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

Monday, August 13, 2012

Two Reactions to Goldman Sachs's "Get Out of Jail Free" Card

What is one to make of the announcement that Goldman Sachs will not face any prosecution for fraud?  The people believe that they live in a country that follows the Rule of Law and now we see that rule being perverted by the very people entrusted to follow it--the Justice Department and the Regulators, and that is to say nothing of the President's belief that nothing illegal was done by the banks.

As William K. Black pointed out in a recent interview:  there was no Grand Jury to even decide if prosecution was necessary.  Furthermore, there is now no law describing the accounting control fraud which Goldman Sachs practiced with impunity.

What is a citizen to do when their beloved country becomes a cesspool of corruption starting from the top and trickling down to the bottom?

Here's what Eliot Spitzer thinks:

'Are you kidding me?'--Eliot Spitzer reacts to Goldman Sachs getting off 'scot-free'
By Eliot Spitzer - Viewpoint(Current)
. . . .
OK, I am as outraged, disappointed, furious as you are. Have they no backbone, shame or sense of what justice is all about? It does nothing for my already waning faith in this Justice Department.
So what do we do? First, let’s go back to basics. Wall Street failed us because of greed run amok in a welter of conflicts of interest, lack of dedication to integrity and total absence of loyalty to fiduciary duties, failed regulatory systems, and horrendous management. We can and should demand of Congress that it enact bills already proposed by Senators Sherrod Brown and Sheldon Whitehouse to break up the big banks

If the Justice Department won’t prosecute them, we at least can let Wall Street know we don’t trust them. The self-important titans of Wall Street fundamentally violated their side of the contract with the public. They were given the keys to the kingdom, in return for which we expected some serious leadership and thoughtfulness in their guiding our economic system. They utterly failed us, and they still deserve our disdain and scorn.

That’s “My View.”

Read the transcript here 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Then, we have this reaction: 
Government won't prosecute Goldman Sachs in fraud probe
. . . .
It's at the discretion of the prosecutor whether to prosecute.

Some prosecutors — for example, in cases involving petty (brown-skinned) street crime — need only something approximating the possibility of a conviction, or near enough, so long as they have a single shaky witness from blocks away who might even look credible if cleaned up (or "coached").

Other prosecutors — for example, in cases involving Jon Corzine or others of Our Betters — need no less than a "smoking gun" plus crime scene photos of the perp as the bullet leaves the chamber — without which, they say, they just don't have enough to go to trial (do click, my characterization isn't far off; and yes, that's our hero Pat Fitzgerald talking).

Thus it is with Obama's Justice Dept — which in fine Bush II tradition, is no longer just the nation's Justice Dept.:
Four years ago, employees of New York-based Goldman gave three-fourths of their campaign donations to Democratic candidates and committees, including presidential nominee Barack Obama.
Read the entire article here 


Post a Comment