Blocking yet another sweetheart deal between some gargantuan money lender and the Securities and Excuses Commission (SEC), U.S. District Court Judge Jed S. Rakoff pointed at the Agency and screamed, "LIAR, LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE!", kind of.
As David S. Hilzenrath reported in the Washington Post, the Judge held that "some 'apologists' may favor 'suppressing or obscuring the truth, but the S.E.C., of all agencies, has a duty . . . to see that the truth emerges; and if it fails to do so, this Court must not, in the name of deference or convenience, grant judicial enforcement to the agency’s contrivances.'
"The court 'concludes, regretfully, that the proposed Consent Judgement is neither fair, nor reasonable, nor adequate, nor in the public interest,' he wrote."
The SEC had charged the too-big-to-trust money lender with misleading its customers. Creeps had wagered against anyone buying their crummy complex subprime loan investments, raking in $160 million on the caper while marks got clipped for more than $700 million, according to Agency math.
The SEC whitewash had let these thieving cretins off the hook without admitting or denying wrongdoing, while charging the colossus with negligence instead of intentional fraud.
Like the rest of us, Judge Rakoff must've been thinking WTF? We're delighted he came out and jurisprudently paraphrased it.
