HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Subpoenas Issued to Finan...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Jan 27, 2012, 06:12 PM

Subpoenas Issued to Financial Firms in Expanded Probe

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE80Q27U20120127?irpc=932

Subpoenas issued to financial firms in expanded probe

By Aruna Viswanatha and James Vicini
WASHINGTON | Fri Jan 27, 2012 5:49pm EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Justice Department issued civil subpoenas to 11 financial institutions as part of a new effort to investigate misconduct in the packaging and sale of home loans to investors, Attorney General Eric Holder said on Friday.

Holder declined to provide specifics, including the names of the firms.

"We are wasting no time in aggressively pursuing any and all leads," Holder said at a news conference announcing details of a new working group to investigate misconduct in the residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) market, "you can expect more to follow."

President Barack Obama said he directed Holder to create the new unit in his State of the Union speech late Tuesday, saying it was needed to "help turn the page on an era of recklessness."

21 replies, 3797 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 21 replies Author Time Post
Reply Subpoenas Issued to Financial Firms in Expanded Probe (Original post)
Hissyspit Jan 2012 OP
DJ13 Jan 2012 #1
barbtries Jan 2012 #3
alfredo Jan 2012 #4
bigtree Jan 2012 #6
alfredo Jan 2012 #8
AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2012 #12
alfredo Jan 2012 #14
AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2012 #15
barbtries Jan 2012 #2
nanabugg Jan 2012 #5
Tx4obama Jan 2012 #7
lunatica Jan 2012 #9
CountAllVotes Jan 2012 #10
sendero Jan 2012 #11
AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2012 #13
Moosepoop Jan 2012 #16
AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2012 #17
Moosepoop Jan 2012 #19
AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2012 #20
Moosepoop Jan 2012 #21
Hotler Jan 2012 #18

Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Fri Jan 27, 2012, 07:00 PM

1. "civil subpoenas"

More hand slaps and fines.

sigh

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DJ13 (Reply #1)

Fri Jan 27, 2012, 07:12 PM

3. oops

missed the "civil" part.
i want to see consequences for these criminals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DJ13 (Reply #1)

Fri Jan 27, 2012, 08:27 PM

4. Civil is easier to prove than criminal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alfredo (Reply #4)

Fri Jan 27, 2012, 10:22 PM

6. and I don't think they preclude criminal prosecutions

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #6)

Sat Jan 28, 2012, 09:35 AM

8. The states can still act against them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alfredo (Reply #4)

Sat Jan 28, 2012, 02:46 PM

12. If the legal theory is Civil RICO, the staute of limitations is four years.

 

If the statute of limitations has not already run for filing a civil RICO lawsuit, it is close to running.

When civil subpoenas are issued, the recipients can seek to stall and delay on a number of grounds. One of which is that they anticipate being the targets of criminal prosecutions. They can assert Sixth and Fifth Amendment privileges. If their attorneys fail to assert such privileges and cause the civil subpoenas to be quashed or at least held in abeyance until after the conclusion of criminal prosecutions, they could legitimately thereafter raise the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel when defending against criminal charges, if any.

In the State of the Union Address, we were clearly given the impression that President Obama was interested in criminal prosecutions. Holder's action of holding a press conference and referring to civil subpoenas, while knowing that some people would mistakenly confuse such subpoenas with criminal prosecutions, seems to be a departure from the impression that Obama gave to many of us.

We can still hope for the best and hope that this is not Kabuki theatre. Time, of course, will tell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #12)

Sat Jan 28, 2012, 06:46 PM

14. What about the states?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alfredo (Reply #14)

Sat Jan 28, 2012, 07:15 PM

15. That's a good research question.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Fri Jan 27, 2012, 07:11 PM

2. well if they're serious,

and i sure as hell hope they are, indictments hopefully will be coming down the pike. and things might change at least a little, to be more on the side of the average american. good news.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Fri Jan 27, 2012, 09:02 PM

5. Go Obama. It still won't be enough for the "Progressives." But go for it anyway!!

 

Civil is certainly easier to get convictions than criminal charges. Think OJ. I would love to see the banksters depart with a huge sum of their ill-gotten gain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Fri Jan 27, 2012, 10:30 PM

7. Bravo !!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Sat Jan 28, 2012, 11:17 AM

9. Is that a drip drip I hear?

I hope so. Start with little baby steps if you must. Just start investigating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Sat Jan 28, 2012, 12:51 PM

10. The banks involved in the discussions include ...

>>The banks involved in the discussions include Bank of America, Wells Fargo & Co, JPMorgan Chase & Co, Citigroup and Ally Financial Inc.

Why am I not surprised and why does this country continue to support any of these crooks?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Sat Jan 28, 2012, 01:00 PM

11. "wasting no time"

... what has the last 3+ years been then?

None of the big boys are going to be forced to account for their behavior, you can bet that.

And isn't it strange that this shit starts popping up in campaign season when there was plenty of time to look at it before.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #11)

Sat Jan 28, 2012, 02:53 PM

13. You are absolutely right. But you may be attacked for making the observation.

 

In the-emperor-has-no-clothes story, they never tell us what the noisy adulators said after someone spoke the truth and said "The Emperor has no clothes." Did they hold their heads in shame? Or did they attack the truth teller?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #13)

Sat Jan 28, 2012, 07:36 PM

16. Actually, they do (or rather, Hans Christian Anderson does).

You should try reading the story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Moosepoop (Reply #16)

Sat Jan 28, 2012, 08:22 PM

17. So the story, like the William Tell story, has a moral? I.e., not everyone likes truth tellers.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #17)

Sun Jan 29, 2012, 12:04 PM

19. Like I said...

Try reading the story before you expound on what is or isn't in it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Moosepoop (Reply #19)

Sun Jan 29, 2012, 12:22 PM

20. Now I understand what you were saying.

 

Initially, I thought that you were adding a comment just to be adding a comment. That's done from time to time. Although unnecessary, it's not unusual for people to do that.

Now I see that you were just being a rude jerk.

One of the best things that Skinner did with DU3 was to include an ignore feature. If you don't know where it is, try clicking on the screen name and you will see it to your right. Since you are being a jerk and have nothing meaningful to add, I'm now selecting it for your posts. Bye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #20)

Sun Jan 29, 2012, 01:01 PM

21. Marvelous!

My very first time being put on ignore (as far as I know, anyway)! I don't have anyone on ignore, but... oh wait, why I am replying to you? You can't see this anyway, right? OK, bye!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #11)

Sun Jan 29, 2012, 10:32 AM

18. +1 n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread