Missing from the S.C. Weekly Puff Piece on Take Back Santa Cruz Co-Founder Analicia Cube

Analicia did not have to deal with the tough questions raised in this article:

Was Tough-on-Crime Take Back Santa Cruz Founded by a Corporate Criminal?
https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/06/02/18649646.php

Someone posting as "Dexter Cube" answered them (sort of) last year in the comments section of a Patch article:

"My rebuttal to the above link is that I was fined, censured and suspended from securities trading stemming from incidences that occurred in over 10 years ago in NYC. The firm paid my fines, the firm then closed shop because of falling below net cap requirements, and I as a Partner in the investment banking firm was sued by clients that lost money. I am proud of my mistakes, own up to them, have paid the price, and have since moved on in career. I am no longer an Equities Trader working in the Investment Banking arena, and work to a different capacity these days for a global software company."

"I settled with clients that lost money. You see, back in the dot com era, securities were going up sometimes even doubling in a single trading session. Remember securities like AOL, and Worldcom? These were firm recommended securities that I turn recommended to clients, and when these investments went sour, my clients lose money, and then they in turn sued me and the firm I was a managing partner."

"I was the first person to comment on your post, because the IndyBay article infers that because I recommended firm endorsed suggestions to my clients over 10 years ago when I lived in Manhattan, that I broke laws therefore am a “criminal”. I admit to recommending securities that had shoddy accounting reporting, in the original dot com era when lots of people were paper millionaires. I admitted to making MISTAKES, as I am sure you do to, I am not perfect. My mistake is one that is career based, which I chalk up to youth, thrust into success out of b school, and believing firm recommendations. I also wished I had cashed out at the market peak, which is the tale I am sure I share with many investors of yesterday."

"I didn't break the law, I made mistakes. There is a big difference."

"I didn't break the law nor did I pay a penny out of my pocket to settle on my end. If I solicited a trade based on a firm recommended stock/bond/mutual fund, and it fell within the client's stated investment objectives, the firm paid for the restitution to the client and my legal fees. In some professions like legal, medical, and those in the investment arena, sometimes it is best to settle with clients and move on."

"You thought I was a "criminal" because I settled with clients, that lost money in dot com bubble, over a decade ago, when I lived in Manhattan,3,000 miles away, when I was in my 20's. I am not. I never had to pay a legal fee or restitution to a client out of MY pocket. The firm picked up every bit of it . So why wouldn't I settle and move on?"


Quotes are from the comments section of this article: http://santacruz.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/city-council-campaign-gets-dirty

The REAL missing piece is Analicia Cube WAS NOT a founder of TBSC, her husband Dexter Cube was. I had NEVER seen the name 'Analicia' attached to anything related to TBSC until her husband crawled back into the slime and out of the public eye.

Shortly after TBSC's founding problems arose because Dexter is a twice felony convicted financial frauder and once found out Dexter slowly vanished into the background and his wife emerged as a surrogate.

Regarding the Metro article, I got about 1/2 way through the it before my stomach began to churn so I never finished reading it but the Metro should be ashamed of itself for such a shallow piece of trash, not even worthy of the journalistic term "Puff piece", and rivaling the Senile in it's editorially un-corrected, obvious, glaring faults.

I haven't had time until today to go through the article fully but the first paragraph I read last week, struck me.

from the author: It took me a month to get up the courage to tell Analicia Cube where I work

from Analicia Cube:she rolled her eyes and said, “I’m sorry, but the Santa Cruz Weekly is no friend of mine.”


So in the very first paragraph the author of the piece admits she's on some level, afraid of telling AC where she works. And what could be so scary about where she works? Well she works at the SC Weekly. And what could be the big crime, the shocking event that would put the Santa Cruz Weekly on Analicia Cube's shitlist???

The SC Weekly was practically the only local media outlet to report on TBSC officer and public safety commission member Steve Schlicht's shockingly crass comment on not caring about if junkies die, just as long as it's not in Santa Cruz.

No one disputes that Steve wrote this. But what apparently makes steve and analicia SO angry is that such hateful thoughts were broadcast beyond the protective dome of nastiness, commonly known as TBSC FB.

speaks volumes, doesn't it.

I thought I remember reading on an indybay article or comment way back when that Dexter Cube had been involved in fundraising or supporting Meg Whitman in her run for CA Governor. Does anyone recall this info and have more to add? Like what his connection to her or level of involvement, and what period of time this was?

Perhaps the most interesting thing in the heroic worship piece of Analicia Cube comes in the comments section.

Someone made the not-so-original points about the lack of transparency of the group. That information regarding their bylaws, donations, board of directors, financials were not public and any attempts to get information have been rebuffed by officers. Also, it was noted Dexter Cube's run in with the law when he was a broker.

In response to this,Dexter Cube wrote:

About me, it’s never been about just me. I personally have settled court cases with clients and agencies when I was an investment banker in New York when I was in my twenties, nearly 15 years ago. Some clients lost money in the tech dot com bubble and they filed a lawsuit. I settled with them without admitting or denying any guilt. Agencies as well. I just wanted to move on and the firm paid for my financial settlement. I had large positions in Worldcom, AOL, and a diverse group of small cap tech stocks that were firm recommendations posted by our analysts. I was following MBAs I believed were smarter than me. Fortunately, I was able to walk away with a nice nest egg, and take some time off enough to realize that I didn’t want a career to be tied to an industry like the financial markets. -

That's a nice explanation except that when I googled this what comes up is SEC action against Emmanuel Dexter Cube. It's curious that his explanation glosses over the SEC action against him. SEC was not a matter of "settling" with clients it was a punitive penalty based on a conclusion of guilt. http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/33-8202.htm

Here's what the SEC listed as behavior that Dexter Cube participated in:

5. Emmanuel P. "Dexter" Cube ("Cube"), age 31, has been a registered representative since January 1994, and was associated with Barclay from September 1994 through December 2000. Cube owns 2% of Barclay. .....

The RRs Defrauded Numerous Customers

10. During the time period from in or about June 1997 through in or about December 1998, Alacan, Cube, Dallal, Noor, Scarso and Scott (together, the "RRs") engaged in the following conduct in the accounts of their customers:

a. Alacan, CUBE, Dallal, Scarso and Scott MADE UNAUTHORIZED PURCHASES and sales of securities including unauthorized purchases of securities on margin in the accounts of at least 11 customers. These respondents purchased or sold stock without first obtaining their customers' approval, and on some occasions purchased stock in greater amounts than approved, or purchased stock on margin without first obtaining their customers' consent to trading on margin.

b. Alacan, CUBE, Dallal, Noor and Scott churned the accounts of at least 12 customers. They controlled the customers' accounts, and traded excessively in the customers' accounts in light of the customers' investment objectives. The accounts which these respondents churned had turnover ratios ranging from approximately 6.48 to approximately 61.31, and break-even ratios ranging from approximately 14.42% to approximately 433.96%. ....

d. Alacan, CUBE, Dallal, Noor, Scarso and Scott MADE UNSUITABLE PURCHASES and sales of securities including unsuitable purchases of stock on margin in the accounts of at least 13 customers. They did so either by recommending purchases or sales of securities that were not suitable for the customers in light of the customers' ages, investment experience, financial status, risk tolerance and investment objectives, or, by conducting transactions on margin without ascertaining the customers' understanding of the risks associated with the use of margin, among other things.

e. Alacan, CUBE, Scarso and Scott FAILED TO EXECUTE SALE ORDERS or follow other instructions from at least four customers, by, among other things, failing to sell a stock upon a customer's request, or failing to complete a transfer of a customer's account to a different broker-dealer.

11. Based on the foregoing, the RRs willfully violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act in that they, in the offer or sale of securities, by use of the means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by use of the mails, directly or indirectly: employed devices, schemes or artifices to DEFRAUD; obtained money or property by means of UNTRUE statements of material fact or omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstance under which they were made, not misleading; or engaged in transactions, practices or courses of business which would or did operate as a fraud or deceit upon purchasers or prospective purchasers of such securities. As part of their fraudulent conduct, the RRs engaged in the activities described in paragraphs 10(a)-(e) above.

12. Based on the foregoing, the RRs also willfully violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder in that they, in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, by use of the means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce or by use of the mails or of the facilities of any national securities exchange, directly or indirectly: employed devices, schemes or artifices to defraud; made untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; or engaged in acts, practices or courses of business which would or did operate as a fraud or a deceit upon any person. As part of their fraudulent conduct, the RRs engaged in the activities described in paragraphs 10(a)-(e) above.

The cached version that relates specifically to Dexter Cube is here: http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/33-8201.htm

-So to review, a commenter made note of Dexter's legal troubles as a broker.
-Dexter replies and explains this away as a matter of following the advice of MBAs and the dot.com bubble bursting.
-In contrast, the SEC documents appear to affix guilt on Mr Cube,specifically that Cube violated a section of the exchange act and a section of the securities Act that prohibit fraudulent conduct.

This is important because it clearly demonstrates that the SEC seemingly found that in these cases, Dexter had a problem with the truth.

Was this an isolated case or something that indicates a pattern in how TBSC is run?

I've noticed that TBSC as a group is pretty adapt at using diversionary tactics if anyone dares to throw a hard question their way or demand anything in the way of facts. Things can get testy quickly, defensiveness is often the order of the day. But above this is are the techniques of diversion, confusion, and obfuscation.

You can see in play in the actual article. Asked who her biggest critics are, the answer is ANARCHISTS. The question itself was an open ended softball that allowed the subject, Analicia to serve up whatever course of bullshit soup she wanted. But the answer is telling because it's part of the TBSC technique of painting any critic in a negative light. The idea is to put an image into readers minds of those opposed to TBSC as being against the police department, or being against any group that on some level supports the police department. (Ridiculous claims but no one is questioning them). When you accuse critics as more likely than not being a Black Block Anarchist, it conjures up images of danger, of masked men and women looking to remove all order from Santa Cruz and replacing it with a sort of MadMax by the sea system of rule. In a small town, how many middle of the road critics want to be painted as some scary Black Block Anarchist that hates the police? Not many. So even though this anarchist line sounds crazy to anyone with a halfway functional brain, it apparently is working well on a number of people in our community.

The comments section shows how the group and it's leaders respond to criticism supported by facts.

If one is going to use diversionary tactics to avoid answering hard questions, naturally it helps to have an interviewer that isn't going to demand a real answer or to have a flash mob of internet supporters to crush the hapless critic as a loser, someone with a petty ax to grind, an anarchist, or jealous. These straw man arguments are of course, illogical, but done properly as a mob it tends to silence but a few people.

Let's look at the responses to critics in this article's comment section:

-you're an anarchist
-you made incorrect assertions (actually upon reading the ensuing dialogue, the assertions appear to have been correct)
-but what about indybay? (veiled anarchist reference)
-stop enablers, let's vote out politicians that have turned SC into an urban zoo (urban animals? I wonder what the author means?)
-I;m not in TBSC but you're probably a local antagoniser (refers again to anarchists)
-people who don't understand TBSC are either (liberal ) leaders trying to hide the high crime rate or part of the problem (criminals?)
-thank you TBSC for addressing the co-dependent apathy in SC and being an adult (amongst those who disagree who must be children)
-stop the character assassination of Analicia Cube!
-Steve (I am fine with junkies dying) Schlicht--you critics are just plain jealous!

and the best of all from Analicia and Dexter when they tried to silence a critic by making online kissy poo comments to each other (He's SO cute! wink!) (Muah, you're an amazing woman!) unfortunately no one picked up on this like they probably were supposed to...when the kissy poo diversion is employed (can also use cute kids, baby animals) you're supporters are supposed to chime in and say...ahhhh...they're such a cute couple, stop being so mean to them.

Out of all of the critical comments regarding the article, the group, there were no rebuttals that utilized facts. All the responses were emotionally based. Which makes sense since there was one assertion in the article that I tend to agree with, that TBSC is the place where people land when they freak out from fear. When one is crazy fearful over the latest SC Sentinel crime parade or a particularly tragic event there is TBSC with open arms and a march, telling you it will all be okay if you just drink the TBSC koolaid. TBSC is holding themselves out as the antidote to fear. And in case anyone missed it, fear is arguably the most powerful potion being served up in Santa Cruz these last few years.

"T.J. Magallanes, the founder of The Clean Team website, has repeatedly noted that TBSC activists kidnapped his site and their hostility made his presence in town uncomfortable."

You're STILL being duped... Just like you were fooled into promoting that homeless-bashing porn vid by the 'clean team' allowing TBSC to frame itself as "a kinder, gentler, 'we would NEVER do that!" sort of blackshirt front.

T.J's in town, and hanging out with ALL of his old buds...

Thought you'd like to know.

It also sounds, like a few other contractors I know, that he was in Oklahoma making money on the disaster-industrial complex in the wake of the string of large tornadoes there this summer, not "In hiding".