Update from the Heartland
No.550
25.6.12 – 1.7.12
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
I am still working on Carter v. Canada
(Attorney General) [2012 BCSC 886] [548] – a measure of how long and
complex this death with dignity case is. It will be another week, at
least.
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a number of interesting and
significant decisions this week that adds more serious reading to my inbox
stack. I intend to review them
over the next few weeks.
-- Arizona v. United States [565 U.S.
___ (2012); no. 11–182] – the final appeal of the state’s SB1070 immigration
enforcement law [436], following:
» United
States v. Arizona [USDC AZ case 2:10-cv-01413-SRB (2010)] [450]
» United
States v. Arizona [9CCA no. 10-16645 (2011)] [487]
-- National Federation of Independent Business
v. Sebelius [566 U.S. ___ (2012); no. 11–393] – the collective appeal
regarding the Federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
(PPACA) [432]:
»
Florida
v. HHS [USDC FL ND(PD) case: 3:10-cv-91-RV/EMT (2011)] [477]
»
Florida v.
HHS [11CCA
nos. 11–11021, 11–11067 (2011)] [512]
-- American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock
[566 U.S. ___ (2012); no. 11–1179] – the Montana challenge of the Citizens United decision:
»
Citizens United v.
Federal Election Commission [558 U.S. ____ (2010)][424]
»
Western
Tradition v. Montana [MT SC 2012 MT 328] [526]
The Supremes summarily dismissed the state challenge with a
Per Curiam, simple statement, “Montana's arguments in support of the judgment
below either were already rejected in Citizens United, or fail to
meaningfully distinguish that case.”
Associate Justice Breyer wrote for the four-justice dissent, saying, “Given
the history and political landscape in Montana, that court concluded that the
State had a compelling interest in limiting independent expenditures by
corporations.” Once again, I
fundamentally agree with the dissent and disagree with the money-liberal
majority. Another opportunity
missed! This is also an implicit
signal the Supremes will not easily countenance challenges to their
controversial Citizens United ruling.
On Thursday, the House of Representatives made a historic
vote on H.Res.711 – Recommending that the House of Representatives find Eric H.
Holder, Jr., Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, in contempt of
Congress for refusal to comply with a subpoena duly issued by the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform [House: 255-67-1-109(3)], in the continuing
political confrontation over the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives (ATF), Operation FAST AND FURIOUS weapons trafficking program. Not surprisingly, the U.S. Attorney for
the District of Columbia did not waste time in announcing the government’s
decision NOT to prosecute their boss.
News from the economic front:
News from the economic front:
-- President Demetris Christofias of Cyprus bowed to
pressure from the eurozone and sought financial help from the European
Financial Stability Facility or its successor, the European Stability
Mechanism, just days before a deadline to recapitalize one of the country’s
largest banks. A government
announcement said, “The purpose of the required assistance is to contain the
risks to the Cypriot economy, notably those arising from the negative spillover
effects through its financial sector, due to its large exposure in the Greek
economy.” Cyprus became the fourth
euro-zone country to seek a financial bailout, citing its exposure to the Greek
economy. Fitch downgraded Cyprus's
sovereign-credit rating to junk territory.
-- Moody's Investors Service pointed to the debt-stress of
Spain and the potential for higher losses due to commercial real estate
exposure, as they lowered the long-term credit ratings on 28 Spanish banks by
one to four notches.
-- Barclays PLC agreed to pay £290M (US$454M) to settle a
long-running probe by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the UK
Financial Services Authority, regarding allegations that traders at the bank
manipulated interbank lending rates to enhance profits. The bank is the first major financial
institution to settle with regulators following the investigation that spanned
North America, Europe and Asia, and led to individuals being fired or suspended
by major banks and leading brokers.
None of the banks or individuals has been charged with wrongdoing. I suspect the various financial
institutions will buy there way out of criminal prosecution. Barclays announced a number of top executives,
including Chief Executive Bob Diamond, will forgo their annual bonuses for 2012
– oh my, how tragic.
Interestingly, Chancellor of the Exchequer George Gideon Oliver Osborne,
MP, ratcheted up the pressure on Barclays Group Chief Executive Robert Edward “Bob”
Diamond, Jr., as he indicated he has serious questions for the bank executives
after admitting to manipulating interbank interest rates. Hopefully, the British will do what the
American regulators / prosecutors appear unwilling to do – put criminals in
prison.
-- The Wall Street
Journal interviewed German Federal Minister of Finance Wolfgang Schäuble,
who indicated Germany may move toward acceptance of shared liability for
eurozone debt and would support short-term measures to deal with the acute
financing problems facing some of the region’s governments. Schäuble said, “We
have to be sure that a common fiscal policy would be irreversible and well
coordinated. There will be no
jointly guaranteed bonds without a common fiscal policy.” Germany wants the process of centralized
European controls over national fiscal policy to be irreversible before they
agree to “mutualization” of the EU’s debt.
L’Affaire Madoff [365]:
-- The former Chief Compliance Officer and Senior Managing
Director of Madoff Investment Securities LLC, Peter Madoff, the brother of
convicted Ponzi scheme operator Bernie Madoff, plead guilty to falsifying the
records of an investment adviser and conspiracy to commit securities fraud and
other crimes. As part of the plea
deal, he has agreed to a sentence of 10 years in prison – nowhere near enough
from my perspective.
Comments and contributions from Update no.549:
Comment to the Blog:
“I read that article on the US-Israeli cyber-attacks on
Iran. That particular story did not read as someone exposing something of which
they disapproved. It resembled a geopolitical planned leak much more closely.
Apparently, it presented two messages: (a) that the United States has so many
remaining cyber-weapons that it will not suffer from the non-revelations about
Stuxnet and Flame, and (b) that Israel is being publicly reprimanded for acting
on its own, thus leading (so the message goes) to the exposure of Flame.
Government agencies, especially intelligence agencies, often communicate
“unofficially,” in ways that cannot be litigated. That’s what occurred in this
article.
“On the financial front, the European Central Bank (ECB) has
moved to increase risk. Does anyone at the ECB remember that excess risk got us
all into this mess?
“Also, Moody’s Investors Service has downgraded 15 of the
biggest banks. That’s fascinating. Does Moody’s think governments will no
longer bail them out? I would like to know the rationale behind that.”
My response to the
Blog:
Re:
national security leaks. Smells
like a political leak; it does to me as well. However, the reason used by sources of such leaks is
irrelevant to me; the action is injurious and verging upon treasonous. The USG controls the information; they
have the authority to declassify anything they wish via a well-known,
established process. The use or
existence of such weapons is often a simple fact. The Islamic Republic of Iran has been quite accomplished at
carrying out violent acts via surrogates and other agents without claiming or
connecting those actions to their government. The Obama administration appears to be doing what the Bush
administration did in the Plame-Wilson case. They were both wrong!
Re:
ECB. I believe they understand the
risk, but they are caught between a rock and a hard spot. I just hope they are correct.
Re:
Moody’s ratings. I do not
know. I suspect they are
reflecting the reality that governments associated with those banks are far
less capable of intervention, thus their risk has gone up. These news items indicate the recovery
is likely to be long and slow.
. . . follow-up comments:
“Such behaviors as anonymous release of classified information
were not really news when the Bush Administration did them. The storm over
Bush’s use of that method was due to its personal nature, but that these things
occur surprises few in the intelligence community or among those of us who
study history. While these tactics are immoral and may well backfire, I can
imagine no way to stop them. I imagine the Obama Administration is simply
avoiding official attribution, which could cause retribution.
“I certainly hope the European Central Bank’s risk does not
come back to bite them. The planetary financial system is so interconnected
that no nation or group goes down alone; they take all of us along.
“The Moody ratings puzzle me. If, as you say, they believe
that the national governments hosting the big banks are no longer able to
rescue the banks that is a very unsettling sign. If, on the other hand, Moody's
believes that some or all of the governments have simply become less willing to
perform bailouts of the irresponsible, I would see that as a positive step.”
. . . my follow-up response:
Re:
leaks. The Valerie Plame Affair [147] got fairly high in the Bush
administration. I don’t care who
does these leaks, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the
law. Scooter Libby went to prison,
but he deserved more. The same is
true for the Obama leaks, and I hope they get these guys.
Re:
ECB. Agreed all the way
around. I hope they are successful
for all our sakes. As we aviators
say, better lucky than good.
Re:
financial ratings. I would like to
think your positive sign is correct, but I fear it is the negative one.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
Cap,
I agree with you in supporting the Supreme Court’s minority opinion on Montana’s appeal of the damn-fool Citizens United ruling.
I have come to understand that when a bank settles a court case, even for sums that seem astronomical to ordinary people, the bank wins that conflict because that money is barely a blip in their budget. The amounts of money involved in a Barclays organization (or Chase or the rest of them) boggle my mind. I also want to see criminal prosecution when criminal conduct occurs. That kind of conduct seems to be common at the bigger banking institutions.
Here in Ohio, I am one of the “relatively” blessed. My ex is really blessed; the only thing that went out where she lives was cable. My power was only down for about one day after the storm Friday. The power company (American Electric Power or AEP) is working very hard to restore power. This morning (Monday, 8 a.m. Eastern) only about 125,000 households here in Franklin County still lack power, compared to 300,000 Friday night. The “follow-up” storm last night took a few people back out. I have family in Amish country; I bet the Amish and other off-gridders are appreciating their choices about now. Just to make it more interesting, along with traffic lights being out we are having a transit strike (65,000 riders looking for an alternative) here in Columbus. I’m not working today, and I’m grateful for that.
Calvin
Calvin,
Re: banks settling out of court. Spot on! Fines mean little to massive banks; they simply pass long the “expense” to their customers as a cost of doing business. They only thing that has any meaning to these crooks is prison time and expulsion from the brotherhood.
Re: storms. Sorry y’all got hit so hard by the storms last weekend. Hopefully you will recover quickly.
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment