Showing posts with label Corruption. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Corruption. Show all posts
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Enquiring Minds: Why are there so many homeless working class and working poor people in Santa Cruz California?
"The more than 20 lots on Atkinson, and more in the surrounding neighborhood, that are identified as sites for high-density housing in the Housing Element are all located within the city boundaries.But HEY! At least Watsonville California created a housing plan, unlike the city of Santa Cruz, who have not done so since 'redevelopment' after the 1989 earthquake, and then proceeded to criminalize the victims of their own violation of state law by making an ongoing series of nuisance ordinances and selectively enforce them.
Furthermore, Assistant City Manager Marcela Tavantzis and her assistant Bradley Owen said the Housing Element was only a plan, and while the city must plan for the construction of 923 units, it did not have to build them.
“It’s not a commitment to build housing, it’s a commitment to identify where we could build housing if somebody wants do it,” [src]
For instance, Personally witnessed... continual citing of the homeless for camping (meaning simply intending to, or looking like, you're going to lay down to sleep), while allowing movie theater patrons downtown to roll out their bedding and literally sleep on the sidewalk and doorway of the theater until ten in the morning the next day while waiting for the premiere of the most recent Harry Potter movie.
Camping 'exposed to public view' is illegal, even on your own property in the city of Santa Cruz.
When I flagged a police officer down over it, he simply told me with sarcasm in his voice: I'm VERY busy right now...( from behind his 'Black Fly' sunglasses, as the electric window went up and he slowly rolled away)
In 2006, The Santa Cruz Metro ran the following article on the county's involvement in what is, at it's most basic definition, REDLINING, while the people who live and work here scrambled for a decent place to live (and the people who commute over the hill could easily afford the rent).
California Rural Legal Aid, the housing lawyers for the underclass of California had finally, after more than a decade, brought the county to 'justice'.
Santa Cruz MetroBut it's NOT over...
Columns
December 20-27, 2006
Nu-z: Santa Cruz County News Briefs
30 Acres and a Duel
If a town or county's General Plan is its local constitution, then its Housing Element may well be its Bill of Rights.
Other general plan sections describe how local traffic flows, or what facilities will serve the residents. But the housing element details a far more basic matter: who will be able to live there.
And for that reason a number of states, including California, require all local governments to turn in housing plans every few years. Plans that detail who lives there, how well they're housed, what stands in the way of housing people well and what the locality intends to do about it.
Note the first part: "who lives there." Not every community must house every possible person.
Monte Sereno, perhaps lacking farmworkers, might not need farmworker housing; Watsonville might not need to zone for megamansions. But those who are present must be adequately housed, and localities must prove it.
That's state law--a law that Santa Cruz county government has failed to follow since 1994, and in that failure, lost not only state approval for its housing element, but the chance to grab some $3 million to $4 million in housing funds, as well as disaster relief funds, every year since, as only those with certified housing elements qualify for the big bucks... [In Full]
The city of Santa Cruz planned for, and allowed building permits for, hundreds of over-priced 'luxury condos' (some with no hot tub and one parking place... ROTFL!) which, in the end, after the computer industry quasi-affluent 'wave' rolled out, were allowed to become dormitories for UCSC students (The same has happened to the two largest SRO hotels downtown as well) when it became painfully clear that no one was going to lease them and the developers threatened to sue.
Santa Cruz is not building any more of that petit-elite tickytacky now... One that was started just as the mortgage market was crashing has ended up a blighted hole-in-the-ground at the top of downtown's main street, Pacific Avenue, where a nice cobblestone plaza with small shops at it perimeter once stood (occupied)... and there's STILL no housing for the people who work and live here, and no plan for it, despite the loss of millions of dollars in federal funds, and in ongoing violation of state law.
Criminal
Fiduciary
Negligence
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Gee, I wonder how that happened? "Haiti is the poorest country in the Western hemisphere..."
.
For more details, see Historycommons:
"History of US Interventions US-Haiti (1804-2005)"
January 14, 2010
Haitian Earthquake: Made in the USA
Why the Blood Is on Our Hands
by Ted Rall
(Ted Rall is the author of the new book "Silk Road to Ruin: Is Central Asia the New Middle East?," an in-depth prose and graphic novel analysis of America's next big foreign policy challenge. He is also a cartoonist of the political persuasion)As grim accounts of the earthquake in Haiti came in, the accounts in U.S.-controlled state media all carried the same descriptive sentence: "Haiti is the poorest country in the Western hemisphere..."
Gee, I wonder how that happened?
You'd think Haiti would be loaded. After all, it made a lot of people rich.
How did Haiti get so poor?
Despite a century of American colonialism, occupation, and propping up corrupt dictators? Even though the CIA staged coups d'état against every democratically elected president they ever had?
It's an important question. An earthquake isn't just an earthquake. The same
7.0 tremor hitting San Francisco wouldn't kill nearly as many people as in Port-au-Prince.
"Looking at the pictures, essentially it looks as if (the buildings are of) breezeblock or cinderblock construction, and what you need in an earthquake zone is metal bars that connect the blocks so that they stay together when they get shaken," notes Sandy Steacey, director of the Environmental Science Research Institute at the University of Ulster in Northern Ireland. "In a wealthy country with good seismic building codes that are enforced, you would have some damage, but not very much."
When a pile of cinderblocks falls on you, your odds of survival are long. Even if you miraculously survive, a poor country like Haiti doesn't have the equipment, communications infrastructure or emergency service personnel to pull you out of the rubble in time. And if your neighbors get you out, there's no ambulance to take you to the hospital--or doctor to treat you once you get there.
Earthquakes are random events. How many people they kill is predetermined. In Haiti this week, don't blame tectonic plates. Ninety-nine percent of the death toll is attributable to poverty.
So the question is relevant. How'd Haiti become so poor?
The story begins in 1910, when a U.S. State Department-National City Bank of New York (now called Citibank) consortium bought the Banque National d'Haïti--Haiti's only commercial bank and its national treasury--in effect transferring Haiti's debts to the Americans.
Five years later, President Woodrow Wilson ordered troops to occupy the country in order to keep tabs on "our" investment.
From 1915 to 1934, the U.S. Marines imposed harsh military occupation, murdered Haitians patriots and diverted 40 percent of Haiti's gross domestic product to U.S. bankers. Haitians were banned from government jobs. Ambitious Haitians were shunted into the puppet military, setting the stage for a half-century of U.S.-backed military dictatorship.
The U.S. kept control of Haiti's finances until 1947.
Still--why should Haitians complain? Sure, we stole 40 percent of Haiti's national wealth for 32 years. But we let them keep 60 percent.
Whiners.
Saturday, June 6, 2009
PetroChina about to buy McDermott International, a Panama “based” corporate tax-avoider and the US Navy’s sole source for nuclear fuel
Mind you, this article was published April 20, 2009... Over a month ago, and not a word from the MSM, or anyone else, about the outcome of the deal.
McDermott International also manages the National Strategic Petroleum Reserve
If the rumors are true, PetroChina, a Chinese “Government Controlled Entity” (pdf), is on the verge of buying McDermott International, a company that, as I understand things, is the U.S. Navy’s sole provider of nuclear fuel and nuclear fuel assemblies. McDermott, a Panama “based” corporate tax-avoider, also manages the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve. (along with a lot of other critical national defense infrastructure. Take a look.)This rumored buy-out comes at a very interesting time. First, McDermott subsidiary Babcock and Wilcox bought out NFS (a competing nuclear fuel provider for the Navy) in January of this year.
(NFS was a troubled company that the Springboard covered previously–here, here and here.)
Second, the 2007 National Defense Authorization act, thanks to Representative Gene Taylor (D-MS), mandates that all future big Navy ships employ nuclear propulsion. But, now that we’re locked in and want high-energy/big power generation capabilities, where will the fuel come from? And at what price?Third, what better way to transform the Chinese Navy’s expected “carrier-building” announcement into a great-power referendum?
Rather than a simple, “hey, we’re building our first carrier, whee!” the announcement becomes, “Not only are we building carriers, we now own the means to build…nuclear supercarriers.”
Fourth, given that the purchase may be announced as early as Monday morning, this buy-out of a critical piece of the U.S. Defense Industrial Base risks putting an undeniably sharp edge on China’s upcoming naval celebration.
In the event the rumor is real, and the sale is announced tomorrow (or later this week), as the USS Fitzgerald (DDG-62) arrives for China’s Naval Review and CNO Roughead begins his effort to positively engage China, this takeover offers a humbling example of how financial power can trump even the largest of navies. If true, this is an old-fashioned big-power nose-tweaking, pure and simple.To be frank, if this buy-out happens during China Naval Review, we, the United States, will have lost face throughout China and, well, pretty much the rest of Asia.
To China’s credit, this financial maneuver is a fascinating geopolitical endeavor that speaks far louder than any conciliatory language the world is likely to hear during China’s Naval Review.
Finally, China’s economic jockeying comes at a time when the Obama Administration is still racing to reset national security policy. There’s a heck of a lot going on, and it all gives SECDEF Gates’ recent comments regarding America’s ability to confront modern-day economic warfare a particular poignancy.
To Gates, a recent wargame was, according to insidedefense.com (subscription):
“…an eye-opening experience and it also reflected some shortcomings in the ability and willingness of different parts of the government to share information openly…”Amen. Look, has anyone–besides the little ‘ole Springboard–who, I might add, has been hollering about this for a long time–gamed this? Where’s the policy discussion? Why no public or market preparation?
What, pray tell, is the implication of China’s aggressive business play, and, if this takeover does happen, what are our options?
Article Source, US Naval Institute
More @ Springbored's Springboard
Friday, May 29, 2009
Does MEND Know? Royal Dutch Shell Goes On Trial In Bribery For Nigerian Environment Activist/Reporter State Executions
Update June 14 2009:
Nigerian activists score victory
(Settlement: $15.5 million) against Shell Oil
Nigerian activists score victory
(Settlement: $15.5 million) against Shell Oil
A Follow-Up on a couple of recent Buffalo Twitters
Does MEND Know?
Mr. Saro-Wiwa, a popular author who helped create a peaceful mass movement on behalf of the Ogoni people, was executed in November 1995 along with eight other environmental and human rights activists on what many contended were trumped-up murder charges. His body was burned with acid and thrown in an unmarked grave.
Lawsuit against Royal Dutch Shell accuses them of helping frame Nigerian journalist for execution
More on Shell Oil Bribery for execution of Nigerian Journalist Here.
Update:
On Tuesday (May 26 2009), there was a last-minute announcement that the trial is postponed with no new date given but it is expected to commence soon, and the plaintiffs -- Ogoni villagers and family members of people who were killed -- will finally have their day in court.There has been a flurry of media attention as the lawyers prepare for battle in the courtroom.
However, some of the most interesting events are happening behind-the-scenes in the lead up to the trial. They show that Shell continues to do everything in its power to keep the truth from coming out.
On May 12, Shell's lawyers filed a motion opposing the admission of prominent human rights attorney Paul Hoffman to serve as trial counsel for the plaintiffs.
[download PDF of the document]
As standard procedure for a trial of this kind, Hoffman had filed a "pro hac vice" application with the court. The Latin pro hac vice is a legal term meaning "for this occasion," and refers to the lawyer being granted permission to serve in a state where he or she may not hold a law license. In this case, California-based Hoffman was filing to represent the plaintiffs in federal court in New York.
In the motion by Shell's lawyers to oppose Hoffman as counsel, they explain how seriously they take it:
"Defendants' counsel have over 70 years of experience among us, and none of the three of us has ever had occasion to oppose a pro hac vice application."So why was Shell opposing Hoffman's participation in the trial?
The video Shell doesn’t want you to see
May 5th, 2009
This 8 1/2-minute mini-documentary is an excellent introduction to what is at stake in the upcoming Wiwa v. Shell trial. It was produced by Rikshaw Films for EarthRights International (ERI) & the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), the plaintiffs’ co-counsel in the case.
Business as usual: Shell trying to suppress the truth. The video was a highlight of the WiwavShell.org website run by ERI & CCR to educate the public about the trial but it was recently removed. Investigation of public legal documents reveal that the video was removed under order from the trial judge after legal motions by Shell. Read the story about it on Huffington Post.
After watching, SIGN UP for updates & action alerts, and TAKE ACTION to support our campaign.
[Source]
Thursday, February 12, 2009
"It's Like Deja Vu All Over Again" (AKA "Is Viktor Bout Out Of Jail?") - 1/4 Million Weapons Unaccounted For In Afghanistan
BBCNews: US 'lost track of Afghan weapons'
[Afghan soldiers with US-issue automatic rifles]
The US military has failed to keep track of thousands of weapons shipped to Afghanistan, leaving them vulnerable to being lost or stolen, a report says.
The report has been compiled by congressional auditors, the US Government Accountability Office (GAO).
It found that, in the four years up to June 2008, the US military failed to keep complete records on some 222,000 weapons entering the country. [In Full]
Maybe it's the 'Bookkeeping' again... as General David Petraeus claimed when the same thing happened in Iraq...
Bookkeeping problems are to blame for the inability to account for nearly 200,000 weapons issued to Iraqi security forces, the top U.S. commander in Iraq said late Tuesday.
In an interview on Fox News Radio, Gen. David H. Petraeus said he believes the weapons did reach the security forces, but that paperwork deficiencies don’t show their status.
“We believe those weapons all certainly were given to Iraqi units,” Petraeus said, according to a podcast recording on “The Alan Colmes Show.”
Meanwhile, 125,000 sets of body armor and 115,000 helmets intended for Iraqi forces could not be accounted for either, according to a Government Accountability Office report issued July 31.
The report faulted the Pentagon and the U.S. military command in Iraq for not applying the same standards in tracking supplies and weapons that it does elsewhere. The system has since been improved, the report found.
...or could it be.... Blackwater?
A former Blackwater employee, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the investigation includes a look at whether Blackwater shipped weapons from its Moyock headquarters to Iraq hidden in pallets wrapped tightly in shrink wrap..
.
“In December, the prosecutors obtained guilty pleas from two former Blackwater employees, Kenneth Wayne Cashwell of Virginia Beach, Va., and William Ellsworth “Max” Grumiaux of Clemmons, N.C."
"The court files are stingy on details of the crimes…”
“…the federal (Nb. criminal) investigation of Blackwater is proceeding behind closed doors,”
A buffalo's take on the 'whos', 'whats', and, maybe most inportantly, 'whys' here
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
The Art Of Institutional Slander - Are You A 'Person Of Interest'?
"...the 'person of interest' is someone against whom there is no real evidence but someone who can be, at least for a time, used, vilified, scapegoated. It's time our law enforcement politicians learn to say 'No comment' and for them to educate the public that very often, especially at the beginning of a case, police have no idea who the perpetrator was, or at least no real evidence."William Fisher
THE WORLD ACCORDING TO BILL FISHER
Millions of words have been written and spoken about the politicization of the Department of Justice before, during and after the departure of Alberto Gonzales. But the silence on two of the DOJ’s most toxic practices has been deafening.
One is publicly labeling someone “a person of interest.” The other is wildly exaggerating the seriousness of the charges against a person. Both have been widely and indiscriminately used over the past decade. Both have destroyed people’s lives. Both have contributed to the environment of fear that followed 9/11. Both have been unashamedly exploited for career advancement by prosecutors, and for political gain by zealously loyal Bushies.
And neither has received any serious attention from the media or from the current presidential candidates.
But a new occupant of the Oval Office could and should end these dreadful practices with the stroke of a pen.
What exactly is a “person of interest?” The answer is that nobody knows. And nobody knows because the term has no basis in law. It first rose to prominence when the DOJ applied it to Richard Jewel, the hapless security guard who alerted authorities to the presence of a suspicious package at Centennial Olympic Park in Atlanta. A bomb exploded there shortly afterwards, killing a bystander and causing a fatal heart attack to a foreign journalist. It wasn’t long before the Feds’ attention shifted to the guy who should have been celebrated as a hero.
Jewel was “not accused” of planting a bomb or of anything else. The Clinton Justice Department told the media he was neither a “target” nor a “suspect” – terms customarily used by law enforcement. But he was effectively both. He was relentlessly harassed by the media, which painted him as a gung-ho cop wannabee. And his life was forever damaged, notwithstanding a belated apology from then Attorney General Janet Reno (the FBI never apologized).
Then came Steven Hatfill, the “person of interest” in the deadly 2001 anthrax mailings. In 2002, he was labeled a “person of interest” by then- Attorney General John Ashcroft. Tagged by the FBI, but neither accused nor charged, the Feds hounded this government scientist 24/7 for years. He lost his job and his reputation and became obviously unemployable.
Hatfill sued the DOJ. This summer, he agreed to take $5.82 million and an apology from the government to settle his claim that the DOJ and the FBI invaded his privacy and ruined his career.
Since Jewel and Hatfill, the “person of interest” moniker has metastasized to local and state law enforcement authorities that have used it hundreds of times. And since most ordinary folks lack the resources to fight back against injustice by innuendo, they have no option other than to let the authorities wreck their lives.
Under the DOJ’s own guidelines, prosecutors are allowed to publicly identify a person only they are seeking an interview for a criminal investigation. These guidelines prohibit any other disclosure of a person’s name until formal charges have been brought. Honored in the breach, as they say.
The National Association of Police Chiefs got it absolutely right when they called “person of interest” a "euphemism for a suspect."
So did Brian J. Foley, Visiting Associate Professor of Law at Boston University School of Law. He told me:
“A 'person of interest' is not an official designation. It is abused. Law enforcement is politics. Those in power use the term to assure the public that they're 'doing something.' Police authorities fear admitting that they literally have no clue who committed a crime.”He continued:
“Unfortunately, these politicians trash lives along the way -- the 'person of interest' is someone against whom there is no real evidence but someone who can be, at least for a time, used, vilified, scapegoated. It's time our law enforcement politicians learn to say 'No comment' and for them to educate the public that very often, especially at the beginning of a case, police have no idea who the perpetrator was, or at least no real evidence. The public should want responsible action (and restraint), not simply action. The media should also cease its complicity in this charade and rigorously question politicians who finger someone as a 'person of interest,' asking what evidence the police have to support their grave allegation. Otherwise, naming someone a 'person of interest' cheaply serves many of the same cynical purposes that 'show trials' serve in totalitarian regimes.”
In Full @ THE WORLD ACCORDING TO BILL FISHER: Memo To Obama And McCain: Add To Your Do-Do List
Friday, April 11, 2008
State Terror In America - FBI Agents Contacted Jurors After Mistrial To Find Out Why
"Westmoreland County defense attorney Tom Ceraso, who was not involved in the case, said in his decades of experience trying cases in federal court he has never heard of the FBI telephoning or interviewing jurors."
--Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
from TPMmuckraker by Paul Kiel
The latest from Pittsburgh, where the U.S. attorneys' office continues to drop jaws with its handling of the case. From The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:In Full @ TPMmuckrakerTwo jurors said Thursday they were unnerved by FBI requests for home visits to explain why they deadlocked in the federal public corruption trial of former Allegheny County coroner Cyril H. Wecht.A spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney's Office in Pittsburgh tells the paper that prosecutors just wanted to chat about the case with the jurors, a "commonplace" practice. The FBI agents were simply setting up the appointments. It is true that it's commonplace for lawyers from both sides to speak to jurors after a trial to get feedback. But there are two important distinctions here...
Experts said the practice of using FBI agents to contact and interview jurors in their homes after mistrials was unusual, but the U.S. Attorney's Office in Pittsburgh characterized it as "commonplace."
"I thought it was kind of intimidating," the jury foreman said about the FBI phone call.
Said another juror, "I found it kind of unusual."
Thanks For Stopping By
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
