GoldmanSachs666 Message Board

According to the Collins English Dictionary 10th Edition fraud can be defined as: "deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage".[1] In the broadest sense, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual; the related adjective is fraudulent. The specific legal definition varies by legal jurisdiction. Fraud is a crime, and also a civil law violation. Defrauding people or entities of money or valuables is a common purpose of fraud, but there have also been fraudulent "discoveries", e.g. in science, to gain prestige rather than immediate monetary gain
*As defined in Wikipedia

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Goldman Sachs Links and News - January 18, 2010

Tom Gregory: Goldman Sachs Donates 11 Minutes To Haiti !!! | News ...
By admin 

Goldman Sachs Capital PartnersImage via Wikipedia
Goldman can't be blamed alone
Economic Times
A Wall Street pay puzzle
Washington Post
Is It True That Investment Bankers From Goldman Sachs Make Over ...
By admin  
Goldman Sachs bankers to lead $108bn bonus windfall | Project .
By rockingjude
Professor Elam: Goldman Sachs, Betting Against the Client
By Dennis Elam 
Editorial: Sticking it to banks
Philadelphia Inquirer
The 21st Century World: How Goldman Sachs Made Tens Of Billions Of ...
By Scepter

Editorial Comment:
I still see so many reports on the GS bonuses that it seems - obscene bonuses - are the only issue with Goldman Sachs.  Folks, the bonuses aren't the issue.  I believe in Capitalism and a Free Market Economy.  If someone fairly and honestly makes a lot of money they should get paid a lot of money.  

However, making money through criminal activity, lying and cheating should be rewarded with legal action and possible jail time not billions in bonuses.  

The mortgage broker industry (what's left of it) had been criticized for charging what is called Yield Spread Premium (YSP) - a premium paid by lenders for delivering a higher interest rate loan.  As a result, this practice is being prohibited in many states and is catagorized as "Predatory Lending" thus limiting incomes.  (Note:  The banks charge this YSP as well they just don't have to disclose it).

YSP in and of itself is not wrong or even bad.  If applied correctly, it can save the borrower out of pocket cash.  Without going into more detail on a lengthy but not so complex topic, my point is that the "little guy" has been prevented from earning a fair compensation and the borrower has been denied a potential benefit.  FYI, auto loans have YSP as well, never disclosed or called what it is and has been doing so for many years and have NO benefit to the purchaser at all.

So the "little" guy can have his/her earnings capped but the "too big" guys have no cap in sight for their work and helped not the borrower/customer or average American.  In fact, the "too big" guys took advantage of us all -including the elderly - gave us back no benefit and continues on a path of self indulgence while we suffer the spoils of their toils.  

The real issue then is how honestly and legally are these huge sums of money being made so that those bonueses and salaries can be paid.  Fraudulent ratings by the still admired rating agencies, Fitch, Moody's and Standard and Poors enabled the Wall Street banksters to begin their pillage.  Yet nothing is reported, said or done about that.  Who instructed them to lie about the real value of the securities they rated AAA?  Goldman Sachs perhaps?  Or perhaps it was Bear Stearns or Merrill Lynch or Lehman.  How involved in all of this was JP Morgan, Bank of America or Wells Fargo?  No answers or even any "real" investigations into any of this.  No one is questioning.

If there is criminal activity here then we are allowing it to continue and allowing the "banksters" to stay free - except for Bernie Madoff, of course.  But even he had to have the help of some very important and high ranking people to pull his scam for so many years.

Let's not talk about bonuses anymore.  We already have had that thrown in our faces with indelible ink - ink that cannot be removed.  Let's start talking about JUSTICE and EQUALITY of JUSTICE as in "liberty and justice for all".

The major media is "bought and paid for" by the "too big to fail" gang.  Maybe we should be talking about some of your salaries as well.  What ever happened to "investigative reporting"?  You don't seem to be serving the people as journalists. (there are a few, very few exceptions to this).  So here is the challenge.  Report less on bonuses and more on fraud, illegal activity and profiteering.  Remember RICO - Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act?  
There may be some fit there.

Here is a summary as provided by Wikipedia (you can click the link above to view the entire explanaiton.
Under RICO, a person who is a member of an enterprise that has committed any two of 35 crimes—27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes—within a 10-year period can be charged with racketeering. Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $250,000 and/or sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business gained through a pattern of "racketeering activity." RICO also permits a private individual harmed by the actions of such an enterprise to file a civil suit; if successful, the individual can collect treble damages.

When the U.S. Attorney decides to indict someone under RICO, he or she has the option of seeking a pre-trial restraining order or injunction to temporarily seize a defendant's assets and prevent the transfer of potentially forfeitable property, as well as require the defendant to put up a performance bond. This provision was placed in the law because the owners of Mafia-related shell corporations often absconded with the assets. An injunction and/or performance bond ensures that there is something to seize in the event of a guilty verdict.
In many cases, the threat of a RICO indictment can force defendants to plead guilty to lesser charges, in part because the seizure of assets would make it difficult to pay a defense attorney. Despite its harsh provisions, a RICO-related charge is considered easy to prove in court, as it focuses on patterns of behavior as opposed to criminal acts.[4

There is also a provision for private parties to sue. A "person damaged in his business or property" can sue one or more "racketeers." The plaintiff must prove the existence of a "criminal enterprise." The defendant(s) are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same. There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise. A civil RICO action, like many lawsuits based on federal law, can be filed in state or federal court[5]
Both the federal and civil components allow for the recovery of treble damages (damages in triple the amount of actual/compensatory damages).
And here are the offenses that it covers (also from the Wikipedia link above):
Under the law, racketeering activity means:
Is there any fit here and are there any actions we should be investigating under this law?  Now, I am not saying there is this type of wrong doing here.  I am not qualified nor am I authorized to make allegations or accusations of this kind.  I am merely saying that real and proper investigations should be made as it seems to so many of us that there was wrong doing. There were millions of people harmed by the actions of our federally supported and rewarded banking institutions and the people have a right to know and have a right to justice.  Shouldn't we at least take a real look? What do you think?
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


Anonymous said...

Boy my life would be different if I qualified for a secret payment, how about you?

This is one part of the problem:

I think Goldman was on the other end of this largess.

Elias Habayeb, former chief financial officer of the AIG division with the unit that sold bond protection to banks, wrote in a November 2008 e-mail to company executives that he wanted to clear up “a lot of confusion” about the price that the New York Fed would pay to retire $62.1 billion in derivatives.

New York Fed “Very Sensitive” on AIG, Company E-Mail Says

‘Concerted Effort’

“There are two crucial questions that need to be answered,” Issa said in a statement. “First, did all parties involved in this deal use every avenue available to protect the American taxpayers? Second, why was there such a concerted effort by the New York Fed to pressure AIG to not disclose details of the counterparty deal at the earliest opportunity possible.”

Before the New York Fed took over the talks, AIG tried to persuade banks to accept so-called haircuts of as much as 40 cents on the dollar, according to people familiar with the matter. The regulator made “limited efforts” to secure discounts over two days in November 2008, according to a report from Neil Barofsky, the special inspector charged with policing the U.S. Troubled Asset Relief Program.

Anonymous said...

Hey Mary whats that numbered account you have?

This is like the sheriff of Nottingham arresting one of the king's ain't gonna happen...I guess they do really take the public for fools........

More Intentional Media Misdirection (Wall Street)

But there are multiple crimes committed when one intentionally obscures, either through omission or commission, risks that one knows of and/or has been explicitly warned about.

Henry Boerner, chairman of the Governance and Accountability Institute, said the publics rage against Wall Street is focused not so much on suspected criminal activity as on the unfairness, lack of ethics and irresponsibility of bankers. However, he said, it is the regulators who should be faulted for allowing Wall Street bankers to take risks, shatter the economy and walk away with big bonuses.

"Voters, constituents, investors, employees, borrowers, homeowners, public officials, entrepreneurs — all have been impacted by the risky and at times reckless behavior of the leaders of the nations largest financial services organizations," he said.

Anonymous said...

Max goes off tangent so skip to the interview.

Good Janet Tavakoli interview starts 12:20...she calls for fraud audits:

Anonymous said...

US Does Not Have Capitalism Now: Stiglitz

"An awful lot of people are not managing their own money," Stiglitz said. "In old-style 19th Century capitalism, I owned my company, I made a mistake, I bore the consequences."

"Today, (at) most of the big companies you have managers who, when things go well, walk off with a lot of money. When things go bad the shareholders bear the costs," he said.

Anonymous said...

The Future of Gold & Silver
Bix Weir


January 19, 2010

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, NW

Washington, DC 20581

To the Attention of:

Chairman Gary Gensler

Instead, Alan Greenspan and friends used their superior computer programming abilities to construct this elaborate scheme for what they thought was for the good of mankind. The extension of the fiat money system facilitated the expansion of the world's infrastructure. Unlimited fiat money was used to build houses, factories, buildings, roads and communication systems throughout the world at a speed that would not have been possible without the steering (manipulating) of global commodity and currency markets. Some say that which has sprung up over the past 40 years is the greatest advancement of global infrastructure in the history of the world and that you should be commended for it.

But was the lie worth it? Yes, magnificent things were constructed but are "things" really what makes the world great? The blowback from your little project also gave the keys of the vault to the villains that have destroyed all the original good intentions. The banking cabal and military industrial complex that you enlisted to "assist" in the master plan took over the reigns of the world wide manipulation which gave them the ultimate power...the power to print money. With that came the power to destroy lives, the power to enrich themselves, the power to rule by force and the power to destroy the US Constitution. Was it all worth it? I guess history will be the judge and the jury on that one.

Post a Comment