Worst Activist in Santa Cruz
Posted in the Santa Cruz Forum
#1 Feb 10, 2014
I know both Robert Norse and Brent Adams failed on everything they advocated for in 2013, so I'd call it a 3 way tie with John Colby/Cohen for "Worst Activist in Santa Cruz", but then I realize neither Robert or Brent got evicted last year.
So John, given his late 2013 personal collapse and fail, deserves the title! He deserves to be the best at something, given his tireless Topix trolling, his affinity for fat Felton freeloaders, his pity me politics, and his love for telling others what to do while never actually doing anything himself.
It's one thing to be a failure to advocate for others. It's another thing to be a failure to advocate for yourself!
#2 Feb 10, 2014
I nominate Analicia Cube! She is the most ignorant fool ever involved in politics in Santa Cruz....
Cube mouthing off...
Inappropriate Comments by TBSC Members Left Unchecked on SCPD Social Media
Good article about Cube.....
Missing from the S.C. Weekly Puff Piece on Take Back Santa Cruz Co-Founder Analicia Cube
#3 Feb 10, 2014
And Analicia never answered corporate crime allegations against Dexter....
Analicia did not have to deal with the tough questions raised in this article:
Was Tough-on-Crime Take Back Santa Cruz Founded by a Corporate Criminal?
Someone posting as "Dexter Cube" answered them (sort of) last year in the comments section of a Patch article:
"My rebuttal to the above link is that I was fined, censured and suspended from securities trading stemming from incidences that occurred in over 10 years ago in NYC. The firm paid my fines, the firm then closed shop because of falling below net cap requirements, and I as a Partner in the investment banking firm was sued by clients that lost money. I am proud of my mistakes, own up to them, have paid the price, and have since moved on in career. I am no longer an Equities Trader working in the Investment Banking arena, and work to a different capacity these days for a global software company."
"I settled with clients that lost money. You see, back in the dot com era, securities were going up sometimes even doubling in a single trading session. Remember securities like AOL, and Worldcom? These were firm recommended securities that I turn recommended to clients, and when these investments went sour, my clients lose money, and then they in turn sued me and the firm I was a managing partner."
"I was the first person to comment on your post, because the IndyBay article infers that because I recommended firm endorsed suggestions to my clients over 10 years ago when I lived in Manhattan, that I broke laws therefore am a criminal. I admit to recommending securities that had shoddy accounting reporting, in the original dot com era when lots of people were paper millionaires. I admitted to making MISTAKES, as I am sure you do to, I am not perfect. My mistake is one that is career based, which I chalk up to youth, thrust into success out of b school, and believing firm recommendations. I also wished I had cashed out at the market peak, which is the tale I am sure I share with many investors of yesterday."
"I didn't break the law, I made mistakes. There is a big difference."
"I didn't break the law nor did I pay a penny out of my pocket to settle on my end. If I solicited a trade based on a firm recommended stock/bond/mutual fund, and it fell within the client's stated investment objectives, the firm paid for the restitution to the client and my legal fees. In some professions like legal, medical, and those in the investment arena, sometimes it is best to settle with clients and move on."
"You thought I was a "criminal" because I settled with clients, that lost money in dot com bubble, over a decade ago, when I lived in Manhattan,3,000 miles away, when I was in my 20's. I am not. I never had to pay a legal fee or restitution to a client out of MY pocket. The firm picked up every bit of it . So why wouldn't I settle and move on?"
Quotes are from the comments section of this article: http://santacruz.patch.com/groups/politics-an...
#4 Feb 10, 2014
Why can't Dexter Cube tell the truth? Dexter Cube's SEC trouble
by Petra Kropotkin
Perhaps the most interesting thing in the heroic worship piece of Analicia Cube comes in the comments section.
Someone made the not-so-original points about the lack of transparency of the group. That information regarding their bylaws, donations, board of directors, financials were not public and any attempts to get information have been rebuffed by officers. Also, it was noted Dexter Cube's run in with the law when he was a broker.
In response to this,Dexter Cube wrote:
About me, its never been about just me. I personally have settled court cases with clients and agencies when I was an investment banker in New York when I was in my twenties, nearly 15 years ago. Some clients lost money in the tech dot com bubble and they filed a lawsuit. I settled with them without admitting or denying any guilt. Agencies as well. I just wanted to move on and the firm paid for my financial settlement. I had large positions in Worldcom, AOL, and a diverse group of small cap tech stocks that were firm recommendations posted by our analysts. I was following MBAs I believed were smarter than me. Fortunately, I was able to walk away with a nice nest egg, and take some time off enough to realize that I didnt want a career to be tied to an industry like the financial markets.-
That's a nice explanation except that when I googled this what comes up is SEC action against Emmanuel Dexter Cube. It's curious that his explanation glosses over the SEC action against him. SEC was not a matter of "settling" with clients it was a punitive penalty based on a conclusion of guilt. http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/33-8202.h...
Here's what the SEC listed as behavior that Dexter Cube participated in:
5. Emmanuel P. "Dexter" Cube ("Cube"), age 31, has been a registered representative since January 1994, and was associated with Barclay from September 1994 through December 2000. Cube owns 2% of Barclay......
The RRs Defrauded Numerous Customers
10. During the time period from in or about June 1997 through in or about December 1998, Alacan, Cube, Dallal, Noor, Scarso and Scott (together, the "RRs") engaged in the following conduct in the accounts of their customers:
a. Alacan, CUBE, Dallal, Scarso and Scott MADE UNAUTHORIZED PURCHASES and sales of securities including unauthorized purchases of securities on margin in the accounts of at least 11 customers. These respondents purchased or sold stock without first obtaining their customers' approval, and on some occasions purchased stock in greater amounts than approved, or purchased stock on margin without first obtaining their customers' consent to trading on margin.
#5 Feb 10, 2014
b. Alacan, CUBE, Dallal, Noor and Scott churned the accounts of at least 12 customers. They controlled the customers' accounts, and traded excessively in the customers' accounts in light of the customers' investment objectives. The accounts which these respondents churned had turnover ratios ranging from approximately 6.48 to approximately 61.31, and break-even ratios ranging from approximately 14.42% to approximately 433.96%.....
d. Alacan, CUBE, Dallal, Noor, Scarso and Scott MADE UNSUITABLE PURCHASES and sales of securities including unsuitable purchases of stock on margin in the accounts of at least 13 customers. They did so either by recommending purchases or sales of securities that were not suitable for the customers in light of the customers' ages, investment experience, financial status, risk tolerance and investment objectives, or, by conducting transactions on margin without ascertaining the customers' understanding of the risks associated with the use of margin, among other things.
e. Alacan, CUBE, Scarso and Scott FAILED TO EXECUTE SALE ORDERS or follow other instructions from at least four customers, by, among other things, failing to sell a stock upon a customer's request, or failing to complete a transfer of a customer's account to a different broker-dealer.
11. Based on the foregoing, the RRs willfully violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act in that they, in the offer or sale of securities, by use of the means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by use of the mails, directly or indirectly: employed devices, schemes or artifices to DEFRAUD; obtained money or property by means of UNTRUE statements of material fact or omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstance under which they were made, not misleading; or engaged in transactions, practices or courses of business which would or did operate as a fraud or deceit upon purchasers or prospective purchasers of such securities. As part of their fraudulent conduct, the RRs engaged in the activities described in paragraphs 10(a)-(e) above.
12. Based on the foregoing, the RRs also willfully violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder in that they, in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, by use of the means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce or by use of the mails or of the facilities of any national securities exchange, directly or indirectly: employed devices, schemes or artifices to defraud; made untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; or engaged in acts, practices or courses of business which would or did operate as a fraud or a deceit upon any person. As part of their fraudulent conduct, the RRs engaged in the activities described in paragraphs 10(a)-(e) above.
The cached version that relates specifically to Dexter Cube is here: http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/33-8201.h...
-So to review, a commenter made note of Dexter's legal troubles as a broker.
-Dexter replies and explains this away as a matter of following the advice of MBAs and the dot.com bubble bursting.
-In contrast, the SEC documents appear to affix guilt on Mr Cube,specifically that Cube violated a section of the exchange act and a section of the securities Act that prohibit fraudulent conduct.
This is important because it clearly demonstrates that the SEC seemingly found that in these cases, Dexter had a problem with the truth.
Was this an isolated case or something that indicates a pattern in how TBSC is run?
#6 Feb 10, 2014
And of course I nominate Take Back Santa Cruz as the most inane activist organization to come around nationally since the Westboro Baptist Church,
#7 Feb 10, 2014
All that police activity cutting into your heroin sales?
#8 Feb 10, 2014
I'd say something got John's diapers in a wad.:O
#9 Feb 10, 2014
10/10 troll responses
#10 Feb 10, 2014
THERE IS NO BIGGER IN FAILURE IN SANTA CRUZ THAN JOHN E. COLBY/COHEN.
NOBODY ELSE COMES CLOSE.
#11 Feb 10, 2014
Making fun of a troll is not trolling.
Add your comments below
|Boy, 4, shoots babysitter for stepping on his foot (Jan '09)||Tue||donniejonestreet||4|
|Watsonville gang member sentenced to life for 2... (Mar '08)||Jan 14||Big Time Homie14||21|
|Aryan Nations recruiting again in northern Idaho (Apr '09)||Jan 14||a-citizen||493|
|New voice in Santa Cruz County for animal right... (Jan '09)||Jan 13||Pat Kittle - Sant...||214|
|Vagos motorcycle club targeted in Southern Cali... (Mar '06)||Jan 10||John MoFo Snyder||4,838|
|Teens protest legislation (Mar '06)||Jan 9||forum DOA||236|
|Boulder Creek man will stand trial for throwing... (Apr '10)||Jan 3||Grsndma||96|
Find what you want!
Search Santa Cruz Forum Now
Copyright © 2017 Topix LLC