Democracy for New Hampshire - Crime

Icelanders reject bank bailout scheme (unlike US citizens, Icelanders had a vote on it!)

Mon, 08 Mar 2010 07:54:13 -0500

First Iceland, then the World

Michael Collins
The public is angry. Why should the public pay for the bankers mistakes. Iceland blogger Halldor Sigurdsson

Who cleans up the mess when ignorant, greedy bankers rack up massive debt then go broke? The people of Iceland made a strong statement Saturday. The sins of big bankers and government regulators shouldn’t fall on the citizens. By a 93% to 2% margin, they voted down a proposal requiring them to cover bad debt incurred by one of the nation’s oldest and largest banks. Covering the debt would have cost Iceland’s 317,000 citizens around $17,000 each.

Iceland’s national referendum was the first opportunity for the people of any nation to vote directly on who pays when the financial elite fail.

As citizens voted, Iceland’s Prime Minister was dismissing the importance of the vote and promising to negotiate a payment scheme obligating citizen subsidies for bad debt created by Iceland’s beyond-bad bankers.

Ellsberg: The Patriot Act legalizes Nixon's crimes

Mon, 01 Mar 2010 09:40:32 -0500

SOURCE: OpEdNews

February 23, 2010 By Joan Brunwasser

More Ellsberg: The Pentagon Papers and John Dean, Then and Now

My guest today is "the most dangerous man* in America" whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg. When you released the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times, you knew that you could be facing life in prison. Luckily, that turned out not to be the case. But, if you were to have done comparable actions since the passage of the Patriot Act, they would have tossed you in prison and thrown away the key. That's a sobering, concrete example of where we are almost forty years later. Do you ever think about that?

Good question. Actually, although (unknown to me and almost everyone else) the prior law was on my side in 1971-73, I came pretty close to spending 115 years in prison then. With good behavior, I would have gotten out (after 35 years) in 2008. It took a lot of luck, and a handful of individuals who told the truth (John Dean about the burglary, someone in the FBI about the electronic overhearing) to overcome the attempts of the president to bribe my judge with the directorship of the FBI.

And even before the Patriot Act, the trend of legal opinions--the terrible judgments in the Samuel Loring Morison case in 1984, an increasing disregard of legislative history which had weighed against using the Espionage Act as an Official Secrets Act--was against the chances for a future leaker of classified information. The Patriot Act itself didn't affect this situation that much. It doesn't include an Official Secrets Act--almost by oversight--though another 9-11 could almost surely get us one, even from Obama.

However, the Patriot Act and related legislation do have the effect of legalizing most of the actual crimes against me by Nixon. Sneak-and-peek entries and burglaries of a doctor's office, in search of information to use against a "terrorist suspect"? (i.e., someone like me who opposes and resists a president's terrorism). Legal, now. Warrantless wiretaps? Legal. Use of CIA against an American citizen? Legal.

The Wall Street Con

Fri, 19 Feb 2010 07:40:09 -0500

SOURCE:Rollingstone

Wall Street's Bailout Hustle
Goldman Sachs and other big banks aren't just pocketing the trillions we gave them to rescue the economy - they're re-creating the conditions for another crash

MATT TAIBBI

Posted Feb 17, 2010 5:57 AM

Read all about the seven cons. Confidence games are perpetrated by people who take advantage of a person's trust and deprive him of his goods. They are difficult to prosecute in the law because the victim appears to have been a willing participant.

What's to be done? We the people have to take control of our money and cut out the middlemen.

How It's Done

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 08:36:31 -0500

What follows is an explanation of how the transfer of the American people's assets into the pockets of a few is carried out--what I have taken to calling "Deprivation Under Cover of Law", for the simple reason that it's all legal.

Deprivation under cover of law.

Tue, 09 Feb 2010 10:44:18 -0500

Deprivation of rights under color of law is a well-recognized, if not frequently prosecuted crime. Indeed, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has a comprehensive explanation and some interesting statistical data, including a list of the most common categories in which these crimes occur:

• excessive force;
• sexual assaults;
• false arrest and fabrication of evidence;
• deprivation of property; and
• failure to keep from harm.

However, that's not the topic I want to address today. I want to focus on what I call "deprivation of rights under cover of law." But, first it seems important to consider what "deprivation" means.

Blackwater: Murderous Crusaders for Christ

Wed, 02 Dec 2009 08:39:57 -0500

This is what happens when you privatize your government

Rolling Stone: Wall Street's naked swindle

Tue, 20 Oct 2009 08:46:55 -0400

SOURCE: Rollingstone.com

A scheme to flood the market with counterfeit stocks helped kill Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers — and the feds have yet to bust the culprits

BY MATT TAIBBI, Posted Oct 14, 2009 9:30 AM

Watch Matt Taibbi break down short-selling vs. naked short-selling on his blog, Taibblog.

n Tuesday, March 11th, 2008, somebody — nobody knows who — made one of the craziest bets Wall Street has ever seen. The mystery figure spent $1.7 million on a series of options, gambling that shares in the venerable investment bank Bear Stearns would lose more than half their value in nine days or less. It was madness — "like buying 1.7 million lottery tickets," according to one financial analyst.

But what's even crazier is that the bet paid.

Why sending the innocent to prison is a law enforcement win.

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:23:25 -0400

Somehow the agents of law enforcement have come to believe that the punishment of one person acts as a deterrent to prevent others from committing similar crimes. That’s, indeed, the underlying justification for the state killing people who killed. That this belief is unsupported by fact and that, indeed, when the state kills as an act of punishment, lots of other people feel empowered to do the same–i.e. kill people who don’t follow orders and agree with them–has, so far, had no impact on the law.

In any event, because of the belief that punishing some people makes other people behave as they ought, admitting that the agents of law enforcement have been in error from beginning to end is a no-no. The whole crime prevention justification for the existence of law enforcement agencies would be undermined.

In a sense, the crime prevention model is a precursor of the preventive health care model–a strategy to generate more public support for an enterprise for whom success (no crime, no early death) spells the possibility of demise.

Sen. Franken's hearing: Halliburton's federal contracts prohibiting employee lawsuits for gang rape committed by other employees

Sun, 18 Oct 2009 13:05:49 -0400

And yes, a whole bunch of Senators actually voted to continue contracting with companies prohibiting employee legal and civil rights

Sen. Franken Questions an Arbitration Lawyer about Binding Arbitration

Indeed, let's not "let the current chaos prevail".

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 10:44:32 -0400

Justice Antonin Scalia is entirely correct. Charging public officials for failing to deliver "honest services" to the people who employ them should be a standardized procedure throughout the land. That may not be the Justice's intent in calling for a reconsideration of the law, but I think it's a grand idea. Even better is that this novel approach to dealing with dishonest public servants was unearthed, in a manner of speaking, by a conservative Department of Justice. Justice Scalia's concern that the honest services law

“invites abuse by headline-grabbing prosecutors in pursuit of local officials, state legislators and corporate C.E.O.’s who engage in any manner of unappealing or ethically questionable conduct.”

is understandable. Historically, "honest services fraud" used to be routinely charged against individuals who tried to abscond from a restaurant without paying or wrote checks on accounts without sufficient funds--clearly a more appropriate class of people to hold accountable to the law, than the heads of corporations or public servants.

Sign up to defend your country: Block corporate monopoly control over US elections

Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:02:01 -0400

This acquisition is the latest action in a series of events which have created a concentration in the electronic voting industry. This acquisition will exacerbate and burden an already non-competitive and restrictive situation for our public elections, which under the Constitution are an essential part of our democratic system of government. This acquisition, in addition to overconcentrating the industry, will put a single company in a position to shut down federal elections at will. Thus, this overconcentration also creates a potential national security problem.~Black Box Voting antitrust complaint

Black Box Voting has sent a 21-page carefully documented letter of complaint and request for investigation to the United States Dept. of Justice Office of Antitrust and to the Federal Trade Commission regarding the acquisition of Diebold/Premier Election Solutions by Election Systems & Software.

We need and appreciate your donations. We believe we are continuing to earn your support.
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/donate.html
mailing address 330 SW 43rd St Suite K PMB 547 Renton WA 98057

Senator Sanders Unfiltered: US Congress Bought & Paid For?

Sun, 27 Sep 2009 13:06:54 -0400

The state-sanctioned Diebold monopoly control over NH's elections

Sat, 26 Sep 2009 19:17:57 -0400

Black Box Voting filed an antitrust complaint to the US Department of Justice requesting they investigate the proposed merger of e-voting companies Diebold and ES&S. Long before this merger, however, New Hampshire initiated its own antitrust situation with Diebold Corporation. Like so many other unconstitutional aspects of NH's election systems, the virtual monopoly over e-voting in New Hampshire was legislated with a wink and a nod and nary an objection from the office of the NH Attorney General, Secretary of State, the news media, or most public officials. In fact, the legislation itself that handed NH elections to Diebold on a silver platter, was written in consultation with John Silvestro of Londonderry, NH, President of Diebold's New England affiliate, LHS Associates. The legislation was passed under the direction of then Chair of the NH Election Law Committee, Don Stritch, with the full support of the office of the Secretary of State.

Former Representative Stritch is now Commissioner of Rockingham County, where LHS President John Silvestro resides. Stritch's interest in the e-voting industry is apparent in his subsequent unsuccessful appeal to be appointed by the NH Secretary of State to the Standards Board, a national board of state election officials reporting to the White House agency, the Election Assistance Commission (EAC). The Standards Board and the EAC maintain quite a bit of influence over national adoption of electronic voting technology, from advising on the design specifications for the technology to participating (formally and informally) in a disturbingly intimate network with e-voting industrialists.

Following the 2007 establishment of the NH "Electronic Ballot Counting Device Advisory Committee" (aka electronic voting technology committee), Stritch was appointed Chair of that committee by Secretary of State Bill Gardner. This e-voting committee was created by legislation passed after the Election Law Committee, under the chairmanship of Representative Jane Clemons (D-Nashua) killed several pieces of citizen-proposed legislation calling for open and public vote counting. Clemons, working with Deputy Secretary of State Dave Scanlan, instead orchestrated passage of this single bill forming the technology voting committee, effectively putting legislative stamp of approval on concealed vote counting by computers rather than the constitutional mandate for public and open vote counting. The following excerpt provides details on the shameful dealings that gave away NH's public elections to a Diebold monopoly.

more below the fold

NH's own e-voting anti-trust situation cited in BlackBoxVoting complaint to DoJ

Sat, 26 Sep 2009 16:09:32 -0400

SOURCE: Black Box Voting Letter of Complaint - Request for Investigation to AG Holder

Black Box Voting is writing to express our objection to, and to request your investigation of, the proposed acquisition of Diebold's Premier Election Solutions by Election Systems
& Software, Inc. (ES&S).

This acquisition is the latest action in a series of events which have created a concentration in the electronic voting industry. This acquisition will exacerbate and burden an already non-competitive and restrictive situation for our public elections, which under the Constitution are an essential part of our democratic system of government. This acquisition, in addition to overconcentrating the industry, will put a single company in a position to shut down federal elections at will. Thus, this overconcentration also creates a potential national security problem....

...The permitted sale of Premier Election Solutions to ES&S will consolidate this not-verycompetitive process for years to come based on the historical process timeline. In addition, certain states have added their own purchasing restrictions. The states of Texas and Ohio, for example, do not permit Sequoia Voting Systems to sell systems to their counties. The state of Florida does not permit Hart Intercivic to sell voting systems in Florida. And the state of New Hampshire has established an unusual ballot design requirement which precludes all vendors except Diebold/Premier. Some states, like (9) See e-mail documents from ES&S employee John Groh, above. Georgia, Maryland, New Mexico, Arkansas, West Virginia and Utah require all local counties to purchase a system from a single vendor selected by state officials.

Read the full complaint here

Take action here

Caught in the crosshairs: Governor Don Siegelman speaks about election fraud, his political prosecuion, and fraud at the DOJ

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 17:25:27 -0400

SOURCE: OpEd News

August 16, 2009

Caught in the Crosshairs: Former Governor Don Siegelman Talks with OpEdNews

By Joan Brunwasser

Under the George W. Bush administration, hundreds of Democrats were politically prosecuted by the Department of Justice (DoJ). Careers, reputations and finances were ruined in the process, families devastated. Many of the targeted politicians ended up in prison. Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman is one of the most visible targets of the partisan DoJ. A hugely popular Democrat in a Republican state, Siegelman was the only person in Alabama history to be elected to the four top state posts. Political prosecutions were designed to achieve permanent Republican domination by underminingDemocratic infrastructure across the country, particularly in swing states.