Hsu Linked to Past Clinton Scandal Donor

Cybercast News Service ^ | September 14, 2007 | Fred Lucas

[CutePuppy]

Hsu Linked to Past Clinton Scandal Donor
By Fred Lucas

September 14, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - Norman Hsu's donations to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign have brought comparisons but no direct connections to the 1990s "Chinagate" scandal.

But before Hsu made headlines as a fugitive fundraiser late last month (he's now in custody in California for a 1991 grand theft conviction), he served on a board with another key figure in the earlier fundraising scandal.

For more than a year, Hsu was a member of the board for the New School University in New York, where he worked with Bernard L. Schwartz. The latter, a major Clinton donor, was chief executive officer of a major defense contractor involved in technology transfers to the People's Republic of China, according to a congressional report released in 1999.

Hsu was named to the New School's board of governors in May 2006, New School spokesman Brian Krapf told Cybercast News Service. He was named to the board of trustees in July 2007.

Schwartz has served on the board of trustees since October 2004, according to a press release from the New School.

Schwartz, former chief of Loral Space and Communications, was very close to both Bill and Hillary Clinton, spent his 71st birthday with them in the White House in 1997, and is credited with giving $1.5 million to Democrats during the Clinton years, according to news reports. He reportedly has given $256,000 to the Democratic Party since 2004.

According to the congressional report, Loral and Hughes Electronics, another defense firm, provided Chinese space engineers with technical rocketry data that could assist the communist country's weapons programs. The firms allegedly pushed to get export licensing authority transferred from the U.S. State Department to the U.S. Department of Commerce, thus making it easier to transfer U.S. missile and satellite technology to the Chinese.

Schwartz could not be reached for comment.

The congressional report also said Chinese Col. Liu Chaoying helped to funnel $300,000 to Johnny Chung, a key figure in the 1996 Clinton fundraising scandal. "Col. Liu's payment to Johnny Chung was an attempt to better position her in the United States to acquire computer, missile and satellite technologies," according to the report.

"Schwartz did business with communist China, so any connection Hsu has with him is intriguing," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton told Cybercast News Service. "The Chinese government obtained many benefits from their access to U.S. technology."

In a 1998 news release after the scandal made headlines, Loral officials stated, "No sensitive information -- no significant technology -- was conveyed to the Chinese. No 'secret' or 'classified' information was ever discussed with the Chinese."

The statement further said that Bernard Schwartz "was not personally involved in any aspect of this matter. No political favors or benefits of any kind were requested or extended."

By 2003, both Loral and Hughes agreed to pay a combined fine of $32 million to the federal government for passing missile technology to the Chinese.

Schwartz retired as CEO of Loral in 2006, and now heads his own investment firm, BLS Investments.

Copyright 1998-2006 Cybercast News Service

[CutePuppy]

For more than a year, Hsu was a member of the board for the New School University in New York, where he worked with Bernard L. Schwartz. The latter, a major Clinton donor, was chief executive officer of a major defense contractor involved in technology transfers to the People's Republic of China, according to a congressional report released in 1999.

Hsu was named to the New School's board of governors in May 2006, New School spokesman Brian Krapf told Cybercast News Service. He was named to the board of trustees in July 2007.

Schwartz has served on the board of trustees since October 2004, according to a press release from the New School.

Fast comer. On what basis? Donation[s]? Recommendation by Bernie Schwartz or someone else? And when did Hsu start / register Components Ltd with the State of New York - that could answer many related questions.

[CutePuppy]

Hsu + Schwartz connection = New School, some more details you were interested in.

[Just mythoughts]

http://www.newschool.edu/

Oh so this is the school where Bob Kerrey is the President..... so very very very interesting.

[kitkat]

BUMP IN THE NIGHT

[justa-hairyape]

And it turns out the New School has a India China Institute.

India China Institute (ICI), based at The New School, fosters study, research and connections among India, China and the United States, countries that increasingly share interests and challenges.

India China Institute Web Page Link

[jmaroneps37]

I know there are many out there who just can’t accept that the beast will ever get in trouble she can not get out of, but I believe this Hsu thing PLUS the Paul suit will bring her to her knees. This scandal is bigger than she is and it is NOT going away. For the first and only time she will face tough questions she will be forced to answer or look stupid. THIS IS NOT GOING AWAY.

[justa-hairyape]

More interesting 'coincidences'.

The New School was given a $10 Million grant to create its India China Institute from the Starr Foundation (Mr. Starr was a pioneer of globalization and founded the American International Companies AIG). Below there is a link to a press release from the New School dated November 4th 2004. The title of that press release is New School University Receives Major Gifts to Fund Projects Related to Globalization. So what is the other gift they are referencing ? Well, at exactly the same time that the New School receives $10 Million for its India China Institute, Bernard Schwartz also donates a $3.7 Million Grant to the Center for Economic Policy Analysis and Endowed Professorship. Now that is odd. A man accused of giving advanced missile technology to the Chinese, gives a $3.7 million grant to a school at the same time the school recieves a $10 Million Grant to establish the India China Institute. An Institute established to do the following - "..The ICI will be supported by the latest in communications technology, and will create a circulation of people and information that will yield a variety of products,.."

So are these little coincidences or are these big coincidences ?

Click for Press release and 'may the Schwartz be with you'.

[devane617]

...wanna bet? The media is burying this story as fast as possible. The Hildabeast will skate. Anyway, her supporters will not care. They will elect her POTUS.

[Dad yer funny]

FR *bookmark*

[glaseatr]

Bump for later

[Suzy Quzy]

New School sounds like the Chinese version of the FSU Muslim criminals school. RATS NEST!!!! The Clintons are up to the necks in ILLEGALITIES!!

[khnyny]

I have a question. Was Schwartz involved with a company called L-3 Communications? Isn’t L-3 a spin-off of Loral?

[justa-hairyape]

From Wikipedia.

Loral Corporation was a small Bronx defense contractor on the verge of bankruptcy when in 1972 it was acquired by Bernard Schwartz, who over the course of the next two decades built it into a major player in the global aerospace and defense industry, acquiring sixteen other defense and aerospace companies. In 1995, Loral had $5.5 billion in revenue. In 1996 Loral sold its defense electronics and system integration businesses to Lockheed Martin; its remaining units became Loral Space & Communications. The following year, several of those former Loral units were spun off by Lockheed Martin to become the core of L-3 Communications.

So L-3 Comunications was spun off from Lockheed Martin after acquisition from Loral Corporation. It originally was one of Loral's defense electronics and system integration businesses.

[justa-hairyape]

New School sounds like the Chinese version of the FSU Muslim criminals school.

The Chinese are not here to terrorize us just yet. My initial take is that the India China Institute may be an 'information' conduit. Sensitive material to China. New Hsu's for the Rats.

[CutePuppy]

It’s a good question. L-3 and Loral history is a little complicated. We can start with the fact that Loral Space & Communications (NASD:LORL) and L-3 Communications Holdings (NYSE:LLL) currently share the same address:

Loral Space & Communications Inc.
600 3rd Ave.
New York, NY 10016 -— Phone: 212-697-1105

L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc.
600 3rd Ave.
New York, NY 10016 -— Phone: 212-697-1111

L-3 :

---

In the early 1970s, Frank Lanza caught defense giant Lockheed’s eye by building Loral Corporation into an aerospace industry contender through acquisitions of smaller defense technology firms. Lockheed (now Lockheed Martin) eventually bought Loral in 1996 and made Lanza the head of defense electronics. Looking for more action, Lanza formed L-3 Communications Holdings in 1997 by convincing Lockheed Martin’s CEO to spin off a group of 10 communications technology units and put him at the helm. The operations were units from General Electric and Loral acquired by Lockheed Martin in 1993 and 1996, respectively.

In charge were two of the L’s in the L-3 name: 20-year Loral executives Lanza (chairman and CEO, by then old enough to retire) and Robert LaPenta (president and CFO). The third L stands for major backer Lehman Brothers. The company embarked on an acquisition binge (just as Loral had originally done) in 1997. L-3 targeted strapped independent companies and the potential noncore operations of large corporate mergers.

Much as he had at Loral, Lanza remained a hands-off executive, a surprising approach in a red tape-wrapped industry. As a result, L-3’s divisions developed an entrepreneurial freedom. In 1998 L-3 went public.

CEO Frank Lanza died suddenly in June 2006. Prior to his passing he had championed the idea of continuing to add to L-3’s product lines by acquiring niche technology companies and by adapting L-3’s defense technologies to commercial markets, primarily transportation and communications, which account for a quarter of sales.

---

Loral :

---

Loral was founded in 1948 by William Lorenz and Leon Alpert (”Lor” and “Al” in “Loral”), who created a conglomerate by buying companies such as a toymaker, a copper-wire business, and an industrial meter maker. Many of the acquisitions proved less than successful, and by the early 1970s the company was foundering. In 1972 Loral posted a $3 million loss, had defaulted on loans, and was threatened with delisting by the New York Stock Exchange. Then Bernard Schwartz stepped in.

Schwartz, former president of computer leasing company Leasco, came aboard as chairman and president, and within a year had the company back in the black by focusing on defense electronics systems.

Loral’s breakthrough came with a radar warning receiver for a fighter plane. Previously, a week-long rewiring was necessary for receivers to cope with new enemy signals. Using programmable software, Loral’s system took minutes.

Loral was among many defense contractors swept up in the General Accounting Office’s Operation Ill Wind investigation of defense procurements, and in 1989 executives pleaded guilty to three charges. Schwartz doubled Loral’s size in 1990 when he bought Ford Aerospace for $715 million.

In 1996 Lockheed Martin spent $9 billion to buy all but the satellite operations of Loral, which Schwartz held on to, creating Loral Space & Communications; he dedicated the company to building a global satellite network. After Loral launched a satellite that year on a Chinese rocket despite export controls and economic sanctions, the US Department of Justice (DoJ) began investigating whether the company unlawfully transferred military technology.

In 1999 Schwartz was exonerated of allegations that he used his hefty donations to the Democratic Party to curry White House favor to approve Loral’s export of satellite technology to China. However, the investigation into whether the company violated export controls continued.

Early in 2002 Loral agreed to a “no contest” civil settlement with the DoJ to the tune of $14 million; the agreement allows Loral to resume selling satellites and technology to China.

in July 2003 Loral filed for bankruptcy. The same year Loral wrote off its 49% stake in Satelites Mexicanos, S.A. de C.V. (Satmex), which — in default on its financing arrangements — ceased paying interest on its unsecured debt. In 2004, as part of its restructuring agreement, Loral completed the sale of six of its satellites to Intelsat. Loral emerged from bankruptcy protection in 2005.

Having seen the company through its reorganization, Schwartz retired effective March 1, 2006.

---

[Suzy Quzy]

Is L-3 a corrupt org. also??

[CutePuppy]

Doesn’t seem likely at this point. If you notice from timeline, Schwartz (and Loral Space Comm) was never directly involved with Lockheed buyout -

“In 1996 Lockheed Martin spent $9 billion to buy all but the satellite operations of Loral, which Schwartz held on to, creating Loral Space & Communications; he dedicated the company to building a global satellite network.”

- so the later spinoff by Lockheed of L-3, though it included units of former Loral is not directly related to Loral Space Comm and Schwartz.

The thing that seems fishy to me here is that they share the same building as HQ (and even same phone “bank”?)...

[Suzy Quzy]

FISHY??? To say the LEAST!!!

[khnyny]

Thanks for the info. - very informative, if somewhat eomplicated.

One of the original three “L’s” also started a biotech company specializing in biometrics. The guy was praising Schwartz in an interview. I’ll have to see if I can dig up that article.

[khnyny]

Thanks for the info - see post 19.

[bray]

One more layer of the clinton Chinese Mafia is exposed.
A few $$mil for $Billions of US missle technology is a real bargain.

Pray for W and Our Troops

[khnyny]

Here’a an interview with LaPenta:

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:gre6BtJ0NDgJ:www.gsnmagazine.com/nov_06/one_on_onelapenta.html+robert+la+penta&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=11&gl=us

[CutePuppy]

Good article, thanks. Not really heaping a lot of praise on Schwartz, more like a couple of lines explaining what his strategy of roll-ups was, which started taking shape in 1970's, and which he and Lanza followed it in building L-3.

Roll-ups are simply acquisitions of competitors in a given industry, which lead to industry consolidation and result in higher prices due to lack of competition. Unfortunately, consolidation of defense industry was sharpest in 1990's when Clinton allowed several mergers and buyouts which reduced number of defense suppliers and defense contractor companies to just a few.

Interestingly, Schwartz really failed in his acquisition roll-up strategy to build Loral because eventually high debt forced him to disinvest almost all divisions / units, practically everything except Loral Space & Communications, to Lockheed-Martin in 1996. Lanza and LaPenta, who worked for Schwartz in Loral for almost 24 years, from 1972 to 1996 when he was forced to sell to Lockheed, went to Lockheed as part of acquisition. Just one year later, in 1997, Lanza convinced Lockheed to spin off L-3 formed from 10 former Loral subsidiaries, and then a year later, in 1998, L-3 went public and raised a lot of money in successful IPO. Scwartz was a WS VC banker, Lanza ("tech guy") and LaPenta ("finance guy") were more successful because they knew the industry and were more selective in their deals, but implemented essentially the same roll-up strategy with L-3 as Schwartz did with Loral.

Loral Corporation was an assemblage of defense units acquired from Fairchild, Ford, IBM, Unisys, and others between the mid-1970s and mid-1990s by Wall Street investor Bernard L. Schwartz. In April 1996, Lockheed Martin acquired most of these businesses for $9.1 billion. Two Loral executives, COO Frank Lanza and comptroller Robert LaPenta, joined Lockheed Martin as executive vice-president and vice-president, respectively. Loral's space businesses formed a separate firm, Loral Space & Communications Ltd., run by Schwartz.

Lanza, described by the Washington Post as "a taciturn New Yorker admired for his creativity and engineering genius," reportedly felt stifled by the bureaucratic corporate atmosphere at Lockheed Martin. An electrical engineer by training, Lanza had joined Loral in 1972 and was named president and chief operating officer in 1981. Along the way, he was instrumental in growing the company from modest origins to a $7 billion giant.

In 1997, as he approached traditional retirement age, Lanza convinced his new employer, Lockheed Chairman Norman R. Augustine, to spin off ten former Loral companies to form L-3 Communications. ("It took me less than half an hour to get a yes," Lanza later told Business Week.) Lanza finally got a chance to be CEO, and numbers whiz LaPenta was named president and chief financial officer.

The ten businesses spun off had annual revenues of $650 million and 4,900 employees.

Lockheed Martin received $503.8 million for selling 65 percent of its ownership in the ten companies. After the sale, a limited partnership led by Lehman Brothers owned half of L-3; Lockheed Martin retained a 35 percent interest and a management group accounted for another 15 percent. Lockheed agreed to invest $43.75 million in L-3, Lehman invested $62.5 million, and the management group provided $43.75 million. Another $375 million was financed with bank debt and high-yield bonds. The name of the new company came from Lanza, LaPenta, and Lehman Brothers.

L-3's first year revenues were $701 million. Plans for a $100 million initial public offering (IPO) were announced in February 1998. The IPO at $22 a share came on May 19; in the next six months the company's share price would rise to $46 a share, helped by strong earnings.

Lanza's acquisition strategy was to buy technology leaders, either struggling independent companies or black sheep divisions of major defense contractors, observed Business Week. Lanza focused on small to medium sized companies to avoid costly takeover battles with aerospace giants.

By November 1998, L-3 had already acquired seven companies. L-3 posted after-tax profits of $32 million on revenues of $1 billion in 1998. An additional stock offering was announced in early 1999, intending to raise $136 million to pay down debt and fund further acquisitions.

When Institutional Investor asked Lanza L-3's next move in November 2000, he quipped, "We're gonna go buy Lockheed." L-3's impressive growth made this a less than outrageous prospect. The company's share price reached $80 by the end of the year. A new stock offering announced in April 2001 was to raise $350 million.

In the spring of 2001, Lanza announced that he was changing his acquisition strategy to buy larger companies in a bid to become "the Home Depot of the defense industry." He aimed for L-3 to have revenues of $6 or $7 billion within the next several years--a stretch for what was then a $2 billion company, but not a laughable one, especially given Lanza's reputation.

At the 2001 Paris Air Show, Lanza told www.AviationNow .com that L-3 was a catalog company. It was more efficient, he said, to approach the handful of major aerospace companies with a vast array of products, than to try to vie for their business as a small, $100 million supplier. L-3 also boasted considerable financial resources and R&D capabilities and offered administrative efficiencies to the companies it acquired.

From 1996 sale of almost entire Loral (except Space) to Lockheed's spinoff of them in 1997 and 1998 IPO - awfully quick, and it seems like it was Bernie's loss and everybody else's gain, but I don't know all details of the sale.

There is an interesting detail in very good 2003 BusinessWeek article L-3's dealmaking has won admirers but also raised eyebrows :

... Schwartz, Lanza's former boss and an L-3 investor (he declines to disclose his stake) ...

Now, this was possibly, a part of the deal that he made when he sold to Lockheed (though I am not sure how that could be separated, unless L-3 IPO was as part of Lockheed stock) and he didn't have to disclose his ownership stake on SEC forms and filings unless he owned 5% or more of L-3 stock which would be very doubtful. I don't know if he still owns L-3 stock, and don't know or think that it would be illegal if he does.

Lanza died in June of 2006, his death was "sudden and unexpected", one day after his vist to the doctor who "determined that he was proceeding satisfactorily in his recovery" from two-month old surgery.

[khnyny]

Great post - thanks.

I actually think LaPenta’s ideas with L-1 are right on target.

[CutePuppy]

You are probably right. An example of his roll-up / consolidation strategy in the biometric space see his execution of merger between two public companies Viisage (VISG) and Identix (IDNX), and at the same time folding in another company SecuriMetrics, creating $1.1B market cap public company L-1 Identity Solutions (NYSE:ID), just a year ago, with LaPenta as Chairman.

[CutePuppy]

Re Hsu, have a question for you because of your locale.

Is it difficult to find out when and where Hsu registered this company as a business in the state of New York? The reason for this is simple - if it’s a fresh new company (not even a corporation) with little track record, then most likely nobody in their right mind would even think to invest millions in it, and thus it’s been set up deliberately for express purpose of laundering money.

I found at least 2 different addresses for Hsu’s “Components Ltd” (aka “Next Components Ltd”, aka “Components Limited”, aka “Because Components”, aka “Consultants Ltd”, aka “Because Men’s”), but both with the same phone number - (212) 221-6969:
Components Ltd, 1411 Broadway, New York, NY, 10012
Components Ltd, 561 7th Ave., New York, NY, 10012

This phone number also belongs (or previously belonged) to :
James Stone Limited Holding, 110 West 40th Street, New York, NY 10018 ... Interestingly, Hsu’s “Because Men’s” is also located in 10018 ZIP, but that’s all I could find, so don’t know if it’s the same business.

From Hsu campaign donation records at http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?last=Hsu&first=Norman -
first reference to “Components Ltd” show only that it started on October 22, 2004 ($2000 to Barack Obama for Senate), but used a different ZIP code then - 10016, and continued until June 28, 2007 (shortly before the “trouble” started).

[justa-hairyape]

Just did a search on the New York Department of State Division of Corporations web site and they list the following corporations with Components Ltd. in their names.

Entity Name

#1 COMPONENTS INTERNATIONAL LTD.
88 COMPONENTS LTD.
ALWAY ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS LTD.
AVIATION COMPONENTS SERVICE LTD.
B & K COMPONENTS, LTD.
BELT COMPONENTS, LTD.
BLUESTAR INTERNATIONAL COMPONENTS LTD.
C.M. SECURITY COMPONENTS U.S. LTD.
CITITECH COMPONENTS, LTD.
COAST COMPONENTS, LTD.
COMPONENTS CLOTHING LTD.
COMPONENTS FOR INDUSTRY, LTD.
COMPONENTS, LTD.
COMPREHENSIVE COMPONENTS INDUSTRIES LTD.
DART COMPONENTS LTD.
ELECTRIC VEHICLE COMPONENTS, LTD.
HUNT COUNTRY COMPONENTS LTD.
ITALIAN COMPONENTS, LTD.
KING COMPONENTS EAST LTD.
KING COMPONENTS LTD.
MODERN ASSEMBLY COMPONENTS, LTD.
NEXT COMPONENTS, LTD.
ONECO COMPONENTS LTD.
OXFORD MICROWAVE COMPONENTS, LTD.
P.C. COMPONENTS, LTD.
PC COMPONENTS EUROPE, LTD.
SATELLITE COMPONENTS LTD.
SATELLITE COMPONENTS LTD.
SUFFOLK NATIONAL COMPONENTS, LTD.
SUPREME LIGHTING COMPONENTS, LTD.
TENCO COMPONENTS LTD.
THETA LAMBDA COMPONENTS & ELECTRONICS, LTD.
TIME COMPONENTS LTD.
TRI-STATE POWER COMPONENTS, LTD.
TWOCO COMPONENTS LTD.
VIRGIN COMPONENTS, LTD.

Their is no 'Components Ltd.'. There is a 'Components, Ltd.' but it was registered in May 1997 and is inactive. Quite frankly, it would be difficult to establish and protect a business name of just 'Components Ltd.' because so many other corporations use Components Ltd. and just add a word in front of that phrase (ie - King Components Ltd.). You would have difficulty trying to trademark the name and any company doing the same type of business with a similar name could claim trademark infringement. Now these are corporations and the Ltd. implies Limited Liability. The State of New York may have a different data base for Limited Liabities that are not corporations. Here is the information for Next Components, LTD. which you listed as one of his claimed business names ?

Selected Entity Name: NEXT COMPONENTS, LTD.

Selected Entity Status Information Current Entity Name: NEXT COMPONENTS, LTD.
Initial DOS Filing Date: MAY 06, 2005
County: NEW YORK
Jurisdiction: NEW YORK
Entity Type: DOMESTIC BUSINESS CORPORATION
Current Entity Status: ACTIVE

Selected Entity Address Information DOS Process (Address to which DOS will mail process if accepted on behalf of the entity)
NEXT COMPONENTS, LTD.
561 SEVENTH AVE, STE 1301
NEW YORK, NEW YORK, 10018
Registered Agent
NONE

[CutePuppy]

Thanks for the link. It’s a bit finicky about commas, I see. Limited or Ltd in UK means the same thing that Inc. or Corp. here, but in most states (that I know of) it is generally meaningless but usually implies either LLC or LLP but not a corporation.

Nonetheless, at a glance, it seems that most of donations recorded are from non-existent (non-registered) company or companies having similar names to “Next Components Ltd” which was registered in 2005 (donations from “Components Ltd” started with Obama in 2004). Also, even ZIP code for existing company in the donation records is wrong - it shows 10012 instead of 10018.

Now, a guy with a degree in business from Wharton should know how to register a company if he is serious about either doing business or even doing a serious swindle. That it has not been done implies that it was nothing more than a name of company on business card and couldn’t possibly be used to catch serious investors in whatever endeavor he wanted to undertake, let alone people who had been entrepreneurs and had their own investment vehicles.

And someone of that caliber “invested” millions of dollars in a company he should have been able to check out better than couple of guys / girls / puppies in pajamas with computer keyboards did in a few hours (Internet never sleeps!). Hmmm!

[justa-hairyape]

He might have registered a DBA of Components Ltd. and got a bank account for it. The DBA would have been, 'Next Components, Ltd.' Doing Business As 'Components Ltd.'. He would have had to run a Fictitious Name Filing. Probably within that county, New York. It appears as if he should not have been able to setup a corporation as 'Components Ltd' in the state of New York. Need to talk to the proper lawyers to verify that.

This appears to be someone with a chaotic life style to say the least. My guess is he intended to 'eventually' register the Components Ltd. corporation and when he eventually went to set it up, he found out the name was not usable due to 'Components, Ltd.' already being registered in the recent past. He may have then talked to a trademark attorney and decided on 'Next Components Ltd.'.

[justa-hairyape]

oops !.

and decided on 'Next Components Ltd.'.

should read

and decided on 'Next Components, Ltd.'.

The fact that he used the comma is relevant.

[justa-hairyape]

Now, a guy with a degree in business from Wharton should know how to register a company if he is serious about either doing business or even doing a serious swindle. That it has not been done implies that it was nothing more than a name of company on business card and couldn’t possibly be used to catch serious investors in whatever endeavor he wanted to undertake, let alone people who had been entrepreneurs and had their own investment vehicles.

Another note - He could have established sole proprietorships. They typically just get registered within a county and get a local city business license. An amount of $40 million however should never get invested into a sole proprietorship. The owner would be personnally responsable for the $40 million invested. They are also much more difficult to verify and can be setup for very little money. You would need to know the County it was registered in to be able to verify that, although there are data base search services that can help verify most registered companies. Limited Liabilities and Corporations are registered with the state. At least that is to the best of my knowledge. That New York State database linked above is for Corporations.

[Liz]

Two points (1) In most states, businesses have to register corporate names with the Secy of State. (2) It is very easy to buy a corporate name (shell company) from someone who had registered the name and is no longer using it.

[Unicorn]

BTTT

[khnyny]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1897539/posts#31

[mewzilla]

Bernard Schwartz’s political donor lists make interesting reading, too...

[khnyny]

For your viewing pleasure:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1897539/posts?q=1&;page=51#56

[CutePuppy]

The fact that he used the comma is relevant.

:-) Yes, and likely not an accident but deliberate, with intent to make a DBA / sole proprietorship (if that's even what that was) look like either a foreign corporation or at least a LLC. Practically all these "companies" have 'Ltd' or 'Limited' in them - I can't see this as just a coincidence. Also, "Components Ltd" as a company name sounds very nondescript and can be used for almost any type of business (like high tech, especially in California's Silicon Valley or Orange County), which is probably how and why it was chosen.

Limited Liabilities and Corporations are registered with the state. At least that is to the best of my knowledge. That New York State database linked above is for Corporations.

I saw Corporations and LLCs and LLPs there. Also, Hsu's "companies" seem to have a "traveling" or "flexible" ZIP code when used in donations (according to donations records). But all of them seem to be Manhattan ZIPs, so any Fictitious Name Filing for dba should be found in papers around that county that specialize in these ads (within 10 years, I believe, in most states, but may differ by states) .

"Next Components, Ltd" phone and address is not "listed" as "in the book" but according to NY DOS it has the same address that I found for "Components Ltd" which is also "listed" at another address with the same phone number, and was "formed" earlier according to FEC donations records. "Chaotic life style to say the least" and "our eyes just glaze over the complexity" may become a mantra if they want Hsu to become the only scapegoat and prevent from spreading looking at Hsu's "gullible investors" and other "victims".

It is very easy to buy a corporate name (shell company) from someone who had registered the name and is no longer using it.

Exactly, it is very easy and should not be all that expensive, so why not do it and establish a "legitimate" corporation[s] (not dba) to protect himself if he wanted to either get a legitimate business (especially import / export with China, as alleged by Rosenman) or a swindle? How would one expect to hook a "whale" to invest big money into a China import-export business without even "on paper" real company with business address? Even with a business representative, it's never done. It's only needed for one real purpose - to establish a business checking account, transactions in which hopefully are being thoroughly examined. DBAs also have to pay city annual business license renewal fees and/or taxes and state quarterly sales taxes (if any, but at least forms have to be filed).

[CutePuppy]

Thanks, excellent link by PhilDragoo to All things Hsu , compiled in one place.

[justa-hairyape]

You are correct about that web site. I was too busy with other stuff to read their complete description which states the following.

The Corporation and Business Entity Database includes business and not for profit corporations, limited partnerships, limited liability companies and limited liability partnerships, as well as other miscellaneous businesses.

The Hsu's 'Components Ltd' should have been there if he was legit. I noticed on some of his political donations he incorrectly spelled the company name as 'Componets Ltd'. Did a search on the NY database and it is not registered.

[CutePuppy]

I can’t see how anybody with the least bit of business sense could become a “victim” of Hsu here.

Would it be too early to assert that the reasons for setting up and using the names of these “companies” and those similar to them were not to do a legitimate business, but to hold himself up in political circles as a successful businessman, and establish business bank accounts to be ready as potential channels for laundering money to campaigns through “investments” and “loans” to these businesses?

[SeaHawkFan]

Anyone who thinks the Communist Chinese wouldn’t blackmail Hillary is naive.

[justa-hairyape]

Would it be too early to assert that the reasons for setting up and using the names of these “companies” and those similar to them were not to do a legitimate business, but to hold himself up in political circles as a successful businessman, and establish business bank accounts to be ready as potential channels for laundering money to campaigns through “investments” and “loans” to these businesses?

Setting up business names with very little activity is not proof of illegal intent. He may have intended to do legal business but failed to generate any business activity. If you however combine the other relevant facts: Claiming he had a business called 'Components Ltd' before he actually filed 'Next Components, Inc' in New York demonstrates criminal intent; Incorrect Spelling (Componets Ltd) and Claiming Business Names that never existed (Because) on a Political Donation demonstrates intent to deceive; etc. etc. What we have evidence of is intent to deceive. It will be up to the feds to determine criminality. Obviously using post dated checks as part of a negotiated business exchange which later turned out to bad due to insufficient funds is a crime. Is he was fronting a lot of unregistered company names he would have had problems setting up a lot of bank accounts. He probably had a corporate account for the Next Components Ltd. May have done some DBA names for the fake or front companies. He would have had some problems though. My guess is he either worked with a lot of cash or he had a colluding bank or bank insider that helped him cash checks made out to fake names.

Intent to deceive, yes.
Criminality, to be determined by feds and banks.
Democrats being surprised by all this, either they are easily fooled, they are lieing or they are easily fooled liars.

I think it is a safe bet to state what you want to state. To state what is obvious and what history has taught us about the Crintons.

[potlatch]

	MONEY HONEY
HSU'S     GOT

[CutePuppy]

Criminality, to be determined by feds and banks.

Well, if we can help a little... 8->

[Mr Apple]

bttt