Follow this line of reasoning:
1. Republicans/conservatives want deregulation in the marketplace, the very same deregulation that has brought this country to its knees, the greatest recession since the Depression.
2. Republicans want to pass a Balance Budget Amendment to the Constitution, which would tie the hands of President Obama in correcting the economy.
3. There is a theory, coming out of the University of Chicago, which states that regulators (ie, SEC) do not protect the public as much as they protect the ones they're regulating; it's called Capture of Regulation.
4. Then, of course, we have The Public Duty Doctrine, which states that law enforcement has no legal duty to protect; they cannot be held liable for failing to protect because there was no legal duty to protect in the first place.
5. In 2003, in the case of Akre vs. Fox News, a Florida Appeals court ruled that the news media (a corporation) can lie to the public. The FCC does not offer any protection to the public from media lies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre.
Jane wrote this piece on Public Truth.org: http://www.publictruth.org/content/view/122/26/ And Liane Costen's update of that piece included this: "Can corporations have the power to influence the media reporting even at the expense of truth? Apparently so."
6. And, finally, January, 2010, the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission No. 08-205, ruled that a corporation is an individual, and, therefore, should be entitled to contribute to political campaigns and advertise for particular candidates. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html
Bottomline: The big picture for white collar, blue collar, and no collar is that we have to come together and protect our interests, as a whole, as one people, against those who are motivated solely by money and power. Money and power has no roots, does not pledge allegiance, does not send sons and daughters into harm's way, does not bury the dead.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Thursday, March 11, 2010
PDD.79: The Capture of Regulation
Well, I'm watching C-Span this morning, The Washington Journal, topic: Fixing Financial Institutions. Robert Johnson, of the Roosevelt Institute: Project on Global Finance, Director, is being interviewed.
Approximately 22.4 minutes into the interview, Johnson is talking about regulations that protect the public. When all of a sudden he says, paraphrasing: There is a financial theory, out of the University of Chicago, that states that regulators don't work to protect the public as much as they protect the industry they regulate. And it's called The Capture of Regulation. See for yourself: http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/03/11/WJE/A/30561/Robert+Johnson+Roosevelt+Institute.aspx
So, I say to myself, "Jesus, Mary & Joseph, that's what's wrong with the system. That explains the SEC, FTC, FDA, and every other ABC of government, not being asleep at the wheel, but being in cahoots with those they are supposed to regulate. The public has been flim-flammed." Does it sound familiar? Very similar to the Public Duty Doctrine.
So, I looked it up (Capture of Regulation). Wikipedia did not do a very good job. But consider this: http://wikisum.com/w/Stigler:_The_theory_of_economic_regulation
Now, this is not a doctrine, like The Public Duty Doctrine. But doesn't this theory explain so much of what is not going on -- consumer protection?
Consider this: The SEC, for example, connects two worlds: regulatory oversight and the economy. The SEC should bridge these two main elements that make America America. The problem with this bridge is that the opposing land masses are eroding away, leaving a bridge to nowhere.
Approximately 22.4 minutes into the interview, Johnson is talking about regulations that protect the public. When all of a sudden he says, paraphrasing: There is a financial theory, out of the University of Chicago, that states that regulators don't work to protect the public as much as they protect the industry they regulate. And it's called The Capture of Regulation. See for yourself: http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/03/11/WJE/A/30561/Robert+Johnson+Roosevelt+Institute.aspx
So, I say to myself, "Jesus, Mary & Joseph, that's what's wrong with the system. That explains the SEC, FTC, FDA, and every other ABC of government, not being asleep at the wheel, but being in cahoots with those they are supposed to regulate. The public has been flim-flammed." Does it sound familiar? Very similar to the Public Duty Doctrine.
So, I looked it up (Capture of Regulation). Wikipedia did not do a very good job. But consider this: http://wikisum.com/w/Stigler:_The_theory_of_economic_regulation
Now, this is not a doctrine, like The Public Duty Doctrine. But doesn't this theory explain so much of what is not going on -- consumer protection?
Consider this: The SEC, for example, connects two worlds: regulatory oversight and the economy. The SEC should bridge these two main elements that make America America. The problem with this bridge is that the opposing land masses are eroding away, leaving a bridge to nowhere.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
The Public Duty Doctrine.78: Protect and Serve
So, if government and its agents (law enforcement) have no legal duty to protect; they cannot be held liable for failing to protect because there is no legal duty to protect in the first place, Why in God's name would they put "Protect & Serve" on the sides of their patrol cars?
Consider the use of the Fairy Tale: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairy_Tales
Consider the use of Guided Imagery:
http://www.academyforguidedimagery.com/whatisguidedimagery/index.html
http://www.synthesiscenter.org/articles/0340.pdf
Answer: Because they could......and it worked.....until now.
Consider the use of the Fairy Tale: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairy_Tales
Consider the use of Guided Imagery:
http://www.academyforguidedimagery.com/whatisguidedimagery/index.html
http://www.synthesiscenter.org/articles/0340.pdf
Answer: Because they could......and it worked.....until now.
Monday, March 8, 2010
The Public Duty Doctrine.77: Gov't as Fiduciary?
Just left the courthouse. Opened an estate for mom. Gotta pay off who we owe. Mom, a Republican, would have it no other way. Pay as you go, you know. I still can't believe she's gone. I was her son. I am now a fiduciary.
According to Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, a fiduciary is as follows:
The term is derived from the Roman law, and means (as a noun) a person holding the character of a trustee, or a character analogous to that of a trustee, in respect to the trust and confidence involved in it and the scrupulous good faith and candor which it requires. A person having duty, created by his undertaking, to act primarily for another's benefit in matters connected with such undertaking. As an adjective it means of the nature of a trust; having the characteristics of a trust; analogous to a trust; relating to or founded upon a trust or confidence.
A person or institution who manages money or property for another and who must exercise a standard of care in such management activity imposed by law or contract; e.g. executor of estate, receiver in bankrupty; trustee. A trustee, for example, possesses a fiduciary responsibility to the beneficiaries of the trust to follow the terms of the trust and the requirements of applicable state law. A breach of fiduciary responsibility would make the trustee liable to the beneficiaries for any damage caused by such breach.
The status of being a fiduciary gives rise to certain legal incidents and obligations, including the prohibition against investing the money or property in investments which are speculative or otherwise imprudent.
As per Black's Law Dictionary, definition of Fiduciary bond:
Type of surety bond required by court to be filed by trustees, administrators, executors, guardians, and conservators to insure proper performance of their duties.
As per Black's, definition of Fiduciary capacity:
One is said to act in a 'fiduciary capacity' or to receive money or contract a debt in such capacity when the business which he transacts, or the money or property which he handles, is not his own or for his own benefit, but for the benefit of another person, as to whom he stands in a relation implying and necessitating great confidence and trust on the one part and a high degree of good faith on the other part. The term is not restricted to technical or express trusts, but includes also such offices or relations as those of an attorney at law, a guardian, executor, or broker, a director of a corporation, and a public officer.
Now............. as recent events have proved, it's apparently all about money and power. Our government bailed out the banks/perps, insurance companies, auto companies, initially turned a blind eye to huge bonuses, SEC asleep at the wheel, on and on and on.
So, (as they say in business: "business is business, nothing personal") why not look at local, state, and federal governments as fiduciaries?
The Public Duty Doctrine states that government and its agents (law enforcement) have no legal duty to protect; they cannot be held liable for failure to protect because there was no legal duty to protect in the first place. There is a conspiracy of silence to keep this from public knowledge.
American law enforcement is huge, consume untold amounts of money to operate, and are fiduciaries, of a sort, in the budgeting and managing of our tax dollars.
Do you know how the fed finally got Al Capone? Tax fraud.
Do you know how local, state, and federal governments might eventually be forced to disclose The Public Duty Doctrine, this most vital of information, to the public? Through the Almighty Dollar. Tie mandatory disclosure of The Public Duty Doctrine to annual law enforcement budgets.
According to Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, a fiduciary is as follows:
The term is derived from the Roman law, and means (as a noun) a person holding the character of a trustee, or a character analogous to that of a trustee, in respect to the trust and confidence involved in it and the scrupulous good faith and candor which it requires. A person having duty, created by his undertaking, to act primarily for another's benefit in matters connected with such undertaking. As an adjective it means of the nature of a trust; having the characteristics of a trust; analogous to a trust; relating to or founded upon a trust or confidence.
A person or institution who manages money or property for another and who must exercise a standard of care in such management activity imposed by law or contract; e.g. executor of estate, receiver in bankrupty; trustee. A trustee, for example, possesses a fiduciary responsibility to the beneficiaries of the trust to follow the terms of the trust and the requirements of applicable state law. A breach of fiduciary responsibility would make the trustee liable to the beneficiaries for any damage caused by such breach.
The status of being a fiduciary gives rise to certain legal incidents and obligations, including the prohibition against investing the money or property in investments which are speculative or otherwise imprudent.
As per Black's Law Dictionary, definition of Fiduciary bond:
Type of surety bond required by court to be filed by trustees, administrators, executors, guardians, and conservators to insure proper performance of their duties.
As per Black's, definition of Fiduciary capacity:
One is said to act in a 'fiduciary capacity' or to receive money or contract a debt in such capacity when the business which he transacts, or the money or property which he handles, is not his own or for his own benefit, but for the benefit of another person, as to whom he stands in a relation implying and necessitating great confidence and trust on the one part and a high degree of good faith on the other part. The term is not restricted to technical or express trusts, but includes also such offices or relations as those of an attorney at law, a guardian, executor, or broker, a director of a corporation, and a public officer.
Now............. as recent events have proved, it's apparently all about money and power. Our government bailed out the banks/perps, insurance companies, auto companies, initially turned a blind eye to huge bonuses, SEC asleep at the wheel, on and on and on.
So, (as they say in business: "business is business, nothing personal") why not look at local, state, and federal governments as fiduciaries?
The Public Duty Doctrine states that government and its agents (law enforcement) have no legal duty to protect; they cannot be held liable for failure to protect because there was no legal duty to protect in the first place. There is a conspiracy of silence to keep this from public knowledge.
American law enforcement is huge, consume untold amounts of money to operate, and are fiduciaries, of a sort, in the budgeting and managing of our tax dollars.
Do you know how the fed finally got Al Capone? Tax fraud.
Do you know how local, state, and federal governments might eventually be forced to disclose The Public Duty Doctrine, this most vital of information, to the public? Through the Almighty Dollar. Tie mandatory disclosure of The Public Duty Doctrine to annual law enforcement budgets.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
The Public Duty Doctrine.76: Dr. Phil
Dr. Phil's show today was entitled "What's Wrong With People?"
One of the segments involved airing the brutal beating of a girl, Aiesha Steward-Baker, at a Seattle bus terminal in front of security staff. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vU81qkuvcU
Dr. Phil stated that Aiesha had actually approached Seattle police first and was told to move on.
Nancy Grace, a former Atlanta district attorney and guest on the show today, commented on the attack.
However, neither Dr. Phil nor Nancy Grace mentioned The Public Duty Doctrine, either specifically or generally.
One of the segments involved airing the brutal beating of a girl, Aiesha Steward-Baker, at a Seattle bus terminal in front of security staff. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vU81qkuvcU
Dr. Phil stated that Aiesha had actually approached Seattle police first and was told to move on.
Nancy Grace, a former Atlanta district attorney and guest on the show today, commented on the attack.
However, neither Dr. Phil nor Nancy Grace mentioned The Public Duty Doctrine, either specifically or generally.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
The Public Duty Doctrine.75: Sleeping Beauty
The Arts & Leisure section of Sunday's New York Times (2-28-10) ran an article entitled "Violence That Art Didn't See Coming," by Sam Tanenhaus. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/arts/28bishop.html
His message: Novelists and Hollywood writers dropped the ball in predicting, through their art, the kind of violence demonstrated by Amy Bishop, "... the neuroscientist arrested for shooting six colleagues, killing three, at a department meeting at the University of Alabama in Huntsville."
Tanenhaus states, "Rampages of this sort have become familiar. But with rare exceptions they have been the preserve of men: lonely, alienated psycho killers with arsenals of high-powered weapons and feverishly composed manifestos." "... the culture is still relatively unprepared for a female killer of the kind suggested by the case of Amy Bishop..."
In a much broader sense, beyond the particulars of the Amy Bishop case, I believe that novelists and Hollywood writers, through a conspiracy of silence, have failed to portray the plight of women in our violent culture. The concept of The Public Duty Doctrine, specifically or generally, is, and has been, conspicuously absent in their writings. The above article should have been entitled, "Violence That Art Turned Its Back On."
John Grisham, Dick Wolf, Jerry Bruckheimer, are you listening?
When a woman calls 9-1-1 or gets a restraining order, does she know that government and its agents (police, district attorneys) have no legal duty to protect; they cannot be held liable for failing to protect because there was no legal duty to protect in the first place?
Women have been betrayed by the criminal justice system and the Arts (writers and producers, like Grisham, Wolf, Bruckheimer).
If I were among those purveyors of lies, I would be afraid -- oh, so afraid -- when the slumbering feminine awakes.
His message: Novelists and Hollywood writers dropped the ball in predicting, through their art, the kind of violence demonstrated by Amy Bishop, "... the neuroscientist arrested for shooting six colleagues, killing three, at a department meeting at the University of Alabama in Huntsville."
Tanenhaus states, "Rampages of this sort have become familiar. But with rare exceptions they have been the preserve of men: lonely, alienated psycho killers with arsenals of high-powered weapons and feverishly composed manifestos." "... the culture is still relatively unprepared for a female killer of the kind suggested by the case of Amy Bishop..."
In a much broader sense, beyond the particulars of the Amy Bishop case, I believe that novelists and Hollywood writers, through a conspiracy of silence, have failed to portray the plight of women in our violent culture. The concept of The Public Duty Doctrine, specifically or generally, is, and has been, conspicuously absent in their writings. The above article should have been entitled, "Violence That Art Turned Its Back On."
John Grisham, Dick Wolf, Jerry Bruckheimer, are you listening?
When a woman calls 9-1-1 or gets a restraining order, does she know that government and its agents (police, district attorneys) have no legal duty to protect; they cannot be held liable for failing to protect because there was no legal duty to protect in the first place?
Women have been betrayed by the criminal justice system and the Arts (writers and producers, like Grisham, Wolf, Bruckheimer).
If I were among those purveyors of lies, I would be afraid -- oh, so afraid -- when the slumbering feminine awakes.
Monday, March 1, 2010
PDD.74: Chicago Gun Law before Court
Here we go again. Will the Supreme Court have the courage to disclose The Public Duty Doctrine as the reason for law-abiding citizens to purchase and own handguns for their own safety?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35649914/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35649914/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)