Thursday, January 7, 2016

From Hartzman's prepared remarks; 1/6/2016 Federal Court Hearing; Hartzman v Wells Fargo

1. After working at Goldman Sachs from 1976 to 2004 with former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, Perrella Weinberg's Peter Weinberg and former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York Stephen Friedman among others, Robert Steel served as Under Secretary for Domestic Finance of the United States Treasury under Hank Paulson before becoming CEO of Wachovia on July 9, 2008.

2. Bloomberg News reported that "[Robert] Steel, who had previously worked with Peter Weinberg at Goldman Sachs considered joining Perrella Weinberg when the firm opened its doors in 2006.

3. During Steel's tenure at the U.S. Treasury, he revived the President's Working Group, the core group to respond to the global economic crisis of 2008 under Paulson with SEC Chair Christopher Cox and Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke, who refused to name entities who received Federal Reserve loans under oath in 2009.

That the Federal Reserve was forced to disclose the recipients of the loans via congressional legislation and the failure of the SEC to mandate the disclosures by the recipients...




4. Before arriving at Wachovia, Steel was in a "need to know position" concerning massive undisclosed material borrowing by many financial firms administered by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, most of which occurred under Stephen Friedman and Tim Geithner's tenure, that overwhelmingly most firms did not provide details of within required SEC filings, including the size of credit lines available to Wachovia and Wells Fargo as they merged with government assistance at the end of 2008, which Wells Fargo denied...

5. Stephen Friedman, who served with Robert Steel at the Aspen Institute, while administering undisclosed loans to most of Wall Street as Chair of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, purchased Goldman Sachs stock when it traded at historical lows in the fourth quarter of 2008 without being arrested and prosecuted for insider trading by Obama's Justice Department led by Eric Holder, who is widely known to have let Wall Street executives off the hook for crimes committed during the Great Financial Crisis of 2008-2009...

6. On January 17, 2008, unknown to shareholders and the public but known to Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf and most likely Chairman Richard Kovacevich, Wells Fargo borrowed from the Federal Reserve Bank's Term Auction Facility (TAF), with $47.9 billion in Unencumbered Collateral, representing assets free and clear of any encumbrances such as creditor claims or liens never reported by our press, which I found in 2014, which represented a massive, material undisclosed credit line with the Federal Reserve, details of which were not disclosed by Wells Fargo's 2008 and 2009 SEC reports filed through the mail...

7. On March 27, 2008, Wachovia borrowed an undisclosed $3.5 billion from the Federal Reserve’s Term Auction Facility with $53.652 billion in Unencumbered Assets, which showed Wachovia had a massive unreported Federal Reserve credit line, which I discovered in 2014 posted on the Federal Reserve's website as of August 2, 2013 as confirmed by Federal Reserve Public Affairs officer Cecelia Bradshaw on November 20, 2014, which has yet to be reported by the press.

8. In an interview on Tuesday, June 10, 2008, while Wells Fargo was borrowing $13 billion from the Federal Reserve, representing 15.27% of the company's market capitalization, John Stumpf lied in violation of securities laws when he stated "I have a general aversion to using public money, our citizen's money, to bail out problems for a particular sector." and "...in our company's case, to be able to not only pay for the credit hits we took, we actually added to our reserves." and "We added organically to capital"...

9. On 6/30/2008, Wachovia's outstanding Federal Reserve borrowings totaled $10 billion, representing a material 29.82% of the company's market capitalization.

10. Wachovia's June 30, 2008 form 10-Q certified by Robert Steel did not disclose the type, terms, interest charges, dates, collateral, values or amounts of financial assistance provided by the Fed, in violation of SEC and Sarbanes Oxley reporting laws...

11. After submitting a false SOX SEC certification, on July 22, 2008, Mr. Steel personally purchased 1,000,000 shares of Wachovia’s stock as the company’s undisclosed Federal Reserve Term Auction Facility (TAF) borrowing reached $12.5 billion, representing a material 34.85% of the company's market capitalization, which was illegal insider trading, unprosecuted by the Justice Department and unreported by the press.

12. In an interview with CNBC's Jim Cramer On Monday, September 15, 2008, Robert Steel lied and violated securities laws by saying "I think it's really about...transparency.  People have to understand the assets and really be able to say, this is what I own" and "Complete disclosure" and "we can work through this with transparency, liquidity and capital" and "Our strategy was to give you all the data" and "we're raising capital ourselves by basically shrinking the balance sheet, cutting the dividend, cutting expenses. We can create more capital ourselves that way", which wasn't true...

13. After Jim Cramer asked "Should there be any sort of quick regulatory relief from the SEC that would make life easier to be able to make your bank much stronger?", Mr. Steel lied when he responded "I don't think it's about my bank", which wasn't true.

14. On 9/25/2008, when Wachovia borrowed an undisclosed $5 billion from the Fed's Term Auction Facility, Unencumbered Assets, representing the Fed credit line available to Wachovia was $56.848 Billion, which was never publicly reported.

15. After searching Wachovia Corporation's certified form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2008, which Wells Fargo denies I did after Fuller and Houck filed evidence of as an attachment to Oyster Consulting's Hank Sanchez withheld report, ROBERT K. STEEL, did not disclose the type, terms, interest charges, dates, collateral, values or amounts of financial assistance provided by the Fed and other material terms, which has not been restated since...

16. The SEC securities filing misled shareholders and violated the law when it said "I, Robert K. Steel, certify that I have reviewed this Quarterly Report...;  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report." after lying about it to CNBC's Jim Cramer and the public.

17. The Federal Reserve unanimously approved Wachovia's merger with Wells Fargo on October 12, 2008, as Fed insiders knew Wachovia's Fed borrowings were a material 449.72% of the company's market capitalization which Wells Fargo lied about to the SEC and the public...

18. On October 31, 2008, WELLS FARGO & COMPANY FORM S-4 REGISTRATION STATEMENT UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, which prominently listed James M. Strother, Esquire, Executive Vice President and General Counsel of Wells Fargo, stated;
"Liquidity continued to decline and by the end of September 26, Wachovia’s management was concerned that, without accessing the Federal Reserve’s discount borrowing window, Wachovia’s banking subsidiaries would not be able to fund normal banking activities on Monday, September 29. Wachovia had been regularly reviewing its liquidity situation with the Federal Reserve and the OCC, who on that day remained on site." after borrowing from the discount window on September 6, 2008, violating security reporting laws by not disclosing Term Auction Facility and discount window loans from the Federal Reserve...

19. On October 31, 2008, employees at the Federal Reserve knew Wachovia and Wells Fargo CEO's Robert Steel and John Stumpf lied in merger related SEC filings, and didn't do anything about it...

20. On November 12, 2008, the Business Journal wrote "North Carolina State Treasurer Richard Moore slammed Wells Fargo & Co.’s proposed purchase of Wachovia Corp., calling the deal “highway robbery.”

21. On November 17, 2008, after Wachovia borrowed from the Fed's Discount Window and Term Auction Facility, Robinson Bradshaw's Robert Fuller obtained the "AFFIDAVIT OF DONA DAVIS YOUNG" on Wells Fargo's Wachovia merger litigation which stated; "Wachovia would likely have to access the Federal Reserve's discount window for liquidity." after they already did...

The affidavit then stated "Wachovia's Board had thoroughly explored all options available for raising capital" and "Wachovia's financial advisors who were Robert Steel's buddies at Goldman Sachs and Perella Weinberg, informed Wachovia that the type of analysis customarily performed was not meaningful for Wachovia because of the extraordinary circumstances faced by Wachovia and its severe liquidity crisis" which didn't actually exist.

The affidavit then states "Except for Mr. Steel, Wachovia's Board is comprised of outside directors", meaning it looks like Mr. Steel misled Wachovia's board of directors in exchange for a very nice job with one of "Wachovia's financial advisors" at a later date, meaning Steel illegally profited by betraying Wachovia shareholders in violation of multiple security laws...

22. Wachovia market capitalization lost between the first undisclosed TAF loan and Wells Fargo merger was about $42.672 billion and the SEC and Eric Holder's Justice Department didn't do anything about it...

23. Robert Steel earned some of the money he allocated to Perella Weinberg Partners as Wachovia's CEO, after he sold Wachovia to Wells Fargo for substantially less than it was worth, with the help of his former colleagues from Goldman Sachs at the New York Fed and the Treasury Department, along with current SEC chair Mary Jo White's husband without being prosecuted by the Obama Administration's Justice Department and without Bloomberg News or any other mainstream news outlet reporting the story.

24. From 2006 through 2008, current SEC Chair Mary Jo White's husband John served as Director of the Division of Corporation Finance at the SEC, which oversees disclosure and reporting by public companies in the United States.  Mr. White was head of the SEC division which oversaw disclosure and reporting by public companies.  Mr. White "played an integral role in the SEC’s response to market turmoil throughout 2008, ensuring that the Division acted swiftly to facilitate strategic transactions and access to capital for public companies", meaning he didn't do anything about it, and if he didn't know he should have, and now his wife runs the SEC.

25. On November 17, 2008, Robinson Bradshaw's Robert Fuller filed a BRIEF OF DEFENDANT WACHOVIA CORPORATION AND OF INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS OPPOSING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION in defense of the Wells Fargo Wachovia merger which stated; "In the three-week period prior to October 3, Wachovia experienced an acute liquidity crisis that, ...placed Wachovia on the brink of receivership." without disclosing Wachovia's Discount Window or TAF loans and available credit lines, violating security reporting laws, which was a predicate act wheather or not Mr. Fuller was aware of the deception, which he certainly is now as he defends Wells Fargo.

The brief also stated "Without the Wells merger, Wachovia either had to pursue a sale of assets ... or go into FDIC receivership and suffer a complete and certain loss of its shareholders' equity." without disclosing Wachovia's Discount Window or TAF loans and available credit lines...

And "financial market participants, depositors, and other counterparties had begun refusing to deal with Wachovia" because Wachovia's Robert Steel didn't disclose the firm's discount window borrowings, TAF loans and available credit lines...

And "The merger agreement had the desired effect of providing assurance to third parties that allowed Wachovia to obtain access to capital and recover stability" because Wachovia's Robert Steel, the sole inside director of Wachovia Corporation, chose to not disclose the firm's TAF loans and available access to capital via Fed credit lines in violation of the law...

And "Despite diligent, persistent, and continuous efforts after the board meeting on September 16 to raise capital... Wachovia had been unable to reach any definitive agreement with a third party that would allow Wachovia to resolve its liquidity issues and avoid FDIC receivership" after borrowing $2.5 billion on September 11, 2008 from the Fed, with Unencumbered Collateral held with the Fed totaling $56.8 billion, representing a credit line worth tens of billions Robert Steel knew about but the rest of the board and Robert Fuller may not have, which was a ...perjury upon a court.

26. After paying former co-worker Peter Weinberg's Perella Weinberg Partners $25 million and Weinberg and Steels' former employer Goldman Sachs $25 million to advise Wachovia on the merger with Wells Fargo, Steel became CEO of Perella Weinberg Partners in 2014, getting payback for some of the money he allocated to Perella Weinberg Partners to shaft Wachovia's shareholders as CEO...

27. Bloomberg News failed to report massive available credit lines for tens of other firms including Wachovia and Wells Fargo, after Robert Steel was in a position to be aware of them after he went to work for Michael Bloomberg.

The information on the TAF loans was illegally concealed within securities filings, which Bloomberg News further masked by failing to report, which made the illegal aspects of their stories not publicly known. If the reporters had detailed how Wall Street's top executives were guilty of insider trading and securities fraud, some of Bloomberg's largest sources of revenue would have been very harmed by the same company supplying and profiting from Bloomberg Terminal sales, providing a motive for Bloomberg's news division to omit facts.

Bloomberg nor any other news outlet reporting to my knowledge, disclosed or suggested any violations of federal laws which I filed, after which my confidentiality was compromised, other than Rolling Stone's Matt Taiibi to whom I provided the information to.  Bloomberg also failed to report the size of Wachovia's and Wells Fargo's credit lines and quality of collateral pledged.

28. On December 31, 2008, Wachovia managed to eliminate borrowings from the Fed's Discount Window, increasing borrowings from the TAF to $40 billion, while Wells Fargo was borrowing $32.5 billion from the TAF.  Together, Wachovia and Wells Fargo were borrowing a material $72.5 billion on the eve of the merger in which executives from both companies said the government wasn't involved, and did not assist in, which wasn't true...

29. With the help of key Bush and Obama administration personnel and the Federal Reserve under Ben Bernanke, former Wachovia CEO Robert Steel in league with former Goldman Sachs colleague and current co-worker Peter Weinberg, misled Wachovia's board of directors to sell Wachovia to Wells Fargo for a $50 million commission of which Goldman Sachs received half of, without telling Wachovia shareholders of massive Federal Reserve credit lines and hiding discount window borrowing...

30. Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf knew and went along with the merger, signing false SEC certifications in the process after lying about Fed provided loans...

31. Wells Fargo's 2008 annual report makes no mention of the combined firm's overall size of Federal Reserve provided Term Auction Facility and Discount Window credit lines, interest rates and maturities, all of which were material inside information known to Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf and Wachovia CEO Robert Steel, but not known to most of Wachovia shareholders, Congress, the public and what looks like Wachovia's board, who voted for the merger on the advice of Perella Weinberg, Robert Steel and Goldman Sachs after Robert Steel worked at Goldman Sachs with Peter Weinberg.

32. I was one of the only Advisors at Wells Fargo and the financial industry whose personal and client accounts governed by The Investment Advisors Act of 1940 performed well in the Financial Crisis of 2008 and early 2009, until we didn't.

Client accounts governed by The Investment Advisors Act of 1940 were harmed by Wells Fargo in violation of the law...

33. After bringing unreported insider trading and false Sarbanes Oxley certification and securities fraud concerns to what was supposed to be a confidential Wells Fargo ethics line, which involved hidden attorneys operating under and in violation of 15 U.S. Code § 7245 which Fuller's briefs didn't address, my confidentiality was violated against the law at least twice without regulatory and/or legal, and/or criminal consequence, which was a predicate act, which Wells Fargo's pleadings leave un-rebutted.

34. I made documented "disclosures concerning specific accounting procedures", which cited the violation of "specific securities laws", concerning non-public allegations which exposed "attempts to circumvent the company's system of internal accounting controls", which Robert Fuller's briefs don't acknowledge.

35. Wells Fargo called me a liar, and regulatory authorities wouldn’t say whether the case existed or was opened or closed, even though I contacted the proper governmental agencies after my confidentiality was breached and was threatened by Wells Fargo management leaving my family in harm's way...

36. I was misled by Wells Fargo 'without repercussion' between December 20, 2007 and the present, as Wells Fargo submitted still un-amended false SEC Sarbanes Oxley Section 302 certifications in 2008 and 2009 cited in Ethics Line filings while in possession of material undisclosed and illegally reported financial information, including $65.4 billion in unencumbered, unreported collateral pledged on December 20, 2007 through Wells Fargo's merger with Wachovia, representing a massive repeatedly undisclosed credit line not included in the company's financial disclosures filed with the SEC, in violation of the law", which Wells Fargo's responses don't address.

37. Separately but connected, Wells Fargo client accounts governed by The Investment Advisors Act of 1940 were harmed by Envision plans and the 4front retention bonus program in violation of the law, which Mr. Fuller's pleadings don't address.

That thousands of Envision plans created to obtain retention bonuses via 4front which defrauded both the US government and Wells Fargo's clients with accounts governed under the Investment Advisors Act of 1940 by Wells Fargo Advisors accepting undisclosed compensation were predicate acts not addressed by Wells Fargo.

38. By waiting to qualify for 4front until TARP was paid off by Wells Fargo on December 23, 2009, I was harmed by qualifying for a smaller Envision related bonus after losing clients and assets under management attributable to Wells Fargo's misleading me of material undisclosed corporate financial information related to the company's Federal Reserve provided loans without consequence...

39. Envision plans are utilized by Wells Fargo Advisors as an asset gathering prospecting tool, which if created without investment costs, creates a false impression of fortune when compared to the actual performance of a current charged portfolio, and is illegal if presented to clients with accounts governed by The Investment Advisors Act of 1940, which Mr. Fuller's pleadings don't deny or even mention.

Regardless of any disclaimers, not including what client's with accounts governed under the Investment Advisors Act of 1940 are charged in Envision plans created to earn a retention bonus, and not informing the same clients of the material facts of the missing and concealed information, which is placed on statements of accounts transmitted over state lines through the mail is illegal.

Wells Fargo is currently lying to hundreds of thousands of clients, many of whom have accounts governed by the Investment Advisors Act of 1940, which makes it illegal...

40. On September 7, 2012, in front of 25 to 40 financial advisors at the Hyatt Regency St. Louis at The Arch, Greg Shiveley, Envision Sales Manager at Wells Fargo Advisors, said “There are 441,942 households with Envision Plans of Record.” and “The overwhelming majority of Envision Plans do not include investment costs", meaning Wells Fargo was and is involved in an organized racket meant to maximize long term advisory related annuitized revenue streams by misleading clients with false, deceiving hypothetical illustrations, which is a confidence trick...

41. "Internal Use Only" Wells Fargo Advisor's "Presenting Envision results that matter" (0211-5064) states "Although it may be unintended and clearly disclosed away, this report will serve as a guarantee (in the eyes of the client) of how reality should unfold." and "No matter how many disclosures that are made, how else would you perceive this report if you were a client?"

42. Misleading Envision plans were repeatedly utilized by Wells Fargo Advisors to maximize long term advisory related annuitized revenue streams while artificially creating higher rates of client retention through frauds on Wells Fargo's clients with accounts governed by The Investment Advisors Act of 1940. The more confident clients feel, the longer and more money Financial Advisors should make by retaining more clients, increasing Wells Fargo's profits. The better an Envision plan report looks and continues to appear on Wells Fargo client statements delivered over state lines in the mail over time, the longer clients should trust and maintain a relationship, increasing advisors' income and Wells Fargo profits, which is illegal if created and/or presented to clients with accounts governed by The Investment Advisors Act of 1940, which they were and continue to be.

Wells Fargo continues to commit illegal, Envision related racketeering acts which operate as a fraud or deceit by a group of persons associated together for a common purpose of engaging in a course of conduct.

43. In violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1514A and the RICO Act without repercussion, Wells Fargo, through its managers, executives and attorneys, repeatedly retaliated in response to lawful and protected whistleblowing acts which I reasonably believed constituted violations of applicable law...

44. Wells Fargo, aware of protected conduct, embarked on a campaign to discredit, disgrace, harass and intimidate under unendurable working conditions, in violation of SOX and RICO retaliation provisions, without repercussion.

45. Wells Fargo team members who had supervisory authority and/or had authority to investigate, discover, or terminate misconduct didn't, in violation of SOX and RICO retaliation provisions, without repercussion.

46. After Bloomberg news reported Discount Window borrowing, Wells Fargo withheld the Sanchez report, which was both a retaliatory and predicate act, as it cited a December 21, 2011 letter between Wells Fargo's Richard D. Levy and the SEC's Stephanie L. Hunsaker as allegedly showing Wells Fargo didn't violate SOX Section 302 reporting requirements, without pointing out the SEC nor Wells Fargo's response didn't address whether or not Wells Fargo violated SOX reporting requirements or the size of the credit lines.

47. That Wells Fargo's in house attorneys chose not provide Wells Fargo's "audit committee of the board of directors of the issuer" or "another committee of the board of directors comprised solely of directors not employed directly or indirectly by the issuer", my plausible allegations violated 15 U.S. Code § 7245 - Rules of professional responsibility for attorneys, as well as SOX and RICO retaliation provisions without repercussion...

...49. If Mr. Fuller and Wachovia's board was misled by John Stumpf, Robert Steel, Perella Weinberg and Goldman Sachs during the Wells Fargo litigation, Mr. Fuller committed a predicate act by continuing the same defense after I provided evidence that Mr. Fuller knowingly or unknowingly misled a North Carolina Business court.

...54. Wells Fargo's Ken Tolson misdirecting staff away from my internal whistleblower communications between Monday, March 05, 2012 and Monday, March 12, 2012, addressed to Wells Fargo's Board of Directors, some of whose members comprise The Audit and Examination Committee who were supposed to investigate the  allegations and didn't...

55. That I made documented "disclosures concerning specific accounting procedures", and stated "the company was violating specific securities laws" concerning allegations which exposed "attempts to circumvent the company's system of internal accounting controls", and that Wells Fargo took "the complaints seriously and conducted an investigation", and that Wells Fargo and an Oyster Consulting's Hank Sanchez did not fully investigate all the ethics issues, and that both failed to forward the case to The Audit and Examination Committee of Wells Fargo's Board of Directors were adverse employment...

56. That the withheld Sanchez report failed to find Wells Fargo defrauded and recommitted fraud on thousands of Wells Fargo clients via misleading Envision financial plans updated without including charged investment costs in projected minimum client goals and by not matching Envision financial plan asset allocation models to investment accounts...

...60. That Wells Fargo stated "The investigator has now completed the independent review and concluded that there is no merit to any or your concerns", and that Hank Sanchez' withheld report didn't show evidence of an investigation or conclusion addressing my failure to supervise complaint against Aaron Landry...

...62. That Hank Sanchez' and Wells Fargo's withheld reports didn't investigate all of my claims and that both Sanchez and Wells Fargo lied about...

...65. Note there are no affidavits attached to Mr. Fuller's pleadings.  Doesn't it seem odd Wells Fargo couldn't produce any sworn statements testifying to the opposite of what I am alleging?

No Robert Steel affidavit.

No John Stumpf affidavit.

No Brian Mixdorf affidavit.

No Ken Tolson affidavit.

66. Fuller states "Hartzman makes no allegation that he reviewed Wells Fargo’s publicly available disclosures to determine if they were actually fraudulent — something someone with his alleged accounting and financial background would be expected to do" which isn't true, as they filed the Sanchez report with an attachment which proves the opposite, therefore Fuller and Houck's assertion that I didn't have a reasonable belief that Wells Fargo violated and is currently violating federal laws is clearly factually incorrect and demonstrably misleading on its face as demonstrated via prior filings outlining the exact opposite of Wells Fargo's assertions.

Wells Fargo produced documentation detailing my dissemination of "Wells Fargo’s publicly available disclosures", to multiples of Wells Fargo's executives, including the board and audit personnel.

Fuller and Houck continue to state I have no objective belief, which I have provided the Court and Wells Fargo un-rebutted evidence of.

Wells Fargo can't come up with any reasons other than adjectives as to why my beliefs were and are not objective and fact based.

...69. I informed law enforcement of "information relating to the commission or possible commission of any Federal offense”, including insider trading, securities fraud, and financial plan fraud in violation of the Investment Advisors Act of 1940.

...70. Fuller and Houck's 'Twombly and Iqbal' and 'Ashcroft v. Iqbal' failure to state a claim defense is misleading in appearance, incorrect and should be disregarded by the Court.

Wells Fargo doesn't say why the allegations don't "meet the baseline plausibility standard set forth in Iqbal", rendering their assertion futile.

Fuller and Houck don't present any facts contrary to their "baseline plausibility standard" allegation, other than itself.

71. Fuller and Houck stating "Wells Fargo will not address these allegations further in this brief" is a capitulation not unlike many in Fuller and Houck's initial motion to dismiss, which essentially says 'we didn't do it, but we won't say why and we don't have to, because we own the government'.

That Fuller and Houck have declined to defend their client against specific allegations detailed with particularity in their pleadings provides enough reason for the Court to let this case proceed and provide Plaintiff with preliminary reinstatement.

...73. Through research and knowledge of SOX from teaching CPA continuing education and financial ethics, I independently determined a reasonable likelihood existed that Wells Fargo violated multiple federal laws as documented.

My career and reputation was flushed by Wells Fargo for telling the truth to executives and in-house attorneys, including Mr. Fuller now that he chose to continue this defense, after most likely not informing the Audit Committee of Wells Fargo's board.

Wells Fargo is guilty of fraud and misleading a Court, and will likely continue to get away with violating our nation's laws with impunity, and can take down anyone who objects to Wells Fargo's illegal acts without consequence with an unlimited supply of attorneys and wealth.

74. I have provided well-pleaded legal claims supported by factual allegations. The court should assume their veracity...

My filings detail facts directly correlated to criminal acts which specifically point out crimes Wells Fargo is guilty of with particularity, but has not been, and most likely will not be prosecuted for, which is a known, known.

75. Envision related internal use only and software information disclosed to federal authorities and the court was not publicly known or reported information.

76. The violation of confidentiality among multiples of retaliatory acts unaddressed in Wells Fargo's replies was in response to good faith efforts to report what I believed to be violations of federal laws.

77. The claims I've made that Wells Fargo's financial reports violated SEC regulations based on accounting improprieties are based upon more than mere speculation.

My complaint and prior filings contain sufficient factual matter, which by law are to be accepted as true considering Wells Fargo's lack of specific factual rebuttal, which should allow the trial to proceed.

My family, friends and clients don't know if I told the truth or not.

...I have provided "more than an unadorned, the-defendant unlawfully-harmed-me accusations."

78. The most glaring deficiencies of Wells Fargo's Motion to Dismiss is the omission of detailed, specific objections to multiples of crimes and retaliatory acts enumerated within the totality of my pleadings...

...82. Wells Fargo has declined to produce an affidavit by Oyster Consulting's Hank Sanchez defending his inaccurate and misleading withheld report.

Wells Fargo has declined to produce an affidavit by William Spivey or Aaron Landry defending their actions.

Wells Fargo has declined to produce an affidavit defending anything...