Congress Profits From Legalized Insider Stock-Trading In Washington DC
Congress Resists S.E.C.’s Insider Trading InquiryUpdated July 25, 2014
House Tells Court It Can Lawfully Ignore SEC Requests for Records
House Attorneys Seek Dismissal of SEC Lawsuit Tied to Insider-Trading Probe
WASHINGTON—The U.S. House of Representatives told a federal court Friday it should dismiss a lawsuit filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission because Congress is lawfully allowed to ignore requests to turn over records and testimony to the executive branch agency.
"Rather than acknowledge the fool's errand on which it has embarked, the SEC instead invites this court to join it by disregarding fundamental limitations on judicial authority," wrote House attorneys in a new court filing.
The SEC filed a lawsuit last month in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking to force House lawyers to turn over documents sought by the agency in a long running insider-trading investigation.
The SEC is seeking to determine whether anyone in Congress was involved in passing along word of a change in health-care policy to Wall Street traders before it was publicly announced April 1, 2013. The tip, which was emailed to Wall Street traders by a Washington policy research firm, was sent about 15 minutes before trading closed on April 1, 2013, and set up a big rally in health insurance stocks.
The SEC earlier this year issued subpoenas to the House Ways and Means Committee and its top health-care aide, Brian Sutter. The agency is seeking emails and records related to Mr. Sutter's conversations with lobbyists at the law firm Greenberg Traurig LLP and officials at the federal health-care agency that made the decisions, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
When lawyers for the House declined to turn over all of the information requested, the SEC filed a lawsuit in New York seeking to force the committee and Mr. Sutter to comply with its subpoenas.
An SEC spokesman didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on Friday's filing.
House lawyers largely repeated arguments they made in an earlier motion asking the court to dismiss the SEC case.
They say neither Mr. Sutter nor the committee have done anything improper and argued they are not required to comply with the subpoenas under provisions in the Constitution that shield legislative activity from outside scrutiny.
They also argue "sovereign immunity," which protects the government from legal liability without an explicit waiver, also shields it from a suit filed by a government agency.
The SEC says it has jurisdiction in part because of a 2012 law designed to prevent lawmakers and congressional aides from making stock trades based on information they learn during their jobs.
But the House attorneys said Friday that law provides no waiver of sovereign immunity.
The House's new legal brief is the last scheduled court filing in the case before the two sides are expected to appear in person before the court.
Updated July 4, 2014
House Attorneys Seek Dismissal Of SEC Suit In An Effort To Continue Insider Trading
Lawyers for the U.S. House of Representatives asked a federal judge to reject a lawsuit the Securities and Exchange Commission filed against Congress in June, saying the suit amounts to "a remarkable fishing expedition for congressional records."
The move late Friday is the latest in a power struggle between two branches of government in a possible insider-trading case.
The SEC seeks records and testimony from the House Ways and Means Committee and a top health-care aide, Brian Sutter, staff director of the committee's health-care subcommittee. The SEC sent subpoenas to the committee and Mr. Sutter in May and filed suit to enforce them two weeks ago.
Attorneys for the House on Friday said they were lawfully allowed to ignore the SEC's requests, citing constitutional protections and a sovereign immunity, which shields the government from legal liability.
"This enforcement action appears to be more about making headlines and less about obtaining information pertinent to any viable investigation," the lawyers wrote to U.S. District Judge Paul Gardephe of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
An SEC spokesman didn't respond to a request for comment.
At issue is an SEC probe into whether congressional officials were involved in relaying word of a change in government health-care policy to Wall Street investors in April of 2013, before the change was formally announced.
The Wall Street Journal previously reported health-care lobbyist Mark Hayes sent an email predicting the change to a Washington-based investment-research firm shortly before the announcement on April 1, 2013.
The policy change, which was made by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, was announced after markets closed that day. Mr. Hayes said in his email that he got the information from "credible sources," according to emails reviewed by the Journal.
The SEC said last month it believes Mr. Sutter "may have been" a source for the information at the heart of its investigation. The suit was filed after the House declined to turn over documents and testimony to the SEC unless Mr. Sutter was granted immunity from prosecution, court filings show.
On Friday, House attorneys denied that Mr. Sutter was a source of any nonpublic information. More broadly, they said a clause of the U.S. Constitution that shields legislative activity from outside scrutiny applies to the documents the SEC seeks, including Mr. Sutter's communications with the lobbyist.
"The Speech or Debate Clause does not countenance fishing trips through legislative records in the hopes that something nonlegislative may emerge," the attorneys wrote.
Michael Stern, who was senior counsel to the U.S. House from 1996 to 2004, said the House has adopted aggressive legal arguments against the SEC. "This raises some very novel issues that could have major impacts of how investigations of Congress occur in the future."
The investigation by the SEC represents the first securities-violation case since Congress approved legislation in 2012 that was designed to prevent lawmakers and congressional aides from making stock trades based on information they learn during their jobs. The SEC has previously said lawmakers' refusal to hand over records in the case violates the spirit of that law.
House Tells Court It Can Lawfully Ignore SEC Requests for Records
House Attorneys Seek Dismissal of SEC Lawsuit Tied to Insider-Trading Probe
WASHINGTON—The U.S. House of Representatives told a federal court Friday it should dismiss a lawsuit filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission because Congress is lawfully allowed to ignore requests to turn over records and testimony to the executive branch agency.
"Rather than acknowledge the fool's errand on which it has embarked, the SEC instead invites this court to join it by disregarding fundamental limitations on judicial authority," wrote House attorneys in a new court filing.
The SEC filed a lawsuit last month in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking to force House lawyers to turn over documents sought by the agency in a long running insider-trading investigation.
The SEC is seeking to determine whether anyone in Congress was involved in passing along word of a change in health-care policy to Wall Street traders before it was publicly announced April 1, 2013. The tip, which was emailed to Wall Street traders by a Washington policy research firm, was sent about 15 minutes before trading closed on April 1, 2013, and set up a big rally in health insurance stocks.
The SEC earlier this year issued subpoenas to the House Ways and Means Committee and its top health-care aide, Brian Sutter. The agency is seeking emails and records related to Mr. Sutter's conversations with lobbyists at the law firm Greenberg Traurig LLP and officials at the federal health-care agency that made the decisions, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
When lawyers for the House declined to turn over all of the information requested, the SEC filed a lawsuit in New York seeking to force the committee and Mr. Sutter to comply with its subpoenas.
An SEC spokesman didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on Friday's filing.
House lawyers largely repeated arguments they made in an earlier motion asking the court to dismiss the SEC case.
They say neither Mr. Sutter nor the committee have done anything improper and argued they are not required to comply with the subpoenas under provisions in the Constitution that shield legislative activity from outside scrutiny.
They also argue "sovereign immunity," which protects the government from legal liability without an explicit waiver, also shields it from a suit filed by a government agency.
The SEC says it has jurisdiction in part because of a 2012 law designed to prevent lawmakers and congressional aides from making stock trades based on information they learn during their jobs.
But the House attorneys said Friday that law provides no waiver of sovereign immunity.
The House's new legal brief is the last scheduled court filing in the case before the two sides are expected to appear in person before the court.
Updated July 4, 2014
House Attorneys Seek Dismissal Of SEC Suit In An Effort To Continue Insider Trading
Lawyers for the U.S. House of Representatives asked a federal judge to reject a lawsuit the Securities and Exchange Commission filed against Congress in June, saying the suit amounts to "a remarkable fishing expedition for congressional records."
The move late Friday is the latest in a power struggle between two branches of government in a possible insider-trading case.
The SEC seeks records and testimony from the House Ways and Means Committee and a top health-care aide, Brian Sutter, staff director of the committee's health-care subcommittee. The SEC sent subpoenas to the committee and Mr. Sutter in May and filed suit to enforce them two weeks ago.
Attorneys for the House on Friday said they were lawfully allowed to ignore the SEC's requests, citing constitutional protections and a sovereign immunity, which shields the government from legal liability.
"This enforcement action appears to be more about making headlines and less about obtaining information pertinent to any viable investigation," the lawyers wrote to U.S. District Judge Paul Gardephe of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
An SEC spokesman didn't respond to a request for comment.
At issue is an SEC probe into whether congressional officials were involved in relaying word of a change in government health-care policy to Wall Street investors in April of 2013, before the change was formally announced.
The Wall Street Journal previously reported health-care lobbyist Mark Hayes sent an email predicting the change to a Washington-based investment-research firm shortly before the announcement on April 1, 2013.
The policy change, which was made by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, was announced after markets closed that day. Mr. Hayes said in his email that he got the information from "credible sources," according to emails reviewed by the Journal.
The SEC said last month it believes Mr. Sutter "may have been" a source for the information at the heart of its investigation. The suit was filed after the House declined to turn over documents and testimony to the SEC unless Mr. Sutter was granted immunity from prosecution, court filings show.
On Friday, House attorneys denied that Mr. Sutter was a source of any nonpublic information. More broadly, they said a clause of the U.S. Constitution that shields legislative activity from outside scrutiny applies to the documents the SEC seeks, including Mr. Sutter's communications with the lobbyist.
"The Speech or Debate Clause does not countenance fishing trips through legislative records in the hopes that something nonlegislative may emerge," the attorneys wrote.
Michael Stern, who was senior counsel to the U.S. House from 1996 to 2004, said the House has adopted aggressive legal arguments against the SEC. "This raises some very novel issues that could have major impacts of how investigations of Congress occur in the future."
The investigation by the SEC represents the first securities-violation case since Congress approved legislation in 2012 that was designed to prevent lawmakers and congressional aides from making stock trades based on information they learn during their jobs. The SEC has previously said lawmakers' refusal to hand over records in the case violates the spirit of that law.
Members of Congress certainly like to talk the talk, but when it comes to insider trading there seems to be little interest in walking the walk by cooperating with an investigation into a possible leak of confidential information that allowed for lucrative trading.
In 2011, Congress was embarrassed by a “60 Minutes” report that highlighted well-timed trades by representatives and senators that appeared to be based on government information and questioned whether they were subject to the prohibition on insider trading. In response to President Obama’s State of the Union address calling for action, Congress adopted the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act, commonly known as the STOCK Act, in April 2012.
The law provides that members of Congress and their staff “are not exempt from the insider trading prohibitions arising under the securities laws.” Before its passage, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Representative Lamar Smith, Republican of Texas, praised the legislation because “the American people deserve to know that no one in any branch of government can profit from their office.”
For all the talk about making Congress subject to the insider trading laws, the hard question was whether it would cooperate with the Securities and Exchange Commission in an investigation into questionable trading on information emanating from Capitol Hill. The answer appears to be “no.”
The S.E.C. has sued a House committee and its staff director in Federal District Court in Manhattan to enforce subpoenas for documents and testimony about possible tipping of confidential government information.
The investigation concerns trading in insurance companies in April 2013 after a change in the Medicare reimbursement rates by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services leaked out before its official announcement. The S.E.C. traced a potential source of the information to Brian Sutter, the staff director of the House Ways and Means Committee.
According to the S.E.C.’s filing to enforce its subpoenas, Mr. Sutter spoke with a Greenberg Traurig lobbyist just a few minutes before the lobbyist emailed a brokerage firm that “very credible sources” had confirmed the Medicare change. The brokerage firm then issued an alert to clients about the reimbursement policy that resulted in a jump in the share price of insurance companies that would benefit.
When the investigation first started, Mr. Sutter told an F.B.I. agent and an investigator from the Department of Health and Human Services’ inspector general’s office that he did not recall speaking with the lobbyist on his cellphone about the reimbursement policy.
A few days later, a lawyer for the House of Representatives sent a letter stating that “with the benefit of some time for reflection” Mr. Sutter may recall speaking with the lobbyist and that other statements he made “might merit clarification.” That type of admission is a red flag for investigators that they may have caught someone in a lie, making it a potentially fruitful avenue for further investigation.
Typically, the next step in an investigation is to subpoena records about any contacts the person might have had with sources of the information and potential tippees, which usually includes having them testify under oath. Whether the person will actually testify is an open question because a lawyer most likely would advise a client to assert the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to keep from making any further damaging statements.
The S.E.C. tried to obtain information about Mr. Sutter by asking the Ways and Means Committee to voluntarily turn over records related to his government issued cellphone and records of any contacts he had with Greenberg Traurig lobbyists. The committee, however, refused to provide the requested information.
On May 6, the S.E.C. took a more confrontational approach by issuing subpoenas requiring production of the documents and Mr. Sutter’s testimony. In response, the general counsel’s office for the House sent a letter giving a number of reasons for not complying that sound like typical legal boilerplate.
Among those cited in the letter were that the subpoenas were “vague, confusing, overbroad, unduly burdensome, unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and otherwise improper.” The letter even contended that the subpoenas were “repugnant to public policy,” an odd position to assert in light of the STOCK Act’s proclamation that Congress is subject to insider trading laws.
The most important basis for resisting the subpoenas concerns the protection afforded members of Congress and their staff under the Constitution’s so-called speech or debate clause. That provision, which can be traced to the English Bill of Rights adopted in 1689 to protect Parliament from harassment by the monarchy, states that “for any speech or debate in either House, [members] shall not be questioned in any other place.”
The clause protects against any outside inquiry into “legislative acts” in Congress, although the scope of that term is unclear. In United States v. Brewster, the Supreme Court said that it had “consistently been defined as an act generally done in Congress in relation to the business before it.” On the other hand, political acts are not protected from investigation, which the court said includes “a wide range of legitimate ‘errands’ performed for constituents, the making of appointments with government agencies, assistance in securing government contracts, preparing so-called ‘news letters’ to constituents, news releases, and speeches delivered outside the Congress.”
The larger question is whether Congress has any interest in allowing an investigation to move forward that involves a member of its staff. In a letter to the S.E.C. last week, the House offered to consider a proposal to release a limited number of records as long as there was a “firm commitment that the committee’s making available to your agency of certain documents would end the committee’s and Mr. Sutter’s involvement in this matter.”
That sounds like the price for getting the documents is dropping any further investigation of Mr. Sutter, thus insulating him from potential liability for insider trading. I doubt the S.E.C. is willing to set a precedent that effectively prevents pursuing an insider trading case involving a member of Congress or its staff.
So the S.E.C.’s hand was forced if it wanted the investigation to move forward by turning to the federal court for an order requiring compliance. A hearing is scheduled for July 1 on whether to enforce the subpoenas, and the losing side can be expected to appeal the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and perhaps even to the Supreme Court.
Regardless of the outcome of the battle over the subpoenas, Congress has shown that the STOCK Act was more about responding to negative publicity than a step toward greater accountability for misuse of confidential information. In November 2011, soon after the “60 Minutes” report, I wrote on DealBook that the law “would do little good if the S.E.C. and the Justice Department would be stymied in trying to conduct an investigation by an assertion of the speech or debate clause to stop the case dead in its tracks.” It certainly looks as if that’s what the House wants.
SEC Files Lawsuit to Enforce Subpoenas Issued to Congress
U.S. House Was Asked for Information Related to Possible Insider-Trading Case
The Securities and Exchange Commission went to federal court Friday seeking to enforce subpoenas it issued to Congress, a move that sparks a high-stakes power struggle between two branches of government in a possible insider-trading case.
The SEC filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York seeking to compel the HouseWays and Means Committee and a top House health-care aide to turn over documents and information in the case.
In its court filing, the SEC said the health-care aide "may have been" the source for the information at the heart of its long-running insider-trading investigation.
In response to the filing, the court asked lawyers for the House and the congressional health-care aide, Brian Sutter, to explain to the court why they refused to comply with the subpoenas. U.S. District Judge Paul Gardephe ordered representatives of the House committee and Mr. Sutter to respond by June 26 and to appear at a July 1 hearing on the matter.
In court filings, the SEC said the committee and Mr. Sutter have refused to comply with the subpoenas, arguing they were "repugnant to public policy," vague and overly broad. According to the SEC, the House lawyers also argued that constitutional protections allow them to ignore the SEC requests.
The SEC responded in court by saying that those "objections lack merit, and the subpoenas satisfy all the requirements for enforcement."
In a statement, the House Office of General Counsel said that SEC subpoenas "run seriously afoul of the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause, and we expect to respond in due course on that ground, among others."
Under the separation of powers provisions in the U.S. Constitution, Congress has several legal protections from unwarranted investigations by the SEC and other executive-branch agencies.
By going to court, the SEC has signaled that it disagrees with the reasons given by Congress for refusing to turn over evidence in the case.
The New York court must determine whether Congress is improperly resisting the subpoenas, or if the SEC has overreached in the matter.
"It's not unheard of for an agency to serve a subpoena to Congress, but for an agency to sue is—if not unprecedented—at least very rare," said Michael Stern, who was senior counsel to the U.S. House from 1996 to 2004. "It shows that there is a serious conflict; the SEC really wants the information and the House really wants it protected," he said.
At issue is an SEC investigation into whether insider-trading laws were broken in April 2013, when news of a significant change in health-care policy reached Wall Street traders before it was officially announced by the government.
According to a series of articles by The Wall Street Journal, health-care lobbyist Mark Hayes sent an email predicting the change to a Washington-based investment-research firm shortly before the announcement on April 1, 2013.
The policy change, which was made by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, was announced after markets closed that day. Mr. Hayes said in his email that he got the information from "credible sources," according to emails reviewed by the Journal.
The investment-research firm, in turn, relayed the prediction to its Wall Street clients in the final minutes before trading closed, prompting the share prices of major health-insurance firms to jump as much as 6% in a few minutes.
A spokesman for the committee referred questions to the House legal counsel. Mr. Sutter didn't respond to a request for comment. The SEC declined to comment on its lawsuit. A lawyer for Mr. Hayes didn't respond to a request for comment. A spokeswoman for Mr. Hayes's lobbying firm, Greenberg Traurig said: "We are cooperating with the inquiry and will continue to do so."
In Friday's court filing, the SEC alleged for the first time that a senior health-care aide in the House was communicating with Mr. Hayes at about the same time that Mr. Hayes sent his email to the investment-research firm. The SEC refers to Mr. Hayes as a lobbyist and attorney, but doesn't identify him by name.
According to the SEC, Mr. Hayes and Mr. Sutter were allegedly communicating over email about an unrelated matter and then spoke on the phone. In its filing, the SEC said Mr. Hayes acknowledged during its investigation that he and Mr. Sutter spoke about the coming CMS announcement during their call.
About 10 minutes after the phone conversation, the SEC alleged, Mr. Hayes sent his email predicting the policy change to the investment-research firm.
The SEC said its investigation "indicated that Sutter may have been a source of [Mr. Hayes's] nonpublic information."
The SEC said Mr. Sutter gave conflicting accounts of his conversations with Mr. Hayes in the weeks following the CMS announcement.
In an interview with a Federal Bureau of Investigation agent and an investigator from the internal watchdog at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Mr. Sutter said he didn't recall talking to Mr. Hayes about the announcement, the SEC alleged.
According to the SEC filing, several days later, an attorney for the House sent the FBI and HHS official a letter saying the information Mr. Sutter had provided was incomplete and "inaccurate" in at least one respect regarding his communication with Mr. Hayes.
Congress Adopted The Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act in April 2012
The Journal reported this past week that Mr. Sutter was issued a subpoena by the SEC for documents and testimony in the matter. Mr. Sutter also got a subpoena in a criminal case to appear before a federal grand jury in the Southern District of New York. The SEC issued a separate subpoena to the House Ways and Means Committee, where Mr. Sutter works as its top health-care aide.
The investigation by the SEC and federal prosecutors could represent the first securities-violation case since Congress approved legislation in 2012 that was designed to prevent lawmakers and congressional aides from making stock trades based on information they learn during their jobs.
The legislation also made it easier for law-enforcement officials to pursue insider-trading cases involving public officials illegally "tipping off" traders to coming policy changes that will affect stock prices.
Regulatory Scrutiny Transforms Washington's Political-Intelligence Business
Alex Vogel Says Greater Compliance Burden is Among Reasons Spurring Shift From a Business in Regulators' Cross Hairs
Alex Vogel spent the last decade building a Washington lobbying business with a successful practice feeding investors information about potentially market-moving changes in policy.
But with federal investigators scrutinizing Washington's interactions with hedge funds and other traders, Mr. Vogel is quitting his firm. His new venture, VogelHood Research, will make all its predictions based on computer algorithms using publicly available information—without ever talking to members of Congress or other policy makers.
Mr. Vogel's shift shows how Washington's political-intelligence business is going through a wrenching transformation in the face of heightened legal and regulatory scrutiny, including insider-trading probes.
In recent months, a number of lobbyists have left the political-intelligence business, and several lobbying and law firms have created new internal procedures and protocols to guard against violating insider-trading rules.
Some hedge funds and other Wall Street firms have, meanwhile, scaled back their own information-gathering activities in the capital, and others are conducting reviews of their Washington operations, according to people familiar with the political-intelligence industry. The Wall Street Journal profiled the political-intelligence practice at New York broker-dealer JNK Securities in 2011. It later exited the business. A company official declined to comment for this article.
Mr. Vogel's lobbying firm hasn't been associated with any allegations of improper trading. But he says he is shifting his business as the industry evolves.
"The market has been demanding the change," said Mr. Vogel. "The combination of dramatically increased access to data via growth in transparency, and the increased compliance burden on the old access model made the change obvious to us."
A representative for Mr. Vogel's old lobbying firm, now named Mehlman Castagnetti Rosen Bingel & Thomas Inc., declined to comment.
Hedge-fund giant SAC Capital Advisors was once among the biggest clients of political-intelligence firms, according to people in the industry, who said the firm had dozens of lobbying firms on retainer to feed its traders information. The hedge-fund firm—which changed its name to Point72 Asset Management earlier this year and stopped managing outside money after pleading guilty to insider-trading charges—no longer pays people to gather information about government policy changes, according to people familiar with the Point72's business.
Hedge-fund investors say they have a legal right to seek information from the government, provided they aren't basing trades on nonpublic, market-moving information, according to people familiar with the thinking at several fund firms.
Driving the changes in the political-intelligence industry are worries that regulators are increasing their scrutiny of how investors trade using information that originates in government. "The SEC is trying to make a test case, and you don't want to be it," said Rob Walker, an ethics lawyer and former congressional-ethics attorney.
A Securities and Exchange Commission spokesman declined to comment.
Michael Mayhew, the president of Integrity Research Associates, a New York firm that monitors the policy-research business, said a number of hedge funds have retreated from the industry. "A few years ago, they would use as many political-intelligence firms as they needed—now they are being extremely careful. Some are using no firms. Others are using only those they have carefully vetted," he said.
The changes come amid SEC and Justice Department investigations into possible insider-trading violations involving stock tips from Washington.
The Journal reported Wednesday that prosecutors are gathering evidence and testimony for a federal grand jury in New York. In that matter, which involves a possible April 2013 leak of a government health-care announcement, the SEC has issued subpoenas for documents and testimony from officials with the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee.
The SEC is also looking into whether investors were illegally tipped off about a decision by the Food and Drug Administration to delay approval for a new diabetes drug, the Journal reported last year.
In addition, the 2012 Stock Act, a law designed to tighten rules on congressional stock trading, has created new uncertainties about what types of information lawmakers and congressional aides can share with Wall Street analysts. It "has really put a chill on the political-intelligence industry," said Sam Geduldig, a lobbyist with Clark Geduldig Cranford & Nielsen.
All told, those in the industry say the ambiguities in the new law and the law-enforcement investigations involving Washington information have made it unclear precisely what is legal and what isn't. That is what Mr. Vogel says led him to come up with his new way to gather information about government policy for investors.
His old firm ranked as one of the 10 largest lobbying firms last year, when Mr. Vogel made a salary of $1.5 million, according to public filings and Mr. Vogel.
Today, instead of seeking information from congressional aides or agency officials, Mr. Vogel's firm aims to arrive at policy predictions based on publicly available metrics, such as campaign donations, lobbying expenditures, congressional voting records and polling data.
"Unlike 'political intelligence' firms, we don't provide access to or interact with government officials or policy makers at any state of our research process or analysis," the firm says in a confidential prospectus being distributed to hedge funds and other potential clients.
Mr. Vogel got his start as an election lawyer at a Washington law firm before working as deputy counsel at the Republican National Committee. He rose to be chief counsel to Tennessee Republican Bill Frist, the former Senate majority leader. In 2004, Mr. Vogel left Capitol Hill to found his lobbying and consulting firm, just as Washington's political-intelligence industry began to take off.
Major Wall Street investment houses had been following broader economic trends in Washington for decades. Hedge funds were hungry for tips about other bills and policy changes, such as the prospects for legislation to curb asbestos liability or whether the FDA would approve or reject a new drug.
For information, hedge funds began turning to former government officials, Washington insiders and lobbyists, such as Mr. Vogel. For lobbyists, providing such information was often an easy task—they already had the information at hand. Now, some say the risks are too high.
"In the past, the business was based on setting up dinners with people," Mr. Vogel said. "We don't want to talk to any of those people; we want to look at the data and the story that the data is telling."
Monty Henry, Owner
Additional Resources:
Number of Americans Renouncing Citizenship Surges To Escape Oppressive Tax Rules
Dropping Off The Grid: A Growing Movement In America: Part I
Online Privacy Tools and Tips
What is BitCoin and How Does It Work?
The Creature From Jekyll Island: This Blog And Video Playlist Explains Why The U.S. Financial System is Corrupt and How It Came To Be That Way
Next-Generation Bug / Microwave / ELF / Spy Phone / GSM And Camera Detectors (Buy, Rent, Layaway) tinyurl.com/2eo8mlz Open...
— Spy Store Rentals (@MontyHenry1)
Nanny IP (Internet) Cameras, GPS Trackers, Bug Detectors and Listening Devices, etc, (Buy / Rent / Layaway): tinyurl.com/396jlw6...
— Spy Store Rentals (@MontyHenry1)
NOW, look in on your home, second home, lake house or office anytime, anywhere from any internet connected PC/Lap-top or Internet active cell phone, including iphone or PDA.
Watch your child's caregiver while sitting at a traffic light or lunch meeting, or check on your business security from the other side of the world. Our built-in hidden video features all digital transmissions providing a crystal clear image with zero interference. With the IP receiver stream your video over the internet through your router, and view on either a PC or smart phone. Designed exclusively for DPL-Surveillance-Equipment, these IP hidden wireless cameras come with multiple features to make the user's experience hassle-free.
NOW, look in on your home, second home, lake house or office anytime, anywhere from any internet connected PC/Lap-top or Internet active cell phone, including iphone or PDA: http://www.dpl-surveillance-equipment.com/wireless_hidden_cameras.html
Watch your child's caregiver while sitting at a traffic light or lunch meeting, or check on your business security from the other side of the world. Our built-in hidden video features all digital transmissions providing a crystal clear image with zero interference. With the IP receiver stream your video over the internet through your router, and view on either a PC or smart phone. Designed exclusively for DPL-Surveillance-Equipment, these IP hidden wireless cameras come with multiple features to make the user's experience hassle-free.
• Remote Video Access
• Video is Recorded Locally To An Installed SD Card (2GB SD Card included)
• Email Notifications (Motion Alerts, Camera Failure, IP Address Change, SD Card Full)
• Live Monitoring, Recording And Event Playback Via Internet
• Back-up SD Storage Up To 32GB (SD Not Included)
• Digital Wireless Transmission (No Camera Interference)
• View LIVE On Your SmartPhone!
Includes:
* Nanny Cameras w/ Remote View
* Wireless IP Receiver
* Remote Control
* A/C Adaptor
* 2GB SD Card
* USB Receiver
FACT SHEET: HIDDEN NANNY-SPY (VIEW VIA THE INTERNET) CAMERAS
Specifications:
Receiver Specs:
* Transmission Range of 500 ft Line Of Sight
* Uses 53 Channels Resulting In No Interference
* 12V Power Consumption
* RCA Output
* Supports up to 32gig SD
Camera Specs:
* 640x480 / 320x240 up to 30fps
* Image Sensor: 1/4" Micron Sensor
* Resolution: 720x480 Pixels
* S/N Ratio: 45 db
* Sensitivity: 11.5V/lux-s @ 550nm
* Video System: NTSC
* White Balance: Auto Tracking
• Video is Recorded Locally To An Installed SD Card (2GB SD Card included)
• Email Notifications (Motion Alerts, Camera Failure, IP Address Change, SD Card Full)
• Live Monitoring, Recording And Event Playback Via Internet
• Back-up SD Storage Up To 32GB (SD Not Included)
• Digital Wireless Transmission (No Camera Interference)
• View LIVE On Your SmartPhone!
Includes:
* Nanny Cameras w/ Remote View
* Wireless IP Receiver
* Remote Control
* A/C Adaptor
* 2GB SD Card
* USB Receiver
FACT SHEET: HIDDEN NANNY-SPY (VIEW VIA THE INTERNET) CAMERAS
Specifications:
Receiver Specs:
* Transmission Range of 500 ft Line Of Sight
* Uses 53 Channels Resulting In No Interference
* 12V Power Consumption
* RCA Output
* Supports up to 32gig SD
Camera Specs:
* 640x480 / 320x240 up to 30fps
* Image Sensor: 1/4" Micron Sensor
* Resolution: 720x480 Pixels
* S/N Ratio: 45 db
* Sensitivity: 11.5V/lux-s @ 550nm
* Video System: NTSC
* White Balance: Auto Tracking
Make Your Own Nanny Cameras: Make Tons Of Money In A Booming, Nearly Recession-Proof Industry!
Your Primary Customers Include But Are Not Limited To Anyone In The Private Investigator, Government, Law Enforcement And/Or Intelligence Agencies Fields!
* You Buy Our DVR Boards And We'll Build Your Products! (Optional)
* You Buy Our DVR Boards And We'll Build Your Products! (Optional)
Our New Layaway Plan Adds Convenience For Online Shoppers
DPL-Surveillance-Equipment's
layaway plan makes it easy for you to buy the products and services
that you want by paying for them through manageable monthly payments
that you set. Our intuitive calculator allows you to break down your
order's purchase price into smaller payment amounts. Payments can be
automatically deducted from your bank account or made in cash using
MoneyGram® ExpressPayment® Services and you will receive your order once
it's paid in full. Use it to plan and budget for holiday purchases,
anniversaries, birthdays, vacations and more!
DPL-Surveillance-Equipment's
Customers can now use the convenience of layaway online to help them
get through these tough economic times.
We all shop now
and then just to face a hard reality -- big credit card bills. However,
our latest financing innovation can help you avoid that. Find out why
more and more shoppers are checking out DPL-Surveillance-Equipment's
e-layaway plan.
If you're drooling over a new nanny
camera, longing for a GPS tracker, or wishing for that spy watch, but
you're strapped for cash and can't afford to do credit, do what Jennie
Kheen did. She bought her iPod docking station (hidden camera
w/motion-activated DVR) online using our convenient lay-away plan.
Our
online layaway plan works like the old-fashioned service stores used to
offer. But, in Kheen's case, she went to
DPL-Surveillance-Equipment.com, found the iPod docking station (hidden
camera w/motion-activated DVR), then set up a payment plan.
"It's automatically drawn from my account," she said. "I have a budget, $208.00 a month.
In
three months, Kheen had paid off the $650.00 iPod docking station. She
paid another 3.9 percent service fee, which amounted to about $25.35
(plus $12.00 for shipping) for a total of $687.35.
"You
pay a little bit each month," Kheen said. "It's paid off when you get
it and you don't have it lingering over your head. It's great."
Flexible
payment terms and automated payments make our layaway plan an
affordable and fiscally responsible alternative to credit cards.
1. Register:
It's quick, easy and FREE! No credit check required!
2. Shop:
Select
the items or service you want and choose "e-layaway" as your payment
option. Our payment calculator makes it easy for you to set up your
payment terms.
3. Make Payments:
Payments are made on the schedule YOU set. Check your order status or adjust your payments online in a secure environment.
4. Receive Products:
Receive the product shortly after your last payment. The best part, it's paid in full... NO DEBT.
More Buying Power:
*
Our lay-away plan offers a safe and affordable payment alternative
without tying up your credit or subjecting the purchase to high-interest
credit card fees.
No Credit Checks or Special Qualifications:
* Anyone 18 years old or older can join. All you need is an active bank account.
Freedom From Credit Cards:
*
If you are near or beyond your credit limit or simply want to avoid
high interest credit card fees, our e-layaway is the smart choice for
you.
Flexible Payment Schedules:
*
Similar to traditional layaway, e-layaway lets you make regular payments
towards merchandise, with delivery upon payment in full. Payments are
automatically deducted from your bank account or made in cash using
MoneyGram® ExpressPayment®
A Tool for Planning Ahead:
*
Our e-layaway makes it easy for smart shoppers like you to plan ahead
and buy items such as bug detectors, nanny cameras, audio bugs, gps
trackers, and more!
No Hidden Charges or Mounting Interest:
Our
e-layaway makes shopping painless by eliminating hidden charges and
monthly interest fees. Our customers pay a flat transaction fee on the
initial purchase price.
NO RISK:
* You have the right to cancel any purchase and will receive a refund less a cancellation fee. See website for details.
Security and Identity Protection:
DPL-Surveillance-Equipment
has partnered with trusted experts like McAfee and IDology to ensure
the security and integrity of every transaction. Identity verification
measures are integrated into our e-layaway system to prevent fraudulent
purchases.
Note: Simply Choose e-Lay-Away as a "Payment Option" in The Shopping Cart
DPL-Surveillance-Equipment.com
is a world leader in providing surveillance and security products and
services to Government, Law Enforcement, Private Investigators, small
and large companies worldwide. We have one of the largest varieties of
state-of-the-art surveillance and counter-surveillance equipment
including Personal Protection
and Bug Detection Products.
Buy, rent or lease the same
state-of-the-art surveillance and security equipment Detectives, PI's,
the CIA and FBI use. Take back control!
DPL-Surveillance-Equipment.com
Phone: (1888) 344-3742 Toll Free USA
Local: (818) 344-3742
Fax (775) 249-9320
Monty@DPL-Surveillance-Equipment.com
Google+ and Gmail
DPLSURVE
Twitter
DPLSURVE
MSN
Monty@DPL-Surveillance-Equipment.com
AOL Instant Messenger
DPLSURVE32
Skype
Montyl32
Yahoo Instant Messenger
Montyi32
Alternate Email Address
montyi32@yahoo.com
Join my Yahoo Group!
My RSS Feed
Phone: (1888) 344-3742 Toll Free USA
Local: (818) 344-3742
Fax (775) 249-9320
Monty@DPL-Surveillance-Equipment.com
Google+ and Gmail
DPLSURVE
DPLSURVE
MSN
Monty@DPL-Surveillance-Equipment.com
AOL Instant Messenger
DPLSURVE32
Skype
Montyl32
Yahoo Instant Messenger
Montyi32
Alternate Email Address
montyi32@yahoo.com
Join my Yahoo Group!
My RSS Feed
posted by DPL-Surveillance-Equipment | 9:43 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
<< Home