weekender

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

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

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

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

Indeed I have. Silly boy. The plaintiffs in private party class actions have attorneys, too. 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. Does so. 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

Do not. Is so. 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

^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

i sleep well at night and have no problem looking in the mirror. insulting me doesnt change any of the facts. the US gov't regulators all agree with me. its not fraud. i explained more clearly why in my previous post. my entire explanation comes from the comments made by the regulators not the bankers. i have the facts as stated by the US Gov't on my side. 3-martini lunch, cmon. i am certain you got that from a TV show and dont actually know any investment bankers. for the record we also have big black canes and wear top hats, tails and monocles in one eye. there is a big sack on my desk with a giant dollar sign on it too. edit to add pic of me at work. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/89/The_Subsidised_Mineowner.jpg/220px-The_Subsidised_Mineowner.jpg "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

I've been out of the financial sector for 3 years now. So you admit to being part of the cabal that trashed the world's economy. So much for your credibility. you are just ignorant on the topic and insult me rather than add anything of value to the conversation. there were alot of things done wrong which led to the crisis. you ignore all, rather choosing to post emotional insults. fore those reasonably minded people, i will more clearly explain my post as to why it isnt fraud and its failure to disclose. when selling a security, as i mentioned earlier, you must disclose your due diligence. you must disclose what work you have done and show it to the buyside. in the mortgage case, the banks hired independent ratings agencies to check their work. those agencies, as well documented, rated many of the securities much higher than they should have. the banks showed those ratings as their due diligence. so the ratings agencies and the banks disclosed their work showing, incorrectly as history has proven, the securities to be low risk. they were wrong. thats not fraud. thats bad analysis. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

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. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

banks set aside a reserve for litigation and carry a litigation risk when settlements are pending. once settlements are agreed, the risk is removed and they tend to pop. countrywide credit went bankrupt and BAC bought them. most of the litigation settlement was for the actions of countrywide. thousands of bankers at countrywide and BAC lost their jobs. no jobs, no promotions, no bonus's. the bank sets aside revenue's for litigation charges. this is made public and shareholders are well away of it and can choose to no longer own the shares. BAC has actually attempted to increase the dividend to shareholders but the Fed has limited it. the stock has also risen nicely since the crisis, so shareholders are richer not poorer. everything you said is wrong. stick to babysitting, finance is to complicated for you. Clearly, as an insider in this business, you have NO IDEA how much this pisses off real people. Taxpayers footed the bill for all this, and no heads have rolled at the top of the industry. all my points stated are valid and true. your's are not and nothing more than angry emotional outburst. im as real a person as you. you like to paint me as a monster because i dont believe your caricatures of a business you have no experience or knowledge of. as evidenced by your childish attempt to explain valuations. laughable, truly grade school stuff. i care more about the strength of the financial industry than most because my livelihood depends on it. i wish Mozell went to jail, i cheered when they caught Madoff, Raj Rajaratnam, Steve Cohen etc... financial scandals impact me in a direct personal way. ive been part of meetings with Finra and the SEC to better our industry. i play fair and hate when others do not because it hurts the rest of us. but i live in reality and understand litigation charges and valuations. so when you post falsehoods i will call you out. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

banks set aside a reserve for litigation and carry a litigation risk when settlements are pending. once settlements are agreed, the risk is removed and they tend to pop. countrywide credit went bankrupt and BAC bought them. most of the litigation settlement was for the actions of countrywide. thousands of bankers at countrywide and BAC lost their jobs. no jobs, no promotions, no bonus's. the bank sets aside revenue's for litigation charges. this is made public and shareholders are well away of it and can choose to no longer own the shares. BAC has actually attempted to increase the dividend to shareholders but the Fed has limited it. the stock has also risen nicely since the crisis, so shareholders are richer not poorer. everything you said is wrong. stick to babysitting, finance is to complicated for you. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

So what's the point of it, then? Are you a wimp if you think drug dealers are scum, but won't say that aloud if you were in a holding cell full of drug dealers? No. That just suggests an IQ over 90. No, statements like this are about intimidation. i just dont see it that way. i think it would be about intimidation if they said they would tell one party. for example, "weekender, say that again and ill tell the Hells Angels." meant to intimidate. on the other hand, if you just say, "hey weekender, i bet you wouldnt tell the Hells Angels that." that is basically calling me a wimp for saying derogatory things about someone i would not have the guts to say to their face. by the way, i think your a wimp because real men dive shipwrecks in the North Atlantic. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Cool, then let me extend the same invitation. Except I, for reasons stated on this forum before, am not a PGR rider although I have ridden in support on some of the same rides. So, open invitation to show up at ANY of the motorcycle rides or parties that I attend to express your position. I'll calmly sip my soda and see what happens. Not referring to anyone in particular, but my general attitude toward people who imply a wish (read: implied threat) of violence against those who might dare express locally-unpopular views in the presence of "tough guys" is that said people are cowardly scum, they're an embarrassment to Americans who respect the Constitution, and they can go fuck themselves. Gee, I guess that, too, sounds like an invitation. why put quotes around tough guys? i would say that someone who is willing and able to kick your ass for offending their principles is tougher than you. i firmly believe the Hells Angels are bad people. ive walked by their club and would never state that to them. they are tougher than me and could kick my ass, i suspect. i believe that makes them tough guys, certainly tougher than me. no snarky quotes needed. also, i dont think people are actually wishing violence on you. i think they are calling you a wimp for stating things you know would get your ass kicked in an environment where your safe from said ass kicking. not the most mature behavior but i dont see it as cowardly. they are basically calling you a sissy, not actually hoping the Hells Angels give you a beat down. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Really? Somebody calling me cracker I would take offense to. Really? Truly? Your joking right? if someone called me a cracker i would know its an insult and take offense. not so much because the word bothers me but because they are obviously attempting to insult me. seems reasonable, i think. should the Redskins name be changes? i dont know. it seems to me the only people offended are white liberals. BUT i know a lot of them living in NYC and very few Native Americans. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

my best answer as i understand it and how it is explained to me by people who know this stuff well. our analysts, customers and compliance people: They have the right to not allow a company to change its corp structure to become an MLP. the Fed and the Sec regulate publicly traded companies and have complete authority on ruling distributions, mergers, buy backs etc.... they do not need to change any laws or tax codes. all they have to do is say they reject the request to re-org into an MLP or to pay a dividend. my comments are not stock specific. im not making a trading call or even voicing an opinion. its a commentary on why retail is buying MLP's and not institutions. there is the belief they have a huge regulatory risk. not looking for an argument. as we say on the trading desk, "im just telling you what i'm hearing." "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

"As for regulatory risk,do you really think in the next couple of years our Gov't can get anything accomplish?? LOL " you do not need an act of congress to change securities regulations. they are quite independent of outside influences and very adept at making changes. there is a reason banks and companies have teams of lawyers and compliance officers constantly reading pubs. people at the Fed and SEC are not bumbling bureaucrats or politicians grandstanding for populist appeal. they are highly educated professionals. well meaning and very good at their jobs. they make common sense changes quite quickly. for this reason, institutional investors are not buying into the MLP craze. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

They do seem very easy to pump and dump, and poor liquidity stands out as a big risk. i apologize. I am a big compliance nerd so want to clarify im making no accusation of improper behavior. i agree with your thinking but disagree with the term pump and dump. to be clear, im not implying manipulation or anything unethical. my point is there is a lot of legislative/regulatory risk in these and institutions seem to have very little interest. no institutional interest should make a retail customer think twice. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

My personal 2cents. not the opinion of anyone but me and speaking totally as a layperson. MLP's are moving from utilities to other sectors purely as a tax move and a way to get around regulators and distribute money to shareholders. a lot of very smart people, smarter than me, see the gov't not tolerating this. i agree wholeheartedly. i think there is a huge risk the gov't steps in and ends this. they are losing tax revenue and control of distributions. the gov't always hates to lose taxes but right now, with Dodd Frank, the environment is very much against losing regulatory control. they dont like companies deciding to give money to shareholders without their permission. MLP's are coming on the market at an increased pace and brokers are pushing them hard. they have larger than average payouts and seem to me as the flavor of the month for sales managers. there is a reason MLP's are marketed to retail and largely skipped by institutions. think about it. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

You getting your free handout is voluntary Me getting a government job is voluntary Both require drug test NONE OF THEM ARE BY FORCE!!! IF YOU DONT WANT THE JOB OR THE BENIFITS DONT GET THEM IF YOU DO TAKE YOUR PISS TEST!! i agree with you on this. its really not a biggie and i think that some here dont like it so are claiming its a huge constitutional violations. as if that is cut and dry. we all know is not and rulings are decided by judges appointed by like minded politicians. i think its a bad idea though. then what? if they are on public assistance i doubt they can afford or have insurance for treatment. then we have to pay to treat them? or do we let them and their kids go hungry. id rather we had a few people be on the dole and fat getting high than the alternative. which is we pay for their treatment or even worse. they truly go hungry as do their innocent children. so i dont see anything wrong with it but dont think its a good idea because it opens up a giant can of worms of what to do next. its cheaper to buy them a dime bag once in a while. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

i agree with you. the US has a strong history of community policing. we rebuilt Germany using this tradition. as we all recall their police was nationalized and very militarized. every little town has swat teams now and its just silly to me. i think police dept's are looking for ways to keep their budgets up and play soldier. with that said. posting the ACLU's report on anything will be immediately dismissed by any reasonably minded group. they are extremely biased against police and IMO, law an order in general. not a way to win any converts. but maybe preaching to the choir was your point. to reiterate my stance though, our police are way to militarized and we need to get back to community policing. i dont want a military police force in the USA. i actually feel like the USA is safer than when i was a kid. i know for sure, NYC is. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

I don't know about you Mark... but I have been drug tested for every job I have had for the last 20 years. I can also remember the golden flow tests of the 1970s in the military... testing positive had dire consequences.. except if your daddy was a congressman. Personally if they are going to pass a law to test the people on the dole..... they need to include EVERYONE on the public dole. Start with COPS...... if they test positive for proscribed substances perhaps taken from the people they are persecuting.. OFF the force... join the people they loathe so much. Test all the damn politicians... if you are making dumb ass laws to punish the least of us.... than those who are the high and mighty need to be tested as well. i think some dept's test. makes sense you are usually driving a vehicle for work and have a gun. i am a firefighter and i know you get tested if there is an on the job accident or an auto accident with one of their vehicles. I would support all politicians being tested. also police, fire, EMS and school teachers. but mostly because i hate the municipal unions and want to be a jerk. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Neither I, nor the writer of the article, made the rules in Tennessee. The data show quite clearly that the rules simply waste time, money and energy. Same is true in Florida: www.tampabay.com/news/courts/florida-didnt-save-money-by-drug-testing-welfare-recipients-data-shows/1225721 if you are arguing against drug testing for welfare, the Florida study is a much better case. you should have lead with that. the Tenn one is just silly and doesn't make a compelling argument either way. well, except that lawmakers in Tenn seem to be incompetent. the article pretty much proves that. IMO, the Florida study shows its a waste of time to test for drugs. the Tenn study shows its a waste of time for lawmakers in Tenn to exist. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

this article does nothing to convince me either way. the test was an exercise in silliness. "Applicants have to answer three questions about drug use to get benefits, and if they answer yes to any of them, they get referred to urine testing." i would agree it seems like a waste of time and money because no one in their right mind would say yes, knowing they will be tested and lose their benefits. its just silly, a complete waste of time. if you want to drug test them, then drug test them. if you dont want to drug test them then dont. this system seems to have been put in place to fool both parties into believing they are getting their way. this money should have been spent on more welfare for the poor or more jails to incarcerate the poor. depending on your political affiliation. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

i updated my post but realize most dont go back and read. so im going to repost the update to make my thoughts more clear. i left this thread than came back and posted without the entire picture. my apologies to all. "UPDATE: my mistake, i didnt realize he was the OP. his first post was rather awful and i left the thread for a while because of it. i responded to what i thought was a police officer describing how hard the job can be. so please read my post as it was intended. a response to his description of the job and not to his original post. which i find awful." "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante