January 2023 - cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

Dangers Of Recording Conversations - Trials & Appeals & Compensation - United States
by Gunnar Larson 27 Jan '23

27 Jan '23

https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/trials-amp-appeals-amp-compensation/127… Q: My business competitor (or business partner, neighbor, ex-spouse, boss, co-worker, etc.) is doing bad things. I just need to prove it. I can record our conversations secretly on my smart phone, which would be a sure-fire way to get evidence of them admitting to their misdeeds. Should I do it? A: In New Hampshire, the answer is a resounding no, unless you want to face potential criminal charges and a lawsuit from the person you record. In this day and age when most of us walk around with iPhones, Androids, and the like, that can be used as pocket-sized recording devices with the tap of an icon, it may be tempting-or even seem justified-to secretly record a conversation in order to show that someone is engaged in some kind of misconduct. This is particularly true if you stand to be harmed in some way by that misconduct. If you do so, however, you would very likely be engaging illegal conduct yourself under New Hampshire law and opening yourself up to legal trouble. New Hampshire is a "two party" state, meaning that it is against the law to intentionally record a conversation unless both (or if more than two, all) parties involved consent to the recording (with some narrow exceptions largely involving law enforcement activities). Someone who violates this law could be charged with a Class B felony or a misdemeanor under the Wiretapping and Eavesdropping statute, RSA 570-A. Moreover, the person you recorded without their consent could bring a civil lawsuit against you and be entitled to collect damages, punitive damages, and their reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs. At least you still have that great evidence of your counterpart admitting to dastardly deeds, right? Well, you may have the evidence but it is unlikely to see the light of day in court. New Hampshire law prohibits the admission into evidence of conversations recorded in violation of the New Hampshire statute. If you believe you have legal case or a claim to be made, talk to an attorney about how you can build your case. If you take matters into your own hands and try to get evidence using a hidden hot mic, you may well end up on the hot seat. Published in the Manchester Union Leader, January 21, 2023.

1 0

God Allmighty keeps quiet as Genesis goes down in flames
by professor rat 27 Jan '23

27 Jan '23

God Allmighty, sorry, Barry Silbert, keeps quiet as Genesis goes down in flames https://cointelegraph.com/news/opinion-barry-silbert-keeps-quiet-as-genesis… Reposts not sermons on mounting dogs from bitcoin Jesus

1 0

Avalanche doesn't need PoW hashcash or any central cybernetic
by professor rat 27 Jan '23

27 Jan '23

Anticipating AVAX in 2001 https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/1099546566359244801/photo/1 Give the 15 year olds what they want!

1 0

What Juan wants...
by grarpamp 27 Jan '23

27 Jan '23

On usual, punk <punks(a)tfwno.gf> tried again with: > sell cars and ARPANET access Yes, those are products that are for sale, nobody has to buy them if they don't want. But clearly, Juan the hypocrite of those products, has bought and or is using of both of them. Unfortunately for Juan, and thankfully, the world is widely and naturally agreed on not selling what Juan really wants access to, guess what those are... "There is no fucking 'child sexual abuse'. -- PunkBatSoupStasi aka JuanG[snip] aka [snip]" The end.

4 15

Larry Ellison still needs killing ( my 2k sats )
by professor rat 26 Jan '23

26 Jan '23

Another asshole out of ORACLE https://presspass.thebulwark.com/p/matt-schlapp-allegedly-groped-a-young According to a disclosure signed by Schlapp last Friday, he brought in $50,000 from Oracle at the end of 2022, bringing the total to $200,000 for the year. A spokesperson for Oracle did not respond to a request for comment <<< Repost call for actionable intelligence on zombie island

1 0

Help us C3-PIO - you’re our only hope.
by professor rat 26 Jan '23

26 Jan '23

Article exposes Darth Mall, Adam Back as a cheap suit engaged in multiple investments in CRYPTO not Btc!? I'm shocked - SHOCKED! - so many Maxi's still look up to this fraudulent statist punk. https://cointelegraph.com/news/chatgpt-learns-bitcoin-will-end-central-bank… Reposts not GIGO about Defi

1 0

Serious New Issues Emerge in Sullivan & Cromwell’s Deeply Conflicted Role in the FTX Bankruptcy Case
by Gunnar Larson 26 Jan '23

26 Jan '23

https://wallstreetonparade.com/2023/01/serious-new-issues-emerge-in-sulliva… By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: January 26, 2023 ~ Marshal Hoda Marshal Hoda, Attorney for Two Customers in the FTX Bankruptcy Case We don’t know what kind of legal kryptonite the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law is bestowing on its graduates but one young alumnus appears to be fearless about whom he takes on. Marshal Hoda, the young attorney from a one-man office in Houston, who is representing two customers of the collapsed FTX crypto exchange, tested out his super powers in a January 20 hearing in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware. Hoda is pitched against the 900-attorney Big Law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell in one of the most closely-watched (and bizarrely conflicted) bankruptcy cases in U.S. history. Co-counsel with Hoda for the two customers are John D. McLaughlin, Jr. of Ferry Joseph, P.A. and Patrick Yarborough of Foster Yarborough, PLLC. During the hearing, Hoda admonished Sullivan & Cromwell with this: “When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.” Hoda also accused the 144-year old law firm of “gamesmanship” over its serial delays in advising the court of its seemingly endless conflicts in the matter. Those jabs came on the heels of one of Hoda’s clients, Warren Winter, berating Sullivan & Cromwell as follows in a court filing: “Sullivan & Cromwell was one of the FTX Group’s ‘primary external law firms’ before the FTX Group collapsed. To date, the FTX Group has paid the firm more than $20.5 million in fees and retainers. Now, in the most flagrant attempt by a fox to guard a henhouse in recent memory, Sullivan & Cromwell has applied to be appointed the FTX Group’s bankruptcy counsel with duties that would include ‘investigating all potential estate causes of action.’ But it has revealed almost nothing about its prepetition work for Sam Bankman-Fried’s fraudulent enterprise — and failed to disclose or elided glaring conflicts of interest.” The bankruptcy case involves the international crypto exchange, FTX.com, its US counterpart, its more than 100 opaque affiliates, along with Alameda Research, the hedge fund of FTX’s former CEO and co-founder, Sam Bankman-Fried. According to an 8-count criminal indictment handed down by federal prosecutors, Sam Bankman-Fried looted customer accounts at FTX, diverted the funds to his hedge fund, Alameda, and then used those funds for a multitude of illegal purposes. John J. Ray III, the new CEO of FTX, told a House panel in December that at least $8 billion in customer funds are missing. What makes this bankruptcy case so bizarre is that the presiding Judge, John Dorsey, has had Sullivan & Cromwell’s mountain of conflicts placed directly under his nose by the gutsy Marshal Hoda and his co-counsel; four sitting U.S. Senators; a former FTX in-house attorney, Daniel Friedberg, in a bombshell sworn declaration; and by the U.S. Trustee in the case (who represents the U.S. Department of Justice in bankruptcy cases). The U.S. Trustee warned Dorsey as follows in an objection filed on January 13: “The U.S. Trustee objects to the S&C Application for two overarching reasons. First, S&C’s disclosures as filed are wholly insufficient to evaluate whether S&C satisfies the Bankruptcy Code’s conflict-free and disinterestedness standards. The incomplete disclosures are a sufficient and independent reason to deny the application. Nevertheless, publicly available information thus far raises the specter that S&C may have a conflict or not be disinterested given that an S&C partner of eight years became general counsel for certain of the Debtors approximately 14 months before the petition date. Second, the scope of S&C’s retention cannot be allowed as proposed. Bankruptcy Code sections 1106(a)(3) and 1107(a) specifically preclude debtors in possession from investigating themselves, which is exactly what the Debtors propose in the S&C Application. S&C’s close connection with an insider of the Debtors also renders S&C too conflicted to investigate Debtors’ downfall. And any investigation led by S&C would be duplicative and wasteful of estate resources if the Court were to grant the U.S. Trustee’s pending motion to appoint an examiner with a comprehensive investigative mandate.” But as if this Judge is living in some alternative universe with different bankruptcy laws, Judge Dorsey approved Sullivan & Cromwell as lead counsel at the January 20 hearing. The ink on the Judge’s order was barely dry before more conflicts involving Sullivan & Cromwell raised their ugly head, as we knew they would. According to one of the delayed disclosures submitted by Sullivan & Cromwell, it provided personal legal advice to Sam Bankman-Fried less than four months before FTX filed bankruptcy. To put that another way, the man federal prosecutors have accused of masterminding “one of the biggest financial frauds in American history” was the recent personal client of the law firm that will now oversee recouping monies from his thefts. (Bankman-Fried has also written that he worked out of Sullivan & Cromwell’s offices when he visited New York City. We asked, via email, three Sullivan & Cromwell partners involved in the bankruptcy case, as well as the two co-chairs of the firm, to confirm or deny that. We received no response.) According to the long overdue filing of its conflicts, with specificity, by Sullivan & Cromwell law partner Andrew Dietderich, filed with the court on January 17 – just three days before the January 20 hearing – Sullivan & Cromwell’s representation of Bankman-Fried “commenced on April 14, 2022 and ceased on August 5, 2022.” Sullivan & Cromwell’s disclosure also offers this: “This matter was arranged, and paid for, by Alameda.” As we explained earlier, Alameda is Sam Bankman-Fried’s hedge fund that federal prosecutors say was looting customer funds from FTX during that timeframe. The nature of the work that Sullivan & Cromwell performed personally for Bankman-Fried, according to the Dietderich declaration, involved “a position that had been established in the stock of Robinhood Markets, Inc.” – a stock trading app that has had plenty of its own scandals. “Had been established” in the above paragraph is not accurate. According to SEC records, Bankman-Fried was purchasing Robinhood stock through the month of April and May 2022, during which period he was represented by Sullivan & Cromwell according to their own bankruptcy court filing. According to a public statement issued by Sullivan & Cromwell, Robinhood was also their client while it was advising Sam Bankman-Fried on his position in the company’s stock. The law firm wrote on April 18, 2022: “S&C Advises Robinhood in $2.275 Billion Secured Revolving Credit Facility “Robinhood Securities, a clearing broker-dealer entity and a wholly owned subsidiary of Robinhood Markets, entered into an agreement in which a syndicate of banks led by JP Morgan Chase will provide Robinhood with a secured revolving credit facility of up to $2.275 billion.” According to the statement, seven attorneys at Sullivan & Cromwell worked on the $2.275 billion credit facility for Robinhood. Now this is where you have to pay close attention. Sam Bankman-Fried’s stock purchase in Robinhood was not a flimsy 1,000-share position. It was not even a 10,000-share position. It was an enormous 56,273,469 shares with a current market value (at yesterday’s closing price) of $545,289,914 – more than half a billion dollars. And it was purchased with loans taken from Alameda Research, which prosecutors allege was using stolen FTX customer funds. Now, as Sullivan & Cromwell has put pen to paper to confirm, it advised Bankman-Fried on this stock transaction. And, as everyone on Wall Street knows, Sullivan & Cromwell is highly sophisticated in such matters. So wouldn’t one think that large block trades would have been arranged with sophisticated financial institutions to acquire a position of 56 million shares? Instead, something unusual happened, according to this filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission by former Sullivan & Cromwell partner, Ryne Miller, who had become General Counsel of FTX.US in August of 2021 according to his LinkedIn profile page. The Robinhood stock was purchased and then held through a company set up in Antigua and Barbuda (Emergent Fidelity Technologies Ltd.) in which Sam Bankman-Fried was the majority owner. Bankman-Fried didn’t acquire the stock position in a few large block trades but instead made purchases on 29 separate trading days from March 14, 2022 through May 11, 2022. The number of shares purchased on any one day ranged from a low of 400,000 shares to a high of 2.8 million shares on May 3 and May 10. Robinhood’s stock was tanking when Bankman-Fried decided to become a big buyer. Robinhood’s shares went from more than $16 in late March to $8 and change on May 11. His large purchases, clearly, helped support the stock price. Equally concerning, the SEC filing made by Ryne Miller does not show the trading dates and amounts for all 56 million shares but just the details for 29,888,469 shares. (You can tally the “Quantity” column at this link to see what we mean.) Did Bankman-Fried escalate his daily purchases in Robinhood stock after this date? The public is left in the dark in terms of seeing the full picture of what went on here. One thing the public does know is this: the U.S. Department of Justice is not leaving it up to Sullivan & Cromwell to safeguard this half a billion dollar stock position. The Justice Department has seized the stock. Something else the public knows is that the federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York made reference to securities fraud involving an unnamed stock purchased by Sam Bankman-Fried in May of 2022 in their indictment against him. Prosecutors wrote in Count Six of the indictment: “From at least in or about May 2022, up to and including in or about November 2022…Sam Bankman-Fried…and others known and unknown…to commit an offense against the United States, to wit, securities fraud.” The indictment goes on to explain that one element of this securities fraud involved the use of a “national securities exchange.” Neither FTX nor any of its affiliated bankrupt companies have ever publicly traded so it’s not FTX that is being referred to in this particular passage. While the indictment does not include the name of the stock the prosecutors are referring to, Robinhood does trade on Nasdaq, a national securities exchange and, indeed, the Justice Department has seized the stock. For more on the spiraling conflicts Judge Dorsey is tolerating with Sullivan & Cromwell, see our prior reports: A Sam Bankman-Fried Company Loaned or Invested More than $1 Billion in Clients of its Law Firm, Sullivan & Cromwell and Sullivan & Cromwell, FTX Lead Counsel in Bankruptcy, Says It Has No Adverse Relationships, Despite Representing Four of FTX’s Crypto Exchange Competitors.

1 0

Memo #4 - Goldman Sachs Deferred Prosecution Agreement
by Gunnar Larson 26 Jan '23

26 Jan '23

March 10, 2022 BY ELECTRONIC MAIL Mr. John Marzulli United States Department of Justice Eastern District of New York 271 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn New York, 11201 John.Marzulli(a)usdoj.gov Re: Memo #4 - Goldman Sachs Deferred Prosecution Agreement Dear Mr. Marzulli: The Department of Justice has yet to respond to Memo #1, Memo #2 and Memo #3 with our recent inquiry to the 1Malaysia Development Berhad Deferred Agreement. Goldman Sachs' Deferred Prosecution Agreement <https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/goldman-sachs-resolves-foreign-bribery…> with the United States of America is in potential breach, with ethical enforcement being concerned. Memo #4 aims to associate the malfeasance in Malaysia with war crimes of aggression (in the planning, initiation, or execution of a large-scale and serious act of aggression), leveraging the world’s only military divided capital city Nicosia, Cyprus. 1. Additionally, Memo #4 aims to earn the DOJ’s assessment of New York State’s regulatory marketplace manipulation deriving the war crime against peace, related to the planning, preparation, initiation, waging or participation in a common plan or conspiracy related to a war of aggression, which can only apply in relation to international armed conflict. 2. In this case, the first challenge is to observe and consider the simple idea that the DOJ’s Deferred Prosecution Agreement with Goldman Sachs alone, through means of regulatory arbitrage naively fails to recognize the ‘cause and effect’ relationship at play at the inception of Memo #4’s assertion of war crimes. 3. Even with the best of intentions, perhaps unknowingly the DOJ may be amplifying the effect of potential war crimes by indirectly supplementing the root cause of the problem and financial model of the Deferred Agreement being self-policing. Mr. Marzulli, there has been an active United Nations peacekeeping mission in Cyprus since the 1964 Turkish military invasion and occupation of the northern third of Cyprus. Only Turkey recognises the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, while there is broad recognition that the ongoing military presence constitutes occupation of territories that are under Turkish military control. - The graduate education behind Memo #4 is a product of the University of Nicosia’s (UNIC) main campus, located adjacent to the United Nations Buffer Zone that separates the invaded Turkish Republic of North Cyprus and the Republic of Cyprus, which joined the European Union in 2004. - Memo #4 is also a product of United Nations consultancy, based at its Manhattan headquarters, where (today, what is now xNY.io - Bank.org) was credited with increasing the breadth and accessibility of reference content from the world’s most important multinational organization. - Memo #4’s subject of war crimes has preeminent association with such projects as the Audio Visual Library of International Law. Over the following sections, Memo #4 will provide a detailed timeline that would constitute real concern of the war crime of aggression yielding the war crime against peace in active war conflict in the world’s only military divided capital, funded from Manhattan Island. The Bank of Cyprus and Illegal Short Selling Irregularities of Turkey’s Markets Mr. Marzulli, turn this matter as we will, and look at it from any side whatsoever, and it presents the appearance of a cross-border act of aggression. Goldman Sachs’ potential disrespect to the Deferred Agreement’s core values has cultivated new crimes that aim to manipulate cross-border war crime regulatory frameworks. - On April 02, 2021 the Financial Times reported that Turkey fined Goldman Sachs over alleged irregularities in short selling, just a week after foreign investors pulled $1.9B from the country’s stock and bond markets. Turkey’s Capital Markets Board said that Goldman Sachs was among 10 securities firms that had placed orders for short selling without proper notification, violating rules enacted previously that temporarily prohibited such transactions. - On April 20, 2021 the CyprusMail (Cyprus’ only English Language daily newspaper) reported Goldman Sachs International acted as Global Coordinators and Dealer Managers in a $330M bond issuance for the Bank of Cyprus. Given the active military conflict in Cyprus, Memo #4 notes that there is one place on the planet you are not supposed to do this sort of thing. Furthermore, the DOJ’s Deferred Agreement with Goldman Sachs may have been tainted with the potential war crime of aggression, risking international peace and the lives of United Nations peacekeepers, while jeopardizing the United States of America’s financial security. Concern of New York Prime Bank Instrument Fraud and Marketplace Manipulation The United States Department of the Treasury warns that Prime Bank Instrument Fraud schemes have attracted significant international attention, since individuals and organizations have lost billions of dollars worldwide. "Prime Bank Instrument Fraud" is the general term given to prime bank fraud schemes that go by many different names. During April 2021, Goldman Sachs could not in good faith (and, plausible deniability) make any reasonable claim of holding a pristine relationship with Turkey’s Central Bank or with Cyprus’ largest financial institutions, given the 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal and then pending Deferred Prosecution Agreement with the United States of America. - Memo #4 suggests that Goldman Sachs developed a Prime Bank Instrument Fraud program to level out yo-yo market dynamics caused by failed marketplace manipulation exercises in Turkey and Cyprus. - Systematic bank fraud and/or marketplace manipulation of any kind between Turkey and Cyprus could constitute the war crime of aggression. - Furthermore, Memo #4 argues that Goldman Sachs may have tried to bambooze governments in New York, Cyprus and Turkey through regulatory arbitrage loopholes, while Goldman seemingly may have not considered the totality of such actions as war crimes. Turkey has the highest inflation in Europe. It has the second-highest rate of inflation among emerging markets, just behind Argentina. It has the 13th highest inflation rate in the world, ranking it between South Sudan and Nigeria. After Goldman Sachs was fined for illegal stock and bond market short selling by the Turkish government, logic would argue further malfeasance potentially could have been avoided by the DOJ’s 1Malaysia Development Berhad investigation. - On April 15, 2021 CNBC reported that Goldman Sachs (note, the previous section’s milestones of April 02, 2021 and April 20, 2021) crucially removed its bias toward Turkey tightening interest rates. Goldman issued guidance highlighting the fact that the bank thought that, “…the removal of the tightening bias against rising inflation expectations suggests that the TCMB (Turkish Central Bank) now has a more dovish reaction function.” - On August 14, 2021 the CyprusMail reported serious concern among economists about data reporting from the Turkish Statistical Institute. Ahmet Takan, a former official with the office of the Turkish prime minister, acted as a whistle blower, warning that Turkey potentially was manipulating inflation data. - On September 1, 2021 Reuters reported that Goldman Sachs hiked Turkish growth forecasts. Goldman economists issued guidance stating, "Overall, the Turkish economy has been able to grow faster than we thought without a deterioration in its external balances, as the pickup in foreign demand has been very supportive." - On November 30, 2021 Reuters reported that Goldman Sachs trimed Turkey’s 2022 growth forecast. Goldman Sachs' Murat Unur stated, "We think that the GDP figures released today tell us little about the pace of economic activity going forward as the recent sell-off in the Lira is likely to impact economic activity significantly" Mr. Marzulli, the DOJ’s Deferred Prosecution Agreement with Goldman Sachs was signed on October 21, 2021. The timeline of events above do not coincide with terms and conditions of the Deferred Agreement mandated by the United States of America. Furthermore, as an international graduate scholars of the world’s only military divided capital on the planet, xNY.io - Bank.org should be protected from any association of crimes against peace, related to the planning, preparation, initiation, waging or participation in a common plan or conspiracy related to a war of aggression, which can only apply in relation to international armed conflict. War Crimes Against Humanity Mr. Marzulli, xNY.io - Bank.org is concerned that potential breaches to the Deferred Agreement are impacting our global enterprise. Crimes against humanity can be committed in peacetime as well as during an armed conflict. Even a single act could fall under this exclusion ground provided it forms part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population and the act is committed by any person (including a civilian) who had knowledge of the attack and the link of the act to the attack. 1. We are looking to learn more about the DOJ’s approach to assessing any potential breaches to the Deferred Agreement’s mandates as we determine New York State’s role in cross-border bank regulation and corresponding innovation beyond war crimes against humanity. 2. In order to establish whether a war crime or a crime against humanity has been committed, the case officer should consult the relevant international instruments and case law. 3. Crimes against humanity are fundamentally inhumane acts, committed as part of a systematic or widespread attack. Inhumane acts, which could reach this threshold when committed pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy (potentially, New York State bank regulation). 4. Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender, or other grounds that are universally recognised as impermissible under international law. 5. Furthermore, we have made 28 highlights to the Deferred Agreement providing supporting reference to Memo #4’s overarching premise. xNY.io - Bank.org submits Memo #4 for DOJ consideration of other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health. Some crimes against humanity would require an additional specific intent, such as Goldman Sachs willfully disrespecting New York State and/or overall peace and security of the United States of America. Memo #1, Memo #2, Memo #3 and Memo #4 outline instances that correspond with the associated definitions of the potential war crimes abroad and jeopardize the future of bank innovation from New York, at great sacrifice to the Homeland. We hope to learn the DOJ’s approach to comment on Memo #4’s subject matter or, without delay refer these concerns to the International Criminal Court and/or International Court of Justice for comment. Respectfully yours with anticipation, Gunnar Larson - xNY.io <http://www.xny.io> | Bank.org <http://bank.org>MSc <https://www.unic.ac.cy/blockchain/msc-digital-currency/?utm_source=Google&u…> - Digital Currency MBA <https://www.unic.ac.cy/business-administration-entrepreneurship-and-innovat…> - Entrepreneurship and Innovation (ip) G(a)xNY.io +1-646-454-9107

1 6

Adam Back supports rape and theft
by professor rat 25 Jan '23

25 Jan '23

Assange a scoundrel who raped America: Pompeo The former Secretary of State, a likely Republican contender for president in 2024, says he’ll be ‘delighted‘ to see Julian Assange in a US prison. Pompeo has a point since Julian Assange is a known rapist and thief who has a lot of time for Ron and Rand Paul. And it follows with geometric logic that Adam Back supports rape and theft. He supports Assmange! Why does Adam Back hate our cypherpunk freedoms? Back's BFF's Mow, Szabo, Mange, etc are the scum of the earth. And Rape and Theft are a Nazbol's way of doing business.

1 0

A Federal Agency Wants to Hear Directly from the Public about Bad Practices at Credit Card Companies
by Gunnar Larson 25 Jan '23

25 Jan '23

https://wallstreetonparade.com/2023/01/a-federal-agency-wants-to-hear-direc… By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: January 25, 2023 ~ Yesterday, the federal watchdog agency – the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) – announced that it wants to hear directly from the public on credit card practices. But since “the public” also includes all of the folks that are paid to carry water for the credit card industry, the voice of the average Joe and Jane is highly likely to be overwhelmed by industry sycophants, as is typically the case. Thus, we are asking our readers to give this matter some careful thought, as we outline below, and if you are so inclined, send your comments to the good folks at the CFPB using this link they have set up. The public has until April 24, 2023 to submit comments but we ask that you do so promptly. Topic 1: The Same Banks that Were Bailed Out by the U.S. Taxpayers in 2008 with Below-Market Rate Loans as Low as Less than Half of One Percent Are Now Charging those Same Taxpayers as High as 13 to 18 Percent (or Higher) on Credit Cards A government audit released in July of 2011 showed that the same mega banks on Wall Street that caused the meltdown of the economy in 2008 and the Great Recession were bailed out with cumulative loans from the Federal Reserve totaling more than $16 trillion. (If you add in the bailout programs not covered by the government audit and the dollars swap lines to foreign central banks, the figure comes to a $29 trillion bailout.) The U.S. taxpayer is ultimately on the hook for the debt of the Federal Reserve, so those loans were, indeed, a subsidy from the taxpayer. A significant part of those Fed loans were made at less than one-half of one percent interest at a time when some of those banks were teetering or insolvent and couldn’t have gotten loans at even double-digit interest rates in the open market. Three of the recipients of those loans – JPMorgan Chase (parent of Chase Bank), Citigroup (parent of Citibank), and Bank of America – just also happen to currently have the largest market share of the credit card market in terms of balances outstanding, according to the 2022 Nilson Report. But these banks are allowed by the U.S. Congress to currently pay as little as 0.01 percent on the money consumers hold in their money market funds at those banks while the same banks charge double-digit interest rates on their credit cards held by consumers. How is the U.S. consumer ever supposed to get ahead? This constitutes an enshrined wealth transfer system that is being institutionalized through inaction by Congress. (Also see our 2021 article: Citigroup Has Made a Sap of the Fed: It’s Borrowing at 0.35 % from the Fed While Charging Struggling Consumers 27.4 % on Credit Cards; and our 2022 article: The Apple Credit Card Provided through Goldman Sachs Has Created a Living Hell According to Consumer Complaints. Topic 2: The U.S. Needs a Federal Cap on Interest Rates Charged on Consumer Credit Cards In 2019, Senator Bernie Sanders and Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez introduced the ‘‘Loan Shark Prevention Act’’ which would have set a Federal cap of 15 percent on interest rates that could be charged to consumers. (Needless to say, it was immediately attacked by the bank lobby and did not pass.) In introducing the new legislation, Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez singled out the mega Wall Street banks, writing the following in a white paper they released simultaneously with the proposed legislation: “Today’s modern-day loan sharks are no longer lurking on street corners, threatening violence to collect their payments. Today’s loan sharks wear expensive suits and work on Wall Street, where they make hundreds of millions of dollars in total compensation by charging sky-high fees and usurious interest rates, and head financial institutions like JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, and American Express… “Despite the fact that banks can borrow money today at less than 2.5 percent from the Federal Reserve, the median credit card interest rate today for consumers is an astounding 21.36 percent… “Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JP Morgan Chase, is now worth $1.4 billion after his bank got a taxpayer bailout of more than $400 billion during the financial crisis… “The American people are sick and tired of being ripped off by the same financial institutions that they bailed out ten years ago.” In their white paper, Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez also explained how the U.S. ended up with such draconian consumer interest rates. They write: “Establishing a national usury law is not a radical concept. Up until 1978, about half of the states in the country had usury laws on the books capping interest rates on credit cards and other consumer loans. For example, in Alabama, the legal maximum rate of interest was 8 percent. In Alaska it was 10.5 percent. In Arizona it was 10 percent. In Idaho, it was 12 percent. In Kansas, it was 15 percent. In New Mexico it was 15 percent. And, in Vermont, the legal maximum rate of interest was 12 percent. “But, those state interest-rate caps were obliterated by a 1978 Supreme Court decision (Marquette National Bank v. First of Omaha Service Corp), which concluded that national banks could charge whatever interest rate they wanted if they moved to a state without a usury law. So most of these companies moved to South Dakota or Delaware with no interest rate caps, allowing them to charge people in Vermont or Kansas interest rates of 20 or 30 percent. That is unacceptable. Under this plan, the disastrous Marquette Supreme Court decision would be repealed.” As the saying goes, “Democracy is not a spectator sport.” If you want a fairer America, you have to engage. We ask that you consider sending your thoughts on these issues to the CFPB, along with any other credit card complaints that you have. We also ask that you forward this article to others you know who are struggling under the weight of credit card debt at high interest rates. FacebookTwitterWhatsAppLinkedInEmail

1 0