Global 8 Environmental Technologies Inc GBLE

Believe as you wish - TRUTH always prevails

[Tiktock]

Good news for Global 8 shareholders! And even better news for me. If I do reap any financial benefits, they will certainly go to charity, and restoring environmental projects. If you have any information about G8, please email: [e-mail].

The Dodd-Frank bill, which Barak Obama signed into law on July 21, has been called “the most sweeping financial reform since the New Deal.” It is of particular interest to OTC:BB companies like Global 8.

Whistleblowers who provide “original information” leading to a successful enforcement action are suddenly able to receive up to 30 percent of the total recovery greater than $1 million. They are also protected from retaliatory conduct, if it can prove the retaliation was at least partially sparked by their reporting. (Access full article: Whistleblower Provisions Make Noise in New Financial Reform Bill) But hey, I already knew this Chapter 14, Section 806 has been around since, 2002 (Sarbanes Oxley). I don't think this adds much, other than clarification of a finder's fee...I would rather seek justice, truth, honor and a dignified society. Guess, we will see what happens ;-)

The new regulations also increase penalties to those who aid and abet violations knowingly or recklessly.

SEC is now authorized to suspend or bar a regulated person who violates securities laws in one part of the financial services industry from associating with a regulated entity in another part of the industry.

SEC’s budget will be doubled in the next five years and even the regulations extended to foreign companies much stiffer “ even if securities transactions occur outside the United States and involve only foreign traders.” (Access full article: United States: SEC Enforcement Given New Tools Under Dodd-Frank Bill)

A Victory for Writing

New York Times Editorial
Published: July 22, 2010

It is a rare achievement these days for the Senate to pass anything of real substance by a unanimous vote. But an important bill that protects Americans from the whims of foreign libel judgments was passed earlier this week by unanimous consent. Once it passes the House and is signed into law, it will provide a safeguard to authors and publishers threatened with ruinous foreign judgments.
Related
Times Topic: Libel and Slander

In the United States, a plaintiff alleging libel must prove that a statement is false and defamatory, and public figures have to show that a writer acted with actual malice in making a false statement. But these protections, rooted in the First Amendment, do not exist in places like Britain, Australia and Singapore, where the burden is often on the author, once accused of libel, to show that a statement is true.

To sidestep American protections, subjects of books have sued publishers and authors in British courts where they have a better chance of winning. The practice, known as libel tourism, counts on a system in which American courts will enforce British fines and penalties.

The bill passed by the Senate on Monday would prohibit American courts from enforcing foreign defamation judgments if the judgments are inconsistent with First Amendment protections. In other words, if a British court finds that an American author has committed libel but has not conducted the trial with the same legal standards as an American court, the judgment against the author would be void in the United States. Americans who are found overseas to have committed libel can also sue in federal court to have that judgment found to be “repugnant to the Constitution” or American law.

These kinds of cases have come up far too often. One of the best known examples was that of Rachel Ehrenfeld, who wrote a 2003 book called “Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed — and How to Stop It,” that accused a Saudi businessman, Khalid bin Mahfouz, of providing financial support to Al Qaeda before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. After Mr. Mahfouz sued for libel in Britain — a charge that Ms. Ehrenfeld refused to defend — a British judge ordered her to pay £10,000 each to Mr. Mahfouz and his two sons, and more than £100,000 in legal costs, a total equaling about $230,000 at the time. She refused to pay, and the case led the New York State Legislature to pass a bill similar to the Speech Act in 2008.

The House has already passed a similar bill and is expected shortly to support the version approved by the Senate, giving authors in the rest of the country the same protections that exist in New York. The next step is for the new British government to take the hint and follow through on the promise it made earlier this month to review and overhaul its libel laws. No one in either country wins if writers cannot express themselves freely.