You are on page 1of 4


930 East 50th Street Chicago, Illinois 60615 Phone: (773) 373-3366 * Fax: (773) 373-3571

C> IL_ I -11" I C3 Is.1

National Headquarters 930 East 50th Street Chicago, IL 60615 (773) 373-3366 (Freedom) Office 773) 373-3571 Fax LaSalle Street Project Located within the National Office in Chicago, IL Peachtree Street Project 100 Auburn Avenue Suite 101 Atlanta, GA 30303 (404) 525 - 5663 Office (404) 525 -5233 Fax Automotive Project 4335 W. Fort Street Detroit, MI 49209 (313) 842-3883 Office (313) 842-2625 Fax Energy Project 2616 South Loop West Suite 100 Houston, TX 77054 (713) 432-0209 (713) 432-9009 Entertainment Project 1313 8th Street Suite 232 Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 483-3500 Office (213) 4.83-3517 Fax Wall Street Project 5 Hanover Square 2nd Floor New York, NY 10004 (212) 425-7874 Office (212) 968-1412 Fax Silicon Valley Project 1400 65th Street Emeryville, CA 94608 (510) 854-6258 Office (510) 336-6683 Fax Public Policy I Telecommunications Project 727 15th Street NW Suite 1200 Washinaton, DC 20005 (202) 393-7874 Office (202) 393-1495 Fax

November 30_ 2010 Mr. T. Grant Callery Executive Vice President and General. Counsel FINRA 1735 K Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006 Dear Mr. Callery: Enclosed please find two (2) binders containing documents that we believe outline and support those certain allegations of unfair treatment and undue harassment as alleged by our constituent, Mr. Shawn D. Baldwin_ As previously emphasized, we are respectfully requesting that your office review these materials out of our concern that certain actions of FIT\IRA may have been deleterious on an otherwise stellar career that had carried no blemishes previously, and where these proceedings were initiated during a critical time in which Mr. Baldwin was receiving national recognition, and numerous awards and aCknowledgments, as a star performer in his industry. To assist in your review of the enclosed documents, we reiterate our understanding as follows: FINRA has expelled and barred Mr. Baldwin and his film, CMG Institutional Trading LLC ("CMG"), on three separate occasions. Of these three bars and expulsions, two occurred when Mr. Baldwin was not conducting any securities business. Mr. Baldwin suspended all U.S. securities business in December 2005 and notified the then NASD (now known as FINRA) that he would not conduct any U.S. securities business until the entire matter had been resolved because he believed that FINRA was attempting to cause him headline risk and interfere in his business operations. He communicated these concerns in writing to FINRA. After communicating these concerns to FINRA. Mr. Baldwin then withdrew capital, did not engage another clearing group and ceased submitting FOCUS reports, as otherwise required of member firms pursuant to SEC Rule 17a-5, in 2006 because his firm was expelled pursuant to FINRA Rule 9552. Mr. Baldwin received notice of this expulsion per a letter dated April 19, 2006 from Barbara Z. Sweeney which concluded by indicating that the letter was to serve as final notice from the NASD concerning the possibility of expulsion.

Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, Sr., Founder & President Martin L. King, Chairman

(6) AW!. am Nies

Following the expulsion, Mr. Baldwin ceased engaging in securities business in the U.S. and relocated to Europe to complete a masters program. However, following this expulsion, FINRA proceeded to restore CMG to full membership - without notifying Mr. Baldwin - without capital insight. FOCUS reports or a clearing. Our understanding, and his, is that in order to be reinstated, Mr. Baldwin would have had to place capital in the firm, have a clearing arrangement, then submit another application, none of which he did. Yet, several months after notice of the expulsion, the firm was reinstated without explanation.

During the period in question, CMG had net capital in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, along with monthly revenues in the same range, while FINRA officials elected to cease his business multiple times resulting in the loss of tens of thousands of dollars in potential trades. The reasons given for these interruptions and the ensuing extended examinations and proceedings was initially based on a belief that CMG was operating at a net capital deficiency_ However, and what we wish to explore further, FIN -RA officials appeared to have been resistant to performing any net capital computations on these allegations for over 7 years despite being repeatedly requested to do so before formal proceedings. An extensive review of the financial statements of CMG shows that the broker-dealer was hundreds of thousands of dollars in excess of the net capital requirements_ That the broker-dealer was reinstated where financial questions were raised seems to have been antithetical to FINRA's objective to protect the public_ The act of the firm being reinstated resulted in FINRA officials being able to continue extensive proceedings now extending beyond the original two-year time frame. These additional proceedings all concluded with additional bars and expulsions levied against Mr. Baldwin and CMG, even though he was not involved in any securities business during this time period. FTNRA has also repeatedly released and re-released notice of these bars and expulsions against Mr. Baldwin and CMG, per reporting requirements, from 2007 through 2010, resulting in an obvious negative impact upon his potential business operations as each fresh iteration of the disciplinary actions left the suggestion that the claims to which they spoke were also fresh. The charges in these various proceedings range from allegations of net capital deficiency, to violations of Rule 8210, along with the implication of incompetency on the part of Mr. Baldwin associated with a claim of improper documentation being submitted by Mr. Baldwin, the correct copies of which were substituted in foitnal proceedings - and entered on the record - with visibly incomplete drafts. On the latter point, Mr. Baldwin alerted FINRA officials that these documents appeared to have been substituted in two briefs before the proceedings and again during the proceedings on the record. Mr. Baldwin alerted NAC officials as to where to find the stated documents that he submitted, while pointing out the inconsistencies in the actual documents presented (i.e. that they were in draft form and not the documents that he

submitted as his foi wal response). Mr. Baldwin also advised the NAG at that time that the same officials had previously been found to have falsely testified under oath on two of the three points of the case. None of these facts seem to have been taken into consideration or afforded appropriate weight and Mr. Baldwin and CMG were once again barred and expelled. During this period, Mr. Baldwin and his attorneys maintained extensive notes and records, submitting copies of these materials to the GAO as well as to the SEC in response to numerous claims by FINRA District 8 that the office had not received certain requested documents, and amid warnings that Mr. Baldwin and his firm might run into Rule 8210 violations. Mr. Baldwin, through his attorneys, also appended a series of binders and documents to the record in or around July of 2006 for the first proceeding (E8A20050252) to Hearing Officer Sara Nelson Bloom, and then again in or around July of 2007 for the same proceeding. We note of critical importance here that an official OHO stamp of receipt was placed on both documents confii wing the same. The documents contained in those binders vary tremendously from the documents presented by Enforcement as maintained by Mr. Baldwin both during his briefs and testimony during these proceedings and of course, at present. A particularly negative article was published after FINRA_ began its examinations with resulting negative exposure that caused extensive damage to the reputation of Mr. Baldwin and CMG and that has without question impaired his ability to generate revenue. The taint of the expulsion and subsequent bars has also caused a number of FINRAregulated firms to cease doing any business with Mr. Baldwin in any capacity, causing obvious and severe financial harm. FINRA has consistently indicated recidivism as a reason for these bars, when in fact we believe that the first case may not have merited this result since Mr. Baldwin forwarded all information requested, and given the fact that the examination was not based on net capital questions as should have been determined by a capable examiner. Furthermore, Mr. Baldwin answered all questions extensively within a short period. Accordingly, it seems that NAC's remedy of a two-year suspension resulting from the bar based on not receiving a deposit ticket for a wire initiated by someone else, based on our understanding of the facts, did not seem appropriate. The subsequent cases which focused on allegations of municipal underwritings seemed to also lack merit, since Mr. Baldwin repeatedly indicated to officials that he did not participate and had never received a wire or securities. In addition, the entity listed for which information was being requested Capital Management Group Securities was not a FINRA-regulated entity. Mr. Baldwin had been once again portrayed as noncompliant when he had in fact withdrawn from the MSRB. The only time that Mr. Baldwin had participated was when he had a Municipal Principal, Mr. Rick Barfield.
The apparent substitution of documents, and the circumstances that caused this, supports

a claim of harassment of Mr. Baldwin if left unexplained and at minimum, serves as a

beginning point of further discussion. Mr. Baldwin repeatedly pointed out that these documents appeared to have been substituted in briefs and again in testimony during formal proceedings, and repeatedly indicated where the correct copies of the requested documents could be found. These binders were submitted in-person to Hearing Officer Sara Nelson Bloom after the first proceeding where they were stamped dated July 17, 2006. These binders were also submitted to each member of the NAC and mailed to the NASD. Additional copies were issued via Federal Express on January 8, 2007 to Hearing Officer Sara Nelson Bloom and subsequently stamped on January 9, 2007. On this basis, we again respectfully request a meeting with Mr. Ketchum along with any other appropriate parties within FINRA to begin a dialogue on what FINRA believes are the equitable remedies necessary to correct any injustice or undue harassment and to amicably resolve the present matter. Respectfully,

Brenda J. Robinson, Esq. Special Counsel