General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Media Won’t tell You About Decades of PERJURY ACCUSATIONS Against Romney
Willard Romney has proven himself to be a compulsive liar throughout the Republican primary and during the general election campaign, and it appears it has been his practice in business as well. Lying in court is especially egregious, and there is a report that Willard Romney committed perjury in his friends divorce proceedings, and it is not the first time he is accused of perjuring himself. Romney often boasts that one of Bains success stories was the office supply chain Staples that his good friend Tom Stemberg founded. In 1988 when Stemberg was going through divorce proceedings, Romney testified on record that Staples stock was over-valued, and that he didnt place a great deal of credibility in the forecast of the companys future. Willard went on to testify that Stemberg spoke about the probability of success as if it was today and that he minimized the risk and maximized the high probability of success, and the dream went on. It was to Stembergs benefit to place little value on Staples stock to prevent his wife, Maureen Sullivan-Stemberg, from gaining from Staples equity and Romneys testimony undervalued Stembergs primary asset in a fifty/fifty state.
However, if Romney truly believed Staples stock was over-valued, why was he, at the same time, making a deal between Stemberg and Goldman Sachs to take the company of no worth public? Because he was protecting his close friend from having to split fairly the assets from the marriage and depriving Stembergs ex-wife from her fair share according to the law. Some people may claim Romney made an honest miscalculation in not knowing if Staples stock was worthless or not, but as the first investor, a major shareholder, and board member, as with any corporation, he had a fiduciary responsibility to inform shareholders that the stocks value was plunging. Either Romney lied about the worth of the stocks, or he was concealing the truth that Staples was a worthless investment and intended to fleece shareholders as he did in several other cases such as KB Toys. Romney was not a stupid investor or business man, and he claims Staples is his proudest achievement on the campaign trail, but to claim a company is worthless at the same time he was in talks to take the company public and make millions informs his willingness to either perjure himself in court or shirk his fiduciary duty as a Staples board member. This was not a flip-flop on Romneys part, it was either a deliberate lie to benefit his friend and cheat his ex-wife, or conceal important investment information from shareholders, but based on the fact he was dealing with Goldman Sachs to take the company public, it appears Romney was lying to deprive his friends ex-wife from her fair share of the marriage assets. It is also not the first time Romney has been accused of committing perjury.
In bankruptcy cases, a cardinal rule mandates all disclosures of conflict of interest, and according to 18 USCS § 152 (3) A person who knowingly and fraudulently makes a false declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1s746 of title 28, in or in relation to any case under title 11 shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. In 2001, Romney was sole shareholder, director, and President of Sankaty Ltd. and thus is the controlling person of Sankaty, Ltd, and Sankaty applied for payment of administrative expenses from Stage Stores, a company in which Romney was controlling shareholder, and by not disclosing conflict of interest, he committed perjury according to USCS § 152 (3). In a case often cited as precedent, a lawyer, failed to report conflict of interest and he went to prison, paid a fine, and settled for millions-of-dollars for simply not alerting the court he had a conflict of interest.
Willard Romney is a liar and there can be little doubt he failed to disclose conflict of interest in bankruptcy court. He also knew Staples was not a worthless company or he would not have been making a deal with Goldman Sachs to take the company public at the same time he told a judge Staples stock was over-valued and that he didnt place a great deal of credibility in the forecast of the companys future. In those business deals, Romney was not lying because telling the truth was very awkward and uncomfortable while lying feels right, he lied to deprive his friends ex-wife from her rightful due and to prevent his friend from losing half his Staples investment. He lies were purely for profit and not out of a pathological condition or mental disorder.
CONT'
http://www.politicususa.com/mitt-romney-dogged-decades-perjury-accusations.html
.
aint_no_life_nowhere
(21,925 posts)I believe those have to be signed under penalty of perjury.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)big $ for the Mormon church through his mandatory 10% tithing. I have no doubt he has no problem lying when he wants, justifying it under church doctrine therefore with no celestial penalty (in his mind).
Segami
(14,923 posts)uponit7771
(90,339 posts)DollarBillHines
(1,922 posts)Google "Lying for the Lord".
spanone
(135,832 posts)tbennett76
(223 posts)In the winter of 1988, Staples stepped up its marketing efforts by sending potential customers a special catalog, with a coupon promising a free pen and pencil set with a purchase of $10 or more. Of those who redeemed this offer, company data indicated that more than half would return to make future purchases.
By May 1988 Staples had opened 16 stores, and the company's revenues had risen to $40 million. In its rapid Northeastern expansion, the company sought to lock up prime retail locations throughout the region so that competitors would have difficulty establishing their own stores. To support this rapid growth, Staples solicited three more rounds of financing from the investment banking community, raising a total of $32 million.
Question, who invests in a worthless company to help said worthless company expand?
Cha
(297,224 posts)but if it were Pres Obama(which it wouldn't be) but if it were than the media would be on this like a rats on cheeze.
It's the media, stupid.
Thanks for the link and setting up Rmuse's article, Segami.. we The Social Media have a responsibility to Make This VIRAL.
Segami
(14,923 posts)session in front corporate head office getting Clint to light the first match.
tbennett76
(223 posts)There was no shortage of investors looking to get in on the Staples deal; quite the opposite. Dozens of offers poured in from venture capitalists, Inc. magazine wrote in a 1989 feature article. Stemberg turned most of the suitors away. Bain Capital committed a relatively modest sum just a tenth of the total that Stemberg raised and cashed out early, after the 1989 initial public offering.
If anything, suggests one participant with Bessemer Capital, which invested in Staples at the time, Stemberg did Romney a favor by allowing him in on the deal possibly at the behest of their mutual friend, former Bain employee and current eBay CEO Meg Whitman.
Read more: http://thephoenix.com/boston/news/45261-rewriting-staples-history/#ixzz2AMHVmecf
Sure looks like quid pro quo to me.
Segami
(14,923 posts)Investor weasels were falling out of the sky to get in on this deal......its a club house of the usual suspects of investors.
It might be wishful thinking on my part but I hope that Allred flushes out this con man's dirt out in the open for all to see and read.
renate
(13,776 posts)because if he'd claimed the stocks were worth a lot, surely his friend could have gotten away with giving her fewer than if they were not worth much? That is, if in the settlement he was supposed to give her the equivalent of X dollars, he could have given her fewer stocks if he stated they were each worth X/100 than if they were each worth X/10,000.
If she was paid off in stock, there's no gain to his friend and no loss to her if he lied about how much the stock is worth. It sounds like he was trying to drive down the price, presumably so someone else could snap it up. So it seems to me that lying about the value of the stock isn't to help his friend in the divorce, but to conceal the actual worth of the stock to make it easier for him (or someone) to buy more stock more cheaply.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)marital assets upon divorce:
Massachusetts is referred to as an "equitable distribution" state. When the parties are unable to reach a settlement, the Family Court will take the following approach to dividing the assets; First, it will go through a discovery process to classify which property and debt is to be considered marital. Next, it will assign a monetary value on the marital property and debt. Last, it will distribute the marital assets between the two parties in an equitable fashion. Equitable does not mean equal, but rather what is deemed by the Family Court to be fair.
The courts shall consider the following: a. length of the marriage; b. the conduct of the parties during the marriage; c. the age; d. health; e. station; f. occupation; g. amount and sources of income; h. vocational skills; i. employability; j. estate; k. liabilities and needs of each of the parties; l. the opportunity of each for future acquisition of capital assets and income. (Massachusetts General Laws - Chapter 208 - Sections: 1A and 34)
Since Massachusetts is an "Equitable Distribution" state, all marital property will be divided in an equitable fashion according to the court unless agreed to otherwise by the divorcing spouses. What does "equitable" mean? Equitable can be defined as "what is fair, not necessarily equal." To automatically believe the marital property would be divided 50-50 would be a wrong assumption in any equitable distribution state. You can also read more about Massachusetts property division in the Massachusetts state statutes located at: http://www.state.ma.us/.
http://www.divorcesupport.com/divorce/Massachusetts-Property-Division-Factors-576.html
Cherchez la Femme
(2,488 posts)Downright boring?
Nah, they would't say a peep because telling the truth about a Presidential Candidate may turn voters against him
...reserved for Republican candidates only, of course.
Cherchez la Femme
(2,488 posts)Oops. Self delete.
lalalu
(1,663 posts)I can't wait.
47of74
(18,470 posts)These fucksticks were all up in arms because Clinton supposedly lied about a blow job, and their backing this son of a bitch. It causes huge headaches behind my eyes.
Segami
(14,923 posts)WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)Perhaps they don't want to shoot the horse before the home stretch?
Of course, the same courtesy isn't applied to Obama...ever.
lib87
(535 posts)when it comes to actually investigating Mitten's past. I imagine he has a graveyard of skeletons in his closet.
defacto7
(13,485 posts)but unfortunately, it is only speculation. I know Romney is a creep. I believe he is a liar and a cheat. I think he has made a lot of money on the backs of a lot of people. But as far as knowing whether has cheated that lady or and lied to the court, that you and I will never know. The legal issues are settled unless new unusual evidence comes out that is not directly part of this case. But the only one who knows the answer... is Mitt himself.
Segami
(14,923 posts)I'm sure email correspondence with Goldman Sachs on taking the company Public are still floating around...lol!
fingrinn
(81 posts)Could the argument go.
The stupid woman is going to get the house, she has no way to pay the mortgage so she will have to sell those low priced stocks. We can make a killing by buying them up cheap and screw her over at the same time?
After all Romneys negotiating with golden sacks so he knows the value is going to increase.
The question is: WHO bought her shares?
standingtall
(2,785 posts)but it also sounds like fraud to me although it probably can't be proven. I must say this line from Romney's testimony.
Romney described Staples as dysfunctional at the time a place with surly employees and slow checkout times. Fits right into his 47% mentality. The disdain for workers low wage workers in particular.
Segami
(14,923 posts)Staples as over-valued and didnt place a great deal of credibility in the forecast of the companys future. under oath in court.....he was also hyping up Staples with Goldman Sachs to take Public.
That is a big problem!
ffr
(22,670 posts)No more and no less than that. This guy is an empty core. He stands for nothing. His word means nothing.