High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
C
OMPLAINT
Page 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXASHOUSTON DIVISION
J.
M
ARK
B
REWER
v.
S
ECURITIES
A
ND
E
XCHANGE
C
OMMISSION
,U
NKNOWN
A
GENTS OF THE
S.E.C.,
AND AN
U
NKNOWN
N
UMBER OF
U.S.
M
ARSHALS
§§§§§§§Case No.
COMPLAINTPARTIES
1.Plaintiff J. Mark Brewer is a resident of Harris County, Texas who held various accounts withStanford Group Company in his individual name, as trustee and as co-owner with his wife.2.The defendants are:A.Securities and Exchange Commission, which may be served at its regional office inFort Worth as follows: Rose L. Romero, Regional Director; Burnett Plaza, Suite1900; 801 Cherry Street, Unit 18; Fort Worth, TX 76102.B.Unknown agents of the SEC who may be served at Burnett Plaza, Suite 1900; 801Cherry Street, Unit 18; Fort Worth, TX 76102.C.Unknown U.S. Marshals who may be served at the U.S. Courthouse, 515 Rusk, Suite10017, Houston, Texas 77002.
C
OMPLAINT
Page 2
JURISDICTION and VENUE
3.Jurisdiction and venue are proper because the case arises from action under the Constitutionand laws of the United States and plaintiff is a resident of this district.
FACTS
4.As of the filing of this complaint, the financial system in the United States of America isin worse condition than at any time since the Great Depression, a twelve-year “event” thatis considered by some to have ended only by the onset of the second World War. Giventhis level of economic turmoil, an inability to access money or basic information aboutmoney, an interruption by the government itself of access to information about bank andsecurities accounts generates investor fear – not confidence. This is an inconsolable fearto even the most sanguine investor. The defendants did just that: acting under color of law, defendants seized plaintiff’s accounts, surrounded the premises of the financialinstitution through which those accounts were purchased and did so without any notice toplaintiff, opportunity for a hearing or other due process of law.5.On Tuesday morning, February 17, 2009, plaintiff and an estimated 30,000 citizens andcustomers of account holders of Stanford Financial Group (SFG) found themselves unableto access their securities accounts with Pershing LLC. Funds in stock accounts held byPershing LLC in the United States as well as certificates of deposits held outside the jurisdiction of the United States were frozen and online account information and accesswas shut down. Doors outside the financial institutions in Houston, Texas and Antiguawere locked and surrounded by armed federal marshals acting under color of law;
i.e,.
apair of ex parte, court orders dated February 16, 2009 (sometimes referred to hereafter as
C
OMPLAINT
Page 3
“The Presidents’ Day Orders”). These orders are attached hereto as Exhibits A and B, andincorporated herein by reference (although not for the truth of any allegations containedtherein). Plaintiff neither6.The ex parte Presidents’ Day Orders are a violation of the fundamental rights of dueprocess of the plaintiff and are an illegal seizure of his accounts. The defendants procuredand then executed the Presidents’ Day Orders at issue from a court without jurisdiction todo so and without possessing a properly authorized or statutory basis. In this respect andas alleged herein, the defendants acted under color of law in violation of the rights of theplaintiff:A.The Presidents’ Day Orders which were used to seize assets of plaintiff and weresigned on a federal holiday known as “Presidents’ Day.” The orders were signedby a U. S. District Judge in which neither this plaintiff nor the defendants in theSEC case reside, do business or are subject to proper venue. The orders weresigned without notice to anyone and without an opportunity to be heard by anyone.B.Within 24 hours of the Presidents’ Day Orders, U.S. Marshals surrounded thepremises of Stanford’s operations in Houston, taking over the institution andturning it over to a privately practicing lawyer – Mr. Ralph S. Janvey “of Dallas.”C.Under the color of law of the Presidents’ Day Orders, the Marshals also seizedpossession of the premises of Stanford themselves – despite the lack of anyprovision in the Orders so permitting.
Add a Comment
Phil Groomleft a comment
squigglejonesleft a comment