Skip to content

SEC: Who do you protect?

November 29, 2011

“Who do you serve?  Who do you protect?”

At Occupy Wall Street we chanted this at the riot police.

Yesterday, U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff rejected a settlement deal that Citigroup tried to cut with the Securities and Exchange Commission, reached after the SEC accused Citigroup of selling a $1 billion package of subprime mortgage assets while failing to disclose to buyers that they were betting against half of it.  The settlement would have let Citigroup off with a fine of $285 million and a promise to never do it again, without admitting or denying guilt.  It would also prevent the defrauded buyers from pursuing further legal action.*

Judge Rakoff told the SEC and Citigroup, in legal language of course, exactly where they could stick it.**  Thank you, Judge Rakoff.  You are now my second favorite legal professional in the world, right after the badass National Lawyer’s Guild lawyer who helped me get my stuff back after the police raid on OWS November 15th.

On the PBS Newshour***, a former SEC enforcement lawyer commented on the case:

“I think[…]there would be gridlock and chaos in SEC litigation brought in the federal courts if parties were required to admit that there be some type of admission, some type of culpability, because that admission would have a collateral effect in all other litigation.

“It would take away the incentive of any party accused by the SEC to settle. So I really do think that it would be an undue burden on the federal courts. And I think one of the things that the SEC would do ultimately would consider bringing these cases in an administrative forum, which would mean probably the need to add 30 administrative law judges, which is why, ultimately, I truly believe that this is a settlement that will be accepted once the judge is satisfied about the underlying basis for the settlement as proposed.”

Who does the SEC protect?  Are their litigations designed to send a clear message to financial criminals that their fraud will be punished…or to send a false message to the American people that something is being done?  Given what the criminals have already been able to do and get away with, I’d say the latter.

Who does the government protect?  Local governments have had no qualms about spending millions of dollars in police overtime to “protect” the public from peaceful protesters.  But apparently the federal government doesn’t have the money to hire 30 administrative law judges.

To hire 30 administrative law judges would cost You the Taxpayer $4.665M/year in salary****, plus $313,012.80/year in health benefits*****, or a little under $5 million per year according to my estimate.

According to the Associated Press, police presence at Occupy movement protests has cost at least $13 million to 18 cities in 2 months.******

So which do you think is a more effective use of your tax money?  Hiring enough legal personnel to actually punish those responsible for the widespread fraud that led to the financial crisis?  Or paying a bunch of working-class people in scary helmets to arrest, steal property from, pepper-spray and beat up another bunch of working-class people shouting stuff and holding signs?


P.S. Occupy the SEC needs your help!  You can participate in NYC or online.  Make sure the regulations based on the Volcker Rule actually regulate financial institutions.  Right now it’s got loopholes you “could drive a car through”, in the words of one informed commenter.  Their web address is  A good article summarizing their work can be found here.



One Comment leave one →
  1. farmerntx permalink
    December 6, 2011 2:52 pm

    We Texans recently got a look at the SEC’s convoluted thinking after Alan Stamford’s scheme was finally exposed in public. According to Fort Worth Regional Office head, his scheme was “too complicated” to investigate. It would have taken too many lawyers and staff too long to fully penetrate, understand and then prosecute. So they just ignored him and went after the easy cases.

    He is finally in custody awaiting trial.

    Later, the SEC proposed shutting down the Ft Worth office as a cost cutting measure. Yup, it’d be cheaper to pay travel, hotel and per diem expenses to investigate wrong doing. Well, when ya put it that way, maybe not. Decision was never made.

    Kudos to you and your efforts from an old man too broke and not in great health to really join in the protests.

    Myself, I’d love to see the OWS movement start to join in with the several groups trying to get a Constitutional Convention going to add an amendment banning big money from politics. Because until that happens, very little else of a long term meaningful nature will happen. Three of those groups have now merged under .

    My ideal amendment would prohibit anyone not eligible to vote for a candidate from donating money or in kind services to that candidate and then with a $1000 cap. Get that done, not an easy task nor one quickly accomplished, and then we can take back the peoples house and start seeing a Congress instead of what we are currently forced to deal with in DC.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: