Rule of Men....Again (Rather than Rule of Law).
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Rule of Men....Again (Rather than Rule of Law).

  1. #1
    XCR Guru Sean K.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    21,481

    Rule of Men....Again (Rather than Rule of Law).

    http://www.examiner.com/article/phil...alerts_article

    Despite a city administration decrying Pennsylvania’s state preemption on gun laws in its demand for new edicts, a response by the Philadelphia District Attorney’s office to a documented complaint about violations of existing firearms statutes by the city's top cop is being met with deliberate indifference, a letter received yesterday by attorney Joshua Prince confirms.

    “In Philadelphia, if you wish to file a Private Criminal Complaint…you must appear in person at the District Attorney’s Private Criminal Complaint Unit,” Matthew Perks, Assistant District Attorney, Chief, Private Criminal Complaint Unit, told Prince in an August 8 letter responding to multiple requests that authorities investigate Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey for violations of Pennsylvania's Uniform Firearms Act. Since the initial request for investigation in April, these have been shunted Pilate and Herod-like between Attorney General Linda L. Kelly and District Attorney Seth Williams, neither of whom appear inclined to uphold the law against one of their own.

    “[Ramsey] has openly carried a firearm in the city of Philadelphia but is neither a certified police officer, nor does he have a license to carry firearms,” Prince had informed state and city legal officers, providing citations to relevant Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes sections. “Furthermore, he wears a uniform and displays a badge, but is not a certified police officer, in violation of Municipal Police Officers' Education and Training Program… Accordingly, he is also not entitled to compensation.”

    At the time the process was started, Philly.com reported Ramsey had still not completed the required firearms course and received his certification. If he has since done so, it still does not cover the period prior to that when he was in evident violation of the law.

    “We will only be able to proceed if the case involves misdemeanor crimes committed in Philadelphia, you are the victim and no further investigation is required,” Perks continued in an in-your-face kiss-off of Prince’s complaint. “From the letter you submitted, it does not appear that your allegations meet all of these criteria.”

    If Perks' unbelievable statement is taken at face value, it means no one but the victim of a misdemeanor can report a crime to the District Attorney's office, and they must do so in person. That is patently ridiculous and untrue, and the attempt to reject responsive action because he wishes to dismiss a public concern as a "private complaint" is shameful, yet certainly revealing of character. In a city that is strident in its demands for more gun laws, a city where gun owners exercising their rights are harassed under color of authority, it’s evident that whether or not an actual violation of the law will even be investigated, let alone prosecuted, depends on who you are and what your political connections are.

    Meanwhile, Commissioner (and apparent “gun criminal”) Ramsey, vocal in his endorsement for disarming those without such connections, continues to enjoy privileges and immunities reserved for a nobility specifically prohibited in the document he publicly reminds others of their oath to uphold.
    "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human liberty. It is the argument of tyrants; the creed of slaves."-William Pitt the Younger

  2. #2
    XCR Guru Sean K.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    21,481

    Re: Rule of Men....Again (Rather than Rule of Law).

    http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=210250

    Is That A Sentinel -- Or A Siren?


    I've been studying the Sentinal Decision for about a week now, trying to find an analytical corner that wasn't immediately pounced on by the mainstream media and various bloggers. In short this held:

    A federal appeals court on Thursday upheld a ruling that puts Bank of New York Mellon ahead of former customers of Sentinel in the line of those seeking the return of money lost in the 2007 failure of the suburban Chicago-based futures broker.

    The appeals court affirmed an earlier district court ruling that the bank had a "secured position" on a $312 million loan it gave to Sentinel, which turned out to have been secured by customer money.

    The problem with this decision is rather simple -- it eviscerates the general principle in the law that one cannot grant a thing one does not have.

    This is why, if you buy a stolen car, you don't get to keep it when the theft is discovered. You can't be prosecuted for unwittingly buying the car, but the seller has no title to the vehicle to convey, and therefore he conveyed nothing. You thus have no claim to the property.

    Back in 2009 you all sat for this very same sort of violation, because it didn't risk being your money. I'm speaking of the GM and Chrysler bailouts in which senior bondholders, who had a contractual claim on the assets of the company and thus literally owned the property (as a secured interest) were boned for the benefit of the UAW -- that is, their property was stolen.

    The courts allowed it.

    Now it has happened here with Sentinel, but this is not news; it is merely continuation of what began, and what you, the people, allowed to occur without retribution or recompense.

    This morning we find that it's likely that those who were involved in the theft of customer funds at MF Global, including Corzine himself, are likely to not face criminal charges. And why not? That's just an extension of the Sentinel decision.

    The problem, of course, is that once you ignore property rights then you've ignored them. It's the principle of the thing more than the details; whether you get personally boned with "this" particular violation isn't the question. Rather, the question is this, for each and every one of you:

    "What assurance do you have that any property of yours that is not in your personal, immediate and physical possession, is actually protected by the rule of law if someone attempts to steal it?"

    The answer? You have none.

    Let that sink in folks, because it does not just apply to futures traders, to people daytrading stocks, or even to people with 401ks and IRAs. It applies to each and every one of us with a bank account.

    That's right folks -- it applies to anyone with any property held by any person other than you, in your personal control within reach of your fingers. If it is stolen by a wealthy and powerful person they will be found to have conveyed it "within the law" and you will not get your property back.

    The customers of MF Global keep being told this lie:

    After 10 months of stitching together evidence on the firm’s demise, criminal investigators are concluding that chaos and porous risk controls at the firm, rather than fraud, allowed the money to disappear, according to people involved in the case.

    Money doesn't disappear. The investigators know where every single penny went. They know precisely who has it. And under long-standing and essentially inviolate legal principle, they also know damn well that whoever has it does not have title to it and cannot acquire title as the entity who granted possession (MF Global) didn't have title to those funds and thus could not convey what it did not have.

    No matter; your money is gone.

    Your money in any brokerage account can be just as easily gone.

    Your money in a bank or credit union can be just as easily gone. The FDIC, incidentally, has a tiny fraction of the total deposit base available; it cannot cover your deposits in any real failure of the system, as it doesn't have it (and neither does Treasury.)

    Any property, in short, that you do not personally possess within reach of your fingers..... can be and will be, if a rich and politically powerful person steals it, gone.
    "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human liberty. It is the argument of tyrants; the creed of slaves."-William Pitt the Younger

  3. #3
    XCR Guru Sean K.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    21,481

    Re: Rule of Men....Again (Rather than Rule of Law).

    And....more of the same. Anyone else seeing a pattern here?

    http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=210611

    Are There ANY Honest Large Banks?


    One has to wonder...

    HSBC Holdings Plc (HSBA), which is under investigation by U.S. regulators for laundering funds of sanctioned nations including Iran and Sudan, is in talks to settle the matter, two people with knowledge of the case said.

    The bank, Europe’s largest by market value, made a $700 million provision in July for any U.S. fines after a Senate Committee found it had given terrorists and drug cartels access to the U.S. financial system. That sum might increase, Chief Executive Officer Stuart Gulliver has said.

    Again, the issue is not whether some "bad transactions" happened. It is the allegation, which apparnetly has good foundation, that HSBC intentionally altered the data associated with the transactions in a bid to prevent detection.

    “It’s time to reexamine the audit function of federal regulators,” said Gurule of U.S. regulations meant to enforce sanctions. “It’s bad and the system is not working.”

    There is no debate to be had here. These are acts that were any ordinary person to undertake them would land the perpetrator in prison. The fact of the matter is that until we see some actual jail sentences and/or charter revocations there will be no change in this behavior, because it is incredibly profitable and if the only price is to pay a fine that is simply factored into the cost of the service.
    "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human liberty. It is the argument of tyrants; the creed of slaves."-William Pitt the Younger

  4. Remove Advertisements
    XCRForum.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    XCR Guru Difranco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Republic of Cascadia
    Posts
    2,403

    Re: Rule of Men....Again (Rather than Rule of Law).

    Sean you act as if anyone cares. I tell people about these crimes, send them links and I just get puzzled looks.... like why do you care? When's the next football game?
    Visit Minute of Angle Forums
    A truth’s initial commotion is directly proportional to how deeply the lie was believed. When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.

  6. #5
    XCR Guru Sean K.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    21,481

    Re: Rule of Men....Again (Rather than Rule of Law).

    Quote Originally Posted by Difranco View Post
    Sean you act as if anyone cares. I tell people about these crimes, send them links and I just get puzzled looks.... like why do you care? When's the next football game?
    Yuuup....

    "If it ain't happenin' to me, it ain't happenin' ".

    What these dumb shits don't realize: It IS happening to you.
    "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human liberty. It is the argument of tyrants; the creed of slaves."-William Pitt the Younger

  7. #6
    XCR Guru Bravo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    4,533

    Re: Rule of Men....Again (Rather than Rule of Law).

    Bingo.
    But in reality, I think we're expecting too much from our fellow residents.
    After all, in the Revolutionary War, roughly 1/3 fought for the king (they were probably on welfare too).
    1/3 said "we're happy either way" - I wonder if 'friends' was on TV in 1776?
    Out of the last third, only a small percentage actually had the intestinal fortitude to pick up a rifle and DO something.

    That small percentage STILL looks at these things with outrage.
    It's just the other 93% that make it look like nobody cares.
    Do you really think we want laws to be observed? We want them broken. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be crimes that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants law-abiding citizens? Pass the kind of laws that can’t be observed, enforced, or objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers.

  8. #7
    XCR Guru Sean K.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    21,481

    Re: Rule of Men....Again (Rather than Rule of Law).

    Quote Originally Posted by Bravo View Post
    Bingo.
    But in reality, I think we're expecting too much from our fellow residents.
    After all, in the Revolutionary War, roughly 1/3 fought for the king (they were probably on welfare too).
    1/3 said "we're happy either way" - I wonder if 'friends' was on TV in 1776?
    Out of the last third, only a small percentage actually had the intestinal fortitude to pick up a rifle and DO something.

    That small percentage STILL looks at these things with outrage.
    It's just the other 93% that make it look like nobody cares.
    Good point.
    "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human liberty. It is the argument of tyrants; the creed of slaves."-William Pitt the Younger

  9. #8
    Super Moderator Underground's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Murfreesboro, TN
    Posts
    6,142

    Re: Rule of Men....Again (Rather than Rule of Law).

    Quote Originally Posted by Bravo View Post
    Bingo.
    But in reality, I think we're expecting too much from our fellow residents.
    After all, in the Revolutionary War, roughly 1/3 fought for the king (they were probably on welfare too).
    1/3 said "we're happy either way" - I wonder if 'friends' was on TV in 1776?
    Out of the last third, only a small percentage actually had the intestinal fortitude to pick up a rifle and DO something.

    That small percentage STILL looks at these things with outrage.
    It's just the other 93% that make it look like nobody cares.
    That's probably not a great comparison, there were many here then who fully considered themselves British. From their viewpoint to fight against the insurrection was entirely the right decision. There was not the national identity that there is now, it was still a very tenuous thing.

    And I think your 1/3 for the british is a bit high, it's likely more around 1/5. And not all of those actually fought.

    But in the present day, we're also talking about the people that can't be bothered to get out of their car to purchase food, or even leave the house. It's far easier to bury your head in the sand.

    Perhaps they just need to take Cartmann's tactical gardening and attitude adjustment seminar to get them on the right track.



    That guy, he said I should be oblong and have my knees removed. But I don't trust him, he plays the banjo.

  10. #9
    XCR Guru Sean K.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    21,481

    Re: Rule of Men....Again (Rather than Rule of Law).

    Quote Originally Posted by Underground View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bravo View Post
    Bingo.
    But in reality, I think we're expecting too much from our fellow residents.
    After all, in the Revolutionary War, roughly 1/3 fought for the king (they were probably on welfare too).
    1/3 said "we're happy either way" - I wonder if 'friends' was on TV in 1776?
    Out of the last third, only a small percentage actually had the intestinal fortitude to pick up a rifle and DO something.

    That small percentage STILL looks at these things with outrage.
    It's just the other 93% that make it look like nobody cares.
    That's probably not a great comparison, there were many here then who fully considered themselves British. From their viewpoint to fight against the insurrection was entirely the right decision. There was not the national identity that there is now, it was still a very tenuous thing.

    And I think your 1/3 for the british is a bit high, it's likely more around 1/5. And not all of those actually fought.

    But in the present day, we're also talking about the people that can't be bothered to get out of their car to purchase food, or even leave the house. It's far easier to bury your head in the sand.

    Perhaps they just need to take Cartmann's tactical gardening and attitude adjustment seminar to get them on the right track.
    Ya, "fought" is a poor choice of word....."supported the ideology of" is probably better. Fewer than 30% of people monetarily or anything more than ideologically supported either side.....and even fewer still (something like 3%) actually fought. But now, we're just picking nits.

    "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human liberty. It is the argument of tyrants; the creed of slaves."-William Pitt the Younger

Sponsors

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-10-2011, 01:59 PM
  2. Rule of Law? Hardly.
    By Sean K. in forum Politicking
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-04-2011, 02:30 PM
  3. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-27-2008, 10:04 AM
  4. #1 Gun Rule from Gunner!
    By Aussie Arms in forum Socializing
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-22-2008, 02:34 AM