Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: What law did Wall Street bankers break?

Posted 9 years ago on Nov. 16, 2011, 9:02 a.m. EST by NotYour99 (226)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I keep seeing people calling the bankers criminals and some saying they broke the law. What law?

Unfortunately some pube who doesn't want to engage in this conversation is spamming one side (and more actually) with dislikes. Please open up all the posts. I feel this is a beneficial conversation for everyone.



Read the Rules
[-] 8 points by Spankysmojo (849) 9 years ago

They changed the regulatory laws that allowed the use of derivatives so that they could sell you stocks that they knew would tank and they still made billions in profit. There was a time when investors told you how to make money not sold you something so they could make money. Then they got bail outs and paid each other billions in bonus with it.

[-] 2 points by Nevada1 (5843) 9 years ago

Hi Spanky, Good Post. Best Regards, Nevada

[-] 2 points by Spankysmojo (849) 9 years ago

Hey Nevada. Hangin' in, I see. Me too. God, we need help. This thing is like giving birth. Each contraction is a nightmare on it's own.

[-] 2 points by Nevada1 (5843) 9 years ago

Lets win this thing.

[-] 2 points by Spankysmojo (849) 9 years ago

No a lot of options. We already lost too much.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 9 years ago

Yet Americans can't understand financial products so they don't get the scam. They can only conceive of a mortgage in which a bank is the mortgage holder. They cannot conceive of CDOs and so on.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 9 years ago

who is they? bankers or government? your aim is off - go occupy the govt who passes the laws.

[-] 0 points by Spankysmojo (849) 9 years ago

Bankstas and govt are in bed together.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 9 years ago

who's being influenced? who is accountable to the people?

[-] 0 points by Spankysmojo (849) 9 years ago

Well if you look closely you'll see that campaign contributions are still very prevalent. Does it matter which is which? No. They are crooks. Right now no one is accountable. No one went to jail for the mess we're in.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 9 years ago

the crook is the one accepting the money - not the one offering it. The politicians took the oath not the lobbyists.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 9 years ago

who is responsible for a drug overdose?

better yet, who pays for a poor junky's rehabilitation or incarceration?

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 9 years ago

the junky is responsible. personal responsibility. hows that was on drugs going? you lock up one dealer another one fills their spot. There are plenty of people not on drugs - how did they manage to do that? if junkies commit crimes other than being a junkie - then lock them up & throw away the key. Dealers are only filling the demand.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 9 years ago

Yeah, and society still has to pay for the collateral damage. You know, I knew what your answer was before I typed my response. You hard core capitalists make it seem as easy as shooting fish in a barrel.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 9 years ago

it is that simple. you liberals want to make life more complicated than it is. common sense is an antiquated notion to you people. look where it has gotten you. enough! life is not perfect - there a tragedies every day. that's never going to stop. however, if you focus on doing the right things in life, stop whining, life can be good. stop looking for someone to blame.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 9 years ago

I am not blaming no one; i'm just trying to get my lunch back from all those people who eat it in Tahiti. Considering I'm a disenfranchised member of society, I thought it would be fitting to voice my grievances on a forum. If you don't want to give my people back their lunch, then I'll just allow you to steal lunches until you die of consumption.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 9 years ago

what !!! your nuts- disenfranchised is a load of crap. everyone's got a sob story. island of misfit toys.

[-] 0 points by Spankysmojo (849) 9 years ago

It takes two to tango. What should be legal? Lobbying? Not sure. I consider the briber as guilty as the acceptor of the bribe.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 9 years ago

your never going to stop people offering money, favors, soft money etc. Hold your rep accountable. vote them out if they dont do the right thing. and if the next guy does the same vote them out. turnover put's fear in them.

[-] 0 points by Spankysmojo (849) 9 years ago

Okay. That is one way.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 9 years ago

whats the other way to go?

[-] 0 points by Spankysmojo (849) 9 years ago

The universe's correct way would be for both sides to reflect on their immoral agendas and cease immediately. To ask for supreme judgment may seem over idealistic but I'm that way.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 9 years ago

hahahaha! idealistic is putting it mildly. why is it "immoral" agenda's & not "moral" agenda's ? that tells me you view the world as the glass is half empty. morality has nothing to do with this. Social engineering is what caused the crisis

[-] 0 points by Spankysmojo (849) 9 years ago

I'm not sure what you mean. I was trying to say that both sides, lobbyists and politicians are immoral because they both know that the outcome will hurt the masses while they profit, personally. That is their agenda. To profit. The fact that it is bad for the rest of the population is why it is immoral.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 9 years ago

how are the lobbyists immoral? They have no obligation other than to serve their interests. The one with the obligation is the one taking the bribe. Example: I come to you and ask you to vote on something that will benefit me greatly. In exchange I offer you a campaign contribution & a nice job for your son/ daughter etc.. Who is the culprit? the one who took an oath to uphold the constitution, made promises to constituents etc? or the guy asking a question?

[-] 0 points by Spankysmojo (849) 9 years ago

Our conversation on whether it is moral is moot. The conversation in and of itself poses questions of the moral obligation of both parties.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 9 years ago

They didn't change anything-your government did. So the Dodd/Frank law - was supposed to fix all the problems in the financial industry - How did MF Global happen?

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 9 years ago

Dodd Frank got taken apart is how. Wall street keeps the government believing that they know what they are doing and that we need to listen to them. I think we need wall street out of our banking system. I'm for bringing back Glass/Steagall.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 9 years ago

so why didn't dodd / frank propose bringing back glass steagal? you keep defending the govt when they are the ones making the laws!

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 9 years ago

I'm not defending the current government, we need a government that has the guts to stand up to wall street. Their is a bill in congress to bring back Glass/Steagall http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.1489.IH: we need a new congress for sure !

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 9 years ago

so go occupy congress

[-] 1 points by MonetizingDiscontent (1257) 9 years ago

Occupy LA 'Teach In' with White-Collar Criminologist & Former Financial Regulator, WILLIAM K BLACK!

((Video)) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_AuvLTJNh0&feature=player_embedded

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 9 years ago

Yes. Exactly what happened.

[-] 1 points by MitchK (305) 9 years ago

"they" changed the laws,wow,they I guess at some point and time the people of the U.S. voted into office a president,senetors and congresman that were actually wall street bankers not really politicians. What a statement,"they" changed the laws,PLEASE PEOPLE THINK B4 YOU SPEAK...the ONLY ones that can change a law is a politician NOT a BANKER. Could a greedy corrupt politician,that was voted in by the people do it yes but not a banker


[-] 0 points by MitchK (305) 9 years ago

HUH? Is there something YOU are saying from YOUR OWN mind and heart or are you just trying to get someone to click on a link provided by someone else spoken by someone else? I am confused

[-] 1 points by MonetizingDiscontent (1257) 9 years ago

it wasn't an attack, it was a link. jeezus, I'll move it where someone might appreciate the INFO

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 9 years ago

Congress and the president is controlled by the 1%. They create laws that serve the 1%. Because corporate dollars are what elects politiicians, once elected they have no incentive to be repsonsive to the needs of the voters, and every incentive to be responsive to the big corporations (owned and run by the 1% elite). So yes, bankers do change laws. All the time. Every day.

[-] 1 points by MitchK (305) 9 years ago

again MORALLY wrong not ILLEGAL (if done within certain guidelines) now this does not mean I agree with it or think it is 100% right but it IS NOT ILLEGAL...just so everyone knows MONEY has been the rich influences have been the MAIN control of the GOVT from DAY ONE it is what paved the way for our revolution,govt and way of life. The politicians that WE VOTE IN should be held accountable for misuse of the power they are given.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 9 years ago

We are being taxed without representation. The American government breaks the law every time we pay taxes.

[-] 2 points by MitchK (305) 9 years ago

HUH?? When ,Where? I mean I see it on things/items such as and I am not a smoker,sucn as cigarettes they just tax it and its not a sales tax its not a ..I do nto know its just a we want more money tax.Where in the overall taxation of US do we have that? Please do inform

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 9 years ago

I don't understand your question.

I refer to the fact that our elected officials do not pay any attention to what people want. They vote on behalf of the 1%. Yet we continue to be taxed.

[-] 2 points by MitchK (305) 9 years ago

How do you say and or know that? What facts do you have to back that up? Taxed on what the same thing we have been for years? Are you saying this because others are?

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 9 years ago

Why do I feel that I am not being represented? I have tried dealing with government on a local level here in NYC, Manhattan Community Board 8 (CB8). What I found was that the CB8 actually functioned to shut down democracy. We had a dog run that we loved. The community fought building a $1 million dollar dog run to replace it. CB8 voted it in. They refused to represent the community. Instead they represented the wealthy who wanted to get their hands on tax-payer dollars.

I live in a landmarked walk up building. The Stahl Organization, the owner of the building cannot knock down the building (and replace it with a luxury high rise) unless they can prove they cannot make money on the landmarked building. They put in a blatenlty fraudulent application to the City of NY. I can't get a single politiician to step forward and put a stop to this fraud.

I was shocked by this. OWS came along. I got onboard.

[-] 2 points by MitchK (305) 9 years ago

ok in a sense will I agree if you,if all the constituents in CB8 made valid points as to why it should not be,changed and made nicer (not just because we like it) and you ALL wrote your leaders,pettioned them and they just TOTALLY ignored it than you are right.

On the other hand if they reviewed the voice of 3 people just complaining because THEY will lose "THEIR" park while under construction and they still went ahead with it beautifying it and the neighborhood in doing so, creating jobs with funds that were probably alotted for such projects than you are wrong.

Futhermore if ALL or MOST of the constituents do not agree with it/them than on behalf of your community and america I HOPE ALL will vote come next election against them

See we vote them in and they can not please everyone all the time and I as a clear minded responsible person understands that. I see it as them trying to help the community and beautify it at same time creating jobs. Not feeding wealthy contracters ( by the way who have laborers working for them) money.

Shoot I do not agree with some of actually alot of what te govt does...hey Obama makes a bill for construction to create work,supposedly creating jobs,but,you know if you are not already in the union you will not be working on these jobs,so how did it help ME? Its what they think is right,being helpful and usefull to the whole again it will not please everyone everytime

As for your building how would you know its blatently fraudulent application,what is the app for,how is it fraudelent in your eyes? If they say the only way to maintain their earnings is by raising your rent is that ok with you?

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 9 years ago

As for your building how would you know its blatently fraudulent application,what is the app for,how is it fraudelent in your eyes? If they say the only way to maintain their earnings is by raising your rent is that ok with you?

I live in a one bedroom on the Upper East Side of Manhattan in a walk up tenement building. At market rates, my apartment would go for about $1,700. The owner is claiming that if they put $42,000 into the apartments, that the apartments would go for only $600 a month and that it would take 2 years to rent out 100 apartments.

One of the items listed for the $42,000 worth of repairs is installation of smoke alarms. By law a one bedroom must have one alarm. At Home Depot or Walmart, the most expensive ones are $35. The owner is claiming that smoke alarms cost $315 EACH and that each apartment needs 3 of them. So instead of $35 the summ is $945 !!!!

I am not kidding. These people don't even have to put forth a plausible fraud. They have friends in high places. They approve anything. -- but they didn't count on me.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 9 years ago

ok in a sense will I agree if you,if all the constituents in CB8 made valid points as to why it should not be,changed and made nicer (not just because we like it) and you ALL wrote your leaders,pettioned them and they just TOTALLY ignored it than you are right.

The community had a dog run they loved. It would have taken a few thousand dollars to upgrade the fencing etc. They fought the million dollar dog run tooth and nail. The Community Board voted it in. It opened and everyone hated it. It was a kitty litter box. They changed the surface. It was still a kitty litter box. Dusty as all hell. It flooded whenever it rained and remained flooded for days on end. They took $276,000 and completely rebuilt it. In their year end report the community board referred to the expenditure as "a few minor repairs". They were vicious, but we fought back. We got a petition together. They got a stooge to create a fraudulent petition. We called them out. They locked the gates to the park the old dog run was in. No member of the public was allowed into the park for about a year. We kept screaming. They reopened the park with a "No Dogs" sign. We threw the sign into the river and occupied the park with our dogs. They finally caved and put up the fencing. The community now has 2 dog runs and nothing else on the waterfront. It goes on and on.

[-] 1 points by MitchK (305) 9 years ago

I also have to add and I am sorry to say this but I always was taught in school that taxation without representation is tyranny,quoted by...S**T I think James Otis in 1761, because we the young americans of the time were GETTING TAXED (not how the money was spent) by the parliment of Britian that we were not allowed to vote people into to help decide on WHAT WE GET TAXED ON...I could be wrong though and if so i am sorry and than will research it more

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 9 years ago

Here ! Here ! One of the O.W.S. complaints explained again ! Thank you!

[-] 0 points by Spankysmojo (849) 9 years ago

No argument. They suck.

[-] 1 points by MitchK (305) 9 years ago

lol...how true it is.

[-] 1 points by NotYour99 (226) 9 years ago

Again, while not ethical, I see no broken laws there.

[-] 3 points by nickhowdy (1104) 9 years ago

So you mean to say, that as long as stealing can be legalized...You're OK with that??

[-] 0 points by MitchK (305) 9 years ago

Morally wrong and legally wrong are two TOTALLY DIFFERENT things

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 9 years ago

WHY !!! And how can that be changed ?

[-] 0 points by MitchK (305) 9 years ago

Well I do not know and do not claim to...but I would and only could assume to make a moral wrong illegal you would have to make about 90% of things humans do a crime.

[-] 2 points by ropeknot (359) 9 years ago

Amen !

[-] 1 points by MitchK (305) 9 years ago

rope glad you agree...lol..thank you,much

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 9 years ago

All because something is legalized doesn't make it any less immoral or any less a hang-able offense.

[-] 0 points by MitchK (305) 9 years ago

nick....obviously you miss the point..the post was about bankers did nothing illegal in the eyes of the law...why can you just not admit that? In your eyes they are wrong but in the eyes of the law they are not...wait WE THE PEOPLE vote people in who decide on what is a law,sos basicallyy admitting the bankers did nothing illegal is like saying we allowed it.

[-] 1 points by Bomer (58) 9 years ago

But the problem is as usual we are forced with a choice of the 'Lesser' of two evils. Laura Knight Jadczyk has written extensively on the types of conscienceless psychopaths that assume leadership. Most of us would just rather go about our daily business of getting along and living our lives and surely not even remotely interested in seeking public office, and to be honest if we were mostly left to our own devices and leaderless we would get along just fine. Probably solving most of our problems in a cooperative manner.

"Possibly one of the best kept secrets of the horrors of human history. Many psychologists consider psychopaths to be a separate species that is only human-like, that preys on human beings."

The book Political Ponerology: A Science on The Nature of Evil adjusted for Political Purposes. by Andrew M. Lobaczewski addresses this as well. Mr. Lobaczewski wrote this book during his days in the Soviet Union.

[-] 1 points by MitchK (305) 9 years ago

Bomer have no clue I am not a psychologist BUT I have to agree with the theory about the "lesser of two evil" when we have to vote...MOST people I can say who look for a leadership role are doing it for some major reason such as EGO,PRIDE,LOW SELF ESTEEM...and now they want to apply their will onto others to make themselves feel better about themsleves in a disguise of doing for others

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 9 years ago

If someone was able to pay off our politicians to allow just them to steal...It's still stealing, and people, if they don't get justice, will take matters into their own hands..Basically this ends up with a pitchfork up politicians and bank$ers asses.

Stealing is illegal Fraud is illegal

[-] 1 points by MitchK (305) 9 years ago

"paid off" in what way? who got paid off? can you name how when and in what sense? I see the word IF and ABLE to in your statement.Wheres the illigeality in that?

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 9 years ago

Politicians -- members of Congress -- are privvy to insider trading info. There is a law that says, they are able to inside trade. Legally. So many come out of Congress very, very wealth. This is one of the ways the 1% who own and control the companies that donate the election funds pay off politicians.

[-] 1 points by MitchK (305) 9 years ago

DONATE ELECTION FUNDS....again MORALLY wrong not ILLEGAL (if done within certain guidelines) now this does not mean I agree with it or think it is 100% right but it IS NOT ILLEGAL...just so everyone knows MONEY has been the rich influences have been the MAIN control of the GOVT from DAY ONE it is what paved the way for our revolution,govt and way of life. The politicians that WE VOTE IN should be held accountable for misuse of the power they are given.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 9 years ago

The subprime fraud was out and out illegal. No one has yet been prosecuted for it. I believe that part of the reason prosectutions have not gone forward is because most Americans can't grasp the financial concepts.

[-] 2 points by MitchK (305) 9 years ago

I would like to know what do YOU mean subrpime fraud?

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 9 years ago

The banks put together and sold these CDO's (Collateralized Debt Obligation) packages that were backed by subprime mortgages knowing that those taking out the mortgage would be unable to pay them. They sold these CDO's, knowing that eventually those investing in them would lose their shirts meanwhile earning billions selling these packages. And then these same banks created CDS's (Credit Default Swaps) in which they would make money when they CDO's (subprime mortgages) tanked. So they ended up making billions when people were unable to pay their mortgages. And they got the houses that the people lost too!

[-] 2 points by MitchK (305) 9 years ago

OK I got it now..the banks gave mortgages to greedy people who thought they could afford it knowing they most likely can not. People living above their means. The banks than protected their investments and got other people to protect them,greedy people who did not really look at what they were "buying" because they were worried about their greed. Than the banks took back the propertys from those who did not pay them for the money they gave them.


monjon lends me money against a house at a low rate

I like it I buy this house a little bigger than I need or more than I can actually afford

monjon gets "insurance" on my loan

I can not pay monjon he takes my house

monjon also gets paid by the "insurance"

monjon now makes ona property thats worth less than what monjon thought it would make him and the insurance covers his loss of interst that he thoughhe was suppose to make.

well whast wrong with that? Maybe some moral issues but illegal? Now there is somethign illegal going on but not that fashion you say. Tha bnaks are forclsoing with out due process,violating the consumers 14th amendment rights

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 9 years ago

No, MitchK, like many Americans, you don't understand the crime. You are not intended to get it. That's why the scam works so well. People cannot understand complex financial products. To understand it you need to be able to understand that paragraph I wrote.

It is difficult for people to conceive of a mortgage where the bank doesn't hold the mortgage -- that is the first hurdle to understanding the scam.

I get it only because I am a lawyer and spend about 10 hours researching the situation.

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 9 years ago

"paid off" in what way?" Campaign contributions...

These two laws made the illegal, legal..



Stealing is illegal, Fraud is illegal...Even if you have a loophole for Wall Street and politicians..

[-] 1 points by MitchK (305) 9 years ago

LEGAL being the operative word THANK YOU you just solidified "hotyour99" point when he created this post. Loophole also means LEGAL

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 9 years ago

Mitch that just means the system is completely broken. The real issue is we no longer have a representative form of government..It's a plutocracy....It's going to take legal and illegal activity to get our government back..

You've rationalized the thievery, that still won't prevent the pitchforks and torches to come.. There will be a lot of people breaking laws and there will be nothing anyone can do about it...

Our politicians made it legal for the banks to destroy the economy....That my friend is treason..

[-] 1 points by MitchK (305) 9 years ago

trea·son    [tree-zuhn] Show IPA


  1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.

  2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.

  3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

Legal treason ,no,MORAL treason YES. the 3rd MIGHT come close but thats when WE THE PEOPLE can write,PROTEST,VOTE and voice. I have to agree yes we got major problems within our govt and laws and stuff like that and thast whats so great about our country we have a right to vote and change it,but,what we need to first do is look at our part in all this AND give up some of our greed,pride,ego,wants and desires NOT NEEDS the main thing that feeds the corporate greed..STOP acting illegally and violent and do what we should VOICE and VOTE. We ALL need to make change and changes

[-] 0 points by classicliberal (312) 9 years ago

Stealing can be legalized... Ever heard of Social Security?

[-] 2 points by Bomer (58) 9 years ago

Is it that no one is aware that our Social Security accounts are PRIVATE retirement accounts that WE pay our own money into? The problems started when the government under Ronald Reagan started borrowing money from it and didn't pay it back. So if you mean that they stole our money in this way I agree. If you mean the propagandized version you are incorrect.

[-] 0 points by classicliberal (312) 9 years ago

There is no private retirement account. The supreme court ruled that an individual has no specific right to receive anything from Social Security. I know we pay our own money into them, but I would rather save the money for myself. So it is theft to force me to pay into an account for myself. If I did not bother to save, my neighbors do not owe me anything.

[-] 1 points by Bomer (58) 9 years ago

Well that's how it was originally set up. It was for the common good of everyone. So once again we have a perfect example of government for and by big business. A decision made against the people by their government. They change the rules then make it seem as though it has always been this way. So now you should just have your own account? That's how it was originally set up!!! WTF?

[-] 0 points by classicliberal (312) 9 years ago

No, I mean I should have the right to pay nothing into the Federal government's account for me. I will handle saving for myself WITHOUT having 16% stolen from my paycheck and I will never go to them asking for help if my savings are stolen. Basically I want my rights reinstated and to be left alone by them.

[-] 1 points by Bomer (58) 9 years ago

But the money wasn't stolen. It was your money and it was protected. Then Reagans puppeteers had him sell the idea that it was okay to borrow it for other reasons. After all it was just sitting there doing nothing but collecting interest.

A more important question should have been: Why do you need to borrow it? Now Social Security looks like something other than it originally was. Another sleight of hand to fool the masses. Just another raided pension fund by guess who, the first in an ever growing list.

Want to fix it? Just pay the money they borrowed back... With interest!!!

[-] 0 points by classicliberal (312) 9 years ago

I don't think you're seeing what I'm saying. My money I paid into SS was not "protected" as long as it was forcefully taken from my hands. I deserve the option of keeping it for myself, even if they are "planning" on giving it back.

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 9 years ago

The way it's run right now is a Ponz. What about getting rid of it? ..Just so our politicians can't threaten people with taking it away? Of course, they'll expect you to still pay into it.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 9 years ago

YOu do not care for securing grandmother's golden years against pain, hardship and starvation.

You would place that pot of gold within reach of thieves bent upon feathering their own putrid nests.

Those of you who have invested so heavily in the creation of social instability through greed will most certainly reap all that you have sown.



[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 9 years ago

Hi Zen,

No I'm for Social Security, but if they are going to push the age up to the point where I'm paying into something that I won't be able to benefit from, then not really..Chances are I'll only be able to collect after I drop dead.

It all sucks..they need to take the cap off and leave the age of eligibility alone, in order for me to stop calling it a Ponzi scheme..

Hell this whole country is a Ponzi scheme...Everything just goes to the top of the pyramid..

Sorry if I pissed you off...I'm a bit torn on it..I want freedom and I don't want to keep contributing to something called Social Security if we really aren't going to have Social Security..

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 9 years ago

I can see your frustration. I tend to agree with you.

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 9 years ago

Thanks..You know, we are all kind of real reasonable people here..Don't you love it!

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 9 years ago

Some of us may be - these are unreasonable times.

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 9 years ago

Yes some of us are reasonable and these are unreasonable times....The Taoist would say to seek balance and that is what we are seeing..During this phase..It is most important to stay out of the way..

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 9 years ago


what did you say?

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 9 years ago

Shit is going to hit the fan..

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 9 years ago

Correction: It already has...Now more shit...

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 9 years ago

I thought you were telling me to stay out of the way

not a practical suggestion

[-] 2 points by Toynbee (656) from Savannah, GA 9 years ago

I guess we could change the law to make liquor store robberies and armed robberies legal.

But that wouldn't make them ethical or morally right.

What is going on with lobbyists writing huge loopholes is ethically wrong. Flat wrong.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 9 years ago

Actual laws were broken. The bankers committed fraud, but it is kind of complex and most Americans cannot (or have not yet tried) to understand the mainipulation. This is what happened.

The banks put together and sold these CDO's (Collateralized Debt Obligation) packages that were backed by subprime mortgages knowing that those taking out the mortgage would be unable to pay them. They sold these CDO's, knowing that eventually those investing in them would lose their shirts meanwhile earning billions selling them. And then these same banks created CDS's (Credit Default Swaps) in which they would make money when, and onlyif, they CDO's (subprime mortgages) tanked. So they ended up making billions when people were unable to pay their mortgages. And they got the houses that the people lost too!

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 9 years ago

Yup there's some pretty good fraud scenario's out there. I'd love more info on the AIG counter-parties -------------and Paulson's billions of no questions asked taxpayer dollars.

[-] 1 points by velveeta (230) 9 years ago

rajat gupta, former head of goldman sachs, is going to jail for a long time. you heard of bernie madoff maybe? how about former Governor of NJ, John Corzine, who "can't find" $600 million of his investors' money. ITS CALLED STEALING NUMBNUTS

[-] 0 points by vets74 (344) from New York, NY 9 years ago

Common Law fraud is local jurisdiction.

"Regulatory laws" are irrelevant. The "AAA" ratings were acquired by bribing the rating agency managers. The resulting sales of scam assets fall under ordinary fraud law.

Manhattan prosecutor corruption is the key to this.

Nothing else.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 9 years ago

The Manhattan prosecutor is a politician who is responsive to and acts on behalf of the 1%. Not a single fraudulent banker or rattings agency has yet been charged. This is not surprising.


[-] 0 points by vets74 (344) from New York, NY 9 years ago

Well, moving money to prosecutor managers ???

How much money went to hidden accounts overseas for these people ?

You know damn well that Goldman knows how to move money anywhere. And how to use overseas connections to intimidate anyone. Yeah, anyone breathing.

[-] 1 points by Socrates469bc (608) from New York, NY 9 years ago

Welche Gesetze des Dritten Reiches hatte Hitler zu brechen? Ich sehe ständig Leute rufen Nazi kriminellen und einige sagen, dass sie das Gesetz gebrochen. Welches Recht des Dritten Reiches?

[-] 0 points by Spankysmojo (849) 9 years ago

There are laws and there are laws. Ethical laws are the ones that will keep you up at night. Will you break ethical laws for your own benefit? Things have to change in order for people to be equal. The rich do not need your excuses. They have lawyers that earn more in one year than your family has earned in decades. Ask yourself who this comment on this post is helping and whether you are okay with that.



[-] 6 points by Toynbee (656) from Savannah, GA 9 years ago

They didn't break any laws because they got lobbyists to push through legislation that makes it legal to rob people through the financial system.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 9 years ago

This is true, but they also did break laws. A fraud was perpetrated on the American people who bought houses (both those suckered into the sub prime and those who bought regular whose housing value tanked along with the economy. The fraud was also perpetrated on those who invested in the CDO's -- the investment products that the bankers bundled and sold. Lots of 401ks were invested in these. Here is how it works. Unfortunately, it is complex and most Americans can't understand it even after it is explained.

Consumer fraud. It is a complex financial scam and, unfortunately, if you are asking the question, it is likely that you are not going to get it, but here goes:

The banks put together and sold these CDO's (Collateralized Debt Obligation) packages that were backed by subprime mortgages knowing that those taking out the mortgage would be unable to pay them. They sold these CDO's, knowing that eventually those investing in them would lose their shirts meanwhile earning billions selling them. And then these same banks created CDS's (Credit Default Swaps) in which they would make money when, and onlyif, they CDO's (subprime mortgages) tanked. So they ended up making billions when people were unable to pay their mortgages. And they got the houses that the people lost too!

[-] 1 points by NotYour99 (226) 9 years ago

Exactly my point. So who is really to blame?

[-] 1 points by TheScreamingHead (239) 9 years ago

No you nut. He's saying that they didn't break any laws because they got to make illegal behavior legal through unfair measures. Kind of like legalizing kicking dogs because the dogs can't vote

Kick these nutbags where it counts...in the wallet


[-] 1 points by NotYour99 (226) 9 years ago

I know exactly what he means. I just wanted to see him type it. It's the fault of those that legalized it. A corrupt congress taking lobbying funds for votes on favorable legislation.

[-] 1 points by Redrancor (4) 9 years ago

You don't arrest the gun that fires the bullet but the man that pulled the trigger.

[-] 1 points by NotYour99 (226) 9 years ago

And I'm not talking about arresting members on congress. I'm talking about getting rid of corporate influence there.

[-] 1 points by Redrancor (4) 9 years ago

It was an analogy. What I mean to say is that you don't hold all the blame on the tool that carries the action but on the one who had the motive behind it. Yes, the lobbyist should be held accountable, but so should those who have hired them with the intent to corrupt the government in their favor.

[-] 1 points by NotYour99 (226) 9 years ago

To me it's the congress men and women who are the most at fault here. It's one thing to offer gifts or otherwise be extravagant while trying to inform a member of congress about your wants. It's quite another for that to affect the decisions of a lawmaker. The ultimate fault here is the lack of moral character of congress. Getting rid of the influence corporate America has on our lawmakers, and tightening the scrutiny on them is of paramount importance. Term limits, transparency of finances, removal of conflicts of interest while in office, etc are all things we should be considering.

[-] 2 points by Redrancor (4) 9 years ago

I agree with what you're saying except for your first sentence. It takes two to tango and the corporate influence is the one leading. I agree full heartily that congress should be held accountable, but why not address the problem on both fronts? Why leave those who have the intent to retool the government in their favor alone? Are they not just as accountable for the outcome as the congress?

Let me make a comparison. If you were to attempt to bribe an officer of the law, the officer has the responsibility to arrest you for attempting such a thing, as this is a crime. Now if the officer takes the bribe is your attempt to bribe him no longer a crime? Is the officer now the only one who has committed a crime? I think you will see that now both parties have committed a crime, both in the offering of the bribe and the accepting of it. Now how is this different from the corporate influence over congress?

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 9 years ago


[-] 2 points by NotYour99 (226) 9 years ago

The answer is the legislators. They made so much of this easy. Yes they were coerced with lobbying monies, but many of them are corrupt. THAT should be the focal point for change. With that changed, everything else will fall into place.

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 9 years ago

Yup we need politicians with the guts to stand up to wall street

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 9 years ago

Too much temptation on both sides..The legislators are corrupt and passed laws that enabled Wall Street to destroy the economy...But Wall Street destroyed the economy. It's Both..


[-] 5 points by radical22 (113) 9 years ago

There are so many you can devote an entire Law School Curiculum on this.


[-] 0 points by NotYour99 (226) 9 years ago

Then name one. Just one if you can so we can discuss.

[-] 2 points by radical22 (113) 9 years ago

1.Packaging CDO's knowing they are going to fail, selling them to a client and taking the other side of the trade. 2, Packaging loans with no documentation, selling the loans with AAA ratings, and paying S&P (the ratings agency) for the AAA rating. 3. Forging phony assignments to cover up lost documents in the foreclosure process. Lets start with those 3.

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 9 years ago


[-] 1 points by NotYour99 (226) 9 years ago

This thread had run it's course. The real answers are contained therein.

[-] 5 points by Toynbee (656) from Savannah, GA 9 years ago

Mortgage-backed securitization of junk that is sold as grade-A financial instruments. How about starting with this one? But the list is long.

Moreover, things may be legal but fail to pass a smell test.


[-] 0 points by NotYour99 (226) 9 years ago

Buyer beware. Ignorance if what you are doing dies not make it someone else's fault. If I buy coastal property sight unseen and I arrive to find a swamp it's my own fault for not doing my research. Your last sentence gets more to the point. Many here cry criminal and want the bankers jailed, though they can't show that a law was broken. This is witch hunt, ignorant mentality and shows how out of touch many of the OWS followers are with reality.

[-] 5 points by Amanita76 (88) from New Haven, CT 9 years ago

Ive always held the position that they broke no laws. Largely in part because they probably WROTE the laws and deregulated laws that suited their interest. Lets face it, unless we get a grip on OUR government, the bankers and special interest will always get their way.


[-] -1 points by NotYour99 (226) 9 years ago

The bankers have no power to write or abolish law. That is what our legislators do. Not saying they aren't involved, but again the original question I asked goes unanswered. What laws were broken.

[-] 1 points by Amanita76 (88) from New Haven, CT 9 years ago

Like I said. No laws were broken. However ethically speaking, what they did was reprehensible. But that goes without saying.

[-] 0 points by Doc4the99 (591) from Washington, DC 9 years ago

They influence policy via billions in lobby money and campaign contribtions. There are 40 000 lobbyists in D.C. putting their losses in the trillions to be paid for by the us tax payer thst is stealing.

[-] 1 points by NotYour99 (226) 9 years ago

Yes, and who is the enabler? Congress. Occupy THAT. Not wall street.

[-] 0 points by Doc4the99 (591) from Washington, DC 9 years ago

Wall street controls congress. BAC's got berneke bucks on bail out speed dial. Where have you been?


[-] 4 points by Toynbee (656) from Savannah, GA 9 years ago

Activist members of our US Supreme Court broke with hundreds of years of past precedent and gave corporations status as persons!


Now anonymous "persons" can drown out our voices with piles of money.

[-] 1 points by NotYour99 (226) 9 years ago

Just like voices and entire conversations are silenced here on this very forum.

[-] 1 points by Socrates469bc (608) from New York, NY 9 years ago

Welche Gesetze des Dritten Reiches hatte Hitler zu brechen? Ich sehe ständig Leute rufen Nazis kriminellen und einige sagen, dass sie das Gesetz gebrochen. Was Drittes Reich Gesetz?

What laws of the Third Reich did Hitler did break? I keep seeing people calling Nazis criminal and some saying they broke the law. What Third Reich law?

[-] 2 points by Socrates469bc (608) from New York, NY 9 years ago

Banksters: they don't make their decisions on impulse; they don't make then individually; they are organized criminals.

[-] 4 points by enough (587) 9 years ago

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 that makes market manipulation illegal.

[-] 2 points by Nevada1 (5843) 9 years ago

Good post.

[-] 0 points by NotYour99 (226) 9 years ago

Lots of things "manipulate" the market. Warren Buffet did it yesterday just by buying up so much stock in one day. Was that illegal? No. Let's get specific please.

[-] 2 points by enough (587) 9 years ago

It sounds like you are either clueless or in the tank for Wall Street:



If you need more examples, they are all over the internet. By the way, what the bankstas have done and continue to do is not just immoral and unethical, it is illegal; i.e., like in criminal fraud. They own the SEC and the U.S. Justice Department so there are no criminal prosecutions. Wise up.

[-] 0 points by NotYour99 (226) 9 years ago

Annnnnd, I am neither. But I also don't get my facts from Rolling Stone. There have been some good posts here but what I'm looking fir is discussion, not links.

[-] 2 points by enough (587) 9 years ago

Sorry, you're close-minded. I guess you think it's better to get your information from a public message board. Your question betrays your stultifying ignorance.

[-] 0 points by NotYour99 (226) 9 years ago

And you obviously haven't read all the posts. I'm trying to get people to state the actual laws broken so the people actually know. Too many of you are ignorant of the facts and made to look ignorant when you are asked questions like this and even though you're screaming "criminal" you can't even quote one fact. There are some here that have the facts. Read it all and you'll be informed enough to respond properly, instead of your own "close mindedness"

[-] 2 points by enough (587) 9 years ago

Read my first reply. It doesn't get anymore specific than that. Next, I gave you links to specific examples of unindicted criminal fraud and market manipulation, not to mention the numerous examples provided by vets74 and others below. Then there is market manipulation using high-frequency trading where investment banks and hedge funds make over 70% of their profits. There is flash trading and wave trading where honest investors are front-run every trading day. You are an excellent example of why a waterlogged sponge cannot take on more water.

[-] 1 points by mha (142) 9 years ago

it wouldn't kill you to read the rolling stone article. everything in it is fact. they couldn't sue him for making it public because he had the all the evidences! :) nice!

it doesn't hurt to know some of the facts.


well, when i think of it, it does hurt me to know the facts and to see that nothing has changed. so be aware, it actually does hurt.

[-] 1 points by vets74 (344) from New York, NY 9 years ago

A two-part course in Business Law will fix this ignorance.

[-] 3 points by rachaelmatheus (4) 9 years ago

We need to dress up as the 1%. NYPD will accidentally arrest some 1%. When 1% get arrested, we call for them to get charged with their white collar crimes.

[-] 0 points by SirPoeticJustice (628) from New York, NY 9 years ago

Damn girl you are scarey smart.

[-] 3 points by PlanetPluto (5) 9 years ago

None. The problem is with the politicians who, you know, draft and pass laws (including tax loop-holes that allow for the profits that the OWS crowd seems to hate so much). If you want to "occupy" someplace, go occupy DC.

But...... with a D in the Whitehouse, I guess that is out of the question.

[-] 0 points by Cocreator (306) 9 years ago

you must be from pluto alright if you think the banks have not broken any laws..The fed audit showed a 14 trillion dollar embezzelment over and above the 1.5 trillion bush/obama allocation..Ask them where all the money went, answer is I Don't Recall..

[-] 1 points by NotYour99 (226) 9 years ago

I didn't say I don't think they broke any, but people throw around that "the banker are criminals" here and they don't have the first clue about what laws were broken. They've just heard it so much they think it's irrefutable. And that is nothing mire than ignorance. I'm trying to get someone on the OWS side to step up and say what laws so you ignorant masses will understand.

[-] 2 points by Steve15 (385) 9 years ago

They need not break laws because they make the laws and repeal the ones they don't like. They successfully repealed;

The Glass Steagall act

The Commodities futures exchange act

Imposition of the Genral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

Imposition of NAFTA

You are living the result of these actions to name a few

[-] 1 points by NotYour99 (226) 9 years ago

The entire point of this entire thread is to define your "they". Bankers didn't repeal anything. Bankers don't make laws. That's your legislators. Corrupted by the bankers yes, but the legislators nonetheless. Why OWS supporters don't accept that the legislators are mostly to blame I can't comprehend. OWS wants to adhere to their moniker so badly that they are missing the point. Until we take away the influence that banking has on our legislature nothing will change. Standing out in the cold on wall street doesn't change anything because the bankers are business as usual behind those doors. Take this fight to DC and you might actually begin to affect a change. But right now the bankers are laughing at you.

[-] 1 points by Steve15 (385) 9 years ago

I agree with most of what you say. I think DC gets the point it doesn't matter where they protest as long as awareness is raised and the numbers grow. I mean.... come on, it's about time people are becoming aware of the fact that our government is a Corporate Oligarchy. This is surely educating the ones who ask questions rather than indoctrinating themselves with the dumbed down corporate media

[-] 1 points by NotYour99 (226) 9 years ago

Yeah, but I still think if you want to get in someone's face, make it Congress. All that's happening right now is it's giving bankers that much more time to move/hide/defraud, etc before and real hammers fall. OWS wields no such hammers, only the government can do that.

[-] 1 points by Steve15 (385) 9 years ago

I agree with you my friend I am going to copy and paste a comment I made to another brother who had the same view as you. Hopefully it will clear things up:

"This is only the beginning. Right now they are just raising awareness. If all goes correctly this will end up in DC. Whats important now is that people ask why. "Why are they protesting Wall St" Because you live in a Corporate Oligarchy not a Democratic Republic . So the education begins. Remember the labor movement lasted decades and the civil rights movement lasted...... shit, centuries. It's all about awareness at this point. I just hope it doesn't get co-opted by the wrong people."

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 9 years ago

Essentially, while bankers and corporate honchos aren't sitting on Capitol Hill passing legislation they're not that far from it. When the law permits you to pour as much money as you please into political campaigns, and people know that they need your money to get elected, you can effectively buy enough of Congress to push through whatever they want. I'd personally like to see a focus on campaign finance and lobbying reform, in particular overturning (or flat-out ignoring) Citizens United, capping individual donations, and disallowing corporate or organizational donations.

[-] 1 points by NotYour99 (226) 9 years ago

With this I agree

[-] 2 points by PatriotSon01 (157) 9 years ago

Many, of late, have come to view Patriotism and 'being a responsible citizen' of sitting on their hands and doing as the establishment says must. Many have given up their rights in the face of terrorism, for the betterment for the security of us all. Many people have become so focused on meeting the proverbial 'American Dream', that they have allowed our country to be sidetracked and the tenets of democracy to be railroaded into the pocketbooks of the elitist. Consider a country where Congressmen and women, Senators and other officials, get elected or appointed, using whatever lies and promises they can. However, we find that they merely use their positions to ensure their specific projects get through the governmental red tape, that they get higher pay and more vacations, that the will and cries of the people are ignored and legislation 'for their own good' is rammed down their throats, so-to-speak. This country has fallen into a rut that borders closely upon the rut that led to WW1 and WW2, namely Fascism.
On the other hand, we find that the US Government is so easily led astray, deceived and even toyed with by multi-billion dollar corporations, there is little wonder that most of the free world sees us as bumbling idiots. Our troops die for other countries security;, our troops die in policing actions for other countries; our troops are forced, by these selfish government officials to repeatedly serve in combat actions, possibly leading to the Ultimate sacrifice, instead of allowing them to return to their families. Our troops are denied jobs by the corporations whose profits they protected, for the freedoms the CEO's and bankers have come to casually bend to their own desires. We are a democracy which is supposed to be run by the views, votes, hearts and minds of the people. Our country seems to be run by the wallets of the corporations and the slimy hands of the lobbyists. What happened to the responsibilities that theses bankers and their ilk were required to follow to ensure fair trade and investments? They were removed by the Bush Administration to foment strong economic growth. When the regulations were removed, many saw a means to make massive wealth, illegally or nearly legal... Many of us got sucked into the dream of being rich, foolishly, letting our lives be swayed by the words of the greedy. Shame on us ALL! The true meaning of this movement is the responsibility of the elitists, the bankers, investors and the public administrations, that allowed this financial fracas to develop in the first place. Arresting, sending to court and jailing a handful of sacrificial lambs will not sate our need for Justice. No less than the complete overhaul of the system will suffice. This starts within each of us. This starts with people willing to see each of us for who we are - American, humans, family... We aren't numbers, here for the rich to line their pockets. I'd like to ask one question of the rich and those raping and pillaging the earth and her peoples for their riches; Just where are you planning to retire? What planet do you hope to go to in retirement, to spend your ill-gotten wealth. The people will all hate you here... and the Earth will be a wasteland and you'll have gotten very, very rich; but where are you going? I want to go to!

[-] 2 points by me2 (534) 9 years ago

I believe the point the movement is trying to make is that the system is rigged and therefore your question is moot. The technicality that a law was not broken does not translate into justice having been served.

Unfortunately that message is getting severely compromised by ows's own actions and the signal to noise ratio needs to be improved significantly, but when people try to point this out they just get dislikes which results in their point being hidden. It's turning into a stupid "for us or against us" rah rah fest instead of an increasing articulation of ideas and that is truly squandered opportunity.

[-] 1 points by NotYour99 (226) 9 years ago

But justice needs to be administered under the law, not by mob rule. My whole point through all of this is that fewer laws were broken than people think, but that is the cause of our congress being corrupt and catering to those institutions.

[-] 2 points by Idaltu (662) 9 years ago

A New York Times analysis of enforcement actions during the last 15 years found at least 51 cases in which 19 Wall Street firms had broken antifraud laws they had agreed never to breach.

And that is just the tip of the iceberg...try reading the news....


[-] 2 points by karldanger (5) 9 years ago

From what I've seen the majority of the problems they've cause have been done legally...with the repeal of the Glass-Steagall restrictions financial institutions were allowed to create monopolies and derivatives and all the other things they've done. There's plenty of fraud and corruption cases out there but the biggest problem is too much of this country got too comfortable in their little life bubbles that they've become lazy, complacent, and ignorant to the rest of the world. Because of that the financial institutions have been given almost free reign over the goverment.

[-] 2 points by david19harness (87) 9 years ago

ANSWER: Wall Street bankers broke the U.S. Constitution Rule of Law overriding (via Congressional-Executive-Judicial PROSTITUTION) the 80-90% public vote objection to TARP (i.e., which "cannot be subject to public hearing or judicial review").

Hence, THE U.S. CONSTITUTION IS DEAD. R.I.P, Oct 3, 2008.

Any part of that ye don't understand NotYour99?

[-] 2 points by NotYour99 (226) 9 years ago

Wow. Really? We are trying to have a good conversation here and someone is abusing the system to remove one side of the discussion. Someone on the OWS side. That speaks volumes in and of itself when it's those very people saying their right to free speech is being oppressed. Please, if you are interested in convo let's get this all out there for everyone to see. This is likely the work of just one person and multiple accounts but it is absurd.

[-] 1 points by Socrates469bc (608) from New York, NY 9 years ago

Welche Gesetze des Dritten Reiches hatte Hitler zu brechen? Ich sehe ständig Leute rufen Nazis kriminellen und einige sagen, dass sie das Gesetz gebrochen. Was Drittes Reich Gesetz?

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 9 years ago

as bertolt brecht said "which is the greater crime - to rob a bank or to own one" the victors write history and the laws - it was not a crime to send the jews to death camps in 1942 germany so what does that say for the law. the indians did not believe in writing down the law because if you do, you have to obey what is written and not what is right!

[-] 2 points by sickmint79 (516) from Grayslake, IL 9 years ago

there was a very significant amount of lending fraud, misrepresenting the financials of buyers. also numbers were played with to make loans allowable for sale to the GSEs.

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 9 years ago

for a start, have a look at what insiders are saying;

http://maxkeiser.com/ http://www.zerohedge.com/

The level of lawlessness is positively astounding. The problem is the regulators and officials charged with enforcing (the few remaining) laws simple do nothing.

[-] 2 points by Rico (3027) 9 years ago

First, when people here say "Bankers" they are generally referring to people in any sector of the financial sector including banks, the Fed, stocks, etc. In that sense, examples of law breaking abound; Madoff is in prison, so is another hedge fund manager, the SEC has been levying fines all over, and their are a multitude of fraud cases winding through the courts.

In a broader sense, the mere fact that the financial sector was able to push near the conditions of the Great Depression, we have seen a need for NEW law and regulatory controls so much of what happened WILL be illegal in the future.

Specific areas of regulatory change I think are needed include better oversight of the rating agencies who, by rubber stamping bad debt as "AA", allowed it to proliferate through the system. This is their only job, and they violated their fiduciary responsibility. Another area of improved oversight would likely address computerized trading, Just as we've seen in the stock market, computers trading with computers can lead to some terrible consequences. We normally rely on diversity of perspective to help moderate positions, but if all banks use the same software, the programmer's algorithm is common to all, so it's as though one man controls the entire financial system. This leaves us vulnerable to system melt-down.

[-] 1 points by MonetizingDiscontent (1257) 9 years ago

yep ...and a lot of what happened used to be illegal in the past too.

[-] 1 points by Socrates469bc (608) from New York, NY 9 years ago

Go to a board meeting. You will see that banksters are not only criminals, they are organized criminals.

[-] 0 points by me2 (534) 9 years ago

How many financial institution board meetings have you attended, soc?

[-] 2 points by Socrates469bc (608) from New York, NY 9 years ago

Hitler did not break any laws of the Third Reich. Amen.

[-] -1 points by vets74 (344) from New York, NY 9 years ago

Assault by the thousands, murder, mass murder at the "Night of the Long Knives" and much more.

The assertion is false on the face of it.

[-] 1 points by Socrates469bc (608) from New York, NY 9 years ago

That was not Hitler. Those are crimes against humanity and society, but Hitler followed all the laws of the Third Reich. He was the model Third Reich citizen.

Welche Gesetze des Dritten Reiches hatte Hitler zu brechen? Ich sehe ständig Leute rufen Nazis kriminellen und einige sagen, dass sie das Gesetz gebrochen. Was Drittes Reich Gesetz?

[-] 0 points by NotYour99 (226) 9 years ago

And people fled because of those laws.... Your example, as "shocking" as you've tried to make it, doesn't really fit this situation. I realize what it is you're trying to say, but really let's try to stay on subject than use smoke and mirrors to try to prove a point.

[-] -1 points by vets74 (344) from New York, NY 9 years ago

Night of the Long Knives was 100% of the Third Reich.

Hitler was a common murderer. Try getting your facts straight.

[-] 1 points by Socrates469bc (608) from New York, NY 9 years ago

Hitler was the law. He made the laws of the Third Reich. He was the perfect Third Reich citizen.

[-] -1 points by vets74 (344) from New York, NY 9 years ago

You're drunk ?

[-] 2 points by CoExist (178) 9 years ago

The rich and powerful can violate the law and will receive a slap on the wrist. This is not justice, this is fraud.

[-] 1 points by vets74 (344) from New York, NY 9 years ago

Killing Florence Cioffi was the single worst of it in NYC in recent years.

January 25, 2008.

16 days in Rikers + $350 fine.

The DUI perp was a CEO.

[-] 2 points by CoExist (178) 9 years ago

Sounds like another fraud by people who are above the law.

[-] 1 points by vets74 (344) from New York, NY 9 years ago

That's way beyond fraud. But yes....

[-] -1 points by NotYour99 (226) 9 years ago

Umm no. Either have a discussion, or don't. For your reply to be some link and not the answer to my question leads me to believe you don't have an answer and there are others here with intelligent discourse.

[-] 2 points by HighEarner (19) 9 years ago

They broke the law of capitalism, those institutes that 'needed' bailouts were supposed to go bankrupt, so that the US economy wouldn't be a bubble.

[-] 1 points by NotYour99 (226) 9 years ago

Those are ideals, not laws. Again, what law or laws were broken?

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 9 years ago

"Mortgage-backed securitization of junk" what part of this do you not understand? It is fraud to misrepresent products. And that is just one tinny bit of it.

[-] 2 points by Cocreator (306) 9 years ago

cdos,market manipulation,futures commodities speculation,insider trading,bribery,extortion,witholding information,shredding evidence,bankrupting the world economy, risky investments with money that is not theirs to risk,naked short seling stocks,Printing money backed by no goods or services, counterfeitng, embezzelment, to name a few..Documented Facts, lookit up..

[-] 1 points by gr58 (22) 9 years ago

Future commodeties speculation? In investmen, futures and specualtion are tha same thing! Bankrupting the world economy and printing money are not crimes are not crimes. And niehter is investin gother people money. PLuss, if you have proof for the others I, and the U.S. government, would love to see it. By with holding that evedence, you are cominting a fellony. PLease present your suporting documentation

[-] 1 points by Cocreator (306) 9 years ago

You have the evidence. it is well documented, they will be serving papers shortly..

[-] 1 points by gr58 (22) 9 years ago

I have the evidence? I don't have any evidence of market manipulation, insider trading, bribery, extortion, withholding information, distruction of evednce, counterfeting, or embezzelment. I was really hoping that if you were going to make such claims in a public forum, an act which is the equivalent of telling the police that you know who commited a crime, that you would have some evedence to back up this acusation and not just speculation on your part

[-] 1 points by Cocreator (306) 9 years ago

It is Public Record, for people that aren't too busy watching Fox News..

[-] 1 points by gr58 (22) 9 years ago

Where in the public record? You says it's there but have you seen it? And also, what kind of anybody/thing would put their crimes into the public record?

[-] 1 points by Cocreator (306) 9 years ago

you sound a bit alarmed, are you afraid we uncovered some secrets?

[-] 1 points by gr58 (22) 9 years ago

Well I'm just concerned. You are the first person to say there is actually evidence. I wan't to see it befor i become worried though

[-] 1 points by NotYour99 (226) 9 years ago

While a few of the things you list are crimes, many are not, and some are complete fabrication. Where is the proof that crimes were committed. Is that only proof the fact that they made money doing these things? I'm not trying to say the bankers were completely ethical, but show me exactly, with proof, what laws they broke if you are going to accuse them justly. But come on.... Print money??!? The don't do that. Geese.

[-] 1 points by CoExist (178) 9 years ago

These in fact are crimes: Market manipulation, Insider trading, Bribery, Extortion, Withholding information, Destruction of evidence, Counterfeiting and Embezzlement.

[-] 2 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 9 years ago

They didn't brake any laws NotYour. In fact they and other big business manipulate the government for their benefit and our government is more than willing to lend a hand for a big ole slice of the pie.

[-] 0 points by velveeta (230) 9 years ago

bernie madoff didn't break any laws? rajat gupta? john corzine? you're a fool


[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 9 years ago

On the 333rd comment : "What laws did Wall Street Banksters break ?" : The Eternal and Universal Laws of Nature ... but .. ignis natura renovatur integra .

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 9 years ago

The GOP House just passed legislation to drop regulation of derivatives etc.

[-] 1 points by Marquee (192) 9 years ago

It's the Wall Street Pentagon Papers. It'll really help to answer any questions you might have concerning broken laws, public trust and corruption at the highest levels.. Please read, do some investigative research, think critically.

[-] 1 points by tulcak (698) from Prague, Prague 9 years ago

well, my fellow "pube" just because its a law doesn't make it moral. it used to be legal to own slaves. where the fuck is your head at?

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 9 years ago

NotYour99 ...............You need to know what laws where broken...Well go to the FBI report on Mortgage Lenders...Then go to the Congressional Report on the Causes of the 2007-2008 Financial Crisis.............Its a citizens duty to stay informed...for you even to ask the question is dumbfounding...

[-] 1 points by nickgonewalkabout (6) 9 years ago

Laws broken include insider trading under the Exchange Act 10b-5, misrepresentation/failure to disclose, money-laundering, manipulation, order misrepresentation, failure to audit, antitrust law violations such as collusion to manipulate LIBOR rates, usury, breach of faith, breach of trust, fraud, and theft. The SEC is charged with investigating breeches of GAAP or Federal financial securities laws. Title 12 USC 93 - Sec. 93. states that directors of banks are liable for violations of banking codes, but cases must be tried in court. Banks are slippery and rich, liable to kick up a fuss, throw malicious tantrums, and never admit guilt. The SEC went to sleep under George W. Bush, but seems to be on its feet a little now. Its the alpha-male archetype prone to high-stakes gambling that is perhaps the root of the problem, combined with failure to hold the investment banks to an inviolable code of restraint. The essence is get rich quick and sell everything to meet that objective no matter what the cost to the wider community. For example, JP Morgan reportedly violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act 14 times by evicting families of soldiers into the street.

[-] 1 points by mha (142) 9 years ago

they made sure the laws get removed so they wouldn't have to break them. lucky for them the politicians depend on the wall street donations so they can run for elections. a perfect system for those who benefit from it.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 9 years ago

What a clever argument! He is using the principle of circular reasoning to prove his own statement.

Circular reasoning, or begging the question, is an attempt to support a statement by simply repeating the statement in different or stronger terms. In this fallacy, the reason given is nothing more than a restatement of the conclusion that poses as the reason for the conclusion. To say, “You should exercise because it’s good for you” is really saying, “You should exercise because you should exercise.”


A confused student argues: “You can’t give me a C. I’m an A student!”

Circular reasoning is problematic because the claim is made on grounds that cannot be accepted as true — because those very grounds are in dispute. How can a student claim to be an A student when he just earned a C?

To clarify, no one is an “A student” by definition. Grades are earned in every class and are derived from a variety of different methods. The requirements in one class are set by the school and the instructor, so the same class taught by a different teacher or in a different location should yield two very different results (final grades). Merely claiming to be an A student does not make the claim valid.

How can people call the bankers criminals, and not say what law was broken?

You see, those are the very grounds which are in dispute - the absence of laws (regulations) to keep the bankers in bounds. These grounds cannot be accepted as true.

We can call the bankers criminal because we intuitively see past this asinine reasoning. We both know very well the reason why we can't say which law they broke. It's BECAUSE there were no FUCKING laws regulating them in the first place.

Hello, Not Born Yesterday!

[-] 1 points by LHP73 (2) 9 years ago

Check out the best protest song around.. X MARKS THE SPOT by ANDY DUERDEN on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEy9VGp6d1c

[-] 1 points by coach1640280 (9) 9 years ago

The emergency #ows #occupy paradigm. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKqP6v_BoV4

[-] 1 points by ContinuationofEarth (220) 9 years ago


They printed paper, created money out of thin air, bubbled up the dollar. They created 600 trillion. If we accept dollar as currency, we will end up paying 600 trillion because somebody created this value out of nothing. That is legal, real value created, if the accept the status quo, we will pay it with our lives. Or we can reject the dollar and stop being debt burdened servant. Please see the link above. It is scary.

[-] 1 points by redavocet (38) 9 years ago

Thank Clinton for putting through the deregulation of financial services with the 'Financial Modernization Act of 1999' - this allowed the combination of financial serves and deregulation to begin with open credit and risk taking. If Glass-Steagall was still on the books the financial indistry would have had some governmental oversight.

[-] 1 points by DonQuixot (231) 9 years ago

What a silly question. They did not need to brake any law. It was easier to make laws to enable them to do whatever they wanted.

[-] 1 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 9 years ago

For me, whether they are technically criminals or not (according to your definition) isn't too important; that's leaning towards the arguing of semantics. If Bankers continually reap the majority of the benefits from the risk the rest of us are assuming, then they're clearly not playing by the rules and they need to be called out on it, especially by true capitalists.

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 9 years ago

Securities fraud, also known as stock fraud and investment fraud, is a practice that induces investors to make purchase or sale decisions on the basis of false information, frequently resulting in losses, in violation of the securities laws.

Generally speaking, securities fraud consists of deceptive practices in the stock and commodity markets, and occurs when investors are enticed to part with their money based on untrue statements.


[-] 1 points by OurTimes2011 (377) from Arlington, VA 9 years ago

Fraud. Sherman AntiTrust. Illegal combination in restraint of interstate commerce.

I can go on....but I won't since this is a troll post.

[-] 1 points by outsidethebox (27) from Dorset, VT 9 years ago

Apparently, you have not seen Inside Job by Chris Ferguson. Perhaps you should take the time to educate yourself. When your company is privately calling securities "a bunch of crap" while selling them to clients as secure investments is fraud. Any more questions?

[-] 1 points by tulcak (698) from Prague, Prague 9 years ago

who cares? what they did and continue to do is immoral. the laws that regulate the industry were repealed. so, their actions were/are technically legal. I don't think they should be and I think we need to regulate more tightly. but, if you are of the mindset that profit justifies anything, then, I guess its ok for you. its not ok with me. and I'm pretty sure its not ok with the rest of the folks that are part of the Occupy movement.

[-] 1 points by yarichin (269) 9 years ago

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws." Mayer Amschel Rothschild

Of course what they did was technically legal they own the law makers. What they did was lie about how much money they had, loan out money they did not have and charge interest on it, create loosing stocks, sell them to suckers, and and bet against them, similar to fixing a sporting event.

They have convinced us that loaning is borrowing and borrowing is loaning.If I give you a NOTE promising to pay for a car. By holding that Note you are LOANING me money. Look at your so called money it says Federal Reserve Note. It is money owed to our government by the Federal Reserve BANK. No one including our government should ever pay interest on a NOTE. It is a scam of epic proportions. The central banks of 165 countries use this debt slavery to create NOTES and pay interest.

[-] 1 points by TheAvantGarde (4) 9 years ago

They broke this law: "That is simple. In the colonies, we issue our own paper money. It is called 'Colonial Script'. We issue it in proper proportion to make the goods pass easily from the producers to the consumers. In this manner, creating ourselves our own paper money, we control it's purchasing power and we have no interest to pay to no one." — Benjamin Franklin


[-] 1 points by TheAvantGarde (4) 9 years ago

That's why the Civil War Started. Banker's won anyway in 1913. Some historians say a lil earlier 1880's. Perhaps the British are coming again? Their vast economic reign is pulling us back under the queens' power. She is the New World Order.

[-] 1 points by TheAvantGarde (4) 9 years ago

http://youtu.be/ipq2g1QC9Ik great vid on interest-free local economies . . .

[-] 1 points by morons123 (131) 9 years ago

I work for wall street; we broke no laws, these people just can't stand anyone who has more than them.

[-] 1 points by rick1716 (14) 9 years ago

They didnt, but they financed the deregulations that allowed the banks, Wall street and politicians to destroy our country. Do not fall for the republican, democratic nonsense that distracts everyone, while Senators and state representatives become millionaires, how does that occur? Forget about what you read, hear and see from the media, they are part of the problem. The first amendment was supposed to protect American citizens, by having an impartial media who were supposed to report anytime a politician, government official etc. steps out of line.what has occurred is that television companies were not allowed to own print and radio media, but politicians changed the laws allowing companies like Viacom, Fox etc to control how we receive news, thus only 3 or 4 companies control all of the major media in the U.S., how else can you explain all of the negativity towards people complaining about how the economy got to where it is now.

[-] 1 points by NotYour99 (226) 9 years ago

I realize all too well that this was allowed by our congress. A corrupt congress. I wish OWS would spend their effort there, instead of these futile attempts to "harm" wall street, which usually only hurt others of the 99%.

[-] 1 points by MonetizingDiscontent (1257) 9 years ago

Occupy LA 'Teach In' with White-Collar Criminologist & Former Financial Regulator, WILLIAM K BLACK

((Video)) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_AuvLTJNh0&feature=player_embedded

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 9 years ago

The person who started this thread and his allies suffer from the horrible epidemic of Wetiko Psychosis:



Avoid these people at all cost..It could save your life!

[-] 1 points by jk1234 (257) 9 years ago
[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 9 years ago

Consumer fraud. It is a complex financial scam and, unfortunately, if you are asking the question, it is likely that you are not going to get it, but here goes:

The banks put together and sold these CDO's (Collateralized Debt Obligation) packages that were backed by subprime mortgages knowing that those taking out the mortgage would be unable to pay them. They sold these CDO's, knowing that eventually those investing in them would lose their shirts meanwhile earning billions selling them. And then these same banks created CDS's (Credit Default Swaps) in which they would make money when, and onlyif, they CDO's (subprime mortgages) tanked. So they ended up making billions when people were unable to pay their mortgages. And they got the houses that the people lost too!

[-] 2 points by NotYour99 (226) 9 years ago

I understand the part about the CDOs. But the line, "So they ended up making billions when people were unable to pay their mortgages," is the part that raises my eyebrow. Did the bank somehow make it so people couldn't pay their mortgage. Did they do something to these peoples' livelihood such that they became without income, or did these people, newly qualified under new guidelines simply invest in something they couldn't afford? Didn't Clinton push for these new guidelines? The banks new these loans were higher risk. Do you blame them for protecting themselves from that part of it?

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 9 years ago

The bankers created a housing bubble. They intentionally led the public to believe that houses were worth far more than they were worth. People bought houses that were over valued. Usually when you find you can no longer afford your house, you can sell it. Not so in this case. The house could not be sold because when the bubble (created by the bankers) burst, the value of the house plumetted. The mortgage holder was in an impossible situaiton. They could neither pay the mortgage nor could they sell the house.

This is the biggest white collar scam in the history of the world. No one has yet been prosecuted. Why? Because the 1% control the world.

[-] 1 points by jk1234 (257) 9 years ago


PUBLIC NOTICE AND WARNING This bank and others like it have defrauded you and the public in the following ways:

  1. Sold fraudulent Mortgage Backed Securities to employee pension funds.1
  2. Destroyed mortgage and home loan documents to cover their fraud.2
  3. Illegally kicked people out of their homes.3
  4. Hid money for TERRORISTS and DRUG LORDS.4
  5. Colluded with other banks and corrupt politicians to steal money funding public projects.5 Stop the looting and start the prosecuting 1 http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=2228830 2 http://www.scribd.com/doc/38213950/Notes-Are-Destroyed 3 http://4closurefraud.org/2010/10/06/out-of-control-listen-to-this-terrifying-911-call-of-thugs-hired-by-jpmorgan-chase-breaking-down-a-door/ 4 http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aXf9c5B9KWfA 5 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/12697/64833
[-] 1 points by Bomer (58) 9 years ago

They broke the laws of humanity plain and simple. The law of Christ: Treat your neighbor as yourself.

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 9 years ago

The bankers funded the politicians so they could change laws that benefited their goal of corruption. They didn't break the laws because they paid politicians to change them.

[-] 1 points by morons123 (131) 9 years ago

you didn't answer the question. What laws were broken? I work on wall street and broke no laws. And I work for one of the companies you OWS's seem to hate so much. when exactly did a banker change regulatory laws? and as far as derivatives, when do you think these became part of the economic system? would you believe in the 18th century. You guys are so misguided it is sad. You are not changing anything simply wasting your time.

[-] 1 points by rick1716 (14) 9 years ago

where do you work in the mailroom? Moron, just because you didnt break a law, doesnt mean that the methods used by your company and other companies to achieve their goals are ethically correct. By the way your user name is perfect for u, even though you think you are being clever by referring to OWS, which is probably your answer for your screen name, maybe it's a freudian slip on your part? Meaning in your subconscious you know you are a moron! Keep posting you moron!

[-] 1 points by morons123 (131) 9 years ago

i was asking a question to a post where someone said laws were broken. you seem so defensive. obviously no laws were broken and no I do not work in the mailroom. why are you so angry?

[-] 1 points by smartenough (42) 9 years ago

Frankly ? They did not break any law, because they know very well how to play with law.

[-] 1 points by aeturnus (231) from Robbinsville, NC 9 years ago

They broke the Glass-Steagal law. In fact, they've been breaking laws ever since the break up of the Bretton Wood's system.

If we let these bankers have their way, there will be no more laws left for them to break. And then they will be running roughshod over us all.

[-] 1 points by NotYour99 (226) 9 years ago

Numerous posters here have said that law was repealed....

[-] 1 points by aeturnus (231) from Robbinsville, NC 9 years ago

Yes. It was repealed. In effect, they broke the law. They repealed it. You can't really break what you repeal, because it is forever broken.

[-] 1 points by randart (498) 9 years ago

All I can say is this. Look at how much they reap off other people's hardships. They have worked to establish this system for a very long time and now we are seeing the end results just beginning. I suspect that if one thousand people went to a specific bank and demanded to withdraw all their money that bank would not be able to accommodate them.

As for breaking the law: they have worked to change the laws to their favor so "technically" they may not have broken a law because they wrote the law for the politicians to enact. But, people still have a sense of right and wrong and they are growing more aware that the bankers are doing some serious wrongs.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 9 years ago

I'm not a legal expert. I hold no higher degree in learning. But I know a robbery when I see one.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 9 years ago

Watch "Inside Job" the movie.

All the information you seek, is in that very professional documentary narrated by Matt Damon.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 9 years ago

Go ask MF Global. Plenty of broken laws, just no prosecution.

[-] 1 points by dca2012 (20) 9 years ago

It doesnt matter if they broke any laws or not, slavery was LEGAL at one point, that doesnt make it ok. Bankers and Corporate America are corrupt and unethical, its time to reform the system.

[-] 1 points by NotYour99 (226) 9 years ago

It does matter when so many of OWS are asking to imprison "the bankers". Those that did commit crimes need to pay. Money returned, etc. But that's not all of "the bankers". We need to learn from this. Make sure it doesn't happen again, and move on. The key to it not happening again is congressional reform.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 9 years ago

taking advantage of the stupid and desperate

[-] 1 points by NotYour99 (226) 9 years ago

A fool and his money are soon parted. -

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 9 years ago

well, someone took it

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 9 years ago

“Since the formal mechanisms of power refuse to restore the rule of law, then we, the 99 percent, will have to see that justice is done.”

Goldman Sachs, which received more subsidies and bailout-related funds than any other investment bank because the Federal Reserve permitted it to become a bank holding company under its “emergency situation,” has used billions in taxpayer money to enrich itself and reward its top executives. It handed its senior employees a staggering $18 billion in 2009, $16 billion in 2010 and $10 billion in 2011 in mega-bonuses. This massive transfer of wealth upwards by the Bush and Obama administrations, now estimated at $13 trillion to $14 trillion, went into the pockets of those who carried out fraud and criminal activity rather than the victims who lost their jobs, their savings and often their homes.

Goldman Sachs’ commodities index is the most heavily traded in the world. Goldman Sachs hoards rice, wheat, corn, sugar and livestock and jacks up commodity prices around the globe so that poor families can no longer afford basic staples and literally starve. Goldman Sachs is able to carry out its malfeasance at home and in global markets because it has former officials filtered throughout the government and lavishly funds compliant politicians—including Barack Obama, who received $1 million from employees at Goldman Sachs in 2008 when he ran for president. These politicians, in return, permit Goldman Sachs to ignore security laws that under a functioning judiciary system would see the firm indicted for felony fraud. Or, as in the case of Bill Clinton, these politicians pass laws such as the 2000 Commodity Futures Modernization Act that effectively removed all oversight and outside control over the speculation in commodities, one of the major reasons food prices have soared. In 2008 and again in 2010 prices for crops such as rice, wheat and corn doubled and even tripled, making life precarious for hundreds of millions of people. And it was all done so a few corporate oligarchs, the 1 percent, could make personal fortunes in the tens and hundreds of millions of dollars. Despite a damning 650-page Senate subcommittee investigation report, no individual at Goldman Sachs has been indicted, although the report accuses Goldman of defrauding its clients.



[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 9 years ago

JP Morgan, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs broke the law by committing financial fraud.


[-] 1 points by MitchK (305) 9 years ago

NONE!!!!!!! Notyour99 you are so right and anyone who says they broke a law knows nothing about,like most people "voiceing" for this movement,know nothing about what they are voicing or protesting.Yet these are the people standing up for the "99%" god are we/they,the 99 in trouble.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 9 years ago

If we can't find one we should make one up as they did for the Nurenberg defendants after World War II.

[-] 1 points by Edgewaters (912) 9 years ago

They bought the government and changed the laws to make themselves legal. Just because you legalize robbery doesn't mean you aren't a criminal anymore.

Look at the Nazis, for example. Everything they did was "legal" because they rewrote the law to make it so. Still a bunch of criminals. (and no, I'm not pulling a Godwin and saying the bankers are Nazis, just talking about legalized crime in a way everyone can understand).

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 9 years ago

If we can't find one we should make one up and try them ex post facto as was done with the Nurenberg defendants.

[-] 1 points by Seer (10) 9 years ago

They broke few if any laws... By design.

A long time ago, the government turned over it's control to the Fed, which holds the purse strings... I won't go into details,as it's no secret what the fed is...

So now, almost a hundred years later, the fiat/debt based economy is tanking, both here and around the world (the idea that you can "borrow" your way out of debt is inherently flawed and always was) we are all arguing about who is to blame...

Blame the Fed... Blame the Politicians....

But if you use credit cards, blame yourselves first...

You want to fix... well, maybe not really fix, but remove yourself as much as possible from the shitstorm that is kicking up dust around the world, then remove yourself from the debt system first...

Get out of debt. Start learning to be self sufficient, grow a backyard garden, lead BY EXAMPLE, and for crying out loud, don't demand anyone give you anything, for free.
Because it's never actually free...

You want to make a difference in this system? Cut up your credit cards, pay off your debt, and learn the rules of Barter and self sustaining lifestyles, create your own product, sell it, learn how to build, how to repair....

You are the engine of our current economy... If you want it to change, you have to change yourself...

Okay, that's a bit altruistic, but it's not wrong...

What wall street and the fed has been doing for the last few generations is what you do every time you swipe plastic...

Lead by example, or step off the soapbox...

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 9 years ago

The law of supply and demand.

They over-supplied the market with too many lousy mortgage products and destroyed the demand for credit in the entire nation.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 9 years ago

I am not an investment specialist. My understanding is that they made bets, without sufficient funds to cover those bets.

We will break their legs.

[-] 1 points by KnaveDave (357) 9 years ago

You've now seen plenty of excellent examples of laws that are alleged to have been (and, in my opinion, almost certainly were) broken; but you haven't heard much in the press about the laws broken. You haven't heard any investigative journalism either, or I haven't. There has been darn little of it. That's why I finally started writing a blog, myself. I couldn't believe how the press was simply parroting anything the government fed to it, doing no thinking, asking no questions. I can understand that on small things, but not on the collapse of the nearly the entire world brought on by handfuls of greedy people and years of bad politics. The very chemistry of that tells any reasonable person there has to be incredible amounts of fraud and deceit involved.

So, even people who don't know WHAT laws were broken and protesting because they also haven't heard that anyone is being investigated. The press, itself, isn't doing any investigating. The very chemistry of a Fed that gets to hand out TRILLIONS of free dollars without any oversight by Congress and no one knowing where the money goes, should ring major alarm bells.

--Knave Dave http://TheGreatRecession.info/blog

[-] 1 points by HankQT (7) from Charleston, SC 9 years ago

Greed is not illegal but larceny is. Corporations stealing America’s savings are the root cause of our current financial state. I have worked the trenches. I am a retired computer financial systems analyst. Corporations have pilfered many $billions to subsidize corporate goals: Lavish executive pay. legions of lobbyists, profit growth exceeding GDP growth, campaign funding as of 2010, M&A frenzy, etc. A decade of transferring funds from the masses to a few created a huge wealth gap. This larceny continues to impoverish the middle class. The market tanked. Retirement dreams have faded. Jobs outlook is bleak.Housing is kaput. Ad nauseam. This crime wave has brought us to the brink of ruin. A democracy is being traitorously forged into a plutocracy. The thefts of shareholder value must stop. Alert the Administration, daily. Harangue your Congressmen. Enlighten your friends. If you incurred substantial losses since 2000 insist the FBI investigate your situation. Impale or hang in effigy the SEC as a poor guardian / rogue cop / gang leader.

[-] 1 points by OWSisawaste (133) 9 years ago

OWS has no idea that their whole idea is not going to work. people will never be completely equal. Even in your perfect Communist world world there is still that "1%" that rules the country. There will always be a "1%" and you just have to except that. Also, getting the money out of the gov would make it collapse...money it needed to make anything run...countries, houses, businesses......THEY ALL NEED MONEY.......and your "list of demands" is completely moronic....

[-] 1 points by wolfgangvon808 (1) from Rockford, IL 9 years ago

don't forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was "legal" -_-

[-] 1 points by MonetizingDiscontent (1257) 9 years ago

::::::::::::More On Legal Stealing - The Infamous CFTC Rule 1.29::::::::::::


Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Obfuscate - transitive verb: Darken, to make obscure; Confuse; intransitive verb: to be evasive, unclear or confusing (Merriam Webster)

Time to cut to the chase. Let me just preface this with my belief that the missing $600 million from MF Global was money taken from segregated customer accounts and used by MF Global to satisfy a massive margin call issued by JP Morgan on MF Global proprietary accounts. I say JPM ultimately has the funds in question because if you have been following all of the news from the beginning, including the initial proclamation that the missing funds were found in the basement of JP Morgan followed by the slightly delayed statement of denial by JPM, then it makes sense to me that the dotted lines ultimately connect that missing money to JPM.

If the court rules that JP Morgan's claims are superior to that of the customers, whose assets were supposed to be in a segregated account and arguably should be treated with a greater degree of superiority and protection than that of a general creditor, then the MF Global bankruptcy is indeed a case of legal stealing.

Everyone is discussing this nefarious CFTC rule 1.29 and pointing to it like it's the culprit. In order to understand exactly what 1.29 is, it requires a review of the CFTC regulations with respect to "Safeguarding Customer Funds," which starts with rule 1.20 and includes the subsequent rules through 1.30, plus rule 1.32. A definitive summary of these rules can be found HERE... http://www.cftc.gov/ucm/groups/public/@internationalaffairs/documents/file/30-10guidance.pdf ...starting on page 8. Reading and understanding this is crucial to understanding the degree to which MF Global acted illegally and fraudulently and to understanding why my view is that the segregated customer funds should be treated as "superior" to any and all other creditor claims by the bankruptcy court.

The nefarious rule 1.29 simply says that any profits from customer funds which are hypothecated for purposes defined in 1.20-1.28 may be kept by the broker (FCM - Futures Commission Merchant aka commodities broker). Whether or not you agree or disagree with this ruling, and I disagree with it, the rules outlined in 1.20-1.28 set forth very specific procedures which must be followed in order to keep customer funds not only definitively segregated but clearly defined in terms of amount and market value. Here's some examples from the link:



[-] 1 points by the30percent (2) 9 years ago

if they made billions, why did bears and sterns, Lehmans and Merrill lynch go under.

[-] 1 points by Fran777 (1) 9 years ago

Many people complain that the Occupy Wall Street followers don't have specific demands. I have a very simple one: Put the corrupt bankers in jail!

[-] 1 points by Jamat (6) 9 years ago

They were hedging their bets, which is what any business is suppose to do in the event it all goes terribly wrong. Its the way business has been conducted for 100's of years. The Govt promoted a program to give all citizens an opportunity to buy a home WITHOUT having any collateral. They promoted this product to the banks who promoted it to the mortgage brokers who sold it to the public. It was all roses until the economy took a nose dive and people walked away from thier mortgage responsibilty. The Goldmans of the world, who are much smarter than the idiots on Capital hill, hedged their bet against a downdraft . Did they know ? Of course they knew all good things eventually come to and end. Its like saying the stock market will never go down ever again. These are the facts. SO you can thank the Clinton administration for the start of this disaster. How can you blame the entire Wall st community. Didn't GM almost go under ? These guys were just smarter than the clowns in office. The TARP money was returned witin 12 months and they made even more money. As did the govt. an 8% return ! No one talks about that. The govt made shed loads of dough on tarp. So go to DC and stand on Obamas porch.

[-] 1 points by NotYour99 (226) 9 years ago
[-] 1 points by Argentina (178) from Puerto Madryn, Chubut 9 years ago

mm, they didnt brake the law??ho says that? What they do is ask their pupets of congress to make laws that fits what the 1% needs.

[-] 1 points by NotYour99 (226) 9 years ago

Bingo. Reform congress and their hold is lessened.

[-] 1 points by kingscrosssection (314) 9 years ago

How do these people rob anyone?

[-] 1 points by sarah16 (2) 9 years ago

Need to march on Washington to get the legislators attention. THEY were the ones who accepted Wall Street money from lobbyists to repeal Glass- Steagall and roll back regulations. THEY allowed the growth of mega banks who profited mightily through doubtful financing and the selling of worthless mortgage bundles to investors here and abroad. THEY have allowed the banks to operate sloppily which is costing millions of us our homes. I can't sell mine, even though I have a buyer, because the bank has misplaced the paperwork in swapping the mortgage around so many times. It can't give clear title, yet it is trying to foreclose on me. I've had to hire a lawyer to fight for my rights. I'll be damned if I let the bank steal my house. I'm 63. I'm part of the 99% and I've had it. Change needs to happen!

[-] 1 points by NotYour99 (226) 9 years ago

Finally someone gets it.

[-] 1 points by RogerT (36) 9 years ago

This is a troll post-- they committed FRAUD, faked their paper work to evict people, illegally used inside trading information-- you name it--anyone asking "What law" is either an idiot or just hasn't been reading anything about how Wall Street operates-- OR it a troll-- I vote troll-- move on to a real posting.

[-] 1 points by NotYour99 (226) 9 years ago

IF, IF you'd actually read all of this, you'd see it wasn't a troll post. It's a post to get the knowledgable few in OWS to set up and spell out what has been committed because the ignorant majority of OWS cannot do that when asked.

[-] 1 points by MonetizingDiscontent (1257) 9 years ago

:::::Identities of JP Morgan Silver Manipulators Exposed:::::

Andrew Maguire & Adrian Douglas: Discuss What Could Be the Largest Fraud in History - Andrew is an independent metals trader turned whistleblower at the center of a storm for exposing what could be the largest fraud in history involving countries, banks and government leaders. Adrian Douglas Board of Director from GATA, the man who Andrew reached out to joins in this interview where they discuss a fraud so extraordinary and so unimaginable that it is the kind of thing that only happens in hollywood thrillers. They also discuss the CFTC sponsored meeting on metals which was an unmitigated disaster because it additionally exposed the fraud on a grander scale.

(Listen to this Audio Interview Here)


Part 1/2: Bill Murphy of GATA Testifies to CFTC 3-25-2010


Part 2/2: Bill Murphy of GATA reveals whistle blower Andrew MaGuire to CFTC 3-25-2010


-SLV And Silver Manipulation-


Identities of JP Morgan Silver Manipulators Exposed

(Max Keiser) “The biggest news in a long time because these are actual people who are coming out and naming names of individuals who were involved in this alleged conspiracy with JP Morgan to actively manipulate the price of silver. People may go to jail over this. JP Morgan has all barrels pointing at them as traders are named in this suit, including senior traders at JP Morgan.”


::::MF Global’s Missing Funds May Be ‘Massive’ Ploy: CFTC’s Chilton::::


The $593 million shortfall in client money at MF Global Holdings Ltd., the broker that filed for bankruptcy on Oct. 31, appears to result from a “massive hide- and-seek ploy,” Bart Chilton, a commissioner at the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, said today.

The agency took the rare step of publicly announcing its investigation, which began on Oct. 31, saying it was in the public interest to confirm the enforcement action. Jill E. Sommers was named as the senior commissioner during the probe, after Gary Gensler, the agency’s chairman, recused himself.

“This isn’t just a lost and found inquiry; it’s a full-on effort to get to the bottom of what appears to be a massive hide-and-seek ploy,” Chilton, a Democrat, said in an e-mail.

“It’s a distinct possibility, some would say probability, that somebody has done something with the money, and that it’s not going to be ‘all of a sudden discovered’ with an innocent explanation,” Chilton said. “If that’s the case, it’s patently illegal. I don’t know yet. Our investigation will uncover that, and we’re aggressively pursuing this.”

===Continued Here===


[-] 1 points by MonetizingDiscontent (1257) 9 years ago

Well there are investigations going on. Im learning here like everyone else. But we ARE learning.

::::::::::::Bill Black @ #occupywallstreet on Arresting Banksters::::::::::::


[-] 1 points by suyabaa01 (244) from Milford, CT 9 years ago

They legitimized their Ponzi scheme with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Can you show me any bigger criminal act in the history of the US?

And then they legitimized robbery by repealing Glass-Steagall Act:

Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999-Part [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvnO_SH-4WU

Part [2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veAOoQEy0PI

[-] 1 points by NotYour99 (226) 9 years ago

And WHO repealed that?

[-] 1 points by MonetizingDiscontent (1257) 9 years ago

Citigroup and Robert Rubin sure did their part, under Bill Clinton... Then Bush happened... and now? hang on everyone, we are gonna have to all help each-other to get through this. This ride has run off the rails several bailouts ago.

[-] 2 points by NotYour99 (226) 9 years ago

You are dodging the question and I don't understand why. You want to label bankers in each of your replies, but who has the power to repeal our laws? No one out our government. It's congress. Yes, congress corrupted by corporate lobbying, but congress nonetheless. Name them.

[-] 1 points by MonetizingDiscontent (1257) 9 years ago

The bills were passed by a Republican majority, basically following party lines by a 54–44 vote in the Senate and by a bi-partisan 343–86 vote in the House of Representatives.

Look what happened in the house when the dems were the majority, this last go around, are you an apologist for them? (relax, that's a joke)

my point being, whats the difference? Both parties have abandon the people, the people haven't abandon them.

[-] 1 points by suyabaa01 (244) from Milford, CT 9 years ago

Corrupt Politicians: The law makers and law hackers.

[-] 1 points by NotYour99 (226) 9 years ago

And THAT is where the focus should be. Right now Wall Street is laughing at you, standing in the cold outside their buildings, affecting nothing. If you were in DC putting that pressure on our legislators Wall Street would be a lot more nervous.

[-] 1 points by suyabaa01 (244) from Milford, CT 9 years ago

You have a point. But if you would know who the puppet master and the puppets are, which one would you go after to save the act?

[-] 1 points by NotYour99 (226) 9 years ago

The one I had the most power to change. I have no power to change the master but we all have the power to change the puppets. Once replaced and a new system in place to help prevent further corruption, the master will be defenseless and finally subject to the full power of the law.

[-] 1 points by suyabaa01 (244) from Milford, CT 9 years ago

You have a point again. Suggesting cutting the cords of puppets first. I AGREE with you.

The current reaction is to stop further (financial corruption) by disallowing banksters continue to get their free check. Correcting laws will take time. Bank financial crises is ongoing along with its damage on us. We have to stop this nonsense showing our strong disapproval for bank bailouts.

You possibly know Fed printed/created more than $3T since 2008. And the fact that new money takes its value from existing money supply. Besides, the size of derivative market is $1,600T; time is ticking and it's going take everything with it when it bursts. We must decouple risk takers (banksters) from our sovereign financial systems. We have to disapprove any sort of bailout. This is where we should stand as THE GATE KEEPS, right here, right now.

The path you are suggesting will not solve the crises; banksters will get away with it leaving their debt on us. And we will pay their debt with new austerity measures (coming in a week). We are already paying their debt with inflation: banksters hidden tax on us.

I say anything else is secondary. What do you think?

[-] 1 points by NotYour99 (226) 9 years ago

I think that people have no power over a corporation unless it is all people. And it's not. The 99 isn't 99. It's a small fraction thereof. In the street you see it growing. In the nation it is losing ground. Standing outside the gate while business as usual keeps going inside isn't progress either. You have no power over them. Exert your power and influence where it can count. Strike against those legislators that helped enable this problem. The path I laud out is the only one that I see working, because without cutting off that influence to congress nothing will change.

[-] 1 points by suyabaa01 (244) from Milford, CT 9 years ago

I agreed with you on that. There is an #OWS group walking to DC that will do just as you said.

You said: "The 99 isn't 99.". Well, #OWS is in infancy and educating people around the world. I learned so much, for instance what "debt-money" is, how big a ponzi scheme it is. And many are learning and growing our base. Our mutual knowledge is our collective power. And it's already word-wide movement.

You said: "Standing outside the gate". You remember AIG bailed out overnight ($150B) and public informed afterwards. But how can we stop our tax dollars flowing into Wall Street in the short run? I can only think of strong disapproval against Wall Street; wherever we are, whenever we are. Showing our disapproval is the only tool we've got.

You said: "Strike against those legislators". Please watch these:

[1] Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999: C-SPAN recording before 2008 financial meltdown: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvnO_SH-4WU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veAOoQEy0PI

[2] Bill Black's opening statement at House Financial Services hearing on Lehman Bros. failure: April 2010 C-SPAN recording: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ld5tERIBvsg

If they cannot reach, how can we reach?

The corruption is so big and so diverse that we must identify one request (or two) and laser sharp on it. It will take multiple paths to reach that goal.

[-] 1 points by Siegstolz (6) from North Bergen, NJ 9 years ago

Deuteronomy, 23(20)

[-] 1 points by vets74 (344) from New York, NY 9 years ago

Common Law fraud.

New York State criminal code. Multiple events, linked to a general conspiracy that triggers the NYS version of RICO.

An astonishing $5-trillion of it -- fraud committed by selling falsely represented assets with such as the Goldman, Sachs "Abacus" deal.

-- Bribe the rating agencies to tack "AAA" ratings on misrepresented mortgage-based-asset bonds linked to known junk mortgages. These bribes ran to 10-times to 20-times normal fees for due diligence rating work. Bonuses were generated for for managers in the rating agencies, top to bottom. (Only the bottom got fired 2009-2010.)

-- Pool these bribery-driven scamassets and sell them to pension funds.

-- Follow Henry Paulson, head of Goldman, Sachs, and create mathematical samples of from these bribery-driven samassets. Sell them to pension funds.

-- Follow Henry Paulson, head of Goldman, sachs, and create bets on the mathematical samples from these bribery-driven samassets. Sell them to pension funds.

The mortgage-broker scamsters did $2-trillion in fraud mortgages. Bribed appraisers. Bribed document handlers. Fraudulent avoidance of state and local filing requirements. Fraudulent avoidance of state tax filing requirements (because support documents were frequently forged.)

Wall Street committed $5-trillion in Common Law fraud with the scamasset deals foisted on pension funds and individual retirement investors. This is local jurisdiction. It is not federal: not banking regulations, not SEC "cross the t's" bond regulations, not committed on federal property.

The Manhattan prosecutor's office had become utterly corrupt. Fraud prosecutions against Wall Street for cor[orate crime went to zero:

-- A couple dozen prosecutions (including Long Island) for the 1992-1995 first Dot.com scam cycle ($35-billion in NY.)

-- Four prosecutions for the second 1998-2000 Dot.com cycle ($300-billion minimum in NY State, maybe $500-billion.)

-- No prosecution whatsoever for the $5-trillion in mortgage-based frauds ion NY State (2003-2008)

Prosecuting the Mortgage-brokers goes to a dozen states, easily. Nothing happened.

We prosecuted and convicted and jailed 2,500 bankers and mortgage-brokers related to the S&L Crisis in the 1980s and early 1990s. That disaster cost $124-billion. OMG... a tiny fraction of what this one is costing.

There was one difference: the prosecutors were not corrupt.

You didn't have Charles Keating appointed and confirmed to be Secretary of the Treasury. But that's what happened with Hank Paulson -- the main perp for driving these pension fraud schemes at Goldman, Sachs.

[-] 1 points by prosemitic (63) 9 years ago

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.” —Thomas Jefferson (1816)

some answers here: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/Federal%20Reserve%20Scam/federal_reserve.htm

[-] -1 points by NotYour99 (226) 9 years ago

Converse, or don't. Use your own words. Quoting another with something off topic, then slapping a link up is not helping this discussion.

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 9 years ago

Financial Crisis Commission Finds Cause For Prosecution Of Wall Street Shahien Nasiripour shahien@huffingtonpost.com Become a fan of this reporter GET UPDATES FROM SHAHIEN


[-] 0 points by zati321 (169) 9 years ago

they didnt break any law, which just proves the system is broken. thankfully, our president passed new laws in his wall street reform bill, to do what he could to reform the system, in spite of almost every R in congress voting against the bill

[-] 0 points by Doc4the99 (591) from Washington, DC 9 years ago

They leveraged trillions in dollars they didnt have but when they gambled and won they took the profits when they lost they stuk it to the tax payer. Europe is falling apart because Greee got cooked books from glodman sacs. The world is slipping into a major crisis currently including the US. To blame is pretty much unregulated derivatives trading. Meanehile the banksters are asking for another tax payer funded bail out while blamibg gov's for this mess-- goverments that they control. What a joke. We wanted gobalization and boy we got. US banks are exposed to masdive bad euro debt. And jin karmer yells but buy buy. Ha

[-] 0 points by fjolsvit (957) from Washington, DC 9 years ago

This isn't Wall Street, per se. It's the Right-pudlian counterpart.


"Cocktails and cocaine clubs are becoming commonplace in the Square Mile

At 1pm the swanky bars and restaurants of the City heave with men in immaculate pin-striped suits and women in sharp pencil skirts. It's feeding time in the heart of London's Square Mile, when the masters of the universe (or, if you are so minded, the architects of the world's economic demise) gather to network and refuel. But the frantic pace of the City cannot run on carbohydrates alone; which is why, at some of these establishments, it is as easy to order a gram of cocaine as it is a mozzarella panini - all claimable on company expenses.


There is little statistical evidence on drug abuse specifically in the Square Mile. However, the latest figures suggest cocaine use is on the rise across all sectors of society. According to the British Crime Survey, 300,000 young adults took cocaine last year. A recent study by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction found that the numbers of young people using the drug in this country shot up by 50 per cent over the five years from 2003 to 2008, making Britons the greatest consumers of cocaine per capita in the developed world.

'The benders could last five days at a time,' says Daniel. 'No food, just snorting and drinking. I used to black out for eight hours and wake up in places as far away as Brighton. I'd get a six-figure bonus, spend it all on drink, drugs and prostitutes, and then be £20,000 overdrawn three months later. I had a nice house, a flash sports car, a great girlfriend, but I was miserable. My overriding obsession was the pain of addiction.'"

[-] 0 points by fjolsvit (957) from Washington, DC 9 years ago

The major banks are continually breaking laws. When the get charged, they negotiate a no contest settlement which basically results in a promise that they won't do it again. A promise they never keep.

[-] 0 points by fonestar (5) 9 years ago

How about comingling funds, fraud, conspiracy, insider trading, etc, etc? Just as a start anyways...

[-] 0 points by WolfThom (90) 9 years ago


See EIR www.Larouchepac.com

Peak Oil and 9.11.


Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country [Taschenbuch] William Greider (Autor)

From Publishers Weekly In this penetrating study of the Federal Reserve Board in the Reagan era, Rolling Stone writer Greider (The Education of David Stockman) views the "Fed" chairman (until recently Paul Volcker) as the "second most powerful" officer of government, the high priest of a temple as mysterious as money itself, its processes unknown to the public and yet to be fully understood by any modern president. Controlling the money supply by secretly buying and selling government bonds and thus affecting interest rates, the Fed can manipulate billions in business profits or losses and millions in worker employment and stock, bond or bank account values, the author explains. Greider's conclusions are startling at times. The Fed, he maintains, could have prevented the 1929 crash. He also asserts the "awkward little secret" that the federal government deliberately induces recessions, usually to bring down inflation and interest rates. A time-consuming but extremely informative read. Copyright 1987 Reed Business Information, Inc. -- Dieser Text bezieht sich auf eine vergriffene oder nicht verfügbare Ausgabe dieses Titels. From Library Journal The recent retirement of Paul Volcker as chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System seems an appropriate time to look at the man and at the system itself. William R. Neikirk's Volcker ( LJ 10/15/87) brought out the subject's personality, convictions, and modus operandi. Greider ( The Education of David Stockman, LJ 10/15/82) touches on these characteristics, but focuses on the system's influence on world economy. Greider throws much light on how our nation's unelected managers of monetary policy make day-to-day decisions. A very readable narrative, recommended for academic and public libraries. M. Balachandran, Univ. of Illinois Lib., Urbana-Champaign Copyright 1987 Reed Business Information, Inc. -- Dieser Text bezieht sich auf eine vergriffene oder nicht verfügbare Ausgabe dieses Titels.

15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America. Information Clearing House, Grafiken über Einkommens- und Vermögensverteilung in den USA




100 Facts about the USA


[-] 0 points by fjolsvit (957) from Washington, DC 9 years ago

$100 Billions USD in drug money is laundered every year by US banks. That can't happen without collusion at the top.



By Michael C. Ruppert - www.copvcia.com

[From the May 31, 2001 issue of "From The Wilderness"]

Special to NarcoNews - As the remaining unbiased press of the Western Hemisphere, and especially of Latin America, rises in outrage at the announced May 17 purchase of Mexico's giant Banacci Group (Banamex) by Citigroup, more skeletons come stampeding out of the Citigroup closet. Both banks have been firmly connected to drug money laundering and Banamex owner Roberto Hernandez owns land near Cancun, Mexico that is commonly referred to as "the cocaine peninsula." President Bill Clinton vacationed on the Hernandez property in the summer of 2000."

[-] 0 points by newearthorder (295) 9 years ago

Unfortunately, with the bank executive officers, I'm not sure they could be charged with anything. Fraud did take place when loan officers would make loans where the person seeking the loan had no proof of income. Many times they would just make everything up. This would require a huge investigation, but I think it would be well worth it.

The true cause was the corruption of legislators with influence money from lobbyists from the banking sector. That is why you always hear about deregulation is a good thing, not always true.

We need to get an independent company to go over all of the banking and financial regulations, including a recent history of regs. Then see if we can write some regulations where these institutions can still do what they want to do and make a profit, without committing fraud.

The single most important thing that needs to be done is to have all banks and investment firms books wide-open 24/7. We have computers now. (haha) All of these companies should be able to keep up a real-time posting of their balance sheets, cash on hand, and the debt they are carrying, and whatever other information would be required for any analyst to clearly see if they are on a path of self-destruction or are committing fraud.

They should also be audited from time to time. If there seems to be inconsistencies then we should let them fix them. It should be clear if they are committing fraud.

Also, require all legislators to post their IRS tax forms. Also require them to not take any favors or cash from lobbyists, or go to jail.

And, it wouldn't bother me at all if we just banned the whole idea of derivatives.

[-] 0 points by unarmed (213) 9 years ago

An entire web site devoted to Wall Street illegal activity


[-] 0 points by willowventures3 (1) 9 years ago

It seems that banks broke no laws. That's the point. Deregulation allowed a bubble to grow too large and the meltdown to happen. People made money shorting companies for no reason. The safest and the only safe high yeild investment "mortgage backed securities" was destroyed as an investment option by lender and investment bank abuse. Companies and the rich are sitting on cash and clamoring for less taxes so that they can sit on more cash. The efforts of the right, funded by business, is to starve entitlements by lowering taxes so that they may do away with them. The right is purposely sabotaging the economy just so that they can win the next election.

Do you need any more? I'v got a million of em.

[-] 1 points by vets74 (344) from New York, NY 9 years ago

Common Law fraud is on the books everywhere.

In Manhattan this is not enforced on corporate crimes.

Bloomberg argues that if we prosecuted these gangster capitalists, then they would leave.


[-] 0 points by Doc4the99 (591) from Washington, DC 9 years ago

Shawdow banking hurts the economy. Concur

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 9 years ago

I am not a lawyer - but there are "laws" that can be broken that are not written. They are crimes against morality. Did the Spanish, in 1492 commit a "crime" by burning Jews? Not if you look at the Spanish law of the time. I would call them criminals.
If you witness a rape in a shower and there is no law requiring you to call the police, and you walk away are you a criminal? YES!
There are higher laws - MORAL law.
I'm sure that you know as well as I do that the money and political power purchased by " them" are nothing less than bribery. Which crime?

Frankly, my dear, I dont give a damn
capitalism can work - but the abuse that our nation has suffered by the GREED of so many Americans is beyond belief.
Do you seriously believe that the bankers, specifically, are not guilty of FRAUD?

[-] 0 points by PartyX (202) 9 years ago

Betting on failure could be considered insider trading, that is a law...

But why should congress vote for bailing out these institutions. This is not the type of Gov't I want representing me. And that is the Macro-issue that most reasonable people are having.


[-] 0 points by velveeta (230) 9 years ago

the banks can gamble with depositor's funds to the tune of $250k per depositor. so when the bank gambles and loses your $250k deposit, the FDIC bails them (with mine and your tax dollars)- never mind that part of your $250k "savings" is being paid out to these gamblers in the form of bonuses. get a clue sherlock

[-] 0 points by vets74 (344) from New York, NY 9 years ago


"the FDIC bails them (with mine and your tax dollars)..."

100% of the FDIC funding for takeovers comes from fees paid into FDIC from the other banks.

0% from tax/revenue money.

No matter what you heard on the hate-radio or Fox/Murdoch stoopid box......

[-] 1 points by karldanger (5) 9 years ago

True that is where the funding for the FDIC comes from but it would surprise me if the banks don't pass those fees down to the people using the bank's services and therefor down to us. My knowledge on how the FDIC works and collects fees is fairly limited though so maybe I'm wrong?

[-] 0 points by velveeta (230) 9 years ago

the banks pay the fees yes, but where do the banks get THAT money? from other depositors. it's a money-go-round

[-] 0 points by mynameiscurly (39) 9 years ago

Here, laughing at 100 people in tents.

[-] 3 points by Socrates469bc (608) from New York, NY 9 years ago

What laws of the Third Reich did Hitler did break? I keep seeing people calling Nazis criminal and some saying they broke the law. What Third Reich law?

[-] 1 points by Toynbee (656) from Savannah, GA 9 years ago

Excellent point.

[-] 0 points by CoExist (178) 9 years ago

The idea of fair dealing - which is at the heart of our economy - is breaking down. The guilty bankers must be jailed. Justice will be served and public confidence restored.

[-] 1 points by NotYour99 (226) 9 years ago

There is no law about not being fair. This very attitude makes me shudder to think what would happen if we did institute common courts. There would be no justice, only witch hunts. Again, what law or laws were broken.

[-] 1 points by CoExist (178) 9 years ago

You continue to say which laws have been broken? These post continue to tell you which ones were in fact broken. If you make a post like this please come to the table with some intelligence and give people due respect for proving valid points. You can only play dumb for so long.

[-] 0 points by nickhowdy (1104) 9 years ago
[-] 0 points by NotYour99 (226) 9 years ago

Saw that post. It explains nothing. Only contains unsupported accusations.

[-] 1 points by CoExist (178) 9 years ago

These firms had sold securities to investors and then turned around and shorted these same securities. The bank not only believed the securities would decline in value, but it actually spent its own money to make money off the terrible product it had sold to customers.

Suppose I am in the jewelry business and I pretend that I am selling you a diamond that I know is really glass. I strongly suspect I would be guilty of some type of criminal fraud and would probably go to jail.

They should be jailed as they swindled the investors it's as simple as that.

[-] 1 points by NotYour99 (226) 9 years ago

Problem with that analogy is that they didn't sell glass. They sold diamonds, but you neglected to verify it's quality, and it wound up not being worth what you hoped. No one ever promised you it would hold it's value. It was an investment that wound up not paying off, but no laws were broken. Unethical. Perhaps. But not criminal.

[-] 1 points by CoExist (178) 9 years ago

A fool flatters himself, a wise man flatters the fool.

[-] 1 points by gr58 (22) 9 years ago

a dimond is considered a capitol good though. Investments are at the risk of the investors. They can say that the projected growth (theoreticly) is going to be lets say 5%. And if people paid the morgages it would be. This is the number they can publish becuase it is the proposed growth. If the ivnestment goes under, the company is not liable for the loss.

[-] 1 points by CoExist (178) 9 years ago

My friend that was an analogy of the crime committed. It could reference anything that was manipulated in the open market and then traded for profit. The original item, investment or good was knowingly manipulated and thus sold under the disguise of a sound product. This is a crime.

[-] 1 points by gr58 (22) 9 years ago

It's not though becuase an investment like the ones banks do are not physical good. If I bring you a bar or brass and tell you it's gold so you but it for $1770 an ounce, that would be a crime becuase I have not truth behind my statment that "This is gold". If I have an investment that could, under the best circumstances, net 5%, I can sell you under the impression of 5% growth, wheather I know it wont do that good or not. In those circumstance, I am mrealy presenting my best estimate at it. The duty falls on the investor to actually check out the stock or bond or what ever to see if YOU think the investment will do that good.

It would be different if I had a bond that could, at best, net 5% and I sold it to you under the ruse of 20% growth but that is not what happened

[-] 1 points by CoExist (178) 9 years ago

"Catch me if you can" is that how you see justice?

[-] 1 points by gr58 (22) 9 years ago

Well I don't see where you got that but i suppose. They didn't do anything illegal though. If an investor didn't get all the money he wanted, that's his/her/their fault. Just like morgages, you should always do your research befor buying. IF you don't and it's a shitty bond, well that sucks to be you

[-] 1 points by CoExist (178) 9 years ago

Someones going to have to take the fall on this and it will probable end up being you. It's usually always the pigeon that sings the last.


[-] -1 points by karenpoore (902) 9 years ago

You are ignorant!

[-] 0 points by NotYour99 (226) 9 years ago

Lol, by whatever genius litmus test you used to determine that, so are you since you seem unable to answer the question. If you'd read the posts fully you'd see that I don't disagree that there have been some improprieties, but all these OWSers claim laws were broken, yet so far not one of you can name one distinctly.

[-] 1 points by HighEarner (19) 9 years ago

Since when was OWS about broken laws? If there were laws broken, people wouldn't have needed to protest.

[-] 1 points by Cocreator (306) 9 years ago

you are genuinely concerned about concrete charges because, you might have broken some of those laws, or are you really concerned about the welfare of some poor criminal banker..I already named a laundry list, you have selective listening skills..