I had the comments section open to Liberal White Boy's Posting on Lucky Larry, when I noticed a couple of comments by this tard named Albury Smith.
Now it's a flame war, and I'm looking for a blowtorch.
Incidentally, he left a link in a number of his postings (apparently, he will repeat postings like a mental patient - I guess he hasn't read the definition of INSANITY) - this is where he attempts to "debate" Dr. Niels Harrit.
Okay...not sure if my comment was accepted - no loss.
I wanted to speak about the so-called "settlement" offered to the first responders who had to sue New York City for assuring them that "the air was safe to breathe" while they inhaled their fellow New Yorkers, dust and every bit of particulate matter permeating the air at Ground Zero. Those affected were offered a paltry $657 million to settle their suits...but I forgot - what about the lawyer's cut?!?
A normal fee arrangement is 33% plus expenses (depositions, discovery, travel, meals, etc) on a $ 1,000,000,000.00 Settlement.
$330 million......... in fees
$ 10 million .........in expenses
=======
$340,000,000.00 is their cut. And it was probably just a negotiation between Kenneth Feinberg and Marc Bern.
So...let's do 33% of $657.000,000:
That gives us roughly $216,810,000 - throw in $65,700,000 (expenses, natch!), and we've got $282,510,000...for two lawyers.
That leaves...oh, about $374,490,000...to divide between 10,000 clients. That's easy...just whack off the four zeros at the end of the original amount. That's right - a little over $35 grand for the people risking their own health, while the LAWYERS get away with the booty.
* By Curt Anderson, AP Legal Affairs Writer * On 11:00 am EST, Tuesday December 1, 2009
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. (AP) -- A once high-flying attorney who courted politicians and celebrities was arrested Tuesday on federal racketeering and fraud charges alleging he operated a $1 billion investment scheme that used phony legal settlements.
Lawyer Scott Rothstein was led into the Miami FBI office in handcuffs following his early-morning arrest on five charges, including a violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations or RICO law often used against the Mafia and other criminal organizations.
Alicia Valle, spokeswoman for the Miami U.S. attorney's office, said Rothstein was also charged with mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering and conspiracy. The combined maximum prison term for convictions on all counts is 100 years, according to court documents.
Rothstein was scheduled to appear in federal court later Tuesday. A news conference by prosecutors, the FBI and Internal Revenue Service was also planned.
The type of charging document filed by prosecutors, known as an "information," is typically used when a defendant has already agreed to plead guilty. Rothstein's attorney Marc Nurick declined comment Tuesday.
The document cites unnamed "other conspirators" who also played key roles in the fraud, suggesting that more people could face charges. In addition, the document says that Rothstein paid "gratuities" to unidentified police officials "to deflect law enforcement scrutiny" of his activities.
The criminal case was seen as inevitable after Rothstein returned from Morocco early last month amid mounting questions from investors and the FBI about missing money. The FBI has estimated the Ponzi scheme could top $1 billion and asked investors to come forward with information.
Federal agents have seized Rothstein's boats, including an 87-foot yacht, as well as 20 luxury cars and numerous other assets, including his share of the Miami Beach mansion formerly owned by fashion designer Gianni Versace. Prosecutors are also going after 21 homes and other properties linked to Rothstein in Florida, New York and along Rhode Island's Narragansett Bay.
Meanwhile, the once fast-growing law firm Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler is defunct and Rothstein has been disbarred by the Florida Supreme Court. Several investors have already filed lawsuits seeking their money back, including one case demanding more than $100 million in damages.
Rothstein promised huge returns on investments in legal settlements he said would pay out over time. Prosecutors say most of the settlements never existed and that Rothstein operated a Ponzi scheme, using money from new investors to pay older ones.
Shortly after the scandal broke, the Florida Democratic Party returned $200,000 in contributions from Rothstein and his law firm. The state Republican Party gave back $150,000, and Gov. Charlie Crist returned $9,600 that Rothstein and his wife, Kim, had donated to Crist's campaign for the U.S. Senate.
Rothstein's office is filled with photos of him with politicians from around the country, including former President George W. Bush, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Arizona Sen. John McCain and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. He was also close to Miami Dolphins great Dan Marino and many South Florida business and community leaders.
I have a little rant there in the comments section, but I'd rather go on a new rant here...
When I was growing up, I realized the advantages of physical superiority. However, I did not take advantage of them, preferring to use brains over brawn.
It has served me well in life to have been able to obtain and attain what I have and possess, not having to have forced anyone to do so.
But I wonder...is coercion any better than outright thuggery?
I participated in Mock Trial back in my high school days...our team did fairly well, until we went against one of the top schools. I spoke to the judge later on, after the tournament. In theory, he agreed with my premise; however, the opposing team was able to circumvent my arguments; in other words, they were able to COERCE testimony not prevalent in the case, which cost our team the winning judgement.
This was a learning experience...this is when I first discovered that the LAW was not necessarily JUSTICE.
My second opportunity was when we had a lawyer visit us, and we were able to pose to him a multitude of questions.
One of my questions pertained to the stock market crash of 1987. I inquired, "If an individual murders another individual, he is tried for murder...yet, if an unscrupulous broker caused the dissolution of a investor's funds by unsound business practices and simple greed, and this occurs to numerous investors, whose life savings are now gone, wouldn't that be considered mass murder?"
I never really got a satisfactory answer to that question, but I do remember the initial reason offered...it was because they were not FORCED to do so.
I am the guy who, when confronted with a gun to my temple, told the would-be robber that if he wanted my walkman (and this was not an iPod...this was a cassette player!), he could take it from my cold, dead body, but that I wasn't going to give him ANYTHING.
I still have that walkman...but I digress.
Here's the point - I really don't see why criminals should benefit from profitting from more than one victim...but this is exactly what the law entails.
I don't see a real difference in disenfranchising one individual versus entire families...in the end, they are devoid of their valuables, are they not?
I happen to think that not being given the choice to fight for your valuables make the crime more heinous. With a mugging, the perpetrator is right there - you have a face to go with the crime; in the other instance, you stand around, impotent without being able to point a finger concretely.
Ivan Boesky bilked a number of clients. After he served his time (apparently, it wasn't a very long sentence, nor was he subject to the tender mercies of being in general population), he sued his ex-wife. He said that he "couldn't live as a poor man".
Apparently, the judge agreed with him.
So...who says that crime doesn't pay? It certainly bloody worked in this case. He is living on funds diverted to his ex-wife from his ill-gotten gains.
What puzzles me is...why aren't perpetrators of financial crimes not made to return ALL of their ill-gotten gains?
Let's say that I am the guy who made those short sells on American and United Airlines. I have $2.5 million dollars that is owed to me...but do I dare retrieve them? I mean...what's the real penalty? There is the matter of foreknowledge...but that will have to be proven in a court of law. I can always say that I had a dream...or a little birdy told me that those four days would be profitable...meanwhile, I'll pay a tidy fine, and I'll suffer the odd looks from neighbors...but you know what?
I'll probably retain most of that $2.5 million, so WHO CARES?
I'll get new neighbors who appreciate my new art collection as it comes in daily from auctions.
What I am saying here is that in a world where no one cares about MORALS, and everyone is consumed with MONEY, civility does NOT matter.
All's fair in love and war, right?
How do you rehabilitate repeat offenders, when that is the maxim of the world in which they live?
You already know the answer.
Look at our elected officials - they know what the answer is: take as much as you can get, and bugger all to your constituents...after all, who paid for the Maserati you're driving?
Is it a coincidence that practically all of our elected officials are MILLIONAIRES? How do they represent the common man and/or woman?
I'll leave you with this...because I have to go read something funny...If Lifestyles Of The Rich And Famous returned to television...and we DO have a return to the days of the Great Depression...that show will have a spinoff called The Lifestyles Of The Recently Eaten and Dessicated.
CONCLUSION The Titles of Nobility Amendment does not have an illustrious history. The reasons for its proposal are obscure; what we know of them suggests partisan politics or xenophobia, neither an admirable nor worthy motive for amending the Constitution. The amendment's history is likewise obscure; scholars have almost universally failed to portray it accurately, amplifying the confusion about the amendment. Today, it is virtually forgotten, meriting at most a few lines in even the most detailed tomes on the Constitution.
If the amendment had remained a footnote to history, its obscurity might not be of great significance. But even before the 1990s, the amendment carried two important messages: that concern about divisions in society in the United States is a historic problem, and that the legal community, both in the nineteenth and the twentieth centuries, has not invested sufficient effort into accurately communicating the law to the profession, as well as to the public. Further, these messages now have manifested themselves in a new, disturbing guise: that of extremists who have taken advantage of the amendment's obscure history to mislead the public as to its validity and purpose, driven by their anti-lawyer agenda and alienation.(203)
These misrepresentations should be taken seriously and countered, both for the good of the profession and of the public. Too often, legal scholarship has been and continues to be guilty of "scholarly defects of the most elementary kind."(204) Law cannot have--and does not deserve--the public trust if the law is itself untrustworthy.(205) But past failures should not lead lawyers to withdraw from the field and leave it to extremists. One should remember that the oft-misquoted line from Shakespeare, "[t]he first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers,"(206) actually speaks to the vital role that lawyers historically have played in society; only if all of the King's learned advisors were vanquished would rebels be able to install a tyrant.(207) If there is any nobility in being a lawyer, it is because of the role and responsibility of protecting society from those who seek to create and exploit divisions within it.
He begins his "conclusion with: "The reasons for its proposal are obscure; what we know of them suggests partisan politics or xenophobia, neither an admirable nor worthy motive for amending the Constitution."
Maybe he failed basic reading comprehension...but it seems clear to me why the amendment was proposed...to forestall any clandestine attempts to take over the government away from the watch of WE THE PEOPLE...which is EXACTLY WHAT OCCURRED. He is really being disingenuous with us here.
Then, there follows this amazing statement: "One should remember that the oft-misquoted line from Shakespeare, "[t]he first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers,"(206) actually speaks to the vital role that lawyers historically have played in society; only if all of the King's learned advisors were vanquished would rebels be able to install a tyrant."
What was he thinking? This fellow is obviously not a student of history...rebels installing TYRANTS?!? Oh...they must be many cases of that occurring, like...er...um...NEVER. The monied interests install tyrants to ensure that there are no uprisings - J.A. Silversmith deals in CONJECTURE, not FACT, to prove his flawed hypotheses. It's readily apparent to anyone who isn't either a lawyer or a monied interest who gamed the system to achieve said funds, that America is suffering under the non-application of the Titles of Nobility Amendment. Our forefathers only failed us in regards to not adding an immediate penalty to Article I, Section IX...but it probably didn't occur to them that any REAL AMERICAN would take advantage of the non-punitive nature of the amendment, as it was first realized, so soon after the United States first declared their independence from the British colonies and the King.
"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."
In the margin, you will note text that states: "In what cases persons forfeit their citizenship".
Sounds pretty bloody clear to me.
In fact...here's a clear example of why you don't let the fox attend to the henhouse...
Update: It seems that the 14th Amendment is part of this chicanery foisted upon our nation - read more here:
CDR Note: In view of the evidence available, the fact of the invalidity of the 14th Amendment is blatant and irrefutable. In view of the fact that — never mind the obvious corruption in the courts at the time the invalid amendment was challenged — the courts today appear to operate under the invalid 14th Amendment, it would hardly be presumable that a court challenge, regardless the aroused public sentiment, would be successful. However, this is not a matter for courts to decide. It is a matter for the people to take into hand; to instruct the legislatures of their respective states to declare its (14th Amendment) invalidity, while also declaring the unalienable rights of all legal residents in the State, regardless race, color or creed.
Headline Legal News: The Law Office of William A. Cohan is featured in an exciting, exclusive, in-depth and inside interview, discussing the case of Robert Kahre. Informally called the Kahre case -- after the primary defendant, business owner Robert Kahre, who paid workers in gold and silver coins -- the trial relied heavily on evidence gathered in a controversial armed raid in May 2003 on several of Kahre's local business places. The raid entailed keeping more than 20 workers handcuffed, in 106-degree heat without shade or water while agents collected records and equipment, which Kahre described in this interview with great detail. The trial resulted in zero convictions on 161 charges faced by nine defendants, a major win for William Cohan and Robert Kahre.
William A. Cohan has litigated in federal trial and appeals courts throughout the United States for the last 30 years. He has obtained more acquittals in criminal tax cases than any attorney practicing in the United States over the last 30 years (including 2 cases involving more than $10 million), secured several multi-million dollar verdicts and settlements for plaintiffs, and successfully defended against several multi-million dollar civil claims and forfeitures. The other twenty-five percent of his cases involve business disputes between individuals and non-governmental entities: he defends individuals, corporations, trusts, LLP's, LLC's, and partnerships in controversies concerning real estate, securities, business acquisitions, employment, banking and insurance. One essential element in William's success over the last 30 years is and always has been investigating and discovering the larger context of a case.
You can contact William A. Cohan at 858-832-1632 http://www.williamacohan.com
I am going to destroy you bloody neoCONS! I think that about sums it up.
If I am ever "suicided", please KNOW THAT I WAS MURDERED by the BCFCE (Bush/Clinton Family Crime Empire)!
Other "sucides" include Deborah Jeane Palfrey, Danny Casolaro, John F. Kennedy, Jr., Dorothy Kilgallen, James Hatfield, Gary Webb, Don Wiley, James Forrestal, David Kelly, Paul Wellstone, J. Clifford Baxter, David Kellermann, Benazir Bhutto and Vincent Foster, to name a few.
Posts
