Archive for the Courts Category

Walmart’s Classy Action (April 11, 2011)

Posted in Courts, Economics, Monopoly, Supreme Court on April 11, 2011 by e-ssay.org

. . .

E          “It keeps getting more surreal.  Walmart whined all the way to the Supreme Court recently that the proposed class of individuals joined in the discrimination law against it is too big.”

F          “So Walmart promotes judicial activism?”

E          “Or is it an admission by Walmart that Walmart is too big?  Walmart could divest itself of a few of its divisions.  Or enter into a ‘consent decree’ with the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice and down size.”

F          “Is a ‘consent decree’ one of those legal things that allows an entity to maintain that it did not do anything wrong in the past and it agrees not to do it ever again in the future.”

E          “That’s the animal.  A female spokeswoman with Walmart stated that she never experienced any discrimination while working her way through the Walmart hierarchy.”

F          “But she is not a proposed member of the class?”

E          “Nope.”

F          “What’s the problem?  Seems fair that she is not part of the class.  Large companies with large numbers of employees may have large classes.”

. . .

Bumper stickers of the week:

Large is good?

Radiation is democratic and dismayingly indifferent

Is A “Strategic Default” Of A Mortgage Now A Moral Imperative? (February 28, 2011)

Posted in Bailout/Bribe, Banks and Banking System, Courts, Crime/Punishment, Economics, Housing, Kleptocracy, Law, Society, Supreme Court, TARP on February 28, 2011 by e-ssay.org

. . .

S          “You have heard of them.  A ‘strategic default’ is a default by a person who could make the monthly payments on the mortgage yet elects to cease making the payments because the property is underwater financially.”

D          “There are a flood of them today.”

S          “A strategic default may be de rigueur today.  Look at the law.  Start with the indoctrination process in law school.  Young law students are taught the theory of ‘efficient breach’ which counsels one to breach a contract if breaching the contract is worth more than performing the contract.  That is defined as ‘efficiency.’  The students who answer obediently get on the law review, clerk for the Supreme Court and make millions representing banks, big businesses and insurance companies.”

D          “And assist in running them into the ground.”

S          “That’s the plan.  They don’t even understand ‘efficiency.’  In practice, the party breaching the contract is not spawning a more efficient use of global resources.  The breaching party simply does not want to pay or perform and usually has far more money and can overwhelm the non-breaching party in court.  The party not receiving payment or performance loses big and usually has little judicial relief.”

D          “With a few exceptions, the legal system seems to exist to protect and serve the interests of the wealthy and the well-connected. I’ll take my direction from no one other than the MBAs at the MBA (Mortgage Bankers Association) who recommend defaulting on your mortgage if it is not working for you.  The banksters decided not to pay the mortgage on the MBA office building in D.C. (Washington, D.C.), even though the group had the funds to pay.  The banksters strategically defaulted.”

S          “They are indeed an example for all.  When the government bribed and bailed out the banks and other institutions, some contended that the government could not breach the contracts providing for unwarranted and illegal bonuses.  How un-American.  The government should have disregarded every contract and required the banksters to bring suit.  How American.”

D          “Allowing the banksters to file suit would allow them to file in a sympathetic Republican Federal District Court and possibly steer the case to a receptive judge.”

S          “Always a risk in the legal game.  However, before the banksters brought suit, their legion of lawyers would remind them that they could confront defenses and counterclaims.  In court, the government could assert a dozen affirmative defenses and also counterclaim for fraud, deceit, perjury, conspiracy, embezzlement, racketeering, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, obstruction of justice, etc.  Some of the banksters would not file suit which is the least expensive and, yes, the most efficient way of reaching a just resolution.”

D          “Seems that the courts are stacked against the public.  Nonetheless, there is a small chance that an independent judge might hear some of the cases and hold that the bonuses are illegal.  An affirmative award against the banksters is improbable but not impossible.”

S          “Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats ever intended to bring criminal charges against the criminals.  We seem at times to be alone in a lawless world with millions of laws on the books.  We in America have moved from a democracy to a kleptocracy.”

D          “And no one to throw the book at them.  Except that the law and morality are clear.  Homeowners are morally obligated to default on the payment of their mortgages if the property is underwater financially.  The government is morally obligated to default on the payment of the bankster’s bonuses.  In today’s amoral America, a strategic default is both an economic necessity and a moral imperative.”

S          “Perhaps a provision should be added to Title 18 of the United States Code making it a crime not to strategically default if the property is underwater financially.  Not to strategically default is so un-American.  And inefficient.  We just can’t have that.”

D          “Strategically defaulting immanentizes the eschaton.”

S          “Indeed.”

. . .

Mortgage Bankers Association Defaults:  http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-7-2010/mortgage-bankers-association-strategic-default

Home Sales Data Is Overstated:  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704476604576158452087956150.html

“Three years after a horrific financial crisis caused by massive fraud, not a single financial executive has gone to jail, and that’s wrong.”  Charles Ferguson upon receiving the Oscar along with Audrey Marrs for the Best Documentary for the movie “Inside Job.”

“Almost everyone counted publicly each and every single day of the event known as the ‘Iran hostage crisis,’ yet no one is counting publicly the days that have passed since September 15, 2008 without a single major criminal indictment of the banksters and their ilk who caused the financial crisis that continues to plague this country today.”

[See the “e-ssay” titled “1000 AUSAs (February 9, 2009).”]

Bumper stickers of the week:

Do as I do not as I say

Mortgage Bankers Association: Strategically Default Today

Free $1000 an hour legal advice:  Strategically Default On Your Mortgage Today

Efficiency uber alles

Efficiency is Inefficient

If your property is underwater, should you plant seaweed in the front yard this spring?

Boys and Girls: Providers and Producers (January 31, 2011)

Posted in Courts, Health Care, Law, Society, Supreme Court on January 31, 2011 by e-ssay.org

. . .

M1          “We don’t even know what drives us.  That may be just as well.  Sociobiology, whatever that is, drives us.  It seems simple.  Men seek producers; women seek providers.  Males are looking for good breeders.  Females are looking for good providers.  Some guys are fixated on hair or eye color because, in their subconscious eyes, hair or eye color signals a fecund woman.”

M2          “Even in this age of feminism or post-feminism or whatever age we are in, girls still first pass through the bad boy phase as part of their emancipation from the home.  The journey can be self-destructive or amusing, protracted or passing, but it is a phase.”

M1          “A friend said that they survived the ordeal painlessly yet still hold their breath in case there is a relapse.”

M2          “Based on first hand evidence, fourteen is a four letter word.”

M1          “So once free of the home bonds, they subconsciously hunt for someone who will protect if not provide for them in the new home.  An alliance makes financial sense because few today can hunt and gather enough to support a one wage earner cave.  Pairing off with a strong partner also protects her from threats emanating from the pack itself.”

M2          “They are also looking for sturdy producers.”

M1          “The timeless hunt for good breeding stock with a good stock portfolio.”

M2          “That’s about it.  But here’s the irony I witness in the court room.  When the matrimonial alliance goes asunder, as a general rule riddled with multiple exceptions, the concerns flip.  Men are preoccupied with money; women are preoccupied with the kids.  Men are concerned with what was provided; women are concerned with what was produced.”

M1          “I’m aware of one or two fights over money.”

M2          “Vicious, protracted and often irrational wars.  And often tussles over the kinder.  I know guys who have given up every other interest and pursuit and recalibrated every aspect of their lives to focus on the needs of their kids after the divorce.”

M1          “The 3 p.m. Sunday afternoon kid swap.  Yet the generalizations are the starting point of wisdom.”

. . .

Bumper stickers of the week:

Men seek producers, Women seek providers.  When things go asunder, Men pursue plunder, Women protect kinder.

Wouldn’t it be simpler to use audited financial statements and certified medical records?

This Birth Control Rig Is Paid For

If you don’t believe in evolution, can you embrace Social Darwinism?

A kid from Sacramento, California is America’s Health Care Czar – Associate Justice Anthony McLeod Kennedy

Incite, Sarah, Indict? (January 10, 2011)

Posted in Courts, Crime/Punishment, Elections, First Amendment, Guns, Health Care, Law, Press/Media, Society, Supreme Court, Tea Party on January 10, 2011 by e-ssay.org

. . .

R          “You cannot get out of bed in the morning without violating some section of Title 18 of the United States Code, the federal criminal code.  In fact, and as a matter of law, you cannot stay in bed in the morning without violating some section of Title 18 of the United States Code.”

S          “So why not indict her?  She incited and directed others to kill and targeted the targets by first and last name and address.  She created a mindset and a market for death.  She legitimized killing.  The specific nature of the killer’s mind and his motives are still emerging.  Maybe he did not do it for her or for some specific political purpose.  Nonetheless, he took her specific message and tactics to heart.”

R          “Perhaps her twisted comments about death panels and the like confused a twisted and confused mind.  Others stridently proclaim they have not heard anything inflammatory, yet he heard the shrill dog whistle.”

S          “Her comments were one of the legal, moral and proximate causes of the death and maiming in Arizona.  Look, she took down the targets on her website recently which is an admission of guilt.”

R          “A subsequent remedial measure?”

S          “What about the bull’s eyes?  Listen to others who now opine that political discourse has taken a turn for the worse.  The political discourse has not changed course one degree in recent years.  The entreaties to kill have simply reached their predictable and inevitable outcome.  Why is everyone now so shocked and stupefied?  What happened was intended.  It was only a matter of time.”

R          “During the 2008 and 2010 elections, a few commentators noticed that she promoted and encouraged violence against specific candidates.  Her threats of violence against specific candidates were and are not protected by the First Amendment and were and are clear violations of provisions of Title 18 when they target federal officials or occur on federal property.”

S          “She is white and connected, so she will be given a pass.  U.S. Attorneys expend considerable tax dollars prosecuting some harmless jaywalker on federal property who has the misfortune to be non-white and unconnected.”

R          “The Supreme Court decreed that corporations are legal persons.  The nattering news network is a legal person.  Persons can be indicted.  Another option is to indict the network, the president, the board of directors and the pitch men and women on tv.  We need to return to personal responsibility as a governor of behavior.  Law plays a role.”

S          “White.  Extraordinarily well connected.  And capable of getting a U.S. Attorney fired.  Same story.  Same outcome.  Those in power get a pass.  Carte blanc, the White Card.”

R          “Her vitriolic rants against a sitting President may be her undoing.  Title 18 criminalizes threats against a sitting President.  The grand irony would be to watch on YouTube after one of her tirades as her Secret Service protective detail turns and cuffs her for direct threats against the President.”

S          “That might go viral.”

R          “America sports a billion laws and yet has become such a lawless nation.  In the absence of personal responsibility and without some rules and the rule of law, affairs can and will get worse.”

S          “So why not simply allow a dozen jurors to decide?”

. . .

[See the “e-ssay” titled “In The Land Of Fury And The Home Of The Fearful (November 1, 2010).”]

Bumper stickers of the week:

Incite, Sarah, Indict

Incite, Sarah, Indict Sarah

There oughta be a law; no, there are laws but there oughta be some law enforcement.

What happens when you take an arrow out of the quiver, nock it with care, draw back purposefully, release while slowly exhaling and then look up to see that you have hit the bull’s eye?

I was walking across a bridge one day and saw a man standing on the edge and about to jump off.  So I ran over and said, “Stop! Don’t do it!”  “Why shouldn’t I?” he said.  I said, “Well, there’s so much to live for!”  He said, “Like what?”  I said, “Well, are you religious or atheist?”  He said, “Religious.”  I said, “Me too!  Are you Christian or Buddhist?”  He said, “Christian.”  I said, “Me too!  Are you Catholic or Protestant?”  He said, “Protestant.”  I said, “Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?”  He said, “Baptist!”  I said, “Wow!  Me too!  Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?”  He said, “Baptist Church of God!”  I said, “Me too!  Are you Original Baptist Church of God or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?”  He said, “Reformed Baptist Church of God!”  I said, “Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?”  He said, “Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915!”  I said, “Die, heretic scum!” and pushed him over the edge.

Capital Punishment And . . . Scientific Evidence (July 12, 2010)

Posted in Capital Punishment, Constitution, Courts, Crime/Punishment, Death Penalty, Law on July 12, 2010 by e-ssay.org

. . .

P          “There are times when it is hard not to conclude that a person has forfeited his right to stay in the pack and instead should be placed on an ice floe.”

C          “Seems that we are running out of ice floes.”

P          “The reaction to a reprehensible crime may be emotional, yet it is a human response.  There are some crimes that are so heinous that death seems appropriate and necessary.  And yet too much about the death penalty seems wrong.”

C          “And expensive.  The cost of reaching a final judgment without any additional appeals is substantial.  The mere cost of litigation concerns me and others.”

P          “Those costs are in part driven up by those who oppose capital punishment.”

C          “The old litmus test in politics has been resolved by resorting to . . . this is hard to believe . . . scientific evidence.  DNA evidence carried the day.  The sea change in the public support for the death penalty occurred after a critical mass of the public accepted the mounting DNA evidence exonerating many of those individuals who had been wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death.”

P          “Only carbon dating is more readily accepted by the public.”

C          “For more than a century, capital punishment was part of the private sector-public sector partnership of terrorism inflicted on Blacks and the underclass.”

P          “I have no doubt that the legal system is far too imperfect to believe that it can condemn someone to death with any accuracy.  Yet there are some individuals who have committed unimaginable crimes and are beyond redemption.”

C          “The problem is that the legal system too often simply cannot identify the right individual who has done wrong.”

. . .

Bumper sticker of the week:

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth only leaves one blind and toothless.

Rating The Rating Agencies And The Courts That Should Berate Them: FFF (May 3, 2010)

Posted in Bailout/Bribe, Conflicts of Interest, Courts, Crime/Punishment, Perjury, Perjury/Dishonesty, Rating Agencies on May 3, 2010 by e-ssay.org

. . .

NNN          “The ratings agencies such as Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s and Fitch knew or should have known that third parties would and did reasonably rely on their ratings.”

OOO          “Exactly.  They intended for third parties to rely on their ratings.”

NNN          “Didn’t some court reach the preposterous conclusion that the ratings agencies are protected by the First Amendment?”

OOO          “The free speech rights of the rating agencies are protected against government interference.  The government did not interfere with their right to free speech.  That ends the First Amendment inquiry.  The ratings agencies are not immune from civil and criminal prosecution.”

NNN          “But the court used the First Amendment to provide complete immunity for the rating agencies.”

OOO          “Keep in mind that there are thousands and thousands of incompetent and marginally competent judges in America.  And thousands of dishonest ones.  The judge may have seen his stock portfolio decline and decided to take action.  In the end, if the decision is patently incorrect, do not follow it.  Disregard the decision as a perverse anomaly.  Law books are littered with dishonest decisions.”

NNN          “The ratings were patently false and fraudulent.  The rating agencies intended for others to rely on the ratings.  Ordinary citizens reasonably relied on the ratings.  Ordinary citizens were damaged by the fraudulent ratings.  So the only issues for an honest judge in a civil action are the amount of damages and the amount of punitive damages.”

OOO          “Exactly.  And the heads of the ratings agencies lied under oath before Congress.  They were advised by their attorneys not to ‘tell the whole truth’ to Congress and they did not ‘tell the whole truth’ to Congress.  That is perjury.  Except in the land of perjury.  Their attorneys suborned perjury.  Combine perjury and obstruction of justice and conspiracy and RICO charges.  The sentence for four felonies is much stiffer.  A summer law clerk could handle the prosecution.”

NNN          “The biggest question is also easily answered.  There are no prosecutions because the ratings agencies and their friends on Wall Street own the government and the prosecutors.”

OOO          “Talk about systemic failure.”

. . .

[See the “e-ssay” dated Jan. 14, 2008 titled “The ‘R’ Word, The ‘D’ Word or the ‘S’ Word?” on the rating agencies and the "e-ssay" dated May 2, 2005 titled “Ohio - Not Forgettin' Ohio; The Battleground State Battles On.”]

Bumper stickers of the week:

Better to know the judge and the prosecutor than to know the law.

Spill, baby, spill.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.