Mass. AG sues five major banks over foreclosures

AspenValley wrote:

posteryoyo wrote: [I have. But I stilled looked it up and it appears these are used as a financial punishment AFTER normal criminal punishment.

I don't know where you looked it up but it led you astray. There is no requirement to first (or ever) pursue criminal proceedings prior to seeking civil redress including punitive damages.

One source was wikipedia and I realize it was not a requirement. But people are actually responding to this vs. why no arrest was made on a known action that many seem to insist was illegal.

Again, why are we sueing in stead of arresting. LJ is instisting that a crime was committed that something was illegal.

I want to know what crimes I just get sued for and what crimes I get arrested for...this will help me as I try to get all of your wealth via trade....knowing that the stuff you get sued for is not as illegal as the stuff you get arrested for.

Please help me understand this and your acceptance of this system. This is new to me as of this thread.

AspenValley wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote:

posteryoyo wrote: Bottom line, what's this sue crap, if the AG of a state thinks laws were broken, you just send in the state police and arrest the bad guy.

Ever hear of "punitive damages"? You sue these vermin so you can send a strong enough message to get their attention and dissuade them from doing the same thing again, or in other localities....

Maybe, but why do I get the sinking feeling that they put aside a nice little payoff fund out of the taxpayer bailouts?

But Obama & Biden said the banks have repaid those bailouts with interest! We made money on the deals according to them.

FredHayek wrote:

AspenValley wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote:

posteryoyo wrote: Bottom line, what's this sue crap, if the AG of a state thinks laws were broken, you just send in the state police and arrest the bad guy.

Ever hear of "punitive damages"? You sue these vermin so you can send a strong enough message to get their attention and dissuade them from doing the same thing again, or in other localities....

Maybe, but why do I get the sinking feeling that they put aside a nice little payoff fund out of the taxpayer bailouts?

But Obama & Biden said the banks have repaid those bailouts with interest! We made money on the deals according to them.

Fixed for you.

posteryoyo wrote:

AspenValley wrote:

posteryoyo wrote: [I have. But I stilled looked it up and it appears these are used as a financial punishment AFTER normal criminal punishment.

I don't know where you looked it up but it led you astray. There is no requirement to first (or ever) pursue criminal proceedings prior to seeking civil redress including punitive damages.

One source was wikipedia and I realize it was not a requirement. But people are actually responding to this vs. why no arrest was made on a known action that many seem to insist was illegal.

Again, why are we sueing in stead of arresting. LJ is instisting that a crime was committed that something was illegal.

I want to know what crimes I just get sued for and what crimes I get arrested for...this will help me as I try to get all of your wealth via trade....knowing that the stuff you get sued for is not as illegal as the stuff you get arrested for.

Please help me understand this and your acceptance of this system. This is new to me as of this thread.

I'm not quite sure what you are asking but sometimes people sue for damages without pursuing criminal charges because the standard of proof is lower in a civil case. In other words, it's easier to pin it on them. I imagine it would be pretty hard to look at some huge bank and decide who the criminal was but not so hard to show that the corporation as a whole did something they need to be punished for in a civil court. Other times it is chosen over prosecution because a successful suit will bring more to the victims than a "token" prosecution will.

If he were to actually READ the article it clearly states that the AG has tried to negotiate with all the banks, and since it was becoming obvious that the banks weren't willing to change their ways, or settle with the homeowners they screwed, the AG informed them that the next step was a lawsuit. When you give them fair warning, and they don't crack-the-code, a lawsuit seems pretty straightforward to me.

AspenValley wrote:

posteryoyo wrote:

AspenValley wrote:

posteryoyo wrote: [I have. But I stilled looked it up and it appears these are used as a financial punishment AFTER normal criminal punishment.

I don't know where you looked it up but it led you astray. There is no requirement to first (or ever) pursue criminal proceedings prior to seeking civil redress including punitive damages.

One source was wikipedia and I realize it was not a requirement. But people are actually responding to this vs. why no arrest was made on a known action that many seem to insist was illegal.

Again, why are we sueing in stead of arresting. LJ is instisting that a crime was committed that something was illegal.

I want to know what crimes I just get sued for and what crimes I get arrested for...this will help me as I try to get all of your wealth via trade....knowing that the stuff you get sued for is not as illegal as the stuff you get arrested for.

Please help me understand this and your acceptance of this system. This is new to me as of this thread.

I'm not quite sure what you are asking but sometimes people sue for damages without pursuing criminal charges because the standard of proof is lower in a civil case. In other words, it's easier to pin it on them. I imagine it would be pretty hard to look at some huge bank and decide who the criminal was but not so hard to show that the corporation as a whole did something they need to be punished for in a civil court. Other times it is chosen over prosecution because a successful suit will bring more to the victims than a "token" prosecution will.

The AG is the TOP COP in the state. Not anyone, but her, why do cops need to sue when someone breaks a law? Why do cops ever arrest, why not always sue?

If someone breaks into your house or beats up your spouse, would you feel the sheriff was making more of a point by civilly suing the people that did it vs. arresting them and charging them with the crime.

The lower burden of proof should concern you, not appear as something to take advantage of...or for the top law enforcement official in the state to take advantage of.

I think it reeks of...no crime actually happening and suing because people really regret their decisions or where they placed their trust.

posteryoyo wrote:

AspenValley wrote:

posteryoyo wrote:

AspenValley wrote:

posteryoyo wrote: [I have. But I stilled looked it up and it appears these are used as a financial punishment AFTER normal criminal punishment.

I don't know where you looked it up but it led you astray. There is no requirement to first (or ever) pursue criminal proceedings prior to seeking civil redress including punitive damages.

One source was wikipedia and I realize it was not a requirement. But people are actually responding to this vs. why no arrest was made on a known action that many seem to insist was illegal.

Again, why are we sueing in stead of arresting. LJ is instisting that a crime was committed that something was illegal.

I want to know what crimes I just get sued for and what crimes I get arrested for...this will help me as I try to get all of your wealth via trade....knowing that the stuff you get sued for is not as illegal as the stuff you get arrested for.

Please help me understand this and your acceptance of this system. This is new to me as of this thread.

I'm not quite sure what you are asking but sometimes people sue for damages without pursuing criminal charges because the standard of proof is lower in a civil case. In other words, it's easier to pin it on them. I imagine it would be pretty hard to look at some huge bank and decide who the criminal was but not so hard to show that the corporation as a whole did something they need to be punished for in a civil court. Other times it is chosen over prosecution because a successful suit will bring more to the victims than a "token" prosecution will.

The AG is the TOP COP in the state. Not anyone, but her, why do cops need to sue when someone breaks a law? Why do cops ever arrest, why not always sue?

The Attorney General is not a "cop". She's an attorney. And attorneys have various tools at their disposal, including bringing suit.

AspenValley wrote:

posteryoyo wrote:

AspenValley wrote:

posteryoyo wrote:

AspenValley wrote:

posteryoyo wrote: [I have. But I stilled looked it up and it appears these are used as a financial punishment AFTER normal criminal punishment.

I don't know where you looked it up but it led you astray. There is no requirement to first (or ever) pursue criminal proceedings prior to seeking civil redress including punitive damages.

One source was wikipedia and I realize it was not a requirement. But people are actually responding to this vs. why no arrest was made on a known action that many seem to insist was illegal.

Again, why are we sueing in stead of arresting. LJ is instisting that a crime was committed that something was illegal.

I want to know what crimes I just get sued for and what crimes I get arrested for...this will help me as I try to get all of your wealth via trade....knowing that the stuff you get sued for is not as illegal as the stuff you get arrested for.

Please help me understand this and your acceptance of this system. This is new to me as of this thread.

I'm not quite sure what you are asking but sometimes people sue for damages without pursuing criminal charges because the standard of proof is lower in a civil case. In other words, it's easier to pin it on them. I imagine it would be pretty hard to look at some huge bank and decide who the criminal was but not so hard to show that the corporation as a whole did something they need to be punished for in a civil court. Other times it is chosen over prosecution because a successful suit will bring more to the victims than a "token" prosecution will.

The AG is the TOP COP in the state. Not anyone, but her, why do cops need to sue when someone breaks a law? Why do cops ever arrest, why not always sue?

The Attorney General is not a "cop". She's an attorney. And attorneys have various tools at their disposal, including bringing suit.

Just so I am clear, I am wrong about my use of COP and the AG is NOT a party in the govt that can use thier power to arrest and bring people to trial for crimes. Come on please keep picking my words apart and avoiding the issue of why the AG did not have someone known to have committed a crime in the Commonwealth of Mass arrested and brought to trial and in stead decided to sue them civilly to protect the people of that Great Commonwealth. Wait, maybe I spelled something wrong so we can ignore what I just said too.

How many crimes can I do to your family before you feel the AG should move on to charging me with a crime vs. suing me civilly?

If I had been deliberately swindled by a bank, and lied to and defrauded by the bank, I would probably "regret" doing business with them too. It's called "fraud."

posteryoyo wrote:

AspenValley wrote:

posteryoyo wrote:

AspenValley wrote:

posteryoyo wrote:

AspenValley wrote:

posteryoyo wrote: [I have. But I stilled looked it up and it appears these are used as a financial punishment AFTER normal criminal punishment.

I don't know where you looked it up but it led you astray. There is no requirement to first (or ever) pursue criminal proceedings prior to seeking civil redress including punitive damages.

One source was wikipedia and I realize it was not a requirement. But people are actually responding to this vs. why no arrest was made on a known action that many seem to insist was illegal.

Again, why are we sueing in stead of arresting. LJ is instisting that a crime was committed that something was illegal.

I want to know what crimes I just get sued for and what crimes I get arrested for...this will help me as I try to get all of your wealth via trade....knowing that the stuff you get sued for is not as illegal as the stuff you get arrested for.

Please help me understand this and your acceptance of this system. This is new to me as of this thread.

I'm not quite sure what you are asking but sometimes people sue for damages without pursuing criminal charges because the standard of proof is lower in a civil case. In other words, it's easier to pin it on them. I imagine it would be pretty hard to look at some huge bank and decide who the criminal was but not so hard to show that the corporation as a whole did something they need to be punished for in a civil court. Other times it is chosen over prosecution because a successful suit will bring more to the victims than a "token" prosecution will.

The AG is the TOP COP in the state. Not anyone, but her, why do cops need to sue when someone breaks a law? Why do cops ever arrest, why not always sue?

The Attorney General is not a "cop". She's an attorney. And attorneys have various tools at their disposal, including bringing suit.

Just so I am clear, I am wrong about my use of COP and the AG is NOT a party in the govt that can use thier power to arrest and bring people to trial for crimes. Come on please keep picking my words apart and avoiding the issue of why the AG did not have someone known to have committed a crime in the Commonwealth of Mass arrested and brought to trial and in stead decided to sue them civilly to protect the people of that Great Commonwealth. Wait, maybe I spelled something wrong so we can ignore what I just said too.

How many crimes can I do to your family before you feel the AG should move on to charging me with a crime vs. suing me civilly?

I'm not picking your words apart, I've been trying rather desperately to figure out just what the heck you are getting at.

So, if I understand you now (not at all sure I do as you have been about as clear as mud) you are upset the AG did not charge someone with a crime?

I think there ought to be charges brought too if there were crimes committed. I don't have any idea why the AG decided to sue instead, but likely it was because she didn't think they could get a suitable conviction. That sucks, in my opinion, but it happens all the time. Perhaps you recall that the families of the victims in the O.J. Simpson case sued successfully after he was acquitted. Probably for the same reason. Rich people and corporations are damned hard to convict of a crime, but it's a little easier to successfully sue.