0
kallend

BofA settles for some $17BILLION...

Recommended Posts

AndyBoyd

"because its not fraud its failure to disclose. thats not fraud."

Look in the mirror and say that to yourself slowly. If you still believe it, you have been in the banking industry way too long.

If I said that to my boss, I'd be piling my stuff in a box and heading out to my car with my head hung low. I guess bankers say that, laugh, and head out for a 3-martini lunch.



^What you said.

I've been involved in these cases; I've done the research; I've read (and written) the briefs; I've read the opinions. Yes, it most definitely is fraud. To be slightly more specific, it is one deliberate element in a course of deliberate conduct designed, intended and executed to deceive, and to cause others (i.e., investors) to act in reliance upon said deception, to their detriment. And that be fraud, baby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andy9o8

***"because its not fraud its failure to disclose. thats not fraud."

Look in the mirror and say that to yourself slowly. If you still believe it, you have been in the banking industry way too long.

If I said that to my boss, I'd be piling my stuff in a box and heading out to my car with my head hung low. I guess bankers say that, laugh, and head out for a 3-martini lunch.



^What you said.

I've been involved in these cases; I've done the research; I've read (and written) the briefs; I've read the opinions. Yes, it most definitely is fraud. To be slightly more specific, it is one deliberate element in a course of deliberate conduct designed, intended and executed to deceive, and to cause others (i.e., investors) to act in reliance upon said deception, to their detriment. And that be fraud, baby.

you have made these claims before. i quite frankly do not believe you. The firms that represent these banks would not have their attorney spouting off about it on the internet. thats laughable. i do not believe that is true for a moment. prove me wrong. show some sort of evidence that you represented GS or JPM or any of these banks.

its not fraud by your own definition. they did not intend to deceive. and your opinion does not matter anyway. the regulators do and they are the ones who said it is not fraud.
"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andy9o8

Quote

The US gov't regulators all agree with me.

Do not.
Quote

its not fraud.

Is so.
Quote

i have the facts as stated by the US Gov't on my side.

Do not.


http://cdbpdx.com/MONOPOLY_1936/MONOPOLY_c1937_CChest_GoToJail.JPG



everything i said can be verified by reading the newspaper. its all right there in the open.
"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

you have made these claims before.


Indeed I have.
Quote

show some sort of evidence that you represented GS or JPM or any of these banks.


Silly boy. The plaintiffs in private party class actions have attorneys, too.
Quote

its not fraud by your own definition. they did not intend to deceive.


Re-read, kiddo. I used intent to deceive in my definition, and gave it plenty of emphasis. I may not know everything, but I sure as hell know the definition of fraud in a commercial case.
Quote

and your opinion does not matter anyway.


Does so.
Quote

the regulators do and they are the ones who said it is not fraud.


That's about 12 different levels of bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andy9o8

Quote

you have made these claims before.


Indeed I have.
Quote

show some sort of evidence that you represented GS or JPM or any of these banks.


Silly boy. The plaintiffs in private party class actions have attorneys, too.
Quote

its not fraud by your own definition. they did not intend to deceive.


Re-read, kiddo. I used intent to deceive in my definition, and gave it plenty of emphasis. I may not know everything, but I sure as hell know the definition of fraud in a commercial case.
Quote

and your opinion does not matter anyway.


Does so.
Quote

the regulators do and they are the ones who said it is not fraud.


That's about 12 different levels of bullshit.



your opinion doesnt matter. GS settled, it wasnt fraud. its all public.

ok, to be more clear. i dont believe you are the attorney for the other side. you would not be here discussing it. i could be wrong, but no attorney i know would come to this website and brag about their clients information. i am married to one, just a reminder. and im certain she doesnt discuss her clients personal information on the net with strangers.

if i wrong, ill apologize. if you are representing a party involved in the GS or JPM settlement im sure you can prove it. othewise, your just a guy on the net claiming to know secret stuff.

all my claims can be verified by a simple google search.
"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And as I said in the other thread some time ago, I really don't care who chooses to believe me, including you. There are many class action cases out there, that are still ongoing, against numerous banks including BoA, dealing with private, non-govt investors and monoline insurers, and yes, I have been, and am, involved in several of them. Perhaps my posting here is slightly indiscreet, but I'm being non-specific enough that I'm comfortable doing so. No, I'm not going to cross the line into specific case identification to "prove" my bona fides to you. If that puts us at impasse, well, I can live with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andy9o8

And as I said in the other thread some time ago, I really don't care who chooses to believe me, including you. There are many class action cases out there, that are still ongoing, against numerous banks including BoA, dealing with private, non-govt investors and monoline insurers, and yes, I have been, and am, involved in several of them. Perhaps my posting here is slightly indiscreet, but I'm being non-specific enough that I'm comfortable doing so. No, I'm not going to cross the line into specific case identification to "prove" my bona fides to you. If that puts us at impasse, well, I can live with that.



ok, so like last time you cannot backup any of your claims.

i hope everyone reading here understand that he cannot be telling the truth. no self respecting attorney would come on the internet and discuss cases they are working. you dont need to be married to an attorney to know that would cause problems with his clients. Not to mention GS and JPM would have a problem with it, since he is claiming to have read their internal to documents.

you are full of shit. since you decided to attack me i am considering letting compliance at JPM and GS know about your claims. perhaps you would like to speak to their attorney's about the internal documents you've claimed to have read and discussed with me and the internet.
"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

i hope everyone reading here understand that he cannot be telling the truth. no self respecting attorney would come on the internet and discuss cases they are working. you dont need to be married to an attorney to know that would cause problems with his clients.



How so? How is what Andy is saying now any different to Lawrocket telling us that he's a divorce attorney and talking about how that usually goes down?
Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andy9o8

Now you're just sputtering. We're done here.



Everything i claimed can be found in the newspaper articles that reported the GS story. all out in the open.

i'm not sputtering. very simple, you claimed to have read and written documents specific to the case we are discussing. you also claimed these documents prove fraud against GS and JPM. i dont believe your telling the truth, either way, im sure GS and JPM would like to know. not to mention your clients.

here is what your should know about me before attacking with false claims. i am not an idiot. but if i was i still know alot of people far smarter and important than me. it would take all of 30 seconds to get one of their trading compliance guys on the line. im sure within a few minutes i could have one of their more senior compliance officers live. i know in my heart they would very much appreciate to know an attorney is online claiming to have read their internal documents proving fraud against them. an attorney who claims to work for their opposition.

im pretty sure i am not the one sputtering here. nor am i the one who should be concerned about this conversation we've been having.
"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jakee

Quote

i hope everyone reading here understand that he cannot be telling the truth. no self respecting attorney would come on the internet and discuss cases they are working. you dont need to be married to an attorney to know that would cause problems with his clients.



How so? How is what Andy is saying now any different to Lawrocket telling us that he's a divorce attorney and talking about how that usually goes down?



he claimed to have read and written documents proving fraud against GS and JPM. i dont believe any attorney would make that claim on the internet. they tend not to discuss their cases that flippantly. ill apologize if im wrong. ive made that very clear.
"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow, are you ever DEFENSIVE.


(As, of course, you should be.)

Since (you claim) there's no wrongdoing, I guess Bof A, G-S, etc are paying claims out of altruism. Bankers are well known for giving away money for nothing.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kallend



Wow, are you ever DEFENSIVE.


(As, of course, you should be.)

Since (you claim) there's no wrongdoing, I guess Bof A, G-S, etc are paying claims out of altruism. Bankers are well known for giving away money for nothing.



your wrong again. you have been wrong every time you posted in this thread.

i never claimed no wrongdoing. i claimed no fraud and thats why there is no criminal indictment. not a controversial statement since its right there in the newspapers.

re read my posts. ive claimed they are being held responsible for the loses. didnt even argue they should not be. i only posted to debunk your multiple falsehoods, one of which is the fraud claim.
"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is most definitely civil fraud, and that's in the process of being litigated right now in civil class actions brought by private investors and monoline insurers. The elements of criminal fraud are not necessarily identical to civil fraud, but they're pretty close.

I suspect the main reason for why criminal fraud has not (yet) been charged or indicted is that, so far, the target defendants have ultimately been settling with the government. Potential criminal charges is the stick, and not charging them criminally is the carrot, used by the government to get the miscreants to settle. A lesser reason is the government also not trying to over-press its case: civil fraud only requires proof "to a preponderance of evidence" (i.e., more than 50%), while criminal fraud would have to be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" - a tougher standard to meet.

But make no mistake: the lack of indictments (so far) for criminal fraud does zero to negate the existence of civil fraud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[Reply]But make no mistake: the lack of indictments (so far) for criminal fraud does zero to negate the existence of civil fraud



A $17 billion fine is more than a slap on the wrist. This is just one agency. Andy is right - there are civil courts, too.

The feds are keeping somehat hands off. I suspect there are reasons, ranging from the usual "not enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt" to the middling "the banks have reams of documents shoing regulatory approvals for what they did and will make us look bad" to the cynical "with so many powerful people, everyone we indict will have contributed to lots of campaigns because they learned from Global Crossing to grease everyone so as to not be like Enron."


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
weekender

***Now it's Goldman Sachs:

online.wsj.com/articles/goldman-sachs-close-to-settling-fhfa-lawsuit-for-more-than-1-billion-1408737438

Every one of these fraudulent deals was initiated by a person and approved by a person, yet no-one is being indicted,



because its not fraud its failure to disclose. when offering a security you must disclose what due diligence you did. if there is a mistake, in this case they were far more risky then expected, you can be held responsible. in this case, they are essentially giving a refund.

thats not fraud. you might not like it. mostly because as you proved with your juvenile attempt at stock valuations earlier, you dont understand finance.

the gov't regulators are well educated professionals. the people at the Fed, Finra and the Sec are not politicians or bumbling bureaucrats. unlike you they understand finance. if they thought it was fraud then it would have been prosecuted as such. it wasnt because it isnt. you dont like it and your mad but that doesnt change the facts.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud

"A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury."

I'm the first to admit I know "jack" about the subject, but the or by concealment of what should have been disclosed part kind of sounds like it fits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
weekender


ok, to be more clear. i dont believe you are the attorney for the other side. you would not be here discussing it. i could be wrong, but no attorney i know would come to this website and brag about their clients information. i am married to one, just a reminder. and im certain she doesnt discuss her clients personal information on the net with strangers.



This is the problem is this (somewhat pointless) side show. Andy may or may not be what he claims, but he has refused to provide backing for his statements for the reason you suggest here - it would be inappropriate. Unfortunately that makes it non confirmable and therefore somewhat useless.

Now let's back to the main show - Kallend's grandiose and fact less rants about how 2008 happened. Or his complete misstatement of this settlement. He's good enough to write on the subject for Rolling Stone!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another possibility is that everybody from the bankers to the borrowers to the regulators and the sureties and the politicians just plain fucked up. They all got swept up in the "times are good" situations and all lost their senses.

Point the fingers everywhere. Including ourselves.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lawrocket

Another possibility is that everybody from the bankers to the borrowers to the regulators and the sureties and the politicians just plain fucked up. They all got swept up in the "times are good" situations and all lost their senses.

Point the fingers everywhere. Including ourselves.



And all those people, other than the millions of borrowers who lost everything, and of course lawyers as usual and by design, made huge profits.

The largest transfer of wealth in the history of the world..... from main street to Wall Street and members of the bar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amazon


And all those people, other than the millions of borrowers who lost everything, and of course lawyers as usual and by design, made huge profits.

The largest transfer of wealth in the history of the world..... from main street to Wall Street and members of the bar.



Who are "these people?" As noted, many financial companies went out of business. Mine got acquired by assholes and that pushed me out the door (to a happier place) unless I was willing to move to Delaware. It delayed my home purchase by 2 years - a considerable cost. On the up side, that home money that I instead invested paid off very well and enabled me to put 20% down when I find it settled enough with my new job to make the commitment.

And yes, it's unkind to say, but that was funded by people like you who sold at the bottom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0