Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (424201)	10/9/2008 2:01:01 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 1577883

Obama Sued Citibank Under CRA to Force it to Make Bad Loans - UPDATED September 30, 2008 — iusbvision Do you remember how we told you that the Democrats and groups associated with them leaned on banks and even sued to get them to make bad loans by abusing the Community Reinvestment Act (see HERE and HERE)? The abuse of this act by ACORN and officials like Janet Reno was a factor in causing the economic crisis. The harasment suits filed under this act were used to get banks to lower credit standards and hand out high risk loans. Fellow bloggers have dug up the lawsuit below while researching Obama’s legal career. It is a typical example of an ACORN harassment lawsuit. In these lawsuits, ACORN makes a bogus claim of Redlining (denying poor people loans because of their ethnic heritage). They protest and get the local media to raise a big stink. This stink means that the bank faces thousands of people closing their accounts and get local politicians to lobby to stop the bank from doing some future business, expansions and mergers. If the bank goes to court, they will win, but the damage is already done because who is going to launch a big campaign to get the bank’s reputation back? It is important to understand the nature of these lawsuits and what their purpose is. ACORN filed tons of these lawsuits and ALL of them allege racism. Case Name Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance Docket / Court 94 C 4094 ( N.D. Ill. ) FH-IL-0011 State/Territory Illinois Case Summary Plaintiffs filed their class action lawsuit on July 6, 1994, alleging that Citibank had engaged in redlining practices in the Chicago metropolitan area in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691; the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619; the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1982. Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, actual damages, and punitive damages. U.S. District Court Judge Ruben Castillo certified the Plaintiffs’ suit as a class action on June 30, 1995. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 322 (N.D. Ill. 1995). Also on June 30, Judge Castillo granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery of a sample of Defendant-bank’s loan application files. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 338 (N.D. Ill. 1995). The parties voluntarily dismissed the case on May 12, 1998, pursuant to a settlement agreement. Plaintiff’s Lawyers Alexis, Hilary I. (Illinois) FH-IL-0011-7500 \| FH-IL-0011-7501 \| FH-IL-0011-9000 Childers, Michael Allen (Illinois) FH-IL-0011-7500 \| FH-IL-0011-7501 \| FH-IL-0011-9000 Clayton, Fay (Illinois) FH-IL-0011-7500 \| FH-IL-0011-7501 \| FH-IL-0011-9000 Cummings, Jeffrey Irvine (Illinois) FH-IL-0011-7500 \| FH-IL-0011-7501 \| FH-IL-0011-9000 Love, Sara Norris (Virginia) FH-IL-0011-9000 Miner, Judson Hirsch (Illinois) FH-IL-0011-7500 \| FH-IL-0011-9000 Obama, Barack H. (Illinois) FH-IL-0011-7500 \| FH-IL-0011-7501 \| FH-IL-0011-9000 Wickert, John Henry (Illinois) FH-IL-0011-9000 iusbvision.wordpress.com

To: TigerPaw who wrote (424201)	10/9/2008 2:15:19 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577883

Gary Sick is a conspiracy nut who pushes the October Surprise theory. Even he doesn't claim that North played a part in the October surprise itself or worked with Iran during the Ford adm. As for the October Surprise: Senate Investigation The US Senate’s 1992 report concluded that "by any standard, the credible evidence now known falls far short of supporting the allegation of an agreement between the Reagan campaign and Iran to delay the release of the hostages".[7] [edit] House of Representatives Investigation The House of Representatives’ 1993 report concluded “there is no credible evidence supporting any attempt by the Reagan presidential campaign—or persons associated with the campaign—to delay the release of the American hostages in Iran”. The task force Chairman Lee Hamilton also added that the vast majority of the sources and material reviewed by the committee were "wholesale fabricators or were impeached by documentary evidence." The report also expressed the belief that several witnesses had committed perjury during their sworn statements to the committee, among them Richard Brenneke,[8] who claimed to be a CIA agent.[9] The Village Voice Retired CIA analyst and counter-intelligence officer Frank Snepp of The Village Voice compiled several investigations of Sick’s allegations in 1992, and concluded that almost every single statement Sick made, and all the witnesses he had used turned out to be false or lying. Snepp alleged that Sick had only interviewed half of the sources used in his book, and supposedly relied on hearsay from unreliable sources for large amounts of critical material. According to Snepp, not one of Sick’s sources had any direct knowledge of the alleged plot. Snepp also discovered that in 1989, Sick had sold the rights to his book to Oliver Stone, who had refused to turn it into a movie. After going through evidence presented by Richard Brenneke, Snepp asserted that Brenneke’s credit card receipts showed him to be staying at a motel in Seattle, during the time he claimed to be in Paris observing the secret meeting[10 .... Newsweek magazine also ran an investigation, and they too found most if not all the charges made to be groundless. Specifically, Newsweek found little evidence that the United States had transferred arms to Iran prior to Iran Contra, was able to account for George Bush’s whereabouts when he was allegedly at the Paris meeting, and found little corroboration when Sick’s witnesses were interviewed separately. Newsweek also alleged that the story was being heavily pushed within the LaRouche Movement[12] [edit] The New Republic Steven Emerson and Jesse Furman of the The New Republic, also looked into the allegations and found “the conspiracy as currently postulated is a total fabrication”. They were unable to verify any of the evidence presented by Sick and supporters, finding them to be inconsistent and contradictory in nature. They also pointed out that nearly every witness of Sick had either been indicted or were under investigation by the Department of Justice. Like the Newsweek investigation they had also debunked the claims of Reagan election campaign officials being in Paris during the timeframe Sick claimed they had been, contradicting Sick’s sources.[13] en.wikipedia.org Apparently the October Surprise conspiracy theory, as discredited as it is, isn't good enough. You have to make up new allegations of your own that North was involved not just in Iran-Contra (true) but was involved in something nefarious with Iran a decade earlier. Great job. Next tell us how Oliver North was involved in Watergate and the assassination of JFK.