Whooohoooo… 8 people arrested in Bell scandal…

[Arraya]

[quote=CA renter][

Too bad those who cause **trillions** of dollars in taxpayer losses are being paid huge sums to help “fix” our problems, while no time was wasted in taking these criminal civil servants down. Weird, no?[/quote]

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/09/janet-tavakoli-on-myth-of-amoral-debtor.html

You’d think Munger had been living under a rock. Yet, he hasn’t been, and I believe he knows better. Buffett knows better, too. Unfortunately, instead of using their positions to tell the truth, they are using their positions to propagate what Elizabeth Warren calls “the myth of the amoral debtor.”

Investment banks knew the cash flows from these loans wouldn’t be there, but they went ahead anyway. Thus, they are responsible for widespread securities fraud. To keep it going, they created more complex securitizations and got more people involved to cover up the mounting losses that were coming down the pike. This was all known and knowable in advance.

I didn’t “forsee” anything. I have no psychic ability. I’m not prescient. I am, however, an analyst, and I know my stuff. So did they. It was fraud.

So, just what sort of “civilization” is Munger trying to preserve?

Warren Buffett has made statements that he doesn’t see the purpose of going after people. That’s ridiculous.

I am in complete agreement with William K. Black that thorough investigations are long overdue. The crimes aren’t in doubt, but one has to go through the arduous task of collecting evidence even though delays have made the trail cold. That was deliberate.

The big criminals will never get investigated because they happen to be the most powerful and politically influential people in the country. Politicians don’t investigate who gets them elected.

I would assume by this point most of the evidence has been covered up.

[CA renter]

Spot on, Arraya.

[CA renter]

Spot on, Arraya.

[CA renter]

Spot on, Arraya.

[CA renter]

Spot on, Arraya.

[CA renter]

Spot on, Arraya.

[bearishgurl]

This just in …

Saying she feared “all hell” had broken loose among jurors, a judge declared a mistrial Thursday on dozens of remaining counts against five former elected officials who had been convicted the day before of looting a working-class Los Angeles suburb.

Superior Court Judge Kathleen Kennedy took the action after the 12-member panel struggled to decide 42 counts against the former mayor and four former members of the Bell City Council.

On Wednesday, the panel convicted the five of a total of 21 counts of misappropriating public funds and acquitted them on 21 other counts. A sixth former official was acquitted of all charges….

http://news.yahoo.com/mistrial-declared-california-corruption-case-230630380.html

It doesn’t sound too much like the judge or the prosecutors will wish to retry the (criminal) case. And this doesn’t bode too well for getting any kind of justice in a potential civil case against any of these former city “officials.”

This case illustrates a typical “jury of your peers” in the County of Los Angeles, IMHO…. brought to you by the Clara Shortridge Foltz “Hall of Results.”

http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/judicialofficers/ui/index.aspx

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Arraya]The big criminals will never get investigated because they happen to be the most powerful and politically influential people in the country. Politicians don’t investigate who gets them elected.

I would assume by this point most of the evidence has been covered up.[/quote]

IIRC, Arraya was usually quite prescient, even though he may have not been discussing the City of Bell here. This poor jury could obviously only consider the evidence before them. They (and we) don’t know what never came out at trial due to it being “suppressed” in-limine (before they were seated).

[njtosd]

[quote=bearishgurl]

This case illustrates a typical “jury of your peers” in the County of Los Angeles, IMHO…. brought to you by the Clara Shortridge Foltz “Hall of Results.”

http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/judicialofficers/ui/index.aspx%5B/quote%5D

A “jury of your peers” is what was required under the Magna Carta – all you get is a jury under the US Constitution.

[spdrun]

I’m guessing the “peer” thing had to do with nobility in England — nobles would want to be tried in front of nobles, commoners would probably want a jury of commoners. Whereas the US didn’t have nobles, so this was irrelevant.

[SK in CV]

[quote=njtosd][quote=bearishgurl]

This case illustrates a typical “jury of your peers” in the County of Los Angeles, IMHO…. brought to you by the Clara Shortridge Foltz “Hall of Results.”

http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/judicialofficers/ui/index.aspx%5B/quote%5D

A “jury of your peers” is what was required under the Magna Carta – all you get is a jury under the US Constitution.[/quote]

Only partially right. The constitution doesn’t mention “jury of your peers” specifically. But the SCOTUS has. And since the SCOTUS is the final word (at least until they change their minds) on what the constitution does and doesn’t say, “jury of your peers” is now the law of the land.

[njtosd]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=njtosd][quote=bearishgurl]

This case illustrates a typical “jury of your peers” in the County of Los Angeles, IMHO…. brought to you by the Clara Shortridge Foltz “Hall of Results.”

http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/judicialofficers/ui/index.aspx%5B/quote%5D

A “jury of your peers” is what was required under the Magna Carta – all you get is a jury under the US Constitution.[/quote]

Only partially right. The constitution doesn’t mention “jury of your peers” specifically. But the SCOTUS has. And since the SCOTUS is the final word (at least until they change their minds) on what the constitution does and doesn’t say, “jury of your peers” is now the law of the land.[/quote]

You’re entitled to a fair cross section of the community where the court convenes – not peers. For example – my peers might be lower middle class white women. Do you really think thats the jury i would get? I dont believe there is any Supreme Court case where there is a holding (not dictum) where it was found that you’re entitled to a jury of your peers. The lack of PC -ness of the phrase is kind of a give away.

[SK in CV]

[quote=njtosd]
You’re entitled to a fair cross section of the community where the court convenes – not peers. For example – my peers might be lower middle class white women. Do you really think thats the jury i would get? I dont believe there is any Supreme Court case where there is a holding (not dictum) where it was found that you’re entitled to a jury of your peers. The lack of PC -ness of the phrase is kind of a give away.[/quote]

Yes, I’d call it dictum. And a pretty narrow definition of “peers”. Specifically, race cannot be a proper cause for exclusion from jury pools. Sex can. Education can. Age can. See Strauder v. West Virginia:

The very idea of a jury is a body of men composed of the peers or equals of the person whose rights it is selected or summoned to determine — that is, of his neighbors, fellows, associates, persons having the same legal status in society as that which he holds.

[njtosd]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=njtosd]
You’re entitled to a fair cross section of the community where the court convenes – not peers. For example – my peers might be lower middle class white women. Do you really think thats the jury i would get? I dont believe there is any Supreme Court case where there is a holding (not dictum) where it was found that you’re entitled to a jury of your peers. The lack of PC -ness of the phrase is kind of a give away.[/quote]

Yes, I’d call it dictum. And a pretty narrow definition of “peers”. Specifically, race cannot be a proper cause for exclusion from jury pools. Sex can. Education can. Age can. See Strauder v. West Virginia:

The very idea of a jury is a body of men composed of the peers or equals of the person whose rights it is selected or summoned to determine — that is, of his neighbors, fellows, associates, persons having the same legal status in society as that which he holds.

[/quote]

Ok – you realize that case is from the1800s, right? And I won’t bother addressing your other points which I assume are supposed to be humor –

[SK in CV]

[quote=njtosd][quote=SK in CV][quote=njtosd]
You’re entitled to a fair cross section of the community where the court convenes – not peers. For example – my peers might be lower middle class white women. Do you really think thats the jury i would get? I dont believe there is any Supreme Court case where there is a holding (not dictum) where it was found that you’re entitled to a jury of your peers. The lack of PC -ness of the phrase is kind of a give away.[/quote]

Yes, I’d call it dictum. And a pretty narrow definition of “peers”. Specifically, race cannot be a proper cause for exclusion from jury pools. Sex can. Education can. Age can. See Strauder v. West Virginia:

The very idea of a jury is a body of men composed of the peers or equals of the person whose rights it is selected or summoned to determine — that is, of his neighbors, fellows, associates, persons having the same legal status in society as that which he holds.

[/quote]

Ok – you realize that case is from the1800s, right? And I won’t bother addressing your other points which I assume are supposed to be humor -[/quote]

I do realize that. Do SCOTUS decisions have an expiration date?

And no humor intended. I was just adding some details.

[Author]

Posts