The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Corruption]

Stop calling things what they're not folks.

"Philadelphia Earns Millions By Seizing Cash And Homes From People Never Charged With A Crime" -- so says the headline.

In other words, thanks to civil forfeiture, the government punishes innocent people for the crimes other people might have committed.

That has a name.  

It's theft.

What do you do when someone is in the process of stealing from you?

You stop them, right?

Well?

When are you going to stop them, America?

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

As they say, duh.

Fitton said DOJ attorneys told him the federal government backs up all computer records to ensure the continuity of government in event of a catastrophe. They told him that retrieving the emails from Lerner, a former IRS official, would be "too onerous" - a legal burden that can exempt an agency from complying with FOIA requests.

Of course there are backups and of course there always were.

That was my original perspective -- nobody in their right mind lacks backups on an automatic basis.  "Disaster" backups were part and parcel of my operation in the 1980s, they were part of every enterprise that I worked for as a network guy and they still are today for my personal, home systems.

Those emails aren't "missing", they're being intentionally withheld and people have lied (repeatedly) about it, exactly as the NSA lied (blatantly) to Congress.

WHERE ARE THE DAMNED HANDCUFFS?

Bill Still is on this as well -- here's his report:

When do the ordinary people of this nation who are all expected to follow the law reach the point that they've had enough of the blatantly lawless crap that is run on all of us every single day and demand dozens of perjurers and liars behind bars -- and mean it?

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Yes, police officers are special.  The most-important factor is that they go home every day safely, not whether they do their job in a professional manner.  Even if this means that they shoot innocent victims of crime because they're too ****ing trigger happy, that's just tough ****.  You or I would face a manslaughter charge for that act -- they get a nice long paid vacation and then are reinstated without harm or foul (to them.)

Oh, and they don't actually have to work either.  Just say they did.  After all, that magical blue costume is all that's required.

KHOU launched an investigation into Jerry’s claims and uncovered an alleged “ticket-rigging scheme,” where cops listed on tickets who were not actually present at the time of the offense were cashing in on overtime when they appeared in court later.

You, of course, get to pay for this outrage twice -- first by being cited by an alleged two officers who claim to have witnessed your transgression (making it more likely you're found guilty, of course) but one of them not only perjured himself before the court he then gets paid overtime to show up when he was never there in the first placebilking you and everyone else in the jurisdiction for pay given as a result of work not performed.

If I rob you I go to prison.

If I commit perjury I can go to prison too.

But when the police rob you -- twice -- or commit perjury on a systemic basis they get suspended with pay (that's a nice vacation!) and ultimately, instead of going to prison, they are usually allowed to "retire" with full pay and benefits.  Which, of course, results in you being robbed at gunpoint each and every year thereafter until they expire of natural causes, complete with you being compelled to pay for every possible means of extending that date as well.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Boy, you folks are stupid in the media.

There's "two sides" to that story?  Really?

There shouldn't be an immediate and public arrest of the "special prosecutor" that brought that case before the Grand Jury?

REALLY?

Let's recap what this is about.  Governor Perry "threatened" to veto a bill that funded an office unless the person who was currently sitting in that chair stepped down.  He did this after said person was arrested for drunk driving at something around three times the legal limit of intoxication.  Oh, and did I mention that the office in question was the DA?  In other words, the person responsible for prosecuting, among other things, drunk driving?

When she refused he did veto the bill.

This is alleged to be "abuse of power" and "misuse of government property" (specifically, the money he vetoed the use of.)

Oh really?

So let me ask a couple of questions just to clear this up.

First, President Obama, along with every other President, has publicly threatened to veto bills he doesn't like, or which authorize people he doesn't like to take certain actions.  That's the very same coercion complained about here; that is, the threat to do something unless someone changes a thing that the President likes.  Those threats sometimes result in the desired change, and sometimes they result in a veto actually being issued.

Why isn't Obama under indictment for doing the very same thing?

Second, legislators, specifically the House of Representatives, do this literally all the time.  Because The House has the power of the purse it can simply refuse to fund any office for any reason, including because it doesn't like the person who's there!  Ah, you might say, but that's the House's job!  Yes, it is, and it's also the Executive's -- both must concur, or the House (and Senate) must override the veto!  That's called separation of powers; you need concurrence or a supermajority to spend money.

Why isn't the entire US House, and the entire Texas House, also under indictment for doing the very same thing?

There's politics and then there's law.  The law should apply equally to politicians (and we know it doesn't) but vetoing a bill because you refuse to support the person or office that bill funds is not only lawful it is done literally all the time.

The special prosecutor who brought this indictment is the one who needs to be in the dock for abuse of power, not Perry.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access
Get Adobe Flash player
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be reproduced or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media or for commercial use.

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.