Disappointed Cat is Disappointed
You Didn’t Donate?
I’m Very Disappointed in You
Boop My Nose!
Posted on 12/29/2011 11:17:13 PM PST by neverdem
‘Fast and Furious’ Linked to Immunity Deal Between U.S. and Sinaloa Cartel, Trafficking Defendant Alleges in Court Papers
A Mexican drug trafficker awaiting trial in a Chicago federal court claims that the notorious Sinaloa cartel received weapons from "Operation Fast and Furious" under an alleged immunity agreement that the U.S. government made with cartel leaders, in exchange for information on rival gangs.
The defendant in a trafficking case before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Vicente Jesus Zambada-Niebla, also claims the immunity deal allowed the criminal cartel to "continue to smuggle tons of illicit drugs" into the United States.
He wants the U.S. government to provide documents relating to the botched gun running sting operation along the southwest border, arguing that it would benefit his defense.
Operation Fast and Furious, which began in September 2009, saw the Phoenix office of the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives supervise the sale of guns to straw purchasers with the intent of tracing the guns to Mexican drug trafficking organizations and prosecuting their members. The ATF allowed about 2,000 guns to be sold in this manner.
The operation came under congressional scrutiny after it was linked to the December 2010 murder of U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry at the hands of Mexican bandits.
An investigative report, spearheaded by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), found that most of the weapons provided to Mexican criminals under the operation were going to the Sinaloa cartel, arguably one of the world's largest drug trafficking organizations.
In a court pleading filed last July, Zambada-Niebla made the claims about an immunity deal.
"Mr. Zambada-Niebla believes that the documentation that he requests will confirm that the weapons received by Sinaloa Cartel members and its leaders in Operation 'Fast & Furious' were provided under the agreement entered into between the United States government and [a Mexican lawyer] on behalf of the Sinaloa Cartel that is the subject of his defense...," it said.
"Mr. Zambada-Niebla believes that the documentation will also provide evidence showing that the United States government has a policy and pattern of providing benefits, including immunity, to cartel leaders, including the Sinaloa Cartel and their members, who are willing to provide information against rival drug cartels."
The defendant argued that he is protected from federal prosecution for trafficking drugs into the U.S. between 2004 and 2009 under an alleged immunity deal struck between the U.S. government and Sinaloa leaders.
According to court documents, Zambada-Niebla claims that the immunity deal provided the cartel's leadership with "carte blanche to continue to smuggle tons of illicit drugs into Chicago and the rest of the United States" in exchange for information on rival drug cartels.
U.S. prosecutors deny the existence of such an immunity deal between the U.S. government and the cartel.
Nevertheless, the U.S. government last September filed a motion to invoke the Classified Information Procedures Act, which is aimed at assuring that national security information stemming from criminal cases – such as details associated with CIA operations – are not leaked to the public during court proceedings.
In a court pleading filed in September, U.S. prosecutors claimed that Zambada-Niebla's allegations about Fast and Furious have no merit.
"Defendant requests all information in the possession of the U.S. government related to an ATF investigation referred to as 'Fast and Furious'..." it said. "Defendants request related to Fast and Furious... and other unrelated matters are gratuitous and wholly unrelated to any legitimate discovery issues in this case."
Zambada-Niebla, who was arrested in Mexico in March 2009 and extradited to the U.S. eleven months later, is accused of smuggling tons of cocaine and heroin into the U.S.
He claims he was working on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, FBI, and U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, court documents show.
The defendant's pleading highlighted a July 2011 letter sent by Issa and Grassley to Attorney General Eric Holder, "suggesting that multiple United States agencies were employing as informants members of Mexican drug organizations."
"The evidence seems to indicate that the Justice Department not only allowed criminals to smuggle weapons, but that tax payers' dollars in the form of informant payments, may have financed those engaging in such activities," the pleading added.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/wachovia-settles-class-action-suit-for-627m-2011-08-05
Aug. 5, 2011, 12:08 p.m. EDT
Wachovia settles class action suit for $627M
just surreal...
bookmark
If the money was “lent” and not paid back it would be considered a contribution wouldn’t it...Illegal for foreign entities to contribute to a candidate isn’t it? Shouldn’t this have been turned over to the FEC for investigation? Has it?
Still looking for what happened to that SEC investigation and found this:
SEC Charges Wachovia With Fraudulent Bid Rigging in Municipal Bond Proceeds
Wachovia Agrees to $148 Million Settlement With SEC and Other Authorities
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2011-257
Washington, D.C., Dec. 8, 2011
http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2011/2011-257.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~
Only reason I mention is that it appears that SEC gets a complaint, SEC “investigates,” and, depending on rank on the SEC’s most-favored list, said corporation in question gets tapped on the knuckles and pays a quite reasonable pay-to-play fine.
(no link)
Wachovia suits dismissed
Winston-Salem Journal (NC) - Friday, February 25, 2011
Author: RICHARD CRAVER ; JOURNAL REPORTER ; Winston-Salem Journal
A judge has dismissed two shareholder lawsuits against Wachovia Corp., including one in Forsyth County, in which the plaintiffs claimed they were misled by management during the bank’s collapse in 2008.
John Jolly Jr., the chief special Superior Court judge for complex business cases in N.C. Business Court, dismissed separate cases Wednesday that had been filed by five plaintiffs in Forsyth and three in Mecklenburg County.
The lawsuits were filed Oct. 1, 2009 — two days after the stunning announcement that Citigroup was going to buy Wachovia and nine days before Wells Fargo & Co. beat out Citigroup’s offer and bought Wachovia with the blessing of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.
Tony Plath, a finance professor at UNC Charlotte, estimated that about $1 billion in shareholder value vanished in the Carolinas from the Wachovia collapse.
Plath said he was not surprised by the judge’s decision.
“Basically, the Business Court is concluding that there’s no compelling reason that the plaintiffs should be treated any differently from any of Wachovia ‘s other shareholders, and we all lost a bunch of money from our equity experience at Wachovia ,” he said.
Both lawsuits had as defendants Wachovia and Wells Fargo, as well as Ken Thompson, the former chairman and chief executive of Wachovia , and Robert Steel , who succeeded Thompson as chief executive and was in charge when it was sold to Wells Fargo.
Also named as defendants were Thomas Wurtz, its former chief financial officer, and Donald Truslow, its former chief risk officer, who left as Wachovia declined in 2008.
(snip)
http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2011/2011-257.htm
Washington, D.C., Dec. 8, 2011
SEC Charges Wachovia With Fraudulent Bid Rigging in Municipal Bond Proceeds
Wachovia Agrees to $148 Million Settlement With SEC and Other Authorities
LOL! GMTA.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
INVESTIGATED ... as in dropped?
http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2011/09/21/ex-wachovia-boss-bob-steel-still-drawing-fire/
Steel is no stranger to public scrutiny. After Wachovia was taken over, the SEC investigated whether Steel misled investors when he said the company was planning to stay independent, and then a day later started talks to sell the company.
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20111211/FINANCE/312119979
Municipal bonds’ seamy underside exposed
EXCERPT
The game worked like this: After cities or states sold bonds, they would hire brokers known as bidding agents to garner competitive bids from the banks, which would create vehicles to hold the proceeds until the municipality was ready to spend them. But instead of creating competitive auctions, the brokers would instead regularly collude with bankers, telling them just how much they needed to bid in order to win the business, in return for kickbacks.
In an example cited in an SEC lawsuit last week, a Wachovia banker asked if his $3.5 million offer for some business in New Jersey would be “embarrassing,” as in too high, and the bidding agent said it “might.” But when another party at the last minute indicated he would offer $5.25 million, the bidding agent warned that the bid was “a little high, and he should check his numbers to make sure ... he wasn’t ‘overpaying’.”
Wachovia won the deal with a $3.3 million bid, depriving the New Jersey issuer of $2 million in cash that it would have otherwise collected. Capping off the sorry episode, Wachovia later falsely certified that it had participated in a bona fide auction.
The amounts in the New Jersey example may be small, but the muni-bond market is huge and the corruption seems to have been rampant. The SEC said that Wachovia rigged at least 58 transactions between 1997 and 2005, involving $9 billion worth of municipal securities.
Expect to hear about more cases involving all of Wall Street’s big banks in the coming month
lol
Latest Silly SEC Investigation: Bob Steel, Wachovia; Henry Blodget|January 24, 2009
In some cases, this sort of investigation is worthwhile: When a CEO or other senior officer made material, detailed public statements that were clearly inaccurate when there is evidence that he or she knew differently.
In other cases, however, this sort of investigation is ridiculous: When CEOs make vague optimistic noises that subsequently prove to have been misplaced.
Based on the details that have been leaked so far, the SEC's investigation of Bob Steel is the latter sort:
~~~~~~~~~~~
"silly investigation" --- remember Blodget? lol
OK; I give up. I am assuming the disposition of that investigation is only to be found in the fine print of pdf SEC files or in a FOIA request.
Yeah, right ... filed along with those American Express Bank and Wachovia money laundering (expired) criminal investigations. : o /
“Expect to hear about more cases involving all of Wall Street’s big banks in the coming months.”
Where this will go as well -— the black hole of SEC investigations.
Unless...the Municipal-bonds case is to be used to 1) get heavier Wall St campaign contributions, and 2) demonstrate how independent Obama is from Wall St money. Then it will be highly publicized, with knuckle-tapping pay-to-pay fines.
IOW
Campaign CONtributions = Pay to play
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.