Wells Fargo's Massive Fraud Made This Woman Filthy Rich

By defrauding customers, one Wells Fargo executive earned a $125 million payday. Image source: iStock/Thinkstock.

Just in case you weren't outraged enough at the fact that thousands of employees at Wells Fargo (NYSE: WFC) fraudulently opened millions of accounts for customers without their consent, then I have a chart for you.

It reveals the one person who, more than anyone else, appears to have personally benefited from Wells Fargo's massive fraud.

I'm referring to Carrie Tolstedt, the executive who oversaw Wells Fargo's community banking division for much of the past decade. That includes the years from 2011 to 2015, when more than 5% of the employees under her watch engaged in a wide-ranging, systematic scheme to boost revenue by taking advantage of millions of unwitting customers. http://social.fool.com/blog/43725964256?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=cpc&utm_content=post&utm_term=

acRankingEmailLnkdPostIM&frpp_id=acRankingEmailLnkdPostIM

BREAKING: Another U.S. Court REJECTS Muslim’s Demand For SHARIA Law, Muslims Cry ‘Islamophobia’

The recent ruling from the Court of Appeals affirmed a Hennepin County District Court decision that the widow, Nariman Sirag Elsayed Khalil, of a taxi driver who died in an accident should be the one to benefit from a $183,000 settlement over her husband’s death.

It was the cab driver’s brother who argued in court that Islamic law should apply, so that the widow of Nadir Ibrahim Ombabi would only get 25 percent of the wrongful death settlement, 16.7 percent should go to his mother’s estate and the rest to Ombabi’s siblings, “with the males to receive ‘twice the share of the female.’”

The opinion, which was marked “unpublished” and not to be used for citation, involved the claim of Hosameldin Ibrahim Imbabi of Gold River, California.

Representing himself, he claimed that all of the parties in the case were Muslims, so the state court should apply Islamic law.

The appeals court ruling, however, knocked down his assertions, pointing out that he didn’t even bother providing a transcript of lower-court proceedings so the appellate judges could check his claims.

“This court therefore cannot resolve issues that require a transcript, such as whether the district court judge made statements indicating that he had predetermined the outcome of the case or whether the district court erred by refusing to allow cross-examination of certain witnesses,” the court found.

“None of appellant’s assertions of error are adequately supported by legal argument or citation to legal authority. For example, appellant’s main assertion of error appears to be that the district court should have applied Sudanese Islamic law instead of Minnesota law when distributing the wrongful-death settlement proceeds.

“But the appellant does not explain why, other than stating, ‘[he] strongly believe[s] that the principles of the private international law should have been applied from the beginning…”

The ruling found: “The district court found that ‘there is no credible evidence to prove Mr. Ombabi’s mother, brother, or sisters experienced a pecuniary loss, or more importantly what that pecuniary loss is, because of Mr. Ombabi’s passing.’ Accordingly, the district court ordered than 100 percent of settlement proceeds remaining after deduction of attorney feeds, litigation expenses, funeral costs, and trustee services be distributed to respondent.”

Legal blogger Eugene Volokh said of the decision, “I think it was also influenced by a basic American legal principle: American courts apply American law, rather than one rule for Muslims, one rule for Christians, one rule for Jews, and so on.

“Sometimes American law does allow the implementation of foreign legal rules, or religious legal rules. A contract might, for instance, call for applying the law of Sudan, or a will might specify that the property be distributed one-fourth to the widow, one-sixth to the parents, one-sixth each to the three brothers, and one-twelfth to the one sister (whether or not that’s the Shariah-mandated split). A court may well enforce such provisions, subject to any constraints imposed by American public policy. (For instance, a contract calling for the cutting off of a person’s hand would be unenforceable; a will calling for a court to apply a legal rule that requires the court to distinguish males from females might be unenforceable, though a will calling for a court to distribute property to named parties would be enforceable.)

“But there, too, the principle is simple: American courts apply American law, including when an American law principle calls on American courts to enforce a foreign judgment, to apply foreign law or to follow terms in a contract or a will that deliberately track foreign or religious law. But there has to be an American law principle calling for such application of foreign law. And in this case, there was no such principle,” he said.

http://supremepatriot.com/2016/10/06/breaking-u-s-court-rejects-muslims-demand-sharia-law/