Sunday, December 29, 2013
Transportation:
Daily Hampshire Gazette Editorial: A wise ruling on bicyclist’s use of Route 9 in Hadley (MA) "This just in: When pedaling along a public road, bicyclists should ride as close to the right as they can safely, allowing vehicles to pass. Common sense? Yes. Agreed to by all? Unfortunately, no. It took U.S. Magistrate Judge Kenneth P. Neiman 54 pages in a recent decision (PDF) to sort through complaints and counter-claims related to an Easthampton man’s decision to probe bicycling’s boundaries while traveling on Route 9 in Hadley. The magistrate wrote that both sides of this dispute — Eli Damon and his attorney, Andrew M. Fischer of Boston, and the Hadley Police Department, represented by Carole Sakowski Lynch of Springfield — were misinterpreting state law..."
The Banksters Who Wrecked The Economy:
Jed S. Rakoff: The Financial Crisis: Why Have No High-Level Executives Been Prosecuted?
"Five years have passed since the onset of what is sometimes called the Great Recession. While the economy has slowly improved, there are still millions of Americans leading lives of quiet desperation: without jobs, without resources, without hope. Who was to blame? Was it simply a result of negligence, of the kind of inordinate risk-taking commonly called a 'bubble,' of an imprudent but innocent failure to maintain adequate reserves for a rainy day? Or was it the result, at least in part, of fraudulent practices, of dubious mortgages portrayed as sound risks and packaged into ever more esoteric financial instruments, the fundamental weaknesses of which were intentionally obscured? If it was the former—if the recession was due, at worst, to a lack of caution—then the criminal law has no role to play in the aftermath. For in all but a few circumstances (not here relevant), the fierce and fiery weapon called criminal prosecution is directed at intentional misconduct, and nothing less. If the Great Recession was in no part the handiwork of intentionally fraudulent practices by high-level executives, then to prosecute such executives criminally would be 'scapegoating' of the most shallow and despicable kind. But if, by contrast, the Great Recession was in material part the product of intentional fraud, the failure to prosecute those responsible must be judged one of the more egregious failures of the criminal justice system in many years. Indeed, it would stand in striking contrast to the increased success that federal prosecutors have had over the past fifty years or so in bringing to justice even the highest-level figures who orchestrated mammoth frauds. Thus, in the 1970s, in the aftermath of the 'junk bond' bubble that, in many ways, was a precursor of the more recent bubble in mortgage-backed securities, the progenitors of the fraud were all successfully prosecuted, right up to Michael Milken. Again, in the 1980s, the so-called savings-and-loan crisis, which again had some eerie parallels to more recent events, resulted in the successful criminal prosecution of more than eight hundred individuals, right up to Charles Keating. And again, the widespread accounting frauds of the 1990s, most vividly represented by Enron and WorldCom, led directly to the successful prosecution of such previously respected CEOs as Jeffrey Skilling and Bernie Ebbers. In striking contrast with these past prosecutions, not a single high-level executive has been successfully prosecuted in connection with the recent financial crisis, and given the fact that most of the relevant criminal provisions are governed by a five-year statute of limitations, it appears likely that none will be. It may not be too soon, therefore, to ask why. One possibility, already mentioned, is that no fraud was committed. This possibility should not be discounted. Every case is different, and I, for one, have no opinion about whether criminal fraud was committed in any given instance. But the stated opinion of those government entities asked to examine the financial crisis overall is not that no fraud was committed. Quite the contrary. For example, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, in its final report, uses variants of the word 'fraud' no fewer than 157 times in describing what led to the crisis, concluding that there was a 'systemic breakdown,' not just in accountability, but also in ethical behavior..."
Daily Hampshire Gazette Editorial: A wise ruling on bicyclist’s use of Route 9 in Hadley (MA) "This just in: When pedaling along a public road, bicyclists should ride as close to the right as they can safely, allowing vehicles to pass. Common sense? Yes. Agreed to by all? Unfortunately, no. It took U.S. Magistrate Judge Kenneth P. Neiman 54 pages in a recent decision (PDF) to sort through complaints and counter-claims related to an Easthampton man’s decision to probe bicycling’s boundaries while traveling on Route 9 in Hadley. The magistrate wrote that both sides of this dispute — Eli Damon and his attorney, Andrew M. Fischer of Boston, and the Hadley Police Department, represented by Carole Sakowski Lynch of Springfield — were misinterpreting state law..."
The Banksters Who Wrecked The Economy:
Jed S. Rakoff: The Financial Crisis: Why Have No High-Level Executives Been Prosecuted?
"Five years have passed since the onset of what is sometimes called the Great Recession. While the economy has slowly improved, there are still millions of Americans leading lives of quiet desperation: without jobs, without resources, without hope. Who was to blame? Was it simply a result of negligence, of the kind of inordinate risk-taking commonly called a 'bubble,' of an imprudent but innocent failure to maintain adequate reserves for a rainy day? Or was it the result, at least in part, of fraudulent practices, of dubious mortgages portrayed as sound risks and packaged into ever more esoteric financial instruments, the fundamental weaknesses of which were intentionally obscured? If it was the former—if the recession was due, at worst, to a lack of caution—then the criminal law has no role to play in the aftermath. For in all but a few circumstances (not here relevant), the fierce and fiery weapon called criminal prosecution is directed at intentional misconduct, and nothing less. If the Great Recession was in no part the handiwork of intentionally fraudulent practices by high-level executives, then to prosecute such executives criminally would be 'scapegoating' of the most shallow and despicable kind. But if, by contrast, the Great Recession was in material part the product of intentional fraud, the failure to prosecute those responsible must be judged one of the more egregious failures of the criminal justice system in many years. Indeed, it would stand in striking contrast to the increased success that federal prosecutors have had over the past fifty years or so in bringing to justice even the highest-level figures who orchestrated mammoth frauds. Thus, in the 1970s, in the aftermath of the 'junk bond' bubble that, in many ways, was a precursor of the more recent bubble in mortgage-backed securities, the progenitors of the fraud were all successfully prosecuted, right up to Michael Milken. Again, in the 1980s, the so-called savings-and-loan crisis, which again had some eerie parallels to more recent events, resulted in the successful criminal prosecution of more than eight hundred individuals, right up to Charles Keating. And again, the widespread accounting frauds of the 1990s, most vividly represented by Enron and WorldCom, led directly to the successful prosecution of such previously respected CEOs as Jeffrey Skilling and Bernie Ebbers. In striking contrast with these past prosecutions, not a single high-level executive has been successfully prosecuted in connection with the recent financial crisis, and given the fact that most of the relevant criminal provisions are governed by a five-year statute of limitations, it appears likely that none will be. It may not be too soon, therefore, to ask why. One possibility, already mentioned, is that no fraud was committed. This possibility should not be discounted. Every case is different, and I, for one, have no opinion about whether criminal fraud was committed in any given instance. But the stated opinion of those government entities asked to examine the financial crisis overall is not that no fraud was committed. Quite the contrary. For example, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, in its final report, uses variants of the word 'fraud' no fewer than 157 times in describing what led to the crisis, concluding that there was a 'systemic breakdown,' not just in accountability, but also in ethical behavior..."
Wednesday, December 25, 2013
Domestic Surveillance:
Jameel Jaffer & Patrick C. Toomey: How the Government Misled the Supreme Court on Warrantless Wiretapping
"...Thanks to Snowden, we now know that the government’s arguments were misleading or worse. First, we know that the NSA is engaged in dragnet surveillance under the very law the plaintiffs challenged. The agency uses that law to monitor Americans’ communications with foreign-intelligence targets abroad—targets who may be journalists, academics or lawyers. A leaked copy of NSA procedures shows that the agency also conducts keyword searches of virtually all Americans’ international communications. As The New York Times reported in August, the NSA examines the contents of almost all text-based communications entering or leaving the country. While the government’s claims about dragnet surveillance were misleading, its claims about the “notice” provided to criminal defendants were simply false. Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Clapper, the government has conceded that at the time the case was argued, in October—and for the five years preceding—it did not provide notice to criminal defendants who had been monitored under the surveillance law. The ACLU, as well as three members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has called on the solicitor general to correct the record in the Supreme Court, but thus far the government has failed to do so...."
Jameel Jaffer & Patrick C. Toomey: How the Government Misled the Supreme Court on Warrantless Wiretapping
"...Thanks to Snowden, we now know that the government’s arguments were misleading or worse. First, we know that the NSA is engaged in dragnet surveillance under the very law the plaintiffs challenged. The agency uses that law to monitor Americans’ communications with foreign-intelligence targets abroad—targets who may be journalists, academics or lawyers. A leaked copy of NSA procedures shows that the agency also conducts keyword searches of virtually all Americans’ international communications. As The New York Times reported in August, the NSA examines the contents of almost all text-based communications entering or leaving the country. While the government’s claims about dragnet surveillance were misleading, its claims about the “notice” provided to criminal defendants were simply false. Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Clapper, the government has conceded that at the time the case was argued, in October—and for the five years preceding—it did not provide notice to criminal defendants who had been monitored under the surveillance law. The ACLU, as well as three members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has called on the solicitor general to correct the record in the Supreme Court, but thus far the government has failed to do so...."
Tuesday, December 03, 2013
WalMart
So, not only is WalMart a mean corporation, for paying less than a living wage, forcing its employees to turn to public assistance, it is now on record for being a corrupt one: Wal-Mart Stores replaced CEO & President Mike Duke. Why do they get to keep their charter, in spite of these clear indications of contempt for the public interest?
So, not only is WalMart a mean corporation, for paying less than a living wage, forcing its employees to turn to public assistance, it is now on record for being a corrupt one: Wal-Mart Stores replaced CEO & President Mike Duke. Why do they get to keep their charter, in spite of these clear indications of contempt for the public interest?
