If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Government lawyers won't charge any Wall Street execs over 2008 debacle. "They don't get the whole concept of looting"   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 23
    More: Fail, Wall Street, Eric Schneiderman, Neil Barofsky, accounting fraud, Qwest, University of Missouri-Kansas City, New York Attorney General, financial instruments  
•       •       •

3085 clicks; posted to Business » on 09 Sep 2012 at 8:37 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-09-09 08:01:39 AM
10 votes:
Obvious tag should have been obvious. When you pay millions to the people that would throw you in jail, you buy protection too. Who would have thunk it?
2012-09-09 11:20:06 AM
7 votes:
The sun is setting on Democracy in America. Its a laughably open secret that our government no longer represents The People and is now for sale to the highest bidder. Elections are between two well groomed candidates who, while appearing to be at odds, are actually beholden to the same interests.

The only two outcomes from this point are either revolution or a be a serf in the new Corporatocracy. I highly doubt despite the tough talk that Americans have the balls to revolt.
2012-09-09 10:20:36 AM
4 votes:
www.digischool.nl

say what you will about the French, but they came up with a great idea
2012-09-09 08:46:34 AM
4 votes:
Step 1: Make looting legal.
Step 2: Loot.
Step 3: Profit.
2012-09-10 01:49:44 AM
2 votes:
If the prosecutors and the SEC staff cannot make a case in this situation, why do we continue to fund their departments. It should be made clear to them that if they cannot enforce the laws that they are employed to enforce, they have no purpose and their departments in this area will be dismantled. I think their opinions of these cases will suddenly change and the cases will become stronger if they have something to lose and cannot just say it is too tough to do their jobs. It may be a tough case to make, but if you cannot enforce the rules in the most egregious case, what is your value? I think the wall street firms have conspired to make the cases harder to prosecute. They use the SEC to keep each other honest in dealing with each other but try to hinder any attempt by the SEC to protect the shareholder from the misdeeds of the firms.
2012-09-09 03:00:34 PM
2 votes:
What happened in 2008 wasn't a financial crisis. It was a financial crime wave.

And that crime wave is still going on.
2012-09-09 10:01:29 AM
2 votes:
So pitchforks and torches are the solution?
2012-09-10 06:44:00 PM
1 votes:
"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank and he can rob the world." - Anonymous
2012-09-10 12:47:49 PM
1 votes:

duffblue: MisterRonbo: Congratulations. At only one falsehood, you're well below the usual average among conservatives when fabricating an Obama corruption tale. Got to be hard, given how scandal-free this administration has been.

Indeed, that whole operation fast and furious and Solyndra ain't no big deal boss.


You mean the Fast and Furious "scandal"? The one that investigative reporters dug in to and discovered the ATF did not let any guns walk across the border? There's no scandal there.

Then we get to Solyndra. The loan program that the money went out from was started during the Bush administration.

All of the claims that money was steered to Obama's donor and pals have been debunked. Pretty much every Romney claim about Solyndra has been shown to be lies and gross exaggerations

Its rather ironic. Conservatives blather on about understanding free markets and starting a business means taking a risk. Yet they don't graso that if you are loaning money to start-ups, even late stage ones, you will have some make it and some fail. The legislation creating the loan guarantee fund set aside $10 billion to cover potential losses on $28 billion in loans

Solyndra, at a bit over $500 million, represents about 4% of total loans, or about 5% of projected loan failures.

WHAR SCANDAL, WHAR?
2012-09-10 10:24:39 AM
1 votes:

Opeth1429: Earlier in his Presidency, President Obama himself said that the Wall Streeters had done things that were unethical and immoral but not illegal.

Why are we dragging our feet with these Wall Street reforms? The existing ones didn't stop the shenanigans at JP Morgan. The rest of the regulations that were promised weren't enacted because of supposed uncertainty about how to apply them.

Is that an excuse? Could it be that no real reform has been occurred?


The best reform that could happen is to make unionization of workers an easier process. Let workers keep those farkers in check.
2012-09-09 10:21:13 PM
1 votes:
Here is some more of the fraud from Matt Taibbi's trip down to Florida to witness what happened in foreclosure courts there:

If you're foreclosing on somebody's house, you are required by law to have a collection of paperwork showing the journey of that mortgage note from the moment of issuance to the present. You should see the originating lender (a firm like Countrywide) selling the loan to the next entity in the chain (perhaps Goldman Sachs) to the next (maybe JP Morgan), with the actual note being transferred each time. But in fact, almost no bank currently foreclosing on homeowners has a reliable record of who owns the loan; in some cases, they have even intentionally shredded the actual mortgage notes.

That's where the robo-signers come in. To create the appearance of paperwork where none exists, the banks drag in these pimply entry-level types - an infamous example is GMAC's notorious robo-signer Jeffrey Stephan, who appears online looking like an age-advanced photo of Beavis or Butt-Head - and get them to sign thousands of documents a month attesting to the banks' proper ownership of the mortgages.


To be clear, later investigations and sworn testimony from court cases after this article were written show that banks were literally paying people to create false versions of all these required documents and then fraudulently submitting them to the courts after swearing under oath that they were real.

This is fraud and the courts encountered it again and again, but simply chose to look the other way.

Kowalski's current case before Judge Soud is a perfect example. The Jacksonville couple he represents are being sued for delinquent payments, but the case against them has already been dismissed once before. The first time around, the plaintiff, Bank of New York Mellon, wrote in Paragraph 8 that "plaintiff owns and holds the note" on the house belonging to the couple. But in Paragraph 3 of the same complaint, the bank reported that the note was "lost or destroyed," while in Paragraph 4 it attests that "plaintiff cannot reasonably obtain possession of the promissory note because its whereabouts cannot be determined."

The bank, in other words, tried to claim on paper, in court, that it both lost the note and had it, at the same time. Moreover, it claimed that it had included a copy of the note in the file, which it did - the only problem being that the note (a) was not properly endorsed, and (b) was payable not to Bank of New York but to someone else, a company called Novastar.

Now, months after its first pass at foreclosure was dismissed, the bank has refiled the case - and what do you know, it suddenly found the note. And this time, somehow, the note has the proper stamps. "There's a stamp that did not appear on the note that was originally filed," Kowalski tells the judge. (This business about the stamps is hilarious. "You can get them very cheap online," says Chip Parker, an attorney who defends homeowners in Jacksonville.)

The bank's new set of papers also traces ownership of the loan from the original lender, Novastar, to JP Morgan and then to Bank of New York. The bank, in other words, is trying to push through a completely new set of documents in its attempts to foreclose on Kowalski's clients.

There's only one problem: The dates of the transfers are completely farked. According to the documents, JP Morgan transferred the mortgage to Bank of New York on December 9th, 2008. But according to the same documents, JP Morgan didn't even receive the mortgage from Novastar until February 2nd, 2009 - two months after it had supposedly passed the note along to Bank of New York. Such rank incompetence at doctoring legal paperwork is typical of foreclosure actions, where the fraud is laid out in ink in ways that make it impossible for anyone but an overburdened, half-asleep judge to miss. "That's my point about all of this," Kowalski tells me later. "If you're going to lie to me, at least lie well."

The dates aren't the only thing screwy about the new documents submitted by Bank of New York. Having failed in its earlier attempt to claim that it actually had the mortgage note, the bank now tries an all-of-the-above tactic. "Plaintiff owns and holds the note," it claims, "or is a person entitled to enforce the note."

Soud sighs. For Kessler, the plaintiff's lawyer, to come before him with such sloppy documents and make this preposterous argument - that his client either is or is not the note-holder - well, that puts His Honor in a tough spot. The entire concept is a legal absurdity, and he can't sign off on it. With an expression of something very like regret, the judge tells Kessler, "I'm going to have to go ahead and accept [Kowalski's] argument."

Now, one might think that after a bank makes multiple attempts to push phony documents through a courtroom, a judge might be pissed off enough to simply rule against that plaintiff for good. As I witness in court all morning, the defense never gets more than one chance to screw up. But the banks get to keep filing their foreclosures over and over again, no matter how atrocious and deceitful their paperwork is.

Thus, when Soud tells Kessler that he's dismissing the case, he hastens to add: "Of course, I'm not going to dismiss with prejudice." With an emphasis on the words "of course."


Fraud, fraud, fraud.
2012-09-09 10:10:58 PM
1 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: This means the reasons nobody is being prosecuted is because there really weren't many crimes committed.


Horse shiat. Fraud is a felony offense and it was rampant.

It means the rich own the prosecutors, the regulators and both political parties.

Attorney General Eric Holder was a millionaire Wall Street defense attorney before he was appointed to head the Justice Department.

When he is done running the Justice Department, he will go back to being a millionaire Wall Street defense attorney.
2012-09-09 08:27:22 PM
1 votes:

Free Radical: That sound you hear is the point whooshing over your head.


Both sides are bad so vote Democrat?

It's not that the point goes over my head. It's that it is a completely retarded point.

How about both sides are owned by the rich, so stop voting for both of them? That would at least make sense.

dl.dropbox.com
2012-09-09 05:19:29 PM
1 votes:

Free Radical: So Republicans will regulate and imprison these guys?


So the current administration didn't appoint a millionaire Wall Street defense attorney to lead the Department of Justice?

All three of Obama's Chiefs of Staff haven't been Wall Street bankers?

Obama didn't put the guy who supposedly "regulated" Wall Street during all this bullshiat in charge of the Department of Treasury?

Obama didn't leave the Republican who has always and still does oppose regulation as the Chairman of the Fed?

dl.dropbox.com
2012-09-09 04:13:07 PM
1 votes:
Easy solution: Revoke charters for doing business in NY, force them to sell off all NY based assets through two stages, 1 being bankruptcy court, 2 being eminent domain if all else fails.

that is how you put a business in jail.
2012-09-09 01:50:21 PM
1 votes:
lampoon.rwinters.com

/hot cover is 35 years old
2012-09-09 12:58:04 PM
1 votes:
Until people face hard jail time and massive fines for these kinds of criminal shenanigans they will continue to happen.
2012-09-09 12:38:04 PM
1 votes:

Tickle Mittens: And this is why whenever there's a shooting spree, I have to wait to see what kind of people the victims were, because maybe they deserved it.


Unfortunately, we all deserve it in someones eyes.
2012-09-09 12:32:35 PM
1 votes:
And this is why whenever there's a shooting spree, I have to wait to see what kind of people the victims were, because maybe they deserved it.
2012-09-09 12:10:09 PM
1 votes:

Gergesa: So pitchforks and torches are the solution?


Nope. 50 cal sniper rifles and IED's.
2012-09-09 12:09:40 PM
1 votes:
"They don't get the whole concept of looting"

Well I think we should fire these lawyers then, because they don't get the whole concept of "prosecuting".
2012-09-09 09:48:05 AM
1 votes:
If you haven't watched it yet, you should really watch "Margin Call" which is now available on Netflix Streaming. It's a great fiction movie: "Follows the key people at an investment bank, over a 24-hour period, during the early stages of the financial crisis (in 2008)." Has a top notch acting lineup and doesn't talk above you when it shows what was happened to start that crisis.
2012-09-09 08:50:39 AM
1 votes:
If I were the prosecutor looking at that case, I'd pass too. If it were just a judge you had to convince of wrongdoing, that's one thing. But the prosecutor is looking at a massively complex case full of difficult to parse rules and carefully-designed loopholes. Even when you know exactly what the wrongdoing was, how are you ever going to explain it to twelve people whose main qualification is that they have nothing better to do for six weeks than sit on a jury? All the defense has to do is find one or two jurors who believe in the sanctity of profits, or who just hate the government more than banks, and they can squirrel the whole case.
 
Displayed 23 of 23 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report