Stun Guns, Extortion and Defamation: FINRA Arbitrations-the New Normal?

Stun Guns, Extortion and Defamation: FINRA Arbitrations-the New Normal?

Check the Ticker is presenting a series of abuses towards investors due to the increase in FINRA Arbitrations, following many COVID-19 investment scams and violations in markets of today.

Why would a Chief Legal Officer engage in extortion in a FINRA Arbitration?

Why would FINRA and a security guard make false claims that a Claimant is so violent that the security guard must bring his stun gun to an arbitration?

Why would the FINRA hired Panel Chair, an attorney, ask the security guard for his stun gun to use against a Claimant in a FINRA Hearing?

FINRA refuses to respond to these questions:  Can a Panel Chair use a stun gun in a FINRA Arbitration?  Does FINRA hire armed security guards?  Are FINRA security guards permitted to use stun guns against Claimants or must they first call the police and follow the respective state’s guidance on contacting law enforcement in the event of a threat of physical violence?

Why would FINRA Arbitration Chair, Ilene Gormly, make, on the record, categorically false implications that a Claimant engaged in bank loan fraud, when the subject of the Arbitration was SEC 10b-5 violations, breach of contract and violation of best execution fiduciary duty?  Why would Ilene Gormly make such a false, criminal allegation when she has no evidence of a bank loan fraud and it is categorically false?

Stun guns can cause death, particularly in elderly with heart conditions. The Panel was warned of heart conditions with the Claimant, yet the Panel Chair made a threat on the record that she would like to use the stun gun, for no reason and had, categorically, no evidence of any physical threat at any point during the Hearing.  There was never any physical threat against any Hearing participant, at any point during the Hearing.

Why is FINRA hiring a security guard, Ray Pezolt,  who is making false statements on the record and threats of violence, on the record, who himself has a history of being a defendant in an ACLU Complaint and settlement, for condoning extreme sexual violence against women?

Facts that FINRA Refuses to Respond to that Threaten Retail Investors who Seek Protection in Filing Customer Complaints in the Quasi-Judicial Proceeding they Oversee

We close with facts; the transcript of a digital recording from an Arbitration where FINRA Panel Chair, Ilene Gormly and Ray Pezolt, “Security Guard” muse on the record, false implications on how “violent” this customer is and muse how this customer engaged in bank loan fraud, criminal activity.

Why is a FINRA Panel Chair mandating all Arbitration participants leave the Hearing Room, so she and the security guard can defame the Claimant on the record and make false criminal allegations on the record?

Why is FINRA permitting this defamation and threats of violence against an investor in their Arbitrations by an attorney who is violating FINRA Code of Arbitration?

Why is FINRA hiring a security guard who is making false criminal allegations on the record and threats of violence, on the record, who himself has a history of being a defendant for condoning extreme sexual violence against women?

Actual Transcript from a FINRA Arbitration

Transcript Digital Recording 143

Note:  IG is Ilene Gormly and Ray is Ray Pezolt.

IG: (at 1 minute) “Excuse me. We need just a little bit of a break here.”

Claimant: “Ok” (Minutes 1:04 – 2:19) parties are gathering materials and leaving the room.

The only two remaining parties in the Hearing room were Panel Chair, Ilene Gormly and Security Guard, Ray Pezolt.  This is, in itself, a violation of FINRA Customer Code of Arbitration.

IG (at 2:24) “You gave me your card. But I do not know where I put it. I swear I put it in my book. Oh, here it is. Ray, so Ray, I was talking to FINRA last night and, um, she said, and I said, “Well, I am a little worried about security” and she said, “It is— She is only going to get worse as the thing goes on.”

Ray (at 2:43) “Yea, I know.”

IG: (at 2:44) “And it is not over yet. She is going to get worse.”

Ray (at 2:45) “Yea, I know.”

IG (at 3:23) “Like with Driver’s License form, she left out the one sentence that says the Driver License Commissioner shall be…you know. Undecipherable, she read…

Ray (at 3:39) “So it is legal for Driver’s License. Yea, your Driver’s License is legal, but your address for a bank loan, that is not a Driver’s License.”

IG: (at 3:45) “No!” “You know what happened is this bank had a huge money laundering problem right around the time that…and I know, because I personally have gone in, because I know, I worked in Washington and that’s where my ex-husband was from and I’d go to the UPS store and I said to the people, hey, if anyone using this address and comes from Washington that’s a mail fraud.

Ray (at 4:10) “Yeah”.

IG (at 4:11) And so went down there and they got them. They got a ton of people who were using the mailboxes…

Digital Recording #144

IG (13 seconds) “It is going to get worse.

Ray (16 seconds) Yeah.

IG: (17 seconds) But thank you for being here. We really appreciate it.

Ray (at 19 seconds) Yeah, yes, undecipherable. Probably tomorrow or whenever things get a little heavier, that is why we have the scanner.

IG: (at 26 seconds) Yeah.

Ray (at 27 seconds) I checked all of their stuff when they came and

IG: (at 29 seconds) Ok. Yeah.

Ray (at 30 seconds) and ah, I know tomorrow, I will probably be carrying my stun gun.

IG: (at 35 seconds), “Can I have it?”

End of Transcript from FINRA Arbitration.

SEC and Congress –  Time is long overdue to intervene and protect retail investors.  Stun gun threats against retail investors who seek justice when their assets are harmed by a broker-dealer, cross the line. One must intervene if FINRA posts categorically false information on a Claimant and links to the defamation with Google Tags.  Where do you draw the line when false implications of bank loan fraud, violence and stun guns harm retail investors in perpetuity through categorically false implications of “violence” against Claimants in a publicly-posted FINRA Awards Online Document?