<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19046">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2>In my opinion a large part of the problem is that the current
law shields officers/members of corporations from almost all lapses in personal
responsibility, diligence, and criminal culpability. Until that changes
and that officers of corporations are held criminally and civilly responsible,
and that it also becomes much, much easier to legally recover damages, etc
from the personal assets of corporate or ex-corporate officers, all of use are
going to be f****d over more and more, and for larger and larger
amounts.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>w.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=reggieholmquist@u.boisestate.edu
href="mailto:reggieholmquist@u.boisestate.edu">Reggie Holmquist</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=lfalen@turbonet.com
href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">lfalen</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=deco@moscow.com
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">Art Deco</A> ; <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">Vision 2020</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, April 20, 2011 11:01
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] Getting f*****d
over by big banks and the gov't</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>I highly agree with you, Roger. I understand, though,
that <A
href="http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/rj_eskow/28245/when_senators_vote_for_the_big_banks_we_will_name_them">Republicans
blocked that idea</A>.<BR><BR>Are you willing to go so far as to criticize the
8 Republicans and 4 conservative Democrats who voted to protect the big
banks?<BR><BR>-Reggie<BR><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:35 AM, lfalen <SPAN
dir=ltr><<A
href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">lfalen@turbonet.com</A>></SPAN>
wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>If banks are too big to fail, then they are too big ro
exist. We could use some Teddy Roosevelt style trust
busting.<BR>Roger<BR>-----Original message-----<BR>From: "Art Deco" <A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A><BR>Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011
09:10:38 -0700<BR>To: "Vision 2020" <A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>Subject:
[Vision2020] Getting f*****d over by big banks and the
gov't<BR><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>
<DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=h5>><BR>> April 18, 2011<BR>> Letting the Banks Off the
Hook<BR>> By JOE NOCERA<BR>> Judging by last week's performance, it
sure looks as though the country's top bank regulator is back to its old
tricks.<BR>><BR>> Though, to be honest, calling the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency a "regulator" is almost laughable. The
Environmental Protection Agency is a regulator. The O.C.C. is a coddler, a
protector, an outright enabler of the institutions it
oversees.<BR>><BR>> Back during the subprime bubble, for instance, it
was so eager to please its "clients" - yes, that's how O.C.C. executives
used to describe the banks - that it steamrolled anyone who tried to stop
lending abuses. States and cities around the country would pass laws
requiring consumer-friendly measures such as mandatory counseling for
subprime borrowers, or the listing of the fees the banks were going to
charge for the loan. The O.C.C. would then use its power to either block or
roll back the legislation.<BR>><BR>> It relied on the doctrine of
pre-emption, which holds, in essence, that federal rules pre-empt state
laws. More than 20 times, states and municipalities passed laws aimed at
making subprime loans less predatory; every time, the O.C.C. ruled that
national banks were exempt. Which, of course, rendered the new laws
moot.<BR>><BR>> You'd think the financial crisis would have knocked
some sense into the agency, exposing the awful consequences of its
regulatory negligence. But you would be wrong. Like the banks themselves,
the O.C.C. seems to have forgotten that the financial crisis ever took
place.<BR>><BR>> It has consistently defended the Too Big to Fail
banks. It opposes lowering hidden interchange fees for debit cards, even
though such a move is mandated by law, because the banks don't want to take
the financial hit. Its foot-dragging in implementing the new Dodd-Frank laws
stands in sharp contrast to, say, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission,
which is working diligently to create a regulatory framework for
derivatives, despite Republican opposition. Like the banks, it views the new
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as the enemy.<BR>><BR>> And, as
we learned last week, it is doing its darndest to make sure the banks escape
the foreclosure crisis - a crisis they created with their sloppy, callous
and often illegal practices - with no serious consequences. There is really
no other way to explain the "settlement" it announced last week with 14 of
the biggest mortgage servicers (which includes all the big
banks).<BR>><BR>> The proposed terms call on servicers to have a
single point of contact for homeowners with troubled mortgages. They would
have to stop the odious practice of secretly beginning foreclosure
proceedings while supposedly working on a mortgage modification. They would
have to hire consultants to do spot-checks to see if people were foreclosed
on improperly. (Gee, I wonder how that's going to turn out?)<BR>><BR>>
If you're thinking: that's what they should have done in the first place,
you're right. If you're wondering what the consequences will be if the banks
don't abide by the terms, the answer is: there aren't any. And although the
O.C.C. says that it might add a financial penalty, I'll believe it when I
see it. While John Walsh, the acting comptroller, called the terms "tough,"
they're anything but.<BR>><BR>> No, the real reason the O.C.C. raced
to come up with its weak settlement proposal is that last month, a document
surfaced that contained a rather different set of terms with the banks.
These were settlement ideas being batted around by the states' attorneys
general, who have been investigating the foreclosure crisis since late
October. The document suggested that the attorneys general were not only
trying to fix the foreclosure process but also wanted to penalize the banks
for their illegal actions.<BR>><BR>> Their ideas included all the
terms (and then some) included in the O.C.C. proposal, though with more
specificity. Unlike the O.C.C., the attorneys general had devised a way to
actually enforce their settlement, by deputizing the new consumer bureau,
which opens in July. And they wanted to impose a stiff fine - possibly $20
billion - which would be used to modify mortgages. In other words, the
attorneys general were trying to help homeowners rather than
banks.<BR>><BR>> By jumping out in front of the attorneys general, the
O.C.C. has made the likelihood of a 50-state master settlement much less
likely. Any such settlement needs bipartisan support; now, thanks to the
O.C.C., there's a good chance that Republican attorneys general will walk
away. The banks will be able to say that they've already settled with the
federal government, so why should they have to settle a second time? If they
wind up being sued by the states, the federal settlement will help them in
court.<BR>><BR>> "It's a vintage O.C.C. move," said Prentiss Cox, a
law professor at the University of Minnesota who was formerly an assistant
attorney general. "It is clearly an attempt to undercut the
A.G.'s"<BR>><BR>> Old habits die hard in Washington. The O.C.C.'s
historical reliance on pre-emption should have died after the financial
crisis. Instead, it's merely been disguised to look like a
settlement.<BR>><BR>>
______________________________________________<BR>><BR>> WayneA.
Fox<BR>><BR>> 1009 Karen Lane<BR>> PO Box 9421<BR>> Moscow, ID
83843<BR>><BR>> <A
href="mailto:waf@moscow.com">waf@moscow.com</A><BR>> 208
882-7975<BR>><BR>><BR><BR></DIV></DIV>=======================================================<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet,<BR> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.<BR>
<A href="http://www.fsr.net"
target=_blank>http://www.fsr.net</A><BR>
mailto:<A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>=======================================================<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR><BR
clear=all><BR>-- <BR>There is a theory which states that if ever anybody
discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will
instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and
inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already
happened. <BR><BR>Douglas Adams<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>