PLEASE LOOK AT THE FINANCIAL REFORM SITE TO SEE HOW TO TAKE ACTION ON LAWS THAT ARE CRITICAL TO THE PUBLIC.  WHEN YOU HAVE CORPORATE POLITICIANS IN BOTH PARTY LEADERSHIP......YOU MUST SHOUT LOUDLY.......FORM A SHOUT OUT CLUB THAT WRITES TO THESE REGULATORS WRITING THE FINANCIAL REFORM LAWS!
___________________________________________________
Freedom to Assemble Against the NSA

is happening on Sat., Mar. 22 from 10 AM to 4 PM at McPherson Square, 15th and K Sts. NW.


If you think no one but the NSA is listening to your concerns you are correct. For decades there has been a concerted, ever increasing effort by an elitist group of very rich and very powerful people to marginalize and mute the public will. As their influence has grown, the average person's say over his own destiny and wellbeing has been squelched.  As more people find it necessary to raise their voices in protest, in frustration, and in anger, it becomes apparent just how loud is the white noise of political and, of course, corporate indifference. It also becomes apparent the magnitude of forces aligned to stifle citizen discontent. Contact Ed Edwards at voter_04@yahoo.com.

____________________________
John Kiriakou Needs You To Stand Up For His Rights

Resist! Criminal Justice and Prisons, Whistleblowing
By Kevin Gosztola, www.dissenter.firedoglake.com
February 19th, 2014
  Powered by Translate 6Above photo: Former CIA officer John Kiriakou leaves U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Va., Oct. 23, 2012.  AP PHOTO

TAKE ACTION: Call the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Charles E. Samuels, Jr at 202 307 3198 and say:

“My name is ___________________________ and I’m calling to urge you to stop mistreating John Kiriakou, to respect his right to free speech and to move him to a halfway house so that he can spend time with his family.”

You can write a letter to the Director at:

Federal Bureau of Prisons 
320 First St., NW 
Washington, DC 20534 

Or you can send an email. Click here for a link to the email form. John Kiriakou is in Loretto FCI.

And then, take a moment to write a note to John to let him know that he has your support. His address is:

John Kiriakou 79637-083, FCI, Loretto, P.O. Box 1000, Loretto, PA 15940

For more information on what you can do to support John, please visit: DefendJohnK.com.

*****************************************************************************************

Imprisoned CIA Whistleblower John Kiriakou Threatened with ‘Diesel Therapy,’ Suffers Shakedowns for Talking to Press
[John Kiriakou (Creative Commons-licensed Photo from Truthout.org)]

The federal correctional institution of Loretto, Pennsylvania, where former CIA officer John Kiriakou is serving a thirty-month jail sentence, appears to be scrambling to find any way they can to stop him from sending letters from prison. He has written another letter that details what seem to be clear acts of retaliation.

Since August of last year, Firedoglake has been publishing “Letters from Loretto,” by Kiriakou, an imprisoned whistleblower who was the first member of the CIA to publicly acknowledge that torture was official US policy under the George W. Bush administration. He was convicted in October 2012 after he pled guilty to violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA) when he provided the name of an officer involved in the CIA’s Rendition, Detention and Interrogation (RDI) program to a reporter. He was sentenced in January 2013, and reported to prison on February 28, 2013.

Firedoglake has been publishing Kiriakou’s “Letters from Loretto” since the summer of last year. In fact, the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) considers copies of Kiriakou’s letters to be a danger to the Loretto prison: a threat to the “security, good order or discipline of the institution” or “to the protection of the public” or a document that “might facilitate criminal activity.”

In Kiriakou’s most recent letter from prison, written on February 10, he reports a threat allegedly made by a “senior prison official,” who told him months ago that officials have discussed putting him in “diesel therapy” for the rest of his sentence.

“Diesel therapy is when a prisoner is transferred from one prison to another all across the country via prison van, bus or “conair” plane, never staying in any one prison long enough to receive telephone, email, mailing or visitation privileges,” Kiriakou explains. “I could move to a different prison every week for the rest of my sentence and still not hit them all.”

His family and attorneys would not know his location. It “would obviously be retaliation for “Letters from Loretto” and my press interviews,” he suggests. But the BOP could claim he was moved because of “bedspace” issues or for his own “safety.”

Kiriakou also shares how cops tore up his “room” twice after he did an interview with reporters from The National Herald, “the oldest, largest and most highly-respected Greek-American newspaper in the country.” It was his first press interview since pledging to quit talking to media and sending prison letters if he was granted at least nine months of halfway house time. (The prison broke its promise and is only granting him five to six months halfway house time.)

“Three hours after the interview ended, I was sitting in the TV room with my friend, former colleague and cellmate “Dave,” when another prisoner approached us and said, ‘Guys, the cops are tearing up your room,’” Kiriakou recalls. “We walked back to our room and, sure enough, two corrections officers (CO) were going through all of our possessions. I thought it was an odd coincidence, but I just shrugged. I didn’t have any contraband so I lost nothing.”

The next night it happened again. This time Kiriakou and Dave could not get back to their housing unit because a “gate at the head of the hall was locked.” When he finally did see the damage done, his locker door had been left wide open, photos of his children were thrown on the floor, his mail was “strewn all over” his bed and his books were tossed on a chair.

Up until the interview, he had only been shaken down three times. Now it had happened twice in two days.

Kiriakou complained to a CO that this was “disrespectful.” The CO said, “Sorry,” and, “We were just following orders.” The shakedown led to his cellmates losing some of their property.

“One of my cellmates, a 40-ish African-American whom I like, respect and consider a friend, made an important point,” according to Kirakou. “‘Don’t you see what they’re doing? They’re trying to make us mad with these shakedowns so that we’ll turn on you.’ He imagined a conversation: ‘Let’s piss off the big black guy so he pressures Kiriakou to stop writing and doing interviews.’”

It did not work that time. “My cellmate urged me to ‘keep up the fight. Keep telling people what it’s like in here.’ I promise to do that.”

After he had finished this letter, he describes in an “addendum” how the prison then tried to take his desk away in a boorish and daffy attempt to stop “Letters from Loretto”:

…[T]he shakedown CO tried to remove my desk from the wall and confiscate it. After all, if I have no desk, I can’t write “Letters from Loretto,” right? After a while, he gave up. The bolts were stripped and wouldn’t budge. (It was a temporary respite, though. The CO issued a work order to chip it off the wall. I had to go to the unit manager, who promised that the desk would not be removed.)…

The CO even tried to have a draft of a book Kiriakou and Dave are writing seized on the basis that it “made threats against staff.” He eventually got the draft back after the Special Investigative Service CO said he determined it included no threats.

The shakedowns are bothersome and irritating, but Kiriakou concedes in his letter that the prison is within its rights to do it to prisoners. The real issue is “retaliation and censorship.” He points out that the Supreme Court ruled in 1990 that “prison officials do not have discretion to punish” an inmate for “exercising his First Amendment rights by transferring him to another institution.”

He also has a right against retaliation for criticizing a “public official’s performance” of their duties, since that is protected under the First Amendment.

Fortunately, Kiriakou says he has attorneys representing him that would be willing to sue BOP officials or the entire BOP itself if they put him through something like “diesel therapy.” He also concludes the best way to respond to this treatment is to direct complaints to BOP Director Charles Samuels and demand “an end to these illegal and unconstitutional actions by his staff.”

Read the full letter, which appears below.//

John Kiriakou – Letter from Loretto (February 10, 2014) (PDF)

John Kiriakou – Letter from Loretto (February 10, 2014) (Text)

On February 7, I gave my first press interview since the prison administration reneged on our halfway house deal: They would put me in for nine months halfway house and I would stop writing “Letters from Loretto,” decline all media interviews, and withdraw two formal complaints against staff.

As you know from my previous letters, that agreement is no longer in effect so on the 7th I spoke at length with Dean Sirigos and Demetrios Tsakas of The National Herald, the oldest, largest and most highly-respected Greek-American newspaper in the country. We spent more than two hours together, and we discussed issues ranging from halfway house time to terrorism, drones and Afghanistan. (The journalists had gone through the formal approval process weeks in advance, were approved and arrived during normal business hours as instructed.)

Three hours after the interview ended, I was sitting in the TV room with my friend, former colleague and cellmate “Dave,” when another prisoner approached us and said, “Guys, the cops are tearing up your room.” We walked back to our room and, sure enough, two corrections officers (CO) were going through all of our possessions. I thought it was an odd coincidence, but I just shrugged. I didn’t have any contraband so I lost nothing.

The very next night, Dave and I went for a walk around the outdoor basketball court. When we walked back into the housing unit, another prisoner approached us and said, “Hey, the cops are tearing you guys up again.” We couldn’t get to our cubicle because the gate at the head of the hall was locked. A half hour later, the COs opened it and allowed us back in. This shakedown was different than the previous days. (And I should note that in the previous year I had been shaken down a total of three times until the interview.) My locker door was left wide open (my cellmates’ lockers were closed and locked.) Photos of my children were thrown on the floor. My mail was strewn all over the bed. And my books were tossed on a nearby chair.

I approached a CO and complained. Retaliation is one thing, I said, but this was just plain disrespectful. “Sorry,” was the response. “We were just following orders.” My cellmates also were disrespected. This shakedown was very thorough, and they had all lost property. One of my cellmates, a 40-ish African-American whom I like, respect and consider a friend, made an important point. “Don’t you see what they’re doing? They’re trying to make us mad with these shakedowns so that we’ll turn on you.” He imagined a conversation: “Let’s piss off the big black guy so he pressures Kiriakou to stop writing and doing interviews.” My cellmate urged me to “keep up the fight. Keep telling people what it’s like in here.” I promise to do that.

The issue here is not the bother and inconvenience of shakedowns. The COs are within their rights to shake us down whenever they want. The issue is retaliation and censorship, which are illegal. A senior prison official told me months ago that there have been active discussions about putting me in “diesel therapy” for the rest of my sentence. Diesel therapy is when a prisoner is transferred from one prison to another all across the country via prison van, bus or “conair” plane, never staying in any one prison long enough to receive telephone, email, mailing or visitation privileges. I could move to a different prison every week for the rest of my sentence and still not hit them all.

In the meantime, my family and attorneys wouldn’t even know what time zone I was in. This would obviously be retaliation for “Letters from Loretto” and my press interviews, but the BOP could easily make up a lie that it was related to a “bedspace” issue or for my own safety. Still, it would stink of retaliation for the exercise of my constitutional right to freedom of speech. I’m fortunate that my attorneys, among Washington’s best, are willing to sue individual BOP employees, as well as the BOP as an organization, to ensure that such an assault on my rights doesn’t take place. BOP officials should keep in mind what the Supreme Court said about diesel therapy in Frazier v. Dubois:

1210 -Transfers
Although prisoners enjoy no constitutional right to remain in a particular institution, prison officials do not have discretion to punish inmate for exercising his First Amendment rights by transferring him to a different institution. Frazier v Dubois (1990, CA10 Kan) 922 F.2d 560

Similarly, I have a constitutional right against retaliation, as the Supreme Court set forth in Bloch v. Ribar and in Skoog v. County of Clackamas:

460. Retaliation
Plaintiffs had First Amendment right to criticize public official’s performance of his duties, and in action alleging retaliation by official against plaintiffs due to their exercise of their First Amendment rights, it was sufficient for them to allege injury in form of embarrassment, humiliation and emotional distress. Bloch v Ribar (1998, CA6 Ohio) 156 F.3d 673, 1998 FED App 294P

Right exists to be free of police action for which retaliation is but-for cause even if probable cause exists for that action. Skoog v County of Clackamas (2006, CA9 Or) 469 F.3d 1221 (criticized in Baldauf v Davidson (2007, SD Ind) 2007 US Dist LEXIS 53924)

These cases are freely available in the prison law library. Perhaps prison officials should acquaint themselves with them. Maybe they could also look Largent v. Texas, which prohibits censorship:

306. Censorship
Any regulation which makes dissemination of ideas depend upon approval of distributor by official constitutes administrative censorship in extreme form, and, subject to certain exceptions, any regulation which subjects communications to license infringes right of free speech. Largent v Texas (1943) 318 US 418, 87 L Ed 873, 63 S Ct 667

Where do we go from here? First, understand that any monolithic bureaucracy will tend toward corruption without proper oversight. There is an internal “administrative remedy” process that’s a joke. You write a complaint and they tell you to go screw yourself. Calling for an Inspector General investigation is also a joke. An Inspector General could make an entire career investigating where the money from the inmate trust fund goes (where did that new flat screen TV in the CO medical lounge, especially during sequestration, come from?). The only alternative is to go to the top: BOP Director Charles Samuels.

Director Samuels worked his way up after starting as a line CO, moving up through the ranks to warden and then on to Washington to lead the BOP. Certainly, he knows the difference between right and wrong. Certainly, he wouldn’t want his employees to violate the law (as I’ve documented in these letters). Certainly, he wouldn’t want his people’s actions highlighted in a press investigation.

Join me in writing Director Samuels and in demanding an end to these illegal and unconstitutional actions by his staff. We have to put our foot down and say, “Enough!”

I’ll let you know how things develop.

Best regards,

John

PS: I wanted to thank Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA), who sent a second letter to Director Samuels last week saying,

“As you will recall, I sent a letter last September requesting that the Department of Justice grant my constituent, John Kiriakou, at least 9 months of halfway house time. Despite the fact that 12 months of halfway house is well within BOP guidelines, I am disappointed to learn that John’s return to society may be unnecessarily delayed. Thus, I am writing to reiterate the importance of John’s release to a halfway house as soon as possible so that he can be a father to his five children and resume productive contributions to society.”

Rep. Moran is a 12-term congressman and a member of the House Appropriations Committee, which controls the BOP budget.

Addendum:

About 12 hours after I wrote this Letter from Loretto, I was called to the Special Investigative Service (SIS) office. The CO there handed me an envelope containing the first 20,000 words of a book Dave and I are writing about our experiences here. I hadn’t even realized it was missing since the shakedown. The SIS CO said that the CO who had shaken me down had determined that the manuscript “made threats against staff.” He said he, too, had read it and believed that it did NOT contain any threats to staff. (The allegation was patently absurd, in any event.) He returned it to me in its entirety, although he most likely made a copy.

In one last swipe at my civil rights and my constitutional right to freedom of speech, the shakedown CO tried to remove my desk from the wall and confiscate it. After all, if I have no desk, I can’t write “Letters from Loretto,” right? After a while, he gave up. The bolts were stripped and wouldn’t budge. (It was a temporary respite, though. The CO issued a work order to chip it off the wall. I had to go to the unit manager, who promised that the desk would not be removed.)

These crude, amateurish attempts to deprive me of my rights don’t originate with a low-level CO. They come from higher up, from officials who should know better. But I have the Constitution in my corner and I won’t stop fighting.


_________________________________________________________________
Get involved in your communities as this NSA deal is simply Wall Street and industrial spying and very little terrorist threat surveillance.  It is totalitarian and these Wall Street hedge funds are telling you and me....YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS OF PRIVACY BECAUSE WE DO NOT OPERATE UNDER THE US CONSTITUTION. 

THEY SAY WE WILL TAKE YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION.....WE WILL GIVE IT TO WHOMEVER WE WANT.....AND WE WILL SELL IT FOR PROFIT.


End NSA Massive Spying Programs Dear Cindy ,

We've told you about TODAY's massive action against mass spying -- and now it's time to act.  We're calling today The Day We Fight Back, and dozens of large organizations and websites and thousands of smaller ones are mobilizing their members and visitors to demand an end to broad suspicion-less surveillance.  

We announced it on the anniversary of the passing of Aaron Swartz, to honor him and to celebrate the victory over SOPA that he helped us achieve two years ago.



If all of the organizations and sites that have signed on to the cause press forward today, we should be able to drive tens of thousands of phone calls to lawmakers to demand that the NSA's mass spying programs be reined in. 

Will you place one of those calls?  It'll only take 2 minutes, and we'll make it easy for you by giving you a call script and connecting you to the right office.

Just click here to call your lawmakers.

Then, or if you can't call, please click here to send an email to

We understand the United States to be a democracy, founded upon a Constitution that affords us critical rights, and governed by therule of law.

Yet for years, the NSA has exploited secret legal interpretations to undermine our privacy rights -- thus chilling speech and activism, and thereby threatening to subvert the very underpinnings of our democracy itself.

We are demanding that decision makers remedy this by:

• Passing the USA FREEDOM Act, which would end the bulk collection of Americans' phone records and institute other key reforms.

• Defeating the so-called FISA Improvements Act, which would entrench -- and potentially expand -- the spying.

• Creating additional privacy protections for non-Americans.

• Ending the NSA's subversion of encryption and other data security measures.

And we're not even that far from winning on at least one key front:

The USA FREEDOM Act has more than 100 bipartisan sponsors, including two powerful lead sponsors: Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Representative James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), who was the original author of the PATRIOT Act and is furious that it has been abused to spy on Americans en masse.

This summer an amendment that's very similar to parts of the USA FREEDOM Act failed to pass in the House of Representatives by just a handful of votes. Enough lawmakers now say they would have voted in support that it would pass if it came up for a vote today.

Now we need to force a vote on the issue in the House, and a first vote on it in the Senate -- and we'll do that by putting pressure on lawmakers by calling and emailing them today.  Tens of thousands of people are poised to join the cause: Please be one of them.

Just click here to call your lawmakers.

Then, or if you can't call, please click here to send an email to your lawmakers.

We're going to persist in this fight, and we will win it.

In Solidarity,

Tim Carpenter
PDA National Director

__________________________________________
IF YOU WANT TO GET INTO THE BELLY OF THE NEO-LIBERAL/TPP BEAST.......MEET THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION AND JOHNS HOPKINS AS THE GUEST NEO-CONSERVATIVE.


The Great Recession and the Safety Net
A Center on Children and Families Event
Thursday, January 30, 2014, 9:00 - 11:30 am
The Brookings Institution, Falk Auditorium, 1775 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Washington, DC

On January 30, the Center on Children and Families at Brookings will hold a forum to examine the performance of the safety net during the Great Recession, the most severe economic downturn since the Depression of the 1930s. The event is held in conjunction with the American Academy of Political and Social Science (AAPSS), Sage Publications and the Annie E. Casey Foundation. A recent volume of the AAPSS Annals is devoted to examining the effects of the Great Recession on macroeconomic policy, politics, the job market, household wealth, the performance of the safety net and other topics.

The event will open with an overview of the entire volume by Sheldon Danziger, the volume editor, followed by a review of the chapter on the safety net by its author, Robert Moffitt. A panel of distinguished speakers will then respond to Moffitt’s assessment of safety net performance. The focus on the safety net includes attention to the magnitude and effects of increases in federal transfer payments to low-income and unemployed Americans, as well as examination of the performance of individual safety net programs. Although the safety net performed well during the recession, its prospects for the future may not be as bright, given the cuts in federal means-tested spending caused by sequestration, the recent expiration of extended Unemployment Compensation benefits, and the possible cuts in food stamp benefits that seem likely this year. The need for reforms of the safety net will be addressed by the speakers.

Speakers will take questions from the audience. The event will be live webcast. Join the conversation on Twitter at #RecessionEffects.

Register to attend the event in person »
Register for the live webcast » 
 

Introduction

Isabel Sawhill

Senior Fellow and Co-Director, Center on Children and Families

The Brookings Institution

Overview of Volume

Sheldon Danziger

President

Russell Sage Foundation

Overview of Performance Safety Net

Robert Moffitt

Professor of Economics

Johns Hopkins University

Panel

Moderator: Ron Haskins

Senior Fellow and Co-Director, Center on Children and Families

The Brookings Institution

Sheldon Danziger

President

Russell Sage Foundation

Robert Greenstein

Founder and President

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Robert Moffitt

Professor of Economics

Johns Hopkins University

Betsey Stevenson

Member, Council of Economic Advisers

Executive Office of the President

Michael Tanner

Senior Fellow

Cato Institute

      
     To RSVP for this event, please call the Office of Communications at 202.797.6105 or click here 
 
 
 
If you no longer want to receive emails from Brookings Events please Opt-Out.





__________________________________________________________________________
Maryland Attorney General Candidates Forum University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law Thursday, November 7, 2013 at 5:00 PM (EST) Baltimore, MD
___________________________________________________________________________________

Thursday Oct 17, 7PM :
Teach-in on the Trans-Pacific Partnership - Secret Corporate Power Grab

Have you heard of the TPP? Don't feel bad if you haven't because this trade agreement known as "NAFTA on steroids" has been negotiated in secret for almost 4 years. The text has been classified which is unprecedented. Find out how the TPP will affect everything from buying local to wages to healthcare to Internet freedom and more, and what you can do to stop it.

Free and open to the public

Sponsored by FlushtheTPP.org, a project of PopularResistance.org
_________________________________________________________


About the rally

Right now the NSA is spying on everyone's personal communications, and they’re operating without any meaningful oversight. Since the Snowden leaks started, more than 571,000 people from all walks of life have signed the StopWatching.us petition telling the U.S. Congress that we want them to rein in the NSA.

On October 26th, the 12th anniversary of the signing of the US Patriot Act, we're taking the next step and holding the largest rally yet against NSA surveillance. We’ll be handing the half-million petitions to Congress to remind them that they work for us -- and we won’t tolerate mass surveillance any longer.

Who we are StopWatching.us is a coalition of more than 100 public advocacy organizations and companies from across the political spectrum. We came together in June 2013 to demand the U.S. Congress investigate the full extent of the NSA's spying programs. Go here to read our letter to U.S. Congress demanding accountability and reform.

Members of the StopWatching.us coalition include:



______________________________________________________________________

Bill of Rights Defense Committee

We are 12 days from the mass rally against dragnet surveillance in Washington DC. Today's video features whistleblower, Thomas Drake, insisting that we the people must keep fighting, standing up and speaking out against the plundering of our rights by government. RSVP if you haven't already: https://rally.stopwatching.us/

http://bit.ly/GOb3a2


__________________________________________________________________________
Just 15 short days away from the mass rally against illegal NSA dragnet surveillance happening in DC.

Will you be there? https://rally.stopwatching.us/ And here are a few words from long time activist and co-founder of CODEPINK, Medea Benjamin, on why we need to continue to mobilize.

http://bit.ly/186aAdzMedea Benjamin (Code Pink) speaks at DC "Restore The Fourth" rally, 7/4/2013 www.youtube.comAbout 250-300 people attended a a great rally organized by the newly formed grassroots/online

___________________________________________________________________
Third Way corporate democratic states are doing the same thing as regards protests of all kinds. High penalties and actual jail time is meant to stifle protest!!!!!

RUN AND VOTE FOR LABOR AND JUSTICE NEXT ELECTIONS.....DO NOT ALLOW THE DNC TO CHOOSE YOUR CANDIDATE!!!

Michigan bill would impose fines on unions for illegal picketing May 13, 2013  LSJ.com

Capitol Chat: Republican bill would allow for fine...: A bill sponsored by a Michigan House Republican,would make it possible to fine people who illegally picket outside of businesses. LSJ Capitol reporter Kristen Daum explains. What’s next • The Michigan House Oversight Committee could consider by this summer a bill that would allow employers to seek court injunctions to stop illegal mass pickets and allow courts to fine individuals and unions who participate in such events.

• No hearing has been scheduled yet. The bill was introduced by Rep. Tom McMillin, R-Rochester Hills, who is chairman of the oversight panel.

LANSING — Individuals and labor unions could face steep fines for engaging in illegal pickets if the Michigan Legislature takes up a bill that a Republican lawmaker recently reintroduced.

Rep. Tom McMillin, of Rochester Hills, is making another go at the legislation this spring, calling it a way to protect business owners and employers.

An identical bill stalled last year after the full House failed to take it up. It’s unclear whether the plan will meet the same dead-end this session but its resurrection is enough to concern union groups.

“It has a chilling effect,” said Ray Holman, spokesman for UAW Local 6000, the largest state employees’ union. “It’s meant to silence people and, quite frankly, diminish union power.”

Since 1939, state law has prohibited mass picketing under certain conditions such as when doing so would impede or intimidate people from engaging in lawful employment, obstruct access to places of employment, interfere with the use of public roadways or transit or when if a protest would involve a private residence.

McMillin’s bill — House Bill 4643 — would allow employers to seek court orders to stop illegal pickets. Employers would not have to show they’re suffering any harm before seeking court action.

The bill also would allow circuit courts to impose fines on individuals or unions engaged in such pickets.

If an individual was previously subjected to a court order over illegal mass-picketing and they violated that law again, the court could fine them $1,000 per day for each day they picket illegally.

Unions or organizations that sponsor a picket in violation of a court order could be fined $10,000 per day.

Holman said UAW 6000 — which represents more than 15,600 state workers — has engaged in informational pickets outside state office buildings to raise awareness about working conditions. He fears this bill could discourage workers from picketing in the future, even if what they’re doing is legal.

“They might not have the confidence to come out,” Holman said, adding that the legislature is “trying to send a message. They are chilling people’s confidence to speak out and organize.”

McMillin said he wants to give employers another route if police don’t take action against protesters who break the law.

“If they’re blocking the entrance on private property and trespassing, there needs to be a recourse,” he said.

McMillin brushed off the unions’ criticism, describing it as one of their “theatrics.”

“The union leaders try to stir things up and lying is there forte. What do you expect?” McMillin said. “Make sure you’re not breaking the law, make sure your union bosses are not instructing you to break the law and you’ll be fine.”

Union leaders said their attorneys are also take issue with the potential legal ramifications of the bill.

“Regardless of whether they succeed in passing HB 4643, we have every reason to believe that this despicable attack on workers is unconstitutional,” said Karla Swift, president of the Michigan State AFL-CIO. “Employers already have the tools that they need to stop illegal pickets. This is an attempt to intimidate workers so that they do not exercise their lawful First Amendment rights.”

McMillin said those fears are “just silly.”

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to peaceably assemble.

McMillin’s bill includes a provision that states Michigan’s restrictions on mass picketing do not apply to picketing authorized under the federal and state constitutions. However, it would likely be up to the courts to interpret what that means if there were a challenge to the law, if it were to pass.

House Bill 4643 has been referred to the House Oversight Committee, which McMillin chairs.

McMillin said the committee could take up the bill within a matter of weeks but he hasn’t talked to other representatives about whether there’s sufficient support for it.

House Speaker Jase Bolger, R-Marshall, has no position on the bill.

“He's reserving judgment until he hears more about it through the committee process,” Bolger spokesman Ari Adler said.

In 2012, McMillin’s first iteration of the proposal received committee backing but was never voted on by the full House.

Fiscal analysis of the proposal found local courts “may face costs due to an increased caseload from new actions created by this bill.”

That analysis also said the original bill had support from the Michigan Chamber of Commerce and three other trade associations and pro-business groups. Nearly two dozen union groups were opposed to it.

Senate Majority Floor Leader Arlan Meekhof, R-Olive Township, introduced an identical bill last session in the Senate, but it was never taken up in committee. Meekhof’s office said Monday he has no immediate plans to reintroduce his bill this year because he’s focused on other issues.

House Bill 4643



_________________________________________________________________________
YOU'LL NOTICE THAT MARYLAND'S RUPPERSBERGER IS BEHIND THIS.  MARYLAND IS GROUND ZERO FOR ALL THAT IS SECRET POLICING AND INVASION OF PRIVACY!!!

Cindy,

In less than 24 hours more than 60,000 of us have told Congress to respect our privacy rights and kill CISPA 2.0.

Congressmembers are pushing this bill hard. We need to push back -- and fast.  

Will you use these links or forward the email below to ask your friends to join the fight?

If you're already on Facebook, click here to share with your friends. If you're already on Twitter, click here to tweet about the campaign: Tweet
---

CISPA is back.

Remember when we defeated the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) last year? Well, it's back with a vengeance. The leading Republican and Democrat on the U.S. House Intelligence subcommittee re-introduced the cybersnooping bill this week.   We beat it once. We can beat it again. Click here to tell your lawmakers to support privacy and oppose CISPA.   To refresh your memory, Demand Progress co-founder Aaron Swartz called CISPA 1.0 a Patriot Act for the Internet. But now they've rebooted the effort, and Rolling Stone says that with CISPA 2.0, "Congress is trying to kill Internet privacy again."   The bill gives companies like Verizon and AT&T protection from customers' lawsuits when they give the Feds information about your Internet use.   Amazingly, Congress and big businesses are claiming they need to violate our privacy to protect us from Iranian and Chinese hackers, but they refuse to put any basic privacy protections in writing.   CISPA would undermine our basic rights and jeopardize our privacy online. Click here to tell your lawmakers to oppose to it.   CISPA sponsor Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger even said at a hearing this week that he didn't see any reason why businesses needed to hide your personal data from the government.   Already over 200,000 Demand Progress members have contacted Congress to oppose this bill, but we need your help again.   Help us defend Internet privacy from the latest assault by Congress and big business.   Click here to tell your lawmakers to oppose CISPA 2.0 Please urge your friends to take action by forwarding this email or using these links:

If you're already on Facebook, click here to share with your friends. If you're already on Twitter, click here to tweet about the campaign: Tweet Thanks,

-Demand Progress



______________________________________________________________________________
PLEASE BE SURE TO CONTACT MARYLAND'S NATIONAL POLITICIANS NOT ONLY ON THIS ISSUE BUT FOR THE FACT THAT THEY ALWAYS VOTE FOR MORE AND MORE INVASIVE SECURITY OVERSIGHT.  WHETHER HEIGHTENED PENALTIES FOR PROTESTS, DNA BANKING, OR JAILING WITHOUT DUE PROCESS......MARYLAND'S INCUMBENTS ARE FAST IN REMOVING YOUR CIVIL LIBERTIES AS THEY ALLOW CORPORATIONS TO BREAK LAWS FREELY.  GEORGE W BUSH.......THIRD WAY DEMOCRATS.......WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?  NONE.


Click below for a sample script and the number to call: Progressive champion Sen. Jeff Merkley recently introduced the Protect America's Privacy Act (S. 3515) to end warrantless spying on Americans.

Call Sens. Mikulski and Cardin to support Sen. Merkley's bill, which represents the best chance for making progress on this front this year.

Click here for the number to call and a sample script.


Call Sens. Mikulski and Cardin to end warrantless spying on Americans.

Dear Cindy,

Last week the U.S. House of Representatives voted to renew the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, a sweeping, Bush-era law that allows our government to trample our constitutional rights in the name of "national security."

Ostensibly designed to target people on foreign soil who don't enjoy the constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure afforded to American citizens, loopholes in the law allow massive amounts of warrantless spying on innocent Americans.

The FISA Amendments Act will expire unless it's renewed before the end of the year, but rather than use this opportunity to carefully consider how to fix the law, the Senate is on track to follow the House and rubberstamp its renewal.

Pick up the phone and tell Sens. Mikulski and Cardin: Stand with Sen. Jeff Merkley to end warrantless spying on Americans.

Click here for the number to call and a sample script.

Progressive champion Sen. Jeff Merkley recently introduced the Protect America's Privacy Act (S. 3515) to end warrantless spying on Americans.

We need to back up Sen. Merkley, who is courageously standing up for our constitutional rights — something few politicians have been willing to do in the decade since September 11.

While Sen. Merkley's bill does not repeal telecom immunity for illegal spying, restore privacy protection to library and bookstore records, end National Security Letter abuse, or roll back the worst abuses of the PATRIOT Act (all issues CREDO will continue to fight for, in addition to the full repeal of the PATRIOT Act), it does make three major changes to the warrantless wiretapping program that help us end some of the abuses of the Bush era.

First, it would put stronger protections in place to ensure that spy agencies are not using this program as an indirect way to target someone in the U.S.

Second, current law allows the government to collect information in anticipation of having its request to do so approved by a special type of top-secret court. Sen. Merkley's bill would ensure that if this court decides the procedures the government is using to collect information are improper, any information collected from Americans cannot be used in a legal proceeding.

Third, the bill would establish a new process for ensuring that if security agencies determine that information is being collected on Americans, that information cannot be accessed or searched until a proper warrant is obtained.

As ACLU Legislative Counsel Michelle Richardson said:



"This bill will give the FISA Amendments Act the overhaul it so desperately needs, restraining the government from unconstitutionally collecting and using vast amounts of data about innocent Americans. These amendments would allow collection against foreigners to continue while better protecting Americans and should be considered a win-win for both the intelligence community and the Constitution." We need to stand up for our constitutional rights and end warrantless government spying on Americans.

Sen. Merkley's bill represents the best chance for making progress on this front this year.

Tell Sens. Mikulski and Cardin to co-sponsor Sen. Merkley's Protect America's Privacy Act to end warrantless spying on Americans. Click the link below for a sample script and the number to call:

http://act.credoaction.com/call?tg=FSMD_2.FSMD_1&cp_id=263&id=47242-5766099-TsY5QFx&t=9

Thank you for speaking out for our constitutional rights.

Matt Lockshin, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets



____________________________________________________________________________
RULE OF LAW IS NOT ONLY THREATENED BY FAILURE TO ENFORCE THE LAWS AND MOVEMENT TO DISMANTLE THE JUSTICE SYSTEM THROUGH ARBITRATION LAWS AND LOSSES IN JUDGES AND LAWYERS, BUT THE EVIDENCE OF HOSTILITY TOWARDS WHISTLE-BLOWERS IS EVER INCREASING.  OBAMA CAMPAIGNED ON STRENGTHENING WHISTLE-BLOWER PROTECTIONS, BUT HE IS ACTUALLY WORSE THAN BUSH IN SUPPORTING A PUNITIVE ATMOSPHERE.  WHETHER INTIMIDATION AT THE LOCAL AND STATE LEVEL OR AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL, THE PUSH TO KEEP PEOPLE FROM REPORTING THE SYSTEMIC FRAUD AND CORRUPTION IS GROWING.  THE DOCTOR BELOW IS PERHAPS 'CAUSTIC' BECAUSE OF THESE ATTEMPTS TO KEEP HIM DOWN.  WE ALL KNOW NOW THAT THERE IS MEDICAL DEVICE FRAUD AND PATIENTS ARE INDEED BEING EXPOSED TO UNNECESSARY MEDICAL PROCEDURES.

THIS IS NOT A DEMOCRATIC NOR A RULE OF LAW POSITION......IT IS A CORPORATE POSITION.

VOTE YOUR INCUMBENT OUT!!!!


Caustic Crusader at Center of F.D.A. Scandal
By ERIC LICHTBLAU and SCOTT SHANE Published: July 30, 2012  New York Times 

WASHINGTON — As he often did, Dr. Robert C. Smith was hammering away at his bosses at the Food and Drug Administration in the most caustic of terms at a meeting to address his concerns about the approval of medical devices.

With seven fellow scientists seated behind him in support, Dr. Smith charged that managers “are not following the law, not following the science, not following F.D.A. core values,” according to notes of the 2008 session. He glared at a supervisor, who sat fuming in front of him.

Dr. Smith — radiologist, lawyer, litigant and the man now at the center of a spying scandal at the F.D.A. — is in some ways typical of that peculiar Washington phenomenon known as the whistle-blower: He pressed charges of government abuse, battled with his bosses, and ultimately was shown the door amid lawsuits and investigations.

But he took his role to an extreme, according to former colleagues, scorning negotiations, making enemies of critics and papering Washington with complaints, which helped sow chaos at the agency. One co-worker compared his efforts to “a mutiny.”

This month, F.D.A. officials came under fire from Congress after disclosures that they had begun a surveillance operation monitoring the e-mail of Dr. Smith and four other employees as they wrote to their lawyers, lawmakers and even President Obama. Dr. Smith’s scorched-earth tactics had so unnerved managers that they, too, resorted to extreme measures, and the monitors ended up producing a sort of enemies list of 21 agency critics, including Congressional officials, academics and journalists.

Some 80,000 pages of documents intercepted in the spy operation — many of them e-mails from Dr. Smith seeking help from scientists, politicians, reporters, academics and others — detail his campaign to expose what he claimed were harmful practices at the F.D.A. The documents, accidentally posted online by an F.D.A. contractor, reveal a four-year process of estrangement between Dr. Smith and his bosses.

At first, F.D.A. managers sought to appease him by restructuring his office, calling in mediators and pledging reforms. But he responded with more sweeping charges of wrongdoing, accusing agency officials and manufacturers of a criminal conspiracy to market unsafe devices. An outside consultant said his vitriolic attacks created a toxic workplace.

Dr. Smith stood to profit from his accusations: he and other disgruntled F.D.A. scientists had filed a lawsuit, kept secret under court seal by law, against manufacturers of imaging devices. After discovering the suit, F.D.A. officials began to suspect his motives. Those suspicions intensified when they learned that he had filed similar whistle-blowing lawsuits against two previous employers, Yale and Cornell.

The Brooklyn-born Dr. Smith, 52, who left the drug agency in 2010 and is now working as a radiologist at a private practice in Great Neck, N.Y., does not apologize for his aggressive style. “I’m not the kind of guy who ever in his life turns a blind eye to things,” he said in an interview.

His concerns about the effectiveness of certain imaging devices for detecting breast and colon cancer are shared by some medical experts. But potential allies were driven off by his abrasive style. “He got annoying, he got obstructive in nature,” said Dr. Carl D’Orsi, a mammography expert at Emory University who worked on an F.D.A. review panel and also served as a consultant for a manufacturer. Fellow employees went further, complaining to the consultant that Dr. Smith was “disruptive,” “adversarial” and “confrontational.”

Staff members for three Congressional committees that often criticize the F.D.A. reviewed Dr. Smith’s complaints and chose not to pursue them. The inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services examined his claim that the agency was violating the law in reviewing medical devices and concluded that he was wrong.

Dr. Smith maintains that many imaging devices do not work as advertised by their manufacturers, produce many false positives and subject patients to needless rounds of potentially harmful radiological testing. Moreover, he says they waste enormous amounts of federal Medicare aid. Dr. Smith said that his sole goal in making his complaints was to protect Americans from harmful medical devices and that money was not a motive.

His concerns are now getting another look. The Office of Special Counsel, which investigates whistle-blower grievances, found in a confidential review this spring that Dr. Smith’s allegations raised a “substantial likelihood” of serious problems and required a full review. That has triggered an investigation by Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services.



_________________________________________________________________________________
CUOMO IS JUST THE KIND OF CORPORATE POLITICIAN THAT WILL MAKE IT INTO THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE AS IS O'MALLEY.  IN BOTH MEN'S CASES, THEY HAVE WORKED HARD TO SILENCE RULE OF LAW....CUOMO AND O'MALLEY PUSHING ARBITRATION RATHER THAN LAW SUITS AND FAILING TO ENFORCE WIDE SWATHS OF LAW.  THIS IS WHY WE ARE SEEING CORPORATE AND INTERNATIONAL LAW AS THE MAIN CAREER PATHS AND LAW SCHOOL GRADUATES WITHOUT THIS FOCUS ARE UNEMPLOYED.  PUBLIC DEFENDERS, RATHER IT BE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW, TENENT LAW, LABOR LAW HAVE BEEN PUSHED TO THE SIDE.

BABY BOOMERS NEED TO STEP UP AND MAKE YOUR RETIREMENT ABOUT BECOMING A LAWYER IN THESE FIELDS.  WE DON'T NEED HIGH WAGES AND BIG RETURNS AND IT WILL BE BETTER THAN BEING FORCED TO BE A GROCERY BAGGER.......WHICH IS WHERE THEY ARE PUSHING THE SENIORS.


Cuomo Said to Dissuade Lawyer Use by Witnesses

By DANNY HAKIM Published: July 31, 2012 ALBANY —  New York Times

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, leading a high-profile investigation into the State Police when he was attorney general, angered top officials at the agency by discouraging them from obtaining legal representation during the inquiry, according to interviews with former officials and claims made in documents recently obtained by The New York Times.

Nathaniel Brooks for The New York Times Some of Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s actions as attorney general were challenged.


Pedro Perez, who was briefly acting superintendent of the State Police in 2008, when the inquiry was undertaken, said Mr. Cuomo told him at the time that seeking legal counsel would suggest that the officials were guilty of some wrongdoing.

“Essentially what he told me was that as law enforcement officials we understood that if someone comes with an attorney, there is a presumption that they have something to hide,” Mr. Perez said in an interview. “And I said that is not, in fact, the case. In our system, having an attorney present does not create a sense of guilt. There’s a right to an attorney. I was taken aback.”

The reputed conversation became well known among the State Police officials; The Times learned of it after obtaining the sworn testimony of Glenn Valle, the former State Police counsel, taken in late 2008 as part of the State Police investigation.

Mr. Cuomo’s office strongly denied the claim.

“No one in the attorney general’s office ever discouraged troopers from being represented by counsel, in conversations with Perez or otherwise,” Richard Bamberger, the governor’s communication director, said in a statement on Monday. “The suggestion that the attorney general’s office resisted representation by counsel is belied by the fact that virtually all members of the State Police had union or private counsel during their testimony.”

Mr. Cuomo’s office said there had been a conversation with Mr. Perez, but disputed his recollection; it said Mr. Cuomo told Mr. Perez that Mr. Valle, the chief counsel, could not represent the agency because he would probably have to testify.

“Perez was distressed at Valle’s disqualification as counsel,” Mr. Bamberger said.

Sharon L. McCarthy, a Manhattan lawyer who was recruited by Mr. Cuomo to take charge of the investigation of the State Police, said: “I conducted the investigation in a way that witnesses felt comfortable bringing their lawyers. I did not ever discourage anyone from bringing their lawyer.” She also said she found it unlikely that Mr. Cuomo did so either, and she recalled most witnesses’ appearing with lawyers.

The dispute emerged as Mr. Cuomo faced scrutiny for his handling of a separate State Police inquiry in 2007. His aides recently shielded documents related to that investigation from public view in the state archives, after reporters sought to examine them.

It also brought attention to what is certain to be a closely scrutinized chapter in Mr. Cuomo’s biography as his national reputation grows: his tenure as attorney general, when he took on politically sensitive inquiries that at times involved his political rivals.

The issue came to light in the last week when reporters for The Times and The Times Union of Albany obtained copies of sworn testimony by Mr. Valle, who served for two decades as the chief counsel of the State Police.

Mr. Valle testified that Mr. Cuomo, a Democrat, had discouraged agency officials from bringing lawyers to the investigation, and then repeated the claim in a memorandum to the office of David A. Paterson, who was then the governor. Neither Ms. McCarthy nor Governor Paterson’s office followed up on the claim.

Details of the testimony, which was given on Dec. 30, 2008, also raise questions about the investigation itself, which was meant to examine political interference at the State Police, and whether Mr. Cuomo’s office produced a thorough report of its findings.

Seemingly relevant information appears to have been left out of Mr. Cuomo’s final report — specifically details of a reputed effort by the Paterson administration to remove at least 10 white troopers who were members of the governor’s security detail and replace them with black or Latino troopers, leading to an extraordinary standoff with State Police officials, who viewed doing that as illegal and inviting a discrimination lawsuit.



_________________________________________________________________________________
WE SEE WITH THE HOUSE VOTE ON 'AUDIT THE FEDERAL RESERVE' A GOOD INDICATOR OF WHO IS WORKING FOR THE RICH.  WE SEE ALL OF MARYLAND'S POLITICIANS EXCEPT RUPPERSBERGER VOTING AGAINST THE AUDIT.......THE DEMOCRATIC LED SENATE SAYS HARRY REID WON'T ALLOW A VOTE.  THE REASONS GIVEN IS THAT IT IS A STEALTH EFFORT TO GET RID OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE......SOME REPUBLICANS DO WANT THAT.  THIS IS A ONE TIME FULL AUDIT BY THE END OF 2012 AND ONE WOULD HOPE THAT IT WOULD BE CONTINUED EVERY FEW YEARS.  THE IDEA THAT THE AUDIT WILL LIMIT OR CURTAIL ITS FREEDOM FROM CONGRESS IS A BIT OF HYPERBOLE.  LIMITS MUST BE PLACED ON THE CENTER OF FRAUD AND CORRUPTION........ THE FEDERAL RESERVE.  YOU MUST DECIDE HOW YOU FEEL AND CALL/WRITE YOUR SENATOR AND REPRESENTATIVE.



Saturday, 28 July 2012 21:39
 Bernie Sanders Calls Federal Reserve "Socialism for the Rich" After $16 Trillion Secret Bail-Outs
 Written by  Ralph Lopez | Daily Kos Bail-outs Included Foreign Banks -

After 89 Democrats in the House voted in a victory for bipartisanship to audit the Federal Reserve, some jaw-dropping numbers are emerging as a result of a partial conducted this year.  It is no surprise that the news is dropping with a dull thud in the media.  That's why you should get your news from the Internet and sites like this.

Senator Bernie Sanders at his official website reports:

The first top-to-bottom audit of the Federal Reserve uncovered eye-popping new details about how the U.S. provided a whopping $16 trillion in secret loans to bail out American and foreign banks and businesses during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. An amendment by Sen. Bernie Sanders to the Wall Street reform law passed one year ago this week directed the Government Accountability Office to conduct the study. "As a result of this audit, we now know that the Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in total financial assistance to some of the largest financial institutions and corporations in the United States and throughout the world," said Sanders. "This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you're-on-your-own individualism for everyone else." Blogger Pierre Joris of the Department of English at SUNY Albany gleaned from the report:

"The Federal Reserve likes to refer to these secret bailouts as an all-inclusive loan program, but virtually none of the money has been returned and it was loaned out at 0% interest. Why the Federal Reserve had never been public about this or even informed the United States Congress about the $16 trillion dollar bailout is obvious — the American public would have been outraged to find out that the Federal Reserve bailed out foreign banks while Americans were struggling to find jobs." And HotAir.com's Ed Morrisey marvels:

"Yes, that’s sixteen trillion dollars in “emergency” loans to financial institutions from the beginning of the recession in December 2007 to just one year ago. The long-awaited GAO audit shows that the Federal Reserve loaned more than the worth of the annual US economy, and not just to American banks, although US institutions got the lion’s share. Citibank was the largest beneficiary..." The revelations come as HR 459 Audit the Fed, which was passed with the help of 89 Democrats who broke party ranks even though party leaders whipped against it, goes to the Senate.  It is said that Senate President Harry Reid will block a vote.

Now why would he do that?  

It turns out that Reid was once one of the most ardent proponents of auditing the Fed.  Reid in the speech in this video describes how he has offered a bill into the Senate year after year to audit the Federal Reserve, which he says has enormous power over our lives but is more secretive than the CIA.   Reid did not simply join in on any Audit the Fed bandwagon.  He led the charge.

To view videos and link to the original article go to Daily Kos





___________________________________________________________________________________
EVERYONE MUST SHOUT LOUDLY AND STRONGLY ABOUT THE FAILURE TO HOLD THESE BANKS ACCOUNTABLE.  THE SAME MINOR PENALTIES BEING GIVEN AND NO PROSECUTION CONTINUES BECAUSE YOUR THIRD WAY DEMOCRATIC POLITICIAN IS NOT FIGHTING FOR YOU.  CONGRESS PASSED A LAW CAPPING THE FINES IN THESE FRAUD CASES AND HAS NOT REVERSED THIS AFTER MASSIVE PUBLIC OUTCRY.  CALL YOUR POLITICIANS AND THE SEC AND TELL THEM WE WANT THESE BANKS TO PAY FOR THE CRIMES IN THE PAST AND IN THE FUTURE.  THE FINES SHOULD BE MASSIVE GIVEN THE REPEAT OFFENSES.  HERE IN MARYLAND IT IS CUMMINGS, MIKULSKI, SARBANES, CARDIN, RUPPERBERGER, VAN HOLLEN, AND HOYER.......NOT SHOUTING OUT FOR ACCOUNTABILITY

VOTE YOUR INCUMBENT OUT!!!!!!  THERE IS NO EXCUSE.

Crying Uncle

SEC finally puts squeeze on Wall Street deadbeats 26 June 2012 | By Reynolds Holding  New York Times

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is finally putting the squeeze on Wall Street deadbeats. The watchdog this week won a court order forcing a hedge fund manager to cough up $12 million in overdue fines. This rare debt-collecting tactic is welcome, but a drop in the bucket for an agency with a low collection rate.

The SEC’s arsenal is admittedly limited. Among its favorite weapons are judicial injunctions blocking wrongdoers from violating securities laws in the future. But these have little practical effect and may no longer be valid after a federal appeals court struck one down last month.

That leaves penalties and orders to repay ill-gotten gains. These are strictly capped by law, as a federal judge in New York bemoaned earlier this month. He called a $1 million settlement with two Bear Stearns hedge fund managers “chump change” compared with the $1.6 billion investors lost. He still approved the deal.

The regulator has, however, failed to make the most of even its limited powers. Last year, it collected less than $1.3 billion of more than $2.8 billion levied against wrongdoers. It has hovered around this paltry 45 percent ratio for years.

In fairness, the SEC is better than most U.S. agencies at dunning deadbeats. The Yale Law & Policy Review recently found that the chief mining regulator has collected about 5 percent of fines in recent years, while the Justice Department has reeled in only about 4 percent. Overall, miscreants owe Uncle Sam more than $65 billion in fines.

But the SEC is under particular scrutiny for allegedly going easy on wrongdoers. Despite filing more than 100 actions related to the financial meltdown, it has taken heat from U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff and other federal jurists for not bringing the likes of Citigroup and Bank of America to their knees.

SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro has responded by asking Congress for authority to impose bigger penalties. But that alone won’t do the trick. Wringing out more payments may be more effective - and may deter some would-be fraudsters. If nothing else, it would bring in some extra cash________________________________________________________________________________
THIS COMMISSION GAVE ITS APPROVAL FOR A MERGER OF BGE WITH EXELON WITH ALL KINDS OF 'PROTECTIONS' FOR THE CONSUMER........INCLUDING GUARDS AGAINST RATE HIKES.........WELL HERE ARE THE RATE HIKES.  CALL THE MEMBERS OF THIS COMMISSION AND TELL THEM TO STOP THIS HIKE!

BGE will seek distribution rate increase Utility plans to submit case to state regulators this year

By Lorraine Mirabella,                   The Baltimore Sun 9:52 p.m. EDT, June 7, 2012

Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. plans to ask Maryland regulators later this year to allow it to raise rates for the distribution of electricity and natural gas, Chicago-based Exelon Corp., the utility's new owner, said Thursday.

Exelon executives told stock analysts during a meeting in New York that BGE had delayed filing the rate case while BGE's former parent company, Constellation Energy Group, finalized a merger with Exelon. The $7.9 billion deal, which created the largest nonutility energy provider in the United States, closed in March.

"Through the merger, we've held off on filing a rate case, and we will be filing our next rate case in the second half of 2012," said Denis O'Brien, a senior executive vice president of Exelon and CEO of Exelon Utilities, during the meeting. He did not elaborate.

If approved by the Maryland Public Service Commission, the state's public utility regulator, new rates would take effect no more than 210 days after the filing, the company said.

BGE's request will include "recovery of among other things, investments focused on electric and gas reliability, tree and vegetation management and other projects to continue to provide safe and reliable service to our customers," said Robert L. Gould, a BGE spokesman. "Parts of BGE's electric and gas system, much of which was built in the 1950s and 1960s, are approaching the end of their useful life and require new investments to ensure continued reliability."

Distribution charges, which cover delivery of power and gas to customers' homes, typically make up between a quarter and a third of a customer's bill.

"I'm not surprised they are going to come in for a rate case so soon after the merger, but I'm pretty disappointed," said Paula M. Carmody, the People's Counsel in the Office of People's Counsel, which represents rate payers. While the company presented the plans for a rate case as an indication of its commitment to a successful merger, "I don't think customers are going to consider an increase in their rate to be a sign of a successful merger."

The last BGE distribution rate hike took effect in December 2010, when residential customers were expected to pay, on average, an additional $16 on electric bills and $10 on gas bills a year. At the time, BGE said the increases would raise an estimated $30.9 million for electric distribution, as well as $9.75 million for gas delivery. The utility said those increases were needed to pay for system improvements at a time when power prices were falling.

The state's other two utilities, Pepco and Delmarva, are seeking increases in distribution rates. Both cases, filed in December, are pending before the Public Service Commission.

Exelon Utilities, which serves a combined 6.6 million electric customers and 1.1 million gas customers, is working to standardize equipment and systems and install "smart meters" in all service areas, O'Brien said. The company plans to invest about $690 million in BGE transmission projects through 2016.

Also Thursday, a company offical told the analysts that Exelon expects to have an agreement by August to sell three former Constellation coal plants that it agreed to relinquish under terms of the merger. They include the Brandon Shores and H.A. Wagner plants in Anne Arundel County and the C.P. Crane plant in Baltimore County.

The company started marketing the plants after the merger closed and is now reviewing bidders, said Bill Von Hoene, Exelon's chief strategy officer and a senior executive vice president. It expects the plants will be sold as a package, he said.

During the presentation, Exelon officials offered no new information on how the planned 600 job cuts would affect workers in Maryland as the company eliminates overlapping functions through next summer.

To win state regulators' approval of the merger, Exelon agreed that there would be no layoffs at BGE for at least two years after the merger closed. Still, that leaves hundreds of former Constellation employees vulnerable.

Over time, Exelon expects its employment to increase in Baltimore and in the state, said Exelon spokesman Paul Adams. Exelon is building a new headquarters tower in Harbor East that will house its commercial and renewable development businesses, seen as the growth engine for the new company. But Exelon's corporate headquarters remains in Chicago.

"We expect that positions could be eliminated across the entire corporation, but not all in any one location or company," Adams said

_________________________________________
Stop Wall Street banks from gambling with our money.
CREDO ACTION

The recent news that JP Morgan Chase lost billions of dollars in a matter of weeks on hugely risky bets shows once again that we need to rein in Wall Street and stop the banks from gambling with our money.

For over half a century, the Depression-era law known as the Glass-Steagall Act kept commercial banks (where we have our checking accounts, saving accounts and the like) separate from high-risk investment banks. The government agreed to insure the deposits we make in commercial banks through the FDIC, but banks weren't allowed to turn around and use these deposits as stakes in the Wall Street casino.

That all changed in 1999 with the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which paved the way for the financial crisis and the massive Wall Street bailouts.

Tell Congress it's time to bring back Glass-Steagall.

If private investors want to use their own money to make risky bets on Wall Street, that should be up to them. Ultimately, they're risking their own money.

But when these giant banks take on more risk than they should, they do so knowing that they can keep any profits they make if things go well, but that ultimately U.S. taxpayers are on the hook if things go terribly wrong. That creates a perverse incentive for them to be massively irresponsible.

When Congress passes Wall Street reform in 2010, it was supposed to end precisely this type of "heads they win, tails we lose" scenario. But the Volcker Rule that was supposed to address this, still hasn't been finalized and looks like it will be riddled with loopholes.

Tell Congress that we need a new Glass-Steagall Act that reinstates the firewall between the banks we use to keep our money safe and the Wall Street banks that make risky investments.

Sign the petition The petition reads:

"It's time for Congress to put Wall Street reform back on the agenda. We support passing a new Glass-Steagall law to prevent too-big-to-fail Wall Street banks from taking huge risks with people's life savings -- and then expecting taxpayer bailouts."

Complete the following to sign the petition. You'll receive periodic updates on offers and activism opportunities.

Additional message for
Congress :

Sincerely,
[Your name]