During the IPO’s and institutional brokerage Baldwin never had any customer complaints.FINRA created a customer complaint for a non registered entity that they didn’t regulate and then held a proceeding while Baldwin was in the United Kingdom at the University of Cambridge. Baldwin informed them prior to the event that he wouldn’t be attending and that his firm had been shuttered, he didn’t have any capital or principals in it. FINRA’s sole purpose for doing this was malicious persecution because they were upset that 1) 3 of their colleagues were fired, 2) Baldwin continued focusing on international transactions 3) Baldwin had threatened to litigate and make the press aware because he didn’t have any customer complaints or regulatory violations.
FINRA continued to create and manufacture regulatory violations against unregulated entities and list these every year on the internet in an effort to harm Baldwin. the FINRA office in Chicago went as far to contact the country of Qatar where Baldwin was hosting a conference to attempt to interfere with Baldwin’s business to the head of the Qatar Finance Center. FINRA continued and later directed George Foster to the Illinois Secretary of State to Maria Pavone so that she could engage in more proceedings against an entity in which she had zero authority over. Please find these details at www.ShawnBaldwinVsIlsos.com
IN CLOSING, BALDWIN AND CMG WERE NEVER NET CAPITAL DEFICIENT. BALDWIN AND CMG ALSO TURNED IN ALL DOCUMENTS THROUGH THEIR ATTORNEY AND NEVER SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED AN 8210 VIOLATION. FINRA WAS DETERMINED TO SHUT DOWN BALDWIN’S SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS ANDNTHEY WERE MORE UNHAPPY WHEN BALDWIN LANDED MEDIA PUBLICITY AND THE BLACKBERRY COMMERCIAL.
“Moreover, we find troubling the contradictory statements given by Enforcement’s witnesses with respect to respondents’ failure to respond to the final disposition letter. The differing responses from Enforcement’s witnesses, coupled with the confused nature of the FINRA examiner’s testimony, raise considerable questions concerning the accuracy of Enforcement’s general assessment that respondents did not respond completely to the requests. Consequently, while we do not necessarily agree with respondents’ claims that they responded fully and repeatedly to these requests, we find that Enforcement did not satisfy its burden of proof with respect to respondents’ alleged violations of NASD Rule 8210 related to these requests. “
Feb 20, 2008 E8A20050252 CMG Institutional Trading, LLC and Shawn D. Baldwin Disciplinary Decision