DOL OSHA asked that Peter Sivere provide an affidavit to them after they "heard" that the SEC said Peter Sivere requested payment for documents and information.
Click Here for Peter Siver Affidavit
""... On September 30th 2004, the Wall Street Journal.. published an article entitled Trading Class Action Suit Widens. The WSJ articl state, in part, that: Mr. Stern (of Canary Capital) asked a J.P. Morgan Banker who had been working with Mr. Stern's family for a loan to finance his hedge funds trading in the PBHG funds.
The Suit contends that Mr. Stern explained his trading systme "in detail" to the executive.
According to the lawsuit, J.P. Morgan Securities made loans to business entities tied to Canary totalling as much as $105 Million. These Loans were made to finance trades that would make Canary money when the price of PBHG funds declined.
This Subject of the WSJ article appears to be consistent with the information in the Kelleher Email.
... After the September 30th, 2004 WSJ article was published, I continued to do strategic surveillance together with my interim monitoring duties.
.. On or about October 5, 2004, I located an October 4, 2004 email in which a JPM executive referring to the September 30, 2004 WSJ article, inquires about JMP's relationship with Canary.
The Email indicates that Mr. Palmer and Davis Polk and Wardell had previously indicated that JPM had no knowledge of improper trading practices. In a response to the E-mail Mr. Palmer acknowledged that JPM assisted Canary by providing a line of credit to finance Canary's mutual fund trading.
On October 6, 2004, I located an E-mail in which JPM's President and Chief Operating Officer asked JPM's Co-General Counsel about JPM's Relationship with Canary.
On October 7, 2004, I was Terminated for Alleged inappropriate use of the firms E-mail and for not cooperating with an internal fraud investigation. The Emails referred to above were on my desk at JPM at the time I was terminated. I was not permitted to return to my desk after I was terminated... ""
Read this Full Document Click HERE
Showing posts with label OSHA investigators. Show all posts
Showing posts with label OSHA investigators. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Howard L. Shapiro - Counsel to the Inspector General. Dan Petrole - Peter Sivere Whistleblower Smackdown. Blatant Disregard.
SEC Investigators - OSHA Investigators - SEC OIG Report of Investigation - Industry Whistleblower - SEC Fraud and Failing the Public.
Howard L. Shapiro - Counsel to the Inspector General
Deputy Inspector General, Dan Petrole
Below is What Seems to Me Like a Whistleblower Smackdown, as the SEC Fails Over and Over to Protect Whistleblower, Consumers, Shareholders and Faild to Investigate Fraud. Is there No Accountability, Transparency or Rights on any Level?
***********
In a message dated 2/17/2010 7:55:05 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, shapiro.howard@oig.dol.gov writes:
Mr. Sivere:
The Deputy Inspector General, Dan Petrole, has asked me to respond to your recent e-mail to him, in which you state:
In light of the new public interest in this matter I would like for you to re-open this investigation. Please see the attached documentation from Mr. Heddell (signed by you on his behalf) and his reasoning for not re-opening this investigation.
Specifically, Mr. Heddell stated "our review of the SEC OIG Report of Investigation does not provide sufficient basis to revisit this determination."
Why didn't OSHA ever produce a final determination in this investigation? Did OSHA ever interview George Demos or speak directly with the SEC in regard to his allegations of me?
Upon review of the linked web pages (in your e-mail), it appears that the new public interest in this matter primarily relates to actions taken (or not taken) within the SEC, and does not provide a sufficient basis or justification for the DOL OIG to re-visit its previous determination regarding the opening of an investigation with respect to actions taken by OSHA employees.
Howard L. Shapiro
Counsel to the Inspector General "
************
From: PSivere@aol.com [mailto:PSivere@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 6:10 AM
To: Shapiro, Howard - OIG
Cc: Petrole, Daniel - OIG
Subject: Re: Request to OIG
Dear Mr. Shapiro,
Nothing in the attached Memorandum of Understating between the SEC and DOL, entered into July 29, 2008 contain any restrictions on the DOL.
Has Mr. Petrole made any attempt to discuss this matter with the SEC OIG as outlined in the MOU? The fact that my confidential information was leaked during an OSHA investigation and the DOL OIG has no interest in investigating why OSHA investigators did not or will not investigate the leak is troubling.
At a minimum the OSHA investigators should have contacted the SEC investigators to compare "facts." The SEC OIG was concerned enough to investigate their own, why won't the DOL OIG do the same? What is the downside for DOL to produce a similar report as the SEC OIG did?
Thank You,
Peter ""
Howard L. Shapiro - Counsel to the Inspector General
Deputy Inspector General, Dan Petrole
Below is What Seems to Me Like a Whistleblower Smackdown, as the SEC Fails Over and Over to Protect Whistleblower, Consumers, Shareholders and Faild to Investigate Fraud. Is there No Accountability, Transparency or Rights on any Level?
***********
In a message dated 2/17/2010 7:55:05 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, shapiro.howard@oig.dol.gov writes:
Mr. Sivere:
The Deputy Inspector General, Dan Petrole, has asked me to respond to your recent e-mail to him, in which you state:
In light of the new public interest in this matter I would like for you to re-open this investigation. Please see the attached documentation from Mr. Heddell (signed by you on his behalf) and his reasoning for not re-opening this investigation.
Specifically, Mr. Heddell stated "our review of the SEC OIG Report of Investigation does not provide sufficient basis to revisit this determination."
Why didn't OSHA ever produce a final determination in this investigation? Did OSHA ever interview George Demos or speak directly with the SEC in regard to his allegations of me?
Upon review of the linked web pages (in your e-mail), it appears that the new public interest in this matter primarily relates to actions taken (or not taken) within the SEC, and does not provide a sufficient basis or justification for the DOL OIG to re-visit its previous determination regarding the opening of an investigation with respect to actions taken by OSHA employees.
Howard L. Shapiro
Counsel to the Inspector General "
************
From: PSivere@aol.com [mailto:PSivere@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 6:10 AM
To: Shapiro, Howard - OIG
Cc: Petrole, Daniel - OIG
Subject: Re: Request to OIG
Dear Mr. Shapiro,
Nothing in the attached Memorandum of Understating between the SEC and DOL, entered into July 29, 2008 contain any restrictions on the DOL.
Has Mr. Petrole made any attempt to discuss this matter with the SEC OIG as outlined in the MOU? The fact that my confidential information was leaked during an OSHA investigation and the DOL OIG has no interest in investigating why OSHA investigators did not or will not investigate the leak is troubling.
At a minimum the OSHA investigators should have contacted the SEC investigators to compare "facts." The SEC OIG was concerned enough to investigate their own, why won't the DOL OIG do the same? What is the downside for DOL to produce a similar report as the SEC OIG did?
Thank You,
Peter ""
************
Message from Dan Petrole to Howard L. Shapiro
"In a message dated 3/4/2010 3:16:53 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
Petrole.Daniel@oig.dol.gov writes:
Howard,
I assume that you are monitoring these e-mails. I also realize that Mr. Sivere agreed to a settlement regarding his issue. Just want to make sure you are comfortable that nothing comes back to bite us.
Dan"
************
"From: PSivere@aol.comTo: Petrole.Daniel@oig.dol.govCC: shapiro.howard@oig.dol.govSent: 3/11/2010 5:41:03 A.M. Eastern Standard TimeSubj: Re: Request to OIG
Mr. Petrole,
Leaving the settlement aside for a moment. Congress charges your agency with protecting the workers of this country. Specifically, it charges you to ensure that certain programs are administered and carried out without interference or political agendas.
Sadly, your comment below illustrates why the American people are fed up. You are in Washington to serve the people of this country. It's a sad state of affairs when the agency charged with protecting the workers of this country believe we are better protected when civil servants, like yourself, put politics before your actual mandate.
This is not a legal issue. This is a systematic breakdown of your agency and all you focus on is CYA. I purposely let your e-mail sit in my in box for the past week with the hopes of establishing some dialogue with you and your agency. Sadly, it did not happen.
Thank You,
Peter Sivere "
Message from Dan Petrole to Howard L. Shapiro
"In a message dated 3/4/2010 3:16:53 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
Petrole.Daniel@oig.dol.gov writes:
Howard,
I assume that you are monitoring these e-mails. I also realize that Mr. Sivere agreed to a settlement regarding his issue. Just want to make sure you are comfortable that nothing comes back to bite us.
Dan"
************
"From: PSivere@aol.comTo: Petrole.Daniel@oig.dol.govCC: shapiro.howard@oig.dol.govSent: 3/11/2010 5:41:03 A.M. Eastern Standard TimeSubj: Re: Request to OIG
Mr. Petrole,
Leaving the settlement aside for a moment. Congress charges your agency with protecting the workers of this country. Specifically, it charges you to ensure that certain programs are administered and carried out without interference or political agendas.
Sadly, your comment below illustrates why the American people are fed up. You are in Washington to serve the people of this country. It's a sad state of affairs when the agency charged with protecting the workers of this country believe we are better protected when civil servants, like yourself, put politics before your actual mandate.
This is not a legal issue. This is a systematic breakdown of your agency and all you focus on is CYA. I purposely let your e-mail sit in my in box for the past week with the hopes of establishing some dialogue with you and your agency. Sadly, it did not happen.
Thank You,
Peter Sivere "
Posted here by
Investigative Blogger
Investigative Blogger
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
RSS Feed (xml)
