Charles Dushek Receives Probation Sentence and DOJ Dismisses Indictment Charges on Case Number 16-CR

Mr. Awais Bajwa, International Attorney at Law | Legal Service in Finance, Regulations, Legal Briefs Charles Dushek Receives Probation Sentence and DOJ Dismisses Indictment Charges on Case Number 16-CR-811, December 16, 2020 by Attorney Awais Bajwa January 02, 2021

SEC and DOJ Legal Update on Case Number 16-CR-811, January 1, 2021 for Charles J Dushek...United States Attorney Dismisses Indictment Charges * Capital Management Associates (CMA) Clients Had No Realized Investment Losses and Instead Had $1,245,000 Capital Gain Profits According to a New DOJ Investment Allocations Review Study...Read All Details Below....By Mr. Awais Bajway, International Attorney's Legal Brief “Mr. Charles J Dushek, After Having Been Prosecuted by both the SEC and DOJ Since 2012, Has Now Completed the Closure of His 2016 DOJ Indictment Case by Receiving a Probationary Sentence for Indictment Charge #10 Concerning Disclosure Of Information By Commission, No Monetary Restitution was Set by the Court for any Offense, and the Other 9 Charges of the Indictment Were Dismissed by the United States Attorney.”…Pursuant to Court Reports Dated: December 16, 2020.

(This report, its supporting facts, explanations and its legal opinions are prepared and presented by Mr. Awais Bajwa, International Attorney at Law * Corporate Law * Fiduciary Law * Securities Law * Supreme Court & Federal Government Law * Assistant to Supreme Court Justices * University of London LLM & JD at AwaisBajwaLawyer@Live.com, and Attorney Mr. Awais Bajwa was engaged by Mr.

Charles J Dushek 3 years ago to fully analyze his legal case matters with the SEC and DOJ and produce researched Legal Briefs for Public Disclosure.)

Details of Latest Developments & Court Rulings in the Matter of US Department of Justice (DOJ) vs Mr. Charles J Dushek Case # 16-CR-811 as narrated by Mr. Awais Bajwa, a Personal Attorney for Mr. Charles J Dushek since 2017.

Mr. Dushek was Virtually Vindicated of Some Wrongful Doings by US Federal Court in Chicago on December 16, 2020. 9 of the 10 DOJ Indictment Charges of Securities Fraud were summarily Dismissed by the United States Attorney, as likely predicated on a lack of sufficient evidence or grounds to pursue a conviction. The remaining, Charge 10 was held in status, constructed as a general investment advisory fraud charge based upon DOJ and SEC Federal Statutes with arbitrary interpretations for charging a person with any of many option choices of fraud, via the indictment process.

Mr. Dushek was given a moderate duration probation sentencing by the Presiding Judge, based upon a Voluntary Plea entered by Mr. Dushek, which admitted guilt of not knowing and abiding by the SEC Federal Regulations for Investment Advisors for timely client investment management transaction allocations activities, and therefore Mr. Dushek admitted de-facto illegal operating actions basis SEC and DOJ statutes, whereby he allowed several days delay for trade allocations to be posted and that caused unrealized temporary financial opportunity losses to some of his clients.

Further, Mr. Dushek was exclusively regulated only by the Illinois Department of Securities (IL-DOS), whereby US Government Agencies like the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) help define how different sectors/players of the US Securities Industry are to be regulated, and which Regulatory Agencies are designated to audit & regulate different areas of the Financial Services Industry at-large, under the explicit Set of Regulations to be enforced by the Designated Regulatory, in this Case the IL-DOS and its Investment Advisor Regulatory Code of Conduct for Mr. Dushek and CMA.

Regarding Mr. Dushek and his firm Capital Management Associates (CMA), this Firm became registered as an Investment Advisor in 2001, and FINRA designated the Illinois Department of Securities (IL-DOS) as the sole designated regulator for CMA and Mr. Dushek’s investment practices and general operations.

Furthermore, since the establishment of CMA in 2001, CMA and Mr. Dushek have had on-site discovery audits by IL-DOS Auditors for several days each, and there are no reported findings published by IL-DOS that CMA nor Mr. Dushek were at anytime non-compliant with IL-DOS Regulations for Registered Investment Advisors operating in the State Jurisdiction of Illinois.

Regarding the DOJ implied or alleged financial harm that Mr. Dushek was purported to have caused a limited number of CMA clients that Mr. Dushek did portfolio management on, the DOJ prosecutors did their internal analysis of the profit and loss outcomes of all the limited number of client accounts that Mr. Dushek exclusively managed.

These DOJ findings indicated that for some of the hundreds of Common Stock Purchases made by Mr. Dushek for clients over the 5 years of 2008 to 2012, and allocated to these limited number of client accounts, that there were from time-totime intervals that these stock purchases went into unrealized temporary loss conditions of about 1% in value, basis the stocks purchased prices compared to later stock market prices, from the stock market downside volatility between 2008 through 2012.

Yet, for the full-term of the client holding periods of months, quarters and years of these common stocks allocated to client accounts, the outcomes on the eventual sales of these stocks in client accounts, achieved total realized money profit gains from these stock holdings equaling $1,245,000, or about a 12% realized capital gain across the average of all these client stock holdings. In my evaluation of the Dollar Values of the client accounts that Mr. Dushek managed, the dollar amount of funds allocated to common stocks holdings was about $10 million, with the balance of account funds spread across fixed-income securities. Thus,

$1,245,000 in realized gains on $10 million in account funds in common stocks equals a 12% positive return on the $10 million invested.

This is a vary favorable investment gain outcome for this limited group of clients, who were purported to have lost dearly, as a result of Mr. Dushek’s personal success in day-trading his own account that had a 3 to 1 Win versus Loss ratio on all his short-term trading. My research indicates that, it is statistically common for very active professional day traders to win on trades up to 70% of the time and have 30% or less of day trades be losing trades.

Furthermore, the types of Common Stocks that Mr. Dushek selected and purchased for his clients were nearly all high-dividend paying stocks. He would buy only common stocks having 3% to as high at 8% annual dividend yields of solid and stable companies. These included mainly Commercial Real-estate Investment Companies in stable economic settings, Natural Gas and Oil stocks of MLP energy production, refining and distribution firms with tax-free dividend distributions, and common stocks of non-tech consumer staples, utilities and drug companies in the US, Canada and European Economies.

Conservatively, the average dividend payout yields of these types of common stocks averaged over 4% per year. Hence, the holding of these high-dividend common stocks within the limited number of client accounts that Mr. Dushek managed produced an added money return to these clients of 4% per year dividend cash flows for the 5 years of 2008 through 2012 that equaled an average added total return of 20% in dividend income to these clients. This all appears to clearly indicate that these clients would have achieved a near 30% total realized return of stock appreciation and dividend incomes for this 5-year period.

Summary of Case Observations: In comparing the relative performance of the S&P 500 Major Stock Market Index, the S&P 500 Index Price on June 30 2008 was 1315, and 4 years later, the price on June 30 2012 was the same at 1314‌.no change. The S&P 500 Stock Index had no appreciation at all from the beginning to the end of the 4-year interval to which the DOJ Indictment case was based upon. Yet, Mr. Dushek’s investment selection skills indicate that he made

favorable client account investment selections and common stock purchases that yielded a near 10% realized capital gain of $1,245,000 for his clients, and a further 20% total dividends income realized cash gains for his clients over the course of the SEC and DOJ cases period of time from 2008 to 2012.

Legal Case Brief Prepared by Attorney Mr. Awais Bajwa in 2018 at request of Mr. Charles J Dushek I, Mr. Awais Bajwa, Attorney at Law was engaged by Mr. Dushek in 2017 to do legal analysis, facts finding, and legal briefs regarding Mr. Dushek’s SEC and DOJ cases that commenced in 2012.

This is a Legal Brief Evaluating the Wrongful Prosecution by Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) in 2012, and the Department of Justice (DOJ) in Alleged Wrongful Doings Violations and the DOJ Indictment of Charles J Dushek in 2016.

This Legal Brief is by Mr. Awais Bajwa, International Attorney at Law * Corporate Law * Fiduciary Law * Securities Law * Supreme Court & Federal Government Law * Assistant to Supreme Court Justices * University of London LLM & JD AwaisBajwaLawyer@Live.com.

The foremost object of this research Legal Brief is to narrate the story of Mr. Charles J. Dushek with respect to the legal battle fought by him against the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ), wherein, he had been made victim of wrongful prosecution through so-called cherry-picking allegations that resulted in an unjust indictment charges by DOJ. At the outset, I would like to mention that I was invited by Mr. Charles J Dushek to do some public research on his legal cases from 2012 onwards and to publish in the public domain any legal findings, opinions, disclosures, defensive arguments, and public presentation of public-domain information of any kind whatsoever that may or could be considered as exculpatory (defensive) facts and evidence that Charles J. Dushek may have no guilt whatsoever regarding the allegations put against him by the SEC in 2012 onwards, and thereafter by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) in 2016 in the form of a criminal indictment for noted wrong-doings alleged below.

This legal brief is in aid of the defensive arguments and facts supporting past and current legal matters of Mr. Dushek, and for “Social Justice Advocacy” for his legal cases to help the General Public understand that US Government Agencies, State Agencies, and Departments of Regulation that do monitoring and enforcement of financial services industries, businesses, and persons thereof are all/each subject to the human errors and omission proclivities within the U.S. Judicial prosecutorial processes or system.

In the landmark Judgement of Brady v. Maryland, the court held that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or innocence, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution. The case involving Mr. Dushek also involves blatant violations of the rules enshrined in Brady’s case.

1. Historical Background of the Matter In 2012, a financial professional by the name of Charles J. Dushek of Illinois was put through a legal prosecution (persecution) process by the Securities and

Exchange Commission (SEC) for alleged wrongful-doings by himself as President of Capital Management Associates, an Illinois Registered Investment Advisory (RIA) firm that he established in 2001.

The federal grand jury in Chicago indicted Mr. Charles J Dushek in December 2016 on securities fraud charges for allegedly allocating profitable trades to his accounts while assigning unprofitable trades to his client accounts. According to the indictment, Mr. Dushek, the president of Lisle, Illinois-based Capital Management Associates Inc. ("CMA") allegedly made purchases of publicly traded securities without designating in advance whether he was trading personal funds or client funds. He then reportedly waited up to five days to allocate the trades so that he could select the profitable trades for his personal accounts and assign the losing ones to the accounts of unsuspecting clients.

From July 2008 to August 2012, Dushek allegedly withdrew from his own accounts more than $1 million in gains realized from the alleged scheme.

2. Professional Reputation and Character of Mr. Charles J Dushek I understand from the available records that Mr. Dushek has been a thorough professional with an esteemed reputation as a person and an expert. He has remained a shareholder and president of CMA and was registered as an Investment Adviser Representative and Registered Investment Advisor (RIA) with the Illinois Department of Securities (IL-DOS) since 2001.

According to Mr. Dushek, CMA as an RIA has never been determined by the ILDOS of any non-compliance as per FINRA records that go back to 2001 nor has any client complaint or from otherwise ever been filed against CMA or its President Mr. Charles J Dushek.

Both Mr. Dushek and CMA have maintained a perfect compliance regulatory history with IL-DOS since CMA as an RIA that was started in 2001. This discovery prompted me to look back even further in Mr. Dushek’s professional history within the financial services industry dating back to 1973. From the available records as discovered by Research and Fact-finding by me, there were no records nor notes of any non-compliant activities, complaints or judgments of any kind about financial crimes or non-compliance with any regulations.

It was fascinating that Mr. Dushek has authored the following publications of educational articles for annual “Commodity Research Bureau.”

•

Trading the Foreign Currency Futures Markets - by Charles J. Dushek and

Carol J. Harding •

Understanding the U.S. Treasury Bill Futures Market - by Charles J. Dushek

and William M. Bradt •

Understanding the GNMA Futures Market - by Charles J. Dushek

3. No History of Non-compliance At the time in 2013, when cases were alleged against Mr. Dushek, the Illinois State Regulator for Capital Management Associates Inc. and Charles J Dushek, an Investment Advisor, the IL-DOS was directed to conduct annual reviews and investigations from 2001 onwards onsite at CMA, and at RIA offices of all Illinois RIA firms, ADV Disclosure Reviews under its Illinois jurisdiction, and to assure that each Illinois RIA firm and its officers were compliant with IL-DOS Regulations for RIAs.

It is pertinent to note that it is the discretion of IL-DOS to conduct any RIA surprise audits or to do “for cause� any investigations of RIA firms. If there are any Findings by Regulators of non-compliant activities by RIA firms and/or other financial industry entities, these Findings are to be enforced upon by IL-DOS and reported to FINRA for viewing by all interested persons in the public domain.

However, as per Mr. Charles J Dushek, there are no Non-Compliance reports or records from IL-DOS about CMA nor Mr. Dushek as having engaged in any wrongful doings regarding any client account trading nor allocations process.

Nor, are there any IL-DOS Regulations within the IL-DOS Regulations that speak to practices of allocations within their Code.

This review of outstanding compliant conduct and credibility by Mr. Dushek encouraged me that there seemed to be something very wrongful in the prosecutorial endeavors by the SEC and DOJ for alleging illegal doings by Mr. Dushek while President of CMA. It became even more puzzling that his designated Regulator, IL DOS, had no findings of wrong-doings nor noncompliance when IL-DOS did several onsite audits and routine investigations for potential non-compliance of CMA and interviewed each employee of CMA to detect any non-compliance by either CMA employees, Dushek of CMA and of CMA itself as a RIA since 2001.

4. First Amendment Right of Free Speech

While exercising his First Amendment right of Free Speech, Mr. Dushek wanted to make his version known to the public, through me an attorney of many years in financial and international law, as he believes that the US Government Agencies SEC has victimized him, DOJ and FBI (FBI as interviewers and investigators hired

by SEC and DOJ).

5. Allegation of Cherry-Picking appears Unfounded against Dushek in the Prosecution’s Cases In conversations with Mr. Dushek, there seemed no definitive inculpatory (wrongful-doing) evidence that had any validation of any wrongful-doings by him as President of CMA. I was provided with the public Contractual Investment Advisory Agreement form between Mr. Dushek and his firm’s clients and the Agreements between Mr. Dushek and the CMA Clients Custody and Services firm (Corporate Fiduciary) GreatBanc Trust Company (GBTC) of Illinois that provided account custodial, accounting, and many other services which are usual and customary for a Corporate Fiduciary Custodian to exclusively perform to/for CMA clients.

The allegation of So-Called ( "So-Called" because I could not find nor discover any Codified Statute or Regulation within SEC Regulations that were published that charged any act like this as a crime.) Cherry-Picking as leveled against Mr. Dushek seemed to be unfounded. According to "Investopedia" reference source, Cherry Picking refers to the act of choosing top popular common stock securities, likened to so-called "Blue Chip Stocks" or "Bell Weather Stocks" for investment for client portfolios from the long-term favorable research history on these favored companies, that generally overlooks large amounts of public data and/or disregards broad market metrics. So, Cherry Picking in stock selections by investment managers have typically meant for decades the picking of stocks that are of such high quality and favorable company reputation, that market philosophy is that a Cherry Picked stock could be a "Can't Lose Investment." [1]

The prosecutors failed to present evidence in support of their allegations that Mr. Dushek engaged in any Cherry Picking scheme. There is a further undocumented and sketchy definition of Cherry-Picking by the SEC that seems to have a high variation of meaning in arbitrary prosecutorial conduct by enforcement attorneys. It appears that when the SEC purportedly finds allegations of CherryPicking (as per an SEC non-published definition in any SEC Code definition) as an offense, they can act on it punitively.

In such cases, the SEC levies arbitrary high fines, mostly over a million dollars, that is paid only to the SEC and typically (or never) none of the fine dollars are ever received by any clients that were alleged to have been financially damaged by a so-called different arbitrary definition by the SEC Cherry-Picking process or scheme. This fining process seems to promote an inducement by SEC prosecutors, whose job is to prosecute, to work on civil cases that have the potential to generate large fines revenues for their employers.

6. Description of Dushek’s Personal Trading as Approved by GreatBanc Trust Company Regarding the so-called Cherry-Picking and late alleged trade allocations done by Mr. Dushek for years, he explained that he has been doing short-term multi-day buys and sells of stocks and day-trading purchases and sells of stocks for himself into his accounts utterly separate from long-term stock investments for CMA clients, where he was Investment Advisor for a limited number of individual client accounts.

7. Client Agreements Do Not Permit Short-Term Trading in Client Accounts Mr. Dushek further noted that every CMA client had executed a “CMA Investment Advisory Agreement” that prohibited doing any short-term trading or day-trading in any client accounts whatsoever as controlled by Article 1 “Appointment of Investment Manager”, and further expressed in Article 7 “Other Investment Activities”. These provisions are explicitly stated in all the blank-copy IA Agreements exhibits available in Public Domain.

Paragraph 1…Investment Manager is to do only long-term investments into Client accounts.

Paragraph 2…Investment Manager is to do only securities transactions that are in accordance with the Client’s Long-Term Investment Objective.

Paragraph 3…Custodian (GBTC) provides securities execution services. In no event will the Custodian be obligated to execute any transaction which it believes to be in violation of any State or Federal law or regulation or in violation of the custodian’s regulator.

Paragraph 7…CMA employees may buy, sell or trade in any securities for their respective personal accounts. Such transactions may differ from the timing or nature of action taken with respect to Client’s account…

Paragraph 8…Investment Manager is to act with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing (Circumstances meaning: GBTC did not provide CMA and Mr. Dushek with any systematic process to do client account transaction allocations at the time of transaction executions) that a prudent man acting in like capacity and familiar with such matters would use in the conduct of an enterprise of a like character and with like aims. Mr. Dushek used his best efforts to comply with any regulations expressed or implied in doing client account allocations within the processes, as inadequately provided by GBTC to CMA and Mr. Dushek, to always act prudently and credibly.

Paragraph 11 c …Investment Adviser is properly registered and in compliance with the state laws under which the RIA is under IL-DOS jurisdiction and IL-DOS Regulations.

Paragraph

16…Both

parties

(CMA

and

Client)

agree

that

the

representations within the Agreement do not violate any obligation of either party.

Paragraph 17…The validity of this Agreement and of any of its provisions, as well as rights and duties of the parties hereunder, shall be governed by the laws of the State of Illinois. (Not laws of the SEC).

8. Explanation of Client and Personal Trading Via GBTC Brokerage Accounts It was further revealed by Mr. Dushek as to how he did his personal short-term and day-trading, as he confirmed that he utilized brokerage industry common stock trade accounts set up by the custodian GBTC of all CMA’s client accounts and Dushek’s accounts, who is GreatBanc Trust Company, an Illinois Trust Company. And, that the brokerage accounts were actually in the name of GreatBanc Trust Company as Principal of these accounts, whereby GreatBanc Trust Company did all fulfillment of making and taking stock deliveries and handling cash settlement payments between counter-parties of all trades.

According to Mr. Dushek, GreatBanc Trust Company gave an entirely unconditional authorization to Mr. Dushek and other CMA employees, such as Greg Nickum of CMA, to utilize these brokerage accounts without having in-place any

user

procedures

set

up

by

GreatBanc

Trust

Company

management. GreatBanc Trust Company failed and did not require to have Dushek or other authorized users/traders to input trade allocations data (Client Names nor Account Numbers) into the DVP trading Brokerage account platform at the time of trade executions, so that each trade could be allocated as: 1. a Long-Term Trade for Clients, or 2. as a Short-Term or Day-Trade for CMA employee account(s).

Further, GreatBanc Trust Company failed to establish separate stock trade brokerage accounts for CMA to utilize as: “One brokerage account for only Personal Employee Trades, and another brokerage account for only CMA Client Accounts trades, to thus allow CMA to follow the so-called “Best Practices” rule of trade allocations within the money management industry, which means in general that for all securities transactions done by an RIA for clients, that the client accounts to receive the trades are to be noted (allocated) at the moment that any securities trade is entered and executed. But, no explicit Rule nor Regulation within the IL-DOS RIA Regulations codifies rules or regulations for this activity.

Therefore, if there is no Regulation nor Code to reference to, then the financial services industry can only adopt a so-called Best Practice process if the RIA firm doing the trades is provided with the Means or System or Platform to utilize a Best Practice, such as noted previously, but neither CMA nor Mr. Dushek was given any access to follow any Best Practice of simultaneously entering account allocations information at the same time as trades were executed. GreatBanc Trust Company is regulated by the Illinois Department of Professional & Financial Regulation.

9. No Jurisdiction of SEC The Prosecutors also failed to appreciate that the SEC did not have the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter. Rule 203A-2(c) allows a new firm to directly register with the SEC on day-one instead of initially registering with the relevant state(s) before or shortly thereafter having to transition to SEC registration once it reaches $100 million in regulatory assets. RIA Code states that only RIAs that have in excess of $100 million in client assets under management are to be Registered with the SEC, whereas all RIA firms of Illinois that hold less than $100 million in client assets are only Registered and under the single jurisdiction of IL-DOS. CMA had only $60 million in client assets under its

management, therefore the SEC had no jurisdiction over the compliance of CMA nor Mr. Dushek as an RIA firm.

10. No Requirement of recording details of transaction This provision of the IL-DOS for RIAs doing Transactions states the compliance for doing client account transactions. This Regulation makes no statement that the RIA must note or record the name of each client account at the moment that any securities transaction is executed by the RIA, Mr. Dushek for any client account.

Section 130.853 Account Transactions of IL-DOS Regulations:

Effecting or causing to be effected by or for any client's account, any transactions of purchase or sale which are excessive in size or frequency or unsuitable in view of the financial resources and character of the account, shall constitute an act, practice, or course of business on the part of the registered investment adviser or its representative effecting such transactions or causing the transactions to be effected that is fraudulent, deceptive or manipulative.[2]

It was further revealed by Mr. Dushek that GreatBanc Trust Company had full access to view any and all trades being placed to these brokerage accounts by simply logging into the brokerage account admin platform with their USER ID and Password to observe and supervise any/all trades on a real-time basis every day.

Dushek further explained that the general usage operations of these brokerage accounts were known about by IL DOS regulators and CMA employees. GreatBanc Trust Company officers and employees also knew about the usage operations, and that GreatBanc Trust Company never created nor installed any electronic or digital interface between their brokerage account trade executions information to be immediately propagated or recorded into the account allocations system for GreatBanc Trust Company for Client Accounts accounting/bookkeeping.

After 2013, it was learned by Mr. Dushek that there existed, prior to 2008, a stock purchase and sale transaction executed fill report system called FIX for Financial Information Exchange, that GBTC should have implemented/integrated FIX in 2008, but GBTC failed to provide a compliant fills electronic reporting system.

11. Negligent Actions & Inactions & Agreement Violations of GreatBanc Trust Company This “Lack of Compliant or Best Practice Processes” by GreatBanc Trust Company looks to have been a knowingly negligent or inappropriate trading process set up by GreatBanc Trust Company to not have linked client account(s) allocations information and trade execution information flows into its proprietary accounting and allocation bookkeeping processes in 2008.

Mr. Dushek further described that the “GreatBanc Custody Agreements” (a public document that was always given out by CMA to Clients since 2003 to examine as they desired), that each and every CMA Client executed the GBTC Custodial Agreement along with GreatBanc Trust Company as “Agent” and each CMA client as “Principal”, who are the only two parties as Signors of these Agreements. The Agreements explicitly designated only the Agent, GreatBanc Trust Company to execute Buy and Sell securities transactions on behalf of Principals (CMA Clients) pursuant to Article III, POWERS AND DUTIES of AGENT, para 1) General Power, or upon

the

instructions

of

an

Investment

Manager

duly

appointed

by

Principal. This leaves GBTC in a non-compliant condition by directing CMA and Mr. Dushek to directly execute transactions for Principal’s accounts in the usage

of an inferior and non-compliant securities trading accounts and information gathering platform, both operated and controlled by GBTC. Further under Article VI Paragraph 12 Successors and Assigns of the GBTC Custodial Agreements…GBTC seemed to have assigned all the Provisions of this Agreement to SEI Trust Company in July 2008, which included all trade execution processes that were inferior to Best Practices of a compliant Trust Company, thereby making SEI Trust Company a culpable partner of GBTC in all wrongdoings and violations of Agent within the Custodial Agreements.

Further under Article VI Paragraph 2 Degree of Care….GBTC violated Custodial services of care, skill, prudence and diligence as to how a prudent person should act in not utilizing a credible securities trading execution and client account(s) trade allocation bookkeeping system.

12. CMA and Dushek are Faultless & Guilt-Free of Wrong-Doings In light of the above, neither Mr. Dushek nor CMA had any legal operations power nor authority within the GBTC Custodial Agreements to be doing any securities purchase and sell transactions, nor to do Trade Allocations entries into Personal Accounts nor CMA Client Accounts, and the entirely of the allocation processes and

trade

settlements

was

the

legal

and

contractual

burden/responsibility/obligation of only GreatBanc Trust Company (and Assignee SEI Trust Company), not a responsibility of either Dushek nor anyone else, employee or otherwise of CMA, who all were “Clients” of GreatBanc Trust Company (and Assignee SEI Trust Company), and NOT Employees nor Agents of GreatBanc Trust Company (and Assignee SEI Trust Company).

Within all known regulatory frameworks of law, the Client, being either a CMA Public Client or Mr. Dushek also being a GBTC Custody Agreement Client (Principal) is always to remain powerless and disabled from making or doing any “accounting transactions” into his/her accounts at any bank, trust company, brokerage or other institution. Therefore, the allegation of Cherry-Picking and delayed allocations do not appear to be substantiated.

13. GreatBanc Trust Company Operates a Flawed Accounting and Trade Allocations System On the other hand, the alleged wrongful doings appear to be upon GreatBanc Trust Company (and Assignee SEI Trust Company), as being willfully negligent in providing a “Best Practices” trade executions system under the control of GreatBanc Trust Company (Pursuant to Article III Para 1 of the “GBTC Custodial Agreement”), and a process so as to have enabled CMA employees and Dushek “to have only compiled personal account and client account trade allocations information” for GreatBanc Trust Company (and Assignee SEI Trust Company)” to do the actual physical entry accounts transaction allocations bookkeeping postings as a systematic data input condition of brokerage trade entries and executions. Further, all the brokerage account trades allocations information should have followed through in an integrity system sponsored exclusively by the Custodian GBTC into the Custodian’s bookkeeping process as required by GBTC’s regulator, the Illinois Department of Financial & Professional Regulation (IDFPR).

GreatBanc Trust Company, was contractually operating its business in a Fiduciary Capacity to be doing all things in the best interests of its Clients, per the GreatBanc Trust Company Custodial Agreement terms. All of the following were Principals (Not Agents) of the Agreements: CMA Clients accounts, Charles J.

Dushek

accounts,

and

CMA

entity

accounts. CMA

was

also

a Customer/Client and never an Agent of or to GreatBanc Trust Company.

GreatBanc Trust Company of Illinois is regulated by Illinois Department of Financial & Professional Regulation. There is no Regulation that allows a Trust Company custodian to direct or delegate the bookkeeping and investment purchases and sales functions to any non-employee of the Trust Company nor to any unaffiliated firm or organization of the Trust Company. Whereas, GBTC delegated and directed CMA, its employees and Mr. Dushek to make not only direct client account allocations transactions into client accounts, but also

directed and facilitated a non-compliant trade allocations system known as MOXY Advent for CMA to utilize that gave over “direct entry securities trading and client account transaction bookkeeping functions to CMA. Whereas GBTC was in violation of Illinois Department of Financial & Professional Regulations: TRUSTS AND FIDUCIARIES (760 ILCS 5/) Trusts and Trustees Act. And FINANCIAL REGULATION (205 ILCS 620/) Corporate Fiduciary Act. 14. Violations of Rationale of Brady’s Case Continually, It appears as if the Prosecutors of SEC failed to disclose the Brady evidence in the Dushek’s case. Since a prosecutor's Brady duty is a continuing one[3], a prosecutor is obligated-throughout the pre-trial and trial proceedings-to disclose Brady evidence when he learns about it, and is required to make a diligent search for Brady (defensive) evidence in places where Brady evidence is readily available.

When a defendant pleads guilty or the case goes to trial, there is a presumption that a prosecutor has complied with his disclosure obligations.[4] However, it is commonly believed that most Brady evidence never gets disclosed by prosecutors; rather, it remains buried in huge-capacity digital file hard-drives, drawers, boxes, and file cabinets in the offices of the prosecutor, the police, and other law enforcement and government agencies connected to the case.[5] Courts continue to recite the litany that prosecutors who may lack knowledge of the existence of Brady evidence have a constitutional and ethical duty to learn about its existence, but prosecutors continue to invoke their own familiar litany when a defendant requests Brady evidence. However, prosecutors are aware that if they lack knowledge of the existence of Brady evidence, nor seek to uncover exculpatory evidence, there is nothing for them to suppress or disclose. Thus, prosecutors can avoid complying with Brady by asserting either that they are unaware of the existence of Brady evidence, or that any Brady evidence, even if it exists, is not in their possession or control. Clearly, a claim of ignorance offers a prosecutor a convenient opportunity to engage in gamesmanship to avoid compliance with Brady.

Further, that prosecutors can directly conduct defamation of character with impunity in the Public Domain to a person’s reputation and further to legally prosecute any individual with the use of: false, fake, spurious, incomplete,

schemed, un-verified, prejudicial, unconfirmed, and perjured testimony evidence to create & bring forward allegations of wrongful doing and Grand Jury Indictments by the prosecutorial systems in the US Judicial System.

Prosecutors have violated its principles so often that it stands more as a landmark to prosecutorial indifference and abuse than a hallmark of justice.

Moreover, as interpreted by the judiciary, Brady actually invites prosecutors to bend, if not break, the rules,[6] and many prosecutors have become adept at Brady gamesmanship to avoid compliance.[7]

15. Conclusion In summary, this is one of the Legal Briefs, in my “Legal Brief Articles” for the purposes of “Social Justice Advocacy” for a legal case involving Charles J. Dushek to help the public understand that the US system of administration of justice is subject to human errors, vile manipulations, and omission proclivities within self-greed and in prosecutorial processes. And, that a reputable and honorable man such as Charles J Dushek having maintained a 40-year period of compliant business behavior and in his ethics within financial regulated industry positions,

has

been

unfoundedly

persecuted

and

prosecuted

by

very

questionable prosecutorial tactics that in many instances violate his fundamental rights, Brady vs. Maryland and Due Process.

_______________________ Mr. Awais Bajwa Attorney at Law International Attorney, Researcher & Brief Writer Email:

awaisbajwalawyer@live.com

[1] Cherry

Picking https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cherrypicking.asp#ixzz5IRFk4qiU [2] TITLE 14: COMMERCE: SUBTITLE A: REGULATION OF BUSINESS: CHAPTER I:

SECRETARY OF STATE: PART 130 REGULATIONS UNDER ILLINOIS SECURITIES LAW OF 1953 : SECTION 130.853 ACCOUNT TRANSACTIONS [3] The Supreme Court's treatment of Brady has routinely viewed the prosecutor's

duty as a continuing one. See, e.g., Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 112 (1935) (due process violated where prosecutor learned during trial that committed perjury but failed to inform defendant). See also Advisory Committee Report, supra note 14, at 13, 26 (noting federal and state courts that explicitly make the prosecutor's disclosure obligation "a continuing one."). Moreover, the prosecutor's duty under Brady does not end with the verdict but continues. See Canion v. Cole, 91 P.3d 355, 360 (Ariz. Ct App. 2004) ("The defendant's right to due process with regard to the disclosure of exculpatory evidence does not cease to exist after the verdict is rendered; the prosecution has a continuing duty to provide such evidence as was unlawfully withheld.

[4] See Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899,909 (1997) (quoting United States v. Chemical

Foundation, Inc., 272 U.S. 1, 14-15 (1926)) ("Ordinarily, we presume that public officials have properly discharged their official duties.").

[5] See United States v. Alvarez, 86 F.3d 901, 905 (9th Cir. 1996) (''the government's

failure to turn over exculpatory information in its possession is unlikely to be discovered and thus largely unreviewable"); United States v. Oxman, 740 F.2d 1298, 1310 (3d Cir. 1984) ("material favorable to the defense may never emerge from secret government files"). See a/so Elizabeth Napier Dewar, A Fair Trial Remedy for Brady Violations, 115 YALE L.J. 1450, 1455 (2006) ("Defendants only rarely unearth suppressions."); Stephen A. Saltzburg, Perjury and False Testimony: Should the Difference Matter So Much?, 68 FORDHAM L. REv. 1537, 1579 (2000) (arguing that in most cases, "withheld evidence will never see the light of day"); Tracy L. Meares, Rewards for Good Behavior: Influencing Prosecutorial Discretion and Conduct With Financial Incentives, 64 FORDHAM L. REv. 851, 909 (1995) ("it is probably fair to say that many instances of Brady-type misconduct are never discovered and hence never reported").

[6] See Joseph R. Weeks, No Wrong Without a Remedy: The Effective Enforcement of

the Duty of ProsecutoT'3 to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence, 22 OKLA. CITY U.L. REv. 833, 836. (1997) (Brady "is a right that almost begs to be violated; Eugene Cerruti, Through the Looking Glass at the Brady Doctrine: Some New Reflections on White Queens, Hobgoblins, and Due Process, 94 KY. L.J. 211, 274 (2005) ("Brady is now best understood as a rule of prosecutorial privilege rather than a rule of disclosure. I am reminded of Judge Jerome Frank's famous aphorism that the rules regulating misconduct by prosecutors are seen by prosecutors as "pretend rules" when courts do not enforce them. See United States v. Antonelli Fireworks Co., 155 F.2d 631, 661 (2d Cr. 1946) (Frank, J., dissenting).

[7] The tern "gamesmanship" has been employed to describe a prosecutor's

treatment of Brady. See United States v. Oxman, 740 F.2d 1298,,1310 (3d Cir. 1984) ("this court has been faced with annoying frequency with gamesmanship by some prosecutors with respect to the duty to disclose United States v. Starusko, 729 F.2d 256, 265_ (3d Cir. 1984) ("the [Brady] game will go on, but justice will suffer"). See also Stephanos Bibas, Brady v. Maryland: From Adversarial Gamesmanship Toward the Search for Innocence?, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE STORIES, (Carol S. Streiker ed.

2006), at 129.

Comments Powered by Blogger Theme images by Michael Elkan

MR. AWAIS BAJWA, INTERNATIONAL ATTORNEY AT LAW...HIGH-LEVEL LEGAL SERVICES OF ALL KINDS IN ALL COUNTRIES VISIT PROFILE

Archive Report Abuse