Gerry Spence a Wyoming Lawyer

A corporation is a fiction that relieves man of responsibility to his neighbor. It permits him to do in the name of a corporation what he would not do in his own name. It shields him from from his human conscience.

The best way to get management's attention is to punish management directly. Why shouldn't the the corporation's leaders be as responsible for what he does on the job as he is responsible for what he does driving home from the job. If he runs someone down , we do not permit him to blame the car, nor should he be permitted to lay responsibility for wrongdoing of his company on the corporate machine

When the CEO of a corporation and the Board of Director's knows they will suffer personally then corporate crime will come under control. When corporate heads are charged with only one responsibility to make a profit---- we guarantee crime!

If the battle against Wall Street corruption were to fine based on a percentage of the firms net worth, we would have fewer crimes.

The President of a Corporation would not walk over to his neighbor's house and sell him a worthless IOU, knowing full well that it will never be paid, but yet his firm is doing that daily to strangers. If he did that to his neighbor, he would be jailed, but under corporate name, not so.

Corporate law needs to change in this country that is what Occupy Wall Street is saying so the Faux news channel calling the demonstrator's scum is really disgusting. They know something is wrong. Clarence Darrow said "Justice cannot be defined, it is something that can be felt. But the feeling of justice requires the wrong to be righted."

By the way most of this came from Gerry Spence in his book "Justice For None" published in 1990

Occupy Wall Street is wrong Think Again!

Not a single executive who ran the companies that cooked up and cashed in on the phony financial boom — an industrywide scam that involved the mass sale of mismarked, fraudulent mortgage-backed securities — has ever been convicted. Their names by now are familiar to even the most casual Middle American news consumer: companies like AIG, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America and Morgan Stanley. Most of these firms were directly involved in elaborate fraud and theft. Lehman Brothers hid billions in loans from its investors. Bank of America lied about billions in bonuses. Goldman Sachs failed to tell clients how it put together the born-to-lose toxic mortgage deals it was selling. What's more, many of these companies had corporate chieftains whose actions cost investors billions — from AIG derivatives chief Joe Cassano, who assured investors they would not lose even "one dollar" just months before his unit imploded, to the $263 million in compensation that former Lehman chief Dick "The Gorilla" Fuld conveniently failed to disclose. Yet not one of them has faced time behind bars.
Instead, federal regulators and prosecutors have let the banks and finance companies that tried to burn the world economy to the ground get off with carefully orchestrated settlements — whitewash jobs that involve the firms paying pathetically small fines without even being required to admit wrongdoing. To add insult to injury, the people who actually committed the crimes almost never pay the fines themselves; banks caught defrauding their shareholders often use shareholder money to foot the tab of justice. "If the allegations in these settlements are true," says Jed Rakoff, a federal judge in the Southern District of New York, "it's management buying its way off cheap, from the pockets of their victims."
To understand the significance of this, one has to think carefully about the fines as a punishment for a defendant pool that includes the richest people on earth — people who simply get their companies to pay their fines for them. Conversely, one has to consider the powerful deterrent to further wrongdoing that the state is missing by not introducing this particular class of people to the experience of incarceration. "You put Lloyd Blankfein in pound-me-in-the-ass prison for one six-month term, and all this bullshit would stop, all over Wall Street," says a former congressional aide. "That's all it would take. Just once."
But that hasn't happened. Because the entire system set up to monitor and regulate Wall Street is screwed up period.

Democrats Efforts at Deficit Reduction Thwarted - Again

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/boehner-rejects-democratic-3-trillion-deficit-reduction-proposal-to-supercommittee/2011/10/27/gIQABPr2MM_story.html?hpid=z1

Incoherent Grumbling or Stunned Silence

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-scientific-finding-that-settles-the-climate-change-debate/2011/03/01/gIQAd6QfDM_story.html?hpid=z2

We are $14 T in debt.

We are $4 T in debt since Obama took control (about $8 since 2006-Democratic congress).

We are in debt $1.3 this year.


So...have we undertaxed the wealthy $1.3 T this year?  $4 T during the Obama era?

Nothing to Lose

I'm on record predicting a relatively easy GOP nomination for Mitt Romney. I have also forecast a credible third party/Tea Party general election candidacy. It appears to be shaping up that way.

Romney is alone at the top for lack of any serious competition. The GOP field is poor by any standard. The gaffes of Perry, Cain and Bachmann would have caused early exits when their party was more serious. Donald Trump would never have been atop the polls in the party of Eisenhower, Nixon or Reagan. Mitt Romney is going to get the 2012 nomination nearly by default.

Ron Paul has stated that he will not run for re-election for his house seat. He has also refused to necessarily endorse the eventual Republican nominee. He is in this thing to win - not the White House, but a permanent place at the table for the Libertarian movement. He does not see much daylight between Romney and Obama and he simply cannot stand by and allow such limited choice two years after the Tea Party was at maximum influence. If ever his beloved movement could make solid inroads into the system, it is now. His son, Rand, stands ready to pick up the baton. Ron Paul will simply not walk away in 2012 with only a whimper. A prime-time slot at the convention will not impress Dr No.

Would such a move potentially delivering re-election to Obama engender lasting GOP hostility? Absolutely - but he doesn't care much about the party and has said as much. Those in his movement would be fully supportive and - to his way of thinking - he might find a place in history for his efforts.

Is it dirty pool to participate in primaries and, having failed to win, go independent? Yes. It's a real bridge burner. It usually fails, as Charlie Crist can attest. However, Lisa Murkowski is evidence that sometimes a primary loser can ending up winning the job after all. Should Romney get the nomination, Tea Party candidate Ron Paul has nothing to lose.

Your liberal/socialist/communist stupidity may prevent you from truly understanding the following article where stupid Paul K comments on the impending bankruptcy of Europe.  But even as dense as you must be, the large concept of a huge unaffordable entitlement state insufficiently supported by ever enlarging taxes cannot escape even the most wacky.

Let's no longer argue that spending cuts or managing taxes around the margin will prevent us from going next.

I have argued with you and your kind for so long, I have come to the only sane conclusion...you hate this country and its system of government.  And I ask why?  We have been in concept a moral and economic guiding light for many years despite many opportunities to pursue exactly the opposite.  YOU WANT TO MAKE US LIKE EUROPE...WHY?

From Stupid Paul:  (and really, no shit Paul)  The bitter truth is that it’s looking more and more as if the euro system is doomed. And the even more bitter truth is that given the way that system has been performing, Europe might be better off if it collapses sooner rather than later.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/24/opinion/the-hole-in-europes-bucket.html?_r=1

THE FAMOUS 3 AM CALL

The Famous 3 am call and who do you want on the other end of the line?
Perry? really he is dumb,
Romney hard to get out of bed in silk pajama's.
Herman Cain, this isn't as easy as Pizza delivery.
Newt who knows who will sleeping next to him at the time?

Obama rid the world of Osama Bin Laden, Anwar Al Awlaki, Moammor Qaddafi in six months, if he were a Republican he would be on Mt. Rushmore by now.
Lost no soldiers getting Qaddafi, or Al Awaki or Bin Laden by the way.
The 3 am phone call has been answered Jim, Obama!

Biden

"Here in this school, your school, you've had a lot of teachers who used to work here, but because there's no money for them in the city, they're not working. And so what happens is, when that occurs, each of the teachers that stays have more kids to teach. And they don't get to spend as much time with you as they did when your classes were smaller.


"We think the federal government in Washington, D.C. should say to the cities and states, look, we're going to give you some money so that you can hire back all those people. And the way we're going to do it, we're going to ask people who have a lot of money to pay just a little bit more in taxes."

Who knew it was that easy?

So let's see if I follow the vice president's thinking: The school laid off these teachers because "there's no money for them in the city." That's true. York City School District is broke. It has a $14 million budget deficit.

So instead Washington, D.C., is going to "give you some money" to hire these teachers back. So, unlike York, Pa., presumably Washington, D.C., has "money for them"?

No, not technically. Washington, D.C., is also broke - way broker than York City School District. In fact, the government of the United States is broker than any entity has ever been in the history of the planet. Officially, Washington has to return 15,000,000,000,000 dollars just to get back to having nothing at all. And that 15,000,000,000,000 dollars is a very lowball figure that conveniently ignores another $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities that the government, unlike private businesses, is able to keep off the books.

So how come the Brokest Jurisdiction in History is able to "give you some money" to hire back those teachers that had to be laid off?

No problem, says the vice president. We're going to "ask" people who have "a lot of money" to "pay just a little bit more" in taxes. Where are these people? Evidently, not in York, Pa. But they're out there somewhere.

This weekend marks the 20th anniversary of Clarence Thomas's appointment to the Supreme Court. In his first two decades on the bench, Justice Thomas has established himself as the original Constitution's greatest defender against elite efforts at social engineering. His stances for limited government and individual freedom make him the left's lightning rod and the tea party's intellectual godfather. And he is only halfway through the 40 years he may sit on the high court.


Justice Thomas's two decades on the bench show the simple power of ideas over the pettiness of our politics. Media and academic elites have spent the last 20 years trying to marginalize him by drawing a portrait of a man stung by his confirmation, angry at his rejection by the civil rights community, and a blind follower of fellow conservatives. But Justice Thomas has broken through this partisan fog to convince the court to adopt many of his positions, and to become a beacon to the grass-roots movement to restrain government spending and reduce the size of the welfare state.

Clarence Thomas set the table for the tea party by making originalism fashionable again. Many appointees to the court enjoy its role as arbiter of society's most divisive questions—race, abortion, religion, gay rights and national security—and show little desire to control their own power. Antonin Scalia, at best, thinks interpreting the Constitution based on its original meaning is "the lesser evil," as he wrote in a 1989 law journal article, because it prevents judges from pursuing their own personal policies. Justice Thomas, however, thinks that the meaning of the Constitution held at its ratification binds the United States as a political community, and that decades of precedent must be scraped off the original Constitution like barnacles on a ship's hull.

In United States v. Lopez (1995), which held unconstitutional a federal law banning guns in school zones as beyond Congress's powers, Justice Thomas called on the court to reverse decades of case law that had transformed the legislature's authority "[t]o regulate Commerce . . . among the several States" into what he described as a limitless "police power." He would restrict federal laws to commercial activity that crosses state borders and end national control over manufacturing and agriculture.

Any case that allows Congress to regulate anything that has "a substantial effect" on interstate commerce "is but an innovation of the 20th century," wrote Justice Thomas in a concurring opinion. Taken to its conclusion, his view would drive a stake into the heart of the New Deal state, which would have to return policy over welfare, health care, education, labor and crime to the states where they belong. Tea partiers who oppose wasteful federal spending and want a smaller national government are following in Justice Thomas's intellectual footsteps.

Another Victory for Obama's Approach

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/world/africa/qaddafis-death-is-latest-victory-for-new-us-approach-to-war.html?_r=1&hp

Smooth!

Romney had yet another solid debate performance. Rick Perry looked small by comparison. The likeable Herman Cain was careful with his critical comments - he'd like to be on Romney's short list for VP.

Of course, I will be voting for Obama, but I am more impressed with Romney each time I see him. He is a man among boys (and girl) on the debate stage. Very presidential.

Building a World We Want to Live In

Years ago, I pointed out to the Good Doc that America would not always be the world's sole superpower. While preeminent, we should be building global institutions to make the world an agreeable place when that day comes. As China's economy grows, so too will it's military potential. As emerging markets develop, America's relative place grows smaller and the corridors of power more crowded. I think I said the size of China's economy would eclipse ours in about 2025. Of course, my B-I-L completely rejected my forecast and any effort to leverage our position through alliances and protocols.

Financial Times suggests that events are moving faster than forecast:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0c73f10e-f8aa-11e0-ad8f-00144feab49a.html#axzz1b8f1J5cx

No Reason to change the tax code

Warren Buffett made 62 Million Dollars last year and paid taxes on 39 Million!
Warren paid 17.4% tax rate on his taxable income.
Therefore Warren was able to shelter 23 million dollars from being taxed.
Explain this to middle America Jim and see if you get them to understand it. Get them to somehow see the fairness in our tax laws.
This is what the OCW street people see even if that can't verbalize it. The tax laws in this country are full of special loopholes, special exemptions, and has been paid for by lobbyists for the wealthy, this isn't class war, Jim it's common sense and common math.

Just Curious -- Huntsman

Jon Huntsman is smarter than the rest of the GOP field combined. Why is it that the Republicans cannot see this and embrace him as a candidate? He has the best shot at knocking off Obama. Isn't that the party mantra? Seems like a gentleman and a scholar to me. Might be a fine US President. Hello! Anybody home?

Quick Exit for Perry?

Last night was another poor debate performance by the one time darling of the right, Rick Perry. He admitted as much at a fraternity house after the event saying, "Debates are not my strong suit." In the same talk, he noted that our founding fathers "fought the revolution in the 16th century." His deer-in-the-headlights appearance and well hidden intellect have already worn thin on the campaign trail. He is an embarrassment.

Personally, I hope he hangs in there and spends his war chest softening up Romney for the general election. To the extent that Mitt has to protect his right flank, it will benefit President Obama. It will create great video to insert into attack ads. The GOP establishment is well aware of this and must be troubled. As the likes of Chris Christie, Dennis Hastert, and Judd Gregg quickly endorse the front runner, won't the money guys soon follow? Won't Perry's own contributors warn him off now that his place in the sun has so quickly passed?

The Texas governor may well get out before the first primary. It's already shaping up as Obama/Biden vs Romney/Rubio, which would be a great race if they were the only ones on the ballot. I expect the Tea Party will have something to say about that.

The GOP's Religious Test

I had dinner with my (conservative Republican) mother last night and the conversation moved to the fundamentalist Christian attacks on her candidate, Mitt Romney. She simply couldn't understand how this had become an issue. She said, "George Romney never had a problem in Michigan. It was never a problem when Charles Percy (Christian Scientist) ran for Senate in Illinois."

I explained that this is how today's Republican Party operates. I told her the (mostly Southern) fundamentalist Christians form the base of her party and that Midwestern common sense had been replaced by Bible Belt intolerance. She is upset at this development and pointed out that Michael Medved said on his radio show that "Born Again Christians" are only about 26% of the American population. "The way they act, you would think they were the majority!" I told her they are, in fact, the effective majority - in her party.

My lifelong Republican mother is upset and offended by this turn of events. Canary in the coal mine?

THE OCCUPY WALL STREET VS TEA PARTY

The similarities between "OWS' movement and The Tea Party are too great to ignore Jim.
Both are grass roots movements to a perceived coziness between government and big business both are fueled by frustration and suffering created by economic hardships.
Both are populist responses
Both have gained some institutional support. The Tea Party is the Right Wing loonies, and the Occupy Wall Street is the left wing loonies.
The Republican response is so hypocritical that "they OWS " have no right to protest while I guess the Tea Party does is ridiculous.
The biggest lie of the Tea Party is they are " non partisan" that doesn't even pass the laugh test as they promote Republican candidates.
I for one believe the Wall street crooks who passed on misery to the middle of America need to face tight restrictions. (Legally of course)
It is not right to take my deposits and gamble with them on risky ventures. American's need to move our money to credit unions and get out of these crooked banks. Will we do so I doubt it.
Mortgages should not be able to be cut up and sold. If the Bank thinks your credit worthy than hold the mortgage.
When I buy a stock I believe it is going up and if it don't I lose.
But what do I know I'm just middle class America one of the 99%.

The difference between the current "Wall Street" protests and the antiwar protests of the 60's?  The antiwar protesters had something to protest against...outside of themselves.


The current protestors are just a whinny bunch of idiots asking...everything...for free.

What I love most is that sooner or later these idiots will turn against our leader who, as a community organizer, helped create their beliefs and circumstance.

Terry, they are the logical extension and outcome of your beliefs. Good job!

Next?

Chris Christie wisely stuck to his guns and will not run for the top job in 2012. So then, who will be the next darling of this borderline party? Donald Trump was atop the GOP polls for some time, as was the half-term governor, Sarah Palin. Michelle Bachmann (who opposed raising the debt ceiling under any circumstances) had her time in the sun, though Herman Cain (who never served in public office) seems to have eclipsed her for the moment. Rick Perry, would-be-president of secessionist Texas has fallen as quickly as he rose the polls. Ron Paul, advocate of the gold standard, has won many GOP straw polls and Ryan-Plan-dissing Newt Gingrich has been declared the winner of a couple of the debates.

So - with such a distinguished field, who will "win" the nomination? Who will be the Republican standard bearer after such giants as John McCain, George W Bush and Bob Dole? Will it be Mitt Romney, a skilled technocrat who eschews constancy of opinion? Who else could it possibly be? Can Mitt win the presidency with a disconsolate Tea Party and uninspired GOP base? Will Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann launch a third-party candidacy under the Gadsden flag? Will the party that has moved ever further to the right be able to coalesce around anyone electable? Could things be much worse for the GOP under what should be promising circumstances?

Looks like 4 more years of President Obama. Thank God.