General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)who are the only ones, against whom, a case can be built. (except for, maybe, violating Sarbone/Oxley, which would be a lot like prosecuting a mass murderer for tearing off a mattress label in a store.)
For better or worse, that is how our legal system is built ... and, that is the designed nature of the corporate structure ... to insulate the top executives from the bad acts of their organizations.
fasttense
(17,301 posts)Obviously it is for worse. But our legal system was never designed to protect the richest criminals and prosecute only the poorer criminals. That's how capitalism was designed. Our corrupted legal system is a by product of our unfair, rigged economic system.
If you want democracy in your government, you have to have democracy in your economics. As one protest group in Germany put it, "They want capitalism without democracy. We want democracy without capitalism." The 2 can NOT long coexist.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)our legal system WAS designed to limit criminal prosecutions to those where there is insufficient evidence of participation in, or actual knowledge of, or (in the very rare case), under a/the prosecutorial theory of "willful blindness." (I say "theory" because the larger an organization, the less likely this case can be made) a criminal act(s). The American legal system does not recognize a "Thomas Becket" theory of prosecution.
I disagree with the first part of this ... democracy in government is unrelated to democracy in economics; however, I strongly support the idea that if we want democracy in government, we must get money out of (or, at a minimum, strongly regulate money in) politics.
And, I do not know that I support the latter half of your statement, either. While I am certain industrialist/corporatists want capitalism without democracy; I am not convinced that I, we, or the American people, want democracy without capitalism. In fact, I would hazard to guess, the vast majority of Americans, of most political stripes, SUPPORT, both, democracy AND capitalism.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)doesn't change the legal standard of proof.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Maybe one day we will get a group of adults that WILL go after the head planners of these massive fraud cases. I wouldn't bet on it since we live in a plutocracy.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)discussion. There has to be just a meeting of minds. Should be easy to prove because of the repeated instances of fraud, etc.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)In order to prove conspiracy there must be more than just a "meeting of the minds", i.e., evidence of how the actors arrived at that "meeting of the minds."
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)banter and have a boss that is benefiting from the fraud and sees the balance sheets and knows the details of the loans made and the theory behind the derivatives and slices of the mortgages. Not difficult when a company is selling the instruments it is telling its customers to buy. There was so much fraud that it would have been difficult to miss.
I bet that some employees warned the top management about what was going on and that you could subpoena documents regarding settlements for wrongful termination and the testimony of employees who with whom settlements would have been made and found out that top management was aware of things that were not right. There are always a few honest, conscientious people working in every organization. The best way to find out who they were when things go wrong is to look for the people who quit or were fired. Most of them will not have the information or experience needed to tie up the facts but if there was fraud, a couple of them probably tried to report it or react to it. I do not know the facts at the big brokerage houses, but I think the approach I am describing would have flushed out some interesting facts. This is my speculation but based on other situations I think it is quite probable.
Rex
(65,616 posts)and losing, would end the chance of anyone ever doing it again. That is FUD corporate lawyer crap if I've ever heard it.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)In some instances, stubbornness is a virtue.
Rex
(65,616 posts)for Big Biz...because we can't win etc..
I wonder if the people that type such garbage actually believe it themselves?
Rex
(65,616 posts)Why would they? Nobody is ever going to go after the CEO of one of the big companies. So we will probably see another meltdown from the very same criminal actors.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I don't think so. Am I wrong?
Prior to Glass-Steagall, melt-downs were pretty frequent. We need an updated Glass-Steagall law. Gambling is not healthy for our economy. Not even when it is big banks gambling with other people's (including taxpayers') money. Sensible, considered risk-taking is very different from gambling.
Rex
(65,616 posts)etc.. was done out in the open. I say let a company (YES sorry corporate lawyers a bank is just another company) FAIL...you know like we did at one time when we actually had some form of regulated capitalism.
Someone will step up and take their place, yet we don't do that anymore so the most rotten of banks get to stay in business no matter how much crime is committed.
Rex
(65,616 posts)American justice does not allow us to punish the prime suspect, just his underlings. That is how a plutocracy works. Some people still need to learn that lesson or ignore it for obvious reasons.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)we will continue to see wealth go upward to the 1%. It is really something, to live in a country that does not honor the law toward rich people.
Sick. Pathetic. Wrong.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)allow us to (criminally) prosecute to those where there is insufficient evidence of participation in, or actual knowledge of, or (in the very rare case), under a/the prosecutorial theory of "willful blindness." I say "theory" because the larger an organization, the less likely this case can be made) a criminal act(s). The American legal system does not recognize a "Thomas Becket" theory of prosecution.
Rex
(65,616 posts)The CEO of a company is directly responsible for what goes on in his/her company...but you knew that already!
Your attempts to defend the 1% would be comical if not sad.
Sorry, Charlie.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)that is not correct. As a matter of law, the CEO is NOT responsible for what goes on in the company.
And, I am NOT trying to defend the 1% ... I'm just trying to inform folks that confuse what they wish would happen for what the law requires happen.
And my name isn't "Charlie" ... So you are 0 for 3 in this post.
jaysunb
(11,856 posts)whatever your name is. 
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)jaysunb
(11,856 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)
Hotler
(11,415 posts)Hotler
(11,415 posts)Why isn't Dick Cheney and the rest of the Bush administration in jail........
The reason is because just after President Obama got the Democratic nomination to run for president he said "Now Is not the time to point fingers."
Ghost in the Machine
(14,912 posts)they could, including impeachment! They're doing the same to Obama. The whole W Bush Misadministration should be under a prison somewhere...
Peace,
Ghost
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Jail is for little people.
One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)PeoViejo
(2,178 posts)We get the crumbs that are left after the Loaf is cut-up and divided.
Dustlawyer
(10,495 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)what would you prosecute Dimon under?
Rex
(65,616 posts)
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)one must establish participation in, or knowledge of, the fraudulent conduct. How would you PROVE either?
BTW, I asked Dustlawyer because he/she is an attorney and before knows something about elements and proofs; whereas, a lay person probably doesn't.
steve2470
(37,457 posts)If, theoretically, ironclad proof of his criminality was dropped into the lap of the Justice Department, then (assuming no political interference of any kind) he would get prosecuted. The small fish at the bottom of the corporate structure always get prosecuted first, because they have the least (or no) protection.
You can't prosecute without evidence. Sure, I'd like to see him sitting behind bars, but is there strong proof of his criminality that will hold up in court ?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)One of the first things Trial Attorneys learn (are taught) is "Don't ever, ever, ever, ask a witness, on the stand, a question you don't already know (and can prove) the answer to" (because you are stuck with whatever the witness says on the stand).
One of the first things a CEO learns is never ask the details on how revenue/profits are generated ... because that knowledge puts you in the prosecutorial crosshairs, should there be unlawful conduct.
In the case of Dimon, he not only has his ignorance as an/the out; but, he also has rating after rating from the rating services on the record indicating that the "fraudulent" products they were selling were investment grade. That is/was Dimon's Get Out Of Jail Free card.
steve2470
(37,457 posts)Sure, his subordinates, board members etc could rat him out, but who does that at that level, unless they are going down also ? I think he's done criminal things, but thinking it and proving it in court are two different things.
You might find this interesting when you're bored: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre (Federal Rules of Evidence).
Could there have been political interference in the potential prosecution of Mr. Dimon ? It's always a possibility, but I'm not willing to say that without some pretty strong evidence. There's that damn evidence word again.
With that, I'm done with this discussion. Good day.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)to him and with enough direct knowledge of the crime to rat him out as part of a plea bargain because all tracks leading directly to someone like Dimon have been swept clean. Even if you didn't get him you'd make others like him blink and think twice before running the same scam again.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)that is why there were so many Settlements; rather than, criminal prosecutions.
I suspect that a/the calculation was made to not bring the criminal case (that the DoJ couldn't prove in a court of law; as opposed to the court of "that's just wrong"
because doing so would mean all or nothing ... win the conviction or never be able to settle another case, again.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)That raises the specter of a class of people with sufficient power to cover up their crimes and elude even the threat of being indicted for them, possibly by a justice system that doesn't want to prosecute them anyway. Maybe, the only solution is to reduce their power to thwart and corrupt the law by downsizing the institutions they control?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)criminal prosecutions, as it would reduce the layers between the top executive and the front-line actors; but, so would legislation providing the top executie(s) a criminally prosecutable "duty to report."
Further, I think that the many have the target of these prosecutions incorrect ... it's shouldn't be (have been) the CEOs of the banks (because of the corporate design/structure, that is an unlikely case to be made) ... the target should/should have been, the rating companies.
From what I've read, there are emails from analysts to top executives announcing the fraud in their ratings and emails from the rating firms' executive telling the analysts to ignore the fraud, and threatening and terminating analysts for failing to ignore the fraud ... and these emails go back to 2005, before the CDO/MBS market exploded.
Now, if the rating firms had been targeted, I believe the DoJ would have cut off the CEO's strongest defense,
But more, I suspect that had the DoJ targeted these email receiving/writing rating firm executives, they no doubt would have found rating firm/bank executive communications that would have allowed for some bank executive prosecutions.
But that said ... I doubt this strategy would have been satisfying because the executives of the rating firms (though well compensated) are the small fish in the financial sea.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)You find letters commending top performers for their performance -- bonuses, etc., and then you show that the fraud was commonly accepted as a good practice in the company under the winking and nodding eyes of the heads of the company. You show comparable financial results from honest companies (if you can find any). You convict little guys and work up. It's a matter of being willing to risk a fall, maybe a big fall, in the value of the stock market. No one is willing to risk it.
As I recall, certain of the big brokerages and banks were making incredible profits every single quarter there for a while. They were beating historical odds. You would have to penetrate very thick-skinned corporate culture, but it could be done.
Of course, the depositions of the mostly men at the very top of the corporation would consist mostly of "I don't recall." But some unfortunate peon would start talking sooner or later if you started from the bottom up.
Fear prevents this from happening. Fear prompted the bail-out which helped to let these guys off because there "were no damages" from their horrific fraud. I would have started with some of the mortgage companies and smaller banks that joined in the fraudulent signing of foreclosure papers, pressed them on how and who that little fraud was organized and then moved up. You would have had to act fast. You would have had to hire a lot of paralegals and lawyers. But it could have been done.
Since it was not done, we will probably go through another even worse episode of widespread fraud on Wall Street before this story ends.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the letters of commendation prove nothing ... especially when each of the big banks have product ratings from the rating services indicating that the product is/was investment quality.
It's not fear that has prevent prosecutions, it's the inability to build a case on any of the top dogs ... so the discussion was made not to prosecute the small fish and get settlements; rather than, send them to jail and get much smaller settlements, or go for the big dogs (and lose) and get no settlements, ever.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I think you could easily find testimony for that -- from rating agencies that refused to play the game for example, appraisers who got less work and who quite working because they could not go along -- and from appraisers who played the game knowing they were wrong. Economists could analyze what happened, who was leading the unrealistic appraisal game. It would be a huge case, but the evidence is, I be ieve, there. Someone I know was working for an appraiser who reduced his workload because he did not want to come in with appraisals he knew were not realistic. There were honest people who lost out because of the fraud. They could be witnesses to what motivated them.
Would have been a warning to convict those who committed the really obvious fraud at the lower levels.
Look. I was not working in the mortgage or banking business. I remember standing outside my neighbor's house talking about a house down the street that was being sold for an outrageously and unrealistically high price and saying that something was wrong when housing prices had risen so high and wages had not risen much at all. Anyone could see that the high housing prices were unjustified.
I remember that the Los Angeles Times printed an article warning about the adjustable mortgage rates and the zero down loans. It was before the crash although not early in the fraud leading up to the crash.
A good lawyer in the Justice Department could have prosecuted the case, but it would have taken a lot of tenacity, a lot of staff time, long hours and a bit of intuition to sniff out the right witnesses. Law is an art, not a science. It could have been done but it would have taken a lot of dedication and hard work to do it. But it could have been done.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Because, I do not subscribe to idea there was a provable conspiracy ... at least that would include the banks. But, yes ... I, not only, think the rating firms are a part of the problem; but, they were at the heart of the problem ... had the firms not rated the trash the banks were packaging AAA investment quality, the banks would not have been able to sell the trash to institutional investors and those institutional investors drove the market.
Further, from what I have read, there are rating firms analyst to executive emails indicating that the CDO/MBSs were trash and executive to analyst emails telling them to ignore their concerns and rate on.
Unlike in the real estate, were there are (literally 10s of thousands of) appraisers/appraisal companies, there are really only 3 securities rating firms, Moody, Standard & Poors, and Finch ... all of which, rated the banks trash as AAA. So, while there may be a case to make that the rating companies may have concluded (and that would be a difficult case to make), there still would be the missing rating company/bank executive link.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Trying to read between the lines of your posts, I have a sense that you believe that there was no conspiracy simply because the conspiracy was extremely complex and involved so many people who had no direct contact with each other. As I said earlier, if you started interviewing people who were fired or left the companies at the bottom of the conspiracy's pyramid, I am pretty sure you would discover that some employees attempted to inform their managers that something was wrong, that the numbers did not add up. Start with the discontented, those on the fringes when looking for evidence of a broad conspiracy of fraud.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)And I'm saying this because my experience has it that had there been a conspiracy, it would have come out long before now BECAUSE it would have involved so many people.
Besides, the corporate real world doesn't involve 7 person cut-out dead drops ... It involves a CEO screaming, "You better increase revenues by 8% and profits 5% next quarter" to the next level down the management ... who yells it to the next, with the addition of the phrase "And I don't care how you do it" ... who shouts it to the next level down, with the addition of the phrase, "Or your F'ing fired!" ... until it reaches that bright, young commission-paid/bonus dependent, ethically challenged B-School graduated Ivy League PhDed Mathematician, who is $1/2 million in school debt, who then smokes a joint or does a line or breaks a capsule and invents an algorithm that projects out +12% growth ... who then, explains how the math works to her non-mathematician manager, who doesn't understand the math, but loves the +12 ... who attempts to explain the math (that he doesn't understand) to his manager, who hears nothing but the +12 ... who doesn't even attempt to explain the scheme to her manager ... who reports to the CEO, "the quants are projecting +10 profits on +2" who says, "Cool ... Patron or Blue?"
That is how this worked, and yes, it was a conspiracy ... a conspiracy of ignorance.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)going on at the bottom. You could have proved that if you had gone after so-called disgruntled employees in all of the sectors involved. It was huge, but it was not just an accident. There should have been a series of trials. No one really ever looked for the smoking guns. But I will bet you they were there to be found.
Elizabeth Warren pointed out some of the problems with the bankers' professed ignorance about what was going on. Bankers were selling their clients paper that the bankers themselves were betting against. The derivatives were beyond complex. The market heated up too fast. It should have been and probably was obvious to anyone that the housing values in the middle class market were rising far too fast and far too high compared to the middle class wages. The top guys in the financial sector hire economists and number-crunchers to give them the facts on the markets. Also, there was a concerted effort at the low end of the mortgage industry to qualify buyers whose incomes did not qualify them. I personally observed a couple of means to that end. The first was trying to get people to find co-signers sometimes simply a friend who would falsely say he or she was living in the buyer's house and that his or her income could be falsely attributed as a source for paying off the loan. A second was, here in California where first mortgages are thanks to what is called Depression legislation can be walked away from, an enormous effort to lure people into second mortgages. I recall a time when we got constant offers of second mortgages. People who did not know about the Depression laws probably fell for those offers. There certainly was a lot of evidence of a conspiracy to commit fraud on buyers -- especially with the extreme efforts to sell mortgages in an economy in which wages were not rising. The money was being made available at a very high level in the banking system.
The fraudulent signing of the foreclosure papers was another obviously systemic bit of fraud. That took some organization and funding. Yet it was simply paid off. Then there was a bank that laundered drug money.
Of course it is easy to say there was no conspiracy because the research and discovery necessary to find out whether there was a conspiracy or not and the trials that would have been needed to get the first verdicts that could have lead to uncovering more information and getting more verdicts were never even attempted. Just don't walk down the middle of the street in Ferguson, Mo. Can cost you your life. Pretend to be shutting your eyes to massive fraud in the mortgage industry and you can live well for a long time on the proceeds.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)this whole mess probably could have been unraveled from the bottom up ... but the fact is, the government lacks/lacked the resources. And further, a decision was made (and I think rightfully so) the cost of doing the unraveling would have been far more than what it would have resulted ... As much as we hate to hear/acknowledge it, such decisions are always present in the real world; but, almost never a consideration on the internet ... where there is unlimited capacity, without having to spend a single dime.
And while there are serious ethical problems with this, none of that is unlawful ... just like selling a newsletter with "dark forecasts" while shorting a market, or going to the racetrack and betting the favorite, while also betting the 100-1 long shot, aren't.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Nicely done! 
Caretha
(2,737 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)In that time I prosecuted, and defended fraud charges ... though nothing anywhere near as big, and consequential, as this. (So you can probably sense my frustration.)
I did not like the BS that was the practice of criminal law ... Justice is among the last of considerations; it was all about a win/loss ratio.
I have since changed career direction into Human Resources ... I no longer have an ethical obligation to defend what I think is wrong ... and I don't have to pay hundreds of dollars for the privilege of doing so.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)I have no doubt if I would have said money laundering, you would have been an expert on money laundering. Such a sad tactic to take to shutdown a conversation. You tried and failed.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I don't love OWS. I do want economic justice ... and I want it done in a way that can actually work.
I don't know much about money laundering, though I probably could defend or prosecute a charge.
Rex
(65,616 posts) 1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I tell you what he/she has said is lay BS.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 4, 2015, 08:38 AM - Edit history (1)
You clearly know nothing about the law or how it works ... nor, do you want to. So, I'm done.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Thank you for giving me permission do what I want to. You obviously know nothing about the law or how it works.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Dustlawyer
(10,495 posts)RICO violations, fraud, conversion, several conspiracy charges, plus I would think there would be lots of SEC violations, tax evasion and fraud....
Dimon and his ilk have been above the law for so long that the charges for crimes committed would be endless.
Wall Street got Obama in the White House, thus all of the Wall Street appointments and Eric Holder, who came from a Wall Street law firm. Until we rise up and demand an end to campaign contributions, Super PACs, and the revolving door, we will continue to get screwed worse and worse. George Carlin had it right!
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)i.e., prove your case ... starting with Know/intent?
Dustlawyer
(10,495 posts)You would need the actual evidence and be a prosecutor. I am not and I don't have evidence, just my opinion based on everything reported.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Can't have that.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)The jails are too full of people using weed, the real criminals of our time. You gotta put this stuff in perspective, Scuba . . .
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)But, now he's doing work release as Governor.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Shine bright, Jamie Dimon
Fined light by the SEC
None from Sarbanes Oxley
To the sky, to the sky
Chasing profits ever high
Thirteen billion penalty
From mortgage securities
Fraud you sold me, market dives
Chasing profits ever high
The regulators let you get away
Oh, DOJ
Admission of wrongdoing, you don't have to say
Paltry, the fine your power buys
So sleep tight, tonight, in your lies
Crimes provable sealed from the public eye
No jail time. Shattered lives,
Foreclosures spike just like your bottom-line
Shine bright, Jamie Dimon
Shine bright, Jamie Dimon
Shining bright, Jamie Dimon
Foreclosures spike just like your bottom line
Shine bright, Jamie Dimon
Shine bright, Jamie Dimon
Shining bright, Jamie Dimon
Foreclosures spike just like your bottom line
Masters of the universe
Street's high on derivatives
Ride the bull -- will never die
Chasing profits ever high
Thirteen billion penalty
From mortgage securities
Fraud you sold me, market dives
Chasing profits ever high
Most of the penalty, you won't have to pay
With taxpayers is where the tab lies
So sleep tight, tonight
With your prize
Crimes provable sealed from the public eye
Crime to crime, Morgan thrives
Foreclosures spike just like your bottom-line
Shine bright, Jamie Dimon
Shine bright, Jamie Dimon
Shining bright, Jamie Dimon
Crimes provable sealed from the public eye
Shine bright, Jamie Dimon
Shine bright, Jamie Dimon
Shining bright, Jamie Dimon
Foreclosures spike just like your bottom line
Shine bright, Jamie Dimon
Shine bright, Jamie Dimon
Shine bright, Jamie Dimon
midnight
(26,624 posts)
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)This never ceases to appall me...
If you're not sure why I'm appalled, Google "HSBC" and "money laundering."
(The shot is from Thailand, but the jetways in Toronto's Pearson Airport have 'em, too.)
Autumn
(45,048 posts)Tells you all you want to know
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jamie-dimons-eye-catching-cufflinks/
- This is what we have become, I suppose. Hard to take, init?
K&R
“As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air — however slight — lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness.”
―William O. Douglas
Rex
(65,616 posts)Where CEOs of a company are not responsible for what happens, they are only responsible to the shareholders.
What is sad is that people believe it on DU!
Sad sad sad...
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)He has high connections therefor he is immune from criminal prosecution.
IHateTheGOP
(1,059 posts)For the same reason that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld etal aren't in prison. We have no Justice Department in this Administration.
cleduc
(653 posts).. Cheney, Dick ... 
RKP5637
(67,102 posts)power, so, he get's a free pass, just one of the boys fulfilling "his" American Dream and demonstrating "American Exceptionalism."
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Papers of incorporation insulates corporate leadership from crimes commited form the boardroom. Money makes it possible to cover almost any crime to the point where sufficent evidence of a crime will rarely be found. An army of well paid lawyers at the beck and call of a corporation can use the law to surgically remove those in charge from responsibility.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)If papers of incorporation disallow prosecution, they should also disallow "religious beliefs". I mean, if a corporation were a person and the brain of that person (the head of he organism/organisation) decided to murder someone and not face justice, then a decision by that brain to pray should not entitle them to protections of religious freedom or rights to political "$peach".
It is all bullocks anyway, the heads of corporations should serve time for crimes as individuals and pray to whatever imaginary demons they will also as individuals regardless of the paperwork they hide behind.
Trillion dollar crimes have victims, many of them, and those victims deserve justice, not "just us".
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)People incorporate so they can protect their homes and other real property, so that only the corporation, as a legal fictional person, is liable.
The Supreme Court, which is the ultimate arbiter of what is and is not Constitutional, has decided that corporations, especially those that have only a few owners, have freedom of religion separate from those who run it. A corporation may have other liberties and rights that the Court has not yet decided on. This could get much worse if we allow Republicans to appoint anymore members to the court.
That is not the problem with JP Morgan Chase. They have enough money to insulate their owners and board of directors. With sufficient funding, an army of lawyers protects them form their own disastrous decisions. Money also can be used to seek out facts and hide or destroy them.
Really, Jaime Daimon should not stand alone in the docket. The board of directors, corporate management, and the individuals that made the shady deals should be held accountable. With the present system they will not even be charged.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Otherwise he would be up on charges of fraud. To bad we live in a plutocracy where the richest are immune to the law.
Joe Turner
(930 posts)That is the one thing that brings justice into the equation. When big-boys' over-leveraged houses came down in 2007 during the real estate collapse the correct response was to let them go under and save everything else. Instead wall street's hired servants used taxpayer money to keep them alive to swindle again. If a few of the big banks went down we wouldn't be having this conversation today. All the scumbags would have lost their jobs and be black marked for life.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Said the same thing, OF COURSE the corporate lawyers yelled at me that AMERICA would fall apart!!!
It is sad that so many adults believe those swindlers.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)midnight
(26,624 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)snort
(2,334 posts)Let me have him. Fucker stole my house. I know what to do with him. I'll take care of it. No problem. I'll name him 'reek'.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)
Zorra
(27,670 posts)
mfcorey1
(11,001 posts)like in Atlanta.
colsohlibgal
(5,275 posts)They thought 25 million dollar fines would suffice but the truth is that's like most of us being fined $15 or so to the Ruling Class.
Dimon and the rest should still be cooling their heels in the Big House. Fraud to the nth degree, it ruined countless lives, and they get a minor slap on the wrist.
Warpy
(111,240 posts)When the bottom drops out, he'll be in prison.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Blankfein will always deserve the honor of being Number One.
As my ol' dad used to say, this guy is so fucking crooked he needs two people to help him screw his pants on every morning.
:
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)CNBC reveres him like a god.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)We are still working on it, apparently.
PatrickforO
(14,570 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)
raven mad
(4,940 posts)'nuff said.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Why? Because Congress and the President are afraid of a stock market crash, that's why.
Fear.
mia
(8,360 posts)Dimon donates primarily to the Democratic Party.[36] In May 2012, he described himself as "barely a Democrat" [37] stating,
I've gotten disturbed at some of the Democrats' anti-business behavior, the attacks on work ethic and successful people. I think it's very counterproductive. ... It doesn't mean I don't have their values. I want jobs. I want a more equitable society. I don't mind paying higher taxes. ... I do think we're our brother's keeper but I think that attacking that which creates all things, is not the right way to go about it.[37]
After Obama won the 2008 presidential election, there was speculation that Dimon would serve in the Obama Administration as Secretary of the Treasury. Obama eventually named the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Timothy Geithner, to the position.[38]
Following the acquisition of Washington Mutual by JPMorgan Chase, Obama commented on Dimon's handling of the real-estate crash, credit crisis, and the banking collapse affecting corporations nationwide, including major financial institutions like Bank of America, Citibank, and Wachovia (now Wells Fargo)....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Dimon
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)SO in that regard, he and Dick Cheney have a lot in common!
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)bet he's part of THE FAMILY.
http://www.rense.com/general37/fascism.htm
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
Rex
(65,616 posts)However we do not and even though their is evidence he could be tried and convicted on, it will never happen. The CEO is responsible for fraud by his company and even with documents to prove so...it won't change one thing.
We went through this with ENRON and I nothing came from it. Corporate lawyers will always make sure a CEO is immune from his/her own criminal activity.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)A man like that should be given the boot, and kicked off of the freakin' planet!!
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)bank deregulation? That's what I want to know.
Rex
(65,616 posts)And people are just fine with that! Sad...but there you have it. They like the plutocracy and all the benefits they personally get from it.
Angel Martin
(942 posts)because establishing the precedent of holding financial executives to account might lead to pressure for charges against this guy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Corzine
JEB
(4,748 posts)