DO IT NOW: Kucinich petition re #OWS to mayors

Dear Friends,

At 1:00 AM Tuesday night, after two months of peaceful protest against the people and institutions that wrecked our economy, police officers under direct orders from the Mayor of New York City raided Occupy Wall Street and evicted protestors from Zuccotti Park.

The First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees all of us - including these protestors - the right to peacefully assemble and express our views. But over the past week, similar nighttime raids executed by mayors in Oakland, Portland and Atlanta have cast a dangerous shadow over our liberties.

Today, I am asking you to join me in standing with Occupy protests everywhere and demanding that the Mayors of America respect the First Amendment and the rights of our citizens to assemble and express themselves. Click here to sign the petition and demand that the mayors of America respect the Constitution and the rights of Occupy Wall Street to exist.

Right now, corporations are spending unlimited amounts of money to influence our election system under the guise of free speech. Yet when people like you and me gather in parks across America to protest this broken system, we are deemed a threat by local mayors.

Stand with me, Occupy Wall Street and all Americans who wish to defend our disappearing liberties in demanding that America's mayors respect the Constitution and rights guaranteed to all Americans in the First Amendment. Sign the petition today.

With respect,


Dennis

P.S. We need to get the word out. Please forward this email to your friends and family, and share it on Facebook and Twitter. We need to stand strong for the Constitution tod

I/We stand with Occupy Wall Street and all Americans who wish to defend our disappearing liberties in demanding that the Mayors of America respect the First Amendment and the rights of our citizens to assemble and express themselves.

DOWNLOADS

	download & print petition (PDF)
	download & print leaflet (PDF)

#OccupyOakland and the Power of the Black Bloc

     #OccupyOakland and the Power of the Black Bloc

Posted: 06 Nov 2011 09:49 PM PST

Corrente has a post up by Affinis on a potentially important, and troubling development at OccupyOakland, namely, the fact that the movement has a relatively small group within it that believes in the use of violence to achieve its ends. It numbers are roughly 200 members out of an estimated 7,000 to 40,000 that have participated in demonstrations. However, they have disproportionate influence on the decisions made at the General Assembly, since many of the Occupy participants are transient (as in participate in demonstrations only or only occasionally show up for GA) while the black bloc is a much bigger proportion of the group that stays overnight on a consistent basis.

Affinis give some insight into why this is view is being tolerated:

From postings by OO participants at various sites/forums, several lines of thought seem to be contributing to tolerance of black bloc. I see a lot of posts arguing that destruction of property is not violence – and this position seems common among certain anarchists, even if they’re not actively in agreement with use of black bloc tactics currently. Some are arguing that since this movement is nascent, now is not the time for violence since it would alienate the mainstream – but that they would support its use once events have advanced sufficiently. Others more fundamentally disagree with the use of violence/vandalism, but are not willing to oppose/condemn black bloc since that would be siding with the “enemy” over other protesters. I also see a lot of condemnation of those who intervened to stop black bloc vandalism on Wednesday (e.g. at Whole Foods) – they’re being referred to as “peace police”, and there seems to be particularly strong anger against those who tried to physically restrain or physically block the black bloc individuals (even some commenters who appear relatively unsupportive of black bloc are condemning “peace police” actions as coercive and as failing to respect “diversity of tactics”).

Some of the proposals passed at previous OO GA meetings seem to have opened the door to the events of early Thursday morning. See here for a list of decisions passed as of October 31. Number 4 on the list is “diversity of tactics”.

For example, during marches: when confronted by police, some people may want to attempt to have calm conversations with them, urging them to be non-violent. some people may want to sit down in front of lines of police. some people may want to express their anger by yelling at the police. some people may want to attempt to remove police barriers. some people may want to disrupt traffic or banks. some people may prefer to remain on the sidewalk. We should be tolerant of each other’s approaches and respect different forms of protest, while being aware of our privilege or lack of it, especially when engaging with the police.

So the coded idea is that if you are against destruction of property, you are aligning with those of privilege.

This argument simply show a stunning ignorance of the lives of the 1%. Folks. the odds you can get at them via street level actions are pretty much nada, unless, like the driver of the hapless Archduke of Ferdinand, one happens to take a wrong turn. The people you are hurting are petit bourgious to maybe upper middle class. And when you hurt them, you are just as likely to hurt their workers, who if they are paid at typical wage rates, are much more peers than part of the problem. And what about the risk of loss of life, of, say, the smashing of a window cutting a big artery of a bystander? Stuff like this happens. It suggests that the this crowd isn’t just against the top 1%, the professed target of the movement, but that they are against the interests of the broad middle class, when in fact many see the pursuit of a just society, which includes reorienting the economy to serve a broad population rather than the needs of the few, as the overarching goal.

Affinis seems to agree:

It appears that the vast majority of people partipitating in Occupy Oakland events comdemn the black block actions. Tens of thousand participated in the demonstrations ….

But there appears to actually be a serious split among the core occupiers and in the general assembly regarding black bloc and use of violence/vandalism. I suppose this is not necessarily surprising. It makes sense that people who are able/willing to indefinately camp out under difficult conditions and constant threat of police raid, and those who are able/willing to consistently attend long GA meetings, may have different demographics and more radicalized beliefs than people who are more sporadically involved. I’ve seen this at prior occupations I’ve been involved in…

But we have a governance issue. Just as Washington is run by a political class, we may have a political class emerging at the Oakland GA that is not representing the interests of the broader movement. Yet thy are sufficiently influential as to prevent the Occupy Oakland GA from renouncing violence/vandalism as a tactic (it actually distanced itself from a media committee statement taking an anti-violence position).

More troubling, Affinis describes how they were successful in effectively recruiting other demonstrators to participate in an attack on Whole Foods, which was erroneously depicted as directing employees not to participate in the march after Iraq war veteran Scott Olsen was critically injured. Note how this works: a few violent people, operating in isolation, are much easier to identify and be subdued. If they are in the front or midst of a large crowd, which by virtue of its size may not even know what they are doing, it becomes much harder for anyone other than the other demonstrators to stop them. That did happen at Whole Foods: some of the marchers did try to restrain the vandals, but the store was still damaged. And of course, the instigators hope to get others to join in their attacks.

This is obviously far more pernicious that outside infiltrators, who are allegedly a common feature of anti-globalism demonstrations, and are paid to pretend to be members of the movement and engage in destruction in order to discredit it. The reason the Occupations have captured the public imagination is in no small measure due to using non-violent strategies that have again and again proven to be effective, with Tahir Square and the indignacios in Spain the models for many of the Occupy practices. But Affinis tells us how one set of Occupy precepts, of inclusiveness, is being used to undermine what many would see as higher order principles.

Bill Black: The High Price of Ignorance

Posted: 07 Nov 2011 03:30 AM PST

This is Naked Capitalism fundraising week. Over 370 donors have already invested in our efforts to shed light on the dark and seamy corners of finance. Join us and participate via our Tip Jar or read about why we’re doing this fundraiser and other ways to donate on our kickoff post and one discussing our current target.

 

By Bill Black, an associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, a white-collar criminologist, a former senior financial regulator, and the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One. Follow him on twitter @WilliamKBlack

I have just finished giving three talks, in three days, in three states during which I continued one of my common obsessions – doing research about financial crises. Among of the primary beliefs I’ve had reinforced over these 72 hours are my views about how incredibly harmful financial ignorance is, and how precious are the sources who combine sound information about finance with humanity. As a father, I do not play silly games about which kid I like best, so I will simply express my personal belief that Naked Capitalism is one of the preeminent sites for learning about finance, while always remembering people.

My first talk was in central Missouri to the Missouri Association for Social Welfare (MASW). MASW is made up of people who have worked, often for decades, to help those mode in need in our State. They have seen their efforts overwhelmed by the ongoing crisis and they are eager to learn why it occurred and how to prevent or reduce future crises. This is a group that combines policy wonks and boots on the ground caregivers. They are well read, but they do not find that regular media sources provide them with any comprehensive understanding of why we suffer recurrent, intensifying crises. A few of their members, however, read our blog (NewEconomicPerspectives – created and maintained by my UMKC economics colleague Stephanie Kelton) and Naked Capitalism. They learned from these sites about my work and reached out to me to keynote their conference because they have a thirst for learning about finance and the crisis.

Thursday I presented “in the belly of the beast” – the University of Chicago’s School of Law. The students on their law forum reached out to bring someone with views very different from their own faculty and the other speakers. They were not rejecting their faculty’s views ala the Harvard economics students who walked out of Professor Mankiw’s class to protest what they viewed as his unwillingness to discuss rival theories. The students simply wanted to have an opposing viewpoint expressed. They knew that I existed because of media appearances that were largely generated because many members of the financial media who read Naked Capitalism and NewEconomicPerspectives. Many of our readers learned of us and our research findings and theories by reading Naked Capitalism. Naked Capitalism is so important because it does not simply feature the views of an individual. It seeks out and gives visibility to diverse, thoughtful views from those who inhabit the reality-based world and support their theories with sound analytics and compelling data.

My reaction to the U. Chicago conference was that the students did well to reach out in this manner. On our panel (on private-sector fraud and corruption) the other panelists’ (all Chicago-school) principal concern was that we reduce the prosecution of elite white-collar criminals, reduce the incentives to blow the whistle on the CEO, and reduce the incentives to bring a qui tam civil fraud actions against corporations. We inhabit alternative universes. In our reality-based universe, the problem is elite fraud. In their faith-based theoclassical economics universe the problem is that the “mob” is seeking to murder innocent bank CEOs by bringing back the weapon of the French terror, the “guillotine.” These are the exact terms used by one of my co-panelists. We may never be able to convince the theoclassical Chicago-school faculty to cease their identification with and apologias for the one percent, but we are read by at least some of their students because of the visibility provided by Naked Capitalism.

My talk Saturday was in LA at the invitation of the “Occupy Wall Street” (OWS) participants as part of a “teach-in.” Again, the participants are eager to learn about why we suffer recurrent, intensifying financial crises. Some of the protesters are well versed on the nature of the ongoing crisis and its causes because they read Naked Capitalism and blogs such as NewEconomicPerspectives. Many of the protestors, however, are not well informed and have views about the crisis that are intense but not fact-based. They too have read

articles on blogs, but those articles and blogs are the antithesis of Naked Capitalism. They are sensational, but contrary to the facts. Many of these myths are enormously harmful – they led the speakers to view it as impossible to succeed, that no one could be trusted, and that our government had never done anything successful. Collectively, their messages were the ideal toxic blend of views that would render any effort against the “control frauds” and “systemically dangerous institutions” useless. The opponents of OWS could not have designed a more self-defeating meme. Naked Capitalism understands how grim the situation is and how difficult our tasks are, but it does not give in to hopelessness and defeatism.

The research project that reinforced my view about the crushing costs of financial ignorance was reviewing Attorney General Holder’s testimony before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC). It is apparent that neither Holder nor his senior staff read Naked Capitalism (at least in that era). Attorney General Holder made two extraordinary statements at that hearing demonstrating his utter ignorance. Chairman Angelides asked Holder to explain the actions the Department of Justice (DOJ) took in response to the FBI’s warning in September 2004 that mortgage fraud was “epidemic” and its prediction that if the fraud epidemic were not contained it would cause a financial “crisis.” Holder testified: “I’m not familiar myself with that [FBI] statement.”

For those of you who have never been involved in preparing an agency head to give a major piece of testimony (something I did fairly often), let me confirm that it is a very big deal. The staff briefs the head of the agency thoroughly on the key issues and how the agency responded to them. The DOJ’s (the FBI is part of DOJ) preeminent contribution with respect to this crisis was the 2004 warning to the nation (in open House testimony picked up by the national media). (Stop and think how widely known the warning would have become if Naked Capitalism was operating in 2004 and had input from white-collar criminologists.) For Holder not to know about the most important (and most praise-worthy) action by his department requires that none of his senior staffers knew about the FBI testimony.

 

For none of his senior staffers to know about the FBI testimony requires that they know nothing about the department’s most important and (potentially) useful act. That depth of ignorance could not exist if his senior aides cared the least about the financial crisis and made it even a minor priority to understand, investigate, and prosecute the frauds that drove the crisis. Because Holder was testifying in January 14, 2010, the failure of anyone from Holder on down to know about the FBI’s warnings also requires that all of them failed to read any of the relevant criminology literature or Naked Capitalism. We need to reach the point where the failure of senior officials who need to be financially literate (and that includes everyone at the senior levels of DOJ) to regularly read Naked Capitalism and NewEconomicPerspectives marks one as irredeemably unprofessional.

 

Holder’s prepared testimony is a further testament to the costs of ignorance. In addition to claiming that the DOJ’s response to the developing crisis under President Bush was superb, Holder implicitly took the position that (without any investigation or analysis) that fraud could not and did not pose any systemic economic risk. Implicitly, he claimed that only economists had the expertise to contribute to understanding the causes of the crisis. If you don’t investigate; you don’t find. If you don’t understand “accounting control fraud”; you cannot understand why we have recurrent, intensifying financial crises. If Holder thinks we should take our policy advice from Larry Summers and Bob Rubin, leading authors’ of the crisis, then he has never read Naked Capitalism.

 

Now let me state at the outset what role the Department plays and does not play in addressing these challenges” [record fraud in investment banking and securities].

 

“The Department of Justice investigates and prosecutes federal crimes.…

 

As a general matter we do not have the expertise nor is it part of our mission to opine on the systemic causes of the financial crisis. Rather the Justice Department’s resources are focused on investigating and prosecuting crime. It is within this context that I am pleased to offer my testimony and to contribute to your vital review.

 

Two aspects of Holder’s testimony were preposterous, dishonest, and dangerous.

 

I’m proud that we have put in place a law enforcement response to the financial crisis that is and will continue to be is aggressive, comprehensive, and well-coordinated.

 

DOJ has obtained ten convictions of senior insiders of mortgage lenders (all from one obscure mortgage bank) v. over 1000 felony convictions in the S&L debacle. DOJ has not conducted an investigation worthy of the name of any of the largest accounting control frauds. DOJ is actively opposing investigating the systemically dangerous institutions (SDIs).

 

Holder’s most disingenuous and dangerous sentence, however, was this one:

 

Our efforts to fight economic crime are a vital component of our broader strategy, a strategy that seeks to foster confidence in our financial system, integrity in our markets, and prosperity for the American people.

Yes, the “confidence fairy” ruled at DOJ. It is the rationale now for DOJ’s disgraceful efforts to achieve immunity for the SDIs’ endemic frauds. The confidence fairy trumped and traduced “integrity in our markets” and “prosperity for the American people.” Prosperity is reserved for the SDIs and their senior managers – the one percent. But then you know that because you read Naked Capitalism.

one-lawman-with the guts to go-after-wall-street

Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman wants to go after the Wall Street banker crooks that ruined our economy, but he is going to need lots of support. Let's join his FB page and urge others to do the same. Maybe some big numbers behind him will help. http://www.truthout.org/one-lawman-guts-go-after-wall-street/1305815368

One Lawman With the Guts to Go After Wall Street

Thursday 19 May 2011

by: Robert Scheer, Truthdig
 

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman during a joint press conference in New York, November 12, 2010. (Photo: Todd Heisler / The New York Times)

The fix was in to let the Wall Street scoundrels off the hook for the enormous damage they caused in creating the Great Recession. All of the leading politicians and officials, federal and state, Republican and Democrat, were on board to complete the job of saving the banks while ignoring their victims ... until last week when the attorney general of New York refused to go along.

Eric Schneiderman will probably fail, as did his predecessors in that job; the honest sheriff doesn’t last long in a town that houses the Wall Street casino. But decent folks should be cheering him on. Despite a mountain of evidence of robo-signed mortgage contracts, deceitful mortgage-based securities and fraudulent foreclosures, the banks were going to be able to cut their potential losses to what was, for them, a minuscule amount.

In a deal that had the blessing of the White House and many federal regulators and state attorneys general—a settlement probably for not much more than the $5 billion pittance the top financial institutions found acceptable—the banks would be freed of any further claims by federal and state officials over their shady mortgage packaging and servicing practices and deceptive foreclosure proceedings.

At the same time, the SEC and other federal regulatory bodies are making sweetheart deals with the bankers to close off accountability for creating and collecting on more than a trillion dollars’ worth of toxic mortgage-based securities at the heart of the nation’s economic meltdown—a meltdown that has seen the national debt grow by more than 50 percent, stuck us with an unyielding 9 percent unemployment and left 50 million Americans losing their homes to foreclosure or clinging desperately to underwater mortgages. On top of which an all-time high of 44 million people are living below the official poverty line and fewer new homes were started in April than at any other time in the past half century. With housing values still in free fall, we continue to make the bankers whole. 

As Gretchen Morgenson reported in The New York Times, the Justice Department division responsible for checking for fraud in the bankruptcy system has found a widespread pattern of deception by banks foreclosing homes, and she concluded:

 “So an authoritative source with access to a lot of data has identified industry practices as not only pernicious but also pervasive. Which makes it all the more mystifying that regulators seem eager to strike a cheap and easy settlement with the banks.” 

Not really surprising given both the enormous hold of Wall Street money over the two major political parties and the revolving door through which executives travel between firms like Goldman Sachs and the top positions in the U.S. Treasury Department and elsewhere in the government. The financial crisis occurred only because Republicans and Democrats passed the laws that Wall Street lobbyists wrote ending reasonable banking industry regulation installed in the 1930s in response to the Depression. And when the greed they enabled threatened the foundations of our economy, under Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, it was the bankers who were assisted into lifeboats that had no room for ordinary people.

Not surprising then to find all of the power players in on the latest deals: the Obama administration that had bailed out the banks but not troubled homeowners; the regulators and Fed officials who all looked the other way when the housing bubble was inflated; and the state attorneys general who backed away from going after the perpetrators of robo-signed mortgages and other scams used to foreclose homes.

But now Schneiderman has a chance to derail the deals, given that he is supported by the state’s tough 1921 Martin Act, which one of his predecessors as New York state attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, had used to good advantage in exposing the financial behemoths that are so heavily based in New York. The Wall Street Journal describes the Martin Act as “one of the most potent prosecutorial tools against financial fraud” because, as opposed to federal law, it doesn’t carry the more difficult standard of proving intent to defraud.

Last week, it was revealed that Schneiderman’s office has demanded an accounting from Bank of America, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs as to the details of their past practice of securitizing those mortgage-based packages that proved so toxic. Maybe he will fail against such powerful forces, as did Spitzer and later Andrew Cuomo, but it is a test worth watching, since no one else, from the White House on down, seems to be concerned with holding the bailed-out banks accountable for the massive pain and suffering they inflicted on the public.

One Lawman With the Guts to Go After Wall Street

Thursday 19 May 2011

by: Robert Scheer, Truthdig

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman during a joint press conference in New York, November 12, 2010. (Photo: Todd Heisler / The New York Times)

The fix was in to let the Wall Street scoundrels off the hook for the enormous damage they caused in creating the Great Recession. All of the leading politicians and officials, federal and state, Republican and Democrat, were on board to complete the job of saving the banks while ignoring their victims ... until last week when the attorney general of New York refused to go along.

Eric Schneiderman will probably fail, as did his predecessors in that job; the honest sheriff doesn’t last long in a town that houses the Wall Street casino. But decent folks should be cheering him on. Despite a mountain of evidence of robo-signed mortgage contracts, deceitful mortgage-based securities and fraudulent foreclosures, the banks were going to be able to cut their potential losses to what was, for them, a minuscule amount.

In a deal that had the blessing of the White House and many federal regulators and state attorneys general—a settlement probably for not much more than the $5 billion pittance the top financial institutions found acceptable—the banks would be freed of any further claims by federal and state officials over their shady mortgage packaging and servicing practices and deceptive foreclosure proceedings.

Don't let the forces of regression dominate the media - support brave, independent reporting today by making a contribution to Truthout.

At the same time, the SEC and other federal regulatory bodies are making sweetheart deals with the bankers to close off accountability for creating and collecting on more than a trillion dollars’ worth of toxic mortgage-based securities at the heart of the nation’s economic meltdown—a meltdown that has seen the national debt grow by more than 50 percent, stuck us with an unyielding 9 percent unemployment and left 50 million Americans losing their homes to foreclosure or clinging desperately to underwater mortgages. On top of which an all-time high of 44 million people are living below the official poverty line and fewer new homes were started in April than at any other time in the past half century. With housing values still in free fall, we continue to make the bankers whole.

As Gretchen Morgenson reported in The New York Times, the Justice Department division responsible for checking for fraud in the bankruptcy system has found a widespread pattern of deception by banks foreclosing homes, and she concluded: “So an authoritative source with access to a lot of data has identified industry practices as not only pernicious but also pervasive. Which makes it all the more mystifying that regulators seem eager to strike a cheap and easy settlement with the banks.”
Not really surprising given both the enormous hold of Wall Street money over the two major political parties and the revolving door through which executives travel between firms like Goldman Sachs and the top positions in the U.S. Treasury Department and elsewhere in the government. The financial crisis occurred only because Republicans and Democrats passed the laws that Wall Street lobbyists wrote ending reasonable banking industry regulation installed in the 1930s in response to the Depression. And when the greed they enabled threatened the foundations of our economy, under Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, it was the bankers who were assisted into lifeboats that had no room for ordinary people.

Not surprising then to find all of the power players in on the latest deals: the Obama administration that had bailed out the banks but not troubled homeowners; the regulators and Fed officials who all looked the other way when the housing bubble was inflated; and the state attorneys general who backed away from going after the perpetrators of robo-signed mortgages and other scams used to foreclose homes.

But now Schneiderman has a chance to derail the deals, given that he is supported by the state’s tough 1921 Martin Act, which one of his predecessors as New York state attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, had used to good advantage in exposing the financial behemoths that are so heavily based in New York. The Wall Street Journal describes the Martin Act as “one of the most potent prosecutorial tools against financial fraud” because, as opposed to federal law, it doesn’t carry the more difficult standard of proving intent to defraud.

Last week, it was revealed that Schneiderman’s office has demanded an accounting from Bank of America, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs as to the details of their past practice of securitizing those mortgage-based packages that proved so toxic. Maybe he will fail against such powerful forces, as did Spitzer and later Andrew Cuomo, but it is a test worth watching, since no one else, from the White House on down, seems to be concerned with holding the bailed-out banks accountable for the massive pain and suffering they inflicted on the public.

One Lawman With the Guts to Go After Wall Street

Thursday 19 May 2011

by: Robert Scheer, Truthdig

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman during a joint press conference in New York, November 12, 2010. (Photo: Todd Heisler / The New York Times)

The fix was in to let the Wall Street scoundrels off the hook for the enormous damage they caused in creating the Great Recession. All of the leading politicians and officials, federal and state, Republican and Democrat, were on board to complete the job of saving the banks while ignoring their victims ... until last week when the attorney general of New York refused to go along.

Eric Schneiderman will probably fail, as did his predecessors in that job; the honest sheriff doesn’t last long in a town that houses the Wall Street casino. But decent folks should be cheering him on. Despite a mountain of evidence of robo-signed mortgage contracts, deceitful mortgage-based securities and fraudulent foreclosures, the banks were going to be able to cut their potential losses to what was, for them, a minuscule amount.

In a deal that had the blessing of the White House and many federal regulators and state attorneys general—a settlement probably for not much more than the $5 billion pittance the top financial institutions found acceptable—the banks would be freed of any further claims by federal and state officials over their shady mortgage packaging and servicing practices and deceptive foreclosure proceedings.

Don't let the forces of regression dominate the media - support brave, independent reporting today by making a contribution to Truthout.

At the same time, the SEC and other federal regulatory bodies are making sweetheart deals with the bankers to close off accountability for creating and collecting on more than a trillion dollars’ worth of toxic mortgage-based securities at the heart of the nation’s economic meltdown—a meltdown that has seen the national debt grow by more than 50 percent, stuck us with an unyielding 9 percent unemployment and left 50 million Americans losing their homes to foreclosure or clinging desperately to underwater mortgages. On top of which an all-time high of 44 million people are living below the official poverty line and fewer new homes were started in April than at any other time in the past half century. With housing values still in free fall, we continue to make the bankers whole.

As Gretchen Morgenson reported in The New York Times, the Justice Department division responsible for checking for fraud in the bankruptcy system has found a widespread pattern of deception by banks foreclosing homes, and she concluded: “So an authoritative source with access to a lot of data has identified industry practices as not only pernicious but also pervasive. Which makes it all the more mystifying that regulators seem eager to strike a cheap and easy settlement with the banks.”
Not really surprising given both the enormous hold of Wall Street money over the two major political parties and the revolving door through which executives travel between firms like Goldman Sachs and the top positions in the U.S. Treasury Department and elsewhere in the government. The financial crisis occurred only because Republicans and Democrats passed the laws that Wall Street lobbyists wrote ending reasonable banking industry regulation installed in the 1930s in response to the Depression. And when the greed they enabled threatened the foundations of our economy, under Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, it was the bankers who were assisted into lifeboats that had no room for ordinary people.

Not surprising then to find all of the power players in on the latest deals: the Obama administration that had bailed out the banks but not troubled homeowners; the regulators and Fed officials who all looked the other way when the housing bubble was inflated; and the state attorneys general who backed away from going after the perpetrators of robo-signed mortgages and other scams used to foreclose homes.

But now Schneiderman has a chance to derail the deals, given that he is supported by the state’s tough 1921 Martin Act, which one of his predecessors as New York state attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, had used to good advantage in exposing the financial behemoths that are so heavily based in New York. The Wall Street Journal describes the Martin Act as “one of the most potent prosecutorial tools against financial fraud” because, as opposed to federal law, it doesn’t carry the more difficult standard of proving intent to defraud.

Last week, it was revealed that Schneiderman’s office has demanded an accounting from Bank of America, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs as to the details of their past practice of securitizing those mortgage-based packages that proved so toxic. Maybe he will fail against such powerful forces, as did Spitzer and later Andrew Cuomo, but it is a test worth watching, since no one else, from the White House on down, seems to be concerned with holding the bailed-out banks accountable for the massive pain and suffering they inflicted on the public.