"Call All To Support Impeachments And Class Action Lawsuits"
"Prove Events Were Criminal Acts"
This thread is not a general topic of proposed crimes which one may seek to establish guilt or innocence.
This thread asks a question, "Did repeal of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act result in fraud through any violation of civil or criminal law?"
** Back Ground Mound **
The Banking Act of 1933 was a law that established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in the United States and introduced banking reforms, some of which were designed to control speculation.
Provisions that prohibit a bank holding company from owning other financial companies were repealed on November 12, 1999, by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act. 
** Mon Key See Mon Key Due **
It is proposed to be proven that the Glass-Steagall Act established a contractual condition that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) exists with a contingency that commercial and investment banking remain separate.
And, if commercial and investment banking become consolidated, then the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation may not exist.
Hence, it is alleged that repeal of dissociation between commercial and investment banking requires a repeal of FDIC protections.
Hence, failure to repeal FDIC protections constitutes fraud.
Financial institutions benefited prejudicially, deceptively, and pretentiously through access to FDIC insured funds.
Whence, here come class action participants in its public and private interests seeking damages incurred by fraud which occurred with the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.
** Orchestrating A Deep Pocket Heist **
The linch pin to the heist and the true depth of its corruption can be explained by the change in a financial institution's cash on hand.
The proportion of levied cash to cash on hand had been 12:1 for nearly a century, and the /wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act raised the restriction and the worst lenders were leveraged 30:1 or more.
** Pseudonym Characters Caricatures **
A grand jury should be summoned to establish legislative negligence and moral turpitude for maliciously deceiving its public, purposely neglecting informed consent to defraud commercial account holders, for possible representative impeachment.
Commercial banking account holders and the public at large has incurred damages by unlawful actions: if by negligence, if by malice of unethical actors.
Boulderdash affront - /wiki/Gramm–Leach–Bliley_Act