Category: Justice

Judge Overturns Craven Obama Administration Morning After Pill Policy

No Comments

A while back, in yet another attempt to appease right wing Neanderthals who will never support him, the Obama Administration overruled its experts at the FDA, and limited access to the morning after pill.

Well, a Federal Judge just called the decision, arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable:

A federal judge on Friday ordered that the most common morning-after pill be made available over the counter for all ages, instead of requiring a prescription for girls 16 and younger. But his acidly worded decision raises a broader question about whether a cabinet secretary can decide on a drug’s availability for reasons other than its safety and effectiveness.

In his ruling, Judge Edward R. Korman of the Eastern District of New York accused the Obama administration of putting politics ahead of science. He concluded that the administration had not made its decisions based on scientific guidelines, and that its refusal to lift restrictions on access to the pill, Plan B One-Step, was “arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable.”

He said that when the Health and Human Services secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, countermanded a move by the Food and Drug Administration in 2011 to make the pill, which helps prevent pregnancy after sexual intercourse, universally available, “the secretary’s action was politically motivated, scientifically unjustified, and contrary to agency precedent.”

This is a very well deserved smack down.

Of all the bits of cowardice to come out of the Obama administration over the past few years, this was arguably the most heinous.

More Judges Criticize Bankster’s Get Out of Jail Free Cards

No Comments

First, it was federal Judge Jed Rakoff, who has refused to accept “no harm, no fowl” deals with the SEC, and now U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein is questioning the fairness of a settlement of shareholder lawsuit:

A Manhattan federal judge on Monday signaled he will not rubber-stamp Citigroup Inc’s proposed $590 million settlement of a shareholder lawsuit accusing it of hiding tens of billions of dollars of toxic mortgage assets.

U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein asked lawyers for the bank and its shareholders to address several issues at an April 8 fairness hearing, including requested legal fees and expenses of roughly $100 million, and the absence of payments by former Citigroup executives.

………

Stein joined other judges in recent years to question the fairness of large legal settlements in the financial industry.

Citigroup awaits a decision from the federal appeals court in New York on whether Stein’s colleague Jed Rakoff properly rejected a $285 million settlement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission over the alleged defrauding of investors.

On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero in Manhattan cited that case in delaying a decision to approve the SEC’s $602 million insider trading settlement with a unit of Steven Cohen’s hedge fund SAC Capital Advisors LP.

………

According to court papers, the shareholder settlement also resolved claims against several former top Citigroup officials, including Chief Executive Charles Prince and senior adviser Robert Rubin. Stein asked whether this was proper.

“Does the absence of any payments from the individual defendants render the settlement unfair to class members who still hold the Citigroup stock they purchased during the class period?” he asked both sides to address.

More of this, please.

India Rejects Evergreening Pharmaceuticals

No Comments

The Indian Supreme Court has rejected a patent for a slightly modified drug, on the basis that it was not a significant change.

The drug companies do this all the time, in order to extend their patents on drugs nearly indefinitely:

People in developing countries worldwide will continue to have access to low-cost copycat versions of drugs for diseases like H.I.V. and cancer, at least for a while.

Production of the generic drugs in India, the world’s biggest provider of cheap medicines, was ensured on Monday in a ruling by the Indian Supreme Court.

The debate over global drug pricing is one of the most contentious issues between developed countries and the developing world. While poorer nations maintain they have a moral obligation to make cheaper, generic drugs available to their populations — by limiting patents in some cases — the brand name pharmaceutical companies contend the profits they reap are essential to their ability to develop and manufacture innovative medicines.

Specifically, the decision allows Indian makers of generic drugs to continue making copycat versions of the drug Gleevec, which is made by Novartis. It is spelled Glivec in Europe and elsewhere. The drug provides such effective treatment for some forms of leukemia that the Food and Drug Administration approved the medicine in the United States in 2001 in record time. The ruling will also help India maintain its role as the world’s most important provider of inexpensive medicines, which is critical in the global fight against deadly diseases. Gleevec, for example, can cost as much as $70,000 a year, while Indian generic versions cost about $2,500 a year.

The ruling comes at a challenging time for the pharmaceutical industry, which is increasingly looking to emerging markets to compensate for lackluster drug sales in the United States and Europe. At the same time, it is facing other challenges to its patent protections in countries like Argentina, the Philippines, Thailand and Brazil.

“I think other countries will now be looking at India and saying, ‘Well, hold on a minute — India stuck to its guns,’ ” said Tahir Amin, a director of the Initiative for Medicines, Access and Knowledge, a group based in New York that works on patent cases to foster access to drugs.

………

In Monday’s decision, India’s Supreme Court ruled that the patent that Novartis sought for Gleevec did not represent a true invention. The ruling is something of an anomaly. Passed under international pressure, India’s 2005 patent law for the first time allowed for patents on medicines, but only for drugs discovered after 1995. In 1993, Novartis patented a version of Gleevec that it later abandoned in development, but the Indian judges ruled that the early and later versions were not different enough for the later one to merit a separate patent.

Leena Menghaney, a patient advocate at Doctors Without Borders, said that the ruling was a reprieve from more expensive medicines, but only for a while.

“The great thing about this ruling is that we don’t have to worry about the drugs we’re currently using,” Ms. Menghaney said. “But the million-dollar question is what is going to happen for new drugs that have not yet come out.”

Others decried the ruling, saying it was further evidence that India does not respect the intellectual property rights of pharmaceutical companies. Last year, India granted what is known as a compulsory license to a generic drug manufacturer to begin making copies of Bayer’s cancer drug Nexavar, and revoked Pfizer’s patent for another cancer drug, Sutent. Both companies have appealed the decisions.

First, evergreening does not serve to create new products, it encourages minor, non-functional, changes to existing products to maintain a monopoly.

Second, compulsory licensing is specifically allowed for under all major international IP and trade regimes.

Unfortunately, when you look at intellectual protections (IP) as property it means that the holder of that monopoly has a God given right to extract unreasonable rents forever.

There is no place where our patent system is more broken than in the evergreening of pharmceuticals, and that is saying a lot.

I Want to be an Icelander

No Comments

Because they indict their banksters:

Public frustration has been mounting over the lack of high-profile criminal prosecutions in the wake of the financial crisis here in the U.S. But the same cannot be said abroad.

Several news outlets reported that Iceland’s special prosecutor, hired in 2009 to investigate suspicious activities at several major banks, indicted fifteen bankers — including two chief executives — earlier this month over illegal activity tied to the meltdown of the country’s banking system in the fall of 2008. The bankers are accused of stock-price manipulation and securities fraud.

“These are quite big cases by any measurement, they’re my biggest cases so far,” Olafur Thor Hauksson, the prosecutor, told the Wall Street Journal last Friday, adding that the charged could face up to six years in prison if convicted.

Some blogs reacted to the news with the observation that Iceland’s actions are in contrast to the lack of prosecutions in the U.S.

Gee, you think it’s a contrast?

Our it is a mark of our corruption that not one of the big banksters has even been seriously investigated for crimes.

Pass the Popcorn

No Comments

The high powered DC law firm Williams & Connolly has sued the OCC to get information about how they selected consulting firms to review the foreclosure settlement. Considering the half-assed job done by the consultants, and the indications that there were ties between the banks and the consultancies, this should get interesting”

A top Washington law firm is suing regulators to hand over information about how it selected consulting firms to participate in a multibillion-dollar review of banks’ past foreclosures.

The reviews, mandated by regulators in 2011 after widespread foreclosure shortcuts came to light, proved slow and expensive, and earlier this year 13 banks agreed to pay $9.3 billion to end them and compensate foreclosed borrowers.

But in a lawsuit in federal court in Washington, D.C., the law firm Williams & Connolly revisited the original reviews.

It is seeking documents explaining how the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency defined “independent” in its requirements for mortgage servicers to hire “independent consultants” to conduct the reviews.

The law firm declined to identify the client on behalf of which it filed the complaint.

It is possible that a consulting firm that lost out on the review contracts is behind the suit.

An OCC spokesman declined comment.

………

In the new lawsuit, Williams & Connolly said it had sought through a Freedom of Information Act request to the OCC any documents or records about the independence requirements for the consultants, and any documents about OCC standards for independence within the context of the foreclosure reviews.

The OCC initially denied the law firm’s request, then provided limited information on a redacted basis, the law firm said. The firm said in its filing that it went to court to obtain all of the information.

David Aufhauser, the Williams & Connolly lawyer who filed the action, and who is a former general counsel of the Treasury Department and of investment bank UBS, declined to comment on the case.

At least one of the consultancy firms was suspended, and if you follow Naked Capitalism you can get a full picture.

While one can generally be certain that any deal for the banks will be a corrupt bailout, when the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency is involved, you can be sure that it’s well over the line of what normal people will call corrupt self dealing.

I am looking forward to hearing more about this.

Yes

No Comments

Did Steve Cohen Buy Off the U.S. Government?

Seriously. If the SEC is settling for a payment of $616 million dollars, with no admission of wrongdoing, when the case against for insider trading is very strong, and it is a a f%$#ing slam dunk on Sarbanes-Oxley violation.

He got to walk because he’s rich and powerful:

Most scandals involving the cozy relationship between Wall Street and its regulators play out behind closed doors. Others happen in plain view, and this is one of the latter. In a Manhattan courtroom Thursday, a federal judge held a hearing on whether to approve a legal settlement in which Steven A. Cohen, one of the richest and most publicity-shy men in the country, appears to be buying off the U.S. government, which for years has been investigating wrongdoing in and around his hedge fund, SAC Capital Advisers.

 Unless the judge, Victor Marrero, rejects the settlement between the Securities and Exchange Commission and SAC, which was announced a couple of weeks ago, Cohen will be free to go about his business, which has long been clouded by suspicions of insider trading, once he writes a check of six hundred and sixteen million dollars to the Securities and Exchange Commission. There will be no further sanctions and no admission of wrongdoing. And in fact, Cohen already appears to be celebrating. ………

 To his credit, Judge Marrero has, at least for now, refused to go along with this travesty. Reserving judgement on the case, he asked why the settlement didn’t include an admission of wrongdoing on the part of SAC and Cohen. “There is something counterintuitive and incongruous about settling for six hundred million dollars if it truly did nothing wrong,” the judge said. ………

 ………

 Exactly how Cohen pulled off this feat is something of a mystery. The details of the dealings between his lawyers and the government haven’t been revealed, and most likely won’t be. What we do know is this: until the settlement with the S.E.C. was announced, things were looking increasingly grim for Cohen and his firm, which is based in Greenwich, Connecticut.

 During the past several years, investigators from the S.E.C. and the U.S. Attorney’s office in Manhattan have been carrying on a wide-ranging investigation of SAC, which manages about fifteen billion dollars in assets. As a result of this probe, no fewer than nine current or former employees of SAC have been tied to insider dealing while working at the firm, and four of them have pleaded guilty. The investigation started out with lowly former employees. Over time, though, it moved closer and closer to Cohen, the firm’s founder, until, finally, it enveloped him.

 Last November, Preet Bharara, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, held a press conference to announce the indictment of Matthew Martoma, a former SAC trader, for what Bharara said was “the most lucrative insider-trading scheme ever charged.” According to the complaint, the 2008 trades at the center of the case involved Cohen directly. After receiving at tip-off from an inside informant about a drug trial that had turned out badly, Martoma spoke for twenty minutes with Cohen—identified as “Portfolio Manager A”—and then started unloading shares that SAC owned in the two drug companies involved, Elan and Wyeth, the complaint said. Once the results of the drug trial became public, the stock prices of the drug companies fell sharply. The government said that Martoma’s trades netted SAC as much as two hundred and seventy-six million dollars.

 ………

It’s a farce, and it’s not getting any funnier. The SAC settlement marks the first time, to my knowledge, that the S.E.C. has accorded such deference to a hedge fund, and it also raises the question of whether the Justice Department is now ducking bringing criminal charges against Cohen himself. Some folks who know how the system works from the inside think that that’s what it looks like. “I read the Martoma complaint,” Bradley Simon, a prominent white-collar criminal defense attorney and former federal prosecutor, told me. “It seems like there’s evidence there for them to charge Cohen, but they don’t want to do it.

………

A second possibility is that, despite the Martoma complaint, there simply isn’t sufficient evidence to convict Cohen, and the prosecutors have reluctantly accepted this fact. Insider-trading cases are tricky. We don’t know what Cohen said to Martoma during their conversation, or whether Martoma would be willing to testify against him. In the insider-trading cases of Raj Rajaratnam, who ran the Galleon hedge fund, and Rajat Gupta, the former head of McKinsey, the government relied heavily on wiretap evidence. According to the Wall Street Journal, the government obtained a warrant to tap Cohen’s home phone in 2008, but it isn’t known what, if anything, these intercepts yielded.

(emphasis mine)

They have f%$#ing wiretaps, and they are doing nothing.

Even if they don’t they have a slam dunk on the insider training, they do have a prima facie case that he violated SarBox when he certified that his company had sufficient internal controls, which would get him banned from management of a publicly traded company for life.

This is bullsh%$, and I am pining for Mmme. la Guillotine.

It’s Always the Tapes………

No Comments

We now have NYPD managers on tape giving quotas on stop and frisk, and telling officers to target blacks and Hispanics:

The New York police department’s controversial stop-and-frisk program is being driven by a high-pressure quota system imposed upon lower-ranking officers by their supervisors, two NYPD officers testified in court this week.

The claims were made as part of a landmark class action lawsuit that began Monday. The suit seeks to prove that the nation’s largest police department has demonstrated a widespread and systemic pattern of unconstitutional stops that disproportionately target minorities.

Lawyers for the city have dismissed allegations of quotas and scrutinized the credibility of the suit’s plaintiffs, including their allegations of racial bias on the part of the department.

………

The trial represents a historic challenge to the legacies of NYPD commissioner Ray Kelly and mayor Michael Bloomberg, who have both vocally supported stop-and-frisk.

………

Darius Charney, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said in opening statements that the trial is about more than numbers. “It’s about people,” he said. The NYPD has “laid siege to black and Latino communities” through “arbitrary, unnecessary and unconstitutional harassment”, Charney added.

………

By mid-week lawyers for the plaintiffs shifted focus from the experience of street stops to the internal NYPD incentive structure that allegedly motivates them.

Officer Adhyl Polanco began his testimony Tuesday by saying “there’s a difference between” the department’s policies on paper and “what goes on out there”, on the city’s streets.

Polanco testified that in 2009, officers in his Bronx precinct were expected to issue 20 summons and make one arrest per month. If they did not they would risk denied vacation, being separated from longtime partners, undesirable assignments and other consequences.

Polcano claimed it was not uncommon for patrol officers who were not making quotas to be forced to “drive the sergeant” or “drive the supervisor”, which meant driving around with a senior officer who would find individuals for the patrol officer to arrest or issue a summons to, at times for infractions the junior officer did not observe.

“We were handcuffing kids for no reason,” Polanco said. Claiming he was increasingly disturbed by what he was witnessing in his precinct, Polcanco began secretly recording his roll call meetings.

In one recording played for the court, a man Polanco claimed was a NYPD captain told officers: “the summons is a money–generating machine for the city.”

Bronx police officer Pedro Serrano also secretly recorded comments made by supervisors at the same Bronx precinct. His recordings were also played for the court this week.

On a track played Thursday, Deputy Inspector Christopher McCormack was heard telling Serrano he needed to stop “the right people, the right time, the right location”. When asked what he believed McCormack meant Serrano told the court: “he meant blacks and Hispanics.”

Later in the tape McCormack says: “I have no problem telling you this … male blacks. And I told you at roll call, and I have no problem [to] tell you this, male blacks 14 to 21.”

Serrano claims his attempts to raise concerns about stop and frisk and the existence of quotas have been met with retaliation, including fellow officers vandalizing his locker with stickers of rats.

I think that both Bloomberg and Kelly know that this is racial profiling, but they don’t care, because they know that any protests serve to reinforce their image as being “tough on crime”.

Tough on crime in the United States means dealing with minority neighborhoods as if the police department is an occupying foreign force.

Wimp Out

No Comments

Obama has withdrawn Caitlin Halligan’s nomination To D.C. Circuit Court:

President Obama has withdrawn the nomination of Caitlin J. Halligan, a prominent New York lawyer, to serve on an important federal appeals court in Washington, blaming Republicans for blocking her confirmation twice.

The president formally notified the Senate of his decision on Friday, after Ms. Halligan requested that her name be withdrawn from consideration. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is widely viewed as the most important federal appellate court because it reviews many cases on the government’s authority.

“I am deeply disappointed that even after nearly two and a half years, a minority of senators continued to block a simple up-or-down vote on her nomination,” Mr. Obama said in a statement. “This unjustified filibuster obstructed the majority of senators from expressing their support. I am confident that with Caitlin’s impressive qualifications and reputation, she would have served with distinction.”

First, to Harry Reid: It was such a good idea to soft pedal filibuster reform.  Here’s hoping that the Senate Democrats will choose a new leader in 2014.

Obama needs to show some guts.

The DC Court of Appeals is effectively the 2nd highest court in the land, and it is the one that is shortest staffed, because the ‘Phants are filibustering any appointment to the court.

Rolling over and playing dead is not a winning proposition.

Scotus Gets One Very Right

No Comments

They reaffirmed the right of first sale of a copyrighted work:

The Court at last seems to have reached a consensus on a seemingly intractable problem of copyright law: whether a U.S. copyright holder can prevent the importation of “gray-market” products manufactured for overseas markets.  When the Court tried to address this question two Terms ago – in Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Omega, S.A. – the Court was equally divided (with Justice Kagan recused).  However, in today’s opinion in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Justice Breyer, writing for a strong majority of six, emphatically rejected the publisher’s control over the importation of such products.

 The facts are almost too good to be true.  A Thai national (Kirtsaeng) came to this country to study at Cornell and U.S.C.  To subsidize his educational expenses, he resold textbooks purchased by his family at bookstores in Thailand.  All in all, he sold several hundred thousand dollars’ worth of textbooks imported in this way, reaping a net profit in the range of $100,000.  When his activities came to the attention of Wiley (a major American textbook publisher), a suit for copyright infringement predictably ensued.  The district court found for Wiley and imposed statutory damages of $600,000.   The Second Circuit affirmed.

The case turns on a provision of the Copyright Act that permits the owner of a copy that was “lawfully made under this title” to resell the work. The publisher argues that the Thai books, printed in Thailand, were not made “under this title,” and thus that Kirtsaeng cannot lawfully resell them. Kirtsaeng, on the other hands, argues that the books were “lawfully made,” because they were made under a license from Wiley.

………

The issue in Kirtsaeng was whether the first-sale doctrine applies to copyrighted works manufactured overseas. Kirtsaeng bought textbooks in Thailand, where they are cheap, brought them to the United States, and resold them at a large profit. The lower courts said he couldn’t do this, and ordered him to pay damages to the publisher (John Wiley). The Supreme Court disagreed. The Justices said that the first-sale doctrine applies to all books, wherever made. So even if you buy a book made in England, you can resell it without permission from the publisher.

Normally, this is a close thing, but this time it was 6-3, and the opinion was strident, describing the consequences of ruling for the publisher to be a, “parade of horribles”, where people owning foreign made cars, or tablets, or cell phones would need permission from the publisher in order to resell the products.

I also think that the court was aware that if they allowed the restriction on the right first sale, that the copyright holders would set up manufacturing offshore so as to extort additional revenue by prohibiting resales, or demanding blackmail money licensing fees.

Rather unsurprisingly, the dissent was written by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who never saw a draconian power that she did not want to give IP holders.

As an aside, we are seeing a change in the public view of IP. 

The Supreme Court, with this decision, did not ask, “How can we stop piracy of protected works,” but instead asked, “What are the reasonable limits to the exclusive license we grant to IP holders.”

This is a rather significant change in the tenor of the discussion, and we not just seeing it at the Supreme Court, but among an increasing number of Congressmen.  (The White House is still firmly in the pocket of the the MPAA, the RIAA, and the rest of that hive of scum and villainy)

At Least the IMF Isn’t Being Run By Crooks ……… Ummmm ……… Nevermind

No Comments

Her apartment in France just got raided as a part of a corruption investigation:

Police have searched the Paris home of the head of the International Monetary Fund as part of a fraud investigation centred on a supporter of former president Nicolas Sarkozy.

Christine Lagarde’s flat was raided along with that of her office manager and the home of businessman Bernard Tapie, a former politician, actor, singer and television celebrity.

The IMF chief has been the subject of preliminary investigations for “complicity in the embezzlement of public funds”, since 2011, when Tapie was awarded €284m of public money in compensation in a financial dispute while she was economy minister.

The search came hours after the French government was rocked by a separate scandal after the budget minister Jérôme Cahuzac was put under criminal investigation amid claims he hid money from the French taxman in a secret Swiss bank account. Lagarde and Cahuzac have vehemently denied any wrongdoing.

………

The accusations against Lagarde centre on her role in what is known as the Tapie Affair, a row that has rumbled for two decades, which ended when she made a controversial decision to refer the businessman’s dispute with the public bank Crédit Lyonnais to arbitration. Critics say she abused her authority. Investigators are looking into whether Tapie was given a secret deal in return for supporting Sarkozy during his successful 2007 presidential election campaign.

Of course, a police raid does not imply guilt, but it does show just how corrupt the political elites are as a class, and why the idea of apolitical “technocrats” is a fraud.

Finally!

No Comments

A judge has ruled that national security letters are unconstitutional:

Ultra-secret national security letters that come with a gag order on the recipient are an unconstitutional impingement on free speech, a federal judge in California ruled in a decision released Friday.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston ordered the government to stop issuing so-called NSLs across the board, in a stunning defeat for the Obama administration’s surveillance practices. She also ordered the government to cease enforcing the gag provision in any other cases. However, she stayed her order for 90 days to give the government a chance to appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

“We are very pleased that the Court recognized the fatal constitutional shortcomings of the NSL statute,” said Matt Zimmerman, senior staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which filed a challenge to NSLs on behalf of an unknown telecom that received an NSL in 2011. “The government’s gags have truncated the public debate on these controversial surveillance tools. Our client looks forward to the day when it can publicly discuss its experience.”

The telecommunications company received the ultra-secret demand letter in 2011 from the FBI seeking information about a customer or customers. The company took the extraordinary and rare step of challenging the underlying authority of the National Security Letter, as well as the legitimacy of the gag order that came with it.

I would expect the Obama administration to appeal this.

They have yet to seen an excess of the state security apparatus that they won’t fully support.

The Maryland Lege Gets One Right

No Comments

The death penalty is no more in Maryland:

The General Assembly voted to repeal the death penalty Friday, calling for an end to Maryland’s 375-year history of capital punishment and joining a growing number of states outlawing the practice.

 After nearly two hours of impassioned debate, the House of Delegates approved Gov. Martin O’Malley’s repeal legislation, 82-56, sending the measure to the governor for his signature. The state Senate voted 27-20 for repeal last week.

 “We’re a better state for ending it,” said Del. Sandy Rosenberg, a Democrat from Baltimore who has long pushed for repeal.

Absolutely.

Bradley Manning Speaks

No Comments

Somehow or other, the Freedom of the Press Foundation managed to get a tape of Bradley Manning’s statement to the court:

The court-martial proceeding of Bradley Manning has, rather ironically, been shrouded in extreme secrecy, often exceeding even that which prevails at Guantanamo military commissions. This secrecy prompted the Center for Constitutional Rights to commence formal legal action on behalf of several journalists and activists, including myself, to compel greater transparency. One particularly oppressive rule governing the Manning trial has barred not only all video or audio recordings of the proceedings, but also any photographs being taken of Manning or even transcripts made of what is said in court. Combined with the prohibition on all press interviews with him, this extraordinary secrecy regime has meant that, in the two-and-a-half years since his arrest, the world has been prevented, literally, from hearing Manning’s voice. That changes today.

The Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF), the group I recently helped found and on whose board I sit, has received a full, unedited audio recording of the one-hour statement Manning made in court two weeks ago, and this morning has published that recording in full.

The full audio:

Glenn Greenwald (link) is correct.  The level of paranoia and secrecy is truly bizarre, and when juxtaposed with his pretrial torture (really, that’s what it was), the intent is clear, to create a precedent which criminalizes much of what constitutes investigative journalism.

Shades of Eric Arthur Blair*

No Comments

Yep, he looks totally sane

The Judge in the trial of alleged Aurora shooter James Holmes is requiring that he be dosed with “truth serum” if his defense team chooses to plead not guilty by reason of insanity:

Legal and medical experts are questioning the decision of a judge in Colorado to allow James Holmes, the suspected gunman in the Aurora cinema shooting, to be tested with a “truth serum” should he plead not guilty by reason of insanity.

Judge William Sylvester ruled that in the event of Holmes pleading insanity his prosecutors would be permitted to interrogate him while he is under the influence of a medical drug designed to loosen him up and get him to talk. The idea would be that such a “narcoanalytic interview” would be used to confirm whether or not he had been legally insane when he embarked on his shooting spree on 20 July last year.

The precise identity of the drug that would be used has not been released, other than a statement that it would be “medically appropriate”, but it would most likely be a short-acting barbiturate such as sodium amytal.

William Shepherd, chair of the criminal justice section of the American Bar Association, whose members include both prosecutors and defence lawyers, said that the proposed use of a “truth drug” to ascertain the veracity of a defendant’s plea of insanity was highly unusual in the US. He predicted it would provoke intense legal argument relating to Holmes’s right to remain silent under the fifth amendment of the US constitution.

Gee, you think, Mr. Shepherd?

And then there is this:

The proposed use of a “truth drug” has also prompted a critical response from medical experts. Dr August Piper, a Seattle-based psychiatrist who has used sodium amytal to treat patients who were mute or in a catatonic state and who has written research papers on the subject, said that this was “not a royal road to the truth”.

“First of all, people can still lie under the influence of amytal. More importantly, the person under the influence of the drug is susceptible to outside suggestion.”

Piper also questioned whether such a method could be used to find out the truth of what happened retrospectively. Though short-acting barbiturates might be beneficial in illuminating Holmes’s current state of mind, by opening him up to greater communication, it would be of doubtful use in determining his state of mind at the scene of the shooting eight months ago.

“To try and do this would be unlikely to yield useful information, and could pervert the course of justice by rendering the defendant susceptible to pressure,” Piper said.

This is bizarre.

What the f%$# is the judge thinking? They don’t even pull this crap at Gitmo or the CIA torture gulags.

*George Orwell.

Un-Dirtyword-Believable

No Comments

Michael Winston was a high ranking executive who tried to blow the whistle at Countrywide Financial.

He was marginalized, and later fired by Bank of America after they took over the firm.

He filed suit, and was awarded $3.8 million dollars for wrongful termination.

Well, a few weeks after he described the rampant fraud and abuse on the Frontline piece, The Untouchables, the appeals court overturned the verdict based on the facts.

Now I’m an engineer, not a lawyer, dammit,* but even I know that appeals courts are to rule on issues of law, not issues of fact.

It smells to high heaven, as the great Matt Taibbi observes:

When I spoke to him last week, Winston was still as amazed and repulsed by what he saw at Angelo Mozilo’s crooked subprime mortgage company as he was when he worked there. Winston, who had worked for years at high-level positions at companies like Motorola and Lockheed before joining Countrywide in the 2000s, described a moment in his first months at the company, when he rolled into the parking lot at the company headquarters.

………

When Winston refused, he was essentially stripped of his normal responsibilities and had his corporate budget slashed. When Bank of America took over the company, Winston’s job was terminated. He sued, and in one of the few positive outcomes for any white-collar whistleblower anywhere in the post-financial-crisis universe, won a $3.8 million wrongful termination suit against Bank of America last February.

Well, just weeks after the PBS documentary aired, the Court of Appeals in the state of California suddenly took an interest in Winston’s case. Normally, a court of appeals can only overturn a jury verdict in a case like this if there is a legal error. It’s not supposed to relitigate the factual evidence.

Yet this is exactly what happened: The court decided that the evidence that Winston was wrongfully terminated was insufficient, and then from there determined that the “legal error” in the original Winston suit against Bank of America and Countrywide was that the judge in the case failed to throw out the jury’s verdict:

In short, having scoured the record for evidence supporting the jury’s verdict on the issue of causation, we have found none. It follows that the trial court erred in denying defendants’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

The f%$#ing fix is f%$#ing in.

This is a deliberate attempt to chill the activities of any potential whistle blowers.

If this were an isolated incident, I might not assume corruption, but it is not an isolated case.

It seems to be an cultural imperative to punish whistle blowers, as was shown when the only person to go to jail in the UBS tax evasion case was the whistleblower.

I don’t know how this can be fixed, but it needs to be fixed.

*I LOVE IT when I get to go all Doctor McCoy!!!

Oh, Now I Get It!

No Comments

Suddenly, I Understand

There has always been something about Antonin Scalia that seemed familiar, and now Rachel Maddow has his essence nailed, she was in the Supreme Court for the voting rights act, and she realized that Antonin Scalia is basically a garden variety troll (At about 2:40 in the vid):

It’s a racial entitlement now, voting is a racial entitlement — something that you are entitled to on the basis of your race. Wait a second, do you know how that sounds? But I think he does know how that sounds and that’s the neat thing about being there in person is you can see, actually he’s a troll. He’s saying this for effect. He knows it’s offensive and he knows he’s going to get a gasp from the courtroom, which he got, and he loves it. He’s like the guy on your blog comment thread who is using the n-word. ‘Oh, it made you mad? How about if I say this? Does it make you mad? Did it make you mad? Did it make you mad?’ He’s that guy! He’s that kind of guy! When we’re all shocked that he said something so blatantly racially offensive while talking about the cornerstone of the federal Civil Rights Act, he’s thinking, ‘Oh yeah!’

He’s Lauren “Uncle Meat” Bandler in judicial robes. 

I’m kind of surprised that Scalia doesn’t show up to court in his underwear with a bag of Cheetos.

Why am I not surprised that she revealed this to Jon Stewart?

That concentration of truth telling on one stage is a stunning level of awesome.

Our So Called Press Turned Down Bradley Manning’s Leaks

No Comments

I am so not shocked.

Bradley Manning just pled guilty on ten counts of misusing classified information, for his release of documents to Wikileaks, though he continues to maintain that he was not aiding the enemy.

What is most interesting that in his statement, Manning said that he want to the New York Times, Washington Post, and Politico, and was blown off:

While he was on leave from Iraq and staying in the Washington area in January 2010 he contacted the Washington Post and asked would it be interested in receiving information that he said would be “enormously important to the American people”. He spoke to a woman who said she was a reporter but “she didn’t seem to take me seriously”.

 The woman said, according to Manning’s account, that the paper would only be interested subject to vetting by senior editors.

 Despairing of that route, Manning turned to the New York Times. He called the public editor of the paper but only got voicemail.

 He then tried other numbers on the paper but also got put through to voicemail, and though he left a message with his Skype contact details, nobody called him back. Manning added he had also contemplated going to the website Politico, but harsh weather prevented him.

What’s more, there is an allegation that The Washington Post had, and sat on, the collateral murder video:

But the WikiLeaks Twitter account (and by the way, mark me down as saying it’s a safe bet that Julian Assange is its primary scribe) also let loose this officious-looking tweet earlier today:

Statement: Washington Post had Collateral murder video for over a year but DID NOT RELEASE IT it to the public.

Curious. I asked Kris Coratti, the Washington Post’s communications director, what was up. She emailed me this flat denial:

The Washington Post did not have the video, nor did we sit on anything.

There is a wrinkle to this tale. David Finkel, a Washington Post reporter, did elaborately describe the events of the day partially captured by the video in “Good Soldiers,” his book published in September 2009, based on his time embedded with an infantry battalion on the ground near the shootings. (WikiLeaks published its version of the video in April 2010.)

So a few years before Wikileaks got it, Finkle was writing descriptions which clearly imply that he had seen the video.

Finkle’s defense is that whatever he had, was just for his book, not the paper:

Finkel gave me a call this morning, ready to add a bit more context.

 “The idea that The Washington Post possessed something, or sat on something, is just absurd,” said Finkel.

 “I was primarily there as a book author. I was on book leave from The Washington Post,” Finkel told me. “I’m not trying to be oblique here, but that was my role there.”

So, the guy who was, and is, employed the The Washington Post, makes what sounds like direct quotes from the videos, was somehow in Iraq on his own ticket, and had nothing to do with the paper when he saw the videos.

Yeah, right.

For the Times and Politico, it’s pretty clear that Manning did a half-assed job of contacting them, but it’s also pretty clear that WaPo knew of the video for years before it showed up on Wikileaks.

Scalia: Blacks Only Get to Vote When We Say So

No Comments

It appears that Antonin “Fat Tony” Scalia thinks that protecting people from having their right to vote stolen is “Racial Entitlement”:

Then, it is reenacted 5 years later, again for a 5-year term. Double-digits against it in the Senate. Then it was reenacted for 7 years. Single digits against it. Then enacted for 25 years, 8 Senate votes against it. And this last enactment, not a single vote in the Senate against it. And the House is pretty much the same. Now, I don’t think that’s attributable to the fact that it is so much clearer now that we need this. I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. It’s been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes.

Yes, preventing bad people from violating other people’s right to vote is “racial entitlement.”

What a repulsive bigoted excuse for a human being.

In Death, Robert Bork Admits to Rank Hypocrisy

No Comments

It turns out that he took a bribe from Richard Nixon to fire Archibald Cox during the Watergate scandal:

Robert Bork says President Richard Nixon promised him the next Supreme Court vacancy after Bork complied with Nixon’s order to fire Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox in 1973.

Bork’s recollection of his role in the Saturday Night Massacre that culminated in Cox’s firing is at the center of his slim memoir, “Saving Justice,” that is being published posthumously by Encounter Books. Bork died in December at age 85.

Bork writes that he didn’t know if Nixon actually, though mistakenly, believed he still had the political clout to get someone confirmed to the Supreme Court or was just trying to secure Bork’s continued loyalty as his administration crumbled in the Watergate scandal.

President Ronald Reagan nominated Bork to the high court in 1987. The nomination failed in the Senate.

Robert Bork, in addition to being f%$# nuts, was a corrupt Cox sacker.

Thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster that he die not make it to the Supreme Court.

Here’s Hoping that The Farmer Wins

No Comments

An Indiana soybean farmer, bought seeds from the local elevator and replanted them, and was promptly sued by the axis of evil Monsanto, and the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case:

As David versus Goliath battles go it is hard to imagine a more uneven fight than the one about to play out in front of the US supreme court between Vernon Hugh Bowman and Monsanto.

On the one side is Bowman, a single 75-year-old Indiana soybean farmer who is still tending the same acres of land as his father before him in rural south-western Indiana. On the other is a gigantic multibillion dollar agricultural business famed for its zealous protection of its commercial rights.

Not that Bowman sees it that way. “I really don’t consider it as David and Goliath. I don’t think of it in those terms. I think of it in terms of right and wrong,” Bowman told The Guardian in an interview.

Either way, in the next few weeks Bowman and Monsanto’s opposing legal teams will face off in front of America’s most powerful legal body, weighing in on a case that deals with one of the most fundamental questions of modern industrial farming: who controls the rights to the seeds planted in the ground.

………

As David versus Goliath battles go it is hard to imagine a more uneven fight than the one about to play out in front of the US supreme court between Vernon Hugh Bowman and Monsanto.

On the one side is Bowman, a single 75-year-old Indiana soybean farmer who is still tending the same acres of land as his father before him in rural south-western Indiana. On the other is a gigantic multibillion dollar agricultural business famed for its zealous protection of its commercial rights.

Not that Bowman sees it that way. “I really don’t consider it as David and Goliath. I don’t think of it in those terms. I think of it in terms of right and wrong,” Bowman told The Guardian in an interview.

Either way, in the next few weeks Bowman and Monsanto’s opposing legal teams will face off in front of America’s most powerful legal body, weighing in on a case that deals with one of the most fundamental questions of modern industrial farming: who controls the rights to the seeds planted in the ground.

I really, really, hope that Bowman cleans their clock in the Supreme Court.

The idea that the right of farmers to replant seeds, a right that is literally thousands of years old, and this right should not be, to paraphrase William Jennings Bryan, “Crucified on a cross of patent law.”

My guess is that it is likely that Bowman will prevail, as Monsanto prevailed at the district court, and then at the patent court, and these days, the Supreme Court only takes these cases when it wants to throw a brush back pitch at the patent court being nuts.

The case is Vernon Hugh Bowman v. Monsanto.