CITI settlement rejected

[Darwin333]

If they committed a fraud or broke another law then they should be prosecuted. But I suspect you are conflating an emotional issue with a legal one.

There are plenty of examples of individuals who engaged in illegal activity and were prosecuted and served jail time. Being within a corporation did not absolve them of responsibility.

They knowingly misrepresented a product they were selling for both corporate profit and personal gain. That is pretty damned undeniable.

So now we are down to the question of "is knowingly misrepresenting a product that you sell to a person in which you personally gain and the seller loses" a crime? Pretty sure that is called fraud and is a criminal offense.

Nothing emotional about it.

How about bribing public officials, is that a crime? I could go on and on but lets start there.


Edit: How about this guy, I think he knows a tad bit more than both of us combined with his experience

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

 

[Genx87]

They knowingly misrepresented a product they were selling for both corporate profit and personal gain. That is pretty damned undeniable.

So now we are down to the question of "is knowingly misrepresenting a product that you sell to a person in which you personally gain and the seller loses" a crime? Pretty sure that is called fraud and is a criminal offense.

Nothing emotional about it.

How about bribing public officials, is that a crime? I could go on and on but lets start there.

If it is pretty damned undeniable then they should be on trial for fraud. We have a long history of crooks being put on trial for fraud and going to jail.

 

[JSt0rm]

I wished some of these occupy people would have dragged some of the swines out of their offices and lynched them, figuratively speaking of-course... But it turned out to be a modern day hippie movement...

You think that because mainstream media shaped the message you received. There is/was more to the ows movement then hippies. The corporate propaganda machine is in full effect.

 

[jstern01]

They are not people, they are US Persons. Some people are US Persons, but most people are not. Some companies are US Persons, but most are not.

The reason a company is listed as a US Person is so that the company is protected by the Constitution. For example, if a company is not a US Person, the government has no restrictions against search and seizure..it can force companies to house troops.

However, it is impossible to put a company into jail.

Those who broke laws should be punished according to the law, though.

This is why Corporations are considered persons.

The Supreme Court of the United States ( Dartmouth College v. Woodward , 1819), recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts. In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394 (1886), an insertion into the decision's headnotes by the clerk, J.C. Bancroft Davis, led many to believe the Supreme Court had recognized corporations as persons for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.

None of the other crap you mentioned was intended.

 

[fskimospy]

They are not people, they are US Persons. Some people are US Persons, but most people are not. Some companies are US Persons, but most are not.

The reason a company is listed as a US Person is so that the company is protected by the Constitution. For example, if a company is not a US Person, the government has no restrictions against search and seizure..it can force companies to house troops.

However, it is impossible to put a company into jail.

Those who broke laws should be punished according to the law, though.

Incorrect.

Non US (ie: foreign) persons are protected by the 4th amendment so long as they have developed a 'significant connection' with the country. This is similarly the case with most other constitutional protections, although it's never been applied to the quartering amendment. (what has?)

While there is some grey area around who exactly is entitled to what constitutional protections and what a 'significant connection is' it is most certainly false that one is only protected if they are a 'US person'.

 

[Jhhnn]

Financial fraud can be very difficult to prove wrt complex institutions & even more complex financial products. Part of that is embedded in the comprehension ability of a jury, and in the establishment of plausible deniability. It can easily be claimed that the right hand didn't know what the left was doing at the time, and that instructions were misinterpreted as they traveled down the chain of command.

That's wrt civil action- criminal prosecution is even more difficult. I do applaud Rakoff's actions, because we do need to air out Wall St's dirty laundry to achieve a better understanding of what we need to do to prevent further abuses, even if Citi wins in court. Both the banks and the SEC need to be brought to account for the excesses of the past, and that simply won't happen if the SEC is allowed to cover their own butts with settlement after settlement revealing nothing.

 

[cybrsage]

This is why Corporations are considered persons.

The Supreme Court of the United States ( Dartmouth College v. Woodward , 1819), recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts. In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394 (1886), an insertion into the decision's headnotes by the clerk, J.C. Bancroft Davis, led many to believe the Supreme Court had recognized corporations as persons for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.

None of the other crap you mentioned was intended.

Not intended is not the same as not needed. The issue simply had never been presented in court.

 

[cybrsage]

Incorrect.

Non US (ie: foreign) persons are protected by the 4th amendment so long as they have developed a 'significant connection' with the country. This is similarly the case with most other constitutional protections, although it's never been applied to the quartering amendment. (what has?)

While there is some grey area around who exactly is entitled to what constitutional protections and what a 'significant connection is' it is most certainly false that one is only protected if they are a 'US person'.

Due to your posting history, I will require links before I can even start to believe you. You could be right, but without links I have to say you are blowing smoke due to your posting history.

 

[bfdd]

Financial fraud can be very difficult to prove wrt complex institutions & even more complex financial products. Part of that is embedded in the comprehension ability of a jury, and in the establishment of plausible deniability. It can easily be claimed that the right hand didn't know what the left was doing at the time, and that instructions were misinterpreted as they traveled down the chain of command.

That's wrt civil action- criminal prosecution is even more difficult. I do applaud Rakoff's actions, because we do need to air out Wall St's dirty laundry to achieve a better understanding of what we need to do to prevent further abuses, even if Citi wins in court. Both the banks and the SEC need to be brought to account for the excesses of the past, and that simply won't happen if the SEC is allowed to cover their own butts with settlement after settlement revealing nothing.

It is hard to prove their fraud, very hard. Most of it will be our words against theirs, best option is to just start offing some very public figure heads. Don't stop until your "enemies" surrender or are conquered. War isn't pretty, this is why the hippies at OWS and what not will never get shit done.

 

[Attic]

Glad they aren't getting away with not admitting wrong doing at this point.

Citi stock is off ~95% from it's five year trading high. The characterization of the CDO as dogshit would have been as well served for describing the company itself, the twit. Through mismanagement at Citi they've traded $500 for $25, they've hurt others others, but don't think they are missing out on any of the pain.

Only positive is that the in the payback of TARP monies, the treasury was able to net 12 Billion by the time it made its final sale of its Citigroup equity. The 12 billion profit made from Citigroup through TARP should surprise a lot of people who simply saw the Bailout as a Handout.

 

[Darwin333]

Financial fraud can be very difficult to prove wrt complex institutions & even more complex financial products. Part of that is embedded in the comprehension ability of a jury, and in the establishment of plausible deniability. It can easily be claimed that the right hand didn't know what the left was doing at the time, and that instructions were misinterpreted as they traveled down the chain of command.

That's wrt civil action- criminal prosecution is even more difficult. I do applaud Rakoff's actions, because we do need to air out Wall St's dirty laundry to achieve a better understanding of what we need to do to prevent further abuses, even if Citi wins in court. Both the banks and the SEC need to be brought to account for the excesses of the past, and that simply won't happen if the SEC is allowed to cover their own butts with settlement after settlement revealing nothing.

Bill Black disagrees with you. I would wager that he knows more about the subject than everyone in this thread, including you and I, combined.

 

[Darwin333]

Glad they aren't getting away with not admitting wrong doing at this point.

Citi stock is off ~95% from it's five year trading high. The characterization of the CDO as dogshit would have been as well served for describing the company itself, the twit. Through mismanagement at Citi they've traded $500 for $25, they've hurt others others, but don't think they are missing out on any of the pain.

Only positive is that the in the payback of TARP monies, the treasury was able to net 12 Billion by the time it made its final sale of its Citigroup equity. The 12 billion profit made from Citigroup through TARP should surprise a lot of people who simply saw the Bailout as a Handout.

I wonder how all of the execs that actually committed the fraud are doing financially right now as compared to before they started committing fraud.

 

[Darwin333]

It is hard to prove their fraud, very hard. Most of it will be our words against theirs, best option is to just start offing some very public figure heads. Don't stop until your "enemies" surrender or are conquered. War isn't pretty, this is why the hippies at OWS and what not will never get shit done.

Is it hard to prove sworn testimony in front of Congress by an uber elite bank exec? Yeah, we have that.

 

[Attic]

I wonder how all of the execs that actually committed the fraud are doing financially right now as compared to before they started committing fraud.

Their endpoint through this is absolutely the most frustrating to consider. Wealth beyond imagination,... game set and match. I hope justice is served to every last one of them, looks like i'll have to keep waiting.

At this point an incredibly limited number of execs won. I feel that all of wall street is looked at as the evil doers in this mess,... it was a very small fraction of those who earn their living through/on wall street who engaged in and came out ahead as a result of the fraud. Most folks working on wall street were financially harmed to a significatant degree as a result of the fraud and are as mad as anyone.

 

[bfdd]

Is it hard to prove sworn testimony in front of Congress by an uber elite bank exec? Yeah, we have that.

Darwin333, I'm not talking about that stuff. I'm saying to go in and investigate them and try and pull up THEIR documents that incriminate them is going to be hard. Remember, not everyone responsible has been so out in the open about it. There are plenty of things that, even if an investigation were to happen and a trial to start, that we'd never know simply due to them altering the evidence. If you really want to change things, start demanding their heads. Not figuratively, but literally.

 

[JSt0rm]

So because something is hard it should not be done?