Jed Rakoff's Rules of Order: Maverick Justice Gavels SEC, Sends Citi Back to The Dock

It is not hard to imagine what the reaction was like around the Securities and Exchange Commission offices when it was discovered that U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff would be tasked with approving the agency’s settlement agreement with Citigroup over mortgage-backed securities fraud.

It was Judge Rakoff, after all, who took the unusual step in 2009 of blocking a settlement between the SEC and Bank of America over executive bonuses, writing in a scathing ruling that “all this is done at the expense, not only of the shareholders, but also of the truth” and adding that “it does not comport with the most elementary notions of justice and morality.” Read More


  1. Les Zouazo says:

    ““Part of this seems like an offshoot of Occupy Wall Street, you know,
    where you are just mad at the bankers,” said Adam C. Pritchard, a law
    professor at the University of Michigan. “That just seems inappropriate
    on the part of the judge if that is what is going on. If the goal is to
    stick it to the bankers, that is not the judge’s job.”

    Is this Pritchard for real? How did this incapable became a law professor with tenure? Can’t he READ the darn questions Judge Rakoff asked to the parties? How dare he ASSUME this is a “crusade” to “stick it to the banks”? Just because his friends the banksters will be (gaaasp!) inconvenienced? Weeell! Isn’t that too freaking bad?

    Hey prof Pritchard! How does that feel to have to bend over to the banksters? Does it come naturally to you? Or is it a case of wanting to become a member of the Club?

  2. Guest says:

    Ouch… Comment below.  I was just going to suggest an additional link for more details on this story

  3. Anonymous says:

    It sure seems like corruption and hypocrisy have become such standard operating procedure at the financial regulatory agencies, let alone Holder at Justice and the president himself, that nobody in the system could conceive of actually doing their duty and punishing criminals.  It is like those old cartoons where the sheep dog and the coyote clock in at the same time, but instead of defending the flock, the sheep dog just levies fees on the coyote for eating sheep.  Gimme a leg, Wiley, and we’ll run this past the shepherd.

  4. Pbillp65 says:

    Yeah, it is inappropriate for a judge to demand justice. On the contrary, it seems inappropriate for the SEC to let these financial companies off with literally a single slap on the wrists with a wet noodle, instead of doing their job and looking out for the people who put their money into these financial institutions. But then the staffers wouldn’t have that mid-6 figure income job waiting for them when they leave the SEC. 

  5. bobbdobb says:

    Finally a judge who is takinng side for the real Americans. May he get to a federal agency who isn’t protecting the way Amerians are but are protecting the bankers who are dystroying us.99%vs.1%.Please,your honor,please,get to the bottom of this,please!!!

  6. Richard Beckman says:

    One judge that can follow the logic or the ill-logic of pleading not pleading guillty to anything and begging for a fine that won’t even show up in their bottom line. A win-win for them a lose-lose for the U.S. Taxpayer!