New York Times Stumbling into the Truth on Goldman Sachs et al

Editor’s Note: This is why lawyers and their experts need to read and reread the documents. The typical skimming done by lawyers creates a void in the understanding of the reader. A void that the banks fill with their own narrative.

Don’t blame Gretchen Morgenson, financial writer for the Times. She has been restricted by editorial policy. She admitted in an interview that Wall Street corruption is like the third rail of journalism. Here in this article, she give us a glimpse of the ringleader of the great securitization fraud that continues to hold our economy and our government in virtual paralysis. This article is about who gets their attorney fees paid and who doesn’t at Goldman. We don’t care what the answer is, but the subtext is that Goldman intentionally kept many things “discretionary” or ambiguous and vague.

The important thing here is that as you read the article, you understand that this is the style of Goldman and the foundation of the securitization fraud. Banks usually get very very specific. That is how they protect themselves. In the case of officer protection for attorneys fees and more importantly, the securitization documents, the vagueness is intentional — to cover up the scheme because at any time they can claim anything.

But in the end, the documents were drafted by them and it will be construed against them. The many conflicts in the securitization documents must be resolved by the courts, just as it was in this case of whether Goldman would pay the attorneys fees of officers charged in civil and criminal cases.

see http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/business/at-goldman-sachs-even-the-legal-fees-are-different.html?_r=0

Posted in Uncategorized |