3 publicly-traded not footnoting "racketeering activities" on firms' balance sheets

[Hopsing Cartwright]

GOAL: Find a way to stop these firms from being able to conduct business unless they pay a portion of their taxes owed on undeclared income to the IRS CID so that I, as what the now superseded IS Publication 733 calls the "original claimant", can collect the awards.

DAMOCLEAN SWORD: All of these firms need to keep on committing this crime in order to be stand any chance at remaining profitable.

The preceding sentence therefore STRONGLY IMPLIES that they have been engaged in this criminal conduct since the VERY FIRST DAY that they opened their doors for business.

There is no economical way for these firms to conduct their operations.



APPROACHrevent accountants & CEOs from being able to sign off on firms' "statements of financial position" since the business consequences of this racketeering activity and undeclared income is devastating and presumably needs to be footnoted per GAAP.


1) Three publicly-traded firms and more than a handful of privately-held firms (all in the same industry) NOT FOOTNOTING racketeering activities engaged in with carriers of their "general liability insurance policies" on their "statements of financial position" per GAAP.

2) Actuarial "data inputs" into statistical formulae used to calculate insurance rates will provide "prima facie" evidence of either "fraud" or "racketeering."

BURDEN OF PROOF: An "admission against [one's own self-]interest" is also "prima facie"

So this entire industry is ONE PUBLIC STATEMENT/ADMISSION away from being completely "out of business" by being forced to footnote these activities on their balance sheets.

WHAT I NEED TO KNOW:
Is there a "lower burden of proof" that can be taken to the "state boards of accountancy" to force the accountants and CEOs to answer for the missing footnotes?

Do these firms need to revise their balance sheets for prior years?

 

[Samir]

When it comes to questions of law in relation to the numbers (especially of this magnitude), it's time to see an attorney.

But I will caution you that you may be wasting your time. There's a lot of highly unethical business activities in every industry all over the world that passes the legal system and the laws there, even if by a very slim margin. It's still legal as far as the law is concerned.

The founders of these companies probably damn well know this and have been exploiting it for years. On one hand they're geniuses--on the other hand, they're unethical criminals. It's a fine line some people walk...

 

[Hopsing Cartwright]

When it comes to questions of law in relation to the numbers (especially of this magnitude), it's time to see an attorney.

But I will caution you that you may be wasting your time. There's a lot of highly unethical business activities in every industry all over the world that passes the legal system and the laws there, even if by a very slim margin. It's still legal as far as the law is concerned.

The founders of these companies probably damn well know this and have been exploiting it for years. On one hand they're geniuses--on the other hand, they're unethical criminals. It's a fine line some people walk...

Thank you, Samir ... but it is THEY who are vulnerable.. I need to know how to EXPLOIT this vulnerability while expending the LEAST AMOUNT OF ENERGY and the LEAST AMOUNT OF MONEY...

I'll restate the prior post to hopefully make things clearer...

Publicy-traded firms NOT FOOTNOTING racketeering activities on their "statements of financial position"

These firms and their privately-held competitors NEED to be exonerated from past criminal conduct AS WELL AS BEING ALLOWED to continue in this criminal conduct in order to stay in business. There are instances of "undeclared income" which make these firms and their franchisees subject to 6672 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Since they NEED TO keep on engaging in this criminal and tax misconduct in order to survive it means they have been committing this crime since the very first day they opened their doors for business.

GAAP would require that investors and lenders be able to use the firms' "balance sheets" or "statements of financial position" to make intelligent choices about investing/lending.

THE TAKEDOWN
Accountants cannot ethically approve a prepared balance sheet which they know is omitting treatment of " tax"matters & "criminal conduct" which are material to the continued survival of the business.

CEOs must now sign some kind of sworn statement stating that their firms' balance sheets accurately reflect the health of the company.

THAT MEANS then IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE that compelling one publicly-made statement for the record forces these firms out of business.

QUESTION
If I report this to the State Board of Accountancy will they be able to admonish the firms' accountants not to approve the next balance sheet without footnoting the "tax" and "criminal" concerns on the balance sheet.

Are the firms required to revise prior balance sheets with proper footnoting?

The stockholders are going to sue.
The SEC will freeze hteir assets.
They'll be out of business within a week

The creditors are going to want the law to look the other way.

What do I do to force this issue with the least amount of legwork on my part?

 

[Hopsing Cartwright]

This is a question of ETHICS and the State Board of Accountancy in the US which would DISCIPLINE accountants for knowingly not adhering to GAAP

 

[Samir]

Thank you, Samir ... but it is THEY who are vulnerable.. I need to know how to EXPLOIT this vulnerability while expending the LEAST AMOUNT OF ENERGY and the LEAST AMOUNT OF MONEY...

After dealing with 150 million dollar company that was violating FTC franchise regulations, there's not much you can do in some cases. Especially when the law lets these things slip through the cracks and companies exploit it. My guess is there's probably a lot of high level corruption and money/power behind it, but it's very difficult to crack something like this without dedicating a good chunk of your life to it for a few years.

If you really want to do something about it, start with government bodies. If they see an interest in taking action, they will be able to do so more swiftly and with more force than you can alone. But, most government agencies are overloaded and underfunded, especially when dealing with issues like this, so expect to wait YEARS to see action, if any.

Short of this, you could partner with a law firm that is willing to take on the case for a substantial portion of any rewards via a hefty fee, or paid up front (by you) and then you'll get reimbursed after the case is settled, but that could mean coming out of pocket 500k or more. Too bad justice isn't cheap. Good luck.