Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: You can avoid arrest in a Ponzi Scheme but not if you're Protesting a Pipeline.

Posted 5 years ago on Feb. 18, 2013, 10:50 p.m. EST by TrevorMnemonic (5827)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement


Feb. 13 - Civil disobedience to stop the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline

You can avoid arrest in a ponzi scheme but not if you're protesting the pipeline.



Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 5 years ago

That is a good point. I like the Elizabeth Warren line to the SEC, FDIC, OCC, NCUA and the financial stability oversight council asking about when was the last time they actually took any bank to Court ... She says there are prosecutors and DAs out there taking common people from Main stree to court on "Thin Grounds" ... but our bank Regulators/Financial Regulators have never taken the Banks to court in recent memory.

Carte Blanche comes to mind. Bank Trust. Caebol. Keretszu. Cartel. RICO Violations.

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 5 years ago

Here's another report- http://www.forbes.com/pictures/ffdj45egki/17-banks-being-sued-by-the-fhfa/

17 banks being sued by the FHFA

(Granted these are banks-not regulators-which should also be on trial)

[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 5 years ago

Thanks. I guess that is all the big ones in the world and they were all in on the big action and the fraud in the mortgage bubble.

"...A woman enters a branch of British Barclays bank in central London on February 15, 2011. Barclays said today its 2010 net profit rose a third to over £3.5 billion and announced it had cut bonuses following a government-brokered deal to clamp down on excessive pay..."

If Britain can clamp down on Bonuses .... They are making the USA look bad. The USA looks like a total Caebol.

And RBS, Royal Bank of Scotland was taken over by the government or... is now taxpayer owned as per Max Keiser. He was commenting that RBS is getting hit with Fees on the LIBOR Scandal since the taxpayers will bear the burden at this point.

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 5 years ago

Again, my point is that apparently neither Ms Warren OR the council keeps track of what those agencies are doing. Her insinuation that it's been so long that none of them can remember is as stupid as their lack of knowledge about the institutions they "oversee".

[-] -3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

Did those 17 banks go to court and stay in court after the lawsuits were filed or were they settled?

How many persons responsible went to jail for a criminal prosecution?

Because that's what she's talking about. You might remember HSBC, Goldman Sachs, and others. No persons were prosecuted.

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 5 years ago

If the powers that took those banks to court agreed to let them settle, then take it up with those powers. Ask why those powers believed that settling was an acceptable thing to do!

But I have a question...Why is it that the people who insist that "corporations/banks are NOT PEOPLE" seem to be the ones who consistently assign human/people qualities to banks and corps-greed, selfishness, fraud, theft etc.-and then demand that individual people should be prosecuted and punished as individuals? If you truly believe that banks or corps are NOT PEOPLE-then it makes no sense to attribute to them the characteristics that only people have or want them to be held accountable in the same manner that we should hold people accountable.


[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

What do you think Elizabeth Warren was doing on the financial services committee last week?

There is a huge difference between personification in speech and corporate personhood in a legal sense.

[-] -2 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 5 years ago

I understand the difference in personification in speech, but again, if you believe the saying that "corporations aren't people", then you can't attribute the characteristics of people to them, or prosecute them in the same manner you do people.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 5 years ago

The fact that there's two sets of laws is becoming more and more obvious, and those in the second bracket don't seem to care that we know they are criminals.

Laws to criminalise dissent are driving the wedge between us and them deeper and deeper.

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 5 years ago

In response to Middleaged's comment about banks/court.


"A new lawsuit against Bank of America illuminates the warped incentives that helped inflate the housing bubble and contributed to its calamitous collapse.

Filed last week by the U.S. attorney in Manhattan, it focuses on allegations that Countrywide Financial Corp. (which Bank of America bought in 2008) pumped up the volume of loans it issued and then sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, regardless of their suspect quality.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara contends that Countrywide and Bank of America "cast aside underwriters, eliminated quality controls, incentivized unqualified personnel to cut corners and concealed the resulting defects" when they peddled the loans to Fannie and Freddie.

The result, the government asserts, was more than $1 billion in losses at those two institutions, whose shortfalls are now covered by the taxpayers. Bank of America hasn't denied the allegations about shoddy underwriting but insists that it has repurchased all the bad loans that Fannie and Freddie have asked it to take back.

Bharara's office has filed similar suits against Wells Fargo and four other banks for allegedly making loans recklessly, then fraudulently claiming guarantees for them from the Federal Housing Administration. The case against Wells Fargo is pending; the other four banks settled earlier this year."

[-] 3 points by Middleaged (5140) 5 years ago

But you saw the video of Elizabeth Warren asking the Financial Stability Oversight Council, SEC, FDIC, OCC, NCUA when they actually last took a bank to court. No one could remember.

Not sure the SEC has funding level to fight a big bank in court, or if they are staffed for that. We know the FBI Financial Crimes Division is too small to handle real investigations into the 2008 FInancial crime ... and we know the Obama actually cut the staffing. And we know that Eric Holder gave waivers of prosecution to the TBTF banks.

So ... hopefully someone somewhere is gathering evidence, because it never got handed over to the FBI. Because the FBI doesn't want it. But hopefully some state prosecutors like Eliot Spitzer, NY, ... I guess he used to go after TBTF banks before he was forced out of office. Hope some states take action.

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 5 years ago

Seems like neither Elizabeth Warren OR the "higher ups" she questioned knows what their agencies are doing. But it's evident that the agencies they represent HAVE recently taken banks to court. Maybe they all need to read a paper once in a while....


2012 is the last time the FDIC took banks to court.


2012 is the last time the NCUA took a bank to court

SEC sues bank 2010


[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 5 years ago

Well anyone can sue anyone. But it doesn't mean anyone spends a bunch of time in court. The lawyers talk for weeks or months or whatever. The SEC always settles for Fines, or reaches a settlement of some dollar amount that is much less than the damage. You know if we launder $2 Billion and settle for $250 Million it is more of a loss than a victory.

Of Course Bill Black is looking for Fraud Cases. Individuals get prosecuted. In the S&L Crisis William K. Black and his team prosecuted 1000 people for felonies successfully. Probably more were convicted of lessor crimes. I can't remember how many banks were put in to the RTC, Resolution Trust Corporation, so that the government could divest or disolve their assets.

Looks like my computer is locked up and can't get the link. Look up the Keating Five in Wikipedia, William K. Black, and look up the Savings and Loan Crisis (scandal) which started like 1988, but the Investigations seemed to kick off like 1990. It took them 10 years to finish the prosecutions I think.

I'm not sure which Regulatory Office Bill Black worked in. I think there was like 1500 FBI agents involed or at least 1000. Anyway he says the 2008 Financial Crisis was 70 Times worse than the S&L Crisis. I'm thinking you would need like 20,000 FBI agents according to what he has said.

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

Just an FYI, vaprosvyeh doesn't know what's he/she is talking about on this topic.

No persons have been criminally prosecuted for what she's discussing in this video.

[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 5 years ago

I agree. Anyone that has looked for info on Keating Five, Bill Black and the Savings & Loan Scandal knows what real prosecutions look like.

I think they used to call it Window Dressing. The appearance of fairness. In literature a theme is "Appearances Are Everything" refering to the Old South I think....

Politics is all about Appearances. Lawyers know all about Appearances, playing Roles, Playing to the Jury. Ever since CSPAN came in, there has been much written and said about Politicians Playing to the Camera, but .... really not doing anything at all the whole time in Office, Senate, Congress.

They also call it "Putting on a Dog & Pony Show". Lots of charts, Diagrams, Handouts, ... it is all talk to lead away from any real change, investigation, or solutions.