_USDOR 0911-1013 ab_Part18

8/3/2019 _USDOR 0911-1013 ab_Part18

1/250

m

i

c

e

l

it

e

.

>

>

>

>I

n

t

h

e

U

S

,

mi

l

l

i

o

n

a

i

re

h

o

u

s

e

Emails come from PST files that were linked to a post on biggovernment.com by Thomas Ryan. PDF by www.teapartycheer.com


8/3/2019 _USDOR 0911-1013 ab_Part18

2/250

h

o

l

d

s

cu

r

r

e

n

t

l

y

ha

v

e

o

v

e

r

$

46

t

r

i

l

l

i

o

ni

n

w

e

a

l



8/3/2019 _USDOR 0911-1013 ab_Part18

3/250

t

h

.

>

>O

n

a

n

a

n

n

u

al

b

a

s

i

s

,

o

nl

y

o

n

e

-

t

e

nt

h

o

f

o

n



8/3/2019 _USDOR 0911-1013 ab_Part18

4/250

e

p

e

r

c

en

t

o

f

t

h

e

U

Sp

o

p

u

l

a

t

i

on

m

a

k

e

s

>

>o

v

e

r

$

1



8/3/2019 _USDOR 0911-1013 ab_Part18

5/250

m

i

l

l

i

on

p

e

r

y

e

a

r

.

B

r

e

a

k

i

n

gi

t

d

o

w

n

e

v

en

f

u

r

t

h



8/3/2019 _USDOR 0911-1013 ab_Part18

6/250

e

r

,

4

0

0A

m

e

r

i

c

a

n

>

>

b

i

l

l

i

o

na

i

r

e

s

c

u

r

re

n

t

l

y

h



8/3/2019 _USDOR 0911-1013 ab_Part18

7/250

a

v

e

a

s

mu

c

h

w

e

a

l

t

ha

s

1

5

4

m

i

l

li

o

n

A

m

e

r

i

ca

n

s

.

T



8/3/2019 _USDOR 0911-1013 ab_Part18

8/250

h

e

s

e

>>

4

0

0

p

e

o

p

le

h

a

v

e

a

s

m

uc

h

w

e

a

l

t

h

as

h

a

l

f

o



8/3/2019 _USDOR 0911-1013 ab_Part18

9/250

f

t

h

e

e

nt

i

r

e

U

S

p

o

pu

l

a

t

i

o

n

.

>

>

>

>

A

s

w

es

a

i

d

b

e



8/3/2019 _USDOR 0911-1013 ab_Part18

10/250

f

o

r

e

,

we

a

r

e

n

o

t

a

ga

i

n

s

t

r

i

c

hp

e

o

p

l

e

f

o

rb

e

i

n

g

r



8/3/2019 _USDOR 0911-1013 ab_Part18

11/250

i

c

h

.

W

e

b

e

l

i

e

v

e

>

>

w

e

a

l

t

hs

h

o

u

l

d

b

e

ab

y

p

r

o

d



8/3/2019 _USDOR 0911-1013 ab_Part18

12/250

u

c

t

o

f

wo

r

k

i

n

g

t

o

ge

t

h

e

r

t

o

s

ol

v

e

o

u

r

p

r

ob

l

e

m

s

w



8/3/2019 _USDOR 0911-1013 ab_Part18

13/250

i

t

h

>

>a

l

i

g

n

e

d

i

nt

e

r

e

s

t

s

.

>

>

>

>

O

u

r

fa

m

i

l

i

e



8/3/2019 _USDOR 0911-1013 ab_Part18

14/250

s

a

n

d

o

ur

c

o

u

n

t

r

y

ha

v

e

e

n

d

u

r

ed

f

i

n

a

n

c

i

al

o

p

p

r

e



8/3/2019 _USDOR 0911-1013 ab_Part18

15/250

s

s

i

o

n

fo

r

l

o

n

g

>

>e

n

o

u

g

h

.

>>

>

>

P

l

e

a

se

j

o

i

n

u



8/3/2019 _USDOR 0911-1013 ab_Part18

16/250

s

o

r

o

r

ga

n

i

z

e

a

n

a

ct

i

o

n

o

f

y

o

ur

o

w

n

.

A

n

yt

h

i

n

g

y



8/3/2019 _USDOR 0911-1013 ab_Part18

17/250

o

u

a

r

e

wi

l

l

i

n

g

t

o

>

>

d

o

t

o

r

e

be

l

a

g

a

i

n

s

te

c

o

n

o

m



8/3/2019 _USDOR 0911-1013 ab_Part18

18/250

i

c

t

y

r

an

n

y

i

n

a

n

o

n-

v

i

o

l

e

n

t

ma

n

n

e

r

i

s

w

el

c

o

m

e

.



8/3/2019 _USDOR 0911-1013 ab_Part18

19/250

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

--

Diane Sare

cell: 201-220-7731



8/3/2019 _USDOR 0911-1013 ab_Part18

20/250

From: [email protected] behalf ofWinter Siroco

To: [email protected]

Subject: Re: [september17discuss] Re: OccupyWallStreet Economic Statement Draft 1

Date: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 8:58:17 AM

++Cesar

On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 8:46 AM, shaista husain wrote:The unprecedented support and endorsements by labor organizations joining theoccupation is already an enormous victory--big props to labor outreach--i think wewould pigeonhole ourselves with one demand--it is counter to our decentralized andautonomous structure--although consensus means we are unified one shouldn'tvulgarize it to mean we are homogenous--we are heterogenous--multi-form in ourdiversity and strategically best served by multiple fronts of resistance and alliances--we are building bridges and as a coalition our ability to galvanize further action.

Perhaps, instead of arguing over demands we can begin to define ourselves bysupporting and endorsing other protests, drafting and passing these in the GA. In

this way it is not some abstract demands, but more concrete alliances, voicing OURsupport of other protest movements---for example, --like thehttp://prisonerhungerstrikesolidarity.wordpress.com/2011/10/01/prisoner-hunger-strike-grows-to-nearly-12000/ -- THere is a hunger strike in our prisons, the media isnot giving enough attention to. We could show solidarity with prisoners who aresilenced and locked away and support their demands. for example, we could alsooppose Tar Sands and endorse those working to save our environment. WHile wehash out whether we will have demands/values/program etc.. perhaps we can beginto add OUR support and solidarity, not only with organized labor and civil groupswho are giving us huge support, but also to those who need our support. Buildbridges. (obviously this is happening whether we formalize it or not, but it would begreat to formalize it and articulate it with GA approval.)

In solidarity,Shaista

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 5:58 PM, gail zawacki wrote:But we aren't protesting one thing, like the Iraq war. If you look at photos of thesigns people carry, their are multiple issues. I have argued that we could makethe one demand - get corporate money out of politics - and many of the otherissues would, and should, be resolved in a real democracy according to what themajority of the people want v. what will profit the plutocracy greatest.

However there is quite a bit of resistance to boiling it all down to one demand onthe part of some of the most active and passionate occupiers, and to allow it to bean evolving and organic process - and so I tend to think it's up to the press, likeMatt T., to explain THAT position, rather than pressure OWS to capitulate.

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Cesar wrote:I do not expect nothing but populist concesions. If they start to work for thepeople tomorrow, great, it will advance our goals, but our strategy is to grow


mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://prisonerhungerstrikesolidarity.wordpress.com/2011/10/01/prisoner-hunger-strike-grows-to-nearly-12000/http://prisonerhungerstrikesolidarity.wordpress.com/2011/10/01/prisoner-hunger-strike-grows-to-nearly-12000/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://prisonerhungerstrikesolidarity.wordpress.com/2011/10/01/prisoner-hunger-strike-grows-to-nearly-12000/http://prisonerhungerstrikesolidarity.wordpress.com/2011/10/01/prisoner-hunger-strike-grows-to-nearly-12000/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

8/3/2019 _USDOR 0911-1013 ab_Part18

21/250

our power.Cesar

Sent from phone

On Oct 4, 2011, at 3:34 PM, Matthew Taibbi wrote:

Let me ask you a question. If this were the Iraq war you were protestinginstead of Wall Street corruption, would it be "naive" to demand awithdrawal from Iraq?

Are you saying it's "naive" because it's unreasonable to expect results? Idon't understand the use of that word in this context.

--- On Tue, 10/ 4/ 11, Cesar wrote:

From: Cesar

Subject: Re: OccupyWallStreet Economic Statement Draft 1To: "Matthew Taibbi" Cc: "Yves Smith" , "Dylan Ratigan", "Michael Hudson", "WilliamBlack", "David DeGraw","[email protected]"

, "[email protected]", "[email protected]", "[email protected]", "Nomi" ,"Michael" , "Mike Papantonio", "MichaelKrieger", "George Washington", "Tyler Durden", "[email protected]", "Karl" , "Barry", "Kevin Zeese", "max" , "Matt"

, "Simon" ,"Zach" , "David CayJohnston", "Bill Laggner", "Paul", "Noam Chomsky", "BillMoyers" ,"[email protected]" ,"[email protected]", "[email protected]"


mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

8/3/2019 _USDOR 0911-1013 ab_Part18

22/250

Date: Tuesday, October 4, 2011, 3:05 PM

I am for elaborating collective discourse, but perhaps better in termsof general GOALS rather than demands. Demads are naive at thispoint, to put it shoftly.This is not incompatible with strategic actions that may achieve short

term victories. Due to our location I think we should provide ourview of the economic facts, and prioritize our actions toward shortterm and long term solutions.Regarding the elaboration of collective discourse, perhaps we shouldtry some form of open source or similar wiki-process that wouldfacilitate multiple contributions from diverse viewpoints.Cesar

Sent from phone

On Oct 4, 2011, at 10:40 AM, Matthew Taibbi wrote:

I disagree with the notion that there shouldn't bedemands. I think there should be a few simple ones. It'snot a MSM conspiracy when the press wonders what themovement wants or who is leading it. I think there are alot of people in the press and even on Wall Street whoare ready to support the movement wholeheartedly, if itcould articulate some specifics.

If OWS could identify a few basic problems -- over-concentration of capital, regulatory capture, overweeninginfluence of money on politics, excess financialization ofthe economy, tax unfairness, etc -- and propose somefirst-step solutions to all of those things (break up thebanks, force bailout recipients to give up lobbying, endthe carried interest and capital gains exemptions asMichael points out, etc), you'd have more allies, you'd beeducating the public about a subject that it has a toughtime getting real information about through normalmedia, and it would prevent the other side of the debatefrom being able to define the movement in their own

(inevitably unflattering) terms.

The only thing preventing millions of people from goingout onto the streets on their own is that they don'tunderstand how Wall Street works or what it does. Thatto me is why the movement needs to be specific. It has aresponsibility to explain these problems to the generalpublic and to show that solutions do exist and thatthey're attainable. People I think need more than just theknowledge that they can protest -- they need to believe


mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]

8/3/2019 _USDOR 0911-1013 ab_Part18

23/250

that they can fix things and that someone out there hasthe answers. And a lot of the people on this email list dohave the answers and could provide that leadership thatis so desperately needed.

--- On Tue, 10/ 4/ 11, Dylan Ratigan wrote:

From: Dylan Ratigan Subject: Re: OccupyWallStreet EconomicStatement Draft 1To: "Yves Smith" Cc: "Michael Hudson", "Black, William", "David DeGraw","[email protected]","[email protected]", "Winter Siroco","[email protected]","[email protected]", "Nomi", "Michael", "Mike Papantonio"

, "Michael Krieger", "George Washington","Tyler Durden" ,"[email protected]", "Karl", "Barry", "Kevin Zeese", "max", "Matt", "Simon", "Zach"

, "David Cay Johnston", "Bill Laggner", "Paul", "Noam Chomsky", "Moyers, Bill","[email protected]","[email protected]",


mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

8/3/2019 _USDOR 0911-1013 ab_Part18

24/250

"[email protected]"Date: Tuesday, October 4, 2011, 9:17 AM

I agree with Yves entirely. The focus on simpleshared principle and intent to align with all whoagree with that principle is a unique strength.

Learning, teaching and growing.

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 4:11 AM, Yves Smith wrote:

I disagree strongly with the idea of anydemands now. The number participating are fartoo small for the effort to have any bargainingleverage or to be perceived to representanyone.

What is hugely disconcerting to the MSM andthe officialdom is the lack of demands and thelack of easy to identify leadership These need tobe understood as strengths, not weaknesses.The labor union movement was over timecompletely discredited because the leadershipwas quickly corrupted and sold out themembership.

The "We are the 99%" is a VERY powerfulmessage. It basically says "We don't need tonegotiate. This is our country and we want itback from the top 1% which has been selling usout." The 1% know damned well what the99% want. If you forced any 10 in the top 1%

of them to make a list of 10 things they thoughtthe other 99% wanted, I guarantee you'd haveno more than 16 real issues (at most) amongthe 100 answers you'd get in total. And Istrongly suspect the 99% would agree or atmost restate them.

They are MUCH better off making a generalstatement along the "We Are 99%" that holdstheir ground, and makes clear that their firstpriority is establishing their presence, building acritical mass and representation around the US.

There should be a clever way of throwing thedemand for demands back on the media: "It hastaken years to create this mess, the public hasbeen sold on the idea that it is powerless. Ourfirst aim is to convey that the bottom 99%doesn't merely have the right to a seat at thetable, it should not have to negotiate with thetop 1% because the elites depend on ouracquiescence and support for their verysurvival."


mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

8/3/2019 _USDOR 0911-1013 ab_Part18

25/250

There has to be a nice way to say that, but Iwould brush off the demand and make it clearthat organization/membership building and (Ihate to use that tired 60s term, but it fits)consciousness raising are the first priorities. Themore the numbers swell, the more power this

effort has. Issuing demands is not on thecritical path right now and has the potential todeter people from joining. The broader publicunderstands damned well what the aims areeven if the elites and their media lapdogs areplaying stupid.

On Oct 3, 2011, at 3:54 PM, Michael Hudsonwrote:

> I suggest putting a specific POLICY DEMAND.> How about "Bankruptcy legislation to freepeople without jobs from> student loan debt."> Or more accurately: "Tax capital gains ashigh as wages."> "Remove the tax deductibility of debt."> "A Public Option for Credit Cards -- lower therates and penalties."> Michael Hudson>>> On 10/3/11 3:37 PM, "Black, William" wrote:

>>> I would recommend adding/substitutingsomething along these lines. If we're>> going to raise the subject of "fraud" weneed to give some of the supporting>> facts.>>>> The systemically dangerous institutions(SDIs) are inaccurately called "too>> big to fail" banks. The administration callsthem "systemically important,">> and acts as if they deserve a gold star. The

ugly truth, however, is what>> Wall Street and each administration screamswhen the SDIs get in trouble.>> They warn us that if a single SDI fails it willcause a global financial>> crisis. There are roughly 20 U.S. SDIs andabout the same number abroad.>> That means that we roll the dice 40 times aday to see which SDI will blow up>> next and drag the world economy into crisis.


mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]

8/3/2019 _USDOR 0911-1013 ab_Part18

26/250

Economists agree that the SDIs>> are so large that they are grotesquelyinefficient. In "good times,">> therefore, they harm our economy. It isinsane not to shrink the SDIs to the>> point that they no longer hold the globaleconomy hostage. The ability -- and

>> willingness -- of the CEOs that control SDIsto hold our economy hostage makes>> the SDIs too big to regulate and prosecute.It also allows them to extort,>> dominate, and degrade our democracies.The SDIs pose a clear and present>> danger to the U.S. and the world.>>>> It takes a global effort against the SDIsbecause they constantly put nations>> in competition with each other in order togenerate a "race to the bottom.">> We are always being warned that if the U.S.adopts even minimal regulation of>> its SDIs they will flee to the City of Londonor be unable to compete with>> Germany's "universal" banks. The result ofthe race to the bottom, however,>> as Ireland, Iceland, the UK, and U.S. allexperienced is that we create>> intensely criminogenic environment thatcreates epidemics of "control fraud.">> Control fraud -- frauds led by CEOs who useseemingly legitimate entities as>> "weapons" to defraud -- cause greater

financial losses than all other forms of>> property crime -- combined. Because of thepolitical power of the SDIs and>> the destruction of effective regulation thesefraudulent SDIs now commit>> endemic fraud with impunity.>>>> Effective financial regulation is essential ifmarkets are to work.>> Regulators have to serve as the "cops onthe beat" to keep the fraudsters from>> gaining a competitive advantage over honest

firms. George Akerlof, the>> economist who identified and labeled thisperverse ("Gresham's") dynamic was>> awarded the Nobel Prize in 2001 for hisinsight about how control fraud makes>> market forces perverse.>>>> [D]ishonest dealings tend to drive honestdealings out of the market. The>> cost of dishonesty, therefore, lies not only in



8/3/2019 _USDOR 0911-1013 ab_Part18

27/250

the amount by which the>> purchaser is cheated; the cost also mustinclude the loss incurred from>> driving legitimate business out of existence.George Akerlof (1970).>>>> One of the most perceptive observers of

humanity recognized this same dynamic>> two centuries before Akerlof.>>>> "The Lilliputians look upon fraud as agreater crime than theft. For, they>> allege, care and vigilance, with a verycommon understanding, can protect a>> mans goods from thieves, but honesty hathno fence against superior cunning.>> . . where fraud is permitted or connived at,or hath no law to punish it, the>> honest dealer is always undone, and theknave gets the advantage." Swift, J.>> Gullivers Travels>>>> We are the allies of honest banks andbankers. We are their essential allies,>> for only effective regulation permits them toexist and prosper. Think of>> what would happen to banks if we took theregular cops off the beat and>> stopped prosecuting bank robbers. That'swhat happens when we take the>> regulatory cops off the beat. The onlydifference is that it is the

>> controlling officers who loot the bank in theabsence of the regulatory cops>> on the beat. It is the anti-regulators whoare the enemy of honest banks and>> bankers.>>>> Top criminologists, effective financialregulators, and Nobel Laureates in>> economics have confirmed that epidemics ofcontrol fraud, such as the FBI>> warned of in September 2004, can causefinancial bubbles to hyper-inflate and

>> drive catastrophic financial crises. Indeed,the FBI predicted in September>> 2004 that the developing "epidemic" ofmortgage fraud would cause a financial>> "crisis" if it were not stopped. It grewmassively after 2004. The>> fraudulent SDIs (who were far broader thanFannie and Freddie, indeed, they>> only began to dominate the secondarymarket in sales of fraudulent loans after



8/3/2019 _USDOR 0911-1013 ab_Part18

28/250

>> 2005) ignored the FBI and industry fraudwarnings for the most obvious of>> reasons -- they were leaders the frauds.The ongoing U.S. crisis was driven>> overwhelmingly by fraudulent "liar's" loans.Studies have shown that the>> incidence of fraud in liar's loans is 90%

(MBA/MARI 2006) and that by 2006>> roughly one-third of all mortgage loans wereliar's loans (Credit Suisse>> 2007). Rajdeep Sengupta, an economist atthe Federal Reserve Bank of St.>> Louis, reported in 2010 in an article entitledAlt-A: The Forgotten Segment>> of the Mortgage Market that:>>>> "[B]etween 2003 and 2006 subprime andAlt-A [loans grew] 94 and 340 percent,>> respectively. The higher levels oforiginations after 2003 were largely>> sustained by the growth of the nonprime(both the subprime and Alt-A) segment>> of the mortgage market.">>>> Sengupta's data greatly understate the roleof Alt-A loans (the euphemism>> for liars loans) for they ignore the factthat by 2006 half of the loans>> called subprime were also liars loans(Credit Suisse: 2007). It was the>> massive growth in fraudulent liars loans thathyper-inflated and greatly

>> extended the life of the bubble, producingthe Great Recession. The growth of>> fraudulent loans rapidly increased, ratherthan decreased, after government>> and industry anti-fraud specialists warnedthat liar's loans were endemically>> fraudulent. No one in the government evertold a bank that it had to make or>> purchase a "liar's" loan. No honestmortgage lender would make liar's loans>> because doing so must cause severe losses.Criminologists, economists aware

>> of the relevant criminological and economicsliterature on control fraud, and>> a host of investigations have confirmed theendemic nature of control fraud in>> the ongoing U.S. crisis.>>>> But the banking elites that led these fraudshave been able to do so with>> impunity from prosecution. Take on federalagency, the Office of Thrift



8/3/2019 _USDOR 0911-1013 ab_Part18

29/250

>> Supervision (OTS). During the S&L debacle,the OTS made well over 10,000>> criminal referrals and made the removal ofcontrol frauds from the industry>> and their prosecution its top two priorities.The agency's support and the>> provision of 1000 FBI agents to investigate

the cases led to the felony>> conviction of over 1,000 S&L frauds. Thebulk of those convictions came from>> the "Top 100" list that OTS and the FBIcreated to prioritize the>> investigation of the worst failed S&Ls. Inthe ongoing crisis -- which caused>> losses 40 times larger than the S&L debacle,the OTS made zero criminal>> referrals, the FBI (as recently as FY 2007)assigned only 120 agents>> nationally to respond to the well over onemillion cases of mortgage fraud>> that occurred annually, and the OTS' non-effort produced no convictions of any>> S&L control frauds. OTS' sister agencies,the Fed and the OCC, have the same>> record of not even attempting to identifyand prosecute the frauds. The FDIC>> was better, but still only a shadow of what itwas in fighting fraud in the>> early 1990s. If control frauds can operatewith impunity from criminal>> prosecutions, then the perverse Gresham'sdynamic is maximized and market

>> forces will increasingly drive honest banksand firms from the marketplace.>>>> The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commissionreported on the results of the Great>> Recession that was driven by this fraudepidemic:>>>> "As this report goes to print, there are morethan 26 million Americans who>> are out of work, cannot find full-time work,or have given up looking for

>> work. About>> four million families have lost their homes toforeclosure and another four>> and a half million have slipped into theforeclosure process or are seriously>> behind on their>> mortgage payments. Nearly $11 trillion inhousehold wealth has vanished, with>> retirement accounts and life savings sweptaway. Businesses, large and small,



8/3/2019 _USDOR 0911-1013 ab_Part18

30/250

>> have felt the sting of a deep recession.">>>> It is the fraudulent SDIs that are themassive job killers and wealth>> destroyers. It is the Great Recession thatthe fraudulent SDIs produced that>> caused most of the growth in the federal

deficits and made the fiscal crises>> in our states and localities acute. The seniorofficers that led the control>> frauds are the opposite of the "productiveclass." No one, without the aid of>> an army, has ever destroyed more wealthand dreams than the control frauds.>> It is past to hold them accountable, to helptheir victims recover, and to end>> their ongoing frauds and corruption thathave crippled our economy, our>> democracy, and our nation. jj>>>> Best,>> Bill Black>>________________________________________>> From: David DeGraw[[email protected]]>> Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 12:33 PM>> To: [email protected];[email protected]; Winter Siroco;>> [email protected];[email protected];>> [email protected]; Nomi; Black,

William; [email protected];>> Michael; Mike Papantonio; Michael Krieger;George Washington; Tyler Durden;>> [email protected]; Karl; Barry; KevinZeese; max; Matt; Simon; Zach; David>> Cay Johnston; Bill Laggner; Paul; NoamChomsky; Moyers, Bill;>> [email protected];[email protected];[email protected]>> Subject: Re: OccupyWallStreet EconomicStatement Draft 1

>>>> here it is w/ Dylan's suggested revisions, theending needs smoothing out,>> let's see if we can finalize something tonightin GA - flooded w/ calls rght>> now, will be on NBC w/ Brian William tonight>>>> STATEMENT:>>>> we are publishing this statement in response


mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

8/3/2019 _USDOR 0911-1013 ab_Part18

31/250

to misinformation being spread>> throughout some media outlets, we wouldlike to issue the statement below to>> give some clarification as to why we arecurrently occupying Wall Street:>>>> Now let us make something clear to our

fellow American citizens. We - old,>> young, rich, poor, middle class, black, white,blue, red, hippies,>> conservatives, liberals, soldiers, teachers,lawyers, doctors, firefighters,>> and yes, police officers - the peopleoccupying Wall Street, are not against>> rich people for being rich, as variouscorporate media outlets are attempting>> to make you think we are. We believewealth should be a byproduct of working>> together to solve our problems with alignedinterests. To clarify, what we are>> fighting against are the people, politiciansand corporations who are>> responsible for trillions of dollars in fraud.We are fighting a political>> system that has been hijacked and riggedagainst hardworking Americans by the>> global financial elite. We are rebellingagainst economic tyranny. We are>> defending the United States against anoccupying global financial oligarchy.>>>> Our families have endured financial

oppression for long enough.>>>> We are here to defend the people of theUnited Sates. America has been>> invaded and is currently occupied by globalbanks that have systematically>> looted our economy and destroyed oureconomic future. Through a system of>> political bribery - campaign finance, lobbyingand the revolving door between>> Washington and Wall Street the globalfinancial elite have bought off our

>> politicians and now dominate our politicalprocess.>>>> So-called too big to fail financialcompanies, such as Goldman Sachs, JP>> Morgan Chase, Bank of America andCitigroup are responsible for trillions of>> dollars in fraudulent activity. As their globalderivative Ponzi scheme began>> to crash, these global corporations got paid



8/3/2019 _USDOR 0911-1013 ab_Part18

32/250

off politicians and the Federal>> Reserve to give them over $20 trilliondollars in taxpayer money and>> subsidies. After these global banks crashedour economy and took trillions of>> dollars of our national wealth, which savedtheir insolvent companies from

>> going out of business, they turned aroundand had the audacity to give>> themselves all-time record-breakingbonuses.>>>> They used our tax dollars to give themselvesall-time recording-breaking>> bonuses.>>>> At a time of national crisis, with calls forshared sacrifice, they used our>> tax dollars to give themselves all-timerecord-breaking bonuses.>>>> As a result of their actions, our country hasbeen economically attacked. The>> statistics speak for themselves.>>>> According to the National Academy ofSciences, we have over 50 million>> Americans living in poverty. This shockingnumber of American families>> currently living in poverty is at an all-timehigh. Over 50 million Americans>> are also without health care. 46 million

Americans are relying on food stamps>> to feed their families. Over 64 millionAmericans have zero or negative net>> worth. Over 200 million Americans are livingpaycheck to paycheck desperately>> struggling to make ends meet as they areburied in debt. As this dire>> situation grows even more severe, theglobal financial elite are richer than>> ever. Over the course of the pastgeneration, they have consolidated wealth>> in unprecedented fashion. We currently have

the highest inequality of wealth>> in American history. Not even the RobberBarons were as bad as the modern day>> economic elite.>>>> In the US, millionaire households currentlyhave over $46 trillion in wealth.>> On an annual basis, only one-tenth of onepercent of the US population makes>> over $1 million per year. Breaking it down



8/3/2019 _USDOR 0911-1013 ab_Part18

33/250

even further, 400 American>> billionaires currently have as much wealth as154 million Americans. These>> 400 people have as much wealth as half ofthe entire US population.>>>> As we said before, we are not against rich

people for being rich. We believe>> wealth should be a byproduct of workingtogether to solve our problems with>> aligned interests.>>>> Our families and our country have enduredfinancial oppression for long>> enough.>>>> Please join us or organize an action of yourown. Anything you are willing to>> do to rebel against economic tyranny in anon-violent manner is welcome.>>>>>>>>

--Coming Soon


http://www.dylanratigan.com/greedybastadshttp://dylanratigan.com/greedybastardshttp://www.dylanratigan.com/greedybastads

8/3/2019 _USDOR 0911-1013 ab_Part18

34/250

From: [email protected] on behalf ofshaista husain

To: [email protected]

Subject: Re: [september17discuss] Re: OccupyWallStreet Economic Statement Draft 1

Date: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 9:08:35 AM

Which "natural" allies are you speaking of?

Labor? who? our allies are the criminalized, ie. unemployeddisenfranchised as well as labor. We are all paying for crimes of wallstreet.. aren't you aware of how many people came to against the deathpenalty to occupation? Why dismiss them? they are our naturalallies...

On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Gabriel Johnson wrote:> I just want to second Barry's point on keeping it focused on finance;> everything is interrelated, of course, but this is *Occupy Wall Street* and> a lot of the side ones are going to have a lot of our natural allies dismiss> us. I just also might add some sort of taxing the rich plank; it's something> enormously popular, all across the (even American) political spectrum.> --glj

>> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 8:16 AM, Winter Siroco > wrote:>>>> I hope that people are for major and enduring transformations, not for>> minor reforms.>> Cesar>>>> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Barry Ritholtz >> wrote:>>>>>> Folks:>>> In terms of goals and desires, the simpler and more fundamental a list,

>>> the more like that actual change can be effected.>>> I would keep it focused on finance (ie. Wall Street) and on issues that>>> actually matter and can be a rallying cry for the nation.>>> We don't want a top 10 list -- at least not as the main goals -- it>>> becomes too unfocused.>>> I suggest 3 goals, with specific political action to follow>>> 1. Get dirty Wall St Money out of politics/legislative process>>> 2. No more bailouts>>> 3. End TBTF banks>>> The legislative goals of each could be as follows:>>> 1. CAMPAIGN FINANCE: Constitutional amendment changing the rules of>>> campaign finance, providing public finance, removing the massive inflow of>>> cash -- I believe Dylan called auctioning our Congress to the highest>>> bidder.

>>> A national campaign to get that amendment on every ballot in every state>>> is a very doable goal.>>> (Marketing: "Take Congress back from Wall St!")>>> 2. BAILOUTS: No more bailouts is obvious -- time to end private gains and>>> socialized losses of crony capitalism>>> (Marketing: "Bring Back Real Capitalism!" )>>> 3. TBTF: As George Shultz famously said, "If they're too big to fail,>>> make them smaller.">>> The bailouts have made the TBTF banks an even bigger, less competitive>>> oligarchy. Bring back competition by limiting the size of these, either in>>> terms of % of deposits or dollar amounts. Many ways to accomplish this,


mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

8/3/2019 _USDOR 0911-1013 ab_Part18

35/250

>>> including an FDIC caps on insurance would be effective.>>> (Bring now private citizen Sheila Bair into the discussion)>>> These are all doable measurable goals, that can have a real impact on>>> legislation, the economy and taxes.>>> But do understand this: Whatever is accomplished will be temporary>>> without campaign finance reform . . .>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Barry L. Ritholtz>>> CEO, Director of Equity Research>>> Fusion IQ>>> 535 Fifth Avenue, 25th floor>>> New York, NY 10017>>> 212-661-2022 x7104>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>>> The Big Picture: Macro perspectives on the Capital Markets, Economy, and>>> Geopolitics>>> http://www.ritholtz.com/>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 4, 2011, at 6:52 PM, George Washington wrote:>>>>>> Since so many people think there is already an official list of demands,>>> I wrote this to clear the air:>>>>>> No, There Is NOT a List of Official Demands from the Protesters>>>>>> As a side note, this guy has an interesting list:>>>>>> 1) End the Collusion Between Government and Large Corporations/Banks, So

>>> That Our Elected Leaders Are Actually Representing the Interests of the>>> People (the 99%) and Not Just Their Rich Donors (the 1%).>>>>>> 2) Investigate Wall Street and Hold Senior Executives Accountable for the>>> Destruction in Wealth that has Devastated Millions of People.>>>>>> 3) Return the Power of Coining Money to the U.S. Treasury and Return to>>> Sound Money>>>>>> 4) Limit the Size, Scope and Power of Banks so that None are Ever Again>>> Too Big to Fail and in Need to Taxpayer Bailouts>>>>>> 5) Eliminate Personhood Legal Status for Corporations>>>

>>> 6) Repeal the Patriot Act, End the War on Drugs and Protect Civil>>> Liberties>>>>>> 7) End All Imperial Wars of Aggression, Bring the Troops Home from All>>> Countries, Cut the Military Budget and Limit The Military Role to Protection>>> of the Homeland>>>>>> Curious if both liberals and conservatives on this list informally (and>>> confidentially) agree.>>>>>>


http://www.ritholtz.com/http://www.ritholtz.com/

8/3/2019 _USDOR 0911-1013 ab_Part18

36/250

>>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Yves Smith >>> wrote:>>>>>>>> Right now, more people show up for work every day at Goldman than have>>>> shown up for these protests.>>>> We know that the grievances of the protestors are widely shared. But the>>>> risk is that demands lead to some sort of Potemkin negotations or dismissals>>>> in the press as to how unrealistic the demands are ("Throw Wall Street execs

>>>> in jail! We tried that, they succeeded in getting the laws gutted so there>>>> is no way to do that. So you want us to become a nation of vigilantes?")>>>> The more people show up, continue to look like a good cross section of>>>> America, and make statements individually (via sites like We are the 99%,>>>> via their placards or when interviewed with the press) that resonate with>>>> people, the more the space of what is possible gets bigger.>>>> This is starting to change what it is acceptable to say in the media.>>>> That's very good initial progress.>>>>>>>> On Oct 4, 2011, at 4:19 PM, Michael Hudson wrote:>>>>>>>> I should have added that it is easiest to agree on what the>>>> SYMPTOMS are. The economy is dying. Its being killed by financial>>>> mismanagers. Its polarizing.

>>>> Neither party is addressing the root causes thats really>>>> why these guys are out there.>>>> Michael>>>>>>>> On 10/4/11 3:56 PM, "Yves Smith" wrote:>>>>>>>> My concern re stating formal and explicit demands is that the>>>> officialdom will start an effort to pretend to address the demands or>>>> negotiate with "leaders" as a way to keep more people from turning out. A>>>> sustained effort that keeps growing, even it it grows slowly (and the growth>>>> may not be slow) is really disconcerting to the officialdom. It's something>>>> they cant contain and don't know how to deal with.>>>>

>>>> My reader tell me the movement in Spain developed along precisely these>>>> lines, there were no formal overarching goals/demand articulated, but there>>>> was a lot of discussion among various groups at the local level as to what>>>> their grievances were.>>>>>>>> They also said the protests were transformational on a broader social>>>> level. Letting it percolate slowly seems to have been very powerful. It>>>> helps for people to find their voice.>>>>>>>> It's pretty obvious what the protestors want. That's why the call for>>>> demands is awfully disingenuous.>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>> On Oct 4, 2011, at 3:34 PM, Matthew Taibbi wrote:>>>>>>>> Let me ask you a question. If this were the Iraq war you were protesting>>>> instead of Wall Street corruption, would it be "naive" to demand a>>>> withdrawal from Iraq?>>>>>>>> Are you saying it's "naive" because it's unreasonable to expect results?>>>> I don't understand the use of that word in this context.>>>>>>>> --- On Tue, 10/4/11, Cesar wrote:>>>>



8/3/2019 _USDOR 0911-1013 ab_Part18

37/250

>>>> From: Cesar >>>> Subject: Re: OccupyWallStreet Economic Statement Draft 1>>>> To: "Matthew Taibbi" >>>> Cc: "Yves Smith" , "Dylan Ratigan">>>> , "Michael Hudson" ,>>>> "WilliamBlack" , "David DeGraw">>>> , "[email protected]">>>> , "[email protected]"

>>>> , "[email protected]">>>> , "[email protected]">>>> , "Nomi" , "Michael">>>> , "Mike Papantonio" ,>>>> "MichaelKrieger" , "George Washington">>>> , "Tyler Durden">>>> , "[email protected]" ,>>>> "Karl" , "Barry" , "Kevin>>>> Zeese" , "max" , "Matt">>>> , "Simon" , "Zach">>>> , "David CayJohnston" , "Bill>>>> Laggner" , "Paul" ,>>>> "Noam Chomsky" , "BillMoyers" ,>>>> "[email protected]" ,

>>>> "[email protected]" ,>>>> "[email protected]" >>>> Date: Tuesday, October 4, 2011, 3:05 PM>>>>>>>> I am for elaborating collective discourse, but perhaps better in terms>>>> of general GOALS rather than demands. Demads are naive at this point, to put>>>> it shoftly.>>>> This is not incompatible with strategic actions that may achieve short>>>> term victories. Due to our location I think we should provide our view of>>>> the economic facts, and prioritize our actions toward short term and long>>>> term solutions.>>>> Regarding the elaboration of collective discourse, perhaps we should try>>>> some form of open source or similar wiki-process that would facilitate

>>>> multiple contributions from diverse viewpoints.>>>> Cesar>>>>>>>> Sent from phone>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 4, 2011, at 10:40 AM, Matthew Taibbi >>> > wrote:>>>>>>>> I disagree with the notion that there shouldn't be demands. I think>>>> there should be a few simple ones. It's not a MSM conspiracy when the press>>>> wonders what the movement wants or who is leading it. I think there are a>>>> lot of people in the press and even on Wall Street who are ready to support

>>>> the movement wholeheartedly, if it could articulate some specifics.>>>>>>>> If OWS could identify a few basic problems -- over-concentration of>>>> capital, regulatory capture, overweening influence of money on politics,>>>> excess financialization of the economy, tax unfairness, etc -- and propose>>>> some first-step solutions to all of those things (break up the banks, force>>>> bailout recipients to give up lobbying, end the carried interest and capital>>>> gains exemptions as Michael points out, etc), you'd have more allies, you'd>>>> be educating the public about a subject that it has a tough time getting>>>> real information about through normal media, and it would prevent the other>>>> side of the debate from being able to define the movement in their own



8/3/2019 _USDOR 0911-1013 ab_Part18

38/250

>>>> (inevitably unflattering) terms.>>>>>>>> The only thing preventing millions of people from going out onto the>>>> streets on their own is that they don't understand how Wall Street works or>>>> what it does. That to me is why the movement needs to be specific. It has a>>>> responsibility to explain these problems to the general public and to show>>>> that solutions do exist and that they're attainable. People I think need>>>> more than just the knowledge that they can protest -- they need to believe

>>>> that they can fix things and that someone out there has the answers. And a>>>> lot of the people on this email list do have the answers and could provide>>>> that leadership that is so desperately needed.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- On Tue, 10/4/11, Dylan Ratigan >>> > wrote:>>>>>>>> From: Dylan Ratigan >>> >>>>> Subject: Re: OccupyWallStreet Economic Statement Draft 1

>>>> To: "Yves Smith" >>> >>>>> Cc: "Michael Hudson" >>> >, "Black, William">>>> , "David>>>> DeGraw" >>> >,>>>> "[email protected]>>>> ">>>> >>> >,>>>> "[email protected] ">>>> ,

>>>> "Winter Siroco" >>> >,>>>> "[email protected]>>>> ">>>> >>> >,>>>> "[email protected]>>>> ">>>> >>> >, "Nomi">>>> ,>>>> "Michael" >>> >, "Mike Papantonio">>>> >>> >, "Michael Krieger">>>> , "George>>>> Washington" >>> >, "Tyler>>>> Durden" >>> >, "[email protected] >>>> " >>> >, "Karl" >>> >, "Barry" >>> >, "Kevin Zeese">>>> , "max"



8/3/2019 _USDOR 0911-1013 ab_Part18

39/250

>>>> ,>>>> "Matt" ,>>>> "Simon" >>> >, "Zach">>>> ,>>>> "David Cay Johnston" >>> >, "Bill Laggner">>>> >>> >, "Paul">>>> >>> >, "Noam Chomsky">>>> , "Moyers,>>>> Bill" >>> >, "[email protected]>>>> " >>> >,>>>> "[email protected]>>>> ">>>> >>> >,>>>> "[email protected] ">>>>

>>>> Date: Tuesday, October 4, 2011, 9:17 AM>>>>>>>> I agree with Yves entirely. The focus on simple shared principle and>>>> intent to align with all who agree with that principle is a unique strength.>>>> Learning, teaching and growing.>>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 4:11 AM, Yves Smith >>> > wrote:>>>>>>>> I disagree strongly with the idea of any demands now. The number>>>> participating are far too small for the effort to have any bargaining>>>> leverage or to be perceived to represent anyone.>>>>

>>>> What is hugely disconcerting to the MSM and the officialdom is the lack>>>> of demands and the lack of easy to identify leadership These need to be>>>> understood as strengths, not weaknesses. The labor union movement was over>>>> time completely discredited because the leadership was quickly corrupted and>>>> sold out the membership.>>>>>>>> The "We are the 99%" is a VERY powerful message. It basically says "We>>>> don't need to negotiate. This is our country and we want it back from the>>>> top 1% which has been selling us out." The 1% know damned well what the>>>> 99% want. If you forced any 10 in the top 1% of them to make a list of 10>>>> things they thought the other 99% wanted, I guarantee you'd have no more>>>> than 16 real issues (at most) among the 100 answers you'd get in total. And>>>> I strongly suspect the 99% would agree or at most restate them.>>>>

>>>> They are MUCH better off making a general statement along the "We Are>>>> 99%" that holds their ground, and makes clear that their first priority is>>>> establishing their presence, building a critical mass and representation>>>> around the US. There should be a clever way of throwing the demand for>>>> demands back on the media: "It has taken years to create this mess, the>>>> public has been sold on the idea that it is powerless. Our first aim is to>>>> convey that the bottom 99% doesn't merely have the right to a seat at the>>>> table, it should not have to negotiate with the top 1% because the elites>>>> depend on our acquiescence and support for their very survival.">>>>>>>> There has to be a nice way to say that, but I would brush off the demand



8/3/2019 _USDOR 0911-1013 ab_Part18

40/250

>>>> and make it clear that organization/membership building and (I hate to use>>>> that tired 60s term, but it fits) consciousness raising are the first>>>> priorities. The more the numbers swell, the more power this effort has.>>>> Issuing demands is not on the critical path right now and has the potential>>>> to deter people from joining. The broader public understands damned well>>>> what the aims are even if the elites and their media lapdogs are playing>>>> stupid.>>>>

>>>>>>>> On Oct 3, 2011, at 3:54 PM, Michael Hudson wrote:>>>>>>>> > I suggest putting a specific POLICY DEMAND.>>>> > How about "Bankruptcy legislation to free people without jobs from>>>> > student loan debt.">>>> > Or more accurately: "Tax capital gains as high as wages.">>>> > "Remove the tax deductibility of debt.">>>> > "A Public Option for Credit Cards -- lower the rates and penalties.">>>> > Michael Hudson>>>> >>>>> >>>>> > On 10/3/11 3:37 PM, "Black, William" >>> > > wrote:

>>>> >>>>> >> I would recommend adding/substituting something along these lines.>>>> >> If we're>>>> >> going to raise the subject of "fraud" we need to give some of the>>>> >> supporting>>>> >> facts.>>>> >>>>>> >> The systemically dangerous institutions (SDIs) are inaccurately>>>> >> called "too>>>> >> big to fail" banks. The administration calls them "systemically>>>> >> important,">>>> >> and acts as if they deserve a gold star. The ugly truth, however, is>>>> >> what

>>>> >> Wall Street and each administration screams when the SDIs get in>>>> >> trouble.>>>> >> They warn us that if a single SDI fails it will cause a global>>>> >> financial>>>> >> crisis. There are roughly 20 U.S. SDIs and about the same number>>>> >> abroad.>>>> >> That means that we roll the dice 40 times a day to see which SDI will>>>> >> blow up>>>> >> next and drag the world economy into crisis. Economists agree that>>>> >> the SDIs>>>> >> are so large that they are grotesquely inefficient. In "good times,">>>> >> therefore, they harm our economy. It is insane not to shrink the>>>> >> SDIs to the>>>> >> point that they no longer hold the global economy hostage. The

>>>> >> ability -- and>>>> >> willingness -- of the CEOs that control SDIs to hold our economy>>>> >> hostage makes>>>> >> the SDIs too big to regulate and prosecute. It also allows them to>>>> >> extort,>>>> >> dominate, and degrade our democracies. The SDIs pose a clear and>>>> >> present>>>> >> danger to the U.S. and the world.>>>> >>>>>> >> It takes a global effort against the SDIs because they constantly put>>>> >> nations



8/3/2019 _USDOR 0911-1013 ab_Part18

41/250

>>>> >> in competition with each other in order to generate a "race to the>>>> >> bottom.">>>> >> We are always being warned that if the U.S. adopts even minimal>>>> >> regulation of>>>> >> its SDIs they will flee to the City of London or be unable to compete>>>> >> with>>>> >> Germany's "universal" banks. The result of the race to the bottom,>>>> >> however,

>>>> >> as Ireland, Iceland, the UK, and U.S. all experienced is that we>>>> >> create>>>> >> intensely criminogenic environment that creates epidemics of "control>>>> >> fraud.">>>> >> Control fraud -- frauds led by CEOs who use seemingly legitimate>>>> >> entities as>>>> >> "weapons" to defraud -- cause greater financial losses than all other>>>> >> forms of>>>> >> property crime -- combined. Because of the political power of the>>>> >> SDIs and>>>> >> the destruction of effective regulation these fraudulent SDIs now>>>> >> commit>>>> >> endemic fraud with impunity.>>>> >>

>>>> >> Effective financial regulation is essential if markets are to work.>>>> >> Regulators have to serve as the "cops on the beat" to keep the>>>> >> fraudsters from>>>> >> gaining a competitive advantage over honest firms. George Akerlof,>>>> >> the>>>> >> economist who identified and labeled this perverse ("Gresham's")>>>> >> dynamic was>>>> >> awarded the Nobel Prize in 2001 for his insight about how control>>>> >> fraud makes>>>> >> market forces perverse.>>>> >>>>>> >> [D]ishonest dealings tend to drive honest dealings out of the>>>> >> market. The

>>>> >> cost of dishonesty, therefore, lies not only in the amount by which>>>> >> the>>>> >> purchaser is cheated; the cost also must include the loss incurred>>>> >> from>>>> >> driving legitimate business out of existence. George Akerlof>>>> >> (1970).>>>> >>>>>> >> One of the most perceptive observers of humanity recognized this same>>>> >> dynamic>>>> >> two centuries before Akerlof.>>>> >>>>>> >> "The Lilliputians look upon fraud as a greater crime than theft.>>>> >> For, they>>>> >> allege, care and vigilance, with a very common understanding, can

>>>> >> protect a>>>> >> mans goods from thieves, but honesty hath no fence against superior>>>> >> cunning.>>>> >> . . where fraud is permitted or connived at, or hath no law to punish>>>> >> it, the>>>> >> honest dealer is always undone, and the knave gets the advantage.">>>> >> Swift, J.>>>> >> Gullivers Travels>>>> >>>>>> >> We are the allies of honest banks and bankers. We are their>>>> >> essential allies,



8/3/2019 _USDOR 0911-1013 ab_Part18

42/250

>>>> >> for only effective regulation permits them to exist and prosper.>>>> >> Think of>>>> >> what would happen to banks if we took the regular cops off the beat>>>> >> and>>>> >> stopped prosecuting bank robbers. That's what happens when we take>>>> >> the>>>> >> regulatory cops off the beat. The only difference is that it is the>>>> >> controlling officers who loot the bank in the absence of the

>>>> >> regulatory cops>>>> >> on the beat. It is the anti-regulators who are the enemy of honest>>>> >> banks and>>>> >> bankers.>>>> >>>>>> >> Top criminologists, effective financial regulators, and Nobel>>>> >> Laureates in>>>> >> economics have confirmed that epidemics of control fraud, such as the>>>> >> FBI>>>> >> warned of in September 2004, can cause financial bubbles to>>>> >> hyper-inflate and>>>> >> drive catastrophic financial crises. Indeed, the FBI predicted in>>>> >> September>>>> >> 2004 that the developing "epidemic" of mortgage fraud would cause a

>>>> >> financial>>>> >> "crisis" if it were not stopped. It grew massively after 2004. The>>>> >> fraudulent SDIs (who were far broader than Fannie and Freddie,>>>> >> indeed, they>>>> >> only began to dominate the secondary market in sales of fraudulent>>>> >> loans after>>>> >> 2005) ignored the FBI and industry fraud warnings for the most>>>> >> obvious of>>>> >> reasons -- they were leaders the frauds. The ongoing U.S. crisis was>>>> >> driven>>>> >> overwhelmingly by fraudulent "liar's" loans. Studies have shown that>>>> >> the>>>> >> incidence of fraud in liar's loans is 90% (MBA/MARI 2006) and that by

>>>> >> 2006>>>> >> roughly one-third of all mortgage loans were liar's loans (Credit>>>> >> Suisse>>>> >> 2007). Rajdeep Sengupta, an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of>>>> >> St.>>>> >> Louis, reported in 2010 in an article entitled Alt-A: The Forgotten>>>> >> Segment>>>> >> of the Mortgage Market that:>>>> >>>>>> >> "[B]etween 2003 and 2006 subprime and Alt-A [loans grew] 94 and 340>>>> >> percent,>>>> >> respectively. The higher levels of originations after 2003 were>>>> >> largely>>>> >> sustained by the growth of the nonprime (both the subprime and Alt-A)

>>>> >> segment>>>> >> of the mortgage market.">>>> >>>>>> >> Sengupta's data greatly understate the role of Alt-A loans (the>>>> >> euphemism>>>> >> for liars loans) for they ignore the fact that by 2006 half of the>>>> >> loans>>>> >> called subprime were also liars loans (Credit Suisse: 2007). It>>>> >> was the>>>> >> massive growth in fraudulent liars loans that hyper-inflated and>>>> >> greatly



8/3/2019 _USDOR 0911-1013 ab_Part18

43/250

>>>> >> extended the life of the bubble, producing the Great Recession. The>>>> >> growth of>>>> >> fraudulent loans rapidly increased, rather than decreased, after>>>> >> government>>>> >> and industry anti-fraud specialists warned that liar's loans were>>>> >> endemically>>>> >> fraudulent. No one in the government ever told a bank that it had to>>>> >> make or

>>>> >> purchase a "liar's" loan. No honest mortgage lender would make>>>> >> liar's loans>>>> >> because doing so must cause severe losses. Criminologists,>>>> >> economists aware>>>> >> of the relevant criminological and economics literature on control>>>> >> fraud, and>>>> >> a host of investigations have confirmed the endemic nature of control>>>> >> fraud in>>>> >> the ongoing U.S. crisis.>>>> >>>>>> >> But the banking elites that led these frauds have been able to do so>>>> >> with>>>> >> impunity from prosecution. Take on federal agency, the Office of>>>> >> Thrift

>>>> >> Supervision (OTS). During the S&L debacle, the OTS made well over>>>> >> 10,000>>>> >> criminal referrals and made the removal of control frauds from the>>>> >> industry>>>> >> and their prosecution its top two priorities. The agency's support>>>> >> and the>>>> >> provision of 1000 FBI agents to investigate the cases led to the>>>> >> felony>>>> >> conviction of over 1,000 S&L frauds. The bulk of those convictions>>>> >> came from>>>> >> the "Top 100" list that OTS and the FBI created to prioritize the>>>> >> investigation of the worst failed S&Ls. In the ongoing crisis -->>>> >> which caused

>>>> >> losses 40 times larger than the S&L debacle, the OTS made zero>>>> >> criminal>>>> >> referrals, the FBI (as recently as FY 2007) assigned only 120 agents>>>> >> nationally to respond to the well over one million cases of mortgage>>>> >> fraud>>>> >> that occurred annually, and the OTS' non-effort produced no>>>> >> convictions of any>>>> >> S&L control frauds. OTS' sister agencies, the Fed and the OCC, have>>>> >> the same>>>> >> record of not even attempting to identify and prosecute the frauds.>>>> >> The FDIC>>>> >> was better, but still only a shadow of what it was in fighting fraud>>>> >> in the>>>> >> early 1990s. If control frauds can operate with impunity from

>>>> >> criminal>>>> >> prosecutions, then the perverse Gresham's dynamic is maximized and>>>> >> market>>>> >> forces will increasingly drive honest banks and firms from the>>>> >> marketplace.>>>> >>>>>> >> The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported on the results of>>>> >> the Great>>>> >> Recession that was driven by this fraud epidemic:>>>> >>>>>> >> "As this report goes to print, there are more than 26 million



8/3/2019 _USDOR 0911-1013 ab_Part18

44/250

>>>> >> Americans who>>>> >> are out of work, cannot find full-time work, or have given up looking>>>> >> for>>>> >> work. About>>>> >> four million families have lost their homes to foreclosure and>>>> >> another four>>>> >> and a half million have slipped into the foreclosure process or are>>>> >> seriously

>>>> >> behind on their>>>> >> mortgage payments. Nearly $11 trillion in household wealth has>>>> >> vanished, with>>>> >> retirement accounts and life savings swept away. Businesses, large>>>> >> and small,>>>> >> have felt the sting of a deep recession.">>>> >>>>>> >> It is the fraudulent SDIs that are the massive job killers and wealth>>>> >> destroyers. It is the Great Recession that the fraudulent SDIs>>>> >> produced that>>>> >> caused most of the growth in the federal deficits and made the fiscal>>>> >> crises>>>> >> in our states and localities acute. The senior officers that led the>>>> >> control

>>>> >> frauds are the opposite of the "productive class." No one, without>>>> >> the aid of>>>> >> an army, has ever destroyed more wealth and dreams than the control>>>> >> frauds.>>>> >> It is past to hold them accountable, to help their victims recover,>>>> >> and to end>>>> >> their ongoing frauds and corruption that have crippled our economy,>>>> >> our>>>> >> democracy, and our nation. jj>>>> >>>>>> >> Best,>>>> >> Bill Black>>>> >> ________________________________________

>>>> >> From: David DeGraw [[email protected]>>>> >> ]>>>> >> Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 12:33 PM>>>> >> To: [email protected]>>>> >> ;>>>> >> [email protected] ;>>>> >> Winter Siroco;>>>> >> [email protected]>>>> >> ;>>>> >> [email protected]>>>> >> ;>>>> >> [email protected]>>>> >> ; Nomi; Black, William;>>>> >> [email protected]

>>>> >> ;>>>> >> Michael; Mike Papantonio; Michael Krieger; George Washington; Tyler>>>> >> Durden;>>>> >> [email protected]>>>> >> ; Karl; Barry; Kevin>>>> >> Zeese; max; Matt; Simon; Zach; David>>>> >> Cay Johnston; Bill Laggner; Paul; Noam Chomsky; Moyers, Bill;>>>> >> [email protected] >>>> >> ; [email protected]>>>> >> ;>>>> >> [email protected]



8/3/2019 _USDOR 0911-1013 ab_Part18

45/250

>>>> >> Subject: Re: OccupyWallStreet Economic Statement Draft 1>>>> >>>>>> >> here it is w/ Dylan's suggested revisions, the ending needs smoothing>>>> >> out,>>>> >> let's see if we can finalize something tonight in GA - flooded w/>>>> >> calls rght>>>> >> now, will be on NBC w/ Brian William tonight>>>> >>

>>>> >> STATEMENT:>>>> >>>>>> >> we are publishing this statement in response to misinformation being>>>> >> spread>>>> >> throughout some media outlets, we would like to issue the statement>>>> >> below to>>>> >> give some clarification as to why we are currently occupying Wall>>>> >> Street:>>>> >>>>>> >> Now let us make something clear to our fellow American citizens. We>>>> >> - old,>>>> >> young, rich, poor, middle class, black, white, blue, red, hippies,>>>> >> conservatives, liberals, soldiers, teachers, lawyers, doctors,>>>> >> firefighters,

>>>> >> and yes, police officers - the people occupying Wall Street, are not>>>> >> against>>>> >> rich people for being rich, as various corporate media outlets are>>>> >> attempting>>>> >> to make you think we are. We believe wealth should be a bypro

_USDOR 0911-1013 ab_Part18

Documents

Transcript of _USDOR 0911-1013 ab_Part18