About the Greek Financial Crisis & the Greedy Banksters -- Margolis Makes the Murky W

Written by Paul Fromm

Tuesday, 12 July 2011 18:19

* About the Greek Financial Crisis & the Greedy Banksters -- Margolis Makes the Murky Waters Clear * ** *Banking Has Become Our State Religion *by Eric Margolis Paris -- July 9, 2011 In 1922 Greek armies trying to conquer western Anatolia were routed by Turkey’s military leader, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. Hundreds of thousands of ethnic Greeks were uprooted from Ionian coastal areas. After this debacle, Greek officers took three former prime ministers, a general and two other politicians who had led the Turkish-Greek War and shot them. Greeks cheered. Many Greeks today must be wishing to see similar punishment inflicted on their politicians who were responsible for the nation’s bankruptcy and staggering $500 billion debt. For decades, Greece’s conservatives and Socialist parties alike bought votes by dishing out the very cushy, do-nothing government jobs, high pensions, and benefits that brought Greece to its knees. Call it state sponsored laziness. In 2010, the second shoe of the 2008 US financial crisis hit Europe. Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain came under financial attack, showing the alarming degree to which uncontrolled, run amok banks and money men had poisoned Europe's economic waters by speculation and outright gambling. After intense debate, Greece's EU partners and the International Monetary Fund just staved off Greece's impending default on its maturing debt by a $165 billion loan. But Athens must soon make more huge payments. The EU aid package piles more debt onto Greece's already mountainous debt -- just as President Barack Obama is doing in the US. The Papandreou government is praying the EU will come up with another $150 billion euros to keep Greece going for two more years. Germany and the EU’s wealthy northern members are furious at Greece and reluctant to pay for its profligacy. But there is no way Greece can generate enough money by cost-cutting and asset sales to pay off its debts. Some form of default seems inevitable, as this column has been saying for over a year. The recent EU rescue package merely postpones default-day. Calls for Greece to ditch the EU, restore the old drachma, then devalue it are mistaken. Greece manufacturers and exports little of high value. Feta, olives and tour packages won’t pay off Greece’s debts. Leaving the EU would collapse Greece’s banks and end mammoth EU agricultural aid. Greece is using the same scare-tactics that the supposedly too-big-to-fail insolvent US banks employed in 2008: “If I go down, I’ll take everyone with me.” In this case, it’s Europe’s big banks. Three big French banks, BNP, CréditAgricole, SociétéGénéral, hold large chunks of Greece’s debt. If Greece defaults, goes the hue and cry, French, German, Swiss, and Belgian banks may crash. Here we go again. Politicians have allowed the banking industry not only to grow larger than manufacturing, notably in the United States where the top five banks control 40% of all deposits, but to become so over-extended and risky they are a danger to itself and the public. Bankers who invested in Greek debt or US subprime mortgages were greedy fools and should be fired, not rescued. We hear them cry: “Lehman Brothers II!” And “we don’t know what murky financial deals link banks.” Greece’s only viable solution is to renege on its debts, go bankrupt like Argentina did, and start afresh. Europe’s banks will no doubt be shaken, but they will survive the jolt, just as the US banking system survived 2008. Time for Europe’s banks to get these bad debts off their balance sheets. Rescue funds should be focused on Spain and Italy, if necessary. It’s time for the bankers to pay for the mess their greed and recklessness created. Just this week we learned that the US government loaned $15 billion to Goldman Sachs during the 2008 crisis. Goldman should have been allowed to fail. The world would have better off without it. No wonder Greeks are so angry. They must pay for the sins of their politicians and the bankers, whose bonus payments have reached an all-time high. The current EU rescue package for Greece is really about rescuing the banks, not Greek citizens -- just as the US government rescue saved and enriched Wall Street while punishing Main Street. Finance is our new state religion. The power of the banks must be curbed and brought under control. How many more crises do we need before this lesson sinks in? copyright Eric S. Margolis 2011 Source: http://www.ericmargolis.com/political_commentaries/banking-has-become-our-state-religion.aspx

 

Oh, The Joys of Diversity: Lawyer Rips Off Indian Residential School Claimants & Head

Written by Paul Fromm

Tuesday, 12 July 2011 09:12

*Oh, The Joys of Diversity: Lawyer Rips Off Indian Residential School Claimants & Heads to Israel* The headline says it all: "A Winnipeg lawyer in trouble with the law society for overbilling residential school clients hundreds of thousands of dollars has lost his right to practise. ... And the compensation tab for his professional misconduct is going to be borne by the legal community who are now paying his debts and representing his clients after the Law Society of Manitoba moved against him to protect 26 survivors of residential schools he had represented. They were owed compensation for years of physical and sexual abuse. The Winnipeg lawyer overbilled them by nearly $400,000. ... The lawyer owed a total of $388,477.50. *The lawyer's name is protected by law so he can't be identified*. A call to his home Monday was answered by a woman who said he's not available. The lawyer is in Israel on vacation, she said. ... He has substantial assets in Israel which, at least in part, he acknowledges were purchased with fees generated from his residential school clients,' the judgment reads." (Winnipeg Free Press June 28, 2011 The most galling this about this sordid story of the shyster lawyer, now lounging in Israel while his colleagus make good his shortfall and his hapless clients are stiffed, is that we are not permitted to know his name. Disgusting. The "privacy" laws of Canada shelter the guilty from the public who have a right to know. *Lawyer loses right to practise for overbilling residential school clients *By Alexandra Paul*, Winnipeg Free Press* June 28, 2011 WINNIPEG — A Winnipeg lawyer in trouble with the law society for overbilling residential school clients hundreds of thousands of dollars has lost his right to practise. And the compensation tab for his professional misconduct is going to be borne by the legal community who are now paying his debts and representing his clients after the Law Society of Manitoba moved against him to protect 26 survivors of residential schools he had represented. They were owed compensation for years of physical and sexual abuse. The Winnipeg lawyer overbilled them by nearly $400,000. "He didn't make all the payments he was supposed to so he is not able to practise law. We obtained a court order taking over his practice and we have appointed a lawyer to make sure the clients all get new lawyers," Allan Fineblit, the society's chief executive officer, said Monday. Some clients had hearings on compensation claims heard with new lawyers a week ago. A spokesman for a national lobby group that represents residential school clients said he's relieved the law society stepped in. "It really hurts me when I hear things like this about people who come to take what they can get," said Ray Mason, head of Spirit Wind Manitoba. Meanwhile, Manitoba's lawyers are on the hook to clear the lawyer's debts, under a reimbursement fund all lawyers pay into that's run by the society. "Now that he is not practising and his clients are protected, we are focusing on recovering what we can from him and proceeding with the disciplinary hearing. We do not yet have a date for it," Fineblit said. The lawyer's legal counsel did not respond to a call Monday but earlier this spring, David Hill said his client had raised $255,000 but was short the other $163,000. The lawyer owed a total of $388,477.50. The lawyer's name is protected by law so he can't be identified. A call to his home Monday was answered by a woman who said he's not available. The lawyer is in Israel on vacation, she said. The trouble started early this winter when a national residential school settlement agency took their concerns about lawyer's billing practices to the Law Society of Manitoba. The law society, which grants lawyers licences to practise, ordered the lawyer to pay back the money and they moved to launch misconduct proceedings against him. Before the legal wheels could start turning, however, the lawyer took the law society to court, in a dispute over the timing of the repayments. He asked for several months. The law society wanted the debt cleared within weeks. The issue spilled out publicly in a written ruling from the Court of Queen's Bench to pay the money back by April 9. The law society extended the deadline to May 30, with the condition that if the lawyer failed to meet it, he'd be suspended from practising law. Under the Queen's Bench ruling, details that make this case contentious were disclosed publicly. Some of the money the lawyer received from survivors went to buy land and apartments in Israel, but the lawyer holds few investments in Manitoba, raising suspicions clients would have difficulty getting their money back. "(The lawyer) professed to be able to net $200,000 in fees over a four-month period. However, he has negligible assets in Manitoba. He has substantial assets in Israel which, at least in part, he acknowledges were purchased with fees generated from his residential school clients," the judgment reads. "Should (the lawyer) choose to leave the jurisdiction, or dissipate his assets . . . Those clients would be left without any recourse," the ruling warned

 

CHRC says: No Section 13 (Internet censorship) Complaints in 2010!

Written by Paul Fromm

Monday, 11 July 2011 05:53

CHRC says: No Section 13 (Internet censorship) Complaints in 2010! … so what do we need this law for? http://blog.freedomsite.org/2011/07/chrc-no-section-13-complaints-in-2010.html On July 5, 2011, David Gollob the Director of Communications for the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission wrote a letter to the editor of the Langley Advance. In the letter, Mr. Gollob states that “The Commission did not accept any complaints under section 13 in 2010.” Mr. Gollobs can be read in its entirety online at: http://www.langleyadvance.com/Rights+Commission+aims+equal+opportunities/5052683/story.html Section 13 is the controversial censorship provision of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which allows fanatical rights enforcers the ability to gag so-called “thought criminals” for life. Along with lifetime gag orders, Kangaroo courts which hear the complaints can also issue heavy fines up to $30,000 in total. So far over 37 Canadians suffer under a permanent lifetime speech ban, which if violated can result in up to five years in jail for contempt of court. Now that yet another year has passed without a single Section 13 complaint being filed to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, why on earth do we need this censorship law on our books? In all of 2010, not a single complaint was accepted by the Canadian Human Rights Commission … and amazingly the sky did not fall. Jews are not being beaten up on the streets, Nazis have not taken over Parliament, and homosexuals are not being rounded up into camps. Life went on without the iron fist of the state looking over our shoulders and telling us what we can and can not say. Of course if you listen to the human rights maniacs, the physical and psychological security of the Jewish community would be in peril if Section 13 was struck down. After looking at cases such as the Mark Steyn/Macleans Magazine debacle, it is clear that Section 13 has a chilling effect on freedom of expression in Canada. How many other Canadians would want to be ground through the CHRC’s process – which is clearly meant as a punishment itself? In the case of Macleans Magazine, it cost them around $1,000,000 to defend the case, and at the end of it all, Kenneth Whyte, Editor in Chief of Macleans Magazine said that “There will absolutely be self-censoring, and it will be harder going forward to have clear and full debates on a lot of important issues like race or religion or public policy because of this.” [Daily Gleaner, Print media will stay relevant because it must: Whyte, January 31, 2009] How many editors and newspapers will allow commentary on controversial issues if they are going to face being labeled as racist or Islamophobes, in conjunction with years of costly litigation, where the tribunal boasts a 98% conviction rate? Mr. Gollob from the CHRC also states in the letter to the editor that “However, one such complaint, involving Maclean’s magazine, did receive media attention four years ago. That complaint was dismissed by the Commission, as it was found to have no merit. As that case illustrates, the Commission works to ensure that only complaints of real and actual discrimination under the Act are accepted.” The decision by the Canadian Human Rights Commission to drop the complaint against Macleans Magazine was done to stop the onslaught of negative media the CHRC was receiving. During the time the CHRC was investigating Macleans, hundreds of articles and editorials appeared in the media from coast to coast. The CHRC wanted the daily negative media publicity to stop, so they suddenly found freedom of speech and dismissed the complaint. The truth behind the dismissal of the Macleans complaint is that the Investigator of the case wasn’t so sure it should just be dismissed. The Investigator highlighted that what Mark Steyn wrote could expose Muslims to hatred and contempt. In the March 25 2008 CHRC Investigators report on the Macleans complaint, the Investigator wrote in paragraph 49: “It is recommended, pursuant to paragraph 44(3)(a) of the Canadian Human Rights Act to request that the Chairperson of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal institute an inquiry into the complaint if the Commission is of the view that: • the material does appear to meet some of the hallmarks of hate and is of such a nature that it may likely expose persons of the Muslim faith to hatred and contempt; • a decision by the Tribunal addressing the fact situation in this case may be in the public interest as it raises new considerations regarding the relationship between section 13 and the right of freedom of the press, as aspect of the Charter guarantee of freedom of expression.” The complaint against Macleans Magazine was dropped when it reached the “political level” at the CHRC, but it was obvious that the investigator in the case recommended “in the alternative” that the case go to a tribunal. The CHRC’s “political level” is staffed by political appointees like the Jet-setting world traveler - Chief Commissioner Jennifer Lynch and Deputy Chief Commissioner David Langtry. They have the role of reviewing the complaint and approving it to be sent onto a hearing before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. Unlike the investigator in the Macleans case, the political Kangaroos smelled the political wind, and threw out the case like a hot potato. How many editors and newspapers will allow commentary on controversial issues if they are going to face being labeled as racist or Islamophobes, in conjunction with years of costly litigation, where the tribunal boasts a 100% conviction rate? As Macleans Magazine reports: "Cases like these foster an atmosphere in which sensible people who know they can't summon the resources to defend themselves will censor themselves. It creates an ever-growing body of very regressive law when it comes to the integrity and freedom of a democratic forum." (John Dixon, a two-term former president of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association) Self-censorship has always been a goal of the CHRC, which is why they have undertaken costly impact prosecutions on the few that resisted. Making examples of what will happen to those that dare to stand up to the CHRC ensures that few will ever stand up in the future. The complaint against Macleans Magazine was laid by a Muslim group named the Canadian Islamic Congress. The Muslim complaint comes on the heels of CHRC staff drumming up business. On June 29th, 2006, Harvey Goldberg, the senior policy advisor for Section 13 with the CHRC traveled to Toronto to meet with a delegation of Muslims from the Canadian Arab Foundation. As a result of that meeting, Mr. Goldberg wrote to Ian Fine, the Director of the CHRC’s oddly named “Knowledge Centre.” In Goldberg’s July 5th, 2006 memo, he states: A couple representatives of the Muslim community expressed concern that the threshold for hate was too high and that much of what they perceived as anti-Islamic comments in the media and elsewhere would not be included in the current definition of hate. I referred them to the [Name redacted by CHRC] article in the Hate on the Internet magazine, copies of which I had distributed. They also questioned whether the Commission would accept complaints dealing with anti-Muslim sentiments. I assured them that the Commission was fully committed to fulfilling its mandate under section 13. … Overall I think this round of meetings was successful in the continuing process of networking with key stakeholders and of furthering the Commission initiatives in the areas of disability and hate on the Internet.” It looks like the representatives of the Muslim community were 100% correct with their skepticism of the CHRC. On June 25th 2008, in a highly political decision, the Canadian Human Rights Commission refused to accept the complaint filed by Canadian Islamic Congress against Rogers Media Inc. (Macleans Magazine). The decision by the CHRC stated that: “Overall, however, the views expressed in the Steyn article, when considered as a whole and in context, are not of an extreme nature as defined by the Supreme Court in the Taylor decision. Considering the purpose and scope of section 13 (1), and taking into account that an interpretation of s. 13(1) must be consistent with the minimal impairment of free speech, there is no reasonable basis in the evidence to warrant the appointment of a Tribunal. For these reasons, this complaint is dismissed.” It appears that after some 250 articles in the mainstream press highly critical of the CHRC, the Commission suddenly found freedom of speech. It’s time to scrap Section 13 and get the government out of the thought control and censorship business. _____________________________ Unsubscribe / Change Profile: http://ymlp138.net/u.php?id=gmjhqsqgsgbbqghs Powered by YourMailingListProvider