« Wendy Gramm, Judge Bruce Levine & Criminal

Behavior At The CFTC -- Attention Eric Holder,

Federal Prosecutors »
The CFTC and Wendy
Gramm are in violation of
Title 18 U.S.C. 1501-1525.
Following links details all of the legitimate subprime
cases erroneously tossed out by judges (not even a
chance to be heard by a jury)

http://www.dandodiary.com/2010/06/articles/subprime-
litigation/an-updated-analysis-of-subprime-securities-
suit-dismissal-motions/
http://www.dandodiary.com/2008/06/articles/subprime-
litigation/the-list-subprime-lawsuit-dismissals-and-
denials/index.html
http://www.skadden.com/content/Publications/Publicati
ons1962_0.pdf

Wendy Gramm and the CFTC(U.S. Commodity Futures

Trading Commission )are in violation of Title 18 U.S.C.
1501-1525
Obstruction of justice is the impediment of
governmental activities. There are a host of federal
criminal laws that prohibit obstructions of justice. The
six most general outlaw obstruction of judicial
proceedings (18 U.S.C. 1503), witness tampering (18
U.S.C. 1512), witness retaliation (18 U.S.C. 1513),
obstruction of Congressional or administrative
proceedings (18 U.S.C. 1505), conspiracy to defraud the
United States (18 U.S.C. 371), and contempt (a creature
of statute, rule and
common law)."
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34303.pdf
If you haven't heard this story yet, be prepared for a new
realm of outrage. When you read this keep in mind that the
CFTC has only 2 judges.
Quietly last month, CFTC Case Judge, George H. Painter,
issued a "Notice and Order" announcing his retirement
from his position. In this notice Judge Painter wrote of a
conspiracy at the highest levels of the CFTC
(within the enforcement division), where a long
time judge of 20 years has been working with past
CFTC Chairs to rig the enforcement of the law by
never (not once in 20 years) finding anyone guilty of
market manipulation. We must be talking about
tens of thousands of cases, to put the size of these
crimes in scope.
Here are Judge Painter's words:
"There are two administrative law judges at the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission: myself and the
Honorable Bruce Levine. On Judge Levine's first week
on the job, nearly twenty years ago, he came into my
office and stated that he had promised Wendy
Gramm, then Chairwoman of the Commission, that
we would never rule in a complainant's favor. A
review of his rulings will confirm that he has fulfilled his
vow. Judge Levine, in the cynical guise of enforcing the
rules, forces pro se complaints to run a hostile procedural
gauntlet until they lose hope, and either withdraw their
complaint or settle for a pittance, regardless of the merits
of the case"
"In light of these unfortunate facts, if I simply
announced my intention to retire, the seven reparation
cases on my docket would be reassigned to the only other
administrative law judge of the Commission, Judge
Levine. This I cannot do in good conscience.
Accordingly, I recommend that the Commission request
the services of an administrative law judge to be detailed
to the Commission from another agency."
His request was granted, and his cases were not assigned to
Judge Levine.
Wendy Gramm is a former Enron board member, and
former head of the CFTC (1988-1993), and the wife of
deregulation neocon Phil Gramm. Here's what Barry
Ritholtz said about Wendy Gramm:
A reminder to those of you who may be unfamiliar with
this particular corporate harlot: Gramm was not only the
former CFTC chair, but she was an Enron board member
and wife of deregulation architect Phill Gramm, who for
reasons unknown to decent society, is gainfully employed
as a fluffer at UBS, helping to further besmirch the
reputation of that bailed out firm.
Nice one, Barry!
Levine Notice - pdf
Read Judge Painter Retirement Letter, WSJ Article on
Judge Lynch below:

http://dailybail.com/home/wendy-gramm-judge-bruce-levine-criminal-behavior-at-the-
cftc.html
 CFTC judge claims colleague
issued biased rulings
Published 10/14/2010

By DANIEL P. COLLINS

Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)

Administrative Law Judge George H. Painter
made serious allegations regarding fellow CFTC
judge Bruce Levine in announcing his retirement.
In a notice sent to complainants and their
attorneys, Judge Painter claims that Levine told
him that he had promised former CFTC Chair
Wendy Gramm “that he would never rule in a
complainants favor”. Painter’s notice goes on to
say, “A review of his rulings will confirm that he
has fulfilled his vow.”
In the notice Painter recommends the CFTC
request the services of an administrative law
judge to be detailed to the Commission from
another regulatory agency to handle the remain
cases on his docket. Painter writes, “If I simply
announced my intention to retire, the seven
reparation cases on my docket would be
reassigned to the only other administrative law
judge at the Commission, Judge Levine. This I
could not do in good conscience.”

The judge also attached a December 2000 Wall

Street Journal story by Michael Schroeder titled,
“If you got a beef with a futures broker, This
Judge Isn’t for You—In Eight Years at the CFTC,
Levine Has Never Ruled In Favor of an Investor”
that details Levine’s penchant for favoring
brokers over investors seeking reparations.
An attorney who handles futures litigation says
that the notice “will freeze [the seven cases
currently in Painter’s docket] for a considerable
amount of time.
http://futuresmag.com/News/2010/10/Pages/CFTC-judge-claims-colleague-is-
biased-.aspx

===============

Judge: CFTC Corrupt, Wendy

Gramm Criminal
By Barry Ritholtz - October 21st, 2010, 7:15AM

Just when you think your ability to get any more disgusted
or outraged is finally at its zenith — the point where it is
unimaginable to think any worse of Wall Street or its
related institutions — along comes a story that outrages
you even more.
Futures magazine had an article last week about the
retirement letter that Commodity Futures Trading
Commission (CFTC) Administrative Law Judge George
Painter sent announcing his retirement.
In the letter, he announces that his fellow admin judge has
never awarded a case to a plaintiff in 20 years, and that he
did so at the urging of former CFTC Chair Wendy Gramm.
A reminder to those of you who may be unfamiliar with
this particular corporate harlot: Gramm was not only the
former CFTC chair, but she was an Enron board member
and wife of deregulation architect Phill Gramm, who for
reasons unknown to decent society, is gainfully employed
as a fluffer at UBS, helping to further besmirch the
reputation of that bailed out firm.
“In a notice sent to complainants and their attorneys, Judge
Painter claims that Levine told him that he had promised
former CFTC Chair Wendy Gramm “that he would never
rule in a complainants favor”. Painter’s notice goes on to
say, “A review of his rulings will confirm that he has
fulfilled his vow.”
In the notice Painter recommends the CFTC request the
services of an administrative law judge to be detailed to the
Commission from another regulatory agency to handle the
remain cases on his docket. Painter writes, “If I simply
announced my intention to retire, the seven reparation cases
on my docket would be reassigned to the only other
administrative law judge at the Commission, Judge Levine.
This I could not do in good conscience.”
Now, if that isn’t weird enough, the WSJ has an a article in
today’s paper that can only be described as a hit piece. The
accusations of mental unfitness and heavy drinking come
from the Judge’s wife in the middle of divorce proceedings.
I wrote to Sarah Lynch, asking how the Journal could do a
story on this retiring judge — accusing him of being a
drunk and mentally unfit — but omit his most explosive
charges against his fellow judge and the CFTC chair
Wendy Gramm. “In the Sept. 17 document, Judge Painter
said he plans to step down in January and asked the
agency to transfer his pending cases to an outside judge
instead of Judge Levine.” That hardly does justice to the
Judge’s retirement note, and completely omits his charge
against former CFTC chair.
Lynch wrote back to note she did a story on the judge last
Friday, but it ran on newswires but was not picked up by
WSJ. (Reporters have no control over those editorial
decision). The current article is a follow up to that prior
piece.
I did a WSJ search for “CFTC Judge” seeing when in the
past they had covered obscure administrative judges in the
past, and other than today’s article, nothing came else was
found (Journal search apparently only goes back 2 years).
The whole thing is very curious.
But what makes the WSJ piece truly weird is it ignores an
article Judge Painter used to show Judge Levine was biased
— from the WSJ itself! The December 2000 article about
Judge Levine was titled: “If you got a beef with a futures
broker, This Judge Isn’t for You—In Eight Years at the
CFTC, Levine Has Never Ruled In Favor of an Investor
(PDF)”
And as the Columbia Journalism Review noted:
Dow Jones-owned database Factiva and can’t find it. But it
exists. Here’s a link from the Investigative Reporters and
Editors website and a Factiva print from the judge that
looks like a Wall Street Journal story to me.That piece
reported that Judge Levine “In Eight Years at the CFTC,
Levine Has Never Ruled In Favor of an Investor.”
So this is going to be a mess to untangle, but it’ll be quite
the story if you can. Despite Judge Painter’s apparent
infirmities, he’s not completely out to lunch on Judge
Levine’s record. What’s Levine done since that 2000 WSJ
story? What’s been going on at the CFTC?
Something is not right with this story. A retiring judge
accuses a former CFTC chair of criminal conduct. The
response — he is accused in the WSJ of being mentally
unfit and a drunk, pulled from his wife’s accusation in a
divorce action — is quite unseemly.
There is much more to this story, and the chief
administrative law judge and/or the US Attorney should
investigate these charges.
UPDATE October 21, 2010 10:31am:

The editors at the WSJ did Sarah Lynch a disservice — her

piece from today is out of context without the prior article
(excerpted below). And she notes that the details in her
piece came form the guardianship case — not the divorce
filing.
As a standalone article, it reads like a hit piece, with lots of
holes and missing factors, but within the context of the
prior piece, it makes more sense. The missing items are in
the previous article:
“A retiring administrative law judge has asked the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission to prevent his
colleague from ruling on his leftover cases, saying
investors won’t get a fair shake.
CFTC Administrative Law Judge George Painter, in a letter
released Wednesday, accused fellow CFTC administrative
law judge Bruce Levine of bias in his handling of
complaints by investors against their futures brokers.
The notice, received by the CFTC’s Office of Proceedings,
asks the CFTC to formally request a judge from another
federal agency to take up his seven remaining cases instead
of reassigning them to Levine.
In a highly unusual public rebuke of his colleague, Painter
rails against the way Levine has handled cases involving
investors who don’t have attorneys and come to the
commission with grievances against their brokers.
Painter claims Levine told him nearly 20 years ago that he
promised then-CFTC Chairman Wendy Gramm he’d never
rule in favor of a complainant.
“A review of his rulings will confirm that he has fulfilled
his vow,” Painter wrote. He added that Levine forces
plaintiffs without legal representation “to run a hostile
gauntlet until they lose hope, and either withdraw their
complaint or settle for a pittance, regardless of the merits of
the case.”
Judge Levine declined to comment about Painter’s
allegations and a CFTC spokesman also declined to
comment. But former CFTC attorney Robert Zwirb, who
also worked at the agency during Gramm’s tenure,
defended Levine’s record and said Painter’s letter is
nothing more than a political attack.
“The allegation that Judge Painter makes is like a pathetic
caricature,” said Zwirb, an attorney at Cadwalader,
Wickersham & Taft. “It’s really aimed at the person that
appointed him–Wendy Gramm. It’s so absurd. No
chairman of either party…would enter into some kind of
understanding like that.”
He added that Levine is the kind of judge who applies both
the law and economics to his decisions, calling his opinions
“intellectual works of art.”
Zwirb also provided some documents to show examples
where Levine has ruled in favor of investors who filed
reparations cases. In some instances, however, the
defendants didn’t appear to fully participate in the
proceedings.
Painter’s letter has caught the attention of lawyers around
Washington, many of whom say they are stunned by what
it says. It also raises questions about whether the letter will
force the CFTC to look into the allegations and potentially
take action.
Attached to Painter’s letter was a 10-year-old article from
The Wall Street Journal, titled “If You’ve Got A Beef With
A Futures Broker, This Judge Is Not For You–In Eight
Years at the CFTC, Levine Has Never Ruled In Favor Of
An Investor.”
>
Sources:
“If you got a beef with a futures broker, This Judge Isn’t
for You—In Eight Years at the CFTC, Levine Has Never
Ruled In Favor of an Investor”
Michael Schroeder
Wall Street Journal December 5 2000
URL Unknown; PDF here
CFTC judge claims colleague issued biased rulings
DANIEL P. COLLINS
Futures Mag 10/14/2010
http://www.futuresmag.com/News/2010/10/Pages/CFTC-
judge-claims-colleague-is-biased-.aspx
The Plot Thickens at the CFTC
A judge accuses another judge of improprieties. But there’s
more to the story.
Ryan Chittum
CJR, October 20, 2010
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/plot_thickens_cftc_judge.php
Case Sheds Light on Judge
SARAH N. LYNCH
WSJ, OCTOBER 21, 2010
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230401160
4575564610646663830.html

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/10/judge-cftc-corrupt-wendy-gramm-
criminal/

================
Deregulator Looks Back, Unswayed

Lisa Krantz for The New York Times

During his time in the Senate, Phil Gramm led the fight
against more government intervention in the financial
markets.
By ERIC LIPTON and STEPHEN LABATON
Published: November 16, 2008
WASHINGTON — Back in 1950 in Columbus, Ga., a
young nurse working double shifts to support her three
children and disabled husband managed to buy a
modest bungalow on a street called Dogwood Avenue.
Articles in this series are exploring the causes of the financial crisis.

Previous Articles in the Series »

Related

Gramm and the ‘Enron Loophole’

A look at how Enron closely monitored Senator Phil Gramm’s handling of 2000
legislation that offered it a loophole fending off regulation.

Times Topics: Phil Gramm

The senator often spoke of his mother’s buying their home.

President Clinton signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in November 1999.
Senator Gramm, second from left, proudly declared it “a deregulatory bill,”
and added, “We have learned government is not the answer.”

Phil Gramm, the former United States senator, often

told that story of how his mother acquired his childhood
home. Considered something of a risk, she took out a
mortgage with relatively high interest rates that he
likened to today’s subprime loans.
A fierce opponent of government intervention in the
marketplace, Mr. Gramm, a Republican from Texas,
recalled the episode during a 2001 Senate debate over a
measure to curb predatory lending. What some view as
exploitive, he argued, others see as a gift.
“Some people look at subprime lending and see evil. I
look at subprime lending and I see the American dream
in action,” he said. “My mother lived it as a result of a
finance company making a mortgage loan that a bank
would not make.”
On Capitol Hill, Mr. Gramm became the most effective
proponent of deregulation in a generation, by dint of his
expertise (a Ph.D in economics), free-market ideology,
perch on the Senate banking committee and force of
personality (a writer in Texas once called him “a
snapping turtle”). And in one remarkable stretch from
1999 to 2001, he pushed laws and promoted policies that
he says unshackled businesses from needless restraints
but his critics charge significantly contributed to the
financial crisis that has rattled the nation.
He led the effort to block measures curtailing deceptive
or predatory lending, which was just beginning to result
in a jump in home foreclosures that would undermine
the financial markets. He advanced legislation that
fractured oversight of Wall Street while knocking down
Depression-era barriers that restricted the rise and
reach of financial conglomerates.
And he pushed through a provision that ensured
virtually no regulation of the complex financial
instruments known as derivatives, including credit
swaps, contracts that would encourage risky investment
practices at Wall Street’s most venerable institutions
and spread the risks, like a virus, around the world.
Many of his deregulation efforts were backed by the
Clinton administration. Other members of Congress —
who collectively received hundreds of millions of dollars
in campaign contributions from financial industry
donors over the last decade — also played roles.
Many lawmakers, for example, insisted that Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac, the nation’s largest mortgage
finance companies, take on riskier mortgages in an
effort to aid poor families. Several Republicans resisted
efforts to address lending abuses. And Congressional
committees failed to address early symptoms of the
coming illness.
But, until he left Capitol Hill in 2002 to work as an
investment banker and lobbyist for UBS, a Swiss bank
that has been hard hit by the market downturn, it was
Mr. Gramm who most effectively took up the fight
against more government intervention in the markets.
“Phil Gramm was the great spokesman and leader of
the view that market forces should drive the economy
without regulation,” said James D. Cox, a corporate law
scholar at Duke University. “The movement he helped
to lead contributed mightily to our problems.”
In two recent interviews, Mr. Gramm described the
current turmoil as “an incredible trauma,” but said he
was proud of his record.
He blamed others for the crisis: Democrats who
dropped barriers to borrowing in order to promote
homeownership; what he once termed “predatory
borrowers” who took out mortgages they could not
afford; banks that took on too much risk; and large
financial institutions that did not set aside enough
capital to cover their bad bets.
But looser regulation played virtually no role, he
argued, saying that is simply an emerging myth.
“There is this idea afloat that if you had more
regulation you would have fewer mistakes,” he said. “I
don’t see any evidence in our history or anybody else’s
to substantiate it.” He added, “The markets have
worked better than you might have thought.”
Rejecting Common Wisdom
Mr. Gramm sees himself as a myth buster, and has long
argued that economic events are misunderstood.
Before entering politics in the 1970s, he taught at Texas
A & M University. He studied the Great Depression,
producing research rejecting the conventional wisdom
that suicides surged after the market crashed. He
examined financial panics of the 19th century,
concluding that policy makers and economists had
repeatedly misread events to justify burdensome
regulation.
“There is always a revisionist history that tries to claim
that the system has failed and what we need to do is
have government run things,” he said.
From the start of his career in Washington, Mr.
Gramm aggressively promoted his conservative
ideology and free-market beliefs. (He was so insistent
about having his way that one House speaker joked that
if Mr. Gramm had been around when Moses brought
the Ten Commandments down from Mount Sinai, the
Texan would have substituted his own.)
He could be impolitic. Over the years, he has urged that
food stamps be cut because “all our poor people are
fat,” said it was hard for him “to feel sorry” for Social
Security recipients and, as the economy soured last
summer, called America “a nation of whiners.”
His economic views — and seat on the Senate banking
committee — quickly won him support from the
nation’s major financial institutions. From 1989 to
2002, federal records show, he was the top recipient of
campaign contributions from commercial banks and in
the top five for donations from Wall Street. He and his
staff often appeared at industry-sponsored speaking
events around the country.
From 1999 to 2001, Congress first considered steps to
curb predatory loans — those that typically had high
fees, significant prepayment penalties and ballooning
monthly payments and were often issued to low-income
borrowers. Foreclosures on such loans were on the rise,
setting off a wave of personal bankruptcies.
But Mr. Gramm did everything he could to block the
measures. In 2000, he refused to have his banking
committee consider the proposals, an intervention
hailed by the National Association of Mortgage Brokers
as a “huge, huge step for us.”
A year later, he objected again when Democrats tried to
stop lenders from being able to pursue claims in
bankruptcy court against borrowers who had defaulted
on predatory loans.
While acknowledging some abuses, Mr. Gramm argued
that the measure would drive thousands of reputable
lenders out of the housing market. And he told fellow
senators the story of his mother and her mortgage.
“What incredible exploitation,” he said sarcastically.
“As a result of that loan, at a 50 percent premium, so
far as I am aware, she was the first person in her family,
from Adam and Eve, ever to own her own home.”
Once again, he succeeded in putting off consideration of
lending restrictions. His opposition infuriated consumer
advocates. “He wouldn’t listen to reason,” said Margot
Saunders of the National Consumer Law Center. “He
would not allow himself to be persuaded that the free
market would not be working.”
Speaking at a bankers’ conference that month, Mr.
Gramm said the problem of predatory loans was not of
the banks’ making. Instead, he faulted “predatory
borrowers.” The American Banker, a trade publication,
later reported that he was greeted “like a conquering
hero.”
At the Altar of Wall Street
Mr. Gramm would sometimes speak with reverence
about the nation’s financial markets, the trading and
deal making that churn out wealth.
“When I am on Wall Street and I realize that that’s the
very nerve center of American capitalism and I realize
what capitalism has done for the working people of
America, to me that’s a holy place,” he said at an April
2000 Senate hearing after a visit to New York.
That viewpoint — and concerns that Wall Street’s
dominance was threatened by global competition and
outdated regulations — shaped his agenda.
In late 1999, Mr. Gramm played a central role in what
would be the most significant financial services
legislation since the Depression. The Gramm-Leach-
Bliley Act, as the measure was called, removed barriers
between commercial and investment banks that had
been instituted to reduce the risk of economic
catastrophes. Long sought by the industry, the law
would let commercial banks, securities firms and
insurers become financial supermarkets offering an
array of services.
The measure, which Mr. Gramm helped write and
move through the Senate, also split up oversight of
conglomerates among government agencies. The
Securities and Exchange Commission, for example,
would oversee the brokerage arm of a company. Bank
regulators would supervise its banking operation. State
insurance commissioners would examine the insurance
business. But no single agency would have authority
over the entire company.
“There was no attention given to how these regulators
would interact with one another,” said Professor Cox of
Duke. “Nobody was looking at the holes of the
regulatory structure.”
The arrangement was a compromise required to get the
law adopted. When the law was signed in November
1999, he proudly declared it “a deregulatory bill,” and
added, “We have learned government is not the
answer.”
In the final days of the Clinton administration a year
later, Mr. Gramm celebrated another triumph.
Determined to close the door on any future regulation
of the emerging market of derivatives and swaps, he
helped pushed through legislation that accomplished
that goal.
Created to help companies and investors limit risk,
swaps are contracts that typically work like a form of
insurance. A bank concerned about rises in interest
rates, for instance, can buy a derivatives instrument
that would protect it from rate swings. Credit-default
swaps, one type of derivative, could protect the holder
of a mortgage security against a possible default.
Earlier laws had left the regulation issue sufficiently
ambiguous, worrying Wall Street, the Clinton
administration and lawmakers of both parties, who
argued that too many restrictions would hurt financial
activity and spur traders to take their business overseas.
And while the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission — under the leadership of Mr. Gramm’s
wife, Wendy — had approved rules in 1989 and 1993
exempting some swaps and derivatives from regulation,
there was still concern that step was not enough.
After Mrs. Gramm left the commission in 1993, several
lawmakers proposed regulating derivatives. By
spreading risks, they and other critics believed, such
contracts made the system prone to cascading failures.
Their proposals, though, went nowhere.
But late in the Clinton administration, Brooksley E.
Born, who took over the agency Mrs. Gramm once led,
raised the issue anew. Her suggestion for government
regulations alarmed the markets and drew fierce
opposition.
In November 1999, senior Clinton administration
officials, including Treasury Secretary Lawrence H.
Summers, joined by the Federal Reserve chairman,
Alan Greenspan, and Arthur Levitt Jr., the head of the
Securities and Exchange Commission, issued a report
that instead recommended legislation exempting many
kinds of derivatives from federal oversight.
Mr. Gramm helped lead the charge in Congress.
Demanding even more freedom from regulators than
the financial industry had sought, he persuaded
colleagues and negotiated with senior administration
officials, pushing so hard that he nearly scuttled the
deal. “When I get in the red zone, I like to score,” Mr.
Gramm told reporters at the time.
Finally, he had extracted enough. In December 2000,
the Commodity Futures Modernization Act was passed
as part of a larger bill by unanimous consent after Mr.
Gramm dominated the Senate debate.
“This legislation is important to every American
investor,” he said at the time. “It will keep our markets
modern, efficient and innovative, and it guarantees that
the United States will maintain its global dominance of
financial markets.”
But some critics worried that the lack of oversight
would allow abuses that could threaten the economy.
Frank Partnoy, a law professor at the University of San
Diego and an expert on derivatives, said, “No one,
including regulators, could get an accurate picture of
this market. The consequences of that is that it left us in
the dark for the last eight years.” And, he added, “Bad
things happen when it’s dark.”
In 2002, Mr. Gramm left Congress, joining UBS as a
senior investment banker and head of the company’s
lobbying operation.
But he would not be abandoning Washington.
Lobbying From the Outside
Soon, he was helping persuade lawmakers to block
Congressional Democrats’ efforts to combat predatory
lending. He arranged meetings with executives and top
Washington officials. He turned over his $1 million
political action committee to a former aide to make
donations to like-minded lawmakers.
Mr. Gramm, now 66, who declined to discuss his
compensation at UBS, picked an opportune moment to
move to Wall Street. Major financial institutions,
including UBS, were growing, partly as a result of the
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.
Increasingly, institutions were trading the derivatives
instruments that Mr. Gramm had helped escape the
scrutiny of regulators. UBS was collecting hundreds of
millions of dollars from credit-default swaps. (Mr.
Gramm said he was not involved in that activity at the
bank.) In 2001, a year after passage of the commodities
law, the derivatives market insured about $900 billion
worth of credit; by last year, the number hadswelled to
$62 trillion.
But as housing prices began to fall last year, foreclosure
rates began to rise, particularly in regions where there
had been heavy use of subprime loans. That set off a
calamitous chain of events. The weak housing markets
would create strains that eventually would have
financial institutions around the world on the edge of
collapse.
UBS was among them. The bank has declared nearly
$50 billion in credit losses and write-downs since the
start of last year, prompting a bailout of up to $60
billion by the Swiss government.
As Mr. Gramm’s record in Congress has come under
attack amid all the turmoil, some former colleagues
have come to his defense.
“He is a true dyed-in-the-wool free-market guy. He is
very much a purist, an idealist, as he has a set of
principles and he has never abandoned them,” said
Peter G. Fitzgerald, a Republican and former senator
from Illinois. “This notion of blaming the economic
collapse on Phil Gramm is absurd to me.”
But Michael D. Donovan, a former S.E.C. lawyer,
faulted Mr. Gramm for his insistence on deregulating
the derivatives market.
“He was the architect, advocate and the most
knowledgeable person in Congress on these topics,” Mr.
Donovan said. “To me, Phil Gramm is the single most
important reason for the current financial crisis.”
Mr. Gramm, ever the economics professor, disputes his
critics’ analysis of the causes of the upheaval. He asserts
that swaps, by enabling companies to insure themselves
against defaults, have diminished, not increased, the
effects of the declining housing markets.
“This is part of this myth of deregulation,” he said in
the interview. “By and large, credit-default swaps have
distributed the risks. They didn’t create it. The only
reason people have focused on them is that some
politicians don’t know a credit-default swap from a
turnip.”
But many experts disagree, including some of Mr.
Gramm’s former allies in Congress. They say the lack
of oversight left the system vulnerable.
“The virtually unregulated over-the-counter market in
credit-default swaps has played a significant role in the
credit crisis, including the now $167 billion taxpayer
rescue of A.I.G.,” Christopher Cox, the chairman of the
S.E.C. and a former congressman, said Friday.
Mr. Gramm says that, given what has happened, there
are modest regulatory changes he would favor,
including requiring issuers of credit-default swaps to
demonstrate that they have enough capital to back up
their pledges. But his belief that government should
intervene only minimally in markets is unshaken.
“They are saying there was 15 years of massive
deregulation and that’s what caused the problem,” Mr.
Gramm said of his critics. “I just don’t see any evidence
of it.”
Griff Palmer contributed reporting from New York.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/business/economy/17gramm.html?
_r=1&pagewanted=all
================

The CFTC and Wendy

Gramm are in violation of
Title 18 U.S.C. 1501-1525.
Here is a website (linked by Lexus Nexis) detailing all of
the legitimate subprime cases erroneously tossed out by
judges (not even a chance to be heard by a jury)
Special thanks to Jon Eisenberg for providing a copy of
his article.

http://www.dandodiary.com/2010/06/articles/subprime-
litigation/an-updated-analysis-of-subprime-securities-
suit-dismissal-motions/
http://www.dandodiary.com/2008/06/articles/subprime-
litigation/the-list-subprime-lawsuit-dismissals-and-
denials/index.html
http://www.skadden.com/content/Publications/Publicati
ons1962_0.pdf

Wendy Gramm and the CFTC are in violation of Title

18 U.S.C. 1501-1525
Obstruction of justice is the impediment of
governmental activities. There are a host of federal
criminal laws that prohibit obstructions of justice. The
six most general outlaw obstruction of judicial
proceedings (18 U.S.C. 1503), witness tampering (18
U.S.C. 1512), witness retaliation (18 U.S.C. 1513),
obstruction of Congressional or administrative
proceedings (18 U.S.C. 1505), conspiracy to defraud the
United States (18 U.S.C. 371), and contempt (a creature
of statute, rule and
common law)."
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34303.pdf

Traditionally, obtaining or extorting money illegally or

carrying on illegal business activities, usually by
Organized Crime . A pattern of illegal activity carried
out as part of an enterprise that is owned or controlled
by those who are engaged in the illegal activity. The
latter definition derives from the federal Racketeer
Influenced and Corruption Organizations Act (RICO),
a set of laws (18 U.S.C.A. § 1961 et seq. [1970])
specifically designed to punish racketeering by business
enterprises.
http://legal-
dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Racketeering

I KNOW hedgefund managersthat tried to report the

sale of UNCOLLATERALIZED "collateralized" debt
obligations by subprime dealers to the Commodities
Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). They "never
picked up their phone" to take the complaints.
Financial institutions are competative, they need to
make their clients money as well as protect it; and their
business. So it is in the best interest of institutions to
report grievances if they want to retain their clients.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2010/10/19/AR2010101907216.html

per a 2000 WSJ article...

"Seeking WSJ's Dec 2000 article: December 2000 Wall
Street Journal story by Michael Schroeder titled, “If
you got a beef with a futures broker, This Judge Isn’t
for You—In Eight Years at the CFTC, Levine Has
Never Ruled In Favor of an Investor” that details
Levine’s penchant for favoring brokers over investors
seeking reparations."

There have been perfectly legitimate cases against the

subprime dealers of fraud by investors, etc. that were
dismissed by the judges, erroneously citing the
Securities Act of 1933 (which was enacted to protect
investors).

Prevalence of Subprime Securities Class Actions

Cornerstone Research's review of 2008 securities class
actions reported that.
In 2008, nearly one-third of the companies in Although
total new filings dropped in the first half of 2009, the
rate of securities class actions against companies in the
financial sector of the S&P 500 was over five times the
rate for companies in the next highest sued sector.
become an important source for information on
securities class actions, reports that every subprime
securities class action against a financial firm.
http://www.skadden.com/content/Publications/Publicati
ons1962_0.pdf

Kevin LaCroix, whose blog has approximately 200

subprime and other credit crisis-related securities class
actions have been filed since February 2007.

Executives are named as defendants in almost

"litigation against the firms closest to the ongoing
subprime/liquidity crisis was the dominant force in
federal class action securities litigation in 2008" and
that financial firms represented 46% of the $856 billion
maximum dollar loss attributed to securities class action
filings in 2008. the financial sector of the S&P 500 were
sued in securities class actions, which was nearly five
times the rate for the next highest sued sector of the
S&P 500.
EVIDENCE OF BANK/SUBPRIME FRAUD:

FRAUD IN SUBPRIMES- the writing is on the wall.

Who are they kidding trying to cover it up? Are
Americans THAT stupid or unaware? (you deserve the
government you get)

Goldman Sachs pleaded innocence and the public

officials pleaded ignorance. To sum up the subprime
scandal, the subprimes were sold as naked positions and
probably not disclosed that way to their investors.
REPO 105-EVIDENCE OF FRAUD
The subprime dealers wrote naked (uncollateralized)
subprimes which is a very risky position, just like
writing naked call options. The Repo 105 issue Lehman
Brothers' trial proves that the collateral was not with
the subprime dealers but at another bank when these
subprimes were sold to investors. (the SFAS 140 made
this legal, Sarbanes Oxley allowed this loophole to
exist). If you don't understand what REPO 105 is,
Paddy Hirsch from Market place videos does an
excellent job of explaining it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr8qPmyW5Yw
Here's another article on the REPO 105.
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/in-
lehmans-demise-some-shades-of-enron/

THE NUMBERS DON'T MAKE SENSE- EVIDENCE

OF FRAUD
The subprime market is valued at $600 trillion. The
PPP of the world is "only" $70 trillion? $600 trillion
probably does not exist yet on the Planet Earth, there is
definately not enough bonds to collateralize that many
subprimes. Infact, to get this many subprimes, the
subprime writer would have to sell several subprimes
that were supposed to be collateralized by the same
bond.

If someone wrote a "naked" (uncollateralized) call

option, the CBOE and their respective brokerage would
not allow this unless they had enough experience and
net worth to cover themselves because this trade is
considered high risk. And yes the lack of collateral is
definately disclosed.

So why did I bother mentioning the block in court

cases?

TARP WAS UNNECESSARY!!!

First, let's discuss what would've happened if the courts
were to rule in the plaintiff's (subprime investor's)
favor.
Since taxpayers will be gouged for TARP, we all need to
understand the relationship between hedge fund
investors, subprime dealers and ARM borrowers.
When these ARM borrowers foreclose, isn't the house
the unintended property of these hedge fund investors?

Please allow me to elaborate. The Subprime Dealers

(Countrywide, Wamu, Bear Stearns, etc..) sold
subprime derivatives to subprime investors (most
investors were at hedge funds) to come up with financial
inventory/capital to sell ARMs with. These subprimes
were known as "collateralized" debt obligations
(CDO's), "collaterlized" mortgages obligations
(CMO's) or Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS). Every
financial instrument is a loan that is collateralized to
secure the value of a loan. A mortgage is bank loan to
borrower secured/collateralized with a house, an auto
loan is a bank loan to borrower secured/collateralized
with a car. A stock is an investor's loan to a company
secured/collateralized by ownership of a company.
A DERIVATIVE is simply any financial instrument
that is collateralized/secured by another financial
instrument.
ie. Options are collatearlized by 100 shares of
underlying stock. Subprimes are collateralized by a
bond. Futures are collateralized by commodities.

-How derivatives work:

If any option seller writes a "naked" or uncollatearlized
call option, according to the SEC/CBOE/Brokerage, it's
considered risky(unlimited). They can't open the
position unless they have $25,000 in net worth and the
highest option approval rating. If the trade falls
through, the buyer of the call can go after the writer for
everything they have.
If a subprime dealer (ie. Countrywide) writes a
"naked" or uncollateralized subprime, the same exact
thing happens and they take the same unlimited risk.

Since they did not collateralize the subprime with a

bond, THE SUBPRIME INVESTORS ARE
ENTITLED TO GO AFTER THE SUBPRIME
DEALERS FOR EVERYTHING THEY OWN
(including the foreclosures). That's how the courts
should have ruled, except that the courts are blocked
thanks to the corruption that is the CFTC and Wendy
Gramm. The subprime investors should have 100%
control over the foreclosures. Period.

TARP wouldn't be necessary to make this exchange.

The politicians/taxpayers/banks should not have a say
in how these foreclosures are handled. This should be
directly between the investor and the borrower (without
the failed banks).
The subprime investor should be free to do as they
please with that property...ie. use a property manager,
rent it out, negotiate terms on how the borrower can
keep the house, etc.

The banks purposely exposed themselves, they lose. If a

call writer loses his shirt, nobody bails him/her out.
Nobody should bail out the subprime dealers. They
KNEW what they were doing.

This would eliminate the need for TARP.

Also TARP wasn't necessary to make the banks liquid.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/11/tarp-
and-the-treasury-time-to-allow-markets-to-work
http://mises.org/daily/4218

Now we all know that Goldman Sachs was behind

Greece's debt troubles! The subprime scandal that
could've been PREVENTED was the cause of Greece
and other municipality defaults through trades of their
interest rate swaps.
Back in March 2010, Gary Gensler (former Goldmanite
and head of the CFTC) argued that "Derivative Reform
would have dissuated Greece"
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?
pid=20601087&sid=a9hBzeyd2pLQ&pos=6.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/business/global/14d
ebt.html?hp
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?
pid=newsarchive&sid=aufmSRtDn0gg
TARP recipients/subprime dealers played the Interest
Rate Swap game too, with munis in Los Angeles and
Philadelphia:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487037755
04575135930211329798.html

For those of us who understand, the collapse of the real

estate market and the subprime market was inevitable.
These bankers KNEW how the market was going to
turn out (Goldman Sachs bet against itself). During
foreclosures and high unemployment, municipalities
lose revenue. Which makes their ratings go down.
When the bond ratings go down, yields go up to give
buyers incentive to hold onto that debt. How many city
workers lost their jobs as a result of the subprime
collapse?

So the banks created the problem, then banked on the

rewards for tricking people out of their money.
Let's look at the figures.
To "liquidate" the banks:
-TARP=$700 BILLION
-Quantitative Easing= $30 TRILLION (The devaluation
of the dollar is going to cost us in reduced tax brackets
for real rates, oil imports and the cost of food.)
http://www.investinganswers.com/education/primer-
quantitative-easing-what-it-and-will-it-save-economy-
1941
-Maiden Lane (to buy up these toxic assets)-$150
BILLION
Maiden Lane I=$30 billion
Maiden Lane II&III=$120 billion
-PPIP (to enable banks to make ARM loans to realtors
to speculate in Real Estate Market)=$40 BILLON
Maiden Lane and PPIP cost us $200 billion? Plus
whatever else we lose on TARP & QE.
This "bailout" and "economic recovery" is too
expensive. Especially considering that we need to cut
taxes and restrictions to enable investments in wealth
creation and to balance trade in lieu of globalization.
Nobody is batting on behalf of the U.S.
Oct 30, 2010 | bella75

http://dailybail.com/home/wendy-gramm-judge-bruce-levine-criminal-
behavior-at-the-cftc.html

=====================

=====================

http://www.apfn.org/enron/gramm.htm

ENRON'S Wendy L. Gramm

FIRSTROW, FROM LEFT, Ken L. Harrison, John A. Urquhart, Robert A.
Belfer, Norman P. Blake, Jr., Robert K. Jaedicke, Ronnie C. Chan, Jeffrey
K. Skilling, Kenneth L. Lay and Wendy L. Gramm. Second Row, from left,
Bruce G. Willison, John H. Duncan, Joe H. Foy, Charls E. Walker, John
Wakeham, Jerome J. Meyer, Herbert S. Winokur, Jr. and Charles A
LeMaistre.

• Wendy L. Gramm, director and audit committee member:

Sold 10,256 shares for $276,912.

ENRON: Wendy L. Gramm:

Washington, D.C.
Former Chairman,
U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Blind Faith: How Deregulation and Enron's Influence

Over Government Looted Billions from Americans
http://www.apfn.org/ENRON/Blind_Faith.pdf
Wendy Gramm and Bush officials to Enron fiasco, Ca
crisis
Sat Jan 26 17:28:50 2002
24.16.150.192

Wendy Gramm and Bush officials to Enron fiasco,

California crisis

http://www.citizen.org/hot_issues/issue.cfm?ID=194

After Enron Corp. used its vast web of political connections

to win December 2000
passage of commodities trading legislation that helped the
company shield its energy
trading activities from government scrutiny, California’s
energy crisis suddenly took a
dramatic turn for the worse as artificial supply shortages
led to frequent rolling
blackouts, according to a new Public Citizen report
released Friday.

The legislation reducing government oversight of energy

trading was muscled through
Congress — without a Senate committee hearing — with
the aid of U.S. Sen. Phil Gramm
of Texas. Gramm was chairman of the Senate Banking
Committee, which had
jurisdiction over the legislation he co-sponsored, but he
chose to bypass his committee,
and the bill was quietly tacked onto a "must-pass"
appropriations bill late in the session.
Gramm’s wife, Wendy Gramm, also aided Enron’s rise to
power. As chairwoman of the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, she pushed
through a key regulatory exemption
on Jan. 14, 1993, just as she was about to leave office. Five
weeks later, she joined
Enron’s board of directors, where she served on the board’s
audit committee and had
access to key financial information about the company.
To read the entire press release, click here.

To read the report, Blind Faith: How Deregulation and

Enron's Influence Over
Government Looted Billions from Americans, click here.

http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=983
===============
Secretary of Treasury Paul O'Neill, left, and President Bush
are under
fire about contacts with Enron CEO Ken Lay.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/business/DailyNews/enron
_inquiry020111.html

Information for Former Enron Employees Affected by

Chapter 11 Filing
http://www.enron.com/corp/
In June 1996, four days before India granted final approval
to Enron's
controversial $3 billion power-plant project, Enron's gave
$100,000 to
President Clinton's party.

Enron denies that its gift was repayment for Clinton's

attention, and
White House special counsel Lanny Davis says McLarty
acted out of concern
for a major U.S. investment overseas, TIME's Michael
Weisskopf reported.

SOURCE:
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
===============
Dr. Wendy Lee Gramm
Director, Regulatory Studies Program &
Distinguished Senior Fellow

Called "the Margaret Thatcher of financial regulation" by

the Wall Street Journal (Nov. 12, 1999 editorial), Dr.
Wendy Lee Gramm holds a B.A. degree from Wellesley
College (1966) and a Ph. D. (1971) from Northwestern
University, both in Economics. She has an extensive
publication record including articles in the American
Economic Review and the Journal of Law and Economics.
Before joining the Mercatus Center, Gramm served as
Chairman of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading
Commission from 1988-1993. She was Administrator for
Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of
Management and Budget from 1985-1988, the Executive
Director of the Presidential Task Force on Regulatory
Relief, and Director of the Federal Trade Commission’s
Bureau of Economics. Gramm was on the research staff of
the Institute for Defense Analyses. She started her
economics career at Texas A&M University, where she
taught economics for over 8 years.
http://www.mercatus.org/about/gramm.html
===============
Statement of Dr. Wendy L. Gramm, Distinguished Senior
Fellow
Director, Public Interest Comment Program
James Buchanan Center for Political Economy
George Mason University
Fairfax, Virginia
On Financial Derivatives Supervisory Improvement Act of
1998
Before the Committee on Banking and Financial Services
U. S. House of Representatives
July 17, 1998
EXCERPT:
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Thank you
for inviting me to testify on the "Financial Derivatives
Supervisory Improvement Act of 1998" (H.R. 4062) and
related issues. As former Chairman of the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), I am interested in
both the agency and its actions. Furthermore, many of the
issues you are addressing relate to policies, regulations, and
legislation that were developed or written when I was
Chairman.
http://www.house.gov/financialservices/71798gra.htm
Dr. Gramm holds a B.A. degree from Wellesley
College and a Ph.D. degree from Northwestern
University, both in economics. She served as
Chairman of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading
Commission from 1988-1993. She was Administrator
for Information and Regulatory Affairs at the White
House Office of Management and Budget from 1985-
1988, the Executive Director of the Presidential Task
Force on Regulatory Relief, and Director of the
Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Economics.
Dr. Gramm began her professional career at Texas
A&M University in 1970 as Assistant Professor of
Economics. She was promoted to Associate
Professor in 1974 and also served as the Director of
Undergraduate Programs for the Economics
Department. Dr. Gramm was born in Hawaii in 1945
and is married to the Honorable U.S. Senator Phil
Gramm of Texas. The Gramms have two sons.
http://www.tppf.org/pau/2000/pau020800.html
EPA's Tier 2 Standards for Vehicle
Emissions and Gasoline Sulfur
Content
1999, part 1, 19 pages
1999, part 2, 19 pages
1999, part 3, 7 pages
http://www.heartland.org/suites/environment/auto3.htm
Wendy L. Gramm
The following is the Joint Center publication written by
Wendy L. Gramm.

2000

2000
More Than Forty Prominent Economists Urge
Supreme Court to Allow EPA to Consider Costs and
Consequences of Clean Air Regulations. (PDF file).
Kenneth J. Arrow, Elizabeth E. Bailey, William J.
Baumol, Jagdish Bhagwati, Michael J. Boskin, David
F. Bradford, Robert W. Crandall, Maureen L. Cropper,
Christopher DeMuth, George C. Eads, Milton
Friedman, John D. Graham, Wendy L. Gramm,
Robert W. Hahn, Paul L. Joskow, Alfred E. Kahn,
Paul R. Krugman, Lester B. Lave, Robert E. Litan,
Randall Lutter, Paul W. MacAvoy, Paul W.
McCracken, James C. Miller III, William A. Niskanen,
William D. Nordhaus, Wallace E. Oates, Peter
Passell, Sam Peltzman, Paul R. Portney, Alice M.
Rivlin, Milton Russell, Richard L. Schmalensee,
Charles L. Schultze, V. Kerry Smith, Robert M. Solow,
Robert N. Stavins, Joseph E. Stiglitz, Laura D'Andrea
Tyson, W. Kip Viscusi, Murray L. Weidenbaum, Janet
L. Yellen and Richard J. Zeckhauser. Brief 00-01. July
2000. Abstract.
http://www.aei.brookings.org/publications/authors.asp?
aID=60
 Gramm's Wife on Iowa Beef Packers Board
of Directors
Click for VCT press release on Gramm's
sell-out - 1/11/2001

Why is Sen. Phil Gramm so interested in

legalizing Mexicans?
He is married to Dr. Wendy Lee Gramm, former chairman
of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission under
Presidents Reagan and Bush.
And she is on the Board of Directors of one of the largest
employers of illegal aliens in America - Iowa Beef
Packers.!!!!!

WANT PROOF?
News Release
DIRECTORS ELECTED AT IBP ANNUAL MEETING
Dakota Dunes, South Dakota April 20, 2000 Nine
directors were elected to one-year terms today at IBP's
annual meeting, company officials reported. Those elected
to serve on the company's board of directors include Robert
L. Peterson, IBP chairman and chief executive officer;
Richard L. Bond, IBP president and chief operating officer;
Eugene D. Leman, IBP president fresh meats; John S.
Chalsty, chairman of Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, Inc.;
Dr. Wendy L. Gramm, former chairman of the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission; John J. Jacobson, president
of TransAm Trucking, Inc.; Dr. Martin A. Massengale,
president emeritus of the University of Nebraska; Michael
L. Sanem, self-employed cattle feeder and private investor;
and Joann R. Smith, former assistant secretary of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. More than 98% of the shares
voted were in favor of their election to the board. The
company also reported that more than 91% of the shares
voted approved the fiscal year 2000 performance-based
bonus program of the chairman and chief executive officer;
the president and chief operating officer; and the chief
executive officer of Foodbrands America, Inc. Foodbrands,
one of three IBP operating companies, is involved in the
production of value-added foods products.
IBP is the world's leading producer of high quality fresh
beef and pork, and supplies premium, fully prepared meats
and other consumer-ready foods for the retail and
foodservice industries. The company employs more than
49,000 people.
Contact: Gary Mickelson, IBP Public Affairs Department
605-235-2986 email: gary.mickelson@ibpinc.com email:
mailto:gary.mickelson@ibpinc.com
Also See: Anti-immigration groups slam amnesty plan
(WorldNet Daily - 1-18-01)
Also See: IBP Agrees to be acquired by Tyson
http://www.americanpatrol.com/SENATE/Gramm-
WendyIPB_010112.html

Phil Gramm's Skeleton Closet

Click on the allegation of your choice:

- Savings & Loan Scandal
- Helped get a convicted drug dealer out of jail
- Laundered Illegal Campaign Contributions to
Bob Packwood
- Funded a Sleazy Movie -- - Draft Dodger
- Petty Abuses of Power: illegal hunting,
getting staffer out of the army
- Character -- - Quotes -- - Sources
http://www.realchange.org/gramm.htm
===============

COMMISSIONERS' TERMS OF OFFICE

(listed by each five-year term)
Wendy L. Gramm
(Chairman 2/22/88-1/22/93)
http://www.cftc.gov/opa/opaterms.htm

(oriental-descent Wendy L. Gramm, then head of the U.S.

Commodity Futures Trading Commission)
EXCERPT FROM:
RED CHINA and THE AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTIONS Part One
The Riady/American CIA dope cash also reportedly
benefitted, Tyson Chickens; J.B. Hunt Truck Lines, heavily
transporting from Arkansas to a Chicago suburb; Wal-Mart
discount store chain; and Beverly Enterprises, the reputedly
highly corrupt nursing home chain. That truck line
reportedly on occasion transports contraband, such as
narcotics. Illinois state transportation regulators, however,
know better than to dare stop and check their trucks. Other
truck lines, not J.B. Hunt, are harassed and shaken-down
for pay-offs for purporting to have "overweight" trucks.

A terminus point for the Riady/Lippo/Red Chinese Secret

Police/American CIA dope cash has been for several
decades, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Five currency
and commodity brokers have traded with use of this river of
narcotics money, without filing reports, required by the
U.S. Treasury, of cash intake over ten thousand dollars.
The brokers knew, know, and have known, that the cash
came in great part through the Red Chinese and reportedly
the Riady Family, for the purpose of corruptly influencing
U.S. Presidential Elections. In violation of Federal
regulatory rules, they did not conduct "due diligence", to
accurately determine who their "clients" were. But they had
plenty good reasons to already know.
Clinton as presidential candidate, and as president, often
came to the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, to supposedly
give a "speech". Funny thing, if the monopoly press even
mentioned he was at the "Merc" as it is called, which was
seldom; they never mentioned what his speech there was all
about. Clinton came to the "Merc", to tap into and connect
into the illicit fountain of cash, masquerading as foreign
currency and other deals.

For some twelve years, regulating the Chicago markets was

oriental-descent Wendy L. Gramm, then head of the U.S.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission. A brokerage
owned by a former top Chicago Mercantile Exchange
official, GNP Commodities, accused her jointly with the
Federal Reserve Board, of falsely interfering with the firm's
plan to merge with a French firm, Bank Indo-Suez.
Following a regulatory hearing, an attorney for the firm
reportedly hollared that if Wendy Gramm and the Fed, do
not get off GNP's back, they will be caught up in an
international incident and will cease to exist. [Stories about
this appeared in the Wall Street Journal, November, 1989.]
Wendy L. Gramm, as then head of CFTC, played a key role
reportedly in covering up the bribery agenda of Bank of
Credit and Commerce International. BCCI, through five La
Salle Street brokers, corruptly condoned by CFTC and
Wendy L. Gramm, was engaged in bribery and/or
blackmailing 108 members of the U.S. House of
Representatives and 28 U.S. Senators, including Gramm's
own husband, U.S. Senator Phil Gramm (R., Texas). BCCI
wanted Congressional okay to spread out their bank
branches in the U.S. [Only one populist newspaper,
Spotlight, ran the details of my exclusive story in August,
1991, of this scheme operating through "straddles",
Chicago and London.] By a strange series of circumstances,
the Bank of England had the BCCI bribery records, as an
open record, for only thirty days.

Senator Gramm has been in a position to cover up this dirty

cash. He has been Chairman of the Senate Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee. His wife Wendy,
became a Director of Enron Corp. Enron produces
electricity and natural gas, develops, constructs, and
operates energy facilities worldwide and delivers physical
commodities and financial and risk management services to
customers. Annual revenue exceeds Forty Billion Dollars.
Alleged U.S. Vice President Richard Cheney is a major
stockholder of Enron. And Enron reportedly has been part
of putting the giant squeeze on California in their electricy
black-out following the alleged year 2000 "Election".
Going heavily for Presidential candidate Gore, was
California thus punished? As an example to other state's
popular vote that went for Gore instead of for George W.
Bush? That is, if you supported Gore, we are going to
"stick it" to you.

The Chicago Mercantile Exchange and the Red Chinese

and their secret police, played a key joint role in several
presidential elections. The head of a Chicago Mercantile
Exchange consulting unit leaked the earth-quaking
bribery/dope details to certain more independent
journalists. At a key point in the year 2000 Presidential
Election, this key figure was murdered. Both George W.
Bush and William Rockefeller Clinton had an interest to
snuff him out. What was it all about? Who all in Florida
were bribed with the Red Chinese dope cash funneled
through the Merc? Are some members of the alleged
"Cabinet" of alleged "President" George W. Bush tied to
the Red Chinese? Was there a malign, if not corrupt,
influence, on the U.S. Supreme Court in the Bush/Gore
cases?
http://www.skolnicksreport.com/rchintape.html

On February 27, 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on

two cases relating to a May 1999 decision of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The appeals court
had remanded to EPA its national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) regulations that set allowable levels of
ozone and particulate matter (PM) in ambient air. The
appeals court found that, in setting the standards, EPA had
disregarded important evidence and was, in essence,
making law rather than carrying out the laws made by
Congress (in violation of the constitutional non-delegation
doctrine).
In response to a petition filed by EPA, the Supreme Court
heard this question, as well as the question raised by cross-
petitioners (private parties and states) of whether the Clean
Air Act prohibits EPA from considering all consequences
associated with compliance, or whether it requires EPA to
focus exclusively on the beneficial health effects of
reducing pollutants in the air.
The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part
the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remanded the
cases for proceedings consistent with this opinion. It held:
1. The EPA may not consider implementation
costs in setting primary and secondary NAAQS
under §109(b) of the CAA.
2. Section 109(b)(1) does not delegate legislative
power to the EPA in contravention of Art. I, §1, of
the Constitution.
3. The Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to review
the EPA's interpretation of Part D of Title I of the
CAA, relating to the implementation of the revised
ozone NAAQS.
 4. The EPA's interpretation of that Part is
unreasonable.
The Mercatus Center at George Mason University filed
three briefs of amicus curiae before the Supreme Court.
These briefs build upon the analysis the Regulatory Studies
Program offered on two NAAQS rules for ozone and
particulate matter in 1997.
Mercatus Center staff also featured prominently in briefs
filed by other parties. Regulatory Studies Program Director
and Mercatus Distinguished Senior Fellow, Wendy L.
Gramm was a signatory to an AEI-Brookings Joint Center
brief filed on behalf of 40 economists, encouraging the
Court to recognize the importance of balancing costs and
benefits in making public policy decisions. Gramm and
Mercatus Senior Research Fellow Susan E. Dudley's
research (published in Risk Analysis: An International
Journal, and Pace Environmental Law Review) was quoted
extensively in a brief submitted by Harvard Law Professor
Laurence Tribe on behalf of General Electric Company.
http://www.mercatus.net/research/supreme.html
http://www.mercatus.org/research/wg.html
INCEST AND CORRUPTION,
TEXAS STYLE
by Gene Lyons December 5, 2001
EXCERPT:
James Baker, who masterminded Bush's post-election
operations in Florida, joined Enron after the first Bush
administration.
So did Commerce Secretary Robert Mosbacher. It was a
key 1992 regulatory ruling by Wendy Gramm, wife of
Texas Sen. Phil Gramm and currently a member of the
company's see-no-evil, hear-no-evil board of directors, that
exempted Enron from federal scrutiny, making it easier for
executives to cook the books, hiding huge speculative debt
behind nonexistent profits-crony capitalism at its worst.
Facing a sure deluge of class action lawsuits from investors
and employees- 21,000 retirement pensions have also
vanished--Enron has fired its Chief Financial Officer, its
Treasurer and its top lawyer. Arthur Anderson, the
accountancy firm which signed off on the bookeeping will
have much to answer for. Critics tell the Washington Post
that Enron executives confronted skeptics with a
combination of Texas arrogance and incomprehensible
jargon of the kind taught in the nation's finest business
schools. Anybody who suspected funny business simply
didn't understand "derivative instruments which eliminate
the contingent nature of existing restricted forward
contracts." Meanwhile, President Bush can thank two
people that the whole steaming pile isn't resting on the
White House doorstep: Osama bin Laden and California
Gov. Gray Davis. The Enron collapse makes nonsense of
GOP cant about deregulation and unfettered markets. But it
won't get much attention during war time. Davis's
threatened probe of Enron's California price-gouging
apparently prevented Bush from naming Enron CEO Ken
Lay to the cabinet, widely predicted at the time. Persuading
Californians to conserve electricity also seems to have
precipitated the whole collapse. On a provincial note,
many Arkansans may recall that during the Clinton years,
Texans enjoyed mocking our uniquely corrupt and
incestuous political culture almost as much as certain
Washington know-it-alls. So here's my suggestion: How
about if y'all do your country cousins a great big favor and
just shut up for a while?
http://www.bartcop.com/1205lyons.htm
NEW YORK STATE HOME PAGE
The New York State Governor's Office of Regulatory
Reform realizes that New York State does not operate in a
vacuum. Federal regulatory policies dramatically impact
life in New York State. Think tanks and Congressional
committees are working on ideas in the regulatory reform
field. Accordingly, GORR has increased its networking on
the national level to better serve the people of the State of
New York.
In March 2001 GORR Director David M. Poleto conferred
with representatives of the Mercatus Center, comparing
notes on federal and state approaches to regulatory reform.
Left-to-right: Kameran L. Bailey, Assistant Director of
Mercatus' Regulatory Studies Program; Susan E. Dudley, a
Mercatus Senior Research Fellow; GORR's David M.
Poleto; Wendy L. Gramm, Mercatus Distinguished Senior
Fellow and Director of Mercatus' Regulatory Studies
Program.
GORR Director David M. Poleto, Director of the Mercatus
Regulatory Studies Program Wendy Gramm, and GORR
Public Information Officer David Pietrusza.
http://www.gorr.state.ny.us/gorr/GORR_National_Outreac
h.html

PHIL GRAMM:
Wife: Dr. Wendy Lee Gramm, former chairman of the
U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission under
Presidents Reagan and Bush; Children:
http://www.famoustexans.com/philgramm.htm
Leading a Regulatory Agency: Lessons from the
CFTC
Wendy L. Gramm and Gerald D. Gay
Gramm is Professor of Economics and Public
Administration at the University of Texas at Arlington and
the former Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission from 1988-1993. Gay is Professor of Finance
at Georgia State University and the former Chief
Economist at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
from 1990-1993.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv17n4/reg17n4d.ht
ml
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-
000000242jan02.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
January 2, 2002

Robert Scheer:
Enron Is a Cancer on the Presidency Finally, a reporter had
the temerity to question Bush on Friday regarding the
ignominious collapse of Enron Corp. run by Kenneth L.
Lay, a Bush family intimate and top campaign contributor.
Bush expressed concern "for the citizens of Houston who
worked for Enron who lost life savings and added:
"It's very important for us to fully understand the 'whys' of
Enron." Sure is, but did Bush never ask "Kenny Boy"-- his
nickname for Enron's chairman--what was going on?
After all, ot only was Kenny Boy one of Bush's major
contributors, but it was Lay and Enron that Bush turned to
for critical advice on how to further exploit U.S. natural
resources.
The media, which had hounded Bill Clinton on his
Whitewater connections, have allowed Bush
to maintain the fiction that his--and his father's--
administration had nothing to do with the debacle that is
Enron. Given the intense interest in the list of those who
slept over in the Clinton White House, it's odd that no
attention has been paid to Kenny Boy's sleepover in the
early years
of the senior Bush's White House. Those early Bush years
were crucial for Enron, beginning with the passage of the
1992 Energy Policy Act, which forced the established
utility companies to carry
Enron's electricity sales on their wires. At the same time,
Wendy Gramm, who served under the elder Bush as chair
of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, allowed
for an exemption in
the trading of energy derivatives, which, as the Washington
Post reported, "later became Enron's most lucrative
business."
Once that was accomplished, Gramm, wife of Texas GOP
Sen. Phil Gramm, resigned from her government post to
take a position on the Enron board. As one of the members
of the board's audit committee, she now is expected to be a
key figure in the lawsuits and federal investigation
revolving around Enron's collapse. Recently, the chief
executive of Arthur Andersen, Enron's outside auditor, told
a congressional committee that the accounting firm had
warned the Enron audit committee of what he termed
"possible illegal acts within the company." Wendy Gramm
is also mentioned in a bank lawsuit alleging insider trading
as having sold $276,912 in Enron stock in November
1998. Her response is that she sold the stock to avoid the
appearance of a conflict of interest, given that her husband
was chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. Yet she
was still very much on the Enron board nd being rewarded
with future stock options when her husband last year
pushed through legislation that exempted key elements of
Enron's energy business from oversight by the federal
government. Phil Gramm had obtained $97,350 in political
contributions from Enron over the years, so perhaps he was
acting on his own instincts and not his wife's urgings.
The exemption was passed over the objection of the
Clinton administration. Wendy Gramm also directs the
regulatory studies program at George Mason University,
which has received $50,000 from Enron since 1996. Her
academic institute is highly influential in arguing for
deregulation, conveniently joining her corporate and
academic interests. Unfortunately for true-believer
deregulators, the Enron collapse shreds their panacea.
Surely no one, least of all Wendy Gramm, who has said she
was kept unaware of the company's chicanery in hiding
debt and conducting secret private deals to the detriment of
stockholders, could argue today with a straight face that
Enron was in need of less government oversight. The fact is
that there would be no Enron as we now it were it not for
Republican-engineered changes in government regulation
that permitted Enron its meteoric growth. It's true that the
corporation had its allies among the Democrats; campaign
finance corruption and influence peddling are generally a
cover-all-your-bets bipartisan activity. But in this case, the
amounts given to Democrats were puny and late, and
there's no doubt that Enron rode to power primarily on the
strength of Lay's influence with the Bush family. This fact
is not mitigated by Enron now hiring Clinton's former
lawyer and various top Democratic lobbying groups, except
to note that these hired guns have no shame.
The Bush family ties to Kenny Boy Lay are just too
intimate and lucrative to ignore. There also are at least four
Enron consultants and executives who hold high positions
within the Bush White House, and some of them may be
drawn into the investigations that cannot be avoided,
despite the distractions of the war on terror. As John Dean
once famously said of the Nixon administration, there is a
cancer growing on the presidency, but in this case it's name
is Enron, and it won't go away by being ignored.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=WENDY+AND+L.
+AND+GRAMM&hl=en&selm=LCTY7.7339$KY3.1750
876296@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com&rnum=7

===============
Why is Sen. Phil Gramm so interested in legalizing
Mexicans?
He is married to Dr. Wendy Lee Gramm, former chairman
of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission under
Presidents Reagan and Bush.

And she is on the Board of Directors of one of the largest

employers of
illegal aliens in America - Iowa Beef Packers.!!!!!
WANT PROOF?
News Release
DIRECTORS ELECTED AT IBP ANNUAL MEETING
Dakota Dunes, South Dakota April 20, 2000 Nine
directors were elected to one-year terms
today at IBP's annual meeting, company officials reported.
Those elected to serve on the
company's board of directors include Robert L. Peterson,
IBP chairman and chief executive
officer; Richard L. Bond, IBP president and chief operating
officer; Eugene D. Leman,
IBP president fresh meats; John S. Chalsty, chairman of
Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, Inc.;
Dr. Wendy L. Gramm, former chairman of the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission;
John J. Jacobson, president of TransAm Trucking, Inc.; Dr.
Martin A.
Massengale, president emeritus of the University of
Nebraska; Michael L. Sanem, self-employed
cattle feeder and private investor; and Joann R. Smith,
former assistant secretary of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. More than 98% of the shares
voted were in favor of their election
to the board. The company also reported that more than
91% of the shares voted approved
the fiscal year 2000 performance-based bonus program of
the chairman and chief executive
officer; the president and chief operating officer; and the
chief executive officer of
Foodbrands America, Inc. Foodbrands, one of three IBP
operating companies, is involved
in the production of value-added foods products.
IBP is the world's leading producer of high quality fresh
beef and pork, and supplies
premium, fully prepared meats and other consumer-ready
foods for the retail and foodservice
industries. The company employs more than 49,000 people.

Contact: Gary Mickelson, IBP Public Affairs Department

605-235-2986
email: gary.mickelson@ibpinc.com email:
mailto:gary.mickelson@ibpinc.com
http://www.americanpatrol.com/SENATE/Gramm-
WendyIPB_010112.html

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=WENDY+AND+L.
+AND+GRAMM&hl=en&selm=94304h$1p82$1@news.g
ate.net&rnum=10

<Back to ENRON-BUSH-HARVARD-WTC-OIL-CONNECTION

http://www.apfn.org/enron/gramm.htm

====================
WHERE IS
DOJ?
WHERE IS
ERIC
HOLDER?

WHERE IS
CONGRESS?
The CFTC and
Wendy Gramm are
in violation of Title
18 U.S.C. 1501-1525.
Following links details all of the legitimate subprime
cases erroneously tossed out by judges (not even a
chance to be heard by a jury)

http://www.dandodiary.com/2010/06/articles/subprime-
litigation/an-updated-analysis-of-subprime-securities-
suit-dismissal-motions/
http://www.dandodiary.com/2008/06/articles/subprime-
litigation/the-list-subprime-lawsuit-dismissals-and-
denials/index.html
http://www.skadden.com/content/Publications/Publicati
ons1962_0.pdf

Wendy Gramm and the CFTC(U.S.

Commodity Futures Trading
Commission )are in violation of Title
18 U.S.C. 1501-1525
Obstruction of justice is the
impediment of governmental activities.
There are a host of federal criminal
laws that prohibit obstructions of
justice. The six most general outlaw
obstruction of judicial proceedings (18
U.S.C. 1503), witness tampering (18
U.S.C. 1512), witness retaliation (18
U.S.C. 1513), obstruction of
Congressional or administrative
proceedings (18 U.S.C. 1505),
conspiracy to defraud the United
States (18 U.S.C. 371), and contempt
(a creature of statute, rule and
common law)."
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34303.pdf*

====================