Posted by Larry Hoover on June 15, 2009, at 7:13:21
In reply to Re: GSK - Paxil lawsuits, posted by garnet71 on June 9, 2009, at 23:55:23
> That puts an interesting spin on things, Lar.
I'm trying to remove the spin, actually.
> Well most people know banks have to report any transaction over $10,000 from any individual; it's hard to believe an Attorney General would be that naive.Well, he was that naive. It's all fully referenced on its own wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_Spitzer_prostitution_scandal
> That's puzzling. Plus, I have no clue but I can't imagine there is a govt. employee looking at every single Form 8300 submitted by a bank.
The IRS is supposed to, but these transactions sat unnoticed for months until they happened to be noted as payments made to a shell corporation that was under active investigation by the FBI, which sought the information held by the IRS. It was not a witch-hunt. He was stupid. And a hypocrite. He was using the service at a time his office issued the following news release about busting a high-end prostitution ring: http://www.oag.state.ny.us/media_center/2004/apr/apr7a_04.html
And further to the concern that he was being targetted by this investigation, although he was likely guilty of federal charges (i.e. the Mann Act), he was never indicted.
> But if the transactions were under $10,000, does the bank have the right to target him? Or were they digging into his accounts in a way that was not common?
No. Nobody did that. It wasn't a conspiracy, or a targetted investigation. It all fully referenced on that wiki page. I read the references, too.
My main concern with Spitzer was his violation of the fundamental right of presumed innocence, and of due process. I am decidely, definitely, not an advocate for 'the ends justifies the means' jurisprudence.
Moreover, his use of an archaic law, the Martin Act (1921), otherwise superceded by the federal SEC and other developments following the 1929 stock market debacle, is (IMHO) deplorable. In esence, this law permits the Attorney General for the State of New York to simply "go fishing", as the definition for civil fraud under the Act is: "all deceitful practices contrary to the plain rules of common honesty and all acts tending to deceive or mislead the public, whether or not the product of scienter or intent to defraud." (Sup. Ct. N.Y., 1998) See: http://www.dechert.com/library/FS_2004-04.pdf
And, because the law does not require him to convene a Grand Jury, he is never tested on even so much as the merit of bringing an action under this law in the first place. "... a Martin Act subpoena requires witnesses to either provide documents or appear in the Attorney General's office to be interviewed without any Grand Jury....Due to the dual civil and criminal aspects under the Martin Act the Attorney General may commence an investigation under such Act and provide the appearance of it being a civil investigation which may simply lead to fines or injunctions, when in reality the evidence collected may be used by the Criminal Division of the Attorney General's office to present evidence to a Grand Jury and criminally prosecute its targets based on the collection of evidence conducted under the Martin Act." http://www.smeissner.com/Martin-Act-Subpoena.html
But that wasn't enough for Spitzer. As AG, he can keep the proceedings private, or make any of the information obtained by the civil proceeding under the Martin Act public. And that's where, in my opinion, he really stepped over the line, selectively releasing information to the press, and to lawyers who would otherwise have had no access to the information he obtained. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
So, when I read public comments that denigrate his actions, I have to agree with them. I do not, as I say, accept that the ends justifies the means.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/the-eliot-spitzer-show-10975
"Spitzers campaigns against Wall Street came under angry criticism, on several grounds. Spitzer, it was said, had encroached on territory properly belonging to the federal government, exploiting a 1921 New York State law that gave him wide-ranging power. Moreover, rather than bringing cases to trial where the charges could be aired in open court, he often sought settlements and then dictated their terms without judicial oversight, as if, in the words of a Wall Street Journal editorial, he was the Lord High Executioner of Wall Street. Then, too, rather than returning settlement money to individual investors, he sometimes dispensed it at his own constituency-building discretion to institutions like law schools, the Police Athletic League, the Hispanic Federation, and various charities in upstate New York. When he did dare to take a case to trial, he usually lost, suggesting the charges were baseless to begin with. He also used bullying, abusive tactics, appearing on ABCs This Week to accuse Maurice Greenberg of fraud before filing any charges against him, and telling John Whitehead, a friend of Greenberg, that its now a war between us. . . . I will be coming after you. Finally, he had acted as an enabling force for trial lawyersas it happens, one of his main sources of campaign contributionswho followed up on each of his investigations with their own class-action lawsuits for which they stood to garner fees in the hundreds of millions of dollars."http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120528114453028807.html
"Mr. Spitzer's main offense as a prosecutor is that he violated the basic rules of fairness and due process: Innocent until proven guilty; the right to your day in court. The Spitzer method was to target public companies and officials, leak allegations and out-of-context emails to a compliant press, watch the stock price fall, threaten a corporate indictment (a death sentence), and then move in for a quick settlement kill. There was rarely a trial, fair or unfair, involved.On the substance, his court record speaks for itself. Most of Mr. Spitzer's high-profile charges have gone up in smoke. A New York state judge threw out his case against tax firm H&R Block. He lost his prosecution against Bank of America broker Ted Sihpol (whom Mr. Spitzer threatened to arrest in front of his child and pregnant wife). Mr. Spitzer was stopped by a federal judge from prying confidential information out of mortgage companies. Another New York judge blocked the heart of his suit against Mr. Grasso. Mr. Greenberg continues to fight his civil charges. The press was foursquare behind Mr. Spitzer in all these cases, and in a better world they'd share some of his humiliation."
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:899784
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20090611/msgs/901079.html