Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Financial Justice under which law, USC Title 15, USC Title 18

Posted 5 years ago on Feb. 3, 2013, 9:37 p.m. EST by Middleaged (5140)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

It helps to know what kind of Justice you want. Looks to me like Federal Regulators who failed and lead up to 2007 - 2009 Financial Crisis have responsibility and can be Liable for up to $1 million dollars. I'm not a lawyer. The least that should happen is these people should lose their jobs. The upside might be some memoirs, books, and disclosures from the resentment of taking the fall. So anyway I found some of the laws concerning Federal Financial Regulators.

Criminal Charges fall under U.S.C. Title 18. (Fraud, Conspiracy)
Making False Statements falls under U.S.C. Title 15.
Rules for Regulating Banks and Banking fall under U.S.C. Title 12.
Rules under which the Department of Justice Operates, U.S.C Title 28.

The Mission of the FBI: to uphold and enforce the criminal laws of the United States, and to provide leadership and criminal justice services. The FTC website states the Objectives are to Stop & Identify Fraud, Deception, and unfair practices ...and to educate consumers. How are they doing?? The SEC is responsible for federal securities laws and regulating the securities industry. The Financial Institutions Examination Council enforces vigorous regulations on banks, Trains Bank Examiners, and Trains Banks.

Robert Mueller (Director FBI, needs to be the Whistleblower)
Mary Schapiro (Chairman SEC)
Charles Christopher Cox (Chairman SEC)
William H. Donaldson (Chairman SEC)
H. David Kotz (IG SEC)
Erik R. Sirri (SEC, Professor Finance, Economist)
Tim Geithner (Secretary of the Treasury)
Ben Bernanke (Chairman of the Federal Reserve)
Alan Greenspan (former Chairman of the Federal Reserve)
Jon Corzine (Goldman Sach executive, MF Global CEO, Politician)
President Barak Obama (willfully ignorant, passive executive)
President George Bush (Responsibility goes to the Top)
President William Clinton (Responsibility goes to the Top)
President George H.W. Bush (Responsibility goes to the Top)
Dick Chaney (did he ever serve the public good)
Lawrence Summers (former Treasury Secretary)
Henry Paulson (Treasury Secretary, Goldman Sachs)
Steven Shafran (Treasury, Goldmans Sachs)
Kendrick R. Wilson III (Treasury, Goldmans Sachs)
Edward C. Forst (Treasury, Goldman Sachs)
Robert K. Steel (Wachovia CEO, Goldman Sachs, US Treasury)
Robert E. Rubin (Secretary Treasury, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup)
David G. Nason (Treasury)
Robert F. Hoyt (Treasury)
Michele Davis (Treasury)
Jennifer Zuccarelli (Treasury)
Stephen Friedman (Federal Reserve NY, Goldman Sachs)
William C. Dudley (Federal Reserve NY, Goldman Sachs)
E. Gerald Corrigan (Federal Reserve NY, Goldman Sachs)
Reuben Jeffrey (Treasury, Goldman Sachs)
Neel T. Kashkari (Treasury, Goldmans Sachs)
*Dan Jester (Treasury, Goldman Sachs)
Phillip Swagel (Treasury Economic Policy)
Michael Bloomberg (Mayor NY, Bloomberg LP)
David K. Wilson (OCC Bank examiner, should have known)
Tim Long (OCC Bank examiner, should have known)
Douglas W. Roeder (OCC, should have known)
John C. Dugan (Comptroller of the Currency)
John D. Hawk (Comptroller of the Currency)
Armando Falcon (OFHEO)
James Lockhart (OFHEO)
Darrel Dochow (West regional director OTS)
John Reich (Director OTS)
Clarence K. Lee (Director OTS)
Shiela C. Blair (FDIC, Should have known)
Martin J. Gruenberg (FDIC, should Have Known)
Sandra Thompson (FDIC, should have known)
Robert W. Mooney (FDIC, should Have Known)
George French (FDIC, should have known)
Mark Pearce (FDIC, should have known)
Christopher J. Spoth (FDIC, should ahve known)
Michael H. Krimminger (FDIC, should have known)
Arthur J. Murton (FDIC, should have known)
John H. Corston (FDIC, should have known)
James R. Wigand (FDIC, Complex Financial Institutions)
Jason C. Cave (FDIC, Complex Financial Institutions)
William C. Dudley, (Federal Reserve NY)
Richard Westerkamp (Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond)
Donald Kohn (Vice Chairman Federal Reserve)
Joseph Sommer (Counsel, NY Federal Reserve)
Timmothy P. Clark (Federal Reserve)
Roger T. Cole (Federal Reserve Board)
Steve Manzari (Federal Reserve NY)
Dianne Dobbeck (Federal Reserve NY)
Hayley Boesky (Federal Reserve NY)
Seth B. Carpenter (Federal Reserve Board)
James A. Clouse (Federal Reserve Board)
Charles Thomas (Federal Reserve Board)
Sherry Edwards (Federal Reserve Board)
Patrick M. Parkinson (Board of Govenors Federal Reserve)
Edward J. DeMarco (Federal Housing Finance Agency)
Gary Gensler (Commodity Futures Trading Commisson)
Henry Cisneros (Secretary Housing and Urban Development)
Daniel H. Mudd (CEO of Fannie Mae, charged with Fraud)
Donald J. Bisenius (Freddie Mac)
Richard F. Syron (Freddie Mac)
Alan Cranston (Democrat of California, Keating Five)
Dennis DeConcini (Democrat of Arizona, Keating Five)
John Glenn (Democrat of Ohio, Keating Five)
John McCain (Republican of Arizona, Keating Five)
Donald W. Riegle, Jr. (Keating Five)
Jim Wright (D-TX) (Congressman, Vernon Savings & Loan)
Eric H. Holder, Jr. (US Justice Department)
Lanny A. Breuer (US Justice Department)
Robert Mueller (Director FBI, needs to be the Whistleblower)

see U.S.C Title 12, Chapter 34, Section 33, effective by 1989, a council was formed to keep banking supervison vigilant which puts all the responsibility on all of the Above named Officials

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/12/34/3303 (Financial Institutions Examination Council)

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/12 U.S.C Tiltle 12 is the federal law on Banks & Banking

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/15/14A/645 (Making False Statements on Securities, Small business Loans)

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/15/2A/I/77q (Commerce, Domestic Securities Fraud)
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/15/2A/I/77l (Liability of represenations from selling a Domestic Security)
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/15/2B/78i (Security Exchange, Manipulation of security prices)
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/15/2B/78u-2 (Failing to supervise Security Exchange activity, Liabilities Civil Remedies)
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/28/II (USC, Title 28, department of justice)

Antitrust law originated in reaction to a public outcry over trusts, corporate monopolies that dominated U.S. manufacturing and mining. Trusts took their name from the quite legal device of business incorporation called trusteeship, which consolidated control of industries by transferring stock in exchange for trust certificates.

Clayton Act 1914 - four practices illegal; price discrimination, tying and exclusive-dealing contracts, corporate mergers, interlocking directorates---boards of competing companies, with common members. Federal Trade Commission Act 1914, FTC is to interpret and Enforce Anti-Trust Law

It is the FTC's Job to file Federal Litigation against businesses

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (frequently abbreviated SEC) is a federal agency[2] which holds primary responsibility for enforcing the federal securities laws and regulating the securities industry, the nation's stock and options exchanges, and other electronic securities markets in the United States.

According to former SEC employee and whistleblower Darcy Flynn, also reported by Taibbi, the agency routinely destroyed thousands of documents related to preliminary investigations of alleged crimes committed by Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, SAC Capital, and other financial companies involved in the Great Recession that the SEC was supposed to have been regulating.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securities_and_Exchange_Commission#Regulatory_failures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trade_Commission#Activities_of_the_FTC

Guilt of RICO Offense by Aiding and Abetting. A defendant may be guilty of a substantive RICO offense by aiding and abetting under U.S.C Title 18, Subsection § 2.



Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by Renneye (3874) 5 years ago

Legalities aren't my area Ma, but thank you for this important post! It sounds to me like much of the financial crimes from at least the last several years, certainly fall under the umbrella of RICO. Interesting indeed! I wonder if any of the new forum members are lawyers.

[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 5 years ago

I could use some criticism here. I learn by pulling up links and writing something. But maybe few people are thinking the way I do ... or few are interested. I hope it helps. I guess that many people would have a hard time, or be very bored trying to actually find some of this kind of stuff for themselves.

[-] 0 points by penguento (362) 5 years ago

Regrettably, mere failure of a government official to take action when they should have isn't actionable, either in civil or criminal litigation. All their superiors can do is fire them. There's a good reason, actually -- you can't really have a situation where government officials get sued every time somebody doesn't like what they did or didn't do -- it would open a floodgate of nuisance litigation. You could never get anybody to be a government official, and the cost of defending the litigation would be a terrible burden on the taxpayers.

Sometimes, however, it is a shame, and you wish it were possible.

[-] 3 points by Middleaged (5140) 5 years ago

How about Civil Suit as Willfull Neglect, turning a blind eye to the Risk they were Duty Bound to Uphold. Thinking of William K. Black. Sovereign Immunity does apply but Officials can be stripped from that in order to allow a lawsuit or criminal action. You have a point. The same people that decide if stripping is allowed are part of the federal system...

So we are not looking at failure in job performance. Top Executives had the responsiblity to vigorously enact regulations, monitor & track Risk, .. and in this case they Trained the Bank Examiners, and Trained the bankers themselves.

[-] 0 points by penguento (362) 5 years ago

No soap. The law just doesn't permit it. You just can't sue a public official for doing a lousy job. You'd have to prove corruption, and even then, a private citizen wouldn't have standing to sue. The government would have to prosecute.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 5 years ago

Yeah, seems like no one has ever sued using the Stripping provision that is allowed to sue state officials.

Criminal Charges can always be applied to Federal Officals. Title 18 is Bribery, Obstruction of Justice, Conspiracy, Fraud, Making False Statements is under Title 15, .... Conflict of Interest is more of a Rule, but if you accept a promotion, an offer of a new job, preferntial treatment, access to privilages, ... that sounds like Bribes.

If you change the outcome of a ruling, or disregard a regulation, that is giving up your integrity for favoritism ... not sure that is bribery, but it is corruption and is illegal.

Public can demand States Attorney and DOJ prosecute anything associated with the Financial Crisis. But it helps if you have been damaged and know how you haev been damaged, and you know that Evidence has not been gathered ... and that Investigations have not been persued, Of course using the media to publicize is in your courner till the investigation has been started.

Have to add: Filing Greivences is effective against federal officals. This causes pressure, gets everyone to start circling the wagons, and may result in some kind of outcome that help you as an individual. Job seekers file grievences. Contractors file Grievences. It is all part of the system.... And you might get more ideas and info on what you need to push for state or government civil actions or prosecutions by seeking redress and information. Before you file suit You are suposed to contact the appropriate agency anyway (the agency where you were hurt or harmed).

[-] 0 points by penguento (362) 5 years ago

Ah yes, the ol' revolving door. Lots of gov't officials and bureaucrats leave the government and go straight to work for the companies they were regulating, and lots of politicians leave office and turn into lobbyists for those same companies. It sure smells bad, but it's awful hard to prove bribery or something along those lines unless you've got a wiretap or an informant. And unfortunately, it's very common.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 5 years ago

Yes, any everyone knows how to play the game without getting caught. I added a bit above late.

Clearly the scope of damage in the Financial Crisis, warrents the Stripping of Individual Officals from Soverign Immunity... Let's get some publicity on that if we ahve the chance.

[-] 0 points by penguento (362) 5 years ago

Still no soap. The constitution forbids ex post facto laws and bills of attainder. So you can't go back and prosecute somebody for something that was legal at the time by making it illegal later, and you can't pass a law that's intended to get a particular person or people. Sometimes you just have to let it go.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 5 years ago

Well appreciate the response. But think we are talking about Willful neglect. Everyone knew what they were suppose to protect against. And these people had their clear duties, clear mandate... even with the deregulations ... the responsible is still there. ANd there were many crimes of fraud, misresprestation, many things that were illegal.

Stripping does have presedent at the state level. I know the revolving door is hard to prove. But there are more issues here.

checking your legal terms above not sure I see the connection at all. Although I know there are activities that the government protects with a "hands off" kind of manner... A lot of these have to do with employee rights and contracts. This soverign Immunity is probably another area ... executives and supervisors in the federal government get a lot of support and defense (and these guys normally know how to stay out of trouble and keep from saying things taht would get them into trouble).

Well...Teddy Roosevelt took it upon himselve in the Executive office to go after Anti-Trust problems. Maybe the only help for this Soverign Immunity is for a President to go after the cartel within the US Government, and within the Banking community ... if he lives past the first 2 years... he might be able to make it.

[-] 1 points by penguento (362) 5 years ago

Don't get me wrong, I'm kinda with you in principle, but actually getting anyone in the absence of positive proof of taking a bribe to look the other way is nearly impossible. Just being incompetent and asleep at the switch isn't enough - you'd have to prove more, and the proof can be awfully hard to come by.

It's particularly hard, I might add, when the bribe is dressed up as a campaign contribution. Campaign contributions are for all intents and purposes legal bribes.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 5 years ago

Well, it is the same with catching congress. We do catch congressmen. But they are almost above the law. Congress is its own police, judge & Jury. Congress doesn't even have a IG to inspect it.

We can say so and so was bribed, but it holds no water at all with congress. They just laugh at you.

Look you and I know that Obama, Holder, Mueller are not investigating the Fincial Crimes because that is what everyone wants. Everyone wants to bury it. It is a Cartel. Eveyone is in bed with the Bankers ...and when they go to work their are bankers just down the hall.

But the Law of the Land is not being Upheld. Justice is not being served. Money has taken over the USA. So where are our rich Patrons... our true conservitive Wealthy must be sick about this. They have kids after all... Progressive Wealthy must be sick too, but not sure we have any rich people that are not corrupted by money.


[-] -1 points by Shayneh (-482) 5 years ago

And you wonder why there is such "mistrust" of the federal government and people complain about "law abiding citizens" buying firearms because of "government mistrust".

Do you or anyone else out there trust the government?

[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 5 years ago

Well are you educating about government procedures, federal regulations and Laws? Have you already learned everything you can about the federal government, banking procedures, and US Financial Risks?

I know I typed a lot above. But I don't know what you position is, what you understand, or if you have any criticisms of the current system. Seems to me that we have to criticize to improve things. Have you noticed that is pretty much the American system. We compete with each other ... a lot of the time this begins with criticism.

But really I don't like criticism much myself. How about Angst. Do you feel Angst about the 2007- 2009 Financial Crisis or the loss of Retirement Funds in the US, or the loss of Wages and Jobs.

I guess I feel Angst that the nation has few real principals... even a good basis for politics and government. I think the constitution would be a good start. I feel angst that since the Korean Conflcit (not a War) we have been going overseas to fight in wars angainst an enemy that can never hit us with a missle so far. I feel angst that the CIA has undercut democracy in foreign countries. I feel angst that the government deregulated banks and banks are now immune to US Law.

No, I don't have a problem with people buying guns & ammo. I think it can be very over done. I think the profit tends to go to gun & ammo companies. But so far the assault weapons buying is a kind of way to vote and show your vote to the political powers.

I'm not young anymore. I'm not surprised that people don't trust the government. It is probably just healthy to not trust the people in power. Chris Hedges said something like, free thinking, critical thinking, thinking for yourself ... is an act of Rebelion. Like reading books and learning philosophy is Subversive. If you think for yourself, you can't help but feel or be Subversive.

[-] -1 points by Shayneh (-482) 5 years ago

Well the problem I have is the government spending a trillion dollars every year and there isn't a thing to show for it - that's my criticiam -

The government could have instead of giving it to the banks divided it up among the 300 million people in this country and could have given it to them - the economy would be booming.

But no, we have stupid people running this government especially the dork in the White House.

That's my problem with todays government and I am sure there are millions of people whom feel the same way.

[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 5 years ago

I agree. I have pulled a lot of federal budget data. I see strong revenue for the social programs paid by their separate taxes. But looks like half of all our other spending is on the military.

And you should see the growth in Eduction Spending for special programs in secondary schools. Is ort of wonder if the federal funds aren't buying medications to feed our kids from the phamacy industry.

Probably you will agree with me on this too. The tax abatements and the corporate welfare through subsidies ...and through public private partnerships ... are so complicated that you know the corporations or business entity is getting the better part of the deal. The taxpayer will be the last to know how they got stuck with the bill.