 |
|
|
|
We have 1 guest and 0 members online
Welcome Guest, become a member today.
|
|
|
| | edsopinion.blog@gmail.com |
|
Welcome to Ed's Opinion
|
"Often do the spirits of great events stride on before the events, and in today already, walks tomorrow." - Coleridge
New Comment System! No Registration Required
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Deception is a neo noir thriller. Staring Ewan McGregor as a Jonathan an outside auditor who reviews the books of large law and financial firms on Wall St. Hugh Jackman plays Wyatt Bose who poses as a lawyer at a firm being audited. Michelle Williams, the love interest, plays a beautiful woman that Jonathan meets through a sex club. Jonathan unwittingly becomes a member of the club through Wyatt’s deception intended as a trap to coerce Jonathan to do his bidding.
The cinematography by Dante Spinotti is excellent. It is shot in a bleached color for the modern noir effect seen before in The Game and Fight Club. The acting is excellent. The direction is good by Marcel Langenegger . The picture is technically good. However it is understated at times perhaps deliberately but it doesn’t work.
First it runs into trouble with the plot. It is slow at points but worse these characters don't act like people so we don’t completely suspend our disbelief. This is especially true with an ambiguous and contrived ending. However noir thriller fans will enjoy the effort and see what could have been. It should be judged against the genre and not against the absurd action or lowlife comedies that seem to glut the screen and vacuum up movie revenue. It is worth seeing for what it attempts.
Another problem is that Michelle Williams, we don’t learn her characters name until late in the film, is too beautiful and fragile to make a convincing femme fatale even in the dénouement at the end of the film or as a member of a sex club. Charlotte Rampling is cast as a member of the sex club and she is obviously much older than the other club members.
Usually the edits or cuts in thrillers are rapid and sharp to keep the viewer on edge to the point of disorientation and to make it difficult to piece the puzzle together until to the end or when the viewer is driving home or maybe even the next day. Well this film doesn’t have that rapid fire style and you know early on Michelle Williams is going to part of the deception. If they name the film Deception you know there will be a deception and not just the one Wyatt pulls on Jonathan at the beginning of the picture.
Perhaps the film would be more cohesive if Michelle Williams took the Jackman part, then she would certainly be a femme fatale like Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct, and you wouldn’t need the part she plays. It would make for a tighter more tense screen play or another (Maggie Q is in the film in a minor part) woman could play her part and Jackman could be a policeman. I digress too far. The picture has a lot of talent in front of and behind the camera and is worth a look. I rate it a B for effort.
|
|
| (126 Reads) |
|   |
|
|
|
|
|
|
ABSOLUTE PROSECUTORIAL IMMUNITY VERSUS QUALIFIED IMMUNITY.
Which protects the public, innocent accused and the prosecutorial community?
Numerous cases have revealed that prosecutors have been guilty of concealing exculpatory evidence presenting false evidence or other practices that deprive the accused in a criminal case of his due process rights under the 5th and 14th Amendments. When exposed this usually results in a reversal of the conviction and release of the wrongfully convicted from jail. Of course if the defendant has been executed then exoneration is meaningless.
However the Supreme Court in Imbler v. Pachtman has ruled that prosecutors have absolute immunity even when they knowingly present false evidence at trial or suppress exculpatory evidence at trial. This leaves them to be disciplined on some occasions by their state bar.
Absolute prosecutorial immunity only attaches when it is intimately connected with the trial of a case. For instance it does not attach when a prosecutor is assisting the police in investigatory functions or in activities not directly involved in the trial of a particular case. It is not based on the job title, prosecutor, but on the function the prosecutor is performing namely intimately trying a particular case. Intimately is a word used by the courts to describe when absolute immunity attaches usually during the trial of a particular case
Recent civil cases against supervisory prosecutors for damages due to a failure to set standards or office procedures for the protection of constitutional rights of the accused are not accorded absolute immunity but may have qualified immunity.
This occurred in Goldstein v. Van De Kamp, where the Los Angeles County District Attorney and his chief deputy were sued for failure to set up an index to alert prosecutors of all relevant information to each prosecution including promises made to jail house informants in return for favorable testimony.
Goldstein served twenty four years in jail on a conviction for murder based on the testimony of Edward Floyd Fink a notorious jail house snitch who had received numerous reduced sentences in the past and in Goldstein’s case had been promised favorable treatment on a pending case for testifying that Goldstein had confessed to him while they were incarcerated together in the Long Beach, California city jail.
Ultimately Goldstein won his freedom on a writ of Habeas Corpus when it came out that Fink had perjured himself by denying that a promise of favorable treatment had been made or that he had received such treatment in the past for similar jail house “confession” testimony.
Fink was well known by the Long Beach police and other prosecutors as a jail house snitch but allegedly not known by the deputy district attorney handling Goldstein’s case.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Goldstein’s suit for civil damages against the District Attorney and his chief deputy could proceed since their failure to set up a proper index disclosing a witness’s status and the promises made to him or her was administrative and not intimately connected to the Goldstein prosecution. Therefore Goldstein’s right to due process had been violated. This case has been appealed to the Supreme Court which has placed it on its calendar of cases to be heard.
However it will only hear the issue of qualified immunity as it relates to administrative duties and not absolute prosecutorial immunity.
It seems that there should not be absolute immunity for a prosecutor who either deliberately or with wanton disregard for the truth or falsity thereof offers false evidence or suppresses relevant evidence in a criminal trial.
The policy reason given for absolute immunity is that it would require prosecutors to spend too much time defending themselves civilly and thus take them away from their main prosecutorial functions. This argument sounds hollow. This is particularly true in the light of recent studies such as the Benjamin Cardozo Law School Innocence Project which found that based on DNA studies 154 innocent people have spent time in prison. In many cases the convictions of the innocent were the result of prosecutorial misconduct.
Prosecutors should only be accorded qualified immunity in all cases even those functions intimately connected with the trial of a particular case.
In doing so decent hard working prosecutors as well as the innocent will be protected from by those who would build a career and reputation on the conviction of the innocent using false evidence or suppressing relevant evidence.
A notorious case of prosecutorial misconduct in recent years was that of Michael Byron Nifong. Nifong charged white, Duke Lacrosse players with the sexual assault of a black woman who was working as an escort, prostitute, and stripper. At the time he was running for district attorney in a county with a large black population
Nifong was later disbarred and dismissed as a prosecutor after it was determined that he never interviewed the accuser who changed her story at least six times, used photographs for identification that only depicted Duke Lacrosse players and failed to timely provide defendants with exculpatory DNA evidence.
The three Lacrosse players ultimately charged spent over three million dollars defending themselves against the false accusations which also had national and international publicity. Had the players not had the resources to defend themselves as is the case in so many prosecutions Nifong might have gotten away with his conduct perpetrated to help his election as district attorney.
He did win election as district attorney but has been since dismissed. He now has taken bankruptcy to avoid the consequences of a civil suit brought by the falsely accused. He may not have absolute prosecutorial immunity since many of his actions were administrative or investigative and not intimately related to prosecution of the Duke players.
However his case shows how a corrupt prosecutor can suppress evidence or manipulate evidence to enhance his reputation and electabilty over his honest opponents. Nifong is a good example of how a corrupt prosecutor can advance his career by the prosecution of the innocent and a defining reason why there should be no absolute prosecutorial immunity
|
|
| (146 Reads) |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
DOES THE RULE OF LAW HAVE A CHANCE IN WASHINGTON?
On February 28, 2008 House speaker Nancy Pelosi Sent Attorney General Mukasey a letter requesting that he order the U. S. Attorney for the District of Columbia to enforce the House Resolution citing Harriet Miers and Jeffrey Bolton for criminal Contempt of Congress.
Ms. Miers, a former Counselor to the President and Mr. Bolton, White House Chief of Staff, were cited by a House contempt resolution for failure to respond to subpoenas for Mier’s testimony and for Bolton to produce documents concerning the Judiciary Committee’s investigation into the dismissal of 7 U.S. Attorneys.
The dismissed U.S. Attorneys alleged they were dismissed because they refused to bring invalid actions against political candidates for corruption and for voter fraud. The 7 U.S. Attorneys had previously been appointed by the Bush Administration and now were being dismissed mid- term for refusing to bow to political pressure from the White House to indict candidates adverse to the administration or bring voter fraud cases to inhibit Democratic turnout in close elections.
Mukasey wrote back to Speaker Pelosi that he would not order the U.S. Attorney to enforce the House Resolution because the parties in question claimed executive privilege and therefore a crime had not been committed.
Neither Miers nor Bolton had appeared before the Committee and claimed the privilege on a question by question basis or provided a privilege log listing the document and stating the grounds for application of the privilege. This is a statutory procedure to claim testimony or documents as privileged.
Miers and Bolton’s failure to appear in person and their claim of executive privilege, by letter, as to all communications including ones between the White House and the Justice Department or the White House and third parties is clearly not covered by executive privilege. Communications between Ms. Miers and the President may be privileged depending on the nature and type of communication. No allegation was made in correspondence between the Committee and the White House that the subpoenaed documents or testimony was related to advice given the President and therefore it is unlikely the privilege would apply.
Also even in instances where the privilege might apply there is a balancing test weighing the need for privilege over the need for the information to formulate necessary legislation.
Mukasey has a statutory duty to enpanel a grand jury for the investigation and enforcement of a Congressional Contempt citation.
In refusing to honor the citation at the request of Speaker Pelosi he is in violation of the law and probably himself in Contempt of Congress.
Thus he is a feckless lackey of the Bush Administration like Gonzales.
The House Judiciary Committee thorough the House General Counsels office has filed a Civil Contempt Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against Miers, individually and Bolton as custodian of White House records. The case is filed in the Federal District court for the District of Columbia and Assigned to Judge John D. Bates who was appointed to the Federal bench in 2001 by George W. Bush.
Prior to his appointment Bates served as a Deputy Counsel to the discredited Kenneth Starr in the Whitewater Investigation. Further he dismissed Valerie Plames civil suit for damages against Cheney, Libby, Rove and Armitage for the disclosure of her identity as a CIA agent. This despite the Supreme Court ruling that even a sitting president could be sued civilly in the Paula Jones case. She sued Clinton for sexual harassment.
The disgraced Kenneth Starr used the discovery in Jones’s case as support in his witch hunt against the Clintons. Starr proved himself to be a man without self respect or integrity in that matter. Mukasey and Bates appear to be other diehard Bush loyalists cut from the same cloth as Starr. .
Thus the partisan fecklessness continues in the Justice Department and apparently in the judiciary. The members of both bodies are sworn to impartially uphold the laws and Constitution of the United States.
It looks like it will be a long time before the subpoenas will be enforced or the rule of law will prevail in this matter.
|
|
| (159 Reads) |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Bush Justice Department targeted Democratic Politicians For Investigation or Prosecution Seven To One Over Republicans.
A recent study by two academics from the University of Minnesota, Donald Sheilds Ph.D and John F. Craigan, determined that of 375 investigations/ prosecutions by U.S. Attorneys since 2001 of candidates or elected officials 298 involved Democrats, 67 involved Republicans and 10 involved Independents.
One case was that of the Don Siegelman ex-Governor of Alabama who was indicted and convicted of bribery, mail fraud and conspiracy for accepting a campaign contribution of $500,000 to pay off a remaining debt on a campaign to establish a state lottery to fund public schools. He later appointed Richard Scrushy, the donor, to the state hospital licensing board.
Siegelman after serving nine months in Federal Prison has been released on bond by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals pending resolution of his appeal. This conviction and others is under investigation by the House Judiciary Committee for the practice of targeting Democrats by the Bush Justice Department. Jill Simpson a Republican attorney who had worked for Mr. Siegelman’s opponent in the 2002 election, which Siegelman lost by 2300 votes, has given a sworn affidavit stating that an associate of Karl Rove had assured her that Mr. Rove and two U.S. Attorney were “going to take care of Mr. Siegelman.” Forty four states attorneys general signed a petition urging the Judiciary Committee to investigate the prosecution, conviction and detention of Mr. Siegelman in that there were allegations of jury tampering and other irregularities connected with his trial and conviction.
Concurrent with this investigation is the investigation into the firing of
7 U.S Attorneys in 2007 under suspicious circumstances. The exact circumstances were never admitted by the Administration but it appeared that they were fired for failing to indict Democratic politicians in sensitive elections.
The White House says it can’t find 140,000 emails sent or received on the official White House email system by Karl Rove before he resigned. The Republic National Committee says it will not recover the emails that Karl Rove and other White House personnel sent or received under a separate illegal non- governmental email system operated by the RNC in the White House. The emails would likely reveal the facts about the pressuring of the 93 U.S Attorneys for political purposes in elections. If they would exonerate the Administration they would have been produced in response to the Judiciary Committee’s subpoenas long ago.
Normally, Presidents appoint U.S. Attorneys at the beginning of their term and the attorneys remain at their post for at least four years or are reappointed at the conclusion of the next election cycle. Amendments in the 2005 Patriot Act sponsored by the Administration allowed the Attorney General to replace dismissed U.S. Attorneys without approval by the Senate for unlimited periods. This provision of the Act has since been deleted when Congress found out what the Administration was up to.
Before The amendment vacancies filled by an interim attorney could last just 120 days before a nominee had to be approved by the Senate or a replacement was appointed by the Federal Court in the District were the attorney was going to serve on an emergency basis until a candidate was confirmed by the Senate.
Obviously this clause in the Patriot Act was an attempt to appoint U.S. Attorneys with out approval by The Senate by Gonzales, Rove and Bush. One wonders that if the seven dismissals in 2007 were for failure to prosecute political rivals of the Administration or Republican candidates for office what the 86 other U. S. Attorneys had done or were doing to please Gonzales, Rove, Miers and Bush so as to avoid dismissal.
Harriet Miers the former counsel to the president is refusing to appear and testify before the committee on the subject of political pressures and interference with the selection and duties of U.S. Attorneys although she has been subpoenaed to do so. Fred Fielding the new Counsel to the President is claiming executive privilege on her behalf.
Normally subpoenaed witnesses appear and claim the privilege in person. The matter is now on its way to the courts for a decision.
It is obvious that crimes of obstruction of justice and malfeasance are likely to have been committed by Alberto Gonzales, Karl Rove, Harriet Miers and probably others. Therefore a special prosecutor should be appointed by Attorney General Mukasey and a grand jury impaneled to determine what crimes have been committed and to charge the responsible parties.
|
|
| (170 Reads) |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXACTLY WHO WINS AND LOSES? THE COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS.
“Let he who is without sin cast the first stone…” Jesus Christ.
It seems Eliot Spitzer may be sinner but he was not offered forgiveness or succor by the flacks and mob that relished the downfall of such and able and powerful man. Many of those who condemned him were guilty of their own sexual misadventures like Bill O’Reilly at Fox News. He was one of the loudest and longest to condemn.
Spitzer had been a very effective Attorney General who brought many suits against the powerful. These included actions against fraudulent practices in the banking, securities and insurance communities. As a result billions of dollars were returned to average citizens and small investors or paid as fines. Thus he had many powerful enemies. Then he ran as the Democratic candidate for the Governor of New York and won by sixty-nine percent of the vote. This win and his past work as a hard charging Attorney General against the misdeeds of the rich and powerful made him a contender for higher political office such as Vice President or possibly President.
One wonders why a bank would find cash transactions over a number of years allegedly totaling $80,000.00 so unusual in a place like New York, the financial capital of the world. The exception here being that the account belonged to a man they knew to be an adversary to unlawful and fraudulent banking practices.
The bank's questions were not bought to his attention for an explanation like any good bank would do with a valued customer. Instead it was turned over the Internal Revenue Service for investigation. The IRS finding no violation passed it on to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New York. The result: 6000 wire taped conversations on an escort service that received about $16000 of Spitzer’s money. The taps allegedly revealed some of the money was used by Spitzer to pay for an escort. This service was naïve enough in these days of the Patriot Act to require clients to transfer money to an offshore bank account. A complaint was filed against the escort service referring to a client number nine. Spitzer’s identity as client number nine was leaked to the NY Times and later the escort’s name came out as she was compelled to testify in court. No one has identified the leaker.
Strangely, no other client’s name has been revealed or leaked and there must be hundreds if not thousands of them. One wonders what all the 6000 wire taped conversations revealed, not just the ones related to Spitzer which found there way so easily into the press.
Was Spitzer targeted as a strong democrat to be destroyed by the Bush appointed U.S. Attorney? That office was upstaged and embarrassed by the work of Spitzer as the State Attorney General. Many of the actions could have been bought by the SEC or the U.S. Attorneys office if the Bush Justice Department was interested in protecting the public. There was a score to settle here as well as the opportunity to cripple a strong democratic candidate.
EXACTLY WHO WINS AND LOSES? THE COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS. Read more...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bank Failures Were Common during The Great Depression Caused When The Federal Reserve Bank (Fed) Tightened the Money Supply Instead Of Increasing It.
On February 28, 2008 Bernanke told Congress that economic conditions were worsening and that he intended to lower interest rates to counter the slow down despite the inflationary pressures. He believes the slowing economy will act as a brake on inflationary pressures in the short term. However look for the Fed to raise interest rates when the economy starts to revive if inflation remains a problem. Hopefully this will not trigger a new sub prime crisis and a credit crunch.
While interest rates were cut by 125 basis points in January the reduction had little effect on mortgage rates. Bankers also stiffened their lending requirements. This means that the Fed cuts, so far, has had little impact on the sub prime crisis which has spread to other parts of the economy causing a general down turn.
Despite the fact the Federal Reserve Bank decreased the cost of money to lenders the reduced interest rates are not being passed on to borrowers. Lenders are also raising the qualifications necessary for loans. Therefore the persons most likely to default on their loans, the sub prime borrowers, are not being allowed to refinance
by lenders.
Isn’t this what happened in the Great Depression. Bankers panicked and stopped lending and called in loans which decreased the money supply which caused the economy to spiral down with increased business and bank failures coupled with mortgage foreclosures. The Fed at the time, contrary to what Bernanke is doing now, also tightened the money supply by raising interest rates. The result: a massive decrease in productivity and 25% unemployment.
Mr. Bernanke, I hope we are not living in interesting times.
|
|
| (219 Reads) |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(click here) FOR ANNOUNCEMENT.
Ralph Nader, who is 74, announced he is intending to run for the presidency in 2008. This is the man who steadfastly denies that his campaign in 2000 siphoned enough votes away from Al Gore to George Bush, in Florida, to cause a recount dispute and give the Republican dominated Supreme Court the chance to decide in Bush’s favor.
This is the equivalent of Nader cutting his nose off to spite his face for the third time. Maybe like Pinocchio his nose just keeps growing.
Whatever his goals are, his chances of making a difference in this election are nil.
In 2000 he received 2.7 percent of the vote. In 2004, he received only 0.3 percent. With that kind of rejection he still says he is not a spoiler.
In 2000 Nader received 97000 votes in Florida. Votes that mostly would have gone to Gore and eliminated the counting and judicial skullduggery that followed. Gore would have been President these last eight years with decidedly different consequences for the United States and the World.
In 2004 Nader was only on the ballot in thirty three states and he had to file numerous lawsuits to reach that total. I wonder who paid for registering in those states as well as the litigation. Do you think he was helped by the Republican Party, who he served so well in 2000?
With just .3 percent of the vote in 2004 it seems Nader’s capacity for doing damage in a presidential election is gone. Nader was at his best working inside the Democratic Party it is a shame that the first paragraph of his obituary will state the fact he was the spoiler who enabled George Bush and his cadre to seize the Presidency in 2000.
It should be said that Ralph Nader has raised and spent a lot money on noble causes in behalf of the American people. Therefore he must believe what he is doing is for a worthwhile cause and not just for his personal enrichment or aggrandizement.
In his announcement he states the what is wrong with our democracy and the refusal of both parties to redress these issues. He points out that approximately 1500 corporations through their lobbyists receive the attention and much of the benefits of the government. What he says is true but for him the best way to address these problems is to work through the Democratic Party not by starting a third party.
However he appears hell-bent on having the term spoiler on his tombstone even when his capacity to be one is gone no matter what the loss to his reputation
|
|
| (226 Reads) |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bernanke’s Hobson’s Choice. Interest Rate Cuts that Stimulate the Economy Or Cause Runaway Inflation?
The policies of the Bush Administration are coming home to roost.
Over just eight days in January, The Federal Reserve cut interest rates by 1.25 percentage points. This was the biggest one-month rate decrease in a quarter-century. Ostensibly this was to ease credit rates particularly with mortgage lenders so many people could refinance their fixed and adjustable rate mortgages and avoid default. This would help defuse the sub prime mortgage crisis. However inflation has reared its ugly head and the lenders have not dropped mortgage rates but raised lending standards requiring more creditworthy borrowers than those who need to refinance the most. In fact since the initial January cuts mortgage rates have steadily drifted upward because bankers see the threat of inflation on the horizon. The CPI increased at a 4% annual rate in December.
Now we have the spectre of stagflation, no growth or negative growth and inflation confronting the economy. We have seen this before under Ronald Reagan. Paul Volcker the chairman of the Federal Reserve at the time countered the crisis by sharply raising interest rates to stop the inflationary spiral. It resulted in the highest unemployment rates since the Great Depression. It was a bitter pill but it worked. Bernanke is not facing the same degree of inflationary pressure as Volcker. However decreasing interest rates to loosen credit, along with increasing oil prices coupled with the expenditures for the Iraqi War and the Bush tax cuts have created an explosive situation that could lead to run away in inflation.
Greensphan was able to cut interest rates to 1% after the tech bubble burst but he didn’t have to contend with inflation. His concern was deflation which is as bad as uncontrolled inflation but fortunately it never occurred.
Bernanke has only one choice, which is a Hobson’s choice, and that is to cut interest rates again to avoid a recession and hope inflation doesn’t get a foot hold on the economy.
Bernanke will Earn His Pay Over The Next Year.
|
|
| (215 Reads) |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did Shakespeare foresee Bill Clinton’s Misstep in South Carolina as indeed he foresaw the other stages of his life? “His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide For his shrunk shank;”
Bill Clinton gave words to his thoughts and a lot of other people’s thoughts when he inferred that the election in S. Carolina was being skewed by issues of race and gender. It turns out that the exit polls demonstrated that many people appeared to have voted along race and gender lines instead of on experience and qualifications. However to make an issue out of this would tear the Democratic Party asunder. This thought was best left unsaid as it would weaken the fabric of the Democratic Party and make who ever is nominated vulnerable to the Republican onslaught of vilification, aspersions and lies that is sure to come in the general election. Shakespeare seems to have foreseen this phase of Bill Clinton’s life or perhaps it is more evidence in general of life’s “tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” Let’s hope this event was an anomaly or sound and fury signifying nothing that will not be true of the remaining primaries or the general election. Bill Clinton being as close as he is to Hillary and her quest is to be forgiven for speaking his mind in a situation so emotionally charged for him and his family. The passage from Shakespeare follows and the bolding and insertion are by another.
All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. At first the infant,
Mewling and puking in the nurse's arms.
And then the whining school-boy, with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,
Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad
Made to his mistress' eyebrow. Then a soldier,(politician warrior in Clinton’s case)
Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation
Even in the cannon's mouth. And then the justice,
In fair round belly with good capon lined,
With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,
Full of wise saws and modern instances;
And so he plays his part. THE SIXTH AGE SHIFTS
INTO THE LEAN AND SLIPPERED'D PANTALOON,
WITH SPECTACLES ON NOSE AND POUCH ON SIDE,
HIS YOUTHFUL HOSE, WELL SAVED, A WORLD TOO WIDE
FOR HIS SHRUNK SHANK; AND HIS BIG MANLY VOICE,
TURNING AGAIN TOWARD CHILDISH TREBLE, PIPES
AND WHISTLES IN HIS SOUND. Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.
William Shakespeare - All the world's a stage (from As You Like It 2/7)
|
|
| (253 Reads) |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ahmadinejad: Me Thinks He Doth Protest Too Much. ... William Shakespeare.
Ahmadinejad First denies the holocaust, a historical fact, and then says that there are no homosexuals in Iran. It is a biological fact that a certain percentage of every population will be homosexual or lesbian.
Ahmadinejad is an intelligent man. He was born the son of a blacksmith. He placed 132nd out of 400,000 in Iran's National University Placement Exams and has a Ph.d
Why he would make such statements is confounding. Perhaps he is denying his own sexual identity like politicians in this country sometimes do if their constituency demands they be heterosexual. I'm thinking of Senator Craig here. Somehow I think Mr. Ahmadinejad may be hiding his sexual identity. The statement about the holocaust was probably made to endear him to his constituency which is Muslim but not Arabic or maybe to the broader Arabic and Muslim population of the of the Mid East . Either way he is making false statements and he knows it.
My advice to him is to stay out airport mens rooms or things may become undone, especially in Iran.
|
|
| (802 Reads) |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
SUICIDE BY COURT.
Schriro V. Landrigan, U.S. Supreme Court, May 14, 2007. Justice Thomas delivered the Opinion of the Court Joined by Roberts C.J., Scalia, Kennedy and Alito JJ. Stevens, J., Filed a dissent in which Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., Joined.
JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS
Jeffrey Landrigan was convicted of felony-murder in an Arizona state court. At the penalty phase of his trial he refused to allow his counsel to present mitigating circumstances in the form of testimony by his birth mother and his ex-wife. Further his counsel failed to have psychological testing done for the penalty phase of the trial. Landrigan was belligerent when asked by the court if he wished to have mitigating circumstances brought to its attention in the form of testimony by his birth mother and his ex-wife
He told the Judge, “Not as far as I am concerned.” He further blocked his counsel’s proffer of evidence that his birth mother had used drugs and alcohol when she was pregnant with him and that he had held a legitimate job.
He told the judge, “I think you want to give me the death penalty. Just bring it right on. I am ready for it.”
The trial judge found two statutory aggravating circumstances: first that Landrigan murdered in the expectation of pecuniary gain (nothing was taken from the apartment where the murder took place however it was inferred since Landrigan searched the apartment he was looking for something to steal. Thus the felony murder rule was invoked), further that Landrigan had committed two violent crimes previously. In addition the judge found two mitigating factors, that Landrgan’s family loved him and the absence of premeditation. Then the judge invoked the death penalty.
On appeal the Arizona Supreme Court upheld Landrigan’s sentence and conviction unanimously. An Arizona post conviction hearing by the same trial judge five years later determined that Landrgan could not demonstrate that he had been prejudiced by any error his counsel may have made.
In an habeas corpus petition the Federal District Court found that Landrigan was not prejudiced by any error his counsel may have made and that because he could not make even colorable allegations of ineffectiveness of counsel the District Court denied him a factual hearing on that issue.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, en banc, reversed saying that trial counsel did little to prepare for the sentencing aspect of the case, that there was a wealth of mitigating circumstances and that Landrigan’s last minute decision not to let his birth mother and ex-wife testify did not excuse his counsel failure to conduct an adequate investigation prior to sentencing.
The Fact That Landrigan Had Organic Brain Damage Was Not known At The Time Of Sentenceing Read more...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Court Grants Summary Judgment On Inadequate Evidence
The Court decided Scott v. Harris involving a police vehicle chase ending when the police officer, Scott, rammed the fleeing vehicle, driven by Harris, at high speed.
Victor Harris, a nineteen year old with no prior record, was speeding on a four lane divided highway at 73 mph in a 55 mph zone. The police activated their lights and signaled him to stop instead he fled. The chase continued onto a two lane highway near Harris’ home. Multiple police cars were involved. The chase at some points exceeded one hundred miles per hour with Harris passing cars on the left in the center median and over a double yellow line.
Timothy Scott was a young officer who joined in the final stages of the pursuit and he radioed for permission to execute a Precision Intervention Technique (PIT) a law enforcement approved maneuver to bump the left rear corner of the vehicle and cause it to spin out to a stop. After receiving authorization for the PIT maneuver Scott who thought it was too dangerous to execute because of the speeds of the vehicles involved decided to ram the Harris vehicle more directly. This was not a recommended maneuver to end a high speed chase and is not in the police manuals for the conduct of a chase. As a result of the ramming Harris lost control of his vehicle. Previously he had been in control of his vehicle slowing at turns, giving turn signals, passing only when it was clear to do so, and slowing down and waiting until it was clear to pass. As a result of the high speed ramming Harris went off the road and overturned with the result that he is now a quadriplegic.
The Federal District Court and the Federal Court Of Appeals both denied Scott’s motion for summary judgment based on the ground of qualified immunity. In other words that he used deadly force reasonably under the circumstances because Harris’s activity exposed other motorists, bystanders, the police and himself to great bodily injury in the chase.
Further The Facts Advanced By Scott By Themselves Indicate He Acted Unreasonably
Who Pays For Harris' Likely twenty Year Medical Care? The Taxpayers: Local And Federal. Read more...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phillip Morris USA v. Williams.
Shifting The Cost To The Public Rather Than The Wrongdoer
Phillip Morris Is Laughing All The Way To The Bank With The Profits From Their Deceit.
On February 20 2007 the United States Supreme court rendered its decision in Phillip Morris v. Williams, The majority opinion was written by Justice Breyer and joined by Chief Justice Roberts, Justices Alito, Souter and Kennedy. Justices Stevens, Ginsberg, Scalia and Thomas dissented.
The court considered a jury verdict by an Oregon court granting Mayall Williams, the widow of Jesse Williams. $821,000.00 in compensatory damages and $ 79.9 million in punitive damages. Jesse Williams smoked Marlboros for 45 years and died of lung cancer. The case turned on deceit and negligence. The trial court originally reduced the award of punitive damages but the Oregon Supreme Court reinstated the award which was then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on the grounds that the jury was inadequately instructed that they could only award punitive damages for the harm done Jesse Williams and not for any other person not a party to this lawsuit.
The Court did not address the issue if the amount of punitive damages was a violation of due process on substantive grounds. It restricted its ruling to whether or not the Oregon trial court made it sufficiently clear in its instructions to the jury that an award of punitive damages could only be based on the damage the reprehensible conduct caused the individual before the court and not on the harm done to strangers not before the court. Thus its ruling is on the basis of procedural due process.
Justices Stevens and Ginsberg found the Oregon jury instructions unambiguous and compliant with the law. They found no grounds to over turn the Oregon Supreme Court ruling. Judge Stevens pointed out that Justices Breyer's opinion while limiting punitive damages to the party in the suit also stated that the jury can look to the reprehensibility of the defendants conduct giving rise to punitive damages as it affected others who were strangers to the law suit. This would establish the degree of reprehensibility by looking at such things as knowledge of harm to others etc. Justice Stevens further stated there is no restriction on the State allowing punitive damages for reprehensible conduct to strangers to the law suit and therefore the Oregon Court was correct in its charge to the jury.
Justices Scalia and Thomas do not believe the Constitution grants either substantive due process rights or procedural due process rights as to the amount of punitive damages and therefore the issue was moot for them.
Phillip Morris has caused thousands if not millions of injuries usually leading to death by its deceitful marketing practices. Many of those injured will never have the luxury of a jury trial because they are too old, sick, dead or for other practical reasons unable to bring or participate in a law suit. Indeed if all those damaged brought suit there would be not enough courts to hear the cases. Yet Phillip Morris continues to market its cigarettes and reap the profits from persons they deceitfully addicted years ago. Many of today’s smokers were enticed to try smoking by advertising campaigns directed at the young. Phillip Morris knew that cigarettes were dangerous to ones health and it also knew that if they enticed young people to try smoking many would become addicted and never be able to give it up. It seems that this decision provides Phillip Morris with a windfall for the reprehensible conduct from which it profited so greatly and continues to profit for the sales to those it addicted to cigarettes by its deceit.
A Punitive damage award serves many purposes in the law. Its use looks both forward and backward. It sees the reprehensibility of the conduct toward the litigant, looks to how wide spread the conduct was in our society as an element of the reprehensibility and the amount of the punitive damages is designed to deter similar conduct in the future.
In this case the court did not rule on the adequacy of the damages awarded Mr. Williams widow but sent the case back to the Oregon Supreme Court for reduction of the award or to grant a new trial only on the grounds that the trial court had not clearly instructed the jury on the limitations on the scope of the punitive damages award. A new concept not heretofore required and which four Justices found to be not based on a constitutional requirement
The General Welfare Of The Public Is Not Served By This Decision.
Phillip Morris Is Laughing All The Way To The Bank With The Profits From Their Deceit.
Read more...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Voice In The Wilderness.
Jimmy Carter was awarded the Noble Peace Prize in 2002 for the reasons given in the Nobel committee’s citation which begins as follows:
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided to award the Nobel Peace Prize for 2002 to Jimmy Carter, for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development. During his presidency (1977-1981), Carter's mediation was a vital contribution to the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt, in itself a great enough achievement to qualify for the Nobel Peace Prize. At a time when the cold war between East and West was still predominant, he placed renewed emphasis on the place of human rights in international politics.
The balance of the citation can be found here. (click here)
Mr. Carter has now written a book published by Simon and Schuster in 2006 giving his opinion why peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis cannot be achieved under the conditions that presently exist.
First he points out that Hamas, Fatah, the Palestinian Authority under President Mahmoud Abbas and Yasser Arafat and the Israeli Government have all agreed at one time or another to a division into two states of the land called Palestine as it existed before 1948 to the borders existent in 1967. This is a general principle all parties ostensibly agree upon but the devil is in the details of execution.
The principal of “Right Of Return” is a condition of the Palestinians, along with just compensation for lands acquired as a result of the creation of the State of Israel. Many Palestinians still have deeds to property they owned in Israel for which they did not receive compensation.
If all Palestinians exercised a right of return to Palestinian land as it existed before 1948 there would be more Palestinians than Israelis in Israel. However, allegedly most Palestinians do not want to return but about 10 percent say they do. This would amount to three to four hundred thousand people and presumably this would be intolerable to the present population of Israel. The balance of the Palestinians alive today would live in the West Bank, Gaza or elsewhere in the Middle East or the world. Presumably the right of return would be limited to the West Bank or Gaza in any treaty.
The central theme of this book is that the present Israeli government is preventing a peaceable two state approach as stated above by building the wall. The wall is not being built along the 1967 borders of the West Bank but is three times as long as the 1967 border. It is being built on Palestinian land and snakes through the West Bank in a way that divides communities from their fields and in other ways that separate Palestinian not only from Israelis but also Palestinians. Also it divides the West Bank into economically unsustainable parts. Carter points out that the economically fertile Jordan River Valley in the West Bank was confiscated by the Israel after the 1967 war and settled by Israelis. The Palestinian owners have never been allowed to return or have been compensated.
Carter points out the many unjust social, legal and economic practices by the Israelis in the occupied lands since 1967 which create road blocks to any lasting settlement.
THE WALL WILL PREVENT PEACE. Read more...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This film stars Leonardo DiCaprio (Danny Archer) as a nihilistic South African diamond smuggler. Djimon Honsou, (Solomon Vandy) is a Sierra Leone fisherman whose village has been ravaged by the Revolutionary United Front. The RUF is a guerrilla army financed by conflict diamonds that uses young boys as soldiers. Vandy is sent off as forced laborer in the guerrilla held diamond fields and his son is conscripted into the rebel army. Jennifer Connelly (Maddy Bowen) is a journalist chasing the story of the international syndicate, DeBeers, which buys the diamonds to maintain their monopoly over the international diamond market. A large part of this market consists of Americans paying high prices for polished bits of carbon that would be worth a few dollars at best if there was a free market in diamonds. The dark side of the purchase of these conflict or blood diamonds is that it finances the RUF in its wild rampage for control of the diamond fields.
In one scene it shows the guerrillas chopping of the hands and arms of innocent civilians. This is the RUF response to the President’s proclamation that the future of a Sierra Leone is in the hands of its people.
While he is a captive, Solomon finds a huge uncut diamond and hides it. He escapes and ends up in a Freetown Jail where Danny is also incarcerated as a captured smuggler. Another prisoner who was A RUF guard accuses Solomon of hiding the diamond.
Danny learns about Solomon’s diamond and when they are released from jail offers to help Solomon to find his son in exchange for a share in the diamond. Danny meets Maddy who wants the story and pictures of the diamond fields, slave workers and the boy soldiers to show how the diamond cartel prolongs the war. She offers to help Danny and Solomon return to the diamond field where the Solomon has buried the diamond using her journalist access as cover. This is as about as thick as the plot gets.
Blood Diamond an exploitation film about exploitation.
Read more...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
China is at a cross roads in its development as a member of the free world economy. In recent years it has moved towards free market capitalism and enjoyed a robust trade with the United States and other free nations. This is a long way from the nineteen fifties when it was Stalinist type communist state. Then North Korea was it’s protégé state and a member of the communist bloc led by the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin. When North Korea attacked South Korea on June 26, 1950 in its quest to unify the Korean peninsula under communist rule it was supported by Chinese troops with Soviet logistical support and combat advisors.
Since the Korean War North Korea has remained a Stalinist style dictatorship while China and Russia have emerged from communism, one as a free market economy moving towards democracy and the other a democracy moving towards capitalism.
The rationale for world communism no longer exists and the rationale for North Korea to exist in its present form as a dictatorship for the benefit of Kim Jong Il is no longer tenable. Just as China and the Soviet Union failed as communist states so has North Korea.
North Korea was basically the creation of Russia after WWII and would not exist today if it were not for Chinese and Soviet support during the Korean War. Indeed it would not exist today if it were not for the aid of China, which supplies about seventy percent of its energy and food needs.
China is the main reason why North Korea exists in its present form and China prevents the free world from bringing an end to this outrage as a nation under a dictatorship for the benefit of one man while children reportedly starve under its failed communist economic system. Its economy is one-sixth the size of California’s. Compared with South Korea it is a laughing stock as a state. South Korea on the other hand is a world-class economy comparable to the smaller European economies. It is a democracy and its people enjoy a high standard of living for Asia.
China has come to the crossroads where its interests lie with the West and in not in preserving a monstrosity. North Korean is now an embarrassment to China and an obstruction to its goals as a market economy.
North Korea’s nuclear endeavors have created security concerns in Japan, Taiwan and South Korea. All of these countries have the technical sophistication to become nuclear in a very short period of time. Indeed Japan already has a supply of plutonium generated by its peaceful nuclear reactors.
The Initiative Lies With China. Read more...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why Shouldn't Women Vote? They Would Make A difference In The Way Political Matters Are Conducted In Washington and Sacramento. Women Could Put A Brake On Crony Politics, Antisocial One Sided Policies Favoring The Rich Over The Middle Class, Business As Usual Practices Influenced By Lobbyists And Unsavory Conduct Involving Juveniles. Here Are Two Videos On The Subject.
"Twenty Million Women."(click here)
" My First Time." (click here)
|
|
| (1230 Reads) |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinton, in and interview with Chris wallace on Fox News gets angry at a trick to smear him with responsility for 9/11 and angrily puts Wallace down and explains how the Bush Adminisration did nothing about Al Queda despite warnings from their counter terrorism chief, Richard Clarke, and other high government officials well before 9/11. This failure by the Bush Administration was well documented in Richard Clarke's book Against All Enemies. See the video of the interview.(click here)
|
|
| (1141 Reads) |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
See How He Has Lied To Californians On Video In His Own Words.
(click here)
See How He Built Himself Up By Deceiving The Public.
(click here)
|
|
| (1260 Reads) |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recently Robert Kennedy Jr. co-authored an article entitled “Will The Next Election Be Hacked?” pointing out the lack of verifiable oversight when digital touch screen voting machines are used. Most of these systems are installed and operated by the manufacturer and leave no paper trail. So there is no recount possible. In particular Kennedy points out that machines manufactured by the Diebold Company are susceptible to a patch that can be uploaded by a memory card in seconds. This patch to the software can change votes from one candidate to another and thus change the outcome of an election in a race where the outcome is likely to be close. The patch can also self-destruct leaving no trace of its existence.
However since the 1994 Congressional landslide in favor of the GOP most but not all congressional districts have been gerrymandered to favor a Republican majority in the House. Some of these gerrymandered districts are up for grabs by the Democrats in this election because this is a midterm election year for a lame duck president. Also it is because of the Abramoff scandal involving Republican members of congress who took money or other emoluments from him.
Bob Ney (R) is an example. He represented the 18th District in Ohio and resigned after a criminal conviction arising out of his dealings with Abramoff. He has handpicked a close associate to run in his place. However the polls show the Democratic contender is running a close race for the seat. Therefore a few percentage points change in the vote one way or the other will determine the outcome of this race. Mr. Kennedy has pointed out that election machine manufacturers like Diebold that make and operate the touch screen machines are big contributors to the GOP and their contracts to install the machine usually come through Republican Secretaries of State who supervise voting in their states. Ohio is one of those states with Diebold machines. Diebold has a contract to manufacture, install, service and tabulate results in many cases
Therefore the ease which the software of these machines can be manipulated and the lack of a paper trail for a recount along with lack of elected neutral oversight make these machines easy prey for those who would manipulate an election.
Mr. Kennedy points out that these machines have delivered results in conflict with independent polls regarding the outcome of an election that are unexplainable.
The Republicans say they win close elections because of their data mining techniques which help them to identify likely Republican voters and that they then have volunteers make personal contact with these people and help them get to the polls. Allegedly this is why they win races that are close but the Democrats are predicted to win because the pollsters don’t account for the new techniques they are using. Rove and company did this in 2004 they say after discerning that about three percent of likely Republican voters didn’t go to the polls in 2000.
The Democrats had strong get out the vote machines in the past mainly through the unions and political control of large cities. However with the decline of the unions and with the cities residents moving to suburbia and gentrifying the Democratic strength in this area has waned also.
Also the Republicans have more money to spend on elections overall. Thus they can use exotic data mining techniques to identify likely GOP voters and have them contacted by volunteers. This provides a double whammy: extra money for media advertising and the money and people to directly contact likely Republican but lazy voters to make sure they vote.
The Democratic union and city base has been weakened in the last few decades so they can’t count on union or city volunteers making sure the Democratic vote gets out and the Democrats have less money to spend on media advertising to reach their constituency that have moved from their city roots.
The One And Only Solution Read more...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
· DECEPTION: A NEO NOIR THRILLER. FLAWED BUT WORTH A LOOK. HUGH JACKMAN, EWAN MCGREGOR, MICHELLE WILLIAMS. RATED B.
(Apr 28, 2008)(126)
· ABSOLUTE PROSECUTORIAL IMMUNITY VERSUS QUALIFIED IMMUNITY.
(Apr 16, 2008)(146)
· Attorney General Mukasey Proves Himself As Feckless And Lacking in Integrity As Gonzales. He Refuses to Carry Out Statutory Duties To Enforce Contempt Citation In The Dismissal of U.S. Attorneys Matter.
(Apr 07, 2008)(159)
· WILL MUKASEY APPOINT A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR OR IS HE ANOTHER GONZALES?
(Apr 01, 2008)(170)
· ELIOT SPITZER : WAS HE TARGETED BY HIS ADVERSARIES?
(Mar 24, 2008)(220)
· MR. BERNANKE I HOPE WE ARE NOT LIVING IN INTERESTING TIMES. "May You Live In Interesting Times." Translation Of An Ancient Chinese Proverb And Curse.
(Feb 28, 2008)(219)
· TEMPEST IN A TEAPOT: NADER’S ANNOUNCEMENT FOR THE PRESIDENCY IN 2008. HE IS HELL BENT IN HAVING “SPOILER” ON HIS TOMBSTONE. NO GREATER LOVE HAS ANY MAN THAN TO LAY DOWN HIS REPUTATION FOR HIS FELLOW MAN. - JESUS (APPROXIMATELY)
(Feb 24, 2008)(226)
· Bernanke’s Hobson’s Choice. Interest Rate Cuts that Stimulate the Economy Or Cause Runaway Inflation?
(Feb 22, 2008)(215)
· IT SEEMS SHAKESPEARE KNEW BILL CLINTON TOO!
(Feb 18, 2008)(253)
· Ahmadinejad: Me Thinks He Doth Protest Too Much. ... William Shakespeare
(Oct 04, 2007)(802)
· SUICIDE BY COURT. Schriro V. Landrigan. Opinion By Justice Clarence Thomas
(May 22, 2007)(870)
· Scott V. Harris. The Supreme Court Paves The Way For A New Blood Bath.
(May 09, 2007)(1054)
· Phillip Morris USA v. Williams. Shifting The Burden To The Public Rather Than The Wrongdoer
(Feb 23, 2007)(1061)
· PALESTINE PEACE NOT APARTHEID : Jimmy Carter. Rated A.
(Dec 17, 2006)(1074)
· Blood Diamond: Rated B: Another Exploitation Of Sierra Leone.
(Dec 10, 2006)(1452)
· China’s Dilemma: How To Stabilize North Korea. The Ball Is In China’s Court.
(Oct 20, 2006)(1162)
· Why Shouldn't Women Vote? Twenty Million Didn't Last Election.
(Oct 19, 2006)(1230)
· Clinton puts down Fox News on its attempt smear him with responsibility for 9/11
(Oct 17, 2006)(1141)
· Arnold Schwarzenegger: Greatest Falsehoods Video
(Oct 12, 2006)(1260)
· Machine Politics and Political Machines. Does Money Determine The Outcome Of Elections Or Demographics? Or Is It Because Voting Machines Are Programmed To Favor A Candidate?
(Oct 06, 2006)(1232)
· “This Film Is Not Yet Rated”: B.
(Sep 12, 2006)(1156)
· World Trade Center: Directed by Oliver Stone With Nicolas Cage, Maria Bello, Maggie Gyllenhaal. Ann Coulter See The Film Swallow Your Venomous Tongue And Shut Your Mouth.
(Aug 29, 2006)(1144)
· MIAMI VICE:B. Gong Li As The Femme Fatale In A TV Action Remake?
(Aug 22, 2006)(1281)
· | |
