Court of Appeals ruling - Banks may take money from Allocated Accounts
- Thread starter cheeple
- Start date
cheeple
Member
Exactly my point how hard IS IT to understand......
SR1419
Senior Member.
Buts that just it...you say " droves" but is it ? That's why context is important. Just saying "droves" cuz you think 600 is a big number doesn't mean it is....
600 out of how many? 700? Or 70000?
How many quit, retired, died, we're fired during a similar period of time previously.
I have explained this several times now....this is my last.
You clearly have no context and just read it on an alarmist blog and have incorporated into your bias.
600 out of how many? 700? Or 70000?
How many quit, retired, died, we're fired during a similar period of time previously.
I have explained this several times now....this is my last.
You clearly have no context and just read it on an alarmist blog and have incorporated into your bias.
SR1419
Senior Member.
You do not understand the concept of context if you think you have provided some....
You ignore every example I have provided...which undermines your argument.
Taking an aggregate of data and assigning a single reason to it...without any context...is easily attributed to bias.
You are guessing as to the reason for every incident on your list...and your reasoning is based on your bias.
You ignore every example I have provided...which undermines your argument.
Taking an aggregate of data and assigning a single reason to it...without any context...is easily attributed to bias.
You are guessing as to the reason for every incident on your list...and your reasoning is based on your bias.
cheeple
Member
Do you know what bias means?
it means prejudice in favor of something
I dont have a prejudice in favor of an economic collapse, I would much rather have a strong economy and quality of life for myself and my daughter, if I were to shut my eyes and believe everything will be ok simply because I want everything to be ok, that would be bias.
it means prejudice in favor of something
I dont have a prejudice in favor of an economic collapse, I would much rather have a strong economy and quality of life for myself and my daughter, if I were to shut my eyes and believe everything will be ok simply because I want everything to be ok, that would be bias.
cheeple
Member
from 9/1/2011 to 12/31/2011 - 147 Executive Bankers resigned
from 1/1/2012 to 4/22/2012 - 464 Executive Bankers resigned
a negligible percentage died or were forced to resign
This list includes Banks, Investment Houses, Sovereign Wealth Funds, Equity Funds, Savings Retirement Funds and other shadow banking organizations. The line is very blurry between these entities, some are owned by banks some are banks, some invest in banks as well as owning entire industries
The list is available here
Again, how does this compare to the last ten years.
This is like posting rainfall figures for the two last quarters and claiming they are unusual.
cheeple
Member
No stats other than random periodic retirements, Executive level bankers dont resign in the prime of their career so when one does it stands out and when 600+ do it really stands out in the industry, and they're not getting back into banking even though they have the skills and experience, either they are not in demand anymore or it's a personal choice.
SR1419
Senior Member.
You may not want an economic collapse but that does not mean you are not biased toward thinking one is coming.
You make broad generalizations, speculation that exposes your bias.
It's easily debunked.
Taking an aggregate of data and assigning a single reason to it...without any context...is easily attributed to bias.
You are guessing as to the reason for every incident on your list...and your reasoning is based on your bias.
You make broad generalizations, speculation that exposes your bias.
It's easily debunked.
Taking an aggregate of data and assigning a single reason to it...without any context...is easily attributed to bias.
You are guessing as to the reason for every incident on your list...and your reasoning is based on your bias.
Of course they do. It's called retirement, or it's called getting a better job elsewhere. What, you think they go back to work in the mail room before they retire? And in the corporate world, moving jobs is the main way of getting a bigger compensation package.
Really if you've got nothing to compare it against, then it's meaningless.
cheeple
Member
I'm not making broad generalizations I'm stating my opinion based on the trend I see. Once again I thought I made myself clear I dont have a Bias one way or the other, I look at the information from an unbiased point of view and reason based on facts and trends. The facts and trends are there, I dont think even you would disagree on that.
SR1419
Senior Member.
You say that but I showed one example of the guy who resigned...so, he could join the Federal Reserve. How does that add credibility to your argument that they all quit because they think an economic collapse is coming?
Granted its only one example...but there was another one where he resigned one position only take another position in the same bank...
So, it's folly to make broad generalizations about why they all quit.
SR1419
Senior Member.
That is what is known as a broad generalization.
cheeple
Member
Once again 2 of the 611 died, and now 1 of them resigned and took a position with the federal reserve, thats a negligible amount and gives no creditibility to presume based on these few examples theres not a bigger picture here. Look at the facts and the trends from a truly unbiased point of view and decide what a rationale answer could be.
SR1419
Senior Member.
So, review the rest invidually and determine the exact set of circumstances that led their transition...rather than assigning a purpose based on your bias.
A quick look shows a lot of various reasons...one exec had been there for 33yrs...retired...but will remain on the board....sound pretty standard.
One was Rick Perry's son (at 28 yrs hardly an executive) who quit join his fathers campaign....
Is that part of your trend?
A quick look shows a lot of various reasons...one exec had been there for 33yrs...retired...but will remain on the board....sound pretty standard.
One was Rick Perry's son (at 28 yrs hardly an executive) who quit join his fathers campaign....
Is that part of your trend?
solrey
Senior Member.
CEO turnover is not an issue exclusive to the financial industry. Most CEO's have spent many years climbing the ladder enjoying lucrative salaries and perks along the way, thus they're already wealthy long before they become CEO. Once the position of CEO is obtained there is great incentive to take the golden parachute and retire as soon as possible with great wealth while still relatively young enough to enjoy it. If I were in their shoes I'd jump on that bandwagon in a heartbeat. Some CEO's resign from one company to take a position as CEO with a competitor or at a company in a different industry, in other words there is also a revolving door to some extent.
CEO turnover level points to wider trends
13 Percent CEO Turnover, Highest Rate in Six Years
CEO Turnover At Six-Year High As Apple Joins PG&E In Transition
Want To Be A CEO? Stay Put
Again, what makes CEO turnover unique to the financial industry, or at all unusual for any industry?
CEO turnover level points to wider trends
13 Percent CEO Turnover, Highest Rate in Six Years
CEO Turnover At Six-Year High As Apple Joins PG&E In Transition
Want To Be A CEO? Stay Put
Again, what makes CEO turnover unique to the financial industry, or at all unusual for any industry?
cheeple
Member
I refer to my previous statement, I'm not biased, yet you keep repeating it, it's verbally combative, if you disagree thats one thing but but now your insinuating I'm being dishonest, no need to respond I wont respond to you.
Gunguy45
Senior Member.
I'm not sure you even know what you are saying.
Your link shows 2011/2012....so is that what you really mean or did you mean since 2001 which you said earlier?
Sorry I didn't post this earlier. I was just re-reading to make sure I was up to date and noticed it.
Also......though many of those mentioned did indeed just resign with no reason given, reading between the lines at times, some were given the boot, some were asked to resign to save face, some had been with the company more than 30 years (the last 3 or 4 in the top spot) one quit to start his own bank. One didn't even leave a banking job, he quit as an adviser to Toyota so that he could KEEP the bank job. One wasn't a banker at all but the co-executive director of SAG-AFTRA. And she'd already been working at AFTRA for over 30 yrs. That was starting at the end and working back...and I'm only to 595. So out of 16 people it looks like at least 7 are retiring, changing jobs, going to competitors, starting their own business, or shouldn't have even been on the list to begin with. So in just that sample, 44% have perfectly valid reasons for leaving.
I wonder what the percentage of retirement eligible Government employees do the same thing? Or mid level execs in any company?
BlueCollarCritic
Member
Cheeple,
I can see that you are trying to make teh blind see but you can't make someone listen who does not want to hear. When you read through the rpelies you can see who is interested in seeing proof of your cliam and who are just trying to shoot down anything you have to say because they aren't interested in the truth; just making sure that their perception of the world is not shattered. For some who are still asleep and living in "everythings alright land" the pain of waking up and realizing the truth is as painful as an addict going through withdrawl. If you've ever seen someone go thru that or been through it yourself then you know that they will do anything to keep their world real and I do mean anything.
You shoudl ignore any who are just interested in refuting anything you have to say and focus on those who are just asking to see the prrof of your cliams.
Thanks for posting and remember..
Half of the legal populace of this country is NOT on some form of Welfare (I have to say legal else the illegals are factored in to reduce the over all number and make the statisics look better then they are)
There is no future in Gold, SIlver and precious metals in general (why else would Sorors, Rothchild and other titans in finance be buying gold/silver in large quantities and betting against the Euro )
The TSA are NOT operating outside of airports ( http://www.infowars.com/tsa-rifles-through-bags-conducts-pat-downs-at-paul-ryan-event/ )
The Media is NOT controlled (A google search on TSA + Paul Ryan retruns only alternative web sites and a NEWS only search retruns nothing about the event)
ABove All Else, no one listens to Conspiracy Theorists liek Alex Jones and thats why his show is rated so far down the charts and why his subscribver base is soo low.
Gunguy45
Senior Member.
Thats all anyone is asking! Did you see my post? 44% of the people on the list (out of the 16 I looked at) have perfectly valid reasons for moving on. Provide something other than a list...maybe some historical perspective or other industries moves and retirements.
No one said there is no future in gold or metals.....just that in a total collapse...they wouldn't be that important.
What part of Transportation Security Administration prevents them from being at train and bus stations? btw...infowars links almost always just lead you from one infowars story to another. When you finally do find an actual report...it's nowhere near as sensational as the original story would have you believe.
As to Alex Jones, well....not much needs to be said. Anyone espousing the right stuff will get a fan base. Just like the chemtrail people, Jim and Tammy, Jimmy Swaggart, the psychic network people, etc.
Marko
New Member
Did you look at the site server?
It's tied to disasterandemergencysurvival.com and these domains:
disasterandemergencysurvival.com (prepper supplies)
theemergencyfoodsupply.com (prepper supplies)
thepersonalsecurity.com (guns)
theantichristisnot.com (conspiracy theories)
signsofthelastdays.com (apocalypse blog)
endoftheamericandream.com (conspiracy theories)
lifeafterheavenandhell.com (come to Jesus blog)
addictionrecoveryhope.com (come to Jesus blog)
And these:
plussizediscountclothing.com which is for fat preppers/survivalists.
frenchprovincialfurniture.com for the preppers/survivalists who are very demanding and have exquisite tastes for antique furnishings.
thekidsroomdecor.com where you'll find everything you need to furnish the private bunkers/bomb-shelters for your children.
Best thing you can do, go find your Windows Hosts file which will be here C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS\ETC for Vista and XP. Open HOSTS with Notepad. Find the line in the file that says:
127.0.0.1 Localhost
and then type
127.0.0.1 name of the URL you want to block
For example to block the MySpace.com homepage (highly recommended!), simply type:
127.0.0.1 theeconomiccollapseblog.com
127.0.0.1 globalresearch.ca
127.0.0.1 leap2020.eu
127.0.0.1 debka.com
For reasons I can't explain, you might have to have both theeconomiccollapseblog.com and www.theeconomiccollapseblog.com (and so on). Close Notepad and hit "Yes" to save the file, the restart your computer. You should get a message that says "The page cannot be displayed" if you did it correctly.
That will save you a lot of trouble. This is from about 9 months ago:
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/...al-collapse-that-will-make-your-hair-stand-up
This is one of my personal favorites:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20853
Reputable sites do not advertise to buy gold/silver, or sell "prepper" supplies, and other such nonsense. Their only function is to prey on the ignorant by frightening them into coughing up money.
Whoever you got this stuff from has misconstrued the Court's ruling. What is applicable here is the Commodity Exchange Act under Title 7 US Code. Title 7 contains no banking regulations. With few exceptions, banking regulations fall under Title 12 US Code. In any legal action that involves banks, the Court's ruling has no power, authority, effect or sway, because it's under the CEA. It would be illegal for a bank to do what this brokerage firm did. One reason why is the fractional reserve requirement, which requires bank to keep a certain amount of money on hand (the majority of banks did that voluntarily before the laws were enacted). The FDIC covers banks, but not brokerage or commodities trading firms. Why? Because those are governed by the CEA, and not federal banking acts or regulations.
I'll be the first to tell you that your economy sucks, it's going to suck for a very, very long time, and it will never really get better, but it will not collapse. I know collapse sounds "romantic" to a lot of people, but that isn't how things work. It's economics not a tent. There's not going to be any rioting, or bread lines or any other fun things.
This list is like the "dead scientists" lists
http://www.infowars.com/list-of-dead-scientists/
People die, people get murdered. People change jobs, people retire. Unless there's a statistical difference from the general population, or from past years of the same population, then it's entirely meaningless.
http://www.infowars.com/list-of-dead-scientists/
People die, people get murdered. People change jobs, people retire. Unless there's a statistical difference from the general population, or from past years of the same population, then it's entirely meaningless.
Trigger Hippie
Senior Member.
Court of Appeals ruling - OOPS we made a mistake.
There are very strict rules that govern what FMCs can do with funds in segregated accounts. In the first ruling the judge seems to have determined that The Sentinel management Group Inc. was not acting as an FMC and therefore was not bound by those rules. The Commodities Futures Trading Commission stepped in, informing the judge that the commodities exchange act applies to firms like Sentinel. The judge seems to agree.August 17, 2012
District Court Reconsiders Segregated Funds Ruling, Finds Liability
The district court for the Northern District of Illinois reconsidered its earlier ruling that a dual-registered entity had not committed a segregated funds violation under Section 4d of the Commodity Exchange Act. Upon reconsideration, the court ruled that although the entity was not actually functioning as an FCM, the scope of Section 4d(b) plainly encompasses persons beyond FCMs, and the entity was liability for segregated funds violations.
Reconsideration
The CFTC asked the court to reconsider its ruling with respect to Section 4d(b) of the CEA. The CFTC asserted that Sentinel violated Section 4d(b) because it allegedly removed securities from its FCM-clients’ segregated accounts and placed them in lienable clearing accounts, where they were commingled with Sentinel’s proprietary securities and improperly pledged as collateral for the BONY loan for the benefit of the House Portfolio. CFTC contended that the court’s ruling was in error because Section 4d(b) protects FCMs’ customer funds from commingling and misappropriation by third parties like Sentinel.
The court agreed, finding that its earlier ruling had misinterpreted the scope of Section 4d(b), as made evident by the text and the purpose of the statute. The scope of Section 4d(b) plainly encompasses persons beyond FCMs. Section 4d(b)’s nonexhaustive list of the types of entities that could legally hold FCMs’ customers’ funds indicates that Congress intended to hold entities like Sentinel liable in the event they misappropriated or commingled any of the FCMs’ customers’ funds.
The full article can be found here at the Wolters Kluwer web site.
It will be interesting to see how Infowars is going to spin this news. What do you make of this news Cheeple?
cheeple
Member
Not sure if a court ruling even matters to the DHS or the white house, I dont actually go to infowars or watch alex Jones used to but he was giving me anxiety and raising my blood pressure, LOL, but if we simply go by the "reconsideration" then guess we can consider this thread closed.
BlueCollarCritic
Member
The Feds do whatever they want so long as :
A) They can get away with it
B) Few people if any make a stink about it. The Feds are all about trial and retract. The send out a trial balloon (metaphor for some act they know is illegal/unconstitutional) and if too few persons get mad and raise a stink about it then they move forward to the next stage. If the get enough heat then they back down and simply wait a while before trying again or try an alternative approach.
Just look at the "No Free Speech" zones they‘ve enacted (something that even this sites owner has admitted to being real and cause for concern) and how few people outside the COnspiracy community said anything. I can remember back in the 80s and 90s how there were always protests going on anywhere and everywhere especially if it was some place the president was going to be. Today, thanks to recent unconstitutionally passed laws you can now be guilty of a felony for practicing your right to free speech if you make the mistake of doing it somewhere that the government has decided is a no-free speech zone.
The idea that the Feds can even enact a "free speech zone" should be alarming to everyone and yet most are more concerned about who won last night’s round of American Idiot on TV. We can’t count on the courts either because the SACOTUS has already OK's laws its said are unconstitutional. The media is even worse as its controlled. There’s a great video on how the media attacked Nullification a short while back when some states started talking about using Nullification to say no to the Feds unconstitutional demands (via laws, mandates and you name it). They associated Nullification with white supremacists and one fox news person had the gal to say that the 10th amendment is bogus and unenforceable because of the supremacy clause.
Thomas Jefferson’s draft of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 first introduced the word “nullification” into American political life, and follow-up resolutions in 1799 employed Jefferson’s formulation that “nullification…is the rightful remedy” when the federal government reaches beyond its constitutional powers. In the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, James Madison said the states were “duty bound to resist” when the federal government violated the Constitution. And yet if anyone speaks of States rights or resisting the Feds via the use of Nullification they get labeled as an extremists.
It’s good to see someone said something about this ruling and got clarification but that doesn’t change the fact that other outrageous rulings from SCOTUS. The Federal Government (all 3 branches) and most of the public have forgotten that the Feds work for the states which in turn work for the people and that the Federal Government is supposed to be an entity of very narrowly defined powers. Man its frustrating how so many seemingly intelligent thinking people can not see how ethers any cause for concern.
A) They can get away with it
B) Few people if any make a stink about it. The Feds are all about trial and retract. The send out a trial balloon (metaphor for some act they know is illegal/unconstitutional) and if too few persons get mad and raise a stink about it then they move forward to the next stage. If the get enough heat then they back down and simply wait a while before trying again or try an alternative approach.
Just look at the "No Free Speech" zones they‘ve enacted (something that even this sites owner has admitted to being real and cause for concern) and how few people outside the COnspiracy community said anything. I can remember back in the 80s and 90s how there were always protests going on anywhere and everywhere especially if it was some place the president was going to be. Today, thanks to recent unconstitutionally passed laws you can now be guilty of a felony for practicing your right to free speech if you make the mistake of doing it somewhere that the government has decided is a no-free speech zone.
The idea that the Feds can even enact a "free speech zone" should be alarming to everyone and yet most are more concerned about who won last night’s round of American Idiot on TV. We can’t count on the courts either because the SACOTUS has already OK's laws its said are unconstitutional. The media is even worse as its controlled. There’s a great video on how the media attacked Nullification a short while back when some states started talking about using Nullification to say no to the Feds unconstitutional demands (via laws, mandates and you name it). They associated Nullification with white supremacists and one fox news person had the gal to say that the 10th amendment is bogus and unenforceable because of the supremacy clause.
Thomas Jefferson’s draft of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 first introduced the word “nullification” into American political life, and follow-up resolutions in 1799 employed Jefferson’s formulation that “nullification…is the rightful remedy” when the federal government reaches beyond its constitutional powers. In the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, James Madison said the states were “duty bound to resist” when the federal government violated the Constitution. And yet if anyone speaks of States rights or resisting the Feds via the use of Nullification they get labeled as an extremists.
It’s good to see someone said something about this ruling and got clarification but that doesn’t change the fact that other outrageous rulings from SCOTUS. The Federal Government (all 3 branches) and most of the public have forgotten that the Feds work for the states which in turn work for the people and that the Federal Government is supposed to be an entity of very narrowly defined powers. Man its frustrating how so many seemingly intelligent thinking people can not see how ethers any cause for concern.
cheeple
Member
It's true, I hear the most frightening things daily like what your talking about "Free Speech Zones", but it's ok since i'm not out there protesting, Police disarm law abiding gun owners during Katrina , but it's ok cause I dont believe in guns, Obama has two America Citizens killed without trial but thats ok cause we're fighting "terrorism", Secret Service illegally arrests Brandon Raub over his Facebook posts and it's ok cause he shouldn't have said 9/11 was an inside job, Drones monitor Americans now but it's ok cause "I dont have anything to hide", it will continue til one day our country is unrecognizable but thats ok i'll just keep drinking fluoridated water and taking my anti-depressants to stay pacified who needs a constitutional government when we could have a progressive one.
Trigger Hippie
Senior Member.
It was the CFTC (i.e the Feds) that first sued Sentinel for fraud 4 years ago and sanctioned accounting firms for audit failures. It was the CFTC that filed an appeal after loosing the first case against Sentinel. Then, after losing the appeal, it was the CFTC that convinced the court to reconsider it's decision. It was the CFTC that prevailed in showing that Sentinel was liable for funds violations. Where did the CFTC do something "illegal/unconstitutional" in the Sentinel case?
Because of the unusual way Sentinel was registered with the SEC and the CFTC, the court correctly ruled that Sentinel was not a full fledged futures commission merchant (FCM), and therefor it technically didn't have segregated accounts. Consequently there was no case for fraud. It was after the CFTC pointed out that the Commodity Exchange Act addressed even unusual firms like Sentinel regarding segregated accounts, that the court changed it's ruling and found Sentinel liable. Where did the court do something "illegal/unconstitutional" in the Sentinel case?
Because of the unusual way Sentinel was registered with the SEC and the CFTC, the court correctly ruled that Sentinel was not a full fledged futures commission merchant (FCM), and therefor it technically didn't have segregated accounts. Consequently there was no case for fraud. It was after the CFTC pointed out that the Commodity Exchange Act addressed even unusual firms like Sentinel regarding segregated accounts, that the court changed it's ruling and found Sentinel liable. Where did the court do something "illegal/unconstitutional" in the Sentinel case?
PCWilliams
Senior Member.
I'd like to see a source for this. Link?
PCWilliams
Senior Member.
I went to the link, scrolled down, and randomly clicked the reference link in this entry:
At http://goo.gl/bbdeT ...
Mr. Berkowitz DIDN'T leave banking, he resigned his position at Century Bancorp to take his new job at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. He just transferred positions.
Every one of the references at that page would have to be verified.
solrey
Senior Member.
Here are some more examples:
So Griffin Perry resigned to work on his fathers election campaign.
Alex Denner resigned in order to start his own hedge fund to remain firmly entrenched in the financial industry.
That one resigned because he got busted.
Win Neuger is still with the company in a different position.
Another one venturing out on their own to start a hedge fund.
Not to mention the dozens that are simply retiring after working for 30 - 40 years.
Yes, you do... and no, it's not.
So Griffin Perry resigned to work on his fathers election campaign.
Alex Denner resigned in order to start his own hedge fund to remain firmly entrenched in the financial industry.
That one resigned because he got busted.
Win Neuger is still with the company in a different position.
Another one venturing out on their own to start a hedge fund.
Not to mention the dozens that are simply retiring after working for 30 - 40 years.
Yes, you do... and no, it's not.
BlueCollarCritic
Member
Speaking of MF Global and theft of their customers funds, Globals John Corzine is found not guilty. Is anyone suprised?
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/busine...d7VdtCLvM?utm_medium=rss&utm_content=Business
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/busine...d7VdtCLvM?utm_medium=rss&utm_content=Business
