The Devil and Goldman Sachs

April 15, 2009 9:59 AM

Meet financial advisor Mike Morgan. He started an anti-Goldman Sachs website to examine "what part Goldman Sachs and their executives played in the current Global Economic Crisis." The investment bank and its lawyers told him to cease and desist. So Morgan sued Goldman (pdf). The response has been overwhelming. Morgan is now organizing volunteers to go after the other banksters. Want to help? There's a webinar scheduled tonight.
posted by up in the old hotel (40 comments total)

Yo dawg, I heard you liek webinars on how to roll hard on the banksters.

Sorry, my internet dictionaries collided.
posted by filthy light thief at 10:04 AM on April 15 [1 favorite]

Let's really nail these suckers to the wall with an especially menacing domain name!
posted by fusinski at 10:06 AM on April 15 [1 favorite]

Yeah, this is a good post - but please don't ever foul Metafilter with the "word" "webinar" again kthxbai
posted by Joe Beese at 10:07 AM on April 15 [2 favorites]

Mike Morgan, this is brilliant marketing. Now let's arrange a rollover so you manage my IRA.

Also, congratulations on not using WebEx for your webinar.
posted by Pants! at 10:09 AM on April 15 [2 favorites]

I'm not prone to violence, but I would love to sucker punch a Goldman Sachs executive. Hopefully the webinar will go over how to make that happen.
posted by diogenes at 10:11 AM on April 15 [1 favorite]

Telegraph article on the topic
posted by a womble is an active kind of sloth at 10:14 AM on April 15 [1 favorite]

So Morgan sued Goldman

He sued them for sending him a cease and desist letter?

The response has been overwhelming. Morgan is now organizing volunteers to go after the other banksters. Want to help?

Help with what? Registering citigroupsux.com and morganstanleymorelikewhoreganshamleyamirite.com?
posted by burnmp3s at 10:16 AM on April 15 [5 favorites]

Has this kind of lawsuit ever worked before? A precident would be real nice.
posted by Pseudology at 10:19 AM on April 15

There's a webinar scheduled tonight.

Honest to blog?
posted by anotherpanacea at 10:19 AM on April 15 [2 favorites]

So Morgan sued Goldman

He sued them for sending him a cease and desist letter?

No, he's suing them for improper use of the Lanham Act. Basically he's suing them because they're making false Intellectual Property claims.
posted by Pseudology at 10:22 AM on April 15

Using the term "bankster" on the front page is the equivalent of editorializing. And as much as I dislike Goldman's role in the current crisis, this post reads like a blog entry, and not MetaFilter.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 10:35 AM on April 15

He has a blog here that's interesting reading from time to time.

I originally found it some time back through a Jim Kunstler link, which made me somewhat apprehensive at the outset, but it is indeed interesting.
posted by spirit72 at 10:41 AM on April 15

And, yes---Morgan is not a fan of Goldman Sachs. At all.
posted by spirit72 at 10:42 AM on April 15

I'm not a lawyer and I don't know much about the Lanham Act, but I don't see any language in the complaint that suggests that Goldman is being accused of doing anything wrong. From the complaint:

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays that this Court:

a. Declare Plaintiff Morgan to be the lawful and rightful owner of the subject domain names and any related domain names registered to Morgan and used for the same purposes.
b. Enter Judgment in favor of Morgan and against Goldman finding lawful use of the domain names by Morgan.
c. Enter Judgment in favor of Morgan and against Goldman on any claims of trademark infringement, unfair competition, cyber-piracy or any Lanham Act violation alleged by Defendant Goldman.
d. Award Morgan attorneys fees and costs in defense of this action.
e. Award such other relief as the Court deems necessary.

My translation:

a. Let me keep my domain names.
b. Let me continue to use my domain names.
c. Dismiss any of their IP infringement claims.
d. Pay for my attorneys fees.
e. Give me some extra money (if necessary).
posted by burnmp3s at 10:42 AM on April 15 [1 favorite]

I signed up for the pro-Goldman Sachs movement.

I'm up for joining an anti-Wells Fargo or anti-Citigroup movement though.
posted by mullacc at 10:52 AM on April 15 [1 favorite]

I see that language. Right at the top.

COMPLAINT
MICHAEL MORGAN ("Morgan") sues the Defendant, GOLDMAN SACKS & CO. ("Goldman") for relief under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act based on alleged violations of the Lanham Act. The Plaintiff states further: ...

I think your translation is okay, but yeah, he mentions the Lanham Act. There's probably a section in it I cannot find, since I am neither patient nor a lawyer, saying, "Yeah, parodies and things which are not attempting to confuse are not covered by this, and we shall smack thy grabby hand should you try to play us."
posted by adipocere at 10:54 AM on April 15

I'm assuming he's going on the offensive because, and I'm not a lawyer so I don't know, but I'm pretty sure he'd outright lose if he waited for goldman sachs to sue him.
posted by Pseudology at 10:54 AM on April 15

I see that language. Right at the top.
COMPLAINT
MICHAEL MORGAN ("Morgan") sues the Defendant, GOLDMAN SACKS & CO. ("Goldman") for relief under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act based on alleged violations of the Lanham Act. The Plaintiff states further: ...

Again, not a lawyer, but my translation of that is "I want the court to make a judgment about whether or not I have violated the Lanham act as Goldman has suggested." If the complaint is really saying that Goldman violated the Lanham Act, then it doesn't ever mention that again outside of that sentence, and as far as I can tell there's nothing in the Lanham act that prohibits sending out cease and desist letters.

Also, after looking it up, Wikipedia seems to suggest that these lawsuits are relatively common as a response to a cease and desist letter. From the article:

A declaratory judgment is a judgment of a court in a civil case which declares the rights, duties, or obligations of each party in a dispute.

...

A declaratory judgment is typically requested when a party is threatened with lawsuit and the threatened lawsuit is not yet filed
posted by burnmp3s at 11:07 AM on April 15

I think this post is setup to make people draw inferences about why he's suing that don't necessarily exist.

It's not so much a "cease and desist publishing your views" as much as it's a "don't use our trademark" - which isn't immediately apparent from the post. I agree with SeizeTheDay, and this does seem a bit like "let's jump on the anti-bankers bandwagon" on what might essentially be seen as a bog-standard IP dispute.

And yeah, I'd imagine Morgan is essentially asking for a declaration that he hasn't infringed, and in doing so has been able to choose the jurisdiction in which any action takes place, which I'd imagine would be advantageous to him in some way (like choosing Texas for personal injury claims).
posted by djgh at 11:12 AM on April 15

Using the term "bankster" on the front page is the equivalent of editorializing.

I seem to be behind the times. So I can fill out my bingo card, is "bankster" positive or negative editorializing?
posted by DU at 11:16 AM on April 15

I say to you, Sir, that if you continue to threaten, insult and defame me, I will make additional posts on the Internet!

If there had been webinars in the 1770s, we'd still be British subjects.
posted by killdevil at 11:24 AM on April 15

sues the Defendant, GOLDMAN SACKS & CO.

Does spelling count? (More like gold-filled sacks, amirite?)

It's not so much a "cease and desist publishing your views" as much as it's a "don't use our trademark"

Both having the effect of a good, old-fashioned STFU.

In any case, it'd probably be more effective not to C&D the man himself (which only pisses him off even more, gets him more press, etc.), but rather politely ask Google to close up the blog, citing some TOS bullshit about libel or somesuch.
posted by Sys Rq at 11:30 AM on April 15

Also: Trademark of the Beast?
posted by Sys Rq at 11:31 AM on April 15

Using the term "bankster" on the front page is the equivalent of editorializing.

On one hand, we have the term "bankster," which is indeed loaded with negative connotations of unethical if not outright criminal activity.

On the other hand, we have the appearance of unethical if not outright criminal activity on the part of bankers and in some cases regulators.

I realize that it's probably in the national interest to have public narratives that are more measured than either "BANKERS: Our Very Own Champions of Capitalism, the Greatest Ideology the World Has Known!" or "BANKSTERS: Barely-legal criminals who do little beyond raid the economy in good times and the treasury in bad!"

But since we've had a lot of the former over the last 30 years, I don't know that having a loaded term that leans toward the latter but seems to capture something accurate about segments of the profession is a terrible thing, even on Metafilter.
posted by weston at 11:40 AM on April 15

Using the term "bankster" on the front page is the equivalent of editorializing.

Yeah! Next time refer to them as "the bankers who act like gangsters" please.

Also, what Weston said!
posted by diogenes at 11:46 AM on April 15

I'm all for more coverage of Goldman Sachs' manipulation of financial policy to benefit itself, this has been massively underreported. Citigroup is now mentioned as an underwriter on most NPR programs, the usual sign that a corporation is up to no good and is trying to whitewash its image in DC.
posted by benzenedream at 12:03 PM on April 15 [2 favorites]

Seize the Day:

I'm confused. When kiuless posted this about "bankstas" you thought it was awesome. But now it's editorializing, unworthy of Metafilter. So which is it?
posted by up in the old hotel at 12:06 PM on April 15

banker; gangster; bankster; who gives a fuck? They are all a bunch of scallywags and need a good smack. The more their shenanigans are aired the better. It is probably the only justice we will see.
posted by adamvasco at 12:41 PM on April 15 [1 favorite]

I didn't even notice the usage there, but you're right: Simon Johnson did not use the term in the linked article; kliuless used editorial liberty. But his post was great, and links to people who have real credibility in the subject matter. Johnson specifically has posted some very pointed criticism against the financial elite that should be taken seriously. Your use of the term, however, is surrounded by third rate, rant-like material.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 12:46 PM on April 15

I've been pretty open with folks here about my background; before I became a banker I was a biker in New York and have alway maintained the two professions are remarkably similar in many ways.

So "bankstas" doesn't offend me personally as my crowd - both banking as well as biking - is righteous and there are some activities gentlemen just don't engage in.

Interesting. I hadn't seen this so thanks for taking the time to post up in the old hotel !
posted by Mutant at 12:55 PM on April 15

Using the term "bankster" on the front page is the equivalent of editorializing. And as much as I dislike Goldman's role in the current crisis, this post reads like a blog entry, and not MetaFilter.

What are you talking about? Metafilter is A community weblog. We don't want people posting screeds on the frontage, but the word 'bankster' has appeared in plenty of FPPs.
posted by delmoi at 1:02 PM on April 15

In related news...

Remember Jake DeSantis, the sniveling WATB AIGFP executive vice-president who resigned in such spectacular fashion in the New York Times op-ed section that the more cynical amongst us suspected a public relations carpet-bombing? ... it seems that Mr. DeSantis can't quite tear himself away from his lucrative AIG paycheck, not yet anyway. ... Oh, Jake, Jake, Jake. You can try to talk the talk, but you are far too soulless, amoral, and completely wrapped up in your identity as a big-time commodities trader to actually walk out the door. What a douche.
posted by Joe Beese at 1:14 PM on April 15 [1 favorite]

Excellent work, burnmp3! I bequeath upon thee this Internet Degree of Lawology. You may now proceed, not as a lawyer, but as a certified wikittorney.
posted by jabberjaw at 1:57 PM on April 15

More "third-rate, rant-like" material on Goldman Sachs:

• Goldman's Q1 profits due to AIG unwinds
• Goldman's missing month
• Is Goldman really that good? (Simon Johnson)
• Goldman's $164b war chest

posted by up in the old hotel at 2:17 PM on April 15

I'd join an anti CitiBank and anti National City movement.
posted by rough ashlar at 2:41 PM on April 15

I signed up for the pro-Goldman Sachs movement.

I'm up for joining an anti-Wells Fargo or anti-Citigroup movement though.

then i betta not catch u in my enda town mate or u get dun

CITIGROUP 4EVA
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 4:49 PM on April 15 [3 favorites]

Using the term "bankster" on the front page is the equivalent of editorializing.

I'm far more upset about the word "webinar" in the summary than "bankster".
posted by Mikey-San at 3:03 AM on April 16

benzenedream, would you mind explaining - sounds interesting.
posted by djgh at 3:53 AM on April 16

The Daily Show did a bit about GS last night detailing its multitudinous connections to the US Treasury.
posted by Sys Rq at 9:13 AM on April 16

Daily Show link.
posted by benzenedream at 12:01 AM on April 17