out of this?
Done.:^)
Gordon,
Answer me this. If your software works why would you leave your investors high and dry? Why would you stop communicating with them? Why would you not show them (your investors) you’re a man of your word and after all the legal stuff is done you would full fill what you promised?
Its not that the investors were getting greedy. Its that Gordon agreed that the investors would receive a weekly statement to see how their money was growing. That weekly statement slowly turned into a monthly statement, then into a quarterly and the communication with Gordon became less and less until it finally stopped. Then the SEC came out that Gordon had be operating a ponzi scheme . All the investors by 2008 knew that something wasn’t right. Some of the investors tried to pull there money out but Gordon wouldn’t let them. Other investors stayed in because they personally knew Gordon or had friends or family that knew him and swore that he was a good man and it must be a mistake not because they saw dollar signs. Yes, it is a basic rule of thumb not to invest more than you can afford to lose. Yet, Gordon knew his investors. This wasn’t like Scott Trade where you don’t really know your broker. Gordon knew his investors and there financial situations and still misled them. Thats what makes him a criminal. Gordon knew what he was doing. He knew some of the investors were in financial trouble and some in California had serious health problems and he still took there savings with the promise of high returns.
Gordon, do the right thing get back in touch with your original investors and admit you were wrong and ask for forgiveness. Or if your software is real fulfill your obligation to your investors. They invested in you, they believed in you.
I want to know where the SEC says that 10 million has been returned and if it has why no investor has stepped forward and said so?
I asked Gordon who I believe has been posting as ‘True’ for the link and he couldn’t provide one. I wonder if some of ‘Trues comments are in compliance with the agreement with the SEC.
I am sorry for what Axcess investors have suffered.
In the following link at the end of paragraph 2, it states that Mr. Driver used 10.7 million to repay investors. I gather this is the initial SEC press release.
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2009/lr21041.htm
As posted earlier, I don’t know the whole story but am convinced we haven’t been told the whole story.
Following are a couple of things that, to me, didn’t add up to me in the above article, CFTC representations, and postings made in the blog from individuals who attended hearings.
1) ‘only 3.7 million was used for trading’ – from my understanding and experience trading S&P e-mini futures (what Gordon was trading), one does not trade using all of the funds in their account at once. If you did this and had a couple of bad trades, you could lose a large portion of your account. This isn’t like buying stocks or units in a mutual fund, but rather you have to put up capital (margin) which allows you to trade contracts. You are already nicely leveraged just trading a small portion of your account. Bottom line, I don’t see this as a bad thing as it is portrayed, but rather, would be happy that prudence was being taken.
2) Gordon allegedly withdrew 1.1 million for personal expenses (apparently over a 3 year period). This averages to about 366k per year. I don’t consider this to be too high considering my understanding that Gordon was a high end computer programmer/consultant who quite possibly made this much and more in previous years.
3) In most Ponzi schemes, the person orchestrating the scam takes most of the money for themselves, living an extravagant lifestyle. I hardly consider earning 366K/year extravagant considering Gordon’s past work and also considering he had access to millions. In an earlier blog, several stated that Gordon lived in a rented house (not owned). Funds certainly didn’t go there. What would be more telling is if those close to Gordon saw a change in his spending habits from 2006-2009. Also, according to documents, the assets frozen weren’t significant. One theory is Gordon shipped funds offshore. In an earlier blog, it was stated that Gordon testified in court that he never had an offshore account. Was he lying or telling the truth? Presumably one would not want to lie in court. I guess time will tell. My feeling is he was telling the truth.
4) Why does the CFTC news release (http://www.exchange-handbook.co.uk/index.cfm?section=news&action=detail&id=82713) mention Gordon withdrew funds from casinos? Why not also mention variety stores etc? Of course, by mentioning the casino withdrawals, one immediately presumes he wagered funds and lost. I believe it was in an earlier blog, it was mentioned that Gordon testified in court that he was a professional black-jack player. What is really interesting is that the CFTC entered a statement that Gordon in fact did wager funds and WON. The CFTC numbers in their documents show that he clearly had a net gain. I’m sure they must have researched this. It would be interesting to know if Gordon’s close friends knew he was a very good card player or if this was a surprise to them. My question, why would the CFTC mention in their press release that Gordon withdrew funds at casinos other than to make people think he gambled and lost participants funds yet their supporting documents show otherwise?
5) From CFTC news release, ‘Pool participant funds were also allegedly commingled with non-pool funds’. From the documents I read this is likely because he didn’t have his trading business properly structured (unknowningly). Wasn’t this the reason why Gordon was setting up the hedge fund? To fix these kinds of problems? To have proper 3rd party administration, bookkeeping and accountability? Of course the statement made is likely true as transition to the hedge fund hadn’t yet been completed.
6) Why would Gordon go to the trouble of setting up a regulated hedge fund? Studying for, writing and successfully passing the complex exams? Why go to this trouble if he was just going to continue the scam on a bigger scale and be under a more intense magnifying glass when regulators are actively looking for scams? To me, this doesn’t make sense.
7) Supposedly scamming your close friends and family. (I say supposedly because this case is still before the courts and there is yet to be a verdict). Why would someone willfully take advantage of most people close to them? Their support network and life-long friends? With no apparent financial gain or extravagant lifestyle? Court statements claim there is not millions stashed away somewhere. Again, to me this doesn’t make sense.
9) My understanding is that Gordon was telling investors that once the hedge fund was set up, it would be easier to withdraw funds. Given there would be 3rd party oversight, presumably it would be much more difficult to operate a scam, if one existed. Everything came crashing down just weeks before the final transition to the hedge fund. Who was behind this? Presumably one or more investors. What did they know and report? Had they receive any funds? If so, how much? Was there anyone whose best interest would not have been served if the hedge fund went forward in the manner Gordon was structuring it? Maybe these questions are redundant. Maybe not.
I could go on but I’ll end with this.
10) Ponzi scams don’t normally have a valid investment strategy. In my opinion Gordon does have software that works (if one understands it properly). As I mentioned in a previous post, due to my background and because I knew a couple of investors, Gordon allowed me to test his software. My understanding is that I’m not the only one who has seen it and been impressed. So what gives?
Not-true, you raise good questions. As court proceedings are ongoing, Gordon is likely being advised to not contact you. Just curious, did you or any of those you know receive funds? More than was invested?
To me, given my above thoughts, things don’t make sense. That is why I’m convinced there is more to the story. My first step was to try to determine if there was valid proprietary software or not. I believe there is.
What’s next? I wish Paul Harvey were still alive to ferret out ‘the rest of the story’.
In response to Two Cents following his numbering.
Regarding #3. In fact the classic Ponzi returns an awful lot of money to investors, especially the early investors. It is their (fictionally) large returns that brings others into the scheme.
Thus the apparently low proportion of the invested sums that actually used in trading (#1) is consistent with a Ponzi scheme — the important thing is to convince ever larger groups of investors to invest, thereby maximizing the influx of new investors and the re-investment on the part of old. The important question is whether this returned money was presented as a return on investment. Since this was untrue, and Driver would have known that it was untrue, then he has committed a fraud.
#2. $1.1 million in personal expenses over three years seems excessive to me and again suggestive of fraud.
#4. The mixing up of investment monies and personal funds is obviously problematic. Drivers’ investors had not given him that money to gamble in a casino, but to invest in futures contracts. To have gotten money to do one and then to do anything else with it is fraudulent.
#5. The commingling of pool and non-pool money is at best gross incompetence. Given the other elements, it is more likely another part of the fraud.
#6. Successful crooks try not to look like crooks. Going through the motions of getting appropriate qualifications and setting up appropriate structures need imply anything more than he wanted to look legit. Look at your own #9 (“Gordon was telling investors that once the hedge fund was set up, it would be easier to withdraw funds”).
#7. Why scam friends and family? In a confidence game, the easiest marks are those who believe in you from the start. And, besides, they will be the first in and first out. It’s those who come afterwards — the friends and family of friends and family — who will lose the most.
#8. Who got the money? In the classic Ponzi scheme it will have been the earliest investors.
#9. See above, on #6.
#10. “Ponzi scams don’t normally have a valid investment strategy.” Strictly speaking, there is no reason that a valid investment vehicle can’t be turned into a Ponzi scheme. All you would need to do is juice the returns with incoming money and claim to make more than you had.
“In my opinion Gordon does have software that works.” Driver’s own use of his software suggests otherwise.
Two Cents:
December 2009 Gordon Driver/SEC:
http://www.thespec.com/article/690281
“As part of the agreement with the SEC, Driver will be prevented “from arguing that he did not violate the federal securities laws as alleged,” and can’t challenge the validity of the agreement in court.
The agreement also requires Driver to acknowledge that the deal with the SEC does not provide him with any immunity from possible criminal charges.”
If Gordon Driver and his employees are attempting to start this scam up again, given what the court documents have stipulated regarding this software, this is thin ground to be treading on.
I direct you to Gordon Driver’s statement that his software worked over 100% of the time and the CTFC warning in the initial CFTC filing (May 14/09) #14: Unless restained and enjoined by the Court, Defendants are likely to 13 continue to engage in the act and practices alleged in this Complaint and in 14 similar acts and practices as more fully described below.
Also #27 CFTC: Driver falsely or misleadingly told or caused to be told to prospective Axcess Automation pool paricipants that by using his futures trading softare he was able to obtain profits in seven or eight out often trdes, when, in fact, his personal track record trding futures was predominantly unprofitable.
Peoples life savings were wiped out. Investors were scammed and are experiencing hardship. The silence on the supposed ‘restitution’ by finders has been deafening, and I have not seen the supposed link to the SEC supposed Driver repayment.
If after reading court documents you still believe what you do, I hope you grasp the thin ground you are walking on.
In comment no. 13, above, “Two Cents” writes “I was able to test the software last Thursday afternoon for a couple of hours. Keep in mind there was a lot of market volatility. Using the software, I was up over 250%.”
This is very hard to believe, given that Driver himself was unable to turn a profit from the software. According to the CFTC filing, in one of his trading accounts, Driver lost $629,000 of the $640,000 he had deposited (§43) and had never had a profitable month’s trading. In another of his accounts he lost $2.3 million of $2.7 million (42), again never showing a single profitable month.
Another point I didn’t have time to add when writing my previous note
11) I’ve been told by a couple of different people that several weeks/months BEFORE the SEC/CFTC action, Gordon’s Ontario residence was broken into in broad daylight. Gordon’s family was out of town at the time. (Normally, Gordon and his family would have been home at the time. Someone must have known they were away.) Apparently nothing was stolen. This is odd given his expensive computers/electronics in the house. However, Gordon had 2 locked safes that ended up in his backyard. The thieves, not sure which one to take, started banging on them. A neighbor heard them and scared the crooks off. Rumor has it that this event scared Gordon’s family. One story had his family going into hiding and certainly not wanting to return to their Ontario residence. My questions are, What was in the safes? More importantly, what did the thieves think was in the safes? What was the criminal intent behind the break-in? Did this criminal activity originate from inside the investor network or outside? I think most law enforcement officials would likely say there is a strong connection to the break-in and Gordon’s troubles with the SEC/CFTC. If this criminal activity originated from inside the network, how long was it there for? Could this have influenced some of the decisions Gordon made? Was Gordon coerced into paying funds to protect himself and his family? Obviously, many questions come to mind.
Gordon, if you still read this blog, can you confirm the break-in and if a police report was filed? We’d like answers to other questions as well but don’t want to put you in an awkward legal position.
Buckets, I fully understand your comments, though I see the possibility of another side to the story. For example, regarding the ‘casino withdrawals’, this only occurred on one day of the 18 days the CFTC says Gordon wagered. Suppose the money withdrawn was salary owed to him by his company. Every company I know has expenses. To be sure, we would have to see Gordon’s books, of which I have not had the privilege. To that end, you mention trading losses in points 42 and 43 from the CFTC submission. Interesting they do not mention a loss in point 44. You can be sure they would have mentioned even the smallest of losses if there was a loss. To be fair, they should have told us what the gain was. Be open and objective about everything rather than spinning facts. I would love to see brokerage statements from all of the brokerages to evaluate their claims myself.
BD, a comment regarding your statement ‘If Gordon Driver and his employees are attempting to start this scam up again’. Just to be clear, I have never been, nor am I now, an employee of Gordon’s. To my knowledge, my testing of the software does not contravene restrictions on Gordon. I would not in good conscience even attempt to do something that I knew was wrong. Also, Gordon has been very clear to me that he will not do anything to compromise the restrictions placed on him.
To me, ‘start this scam up again’ implies solicitation of funds. I am not soliciting funds nor do I have any opportunity for anyone to invest in. Strange as it may sound, I have nothing to gain from what I have posted. These posts were at my own initiative. I understand people have lost funds and I feel badly for them. Also, I have never said that Gordon was totally innocent. Frankly, I don’t know. However, BD, as a journalist, you must admit we are bombarded with spin every day. From what I have read and discovered, I am convinced we do not have the whole story. I could be wrong. If so, I will be the first to admit so. However, I cannot deny I have seen the software working. (Yes Buckets, though it may be hard to believe, it is true. I did have big gains that day. I wish I could have been trading live to show you a broker statement) How does this fit into the bigger story being told? Obviously, I still have a bunch of unanswered questions. I pray daily that one day we will hear the truth. Just wanted to be clear
Sorry for my long posts. Thanks for allowing me the privilege to give my ‘Two Cents’.
You seem to be working pretty hard, “Two Cents”, at finding some possible set of circumstances that might exonerate Driver. Too hard, in my opinion.
Why no losses mentioned in §44? This section mentions $50k of pool funds put into a new trading account (in Driver’s name) in March 2009. This was, however, at the very end of his career as pseudo-money-manager. The subpoenas started coming in that same month and the CTFC’s case was filed by May.
As for your trading experience, I don’t want to call you a liar, but i don’t believe a word that you’re saying. It doesn’t help your credibility that the only way you could have gotten access to Driver’s software is through Driver himself, and he is an obvious con artist. I find it difficult to avoid the suspicion that you are either in the process of being conned yourself or are a co-conspirator.
Buckets why would it matter if he got the software from Driver or Bernie Madoff? If the software works for Two Cents, than where is the con?
Where he got the software implies a relationship with an obvious con-artist.
Buckets I’m sure you have got products that are made in China. By this you are supporting their products and have a relationship with China. Does that imply you are co-conspirator to their human rights violations?
True. Cute, but not analogous and in any case beside the point. Two Cents clearly knows Driver (whom he calls Gordon). And since ‘Gordon’ is clearly a con artist, why wouldn’t I be suspicious of anything any associate of his has to say?
I think you should be suspicious, but are you willing to accept the facts if they are true? Yes or No?
The problem, “True”, is establishing that they are “true”. One of Driver’s tricks, apparently, was to create false statements of investment returns. §46 of the CFTC filing: “Driver sent statements to one group ofAxcess Automation pool paricipants which showed their cumulative accounts to be wort approximately $9,647,700. These report were false because as of the end of February 2009, Axcess Automation only had approximately $63,000 in all of its bank and trading accounts.” Clearly part of the game is to manufacture facts that look like their true.
Buckets. Manufactured facts are not true. You didn’t answer the question correctly. The question was are you willing to accept facts if they are true?
I’m willing to evaluate evidence put before me. Whatcha got?
Have you seen all of the evidence that the CFTC has?
“True”. You’re not Perry Mason and I’m not a witness for the prosecution. If you have something to reveal, then reveal it.
You seem to have trouble honestly answering questions, that puts your credibility in question. It was a simple question. Have you seen all of the evidence that the CFTC has? Yes or No? Simple answer.
OK. I’ll answer that question if you do: have you seen all the CFTC’s evidence? Yes or no? It’s a simple question.
No. Your turn.
No, please, I insist. You first. If the question is a fair one, you should be willing to answer it.
I did answer. “No” I don’t work for the CFTC.
Sorry, I took your “no” to be a refusal to answer rather than the answer. I, too, do not work for the CFTC, so like you have not seen all the evidence.
Another question that I will answer if you will: are you involved, directly or indirectly, in the case?
If you haven’t seen all of the evidence how can you make your statements or judgments? That really puts your credibility in doubt and you don’t deserve a response. It appears you believe everything the SEC/CFTC has said is true and not misleading. Two Cents has pointed out their contractions in their own documentation.
I don’t think you would believe Two Cents even if he provided you with third party verification. If what Two Cents saying is true then the investors are really being hurt a second time.
It appears you believe everything the SEC/CFTC has said is true and not misleading. Two Cents has pointed out their contractions in their own documentation.
Two Cents said pointed out nothing contradictory or inconsistent that I saw. What he offered smacked of special pleading and straw clutching.
But you didn’t answer the question: are you involved directly or indirectly?
what a laff ~ “true” lol and “$.02″ keep getting mixed up re: 1st person and 3rd person singular.
Hey – psychopaths are not always unintelligent, they merely do not have even a vistigal conscience. Fluid and fluent habitual liars. Greedy and self-indulgent and chameleonic. Self-important. Consider themselves above the law and superior to non-psychopaths. Alien-like. Predatory. Carnal. Masquerade as Christians when it suits them. Vermin.
BD, seems we have degenerated to schoolyard banter. ‘I ask you.’ ‘No, you tell me.’ ‘Askers tell first.’
Buckets, I appreciate your concern about me possibly being conned. I’m definitely not a co-conspirator. I’m searching for truth where, to me, some of the representation of facts seemed cloudy. In other words, has the appearance of spin. I’m not alone. I’ve had several people tell me this as well, some investors, some not related to Gordon but who are following the case nonetheless. The deeper I dig, the more intrigue. Frankly, I have found the answers I was looking for and thought I would share them. Nothing more, nothing less. I have 3rd party verification for the answers I was looking for. I have come across a couple of others who have viewed the software and quite frankly were impressed. Just yesterday I sent some of my demo verification to a person who often frequents this blog.
In looking for my answers, many other things did not add up to me, hence my previous posts. I’m sure there are many people who know more than I about this situation, they just haven’t spoken up, at least not on this blog. They may not know the whole story, but bits and pieces, if put together, could provide a better insight of this situation.
My questions were answered. Many other questions were raised that I don’t intend to pursue. I don’t have time to post all of my questions. However, another that arose that I did not previously address is Why is the SEC even involved given this involved commodities trading (CFTC jurisdiction), not securities trading (SEC jurisdiction). This came from a legal acquaintance who has knowledge in this area. I have raised these questions for the benefit of others.
Buckets, what is your involvement? Were/are you involved directly or indirectly with Gordon, his companies and/or the case? Were you or entities you are/were involved with become investors or somehow related to this case? Did you or above mentioned entities receive any funds from Gordon or his companies?
As you can see from my previous posts, I like to ask questions. I’ve shared my ‘agenda’ in previous posts. Where are you coming from?
I’ve been honest and forthright in answering your statements and inferences about me. Now lay your cards on the table.
Two Cents. You claim to be sincere and to have sincere questions. You do not seem that way to me — most of your questions come across (to me, at least, and I suspect to others) as disingenuous and designed to deceive. Yes, you deny being a co-conspirator — but a co-conspirator would, wouldn’t he?
You came into the discussion claiming to have tried Driver’s super-secret software and found it successful. But who else but a co-conspirator would be given access to the super-secret software? And why should we believe that you were successful on the first try with such software when Driver lost (what?) 90% of the money that he actually invested with this software? You claim to have sent verification to someone — but who and what? (Log files are easy to fake; claims of having shared them are easier still.)
Since you ask. I do not have (and never have had) any direct or indirect connection with any person, agency, or company involved in any way in this case.
And, now, you: what is the nature of your relationship to Driver? what is the nature of your relationship with any of his investors? did you invest yourself? if you invested, was your money returned? did anyone whom you personally know invest? was their money returned? did you refer them? did you get a ‘finders’ fee for the referral? how much was that fee? what did you do with that fee?
My my Buckles, don’t we like to make presumptions/assumptions.
I don’t recall saying I could make the software work the first time. I apologize if I misled you. Have you had experience trading e-minis or even forex? To be good, one has to have a good strategy and then be able to implement it. I have seen Gordon’s strategy (based mainly on his software) work first hand and tried it out myself. I have to be very disciplined. It is easy to lose concentration and get caught up in just part of the strategy. When I do this, my winning percentage goes down considerably. It is something that takes practice. Could anyone do it? Not likely. Could I get to be as successful as I have seen Gordon? Time will tell (and also if he allows me to continue using his software).
I believe Gordon has a mathematical acumen most do not possess. This is evidenced in CFTC documentation where they state he wagered 18 different days at some Vegas casinos and had net winnings. I’m sure there are people out there who have done this before, but no one I know. Odds at casinos are heavily weighted against you.
How I know Gordon? I know a couple of investors, who are trusted friends, who said they received back funds. I have never asked them to show me proof of payment.
It’s a long story how I came to contact Gordon and for him to let me view his software (although I have found that I’m not the only one to see it and even try it out in a demo account.) Another time for that story. I’m trying to keep my posts shorter.
Have a good long weekend!!
I have spoken with Gordon Driver off and on for the last four years, moreso in the last two years with respect to what he was doing with his proprietary software.
I remember getting a call from a mutual friend of ours who told me to “google Gordon Driver’s name” on the net when this all hit the fan, and was kind of stunned to read of what had occurred. The guy I knew and spoke with over that time did not sound like a guy bent on scamming people. Quite the opposite, in fact.
So I read with sadness the statements made by the government agencies who very much made it sound like there was something fishy going on.
But I also spoke with Gordon after the fact, and have continued to listen to him and be his friend throughout this ordeal because I can’t quite put my head around everything that has gone on. And like Two Cents, there are things that simply do not jive with me as far as having me believe that Gordon was knowingly conducting a Ponzi scheme.
I will say this. I do believe that government agencies lie and do not care one iota who they blame. In the wake of the Bernie Madoff debacle, the SEC was made to look foolish, having not listened to a whistleblower who for ten years was telling them that Madoff was running a huge Ponzi scheme. I know that heads rolled in the aftermath of the Madoff scandal, but also know that the SEC was desperate to appear hardline against the war on stock fraud. Is it possible that in their zeal to reassert their prestige they are throwing anything and everything up against the wall to see if anything sticks?
Too…that they have not indicted by now, well past the time that something should have happened if all that they said is true, is it possible that the government agencies are looking for a way out of the mess they created without having to admit that they jumped the gun?
It is incredibly naive to think that government agencies don’t spin the facts to support their cases. People are trying to make their mark and impress their superiors. Very often that kind of pressure leads to huge mistakes. It is certainly possible that there is more to this story than any of us have been told.
Gordon has always maintained there is more to the story. And I really want to believe that is true. Only time will tell, though. And right now, some are commentating on things without all the facts having been revealed. And those facts perhaps cannot be revealed because of the nature of the mess. That is how legal wranglings go. But while we wait, Bene quotes gov’t documents like they are the Bible. And others chime in based on supposition. I think that is a mistake.
But that’s my…three cents.
dd
Hi David:
I’m quoting what is available.
You, Driver, Taylor, Rutledge are free to comment.