from EconomicCrisis Website
Obama and the Criminal International Banking Cartel
April 1, 2013
In Bailout, we showed over and over how criminal frauds perpetrated by huge banks victimized Main Street on a colossal scale. One theme throughout the movie is that bailouts are, in their essence, a perversion of the Rule of Law that can only grow like a cancer.
It now appears that the bailout cancer has metastasized with the renunciation of the Rule of Law by the United States Attorney General, without objection or much of a ruckus, before the Senate Judiciary Committee:
I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy.
Eric Holder, March 6, 2013.
As an initial observation, is that not a strange way for any law enforcer, much less the top cop in the world's powerful nation, to speak - in the passive voice, of being “hit,” in an effort to rationalize his own failure to enforce the law?
And who’s issuing “indications” that make the head of the DOJ shrink in fear of discharging his duties anyhow? We’ll answer the latter question with a list of names in Part Two.
For now, let’s be clear about what’s on the table when the U.S. Attorney General comes before Congress to testify: it includes the status of the U.S. as a sovereign nation.
And that’s simply because the enforcement of criminal law falls within the exclusive province of a state’s authority.
Private citizens cannot bring criminal actions.
States bring them, often even when private victims do not wish to press charges, as retribution for harms to the public. That prerogative is inherent in a state's sovereign power to protect itself from criminals.
In the U.S., executing federal criminal law is the duty of the U.S. Attorney General,
Above him in the executive branch org chart, there is but one entry: President Barack Obama.
Execution of the law was squarely in the crosshairs when Eric Holder testified before the Senate. Specifically at issue was the DOJ’s wholesale failure to prosecute any large banks or any of their executives despite seemingly endless waves of uncontested evidence of criminal behavior (not to mention the disappearance of at least $13 trillion in a financial crisis driven by fraud).
We’re not talking about a few slip-ups here and there by the DOJ, or a couple of favors done with a nudge and a wink.
We’re talking about what looks very much like a green light for big banks to commit crimes with wild abandon while pretending that fines levied in lieu of prosecution,
Eric Holder did not materialize before the Senate out of the blue.
Rather, his testimony followed an unbroken pattern of prosecutorial inaction and deference by the DOJ towards big bailed out banks, a sample of which includes:
As a result of the latter,
Breuer’s disclosure - made with no hint of irony or shame, nor with any legal authority for support - that the DOJ was deferring to unnamed experts whenever large financial institutions were involved was not the only such admission by the Justice Department.
In yet another criminal case that saw no prosecutions, namely, Libor manipulation by UBS, a Swiss Bank, Eric Holder used language essentially identical to that which led to Breuer’s resignation:
Finally, on January 29 of this year, Congress seemed to connect this untrammeled crime spree with the DOJ's docility when Senators Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Charles Grassley (R-IA, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee) fired off a letter to Eric Holder.
Among other things, they demanded,
They also demanded to know how the,
The importance of the latter point is impossible to overstate given the DOJ's responsibility for bringing criminal cases at the federal level.
By demanding to know what measures the Justice Department was taking to insure against self-dealing by experts, the senators touch on something far deeper than a garden variety conflict of interest.
The real question they are posing is whether the DOJ’s “outside experts” are in reality the large financial institutions themselves, because if they are, their “opinion” that prosecution should be foregone - which the DOJ has followed without exception - is a bald assertion of sovereign immunity: huge banks are claiming their own exemption from criminal prosecution based on their identities as huge banks, and Eric Holder's DOJ has never disagreed.
And here we run up against that word again: sovereign.
Before considering the IMPLICATIONS should it turn out that the international cartel of bailed out banks is exempting itself from the reach of the law by "advising" the DOJ on prosecutions of its members, it is worth examining the claim, articulated by Holder, that "negative economic consequences" would attend the criminal prosecution of any cartel members.
In different contexts and guises, we have heard that claim of "systemic failure" before, and its public failure on the merits is so impressively robust that to see the DOJ so much as entertain the discredited claim at this point - much less fall for it hook, line, and sinker - is so breathtaking that it begs the question:
If the DOJ's anonymous experts turn out to be the international cartel of bailed out banks, the implications are grave for at least three reasons.
Inside The Criminal Banking Cartel
April 14, 2013
The U.S. government openly conceded that its sovereign authority to enforce its own laws is gone when Attorney General Eric Holder testified that the Justice Department’s failure to prosecute any big banks is based on anonymous “expert” opinions that prosecutions would destabilize the financial system.
This notion of “systemic importance” has been thoroughly discredited.
According to Tim Geithner, it’s an intellectually bankrupt phrase. What’s more, it’s been debunked both legally and empirically, which is likely one reason the DOJ’s “experts” wish to remain anonymous.
If it turns out that these “experts” are in fact agents of the big banks whose crimes are being immunized by the very entities whose discredited opinions the DOJ is relying on, then those “opinions” are nothing more than assertions of criminal sovereign immunity - a privilege that is legally limited to the President of the United States.
Since “the King can do no wrong” - the legal foundation of sovereign immunity - the real King here is the criminally immune cartel of banks, not the President, since real sovereigns don’t surrender the right to enforce their laws.
And following the long series of unprosecuted crimes by the cartel, in which the President’s own constituents are the undisputed victims, “surrender” is the most charitable description of the Obama’s acts before the banking cartel.
There are two very big and related clues as to the identity of the anonymous experts behind whose opinions U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder hides whenever explaining away his failure to prosecute big banks on the basis of their “systemic importance.”
The first, noted in an article last week by Golem XIV, is a list of international banks that parade under the rather obvious label of “Globally Systemically Important Financial Institutions,” or G-SIFIs.
There are 28 banks in total, 9 of them headquartered in the U.S.:
This list of cartel members is updated annually by the Financial Stability Board, a collection of international organizations.
The FSB is a global meta-body of bankers.
But the formal edifice, whether called the FSB or the NWO, really doesn’t matter, because, as Golem XIV states:
These are the banks that are above the law in the U.S.
In Part One above, we mentioned four banks - Citigroup, Wells Fargo, HSBC, and UBS - whose massive crimes had been taxed at a de minimis rate by the Department of Justice rather than prosecuted. All four are on the list of G-SIFIs above.
So what, you may ask, that’s just a list compiled by some international convention of cokehead bankers, how do they make sure a rogue federal prosecutor doesn’t break ranks and haul a cartel member or two off to criminal trial?
Enter clue no. 2: Covington & Burling, the law firm from which both the head of the DOJ (Eric Holder) and the DOJ’s head of criminal enforcement (Lanny Breuer) were recruited.
Actually, Breuer is no longer with the DOJ. Following a four-year stint in which “the enforcer” failed to prosecute a single big bank, Breuer has returned to Covington & Burling, where he will earn be rewarded with $4 million in annual compensation.
The significance of Covington & Burling lies in its list of current clients, which looks remarkably like the list of criminally immune cartel members above (particularly the more recognizable names): Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, UBS, Wells Fargo, and ING Bank.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but Eric Holder and Lanny Breuer have the financial motivation not to prosecute their firm’s clients. In Breuer’s case, it turned out to be $4 million of motivation. Per year.
Under any functioning system of law, of course, both Holder and Breuer would submit to screening procedures at the DOJ to insulate them from prosecutorial decisions involving their former clients. We're sure they did the same thing under our impotent system as well.
But so what? When laws against crimes are a dead letter, who in his right mind would put any trust in a conflict screen?
As Cheyenne told Jill in Once Upon a Time in the West,
Now commentators are starting to point out where the slippery slope of sovereign immunity for criminal banks will lead.
Jim Chanos, who detected the fraud at Enron well before it destroyed the company and its shareholders, notes that not only are criminal cartel members now motivated to continue cheating and stealing, they have a fiduciary duty to do so.
(Speaking of the Enron-ization of the U.S., Eric Holder is working to release CEO Jeff Skilling from prison early in yet another act of prostrate submission before his real masters, the criminal banks.)
As Golem XIV points out, immunity extends not only to criminal behavior, but to assets that a cartel member bank acquires through crime:
Cyprus Vs. MF Global - The Rule Of Law Is Dead
Thus, anyone who thinks account confiscation a la Cyprus can’t happen in the U.S. is dreaming of a bygone republic.
Not only is account seizure possible in the U.S., or even likely, it is guaranteed. Just ask MF Global’s segregated account holders or GM senior bondholders if you have any doubts.
In the MF Global case, Jon Corzine,
The lender, of course, turned out to be JP Morgan - a prominent international cartel member.
Jon Corzine was of course one of Obama's top fundraisers and an alumnus of Goldman Sachs - a cartel member.
In the GM bankruptcy, the age-old pecking order of creditor priority was turned upside down, literally “rewriting law,” when senior unsubordinated secured creditors' claims were trumped by payouts to junior unsecured creditors in a patently political sop to Obama's perceived union supporters.
In both cases, the black letter law that's supposed to gird markets with trust and predictability was trampled in favor of Obama's political allies.
Now that Obama has altogether surrendered the DOJ's law enforcement functionality to the criminal international banking cartel, those dangerous precedents turn out to have been short-sighted in the extreme: there is nothing left to stop the plunder of customer accounts in Cyprus from crashing like a tidal wave across U.S. shores. The timing depends only on the restraint that the banking cartel elects to show.
There is no remedy in sight, only more financial crime as Americans are robbed deeper into serfdom. The Executive Branch is merely an agent of the criminal banking cartel for the reasons given. That fact, in turn, has cut the Judiciary out of the equation altogether: a court cannot try criminals who are never brought before it to face charges.
That leaves Congress, which in theory could initiate impeachment proceedings. But how likely is success when the Senate, which would try any impeachment cases, couldn’t even obtain the names of the DOJ’s so-called experts in the first place?
As noted in Part One above, Senator Grassley asked the DOJ for the experts’ names in a letter on January 29, 2013. Eric Holder testified on March 6, more than a month later.
The issue of the experts’ identities was thus as ripe as could be, but rather than obtaining the names, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee put on a clinic in how to conduct an incompetent examination:
Just putting that aside for a minute though, the concern that you have raised is one that I, frankly, share.
I'm not talking about HSBC here, that would be inappropriate. But I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if we do prosecute - if we do bring a criminal charge - it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy.
I think that is a function of the fact that some of these institutions have become too large.
Again, I'm not talking about HSBC, this is more of a general comment. I think it has an inhibiting influence, impact on our ability to bring resolutions that I think would be more appropriate. I think that's something that we - you all [Congress] - need to consider. The concern that you raised is actually one that I share.
Note that Senator Grassley asked one question: why haven’t you answered our letter? Holder doesn’t answer it. Instead, he promises to supply the names later. At that point, Grassley should have put two questions to Holder. First, answer my question by explaining why you ignored our letter. Second, when will you supply the names of the “so-called experts”?
A mediocre first-year litigation associate would’ve gotten this information within seconds. But not Senator Grassley, who earned his masters degree during the Eisenhower Administration.
Here is his completely irrelevant follow-up question:
Huh? Not surprisingly, Eric Holder has been in no hurry to disclose the names of the “experts” retained by Covington & Burling’s clients since dancing around Grassley like a cigar store Indian. Holder has completely blown off the Senate, which has done nothing to follow up the issue.
Frankly this disgusting charade has surprised no one who’s paying any attention, coming, as it does, from the same august body that exempted itself from insider trading laws and has failed to pass any meaningful reform legislation since the 2008 meltdown, an even worse repeat of which is on its way.
On the contrary, both Congress and the Executive Branch are now just tools of fraud used by the criminal international banking cartel against the people, who for their part are drooling iDope dreams oblivious to their own last act, proving Edward Murrow right, a nation of sheep having begotten a government of wolves.