The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Corruption]
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives

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.


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 sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means 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, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

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.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2019-09-15 07:02 by Karl Denninger
in Corruption , 156 references
[Comments enabled]  

This is interesting....

A class action lawsuit claiming that is a scam can move ahead, a federal judge ruled last week.

Top Class Actions first told you about the class action lawsuit in February, which accuses the company behind of preying on new victims by rebranding itself as after losing a class action lawsuit last year. was sued in 2008 for defrauding consumers out of money by using spam emails that falsely stated past acquaintances were trying to contact them, and then charging subscribers a fee to discover no one was trying to contact them at all.

Who remembers Classmates?

They spammed me several times.  They didn't get anywhere with that.

I didn't know they "rebranded" -- but one of my email correspondents was spammed by them, and sent me the above.  The Classmates spam was shockingly stupid, incidentally -- I went to a small private High School and knew everyone in my graduating class and damn near everyone in the place.  I certainly would recognize any of their names.

Never mind that I'm about as hard to find -- if someone wants to get ahold of me -- as an ex-President.  Really.  Now you might need to perform 30 seconds of diligence, and if it's an email (if you know my first and last name it's not hard at all!) it probably will go into my spam folder if we're not communicating (and maybe if we are), since i get so much spam (over 1,000 on a typical day) but heh, it is what it is.  Such is the price of running one of the first Internet firms in the 1990s and being on damn near every spammer's email list there is.

This is similar to the scheme that basically every "dating site" runs.  "Oh you're so cute -- someone likes you, pay us to find out who it is!"

Uh huh.

Well, someone may well like what they read or saw, but their profile says they're 500+ miles away and in reality they may be a robot in India or Pakistan trying to hook someone and then scam them.  Who knows.  Since pretty-much all the various branded "dating sites" are no longer independent -- they're all part of IAC and got spun into Match -- it also doesn't matter which one you use.  The scheme is the same and even if the sites themselves aren't participating they're making basically all their money getting you to pony up via this mechanism so they have no reason to give a wet crap and put a stop to it, which they could quite-easily do (it's rather simple to back-trace someone's connection IP and if it goes somewhere other than an individual connection or is implausibly connected to the place the person claims to be call bullcrap on it immediately.)

But these guys are alleged to have gone further -- they're alleged to post false information, some of it defamatory (e.g. you've got a criminal record, etc) in a bid to get you to subscribe so you can "update" your profile.  If true that's a classic extortion racket and unlike some other person doing the bad thing which they're turning a blind eye to the allegation is that they're doing it.

Of course the real problem here isn't MyLife.  It's that nobody goes to prison any more if they're a corporate executive no matter what they do.  Extortion is a serious offense and if we actually jailed people for doing illegal things in the guise of a "business" nobody would try crap like this either intentionally or not because the risk of getting tagged for a 5 year stint with Bubba in the slam-slam would be plenty of deterrent.

But we don't do that anymore in this country, no matter how egregious the conduct.  Witness Purdue, which is threatening to file bankruptcy (and probably will) to try to stave off the opioid liability they may well have.  Where are the criminal charges by all these so-called "wonderful DAs" against the founders and officers, if indeed the evidence is as they've tried to lay out that the firm said it would produce a "blizzard" of prescriptions for highly-addictive painkillers?

Missing, that's where.  Everyone talks about lawsuits, which can be defended against and even blocked.  A bit of pre-planning and asset protection in moving things around out of the jurisdiction of the courts in question and it becomes nearly impossible for collection to occur.  This is what the Sacklers (Purdue's owners) apparently have done, incidentally.

This is way beyond the means of someone with single-digit millions (without blowing half of it on said scheme) but once you get into the tens or hundreds of millions the cost of setting up and transferring around such things through trusts and international holding companies is pretty small on a percentage basis.

This is why we have prisons and felony laws.  Everyone goes to prison the same way -- and it sucks equally for everyone.  It doesn't matter how much money you have if you actually get a 10 year prison term.  Oh sure, the money is still there when you get out but the ten years still gets served and you still punch license plates for that amount of time.  Wealth is worth nothing in the joint, other than perhaps forcing you to ask for protective custody so you're not being hit up as someone's "bitch" all the time (and raped if you refuse.)

We will never put a stop to any of this crap until prison comes back on the menu for corporate back actors.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2019-09-14 11:57 by Karl Denninger
in Corruption , 105 references
[Comments enabled]  

It's quite clear now, isn't it?

Felicity Huffman is inspiring outrage after the actress was sentenced Friday to 14 days in prison for her role in a brazen college admissions scandal, in which involving rich and famous families funneled cash to fixers to help their children get into the nation's most prestigious colleges and universities.


Uh, no.  Prison is for felons, where you do more than one year.

This is jail.  Which you typically get for a "simple and first" DUI.

Oh wait... you'd probably get more than 14 days for that.

Indeed, a homeless black woman got five years for intentionally stating a false address to get her kid into a better school.

Note that said black woman didn't pay a bribe -- she just lied, without the bribery.  Huffman, on the other hand, both lied and bribed.

So is it clear to you yet?  There is no justice in the courts for ordinary people.

This means if you want to see actual justice you're going to have to exact it yourself.  And yes, that will be (and is) deemed a criminal act on its own; it's commonly called vigilantism, after all.

But -- let's face it -- that's all ordinary people have left.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2019-09-01 10:13 by Karl Denninger
in Corruption , 332 references
[Comments enabled]  

This is not ok folks....

The McSally and Schiff bills are virtually identical in substance, and both have two important provisions. Both would create a new crime of domestic terrorism, making it illegal to kill, kidnap or assault another person; create a substantial risk of serious bodily injury by intentionally destroying or damaging property; or threaten to do so “with the intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion[,] or affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping,”

Now remember this -- assault is a non-contact crime.

That is if you get in someone's face and lead them to believe you might hit them -- that's an assault.

Assault, absent use of a weapon (e.g. pulling a knife or a gun) is generally a misdemeanor.

It's a crime, yes, but a very low-level crime as it does not involve any actual contact or damage to person or property.

What this bill does, should it be passed and signed, is make getting in someone's face, if said person is a public official of some form a terrorist act even though no actual violence has taken place.

Note that you do not, under that language, have to threaten to kill or kidnap someone, nor threaten an act of mass-destruction (e.g. blowing up a building, shooting up a meeting, etc.)

You merely have to put a public official in a position where they believe you might strike them in any form or fashion, even if said belief is nothing more than your physical crowding leading them to believe you may strike them with, for example, your blunt body (e.g. shoving them with your chest, etc.)  Not even an attempt to swing a fist or slap with an open hand is required.

That act, formerly a minor misdemeanor, now becomes a serious felony.

Further, anyone who provides any sort of "material aid or comfort" to a person who does such a thing can also be charged under the "material support" provision.  Got a son or daughter who does this to any elected official and they live at home?  You go to prison.

Folks if they actually try to pass this you can no longer issue even an implied "or else" to any government official, ever, without going to federal prison.

This is exactly the sort of unconstitutional horsecrap that I previously wrote about in relationship to Titles of Nobility.

If the people of this nation can no longer issue a demand with an attached "or else", such as a demand that the law actually be enforced on a non-discriminatory basis against, for example, Hillary Clinton, then we may as well just do 1776 right here and now and get it over with because anything that any local, state or federal government official declares to be in any way aggressive in any form or fashion directed at them, even without actual contact, violence, damage or otherwise will result in the person who confronts said official and their entire family along with anyone who provides them with any place to live, food to eat or other items with which they live and survive going to prison for a decade or more.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

Article 1, Sections 9 and 10 of the Constitution prohibit the granting of a Title of Nobility.  There were two considerations at the time of adoption of the Constitution which led to these two sections being included, and which are just as operative today.

The first is that a Title of Nobility grants special privileges and immunities from the law.  One of the most-notorious and open ones from the time of knights, barons and such was that the keeper of the lands had the right to first sex with any newly-married maiden.  Of course the common name for that is rape, but if you were the "lord" of said land it wasn't.

The second was that a Title of Nobility passed those privileges to your offspring by virtue of birth.  This, of course, leads rather-directly to monarchy, which we had just thrown off.

But the two elements are not inherently bound; a "Title of Nobility" that does not pass by birth to offspring is still prohibited; the premise under which this nation exists is that All Are Created Equal and endowed by their creator with certain Unalienable Rights.

Legal privilege by virtue of title is a flat-out repudiation of the principle of unalienable -- that is, pre-existing government -- rights.

Yet we have this daily in our government and corporate space and all of it is unconstitutional.

No cop may openly carry a weapon by virtue of his title of police officer.  The 2nd Amendment says clearly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  You cannot at the same time prohibit me from carrying a weapon without a license, or even at all, while at the same time by virtue of a Title of Nobility allow a cop to do so.  That's unconstitutional.

The Secret Service's "protective detail" for the President is unconstitutional.  The President is not endowed with any special privileges other than the duties specifically granted under the Constitution.  Nowhere does it state that the government shall provide special protection to such a person; indeed, the very principle of representative government is that such cannot be provided.

Ditto for Pelosi, McConnell or any other lawmaker.  They have no more right to special privileges than you do.  They may be granted funds out of the Treasury for this or that (e.g. travel) as part of their duties but special privileges not permitted ordinary citizens are unconstitutional.

Likewise a law criminalizing an act at a greater severity when said act is against a government employee (e.g. cop, politician, etc) than against an ordinary citizen is unconstitutional.  If it's illegal to assault or murder then it is, but it is exactly the same crime, with the same punishment, whether the target of said assault is the President or you.  Any such law to the contrary is unconstitutional.

A law granting an exemption from a law by virtue of their government title or service is also unconstitutional.  Thus the "sexual harassment" games played in Congress even though such actions are illegal and actionable in private business is flatly unconstitutional.

The only place such laws are not unconstitutional is when the conduct takes place outside of the United States.  Why?  Because our Constitution doesn't reach persons not subject to US law and on foreign lands.  If it did we'd have an obligation to invade China right now in three separate circumstances; the Uyghurs, Taiwan and Hong Kong.  We don't, as the Constitution doesn't extend beyond our borders.  Likewise, a law granting US military service privileges when and only when outside of the United States and in concert with acts related to other, non-US citizens doesn't implicate the Constitution either (it might well implicate international law or the law in the nations in which said troops are currently present, however.)

Under this clear standard the DOJ's "policy" not to prosecute Anti-Trust and other laws against US Corporations is unconstitutional.  It is the recognition of a Title of Nobility; that it cannot pass by birth is irrelevant.  Not prosecuting said executives and firms is to grant such a title and exemption from the law which the Constitution explicitly forbids.

Further, if a cop or FBI agent can lie to you with impunity you can lie to them.  They cannot, as a matter of the Constitution's Nobility clause, obtain through their title a privilege of deception which you do not also possess.  Any such law or court decision allowing same is unconstitutional.

Further and finally, the 14th Amendment, which explicitly incorporates all such Constitutional protections against the States, bars any such law at the state level as well.  California and other state "assault weapon" bans are unconstitutional not only on the 2nd Amendment but also because they do not apply to the police.  The police at not entitled, as a matter of the Constitution, to any privilege or right a common citizen is not.

Want to solve the corruption problem?  Start right here and a huge percentage of it disappears.

Ever wonder why places like Judicial Watch don't go after this?  Spend 30 seconds thinking about that one folks....

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2019-08-22 11:00 by Karl Denninger
in Corruption , 170 references
[Comments enabled]  

Anyone want the over on "civil forfeiture" on Epstein's estate?

$500 million is quite a lot.  Treasury could use it.

I'll lay odds they intend to steal it.

Why's that a problem?

Because his victims have every right to sue the estate and get that money.  All of it.

If the government takes it, they get nothing.

Barr can stop that, of course.  But I bet he won't.  In fact, I bet he'll do it.

Were I one of his victims and the government indeed civilly forfeited his estate, thereby foreclosing my from obtaining civil recovery -- remember, he is not a federal felon at this point; if you die before being tried under the law you're "not guilty", no matter the evidence -- I would give serious consideration to truly medieval remedies.

This, by the way, is one of the (many) reasons this practice is both outrageous and unconstitutional.  Not that our government has given a flying **** about that for a very long time.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)