In almost every scandal like the derivatives meltdown, there is one person who spotted the dangers inherent in a financial extravaganza like this one years before everyone else. In this case, our unsung heroine was a brilliant lawyer named Brooksley Born, who was Bill Clinton’s first chief of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. As detailed by Rick Schmitt in a startling article published by the Stanford Alumni Magazine, Born fought fiercely to expand her agency’s regulatory powers over the burgeoning derivatives market at the end of the 1990s.
Her efforts were defeated by Alan Greenspan, Arthur Levitt Jr., Robert Rubin, and Larry Summers. The mindset she was up against was best summarized by a conversation Born recalled having with Greenspan:
“Well, Brooksley, I guess you and I will never agree about fraud,” said Greenspan.
“What is there not to agree on?” Born replied.
“Well, you probably will always believe there should be laws against fraud, and I don’t think there is any need for a law against fraud.”
Greenspan disputed Born’s recollection; the former regulator stands by her story.
Here is one of the key passages from Schmitt’s piece:
“I was told by the Secretary of the Treasury that the CFTC had no jurisdiction, and for that reason and that reason alone, we should not go forward,” Born says. “I told him…that I had never heard anyone assert that we didn’t have statutory jurisdiction…and I would be happy to see the legal analysis he was basing his position on.”
She says she was never supplied one. “They didn’t have one because it was not a legitimate legal position,” she says.
Greenspan followed. “He maintained that merely inquiring about the field would drive important and expanding and creative financial business offshore,” she says. CFTC economists later checked for any signs of that, and came up with no evidence, Born says.
“It seemed totally inexplicable to me,” Born says of the seeming disinterest her counterparts showed in how the markets were operating. “It was as though the other financial regulators were saying, ‘We don’t want to know.’”
She formally launched the proposal on May 7, and within hours, Greenspan, Rubin and Levitt issued a joint statement condemning Born and the CFTC, expressing “grave concern about this action and its possible consequences.” They announced a plan to ask for legislation to stop the CFTC in its tracks.
When Born refused to back down in her efforts to regulate the derivatives market, her opponents got Congress to pass a law preventing her from carrying out what she regarded as her duties. That temporary measure was replaced by the permanent, and much more sweeping, Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which Bill Clinton signed into law at the end of 2000. At the end of the first Clinton administration, Born gave up and resigned from her post.
William Black concluded his interview with Moyers by calling on the Obama administration to appoint people “who have records of success, instead of records of failure.… And by the way, the folks who are the better regulators, they paid their taxes. So, you can get them through the vetting process a lot quicker.”
A good place to begin would be the appointment of Brooksley Born to oversee a complete overhaul of the way the financial markets are regulated—so that there might be some small chance that some day, fifty years from now, we won’t repeat every one of these mistakes again.

Black's credibility might be higher if he had bothered to realize that "Treasury Secretary William Geithner" does not exist.
#1 Posted by cassandra, CJR on Sun 12 Apr 2009 at 12:45 PM
Your dumb comment might have speck of merit if you checked the transcripts to see that Black referred to him as Secretary Geithner and Timothy Geithner.
#2 Posted by Les, CJR on Mon 13 Apr 2009 at 05:20 PM
I agree that some of our financial wizzards should be indicted, however, we also have numerous congressman and senators who should be indicted as well. We should take a list of those who received the most financial contributions from these financial organizations and indict them as well.
#3 Posted by Frank Johnson, CJR on Mon 13 Apr 2009 at 06:26 PM
Basic arguments for a legitimate American revolution.
Tom Dennen
There are many steps toward revolution - These are the basics
“Work is the basis for all well-being, while monopoly and cartels are obstacles for the beneficial processes.” – Adam Smith, ‘The Wealth of Nations’ – 1776 (The year Congress declared the United States of America independent.).
There are two peoples in America today: We the People, and the people running the illegitimate regime called the federal government. Illegitimate because it does not represent us, the People.
Those two peoples need to separate from one another.
The current illegitimate American government is carrying on its illegitimacy with the money from your work using your money to wage imperialistic, materially beneficial wars instead of directing it toward your well-being.
The material benefits of your work are going to the companies (the monopolies and cartels) that make the products and systems used for war – tanks, guns, planes, weak body armor, all through monopolistic no-bid contracts to cartels and so on – but not for your well-being.
Your money was not used to maintain the New Orleans levees. Your money was not used to clear out the California underbrush now burning and so devastating that state.
Your money has not been used to maintain your roads, schools, bridges, and medical schemes.
Your money is not being used for your well-being.
You can change that by holding your money back until it is spent on your well-being – After all is said and done, it is your money!
And you can legitimally, constitutionally, withhold it by not paying taxes that are not used for your benefit.
Ask your firm to pay for your work in cash that you can put directly toward your well-being.
Put the cash under the mattress, buy (and learn how to use) a gun to protect it – you still have that Constitutional right to bear arms thanks to the present Supreme Court.
But you may soon have to protect those rights and other rights once guaranteed by your Constitution.
TAXES ARE ILLEGAL
The Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was never properly ratified (ignore Wikipedia) and therefore there is no legal imperative or obligation to pay taxes to the federal government. See, Tax protester constitutional arguments
So basically, you do not legally have to pay taxes. The reason you think you do is because you believe your money has been spent on your well-being for all these years, looking after you and your interests and your family’s interests and your country’s state and regional interests.
You have been paying taxes because you believe that.
But your money is not going toward your benefit; it is going toward the benefit of the monopolies and the cartels of Big Business, Big Government, Big Armament and Big Pharma (which, as you have no doubt heard, is murdering you and your children for your money – The single biggest cause of death in America is the ‘Health Care’ system!)
It’s a sad state of affairs, but it makes the present sitting government illegitimate not only in terms of it not working in the interests of your well-being, but also of it saddling you with ‘odious debt’
.
What if all this global debt was illegal and we, the people, can prove it and get out of it profitably?
2009-04-09
NEVER ENDING DEBT EQUALS SLAVERY IF WE ARE FORCED TO BUY INTO IT – DEBT BY COERCION
Tom Dennen, Infosight editor
If you cannot say, “no”, you are a slave.
Let’s start with the legalities of usury, which is compound interest, which Albert Einstein said was “the most powerful force in the universe."
Usury has been against the laws of every society from biblical times to the Roman Empire, after which the laws seem to have disappeared because they raise the legal concept of ‘Odious Deb
#4 Posted by Tom Dennen, CJR on Tue 14 Apr 2009 at 05:58 AM