THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE U.S. TRUSTEE
David C. Farmer, Successor Trustee
vs.
Bobby N. Harmon
(Formerly Mary Lou Woo vs. Harmon and James Nicholson vs. Harmon)
CV05-00030 DAE/KSC
United States District Court, District of Hawaii
Judges: David A. Ezra; Kevin S. Chang
~ ~ ~
DEFENDANT’S WITNESS
BARACK OBAMA
Washington D.C. Office
713 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
(202) 228-4260 fax
President Barack Obama (D), who claims to be born in Hawaii, attended Punahou School. According to articles by Dr. Kenneth Conklin, Senator Obama has been called “Hawaii’s Third Senator,” along with Dan Inouye and Daniel Akaka, and has indicated that if Congress passes the controversial “Akaka Bill”, he will sign it.
SEE LATEST UPDATES AT
CV05-00030 - WITNESS: BARACK OBAMA
* * * * *
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release January 21, 2009
MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
SUBJECT: Transparency and Open Government
My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.
Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing. Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset. My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use. Executive departments and agencies should harness new technologies to put information about their operations and decisions online and readily available to the public. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public feedback to identify information of greatest use to the public.
Government should be participatory. Public engagement enhances the Government's effectiveness and improves the quality of its decisions. Knowledge is widely dispersed in society, and public officials benefit from having access to that dispersed knowledge. Executive departments and agencies should offer Americans increased opportunities to participate in policymaking and to provide their Government with the benefits of their collective expertise and information. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public input on how we can increase and improve opportunities for public participation in Government.
Government should be collaborative. Collaboration actively engages Americans in the work of their Government. Executive departments and agencies should use innovative tools, methods, and systems to cooperate among themselves, across all levels of
Government, and with nonprofit organizations, businesses, and individuals in the private sector. Executive departments and agencies should solicit public feedback to assess and improve their level of collaboration and to identify new opportunities for cooperation.
I direct the Chief Technology Officer, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Administrator of General Services, to coordinate the development by appropriate executive departments and agencies, within 120 days, of recommendations for an Open Government Directive, to be issued by the Director of OMB, that instructs executive departments and agencies to take specific actions implementing the principles set forth in this memorandum. The independent agencies should comply with the Open Government Directive.
This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by a party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
This memorandum shall be published in the Federal Register.
BARACK OBAMA
~ ~ ~
August 27, 2009
AIG stock up 264% in August
Shares soar nearly 27% Thursday on reports that salary for new CEO Robert Benmosche has been approved by Obama's pay czar.
By David Goldman, CNNMoney.com staff writer
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- AIG's stock closed at $47.84 on Thursday. At the start of the month, shares were trading at a mere $13.14.
What's going on here?
AIG's stock has nearly quadrupled in August, but the company is no closer to paying back the $80 billion it owes taxpayers.
Investors got all wound up after the company announced in the past few weeks that it had appointed a new CEO and returned to profitability.
Shares gained another 27% Thursday after The Wall Street Journal reported that new Chief Executive Robert Benmosche's $10.5 million pay package has been fast-tracked for approval by Obama administration "pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg. AIG pressed for a quick decision on Benmosche's compensation, over concerns he might leave the company if it wasn't immediately approved, according to the report.
The news actually came as little surprise, since AIG had previously announced that Feinberg gave the pay package a preliminary nod of approval.
A spokeswoman for AIG said the company would not comment on the status of Benmosche's pay package or on the stock price.
Investors' excitement about AIG began to build on Aug. 3, when the company announced it would replace retiring Chief Executive Ed Liddy with Benmosche, the former MetLife (MET, Fortune 500) CEO. Shares gained a modest 3.5%.
The stock skyrocketed on Aug. 5, with shares soaring 63% on hints that the company would post its first quarterly profit since October 2007. On Aug. 7, when AIG announced it earned $1.8 billion in the second quarter, shares gained another 20.5%.
On Aug. 20, Benmosche said that he was optimistic the company would be able to pay back the more than $80 billion it owes the U.S. taxpayers and return to the company's former glory. Shares rocketed 21% higher that day.
"People really like this guy Robert Benmosche, because he's really a salt-of-the-earth New York financial guy," said Damon Vickers, managing director of Nine Points Management & Research fund, which has bought up AIG's stock in recent days. "He looks like he's got the spirit to take on this situation and make the best of it."
Since the beginning of the month, shares of AIG (AIG, Fortune 500) are up 264%. The company held a 20-1 reverse stock split on June 30, when shares closed at $1.16.
Vickers said AIG's stock has a chance to hit $60 in the near term and $100 in the coming months. He noted that after the stock split, AIG's all-time high stands at $1,400, so the stock has plenty of room to grow.
No help for taxpayers
Since the government holds its 79.9% interest in AIG in preferred shares, taxpayers don't stand to gain from a steep rise in the company's common stock price.
Instead, the preferred shares pay a dividend. But the dividends on the TARP part of the bailout -- $41.6 billion, or about half of its overall loan -- are "noncumulative." That means that the company can skip dividend payments without the obligation to make up the difference later.
And that's just what AIG did on Aug. 3, failing to declare its dividend payment to Treasury.
Should AIG miss three more dividends, the government will have the right to nominate two more directors to the insurer's board.
Despite Benmosche and investors' enthusiasm, AIG is still a very troubled company with a sizeable debt to repay to the government.
The insurer has said it did not make enough profit to repay the taxpayers, and AIG said it won't likely be able to sustain a string of profitable quarters anyway, as it will take hefty restructuring charges for its looming core asset sales.
AIG plans on paying back the government by selling off pieces of the company. But those asset sales have been slow-going and sold at depressed values thus far, as credit remains tight. AIG has made just over $9 billion on those deals to date. As a result, AIG has agreed to spin off three huge chunks of its business, selling stakes in two of them to the Federal Reserve to reduce its loan by $25 billion.
Before his retirement on Aug. 10, Liddy reiterated that the company would likely be able to repay the government in full in three to five years, which Benmosche echoed last week.
The company also has to deal with the ongoing distraction of hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses that have still yet to be paid to employees of its troubled Financial Products unit. The company became the subject of a public uproar after the revelation in March that AIG paid $165 million in bonuses to employees of the division that nearly brought the company to its collapse.
Still, traders like Vickers are undeterred.
"As risky as AIG seems, it has the full backing of the U.S. government," he said.
"Apparently you can take that to the bank. I'm comparing AIG to a U.S. Treasury, and I know it's insane, but it's nonetheless true."
http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/27/news/companies/aig_stock/index.htm?postversion=2009082713
$ $ $
$ $ $
* * * * *
VAMPIRES IN THE DEPT OF VETERAN’S AFFAIRS
* * * * *
August 22, 2009
As vets await checks, VA
workers get $24M bonuses
By KIMBERLY HEFLING, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON – Outside the Veterans Affairs Department, severely wounded veterans have faced financial hardship waiting for their first disability payment. Inside, money has been flowing in the form of $24 million in bonuses.
(Catbird Note: That’s UP from the scandalous $3.8 million in 2006...a sign that the economy is improving?)
In scathing reports this week, the VA's inspector general said thousands of technology office employees at the VA received the bonuses over a two-year period, some under questionable circumstances. It also detailed abuses ranging from nepotism to an inappropriate relationship between two VA employees.
The inspector general accused one recently retired VA official of acting "as if she was given a blank checkbook" as awards and bonuses were distributed to employees of the Office of Information and Technology in 2007 and 2008. In some cases the justification for the bonuses was inadequate or questionable, the IG said.
The official, Jennifer S. Duncan, also engaged in nepotism and got $60,000 in bonuses herself, the IG said. In addition, managers improperly authorized college tuition payments for VA employees, some of whom were Duncan's family members and friends. That cost taxpayers nearly $140,000.
Separately, a technology office employee became involved in an "inappropriate personal relationship" with a high-level VA official. The technology office employee flew 22 times from Florida to Washington, where the VA official lived. That travel cost $37,000.
The details on the alleged improprieties were in two IG reports issued this week. VA spokeswoman Katie Roberts said the agency was extremely concerned about the IG's findings and would pursue a thorough review.
"VA does not condone misconduct by its employees and will take the appropriate correction action for those who violate VA policy," Roberts said in an e-mail to The Associated Press.
On Friday, Joe Davis, a spokesman for the Veterans of Foreign Wars, said if the allegations are found to be true, individuals involved should lose their jobs, and legal action should be taken.
"America's veterans served their nation honorably and with no expectations of reward," Davis said in an e-mail. "It should not be too much to ask for that same level of commitment from government employees, too."
And Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., the top Republican on the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, said Congress should investigate.
The number of claims the VA needs to process has escalated, and the Information and Technology Office has a critical role in improving the technological infrastructure to handle the increase. President Barack Obama has said creating a seamless transition for records between the Pentagon and the VA could help eliminate a backlog that has left some veterans waiting months for a disability check.
Much of the IG's focus was on Duncan, the former executive assistant to the ex-assistant secretary for information and technology, Robert Howard.
In one situation, a part-time intern with connections to Duncan was allowed to convert to a full-time paid position even though the individual was working a part-time schedule 500 miles away at college, the IG said.
"We have never known of any other new VA employee provided such favorable treatment," the IG said.
The individual's name and relationship to Duncan was blacked out, as were many other names in the reports.
Investigators recommended that the employees who received the college money pay it back. The largest amount awarded was $33,000.
In addition to Duncan, three other high-level employees received $73,000, $58,000 and $59,000 in bonuses in 2007 and 2008, the IG said. In 2007 alone, 4,700 employees were awarded bonuses, on average $2,500 each.
Some employees were given cash awards for services that were supposedly provided before the employees started working at VA, the IG said.
A man who answered the phone at Duncan's residence in Rehoboth Beach, Del., said she was not available, and he said not to call back.
The IG also found that Katherine Adair Martinez, deputy assistant secretary for information protection and risk management in the Office of Information and Technology, misused her position, abused her authority and engaged in prohibited personnel practices when she influenced a VA contractor and later VA subordinates to employ a friend.
The IG also said Martinez "took advantage of an inappropriate personal relationship" with Howard to transfer her job to Florida. In the nine months after she moved, the IG said Martinez traveled to Washington 22 times "to accomplish tasks that she could easily do from Florida."
The relationship between Martinez and Howard started in April 2007 and continued several months after Howard left the VA in January of this year, the IG said.
Roberts' e-mail did not address a request from the AP to speak with Martinez. Howard could not be immediately located for comment.
Indiana Rep. Steve Buyer, top Republican on the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, urged quick action to fix the problems. "VA must appoint honorable individuals to these critical positions," he said.
The VA has faced criticism before in its awarding of bonuses. In 2007, the AP reported that the then-VA secretary had approved a generous package of more than $3.8 million in bonus payments in 2006, citing a need to retain longtime VA executives.
___
On the Net:
Reports from VA Inspector General:
http://www.va.gov/oig/51/fy2009rpts/VAOIG-09-01123-196.pdf
http://www.va.gov/oig/51/fy2009rpts/VAOIG-09-01123-195.pdf
~ ~ ~
July 31, 2009
DODD AND OBAMA: CORRUPT BIRDS OF A FEATHER!
When he launched his presidential bid in February 2007, Barack Obama inspired millions and rallied the world with his pledge to “build a more hopeful America.” He told a cheering crowd in Springfield, Illinois, land of Lincoln, that he recognized “that there is a certain presumptuousness in this, a certain audacity to this announcement. I know that I have not spent a long time learning the ways of Washington, but I have been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington have to change.”
Two years later, Barack Obama declared his support for an entrenched U.S. Senator drowning in the decrepit old politics of pay-for-play....
* * * * *
THE “OPENNESS” AND “TRANSPARENCY” OF
BARACK H. OBAMA’S BIRTH CERTIFICATE
Copy of Obama’s Kenyan Birth Certificate Surfaces
The Official Website of Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.
Exhibit: Is This A Copy of Obama’s Kenyan Birth Certificate?
$10,000 Bounty for any Witness to Obama’s Birth
Obama Citizenship: I Invented The Internet (Ep. 6: October ...
Michael Savage interview Part I with Phil Berg ...
Obama Birth Certificate Church Presentation
Obama Kenyan Birth Certificate
UPDATE! - Barack Obama Birth Certificate ...
Obama’s Kenyan Birth Certificate was to be Auctioned on EBay
Googling for Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate
~ ~ ~
How to apply for certified copies of vital records from the Hawaii Department of Health
* * * * *
GOOGLING FOR BARACK OBAMA + THE CATBIRD SEAT
* * * * *
GOOGLING FOR BARACK OBAMA + PUNAHOU SCHOOL
* * * * *
GOOGLING FOR BARACK OBAMA + BANK OF HAWAII
* * * * *
GOOGLING FOR BARACK OBAMA + GOLDMAN SACHS
* * * * *
GOOGLING FOR BARACK OBAMA + THE NATURE CONSERVANCY
* * * * *
GOOGLING FOR BARACK OBAMA + JOHN WAIHEE
* * * * *
GOOGLING FOR BARACK OBAMA + BILL CLINTON + JOHN WAIHEE
* * * * *
GOOGLING FOR BARACK OBAMA + DAN INOUYE
* * * * *
GOOGLING FOR BARACK OBAMA + DANIEL AKAKA
* * * * *
GOOGLING FOR BARACK OBAMA + JOSHUA GOTBAUM
* * * * *
GOOGLING FOR BARACK OBAMA + LEON PANETTA
* * * * *
GOOGLING FOR BARACK OBAMA + HILLARY CLINTON
* * * * *
GOOGLING FOR BARACK OBAMA + AIG + CHRIS DODD + CORRUPTION
* * * * *
GOOGLING FOR BARACK OBAMA + PUNAHOU + JUDGE BARRY KURREN
* * * * *
GOOGLING FOR BARACK OBAMA + PUNAHOU + ROY HUGHES
* * * * *
GOOGLING FOR BARACK OBAMA + PUNAHOU + STEVE CASE
* * * * *
GOOGLING FOR BARACK OBAMA + PUNAHOU + WENDY GRAMM
* * * * *
JULY 24, 2009
Jersey Mayors Stung in Graft Probe
By AMIR EFRATI, SUZANNE SATALINE and DIONNE SEARCEY
New Jersey has never been short of corruption scandals, but the one that unfolded yesterday was surprising even by the standards of the state that inspired "The Sopranos."
Federal agents swept across New Jersey and New York on Thursday, charging 44 people -- including mayors, rabbis and even one alleged trafficker in human kidneys -- in a decade long investigation into public corruption and international money laundering.
The key to the investigation: a real-estate developer who became an informant after being arrested on bank-fraud charges in 2006, according to a person familiar with the case. The developer, Solomon Dwek, wore a wire for the Federal Bureau of Investigation while offering to bribe New Jersey mayors and other public officials, that person said.
A lawyer for Mr. Dwek didn't respond to requests for comment.
While the state has a long history of dirty politics -- in Newark alone, three ex-mayors have been convicted of crimes unrelated to the latest sweep -- the scale of the allegations shocked veterans of New Jersey's political crises....
The arrests place an added burden on Gov. Jon Corzine, a Democrat in his first term who is running for re-election this year. Mr. Corzine ran four years ago promising to quash corruption. "The scale of corruption we're seeing as this unfolds is simply outrageous and cannot be tolerated," he said in a statement....
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124835404608875685.html
~ ~ ~
April 26, 2009
Bill, Aides Are Pen$ion Pals;
Ex-Thompson Bigs' Firms Nab Fund
Deals
By SUSAN EDELMAN and GINGER ADAMS OTIS
Three former deputies to city Comptroller Bill Thompson now own or work at firms that earn millions of dollars in fees to invest the pension funds he oversees, The Post has found.
Government watchdogs blasted the ex-employees for seemingly exploiting their connections to get high-paying jobs and bring government cash to their private businesses.
Two of Thompson's former top pension managers, Josh Wolf-Powers and Adam Blumenthal, quit their city jobs and founded Blue Wolf Capital Management in 2005.
The private equity firm landed contracts to invest $63 million of city pension funds - and will collect at least $1.2 million in fees, officials said.
Fees paid to firms that manage pension investments have soared in the past five years from under $100 million to $400 million a year, said a source close to the pension funds.
"They're huge moneymakers," said a source familiar with the deals.
Thompson was unavailable for comment, but his spokesman said Wolf- Powers and Blumenthal waited more than a year before seeking business with the pension funds, as city rules require, so "there was no conflict."
Another of Thompson's closest aides, Horatio Sparkes, the ex- deputy comptroller for pension funds, left in 2006 to join Yucaipa Companies, an investment firm led by supermarket magnate and Bill Clinton buddy Ron Burkle.
Yucaipa already had a contract to invest $170 million in 2003, according to city documents. The company got new contracts last year to invest another $360 million for four city pension funds, documents indicate.
While total payments to Yucaipa were not disclosed, records show the company has raked in $9.5 million in fees from the $347 million it invests for the city's biggest pension fund - NYCERS.
Even if the deals follow the letter of the law, they reek of preferential treatment, watchdogs say.
"They use their insider knowledge and past relationships to gain an upper hand and make a wad of cash," said Dick Dadey, executive director of Citizens Union.
A Yucaipa spokesman said that the firm didn't make an offer to hire Sparkes, who joined its Manhattan office, until he quit the Comptroller's Office in 2006 - and that Sparkes wasn't allowed to work on accounts related to the city for over a year.
Thompson's office has come under scrutiny in a widening pay-for- play probe by state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo.
Cuomo and the Securities and Exchange Commission last month indicted political adviser Hank Morris for allegedly steering state pension-fund business to investment firms in exchange for kickbacks. Morris denies the charges.
The state scandal was linked to Thompson's office last week, when The Post revealed that Morris had pocketed a placement fee on an $85 million deal between NYCERS and Quadrangle, an investment firm headed by Steven Rattner, now the chief of President Obama's auto- bailout task force.
In addition, Wolf-Powers, Thompson's former managing director for private markets, was quoted as telling Rattner that any investment firm doing business with the city needs a "placement agent," a middleman who charges a finder's fee.
Wolf-Powers has said he never told Rattner to hire Morris.
But Blue Wolf did not use a placement agent in 2008, when it landed contracts to invest $63 million of the city's pension money, the Comptroller's Office confirmed. Thompson's spokesman said the Blue Wolf investment was "reviewed and recommended" by two private- equity consultants hired by the pension funds.
Before getting the contracts, Blue Wolf donated $4,950 to Thompson's campaign for mayor in July 2007. At the same time, Blumenthal, Thompson's former first deputy comptroller and chief financial officer, gave $4,050.
FRIENDS IN HIGH PLACES
Three former deputies of city Comptroller Bill Thompson have gone on to lucrative careers
in private equity, investing pension money they once oversaw.
Josh Wolf-Powers - City comptrollers managing director for private markets (2003-2005)
Adam Blumenthal - First deputy comptroller and chief financial officer (2002-2005)
Blue Wolf lands contracts to invest $63 million in city pension funds in 2007 and 2008. It earns the firm at least $1.2 million in fees.
Wolf-Powers and Blumenthal leave the Comptrollers Office in 2005 and form Blue Wolf Capital Management, a private equity firm.
Blue Wolf donates $4,950 to Thompsons campaign for mayor in 2007; Blumenthal donates $4,050.
Yucaipa receives a contract in 2004 from NYCERS to invest part of its funds and earns $9.5 million in fees. In 2008, it lands other contracts and now handles $530 million in city pension-fund investments.
Until 2005, Yucaipas contacts in the City Comptrollers Office are Josh Wolf-Powers and Adam Blumenthal.
Bill Thompson City comptroller - Oversees $80 billion of city pension funds, including the New York City Employees Retirement System (NYCERS).
In 2006, Sparkes joins Yucaipa Companies, a private equity firm founded by Ron Burkle.
In January 2009, Wolf-Powers and Blumenthal hire Mike Musuraca, a NYCERS pension board member who had voted to approve the Blue Wolf investment contract.
Horatio Sparkes - The deputy comptroller for pension funds (2002- 2006)
Donated $500 to Thompson for Mayor in 2008.
(c) 2009 The New York Post. Provided by ProQuest LLC. All rights Reserved.
A service of YellowBrix, Inc.
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/yb/129165220
~ ~ ~
CV05-00030 - U.S. Dept of Justice vs. Bobby Harmon - Exhibit: "Sotomayor Says Judges Make Laws in the Country"
Sunday, May 31, 2009 1:29 AM
From:
Bobby N. Harmon, CPCU
To:
"President Barack Obama" <president@whitehouse.gov>, "U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder" <AskDOJ@usdoj.gov>, "David Farmer" <farmerd001@hawaii.rr.com>, "Steven Guttman" <sguttman@kdubm.com>, "Carol K. Muranaka" <ustp.region15@usdoj.gov>, "Judge David A. Ezra" <theresa_lam@hid.uscourts.gov>, "Judge Kevin S.C. Chang" <shari_afuso@hid.uscourts.gov>, "Judge Barry M. Kurren" <tammy_kimura@hid.uscourts.gov>, "Securities & Exchange Commission Enforcement Division" <enforcement@sec.gov>, "U.S. Treasury Dept. Office of Inspector General" <hotline@oig.treas.gov>, "Office of Inspector General US Dept of Justice" <oig.hotline@usdoj.gov>, "Executive Office for U.S. Trustees" <ustrustee.program@usdoj.gov>, "Judge Robert Faris" <hib@hib.uscourts.gov>, "SEC Office of The Inspector General" <oig@sec.gov>, "Hawaii State Bar Association" <info@hsba.org>, "Charles Goodwin" <HONOLULU@FBI.GOV>, "Hugh Jones" <hugh.r.jones@hawaii.gov>, "Insurance Division Fraud Branch" <insfraud@dcca.hawaii.gov>, "Lawrence Reifurth" <dcca@dcca.hawaii.gov>, "Linda Lingle" <governor.lingle@hawaii.gov>, "Jo Ann Uchida" <rico@dcca.hawaii.gov>, "Office of Inspector General Civil Rights Complaints" <inspector.general@usdoj.gov>, "Mark Bennett" <hawaiiag@hawaii.gov>, "American Arbitration Association" <webcase@adr.org>, "Judith Neustadter" <Judy@tiki.net>, "Benjamin J. Cayetano" <bjcayetano@aol.com>
Cc:
"ACLU Hawaii" <office@acluhawaii.org>, "All Representatives" <reps@Capitol.hawaii.gov>, "All Senators" <sens@Capitol.hawaii.gov>, "Andrew Walden" <hfpeditor@email.com>, "Aon Insurance Managers" <mike_coulter@agl.aon.com>, "Arthur Rath" <imua@spamarrest.com>, "Benjamin Kudo" <bkudo@imanakakudo.com>, "Bradley Tamm" <btamm@hawaii.rr.com>, "Carl Morton" <ethics@hawaiiethics.org>, "Charles Hurd" <mcp@mediatehawaii.org>, "David Shapiro" <volcanicash@gmail.com>, "Dee Jay Mailer" <ksinfo@ksbe.edu>, "J C Shannon" <Hapa1234@aol.com>, "James B Nicholson" <jamesbnicholson@aol.com>, "James B. Farris" <Farrisj@adr.org>, "James Cribley" <jcribley@caselombardi.com>, "James Wriston" <jwriston@awlaw.com>, "Jeffrey Watanabe" <jwatanabe@wik.com>, "Jim Dooley" <jdooley@honoluluadvertiser.com>, "Joe Moore" <news@khon2.com>, "John D. Finnegan" <info@chubb.com>, "John Goemans" <wip@kamuela.com>, "Judson Witham" <jurisnot2@yahoo.com>, "Ken Conklin" <ken_conklin@yahoo.com>, "Lyn Flanigan Anzai" <lflanigan@hsba.org>, "Margery Bronster" <info@bchlaw.net>, "Marsh Affinity Group" <prosecure@marshpm.com>, "Michael N. Tanoue" <mtanoue@paclawgroup.com>, "Michelle Tucker" <michelle@sterlingandtucker.com>, "Nathan Aipa" <nathan@pitluck.com>, "Paul Alston" <palston@ahfi.com>, "Randall Roth" <rroth@hawaii.edu>, "Rick Daysog" <rdaysog@honoluluadvertiser.com>, "Robert Bruce Graham" <bgraham@awlaw.com>, "Robin Campaniano" <aigh001@aighawaii.com>, "Samuel P. King" <leslie_sai@hid.uscourts.gov>, "William K Slate" <Websitemail@adr.org>, "Jim Terrack" <tnthawaii@aol.com>, "Don Michak" <dmichak@journalinquirer.com>, "Rocco Sansone" <rocco.c.sansone@marsh.com>, "Ted Pettit" <tpettit@caselombardi.com>, "Laura Thielen" <dlnr@hawaii.gov>, "Vaughn & Lynda Robinson" <ronpaulslcutah@yahoo.com>, "Rebecca Christie" <rchristie4@bloomberg.net>, "Catbird" <the-catbird@hotmail.com>, "James Duca" <jduca@kdubm.com>, "Ian Lind" <diary@ilind.net>, "Roy F. Hughes" <hthughes@hawaii.rr.com>, "Malia Zimmerman" <Malia@hawaiireporter.com>, "Jack Cashill" <JCashill@aol.com>, "Marshall Chriswell" <mc@whistleblowers.org>, "Laser Haas" <laserhaas@msn.com>, "Lucy Komisar" <lkomisar@msn.com>, "Democrats.com" <activist@democrats.com>, "Debra Sweet" <debrasweet@worldcantwait.org>, "Jane Kirtley" <kirt001@umn.edu>, "V K Durham" <vkdtdht@pionet.net>, "John Jubinsky" <Jube@tghawaii.com>, "Yamil Berard" <yberard@star-telegram.com>, "Global Exchange" <communications@globalexchange.org>, "William K. Black" <blackw@umkc.edu>, "Carole Williams" <cjwms@up.net>, "Susan Tius" <STius@rmhawaii.com>, "Human Rights in China" <hrichina@hrichina.org>, "Michelle Malkin" <writemalkin@gmail.com>, "Heather Vsn Doren" <heather.vandoran@yahoo.com>, "Phil J. Berg" <philjberg@obamacrimes.com>, "Amnesty International U.S.A." <aimember@aiusa.org>, "Michael Moore" <bailout@michaelmoore.com>, "California Anti-SLAPP Project" <info@casp.net>, "Thomas Fitton" <info@judicialwatch.org>, "Ron Branson" <VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org>, "ACLU of Kentucky" <info@aclu-ky.org>, "ACLU Online" <ACLUOnline@aclu.org>
Sotomayor Says Judges Make Laws in this Country
Saturday, May 30, 2009 8:36 PM
From:
"Offering Accountability of Judges Directly to the People" VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org
To:
"Judicial Acct. Directly to the People" <VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org>
Sotomayor Says Judges Make Laws in this Country
Sotomayor's states that appellate courts are where public policies are made;
www.operationrescue.org/archives/obama-nominee-sotomayor-unfit-for-supreme-court/
She then catches herself on what she had just said, and realizes she should not have urged that contention before cameras and tries to cover it up as cats do following defecation.
The fact remains, Sonia Sotomayor does indeed believe courts make laws in this country, and in so saying, she was not seeking to expose the courts for this unconstitutional act of judicial activism in violation of their Oaths of Office. As a Justice, she is anxious to establish new laws for this country.
-Ron Branson
VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org
PS – One of our long-time notable JAILers, Scott Huminski has experienced being a plaintiff before Sonia Sotomayor, and here are his comments;
I litigated before Sotomayor, Huminski v. Haverkoch 11/5/04, 03-7036 2d. Cir.. Aside from ignoring the facts and applicable law, Sotomayor could not even get the standard of review correct. It was De Novo (cross motions for summary judgment) not reversible error as Sotomayor found. Law school 101 flunk-out. Dangerous jurist.
Scott Huminski
s_huminski@live.com
Former Vermont JAILer
Driven out of Vermont by the Judges whom he challenged
* * * * *
May 31, 2009
Dear President Obama, Attorney General Holder, Trustee Farmer, Mr. Guttman, Ms. Neustadter, and All Concerned:
I am adding the subject Exhibit as it relates to this lawsuit which violates my Constitutional Rights of Free Speech and a Fair Trial, and Federal and Hawaii Anti-SLAPP statutes.
You will find related information on-line at:
http://www.kycbs.net/CV05-00030-Witness-Obama-Barack.htm
In view of all the facts that I have presented in this and hundreds of other Exhibits and witness descriptions, it is beyond comprehension that former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales; Assistant U.S. Trustees Curtis Ching, Gayle Lau and Carol Muranaka; Judges Eden Hifo (fka Bambi Weil), Kevin Chang, David Ezra, Barry Kurren, Lloyd King and Robert Faris; Trustees Mary Lou Woo, James Nicholson and David C. Farmer; American Arbitration Association arbitrator Judith Neustadter Fuqua, attorney Steven Guttman, and others, can still claim that they were non-conflicted, fair, impartial, and unbiased in this case.
Mr. Farmer and Mr. Guttman, in spite of all this factual evidence (not just "political opinions" or "conspiracy theories" as you have previously alleged), I am again asking that we attempt to reach a global settlement of this matter through confidential negotiation or mediation rather than continuing these costly and seemingly-endless court proceedings.
However, if you, and your insurance carriers, are still not willing to attempt to negotiate or mediate a settlement, then I ask that you perform your mandated review of this new Exhibit in accordance with Judge Ezra's Order, and advise me if you find it contains any so-called "protected subject matter", and whether or not you intend to OBJECT to my filing a Motion to reopen this case.
I respectfully request your immediate reply. If I do not receive a response from you or your insurance carrier within 15 days, I will assume that you have found no "PSM" in these updated pages, and that you will NOT file any objections to my Motion.
Very truly yours,
Bobby N. Harmon, CPCU, ARM
Additional References:
http://www.kycbs.net/Confessions.htm
http://www.kycbs.net/Emilys-List.htm
http://www.kycbs.net/Freedom-To-Sing.htm
http://www.kycbs.net/GREED.htm
http://www.kycbs.net/JUSTICE.htm
http://www.kycbs.net/SLAPP.htm
http://www.kycbs.net/Whistler.htm
http://whistlersongs.blogspot.com
http://www.zoominfo.com/Search/ReferencesView.aspx?PersonID=912950374
http://www.kycbs.net/Exhibit-Sotomayor-5-31-9.htm
~ ~ ~
NEW DISCOVERY (05-23-09): More undisclosed conflicts of interests between Judge Barry Kurren, Faye Kurren, AIG, El Paso Corporation, Tesoro, James Ahloy, Paradise Petroleum, Kamehameha Schools/Bishop Estate, Timothy Geithner, Barack Obama, etc.:
http://www.kycbs.net/AIG-Bailout.htm
http://www.kycbs.net/El-Paso.htm
~ ~ ~
May 17, 2009
Battle looms as Obama nears
Supreme Court pick
By Caren Bohan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama hopes to tone down the partisan warfare that often surrounds selections to the Supreme Court, but that won't be easy with interest groups bracing for a fight over issues like abortion.
Obama has been weighing a short list of mostly women for a seat on the nine-member high court that decides such issues as abortion and the death penalty as well as business and property rights cases. The court's members are appointed for life but require Senate confirmation.
The pick, expected to be announced later this month, is unlikely to change the court's ideological makeup since Obama, a Democrat, is expected to pick a liberal in the mold of retiring justice David Souter.
Some experts think Obama, a former lecturer in constitutional law, may seek someone with the intellectual firepower and personality to go to toe-to-toe with two of the court's most conservative members, Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito. Though well regarded for his intellect, Souter is relatively low-key.
Eugene Volokh, a professor at UCLA School of Law in California, said a fight will likely loom even though the Democratic majority in the Senate means any Republican effort to derail the nominee would probably fail.
"It's pretty clear the people on the other side are going to fight against the appointment of people with whom they disagree," Volokh said. "The degree of controversy depends on just how far left this nominee is going to be."
Noting that Obama, a former senator, voted against Republican President George W. Bush's two Supreme Court nominees, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, Volokh said it is unrealistic for Obama to expect conservatives to "engage in unilateral disarmament."
Solicitor General Elena Kagan, who argues for the government before the Supreme Court, and two federal appeals court judges -- Sonia Sotomayor and Diane Wood -- are among those under consideration by Obama, according to a source familiar with his thinking.
Also in the mix are Michigan Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, and California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno. Many analysts believe Obama will pick a woman to join the only other female justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
CONSULTATIVE APPROACH
Hoping to show he is taking a consultative approach, Obama has been meeting with key Democratic and Republican members of the Senate, which must vote to approve the nominee.
"We would like to put the confirmation wars of the past behind us, and have signaled that with our consensus-oriented approach to appellate court nominations," White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said.
In explaining his opposition to Roberts in 2005, Obama praised him as an "outstanding legal thinker" and he said he disagreed with his legal philosophy, calling it one that gave more deference to the powerful in U.S. society. But he chastised both liberal and conservative allies for stirring up partisanship in the debate.
Administration officials said Obama hopes for less acrimony over the current Supreme Court opening, though in an indication of an awareness of the potential for controversy, Treasury spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter is being tapped to move to the White House to manage the media strategy for the nominee.
"Who is he trying to kid?" Republican strategist Keith Appell said of Obama's hope for a calmer nomination process. "If you're going to be realistic, you have to anticipate that center-right organizations are going to push to ensure that any nominee is fully vetted and scrutinized by Republican senators."
Appell said many of the names reported to be on Obama's short list "raised red flags" among conservatives.
Many Republicans are concerned by Obama's statement that "empathy" will be an important quality he will look for in a Supreme Court justice. Republicans have said they want justices who will strictly interpret the U.S. Constitution and many have criticized the landmark 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision that legalized abortion as "judicial activism."
Senator Jeff Sessions, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee who met with Obama last week, said he would welcome a "highly qualified nominee" from Obama but also wanted to see someone who favored "judicial restraint."
Stephen Wayne, professor of government at Georgetown University, said a more moderate nominee would trigger less opposition, but either way there would be a battle.
But he added, "We can never forget that nominations for Supreme Court Justices are forums. And people on both sides of the aisle are required to use them to espouse a certain point of view and to use them as a fundraising technique."
"So I think you can have a much milder circus but you're still going to have one big tent there and there will be objection to whomever he nominates," Wayne said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_obama_court
See also:
http://www.kycbs.net/Dots-White-House.htm
http://www.kycbs.net/Dots-Judiciary-Selection-Commission.htm
http://www.kycbs.net/Emilys-List.htm
http://www.kycbs.net/GREED.htm
http://www.kycbs.net/JUSTICE.htm
~ ~ ~
NEW DISCOVERY (04-17-09): More factual evidence of undisclosed conflicts of interest:
April 17, 2009
Fannie Mae CEO to Run Bank Bailout
By JIM KUHNHENN, AP
WASHINGTON (April 17) - The White House turned to an experienced former investment banker Friday to run the federal government's $700 billion bank rescue effort, selecting the head of mortgage giant Fannie Mae as an assistant Treasury secretary.
Herbert Allison Jr., Fannie Mae's president and CEO, will replace Neel Kashkari, a holdover from the Bush administration.
Allison, who must be confirmed by the Senate, would bear the title of assistant Treasury secretary for financial stability and counselor to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.
He would be in charge of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the fund that has injected billions of dollars into banks in hopes of unclogging credit. He would inherit a program that has been sharply criticized in Congress and which banks have come to view warily because of the restrictions attached to receipt of its funds.
President Barack Obama's administration has been slowly filling Treasury positions, hindered by candidates who have either withdrawn from consideration or been caught up in the vetting process.
Fannie Mae, seized by federal regulators in September, is closely overseen by federal regulators, making the chief executive's job tough to fill in the private sector. The company, therefore, appears likely to turn to an insider as Allison's replacement.
The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday that Fannie Mae was expected to name Michael J. Williams, the company's chief operating officer and a longtime executive as Allison's replacement. Fannie Mae declined to comment.
Allison's selection presents the administration with yet another challenge. If Allison is confirmed, both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would be without chief executives. David Moffett, formerly Freddie Mac's CEO, resigned in March.
In Allison, the White House selected a former Merrill Lynch investment banker who became chairman of the retirement fund manager TIAA-CREF. Allison served as finance chief for John McCain's 2000 campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. But politically, Allison has shown himself to be bipartisan in his allegiances, contributing to both Democrats and Republicans, according to Federal Election Commission records.
Since taking over in September at Fannie Mae, where he took no salary, Allison, the son of an FBI agent, developed a reputation for open-mindedness with consumer advocates, even those who have had an a contentious relationship with the giant company.
"Mr. Allison is well-positioned to lead the TARP," said Scott Talbott, chief lobbyist for the Financial Services Roundtable, an industry group. "He has a wealth of experience with buying, selling, protecting, and managing assets to protect the taxpayer investment and strengthen the economy."
Some industry officials said that by pulling Allison away from Fannie Mae, the White House was signaling that TARP would remain a viable component of the government's stabilization efforts for the financial industry, even in the face of hostile lawmakers and wary bankers.
Bert Ely, a banking industry consultant, said Allison has the advantages of being a known quantity to the Obama administration who is "much more of a financial heavyweight" than Kashkari.
Plus, he said, the new job would likely be more of a challenge than running Fannie and Freddie, which have been operating under tight government oversight since last September. "In this new situation, he's going to be much more of a policy maker," Ely said. "I can understand why he would want to take it."
http://money.aol.com/article/fannie-mae-ceo-new-bailout-chief/433738
~ ~ ~
April 2, 2009
G-20 to infuse funds into
International Monetary Fund
By David J. Lynch, USA TODAY
Leaders of the G-20 agreed Thursday to massively re-arm the International Monetary Fund for its fight against economic contagion, providing significant new financing and a broad mandate for action.
President Obama and other world leaders meeting in London said they would triple the IMF's war chest to $750 billion. And they will back the IMF, effectively creating an additional $250 billion by issuing "special drawing rights," the agency's own quasi-currency that borrowing nations can draw upon if needed.
"It's much bigger than the market expected," said Marc Chandler, senior vice president for currency strategy at Brown Bros. Harriman.
But first, Congress must approve plans for the U.S. to contribute $100 billion in credit. Fund observers say they expect lawmakers' OK, after a tussle. "It will not be an easy sell," says Eswar Prasad, a former fund economist at Cornell University.
If the new IMF money is to prevent further global deterioration, borrowers must use it. Especially in Asia, where memories of the fund's "tough love" role in the 1997 financial crisis are fresh, nations are reluctant to tap IMF aid. One positive sign: Mexico earlier this week said it would seek a $47 billion credit line from the IMF.
The new initiative, along with an additional $100 billion for other lending, is expected to ease concerns about a looming financing shortage in developing countries, as global banks and other investors retrench. The World Bank says the shortfall this year will be $270 billion to $700 billion.
"If we can't get the emerging markets going, it's going to be harder for us to get out of this," said Morris Goldstein, a former fund economist at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
Already, countries from Ukraine to Pakistan have turned to the IMF for multibillion-dollar rescues. More are expected to follow as the global recession deepens. Potential candidates include Turkey, Spain, Greece and possibly G-20 summit host the United Kingdom, said Simon Johnson, ex-IMF chief economist.
The G-20 also tasked the IMF with monitoring countries' economic and regulatory moves and opened the door to potentially historic shifts at the top of the fund and World Bank. Since their founding 63 years ago, the institutions' top jobs have been limited to Europeans and Americans. The G-20, however, says future leadership picks should be "merit-based," a signal that the next leaders could come from the developing world.
~ ~ ~
March 29, 2009
Obama’s involvement in Chicago Climate Exchange… the rest of the story
Judi McLeod, Canadian Free Press
Good news to know that the truth will always out–even when you’re Barack Obama.
“Obama Years Ago Helped Fund Carbon Program He Is Now Pushing Through Congress” is a FOXNews story by Ed Barnes. In short, “While on the board of a Chicago-based charity, Barack Obama helped fund a carbon trading exchange that will likely play a critical role in the cap-and-trade carbon reduction program he is now trying to push through Congress as president.”
The charity was the Joyce Foundation on whose board of directors Obama served and which gave nearly $1.1 million in two separate grants that were “instrumental in developing and launching the privately-owned Chicago Climate Exchange, which now calls itself “North America’s only cap and trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide.”
And that’s only the beginning of this tawdry tale, Mr. Barnes.
The “privately-owned” Chicago Climate Exchange is heavily influenced by Obama cohorts Al Gore and Maurice Strong.
For years now Strong and Gore have been cashing in on that lucrative cottage industry known as man-made global warming.
http://www.infowars.com/obamas-involvement-in-chicago-climate-exchange-the-rest-of-the-story/
~ ~ ~
October 23, 2008
Nature Conservancy Named to Help
Lead World Bank’s Forest Carbon
Partnership Facility
Despite global financial crisis, member countries donate more than $160 million to stop deforestation and fight climate change
ARLINGTON, VA — October 23, 2008 — The Nature Conservancy this week was appointed to serve on the governing panel of the World Bank’s Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) – joining more than a dozen countries from across the globe that will work together to develop the financial tools and incentives needed to make forest conservation a powerful tool against climate change. The Conservancy is the only non-governmental organization serving on the panel.
The appointment came during the FCPF’s first annual meeting in Washington DC. At the meeting policy leaders and government representatives from around the world came together to launch innovative programs and funding mechanisms that will help develop a credible global carbon credit market that recognizes forest protection.
Despite the world’s current financial crisis, FCPF members pledged more than $160 million to the Facility during this week’s inaugural meetings. With this funding, the FCPF will implement and evaluate pilot incentive programs, purchasing emissions reductions from developing countries that have taken action to reduce deforestation and forest degradation.
“It is heartening to know that despite the current financial situation, countries around the world understand that we cannot delay action on battling climate change,” said Mark Tercek, president and CEO of The Nature Conservancy. “Forest protection is one of the most cost-effective methods available to fight climate change. If we don’t take action now, climate change ultimately will have a much greater impact on the global economy and the natural resources we all depend upon for survival.”
The Nature Conservancy is a founding member of the FCPF, pledging $5 million to the partnership during the United Nations climate change negotiations in Bali, Indonesia last year.
As a member of the governing panel, The Nature Conservancy will lend its extensive experience in forest carbon projects and science to help the FCPF create the financial mechanisms and high-quality standards needed to help developing countries protect threatened forests and combat climate change.
“Right now, developing countries can generate more money from cutting down their forests than from keeping them standing,” said Tercek. “The Forest Carbon Partnership Facility will bring developed and industrialized countries together — along with forest communities, indigenous groups, the private sector and civil society — to establish a financial value for the carbon stored in standing forests.”
Also named to the governing board – known as the Participants Committee – were Australia, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Democratic Republic of Congo, France, Gabon, Germany, Ghana, Guyana, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, the Netherlands, Norway, Panama, Switzerland the United Kingdom, the United States and Vietnam.
The Nature Conservancy has nearly two decades of experience working to reduce carbon emissions through forest protection, leading forest carbon projects in six countries on more than 1.5 million acres of land. Its Noel Kempff project in Bolivia was the world’s first forest carbon reduction project to be verified by a third party based on internationally-recognized standards.
About 20 percent of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere each year comes from the destruction of forests – more than from all the planes, trains and automobiles in the world. In the next few years, scientists predict that developing countries will produce more climate-changing emissions than all industrialized nations combined – much of this due to the accelerating destruction of tropical forest resources.
But existing climate policies, including the Kyoto Protocol, do not recognize the protection of forests as a source for carbon emission reductions. So while developed nations can earn carbon credits for lowering their industrial emissions, developing nations cannot receive credits for reducing emissions from their largest source: deforestation. There is a growing consensus among world leaders and conservation organizations that credits earned through forest protection should be included in a global carbon trading market.
The Nature Conservancy supports a system of financial incentives and carbon credit markets that would allow developing nations to generate the funds needed to conserve forests, reduce emissions from all sources, protect biodiversity, improve local livelihoods and join the international fight against climate change.
The Nature Conservancy is a leading conservation organization working around the world to protect ecologically important lands and waters for nature and people. The Conservancy and its more than 1 million members have protected nearly 120 million acres worldwide.
(Catbird note: Let me see if I get this straight. The World Bank is going to give poor developing countries money for NOT harvesting their natural resources. By not harvesting their trees and using the lumber to manufacture houses, furniture, etc., the wealthy, large landowners will not need to hire laborers and thus will receive tons of money without having to do any work or pay any salaries - except to their executives, of course. Financial crisis solved!)
~ ~ ~
March 18, 2009
Dodd: Administration sought
bonus limit revision
By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON – For a while, the disappearance of an executive bonus restriction from last month's economic stimulus looked like sleight of hand worthy of a Las Vegas stage. No one could explain how the provision faded into thin air. On Wednesday, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., acknowledged that his staff agreed to dilute the executive pay provision that would have applied retroactively to recipients of federal aid.
Dodd, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, told CNN that the request came from Obama administration officials whom he did not identify.
The provision was the subject of new attention this week because, had it survived, it would have prevented the American International Group Inc. from granting $165 million in bonuses to employees of its financial products division.
While the House and Senate reconciled their different stimulus bills last month, the Treasury Department expressed concern with a Senate restriction on bonuses, noting that if it applied to existing compensation contracts it could face a legal challenge.
"The alternative was losing, in my view, the entire section on executive excessive compensation," Dodd told CNN. "Given a choice, this is not an uncommon occurrence here, I agreed to a modification in the legislation, reluctantly."
An administration official said Treasury made Dodd's staff aware of the potential for litigation but did not demand that the provision be removed from the final bill. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the matter in public.
The legislation does include a provision that allows Treasury to examine past compensation payments to determine if they were "contrary to the public interest." Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Tuesday said he was using that provision to determine whether the government could somehow recoup the AIG bonuses.
Over the years, Dodd has been the top recipient of campaign contributions from AIG employees. During 2007-2008, when he ran for president, he received nearly $104,000 from AIG employees and their families, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that monitors money in politics.
In a statement, his office said Dodd only became aware of the AIG bonuses in the past few days. "To suggest that the bonuses affecting AIG had any effect on Sen. Dodd's action is categorically false," Dodd spokeswoman Kate Szostak said.
~ ~ ~
March 18, 2009
Dodd Under Fire For Legislation
Behind AIG Bonuses
By CHRISTOPHER KEATING | The Hartford Courant
A mini-firestorm exploded Wednesday over U.S. Sen. Christopher Dodd's role in legislation regarding the huge bonuses at AIG, the highly controversial insurance giant that is receiving about $170 billion in federal bailout money.
Republicans and others are charging that Dodd was the main person behind the legislation that allowed the bonuses for the AIG employees.
But Dodd says he was never a member of the conference committee that inserted the legislation into the final version of the bill.
The bonuses have become a flashpoint over public anger regarding federal bailouts in general and AIG in particular. Everyone from President Barack Obama to Republican state legislators in Connecticut is decrying the bonuses.
Dodd's spokeswoman, Kate Szostak, is saying that the accusation that Dodd included the exemption for the bonuses is false, despite reports on Fox News, the Drudge Report, and the Rush Limbaugh radio show.
"Senator Dodd's original executive compensation amendment adopted by the Senate did not include an exemption for existing contracts that provided for these types of bonuses,'' she said.
The exemption that allowed the bonuses was crafted behind closed doors in a conference committee with top negotiators, including some of the most powerful members of Congress -- but not Dodd.
During the conference period, Dodd pushed for language that would require the U.S. Treasury Department to analyze any previous bonuses, according to Szostak.
"At the same time, Senator Dodd supported legislation by Senator Wyden that would tax the bonuses so that taxpayers could recoup some of this money,'' she said. "Unfortunately, that provision was removed from the stimulus bill in conference."
"Senator Dodd was completely unaware of these AIG bonuses until he learned of them
in the past few days; to suggest that the bonuses affecting AIG had any effect on
Senator Dodd's action is categorically false," Szostak said.
But Brian Walsh, a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, had
a sharply different view of the issue Tuesday afternoon.
"It is very disingenuous of Senator Dodd to suggest that he is now leading the fight to protect taxpayer money from going towards AIG bonuses when it was his own amendment to the stimulus bill last month that allowed AIG executives to receive these bonuses in the first place,'' Walsh said.
"It's even more disingenuous when you consider that Senator Dodd has received more political contributions from AIG than any other member of Congress. His rhetoric this week, which is only coming in the wake of public outrage, is typical Washington doublespeak, and the citizens of Connecticut deserve better."
In Connecticut, Republican legislators are trying to change the state law that AIG is citing, saying that the company is legally bound to pay the bonuses. The Connecticut state law says that if a company withholds payments that are due to employees, then those employees can file a civil lawsuit and win twice as much money. As such, AIG says that it could be forced to pay $330 million in bonuses – double the original amount of $165 million.
The Hartford Courant
~ ~ ~
NEW DISCOVERY (03-14-09): More undisclosed conflicts of interest between Steven Guttman, Mary Lou Woo, David Farmer, Larry Johnson, Robert Kihune, Sandwich Isles Communications, Bank of Hawaii, Gilbert Tam, Barack Obama, Steve Case, AOL, Dan Case, Punahou School, Citigroup, Robert Rubin, Goldman Sachs, Kamehameha Schools, etc.
March 14, 2009
Ex-CEO of Bankoh considered
for Citigroup board
By David Segal, Honolulu Star-Bulletin
Former Bank of Hawaii Chief Executive Michael O'Neill reportedly is one of the candidates being considered for a position on the board of directors at financially troubled Citigroup Inc.
O'Neill, who turned around Bankoh's lagging fortunes in less than four years before retiring at age 57 in August 2004, was mentioned along with former U.S. Bancorp CEO Jerry Grundhofer and William S. Thompson, former co-chief of bond investment manager Pimco, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal.
The newspaper said Citigroup is expected to announce the board changes next week when it files its proxy statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Any nominees would have to be formally approved by the board and voted on by shareholders.
O'Neill took over then-called Pacific Century Financial Corp. from Larry Johnson on Nov. 3, 2000, and in less than four years transformed the bank into a more efficient operation, elevated earnings to record highs and increased shareholder value nearly fourfold.
He also became somewhat of a TV personality with the bank's "Tell Mike" campaign.
Richard Parsons, a one-time University of Hawaii student who took over as chairman last month, is one of the few Citigroup directors with experience in both banking and leading a large company.
~ ~ ~
New Discovery (03-06-09): Elizabeth Dole is a lobbyist for GlaxoSmithKline which has connections to Barack Obama, the University of Hawaii, Hawaii Biotech, The Global Fund, Dee Jay Mailer, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Mark McConaghy, etc.
March 6, 2009
Source: Obama to reverse
limits on stem cell work
By BEN FELLER and LAURAN NEERGAARD, Associated Press
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is expected to sign an executive order on Monday reversing restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. The long-expected move is likely to stir up not only the promise of scientific breakthrough but also the controversy over where government crosses a moral line.
Obama will hold an event at the White House to announce the move, a senior administration official said Friday. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the policy had not yet been publicly announced.
Under President George W. Bush, federal money for research on human embryonic stems cells was limited to those stem cell lines that were created before Aug. 9, 2001. No federal dollars could be used on research with cell lines from embryos destroyed from that point forward.
Obama's move is expected to lift that restriction. The official said the aim of the policy is restore "scientific integrity" to the process.
Embryonic stem cells are master cells that can morph into any cell of the body. Scientists hope to harness them so they can create replacement tissues to treat a variety of diseases — such as new insulin-producing cells for diabetics or new nerve connections to restore movement after spinal injury.
"I feel vindicated after eight years of struggle, and I know it's going to energize my research team," said Dr. George Daley of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute and Children's Hospital of Boston, a leading stem cell researcher.
Such research is controversial because embryos must be destroyed to obtain the cells; they typically are culled from fertility-clinic leftovers otherwise destined to be thrown away. Once a group of stem cells is culled, it can be kept alive and propagating in lab dishes for years.
There are different types of stem cells, and critics say the nation should pursue alternatives to embryonic ones such as adult stem cells, or those found floating in amniotic fluid or the placenta. But leading researchers consider embryonic stem cells the most flexible, and thus most promising, form — and say that science, not politics, should ultimately judge.
"Science works best and patients are served best by having all the tools at our disposal," Daley said.
Obama made it clear during the campaign he would overturn Bush's directive.
During the campaign, Obama said, "I strongly support expanding research on stem cells. I believe that the restrictions that President Bush has placed on funding of human embryonic stem cell research have handcuffed our scientists and hindered our ability to compete with other nations."
He said he would lift Bush's ban and "ensure that all research on stem cells is conducted ethically and with rigorous oversight."
"Patients and people who've been patient advocates are going to be really happy," said Amy Comstock Rick of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research.
The ruling will bring one immediate change: As of Monday, scientists who've had to meticulously keep separate their federally funded research and their privately funded stem cell work — from buying separate microscopes to even setting up labs in different buildings — won't have that expensive hurdle anymore.
Next, scientists can start applying for research grants from the National Institutes of Health. The NIH already has begun writing guidelines for what embryonic stem cell lines will qualify under Obama's ruling. Among other things, the guidelines are expected to demand that the cells were derived with proper informed consent from the woman or couple who donated the original embryo.
Yahoo News
~ ~ ~
July 25, 2008
Harvard Stem Cell Institute Wins $25 Million Investment From GlaxoSmithKline
Luke Timmerman
GlaxoSmithKline, the world’s second-biggest drugmaker, said it agreed to invest $25 million over five years in the Harvard Stem Cell Institute for a collaboration to develop new treatments.
London-based Glaxo (NYSE: GSK) said the collaboration will spur research at Harvard and at least four affiliated hospitals to study neuroscience, cancer, diabetes, obesity and musculoskeletal diseases. “We have carefully chosen the Boston biomedical community to collaborate with on this important venture. It has the highest concentration of leading stem cell scientists,” GSK’s head of drug discovery, Patrick Vallance, said in a statement....
~ ~ ~
"In every election, politicians come to your cities and your towns, and they tell you what you want to hear, and they make big promises, and they lay out all these plans and policies. But then they go back to Washington when the campaign's over. Lobbyists spend millions of dollars to get their way. The status quo sets in. And instead of fighting for health care or jobs, Washington ends up fighting over the latest distraction of the week. It happens year after year after year."
"We can be a party that says there's no problem with taking money from Washington lobbyists — from oil lobbyists and drug lobbyists and insurance lobbyists. We can pretend that they represent real Americans and look the other way when they use their money and influence to stop us from reforming health care or investing in renewable energy for yet another four years."
"Or this time, we can recognize that you can't be the champion of working Americans if you're funded by the lobbyists who drown out their voices. We can do what we've done in this campaign, and say that we won't take a dime of their money. We can do what I did in Illinois, and in Washington, and bring both parties together to rein in their power so we can take our government back. It's our choice."
— Barack Obama, Evansville, IN, on April 22, 2008 ~ ~ ~
December 31, 2008
GlaxoSmithKline spent nearly $2M lobbying in 3Q
International Business Times
WASHINGTON (AP) - British drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline PLC spent nearly $2 million lobbying the U.S. government on patent laws, drug prices and other issues in the third quarter, according to a recent disclosure for lobbyists.
Glaxo lobbied on the budgets for the departments of Labor, Education and Health and Human Services, as well as related agencies, and on bills funding the state Children's Health Insurance Programs. It lobbied on legislation related to drug safety, drugmaker payments to doctors, vaccine supply programs and the law covering industry whistleblowers.
The company is one of the few major makers of vaccines, with about two dozen on the market, including flu shots and several standard children's vaccines against diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus and rotavirus.
Glaxo lobbied against a bill aimed at updating the U.S. patent system. High-tech companies supported the bill that passed the House in 2007, saying it would cut down on frivolous patent-infringement lawsuits. But the pharmaceutical industry has argued it will weaken patent protections on drugs by reducing infringement penalties. The bill stalled in the Senate.
The company also lobbied on related patent protection provisions within free-trade agreements with Peru, Colombia, Panama and South Korea. Lawmakers approved the agreement with Peru late in 2007.
Glaxo and other biotech companies also lobbied on legislation to allow the Food and Drug Administration to approve generic copies of biotech drugs. Generic drug companies already market cheaper versions of regular, chemical drugs, but the FDA does not have the authority to approve copies of biotech drugs, which are more complicated. A handful of generic biotech drugs are now sold in Europe.
Biotech makers opposed a bill that would have made generic biotech medicines medically interchangeable with the originals. Glaxo and others argued generic biotechs should be classified as similar, but not interchangeable. The distinction could potentially save biotech drugmakers billions in lost sales. (...and cost consumers billions MORE in higher drug costs! - CB)
Glaxo lobbied Congress and the Department of Health and Human Services on a proposal that would have allowed the government to negotiate drug prices for seniors in Medicare. Currently, private health insurers negotiate those prices, but that could change under the new Obama administration.
Lobbyists for Glaxo also pushed for an extension of a tax credit designed to reward companies for investing in research and development.
Lobbyists for the company in the July-September period included Jeffrey Ringer, a former legislative aide for Rep. Mary Fallin, R-Okla., Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C., and former Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., according to a form filed Oct. 20 with the House clerk's office.
~ ~ ~
NEW DISCOVERY (02-19-09): More undisclosed conflicts of interest between Barack Obama, John McCain, Henry Paulson, Goldman Sachs, UBS, Phil Gramm, Wendy Gramm, Punahou School, Dan Case, Steve Case, Kamehameha Schools, Nainoa Thompson, Myron Thompson, etc.:
UBS, Josh Marshall, John McCain and Barack Obama
This is the limit. The absolute limit.
Josh Marshall, in a recent post, castigates John McCain for taking economic advice on the sub-prime mortgage crisis from former senator Phil Gramm. Why? Because Gramm was a lobbyist for the Swiss bank UBS. (Gramm no longer lobbies, but continues to serve as a bank vice president.)
The UBS connection is of concern because that firm is a huge part of the sub-prime mortgage crisis:
Forbes says that UBS is among the banks worst hit by the global credit crisis, particularly in their direct exposure to the US subprime market. According to Forbes, UBS has some $37 billion in write-downs on assets tied to bad US mortgages. In other words, the bank's very life appears to be on the line in how the US government chooses to handle the matter.
Needless to say, I agree with Marshall -- up to this point. What I don't agree with is his hypocrisy, his special pleading on behalf of the Savior From Illinois.
I've used this quote before, but let's trot it out again, since it compresses a whole huge chunk of stinkiness into one small stink-ball:
Seven of the Obama campaign’s top 14 donors consisted of officers and employees of the same Wall Street firms charged time and again with looting the public and newly implicated in originating and/or bundling fraudulently made mortgages. These latest frauds have left thousands of children in some of our largest minority communities coming home from school to see eviction notices and foreclosure signs nailed to their front doors. Those scars will last a lifetime.
These seven Wall Street firms are (in order of money given): Goldman Sachs, UBS AG, Lehman Brothers, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse. There is also a large hedge fund, Citadel Investment Group, which is a major source of fee income to Wall Street.
UBS is or was Obi's second largest contributor, after Goldman Sachs. We must
quickly note that Hillary has also taken lots of money from Goldman Sachs, and from
others on this list -- though I've yet to see any evidence of a substantial contribution to
her from UBS, the company which (for good reason) has aroused Marshall's particular
ire.
Since strained rationalization is my favorite form of humor, I would love to see Marshall
defend Obama while attacking McCain on the UBS connection. Could the former King
of Bloggers possibly be more hypocritical?
By the way: As I've noted many times, Obama's chief economic adviser is a Milton
Friedmanite and free-trade fundamentalist named Austan Goolsbee. In terms of basic
economic weltanschauung, the difference between Gramm and Goolsbee is...what,
exactly?
~ ~ ~
NEW DISCOVERY (02-10-09): More arguments for First Amendment Rights violations by the U.S. Justice Department and Judge David Ezra:
February 11, 2009
Obama under fire for adopting
Bush's stance on 'state secrets'
By Inter Press Service
William Fisher, Inter Press Service
NEW YORK: President Barack Obama has cast doubt on his promise to put an end to secret government by allowing his Justice Department to follow a path frequently taken by his predecessor.
Before a federal appeals court in San Francisco Monday, lawyers from the Obama Department of Justice invoked the same "state secrets privilege" used by the administration of ex-President George W. Bush to argue that a lawsuit brought on behalf of Guantanamo Bay detainee Binyan Mohammad and four other alleged victims of the CIA's "extraordinary rendition" program should not go forward because revealing the evidence would harm national security.
If the appeals court agrees, it will mean that the alleged victims will not have their day in court. The court has not yet ruled on the case.
The defendant in the civil lawsuit is known as Jeppesen Dataplan, a subsidiary of aerospace giant Boeing, which is alleged to have knowingly provided the CIA with the chartered aircraft used to "render" terror suspects to countries where they were tortured.
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) attorney Ben Wizner, who argued Monday on behalf of Mohammad and the other appellants, told IPS: "To date, not a single alleged torture victim has had his day in court. In this case, most of the evidence is already public. There are no 'state secrets' here."
"And if there were, our federal courts are well prepared to handle this issue," he added.
"This is a betrayal of the rule of law," the attorney said. "It is not the standard we expected from the Obama administration."
The ACLU was encouraged to believe that the Obama Justice Department would break from the practices of the Bush administration. Eric Holder, recently confirmed as the new attorney general, said at his confirmation hearing: "I will review significant pending cases in which DOJ [Department of Justice] has invoked the state secrets privilege, and will work with leaders in other agencies and professionals at the Department of Justice to ensure that the United States invokes the state secrets privilege only in legally appropriate situations."
This appeared to be at odds with testimony by Obama's nominee for director of the Central Intelligence Agency, who told senators at his confirmation hearing that the practice of rendition would be continued, but that "extraordinary rendition" - sending terror suspects to countries where they are likely to be tortured - would end.
In a statement, Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director, said: "Eric Holder's Justice Department stood up in court today and said that it would continue the Bush policy of invoking state secrets to hide the reprehensible history of torture, rendition and the most grievous human rights violations committed by the American government. This is not change. This is definitely more of the same."
He added: "Candidate Obama ran on a platform that would reform the abuse of state secrets, but President Obama's Justice Department has disappointingly reneged on that important civil liberties issue. If this is a harbinger of things to come, it will be a long and arduous road to give us back an America we can be proud of again."
The Mohammad case stems from a federal lawsuit filed in 2007 by the ACLU against Jeppesen on behalf of five victims of the United States government's "extraordinary rendition" program.
The suit charged that Jeppesen knowingly participated by providing critical flight planning and logistical support services to aircraft and crews used by the CIA to forcibly "disappear" the five men to detention and interrogation.
According to the ACLU, shortly after the suit was filed, "The government intervened and inappropriately asserted the 'state secrets privilege,' claiming further litigation would undermine national security interests, even though much of the evidence needed to try the case was already available to the public."
The case was dismissed in February 2008, and the ACLU then appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the San Francisco Bay area.
According to published reports, Jeppesen had actual knowledge of the consequences of its activities. A former Jeppesen employee informed Jane Mayer of The New Yorker magazine that, at an internal corporate meeting, a senior Jeppesen official stated: "We do all of the extraordinary rendition flights - you know, the torture flights. Let's face it, some of these flights end up that way."
The case has also caused a furor in Britain and a problem for the US State Department.
In a separate case brought on behalf of Mohammad, who is a legal British resident, Britain's High Court refused to release seven paragraphs that the court had redacted in an earlier opinion. The High Court said that the redacted material lent credence to the torture allegations by Mohammad.
The court said that it reached its decision because of what it called a threat from the United States to reconsider sharing intelligence with the British.
But, in a highly unusual criticism, the High Court expressed dismay that a democracy "governed by the rule of law" would seek to suppress evidence "relevant to allegations of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, politically embarrassing though it might be."
The court said the Bush administration had made the threat in a letter to the Foreign Office last September. It called on the Obama administration to reverse that position.
The British foreign secretary, David Milliband, denied that there was any threat from the US. But, in a statement last week, the State Department said that the United States "thanks the UK government for its continued commitment to protect sensitive national security information" and that "the United States investigates allegations and claims of torture, and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment such as those raised by Binyam Mohammad."
After Mohammad was captured, then-US Attorney General John Ashcroft said that he had been complicit with Jose Padilla in a plan to detonate a "dirty bomb" in the United States. Padilla was never charged with this plot, but was convicted on other terrorism-related charges by a federal court in 2007. Last year, the Justice Department said it was dropping the dirty-bomb charges against Mohammad, and last October all charges against him were dropped.
The ACLU last week sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, urging her to clarify the Obama administration's position on the Mohammad case and to reject what it described as the Bush administration's policy of using false claims of national security to avoid judicial review of controversial programs.
The ACLU's Romero said: "The latest revelation is completely at odds with President Obama's executive orders that ban torture and end rendition, as well as his promise to restore the rule of law."
It has been 50 years since the United States Supreme Court last reviewed the use of the "state secrets" privilege. During the Bush administration, government lawyers invoked the "state secrets" privilege more often than any prior administration to stop cases from proceeding.
Among such cases was that of whistle-blower Sibel Edmonds, who was fired from her position as a language specialist at the FBI's Washington Field Office in March 2002, after she accused a colleague of covering up illicit activity involving foreign nationals, alleging serious acts of security breaches, cover-ups, and intentional blocking of intelligence which, she contended, presented a danger to US security.
Her case was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, which refused to hear it. And in 2007, the Supreme Court refused to review the "state secrets" privilege in a lawsuit brought by ACLU client Khaled al-Masri, an innocent German citizen who was kidnapped and rendered to detention, interrogation and torture in a CIA "black site" prison in Afghanistan.
See also: Uncle Sam’s Torture Chambers
~ ~ ~
Tell us the truth about torture, Mr Miliband
Editorial
The Observer, Sunday 8 February 2009
After the 11 September terror attacks, US Vice President Dick Cheney said that the administration, in its response, was prepared to "work the dark side".
That, it turned out, meant abandoning the Geneva Conventions and engaging in extra-judicial killing, kidnap and torture. In pursuit of the "war on terror", the US debauched the principles it claimed to be defending, a course now repudiated by President Obama. "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals," he said in his inaugural address.
But is that view shared by the British government? In both policy and rhetoric on the "war on terror", Tony Blair faithfully shadowed George W Bush. So how far did Britain go over to "the dark side"?
Part of the answer may be contained in documents withheld from public view last week by the high court, at the request of the foreign secretary.
The documents relate to Binyam Mohamed, a former UK resident who was arrested in Pakistan in 2002 and transferred to prisons in Morocco and Afghanistan, before ending up at the US detention camp at Guantánamo Bay. He says he was tortured. Crucial paragraphs within the documents are thought to substantiate that claim and, it has been alleged, implicate British security services.
That suggestion demands a public response. The documents cannot be published, Mr Miliband told parliament, because they come from US intelligence sources. Britain was entrusted with them on the understanding that they remain confidential. That trust would be breached if a court released them. But fear of offending an ally, however close, is no grounds to suppress evidence of torture. So how damaging would disclosure be? And to whom?
While the US authorities did not "threaten to break off" intelligence sharing, Mr Miliband said, they did warn of "likely harm" to the relationship. But the high court, which heard arguments from Mr Miliband in private, appears to have understood that a more specific threat was made. Disclosure of the documents, it concluded, may result in "the loss of intelligence... vital to the safety of our day-to-day life". That threat, the court ruled, outweighed an otherwise pressing public interest case: that allegations of torture - and the implication that British officials might have been complicit - must be aired to uphold democracy and the rule of law.
The key paragraphs, the court decided, contain "no sensitive intelligence matters", while the call for publication was supported by a mass of legal and moral arguments. Only the foreign secretary's evidence has kept them secret. That leaves serious questions for Mr Miliband. How grave was the threat from the US? Did it really engender a risk to our "vital safety"? Has it been renewed by the Obama administration, which claims an abhorrence of torture and is shutting Guantánamo Bay?
The ostensible reason why evidence in the Binyam Mohamed case cannot be made public is that it originates in the US. That does not stop Mr Miliband from giving a full account of everything he knows from domestic sources. He must now make another statement. He must clarify the threat that was made by the US in the Mohamed case. He must explain how credible he believes allegations of UK security service complicity in torture to be.
Only the most extreme and imminent threat to national security could reasonably justify any suppression of evidence linking British officials to such serious offences. No diplomatic protocol can outweigh the need for justice to be done - and to be seen to be done - in the event of crimes against humanity.
As President Obama said, the choice between security and principle is a false one. The real threat to the national interest comes if the rule of law is perceived as subordinate to the government's interest in protecting itself from scrutiny.
That is the perception that Mr Miliband must now urgently address.
~ ~ ~
NEW DISCOVERY (02-04-09): More undisclosed conflicts of interest between David Farmer, James Nicholson, Steven Guttman, Paul Alston, Judith Neustadter Fuqua, John Waihee, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Janet Reno, Alberto Gonzales, Michael Mukasey, Eric Holder, and other witnesses in this case:
June 26, 2008
Pardongate Is The Least of
Eric Holder’s Sins
© Jack Cashill, www.WorldNetDaily.com
“I was wondering when you were going to call me,” so said the irrepressible Nolanda Butler Hill when I phoned last week.
She knew precisely what item of news had prompted me to call: the revelation that Barack Obama had selected Clinton Deputy Attorney General and Ron Brown protege, Eric Holder, to help vet his vice presidential candidates.
As the confidante and business partner of the late Clinton Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, Hill knows from personal experience that Holder’s sins go well beyond his seamy role in the Marc Rich pardon scandal.
In the way of background, in May 1995, Clinton’s unpredictable Attorney General Janet Reno called for an independent counsel to assess whether Ron Brown had “accepted things of value” from Hill in exchange for his influence.
Reno’s pursuit of Brown did not shock either of them. He had been the subject of an inquiry for months. Targeting Hill, however, had no precedent, and it unnerved them both.
By statute, the independent counsel law applied only to political and government figures. “It was unlawful,” says Hill of her own targeting, “I was the only such person in history.”
In time, the independent counsel also targeted Brown’s son, Michael, for laundering money to his father through a scam minority set aside deal with a sleazy pair of Asian-American fundraisers. In Hill’s words, Michael “was as guilty as a goose.”
Hill and Brown both understood that she was being targeted in the hopes that she would roll over on Brown. Her condition for not doing so was that Brown share with her his every point of vulnerability.
Nowhere was Brown more vulnerable than in his unwelcome role as chief bagman for the Clintons’ relentless and often illicit fundraising in the run-up to the 1996 election.
Hill learned virtually every unseemly detail--from Brown’s go-between work with the Chicoms and their American vendors to his wholesale distribution of walking around money to Democratic race hustlers. As Brown understood, Hill knew way too much.
Even before his own mysterious death, Brown worried openly about her life and safety. He went so far as to call Hill’s sister, with whom she stayed from time to time, and insist Hill not be allowed to go out jogging alone.
As soon as Brown died, the independent counsel ceased the investigation into his illicit activities. As to Michael, he pled guilty to a single misdemeanor, accepted a small fine, and was out playing golf with the president a month later.
Not surprisingly, however, the Justice Department kept the pressure on the outspoken Hill, still deeply troubled by the circumstances surrounding Brown’s death.
Hill took heart when, in July 1997, President Clinton appointed Holder to replace Jamie Gorelick as Deputy Attorney General. Although ostensibly second in command, the Deputy AG was the real power in Justice, the Clinton equivalent of a Soviet “political officer.”
Hill knew Holder through Brown, who had been instrumental in getting him his previous job as U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia.
She and her attorney wasted no time in contacting Holder at the American Bar Association Annual Meeting, which was held that year in San Francisco in early August.
Holder, however, did not get to be Deputy AG by being naïve. “The train is already going down the tracks,” he explained to Hill. “It will take your cooperation to stop it.”
The “train” in question was a D.C. grand jury, which was being led to indict Hill. The “cooperation” meant Hill keeping her mouth shut.
Hill clarifies, “He [Holder] told me and my attorney that if I told what I knew about election fundraising I would be indicted.”
Holder was as good as his word. On March 13, 1998, ten days before Hill was to testify in a suit brought by Judicial Watch on the subject of Brown’s fundraising, the Clinton Justice Department indicted Hill on trumped up charges of fraud and tax evasion.
The willfully blind lead of the New York Times called the indictment “a vivid example of how an investigation can outlive its target.”
Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch knew better. In a motion to the court, he would write, “The timing of these events is neither accidental nor coincidental. Ms. Hill’s indictment was likely an effort to retaliate against her and deter her from giving any further damaging testimony at the March 23, 1998 hearing.”
At White House bidding, Holder had Hill indicted to shut her up, and he succeeded. Anxious, alone, and broke, facing as many as seventy years in prison if convicted, Hill chose to negotiate a deal.
On June 15, 1999, a day before her fifty-fifth birthday, she reported to a halfway house in Seagoville, Texas, her silence at least temporarily assured.
As James Sanders, my partner on the TWA 800 investigation, can attest, silencing whistleblowers through bogus prosecution was the modus operandi in the Holder era. Sanders and his wife Elizabeth were indicted and convicted on federal conspiracy charges on Holder’s watch.
Although generally appalled by the Clintons, Hill understands how betrayed they must feel when their very proteges desert them for Obama.
Holder did so early on. “Given Holder’s credentials,” the Chicago Tribune reported breathlessly in August 2007, “it isn’t outside the realm of possibility to suggest he could wind up the nation’s first African-American attorney general should Obama win the White House.”
Hill thinks she knows why Holder jumped ship. He was a key player in a racially exclusive cabal of DC insiders. “He’s so racist it’s not even funny,” she says of Holder, “not only racist but elitist.”
Still, no matter how compromised Holder might be, Obama can ill afford to dismiss him from his vice-presidential selection committee.
Obama has already had to dismiss one of the three selectors. If he dismisses a second, it will become absurdly obvious that the real problem is not Holder or Jim Johnson of Countrywide fame, but Mr. Obama himself.
http://www.cashill.com/natl_general/pardongate.htm
* * * * *
NNDB
http://www.muckety.com/Barack-Obama/91.muckety
* * * * *
NEW DISCOVERY (01-23-09): More undisclosed conflicts-of-interest between Dee Jay Mailer, The Global Fund, Population Action International, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, etc.:
January 23, 2009
Obama reverses Bush abortion-funds policy
By MATTHEW LEE and LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama on Friday struck down the Bush administration's ban on giving federal money to international groups that perform abortions or provide abortion information — an inflammatory policy that has bounced in and out of law for the past quarter-century.
Obama's move, the latest in an aggressive first week reversing contentious Bush policies, was warmly welcomed by liberal groups and denounced by abortion rights foes.
The ban has been a political football between Democratic and Republican administrations since GOP President Ronald Reagan first adopted it 1984. Democrat Bill Clinton ended the ban in 1993, but Republican George W. Bush re-instituted it in 2001 as one of his first acts in office.
"For too long, international family planning assistance has been used as a political wedge issue, the subject of a back and forth debate that has served only to divide us," Obama said in a statement released by the White House. "I have no desire to continue this stale and fruitless debate."
He said the ban was unnecessarily broad and undermined family planning in developing countries.
"In the coming weeks, my administration will initiate a fresh conversation on family planning, working to find areas of common ground to best meet the needs of women and families at home and around the world," the president said.
Obama issued the presidential memorandum rescinding the Bush policy without coverage by the media, late Friday afternoon. The abortion measure is a highly emotional one for many people, and the quiet signing was in contrast to the televised coverage of Obama's announcement Wednesday on ethics rules and Thursday's signing of orders on closing the Guantanamo Bay prison camp and banning torture in the questioning of terror suspects.
His action came one day after the 36th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion.
The Bush policy had banned U.S. taxpayer money, usually in the form of Agency for International Development funds, from going to international family planning groups that either offer abortions or provide information, counseling or referrals about abortion as a family planning method.
Critics have long held that the rule unfairly discriminates against the world's poor by denying U.S. aid to groups that may be involved in abortion but also work on other aspects of reproductive health care and HIV/AIDS, leading to the closure of free and low-cost rural clinics.
Supporters of the ban say that the United States still provides millions of dollars in family planning assistance around the world and that the rule prevents anti-abortion taxpayers from backing something they believe is morally wrong.
The ban has been known as the "Mexico City policy" for the city a U.S. delegation first announced it at a U.N. International Conference on Population.
Both Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who will oversee foreign aid, had promised to do away with the rule during the presidential campaign.
Clinton said Friday evening that for seven years Bush's policy made it more difficult for women around the world to gain access to essential information and health care services.
"Rather than limiting women's ability to receive reproductive health services, we should be supporting programs that help women and their partners make decisions to ensure their health and the health of their families," Clinton said.
In a related move, Obama also said he would restore funding to the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA). Both he and Clinton had pledged to reverse a Bush administration determination that assistance to the organization violated U.S. law known as the Kemp-Kasten amendment.
Obama, in his statement, said he looked forward to working with Congress to fulfill that promise: "By resuming funding to UNFPA, the U.S. will be joining 180 other donor nations working collaboratively to reduce poverty, improve the health of women and children, prevent HIV/AIDS and provide family planning assistance to women in 154 countries."
Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, executive director of the U.N. Population Fund, said: "The president's actions send a strong message about his leadership and his desire to support causes that will promote peace and dignity, equality for women and girls and economic development in the poorest regions of the world."
"We are confident that under the new president's direction, the U.S. will resume its leadership in promoting and protecting women's reproductive health and rights worldwide," Obaid said in a statement issued at U.N. headquarters in New York.
The Bush administration had barred U.S. money from the fund, contending that its work in China supported a Chinese family planning policy of coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization. UNFPA has vehemently denied that it does.
Congress had appropriated $40 million to the UNFPA in the past budget year, but the administration had withheld the money as it had done every year since 2002.
Organizations and lawmakers that had pressed Obama to rescind the Mexico City policy were jubilant.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the move "will help save lives and empower the poorest women and families to improve their quality of life and their future."
"Today's announcement is a very powerful signal to our neighbors around the world that the United States is once again back in the business of good public policy and ideology no longer blunts our ability to save lives around the globe," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Population Action International, an advocacy group, said that the policy had "severely impacted" women's health and that the step "will help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, abortions and women dying from high-risk pregnancies because they don't have access to family planning."
Anti-abortion groups and lawmakers condemned Obama's decision.
"I have long supported the Mexico City Policy and believe this administration's decision to be counter to our nation's interests," said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
"Coming just one day after the 36th anniversary of the tragic Roe v. Wade decision, this presidential directive forces taxpayers to subsidize abortions overseas — something no American should be required by government to do," said House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.
Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., called it "morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans to promote abortion around the world."
"President Obama not long ago told the American people that he would support policies to reduce abortions, but today he is effectively guaranteeing more abortions by funding groups that promote abortion as a method of population control," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee.
Yahoo News
~ ~ ~
NEW DISCOVERY (12-24-08): More undisclosed conflicts of interest between Trustee David C. Farmer, James Nicholson, Steven Guttman, Joshua Gotbaum, Judith Neustadter Fuqua, Linda Lingle, Jack Abramoff, AIPAC, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Rahm Emanuel, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Michael Mukasey, Bishop Estate, Goldman Sachs, Robert Rubin, Henry Paulson, The Nature Conservancy, Faye Kurren, Judge Barry Kurren, Judge David Ezra, OHA, Bernard Madoff, Robert Katz, etc.:
http://www.kycbs.net/AIPAC.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_yA8J-oGQk
http://www.kycbs.net/Jews-Control-America.mht
http://www.voy.com/129276/1273.html
~ ~ ~
NEW DISCOVERY (12-07-08):
Sunday, December 7, 2008 (Pearl Harbor Day)
Rumsfeld nemesis Shinseki to be
named VA secretary
By HOPE YEN, Associated Press
WASHINGTON – President-elect Barack Obama has chosen retired Gen. Eric K. Shinseki to be the next Veterans Affairs secretary, turning to a former Army chief of staff once vilified by the Bush administration for questioning its Iraq war strategy.
Obama will announce the selection of Shinseki, the first Army four-star general of Japanese-American ancestry, at a news conference Sunday in Chicago. He will be the first Asian-American to hold the post of Veterans Affairs secretary, adding to the growing diversity of Obama's Cabinet.
"I think that General Shinseki is exactly the right person who is going to be able to make sure that we honor our troops when they come home," Obama said in an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press" to be broadcast Sunday.
NBC released a transcript of the interview after The Associated Press reported that Shinseki was Obama's pick.
Shinseki's tenure as Army chief of staff from 1999 to 2003 was marked by constant tensions with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, which boiled over in 2003 when Shinseki testified to Congress that it might take several hundred thousand U.S. troops to control Iraq after the invasion.
Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, belittled the estimate as "wildly off the mark" and the general was marginalized and later retired from the Army. But Shinseki's words proved prophetic after President George W. Bush in early 2007 announced a "surge" of additional troops to Iraq after miscalculating the numbers needed to stem sectarian violence.
Obama said he chose Shinseki for the VA post because he "was right" in predicting that the U.S. will need more troops in Iraq than Rumsfeld believed at the time.
"When I reflect on the sacrifices that have been made by our veterans and I think about how so many veterans around the country are struggling even more than those who have not served — higher unemployment rates, higher homeless rates, higher substance abuse rates, medical care that is inadequate — it breaks my heart," Obama told NBC.
Shinseki, 66, is slated to take the helm of the government's second largest agency, which was roundly criticized during the Bush administration for underestimating the amount of funding needed to treat thousands of injured veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Thousands of veterans currently endure six-month waits for disability benefits, despite promises by current VA Secretary James Peake and his predecessor, Jim Nicholson, to reduce delays. The department also is scrambling to upgrade government technology systems before new legislation providing for millions of dollars in new GI benefits takes effect next August.
Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, and chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, praised Shinseki as a "great choice" who will make an excellent VA secretary.
"I have great respect for General Shinseki's judgment and abilities," Akaka said in a statement. "I am confident that he will use his wisdom and experience to ensure that our veterans receive the respect and care they have earned in defense of our nation. President-elect Obama is selecting a team that reflects our nation's greatest strength, its diversity, and I applaud him."
Veterans groups also cheered the decision.
"General Shinseki has a record of courage and honesty, and is a bold choice to lead the VA into the future," said Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. "He is a man that has always put patriotism ahead of politics, and is held in high regard by veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan."
Obama's choice of Shinseki, who grew up in Hawaii, is the latest indication that the president-elect is making good on his pledge to have a diverse Cabinet.
In Obama's eight Cabinet announcements so far, white men are the minority with two nominations — Timothy Geithner at Treasury and Robert Gates at Defense. Three are women — Janet Napolitano at Homeland Security, Susan Rice as United Nations ambassador and Hillary Rodham Clinton at State. Eric Holder at the Justice Department is African American, while Bill Richardson at Commerce is Latino.
Shinseki is a recipient of two Purple Hearts for life-threatening injuries in Vietnam.
Upon leaving his post in June 2003, Shinseki in his farewell speech sternly warned against arrogance in leadership.
"You must love those you lead before you can be an effective leader," he said. "You can certainly command without that sense of commitment, but you cannot lead without it. And without leadership, command is a hollow experience, a vacuum often filled with mistrust and arrogance."
Shinseki also left with the warning: "Beware a 12-division strategy for a 10-division army."
Yahoo News
~ ~ ~
NEW DISCOVERIES (12-13-08) - More facts regarding the actual birthplace of potential witness, President-Elect Barack Obama:
Obama Born In Kenya? His Grandmother Says Yes.
by Tishrei 13, 5769, 10/12/2008
Someone is lying.
According to Obama's Kenyan (paternal) grandmother, as well as his half-brother and half-sister, Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya, not in Hawaii as the Democratic candidate for president claims.
His grandmother bragged that her grandson is about to be President of the United States and is so proud because she was present DURING HIS BIRTH IN KENYA, in the delivery room. - This, according to several news sites and Pennsylvania attorney Philip J. Berg (see video below) who is, surprisingly, a life long democrat himself.
Berg is the former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, and he has an impressive background in his activities as a democrat, but his support for the party seemingly stops when it comes to his trust in Barack Hussein Obama.
Many U.S. voters are suspicious of the Democratic candidate's past, and Berg filed a lawsuit to force Barack Hussein Obama to produce a certified copy of his original birth certificate to prove that he can run for the office of President of the United States. However, he is being fought. The DNC On Sept. 24 filed a motion to dismiss the Berg action. Why? What is there to hide? Why not produce the original birth certificate and be done with all the suspicions against Barack Hussein Obama?
A few months back, a birth certificate WAS posted on the internet which shows that Obama was born in Hawaii. Yet some say this birth certificate is a forgery and again, his grandmother states that she was present at the birth, in Kenya. So what is the truth?
One explanation is that Obama's mother Ann Dunham, flew to Kenya in 1961 with Obama's father to meet his family. According to some news reports, Ann Dunham, was not accepted well by her husband's family because she was white:
"Obama's family did not take to Stanley Ann Dunham Obama very well, because she was white, according to Sarah Obama. Shortly after she arrived in Kenya Stanley Ann decided to return to Hawaii because she later said, she did not like how Muslim men treated their wives in Kenya. However, because she was near term the airline would not let her fly until after the birth of her baby. Obama's grandmother said the baby—Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.—was born in Kenya and that shortly after he was born, Stanley Ann returned to Hawaii."
However, by the time she wanted to leave Kenya, it was during the late stages of her pregnancy. She was not able to board a plane because the airlines wouldn't allow women so close to birth to fly. It is instead believed, that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya as his grandmother apparently stated. Then, after he was born, his mother returned with him to Hawaii where his birth was REGISTERED on or about August 8th, 1961, in the public records office in Hawaii.
There is also a discrepancy in what hospital Barack Hussein Obama was born in, even if he was born in Hawaii. Reports by his own sister in two separate interviews state that he was born at two different hospitals -- Kapiolani Hospital and Queens Hospital--in Honolulu.
The Times Herald even reports: "the senator's grandmother, brother and sister, who live in Kenya, believe they were present during Obama's birth in the African country." Here, the Times Herald uses the word that his family 'believe' he was born in Kenya (perhaps to avoid possible law suits by Obama's Truth Squad?).
Watch this interesting and important video clip.
I myself, not wanting to believe what I see, did some searching around, and this is what I came up with:
Obama was born on August 4, 1961, at the Kapiolani Medical Center.
and here it says:
Barack Obama was born at the Queen's Medical Center on 4 August 1961.
So which hospital was it, or was he really born in Kenya? And why is this simple matter so confusing and disturbing? Do the search your self and plug in these key words:
Obama born Queen's Medical Center and then Obama born Kapiolani Medical Center in a Google search. You will see he is reported to be born in two different hospitals.
A miracle! Maybe he IS the Messiah (grin).
What's so hard about knowing something so simple as which hospital or country someone was born in? And if it is simple, then why doesn't Barack Hussein Obama just present the court with his original birth certificate to be analysed and proven? The onus of proof is on him, not the American public of which he wants their trust in him to be their leader.
So, who is lying? Barack? His grandmother? His sister? Someone is.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Blogs/Message.aspx/3074
~ ~ ~
December 9, 2008
Supreme Court turns down appeal on Obama's citizenship
WASHINGTON - The US Supreme Court turned down an emergency appeal yesterday from a New Jersey man who says that President-elect Barack Obama is ineligible to be president because he was a British subject at birth.
The court did not comment on its order rejecting the case from Leo Donofrio of East Brunswick, N.J., who says that since Obama had dual nationality at birth - his mother was American, and his Kenyan father at the time was a British subject - he cannot possibly be a "natural born citizen," one of the constitutional requirements for eligibility to be president.
At least one other appeal over Obama's citizenship remains at the court. Philip J. Berg of Lafayette Hill, Pa., argues that Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii as Obama says and Hawaii officials have confirmed. Berg says Obama also may be a citizen of Indonesia, where he lived as a boy. Federal courts in Pennsylvania have dismissed Berg's lawsuit, and federal courts in Ohio and Washington state have rejected similar lawsuits.
Allegations raised on the Internet say the birth certificate, showing that Obama was born in Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961, is a fake. But state officials in Hawaii say they checked health department records and have determined there is no doubt Obama was born in Hawaii.
Supreme Court turns down appeal on Obama's citizenship
~ ~ ~
By admin on Dec 2, 2008 in Blogging, Offbeat, Politics, Social Media
Supposed Conspiracy Claim
Turns REAL on Obama
It is becoming painfully obvious that we may very well have a criminal President in 2009. No this isn’t a joke. What I speak of is the curious developments in the supposedly racist, biased, dumb, as well as insane case of where Obama was born.
Why the Barack Obama Birth Certificate Issue Is Legitimate
A strange development indeed is how it is that every time Barack Obama or a family member tells of where Obama was born, they seem to have no idea as of December 2008.
They seemed to know what hospital quite a few times months ago when it was claimed that Obama’s mother gave birth to him at Queens Medical Center in Honolulu -
Obama and Mom Never Here
The Queen’s Medical Center
1301 Punchbowl StreetHonolulu, HI 96813
Phone number 808-538-9011 General Medical Records 808-547-4361.
After it was concluded that Obama and his mother were never there, his sister was in an interview (Mary) and claimed that Obama was born at Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children -
Obama and Mom Never Here
1319 Punahou StreetHonolulu, Hawaii 96826(808) 535-7000
Hospital after Hospital - all Have No Record of Obama being born or Mom Ever being There.
Hospital after hospital in Honolulu all have NO RECORD of Obama or mother ever being there. Is this some state secret? Are we to believe that even the hospital that he was born in should remain secret? Why lie to us as if it matters I mean the man did win the Presidential vote? Why the lies and secrecy?
We already know that Obama’s family and the entire nation of Kenya (which is about to have a national holiday for Obama) know that Barack Obama was born in Mombasa Coastal Hospital in Kenya. The government of Kenya has sealed these records. More and more secrecy due to the fact that once proven, Obama will not be constitutionally allowed to become President of the United States!
All of these were called or visited from November 20 - December 2nd 2008. It is
confirmed, OBAMA was not born in any hospital in Honolulu County! NONE AS A FACT!
Hospital employees were bribed, some gave info for free. All to be released on video
shortly....
We were pretty detailed in our calls and visits thanks to dozens of native Hawaiian patriots! To the College Republicans all over the Island kudos!. You can look at every hospital here and call or visit any of them. Everyone has a family member working in a hospital. Talk, pay and bribe. You can file freedom of information acts, you can do everything and anything you wish. Barack Obama was never born in a hospital in Hawaii as claimed.
Only his original that he has sealed will have this info. Will the Supreme Court force it open and thus preserve the Constitution of the United States?
Why the Barack Obama Birth Certificate Issue Is Legitimate
http://www.earthfrisk.com/blog/?p=135
* * * * *
BERG v. OBAMA, et al -
Case # 2:08-cv-04083-RBS
* * * * *
NEW DISCOVERY (12-05-08):
Judson ON THE RECORD - VERY IMPORTANT!! New Member, Sheldon, is Pres. of YAL @ Idaho State, seeking Utah YAL...& member Judson Witham has filed the Utah lawsuit against Obama!!
Friday, December 5, 2008 5:48 PM
From: "Jud Witham" <jurisnot2@yahoo.com>
To: ronpaul-16-announce@meetup.com, "Vaughn & Lynda Robison" <ronpaulslcutah@yahoo.com>
Cc: sam@audiocanyon.com, letters@news-jrnl.com, stewwebb@sierranv.net, stich@unfriendlyskies.com, bobby_n_harmon@yahoo.com, blumberg@cyberport.net, Specialops@huffingtonpost.com, hwburgess@hawaii.rr.com, Ken_Conklin@yahoo.com, info@votevets.org, Hapa1234@aol.com, "MadMax@RoadWarriorRadio.com, Curt Crosby" <curtcrosby@gmail.com>, richardhayesphillips@yahoo.com, johnstadtmiller@hotmail.com, jack@cybrquest.com, stangfeedback@gmail.com, wmreditor@waynemadsenreport.com, jamesedwards@thepoliticalcesspool.org
BYU LAW LIBRARY after sending and receiving FAXES for me for YEARS, suspended my use of the FAX services et al AS Channel 5 Salt Lake called them asking about me ?? YUP BYU retaliated because ?????
My position is to UPHOLD the LAW to see to it that QUALIFIED CITIZENS are our representatives and IF NOT, well, you do the math. My filing speaks for itself.
I am NOT the least RACIST and ACTUALLY I understand Freedom and Liberty is NOT the sole property of ANY party, group or....LIBERAL after all should always be HOW Liberty Is Observed !!! Liberally HELLO !!!!
liberally ...
I did provide Barrack Obama's Counsel with the following:
§4. Citizenship. That all persons who were citizens of the Republic of Hawaii on August twelfth, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States and citizens of the Territory of Hawaii.
And all citizens of the United States resident in the Hawaiian Islands who were resident there on or since August twelfth, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight and all the citizens of the United States who shall hereafter reside in the Territory of Hawaii for one year shall be citizens of the Territory of Hawaii.
This section was supplemented by the Act of July 2, 1932, 47 Stat 571, amended by the Act of July 1, 1940, 54 Stat 707, providing that for purposes of Act of Sept. 22, 1922, 46 Stat 1511, women born in Hawaii prior to June 14, 1900 deemed U.S. citizens at birth. But Act of Sept. 22, 1922 was repealed by Act of Oct. 14, 1940, 54 Stat 1137, which in turn was repealed by Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat 166 (McCarran-Walter Act), and the present provisions are contained in 8 U.S.C.A. 1435(a).
Under Art. 17, §1, of the Const. of 1894 (adapted from the 14th Am. of the U.S. Const.) all persons born or naturalized in the Hawaiian Islands and subject to the jurisdiction of the Republic of Hawaii were citizens thereof. Between 1842 and 1892, 731 Chinese and three Japanese were naturalized in Hawaii; since 1892, none. Birth certificates by the Territory of Hawaii are not controlling, and persons applying for admission to the United States with such certificates may be detained by immigration officers for the purpose of determining citizenship, 35 Ops. 69. The secretary of Hawaii may issue to persons born in Hawaii certificates of Hawaiian birth, which are prima facie evidence: HRS §§338-41 to 44, see also former law: L. 1905, c. 64; am. L. 1907, c. 79; rep. L. 1909, c. 15; R.L. 1915, p. 1487; R.L. 1925, c. 21; R.L. 1935, c. 247. A person born in the Kingdom of Hawaii of British parents domiciled there was held to be a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii although he was registered at birth at the British consulate and had never renounced allegiance to the British crown nor sworn allegiance to the Hawaiian government: 11 H. 166. On citizenship of persons born in the United States of alien parents, see 169 U.S. 649. Mere residence in foreign state after majority does not expatriate, 31 F.2d 738. But son of naturalized Hawaiian citizen became expatriated through residence in foreign country of birth. 89 F.2d 489, cert. den. 301 U.S. 682, reh'g den. 301 U.S. 713. Naturalization as Hawaiian citizen did not occur under Const. of 1894 by issuance of certificate of Minister of Interior where allegiance to native land not renounced and court order not obtained. 117 F.2d 588, reh'g den. 120 F.2d 760, aff'd by divided court, 315 U.S. 783.
Chinese who were Hawaiian citizens on Aug. 12, 1898, by either birth or naturalization, whether under the monarchy or the republic, became American citizens under this §: 23 Ops. 509; 1 U.S.D.C. Haw. 118; and their wives and children were thereafter entitled to enter the Territory; 23 Ops. 345; and such a citizen could take oath that he was such, and obtain an American register for a vessel which had a Hawaiian register on that date and was then owned and continued to be owned by a Hawaiian citizen until purchased by such Chinese; 23 Ops. 352. Son of Chinese, naturalized Hawaiian citizen, born in China in 1894 and remaining there through minority, did not become citizen and not entitled to enter U.S. 69 F.2d 681. Chinese held for deportation may set up American citizenship in habeas corpus or deportation proceedings, but the burden is on them to prove such citizenship: 1 U.S.D.C. Haw. 6; 1 U.S.D.C. Haw. 44; 1 U.S.D.C. Haw. 104; 1 U.S.D.C. Haw. 113; 1 U.S.D.C. Haw. 234; 270 Fed. 57.
Habeas corpus lies to protect immigrant's right to have question of citizenship determined; 160 Fed. 842, affirming 3 U.S.D.C. Haw. 168. See also §§100 and 101, and notes thereto; also note to Joint Resolution of Annexation, RLH 1955, page 13.
Woman of Chinese ancestry, born in Hawaii in 1894 but married to Chinese alien in 1910, could not be naturalized under the Acts cited in first paragraph of this note as they stood prior to 1940 amendment, because of her nonresidence on July 2, 1932, 88 F.2d 88.
For decisions generally on immigration and citizens see notes to §§100 and 101, and note to RLH 1955, §57-43; also, presumptions: arising from findings of Board of inquiry or certificate of identity, 29 F.2d 500; 30 F.2d 516; 49 F.2d 19 and 24; may be rebutted, 30 F.2d 65; lack of, prima facie supports right to deport, 36 F.2d 563; fraud must be alleged in complaint, 63 F.2d 375 and 377. Delay for depositions may be a matter of right, 33 F.2d 236. Proof of Chinese descent shifts burden of proof: 104 F.2d 21, 111 F.2d 707. Finding of citizenship on previous entry not binding: 124 F.2d 21; but see 188 F.2d 975.
Under the treaty with Spain and Acts of Congress, a Puerto Rican, residing in Puerto Rico on April 11, 1899, and a year thereafter, who did not declare his decision to preserve his allegiance to Spain, did not lose his political status by removing to Hawaii in 1901, but became a citizen of the United States under a subsequent Act of Congress and hence entitled to vote in Hawaii: 24 H. 21.
Although §8(a)(1) of the Act of March 24, 1934, c 84, 48 Stat 456, 462, provides that Filipinos shall be placed on the quota basis as aliens, it is specifically made inapplicable to Hawaii and immigration is determined by the Interior Dept. on basis of industrial needs.
Referred to in 13 H. 21, 556; 162 Fed. 470.
Filipino national in Hawaii became alien by proclamation of Philippine Independence, 183 F.2d 795.
* * * * * * *
--- On Fri, 12/5/08, Vaughn & Lynda Robison <ronpaulslcutah@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Vaughn & Lynda Robison <ronpaulslcutah@yahoo.com>
Subject: [ronpaul-16] VERY IMPORTANT!! New Member, Sheldon, is Pres. of YAL @ Idaho State, seeking Utah YAL...& member Judson Witham has filed the Utah lawsuit against Obama!!
To: ronpaul-16-announce@meetup.com
Date: Friday, December 5, 2008, 3:54 PM
1. Sheldon Kreger is Pres. of the Idaho State Univ. Young Americans for Liberty (YAL). He says Univ of Utah/BYU have not got a YAL organized and wants to help Utah get them started and coordinate between Utah and Idaho YAL groups. Dave used to be President of the Univ of Utah Students for Ron Paul, and organized a rally downtown for all of us on Oct. 13, 2007 (still on our calendar of past events). And David Garber & Ken were with the BYU Students for Ron Paul. We passed these names on to Sheldon. Click on his name and send him an email if you have any new details to add for helping him contact people interested in organizing YAL groups in Utah.
2. Judson Witham -- over 30 lawsuits against Obama nationwide regarding his lack of citizenship to be running for President -- the Internet listed that Utah had a lawsuit, also, and after more digging, we found that the person filing the lawsuit against Obama in Utah was our very own member Jud Witham!! How COOL is that!!!! Jud, do you need any help and/or support on this lawsuit? Thank YOU for taking a stand against those attempting to steal the US Constitution!!
(Anybody who wants to help Jud with this lawsuit, feel free to contact him. Likewise, anybody who is able to help Mike Ridgeway finish paying off his lawyer for a very successful lawsuit against the Utah GOP leaders who did their malicious scam on him---the judge declared Mike innocent last July---please feel free to contact him, also ---- Ron Paul has asked all of us to clean house with the local party first, and Mike, et.al, has been doing that for 10 years on their own--we encourage all meetup members to join with Mike Ridgeway and the others who are ashamed and disgusted at the party's corruptness in our state that must be replaced with "good, honest, and wise" leaders before we can ever get liberty-minded candidates with integrity elected here in Utah!)
Back to Jud >>>
HAVING UTAH INCLUDED IN THE OBAMA LAWSUITS AGAINST HIS FRAUDULENT CLAIM OF BEING A LEGAL CITIZEN IS AWESOME!!
Watch reports on this from Devvy Kidd at WND (World Net Daily). She's contacted the FBI to do a check on campaign funds fraud by Obama, she's talking and reporting about all 30 lawsuits (which include 2 more at the US Supreme Court level by a Democrat named Berg and another lawsuit by the presidential candidate Alan Keyes!!--the rest all seem to be lawsuits that are against their state's Secretary of State, demanding answers for Obama's proof of citizenship), and she's contacting the Electoral College about not voting until this is settled.
Allegedly, the Hawaii governor swore under oath 2 months ago that Hawaii does NOT have any birth certificate, and that the governor has allegedly sworn under oath that Obama was born in Kenya. This is a direct attack on the US Constitution, nothing to do with race.
It is to take down the last of the US Constitution, which is to take down the Electoral College (having the US public manipulated into demanding the "people's vote" is more important than the Electoral College vote, and to throw away the US Constitution or have it "re-written"---not realizing the "people's vote" is a rigged election), and to also take down the "natural born citizen" requirement.
Obama has hired THREE LAW FIRMS, not 3 lawyers, but 3 law firms, to handle this first lawsuit by Leo-Somebody at the US Supreme Court. There's been monkey-business with clerks stalling all of the 30 lawsuits, with the excuse that it was "not filed correctly." Leo's lawsuit was stalled by the clerk having an anthrax search on the papers/envelope he'd had filed with them.
They're stalling big time. Stalling until after the Dec. 15 Electoral College vote. Stalling until after he gets into office on January 20th.
And mainstream media had a complete blackout on this story until today (Friday, 12-5-08) when the Chicago Tribune ran the story, with the L.A. times picking up on it, and now many major papers nationwide, including "Drudge" on the Internet, are finally running this story (that started last June or before). But none of the Salt Lake papers are running any of it yet. Why is that, when we're a "red state" and allegedly all voted for McCain?
The question has already been posed as to what to do if Obama is declared unable to take the presidential office because "the US Constitution doesn't tell us what to do." Well, yes it did. It said a "natural born citizen." When you break a rule, you go back to the beginning. You don't use the broken rule as an excuse to change the rules.
Yeah, that probably means another election. We say have lawsuits filed against McCain, again (they got dismissed earlier), to undo Congress' "resolution" that stated that his illegal immigrant status was ok with them, and then have all the rest of the candidates put back on the ballot who got left off even though they were only suspending their campaign, including Ron Paul.
Don't know if that means Pelosi would be the temporary prez after January 20 until a new election is handled or not. Don't know what options are out there that are legal for this. But the "Establishment" having 2 illegals running for president at all, is beyond a reasonable doubt that this was an "accident."
--This message was sent by Vaughn & Lynda Robison (ronpaulslcutah@yahoo.com) from Utah Campaign for Liberty.
http://ronpaul.meetup.com/16/members/4278461/
~ ~ ~
See also: www.kycbs.net/Barack-Born-in-Kenya.htm
Hospitals in Hawaii to Obama:
You Were Not Born Here!
By admin on Dec 2, 2008 in Blogging, Offbeat, Politics, Social Media
Supposed Conspiracy Claim Turns REAL on Obama
It is becoming painfully obvious that we may very well have a criminal President in 2009. No this isn’t a joke. What I speak of is the curious developments in the supposedly racist, biased, dumb, as well as insane case of where Obama was born.
Why the Barack Obama Birth Certificate Issue Is Legitimate
A strange development indeed is how it is that every time Barack Obama or a family member tells of where Obama was born, they seem to have no idea as of December 2008.
They seemed to know what hospital quite a few times months ago when it was claimed that Obama’s mother gave birth to him at Queens Medical Center in Honolulu -
Obama and Mom Never Here
The Queen’s Medical Center
1301 Punchbowl StreetHonolulu, HI 96813
Phone number 808-538-9011 General Medical Records (808) 547-4361.
After it was concluded that Obama and his mother were never there, his sister was in an interview (Mary) and claimed that Obama was born at Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children -
Obama and Mom Never Here
Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children
1319 Punahou StreetHonolulu, Hawaii 96826 (808) 535-7000
Hospital after Hospital - all Have No Record of Obama being born or Mom Ever being There.
Hospital after hospital in Honolulu all have NO RECORD of Obama or mother ever being there. Is this some state secret? Are we to believe that even the hospital that he was born in should remain secret? Why lie to us as if it matters I mean the man did win the Presidential vote? Why the lies and secrecy?
We already know that Obama’s family and the entire nation of Kenya (which is about to have a national holiday for Obama) know that Barack Obama was born in Mombasa Coastal Hospital in Kenya. The government of Kenya has sealed these records. More and more secrecy due to the fact that once proven, Obama will not be constitutionally allowed to become President of the United States!
All of these were called or visited from November 20 - December 2nd 2008. It is
confirmed, OBAMA was not born in any hospital in Honolulu County! NONE AS A FACT!
Hospital employees were bribed, some gave info for free. All to be released on video
shortly....
We were pretty detailed in our calls and visits thanks to dozens of native Hawaiian patriots! To the College Republicans all over the Island kudos!. You can look at every hospital here and call or visit any of them. Everyone has a family member working in a hospital. Talk, pay and bribe. You can file freedom of information acts, you can do everything and anything you wish. Barack Obama was never born in a hospital in Hawaii as claimed.
Only his original that he has sealed will have this info. Will the Supreme Court force it open and thus preserve the Constitution of the United States?
~ ~ ~
NEW DISCOVERY (12-06-08):
October 28, 2008
DID SOMEONE TELL JUDGE R. BARCLAY SURRICK WHAT HIS RULING WOULD BE?
Posted by Gabrielle Cusumano
The original faxed decision from the Clerk of the US District Court for the Eastern District of PA to attorney Philip J Berg appears to have been faxed to Judge Surrick for him to sign. But if this is the case, the questions becomes who wrote the decision and faxed it for the Judges signature?
Barack and Michelle worked at Sidley Austin law when they met.
Also working with Michelle at Sidley at the same time was one Bernardine Dohrn, beloved wife of Bill Ayers.
Now it turns out a fellow named Christopher B. Seaman is the former law clerk for U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick.
Christopher B. Seaman also works for a firm named Sidley Austin.
10/26/2008
Judge Surrick’s ruling was faxed to him?
From: http://thewideawakes.org
Phil Berg is going to have some very interesting challenges ahead when he exposes the chain of events regarding this ruling. The ruling itself appears as though it should be thrown out; it isn’t even file or date stamped. First, there’s - CONFLICT OF INTEREST.; Obama’s Birth Certificate Judge-Obama Linkage
Barack and Michelle worked at Sidley Austin law when they met.
Also working with Michelle at Sidley at the same time was one Bernardine Dohrn, beloved wife of Bill Ayers.
Now it turns out a fellow named Christopher B. Seaman is the former law clerk for U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick.
Christopher B. Seaman also works for a firm named Sidley Austin.
Gosh. It’s a small world after all.
Then, there’s this:
The original faxed decision from the Clerk of the US District Court for the Eastern District of PA to attorney Philip J Berg appears to have been faxed to Judge Surrick for him to sign. But if this is the case, the questions becomes who wrote the decision and faxed it for the Judges signature?
DID SOMEONE TELL JUDGE R. BARCLAY SURRICK WHAT HIS RULING WOULD BE?
And this:
1. The “mystery Fax (header on the bottom of the 36 pages) began at 4:55PM and ended at 5:11PM for a total of 16 minutes. But where was the “mystery fax” machine located?
2. The fax from Judge Surricks office to Phillip Berg started at 18:09 or (6:09PM) and ended at 18:16 or (6:16PM) for a total of 7 minutes. Now what would cause a whole 9 minute discrepancy in the transmission times of a fax on the exact same number of pages? And even a slower machine would not cause a difference of more than double the time of transmission for the same number of pages.
3. The ORDER has no file/date stamp on the document at any page whatsoever which is required and is standard Court procedure. Why?
Judge R. Barclay Surrick, whether intentional or not, has created a situation that challenges the very integrity of the US District Court for the Eastern District of PA as well as the integrity of the Judge himself.
All of these issues must be address without delay, and the owner and location of the “mystery Fax” must be disclosed immediately with explanation as to why a ruling said to be issued by Judge Surrick, was in reality Faxed to Judge Surrick? The first and only Fax header that should be on the ruling when faxed to Attorney Philip J Berg should have been none other than that of Judge Surrick alone.
Very, very sloppy!!!
Townhall.com - Gabrielle Cusumano
+ + +
See also: www.kycbs.net/Obama-Born-in-Kenya.htm
~ ~ ~
NEW DISCOVERY (12-13-08):
Obama’s “Natural Born” Problem
by David M. Huntwork
By now you are probably aware that there have been a multitude of lawsuits filed in regards to the question of whether or not President-elect Barack Obama is in fact eligible under the“natural born” provision of the Constitution of the United States of America to be the President of the United States (POTUS).
The Constitutional provisions are very specific when it comes to the minimal qualifications for President. One is to be over thirty-five. He is. Two, is being in the country fourteen years. He has been. Three, is to be a natural-born citizen. The latter remains unproven, a matter of contention, and appears to be increasingly unlikely to be true.
There are several variations on this theme, but the general and most often made argument is relatively simple and straightforward.
The Plaintiff in one of the filed suits put it this way.
“If in fact Obama was born in Kenya, the laws on the books in the United States at the time of his birth stated if a child is born abroad and one parent was a U.S. Citizen, which would have been his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother would have had to live ten (10) years in the United States, five (5) of which were after the age of fourteen (14). At the time of Obama’s birth, his mother was only eighteen (18) and therefore did not meet the residency requirements under the law to give her son (Obama) U.S. Citizenship much less the status of ‘natural born.’ ”
It also was a complication that Obama’s mother divorced his father, married and moved to Indonesia for several years and Obama attended school there at a time when only Indonesian citizens were allowed in schools. Records that are available from Indonesia revealed Obama was registered in school as Barry Soetoro, and his religion was listed as Islam.
When Obama later returned to Hawaii, within the United States, there should have been a government document affirming his citizenship, but that also cannot be found.”
The Obama campaign had insisted from the very beginning that Barack Obama was in fact born in the state of Hawaii which would automatically make him eligible for the highest office of the land. All US citizens are issued a birth certificate within a short time after birth. It would be very simple, and take about five minutes, for the Obama organization to put this rumor to rest and prove once and for all that this is just some wild conspiracy from the Internet rumor mill that should be mocked and ignored as simply “sour grapes” by a die hard few.
Except that Obama has steadfastly refused to release his birth certificate and has shown the willingness to spend a large amount of money on legal fees while enduring increasingly bad publicity by refusing to release it or any hospital records associated with a birth in the state of Hawaii.
One of the cases filed with the Supreme Court also raised the circumstances of Obama's time during his youth in Indonesia, where he was listed as having Indonesian citizenship. Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship at that time, raising the possibility of Obama's mother having given up his U.S. citizenship. Any subsequent U.S. citizenship then, the case claims, would be "naturalized," not "natural-born”.
There have also been suspicions that Obama’s college records may indicate he received aid as a foreigner, and that could be the reason why those records were never released.
The questions of his birth certificate and constitutional eligibility for POTUS have been ongoing for months. Unlike the convoluted conspiracies and “innovative” conjectures that have been leveled against various presidents including Bill Clinton and the current holder of the office, this particular allegation of constitutional ineligibility would be extremely easy to refute and the entire mess could be over in just a matter of minutes. The logical conclusion is that there has to be some sort of reason that this document (if it exists) has not been released. There is obviously something to hide here and I am not alone in my interest in what that may be.
Months ago the Obama campaign, in an attempt to “answer” this question, posted a copy of what was said to Obama’s “Certification of Live Birth” on the official Obama website. The Main Stream Media and the Progressive blogosphere quickly and proudly pointed to it and proclaimed the case closed. Unfortunately, the posting of that document actually raised as many or more questions than it had supposedly answered. The computer-generated “Certification of Live Birth” is used by the state of Hawaii in lieu of the “Certificate of Live Birth,” or if originally filed, a “Delayed Certificate of Birth,” or even a “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth.” For verification purposes, however, the “Certification of Live Birth” does not indicate which birth record “root document(s)” that the Certification is based upon.
Hawaii Revised Statute 338-178 allows registration of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the child’s birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence. Obama’s certification of live birth doesn’t list a hospital, attending physician, or any witnesses of the birth that could be tracked down and investigated. The posted document is essentially worthless as any sort of proof that Obama was born in the United States and simply put does not prove natural-born status. Yet that document is the only evidence that Barack Obama has so far produced that he is in fact eligible to be the President of the United States.
My initial hunch was that Obama was in fact not born in Kenya, but that the name on the birth certificate was not “Barack Obama” but some other, possibly “Barry” with perhaps even a different last name (his mother’s?). It is also perhaps an amended birth certificate (not uncommon in cases of adoption by a step parent) listing his now legal name as “Barry Sotoero” and thus somehow a cause of embarrassment or a potential political liability. Obama’s adoption in Indonesia by his stepfather Lolo Sotoero would make that a very plausible scenario.
Such speculation is obviously conjectural. But much of Obama’s youth is shrouded in mystery especially in regards to his Islamic schooling, upbringing in Indonesia, drug use, and later ties to a variety of radical and questionable characters and mentors. With that in mind, perhaps an actual birth in Kenya wouldn’t be all that surprising but merely the icing on the cake when it comes to the strange, twisted and contradictory tale of Barack Obama’s life.
There was some whispering about Senator John McCain’s own natural-born citizenship status and POTUS eligibility early on and to his credit he produced his long form birth certificate in record time putting such questions to rest very quickly. Meanwhile, many months later, we are still sifting through rumors, Supreme Court petitions, multiple lawsuits from all over the country, and articles like this one while the Obama camp continues playing “whack a mole” in regards to questions about Obama’s natural-born status.
Three things have made me take an interest in this sideshow saga and made me at least somewhat increasingly open to the idea that Barack Obama may in fact have been born in Kenya. The first is that the Kenyan ambassador to the United States has openly admitted that Obama was born in Kenya.
Mike In The Morning Calls The Kenyan Embassy (101 WRIF Radio, Detroit, Michigan)
Radio Host:
One more quick question, president elect Obama’s birthplace over in Kenya is that going to be a national spot to go visit where he was born?
Kenyan Ambassador:
It is already an attraction. His paternal grandmother is still alive.
Radio Host:
But his birth place, they will put up a marker there?
Kenyan Ambassador:
It will depend on the government. It is already well known.
The sound clip can be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH4GX3Otf14 .
The second is that soon to be Secretary of Commerce and current New Mexico governor Bill Richardson is on record as stating that Obama is “an immigrant”. An odd thing to say if it were not true, and an outright lie otherwise....
Perhaps the strongest anecdotal evidence is that Obama’s own paternal grandmother has said on multiple occasions that she was there when Barack was born in Kenya. Obama’s Kenyan half brother and half sister have also stated that Obama was born in Kenya. None of this anecdotal evidence is conclusive but combined with Obama’s steadfast refusal to release his long form birth certificate it plants the seeds of suspicion and makes you really want to ask a simple question. What is he hiding? And why?
The real fun to be had with this story is not that Obama for any reason would be somehow decreed ineligible as the next President of the United States (it won’t happen) but that there apparently is no oversight at all to the election process and a candidates eligibility for that office. Wouldn’t it, and shouldn’t it, be common sense and standard practice that some official or semi-official body like the Federal Election Commission or the respective major political parties require that all candidates for President of the United States provide proof that they meet the requirements for the office as stated in the Constitution? Is that really too much to ask?
Barack Obama has held elected office on the federal level, won his parties nomination for President, and then was elected President of the United States, all without providing proof that he is in compliance with the provisions laid down very plainly in the Constitution. One should be able to declare such a scenario as inconceivable, yet it appears to be all too true.
And for those of you who have studied history in any detail, the truth is far more often stranger than fiction. Obama may fall, and in many ways he already does, into that category. Who would have thought that an “I vote present” product of the incredibly corrupt Chicago political machine with a Leftist ideology, a Muslim stepfather, a socialistic economic policy, a radical spiritual mentor, and who is beholden to a domestic terrorist for the launching of his political career could so easily be elected to the Presidency of the United States of America? If I had pitched that scenario to you two years ago you would have called me crazy yet that is exactly the situation we find ourselves in.
I do believe this will probably not be little more than an interesting political sideshow that will end up as just another bizarre footnote in annals of history. It is somewhat disturbing though that we are apparently willing to just wave constitutional requirements for the highest office of the land whenever we see fit. One has to believe that altering and tampering with basic constitutional provisions is probably not very wise and not healthy for our form of government.
The glaring disgrace here is that Obama should have been forced to prove his eligibility for office (they all should) before the first primary election or caucus was held and that the Democratic Party failed miserably in its duty to make sure that they were offering up a legitimate and eligible candidate as their presidential nominee.
If indeed Barack Obama is constitutionally ineligible for the highest office in the land, and could theoretically be an unconstitutional president, it is not the child who dared mention that “The Emperor has no clothes!” who is being “embarrassing and destructive” by bringing this up, but the Democratic party and the electoral system as a whole which allowed an unqualified candidate with unproven, dubious credentials to be allowed to appear on the ballot in a national election.
In the worse case scenario we will have taken just another baby step towards losing our Republic and the rule of law when that dusty and irritating Constitution becomes something to just be ignored or set aside whenever it might be inconvenient, or upset some people, or just be impractical for this particular “situation”.
Maybe we have reached the point where we just set aside parts of the Constitution if they are inconvenient and that might potentially be a problem for He Who Will Slow the Rising of the Seas and the fainting, ecstatic, potentially angry mob who propelled him to power. We have already journeyed a ways down the road once traveled by ancient Rome where the elites began to worry about the mood and reactions of the masses who openly threatened disorder and mayhem if they were unhappy, while those who held the reigns of power increasingly ignored the once revered rules that had held their political system together.
At the time of the publication of this article, Barack Obama still had not proved his eligibility to serve as President of the United States as defined by Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America. And he probably remains unable to do so.
http://www.pushhamburger.com/natural_born.htm
~ ~ ~
NEW DISCOVERY (12/01/08) - Change we can count on?:
December 1, 2008
Robert Gates: Obama's Defense Secretary
Huffington Post
At a news conference today, Obama introduced his picks of retired Marine Gen. James Jones as White House national security adviser, former Justice Department official Eric Holder as attorney general, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano as secretary of homeland security, Susan Rice as UN Ambassador, Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State and Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense....
The New York Times reports that some Obama advisers are concerned by the decision to keep Gates at Defense:
Mr. Gates, who served as C.I.A. director under the first President Bush, would not have to be reconfirmed by the Senate. The prospect of retaining him generated praise from the military establishment and Capitol Hill, where he is viewed as a pragmatist who turned the Pentagon around after the tumultuous tenure of Donald H. Rumsfeld.
But it also stirred a debate inside Mr. Obama's circles, where some advisers worried that the decision to turn to a Republican appointee -- something President Bill Clinton did in naming William S. Cohen to the defense post in 1997 -- would reinforce the notion that Democrats could not manage the military. "It makes them look like they're too wimpy to be trusted to run the building," said one adviser who asked not to be named....
www.kycbs.net/Robert-Gates-Obama-HuffPost-11-19-8.mht
~ ~ ~
NEW DISCOVERY (11-22-08):
Obama moves quickly to fill Cabinet positions
By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer
November 22, 2008
WASHINGTON – President-elect Barack Obama has moved with unusual speed to select officials for his administration, and senior Democratic officials say he intends to name Timothy Geithner as his treasury secretary as soon as Monday.
It was not clear when Obama intended to formally unveil any of his other picks for the administration that takes office at the stroke of noon on Jan. 20. One Democrat said John Podesta, a leader of Obama's transition team, had told Senate aides on Friday that Obama hoped for speedy confirmation so the new administration could get to work quickly thereafter.
Word of Geithner's likely selection emerged as New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, in line to become secretary of state, said through a spokesman that discussions were on track for her appointment but no final arrangement had been made.
Obama's choice for attorney general, a third critical post as the president-elect rounds out his top Cabinet echelon, is Eric Holder. He held the No. 2 slot in the Justice Department.
~ ~ ~
March 18, 2009
Dodd: Administration sought
bonus limit revision
By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON – For a while, the disappearance of an executive bonus restriction from last month's economic stimulus looked like sleight of hand worthy of a Las Vegas stage. No one could explain how the provision faded into thin air. On Wednesday, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., acknowledged that his staff agreed to dilute the executive pay provision that would have applied retroactively to recipients of federal aid.
Dodd, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, told CNN that the request came from Obama administration officials whom he did not identify.
The provision was the subject of new attention this week because, had it survived, it would have prevented the American International Group Inc. from granting $165 million in bonuses to employees of its financial products division.
While the House and Senate reconciled their different stimulus bills last month, the Treasury Department expressed concern with a Senate restriction on bonuses, noting that if it applied to existing compensation contracts it could face a legal challenge.
"The alternative was losing, in my view, the entire section on executive excessive compensation," Dodd told CNN. "Given a choice, this is not an uncommon occurrence here, I agreed to a modification in the legislation, reluctantly."
An administration official said Treasury made Dodd's staff aware of the potential for litigation but did not demand that the provision be removed from the final bill. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the matter in public.
The legislation does include a provision that allows Treasury to examine past compensation payments to determine if they were "contrary to the public interest." Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Tuesday said he was using that provision to determine whether the government could somehow recoup the AIG bonuses.
Over the years, Dodd has been the top recipient of campaign contributions from AIG employees. During 2007-2008, when he ran for president, he received nearly $104,000 from AIG employees and their families, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that monitors money in politics.
In a statement, his office said Dodd only became aware of the AIG bonuses in the past few days. "To suggest that the bonuses affecting AIG had any effect on Sen. Dodd's action is categorically false," Dodd spokeswoman Kate Szostak said.
( http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090319/ap_on_go_co/aig_bonus_congress )
~ ~ ~
March 18, 2009
Dodd Under Fire For Legislation
Behind AIG Bonuses
By CHRISTOPHER KEATING | The Hartford Courant
A mini-firestorm exploded Wednesday over U.S. Sen. Christopher Dodd's role in legislation regarding the huge bonuses at AIG, the highly controversial insurance giant that is receiving about $170 billion in federal bailout money.
Republicans and others are charging that Dodd was the main person behind the legislation that allowed the bonuses for the AIG employees.
But Dodd says he was never a member of the conference committee that inserted the legislation into the final version of the bill.
The bonuses have become a flashpoint over public anger regarding federal bailouts in general and AIG in particular. Everyone from President Barack Obama to Republican state legislators in Connecticut is decrying the bonuses.
Dodd's spokeswoman, Kate Szostak, is saying that the accusation that Dodd included the exemption for the bonuses is false, despite reports on Fox News, the Drudge Report, and the Rush Limbaugh radio show.
"Senator Dodd's original executive compensation amendment adopted by the Senate did not include an exemption for existing contracts that provided for these types of bonuses,'' she said.
The exemption that allowed the bonuses was crafted behind closed doors in a conference committee with top negotiators, including some of the most powerful members of Congress -- but not Dodd.
During the conference period, Dodd pushed for language that would require the U.S. Treasury Department to analyze any previous bonuses, according to Szostak.
"At the same time, Senator Dodd supported legislation by Senator Wyden that would
tax the bonuses so that taxpayers could recoup some of this money,'' she said.
"Unfortunately, that provision was removed from the stimulus bill in conference."
"Senator Dodd was completely unaware of these AIG bonuses until he learned of them
in the past few days; to suggest that the bonuses affecting AIG had any effect on
Senator Dodd's action is categorically false," Szostak said.
But Brian Walsh, a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, had
a sharply different view of the issue Tuesday afternoon.
"It is very disingenuous of Senator Dodd to suggest that he is now leading the fight to protect taxpayer money from going towards AIG bonuses when it was his own amendment to the stimulus bill last month that allowed AIG executives to receive these bonuses in the first place,'' Walsh said.
"It's even more disingenuous when you consider that Senator Dodd has received more political contributions from AIG than any other member of Congress. His rhetoric this week, which is only coming in the wake of public outrage, is typical Washington doublespeak, and the citizens of Connecticut deserve better."
In Connecticut, Republican legislators are trying to change the state law that AIG is citing, saying that the company is legally bound to pay the bonuses. The Connecticut state law says that if a company withholds payments that are due to employees, then those employees can file a civil lawsuit and win twice as much money. As such, AIG says that it could be forced to pay $330 million in bonuses – double the original amount of $165 million.
See also:
http://www.voy.com/129276/1247.html
http://www.kycbs.net/Allied-World-Assurance.htm
http://www.kycbs.net/Apartheid-Hawaii.htm
http://www.kycbs.net/Bailing-Out-Wall-Street.htm
http://www.kycbs.net/Broken-Trust-Book.htm
http://www.kycbs.net/Catbird2.htm
http://www.kycbs.net/ChubbGroup.htm
http://www.kycbs.net/CITIGROUP.htm
http://www.kycbs.net/ConnecticutConnection.htm
http://www.kycbs.net/Freedom-To-Sing.htm
http://www.kycbs.net/GoldmanSachs.htm
http://www.kycbs.net/No-Bailout-for-Billionaires.htm
http://www.kycbs.net/WallStreet.htm
~ ~ ~
NEW DISCOVERY (03-14-09): More undisclosed conflicts of interest between Steven Guttman, Mary Lou Woo, David Farmer, Larry Johnson, Robert Kihune, Sandwich Isles Communications, Bank of Hawaii, Gilbert Tam, Barack Obama, Steve Case, AOL, Dan Case, Punahou School, Citigroup, Robert Rubin, Goldman Sachs, Kamehameha Schools, etc.
March 14, 2009
Ex-CEO of Bankoh considered
for Citigroup board
By David Segal, Honolulu Star-Bulletin
Former Bank of Hawaii Chief Executive Michael O'Neill reportedly is one of the candidates being considered for a position on the board of directors at financially troubled Citigroup Inc.
O'Neill, who turned around Bankoh's lagging fortunes in less than four years before retiring at age 57 in August 2004, was mentioned along with former U.S. Bancorp CEO Jerry Grundhofer and William S. Thompson, former co-chief of bond investment manager Pimco, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal.
The newspaper said Citigroup is expected to announce the board changes next week when it files its proxy statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Any nominees would have to be formally approved by the board and voted on by shareholders.
O'Neill took over then-called Pacific Century Financial Corp. from Larry Johnson on Nov. 3, 2000, and in less than four years transformed the bank into a more efficient operation, elevated earnings to record highs and increased shareholder value nearly fourfold.
He also became somewhat of a TV personality with the bank's "Tell Mike" campaign.
Richard Parsons, a one-time University of Hawaii student who took over as chairman last month, is one of the few Citigroup directors with experience in both banking and leading a large company.
~ ~ ~
New Discovery (03-06-09): Elizabeth Dole is a lobbyist for GlaxoSmithKline which has connections to Barack Obama, the University of Hawaii, Hawaii Biotech, The Global Fund, Dee Jay Mailer, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Mark McConaghy, etc.
March 6, 2009
Source: Obama to reverse
limits on stem cell work
By BEN FELLER and LAURAN NEERGAARD, Associated Press
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is expected to sign an executive order on Monday reversing restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. The long-expected move is likely to stir up not only the promise of scientific breakthrough but also the controversy over where government crosses a moral line.
Obama will hold an event at the White House to announce the move, a senior administration official said Friday. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the policy had not yet been publicly announced.
Under President George W. Bush, federal money for research on human embryonic stems cells was limited to those stem cell lines that were created before Aug. 9, 2001. No federal dollars could be used on research with cell lines from embryos destroyed from that point forward.
Obama's move is expected to lift that restriction. The official said the aim of the policy is restore "scientific integrity" to the process.
Embryonic stem cells are master cells that can morph into any cell of the body. Scientists hope to harness them so they can create replacement tissues to treat a variety of diseases — such as new insulin-producing cells for diabetics or new nerve connections to restore movement after spinal injury.
"I feel vindicated after eight years of struggle, and I know it's going to energize my research team," said Dr. George Daley of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute and Children's Hospital of Boston, a leading stem cell researcher.
Such research is controversial because embryos must be destroyed to obtain the cells; they typically are culled from fertility-clinic leftovers otherwise destined to be thrown away. Once a group of stem cells is culled, it can be kept alive and propagating in lab dishes for years.
There are different types of stem cells, and critics say the nation should pursue alternatives to embryonic ones such as adult stem cells, or those found floating in amniotic fluid or the placenta. But leading researchers consider embryonic stem cells the most flexible, and thus most promising, form — and say that science, not politics, should ultimately judge.
"Science works best and patients are served best by having all the tools at our disposal," Daley said.
Obama made it clear during the campaign he would overturn Bush's directive.
During the campaign, Obama said, "I strongly support expanding research on stem cells. I believe that the restrictions that President Bush has placed on funding of human embryonic stem cell research have handcuffed our scientists and hindered our ability to compete with other nations."
He said he would lift Bush's ban and "ensure that all research on stem cells is conducted ethically and with rigorous oversight."
"Patients and people who've been patient advocates are going to be really happy," said Amy Comstock Rick of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research.
The ruling will bring one immediate change: As of Monday, scientists who've had to meticulously keep separate their federally funded research and their privately funded stem cell work — from buying separate microscopes to even setting up labs in different buildings — won't have that expensive hurdle anymore.
Next, scientists can start applying for research grants from the National Institutes of Health. The NIH already has begun writing guidelines for what embryonic stem cell lines will qualify under Obama's ruling. Among other things, the guidelines are expected to demand that the cells were derived with proper informed consent from the woman or couple who donated the original embryo.
~ ~ ~
July 25, 2008
Harvard Stem Cell Institute Wins $25 Million Investment From GlaxoSmithKline
GlaxoSmithKline, the world’s second-biggest drugmaker, said it agreed to invest $25 million over five years in the Harvard Stem Cell Institute for a collaboration to develop new treatments.
London-based Glaxo (NYSE: GSK) said the collaboration will spur research at Harvard and at least four affiliated hospitals to study neuroscience, cancer, diabetes, obesity and musculoskeletal diseases. “We have carefully chosen the Boston biomedical community to collaborate with on this important venture. It has the highest concentration of leading stem cell scientists,” GSK’s head of drug discovery, Patrick Vallance, said in a statement.
Harvard Stem Cell Institute Wins $25 Million Investment From ...
~ ~ ~
"In every election, politicians come to your cities and your towns, and they tell you what you want to hear, and they make big promises, and they lay out all these plans and policies. But then they go back to Washington when the campaign's over. Lobbyists spend millions of dollars to get their way. The status quo sets in. And instead of fighting for health care or jobs, Washington ends up fighting over the latest distraction of the week. It happens year after year after year."
"We can be a party that says there's no problem with taking money from Washington lobbyists — from oil lobbyists and drug lobbyists and insurance lobbyists. We can pretend that they represent real Americans and look the other way when they use their money and influence to stop us from reforming health care or investing in renewable energy for yet another four years."
"Or this time, we can recognize that you can't be the champion of working Americans if you're funded by the lobbyists who drown out their voices. We can do what we've done in this campaign, and say that we won't take a dime of their money. We can do what I did in Illinois, and in Washington, and bring both parties together to rein in their power so we can take our government back. It's our choice."
— Barack Obama, Evansville, IN, on April 22, 2008 ~ ~ ~
December 31, 2008
GlaxoSmithKline spent nearly $2M lobbying in 3Q
WASHINGTON (AP) - British drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline PLC spent nearly $2 million lobbying the U.S. government on patent laws, drug prices and other issues in the third quarter, according to a recent disclosure for lobbyists.
Glaxo lobbied on the budgets for the departments of Labor, Education and Health and Human Services, as well as related agencies, and on bills funding the state Children's Health Insurance Programs. It lobbied on legislation related to drug safety, drugmaker payments to doctors, vaccine supply programs and the law covering industry whistleblowers.
The company is one of the few major makers of vaccines, with about two dozen on the market, including flu shots and several standard children's vaccines against diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus and rotavirus.
Glaxo lobbied against a bill aimed at updating the U.S. patent system. High-tech companies supported the bill that passed the House in 2007, saying it would cut down on frivolous patent-infringement lawsuits. But the pharmaceutical industry has argued it will weaken patent protections on drugs by reducing infringement penalties. The bill stalled in the Senate.
The company also lobbied on related patent protection provisions within free-trade agreements with Peru, Colombia, Panama and South Korea. Lawmakers approved the agreement with Peru late in 2007.
Glaxo and other biotech companies also lobbied on legislation to allow the Food and Drug Administration to approve generic copies of biotech drugs. Generic drug companies already market cheaper versions of regular, chemical drugs, but the FDA does not have the authority to approve copies of biotech drugs, which are more complicated. A handful of generic biotech drugs are now sold in Europe.
Biotech makers opposed a bill that would have made generic biotech medicines medically interchangeable with the originals. Glaxo and others argued generic biotechs should be classified as similar, but not interchangeable. The distinction could potentially save biotech drugmakers billions in lost sales. (...and cost consumers billions MORE in higher drug costs! - CB)
Glaxo lobbied Congress and the Department of Health and Human Services on a proposal that would have allowed the government to negotiate drug prices for seniors in Medicare. Currently, private health insurers negotiate those prices, but that could change under the new Obama administration.
Lobbyists for Glaxo also pushed for an extension of a tax credit designed to reward companies for investing in research and development.
Lobbyists for the company in the July-September period included Jeffrey Ringer, a former legislative aide for Rep. Mary Fallin, R-Okla., Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C., and former Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., according to a form filed Oct. 20 with the House clerk's office.
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20081231/glaxosmithkline-spent-nearly-2m-lobbying-in-3q.htm
~ ~ ~
NEW DISCOVERY (02-19-09): More undisclosed conflicts of interest between Barack Obama, John McCain, Henry Paulson, Goldman Sachs, UBS, Phil Gramm, Wendy Gramm, Punahou School, Dan Case, Steve Case, Kamehameha Schools, Nainoa Thompson, Myron Thompson, etc.:
UBS, Josh Marshall, John McCain and Barack Obama
This is the limit. The absolute limit.
Josh Marshall, in a recent post, castigates John McCain for taking economic advice on the sub-prime mortgage crisis from former senator Phil Gramm. Why? Because Gramm was a lobbyist for the Swiss bank UBS. (Gramm no longer lobbies, but continues to serve as a bank vice president.)
The UBS connection is of concern because that firm is a huge part of the sub-prime mortgage crisis:
Forbes says that UBS is among the banks worst hit by the global credit crisis, particularly in their direct exposure to the US subprime market. According to Forbes, UBS has some $37 billion in write-downs on assets tied to bad US mortgages. In other words, the bank's very life appears to be on the line in how the US government chooses to handle the matter.
Needless to say, I agree with Marshall -- up to this point. What I don't agree with is his hypocrisy, his special pleading on behalf of the Savior From Illinois.
I've used this quote before, but let's trot it out again, since it compresses a whole huge chunk of stinkiness into one small stink-ball:
Seven of the Obama campaign’s top 14 donors consisted of officers and employees of the same Wall Street firms charged time and again with looting the public and newly implicated in originating and/or bundling fraudulently made mortgages. These latest frauds have left thousands of children in some of our largest minority communities coming home from school to see eviction notices and foreclosure signs nailed to their front doors. Those scars will last a lifetime.
These seven Wall Street firms are (in order of money given): Goldman Sachs, UBS AG, Lehman Brothers, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse. There is also a large hedge fund, Citadel Investment Group, which is a major source of fee income to Wall Street.
UBS is or was Obi's second largest contributor, after Goldman Sachs. We must
quickly note that Hillary has also taken lots of money from Goldman Sachs, and
from others on this list -- though I've yet to see any evidence of a substantial
contribution to her from UBS, the company which (for good reason) has aroused
Marshall's particular ire.
Since strained rationalization is my favorite form of humor, I would love to see
Marshall defend Obama while attacking McCain on the UBS connection. Could
the former King of Bloggers possibly be more hypocritical?
By the way: As I've noted many times, Obama's chief economic adviser is a
Milton Friedmanite and free-trade fundamentalist named Austan Goolsbee. In
terms of basic economic weltanschauung, the difference between Gramm and
Goolsbee is...what, exactly?
~ ~ ~
NEW DISCOVERY (02-10-09): More arguments for First Amendment Rights violations by the U.S. Justice Department and Judge David Ezra:
February 11, 2009
Obama under fire for adopting
Bush's stance on 'state secrets'
By William Fisher, Inter Press Service
NEW YORK: President Barack Obama has cast doubt on his promise to put an end to secret government by allowing his Justice Department to follow a path frequently taken by his predecessor.
Before a federal appeals court in San Francisco Monday, lawyers from the Obama Department of Justice invoked the same "state secrets privilege" used by the administration of ex-President George W. Bush to argue that a lawsuit brought on behalf of Guantanamo Bay detainee Binyan Mohammad and four other alleged victims of the CIA's "extraordinary rendition" program should not go forward because revealing the evidence would harm national security.
If the appeals court agrees, it will mean that the alleged victims will not have their day in court. The court has not yet ruled on the case.
The defendant in the civil lawsuit is known as Jeppesen Dataplan, a subsidiary of aerospace giant Boeing, which is alleged to have knowingly provided the CIA with the chartered aircraft used to "render" terror suspects to countries where they were tortured.
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) attorney Ben Wizner, who argued Monday on behalf of Mohammad and the other appellants, told IPS: "To date, not a single alleged torture victim has had his day in court. In this case, most of the evidence is already public. There are no 'state secrets' here."
"And if there were, our federal courts are well prepared to handle this issue," he added.
"This is a betrayal of the rule of law," the attorney said. "It is not the standard we expected from the Obama administration."
The ACLU was encouraged to believe that the Obama Justice Department would break from the practices of the Bush administration. Eric Holder, recently confirmed as the new attorney general, said at his confirmation hearing: "I will review significant pending cases in which DOJ [Department of Justice] has invoked the state secrets privilege, and will work with leaders in other agencies and professionals at the Department of Justice to ensure that the United States invokes the state secrets privilege only in legally appropriate situations."
This appeared to be at odds with testimony by Obama's nominee for director of the Central Intelligence Agency, who told senators at his confirmation hearing that the practice of rendition would be continued, but that "extraordinary rendition" - sending terror suspects to countries where they are likely to be tortured - would end.
In a statement, Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director, said: "Eric Holder's Justice Department stood up in court today and said that it would continue the Bush policy of invoking state secrets to hide the reprehensible history of torture, rendition and the most grievous human rights violations committed by the American government. This is not change. This is definitely more of the same."
He added: "Candidate Obama ran on a platform that would reform the abuse of state secrets, but President Obama's Justice Department has disappointingly reneged on that important civil liberties issue. If this is a harbinger of things to come, it will be a long and arduous road to give us back an America we can be proud of again."
The Mohammad case stems from a federal lawsuit filed in 2007 by the ACLU against Jeppesen on behalf of five victims of the United States government's "extraordinary rendition" program.
The suit charged that Jeppesen knowingly participated by providing critical flight planning and logistical support services to aircraft and crews used by the CIA to forcibly "disappear" the five men to detention and interrogation.
According to the ACLU, shortly after the suit was filed, "The government intervened and inappropriately asserted the 'state secrets privilege,' claiming further litigation would undermine national security interests, even though much of the evidence needed to try the case was already available to the public."
The case was dismissed in February 2008, and the ACLU then appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the San Francisco Bay area.
According to published reports, Jeppesen had actual knowledge of the consequences of its activities. A former Jeppesen employee informed Jane Mayer of The New Yorker magazine that, at an internal corporate meeting, a senior Jeppesen official stated: "We do all of the extraordinary rendition flights - you know, the torture flights. Let's face it, some of these flights end up that way."
The case has also caused a furor in Britain and a problem for the US State Department.
In a separate case brought on behalf of Mohammad, who is a legal British resident, Britain's High Court refused to release seven paragraphs that the court had redacted in an earlier opinion. The High Court said that the redacted material lent credence to the torture allegations by Mohammad.
The court said that it reached its decision because of what it called a threat from the United States to reconsider sharing intelligence with the British.
But, in a highly unusual criticism, the High Court expressed dismay that a democracy "governed by the rule of law" would seek to suppress evidence "relevant to allegations of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, politically embarrassing though it might be."
The court said the Bush administration had made the threat in a letter to the Foreign Office last September. It called on the Obama administration to reverse that position.
The British foreign secretary, David Milliband, denied that there was any threat from the US. But, in a statement last week, the State Department said that the United States "thanks the UK government for its continued commitment to protect sensitive national security information" and that "the United States investigates allegations and claims of torture, and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment such as those raised by Binyam Mohammad."
After Mohammad was captured, then-US Attorney General John Ashcroft said that he had been complicit with Jose Padilla in a plan to detonate a "dirty bomb" in the United States. Padilla was never charged with this plot, but was convicted on other terrorism-related charges by a federal court in 2007. Last year, the Justice Department said it was dropping the dirty-bomb charges against Mohammad, and last October all charges against him were dropped.
The ACLU last week sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, urging her to clarify the Obama administration's position on the Mohammad case and to reject what it described as the Bush administration's policy of using false claims of national security to avoid judicial review of controversial programs.
The ACLU's Romero said: "The latest revelation is completely at odds with President Obama's executive orders that ban torture and end rendition, as well as his promise to restore the rule of law."
It has been 50 years since the United States Supreme Court last reviewed the use of the "state secrets" privilege. During the Bush administration, government lawyers invoked the "state secrets" privilege more often than any prior administration to stop cases from proceeding.
Among such cases was that of whistle-blower Sibel Edmonds, who was fired from her position as a language specialist at the FBI's Washington Field Office in March 2002, after she accused a colleague of covering up illicit activity involving foreign nationals, alleging serious acts of security breaches, cover-ups, and intentional blocking of intelligence which, she contended, presented a danger to US security.
Her case was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, which refused to hear it. And in 2007, the Supreme Court refused to review the "state secrets" privilege in a lawsuit brought by ACLU client Khaled al-Masri, an innocent German citizen who was kidnapped and rendered to detention, interrogation and torture in a CIA "black site" prison in Afghanistan.
See also: Uncle Sam’s Torture Chambers
~ ~ ~
Tell us the truth about
torture, Mr Miliband
Editorial
The Observer, Sunday 8 February 2009
After the 11 September terror attacks, US Vice President Dick Cheney said that the administration, in its response, was prepared to "work the dark side".
That, it turned out, meant abandoning the Geneva Conventions and engaging in extra-judicial killing, kidnap and torture. In pursuit of the "war on terror", the US debauched the principles it claimed to be defending, a course now repudiated by President Obama. "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals," he said in his inaugural address.
But is that view shared by the British government? In both policy and rhetoric on the "war on terror", Tony Blair faithfully shadowed George W Bush. So how far did Britain go over to "the dark side"?
Part of the answer may be contained in documents withheld from public view last week by the high court, at the request of the foreign secretary.
The documents relate to Binyam Mohamed, a former UK resident who was arrested in Pakistan in 2002 and transferred to prisons in Morocco and Afghanistan, before ending up at the US detention camp at Guantánamo Bay. He says he was tortured. Crucial paragraphs within the documents are thought to substantiate that claim and, it has been alleged, implicate British security services.
That suggestion demands a public response. The documents cannot be published, Mr Miliband told parliament, because they come from US intelligence sources. Britain was entrusted with them on the understanding that they remain confidential. That trust would be breached if a court released them. But fear of offending an ally, however close, is no grounds to suppress evidence of torture. So how damaging would disclosure be? And to whom?
While the US authorities did not "threaten to break off" intelligence sharing, Mr Miliband said, they did warn of "likely harm" to the relationship. But the high court, which heard arguments from Mr Miliband in private, appears to have understood that a more specific threat was made. Disclosure of the documents, it concluded, may result in "the loss of intelligence... vital to the safety of our day-to-day life". That threat, the court ruled, outweighed an otherwise pressing public interest case: that allegations of torture - and the implication that British officials might have been complicit - must be aired to uphold democracy and the rule of law.
The key paragraphs, the court decided, contain "no sensitive intelligence matters", while the call for pub
