We welcome back Russell and let him break the news that AIG is a massive fraud – a ponzi scheme built on sham reinsurance transactions. – sop
Are AIGs credit default swaps worth anything? Or were they sham transactions that neither party ever had any intention of paying out on? The Institutional Risk Analyst in its latest bulletin claims that it is the later.
Institutional Risk Analytics provides customized risk management solutions and advisory services to global enterprises. They write an occasional piece that they post on the web to generate interest and attention to their work. Being in the risk business they tend toward the bearish side, and tend to be a little bit skeptical of others professed best intentions.
The details are almost numbing, in a scary way, but what they point out is that AIG had a long track record of sham transactions involving various insurance instruments and reinsurance instruments in particular. They would sign a reinsurance contract with an insurance company, take a certain amount of money, and at the same time form a side agreement that essentially said: “We will not pay you on this policy.” Why would the insurance company do this: to lower their capital requirements. And since AIG did not perform much in the way of the services, they could kick some of the money back to the insurance company via an offshore entity which would allow the insurance company to write off all the money paid off to AIG, and then accept back part of the money back as tax free profits. Continue reading “Where Insurance finally meets the Big Bailout. AIG a Massive Ponzi Scheme?”
First, a big SLABBED welcome to Larisa Alexandrovna of Raw Story and an equally big thank you for including a transcript of Paul Minor’s Appeal in her post on the story.
Had the transcripts not been available, I would have been left to puzzle over the concept of subject matter jurisdiction: The power of a court to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong; and, 18USC.666: Theft or bribery concerning programs receiving Federal funds.
The panel of Fifth Circuit judges hearing Paul Minor’s Appeal, however, came to my rescue with a really interesting discussion of the issues. In doing so, they not only helped this non-lawyer understand one of the controversial aspects of Minor’s case, but one that is also a factor in USA v DeLaughter and was in USA v Scruggs as well.
In his Motion for Bill of Particulars, Judge DeLaughter asked the USA to:
- Identify with specificity the particular “state and local government” entity of which Judge DeLaughter is alleged to be an agent.
- Identify with specificity the “government and judicial agency” that allegedly “received in a one-year period benefits in excess of $10,000 under a federal program…”
Although the question of quid pro quo was the primary focus of DeLaughter’s Motion to Inspect Grand Jury Minutes, the underlying issue of there incorporates concerns about “666” – the shorthand reference to this section of the Code. Continue reading “5th Circuit Panel questions federal jurisdiction in USA v Minor”
Then you gotta wonder about the thought process involved in pushing Leonard lite to the 5th Circuit.
I don’t know if this case involves bad wind-water lawyering or an ornery client but you know they didn’t read Slabbed before wasting time rehashing concurrent causation with Edith Jones.
Where to start? How about before the serious stuff we stop by Kiss My Big Blue Butt and pick up her observation of international affairs:
“Y’all, look. The queen carries her purse around – even at her own house!”
Although her attention was directed elsewhere, she also had a great lead into the big news from the Department of Justice:
Oh Blessed Mother of Fence Gaps – we are on the wrong side of moving up.
Former Governor Siegelman couldn’t have said it better – and lordknows he was trying when he lamented to the folks at TPM Stevens case is dropped, why not mine. Continue reading “SLABBED Daily – April 2”