10 USC is the section of federal law regarding the Armed Forces. There is no “chapter 47.” Subtitle A begin with section 101, “General Military Law.”
Sorry, I don’t see any case cites in your previous posts. What are the post numbers?
Let me guess: are they posts about military law in 10 USC § 101 ?
That should have been 18 not 10 and no the cites in one of my links. If you’re not going to read my links, I don’t see why I should trot them out for you.
I found this gem – the one about San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer’s ruling. Is that the one you meant?
Do you understand that a San Franciso Superior Court Judge cannot make a precedent-setting ruling? Did you even read the rest of your own cite?
That’s far from the “pathetic last resort” standard you offered. It shows the ruling for what it is: a preliminary motion ruling by a state trial court judge. In contrast, I offered up a precedent-setting federal circuit court ruling.
I certainly know why you don’t want to take the effort of providing a post number. It’s because you have offered no case cites at all – merely a link to a news article about a single state court trial which has only a preliminary motion ruling that seems to support your claims.
Right?
Now, let’s see what your research acumen has wrought on the subject of 18 USC Chapter 47 – which, to your credit, at least actually exists.
Here is each and every offense in 18 USC Chapter 47:
Which one is it?
All I’m saying is that while you may be law expert and all that you only see the surface of what was happening. You seem to be suggesting that a builder can sell a new house with prospectus that says “It may crumble the next day” and that’s not how it works.
This was the occasion to look into details, issue subpoenas and work it through a natural course of investigation.
I would expect something similar to what happened to accounting firm “Arthur Andersen”. Those guys were neck deep in corrupted accounting practices and many “small” people knew about it but their complaints never amounted to anything. Until Enron!
Once investigators assessed what was going on, their solution – the only appropriate solution – was to liquidate the firm. Some argued that many people will lose the jobs and similarly to suggestions heard for why not prosecute bankers is that people will lose confidence in accounting as important ingredient of healthy economy. But they were not liquidating the firm to make many people unemployed; they were liquidating the premier firm that was doing everything in their power to subvert the trust and confidence allotted to accounting profession and they did it wholesale.
That’s exactly what should have happened after the financial crisis but it didn’t.
The funniest thing I hear is that all the firms who were given (in total about 1.5 TRILLLION) Government funds returned it.
Doesn’t it sound a little fishy that 5 years after the crisis - out of which 2 to 3 years of stagnation including credit crunch – all that money is RETURNED?
Bricker: My original comment was directed to how this was received in the investment community. I have an MBA in finance and I’m an active invest who follows the financial markets. The idea that S&P would defend the civil suit against them with a first amendment defense was met with derision. And there is good reason for this. That is not what they are being paid for. It is NOT like a movie review. There are consequences for being wrong and while it is understood that honest mistakes can be made, there is this concept of due diligence with which I believe you are familiar and which I assume and hope would be the standard of care to be applied to any determination of liability.
Clearly due diligence was not performed by the agencies in these cases as is made very clear in my previous links and quotes if you care to read them.
BTW, I’m ignoring your previous post in case that isn’t already painfully obvious. I’m not wasting my time on a purely academic exercise.
Martin Hyde: All I have to say is that YOU clearly do not understand how debt instruments in general are supposed to work and you obviously don’t understand the concept of a predictive model so I don’t really see any point in try to discuss this further with you .
Congrats to internet champs Bricker and MH
Guy posts lots of nonsense and stuff unsupportable by facts in violation of common knowledge about financial markets and gets called on it. Has a temper tantrum and declares himself the winner.
Cool story bro.
For the record, although it’s presently not relevant, I should probably also mention that I have a JD/MBA but my legal experience is primarily in field of criminal appellate work and mortgage banking.
You should learn to read. I declared YOU the winner.
It’s not relevant when you’re someone that claims “credit ratings are what determine how many loans bundled in a debt entity default” or that a lower court ruling in a preliminary hearing proves that the First Amendment doesn’t protect ratings agencies against criminal prosecution. Especially when we’re talking about a civil trial.
What do you think goes into the predictive models?
edit: and BTW, I didnt’ say credit ratings/
You seem to have switched from discussing criminal liability to discussing civil liability. I have no real expertise in civil law and if you say there’s some civil liability attached to bond rating errors I’d be inclined to at least provisionally agree. Sounds right to me, with no research.
However, the subject here is not civil liability. That’s why we’re discussing criminal convictions, and 18 USC - right?
OK, that sounds reasonable – again, I won’t wade into an area of law I know little about.
But as a former criminal defense attorney, I do know a bit about criminal law.
So – as a matter of criminal law, can you identify the specific statue that you claim was violated? What with your JD and all, that should be an easy task.
I guess you missed the part where I said I’m not going to waste my time. My appellate work was mostly on the state level although I did draft a few briefs for the US Supreme Court.
Do you understand the difference between civil and criminal law?
I suppose that a builder can sell a house with the disclaimer “It may crumble the next day,” and still get successfully sued by a buyer when it crumbles. There are concepts I vaguely recall from law school like merchantibility and fitness for a particular purpose that may come into play – I don’t know, for sure.
But in the criminal context, I assure you: if your builder says, “It may crumble the next day,” and you buy it anyway, convicting him of criminal acts relating to fraud is going to be well-nigh impossible.
Again – sounds like the kind of discovery that would accompany a civil case.
Excellent example. Arthur Anderson was convicted, as a corporation, of criminal charges at the trial court, but that conviction was overturned on appeal. See Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, 544 US 696 (2005).
For the record Citi, Goldman, and Bank of America have settled in dozens of civil cases where alleged MBS misrepresentation was the central issue.
And for many billions of dollars.
You are making claims, not I. If you’d like to explore your claims further I’d like you to advance some information on them aside from the unsupportable trash you’ve mostly put out til now:
-
What are you saying should go into the predictive models.
-
What responsibility are you imparting on banks that create debt instruments vis-a-vis prospectus statements and other claims.
-
What are you alleging actually happened here, specifically.
-
Please explain this simple point: how can you justify saying any type of model, predictive or otherwise, is what “determines the number of defaults.” That is unambiguously absolutely incorrect. Modeling never determines outcomes, if you worded something imprecisely and would like to refine your wording, that is fine.
Don’t waste your breath.Everyone in the industry knows this. It’s the poseurs who don’t.
Oh you did?
Did any of those briefs involve criminal work?
Did any of your criminal cases involve an indictment that failed to identify a specific statute that was alleged to have been violated? I bet the answer is ‘no.’ And I bet from this, you might have reached the understanding that in order to indict someone, or to proceed against them by prosecutor’s information or a similar charging document, it is necessary to identify both the statute that is alleged to have been violated and the specific conduct that is alleged to have violated that statute.
Did that concept ever arise during your appellate practice?
Oh, and when your appellate briefs cited a case, did you provide a article title to some magazine article describing the case?
If that’s true (and I have no idea if it is, but it never hurts to cite stuff when you’re making positive claims), it has nothing to do with where this discussion started: that the MBS market was full of criminals who have evaded prosecution despite clear evidence they committed crimes. This thread title, and my posts in it, are exclusively interested in “convictions” and sending people to jail, which means criminal acts and criminal courts and criminal penalties. None of that has been demonstrated thus far, and I should note the civil cases are not any evidence of that.
When you’re working in investments it’s very possible you could mismanage a client’s assets or misrepresent something in such a way as to cause losses that can be recovered through civil action. That doesn’t always mean (in fact normally does not mean) you have committed a crime.