Americans who abandoned citizenship jumped 1,402% last quarter

irs shakedown 150x150 Americans who abandoned citizenship jumped 1,402% last quarter

February 10, 2014
Sovereign Valley Farm, Chile

631 people renounced their US citizenship in the 4th quarter of 2013.

This is an entire order of magnitude higher than the 45 people who renounced in 4Q/2012. And in total, 3,000 Americans renounced their citizenship in 2013– another record high.

The previous record (1,777) was set in 2011, which shattered the previous record before that (1,534) which was set in 2010, which was more than twice the number (742) that renounced in 2009.

You can see the trend here. And it’s not hard to figure out why it’s happening.

As the United States Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olsen recently told Congress in her scathing report about US tax policy:

“[T]ax requirements have become so confusing and the compliance burden so great that taxpayers are giving up their U.S. citizenship in record numbers.”

In her report, Ms. Olsen specifically points to the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), which was passed by Congress four years ago. She states that FATCA “has the potential to be burdensome, overly broad, and detrimental to taxpayer rights.”

That’s putting it politely.

I have written several times before that FATCA is one of the most destructive, insidious pieces of legislation ever passed. And the worst effects are only now -starting- to be felt.

Among other things, the law requires new disclosures for US citizens with foreign accounts. And just to make sure it’s absolutely clear how the US government views its tax serfs, they put this little ditty in the instructions:

“The fact that a foreign jurisdiction would impose a civil or criminal penalty on you if you disclose the required information is not reasonable cause [to NOT file this form].”

Basically they’re saying, ‘Even if disclosing this information would cause you to go to jail in a foreign country due to their confidentiality laws, we don’t give a damn. We still expect you to file this form. Otherwise we will throw you in jail in the US.’

(yes, there are potential criminal penalties for not filing this form…)

This isn’t exactly how a free society treats its citizens. It’s a constant threat of force with these people. Even the most mundane, bureaucratic tasks are cause for intimidation.

As I have pointed out so many times before, you can’t even apply for a passport (i.e. permission to leave the country) in the Land of the Free without being threatened with fines and imprisonment.

All of this has come at tremendous cost. Aside from permanent damaging the US government’s reputation and its role in the global banking system, the human cost is nearly incalculable.

Think about it– it’s not the Obamaphone recipients who are renouncing their citizenship and leaving the country. These are smart, talented, energetic people who could have actually contributed something.

And as this productive class gets out of dodge, they leave behind more people who want something for nothing… and fewer people to pay the bill.

It’s the same situation the Romans were in back in the 5th century.

Undoubtedly there are folks out there who would call the thousands of people who have renounced ‘cowards’ and ‘traitors’ (though they are in respected company given that the British considered George Washington a traitor).

But lest we judge ‘renunciants’ poorly, we should first ask– is it more honorable to lay down and let yourself be plundered by a bunch of blundering, bungling, deceitful politicians…?

Doubtful. Besides, divorcing yourself from your bankrupt, insolvent government is not the same as divorcing yourself from your culture or values.

You are who you are no matter what color your passport is.

from SOVErEIGN MAN http://ift.tt/1eKluug
via IFTTT

JPMorgan Sued For Crony Justice – Presenting "A Decade of Illegal Conduct by JP Morgan Chase"

Earlier today, the non-profit organization Better Markets did what so many others have only dreamed of doing – they sued JPMorgan.

Specifically, as they disclose in the fact sheet posted on their website, they are “challenging the historic and unprecedented $13 billion settlement agreement between the U.S. Department of Justice and JP Morgan Chase (“Agreement”).  Better Markets alleges in its complaint that the DOJ violated the Constitution and laws of the United States by using a mere contractual agreement to resolve claims of historic importance without subjecting the Agreement to independent judicial review.  In effect, the DOJ acted as investigator, prosecutor, judge, jury, sentencer, and collector, without any check on its authority or actions, even though the amount is the largest in the 237 year history of the United States. Because the DOJ has declared its intention to use the Agreement as a “template” in future similar cases, it is imperative that the DOJ’s unlawful and secretive approach in the settlement process be subjected to judicial review.“

We wish them the best of luck, as in a “crony jsutice” system as corrupt as this one – perhaps best described, paradoxically enough by the fictional movie The International – where the same DOJ previously implicitly admitted it will not prosecute “systemically important” firms like JPM to the full extent of the law and instead merely lob one after another wrist slap at them to placate the peasantry, any hope for obtaining true justice is impossible.

That said, the key aspects of the Better Markets lawsuit deserve attention. They are broken down as follows:

For years leading up to the financial crisis of 2008, JP Morgan Chase allegedly engaged in pervasive fraud in the packaging and sale of thousands of mortgage-backed securities to investors.  Those securities were stuffed with subprime loans that failed to meet applicable underwriting criteria.  Employees, managers, and potentially high-level executives of JP Morgan Chase knew that the securities were riddled with toxic loans, but they allegedly concealed the truth from investors when they marketed and sold the securities.  Investors lost huge but still unknown sums of money as a result of the fraud, and the bank’s illegal conduct contributed directly to the biggest financial crash since 1929 and the worst economy since the Great Depression of the 1930s.  
 
After negotiating the Agreement in complete secrecy, the DOJ announced the $13 billion deal on November 19, 2013, claiming that it was holding JP Morgan Chase accountable for its illegal activities.  Under the Agreement, DOJ grants JP Morgan Chase broad civil immunity in exchange for a $2 billion civil penalty, along with $4 billion in “consumer relief” for the benefit of homeowners with problem mortgages.  The Agreement also allocates $7 billion to eight other agencies or states to resolve their claims against JP Morgan Chase.
 
Key Allegations in the Complaint

The Agreement was struck under the most extraordinary circumstances.  For example—

  • THE HISTORIC CLAIMS:  The Agreement resolved claims of pervasive fraud that contributed to the worst financial crash since 1929 and the worst economy since the Great Depression of the 1930s.
  • THE LARGEST AMOUNT EVER:  The settlement amount was the largest in U.S. history from any single entity by more than 300%.
  • THE BIGGEST BANK:  JP Morgan Chase is the largest, richest, and most well-connected Wall Street bank in the United States.
  • THE HIGHEST-LEVEL NEGOTIATORS: The Attorney General and other senior DOJ political appointees negotiated directly and entirely in secret with the CEO of JP Morgan Chase, someone who was considered a possible Treasury Secretary just a few years ago.
  • THE $10 BILLION PHONE CALL:  The cellphone of DOJ’s third highest ranking official rang with the “familiar” phone number of JP Morgan Chase’s CEO, who called to offer billions of dollars to stop DOJ from holding a press conference and filing a lawsuit in just a few hours.  The call worked, and the press conference and lawsuit were both called off. 
  • THE UNPRECEDENTED AGREEMENT:  DOJ gave complete civil immunity to JP Morgan Chase for defrauding thousands in exchange for $13 billion, via a contract that was negotiated and finalized in secret without any review or approval by a federal court.

?Notwithstanding the historic nature of the settlement, the Agreement was never subjected to judicial review, so there has been no independent evaluation of its terms.  Furthermore, the vague settlement documents fail to disclose critically important information about every aspect of the deal.  For example, the Agreement fails to identify or explain— 

  • THE LOSSES:  How much did JP Morgan Chase’s clients, customers, counterparties, investors, and others lose as a result of its fraudulent conduct?  $100 billion?  $200 billion?  More?
  • THE PROFITS:  How much revenue, profits, and other benefits did JP Morgan Chase receive as a result of its fraudulent conduct, and was it all disgorged?  $10 billion?  $20 billion?  More?
  • THE BONUSES:  Who received what amount of bonuses for the illegal conduct?
  • THE INVESTIGATION:  What was the scope and thoroughness of the investigation that provided the basis for the Agreement?
  • THE FRAUD:  What are the material facts of the illegal conduct by JP Morgan Chase and the specific violations of law that were committed?
  • THE CULPRITS: What exactly did the individual executives, officers, managers, and employees involved in the illegal conduct actually do to carry out the fraud, and do any of them still work for the bank?
  • THE CORRECTIVE ACTION:  Why did the contract fail to impose on JP Morgan Chase any obligation to change any of its business or compliance practices, which are standard conduct remedies that regulators routinely require?  And how can the sanctions effectively punish and deter JP Morgan Chase, given its wealth and its extensive history of lawless conduct?
  • THE LACK OF ADMISSIONS:  Why are there no admissions of fact or law by JP Morgan Chase, and what, if any, are the concrete legal implications of their so-called “acknowledgment”?

By entering the Agreement without seeking any judicial review and approval, the DOJ violated the Constitution and laws of the United States. 

  • The Executive Branch, acting through the DOJ, violated the separation of powers doctrine by unilaterally striking a bargain with JP Morgan Chase to resolve unprecedented matters of historic importance, without seeking any judicial review and approval of the Agreement.
  • The DOJ violated the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”) by failing to commence a civil action in federal court so that the court could, among other things, assess the civil penalty.
  • The DOJ acted arbitrarily and capriciously by, among other things, entering the Agreement without seeking judicial review and approval.

* * *

But perhaps the most informative aspect of the lawsuit fact sheet is simply stepping back and observing the relentless illegal transgressions by Jamie Dimon’s firm. Better Markets summarizes them best as follows:

Highlights From A Decade of Illegal Conduct by JP Morgan Chase

  • United States v. JPMorgan Case Bank, NA, No-1:14-cr-7 (S.D.N.Y. Jan 8, 2014) ($1.7 billion criminal penalty); In re JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., OCC Admin. Proceeding No. AA-EC-13-109 (Jan. 7, 2014)
    ($350 million civil penalty    ); In re JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Dept. of the Treasury Financial Crimes Enforcement Network Admin. Proceeding No. 2014-1 (Jan. 7, 2014) ($461 million civil penalty) (all for violations of law arising from the bank’s role in connection with Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme, the largest in the history of the U.S.);
  • In re JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., CFTC Admin. Proceeding No. 14-01 (Oct. 16, 2013) ($100 million civil penalty); In re JPMorgan Chase & Co., SEC Admin. Proceeding No. 3-15507 (Sept. 19, 2013) ($200 million civil penalty); In re JPMorgan Chase & Co., Federal Reserve Board Admin. Proceeding No. 13-031-CMP-HC (Sept. 18, 2013) ($200 million civil penalty); UK Financial Conduct Authority, Final Notice to JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Sept. 18, 2013) (£137.6 million ($221 million) penalty); In re JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., OCC Admin. Proceeding No. AA-EC-2013-75, #2013-140 (Sept. 17, 2013) ($300 million civil penalty) (all for violations of federal law in connection with the proprietary trading losses sustained by JP Morgan Chase in connection with the high risk derivatives bet referred to as the “London Whale”);
  • In re JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., CFPB Admin. Proceeding No. 2013-CFPB-0007 (Sept. 19, 2013) ($20 million civil penalty and $309 million refund to customers); In re JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., OCC Admin. Proceeding No. AA-EC-2013-46 (Sept. 18, 2013) ($60 million civil penalty) (both for violations in connection with JP Morgan Chase’s billing practices and fraudulent sale of so-called Identity Protection Products to customers);
  • In Re Make-Whole Payments and Related Bidding Strategies, FERC Admin. Proceeding Nos. IN11-8-000, IN13-5-000 (July 30, 2013) (civil penalty of $285 million and disgorgement of $125 million for energy market manipulation);
  • SEC v. J.P. Morgan Sec. LLC, No. 12-cv-1862 (D.D.C. Jan. 7, 2013) ($301 million in civil penalties and disgorgement for improper conduct related to offerings of mortgage-backed securities);
  • In re JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., CFTC Admin. Proceeding No. 12-37 (Sept. 27, 2012) ($600,000 civil penalty for violations of the Commodities Exchange Act relating to trading in excess of position limits);
  • In re JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., CFTC Admin. Proceeding No. 12-17 (Apr. 4, 2012) ($20 million civil penalty for the unlawful handling of customer segregated funds relating to the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc.);
  • United States v. Bank of America, No. 12-cv-00361 (D.D.C. 2012) (for foreclosure and mortgage-loan servicing abuses during the Financial Crisis, with JP Morgan Chase paying $5.3 billion in monetary and consumer relief);
  • In re JPMorgan Chase & Co., Federal Reserve Board Admin. Proceeding No. 12-009-CMP-HC (Feb. 9, 2012) ($275 million in monetary relief for unsafe and unsound practices in residential mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure processing);
  • SEC v. J.P. Morgan Sec. LLC, No. 11-cv-03877 (D.N.J. July 7, 2011) ($51.2 million in civil penalties and disgorgement); In re JPMorgan Chase & Co., Federal Reserve Board Admin. Proceeding No. 11-081-WA/RB-HC (July 6, 2011) (compliance plan and corrective action requirements); In re JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., OCC Admin. Proceeding No. AA-EC-11-63 (July 6, 2011) ($22 million civil penalty) (all for anticompetitive practices in connection with municipal securities transactions);
  • SEC v. J.P. Morgan Sec., LLC, No. 11-cv-4206 (S.D.N.Y. June 21, 2011) ($153.6 million in civil penalties and disgorgement for violations of the securities laws relating to misleading investors in connection with synthetic collateralized debt obligations);
  • In re JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., OCC Admin. Proceeding No. AA-EC-11-15, #2011-050 (Apr. 13, 2011) (consent order mandating compliance plan and other corrective action resulting from unsafe and unsound mortgage servicing practices);
  • In re J.P. Morgan Sec. Inc., SEC Admin. Proceeding No. 3-13673 (Nov. 4, 2009) ($25 million civil penalty for violations of the securities laws relating to the Jefferson County derivatives trading and bribery scandal);
  • In re JP Morgan Chase & Co, Attorney General of the State of NY Investor Protection Bureau, Assurance of Discontinuance Pursuant to Exec. Law §63(15) (June 2, 2009) ($25 million civil penalty for misrepresenting risks associated with auction rate securities);
  • In re JPMorgan Chase & Co., SEC Admin. Proceeding No. 3-13000 (Mar. 27, 2008) ($1.3 million civil disgorgement for violations of the securities laws relating to JPM’s role as asset-backed indenture trustee to certain special purpose vehicles);
  • In re J.P. Morgan Sec. Inc., SEC Admin. Proceeding No. 3-11828 (Feb. 14, 2005) ($2.1 million in civil fines and penalties for violations of Securities Act record-keeping requirements); and
  • SEC v. J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., 03-cv-2939 (WHP) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 2003) ($50 million in civil penalties and disgorgements as part of a global settlement for research analyst conflict of interests).

Did we mention that nobody from JPM has gone to prison, and instead as of late last week, one of the biggest JPM culprits was set to become a member of the CFTC’s advisory panel? Why? #AskJPM


    



via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1eKefCz Tyler Durden

JPMorgan Sued For Crony Justice – Presenting “A Decade of Illegal Conduct by JP Morgan Chase”

Earlier today, the non-profit organization Better Markets did what so many others have only dreamed of doing – they sued JPMorgan.

Specifically, as they disclose in the fact sheet posted on their website, they are “challenging the historic and unprecedented $13 billion settlement agreement between the U.S. Department of Justice and JP Morgan Chase (“Agreement”).  Better Markets alleges in its complaint that the DOJ violated the Constitution and laws of the United States by using a mere contractual agreement to resolve claims of historic importance without subjecting the Agreement to independent judicial review.  In effect, the DOJ acted as investigator, prosecutor, judge, jury, sentencer, and collector, without any check on its authority or actions, even though the amount is the largest in the 237 year history of the United States. Because the DOJ has declared its intention to use the Agreement as a “template” in future similar cases, it is imperative that the DOJ’s unlawful and secretive approach in the settlement process be subjected to judicial review.“

We wish them the best of luck, as in a “crony jsutice” system as corrupt as this one – perhaps best described, paradoxically enough by the fictional movie The International – where the same DOJ previously implicitly admitted it will not prosecute “systemically important” firms like JPM to the full extent of the law and instead merely lob one after another wrist slap at them to placate the peasantry, any hope for obtaining true justice is impossible.

That said, the key aspects of the Better Markets lawsuit deserve attention. They are broken down as follows:

For years leading up to the financial crisis of 2008, JP Morgan Chase allegedly engaged in pervasive fraud in the packaging and sale of thousands of mortgage-backed securities to investors.  Those securities were stuffed with subprime loans that failed to meet applicable underwriting criteria.  Employees, managers, and potentially high-level executives of JP Morgan Chase knew that the securities were riddled with toxic loans, but they allegedly concealed the truth from investors when they marketed and sold the securities.  Investors lost huge but still unknown sums of money as a result of the fraud, and the bank’s illegal conduct contributed directly to the biggest financial crash since 1929 and the worst economy since the Great Depression of the 1930s.  
 
After negotiating the Agreement in complete secrecy, the DOJ announced the $13 billion deal on November 19, 2013, claiming that it was holding JP Morgan Chase accountable for its illegal activities.  Under the Agreement, DOJ grants JP Morgan Chase broad civil immunity in exchange for a $2 billion civil penalty, along with $4 billion in “consumer relief” for the benefit of homeowners with problem mortgages.  The Agreement also allocates $7 billion to eight other agencies or states to resolve their claims against JP Morgan Chase.
 
Key Allegations in the Complaint

The Agreement was struck under the most extraordinary circumstances.  For example—

  • THE HISTORIC CLAIMS:  The Agreement resolved claims of pervasive fraud that contributed to the worst financial crash since 1929 and the worst economy since the Great Depression of the 1930s.
  • THE LARGEST AMOUNT EVER:  The settlement amount was the largest in U.S. history from any single entity by more than 300%.
  • THE BIGGEST BANK:  JP Morgan Chase is the largest, richest, and most well-connected Wall Street bank in the United States.
  • THE HIGHEST-LEVEL NEGOTIATORS: The Attorney General and other senior DOJ political appointees negotiated directly and entirely in secret with the CEO of JP Morgan Chase, someone who was considered a possible Treasury Secretary just a few years ago.
  • THE $10 BILLION PHONE CALL:  The cellphone of DOJ’s third highest ranking official rang with the “familiar” phone number of JP Morgan Chase’s CEO, who called to offer billions of dollars to stop DOJ from holding a press conference and filing a lawsuit in just a few hours.  The call worked, and the press conference and lawsuit were both called off. 
  • THE UNPRECEDENTED AGREEMENT:  DOJ gave complete civil immunity to JP Morgan Chase for defrauding thousands in exchange for $13 billion, via a contract that was negotiated and finalized in secret without any review or approval by a federal court.

?Notwithstanding the historic nature of the settlement, the Agreement was never subjected to judicial review, so there has been no independent evaluation of its terms.  Furthermore, the vague settlement documents fail to disclose critically important information about every aspect of the deal.  For example, the Agreement fails to identify or explain— 

  • THE LOSSES:  How much did JP Morgan Chase’s clients, customers, counterparties, investors, and others lose as a result of its fraudulent conduct?  $100 billion?  $200 billion?  More?
  • THE PROFITS:  How much revenue, profits, and other benefits did JP Morgan Chase receive as a result of its fraudulent conduct, and was it all disgorged?  $10 billion?  $20 billion?  More?
  • THE BONUSES:  Who received what amount of bonuses for the illegal conduct?
  • THE INVESTIGATION:  What was the scope and thoroughness of the investigation that provided the basis for the Agreement?
  • THE FRAUD:  What are the material facts of the illegal conduct by JP Morgan Chase and the specific violations of law that were committed?
  • THE CULPRITS: What exactly did the individual executives, officers, managers, and employees involved in the illegal conduct actually do to carry out the fraud, and do any of them still work for the bank?
  • THE CORRECTIVE ACTION:  Why did the contract fail to impose on JP Morgan Chase any obligation to change any of its business or compliance practices, which are standard conduct remedies that regulators routinely require?  And how can the sanctions effectively punish and deter JP Morgan Chase, given its wealth and its extensive history of lawless conduct?
  • THE LACK OF ADMISSIONS:  Why are there no admissions of fact or law by JP Morgan Chase, and what, if any, are the concrete legal implications of their so-called “acknowledgment”?

By entering the Agreement without seeking any judicial review and approval, the DOJ violated the Constitution and laws of the United States. 

  • The Executive Branch, acting through the DOJ, violated the separation of powers doctrine by unilaterally striking a bargain with JP Morgan Chase to resolve unprecedented matters of historic importance, without seeking any judicial review and approval of the Agreement.
  • The DOJ violated the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”) by failing to commence a civil action in federal court so that the court could, among other things, assess the civil penalty.
  • The DOJ acted arbitrarily and capriciously by, among other things, entering the Agreement without seeking judicial review and approval.

* * *

But perhaps the most informative aspect of the lawsuit fact sheet is simply stepping back and observing the relentless illegal transgressions by Jamie Dimon’s firm. Better Markets summarizes them best as follows:

Highlights From A Decade of Illegal Conduct by JP Morgan Chase

  • United States v. JPMorgan Case Bank, NA, No-1:14-cr-7 (S.D.N.Y. Jan 8, 2014) ($1.7 billion criminal penalty); In re JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., OCC Admin. Proceeding No. AA-EC-13-109 (Jan. 7, 2014) ($350 million civil penalty); In re JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Dept. of the Treasury Financial Crimes Enforcement Network Admin. Proceeding No. 2014-1 (Jan. 7, 2014) ($461 million civil penalty) (all for violations of law arising from the bank’s role in connection with Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme, the largest in the history of the U.S.);
  • In re JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., CFTC Admin. Proceeding No. 14-01 (Oct. 16, 2013) ($100 million civil penalty); In re JPMorgan Chase & Co., SEC Admin. Proceeding No. 3-15507 (Sept. 19, 2013) ($200 million civil penalty); In re JPMorgan Chase & Co., Federal Reserve Board Admin. Proceeding No. 13-031-CMP-HC (Sept. 18, 2013) ($200 million civil penalty); UK Financial Conduct Authority, Final Notice to JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Sept. 18, 2013) (£137.6 million ($221 million) penalty); In re JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., OCC Admin. Proceeding No. AA-EC-2013-75, #2013-140 (Sept. 17, 2013) ($300 million civil penalty) (all for violations of federal law in connection with the proprietary trading losses sustained by JP Morgan Chase in connection with the high risk derivatives bet referred to as the “London Whale”);
  • In re JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., CFPB Admin. Proceeding No. 2013-CFPB-0007 (Sept. 19, 2013) ($20 million civil penalty and $309 million refund to customers); In re JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., OCC Admin. Proceeding No. AA-EC-2013-46 (Sept. 18, 2013) ($60 million civil penalty) (both for violations in connection with JP Morgan Chase’s billing practices and fraudulent sale of so-called Identity Protection Products to customers);
  • In Re Make-Whole Payments and Related Bidding Strategies, FERC Admin. Proceeding Nos. IN11-8-000, IN13-5-000 (July 30, 2013) (civil penalty of $285 million and disgorgement of $125 million for energy market manipulation);
  • SEC v. J.P. Morgan Sec. LLC, No. 12-cv-1862 (D.D.C. Jan. 7, 2013) ($301 million in civil penalties and disgorgement for improper conduct related to offerings of mortgage-backed securities);
  • In re JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., CFTC Admin. Proceeding No. 12-37 (Sept. 27, 2012) ($600,000 civil penalty for violations of the Commodities Exchange Act relating to trading in excess of position limits);
  • In re JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., CFTC Admin. Proceeding No. 12-17 (Apr. 4, 2012) ($20 million civil penalty for the unlawful handling of customer segregated funds relating to the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc.);
  • United States v. Bank of America, No. 12-cv-00361 (D.D.C. 2012) (for foreclosure and mortgage-loan servicing abuses during the Financial Crisis, with JP Morgan Chase paying $5.3 billion in monetary and consumer relief);
  • In re JPMorgan Chase & Co., Federal Reserve Board Admin. Proceeding No. 12-009-CMP-HC (Feb. 9, 2012) ($275 million in monetary relief for unsafe and unsound practices in residential mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure processing);
  • SEC v. J.P. Morgan Sec. LLC, No. 11-cv-03877 (D.N.J. July 7, 2011) ($51.2 million in civil penalties and disgorgement); In re JPMorgan Chase & Co., Federal Reserve Board Admin. Proceeding No. 11-081-WA/RB-HC (July 6, 2011) (compliance plan and corrective action requirements); In re JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., OCC Admin. Proceeding No. AA-EC-11-63 (July 6, 2011) ($22 million civil penalty) (all for anticompetitive practices in connection with municipal securities transactions);
  • SEC v. J.P. Morgan Sec., LLC, No. 11-cv-4206 (S.D.N.Y. June 21, 2011) ($153.6 million in civil penalties and disgorgement for violations of the securities laws relating to misleading investors in connection with synthetic collateralized debt obligations);
  • In re JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., OCC Admin. Proceeding No. AA-EC-11-15, #2011-050 (Apr. 13, 2011) (consent order mandating compliance plan and other corrective action resulting from unsafe and unsound mortgage servicing practices);
  • In re J.P. Morgan Sec. Inc., SEC Admin. Proceeding No. 3-13673 (Nov. 4, 2009) ($25 million civil penalty for violations of the securities laws relating to the Jefferson County derivatives trading and bribery scandal);
  • In re JP Morgan Chase & Co, Attorney General of the State of NY Investor Protection Bureau, Assurance of Discontinuance Pursuant to Exec. Law §63(15) (June 2, 2009) ($25 million civil penalty for misrepresenting risks associated with auction rate securities);
  • In re JPMorgan Chase & Co., SEC Admin. Proceeding No. 3-13000 (Mar. 27, 2008) ($1.3 million civil disgorgement for violations of the securities laws relating to JPM’s role as asset-backed indenture trustee to certain special purpose vehicles);
  • In re J.P. Morgan Sec. Inc., SEC Admin. Proceeding No. 3-11828 (Feb. 14, 2005) ($2.1 million in civil fines and penalties for violations of Securities Act record-keeping requirements); and
  • SEC v. J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., 03-cv-2939 (WHP) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 2003) ($50 million in civil penalties and disgorgements as part of a global settlement for research analyst conflict of interests).

Did we mention that nobody from JPM has gone to prison, and instead as of late last week, one of the biggest JPM culprits was set to become a member of the CFTC’s advisory panel? Why? #AskJPM


    



via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1eKefCz Tyler Durden

Fayette schools to hold classes Tuesday

Fayette County School System spokesperson Melinda Berry-Dreisbach on Monday afternoon said plans call for Fayette schools to be open Tuesday.

“Based on the weather information we have we’re planning to have school on Tuesday,” Berry-Dreisbach. “The winter weather is expected to come into the area on Tuesday evening after schools ends.”

Berry-Dreisbach said the school system is in constant contact with Fayette EMA, adding that the school system will err on the side of caution if weather conditions change prior to Tuesday morning.

read more

via The Citizen http://ift.tt/NuLTRN

What Third Amendment? SWAT Team Used Woman's Home During Stand-off at Neighbor’s House, Didn’t Tell Her in Advance

don't call them warriors!A woman in Jacksonville Florida says
a SWAT team
commandeered her home while  dealing with a standoff with
a neighbor. She says she police came to her house to tell her she
couldn’t be there, but didn’t tell her they would be using the
home.
Via Action News Jacksonville:

[Deborah] Franz said it all started shortly after
overhearing a fight at her neighbor’s house across the street
Sunday. A short time later, the SWAT team swarmed her
neighborhood.

“The cop goes ‘You all need to leave, you can’t be in your house,'”
said Franz.

That happened around 1 p.m. About six hours
later, deputies cleared the scene and she went back home. But
something was off when she walked through the door.

“I stopped, I froze because I realized somebody had messed
with my TV,” said Franz.

Franz said her blinds were opened, her Xbox and TV were
disconnected, and a drape over her bedroom window was thrown on the
floor.

At first she thought it was a burglar but then realized nothing was
missing.

That’s when she realized it must have been police who invaded
her home, and says a phone call to the sheriff’s office confirmed
it. No biggie, say the experts. Via Action News Jax
again:

Wyllie Hodges, who now heads First Coast Crime
Stoppers, is a 34-year law enforcement veteran, and he said it
doesn’t surprise him.

“A SWAT call out is just not a normal police call out. It’s
just different and the circumstances are mandated or dictated by
the situation as it progresses,” said Hodges.

Could the Third Amendment apply? SWAT teams aren’t soldiers

just yet. Maybe you can’t say you live in an authoritarian
country until the ruling party is sending you to a gulag. The Third
Amendment has been invoked
in a similar-ish case in Nevada, where police invaded and
occupied the Mitchell home while responding to a domestic violence
report at a neighbor’s house. In Franz’s case, she wasn’t even
afforded the opportunity to attempt to prevent police from taking
over her home. She says all she wants is an apology. The sheriff’s
department would only say that the incident would get the “same
scrutiny” for “best practices” all their tactics and operations
constantly get.

The only Supreme Court decision relevant to the Third Amendment
was Engblom v. Carey, which involved the quartering of
national guardsmen in prison employee housing during a prison guard
strike. The court ruled the Third Amendment extended to the
National Guard as soldiers, and that tenancy was a sufficient
condition for the prohibition of quartering to apply. Nevertheless,
when the case was returned to a district court, it decided in the
favor of the defendants, citing the qualified immunity enjoyed by
government employees.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1eiETwd
via IFTTT

What Third Amendment? SWAT Team Used Woman’s Home During Stand-off at Neighbor’s House, Didn’t Tell Her in Advance

don't call them warriors!A woman in Jacksonville Florida says
a SWAT team
commandeered her home while  dealing with a standoff with
a neighbor. She says she police came to her house to tell her she
couldn’t be there, but didn’t tell her they would be using the
home.
Via Action News Jacksonville:

[Deborah] Franz said it all started shortly after
overhearing a fight at her neighbor’s house across the street
Sunday. A short time later, the SWAT team swarmed her
neighborhood.

“The cop goes ‘You all need to leave, you can’t be in your house,'”
said Franz.

That happened around 1 p.m. About six hours
later, deputies cleared the scene and she went back home. But
something was off when she walked through the door.

“I stopped, I froze because I realized somebody had messed
with my TV,” said Franz.

Franz said her blinds were opened, her Xbox and TV were
disconnected, and a drape over her bedroom window was thrown on the
floor.

At first she thought it was a burglar but then realized nothing was
missing.

That’s when she realized it must have been police who invaded
her home, and says a phone call to the sheriff’s office confirmed
it. No biggie, say the experts. Via Action News Jax
again:

Wyllie Hodges, who now heads First Coast Crime
Stoppers, is a 34-year law enforcement veteran, and he said it
doesn’t surprise him.

“A SWAT call out is just not a normal police call out. It’s
just different and the circumstances are mandated or dictated by
the situation as it progresses,” said Hodges.

Could the Third Amendment apply? SWAT teams aren’t soldiers

just yet. Maybe you can’t say you live in an authoritarian
country until the ruling party is sending you to a gulag. The Third
Amendment has been invoked
in a similar-ish case in Nevada, where police invaded and
occupied the Mitchell home while responding to a domestic violence
report at a neighbor’s house. In Franz’s case, she wasn’t even
afforded the opportunity to attempt to prevent police from taking
over her home. She says all she wants is an apology. The sheriff’s
department would only say that the incident would get the “same
scrutiny” for “best practices” all their tactics and operations
constantly get.

The only Supreme Court decision relevant to the Third Amendment
was Engblom v. Carey, which involved the quartering of
national guardsmen in prison employee housing during a prison guard
strike. The court ruled the Third Amendment extended to the
National Guard as soldiers, and that tenancy was a sufficient
condition for the prohibition of quartering to apply. Nevertheless,
when the case was returned to a district court, it decided in the
favor of the defendants, citing the qualified immunity enjoyed by
government employees.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1eiETwd
via IFTTT

TSLA Surges To Record High; Two-Thirds Of GM's Enterprise Value

On the back of more subsidies, this time from China, TSLA shares are storming higher today. Up over 6% today to new record highs just below $200, we thought it fascinating that as debt-laden GM sees its Enterprise Value slide, TSLA’s enterprise value is now 66% of GM’s. We are sure this all makes sense somewhere deep in a growth investor’s mind. When TSLA was birthed into the public markets in 2010, GM was over 20-times it size, now it is just 1.5 times…

 

 

China paid electric car buyers a subsidy of between 35,000 yuan to 60,000 yuan per vehicle in 2013, according to Xinhua, China’s news agency. That comes to about $5,780 to about $9,900.

Xinhua reports that the Finance Ministry announced Saturday that those subsidies would be trimmed only 5% in 2014 and 10% in 2015, only half the reduction in subsidy that had previously been announced.

Tesla is just starting to sell vehicles in China, which has become the largest market in the world for car sales.

Tesla is due to report fourth quarter results Feb. 19.

 

Chart: Bloomberg


    



via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1lX8MfK Tyler Durden

TSLA Surges To Record High; Two-Thirds Of GM’s Enterprise Value

On the back of more subsidies, this time from China, TSLA shares are storming higher today. Up over 6% today to new record highs just below $200, we thought it fascinating that as debt-laden GM sees its Enterprise Value slide, TSLA’s enterprise value is now 66% of GM’s. We are sure this all makes sense somewhere deep in a growth investor’s mind. When TSLA was birthed into the public markets in 2010, GM was over 20-times it size, now it is just 1.5 times…

 

 

China paid electric car buyers a subsidy of between 35,000 yuan to 60,000 yuan per vehicle in 2013, according to Xinhua, China’s news agency. That comes to about $5,780 to about $9,900.

Xinhua reports that the Finance Ministry announced Saturday that those subsidies would be trimmed only 5% in 2014 and 10% in 2015, only half the reduction in subsidy that had previously been announced.

Tesla is just starting to sell vehicles in China, which has become the largest market in the world for car sales.

Tesla is due to report fourth quarter results Feb. 19.

 

Chart: Bloomberg


    



via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1lX8MfK Tyler Durden

Long-Term Charts 3: Markets Since The Dawn Of Civilization

We have looked at US markets since Independence and Western Markets since The Middle Ages; but to really comprehend how far we have come, we need to press back to the dawn of civilization. 5000 years of interest-rates and commodity history and a trend is very clear as epochal events drive volatility.

 

Markets Since The Beginning of Civilization

 

Commodity Prices

 

Interest Rates

 

 

H/t @Macro_Tourist for these increble charts


    



via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1lX8Mfw Tyler Durden

J.D. Tuccille on the Right To Take (Even Really Stupid) Risks

Stretcher“What the
hell am I doing?” Sooner or later most of us ask that same
question, writes J.D. Tuccille. We ask it when we’re doing
something foolish, or brave, or unfamiliar, and we especially ask
it when the situation goes sour—when we find ourselves airborne in
late-morning traffic. And if we don’t ask it of ourselves, somebody
else is sure to do us the favor: “What the hell are you
doing?” But it’s important to remember that while everybody has the
right to ask the question of himself and others, only the person on
the spot, the person living that moment has the right to decide
whether the answer is justifiable.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1lX97Pm
via IFTTT