Everybody's Got A Holder Heart - 3

"Some bankers are too big to fail or jail"

This series began in 2009 with a post about the intervention of A.G. Holder on behalf of a criminal politician who had been convicted by a jury.

He dropped the case in an unusual manner ... keeping the appellate courts out of it (Everybody's Got A Holder Heart, 2).

Keeping the courts out of it has been his mantra on everything (Follow The Immunity, 2, 3).

"Immunity" of various sorts ("too big to ...") has been protecting everyone from those who committed war crimes to the banks who intentionally committed history's greatest financial and banking fraud on the American public (Banker Jekyll Will Hyde Your Money, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11).

Matt Taibi is on the case with new revelations from a competent whistle blower:

She tried to stay quiet, she really did. But after eight years of keeping a heavy secret, the day came when Alayne Fleischmann couldn't take it anymore.

"It was like watching an old lady get mugged on the street," she says. "I thought, 'I can't sit by any longer.'"
...
Back in 2006, as a deal manager at the gigantic bank, Fleischmann first witnessed, then tried to stop, what she describes as "massive criminal securities fraud" in the bank's mortgage operations.

Thanks to a confidentiality agreement, she's kept her mouth shut since then. "My closest family and friends don't know what I've been living with," she says. "Even my brother will only find out for the first time when he sees this interview."

Six years after the crisis that cratered the global economy, it's not exactly news that the country's biggest banks stole on a grand scale. That's why the more important part of Fleischmann's story is in the pains Chase and the Justice Department took to silence her.

She was blocked at every turn: by asleep-on-the-job regulators like the Securities and Exchange Commission, by a court system that allowed Chase to use its billions to bury her evidence, and, finally, by officials like outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder, the chief architect of the crazily elaborate government policy of surrender, secrecy and cover-up. "Every time I had a chance to talk, something always got in the way," Fleischmann says.

This past year she watched as Holder's Justice Department struck a series of historic settlement deals with Chase, Citigroup and Bank of America. The root bargain in these deals was cash for secrecy. The banks paid big fines, without trials or even judges – only secret negotiations that typically ended with the public shown nothing but vague, quasi-official papers called "statements of facts," which were conveniently devoid of anything like actual facts.
...
In today's America, someone like Fleischmann – an honest person caught for a little while in the wrong place at the wrong time – has to be willing to live through an epic ordeal just to get to the point of being able to open her mouth and tell a truth or two. And when she finally gets there, she still has to risk everything to take that last step. "The assumption they make is that I won't blow up my life to do it," Fleischmann says. "But they're wrong about that."

Good for her, and great for her that it's finally out. But the big-picture ending still stings. She hopes otherwise, but the likely final verdict is a Pyrrhic victory.

(The $9 Billion Witness, emphasis added). What is being revealed over a span of two administrations during these past 14 years is an epigovernment (Epigovernment: The New Model, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9).

It is a secret layer of control by criminal minds which our chief propagandists once bragged about out in the open:

THE conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.

Our invisible governors are, in many cases, unaware of the identity of their fellow members in the inner cabinet.

They govern us by their qualities of natural leadership, their ability to supply needed ideas and by their key position in the social structure. Whatever attitude one chooses to take toward this condition, it remains a fact that in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons — a trifling fraction of our hundred and twenty [now 320] million — who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world.
...
It is the purpose of this book to explain the structure of the mechanism which controls the public mind, and to tell how it is manipulated by the special pleader who seeks to create public acceptance for a particular idea or commodity. It will attempt at the same time to find the due place in the modern democratic scheme for this new propaganda and to suggest its gradually evolving code of ethics and practice.

(Epigovernment: The New Model, quoting from "Propaganda" by Bernays). The game plan now, since criminal minds are known to have taken over the epigovernment, is to cover it all up, hang on for dear life, and "hopium" for the best.

The previous post in this series is here.

---

Everybody's Got A Holder Heart - 3

---

Is 'Insanity' A Valid Defense To Ecocide? - 2

In the first post of this series we talked about a mock trial of the type law schools hold each year for their students' edification.

As it turned out, the issue of whether or not insanity is a valid defense was not considered in that trial we spoke of.

The issue of ecocide is quite serious, causing the United Nations to consider adding ecocide to its list of crimes against humanity, because of the damage, death, and destruction already being done:

But should the bosses of polluting companies and the leaders of environmentally-unfriendly states join those responsible for mass murder in the dock. They could if a fifth crime against peace - ecocide - joined that list of human evils? The United Nations is now considering the proposal and the first test of how a prosecution for ecocide would work takes place on Friday, with fossil fuel bosses in the dock at the UK supreme court in London. It is a mock trial of course, but with real top-flight lawyers and judges and a jury made up of members of the public. The corporate CEOs will be played by actors briefed by their legal teams.

(Guardian). That trial the Dredd Blog post spoke of was intended to show what such trials in the International Criminal Court would look like.

Anyway, the jury took a short time of it to return a guilty verdict on two cases, even though that verdict was said not to be a forgone conclusion, since one defendant was found not guilty:

Two verdicts of guilty, one not guilty: that was the conclusion of the mock ecocide trial (details below) held at the UK's supreme court on 30 September. Real lawyers, judges and a public jury found the CEOs of fictional fossil fuel companies guilty of "extensive destruction, damage to or loss of ecosystem(s) to such an extent that the peaceful enjoyment by the inhabitants of that territory, and of other territories, has been severely diminished", as a result of their company's extraction of oil from tar sands in Canada. The jury found one of the CEOs not guilt on the count of damage caused by an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

(ibid). One beneficial effect of these types of trials is that it focuses on the evidence and arguments that are at issue.

The recent Dredd Blog post Thin Ice brings up the story of Al Gore's current trip to Antarctica, one key area of focus in this Ecocide Is A Crime saga.

A post on his blog The Climate Reality Project, written from Antarctica, explains the situation in subdued language, taking the path that projects the least amount of damage from rising seas, yet the post also mentions that several scientists project a far greater sea rise and subsequent damage.

Al's post is a good read with useful links.

If I was Al I don't think I would get too close to "the people's House" of representatives, since they do not like those who resist Ecocide:

Josh Fox, whose HBO documentary “Gasland” raised questions about the safety of the natural gas drilling technique known as horizontal hydraulic fracturing, was handcuffed and led away on Wednesday as he tried to film a House Science Committee hearing on the topic.

The Capitol Police said that Mr. Fox, whose film was nominated for an Academy Award last year, was charged with unlawful entry.

Mr. Fox brought a crew to film a hearing of the energy and environment subcommittee that was looking into an Environmental Protection Agency finding that fracking, as the technique is popularly known, was probably responsible for groundwater contamination in Pavillion, Wyo.

Mr. Fox is preparing a sequel to “Gasland,” which has contributed to widespread concern about fracking, which uses large volumes of water and chemicals under high pressure to free gas deposits from underground shale.

The chairman of the subcommittee conducting the hearing, Representative Andy Harris, a Maryland Republican, objected to the presence of Mr. Fox and his crew as well as another crew under contract to ABC. A committee chairman has the discretion to bar cameras from hearings, according to a committee aide.

(NY Times). One wonders what the "strict constructionists" of the GOP think "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of ...  the press" in the First Amendment means?

It is clearly time for an ethics investigation of the fascist republican heading up that puppet committee.

In a real trial, Monsanto was found guilty of killing a farmer by poisoning him.

The next post in this series is here, the previous post is here.

Why Trial By Jury? - 2

Almost three years ago Dredd Blog did a piece on the reason for the requirement of juries in our Constitution.

In that post we pointed out that the jury specification includes the requirement that a grand jury must be used to ponder the validity of government assertions of criminality, a requirement for a trial by petite jury, if criminal charges are brought by a grand jury, then finally in non-criminal cases involving civil matters over money or property, our Constitution requires a petite civil jury.

That Dredd Blog post was moved to the Toxins of Power blog because, as explained in that post, one of the reasons for jury involvement in our legal system is the notion that power corrupts:

Once the grand jury returns an indictment, still another petite jury must be convinced unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual who was charged is in fact to be held accountable for those charges. And the person charged need not say a single word. The prosecutor carries the entire burden to prove it. Is that fair? No. But it is safe.

Let us look at some abstract examples. In the courts during trials experts are used. In the typical case experts will give their opinions to the jury. Typically this means an opposite opinion for each side. The experts are sworn in, list their degrees, and the court makes a ruling that they are experts.

Afterwards those experts explain that they looked at the evidence, and then they tell the jury what their opinion is. The expert for the defense has one opinion, but the expert for the prosecutor typically has another and different opinion. On the exact same evidence I should add.

Finally, the everyday folk on the jury make the decision as to which expert was right and who was telling the truth! Yes, the person who left the farm after a 5:00 AM breakfast, and then drove the truck into town for that day's jury duty, decides which rocket scientist had it right.

If you are still wondering why this is so, remember that the foundation of jury theory is that the people can determine facts better or more accurately than those immersed in governmental power can. By “better or more accurately" I mean in the context of the effects that governmental power has on individuals.

We have found that historically, by and large, the people tend not to oppress their fellow citizens like governmental agents have tended to do. The old saying that “power tends to corrupt and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely" is directed at governments. It is not directed at juries of the people.

Juries are the people's reaction to the oppression of tyrants who have inebriated themselves with the toxins active within governmental power.

Oh to be sure juries make mistakes. But the mistakes of the people are much easier to live with over the long run than the mistakes of government.

So say the sages of the ages.

(Why Trial By Jury?). The work of a jury is not always easy, for one reason because experts often disagree on the same set of facts.

In yesterday's post, The Memes of Penrose - 3, I discussed the fact that the experts who disagree can even be top experts in a given field.

The video at the end of today's post shows why a grand jury, then a petite jury, should be used to determine the ongoing expert disagreements concerning many 9/11 controversies.

---

---

Two ex-Senators have sworn under oath that Saudi Arabia is likely linked to the 9/11 attacks.

Senator Kerry, a 9/11 Commission co-chair, and Senator Graham of Florida, submitted affidavits setting forth their testimony.

On The Definition of An "Expert"

As to jury trials in the courts, my definition of an expert has always been "one who is paid more than an average person to give an opinion".

The reason for that definition can be seen during jury trials when typically one expert will give an opinion for the plaintiff or prosecution, yet another expert will give an opposite opinion for the defendant.

Both are experts, and they are using the same evidence.

But our false notion that if we call an expert to help us with a problem we will derive one and only one concluding reality, thereby invalidating the rest of the possibilities, is more often than not caused by a love affair with oversimplification.

Of course there is also the spectre of perjury or lesser forms of dishonesty, and even incompetence.

But the point is that this contrast or contradiction can arise even when both experts are honest and have a sincere belief in their opinion.

Thus the oft quoted statement by experts as to their own opinion: "get a second opinion", means "I think others will agree with what I just told you".

But when there is contrast or contradiction in expert positions, in our system of law a jury must decide which expert is correct on the facts, not because we think non-experts know more than experts know, but because of our ancient, well founded beliefs, based upon the experience of our ancestors, that "power corrupts".

Daily we are a jury when we hear conflicting reports from experts about global warming, global climate change, and the peak oil concerns.

There is constant chatter and bickering back and forth about these issues, and experts are by no means in solid accord when it comes to solutions, even though there is major, growing consensus among experts as to these two realities.

As an example a discussion ongoing at a blog which discusses peak oil problems from many perspectives, considers the weaknesses and strengths of other experts in the field:

Can the IEA really be expected to be objective? I tried to look at this issue two years ago, when the World Energy Outlook 2008 was released. The organization of the IEA, its close ties to the OECD, and the significant funding of the IEA by the US gave me real doubts about its ability to be objective at the time of my analysis. I doubt the situation has changed a great deal in the last two years.

(The Oil Drum). Meanwhile another group of experts came at the problem from a totally different part of the playing field:

At the current pace of research and development, global oil will run out 90 years before replacement technologies are ready, says a new University of California, Davis, study based on stock market expectations.

...

Niemeier said the new study's findings are a warning that current renewable-fuel targets are not ambitious enough to prevent harm to society, economic development and natural ecosystems.

(Science Daily, Journal Article). This issue matters to all of us because our lives and the lives of 6 billion other people will be affected by the eventual outcome of the discussion or debate.

It is a life and death issue, your jury vote counts, so take time to make the best decision you can with what you have to make that decision.

The Assassination of The Gulf of Mexico

Those who know about jury trials know that a jury often has to decide which "expert" has it right.

The BP Deepwater Horizon catastrophe and resultant litigation is no exception to that time-worn reality that takes place in U.S. courts daily.

One group of experts paid by BP will try to minimize the potential effects of Corexit dispersant, while another group of experts fear that grave damage will result because of the overuse of the dispersant Corexit:

We oppose the use of chemical dispersants in the Gulf, and urgently recommend an immediate halt to their application. We believe that Corexit dispersants, in combination with crude oil, pose grave health risks to marine life and human health, and threaten to deplete critical niches in the Gulf food web that may never recover.

(Dr. Shaw et al., emphasis added). Now it has been discovered that the dispersant has made its way into the low end of the food chain of the Gulf:

Scientists have found signs of an oil-and-dispersant mix under the shells of tiny blue crab larvae in the Gulf of Mexico, the first clear indication that the unprecedented use of dispersants in the BP oil spill has broken up the oil into toxic droplets so tiny that they can easily enter the food chain.

Marine biologists started finding orange blobs under the translucent shells of crab larvae in May, and have continued to find them "in almost all" of the larvae they collect, all the way from Grand Isle, Louisiana, to Pensacola, Fla. -- more than 300 miles of coastline -- said Harriet Perry, a biologist with the University of Southern Mississippi's Gulf Coast Research Laboratory.

And now, a team of researchers from Tulane University using infrared spectrometry to determine the chemical makeup of the blobs has detected the signature for Corexit, the dispersant BP used so widely ...

(Huffington Post). The damage is cumulative, since bigger fish eat contaminated larvae, then even bigger fish eat those fish, and on and on until the disaster is of apocalyptic proportions:

Though all dispersants are potentially dangerous when applied in such volumes, Corexit is particularly toxic. It contains petroleum solvents and a chemical that, when ingested, ruptures red blood cells and causes internal bleeding. It is also bioaccumulative, meaning its concentration intensifies as it moves up the food chain.

The timing for exposure to these chemicals could not be worse. Herring and other small fish hatch in the spring, and the larvae are especially vulnerable. As they die, disaster looms for the larger predator fish, as well as dolphins and whales.

As I swam back to the surface, some big fish came up to the boat — cobia, amberjacks weighing up to 60 pounds — looking for a handout. These are the fish that have made the Gulf a famously productive fishing area. But they rely on the forage fish that are now being devastated by the combined effects of oil and chemical dispersants. In a short time, the predator fish will either starve or sicken and die from eating highly contaminated forage fish.

(NY Times). This outcome was foreseeable as Dredd Blog pointed out a while back.

Here is a look at the reality BP is desperately trying to cover up.

EPA lied about air pollution dangers in the aftermath of the Three Towers during the clean up after 911, and republicans recently stopped the vote to give health coverage to those "first responders" at ground zero.

They are doing the same thing with the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe, lying about the effects on the food chain, contrary to notable scientists.

People in that area will die or become ill from the toxins spread in the Gulf of Mexico, like some 900 of the first responders at ground zero did.

Is The Law Off The Table?

Richard Nixon and those of his ilk, such as Pat Buchanan on MSNBC's Morning Joe, think that law is politics and politics is law when politicians are the ones being investigated.

The reasoning goes, you can't prosecute for torture because it would implicate Bush II and Cheney and therefore it would be political witch hunting, not the enforcement of law.

That theory was blown out of the water and proven false with the Libby prosecution during the Bush II years.

Cheney had covered up successfully and the consequence was that only Scooter Libby was prosecuted.

The big story there is that the jury had no issue with it being a political vs a legal case, and indicated in interviews after the unanimous verdict for conviction that they would have found Cheney guilty too, without any "its a political issue" notions hijacking those proceedings.

Chuck Todd of MSNBC likewise does not get it because he seems to think the only prosecution possible is a political prosecution.

Todd and Buchanan have a slippery slope floating around in their minds, which slides into the banana republic pit where politicians are above the law because the law is not on the table because everything is a "policy decision".

Bush II operatives flagrantly and egregiously violated the law time and time again with impunity, Scooter Libby being only one of them.

Obama is said to want to review the murder of 2,000 Afghans committed by the Bush II apparatus there in Afghanistan.

So again, if he does so is the law off the table; or will torture and murder only be exposed in an "open government" policy; but never prosecuted because of a "no prosecutions for policy differences" policy?

If the law is off the table and egregious criminal actors are not prosecuted for those crimes, the United States will suffer greatly, once again, in world opinion as a direct and certain consequence of that failure to prosecute.

The mature nations of the world know a banana republic when they see one.

And Americans know it even better.

The Resurrected Department Of Just Us

Obama was criticized for overpowering the Attorney General's Office.

Thereafter Obama finally got it, for a fresh and good change, and decided to let Eric Holder do the Attorney General's job. Good.

That happened once Obama heard the outcry when he said "no prosecutions" of certain people for certain activity.

Obama began to back off and realize that the Department of Justice belongs to the people, not to the president. Another good.

After that, the Attorney General was criticized to the extent he was overpowering the people and failing to realize the office of the grand jury and the criminal petite jury under our U.S. Constitution.

Now it has been reported that the Bush II Department of Just Us has been resurrected and a report that the Bush II regime had been working on for 5 years will become the gospel of the kingdom.

Will it be reported that Attorney General Eric Holder has decided not to prosecute those who participated in the torture and conspiracy to torture in violation of clear United States laws?

Without letting a grand jury and a criminal petite jury of the people have any say in it?

I hope that rumor of such a report is wrong because it would signal the final daze of an empire that once had a more humane heart that now seems to have frozen stone cold.

A people's report has been released which ups the ante.

Holder Your Horses

A lot of people are talking about whether those who torture should be held to answer.

Government officials have been saying yes and no.

But the seats in the photo are still empty.

Who really is The Decider?

The 5th Amendment says that the people are to decide who is to be prosecuted for bigga badda boom crimes.

The decision process is called a Grand Jury process.

Then after that grand jury decides there is sufficient reason to prosecute, a petite jury is provided by the 6th Amendment.

Thus, when it comes to who is to be prosecuted for the American crime of torture, our law has always required that two juries of the people are mandated to be the deciders.

This is the fundamental law of our land contained in TWO constitutional amendments.

So, before Obama looks in any direction, and before Holder feels his heart, each of them should remember who elected them and who must ultimately decide this issue.

Fill up the empty jury seats already.

Anything else is clear and convincing evidence of corruption already.

Everybody's Got A Holder Heart

"... lay down your money and you play your part" (Springsteen).

Eric Holder is this week's hero of Orin Hatch and the House republicans.

He did what all prosecutors do and gave a new trial to a criminal convicted by a duly constituted jury.

There was no special treatment rarely afforded to the rich, powerful, and famous.

Yes, in the final analysis that convicted criminal was treated exactly like middle class and poor convicted criminals are.

NOT !!!

What Holder actually did was give Senator Ted "Bridge To Nowhere" Stevens very special, very rare, and very quid pro quo treatment.

Eric will be rewarded.

Here is a quote from a Yale Law Journal article that describes what really happens to the middle class and poor who prosecutors mistreat with what are called "Brady violations" of their rights:

... when suppressed evidence does come to light, reviewing courts usually deem suppressions "harmless" and uphold the convictions ... Thus, not only are defendants' rights rarely vindicated, but also the government rarely suffers a serious penalty for its misconduct.

(Yale Law Journal, emphasis added). The rarity generally happens to the privileged few who can hire big gun lawyers, and who are not from the middle class or the poor.

Thus, Holder has worked this baby so that he gets the best of both propaganda worlds.

Holder is seen as a good guy by the republicans, and to the remainder of the populace who do not know the reality involved here, this will be seen as part of the new "bipartisan" world of American politics.

We have lamented the fact that what we rejected in the election is creeping into the Obama administration.

This "all's well that ends well" doublespeak does not bode well for future prosecutions of Bush II crimes, unless it is a quid pro quo of a different sort. I mean, was the Seigelman-Minor case a wonderful prosecution or just full of wonder?

If you get my drift.

We will know by the end of this year for sure.

Alaska is outraged. They want a special election right away. They want Stevens back in the US Senate. Stevens lost by only about 4,000 votes even with the 7 felony convictions. Perhaps Holder will reap what he has sown.

The next post in this series is here.

Taking Without Just Compensation

You have done nothing negative to your house for years.

But your equity in it, what you use as a measure of what you are financially worth, is being taken away from you daily. As a matter of fact, one shocking article says it this way:

The net worth of American households fell by the largest amount in more than a half-century of record keeping during the fourth quarter of last year.

The Federal Reserve said Thursday that household net worth dropped by a record 9 percent from the level in the third quarter.

The decline was the sixth straight quarterly drop in net worth and underscored the battering that U.S. families are undergoing in the midst of a steep recession with unemployment surging and the value of their homes and investments plunging.

(NY Times). Who is taking this equity, value, wealth, and worth from you?

If it was the government, it might violate the US Constitution's Fifth Amendment which is an injunction against violations of your property rights.

That amendment says "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation". When it is taken without an official declaration that is what is called inverse condemnation.

This current form of "taking your property" is just as real as if they build a garbage dump in the lot adjacent to your property.

The loss is just as real but there seems to be no just compensation to this current insidious mess.

We have suggested here and here some remedy that we feel could, if properly and carefully developed over time, bring more security and safety to our economy.

Property Value - A Verdict Of The People

In Tarrant County, Texas a three person jury determines the value of real property if the home owner challenges the value assessed by the County Tax Appraiser.

Citizens serve on that type of jury like they serve on other types of juries. The county sends various citizens a notice to serve based upon the number of valuation challenges for that particular year.

Why can't that concept be expanded upon and used to stabilize real property values in the commerce of land, homes, and commercial property?

Remember that our current economic catastrophe is a function of the fluctuation of home prices up and then down to the point of disaster. That is anything but stability.

Using the values set by a jury system, price fluctuations will be moderated and localized. If the locals stabilize property values they benefit, if they allow prices to get out of whack they suffer. Locally.

The entire nation would not have to pay a tragic price for the mistakes of a few.

As it stands now, we are all paying a heavy price for mistakes of the few, the bad, the banksters.

The concept should even apply to granting or denying building permits. Overbuilding caused our current catastrophic home price plunges.

Too many houses with too few buyers means everyone loses equity.

People on the jury would be given statistics, facts, value history, and would be given warnings and argument from both sides.

If they make mistakes the penalty is to their area only.

We have already pointed out that the American jury system is not designed to bring perfection, it is designed to stop the wide-spread oppression of government. It works quite well.

In effect when the government takes your home value (through bad policies or lack of regulation) when you have done nothing to deserve that taking, it is a form of oppression. It is a form of eminent domain by stealth .

A jury system would limit fluctuations to local areas and stop massive economic oppression we suffer under current conditions. And as jury expertise and experience grew over time it would bring much more stability than we have now.

Once perfected it would add to the prosperity of all of us.