Cashing In On the BP Disaster: And This Is Due Process?

There appeared an article today printed by the AP regarding the political games that are now being played with respect to the civil lawsuits which have been filed over the Deepwater Horizon disaster in Louisiana, so far over 150 cases.

There is even a move being made to "consolidate" the cases under one U.S. District Court judge, thus removing and reassigning Constitutional jurisdiction over these cases outside Constitutional authority by the panels and individuals who are now "regulating" just how these cases are going to be handled - and where.

So far due to personal investments, there is also a problem that more than half the U.S. District Court judges having jurisdiction depending on the specifics of the case involved, although most of them so far involve Louisianna plaintiffs, are shareholders of BP, Halliburton or Transocean.

Or else are invested in the oil and gas industries in other unrelated companies - although other than direct investments in those three companies, any other financial interests do not automatically preclude them, under U.S. District Court Rules it appears, from recusing themselves or removing themselves from the judicial pool.

What is even more interesting has also been left unsaid, and just goes to show what this country in the future very clearly may be facing.

Over half of the U.S. District Court judges have been deemed ineligible at this point.

Just think.

I won't go into just how totally strange it is that these "public servants" have enough discretionary income to be able to afford to invest in oil and gas stocks in any measurable way.

But with that new bogus Supreme Court ruling affording unlimited campaign contributions from corporate entities (since the Supreme's failed to limit in their published opinion or even restrict their holding to citizen, and not commerical organizations although corporations, even those for-profit non-profit nominally grass roots organizations, are not people at all, but property), just how long before there are absolutely no federal or state judges who will be able to hear cases involving major global or regional industries?

Especially as those salaries and perks continue to escalate.

Our campaign finance laws are already diametrically opposed to those that the founders envisioned.

I mean, how can you have a representative government when those "misrepresentatives" are gaining their offices through major donations from big business and global industries that are not even domiciled in their home districts?

To this writer, this is the reason this country is fundamentally where it is, in addition to the 1913 treason that went on under Wilson.

And why in this article would there be a move to consolidate most of these cases under a Texas judge, if not to give a privilege and immunity to BP, Halliburton and Transocean that even U.S. citizens are not entitled to for any "capital" or civil offense without proving that any jury pool in a jurisdiction would be tainted - and these defendants are commercial entities, not even U.S. citizens, one of which clearly a British foreign domiciled corporation.

Oh, the webs we weave...and weave...and weave.

Special interest groups also are now attempting to get into the act influencing these "panels" as to the jurisdictional issues involved and number of cases.

This foreign, globally domiciled corporations disaster will end up costing the American people as a whole a fortune, no matter how high those BP fines are (which are sure to be appealed, as they did the Texas BP incident several years ago who still have not satisfied the fines levied, or the lawsuits which occurred then).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100606/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill_judge_conflicts

State, Local Tourism Taxes Keeping Americans Home?

In addition to the piss poor economy in the United States at the present time (pardon my French), it appears that the U.S. Chamber and travel and tourism industry have yet to also discover just why occupancy levels are down, and more and more Americans are staying at home during normal vacation periods.

And that would be that the taxation rates now in the travel and tourism industry in many major U.S. cities, especially those that depend on tourism for a great deal of their tax revenue, has increased in leaps and bounds during the past two decades.

Many are exceeding the benchmark taxation rates which most Americans are willing to pay of 10%.

This "passing on" of the taxation which has been levied by state and local governments on rooms, meals and assundry related taxes has hurt this industry, although appears the corporate types of most of the major U.S. chains have yet to realized just why so many are choosing "cheaper" destinations, camping or purchasing or renting RVs instead of visiting those much ballyhooed hotel discount trip planning sites.

California is the largest advertiser bar none of its tourism industry, with the Governor and Hollywood types even participating as was evident during the recent Winter Olympics.

Although it is truly unbelieveable also the liberal political mindset in this particular state.

Many of those beach communities throughout California have banned both smoking, and pets on most public beaches in the interest of safety and health concerns.

Which knocks out an entire major segment of the population insofar as choosing California as a vacation destination, rather than the mountains (those which are not suffering drought conditions) or other locales.

I wonder what will be next in the Golden State.

Banning sun bathing on the beaches (after all, skin cancer is the most prevalent form of cancer and far exceeds that of second hand smoke, thus the biggest health risk to the sun worshippers of all).

So U.S. Chamber, before wining and dining the members of Congress and local and state governments for your next hotel development project, or loss at the public's expense since it appears there continues to be literally hundreds of new hotels now in the works, you might just step back and re-evaluate your corporate policies in order to attract Mom, Dad and the kids rather than your corporate clientele.

Since it appears your economies favor the "corporate" also, and not the citizenry, since those AAA discounts don't apply to the taxes passed on to the average American family.

Avoidance of the paying of usury is one biblical precept that many, at least of the boomer generation, still practice whenever possible.

Hence the number of "tea party activists" that identify themselves also as Christian, and this is a basic tenet of that religion, and several others found in this country.

Not to mention those who, in order to reduce their household budgets to be able to afford their mortgages and necessities at this point, do not include vacations or discretionary travel outside business or necessity at all.

Since in many states this is a "transaction privilege tax" on the commercial entity which is being passed on indiscriminantly to the public, please consider this simply a heads up from one who has been amazed due to business related travel at rates approaching 15% added additional taxes for overnight stays in many cash hungry states added to those predominantly large corporate chains wishing to "capitalize" on the public in historically tourism heavy states even with higher and higher base rates such as those found California, Inc.

There are very valid reasons that most states are seeing fewer and fewer return visitors.

At least the U.S. family variety, after also factoring in those astronomically high Disney passes for your average family of four into the mix.

Which industry also in many instances has been financially subsidized by the American public through federal, state and local tax benefits, subsidies and other freebies or "give mes" both during construction, and thereafter.

Texas Judge Rules Death Penalty Unconstitutional?

There's a storm brewing in Texas, it appears, over a recent ruling by a state district court judge in Houston on a murder trial.

Justice Kevin Fine, a Democrat, made a pre-trial ruling in Texas court that the death penalty was unconstitutional under Texas law.

Although his position appears to be not in accordance with the wording of the Constitution itself (U.S., that is, which would take precedence in all death penalty cases), but for moral reasons stating that it was logical to assume that there had been innocent people put to death in the past, and that he didn't think this was society's mindset right now.

"Selective" governmental initiated socialism once again rears its ugly head, since there are many in this country that would heartily disagree, if a clear reading of the Constitution itself is given any weight.

With all the criticism that has come down upon the judiciary for ruling from the bench for political reasons most of all rather than "legal" ones with judges being cognizant of just what the "law" actually is in such instances, this actually does take the cake, in my opinion.

Although the press once again went a little off the deep end in headlining a great many of the stories with a description of the judge involved as "tatted" and an ex-cocaine addict.

Of course, the hypocricy at this point in our history was missed if such a personal observation were to be used by the media in its reporting on this judge's ruling. Since it is interesting that a judge that is an admitted ex-addict (engaging in felony conduct under current Texas law) is now serving on the bench, where a great many of those that are or have been convicted under Texas law of felonies are not even afforded an opportunity to vote for the rest of their lives even after serving their time.

It makes one wonder with all the clear language in the Constitution yet his stated reasons given for his holding, if just maybe he might be suffering from what the 60's generation termed "flashbacks," or possibly his brain quite possibly affected if he was a heavy, long term user of that substance which definitely has a chemical affect on the brain.

However, what was missing in the reporting is that as an elected official he is also affiliated through a political party that has taken a platform and stand in the past against the death penalty throughout the country for any reason under pressure and lobbying from such "global" groups as Amnesty International, the Innocense Project (out of New York, a "civil rights" group headed by lawyers and as such under federal laws which have been passed taxpayer funded through reimbursements for legal fees, yet incorporated in New York it appears, but with also branches internationally) and many others.

Since that statute providing for reimbursement for legal fees incurred in bringing civil rights actions, a plethora of these lawyer lead groups have emerged also engaging in national then lobbying efforts as a sideline, rather than the independent or small pro bono groups of the past whose fees are strictly provided by private donations.

To state that it is "unconstitutional" under the Texas or U.S. Constitution rather than in his party's view, "immoral", is a blatant redefinition, once again, of the English language and the 14th Amendment.

And the fact that the death penalty was handed down in many, many instances by those founders for reasons other than capital murder.

Such as treason on that Constitution. Which actually is the highest criminal offense by an elected or appointed government official, even higher than capital murder.

He used the "due process" clause somehow in his ruling, however, the 14th amendment clearly simply states that a criminal in this country that is accused of a heinous crime involving the taking of another citizen's life, or their property even (since horse thieves were also handed down the death penalty in Texas and in many states throughout the nation, theft of personal property was also a major capital criminal offense), an American is entitled to not "mob violence," but a review and trial by a jury of his peers (due process) in the state and jurisdiction in which the alleged crime occurred, and a chance to then face his accusers and hear and repute the evidence against him.

I am unaware of just how the provisions in Texas's criminal code are written since now the states have taken it upon themselves also to either expand, or water down, the U.S. Constitution in this respect also progressively through their legislative processes, but whether or not the death penalty is Constitutional or not since it is actually addressed within the language of the Constitution itself, speaks for itself.

Or the fact that "res ipsa loquitur" (the thing as it speaks) is the common law provision which is supposed to be rule of law with respect to Constitutional interpretation clearly also was the founders intent as it is a contract between the government itself and its people, and the Bill of Rights were meant to give the people, not the government, the ultimate power in any such matter involving ANY civil or criminal offense committed by a citizen in this country.

And solidified by the 14th's clear language then prohibiting any citizen from being deprived of his "life, liberty or property" without such a right to due process, or that "trial by jury."

It appears to me that more and more the judiciary are using court rules, and legal shennagians in order to actually circumvent and neutralize the power of the jury in this country more and more.

First, by removing even that right for many criminal charges, not to mention civil offenses in ever increasing numbers, the most recent of which are now the low level DUI and "social drinking" taxes and charges with those per se laws based on a proven fallable method of testing, when unless there is property damage or bodily injury and direct victim involved is truly really under the intent of the founders and common law also, a civil offense actually to begin with.

The breathalyzer, which does not measure blood alcohol at all, but measures the concentration of alcohol (or any number of other agents) in a person's breath.

Which, when using or eating any number of other substances, other than alcohol, can affect those test results tremendously.

In fact, the interlock devices that are manufactured and ordered to be used by many who have been arrested or found themselves "guilty until proven innocent" in such matters warns not to eat bread (the yeast can affect the interlock device with a false reading).

But in the instance of the death penalty in this country, I would more understand this judge's ruling at an earlier time in our history, when the evidentiary standards for a death penalty case were much, much more lenient than in most state courts today.

The standard, after all, is "beyond a reasonable doubt," and what has occurred, however, is that more and more high profile crimes are being tried in the media and politics and public opinions are being swayed even before many of these individuals have had the opportunity to answer or even make their pleas.

The lines between the "public's right to know" and protecting the accused have gone by the wayside when the local news media is so hard pressed for news these days due to competition and "corporate" ownership concerned with the bottom line most of all than ethical standards, that most of the local news stations are more similar to Entertainment Tonight than actual news sources so biased, sensationalized and gossipy is their coverage.

And, after all, there are several different charges that should be placed before a jury in any murder trial in many instances, and not determined by a judge or the state prosecutor's office acting independently to begin with.

Voluntary or involuntary manslaughter (auto accidents, etc.), murder in the second degree (crimes of passion, precipitated or between individuals known to each other) and murder in the first degree (pre-meditated, unprecipitated murder).

This case apparently has to do with the shooting death of a woman in Houston during a robbery in which there were, apparently, witnesses to what actually occurred - an adult sister and her own children.

Now that many of these states have privatized their state prisons and are receiving federal grant monies and profits on the prison population by the head, I would expect that we will see more and more of such rulings as most of these states attempt to squeeze every dollar out of the public they can since people, even prisoners, are now commerce.

I hate to dispute this judge's stated reasons, there are now throughout the nation more and more minor offenses being criminalized in order to increase that prison population for revenue purposes as a "mitigating" factor in why our prisons are now bulging at the seams, and mostly with low level misdemeanor offenders guilty of actually victimless crimes at that.

Or more and more of such instances are occurring in order to also bulk up local court's budgets due to the fact that the Bar Association itself lobbied for a law providing for legal fee awards on their behalf for any and all cases involving civil rights actions, and this case is being prosecuted by the county attorney's office and a public defender it appears representing the accused.

So this off the wall rendering could be and most likely is, in my opinion based on the information available through our somewhat sensationalized media, politically motivated, since now the state can also gain revenue from the lengthy federal appeals process over this judge's bench ruling which obviously blatantly flies in the face of the Constitution's clear language and make money for the state coffers then while so doing.

Harris County apparently is a county which leads the nation in death penalty cases, and appears just may be one of the more poorly funded districts in the state to begin with due to the amount of poorer or indigent people living in that county.

Maybe their share of the stimulus wasn't enough, since Governor Perry refused some of those sums according to his most recent election campaign jargon, or maybe those sums which were handed out for state budgetary purposes just didn't get to Harris County but stayed in Austin.

After all, our entire country's government at this point is so unconstitutional, taking such a position in light of all the Constitutional violations going on due to the entire convoluted framework as outside Constitutional intent and parameters of our government makes this position both questionable, and almost laughable.

I would agree, however, with this judge that most likely there have been individuals that have been put to death in this country who MAY have been innocent of first degree murder, or unprecipitated murder as under the common law definitions demanding the ultimate penalty under the law - forfeiture of life.

But we aren't putting to death horse thieves anymore (or car thieves), and with the number of appeals now available to most death row inmates, there have also been those that have decided not to pursue the appeals process and even waived it.

I do feel that such drastic punishment should be reserved for those that are deemed by a jury, upon factual evidence and eyewitness testimony or truly "weighted" evidence, and should be used only according to the stated law: against those who, for whatever reason, murder innocent people as in the case of a robbery gone wrong as this appears on the surface, or many of these serial killers who cannot be rehabilitated in any way to be trusted to live among society, or at the very least, incarcerated without the possibility of parole, when there are no "mitigating" circumstances leading up to it.

But "unconstitutional," only if we are again, judicially redefining the English language and not the words of the founders or their intent since the 14th only cements what was their clear purpose at the signing as a government "of the people."

It is the jury that has the right to throw out the death penalty, if they so deem the facts of the case at hand demands it or is "societally" unacceptable in their view under the circumstances, and weight should also be given to the victim's family in such a rendering as the actual victims of the particular crime and who those prosecutors are actually supposed to be their "clients" acting for the victim's family members, state and its citizens on their behalf.

And without a clear vote of the people of Texas in any event, it would seem our judiciary is getting more and more bold in some of their fabrications and renderings now at every level balanced against their oaths of office, since the wording is pretty clear.

Or corrupted by the public opinion polls and media itself in now how many outside "globally" focused agitators and groups are getting involved in U.S. political matters to begin with, since it appears global socialism and "international" law rather than our Constitution's language itself is a trend that is also occurring at the highest level in some rather recent Supreme Court rulings and renderings.

Protection of the accused American is foremost under our stated Constitutuion. And the jury was and is intended to be that protection, baring any corruption of the jury itself.

And if it is "cruel and unusual" punishment insofar as premeditated homicide is concerned, then our jails are full of people at this point that are being incarcerated without even the right to trial by juries in a great many misdemeanor offenses more and more, and some of these misdemeanor offenders have died in local jails and prisons that were "cruel and unusual" in their facilities to begin with.

Dehydrations of low level offenders recently in some in the West, even. Where the "punishments" now truly do not fit those crimes, and made without any review or oversight of judicial renderings rather than at the will of the people based on the evidence.

Gee, maybe he should have been the judge ruling over the Teri Schiavo matter in Florida. If it is immoral or "unconstitutional" and "cruel and unusual" punishment to sentence a convicted murderer to death, then just what was it to sentence a handicapped, innocent 40 year old woman?

Where was Amnesty International then, I ask?

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/03/05/tatted-up-texas-judge-declares-death-penalty-unconstitutional/tab/article/

Yet, this is what is going on in Harris County with respect to misdemeanor offenders with outstanding mostly civil court traffic violations:

http://www.khou.com/news/local/Harris-County-sweeping-minor-offenders-in-Great-Texas-Warrant-Roundup-86726392.html

Fort Hood Spins Saturate Media

For Any And All American Conserve-atives (not the British variety ala Fox News):

In light of the upcoming funerals and media coverage of the loss of additional American lives in the wake of the Fort Hood incident in Texas this week, it appears now the media spins are getting wider, deeper and more and more furious by the day.

Since America's presence in the Middle East in some form or another has been a fact since that British "taking" of the land now comprising Israel prior to World War I in an agreement entered into between a British Lord of the Realm and a British banker zionist, America's continued loss of life on behalf of this foreign non-U.S. based accord is becoming greater and greater by the year.

And what has been interesting has been one fundamental question which the media has not in any significant manner raised during the past several days of the "analysis" that are being made on both liberally based and focused mainstream sources - funded by either the Republican Globalists or Democratic Globalists ala FOX and CNN.

Just why would an avowed pacifist and war protestor enlisted or continued serving in the U.S. military during the continuation of this war, which has now gone on for more than eight years after the attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001.

Most enlistees, or even those career military officers - which is more likely since the accused is or was the base psychiatrist apparently - tours of duties come up for renewal in two to four year increments.

The outrage of the American people, and the clearly questionable now basis for our continued presence in that region has been a well known fact as based upon false intelligence for over five years at this point. And was, after all, the major focus of most of the liberals in their other extra-Constitutional positions who, however, were the major supporters of Mr. Obama in his run for the roses as the "change" candidate, after all. Although disagreement with the continuation of this war as not in any way at all based upon Constitutional provision, or the intent of the founders with respect to defensive wars as hoping this country would remain as neutral as possible in such events as the continued Middle East situation, is not a liberal position at all, but actually a conservative one.

Most of these so called "progressives" and "liberals" of course now have continued to be suspiciously silent, although Mr. Obama is clearly following the Bush agendas and agreements which were reached with the "new" Iraqi government in his last 100 days in office calling for the withdrawal of all American troops by 2011, coincidentally just prior to the new U.S. presidential election cycle.

So it will end just as politically as it began apparenlty - and not legally or Constitutionally brought or now ended in any manner whatsoever.

Now it is being reported the suspect will be tried in a military court, as deemed not an overt act of terrorism. And, of course, terrorism itself is a practice used by many in our media and also those now serving on the Hill against the American people now more so than even most of these branded extremist Iraqi groups - whose very existence and training were, after all, at the hands of the U.S. military to begin with.

The suspects now behavior prior to the incident is now uncovering some connections to spiritual leaders in this country and the Middle East.

But just how did most of these individuals, after all, be approved for immigration to this country I haven't a clue, although the suspect appears to be an American citizen by birth and not an immigrant or naturalized citizen.

And at last count, over 80% of the American people are dissatisfied with our continued presence in this war now that the focus has shifted from the events surrounding what occurred those many years ago, to building up a U.S force and presence now in that region on behalf of Israel most of all once again.

And, of course, to fatten the bank books of the Wall Street financiers and those invested in the military industrial and manufacturing areas in this country. All those "science based" technology firms which this Administration and the last were feeding at the cost of American soldiers and families. Silicon Valley is bursting at the seams at this point, although California's governor whining about a shortfall.

Unbeliveable.

My heart goes out to the families of those affected, but it would appear that the perpetrators and blame that is shifting is being shifted from the true source of the cause of their actual losses.

And that is, once again, a foreign and military policy in this country that is centered not on national security whatsoever, but nation building and agressive and pre-emptive wars.

At the cost of the families of many Americans, not simply those that were and have been lost now in the past eight years - and a domestic security problem that has not been solved at all by the creation of that massive Department of Homeland Security.

Since that Department has decreased, rather than increased, its budgeting and funding for the measures needed to truly secure this country rather than giving monies to Mexico and Israel in the form of foreign aid for the Silcon Valley venture capitalists profits, many of whose investors are foreigners also, after all, with British and Middle Eastern investors.

Funds were once again cut for the needed border fencing and security, and instead this and the last Administration also expanded its Visa waiver and immigration policies ten fold since 9/11 occurred.

In fact, a better name for this agency at this point is the Department of Homeland Insecurity. With the running of their paid ads warning Americans to "have a plan" appearing to be the only real attempts to actually address the true defensive measures that would fundamentally secure this country from any such future incidents.

Such as reducing the number of airports and such available for those traveling to this country. As Ellis Island was in the past maybe having three or four points of entry, rather than affording foreign based and owned airlines, ships and other modes of travel access to the interior airports and such would and could reduce the threat of any further attacks.

British Airways was given a contract for service to Phoenix years ago, and there are many foreign owned airlines with such contracts throughout the nation at the present time.

It does appear that break downs in communications and also the shear number now of agencies involved in these domestic and foreign surveillance departments are having an adverse affect and not the solution, but part of the problem.

As it appears is becoming now clear in this incident, as it was in the original loss of lives on September 11th - since that also as blamed on a breakdown of communications between the FBI and DoD. Now we have the FBI, DoD and Homeland Security pointing fingers.

So just where is the change, except more of the same, and around another 50 more dead or wounded Americans?