I want to finish for now a talk on Rule of Law and US Constitutional rights of citizens by looking again at how the US corporations are bringing home the behavior they have dispensed overseas as NGOs and military contractors partnered to developing nations......the Federal government loses trillions of dollars each year to overseas fraud and corruption that mirrors what we in Baltimore see with Johns Hopkins and Baltimore Development acting as NGOs in our own city. When the Afghan President responds to US requests to stop the corruption by announcing Afghan officials learned this corruption from US contractors----
THIS IS THE TRUTH. THE US NOW HAS A REPUTATION ALL OVER THE WORLD FOR SYSTEMIC FRAUD AND CORRUPTION IN BUSINESS AND GOVERNMENT.
The US has moved to a second world status with Reagan/Clinton neo-liberalism and Bush neo-conservatism dismantling all public agencies of oversight and accountability. The difference between corruption is a nation like Afghanistan and the US is that we were a first world nation and have Constitutional protections ----we are being taken third world while Afghanistan is third world.
Whether you agree with the tactics of groups below they are the only ones providing the information citizens need for justice. Wikileaks downloaded an entire military spending database just so individuals could investigate and find the military fraud of trillions of dollars. No Federal or State investigations have happened! So, BE THE CITIZEN OVERSIGHT and know that WE THE PEOPLE WILL HAVE JUSTICE!
Look below to see that most of that wealth at the top belongs to the people listed at the bottom. It is not wealth inequity----it is a suspension of Rule of Law and public justice that will yet happen!
Here are the stunning facts:
- In 2012, 3.2 billion individuals – more than two-thirds of the global adult population – have wealth below USD 10,000, and a further one billion (23% of the adult population) are placed in the USD 10,000–100,000 range.
- The average wealth holding is modest in the base and middle segments of the pyramid, total wealth amounts to USD 39 trillion, underlining the potential for new consumer trends products and for the development of financial services targeted at this often neglected segment.
- The remaining 373 million adults (8% of the world) have assets exceeding USD 100,000.
- And then the top of the pyramid: 29 million US dollar millionaires, a group which contains less than 1% of the world’s adult population, collectively owns nearly 40% of global household wealth.
- Some 84,500 individuals are worth more than USD 50 million, and 29,000 are worth over USD 100 million.
- The composition of the wealth pyramid in 2012 is broadly similar to that of the previous year, except for the fact that the overall reduction in total wealth increases the percentage of adults in the base level from 67.6% to 69.3% and reduces the relevant population share higher up the pyramid by a corresponding amount. The respective wealth shares are virtually unchanged.
The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists
Wikileaks We are of assistance to peoples of all countries who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their governments and institutions. We aim for maximum political impact.
Anonymous Message to Barack Obama: Do You See What We See?
Bush did not attach the US to organizations like International Criminal Court ICC because he knew as a neo-con he was not going to follow International Law. He knew as well that US corporations were in the midst of record-breaking fraud and corruption that included nations around the world and Bush did not want other nations holding the US accountable. Then Obama came to office and did the same. Obama ran as supporting corporate accountability and then did the opposite because he is a neo-liberal wanting corporations to do anything to profit just as Bush did.
Let's take a look at what needs to be done to reverse this-----
BERNIE SANDERS IS THE ONLY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE THAT SHOUTS FOR THE NEED TO RECONNECT TO INTERNATIONAL LAW
This isn't only about pols taking campaign bribes----this is systemic dismantling of all structures that protect the public.
Top 10 Ways the US is the Most Corrupt Country in the World
By Juan Cole | Dec. 3, 2013 |
Those ratings that castigate Afghanistan and some other poor countries as hopelessly “corrupt” always imply that the United States is not corrupt.
VOA reports :
While it is true that you don’t typically have to bribe your postman to deliver the mail in the US, in many key ways America’s political and financial practices make it in absolute terms far more corrupt than the usual global South suspects. After all, the US economy is worth over $16 trillion a year, so in our corruption a lot more money changes hands.
1. Instead of having short, publicly-funded political campaigns with limited and/or free advertising (as a number of Western European countries do), the US has long political campaigns in which candidates are dunned big bucks for advertising. They are therefore forced to spend much of their time fundraising, which is to say, seeking bribes. All American politicians are basically on the take, though many are honorable people. They are forced into it by the system. House Majority leader John Boehner has actually just handed out cash on the floor of the House from the tobacco industry to other representatives.
When French President Nicolas Sarkozy was defeated in 2012, soon thereafter French police actually went into his private residence searching for an alleged $50,000 in illicit campaign contributions from the L’Oreale heiress. I thought to myself, seriously? $50,000 in a presidential campaign? Our presidential campaigns cost a billion dollars each! $50,000 is a rounding error, not a basis for police action. Why, George W. Bush took millions from arms manufacturers and then ginned up a war for them, and the police haven’t been anywhere near his house.
American politicians don’t represent “the people.” With a few honorable exceptions, they represent the the 1%. American democracy is being corrupted out of existence.
2. That politicians can be bribed to reduce regulation of industries like banking (what is called “regulatory capture”) means that they will be so bribed. Billions were spent and 3,000 lobbyists employed by bankers to remove cumbersome rules in the zeroes. Thus, political corruption enabled financial corruption (in some cases legalizing it!) Without regulations and government auditing, the finance sector went wild and engaged in corrupt practices that caused the 2008 crash. Too bad the poor Afghans can’t just legislate their corruption out of existence by regularizing it, the way Wall street did.
3. That the chief villains of the 2008 meltdown (from which 90% of Americans have not recovered) have not been prosecuted is itself a form of corruption.
4. The US military budget is bloated and enormous, bigger than the military budgets of the next twelve major states. What isn’t usually realized is that perhaps half of it is spent on outsourced services, not on the military. It is corporate welfare on a cosmic scale. I’ve seen with my own eyes how officers in the military get out and then form companies to sell things to their former colleagues still on the inside.
5. The US has a vast gulag of 2.2 million prisoners in jail and penitentiary. There is an increasing tendency for prisons to be privatized, and this tendency is corrupting the system. It is wrong for people to profit from putting and keeping human beings behind bars. This troubling trend is made all the more troubling by the move to give extra-long sentences for minor crimes, to deny parole and to imprison people for life for e,g, three small thefts.
6. The rich are well placed to bribe our politicians to reduce taxes on the rich. This and other government policies has produced a situation where 400 American billionaires are worth $2 trillion, as much as the bottom 150 million Americans. That kind of wealth inequality hasn’t been seen in the US since the age of the robber barons in the nineteenth century. Both eras are marked by extreme corruption.
7. The National Security Agency’s domestic spying is a form of corruption in itself, and lends itself to corruption. With some 4 million government employees and private contractors engaged in this surveillance, it is highly unlikely that various forms of insider trading and other corrupt practices are not being committed. If you knew who Warren Buffett and George Soros were calling every day, that alone could make you a killing. The American political class wouldn’t be defending this indefensible invasion of citizens’ privacy so vigorously if someone somewhere weren’t making money on it.
8. As for insider trading, it turns out Congress undid much of the law it hastily passed forbidding members, rather belatedly, to engage in insider trading (buying and selling stock based on their privileged knowledge of future government policy). That this practice only became an issue recently is another sign of how corrupt the system is.
9. Asset forfeiture in the ‘drug war’ is corrupting police departments and the judiciary.
10. Money and corruption have seeped so far into our media system that people can with a straight face assert that scientists aren’t sure human carbon emissions are causing global warming. Fox Cable News is among the more corrupt institutions in American society, purveying outright lies for the benefit of the billionaire class. The US is so corrupt that it is resisting the obvious urgency to slash carbon production. Even our relatively progressive president talks about exploiting all sources of energy, as though hydrocarbons were just as valuable as green energy and as though hydrocarbons weren’t poisoning the earth.
Even Qatar, its economy based on natural gas, freely admits the challenge of human-induced climate change. American politicians like Jim Inhofe are openly ridiculed when they travel to Europe for their know-nothingism on climate.
So don’t tell the Philippines or the other victims of American corruption how corrupt they are for taking a few petty bribes. Americans are not seen as corrupt because we only deal in the big denominations. Steal $2 trillion and you aren’t corrupt, you’re respectable.
The International Criminal Court seeks to address Crimes against Humanity and one could easily see a level of systemic fraud throughout the Western world's banking system literally looting the world of tens of trillions of dollars and leaving pronounced poverty A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY. Indeed, these massive fraud would quality. More evident is the war crime the US has adopted as standard and this is what the world wants to see brought before the court as well. The systematic looting of public wealth was breath-taking and tracking it will become a project as was taken for Holocaust survivor stolen assets. It is the difference between economic growth and strong public structures----and what we see moving into place---global corporate control of both!
We can look locally at Baltimore's/Maryland's complete and open corporate fraud and corruption led by NGOs with public justice systems dismantled to see where this will go. The Maryland Bar Association was identified to me as the problem in Maryland with this open corruption and indeed. I am told by a Baltimore lawyer with long family history in law in the city-----LAWYERS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN RICH.
NOT ONE LAWYER IN MARYLAND WILL STAND IN COURT FOR JUSTICE IN CORPORATE AND GOVERNMENT FRAUD AND CORRUPTION.
The Maryland Assembly has made sure that laws protecting government corruption and corporate fraud are in place-----VAGUE, LOOPHOLES, NOT ENFORCED, OR NON-EXISTENT are Maryland code for FORGET ABOUT JUSTICE!
US Opposition to the International Criminal Court
Alkan de Beaumont Chaglar
The United States government has consistently opposed an international court that could hold US military and political leaders to a uniform global standard of justice. The Clinton administration participated actively in negotiations towards the International Criminal Court treaty but never submitted it to Congress for ratification, but seeking Security Council screening of cases. If adopted, this would have enabled the US to veto any dockets it opposed. When other countries refused to agree to such an unequal standard of justice, the US campaigned to weaken and undermine the court. The Bush administration, coming into office in 2001 as the Court neared implementation, adopted an extremely active opposition. Washington began to negotiate bilateral agreements with other countries, insuring immunity of US nationals from prosecution by the Court. As leverage, Washington threatened termination of economic aid, withdrawal of military assistance, and other painful measures. The Obama administration has so far made greater efforts to engage with the Court. It is participating with the Court's governing bodies and it is providing support for the Court's ongoing prosecutions. Washington, however, has no intention to join the ICC, due to its concern about possible charges against US nationals.
The USA and the International Criminal Court
11 November 2007
Until recently, the United States of America has strongly opposed the International Criminal Court citing fears that it could bring politically-motivated prosecutions against US nationals.
US Opposition to the International Criminal Court During the drafting of the Rome Statute, the US demanded that the work of the Court should be controlled by the United Nations Security Council (of which it is a permanent veto-holding member), which would decide which cases the Court could and could not prosecute.
The Rome Conference, however, decided to establish an independent Prosecutor and limited Security Council control to being able to defer a case for 12 months in the interest of international peace and security. To ensure that the Court could never be involved in politically-motivated prosecutions, the drafters included substantial safeguards and fair trial guarantees into the Rome Statute.
Despite these safeguards, the US was one of only seven states to vote against the adoption of the Rome Statute.
Less than two years later, there was a remarkable change in position when, on 31 December 2000, President Clinton demonstrated US support for the Court by signing the Rome Statute. Five months later, however, in May 2001, the new Bush administration revoked the US signature and commenced a worldwide campaign against the Court.
- The administration demanded that a number of United Nations Security Council peace-keeping resolutions include text purporting to exempt nationals of countries that had not ratified the Rome Statute accused of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.
- It launched a worldwide campaign for other countries to enter into illegal impunity agreements committing them not to surrender US nationals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes to the Court. US laws were enacted, including the American Servicemembers Protection Act and the Nethercutt Amendment, requiring the government to withdraw military and other assistance from countries that refused to sign agreements.
- In some cases, the United States lobbied governments supporting the Court not to ratify the Rome Statute.
The US campaign against the International Criminal Court fails The campaign failed and has now been largely abandoned. In June 2004, the United States withdrew a United Nations Security Council resolution seeking to renew previously enacted resolutions purporting to grant exemptions to nationals of non-states parties to the Rome Statute involved in peacekeeping missions.
In the light of the revelations of prisoner abuse in Iraq, the public opposition to the renewal by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, and sustained campaigning by civil society, including Amnesty International, at least eight members of the Security Council refused to support the renewal of the resolution.
The worldwide campaign for impunity agreements also failed. Although it is reported that more approximately 100 states signed agreements with the US, most agreements have not been ratified and have not entered into force.
Many states refused to sign agreements upholding their commitment to international justice, even when US military and other assistance was withdrawn. Amnesty International’s members in countries around the world lobbied their governments not to enter into agreements.
In March 2006, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced that the campaign to secure impunity agreements was under review. Since then, many countries that refused to sign agreements have been granted waivers so that they will not be sanctioned. Reports of initiatives to sign agreements with other states have decreased significantly.
Moreover, while the campaign against the Court has failed, the US government has even supported some of its work. In March 2005, the US decided not to oppose a UN Security Council resolution referring the situation in Darfur to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. There have also been indications that the US government may be willing to cooperate with the Court in its investigations.
Amnesty International is campaigning to build on these positive developments by promoting US cooperation with the International Criminal Court as a first step towards future ratification of the Rome Statute.
The article below uses populist wording but it identifies the crimes and criminal banks very well.....and it was primarily the US, UK, and European banks committing the most crime. This is why the International Criminal Court will be necessary in bring justice when the current government has suspended Rule of Law. As I said, we have an International Investigative group gathering the evidence and following trails that will have what is needed----we simply have to GET RID OF THE GLOBAL CORPORATE POLS! Bernie Sanders speaks about the need for the US to become a member of the ICC.
If you live in Baltimore you know that all of the banks listed below have become the major anchor in our downtown development----we are a haven for world banking and insurance fraud!
How The Criminal Banking Cartel Is Destroying America
April 4, 2013
Source: Daily Bail Part Two: How Obama Surrendered Sovereignty to the Criminal Banking Cartel
By John Titus
Summary of Part One:
The U.S. government openly conceded that its sovereign authority to enforce its own laws is gone when Attorney General Eric Holder testified that the Justice Department’s failure to prosecute any big banks is based on anonymous “expert” opinions that prosecutions would destabilize the financial system.
This notion of “systemic importance” has been thoroughly discredited. According to Tim Geithner, it’s an intellectually bankrupt phrase. What’s more, it’s been debunked both legally and empirically (which is likely one reason the DOJ’s “experts” wish to remain anonymous).
If it turns out that these “experts” are in fact agents of the big banks whose crimes are being immunized by the very entities whose discredited opinions the DOJ is relying on, then those “opinions” are nothing more than assertions of criminal sovereign immunity—a privilege that is legally limited to the President of the United States.
Since “the King can do no wrong”—the legal foundation of sovereign immunity—the real King here is the criminally immune cartel of banks, not the President, since real sovereigns don’t surrender the right to enforce their laws. And following the long series of unprosecuted crimes by the cartel, in which the President’s own constituents are the undisputed victims, “surrender” is the most charitable description of the Obama’s acts before the banking cartel.
Part Two: Inisde The Criminal Banking Cartel
There are two very big and related clues as to the identity of the anonymous experts behind whose opinions U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder hides whenever explaining away his failure to prosecute big banks on the basis of their “systemic importance.”
The first, noted in an article last week by Golem XIV, is a list of international banks that parade under the rather obvious label of “Globally Systemically Important Financial Institutions,” or G-SIFIs. There are 28 banks in total, 9 of them headquartered in the U.S.:
JP Morgan Chase
Bank of America
Bank of New York Mellon
Mitsubishi UFJ FG
Royal Bank of Scotland
Bank of China
Group Credit Agricole
Sumitomo Mitsui FG
This list of cartel members is updated annually by the Financial Stability Board, a collection of international organizations. The FSB is a global meta-body of bankers.
But the formal edifice, whether called the FSB or the NWO (hat tip Alex), really doesn’t matter, because, as Golem XIV states: “Guess which institutions provide the membership for all of the above international bodies? Yes, you got it—the big banks.”
These are the banks that are above the law in the U.S. In Part One, we mentioned four banks—Citigroup, Wells Fargo, HSBC, and UBS—whose massive crimes had been taxed at a de minimis rate by the Department of Justice rather than prosecuted. All four are on the list of G-SIFIs above.
So what, you may ask, that’s just a list compiled by some international convention of cokehead bankers, how do they make sure a rogue federal prosecutor doesn’t break ranks and haul a cartel member or two off to criminal trial?
Enter clue no. 2: Covington & Burling, the law firm from which both the head of the DOJ (Eric Holder) and the DOJ’s head of criminal enforcement (Lanny Breuer) were recruited. Actually, Breuer is no longer with the DOJ. Following a four-year stint in which “the enforcer” failed to prosecute a single big bank, Breuer has returned to Covington & Burling, where he will earn be rewarded with $4 million in annual compensation.
The significance of Covington & Burling lies in its list of current clients, which looks remarkably like the list of criminally immune cartel members above (particularly the more recognizable names): Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, UBS, Wells Fargo, and ING Bank.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but Eric Holder and Lanny Breuer have the financial motivation not to prosecute their firm’s clients. In Breuer’s case, it turned out to be $4 million of motivation. Per year.
Under any functioning system of law, of course, both Holder and Breuer would submit to screening procedures at the DOJ to insulate them from prosecutorial decisions involving their former clients. We're sure they did the same thing under our impotent system as well. But so what? When laws against crimes are a dead letter, who in his right mind would put any trust in a conflict screen?
As Cheyenne told Jill in Once Upon a Time in the West, “when you’ve killed four, it’s easy to make it five.”
Now commentators are starting to point out where the slippery slope of sovereign immunity for criminal banks will lead.
Jim Chanos, who detected the fraud at Enron well before it destroyed the company and its shareholders, notes that not only are criminal cartel members now motivated to continue cheating and stealing, they have a fiduciary duty to do so. (Speaking of the Enron-ization of the U.S., Eric Holder is working to release CEO Jeff Skilling from prison early in yet another act of prostrate submission before his real masters, the criminal banks.)
As Golem XIV points out, immunity extends not only to criminal behavior, but to assets that a cartel member bank acquires through crime: “if by doing those illegal things [the bank] makes out-sized profits for its shareholders and staff, that money, those profits are also above the law.”
Cyprus Vs. MF Global: The Rule Of Law Is Dead
Thus, anyone who thinks account confiscation a la Cyprus can’t happen in the U.S. is dreaming of a bygone republic. Not only is account seizure possible in the U.S., or even likely, it is guaranteed. Just ask MF Global’s segregated account holders or GM senior bondholders if you have any doubts.
In the MF Global case, Jon Corzine "brazenly took liquid assets like Treasuries and warehouse receipts, but not cash which would have been more quickly missed, from customer accounts to post as illegal collateral for emergency funding with a lender who must have known that they were receiving stolen goods." The lender, of course, turned out to be JP Morgan--a prominent international cartel member. Jon Corzine was of course one of Obama's top fundraisers and an alumnus of Goldman Sachs--a cartel member.
In the GM bankruptcy, the age-old pecking order of creditor priority was turned upside down, literally "rewriting law," when senior unsubordinated secured creditors' claims were trumped by payouts to junior unsecured creditors in a patently political sop to Obama's perceived union supporters.
In both cases, the black letter law that's supposed to gird markets with trust and predictablity was trampled in favor of Obama's political allies. Now that Obama has altogether surrendered the DOJ's law enforcement functionality to the criminal international banking cartel, those dangerous precedents turn out to have been short-sighted in the extreme: there is nothing left to stop the plunder of customer accounts in Cyprus from crashing like a tidal wave across U.S. shores. The timing depends only on the restraint that the banking cartel elects to show.
There is no remedy in sight, only more financial crime as Americans are robbed deeper into serfdom.
The Executive Branch is merely an agent of the criminal banking cartel for the reasons given. That fact, in turn, has cut the Judiciary out of the equation altogether: a court cannot try criminals who are never brought before it to face charges.
That leaves Congress, which in theory could initiate impeachment proceedings. But how likely is success when the Senate, which would try any impeachment cases, couldn’t even obtain the names of the DOJ’s so-called experts in the first place?
As noted in Part One, Senator Grassley asked the DOJ for the experts’ names in a letter on January 29, 2013. Eric Holder testified on March 6, more than a month later. The issue of the experts’ identities was thus as ripe as could be, but rather than obtaining the names, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee put on a clinic in how to conduct an incompetent examination:
Q. On January 29, Senator Sherrod Brown and I requested details on who these so-called 'experts' are. So far we have not received any information. Maybe you're going to but why have we not yet been provided the names of experts the DOJ consults as we requested on January 29? We continue to find out why we aren't having these high-profile cases.
A: We will endeavor to answer your letter, Senator. We did not, as I understand it, endeavor to obtain experts outside of the government in making determinations with regard to HSBC.
Just putting that aside for a minute though, the concern that you have raised is one that I, frankly, share. I'm not talking about HSBC here, that would be inappropriate. But I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if we do prosecute — if we do bring a criminal charge — it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy. I think that is a function of the fact that some of these institutions have become too large.
Again, I'm not talking about HSBC, this is more of a general comment. I think it has an inhibiting influence, impact on our ability to bring resolutions that I think would be more appropriate. I think that's something that we — you all [Congress] — need to consider. The concern that you raised is actually one that I share.
Note that Senator Grassley asked one question: why haven’t you answered our letter? Holder doesn’t answer it. Instead, he promises to supply the names later. At that point, Grassley should have put two questions to Holder. First, answer my question by explaining why you ignored our letter. Second, when will you supply the names of the “so-called experts”?
A mediocre first-year litigation associate would’ve gotten this information within seconds. But not Senator Grassley, who earned his masters degree during the Eisenhower Administration. Here is his completely irrelevant follow-up question:
Q: Do you believe that the investment bankers that were repackaging bad mortgages that were AAA-rated are guilty of fraud or is it a case of just not being aggressive or effective enough to prove that they did something fraudulent and criminal?
Huh? Not surprisingly, Eric Holder has been in no hurry to disclose the names of the “experts” retained by Covington & Burling’s clients since dancing around Grassley like a cigar store Indian. Holder has completely blown off the Senate, which has done nothing to follow up the issue.
Frankly this disgusting charade has surprised no one who’s paying any attention, coming, as it does, from the same august body that exempted itself from insider trading laws and has failed to pass any meaningful reform legislation since the 2008 meltdown, an even worse repeat of which is on its way.
On the contrary, both Congress and the Executive Branch are now just tools of fraud used by the criminal international banking cartel against the people, who for their part are drooling iDope dreams oblivious to their own last act, proving Edward Murrow right, a nation of sheep having begotten a government of wolves.