[SF Gate] A former board member of Goldman Sachs ...Malefactors of Great Wealth, the second most generous contributor to the 2008 Obama campaign, with a total of $1,013,091... and Procter & Gamble has pleaded not guilty "Wudn't me." and been freed on $10 million bail. Rajat Gupta entered the plea to all six counts in an indictment unsealed Wednesday. Gupta had surrendered to the FBI earlier in the day.
The 62-year-old Westport, Conn., man was accused of cheating the markets with Raj Rajaratnam, the convicted hedge fund founder who was the probe's prime target. More than two dozen people have been convicted in the probe.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/27/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Can't overlook the fact that he ran McKinsey consulting either, privvy to the most privvy corporate information among the USA's multinationals... In a position of "sacred trust" he just couldn't stand not getting a little "sumpthin sumpthin" for himself.
Filed under It Couldn't Happen to a More Deserving Person...
Two politicos who sued Arianna Huffington and her partner for stealing their idea for the Huffington Post will get to go forward after a New York judge refused to throw out the lawsuit.
Boy howdy, Dems versus Arianna. Can I hope that both sides lose?
The tale of purulent intrigue amidst the media elite of the Democratic party began last year when Peter Daou and James Boyce, both advisers to the 2004 Kerry-Edwards campaign, filed a lawsuit against the Huffington Post founders last November. Daou says he penned a memo about a new kind of Democratic news-reporting website and blogging ring or collective but that Huffington stole the idea and cut him out of the loop before she launched the Huffington Post in May of 2005.
Cheez yeah, combining news with a blog, that just has to be novel. Why didn't Glenn Reynolds think of that?
Huffington and co-founder Ken Lerer filed to dismiss the suit but state judge Charles Ramos ruled yesterday that the plaintiffs could continue with their claim under a New York law that allows people to sue if someone steals an idea that is both novel and concrete. In the ruling, the judge noted that Huffington appeared to have conceded that the idea was indeed a new one when she told Playboy in 2006, Theres a tremendous advantage in being the first with something .. We were the first hybrid of news and group blog.
So you say, lady, so you say. This is just begging for 'prior art'...
Ramos found that the plaintiffs had raised enough questions about the origin of the Huffington Post for the issue to be decided at a trial. This does not means that Daou and Boyce have proved their case but rather that they have overcome an important preliminary hurdle. The ruling may also increase the pressure on Huffington to settle the case before further details about the origins of her site are put before a jury.
I very much would like to see interrogatories and depositions...
Huffington has been dismissive about the claims by Daou and Boyce, saying it was stunning and ridiculous for them to state six years after the fact that they believed they had been partners all along. The spat was also chronicled by Vanity Fair in a February piece entitled Huffing and Puffing.
Huffington did obtain a minor victory after the judge threw out the plaintiffs related claims for breach of contract, fraud and unjust enrichment. The original complaint by Daou and Boyce asked the New York Supreme Court to grant an unspecified amount in damages.
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/27/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[13 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
With all the tort lawyers in the Dem party... this sounds like par-for-the-course.
Posted by: Water Modem ||
10/27/2011 1:40 Comments ||
Top||
#2
>Daou says he penned a memo about a "new kind of Democratic news-reporting website and blogging 'ring' or collective"
The Huffington Borg just didn't assimilate enough readers.
[Human Events] House members of the Energy and Commerce Committee bickered about the definition of dust in a hearing about a Republican bill to stop overreaching Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations.
Democrats at the hearing on the Farm Dust Regulation Act of 2011, sponsored by Rep. Kristi Noem (R.-S.D.), fired a number of vicious shots at the the bill, calling it merely a red herring. They claimed that the EPA doesn't regulate dust at all, and that the wording of the bill was intended to strip the EPA's power to regulate other destructive particulates, such as soot from urban factories. See, there aren't any EPA regulations about dust.
Republicans claimed that the bill would prevent future EPA dust regulation that is currently on the books Ummm...
"Farmers and ranchers that are already subject to the standard for dust in 'nonattainment' areas like Arizona know its impact on businesses," explained Noem. In Arizona, it can cost some producers over $1,000 per day to comply with dust standards."
There aren't any EPA regulations about dust but they're on the books... I'm confused. How about you?
from strangling farmers and businesses with red tape, and that the current regulations hurt farmers and increase the headache and cost of compliance. ... even though they don't exist.
Rep. Henry Waxman ...the funny-looking Democrat Representative-for-Life from Caliphornia. First elected in 1975, his estimated retirement date is 2075 or maybe later... (D.-Calif.) summed up the Democrat opposition with some over-the-top rhetoric: "Today's hearing considers yet another bill to allow more air pollution, more asthma and more heart attacks. And once again, it's a bait and switch." I'll betcha it sez nothing about any of those in the text of the bill...
Waxman also said that the bill would have "sweeping environmental effects," and that stopping the regulation of dust is "pure fantasy." Stopping any kind of hyper-regulation seems to be pure fantasy...
"EPA does not regulate farming practices to reduce dust, and has expressed no intention of doing so in the future," said Waxman. Then his lips fell off.
Rep. Ed Markey ...U.S. Representative-for-Life from Massachusetts, serving since 1976. He is a member of the Democratic Party, naturally.... (D.-Mass.) compared HR 1633 to an Internet hoax spread to gin up anger about a fake e-mail tax increase, and then compared it to a bill regulating fairy dust.
"Just like the e-mail tax hoax, there is no plan to regulate farm dust any more than there is to regulate fairy dust. There is no attempt to accomplish that goal," said Markey.
Although Democrats insisted that the bill was just a fantasy based on trumped-up, imaginary regulation, backers of the bill said otherwise.
Rep. John Shimkus (R.-Ill.) asked Noem, who was on the panel of witnesses, "How many agricultural groups are in support of this bill?"
Noem answered, "Over 100."
Shimkus then said, "Are they just crazy? They have nothing else to worry about but just the EPA?"
"Waxman continued to say over and over that their dust is not regulated, and it is. The EPA does regulate dust, and the [EPA] staff considered tightening those standards," Noem continued. "When he says there is no concern, there is valid concern in rural America.
One of the agricultural groups that is supporting the bill, the National Association of Wheat Growers (NAWG), wrote a letter to the committee last month, saying that a slight raise in overall particulate matter standards would require the EPA to regulate farm dirt under the current standards.
"And, for what purpose? Scientific studies have never shown rural dust to be a health concern at ambient levels," said the NAWG letter.
In her written testimony, Noem explains exactly how the EPA regulates dust. "Under current law, the EPA's standards include all types of dust, including dust generated from agricultural activities and the dust that is typical of rural areas. This type of dust is naturally occurring and includes soil, windblown dust, and dust coming from dirt roads. I call it farm dust."
"Farmers and ranchers that are already subject to the standard for dust in 'nonattainment' areas like Arizona know its impact on businesses," explained Noem. In Arizona, it can cost some producers over $1,000 per day to comply with dust standards."
Posted by: Fred ||
10/27/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
It is not dust..it is coarse particulate matters. The definition matters. They say it can be monitored by satillite. In fact, it is already monitored, ask the city of Wichita, KS, which faced massive fines by the EPA for sucking the smoke of Oklahoma wildfires a couple years back.
#3
"coarse particulate matters" is purely natural and ends up in the atmosphere to seed clouds if there are any. It is not a crime to have dry ground, damnit.
#15
#10 Can't, Jack. Would dump too many additional people with no useful skills into the unemployment rolls. (Sadly, this is more truth than sarcasm.)
Posted by Glenmore 2011-10-27 12:49|| 2011-10-27 12:49|| Front Page ||Comments Top
Unemployment and welfare are cheaper than what they are being payed now.
Posted by: Bob ||
10/27/2011 20:08 Comments ||
Top||
[Fox News] A longtime internal policy that allowed Justice Department officials to deny the existence of sensitive information could become the law of the land -- in effect a license to lie -- if a newly proposed rule becomes federal regulation in the coming weeks. Why have a "freedom of information" act if you're allowed to lie and say the information that's supposed to be free doesn't exists? Doesn't that negate the whole idea?
The proposed rule directs federal law enforcement agencies, after personnel have determined that documents are too delicate to be released, to respond to Freedom of Information Act requests "as if the excluded records did not exist." Rather than as if the excluded records are classified.
Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, says the move appears to be in direct conflict with the administration's promise to be more open. Duhhhh... Reeeeeally?
"Despite all the talk of transparency, I can't think of what's less transparent than saying a document does not exist, when in fact, it does," Sekulow told Fox News. Yeah. Lying through your teeth doesn't sound real transparent.
Justice Department officials say the practice has been in effect for decades, dating back to a 1987 memo from then-Attorney General Edwin Meese. Didn't the party presently in power want Attorney General Meese to be gutted and quartered way back when?
In that memo, and subsequent similar internal documents, Justice Department staffers were advised that they could reply to certain FOIA requests as if the documents had never been created. That policy never became part of the law -- or even codified as a federal regulation -- and it was recently challenged in court. Betcha it lost, too. Unless the judge was some kind of B.O. appointee.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/27/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
HMMMMMM, HMMMMMM, so IIUC its okay to ignore the FOIA as long the USDOJ, etal. as an Agency(s) doesn't lie in Federal Court???
AKA INTENTIONALLY OBEYING ONE PART OF US LAW WHILE INTENTIONALLY DISOBEYING IFF NOT OBSTRUCTING + PERVERTING, THE OTHER PART OF US LAW, and by Govt-Public Authority(s).
D *** NG IT, CLEARLY ITS NOT CAUSE FOR AMERICANS TO BELIEVE "MAFIA RULE/STATE" IN AMERICA = AMERIKA; NOR IS CAUSE FOR ANARCHY + CIVIL WAR, ETC. IN SAME???
[BEVERLY HILLBILLIE'S GRANNY CLAMPETT + "USA" = UNDEFEATED SOUTHERNERS OF AMERICA here].
Grant, Sherman, Sheridan - better skedaddle to Canada because Granny + her mighty Shotgun(s) are on your six.
No, ROCK HUDSON leading Ex-Confederate families to Napoleonic Mexico???
"We have lost our ambition, our imagination, and our willingness to do the things that built the Golden Gate Bridge," President Obama said at a fundraiser in San Francisco on Tuesday.
Just the modern 'national malaise' argument. I just hope the Pubs have a modern Reagan handy...
#2
Anything they accuse real Americans of doing, they are doing it themselves. That's how you know what democrats are doing, just listen to what they accuse you of doing.
By his own words, looking for a way to do things without the normal checks and balances. Flip the coin over, that the president whomever that may be can just by fiat, or as they call it executive order, bypess the accepted and Constitutional Process, or as us regular folk call a Contract of Agreement, is in itself creating the very uncertainty businesses break upon.
That is, whomever the current POTUS is, is the determining factor, despite at least the appearance of due process. This should be a concern for all involved, as the whole point is a controlled baton pass as the selling point of stability.
In effect, whomever is in charge makes the rules if precedent is set here, and every 4 years people scramble about attempting to hedge bets about what the new rules may or may not be, especially if there is not an election to be concerned about.
#7
Well shit JH2828, you are absolutely right, and would be a modern marvel if it were not so sad, and so sad that the locals with their uber-understanding of the liberal arts would be able to sell as, well, modern marvel, if they had any competency as their own trademark. F#n fail fail, guess they just get rid of those racist physics classes and concentrate on t..wait, fail at that as well.
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
10/27/2011 1:38 Comments ||
Top||
#10
"Malaise" on steroids.
And what exactly has Obama ever made, or constructed, or created, or built, or invented, or marketed, or improved? What value has he ever added to anything?
Never forget that in one of his books he referred to the few short months he worked in the private sector as being "behind enemy lines".
And what does one do to the enemy, historically? Tries to kill and destroy and enslave them.
As a lifetime private sector person I can say that in that, at least, he is honest and predictable.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
10/27/2011 6:07 Comments ||
Top||
#11
If there is anything positive to be said about malignant narcissists, it's that they give you fair warning. They're quite open about their intention to f*ck you over, and drop plenty of clues as to how they're going to do it. As things near fruition, they're almost screaming, "don't trust me, you fool!"
But you have to LISTEN, and take them at their word.
#13
He's using the royal we of course. A certain segment of the political spectrum attempts to stop all large scale building projects with environmental impact harassment and paperwork because they wish a return to the medieval times when the peasants were unarmed and didn't dare talk back.
#14
Rjschwarz Yes, and I think Teapartydoc posted a good comment on the EU mess:
"The greatest intellectual achievement of the enlightenment was the idea of human equality in the sense of due respect, rights and duties. The notion that each man is sovereign over his own interests.
It has been given little interest, but the rights that were showed this new respect included the rights associated with property, including the ability to dispose of it as one sees fit. This implies the right to receive just and equal compensation for it. A form of money is often required. That money is a form of property.
Through representative government, the right of sovereignty over that money and the ability to ascertain the value thereof was gradually ceded to governments. The sovereignty of man to govern over his own affairs was alienated in an insidiously voluntary, but unsuspecting way."
That magic word "Sovereignty" will be hard to reclaim.
#16
Translation: People are getting wise to Obamageddon and BO's lies--it means he is having trouble pushing through his progressive agenda. If we wanted socialism or communism, we would have come up with a Constitution that laid that out. I'd say spare us your tired BS.
In his attempt to build support for his American Jobs Act, Barack Obama went on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno. He'd have been better off attending a math class first. Obama pushed the Senate's "millionaire surtax" proposal to pay for a portion of the costs, and tried to impress people with just how little this would cost the rich:
Obama touted a provision of his jobs proposal that would give states money to retain teachers, firefighters and police, funded by a surtax on annual earnings above $1 million. Someone making $1.1 million a year would pay "an extra $500 -- 500 bucks," he told the well-heeled crowd, which laughed.
First, the surtax was not part of Obama's proposal; that came from Harry Reid, and it replaced tax hikes that were too onerous for even Democrats to swallow. But the real problem with Obama's claim is that it literally doesn't add up. The surtax applies a 5.6% tax on all income over a million dollars in a year. On $1,100,000 of income, the surtax would get applied to the $100,000 as Obama says -- but 5.6% of $100,000 is not $500. It's $5,600, which is eleven times more than Obama claimed on national television.
Apparently Obama can't do math, which is hardly surprising given the outcome of his economic policies. The "well-heeled crowd," Jay Leno, and the Los Angeles Times all have the same problem. It isn't just LA, it is a liberal problem. They all are truly that blind and stupid. If I had an old car or motorbike that needed restoring I'd ask Jay. Economics? Er, no.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
"We have lost our ambition, our imagination, and our willingness to do the things that built the Golden Gate Bridge," President Obama said at a fundraiser in San Francisco on Tuesday.
In his attempt to build support for his American Jobs Act, Barack Obama went on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno. He'd have been better off attending a math class first. Obama pushed the Senate's "millionaire surtax" proposal to pay for a portion of the costs, and tried to impress people with just how little this would cost the rich:
