Monday, July 26, 2010

Framing Targets 101

These are how the courts are run for all of us, this is American "Justice" ...

F.B.I., cointel pro war on black america part five.wmv


Text with video:
abbott360 | June 18, 2010

Through a secret program called the Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO), there was a concerted effort to subvert the will of the people to avoid the rise "of a black Messiah" that would mobilize the African-American community into a meaningful political force. This documentary establishes historical perspective on the measures initiated by J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI which aimed to discredit black political figures and forces of the late 1960's and early 1970's. Combining declassified documents, interviews, rare footage and exhaustive research, it investigates the government's role in the assassinations of Malcolm X, Fred Hampton, and Martin Luther King Jr. Were the murders the result of this concerted effort to avoid "a black Messiah"?



* * * *

http://starkravingviking.blogspot.com/2010/07/mutiny-of-sheep.html

This blogger is a victim of Cointelpro style Connecticut State Police misconduct, domestic spying, and abuse:
http://judicialmisconduct.blogspot.com/2006/12/attn-connecticut-state-police.html


-

Sunday, July 25, 2010

Repeal of Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 caused 2010 Depression?

Criminal Banksters and their bribed politician friends saw to it the below act was repealed in 1999. This is the result:
http://starkravingviking.blogspot.com/2010/07/us-financial-terrorists-and-top-secret.html
3 Videos of experts talking about the current state of banking, and how, "Top Secret America" is a corporate spying conspiracy:
http://www.opednews.com/Diary/Experts-Vent-on-Banking-Ma-by-Steven-G-Erickson-100725-804.html


Sen. Carter Glass (DVa.) and Rep. Henry B. Steagall (DAla.-3), the co-sponsors of the Glass–Steagall Act.

Glass–Steagall Act of 1933
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about the 1933 Act establishing the FDIC. For the 1932 Act by the same sponsors, see Glass–Steagall Act of 1932.

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.[1] It is most commonly known as the Glass-Steagall Act, after its legislative sponsors, Carter Glass and Henry B. Steagall.

Some provisions of the Act, such as Regulation Q, which allowed the Federal Reserve to regulate interest rates in savings accounts, were repealed by the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980. Provisions that prohibit a bank holding company from owning other financial companies were repealed on November 12, 1999, by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act. [2][3]

The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 effectively removed the separation that previously existed between Wall Street investment banks and depository banks and has been blamed for exacerbating the damage caused by the collapse of the subprime mortgage market that led to the Financial crisis of 2007–2010. [4]


Contents

[hide]


Overview

Two separate United States laws are known as the Glass–Steagall Act. Both bills were sponsored by Democratic Senator Carter Glass of Lynchburg, Virginia, a former Secretary of the Treasury, and Democratic Congressman Henry B. Steagall of Alabama, Chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Currency.

The first Glass-Steagall Act of 1932 was enacted in an effort to stop deflation, and expanded the Federal Reserve's ability to offer rediscounts on more types of assets, such as government bonds as well as commercial paper[5]. The second Glass–Steagall Act (the Banking Act of 1933) was a reaction to the collapse of a large portion of the American commercial banking system in early 1933. It introduced the separation of bank types according to their business (commercial and investment banking), and it founded the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation for insuring bank deposits. Literature in economics usually refers to this latter act simply as the Glass–Steagall Act, since it had a stronger impact on US banking regulation.[6]

"Rediscounting" is a way of providing financing to a bank or other financial institution. Especially in the 1800s and early 1900s, banks made loans to their customers by "discounting" their customers' notes. Such a note is a paper document, in a specified form, in which the borrower promises to pay a certain amount at a specified, future date. For example, assume that a customer wants to borrow $1000 for one year. In exchange for giving him $1000 today, the bank might ask him to sign a note promising to pay $1100 one year from now. The bank is "discounting" the note by giving the customer less than the note's $1100 face value. The extra $100 is the bank's compensation for providing the $1000 to the customer before the note matures. The Federal Reserve System could provide financing to the bank by "rediscounting" this note, for example, by giving the bank $1050 in exchange for the note.

Although Republican President Herbert Hoover lost reelection in November 1932 to Democratic Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt of New York, the administration did not change hands until March 1933. The lame-duck Hoover Administration and the incoming Roosevelt Administration could not, or would not, coordinate actions to stop the run on banks affiliated with the Henry Ford family that began in Detroit, Michigan, in January 1933[citation needed]. Federal Reserve chairman Eugene Meyer was equally ineffectual.

While many economic historians attribute the collapse to the economic problems which followed the Stock Market Crash of 1929, some economists attribute the collapse to gold-backed currency withdrawals by foreigners who had lost confidence in the dollar and by domestic depositors who feared that the United States would go off the gold standard,[7] which it did when Roosevelt signed Executive Order 6102, The Gold Confiscation Act of April 5, 1933.[8]

According to a summary by the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress:

In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, bankers and brokers were sometimes indistinguishable. Then, in the Great Depression after 1929, Congress examined the mixing of the “commercial” and “investment” banking industries that occurred in the 1920s. Hearings revealed conflicts of interest and fraud in some banking institutions’ securities activities. A formidable barrier to the mixing of these activities was then set up by the Glass Steagall Act.[9]

[edit] Repeal

See also Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980, the Garn–St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982, and the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999.

The bill that ultimately repealed the Act was introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa) in 1999. The bills were passed by a Republican majority, basically following party lines by a 54–44 vote in the Senate[10] and by a bi-partisan 343–86 vote in the House of Representatives.[11] After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. The final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90–8 (one not voting) and in the House: 362–57 (15 not voting). The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.[12]

The banking industry had been seeking the repeal of Glass–Steagall since at least the 1980s. In 1987 the Congressional Research Service prepared a report which explored the cases for and against preserving the Glass–Steagall act.[9]

The argument for preserving Glass–Steagall (as written in 1987):

1. Conflicts of interest characterize the granting of credit (that is to say, lending) and the use of credit (that is to say, investing) by the same entity, which led to abuses that originally produced the Act.
2. Depository institutions possess enormous financial power, by virtue of their control of other people’s money; its extent must be limited to ensure soundness and competition in the market for funds, whether loans or investments.
3. Securities activities can be risky, leading to enormous losses. Such losses could threaten the integrity of deposits. In turn, the Government insures deposits and could be required to pay large sums if depository institutions were to collapse as the result of securities losses.
4. Depository institutions are supposed to be managed to limit risk. Their managers thus may not be conditioned to operate prudently in more speculative securities businesses. An example is the crash of real estate investment trusts sponsored by bank holding companies (in the 1970s and 1980s).

The argument against preserving the Act (as written in 1987):

1. Depository institutions will now operate in “deregulated” financial markets in which distinctions between loans, securities, and deposits are not well drawn. They are losing market shares to securities firms that are not so strictly regulated, and to foreign financial institutions operating without much restriction from the Act.
2. Conflicts of interest can be prevented by enforcing legislation against them, and by separating the lending and credit functions through forming distinctly separate subsidiaries of financial firms.
3. The securities activities that depository institutions are seeking are both low-risk by their very nature, and would reduce the total risk of organizations offering them – by diversification.
4. In much of the rest of the world, depository institutions operate simultaneously and successfully in both banking and securities markets. Lessons learned from their experience can be applied to our national financial structure and regulation.[9]

[edit] Events following repeal

The repeal enabled commercial lenders such as Citigroup, which was in 1999 the largest U.S. bank by assets, to underwrite and trade instruments such as mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations and establish so-called structured investment vehicles, or SIVs, that bought those securities.[13] Elizabeth Warren,[14] author and one of the five outside experts who constitute the Congressional Oversight Panel of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, has said that the repeal of this act contributed to the Global financial crisis of 2008–2009.[15] [16]

The year before the repeal, sub-prime loans were just five percent of all mortgage lending.[citation needed] By the time the credit crisis peaked in 2008, they were approaching 30 percent.[citation needed] This correlation is not necessarily an indication of causation however, as there are several other significant events that have impacted the sub-prime market during that time. These include the adoption of mark-to-market accounting, implementation of the Basel Accords, the rise of adjustable rate mortgages etc.[17]

[edit] Proposed re-enactment

In mid-December of 2009, Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona and Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington State jointly proposed re-enacting the Glass-Steagall Act, to re-impose the separation of commercial and investment banking that had been in effect from the original Act in 1933, to the time of its initial repeal in 1999.[18] Legislation to re-enact parts of Glass-Steagall was also introduced into the House of Representatives. Banks such as Bank of America have strongly opposed the proposed re-enactment.[19]

On January 21, 2010, Barack Obama proposed bank regulations similar to some parts of Glass-Steagall in limiting certain of banks' trading and investment capabilities. The proposal was dubbed "The Volcker Rule",[20] for Paul Volcker, who has been an outspoken advocate for the reimplementation of some aspects of Glass-Steagall[21] and who appeared with Obama at the press conference in support of the proposed regulations. However, in May 2010, Volcker, in an interview with BBC Business Editor Robert Peston, said that he was not advocating a return to Glass-Steagall or a complete separation between investment and commercial banking.[22] In a May of 2010 interview with Alternet, economist Nouriel Roubini described the "Volcker Rule" as insufficient and "essentially Glass-Steagall-Lite," allowing conflicts of interest to remain and for financial entities to become too big to fail, a model he described as a disaster, and stated, "We need to go all the way and implement the kind of restrictions between commercial banking and investment banking that existed under Glass-Steagall."[23]

In Mainland Europe, notably in France, Germany and Italy, an increasing number of think-tanks such as the CEE Council are calling for the adoption of stricter bank regulation through new national and EU-wide legislations based on the Glass-Steagall Act.[24]

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ "Frontline: The Wall Street Fix: Mr. Weill Goes to Washington: The Long Demise of Glass–Steagall". www.pbs.org. PBS. 2003-05-08. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/weill/demise.html. Retrieved 2008-10-08.
  2. ^ "The Repeal of Glass–Steagall and the Advent of Broad Banking" (PDF). http://www.occ.treas.gov/ftp/workpaper/wp2000-5.pdf.
  3. ^ "GRAMM'S STATEMENT AT SIGNING CEREMONY FOR GRAMM–LEACH–BLILEY ACT". http://banking.senate.gov/prel99/1112gbl.htm.
  4. ^ "Biggest Wall Street Revamp Since 1930s Approved". http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-06-25/biggest-wall-street-revamp-since-1930s-approved.html.
  5. ^ http://mises.org/rothbard/agd/chapter11.asp
  6. ^ "FDIC: Important Banking Legislation". http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/important/index.html.
  7. ^ http://mises.org/rothbard/agd/chapter12.asp
  8. ^ Gold Confiscation Act, http://www.the-privateer.com/1933-gold-confiscation.html
  9. ^ a b c http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs/permalink/meta-crs-9065:1
  10. ^ On Passage of the Bill (S.900 as amended ), http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00105, retrieved 2008-06-19
  11. ^ On Agreeing to the Conference Report – Financial Services Modernization Act, http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1999/roll276.xml, retrieved 2008-06-19
  12. ^ http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s106-900#votes
  13. ^ Barth et al. (2000). "Policy Watch: The Repeal of Glass–Steagall and the Advent of Broad Banking" (PDF). Journal of Economic Perspectives 14 (2): 191–204. http://www.occ.treas.gov/ftp/workpaper/wp2000-5.pdf.
  14. ^ http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=224262&title=elizabeth-warren-pt.-2&byDate=true
  15. ^ Halligan, Liam (February 14, 2009). "Outrage at bonuses won't solve the mess we're in". The Daily Telegraph (London). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/liamhalligan/4623601/Outrage-at-bonuses-wont-solve-the-mess-were-in.html. Retrieved May 3, 2010.
  16. ^ Who's More to Blame: Wall Street or the Repealers of the Glass–Steagall Act?, http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2009/04/06/whos-more-to-blame-wall-street-or-the-repealers-of.aspx?source=ihpsitcl10000001, retrieved 2009-04-07
  17. ^ The Subprime Mortgage Market Collapse:A Primer on the Causes and Possible Solutions. However, of far more importance was the bank leverage which went from around ten percent to, in some cases, over thirty percent, which created major instability that weakened the banks ability to respond and ultimately caused the failures. http://www.heritage.org/research/economy/bg2127.cfm
  18. ^ Hirsh, Michael (December 15, 2009), "McCain and Cantwell Want a New Glass-Steagall Law", Newsweek, http://www.newsweek.com/id/226938
  19. ^ Eckblad, Marshall (January 4, 2010), "Bank of America CEO Expects 'Long, Slow Recovery'", Wall Street Journal, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703580904574638414165296326.html
  20. ^ Uchitelle, Louis (January 22, 2010), "Glass-Steagall vs. the Volcker Rule", The New York Times, http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/glass-steagall-vs-the-volcker-rule/, retrieved 2010-01-27
  21. ^ Uchitelle, Louis (October 21, 2009), "Volcker Fails to Sell a Bank Strategy", The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/21/business/21volcker.html, retrieved 2009-12-17
  22. ^ Peston, Robert (May 14, 2010), "What Volcker Thinks", BBC, http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2010/05/what_volcker_thinks.html/, retrieved 2010-05-15
  23. ^ Carter, Zach (May 18, 2010), "How to Break Up the Banks, Stop Massive Bonuses, and Rein in Wall Street Greed", Alternet, http://www.alternet.org/news/146900/nouriel_roubini%3A_how_to_break_up_the_banks,_stop_massive_bonuses,_and_rein_in_wall_street_greed?page=entire, retrieved 2010-05-18
  24. ^ (French) Bank Regulation and Financial Orthodoxy: the Lessons from the Glass-Steagall Act, http://www.canadianeuropean.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Bank_Regulation_and_Financial_Orthodoxy__RAF__Jan_2010.784613.pdf, retrieved 2010-01-08

[edit] Further reading

[edit] External links



-

This Judicial Abuse blog post theme expanded:

http://starkravingviking.blogspot.com/2010/07/us-financial-terrorists-and-top-secret.html

-

Saturday, July 24, 2010

Legal Workers Whistleblower Blog

It's called, "The Elite Lawyers and Judges Whistleblower Network of America"

The below found:

http://theeliteones.wordpress.com/

Bond’s, Shoeless Joe’s and Russoniello’s Cases Share Common Theme

July 24, 2010
by theeliteones

Judge Allows $20 Million Suit Against Former State Bar Board Member To Go Forward

July 23, 2010
by theeliteones

Bonnie Dumanis

U.S. District Judge William Q. Hayes, of the Southern District of California has recently ruled that a $20 million dollar lawsuit against San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis and other defendnts may go forward.

Hayes’ ruling found Dumanis “fabricated evidence” and continued her investigation of a San Diego County woman wrongfully accused of murdering her Marine husband after Dumanis “knew or should have known” she was innocent.

Dumanis, a former member of the Board of Governors of the State Bar of California, also taught legal ethics at San Diego College of Law.

DOJ Bad Faith Litigation Tactics Widespread

July 22, 2010
by theeliteones

Hon. Nancy Gertner

Boston Federal Judge Nancy Gertner is considering tacking another $4 million on to the $101 million the U.S. Justice Department was assessed for bad faith litigation tactics. The case arose from the framing of citizens with bogus murder charges.

Associated Press reported this week a letter from the Swiss Justice Ministry revealed Los Angeles County prosecutors misled Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza in a case involving the extradition of Roman Polanski. DOJ and Los Angeles County both blame each other for a government snafu involving Polanski’s extradition.

Holder

On April 1, 2009, U.S. Attorney Eric Holder dismissed the indictment of Alaska Senator Ted Stevens due to prosecutorial misconduct. Hon. Emmett Sullivan, the trial judge claimed the Steven’s case was by far the worst case of prosecutorial misconduct he had seen in his more than 25 years on the bench.

In San Francisco, U.S. Attorney Joseph Russoniello is entangled in a web of corruption, cover-up and wrongdoing which involves, obstruction of justice; suppression of evidence; theft of court documents;

Russoniello

the fixing of ethics complaints against Russoniello and top State Bar officials; bogus, retaliatory and politically-motivated discipline and disbarments of California attorneys who represent the poor and powerless; political tampering by state and federal elected officials and more than 200 predicate acts of federal racketeering by Russoniello and his co-conspirators over the course of more than a decade.



* * * *
* * * *

Charlotte Dennett's father Daniel Dennett died under mysterious circumstances. He was a key instrument in the precursor of the CIA. The modern CIA is basically an offshore bankster thug service. Why should the CIA be able to withhold most of their files even 60 years later? Is what they did long ago, going to give us a real hint of what is really going on now? Without the alphabet soup of thuggery departments doing as they please without oversight, corporate banking gangsters would not be ripping off the average American wholesale. Dennett's fight, [video and text]

Prosecuting Bush, Charlotte Dennett marches on

Sunday, July 18, 2010

Crapulent Courts/Policing & US Illegal Wars of Occupation?

If Americans don't have actual access to elected officials, they're being taxed without representation. Those who profit from war are the same crowd with bankster, organized crime corporatist ties. Those who abuse fund elected officials in their campaigns are then rewarded with key policy and investigatory government positions. If the average person can't count on honest policing and courts on the local level, the "justice system" is crapulent from the bottom up.

The below, re-posted
[from here]

America: Hooked on War and Getting Poorer

With record foreclosures and child poverty at a shameful level, can we really afford to stay in Afghanistan and Iraq for 10 years?
There's plenty of good money to be made /

Supplyin' the army with tools of the trade … – Country Joe and the Fish

I hallucinate easily, a hangover from time spent in an acid-rock commune in London in the fevered 60s. Most evenings when I switch on the television 6.30 news with its now cliched pictures of deep sea oil spurting from BP's pipe rupture, I see not bleeding sludge but human blood surging up into the Gulf of Mexico.

I've learned to trust my visions as metaphors for reality. The same news programmes, often as a dutiful throwaway item, will show a jerky fragment of Afghan combat accompanied by the usual pulse-pounding handheld shots of snipers amid roadside bomb explosions, preferably in fiery balls. My delusional mind converts this footage into a phantasmagoria where our M60 machine guns are shooting ammunition belts full of $1,000 bills.

Blood, oil, bullets … and cash.

Why is nobody talking about the Afghanistan adventure as a cause of our plunging recession? Or at least citing the 30-year-old endless war as a major contributory factor in wasting our money to "nation-build" in the Hindu Kush while our own country falls to pieces on food stamps, foreclosures and child poverty – one in five kids – that would put the world's poorest nations to shame?

Iraq was George Bush's war. But, as Republican party chairman Michael Steele correctly says, "Afghanistan is Obama's war of choice", and a losing proposition. Historically, Bush and Dick Cheney merely toyed with Afghanistan while visiting shock and awe on Iraq. But President Obama is really, really serious about it. He told us so on his campaign trail, but most of us refused to believe him. We told ourselves: oh, he's a closet pacifist, or he'll somehow find a way out of the impasse, thus sealing a devil's pact with our own consciences.

Obama's "way out" is to dig deeper in so that he'll be able to get out, it's said. Where have we heard that before? Exit strategy, my foot. Obama is a willing prisoner of his generals, the latest four-star foot-in-mouther being General George Casey, army chief of staff, who a few days ago confessed to CBS News that the US could face another "decade or so" of persistent conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan. (He then fudged it, but the cat was out of the bag.)

Our Afghanistan war, which began in 1980 under the Democrats (by weaponising Afghan resistance to the Soviets), and is now truly a bipartisan war, is as bankrupt as our economy. No connection? None that I can hear from Republicans or Democrats and the "liberal base". The war without purpose or common sense is simply a given, like the weather. Other than a few lonely members of Congress, like Florida's Alan Grayson (who introduced a bill titled "The War Is Making You Poor"), the antiwar Texas libertarian Ron Paul and Illinois's Tim Johnson, hardly anybody in public life dares to make a connection between teachers' pink slips, personal bankruptcies (6,000 a day now), our rotting infrastructure, lengthening queues at unemployment offices, child poverty … and the war.

* * * *
* * * *

This post's title expanded:

http://thegetjusticecoalition.blogspot.com/2010/07/anatomy-of-blacklisting-in-usa-and-uk.html


http://thesrv.blogspot.com/2010/07/bush-sr-cia-murder-squad.html


http://starkravingviking.blogspot.com/2010/07/afghan-war-farce.html

http://judicialmisconduct.blogspot.com/2006/12/attn-connecticut-state-police.html

* * * *

Cut and pasted from an email in from Joe Zernik:
[]
Ronald George
Chief Justice of California Supreme Court
Complaint by Michael Paul against California Administrative Office of the Courts, alleging public corruption and racketeering by California Chief Justice Ronald George filed with the United Nations as part of 2010 review of Human Rights in the United States.
Los Angeles, July 17 – Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, filed with the United Nations and US State Department copy of complaint filed by Michael Paul, former employee of the California Administrative Office of the Courts, alleging public corruption by the California Courts and California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George. [1] [2]
Human Rights Alert asked the US Department of Justice and the United Nations to accept the complaint as additional evidence of widespread corruption of the California courts. Widespread corruption of the courts and large-scale false imprisonments in Los Angeles County, California, were the focus of the Human Rights Alert April 2010 report to the United Nations.
In letter to plaintiff Michael Paul, Dr Zernik noted that former's complaint was consistent with complaints filed in recent weeks by Human Rights Alert with the US Attorney Office against Ronald George, California Judicial Council, judges and clerks of the Superior Court of California,alleging widespread corruption. Dr Zernik added that he had no doubt that upon review of the body of the complaints as a whole, any competent court of jurisdiction would conclude that judges of the Superior Court of California were engaged in racketeering for at least a decade or two. Moreover, Dr Zernik noted documents,which had been filed with the United Nations, and provided evidence of the refusal of the US government to address the corruption of the courts, as part of its duties and obligations pursuant to ratified international law.
Dr Zernik also urged Mr Paul to join others in lobbying nations that would be central to the review of Human Rights in the United States by the United Nations. Mr Paul was also urged to come forward and reveal any information that he may have pertaining to case management systems of the California courts, as part of his previous employment with the California Administrative Office of the Courts. The letter repeated allegations that Chief Justice Ronald George was a key figure in the installation of a fraudulent case management system in the Los Angeles Courts circa 1985, the harms of which are suffered to this date. In recent years, the California Administrative Office of the Courts engaged in a large-scale project to install a new California Case Management System – again – with no evidence of public oversight of integrity of the system.
Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the justice systems of the State of California and the United States in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond. Special emphasis is given to the unique role of computerized case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of integrity of the justice system in the United States.

LINKS
[1]
Letter to the US State Department and the United Nations – providing additional evidence of widespread corruption of the California Courts.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34467837/
[2] Michael Paul v California Administrative Office of the Courts – complaint
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34467455/

Thursday, July 15, 2010

Presenting moral arguments

to immoral kangaroo court operators?

Why do those who suffer judicial abuse think they can present a moral argument to those immoral operators of legislatures and courts?

This approach hasn’t worked so far. Do you have any ideas?

stevengerickson@yahoo.com

[This post] has links, BP Oil Spill photos, and may prove the kangaroo court system from the bottom up absolutely has gotten so bad it needs reform now.

Saturday, July 10, 2010

Obvious Whistleblower Retaliation

The Wikileaks.org saga rages ...



Charging Wikileaks Source: The Nail in the Coffin of Whistblowers

By Jesselyn Radack


Even the Washington Post gets it. In its article on the criminal charges brought against Army intelligence analyst Pfc. Bradley Manning, the sub-headline to the article reads:

U.S. TAKING TOUGH LINE ON LEAKS

The opening paragraph states that the military charging Bradley Manning

is likely to further deter would-be whistleblowers.

I don't care if it's Bush or Obama at the helm. The biggest crimes of our generation--torture, warrantless wiretapping, and extraordinary rendition--would not have come to light but for the unauthorized disclosure of classified information. For the hand-wringing "but we can't willy-nilly reveal classified information" crowd, do you think Abu Ghraib wasn't classified?

We are told (though there has been not a shred of evidence other than the government saying this, and even the charges do not reflect this number) that Manning gave some 250,000 classified State Department cables to Wikileaks.org. All we really KNOW is that the website published a horrific video of an American helicopter massacring unarmed Iraqi civilians, including children, and the shooters cheering on each other as if it were a video game.

And the former senior National Security Agency (NSA) official Thomas Drake? The party line is that he "leaked" classified material to a newspaper. If you read the indictment, he has really been indicted under the Espionage Act, a 93-year-old law meant to catch spies, for allegedly "retaining" classified information. What the government is really mad about is that an article appeared in the Baltimore Sun describing how and why the NSA opted for an billion-dollar, failed invasive surveillance program called "Trailblazer" over one that could more adequately collect intelligence information without violating people's privacy.

Short of killing someone (think Karen Silkwood, and more recently, of the "worldwide manhunt" for Wikileaks founder Julian Assange launched by the Pentagon), this is the worst, and increasingly popular, form of retaliation that can be taken against a whistleblower: criminal prosecution for revealing the truth--which in both the Manning and Drake cases did no harm to national security, but instead committed the far worse "crime" of embarrassing the government. In fact, both these men were trying to expose conduct they thought, and that was, illegal.

I urge you to "like" the Save Tom Drake page on Facebook and to check out the Help Bradley Manning website.

The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.
--James Madison

reprinted from Dailykos.com with author permission

http://www.patriotictruthteller.net

My name is Jesselyn Radack and I am the former Justice Department ethics attorney and whistleblower in the case of "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh. In today's issue of The National Law (more...)


* * * *
* * * *

Alex Jones: Epic Corruption and the Whistle-blower


Text with video:
TheAlexJonesChannel | April 14, 2010

Alex talks about the incredible story of Richard Fine, an attorney being held as a political prisoners in L.A. County Jail for over a year!!

[[ Epic Corruption and the Whistle-blower ]]




Cassandra Anderson
http://www.Infowars.com
April 14, 2010

The U.S. Supreme Court will be holding a private conference hearing on Friday, April 23rd 2010, to determine whether to hold a full court hearing on corruption charges within the Los Angeles County government for illegally imprisoning attorney Richard Fine. A rally to acknowledge the U.S. Supreme Court hearing will be held at the L.A. Superior Court building at 8 am Tuesday April 20th, by supporters of Richard Fines release from illegal imprisonment. Mainstream media has avoided any mention of this epic corruption scandal, despite its significance, and now it is on its way to the the Supreme Court.

Richard Fine, who holds a PhD in international law and served as an anti-trust prosecutor at the Department of Justice in Washington D.C., has been in jail in the L.A. County Jail for over a year in solitary confinement. He never had a trial, there has been no conviction, nor any sentence to keep him there. Sheriff LeRoy Baca claims he does not know why Fine is in jail, yet he keeps him there and failed to answer Fines Writ of Habeas Corpus. Baca refused to allow a filmed interview with Fine until Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit on behalf of Full Disclosure Network, and then, out of the blue, he changed his mind and granted a filmed interview with them!

Fine believes he is imprisoned because of political reasons:

1. Fine exposed L.A. Superior Court judges of taking illegal money from the County, in violation of the California State Constitution.

2. The County Supervisors were using public tax money to pay off the Superior Court judges.

3. The Superior Court Judges decided cases in favor of the County (Fine reports that since 2005 to present, only 3 people have won cases against the County as a result of the bribes).

4. The California State Legislature have given the judges and County Supervisors immunity from prosecution for their actions and misappropriation of taxpayer money.

5. The judges have tried to get Mr. Fine disbarred from the California State Bar as a result of the lawsuit he filed on behalf of the taxpayers who were denied due process.

6. Superior Court Judge David Yaffe (accused judge) failed to recuse himself and sent Fine to prison. He also failed to cite any precedent (denying Fine due process).

7. L.A. County Sheriff LeRoy Baca illegally imprisoned Fine, and Fine is in jail today.

8. Fine should have been released within 5 days, according to the law.

Sheriff LeRoy Baca was subject to term limits, but prior to his last election, he filed a lawsuit to get out from under term limits. The Superior Court judge ruled in his favor (surprise!). Term limits are a prevention against corruption. The lawsuit was approved by the County Supervisors who paid for it with the taxpayers money; the taxpayers had previously voted in term limits, but it was overturned for Sheriff Baca. Sheriff LeRoy Baca is up for re-election June 8, 2010. No one is running against him. He makes $268,000 a year in this position.

In this interview, Fine tells us that the special interests behind the County Supervisors are the real estate developers, who gave money to Supervisor Antonovich and Supervisor Knabe, who were then disallowed from voting on a related Environmental Impact Report that Fine submitted in a real estate development case. They voted illegally in favor of the developers.

This is how our government is usurped by criminals and corruption within the system.
http://www.infowars.com/epic-corrupti...



Supreme Court rules against jailed lawyer Richard Fine

By Troy Anderson, Staff Writer
Posted: 05/24/2010 07:54:15 PM PDT
Updated: 05/24/2010 07:58:04 PM PDT


Issuing a final ruling in the case, the U.S. Supreme Court Monday denied Tarzana tax attorney Richard I. Fine's request to be released from Men's Central Jail, where he has been held for failing to divulge information on his personal assets.

Fine, a 70-year-old former taxpayer advocate attorney who claims he's a "political prisoner," has spent 14 months in jail.

A former Beverly Hills attorney who once worked for the U.S. Department of Justice, Fine has been held in solitary confinement since early 2009 after he refused to pay $46,329 or release details of personal finances.

At the time, Fine was handling a case on behalf of Marina del Rey residents and Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe found him in contempt of court and ordered him held until he divulges the information.

"We are deeply disappointed in the outcome of this," said Victoria Fine, Fine's daughter who is a journalist and editor at The Huffington Post. "It's scary to me that the justice system at all levels doesn't see the inherent flaws in the system and is choosing not to correct them."

In his Supreme Court brief, Fine alleged his confinement is retaliation for exposing Los Angeles County's practice of paying judges an annual bonus of $57,000 in addition to their state salary of $179,000 - providing local judges with salaries higher than the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court who earns $218,000 annually.

Since the county began paying the judges the the extra benefits in the late 1980s, Fine wrote the county has won "virtually all lawsuits" decided by the judges.

An appellate court in San Diego ruled in late 2008 that the payments were unconstitutional, but the state Legislature subsequently passed a bill authorizing the payments and granting retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution for all involved government officials.

In a telephone interview late last week, Fine said if the Supreme Court denied his release that it would mean the "entire judicial system in the United States is lost."

"It means it's acceptable for judges to accept bribes and acceptable for judges to judge their own actions," Fine said.

A Superior Court spokeswoman said the court had no comment on the Supreme Court's ruling.

The high court's ruling came only hours after CNN aired a story about Fine's plight. In a blog entry, CNN Special Investigations Unit reporter Abbie Boudreau noted the "dapper Beverly Hills attorney known for his bow tie" is "not a criminal."

"What will happen if Fine refuses to cooperate, and Judge Yaffe doesn't put an end to this?" Boudreau asked. "Could this go on for another year, or maybe even more? At what point does `coercive confinement' become nothing more than an indefinite jail sentence?"

This blogger's previous post on the Richard I. Fine story:

http://thegetjusticecoalition.blogspot.com/2010/01/judges-jailing-to-block-free-speech.html

* * * *
* * * *

http://thesrv.blogspot.com/2010/07/images-in-my-war-protest-video.html

* * * *

* * * *

What is this blogger's beef with the US Police State? Well, my letter to Leonard C. Boyle when he was Commissioner of the Connecticut State Police, may tell it:

http://judicialmisconduct.blogspot.com/2006/12/attn-connecticut-state-police.html

The below text from:
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel07/boyle031407.htm


Washington D.C.
FBI National Press Office
(202) 324-3691

LEONARD C. BOYLE NAMED DIRECTOR OF THE TERRORIST SCREENING CENTER

Washington, D.C. – Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Robert S. Mueller, III has named Leonard C. Boyle Director of the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center (TSC). Mr. Boyle previously served as Commissioner of Connecticut’s largest law enforcement agency, the Connecticut Department of Public Safety. In his new position with the FBI, Mr. Boyle will oversee and direct all TSC operations.

In 1986, Mr. Boyle began his 17 year term with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Connecticut. He was appointed supervisor of the Hartford Branch Office in 1992 and Chief of the Criminal Division in 1994. Heading this division, he supervised approximately 30 federal prosecutors and all criminal prosecutions in the state. In 1998, he left the U.S. Attorney’s Office for 15 months to work as a partner in the Hartford law firm of Murtha, Cullina, Richter and Pinney. He resumed his career as a federal prosecutor in 1999 before his appointment as Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Public Safety in 2004.

Mr. Boyle served as a Special Attorney to the Attorney General of the United States. In this role, he investigated and prosecuted law enforcement officials who had corrupt relationships with criminal figures in Boston, Massachusetts. Mr. Boyle received the U.S. Attorney General’s Award for Exceptional Service for his work in the Boston case. He received the U.S. Department of Justice’s Director’s Award in 2001 for his prosecution of civil rights cases involving members of the Hartford Police Department, and in 2002 for his racketeering prosecution of organized crime figures. In 1990, he received the U.S. Attorney General’s Distinguished Service Award for his prosecution of United States v. Gerena, et.al.

Since 1994, Mr. Boyle has been an Adjunct Professor at the University Of Connecticut School Of Law and an instructor at the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Education and National Advocacy Center.

In 1980, Mr. Boyle graduated from the University of Hartford and in 1983, earned a law degree from the University Of Connecticut School Of Law. Immediately following law school, Mr. Boyle clerked for Chief Justice John A. Speziale of the Connecticut Supreme Court and served as an associate at the law firm of Tyler, Cooper and Alcorn in New Haven, Connecticut.

The TSC was established on September 16, 2003 by Homeland Security Presidential Directive 6, which directed the institution of a center to consolidate the government’s approach to terrorism screening. The TSC serves as the single point of accountability for ensuring the merging and appropriate sharing of terrorist information by maintaining a thorough, accurate, and current secure list of terrorist identities information.

The TSC is a multi-agency center administered by the FBI with support from the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of State, the Department of Justice, the Department of Defense, the Department of the Treasury, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. For more information on the TSC, visit http://www.fbi.gov/terrorinfo/counterrorism/tsc.htm.



* * * *

Sibel Edmonds Bin Laden Worked for U.S. Right Up Until 9/11 PT1


Text with video:
Steeper33 | August 01, 2009

Former FBI Translator Bombshell: Bin Laden Worked for U.S. Right Up Until 9/11
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/0...

Before you hear what Sibel Edmonds has to say, you should know a little about her background.

Edmonds is a former FBI translator, who the Department of Justice's Inspector General and several senators have called extremely credible.


And some of Edmonds allegations' have already been confirmed by the British press.
Now, Edmonds is saying that Osama Bin Laden worked for the U.S. right up until 9/11, and that that fact is being covered up because the US outsourced terror operations to al Qaeda and the Taliban for many years.

Outrageous claim, right?

Actually, there are several lines of confirmation of Edmonds' claim.


•According to one of the most reputable French papers, CIA agents met with Bin Laden two months before 9/11, when he was already wanted for the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole.


•Two days before 9/11, Bin Laden called his stepmother and told her "In two days, you're going to hear big news and you're not going to hear from me for a while. US officials later told CNN that in recent years they've been able to monitor some of bin Laden's telephone communications with his [step]mother. Bin Laden at the time was using a satellite telephone, and the signals were intercepted and sometimes recorded." Indeed, before 9/11, to impress important visitors, NSA analysts would occasionally play audio tapes of bin Laden talking to his stepmother.


In other words, American forces had many opportunities to capture Bin Laden, and yet failed to do so.


Indeed, even after 9/11, the U.S. military intentionally let Bin Laden evade capture. Outrageous? Don't believe it?


The CIA commander in charge of the capture of Bin Laden during the invasion of Afghanistan said that the U.S. let Bin Laden escape from Afghanistan
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/0...



Part 2

View My Stats