Northern Italian culture is quantitative.

It’s renowned for the ‘number’ of paintings, frescos, Dante/Manzoni translations, etc., and the ‘size’ of statutes, cathedrals, etc. Even the size of the Michelangelo David’s right-hand is a point of discussion.

Northern culture is fossilized and static, dwelling on past Renaissance aesthetic glories.

Contemporary Northern cultural efforts are contrived and artificial: anorexic girls absurdly costumed flopping along Milan runways is called ‘fashion’.  Early modern Venetian mansions such as Palazzo Grassi are converted to art galleries and filled with...whatever...whatever tickles bourgeoisie dames and newspaper writers, so-called art critics.

South of Rome culture transcends time and space. The architecture, literature, music, food at any point in time is a manifestation of the ‘present’, in the light of the ‘past’, and projecting the ‘future’ (Lampedusa’s “change to remain the same”).

Unlike the North, the immortality of southern art is not based on fossilization, and is exemplified by the living relevance of its literature and philosophy across vast spans of time and space.

For example, in the twenty-first century, when the final gavel came down in a US Appeals Court, one did not think about the many translations and PhD dissertations of didactic Dante or melodramatic Manzoni. Rather, what comes to mind: Plato and Thucydides’ experiences in Syracuse, Lampedusa and Sciascia's reflects on Sicily, and John Domini’s Naples (“A Tomb on the Periphery”). 

The great literature of the South is never didactic or melodramatic. It is always a tragic (a la Aristotle – not pathos) treatment of Justice and the consequences of inJustice. The Judges of the Appeals Court agreed with Lempedusa, and the plaintiffs thought Medea a ‘right-on lady’ (“Oh, may I see [them] ground to pieces in their shattered palace for the wrong they have dared to do to me, unprovoked!”)

 

 

On August 8, 2012 the United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit handed down a ruling that brought joyful similes to the faces of multi-billionaire corporate moguls like Jon Corzine. The Court rendered them immune to potential criminal charges for absconding with billions of customer’s dollars.

The Judges changed the law and the definition of justice so that billionaires could remain the same. Their decision brought sardonic smiles to the ghosts of Plato, Lempedusa and Sciascia as they reminded us once again: “we told you so.”

What follows is a technical discussion of the law pertaining to the issue decided by the Court; followed by the relevance of Sicilian philosophy and literature to the Court’s decision and its consequences.

 

Individuals wishing to invest in the commodities markets (e.g. corn, cattle, gold, currencies, etc.) buy and sell commodity contracts through the agency of a Futures Commission Merchant (FCM) company. The FCM establishes a bank account, wherein the investor’s money is deposited for the investor. That money is to be used only to buy and sell commodity contracts for the investor.

When the bank account is opened and investor’s money is deposited, the investor becomes a “customer” of the FCM. The bank account is called a “Customer Segregated Fund” (CSF); i.e. the funds belong to the customer (i.e. NOT to the FCM). 

Segregated means that the funds do not belong to the FCM, therefore they are to be kept segregated (i.e. separated) from the FCM’s own money accounts (i.e. customer funds are not “commingled” with FCM funds!)

Once the “Customer Segregated Fund” is established, a broker representative of the FCM makes commodity transactions for the customer in accordance with the customer’s instructions. Note: the customer does not personally buy and sell commodities; the broker acts as the customer’s agent, executing trades on behalf of the customer.

Thus, for example, a customer might have $5,000 deposited in the CSF account and give instructions to the broker to buy gold. The broker would take money out of the customer’s account and purchase gold for the customer. At some point in the future the customer would give instructions to sell the gold. The broker would sell the gold and the money would be deposited into the customers account (the broker earns commissions on each transactions which are deducted from the customers account.)

The law pertaining to ‘segregated funds’ was the issue in the above-mentioned Seventh Circuit Court decision.

Consider:

More specifically, University of Chicago Booth School of Business professor Janet Travakoli writes:

Two points:

1) The concept of “segregated funds” is not a subjective or traditional arrangement; it is defined by congressional ‘black letter’ law (i.e. Commodity Exchange Act) and subject to a regulatory agency created by congress for the purpose of enforcing the law (i.e. Commodity Futures Trading Commission).

2) The purpose of the law/regulation is to protect the customers’ funds from the consequences of the FCM’s bankruptcy. 

This is analogous to bank accounts insured by Federal Deposit Insurance. If the commercial bank fails, the customers/depositors do not lose their money. The savings accounts are guaranteed. Similarly, if a brokerage firm fails, the customers are not suppose to lose their money.

 

Judge Tinder writing for the Seventh Circuit Appeals Court:

Note: The judge has stipulated that Sentinel violated the law of Congress (i.e. Sentinel did not maintain customer segregated accounts “as required by law”).  

Accordingly, in terms of Black Letter Law, the bank should return the customer’s money to them regardless of the Sentinel bankruptcy (i.e. the customer is protected against FCM insolvency).

However, Judges' Opinion Court Law is not the same as Black Letter Congressional Law. Cutting to the chase:

Customers of Sentinel deposited a total of $312 million in THEIR Customer Segregated Accounts at the New York Bank Mellon. It was THEIR money, and by the letter of the law of Congress and the letter of the regulations written by the agency created by congress, neither Sentinel nor the Bank had any claim to that money.

The Judges of the Seventh Circuit blatantly and categorically ignored the letter of law, the letter of regulation and the intent of Congress, and created their own subjective law.

In short: the customers lost the $312 million that was protected by Black Letter Congressional Law but not protected from Judges Opinion Court Law. Go Figure!

 

Before graduating from a Law School, a student must take part in a pedagogical activity called Moot Court. Clearly, this is a most relevant education exercise. For clearly, lawyers must understand the most fundamental fact of law: LAW is MOOT – irrelevant, as Sicilian philosophers and literary artist have been saying for centuries

In the twenty-five years between 386 BC and 361 BC Plato made three extended visits to Sicily (Syracuse). His writings subsequent to those visits indicate that, as with so many before and after, Sicily affected a change in his thinking.

He wrote the Laws dialogues, which revised and made significant changes in the political philosophy of the earlier and more famous Republic. Specifically for present purposes he emphasized:

Clearly, there is nothing rational in the above Seventh Circuit Appeals Court decision.  Rather, blatant irrational contradiction (customer funds by letter of Congressional law are protected, but contradicted (i.e. not protected) by Judges Opinion law).

The Judges' decision and the negative consequences accruing to the customers of Sentinel (who lost $312 million) is based solely on the “mere force” of the Judges.

Sciascia expanded on the concept of rationality vs. force of law:

The judges of the Seventh Circuit were “in command” and “created law irrationally on the spot” and "inflected suffering" on Sentinel's customers.

Lampedusa - As to be expected, the most profound observation relevant to the Seventh Circuit Appeals Court decision comes from Sicily’s greatest poet.

 

To fully appreciate Lampedusa’s wisdom, one has to consider Jon Corzine the multi-billionaire former Governor of New Jersey, former U.S. Senator from New Jersey and former CEO of Goldman Sachs (Italy’s Prime Minister Mario Monti’s old firm – “Birds of a Feather...”?). 

Another Futures Commissions Merchant (CMF) like Sentinel collapsed. But this one was the giant MF Global. Again, like Sentinel, customer money was missing. Only this time it was not ‘small potatoes’ $312 million. MF Global was missing $1.6 BILLION of customer segregated funds. The Chairman and CEO of MF Global at the time was none other than Jon Corzine

Bloomberg news reported:

Sound familiar? If not read on...
Jon S. Corzine resigns from his posts at MF Global.

Reuters reports:

As with the Sentinel bankruptcy above, the customer funds were, by Congressional LAW! (I’m going to say that again: by Congressional LAW!), to have been kept in segregated accounts, not to be used by the brokerage firm or commingled with the firms accounts, and creditors of banks has no claim on them.

Again, like Sentinel managers, Corzine et al illegally used customer funds to finance their own commodities transactions.

“The United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit handed down its ruling on the Sentinel Case.

To date, the $1.6 Billion that went missing while Corzine was Chairman and CEO of MF Global is still missing. 

The FBI, which comes under the aegis of the Justice Department headed by an Obama appiontee, has not been heard from. 

And Corzine is still smiling and ‘glad-handing’ with the President.

The United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit has established precedent that missing customer funds does not constitute an illegality. For all intents and purposes, Corzine is safe from prosecution for the missing $1.6 Billion dollars of MF Global customer’s money.

Paraphrasing Lampedusa:

 

The main idea developed here is the relevance of South of Rome philosophy and literature to a very specific (indeed technical) contemporary issue. 

Unlike so many humanities courses offered in universities that present materials in the context of abstract philosophical and aesthetic theories, the South of Rome humanities is very specifically relevant to contemporary life and times.

If one were to teach a course on Plato or Sicascia or Lampeduse or many other southern thinkers and artist (e.g. John Domini), it could easily be related to what one reads in the morning newspaper or hears on the Six O’clock news.

One wonders about the disproportionate amount of college and university curriculums dedicated to the largely irrelevant purely aesthetic Renaissance studies, at the expense of highly relevant South of Rome studies.

From ancient times down to the twenty-first century, South of Rome thinkers grasped the universal in the particular. From what Plato saw in the particulars of his time he inferred what was relevant to all times; similarly Lempedusa, Sciascia, etc.

Sadly, the southern-Italian American prominente and literati have not grasped the profundity of their own history and culture and consigned Italian Studies education to the philo-Renaissance crowd.