Posted on 03/25/2009 4:03:51 AM PDT by Tom D.
DEAR Mr. Liddy,
It is with deep regret that I submit my notice of resignation from A.I.G. Financial Products. I hope you take the time to read this entire letter. Before describing the details of my decision, I want to offer some context:
I am proud of everything I have done for the commodity and equity divisions of A.I.G.-F.P. I was in no way involved in — or responsible for — the credit default swap transactions that have hamstrung A.I.G. Nor were more than a handful of the 400 current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. Most of those responsible have left the company and have conspicuously escaped the public outrage.
After 12 months of hard work dismantling the company — during which A.I.G. reassured us many times we would be rewarded in March 2009 — we in the financial products unit have been betrayed by A.I.G. and are being unfairly persecuted by elected officials. In response to this, I will now leave the company and donate my entire post-tax retention payment to those suffering from the global economic downturn. My intent is to keep none of the money myself.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I agree. I was amazed that he was so calm. He could have shoved the list of names down their throats. Let the politicians choke on the list they would use to target American citizens. And then publish a list of all political campaign contributions made by ALL businesses and demanded that each politician return the money to each business.
It will sound like whining to the morons who voted for Obama. I bet Barney Frank is crying tears over the letter.
Great post!
Cuomo is the spawn of the evil Mario.
What do you think about Feilbogen's treatment by AIG. Acording to DeSantis's letter here, he was Feilbogen's boss. There's some great talent here! If you're looking for confused idiots. LOL!
He sued for breach of contract, and the case was settled (i.e., he got money). The facts are remarkably different, as well. The contract that Feilbogen sued for breach wasn't in the nature of a retention bonus, for one thing.
It was a legal contract however, is their some new rule that I was unaware of that only retention bonus contracts need to be enforced? Kind of picking and choosing aren’t you. It was legal contract. AIG had no problem breaking it did they?
Pretty funny. He broke a legal contract and was sued...now this moron is whining about his legal contract...big dose of karma baby. LOL.
>>If we start breaking contract law whenever it is unpopular, then we will have no basis to seek public private partnerships and no ability to work for other than immediate compensation.
I agree. “A deals a deal.” If it’s not, if trust is lost, political risk skyrockets and valuations collapse.
The main stream media did a piss poor job of describing the details behind AIG’s bonus payments. Thankfully, the MSM is sliding into oblivion, as we speak.
AIG had no problem breaking another legal contract...see my post on the subject...why is one legal contract more important than another? These bozo’s could care a less about the law...there credit default swap/insurance fraud shows this clearly.
That's the nature of contracts and life in general. Read the details, pick and choose, etc. Some creditors get paid, others negotiate reduced rates, some lose completely. Picking and choosing makes sense, whereas attempts to cast all contracts as "the same" (as to violability) does not make sense.
-- It was legal contract. AIG had no problem breaking it did they? --
We don't know that they did break it. They settled with the plaintiff for an undisclosed amount, which may simply be an indication that it was cheaper to pay (max 1.3 million) than to duke it out in a federal district court. The contract may have had termination clauses in it, where the employee's right to a payout is contingent on being employed in the unit that gets the payout at the time the payout is made.
Someone mentioned that these bonuses were already taxed at 50% before they were even SEEN by these folks. How can they pay back 90% in taxes, when the government ALREADY TOOK 50%!?!?!
I feel sorry for these people, really I do... If there was a crime committed here then they should be indicted and face a trial. Undoubtedly, many, many employees like this man are victims in this whole mess (victim status does NOT require poverty liberals!).
These people are being scapegoated to protect whomever it was within the company, and those members of Congress (including OBAMA at the time of the original bailout) who agreed to all these things, as well as Obama himself who PRETENDS and BLATANTLY LIED about being “surprised” when it was HE HIMSELF who applied pressure to Dodd to “make SURE those bonuses are in there, and remain in there”.
This is only going to become more commonplace as Obama and his Communist comrades attempt to seize more and more control over the means of production in our country. It won’t be long before there is blood spilled due to our “dear leader’s” penchant for scapegoating to protect himself...
Also, ahead? Watch for Democrat comrades to fall on their swords to protect Obama. Obama has already refused at least one resignation, and there were rumors of Dodd stepping down as well. Obama obviously still has use for them, and it would appear his plans aren’t completely realized or he would make this go away easily by firing people, or accepting their resignations...
ALL, JMHO, of course! But, I truly believe we are looking at a VERY scripted, very well-planned scheme here... Not to mention that the whole focus on AIG is allowing them to pass OTHER laws that are COMPLETELY Unconstitutional - laws besides those that have been introduced as a supposed “response” to the AIG fiasco!
Rahm Emmanuel said it best, perhaps, “Never let a good crises go to waste”
Funny, I didn’t hear such comments when a certain Chicago based company up and moved to Iowa and did not pay their workers. There was a legal contract...but of course these were working people-union scum-so this makes it just fine. We can selectively enforce contracts.
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2008/12/plant-sit-in-in-4th-day-meeting-scheduled.html
Liddy is a mole installed by the Obamanation to provide a diversion from real problems.
They terminated the guy so yes we do know they broke the contract don’t we? He sued in court and received a settlement...obviously, he would not have to sue if they honored his contract.
A quick comment: If there were laws broken then there need to be indictments and trials... If AIG violated terms of contracts as it seems you are suggesting then suits should be filed. Please also keep in mind that suits in relation to contracts are not ALWAYS filed as a result of a perceived BREACH - sometimes people will file suit in order to establish a mediation to END a contract in which neither side has breached it - yet - but where one side KNOWS they will not be able to comply with the terms of the contract and wish to head off problems before they happen.
There is NO EXCUSE, NONE, no matter WHAT laws have been broken for our LEGISLATIVE branch to legislate what should be a JUDICIAL MATTER as far as a punitive strike (which the 90% tax law IS - a Bill of Attainder).
Honestly, I would very much caution against taking the word of any elected official in Congress on this matter. If one looks at the big picture it seems as if this was all planned from the beginning as a way for the Executive Branch (and the Legislative Branch) to seize power over not only our economic industry, but the Judicial branch as well... AIG executives are hardly the only ones that should be under investigation right now...
Again, I fully agree that whatever criminals may be working for AIG should NOT be let off easily. However, using someone else’s disregard for the law as an excuse to throw it out completely isn’t a good thing either. That, IMHO, is what Obama and his comrades are counting on — making you SO ANGRY that you are WILLING to break the law, and give up YOUR RIGHTS to “get back at these people”.
Surprisingly Obama is against the tax bill which is dead in the Senate. I merely point out that AIG has no concern for contracts when they break them...contracts are broken everyday.
While in theory you may be completely correct, please remember that SETTLEMENTS DO NOT signify GUILT per se. You do not know what happened during the mediation process. There is a chance that while AIG conceded that there were improprieties, it could’ve also shown in the mediation that some of the charges this guy brought were going to be completely blown out of the water by AIG’s attorneys. Hence, why this man may have agreed to a settlement instead of going to trial and receiving a “half-verdict” of sorts. It could be that in light of AIG’s defense this man could’ve ended up with NOTHING except legal bills!
We just DON’T KNOW. The only ones who could make a determination are the players involved, and the lawyers who came to the settlement agreement.
The inability of people to associate cause and effect radiates on this issue.
Mr. DeSantis wrote an excellent letter which points out a different side of the issue. Like AIG or not there's no debate in my mind that our government has committed yet another crime against private enterprise.
My only question to Mr DeSantis is, "I wonder who you voted for?"
Either way, if it wasn't for the 4 bailouts and 180 BILlion bucks, he wouldn't have even gotten that 1 dollar, let alone anything deferred.
Contracts are broken all the time. Thats when the courts come into play. But it seems very interesting that you don't hear alot of these 1-dollar-a-year folks saying they are going to sue obambi.
This guy was part of a company, one part of which was schemingly making enough money to let AIG pay him such a nice salary he could afford to work for $1/year.
Just because he wasn't in the department that was committing the holdup doesn't mean he wasn't getting part of the payoff.
I hate to agree with obambi’s clawbacks now, but if McCain and Bush had come out against this Bullsheet Bonus Bailout, we would have saved our Country TRILLIONS of dollars and much much more, our currency and possibly our freedom.
Thanks for the give and take
The guy was told agree to a new contract (breaking old one) or you are terminated. He did not agree and was terminated. How can that be misconstrued?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.