How to Expunge Customer Complaints with Google Tags & Financial Threats

How to Expunge Customer Complaints with Google Tags & Financial Threats

Check the Ticker SBC presents a Case Study: USBI’s Chief Legal Officer – Gail Marie Van Horn: How to Use Google Tags to Evade Expungement and Defame Your Customer for filing a FINRA Complaint

Note:  The Blog Photo is taken from a media post that FINRA has invested heavily to suppress negative FINRA filings in Google Search, according to the article at TheBlot.  FINRA and SEC overturned the claims agains the Brokers and FINRA.  Here is the most recent article on the defamation and inappropriate FINRA actions: Showdown Coming in Benjamin Wey’s Case Agains FINRA, at Forbes. 

Gail Marie Van Horn is Chief Legal Officer of US Bancorp Investments Inc (USBI) and Corporate Counsel and Vice President at US Bank (TICKER: USB). USBI, a broker-dealer, is a subsidiary of the publicly held Bank, US Bancorp, USB.

Gail Marie Van Horn’s Tech and Easy Expungement Strategy

The Supreme Court has recently expanded liability for false statements by Corporate Officers for which Ms. Van Horn, as USB’s Corporate Counsel and USBI’s Chief Legal Officer is well aware of.  FINRA and Ms.  Van Horn are now using Google Tags to conceal the fact she was a named Respondent in a FINRA Arbitration and is linking to a “grossly misconstrued record”, defamation to the Claimants, to conceal her own securities law violations.  It appears this is a common strategy by FINRA – defame the customer through a public filing to conceal their Member Firm’s securities law violations.  What is new is FINRA and its Member Firm are:

(1) Using Google Tags to eliminate the name of the Respondents, in this case Gail Marie Van Horn and

(2) Using Google Tags to link the grossly misconstrued, false and defamatory record at FINRA Awards Online directly to the customer’s name in a Google Search commencing in February 2020 and continuing.

“On March 27, the Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision addressing whether someone who is not the “maker” of a misstatement can nonetheless be primarily liable for fraud under the federal securities laws, when the misstatement is the only deceptive conduct at issue. Lorenzo v. SEC, 2019 WL 1369839 (U.S. Mar. 27, 2019). The Court held that liability for misstatements is not limited to “makers,” instead ruling that those who “disseminate” false or misleading statements can also be primarily liable under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, as well as under Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act, the primary antifraud provisions under the federal securities laws. By holding that liability exists for those who “disseminate” false statements, the Supreme Court potentially expanded the reach of antifraud…”

Of course, “What remains uncertain is how broadly Rule 10b-5’s net will be cast now that those persons who “disseminate” false or misleading information may also be held liable. “ However, the facts are Ms. Van Horn engaged in fraudulent misstatements to conceal securities law abuses at her firm, USBI, and to prevent her from having to testify in person, under Oath, about such securities law abuses. Ms. Van Horn made false statements that involved a financial threat- a threat that the Claimants deemed extortion.  Ms. Van Horn’s statements were made with “scienter”(which the Supreme Court has held embraces an intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud).

We do not write as an attorney. We write as an advocate for the individual investor.

Ms. Van Horn is permitting her false statements to permeate a public record on securities law breaches by her Firm, USBI.

Ms. Van Horn is using Google Tags to not only alter the substance of the original FINRA Complaint filed, but through the false, misleading and defamatory information provided to FINRA is violating the stated purpose of FINRA Awards Online- “protection of investors and the public interest.” Ms. Van Horn’s false and defamatory statements to FINRA are now being used to defame a customer who filed a fair and just complaint. That use is strictly prohibited by FINRA and Google Marketing Tags Terms of Use.

Gail Marie Van Horn and her Firm, USBI, have used her access to Google Tags and FINRA’s entitlement system, to delete her name as a Respondent in a FINRA Arbitration. Ms. Van Horn, through her use of Google Tags has violated FINRA’s Awards Online Terms of Use by deleting her name as an Individual Respondent, which is prohibited by FINRA Awards Online Terms of Use (a):

a. “alter or modify the factual content of the Arbitration Awards Online data;

Here is a screen shot of the altered FINRA Arbitration Complaint, next to the original complaint. Now, through Google Tags and a direct link to the Claimants’ names in a Google Search, Ms. Van Horn’s false, harassing and defamatory comments concerning the customer appear and her name is now deleted in the Google-Tagged document.

Coming soon:  The false and defamatory statements concerning the Claimants by Ms. Horn now in the public record, using Google Tags and Google Search to defame.  Ms. Van Horn and USBI now link to the defamation to their customer in a Google Tag search, a direct violation of Google Tags, FINRA Awards Online and the new Supreme Court Decision, highlighted above.

Through Google Tags, USBI deleted record of Ms. Van Horn as Named Respondent


Gail Marie Van Horn alters Original Complaint and deletes her name as a named Respondent through the use of Google Tags