Daily Archives: 24 May 2016

Maybe It’s Time

Posted on by
Reply

…to start locking banks out of SWIFT (no, I don’t mean as a matter of National Policy).

A little-noticed lawsuit details a hacking attack similar to one that stole $81 million from Bangladesh’s central bank, saying cybercriminals stole about $9 million last year from a bank in Ecuador.  The case suggests global bankers haven’t been sharing critical information to prevent such heists.

And

A third attack, from December 2015 at a commercial bank in Vietnam, was detailed last week….

The banks aren’t telling SWIFT about these attacks, either.

A spokeswoman for Swift said Thursday that the network was never told of the earlier hack.  “We need to be informed by customers of such frauds if they relate to our products and services, so that we can inform and support the wider community,” said spokeswoman Natasha de Teran.

Bad security and victim banks didn’t tell SWIFT, despite SWIFT warnings:

We specifically remind all users to respect their obligations to immediately inform Swift of any suspected fraudulent use of their institution’s Swift connectivity or related to Swift products and services….  The security of our global financial community can only be ensured through a collaborative approach.  To this end, it is essential that you share critical security information related to Swift with us.

The Obama/Lynch Justice Department

Posted on by
1

A federal judge in Texas has ordered hundreds of US Department of Justice lawyers to undergo ethics training, accusing the agency of a “calculated plan of unethical conduct.”

The extraordinary order by US District Judge Andrew S Hanen says Justice Department lawyers intentionally misled him in the course of a lawsuit filed by Texas and 25 other mostly conservative states challenging the Obama administration’s immigration policy.

Hanen wrote in his order

What remains before this Court is the question of whether the Government’s lawyers must play by the rules.
…
The United States Department of Justice (“DOJ” or “Justice Department”) has now admitted making statements that clearly did not match the facts.  It has admitted that the lawyers who made these statements had knowledge of the truth when they made these misstatements.

And this:

The decision of the lawyers who apparently determined that these three-year renewals…were not covered by the Plaintiff States’ pleadings was clearly unreasonable.  The conduct of the lawyers who then covered up this decision was even worse.

Such conduct is certainly not worthy of any department whose name includes the word “Justice.”

In fact, it is hard to imagine a more serious, more calculated plan of unethical conduct.  There were over 100,000 instances of conduct contrary to counsel’s representations.

Nor has this been simply a “first offense.”

This Court in at least one prior order has detailed the multiple times attorneys for the Government misrepresented the actions being taken (or, according to their representations, not being taken) by their clients.

Hanen’s reference to 100,000 was to 100,000 deferrals under the Obama edict that had already been granted, contrary to the DoJ lawyers’ representations at trial.

Unfortunately, Hanen has no authority to disbar these despicable liars.  It’s interesting to note, however, that while Hansen assures us that he’s satisfied these misbehaviors did not occur after Attorney General Loretta Lynch ascended to her AG-ship, Lynch herself has chosen to remain silent on the matter—and by clear implication, to do absolutely nothing concerning these…lawyers…who now work for her.  In particular, these persons are still on the Government’s payroll.

Is there any way at all this DoJ can be trusted with any case before it or potentially before it?

Elections have consequences.