"End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

[anothershamus]

[JackRiddler]

.

brainpanhandler in a separate thread posted the following:

Venezuela assembly gives Chavez decree powers

By Frank Jack Daniel

CARACAS | Fri Dec 17, 2010 6:25pm EST

CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuela's parliament gave President Hugo Chavez decree powers for 18 months on Friday, outraging opposition parties that accused him of turning South America's biggest oil producer into a dictatorship.

The move consolidated the firebrand socialist leader's hold on power after nearly 12 years in office, and raised the prospect of a fresh wave of nationalizations as the former paratrooper seeks to entrench his self-styled "revolution."

Chavez had asked for the fast-track powers for one year, saying he needed them to deal with a national emergency caused by floods that drove nearly 140,000 people from their homes.

But the Assembly, which is dominated by loyalists from his Socialist Party, decided to extend them for a year and a half.

That means the president can rule by decree until mid-2012, and can keep opposition parties out of the legislative process until his re-election campaign is well under way for Venezuela's next presidential vote in December of that year.

The president of parliament, Cilia Flores, said lawmakers must heed the appeals of families afflicted by the floods.

"It is raised to 18 months at the proposal of those immediately affected, the same people who are there relying on Comandante Chavez," she told the Assembly.

"So that they can have their streets, their highways, public services, electricity, everything to live in dignity, we are going to hear these proposals and concerns."

The vote was part of a legislative onslaught to push through bills before a new National Assembly is seated on January 5. Earlier on Friday, parliament passed a law making it easier for the government to nationalize banks and trim their profits.

FOCUS ON 2012

The "Enabling Law," which means the president can issue decrees across a wide range of areas including housing, land, finances and security, has been denounced as autocratic by his political rivals as well as by the U.S. State Department.

A freshly united opposition coalition won about half the popular vote at a parliamentary election in September to take 40 percent of the seats in the next Assembly -- where they had hoped to put a check on the president's powers.

Chavez's latest move raised concern about whether he would accept defeat if the 2012 election does not go his way. Polls show his traditionally high ratings have slipped, with the nation split down the middle in September elections.

The president, who has used decree powers three times in the past, has said one of his first moves will be to increase the sales tax to raise funds for reconstruction after the floods.

In the past he has used the fast-track powers to pass about 100 laws, including measures to nationalize part of the oil sector and increase the number of Supreme Court judges.

The new banking law passed earlier on Friday creates stringent operating rules that include forcing banks to give 5 percent of their profits every six months to community groups.

It also allows Chavez to order the takeover of institutions that he deems problematic, a move previously made by the banking watchdog. Chavez has increased the state's role in the sector this year, but a total takeover of banking is unlikely.

Chavez, who has inherited Fidel Castro's mantle as Latin America's leading U.S. critic, still has a strong power base in city slums and impoverished rural areas.

Although his foes' view him as an autocrat ushering in Cuban-style communism, supporters say he is redressing years of imbalance and has encouraged democracy by giving power and funds to grass-roots groups that decide on some public works.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6 ... geNumber=1

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Venezuela bank law makes nationalisations easier

Fri Dec 17, 2010 12:09pm GMT

CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuela's parliament passed a law on Friday that will make it easier for President Hugo Chavez to nationalise financial institutions and require them to give 5 percent of profits to community groups.
The law is part of a package of legislation the Venezuelan government is pushing through to entrench socialism in the South American OPEC member nation.

"It adopts a group of measures to correct problems that have been produced in the banking sector at the cost of the government's objectives and of the welfare of the nation," according to text of the measure approved in the early hours of Friday.

Chavez has repeatedly threatened to nationalise any institution that fails to meet his objectives of ending "speculation" in banking and of increasing credit to "productive" parts of the population.

Few analysts believe Chavez plans to nationalise banks outright, but many say he could further increase the state's role in the industry. U.S.-based economists at IHS Global last week said they believed the risk of nationalizations in the sector was now "very high."

In the past 12 months the government has taken over a dozen small failing banks and paid back deposits to most customers. Chavez last year spent $1 billion (£642 million) on the local unit of Spain's Banco Santander. All together public banks make up about one-third of the industry.

Last week, Chavez repeated his warning to banks that they should meet government-set lending targets or face takeover, and he specifically mentioned the local unit of Spain's BBVA among others.

Once the law is signed by Chavez and published in the official gazette, banks will be required to hand over 5 percent of their profits every 6 months to social organizations.

They are also required to create a fund worth 10 percent of their capital to pay for wages and pensions in case of bankruptcy.

Banks are still profitable in Venezuela although a two-year long recession has made their margins tighter. Analysts say the new law makes it harder, but not impossible, to operate successfully.

(Reporting by Frank Jack Daniel; editing by Jeffrey Benkoe)

http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews ... LE20101217

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Chavez's allies approve new Venezuelan banking law
Dec 17, 2010 5:49 AM CT By The Associated Press


CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) — Venezuelan lawmakers have approved a new banking law that increases government powers to control the sector and includes fines for violations.

The National Assembly, overwhelmingly controlled by allies of President Hugo Chavez, passed the law early Friday. It describes banking as a "public service" and says banks will be considered to be of "public utility."

Venezuela's banking association had expressed concerns about the law.

Opposition lawmaker Ismael Garcia condemned the law saying private banks are left "up against the wall." He said he views the law as a prelude to a state takeover of the banking sector.

Venezuela's private banks make up about 70 percent of the banking industry, while the government controls the rest.

via Bloomberg:


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-1 ... g-law.html

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________



It describes banking as a "public service" and says banks will be considered to be of "public utility."

.

Gee, there's an fuckin' revolutionary idea.

I don't think it is unreasonable to expect that government in the face of an emergency has to become more streamlined and autocratic. And goddamnit, when millions of people are living in shantytowns, don't have jobs or access to clean water or medical care or are being driven out of their homes by predatory financial institutions or are having to make decisions between buying food or paying the electric bill or getting that operation for grandma then that constitutes a fucking emergency. Fuck the banks and fuck "democracy" and fuck capitalism.

Ok, but ya gotta wonder where this'll all end up. I mean as much as I'd like to see Foxnews burned to the ground I have some concerns with the way Chavez is handling the media in Venezuela, as best as I can surmise through the filter of the media I have access to. And these decree powers he is using at the end of a lame duck congress really are somewhat problematic. I don't know that I want even a benevolent philosopher king. Or do I? Do you?

[JackRiddler]

! effectively: a capital control !

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financia ... 6PNEO0.htm

SKorea plans levy on foreign currency bank debt


SEOUL, South Korea

South Korea says it plans to impose a levy on non-deposit foreign currency debt held by domestic and foreign banks in a bid to defend the country against surges of capital that could threaten its economy.

The government and other financial authorities said Sunday that the size of the levy has yet to be determined. It will be charged on "non-deposit foreign currency liabilities" held by domestic banks and the South Korean branches of foreign banks.

The authorities said in a statement that the levy on short-term debt will be higher as it is seen as posing a greater risk than long-term borrowing. Related legislation will be introduced to the National Assembly in February.

[vanlose kid]

JPM Fraudclosure Whistleblower Emerges
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 12/19/2010 20:48 -0500

The one main thing missing from the recent escalation in charges against the major banks in regard to the fraudclosure scandal has been an internal whistleblower who can corroborate that all the charges against the various illicit mortgage practices. After all, it is one thing to lay allegations, and totally different for a court of law to find that these are validated. So far it is precisely the latter that has been missing as no court is willing to escalate an issue that could potentially unwind decades of mortgage securitization. Yet all that may be about to change. Daily Finance's Abigail Field presents the case of one Linda Almonte, a former employee of JPM, who is not only suing the bank for wrongful termination, but has now also filed a whistleblower complaint with the SEC. Filed says: "The core allegations add context to her lawsuit, and they charge Chase with grotesque and illegal practices involving its credit card debt processes, including robo-signing." Sure enough, JP Morgan is denying everything. Yet a close look at the details presented by Almonte indicates that either she is blatantly lying, or JPM may be in water just as hot as Bank of America.

Per the formerly confidential statement, Almonte's 5 main allegations regarding JP Morgan are as follows:

1. Chase Bank sold to third party debt buyers hundreds of millions of dollars worth of credit card accounts. . .when in fact Chase Bank executives knew that many of those accounts had incorrect and overstated balances.

3. Chase Bank executives routinely destroyed information and communications from consumers rather than incorporate that information into the consumer's credit card file, including bankruptcy notices, powers of attorney, notice of cancellation of auto-pay, proof of payments and letters from debt settlement companies.

4. Chase Bank executives mass-executed thousands of affidavits in support of Chase Banks collection efforts and those Chase Bank executives did not have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in the affidavits.

5. When senior Chase Bank executives were made aware of these systemic problems, senior Chase Bank executives -- rather than remedy the problems -- immediately fired the whistleblower and attempted to cover up these problems.

Almonte's lawyer, George Pressly operates the http://www.secwhistleblowerprogram.org/ website, which is how she reached him. It is reasonable to expect that now that the first whistleblower has emerged from the crowd, many other former employees will soon follow, making the legal headache for JPM's general counsel only comparable to the fees about to be charged by the firm's outside counsel. Furthermore, should this case come to court, it will become a public spectacle that will likely make JPMorgan be perceived in the same utterly fraudulent light in which Brian Moynihan's bank is currently basking: the preliminary evidence, if proven to exist, is very damning:

To support her claims, Almonte says she has "a large volume of documents in her possession available for review by the SEC" and offers her first-hand observations as well.

Those direct observations allegedly include witnessing the head of Chase's pre-litigation group "shred" material communications from borrowers, such as "bankruptcy notices, settlement communications, and debt settlement company communications" rather than entering the information into Chase's database. She also claims that senior Chase Bank executives instructed Chase Bank employees remove important information and data from Litigation Accounts because the retention of the information would have resulted in increased computer hardware costs. Both types of record destruction rendered the accounts inaccurate, she says.

Concerning robo-signing, Pressly wrote:

"On numerous occasions, Ms. Almonte witnessed these Affidavit Signers work through at times 3-feet tall stacks of Judgment Affidavits at once during weekly multi-hour long, non-related company meetings. The notaries were not present at these meetings. The Affidavit Signers simply relied on hourly workers to reconcile amounts owed and then treated the actual execution of the affidavits as busy work to be performed while the Affidavit Signers could focus on other matters."

According to Almonte, determining the amounts owed wasn't easy: Chase had a number of "legacy" databases from its various acquisitions that were not well integrated. So, perhaps the executives should have looked more closely at the documents. "Indeed, Ms. Almonte determined that as many as 20% of the Judgment Accounts to be sold failed an internal test to check for accuracy."
As for the background on Almonte, here is what field dug up on the former employer:

During her time at Chase, Almonte was a "mid-level executive" who "supervised employees across the litigation and post-judgment functions" of the credit card litigation department.

In March, she sued the bank, claiming that she was fired for refusing to participate in the sale of 23,000 credit card accounts Chase had packaged for sale. Almonte says 5,000 of the accounts listed the wrong amount owed, and thousands more had other problems. By going forward with the sale after being informed of the problems, Almonte says, Chase was breaking the law.

Almonte's whistleblower complaint provides big-picture context for the sale she refused to participate in, providing background on how so many credit card accounts could contain flawed data.

To be sure, there may be some prior animosity which has only bubbled to the surface due to the termination, which may serve to dilute Almonte's claims somewhat, which may be perceived as retaliation. What will be far more useful is finding a whistleblower who is still in good standing and employed by either JPM or any of the other large mortgage lenders. We are confident that following this important example, many more far more credible cases will soon emerge. The result will be another major push against the auditors and FASB in general, to make even legally mandated price discovery irrelevant when it comes to the trillions of "assets" held on the bank books. Either that, or a prompt settlement with the various AGs who are currently investigating the bank and its peers, so as to remove any future legal standing of new claims to the bank's mortgage practices.

Full Almonte whistleblower complaint: pdf. at link.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/jpm-fr ... er-emerges

*

[vanlose kid]

Riots Erupt In Bangladesh After Stock Market Plunges 6.7%
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 12/19/2010 19:06 -0500

For what may be the best look at the future of the world's most recent Banana republic entrant (the U.S.S. of A. for the confused) has to look forward to, we need to merely shift our attention at another one, which has had the privilege of experimenting with its Banana status for far longer: Bangladesh. After the stock market plunged on Sunday by 552 points or 6.72%, hundreds of angry investors took to the streets, "threw bricks at police, marched in the streets shouting slogans, and staged a sit-down protest." These very same "investors" which have and always will be better known as momo investors, which chase returns only to end up with the live grenades, "chanted slogans against the government and the regulators, and marched through the busy roads in the Motijheel Commercial area, halting traffic. They also staged a sit-in at the SEC building." The reason for the recent mass hysteria in chasing stocks: pretty much the same as what the Fed is trying to do right here in the US: "The rising value of the stocks in recent years has attracted hundreds of thousands of small-scale or retail investors in Bangladesh, says the BBC's Anbarasan Ethirajan in Dhaka. It became a popular investment for ordinary people, often providing higher returns than bank deposits and savings." Well, with the USA today posting an article with the following title on its cover page: "Experts agree: Get over your fear and get back into stocks ", and more incredulously, when one of these so-called experts is none other than David Bianco, the same utterly irresponsible creature who in October 2008 cut his 12 month S&P forecast from 1650 to 1500, well there is nothing much left to say: Bernanke has succeeded in converting America into a third-world subcontinent country.

From BBC:

The index ended the day down by 552 points or 6.72%. It has been on a rollercoaster ride in recent weeks, hitting a record high on 5 December, having climbed 80% since the start of the year.

But on 8 December it nosedived, prompting protests in Dhaka and towns elsewhere.

On Sunday, at least 500 investors hurled bricks at law enforcement officers near the Dhaka Stock Exchange and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) offices, said local police chief Tofazzal Hossain according to AFP news agency.

Analysts say Sunday's index fall was triggered by a central bank interest-rate hike.

The regulators have also taken measures in recent weeks to restrict money supply into the share market after concerns that stocks were overvalued.

The move forced big institutional investors to withdraw from the market, triggering panic among individual investors.

The rising value of the stocks in recent years has attracted hundreds of thousands of small-scale or retail investors in Bangladesh, says the BBC's Anbarasan Ethirajan in Dhaka.

The rising value of the stocks in recent years has attracted hundreds of thousands of small-scale or retail investors in Bangladesh, says the BBC's Anbarasan Ethirajan in Dhaka.

It became a popular investment for ordinary people, often providing higher returns than bank deposits and savings.

Regulators have now agreed to relax some of the conditions, hoping that will increase the money supply and stabilise the market, he says.

And yes, ladies and gents, all this is coming to a very cornered Chairmen close to you, who now faces the biggest dilemma of his pathetic career: let monetary policy be loose in perpetuity, bringing the price of oil to triple then quadruple digits (and so on) shortly thereafter, or tighten, watch the stock market plummet, and destroy his much desired, and even more imaginary, wealth effect.


http://www.zerohedge.com/article/riots- ... plunges-67

*

[Nordic]

Well, with the USA today posting an article with the following title on its cover page: "Experts agree: Get over your fear and get back into stocks "

Ha. When I saw someone touting that story somewhere, my eyes grew wide, and I thought "wow, if you've got any money in stocks, get the fuck out NOW!"

It's a joke, really. Or should be.

[JackRiddler]

seemslikeadream found the following and posted it at viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30610

4 Reasons to Close Your Bank of America Account
By Carmel Lobello Monday, December 20, 2010

There is substantial speculation that Bank of America will be WikiLeaks’ next target. At the Hack in the Box Conference in 2009, Julian Assange claimed to be in possession of a top executive’s hard drive.



But there is little reason to wait for the contents to be leaked. Bank of America’s history of fraud and ethical misconduct are already well documented in the news. Here are four reasons why leaving Bank of America should be your New Year’s resolution.

1. WikiLeaks:



On Friday, Bank of America joined PayPal, Visa, and Mastercard in blocking donations to WikiLeaks, reports David Murphy of PC Mag. This should come as no surprise.

In a November 11th interview with Forbes journalist Andy Greenberg Assange announced his plans for a “megaleak” early in 2011 that will target a “major American bank.”

He stated, “It will give a true and representative insight into how banks behave at the executive level in a way that will stimulate investigations and reforms, I presume,” adding, “For this, there’s only one similar example. It’s like the Enron emails.”

A self-proclaimed fan of American Libertarianism, Assange commented that WikiLeaks can potentially impact executive behavior in the private sector. “WikiLeaks means it’s easier to run a good business and harder to run a bad business, and all CEOs should be encouraged by this,” he stated.

This may be true, but it provides a terrifying scenario for companies guilty of illegal or unethical business practices.

A spokesperson from Bank of America stated, “The decision [to block WikiLeaks' transactions] is based upon our reasonable belief that WikiLeaks may be engaged in activities that are, among other things, inconsistent with our internal policies for processing payments.”

2. Blackwater:



Apparently financing the sale of the mercenary army, Blackwater (now Xe) is consistent with “internal policies for processing payments.”

Blackwater’s founder Erik Prince is selling the company to a group of Los Angeles financiers, reported the “New York Times,” and sources say that Bank of America will be bankrolling the deal.

Blackwater’s crimes include the murder of 17 Iraqi civilians in Nisour Square, Baghdad in 2007, allegations of falsifying paperwork to give a firearms gift to the king of Jordan, purportedly paying a businessman in Iraq to buy black-market steroids for Blackwater operatives, and trying to bill the U.S. government for prostitutes for hard-partying operatives in Afghanistan, as well as strippers in New Orleans in Katrina’s aftermath.

Jeremy Scahill’s blog for “The Nation,” documents all of this and much more, including testimony of Blackwater operatives spraying buildings that housed Iraqi civilians with AK-47s from the windows of drug-fueled parties.

The company, which generates 90% of its revenues from the U.S. government, has over ten years of documented illegal activity hanging over its head and is bearing numerous civil lawsuits.

Bank of America’s involvement in the $200 million sale of Blackwater is shameful, although not surprising, and should provide a reason to move your funds to another bank.

3. Fraud:



On December 7th, Ronald D. Orlo of MarketWatch reported that Bank of America admitted to fraud in the municipal bond derivatives market and will pay $137.3 million in damages. This story was covered in business sections, but made surprisingly few headlines.

“The conduct was egregious — in return for business, the company repeatedly paid undisclosed gratuitous payments and kickbacks and affirmatively misrepresented that the bidding process was proper,” said SEC director of enforcement Robert Khuzami.

“According to the agency, in some cases these bidding agents gave Bank of America Securities information on competing bids, helping the financial institution win the transactions. The agency charged that Bank of America rewarded these bidding agents with payments and kickbacks.

The SEC reports that the bidding process generally was not competitive because it was ‘tainted by undisclosed consultations, agreements or payments.’”

The Department of Justice stated that Bank of America “self-reported” the fraud, an act which usually results in a more lenient settlement.

4. Arizona/Nevada Lawsuit:



Arizona and Nevada are suing Bank of America on charges of misleading customers in loan-modification, reports the “Los Angeles Times.”

On Friday, Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard filed a lawsuit against Bank of America for “failing to implement anti-foreclosure measurements it promised in 2009.”

“Bank of America has been the slowest of all the servicers to ramp up loss mitigation efforts in response to the housing crisis,” he said. “It has shown callous disregard for the devastating effects its servicing practices have had on individual borrowers and on the economy as a whole.”

Within hours of Goddard’s complaint, Nevada’s Attorney General, Catherine Cortez Masto filed a similar complaint, stating the bank lied to customers.

“We are holding Bank of America accountable for misleading and deceiving consumers,” said Masto. “Nevadans who were trying desperately to save their homes were unable to get truthful information in order to make critical life decisions.”

“Goddard said Bank of America failed to provide justifications for denials of modifications, misled borrowers into thinking they had to miss payments to obtain modifications, and initiated foreclosure proceedings while trial loan modifications were in place — all in violation of its settlement with the state last year.”

There is often little that individual citizens can do to protest bad behavior of giant corporations. But seeing as how Bank of America received $45 billion in taxpayer-supported government bailout funds over the past two years, their recent conduct involving WikiLeaks transactions, financing the sale of Blackwater, fraud in the municipal bond market, and abuse of loan-holders in Nevada and Arizona is enough reason to exercise your dollar votes by choosing a different bank.

couple of good comments:

I'm involved in a situation right now where an old family friend, a single woman in her 60s with very serious medical problems, is being foreclosed on by evil BOA. She got several months behind in mortgage payments because of hospitalizations and medical bills.

For six months the loan mod people have been stringing her along, specifically stating on numerous occasions that she didn't need to worry, that they would never really foreclose on her.

This was a criminal conspiracy, as has been shown in many pending investigations and lawsuits. They were violating federal law, for the purpose of misleading her into not doing anything to protect herself.

In fact, as they are systematically (and stupidly) doing, they were marching her foreclosure along on a separate track.

She got a foreclosure notice the first week of December, saying they are going to auction her house off on January 5th! I just learned of this yesterday.

I've apparently been able to fix this, because I found a bankruptcy lawyer who can block the auction and keep her in the house for at least three years, maybe permanently.

But she's lucky her old friend married a lawyer (me) who is willing to help. Almost everybody else in her situation gets thrown out on the street in January or February.

.

Last night on the television set I saw Arizona State Attorney General Terry Goddard claim that in each claim he's examined, it appears to be Bank of America policy to "lose" applications for modification up to four times. He said there was no case in which a modification application was accepted in one attempt.

Also, like Comcast, it appears to be company policy for Bank of America telephone customer support to get the caller off the line, not to help them.

[JackRiddler]

.

Plutonia posted the following on "The Wikileaks Question" with the comment: "We just wont understand! ..." Emphases mostly hers.

In a couple of weeks this thread and the Wikileaks threads may merge into one big thermonuclear story.

Prospect of WikiLeaks Dump Poses Problems for Regulators
Tuesday, 21 Dec 2010; Andrew Ross Sorkin; The New York Times


“Tens of thousands of its internal documents will be exposed on Wikileaks.org with no polite requests for executives’ response or other forewarnings.”

That was according to Forbes magazine, which interviewed Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, last month. The excerpt sparked a global cacophony of speculation that a bank — perhaps Bank of America — may be the next target of the inscrutable “high-tech terrorist.” (Such was Vice President Joseph R. Biden’s description of Mr. Assange over the weekend.)

And just Monday, Mr. Assange told a reporter from The Times of London that he had enough material to make bosses of a major bank resign.

You’d think that bank executives would be quaking in their Gucci loafers.

But guess who may be even more nervous about the possible data dump?

Regulators in Washington.

It seems the prospect of gigabytes of e-mail and other documents from financial institutions can be viewed one of two ways: as a treasure trove for regulators to scrutinize — or as an embarrassment for the United States government, which has spent millions of dollars investigating Wall Street in the last two years without a scalp to show for it.

Inside the Securities and Exchange Commission, the organization is bracing for a public outcry, according to people who have recently spoken with some high-ranking officials about the prospect of a WikiLeaks release of bank documents.

“The S.E.C. could be on the horns of a dilemma,” said Mark C. Zauderer, a veteran corporate litigator at Flemming Zulack Williamson Zauderer.

A spokesman for the S.E.C. declined to comment.

Of course, no one knows what information Mr. Assange actually has or how damaging it could be to any financial firm. In truth, it is hard to believe any e-mails could be that shocking. The scuttlebutt is that WikiLeaks will reveal documents in which bankers discussed how they duped a client, how they dressed up their numbers or even how they tried to pull one over on regulators. Sadly, perhaps cynically, that’s almost to be expected.

The big surprise would be that such chicanery was documented, in black and white, and that regulators hadn’t found it yet — or worse, they had found it and did nothing about it.

Indeed, legal experts say that if evidence emerged of shady dealings, the biggest problem regulators may face would be explaining to the public why they had not brought charges against a bank.

“The public will often look at the information out of context and not understand,” said Robert A. Mintz, a former federal prosecutor who is now a partner at McCarter & English.

Another difficult issue for regulators will be what to do if damning information is released. Can the S.E.C. or the Justice Department use WikiLeaks as a source to build a case?

Eric H. Holder Jr., the United States attorney general, has said his department is investigating WikiLeaks’s earlier release of classified cables from the State Department as a potential criminal act.

“To the extent that we can find anybody who was involved in the breaking of American law, who put at risk the assets and the people I have described, they will be held responsible; they will be held accountable,” Mr. Holder said at a news conference.

Legally, the government is allowed to use any publicly available information — as long as the government wasn’t involved in illegally obtaining the information itself. So prosecutors could potentially use any WikiLeaks information to subpoena bank documents and build a case around them.

“It’s the theory of the fruit of the poisonous tree,” said Jay Fahy, a former federal prosecutor who now specializes in white-collar crime at the law firm Fahy Choi.

Mr. Assange, too, faces his own legal risk, one that so far has gone unspoken: bank confidentiality laws. In many cases, it is a crime to disclose the private account information of individuals, said Mr. Fahy.

Assumin'. That can be edited, but the name needn't be, presumably?

“That’s a violation,” Mr. Fahy said.

Still, the optics of how the government reacts to whatever WikiLeaks releases will pose a challenge.

“It puts them in a terrible bind,” said Mr. Mintz. No matter how the government reacts, “there would be an appearance of a profound inconsistency. It’s less of a legal matter than it is an appearance issue.”

.

[norton ash]

http://cryptogon.com/?p=19448

27 Year Old Citigroup Banker Allegedly Jumped to Her Death from Trump Palace in New York City
December 22nd, 2010

Via: The Hoya:

Jessica Fashano shocked much of the New York financial world Saturday when she allegedly threw herself off of the Trump Palace in New York City. According to the New York Police Department, there is no evidence of foul play in the death of the 27-year-old alumna who worked as an investment banking associate at Citi Global Market.

Many members of the Georgetown community are mourning Fashano’s death, according to a statement released by McDonough School of Business Dean Norean Sharpe.

“Jessica will be greatly missed by all of the Georgetown faculty and her former business school classmates. Our thoughts and prayers go out to Jessica’s family and many friends during this difficult time,” Sharpe said.

A Whippany, N.J., native who kept in touch with her college friends, Fashano graduated from Georgetown magna cum laude with finance and international business majors and a Spanish minor, according to Business Insider.

From surveillance video of the scene, officials determined that Fashano arrived at Trump Palace, 16 blocks away from her New York apartment, early on Saturday morning. A resident rode with her in the elevator to the top of the Trump Palace, and said that Fashano was alert and aware at the time.

Fashano had asked the resident how to get to the roof, which contains views of the Hudson River and New Jersey.

Close friend and fellow 2005 graduate Michelle Javian was supposed to meet Fashano for brunch that Saturday morning.

“She just had everything someone could want to be successful,” Javian told The New York Times. “She was always the leader, had everything organized,” Javian added.

Fashano was taking depression medication, according to the police, but Javian said she talked to her daily. “It’s like something just changed overnight … .Something just snapped, and we don’t know,” she told the Times.

According to her peers, Fashano shined at her job. Associates described her as always working hard and giving her best effort, and she was featured in a corporate video about the company.

[vanlose kid]

*

[vanlose kid]

The JP Morgue Whistleblowers Are Back
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 12/24/2010 11:32 -0500

Backwardation Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Promptly after those two cuddly bears explained how the JP Morgue is manipulating the silver market, and the xtranormal video went viral, forcing the FT to release an indemnification that "according to sources" JPM had covered a major portion of its silver short (only to subsequently end up with 90% control of other metals markets), here they are back, explaining in Part 2 of the series just what the next steps in the unwind of the biggest metal manipulation scheme will look like. The kicker: a JPM insider has told one of the bears that there is no commercial silver left, "it's all smoke and mirrors, and the CFTC can do nothing about it other than pray." Other topical items explained: silver backwardation, that there are two commissioners at the CFTC on the JP Morgue's payroll, the BIS' fractional gold system and the usage of side pockets for sovereign gold, and pretty much everything that ties the loose odds and ends in the PM manipulation story.




http://www.zerohedge.com/article/lbma-c ... ading-data

*

http://sherriequestioningall.blogspot.c ... ilver.html

http://english.pravda.ru/business/finan ... urrency-0/

Are the central banks running a fractional gold system?

http://www.physicalgold.co.uk/news/2010 ... inflation/

http://www.futurespros.com/analysis/fut ... rves-11919

*

The normalcy bias refers to an extreme mental state people enter when facing a disaster. It causes people to underestimate both the possibility of a disaster occurring and its possible effects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_bias

*

[JackRiddler]

Here is the latest rendering of the familiar stats about income inequality and its development over the last 15 years.

Thanks to Hannah Bell at
http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... =439x64696

US Income Shares, 1994 v. 2007


Edited on Fri Dec-24-10 05:13 AM by Hannah Bell

In 1994 the percent of total US income taken by each % of individual income tax filers and their effective tax rate ( ) was:

Top 1%: 14.3% (25.9%)

Top 5%: 28.8% (21.6%)

Top 10%: 40.0% (19.5%)

Top 25%: 63.0% (16.6%)

Bottom 50%: 14.8% (14.8%)


In 2007 the percent of total US income taken by each percent of income tax filers and their effective tax rate ( ) was:

Top 1%: 23.4% (20.6)

Top 5%: 39.0% (18.8%)

Top 10%: 49.6% (17.5%)

Top 25%: 69.9% (15.2%)

Bottom 50%: 12% (13.6%)


Income floor for each percentile in 2007 was:

Top 1%: ($458K) (1.4 million returns)

Top 5%: ($168K) (7 million returns)

Top 10%: ($115K) (14 million returns)

Top 25%: ($65K) (35 million returns)

Bottom 50%: (Under $32.4K) (70 million returns)


All figures taken from:

Individual Income Tax Returns with Positive "1979 Income Concept" Income

Published as: SOI Bulletin article - Individual Income Tax Rates and Tax Shares, Table 7
Tax Years: 1986 - 2007

http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats ... html#_grp3

Remember, this is declared US income: not wealth, not income of corporations owned (or partnered) by the same people abroad, not foundations. Just annual US income as declared to IRS.

A TEN PERCENT SHARE OF ALL US INCOME SHIFTED TO THE RICHEST 1% DURING THIS PERIOD.

They went from making 14% of all income (declared, individual) to making 25% of all income, while their taxes DROPPED from 26% to 20.6%.

BAIL THOSE FUCKERS OUT!

You may decide what "bail out" means in the above sentence. (Isn't that Urdu for "guillotine"?)

.

[vanlose kid]

Guest Post: Legislation Proposed To Criminalize Calls For A "Run On The Bank"
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 12/24/2010 14:34 -0500

Submitted by reader Jan

Legislation proposed to criminalise calls for a "run on the bank"
There's something going on in the Netherlands: http://nos.nl/artikel/207170-oproep-...strafbaar.html

Calling for a "bank run" in public will possibly become a criminal offense. Ministers Opstelten of Security and De Jager of Finance are preparing a proposal for a new law.

They want to be able to penalize people who are openly calling for a "bank run" a maximum of 4 years or a fine of 19.000 euro. According to the ministers a bank run can seriously endanger a bank.

The ministers say that the collapse of a bank in case of a "bank run" is a question of hours instead of days, since a call for this can be spread fast, using prestent methods of communication. Banks cannot defend themselves from this, and thus must acquire protection under the criminal law, is their thought.

DSB: Reason for the tightened methods is the demise of the DSB Bank. Account holders took out 600 million euro from their accounts in this bank, after the call of Pieter Lakeman, of the Foundation "Hypotheekleed" (Motgage suffering).

The bank run was the initiation of the bankruptcy of the bank of Dirk Scheringa.
------------

What happened to the DSB Bank then?

The behaviour of the president of De Nederlandse Bank (our State bank, our "FED"), Noud Wellink, was part of the reason for the bankruptcy in 2008 of the DSB bank. Politicians called for his (voluntary) resignation, since it became widely known that he acted wrongly, by putting the DSB bank under suspicion in public, in name of the Nederlandsche Bank, and by allowing a banking license in the first place. (at least, that is the official message, it was very clear that the reputation of the DSB was tarnished by the Central Bank) The president of the DSB, Dirk Scheringa fell for the bait and took out his own money. Later he put it back, but by then, it was too late; by then, the warning was issued, and the run had begun.
http://www.elsevier.nl/web/Nieuws/Ec...ter-gekund.htm
This criminalisation of the "run on the bank" existed as plan (Scheltema Commission who investigated this) already after the DSB demise. (concluding in june 2010) http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/du...ent-under-fire

Financial Activism.

As of late, there's been several campaigns to mobilise the "silent majority" into a more active stance against taking on private debt and risk, of private banks.
Notably, the "run on the bank" as proposed by french football player Eric Cantona, as well as the "Buy silver, crash JP Morgan Bank" initiated by agent provocateur Max Keiser, are examples of "financial activism". The purpose of these actions is to break the stranglehold of banks that speculated and lost (and are basically insolvent) over society itself, which is, at least in the Netherlands, very sound. There's political resistance (of aforementioned Minister De Jager) to "pay for debt of other countries". At least those are his words.

Making such acts of "financial activism" illegal is unconstitutional in the Netherlands.
(art. 1.7 freedom of speech, art. 1.9 freedom of protest)
http://www.st-ab.nl/g1/1-83019ks02-grondwet01.htm#1.7

Of course the overleveraged position of banks, and their key role in the present Fiat currency system is the cause of this vulnerabillity. This should have been adressed, not the wish of the savers to take out their own money, and warning others. That is the elephant in the room; that banks here aren't necesserally in a worse shape than anywhere else, but are extending their risk to society at large, because they're engaged in both speculation, and in handling the day-to-day financial affairs of corporations and individuals.

Drs. Jasper Blom of the UvA (University of Amsterdam) stated in a publication that the Basel Accord, to stipulate rules for banks to restrict risk, have been "watered down", and that essentially nothing has changed since 2008. Politicians are, according to him, uninterested, and unconcerned, while it is their responsibillity.
http://www.aissr.uva.nl/aissr/home.cfm/ ... DEC0F6AB7F

Is this important?

Yes, the positition of the Netherlands in the international banking cartel is very important. Moreover the position of the Netherlands is very important to the american government, as can be seen by the latest Wikileaks cables.

The controller of the dutch stockmarket, the Euronext is owned (since 2006) by the NYSE !
http://www.rtl.nl/%28/financien/rtlz...ten2586136.xml

And: "In 2009, the Netherlands was the largest destination for United States direct foreign investment, with 13.4% of the total. This made the United States the largest direct foreign investor in the Netherlands. Vice versa, the Netherlands was the ninth-largest direct foreign investor in the United States in 2009. In 2008, however, the Netherlands was the largest direct foreign investor in the United States."
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3204.htm#relations

So, with this move, the dutch government wants to protect it's banking system, at the cost of the liberty of individuals. A dangerous course of action.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest- ... s-run-bank

*

[JackRiddler]

.

Is this proposal really going to get very far? It would effectively outlaw bears. Everyone would have to do Jim Cramer-type cheerleading for financial stocks, or they'll be indirectly calling for a run on the bank.

Will it apply to Moody's? Can they arrest the fuckers next time they downgrade a country's currency, causing a run on the specie issued by its central bank?

But I get it. The distinguishing criterion will not be the statement, but the identity of the speaker. Goldman analyst saying you should dump another bank's stock is fine. Poor man saying the same, or rich lone bozo like Cantona: CRIME!

.

[vanlose kid]

.

Is this proposal really going to get very far? It would effectively outlaw bears. Everyone would have to do Jim Cramer-type cheerleading for financial stocks, or they'll be indirectly calling for a run on the bank.

Will it apply to Moody's? Can they arrest the fuckers next time they downgrade a country's currency, causing a run on the specie issued by its central bank?

But I get it. The distinguishing criterion will not be the statement, but the identity of the speaker. Goldman analyst saying you should dump another bank's stock is fine. Poor man saying the same, or rich lone bozo like Cantona: CRIME!

.

i'm thinking it might, in time. there's a comment to that effect at ZH:

by doomandbloom
on Fri, 12/24/2010 - 14:47
#828345

ah the first fallout from Wikileaks....nice..and people ask me why i dont trust Julian...

its easier for Netherlands to raise this concern....and US to follow..

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest- ... ent-828345

*