Archive for the Rating Agencies Category

America’s Frazzled First Amendment (January 13, 2014)

Posted in Abortion, Courts, First Amendment, Journalism, National Defense Authorization Act / FY 2012, Newspapers, PATRIOT Act, Press/Media, Rating Agencies, Supreme Court, USA PATRIOT Act on January 13, 2014 by

. . .

L1        “The right-wing majority on the Supreme Court has devolved a simple formula for First Amendment analysis:  Who is making the statement and what statement is he, she or it making?  A corporation is extended any and all protection that advances its interests and shields it from liability under the guise of the First Amendment.  An individual is extended First Amendment protection only to the extent that his or her speech is acceptable to the right-wing majority on the Supreme Court.”

L2        “With a few exceptions.”

L1        “A few, but very few exceptions.  The oral argument this week at the Supreme Court involving the reasonable and safe distance between protestors and citizens entering an abortion clinic is less about the First Amendment and more about efforts by the right-wing majority to restrict abortion.”

L2        “Restrict abortion by restricting access.”

. . .

L1        “Some bonehead judges shield the fraudulent statements and misrepresentations of rating agencies’ such as Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s and Fitch with First Amendment protection.  A fraudulent statement advanced with the intent to deceive is not entitled to any constitutional protection even if it is advanced by a corporation rather than an individual.”

L2        “The next step by some judges is to insulate any statements however deceptive or fraudulent by other specific industries such as the oil and gas, pharmaceutical, and agricultural industries from liability by bestowing First Amendment protection on them.”

. . .

L2        “The O’Bama Administration has maintained the hostile attitude and increased aggressive actions against whistleblowers and those challenging often illegal government shenanigans.  The executive branch contributes to the problem not to the solution.”

L1        “Their dismissive treatment of the press is taken from Tricky Dick’s play book.  The White House is Fort O’Bama.”

. . .

L1        “Congress could address most of these problems with legislation that most courts would honor and enforce.  Legislation including the USA PATRIOT Act and the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 should be reviewed and amended.”

L2        “Seems that all three branches are a threat to the people today.”  

. . .

[See the “e-ssays” titled in particular The Supreme Court On Drugs (June 25, 2007), Bill/Melinda and Warren, It Is Time To Get Into The Game (January 25, 2010), Corporations United (Feb. 15, 2010), In Sexy Opinion, Supreme Court Affirms First Amendment (March 7, 2011) and At War With The First Amendment (February 27, 2012); the “e-ssays” at and; and commentary on rating agencies at]

Bumper sticker of the week:

My Political Ideas                                            Are Too Complex

To Fit On One                                                  Bumper Sticker

Holding The Raters Accountable? (February 11, 2013)

Posted in Banks and Banking System, Drones, First Amendment, Judges, Kleptocracy, Perjury, Perjury/Dishonesty, Rating Agencies on February 11, 2013 by

. . .

NNN     “So the government is going after the rating agency Standard & Poor’s for its grossly inflated ratings of toxic mortgage securities.”

OOO    “It is a start, yet they were among the bit players in the grand fraud.  Madoff made off with millions from connected characters who were not willing to let him off.  Corzine still has enough stroke as a former Senator to avoid prosecution.  The banksters and the brigands and the big players at the core got away with it and are getting away with it and no one in power does anything about it.”

. . .

NNN     “Some bonehead judges have looked for an excuse to let them off and resorted to the First Amendment.”

OOO    “The First Amendment is a limitation on government restrictions on speech not a source of individual rights, so a person does not have ‘First Amendment rights.’  The government did not restrict or regulate Standard & Poor’s speech in any way.  Standard & Poor’s is seeking to avoid prosecution for what it said not for what the government would not allow it to say.  That ends the First Amendment inquiry.”

NNN     “When S & P spoke, they lied and intended others to rely on the lies; they are culpable.  The government must start somewhere.”

. . .

[See the “e-ssay” titled Rating The Rating Agencies And The Courts That Should Berate Them: FFF (May 3, 2010) and other “e-ssays” under the Category titled “Rating Agencies.”]

[The charges against Standard & Poor’s are discussed at]

Bumper sticker of the week:

FFF:       Rating Agencies

Is The New Standard Poor? (August 8, 2011)

Posted in Economics, Pogo Plight, Rating Agencies on August 8, 2011 by

. . .

S          “We live not in the Age of Iron but in the Age of Irony.  For years, the three blind mice – Standard & Poor’s, Fitch and Moody’s – affixed their gold seal (AAA rating) to pyrite and made a fortune off the alchemy.  Then Standard & Poor’s announced this Spring that it might just downgrade America’s credit rating in the near future.  Then they fulfilled their threat this Summer and downgraded America’s credit rating because the hired help was not playing well with others.”

P          “And after downgrading American debt, Americans and others fled in a great panic to security and stability . . . to American debt.”

. . .

Bumper stickers of the week:

Larry, Moe and Curly; Manny, Moe and Jack; Standard & Poor’s, Fitch and Moody’s

The rating agencies don’t rate.

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

. . .

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.

The “R” Word; The “D” Word or The “S” Word? (January 14, 2008)

Posted in Conflicts of Interest, Depression, Economics, Perjury, Rating Agencies, Recession on January 14, 2008 by

“A recession occurs when your neighbor loses his job; a depression occurs when you lose your job.“  A recession is technically defined as two successive quarters of a downturn in the economy.  The traditional definition of a recession is backward looking.  Would you value being told that you were pregnant fifteen months ago?  Policy planning requires a more forward-looking perspective.  If you lose your job, is it a depression?  If you have less earning capacity despite working overtime and pay more for goods and services, is it stagflation?  (See the e-ssay dated August 7, 2006 entitled “The Fed: Deal With ‘Stag’; Deal With ‘Flation’?”).

The credit rating agencies such as Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s and Fitch suffered from the same grade inflation their employees suffered from in college.  Everyone in college gets As; their parents are spending too much to bestow anything less.  In the real world, the grade inflation is trebled.  The credit rating agencies gave the insurers of bonds the “AAA” ratings.  The insurers of bonds such as Ambac Financial Group and MBIA also suffered from grade inflation.  The insurers of bonds then gave everyone the “AAA” ratings.

The downturns in foreign markets today are a more accurate verdict on the state of and prospects for the American Economy.  In America, risk is not tied to reward whereas foreign investment professionals are more accountable for their performance.  And while the foreign kids were in college, they did not get As just for showing up.

[The recent incident in the Strait of Hormuz:  Gulf of Tonkin II or the USS Cole II?  The statements in English (not translated from a foreign language) from someone expressed a clear present intent to do harm.  The Navy responded in a professional and disciplined way and maintained their course and speed.  Someone can be provocative without provoking a response that is not in the nation’s interest.]

Bumper sticker of the week:

The Mortgage Meltdown continues.