There You Have It - Anyone Upset Yet?

Wed, Nov 20, 2013 - 12:52pm
JPM is in the news again, no surprise. But this revelation should make you sick to your stomach. I am.
From this blog:
is the story about who sat at the negotiating table regarding the historic, unprecedented, $13 BILLION settlement of JPM regarding their mortgage fraud.
There are links to other great stories, detailing who really benefits from the big payout, and as you guessed, the struggling homeowners and regular folks on Main Street are–not surprisingly–missing from that list:
Let’s pick up the story from this summer. The NY Times, no friend of the little guys, had this to say: (note, the partial summary is below, please go to the article for the whole story):
“The Justice Department’s negotiations with JPMorgan began in earnest this summer. In July, prosecutors from the civil division of the United States attorney’s office in Sacramento made a presentation to JPMorgan that outlined the case against it.
Tony West, the associate attorney general, then had a meeting with the bank in his conference room at the Justice Department in Washington. It was at that meeting in July that the talks broadened to include other mortgage-related cases.
In addition to the civil and criminal cases in Sacramento, which focused on the bank’s own mortgage securities, other cases zeroed in on securities sold by Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual. The Justice Department’s civil division had an inquiry into Bear Stearns, prosecutors in Pennsylvania were scrutinizing deals from Washington Mutual and New York’s attorney general had already filed a lawsuit involving Bear Stearns.
Then, about the time of another meeting in early August, JPMorgan asked to include a lawsuit from the Federal Housing Finance Agency. The agency, which sued JPMorgan over loans the bank and Bear Stearns had sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would go on to make up a big part of the $13 billion pact.
But at that point, one person briefed on the talks said, the bank was offering only $1 billion to settle. Another person said the $1 billion offer was not meant to include the F.H.F.A. case.
Either way, by mid-August, settlement talks had stalled somewhat. They were far apart on the monetary penalty, and JPMorgan continued to push for the Sacramento prosecutors to drop the criminal inquiry, a request the government resisted.
The criminal case was still at an early stage. But the prosecutors in Sacramento had all but finished their civil lawsuit against the bank. And so they informed the bank that a lawsuit was coming on Sept. 24.
In the lead-up to that deadline, the people briefed on the talks said, JPMorgan’s lawyers raised the offer to $3 billion. They conveyed it to Mr. West, who became the central negotiator for the government. But Mr. Holder rejected the offer, telling colleagues it was still too low.
In the days that followed, the Justice Department quietly planned the news conference to announce the civil case.
Benjamin B. Wagner, the United States attorney in Sacramento whose investigation into the bank’s mortgage practices led to the charges, boarded a plane to Washington so he could attend a news conference the next day. And during a 45-minute meeting at the Justice Department, Mr. Holder gathered with top aides in his fifth-floor conference room to prepare for the news conference.
But at 8 a.m. on Sept. 24, just four hours before the scheduled news conference, Mr. West received a call from an unexpected source: Mr. Dimon.
“I think we should meet in person,” Mr. Dimon said, one person briefed on the call said.
The meeting took place in Mr. Holder’s conference room two days later. Mr. Dimon’s entourage included his general counsel, Stephen Cutler, and his outside counsel, H. Rodgin Cohen of Sullivan & Cromwell.
Progress was made. The bank had agreed to enhance the offer to $11 billion, including the $4 billion for homeowners. And both sides discussed how to deploy the relief, including through reductions in mortgage balances. But a deal had yet to emerge. The Justice Department still wanted more money. And it informed the bank that to resolve the criminal investigation in Sacramento, it should plead guilty to a criminal charge. The bank balked.
So, did you see that?
Did you see what REALLY happened?
JPM, that arrogant too-big-to-fail bank and its corrupt CEO Dimon, backing all those corrupt politicians in Washington D.C., only came to the settlement table in earnest, when faced with the prospect of a CIVIL lawsuit [where the government could conduct discovery, asking questions under oath, thereby exposing individuals to actual accountability, blame, and perhaps perjury charges], and JPM only increased its settlement offer when faced with the prospect of criminal charges. Was Dimon afraid, or was there something more to the story? Of course there was more to the story! But the truth only comes out way later on. Does everyone now understand the MOPE being done? Pay attention and follow along.
This article in the NY Times, while enlightening, still does not tell the whole story, does it?
Ask yourself if the article connected the dots among the involved persons, their former positions, and whether the article answered the crucial question of “who benefits?”
See how the connections to power are all missing from the NY Times story? See how the “truth” is managed, and shaped? We know how Dimon and the other banksters met at the White House before the settlement talks? What do you think was really said at the White House?
Look at how it started: the Presidential cuff-link-wearing Dimon, called Holder, only hours before the press conference at which the civil lawsuit would be announced:
“On Sept. 24, four hours before the Justice Department was planning to hold a news conference to announce civil charges against the bank over its sale of troubled mortgage investments, Mr. Dimon personally called one of Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.’s top lieutenants to reopen settlement talks, people briefed on the talks said. The rare outreach from a Wall Street C.E.O. scuttled the news conference and set in motion weeks of negotiations that have culminated in a tentative $13 billion deal, according to the people briefed on the talks.”
Why the hell would Holder “scuttle the news conference?” If Dimon was reaching out to settle, only hours before the news conference, then why did not Holder demand more than $13 Billion? Why did not Holder demand disgorgement of ALL profits, plus a fine, from the fraud that JPM committed? If the lawsuit was all teed up, what would the harm have been from filing it and pursuing it with discovery, depositions, the works?
In my line of work, one negotiates successfully either from a position of weakness or a position of power. The one in the position of power gets the better deal. I've been doing this most of my adult life. So, it is EASY for me to see what happened in this negotiation.
Why the hell did Holder cave at this point? Dimon had NOTHING to offer, and the case would only have gotten stronger once depositions and discovery started in earnest.
The obvious truth here, is that BOTH Holder and Dimon needed a settlement for their own personal reasons. Holder needed to show he was honest and competent [impossible, by the way], given the Fast and Furious mess, among other things, and Dimon needed to stop the bleeding of cash and stop the unfavorably publicity. So, a farcical settlement story needed to be told, one which made them both out to be other than they really are.
Which of the little guys in America has that kind of access to the levers of power?!
Jamie Dimon visited the White House six times before this whole mess broke out in the press:
“Separately, Mr Dimon is returning to Washington for a scheduled meeting, with other bank executives, with President Barack Obama on Wednesday.”
So, looking at the link above, one can see, with clarity, how the game is played. The revolving door between government and Wall Street, on display.
If one were to actually connect all the dots, then perhaps make a wall chart, with photos, each connected together with yarn so that the connections can clearly be seen, one can easily begin to see which persons need to be considered for the lamp posts, no?
Prepare accordingly.
p.s.: I am not going to be able to post this at my normal time tonight; I apologize in advance to Mr. TF for posting it now, but it is the best I can do under the circumstances.

About the Author


Nov 20, 2013 - 12:57pm

My furst 1st in a

My furst 1st in a non-Turd-initiated thread!

Maybe it's a sign I need to buy me one of them-thar $25 Florida scratchoff tickets...make some real fiat...take a step on the wild side!

Or maybe it's just time to BTFD...I somehow suspect the payout will be MUCH better...evetually!!

Nov 20, 2013 - 1:06pm


2nd second when seconds count. JPM. What more can you say. Our country is morally, spiritually and ethically bankrupt. We call good evil and evil good. What more can be said?

Nov 20, 2013 - 1:12pm

What else is new....

Thanks CAL !

Nothing changes til it changes, and this time will be a dooozy. Just like from sleeping, we often awaken slowly and groggily, yet then we come to our senses and see the day for what it is. Thanks to efforts such as yours (cal) and sites like this (tfmr) folks are awakening slowly. This is a big giant to slay but it can be done. Pick your weapons folks and use them....words, swords, lead, gold, light of day (cockroaches HATE that), and patience, they are all useful and approrpriate.

We WILL win, eventually.


Nov 20, 2013 - 1:17pm

around and around it goes

until heads come off or it all crashes, then heads come off anyway!

When the 10-20% of the population wakes up......

Thanks CAL

Nov 20, 2013 - 1:19pm

Mortgage fraud damages

Imagine there are four buyers interested in a home. They are all borrowing money for the home. Imagine buyer A is told by its lender that it needs to pre-qualify. Lender scours borrower A's records.."Hmmmm, you were 3 weeks late on a utility bill, 3 years ago, please explain...." Please sign this ridiculously comprehensive application...

Buyers B, C, and D all have lenders that allow "liar loans". They post no income, no assets, nada. NINJA! hiya!!!

A, not privvy to the B, C, and D (confidential info between lenders and borrowers) assumes all parties are subjected to the rule of law, knows the scrutiny of the loan process, assumes all parties are freely in competition for the home, playing by the same rules.... The bidding ensues.

A, "wins" the process. 3 years later, the bottom falls out, as B, C, and D bought other homes, which they now are no longer servicing the debt on, pulling down all home values (even further due to the overbuilding) .Years later, it becomes proven that the B, C, and D all worked with fraudulent lenders.....

Is it fair to say that A was defrauded? Is it true that without the fraud the selling price would have been dramatically less? If there is mortgage fraud shouldn't damages go to "A"? There is proven fraud. There are damages. I think the two need to dance.

This is not unlike the argument that PMs are systemically, fraudulently traded, devaluing miners....the only difference is that we can see the trading and we know the trading mechanism.

Good luck to the miners ever getting compensated for this fraud.

Nov 20, 2013 - 1:23pm

JPM=U.S. Treasury

Revolving door falls short of reality.

They are one-and-the-same.


JPM=Fed=Treasury, which controls CFTC, SEC, judges, etc.

Nov 20, 2013 - 1:26pm

No apology needed!

CaL, thank you so much for writing this up. I had no idea!

What a sickeningly corrupt "system" we have.

Urban Roman
Nov 20, 2013 - 1:29pm

Speaking of connecting dots with yarn,

Perhaps someone who knows how to knit, could make a nice shawl with coded names in it ... like Mme. DeFarge.

Nov 20, 2013 - 1:32pm

America Has Entered a New

America Has Entered a New Level of Tyranny by Dave Hodges, The Common Sense Show: Information is gathered for a purpose. We attend school, gain knowledge and acquire employment. We gather knowledge about someone we are dating and then make a decision about the future of the relationship. When the government is gathering information on us which goes beyond the basic census information, then we should be asking a lot of questions along the lines of “When will the surveillance gathering being conducted by the NSA turn into outright persecution”? The Unmistakable Pattern of Tyranny Every advancing tyranny has two distinct stages. In the first stage, the “enemies” of the state are identified. Lists are created and distributed among law enforcement. These lists are often leaked to the public to serve as a deterrent against any thoughts of engaging in anti-government behavior. There is typically a prolonged period of demonization followed by formal labeling. Read More @

Nov 20, 2013 - 1:45pm

This is interesting

Sound familiar?

As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie. Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.
Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.
Fascism is to be distinguished from interventionism, or the mixed economy. Interventionism seeks to guide the market process, not eliminate it, as fascism did. Minimum-wage and antitrust laws, though they regulate the free market, are a far cry from multiyear plans from the Ministry of Economics.
Under fascism, the state, through official cartels, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Planning boards set product lines, production levels, prices, wages, working conditions, and the size of firms. Licensing was ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission. Levels of consumption were dictated by the state, and “excess” incomes had to be surrendered as taxes or “loans.” The consequent burdening of manufacturers gave advantages to foreign firms wishing to export. But since government policy aimed at autarky, or national self-sufficiency, protectionism was necessary: imports were barred or strictly controlled, leaving foreign conquest as the only avenue for access to resources unavailable domestically. Fascism was thus incompatible with peace and the international division of labor—hallmarks of liberalism.
Fascism embodied corporatism, in which political representation was based on trade and industry rather than on geography. In this, fascism revealed its roots in syndicalism, a form of socialism originating on the left. The government cartelized firms of the same industry, with representatives of labor and management serving on myriad local, regional, and national boards—subject always to the final authority of the dictator’s economic plan. Corporatism was intended to avert unsettling divisions within the nation, such as lockouts and union strikes. The price of such forced “harmony” was the loss of the ability to bargain and move about freely.
To maintain high employment and minimize popular discontent, fascist governments also undertook massive public-works projects financed by steep taxes, borrowing, and fiat money creation. While many of these projects were domestic—roads, buildings, stadiums—the largest project of all was militarism, with huge armies and arms production.
The fascist leaders’ antagonism to communism has been misinterpreted as an affinity for capitalism. In fact, fascists’ anticommunism was motivated by a belief that in the collectivist milieu of early-twentieth-century Europe, communism was its closest rival for people’s allegiance. As with communism, under fascism, every citizen was regarded as an employee and tenant of the totalitarian, party-dominated state. Consequently, it was the state’s prerogative to use force, or the threat of it, to suppress even peaceful opposition.
If a formal architect of fascism can be identified, it is Benito Mussolini, the onetime Marxist editor who, caught up in nationalist fervor, broke with the left as World War I approached and became Italy’s leader in 1922. Mussolini distinguished fascism from liberal capitalism in his 1928 autobiography:
The citizen in the Fascist State is no longer a selfish individual who has the anti-social right of rebelling against any law of the Collectivity. The Fascist State with its corporative conception puts men and their possibilities into productive work and interprets for them the duties they have to fulfill. (p. 280)
Before his foray into imperialism in 1935, Mussolini was often praised by prominent Americans and Britons, including Winston Churchill, for his economic program.
Similarly, Adolf Hitler, whose National Socialist (Nazi) Party adapted fascism to Germany beginning in 1933, said:
The state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property against the interests of others among his own people. This is the crucial matter. The Third Reich will always retain its right to control the owners of property. (Barkai 1990, pp. 26–27)
Both nations exhibited elaborate planning schemes for their economies in order to carry out the state’s objectives. Mussolini’s corporate state “consider[ed] private initiative in production the most effective instrument to protect national interests” (Basch 1937, p. 97). But the meaning of “initiative” differed significantly from its meaning in a market economy. Labor and management were organized into twenty-two industry and trade “corporations,” each with Fascist Party members as senior participants. The corporations were consolidated into a National Council of Corporations; however, the real decisions were made by state agencies such as the Instituto per la Ricosstruzione Industriale, which held shares in industrial, agricultural, and real estate enterprises, and the Instituto Mobiliare, which controlled the nation’s credit.
Hitler’s regime eliminated small corporations and made membership in cartels mandatory.1 The Reich Economic Chamber was at the top of a complicated bureaucracy comprising nearly two hundred organizations organized along industry, commercial, and craft lines, as well as several national councils. The Labor Front, an extension of the Nazi Party, directed all labor matters, including wages and assignment of workers to particular jobs. Labor conscription was inaugurated in 1938. Two years earlier, Hitler had imposed a four-year plan to shift the nation’s economy to a war footing. In Europe during this era, Spain, Portugal, and Greece also instituted fascist economies.
In the United States, beginning in 1933, the constellation of government interventions known as the New Deal had features suggestive of the corporate state. The National Industrial Recovery Act created code authorities and codes of practice that governed all aspects of manufacturing and commerce. The National Labor Relations Act made the federal government the final arbiter in labor issues. The Agricultural Adjustment Act introduced central planning to farming. The object was to reduce competition and output in order to keep prices and incomes of particular groups from falling during the Great Depression.
It is a matter of controversy whether President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal was directly influenced by fascist economic policies. Mussolini praised the New Deal as “boldly . . . interventionist in the field of economics,” and Roosevelt complimented Mussolini for his “honest purpose of restoring Italy” and acknowledged that he kept “in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian gentleman.” Also, Hugh Johnson, head of the National Recovery Administration, was known to carry a copy of Raffaello Viglione’s pro-Mussolini book,
The Corporate State, with him, presented a copy to Labor Secretary Frances Perkins, and, on retirement, paid tribute to the Italian dictator.
Key Economic Events Week of 10/14

10/15 8:30 ET Empire State Fed MI
10/16 8:30 ET Retail Sales
10/16 10:00 ET Business Inventories
10/17 8:30 ET Housing Starts and Bldg Perms
10/17 8:30 ET Philly Fed MI
10/17 9:15 ET Cap Ute and Ind Prod
10/18 10:00 ET LEIII
10/18 Speeches from Goons Kaplan, George and Chlamydia

Subscribe or login to read all comments.


Donate Shop

Get Your Subscriber Benefits

Private iTunes feed for all TF Metals Report podcasts, and access to Vault member forum discussions!

Key Economic Events Week of 10/14

10/15 8:30 ET Empire State Fed MI
10/16 8:30 ET Retail Sales
10/16 10:00 ET Business Inventories
10/17 8:30 ET Housing Starts and Bldg Perms
10/17 8:30 ET Philly Fed MI
10/17 9:15 ET Cap Ute and Ind Prod
10/18 10:00 ET LEIII
10/18 Speeches from Goons Kaplan, George and Chlamydia

Key Economic Events Week of 10/7

10/8 8:30 ET Producer Price Index
10/9 10:00 ET Job Openings
10/9 10:00 ET Wholesale Inventories
10/9 2:00 ET September FOMC minutes
10/10 8:30 ET Consumer Price Index
10/11 10:00 ET Consumer Sentiment

Key Economic Events Week of 9/30

9/30 9:45 ET Chicago PMI
10/1 9:45 ET Markit Manu PMI
10/1 10:00 ET ISM Manu PMI
10/1 10:00 ET Construction Spending
10/2 China Golden Week Begins
10/2 8:15 ET ADP jobs report
10/3 9:45 ET Markit Service PMI
10/3 10:00 ET ISM Service PMI
10/3 10:00 ET Factory Orders
10/4 8:30 ET BLSBS
10/4 8:30 ET US Trade Deficit

Key Economic Events Week of 9/23

9/23 9:45 ET Markit flash PMIs
9/24 10:00 ET Consumer Confidence
9/26 8:30 ET Q2 GDP third guess
9/27 8:30 ET Durable Goods
9/27 8:30 ET Pers Inc and Cons Spend
9/27 8:30 ET Core Inflation

Key Economic Events Week of 9/16

9/17 9:15 ET Cap Ute & Ind Prod
9/18 8:30 ET Housing Starts & Bldg Perm.
9/18 2:00 ET Fedlines
9/18 2:30 ET CGP presser
9/19 8:30 ET Philly Fed
9/19 10:00 ET Existing Home Sales

Key Economic Events Week of 9/9

9/10 10:00 ET Job openings
9/11 8:30 ET PPI
9/11 10:00 ET Wholesale Inv.
9/12 8:30 ET CPI
9/13 8:30 ET Retail Sales
9/13 10:00 ET Consumer Sentiment
9/13 10:00 ET Business Inv.

Key Economic Events Week of 9/3

9/3 9:45 ET Markit Manu PMI
9/3 10:00 ET ISM Manu PMI
9/3 10:00 ET Construction Spending
9/4 8:30 ET Foreign Trade Deficit
9/5 9:45 ET Markit Svc PMI
9/5 10:00 ET ISM Svc PMI
9/5 10:00 ET Factory Orders
9/6 8:30 ET BLSBS

Key Economic Events Week of 8/26

8/26 8:30 ET Durable Goods
8/27 9:00 ET Case-Shiller Home Price Idx
8/27 10:00 ET Consumer Confidence
8/29 8:30 ET Q2 GDP 2nd guess
8/29 8:30 ET Advance Trade in Goods
8/30 8:30 ET Pers. Inc. and Cons. Spend.
8/30 8:30 ET Core Inflation
8/30 9:45 ET Chicago PMI

Key Economic Events Week of 8/19

8/21 10:00 ET Existing home sales
8/21 2:00 ET July FOMC minutes
8/22 9:45 ET Markit Manu and Svc PMIs
8/22 Jackson Holedown begins
8/23 10:00 ET Chief Goon Powell speaks

Key Economic Events Week of 8/12

8/13 8:30 ET Consumer Price Index
8/14 8:30 ET Retail Sales
8/14 8:30 ET Productivity & Labor Costs
8/14 8:30 ET Philly Fed
8/14 9:15 ET Ind Prod and Cap Ute
8/14 10:00 ET Business Inventories
8/15 8:30 ET Housing Starts & Bldg Permits

Forum Discussion

by Solsson, 3 hours 5 min ago
by Pete, 6 hours 58 min ago
by SteveW, 7 hours 41 min ago
by Phoenix79, Oct 17, 2019 - 6:28pm
by NW VIEW, Oct 17, 2019 - 4:40pm