Skip to main content

   On September 9, 2013 a group of "seven unknown agents on law"  who are agents of the Ramblings on Appeal Blog, permitted one of their own (Samuel Blatchford) to spout forth with a rant of banter titled "The Cult of Rakoff". Though it was my intention to do a "teaching" Diary today, on bankruptcy fraud by attorneys at law who engage in criminality; this Ramblings on Appeal piece gets in my craw enough to take top billing today.

Judge Rakoff
    For those of you who may not be familiar, His Honor Judge Rakoff works as a Federal Justice in the Southern District of New York ("SDNY") - Federal District Court. He is an accomplished Jurist who was asked to sit "by designation" upon the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. However, the accolades and accomplishments of His Honor Jed Saul Rakoff seem of no consequence to Samuel Blatchford and the Ramblings on Appeal Blog. What Blatchford is beefing about, is the fact that His Honor Jed S Rakoff refused to rubber stamp one of the S.E.C.'s Deferred Prosecution Agreements ("DPA") that allowed a defendant (in this case Citi) to pay a huge fine; but no plea is being entered.

     His Honor Rakoff has become a hero to me and others who have watched our federal watchdogs become SEC's (Selective Enforcement Agencies) - who slap the wrists of White Collar fraudsters more often than not. It is best to quote Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi who says of His Honor;

     "Federal judge Jed Rakoff, a former prosecutor with the U.S. Attorney’s office here in New York, is fast becoming a sort of legal hero of our time."  In 15 years on the federal bench, Judge Rakoff has written funny, blunt and occasionally reversed opinions. In addition to pushing back against what he has described as superficial punishment by the SEC for companies accused of fraud, Judge Rakoff has held the federal death penalty unconstitutional, sharply criticized the U.S. sentencing guideline, inserted himself into corporate governance reform at WorldCom, and pushed for the public release of documents".
     Judge Rakoff is our type of guy and apparent loathed by the "Ramblings on Appeal" group.

Ramblings on Appeal - Rambles in its Hamster Banter Wheel

      At first glance the title "The Cult of Rakoff" goads one such as I to see what the article has to say. At the barest of minimums to determine - whether or not - that I am a Rakoff Cultist. After review of the Ramblings on Appeal opine of Samuel Blatchford - I can proudly say that I am a cultist of His Honor Rakoff and have determined that "Ramblings on Appeal" is an Anti-Rakoff Cult.

      The intro sentence of "The Cult of Rakoff" thread brings people like me in further, under a guise of bait & switch approach. As Mr. Blatchford begins by stating;

Perhaps more than any other jurist on the Southern District of New York (SDNY), the Hon. Jed S. Rakoff is regarded by both legal and lay observers as a visionary leader and a portrait of fair-minded judicial temperament.
My first reflection was - Cool - this is what I wish to read - as Samuel continues;
Former New York City Mayor Ed Koch, commenting on Judge Rakoff's high-profile decision to reject the SEC's settlement with Citigroup because it allowed Citigroup to settle without admitting or denying wrongdoing, characterized Judge Rakoff as "a light unto his fellow jurists." Judge Rakoff had rejected a $285 million negotiated settlement, in part because the deal included then-standard neither-admit-nor-deny language. The SEC has appealed, and the case is pending before a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit --
Here's the HuffPo article quoting former Mayor Koch "A Light Unto His Fellow Jurists".

Mayor Koch is also endearing to the common man with the OpEd HuffPo remark;

The S.E.C. has been given huge new powers of regulation under landmark legislation passed in July 2010 known as Dodd-Frank, the result of the debacle on Wall Street involving banks and other financial institutions which caused losses in the trillions of dollars to investors. The era will always be joined at the hip with the phrase referring to many of those institutions as "too big to fail." I have done my best to add an additional phrase to the description, "too big to jail."
   Mayor Koch hits the nail on the proverbial head. His Honor Koch then reflects upon a New York Times Editorial that criticizes how the Right Wing slashed the SEC's budget even after the Dodd Frank Billl increased the burdens upon the SEC.

As is remarked by the New York Times of Judge Rakoff;

Judge Jed Rakoff is furious. He should be. We all should be. On Monday, the Federal District Court judge rightly rejected a plan by the Securities and Exchange Commission to settle a securities fraud case against Citigroup, saying that the $285 million deal was 'neither fair, nor reasonable, nor adequate, nor in the public interest.' It's not only that the money was not enough, though it certainly seems puny compared with the damage done. The S.E.C. charged that Citigroup had not adequately disclosed to investors its role and interest in creating and selling -- and betting against -- a mortgage-backed investment that was intended to fail. When the investment did, indeed, tank, the bank made $160 million, according to the S.E.C., while investors lost $700 million.
The Editorial continued;
It's not even that the S.E.C. only accused Citigroup of negligence, when Judge Rakoff said that his understanding of the matter indicates that a tougher charge of knowing or intentional fraud was probably warranted. Serious as all that is, Judge Rakoff's fundamental concern is that the S.E.C. did not provide any facts for the court to use to vet the settlement. Like most S.E.C. settlements with Wall Street firms, Citigroup was being allowed to settle without admitting or denying wrongdoing.
     Let's see, we have yours truly, a highly critical person of the federal systems of justice being tools of selective interests. Yet I'm all for Judge Rakoff. Then we have Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone and former Mayor Koch singing praises of His Honor. So voices of the people and a victim of White Collar Fraud existing by Federal Corruption are in Judge Rakoff's corner. I'm proud to be consider a Rakoff Cultist.

      And - in the opposing corner - we have "Ramblings on Appeal" Samuel Blatchford!

Banter of the Hamsters in the Ranting Wheel

       Upon pulling me in with the opening remarks, Mr. Blatchford then switches tone with the following conclusion of his Mayor Koch reflection;

The SEC has appealed, and the case is pending before a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit—a court that has previously not seen eye-to-eye with Judge Rakoff.
        Blatchford attempts to counter good faith persons such as Mayor Koch and Matt Taibbi and the opine of the New York Times with a blog link to an entity titled "Swampland"

        Demonstrating how "in the know" Samuel Blatchford is, of the issues of our times and the great way the systems of justice are working to his delight, Samuel quips the following;

Under the helm of the capable Mary Jo White, the SEC is conducting numerous enforcement actions against major financial services industry players. In addition to Citigroup, the SEC is litigating against (among others) Goldman Sachs, ICP Asset Management, J.P. Morgan Securities, Wachovia Capital Markets, Wells Fargo, and UBS Securities. As of the first of this month, the SEC has charged 161 entities and individuals and has ordered over $1.5 billion in penalties.
       First of all, I take great issue with Mary Jo and the SEC. Selective Enforcement of our laws has become the SEC's way - and the troubles of too big to fail shall forever more stay - unless we find more Judges like His Honor Rakoff who will say What the Hey!  The very notion that $1.5 billion in penalties of 161 behemoths like J.P. Morgan, Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo is absurd.  They are guilty of causing massive billions (if not actually a Trillion) dollars in harm. The very case in question of Citi, details the fact investors there alone - lost $700 million.

         Ramblings on Appeal Samuel Blatchford then concludes that Judge Rakoff's ruling as a hard liner is creating a "judicial sweepstakes" that decides issues before they ever arrive at court.

That remark is sinful and real close to an accusation!

          I don't know if what kind of an unknown agent of law Mr. Blatchford is; but he better be careful if he has a BAR card. Making a remark that "it's actually creating a judicial sweepstakes that decides outcomes before the parties ever appear in court" - is a stretch of logic to the realm of the inane. It is an insult of His Honor and the judicial process. And (You need) REMEMBER that yours truly is the guy who accuses Judge's and Federal Prosecutors - OPENLY - when I've got concrete evidence of bad faith adjudication upon the merits.

         Samuel Blatchford only has evidence that a Judge asked to be able to "judge" the issue at hand. Every criminal trial you go to, the court looks at a case and the prosecutions offer to settle for lessor charges; and those courts are indeed entitled to know the facts of the case. You don't let a murder off with probation on a shoplifting charge; and you don't let Citi intentionally scam investors out of $700 million - and then pay a fine of $160 million - while keeping their mouths shut about having done anything wrong.

       Kudos to His Honor Jed Saul Rakoff

                                       and a big BOO to "Ramblings on Appeal"

                                                 Especially a BOO super loud to Mr. Blatchford.

         You and your kind Mr. Samuel Blatchford, are the real problems with our country. It is easy for you to bait & switch. You find it matter of fact to counter arguments by Matt Taibbi, Mayor Koch and others upon high with "Swampland" babble. Your logic is flawed, your methods disingenuous and your desire for a rubber stamping judiciary is inane. Please take your muddied ideas back to what ever swamp land you contrived them from?

       Your Honor Judge Rakoff, we need more of you, more of Matt Taibbi and less of Eliot Spitzer (who just lost btw) - and much, much less of those who would criticize your good faith intent with dang near slanderous remarks.

                             Please keep up the good works Judge Rakoff!

      As is customary, I informed the other parties of this D, and here's the response I received from Samuel Blatchford;

Mr. Haas,

I believe you have just demonstrated that there is a Cult of Rakoff and that you are a proud member thereof. Thank you for the kind attention.

Warm regards,

Samuel Blatchford


Is Judge Rakoff stance against the SEC - okay?

77%7 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes
22%2 votes

| 9 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

    by laserhaas on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 11:15:03 AM PDT

  •  I wouldn't worry too much about (3+ / 0-)

    "Samuel Blatchford" and his bar card. Nor about his colleagues "Felix Brandeis Cardozo" and "Rosa Blackstone." I think they are safe in their fantasy legal world. If not, I'm sure Thurgood Rutledge Chase and Bushrod Washington Stevens can step in to help.

    Leaving the specific claims about Judge Rakoff aside, do you agree or disagree with the blogger's criticism of random assignment of cases to judges? If you agree, what system would you propose?

    •  I'm at a quandary about the issue. Presently (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Villanova Rhodes

      I've been getting an education about Civil RICO from very knowledgeable persons. One party gave me an introduction to a guy at Jenner Block who co-authored a book on RICO. He and others asked, if I were to continue with the effort, where would I file.

      The options being Delaware (which has demonstrated extreme bad faith) - Philadelphia (where the 3rd Cir also acted in poor manner) - Washington, D.C. - New York or California.

      In a legit world - I'd choose Delaware;
      but (thus far) my case is wanton for legitimacy.

      D.C. posses big problems; but offers more counsels willing.

      New York - getting Judge Rakoff - would seem to be the venue of choice and/ or California (where Romney lives, I visit and eToys {ebc1} is headquartered).

      If I could choose, (and some say I can - because Rakoff handled the Marc Dreier case - and they are akin) I would choose Rakoff. Simply because he has clearly demonstrated a desire to be kosher.

      And kosher is what I'm currently in need of.

      That being said, random case assignment is a legitimate process. The real question is (if truth be known) - how often is the "random" wheel of assignment actually applied?

      Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

      by laserhaas on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 02:27:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Civil cases in federal district courts (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        are randomly (more precisely, by lot) assigned a judge at filing in nearly all instances, for real. However, when filing a suit, the plaintiff submits a cover sheet with case information that should include any related cases and the judges they're pending before. (In SDNY, that's not limited to pending cases; past cases should also be identified.) Your lawyer would be able to tell you whether your case is sufficiently related to another case (more than just "akin" generally) to expect to have it assigned to a particular judge.

        The local rules of the districts you're considering would tell you how "relatedness" works in assignments. For example, if your lawyer says your case is related to one of Judge Rakoff's, the judge can keep the case or send it back to the Clerk for random assignment, in his sole discretion. I would think, given his history with the assignment issue, that Judge Rakoff would be reluctant to stretch to call a case related unless it's clearly so. In other words, don't get your hopes up.

        The courts of appeals are a somewhat different kettle of fish. There are parts of the process that are random and parts that aren't, depending on the circuit.

        •  I have little hope for justice in these cases. (0+ / 0-)

          Even though our court approved contracts guarantee legal fees - and there's still $1 million of my money left (and a purported $50 million settlement coming down the pipeline) - all attorneys (including former Asst U.S. Attorneys) - choose discretion over valor. Especially if you expect to practice in the same court again.

          MNAT has Delaware wrapped up in vast ways.

          Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

          by laserhaas on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 04:21:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What??? (0+ / 0-)
            our court approved contracts guarantee legal fees
            Post the document and quote the language that says this is true.  I don't believe it is.  
            •  Who gives a crap what a laser hater does (0+ / 0-)

              or does not believe

              Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

              by laserhaas on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 04:39:09 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You don't but others might (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Villanova Rhodes

                The only inference is that your eToys engagement agreement provides for payment of your attorney fees.

                You know this is not true.  There is nothing in the Bankruptcy Code, the Bankruptcy Rules, the Local Rules, or the case law that would support approval of such a broad term of engagement.  

                Is there a limit to what you think eToys creditors should have to pay for your crusade?

                And enough of this "laser hater" nonsense.  Back up your claims with evidence.

                •  You can not goad me - you are wasting your time (0+ / 0-)

                  Those tools who you are working with - seek to find out how I now have a copy - when my sell out counsels believed they destroyed them all.

                  This is a brief submitted to the DE Bankruptcy Court under Oath - and it contains the clauses you baseless claim are non- exist.


                  You are backing the wrong horses and should be ashamed of the bullying you are engaging in.

                  Unless you are being paid to do so.

                  Then that would be Intimidation of Victim/ Witness and Retaliation.

                  Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

                  by laserhaas on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 08:05:40 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Ok, so you are relying on the retention agreement (0+ / 0-)

                    At paragraphs 46 and 47 of the document you link to, you quote the indemnifcation provisions of the retention agreements.  From this I surmise that my initial assumption is correct, i.e., that you believe those agreements guarantee payment of all your legal expenses, up to and including your contemplated civil RICO case.

                    The language you quote, however, supports my assertion, not yours.  The first indemnification clause, i.e. (emphasis added):

                    Part 6 Indemnification. “eToys shall defend, indemnify and hold CLI and its affiliates and the officers, directors, agents and employees of such, harmless from and against any and all claims, suits, damages, losses, liabilities, obligations, fines, penalties, costs and expenses (whether based on tort, breach of contract, product liability, patent or copyright infringement or otherwise), including reasonable legal fees and expenses, of whatever kind or nature, arising out of or based on any loss of the Collateral other than any such loss arising out of CLI’s negligence or intentional misconduct”.
                    only applies to losses with respect to the collateral entrusted to your care, as the emphasized language makes clear.  The second indemnification clause, i.e.:
                    Part 10 Indemnification. “In regard to performance under this Amendment Agreement, each party shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the other party, and the other party’s directors, officers employees and agents, from and against any and all claims, suits, damages, losses, liabilities, obligations, fines, penalties, judgments, costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees and disbursements arising out of or relating to; (i) the death or personal injury of any person resulting from the negligence or willful misconduct of itself, its employees, agents or contractors (or their employees, agents or contractors); (ii) the loss of or damage to any property resulting from the negligence or willful misconduct of itself. Its employees, agents or contractors (or their employees, agents or contractors); or (iii) the material breach of this Amendment Agreement by such parties or its employees, agents or contractors (or their employees agents or contractors)”.
                    likewise is not the far-reaching provision you claim it is and likewise doesn't allow for a blank check to cover whatever legal fees you incur so long as the word "eToys" is recited somewhere in your pleadings.

                    In any event, the law is well settled that no matter what the parties might agree to, the courts will examine fee requests to ensure they are reasonable.  

                    By the way, when you accuse me of working with others against you, and suggest that I'm getting paid to post here, you only diminish your own credibility further. You make it very easy to see how you construct these conspiracies against you.

                    •  You don't have to worry - A genius such as ye (0+ / 0-)

                      who is too much of a Pro to capitulate to the fact that the opposing parties have perpetrated Fraud on the Court

                      has no worry about me asking you to be my counsel or part of the team of counsels.

                      Thank goodness the others who have reviewed the case and bowed out did it because of the "Color of Law" issues.

                      Being that the are not the genius you are.

                      Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

                      by laserhaas on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 10:02:45 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  As for you incongruous remarks of creditbility (0+ / 0-)

                      Being that you have done such a vast, extensive, expertise review of the facts.

                      Your credibility on the issue that you are not defending the dark side of things - goes right out the window the moment you defend the position of perpetrators of fraud upon the court. (Who are doing so for the sake of Romney's Bain Capital committing Bankruptcy Fraud).

                      The fact that you are now (I assume from your staunch efforts in nolle prosequi - and assault upon this witness) - claim you are doing this banter upon a victim

                      for free

                      also testifies much to your credibility
                      and the genius legal mind you profess you have.

                      Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

                      by laserhaas on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 10:06:14 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Interesting side note re: paragraphs 8 and 10 (0+ / 0-)

                    From your motion that you linked to:

                    8. CLI became aware of bizarre efforts to bilk the Debtor’s estate, beyond the paltry fire sale efforts. Incredibly, the salary of over 1000 employees was doubled during bankruptcy...

                    10. ... Around that same time, the eToys founder and all senior executives subsequently abandoned the public company; stating that it was due to this petitioners dismissing of the double salaried personnel.

                    All emphasis in original.  A year earlier, it was 1,500 employees that you say you fired.

                    Query: Are these the same employees whose jobs you said you would save?

                    Over 1000 people were losing their jobs. I told them I could save them. They asked for proof and I took them to my 150,000 sg ft warehouse and presented them with a bank letter to guarantee them $5.4 million.
                    Query: In either event, where did these employees come from? According to this news report, on January 10, 2001:
                    The other shoe dropped at eToys Thursday when it announced that it was laying off 700 of its 950 employees and shuttering a pair of warehouse operations.
                    A month later, the company told its remaining 293 employees that their services would be needed until no later than April 6, 2001.

                    You see, Mr. Haas, this is the sort of thing that gives people like me problems with your diaries.

                    •  Picky, pickee, pik-key. -- (0+ / 0-)

                      Actually - Ms. Empirical evidence

                      it is amazing how you take the babbling banter of those who have confessed to intentional fraud on the court in 2005 - having admitted to supplicated more than 34 erroneous Rule 2014/2016 Affidavits.

                      And then come here and try to counter my evidences with their babbling B.S. during the period of time they have admitted to deliberate fraud on the court.

                      Perhaps your genius levels in legal prowess are not all you make it out to be. As it seems you have forgotten the sine qua non controlling issue of Brady Materials

                      Once an officer of the court has been found to have proffered erroneous testimony - all further remarks thereby are not to be given the weight of a grain of salt.

                      N'est-ce pas!

                      Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

                      by laserhaas on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 10:12:15 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

          •  I'd go with your instinct on that. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VetGrl, laserhaas

            You might consider spending your time more productively and just waiting for the settlement you're anticipating. If you've somehow got guaranteed legal fees and can't get a lawyer to represent your corporation, that's a bad omen for the prospects of any further litigation. If you can get one, leave it to him or her and go find something that makes you happier and more fulfilled. Constant fretting over past or future litigation is not healthy, and neither is railing against strangers you imagine to be "laser haters." None of this is a remedy for the homelessness you've occasionally alluded to. I wish you luck, but I hope you'll consider some other outlet for your time and skills.

            •  The settlement is a sham. Goldman Sachs sued (0+ / 0-)

              Goldman Sachs.

              MNAT confessed supplication of 15 erroneous Rule 2014 affidavits and failing to disclose the conflict of interest that it represents Goldman Sachs (and also Bain Capital) - in Delaware.

              MNAT signed the Barry Gold objection to Paul Traub's getting paid too much.

              Barry Gold and MNAT nominated Paul Traub to sue Goldman SAchs.

              Barry Gold and Paul Traub confessed they are partners.

              The Bankruptcy Confirmed PLAN under Section 1124 - 1129 - Forbids the Confirmed PLAN Administrator (Barry Gold) from having Transactions with Related Persons (his partner Paul Traub).

              MNAT is signing Barry Gold's settle with Paul Traub - and MNAT is FORBIDDEN by Law (and Judges OPINION of October 4, 2005) to touch Goldman Sachs issues.

              But here they all are - engaging in conflicts of interest right out in the open - and the Judge has permanently barred me from filing anything in the case.

              These are the acts that you desire I simply permit to continue - and walk away to work McDonalds the rest of my life

              and stick my head up my behind and forget about it all.

              NO THANKS - Better to fight and get slaughtered.

              then to tuck tail and run!

              Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

              by laserhaas on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 08:31:33 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site