Abusive Prosecution Punished by Federal Judge

Texas Monthly ^ | 4/1/2006 | S. C. Gwynne

[tpmintx]

WHEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT sued Houston financier Charles Hurwitz in 1995 for more than a billion dollars, it seemed to many people that one of America’s most corrupt and notorious businessmen had finally been run to ground. He was accused of looting one of the biggest savings and loans in the state, United Savings Association of Texas, whose 1988 failure had cost taxpayers $1.6 billion. It was the usual, dreary story of eighties-era chicanery, said the government’s lawyers...
Subscription required

[tpmintx]

Copyrighted article - I cannot post the entire thing. The point of the article is that the FDIC sued this guy, and pursued him for 10 years, in order to hand him a huge fine. Their goal was to Federalize 1000 acres of old-growth redwoods that he owned. Everything that you have heard about the Spotted Owl and old-growth redwoods came out of this lawsuit and the publicity that it generated.

In August, 2005, a Federal judge wrote a strong 133 page decision against the FDIC “for its betrayal of public trust [and] its vindictive political assault on a private citizen” and hit the FDIC with a $72 Million sanction in his favor.

[dirtboy]

In August, 2005, a Federal judge wrote a strong 133 page decision against the FDIC “for its betrayal of public trust [and] its vindictive political assault on a private citizen” and hit the FDIC with a $72 Million sanction in his favor.

Of course, who pays that? We do. The bureaucrats in question probably got promoted.

[tpmintx]

Of course we pay that. Don't forget who was running the Justice department when this case originated in 1995! All the more reason to keep that crowd on the sidelines as long as possible!

[the_doc]

What was the name of the Federal judge? Was he in Houston?

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Ravaging the Redwood: Charles Hurwitz, Michael Milken and the Costs of Greed

[ncountylee]

Of course, who pays that? We do. The bureaucrats in question probably got promoted.

On average, the Feds manage to fire for cause all of 400 employees. Can't have the masters held accountable, can we?

[goldstategop]

Of course. Just like the incompetents in the FBI got promoted.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

[E. Pluribus Unum]

The Feds did a lot of double-dealing during the S&L "crisis."

There was a fine institution named "Community Federal Savings and Loan" in St. Louis that was destroyed by the Feds.

The Feds talked them into taking over a smaller, failing S&L so that it would not go bankrupt. They pointed out to the Feds that if they did it, their capitalization ratio would dip below the minimum requirement and the Feds said that would be okay. As soon as they did it, the Feds marched in on a Monday morning with guns drawn and escorted all the employees out at gunpoint and took it over and "salvaged" it at pennies on the dollar.

The biggest crooks are in the government, not outside it. The S&L fiasco was the federal government's Enron, but since it was the federal government you're not supposed to notice.

[blau993]

Judge Lynn Hughes, US District Judge in Houston. He has a well known dislike of the federal banking agencies dating back to the excesses of the FDIC and the RTC in Texas in the late 80s and early 90s. The opinion is strongly worded and makes interesting reading. The legal analysis is less powerful, and there is some question whether it will stand up on appeal.

[blau993]

That article is straight out of an Earth First press release. Here's a hint -- Use any references to Darryl Cherney as a litmus test. If the article quotes Darryl in a way that makes him sound respectable, it is either wacko enviro crap or written by a reporter so naive that he can't get his pants on straight.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

That article is straight out of an Earth First press release. Here's a hint -- Use any references to Darryl Cherney as a litmus test. If the article quotes Darryl in a way that makes him sound respectable, it is either wacko enviro crap or written by a reporter so naive that he can't get his pants on straight.

Lighten up. I was just adding some relevant content. I just presumed that anyone with two brain cells in a row could filter out the BS.

Evidently you do not belong to that category.

[FreePaul]

Is this something that Texas Monthly just found out about? I've always thought that they had their collective heads where the sun don't shine. I guess they have an excuse.

[tpmintx]

Is this something that Texas Monthly just found out about? I've always thought that they had their collective heads where the sun don't shine. I guess they have an excuse.

Texas Monthly is just that. A MONTHLY. They took the time to research and write a very interesting article, and published it in their April issue. I felt it was worth bringing this article to the attention of the Freepers.

I apologize if you were offended that they did not write this in August, and that I did not read it in August.

[tpmintx]

Link
The link given in your post is a link to the US Government sponsored lies that Judge Lynn Hughes was referring to in her decision.

[the_doc]

I thought it might have been a judge who I believe was named Woodrow Seal (if he is still around). That judge was pretty rough on arguably corrupt federal prosecutors.

[blau993]

Just providing context, eh.

Since your post contained nothing but a link to a BS article (as another poster noted as well), one could reasonably infer that you thought the article was significant in some way to the topic under discussion. Weak brained individuals have been accepting the line of crap in that article as gospel for years. Your lack of any comment suggested that you were one of them. Next time you "provide context" add some commentary that lets the rest of us know and appreciate your genius.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Does the expression f*** off mean anything to you?

[blau993]

Yes. it confirms that you are in fact an idiot and that I should not have been giving you the benfit of the doubt. Have a nice day.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Yes. it confirms that you are in fact an idiot and that I should not have been giving you the benfit of the doubt. Have a nice day.

And exactly where in your smarmy attack upon me did you give me "the benefit of the doubt?"