Mystery? SEC Not Effective at Stopping Fraud

By Stephen Labaton (International Herald Tribune) |  WASHINGTON: The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, a once-proud agency with an impressive history as the top cop on Wall Street, finds itself increasingly conducting autopsies of leading financial institutions after failing, in the first instance, to perform adequate biopsies.
The latest black eye for the commission came when it was disclosed that inspectors and agency lawyers had missed a series of warning signs at Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities. If it had checked out the warnings, the commission might well have discovered years ago that the firm was concealing its losses by using billions of dollars from some investors to pay others.  The firm was the subject of several inquiries over the years, including one last year that was closed by the agency’s New York office after it had received a referral of potentially significant problems from the Boston office.  Similarly, the SEC chairman, Christopher Cox, assured investors nine months ago that all was well…<<<Read the Full Story>>>.

Wal-Mart Worker dies after stampede

By Joe Gould, Clare Trapasso and Rich Schapiro – Daily News Writers | A Wal-Mart worker died early Friday after an “out-of-control” mob of frenzied shoppers smashed through the Long Island store’s front doors and trampled him, police said.

The Black Friday stampede plunged the Valley Stream outlet into chaos, knocking several employees to the ground and sending others scurrying atop vending machines to avoid the horde.

When the madness ended, 34-year-old Jdimytai Damour was dead and four shoppers, including a woman eight months pregnant, were injured.

CAUGHT ON CAMERA: WAL-MART CROWD MOMENTS BEFORE DEADLY STAMPEDE

“He was bum-rushed by 200 people,” said Wal-Mart worker Jimmy Overby, 43.

“They took the doors off the hinges. He was trampled and killed in front of me.

“They took me down, too … I didn’t know if I was going to live through it. I literally had to fight people off my back,” Overby said.

Damour, a temporary maintenance worker from Jamaica, Queens, was gasping for air as shoppers continued to surge into the store after its 5 a.m. opening, witnesses said.

Even officers who arrived to perform CPR on the trampled worker were stepped on by wild-eyed shoppers streaming inside, a cop at the scene said.

“They pushed him down and walked all over him,” Damour’s sobbing sister, Danielle, 41, said. “How could these people do that?

“He was such a young man with a good heart, full of life. He didn’t deserve that.”

Damour’s sister said doctors told the family he died of a heart attack.

His cousin, Ernst Damour, called the circumstances “completely unacceptable.”

“His body was a stepping bag with so much disregard for human life,” Ernst Damour, 37, said. “There has to be some accountability.”

Roughly 2,000 people gathered outside the Wal-Mart’s doors in the predawn darkness.

Chanting “push the doors in,” the crowd pressed against the glass as the clock ticked down to the 5 a.m. opening.

Sensing catastrophe, nervous employees formed a human chain inside the entrance to slow down the mass of shoppers.

It didn’t work.

The mob barreled in and overwhelmed workers.

“They were jumping over the barricades and breaking down the door,” said Pat Alexander, 53, of Crown Heights, Brooklyn. “Everyone was screaming. You just had to keep walking on your toes to keep from falling over.”

After the throng toppled Damour, his fellow employees had to fight through the crowd to help him, police said.

Witness Kimberly Cribbs said shoppers acted like “savages.”>>>>Read the Full Article

Really! 21,000 Troops Deploying Inside the United States

By Spencer S. Hsu and Ann Scott Tyson (Washington Post) – The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials.

The long-planned shift in the Defense Department’s role in homeland security was recently backed with funding and troop commitments after years of prodding by Congress and outside experts, defense analysts said.

There are critics of the change, in the military and among civil liberties groups and libertarians who express concern that the new homeland emphasis threatens to strain the military and possibly undermine the Posse Comitatus Act, a 130-year-old federal law restricting the military’s role in domestic law enforcement…>>>READ THE FULL STORY

Bailout marks Marx’s comback

by Martin Masse – National Post | Marx’s Proposal Number Five seems to be the leading motivation for those backing the Wall Street bailout

In his Communist Manifesto, published in 1848, Karl Marx proposed 10 measures to be implemented after the proletariat takes power, with the aim of centralizing all instruments of production in the hands of the state. Proposal Number Five was to bring about the “centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.”
If he were to rise from the dead today, Marx might be delighted to discover that most economists and financial commentators, including many who claim to favour the free market, agree with him.
Indeed, analysts at the Heritage and Cato Institute, and commentators in The Wall Street Journal Read more

The End Of American Capitalism?

By Anthony Faiola – (Washington Post) |The worst financial crisis since the Great Depression is claiming another casualty: American-style capitalism.

Since the 1930s, U.S. banks were the flagships of American economic might, and emulation by other nations of the fiercely free-market financial system in the United States was expected and encouraged. But the market turmoil that is draining the nation’s wealth and has upended Wall Street now threatens to put the banks at the heart of the U.S. financial system at least partly in the hands of the government.

The Bush administration is considering a partial nationalization of some banks, buying up a portion of their shares to shore them up and restore confidence as part of the $700 billion government bailout. The notion of government ownership in the financial sector, even as a minority stakeholder, goes against what market purists say they see as the foundation of the American system.

Yet the administration may feel it has no choice. Credit, the lifeblood of capitalism, ceased to flow. An economy based on the free market cannot function that way.

The government’s about-face goes beyond the banking industry. It is reasserting itself in the lives of citizens in ways that were unthinkable in the era of market-knows-best thinking. With the recent takeovers of major lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the bailout of AIG, the U.S. government is now effectively responsible for providing home mortgages and life insurance to tens of millions of Americans. Many economists are asking whether it remains a free market if the government is so deeply enmeshed in the financial system.

Given that the United States has held itself up as a global economic model, the change could shift the balance of how governments around the globe conduct free enterprise. Over the past three decades, the United States led the crusade to persuade much of the world, especially developing countries, to lift the heavy hand of government from finance and industry.

But the hands-off brand of capitalism in the United States is now being blamed for the easy credit that sickened the housing market and allowed a freewheeling Wall Street to create a pool of toxic investments that has infected the global financial system. Heavy intervention by the government, critics say, is further robbing Washington of the moral authority to spread the gospel of laissez-faire capitalism.

The government could launch a targeted program in which it takes>>>>Read the Full Article

Rogue Agency Arrests Utah Mom

Imagine you’re Annie Bradley, a married stay-at-home mother of eight. Two weeks before your 43rd birthday, its 9:00 pm and you’re sitting down with your husband and two house guests discussing a very difficult topic—the sale of your home.  Uncharacteristically, your seventeen year-old daughter interrupts the discussion with a stunned look on her face, informing you that police and federal agents are surrounding your house.  An armed Sheriff’s deputy has followed closely behind her and now stands before you asking, “Are you Anna L. Bradley?”

The scene in the Bradley’s neighborhood Tuesday was much like something you might expect to see on the big screen, or read about in one of those hard to believe mystery novels.  But for Annie, her husband Randy and their eight children, it was a very real nightmare.

“I begged them not to take her,” explains her husband.  He couldn’t understand why law enforcement was at his house in the middle of the night, demanding $10,000 cash for bail, or they were going to be taking his wife.  At 9 o’ clock in the evening, when banks and businesses are closed, it’s close to impossible for an average family to come up with that kind of cash.

So, at approximately 9:41 pm, after local agents from the Utah County Sheriff’s office, accompanied by at least two federal agents, had surreptitiously surrounded the family’s home and afterwards made quite a scene for the neighborhood, law enforcement agents placed Annie Bradley under arrest, handcuffed her, and led her the long way across the front lawn, in front of inquiring neighbors, stunned house guests, her confused and bewildered husband, and perhaps most difficult, in front of her sobbing children.

When asked why they were doing this in the middle of the night, with so little opportunity for the Bradleys to even reach an attorney, one member of the Utah County Sheriff’s department replied, “Well, we don’t usually deal with nice folks like you.”  Annie was booked into jail and held on $10,000 bail.

Annie Bradley's Arrest Photograph

While the image of her arrest might seem dramatic, the facts surrounding her arrest are even more bizarre. Annie Bradley wasn’t arrested, as it turns out, because she’s suspected of committing some violent crime.  The barrage of law enforcement officers didn’t surround her house to execute an arrest warrant because she’s suspected of some kind of drug involvement or some other dangerous crime.  Annie Bradley was arrested because she and her husband have been caught up in a political battle related to the Utah Department of Commerce.

In February of this year that Utah Division of Securities Director Wayne Klein resigned under a cloud of suspicion for corruption and mismanagement.  Randy and Annie Bradley were one of the cases originally overseen by Klein.  Earlier this summer, on July 3rd, an independent audit of the Division was delivered to the State Legislature citing widespread abuses, mismanagement, miscarriages of justice and a government agency rife with internal conflict, lack of leadership and suffering serious internal divisions.

But what does this have to do with Annie Bradley?

Well, let’s start with the basics.  A lifelong resident of Utah County, the last year and a half has been an exceptionally difficult time financially for Annie her family.   In a situation becoming all too common in America today, with the mortgage market in shambles, and the credit industry in upheaval, Annie and her family are in the middle of an unplanned move.  The guests in her home Tuesday night when she was arrested, were negotiating the purchase of several pieces of furniture to be sold along with their house.

The previous success of her husband’s small business Race Holdings, LLC—which had enabled the family to move from Springville just a year and a half ago into their dream home on the west side of Mapleton—has become a thing of the past.  With no business income to speak of for most of the past year, the family has been living on food storage, modest financial reserves, and the hard work of the entire family to bring in whatever they can.  Randy has recently taken a job working over six hours away from his family, in Montana.

The Bradleys however, are no strangers to hard work or sticking together.  Generations of both sides of the family have made a living at hard work in Utah, with no troubles or run ins with the law and no questions about their integrity or reputation.  What they are unable to comprehend however is in the midst of these difficult circumstances, why was Annie Bradley arrested, handcuffed and taken from her family in the middle of the night.

The entire Bradley Family

What would cause the Utah County Sheriff’s office, in conjunction with Federal Agents, to surround the family’s home as if they were conducting some kind of undercover sting operation?  Why would law enforcement arrest a stay-at-home mother in the middle of the night when it’s almost impossible for the family or friends to reach an attorney or to get access to cash for bail?

The charges made against Mrs. Bradley, according to the affidavits and other documents provided by the Utah Division of Securities allege that Annie was involved in committing securities fraud against her neighbor.  The Bradleys dispute the charges. Annie Bradley never worked for her husband’s business and was never an employee or manager of the company.

The neighbor, Mrs. Wendy Hendry, who owns and manages her own real estate related investment company loaned $30,000 to Race Holdings, LLC in June of 2007.  The loan from Mrs. Hendry’s company to Mr. Bradley’s company, was a high interest loan charging 36% annual interest.  According to banking records the entire loan plus interest and fees was repaid in full by Race Holdings in November of 2007.  No subsequent business was transacted between the parties.  Annie Bradley had nothing to do with it.

So what were the grounds upon which to make such a dramatic arrest of Mrs. Bradley? Apparently, Annie was arrested as part of a legal strategy related to another case being investigated by Securities Division Enforcement Director Michael Hines under the direction of his superior Ms. Francine Giani the Executive Director of the Utah Department of Commerce.  Their plan was evidently to increase pressure on Annie’s husband, Annie’s friends and some of her husband’s former business associates related to another case.

Substantiating the chain of events is a reputable and prominent Utah County securities attorney who has represented clients and worked directly with the Utah Division of Securities for more than a decade.  FCD has obtained multiple audio recordings substantiating the shocking reality behind Mrs. Bradley’s arrest, but has been asked not to reveal the identity of this attorney for fear of reprisal and other consequences from the Utah Government.

Apparently Mr. Hines believed that Randy would do “just about anything” to keep his wife out of jail.  In the recordings obtained by FCD it is revealed that Mr. Hines’ intention was a strategic decision to implicate Mrs. Bradley regardless of her actual involvement in any suspected wrongdoing, in order to bring pressure on her husband to “turn State’s evidence.”

Hines reportedly explained,

We have to put maximum pressure on people…and if Mr. Bradley can’t provide me information that would help me then we are going to charge them both   The information that would help is for Randy to say contrary to that whole affidavit basically, to say he received misrepresentations.

Annie and her Husband Randy Bradley

In the same conversation Annie and Randy were told that if Randy wasn’t able to provide the information he was looking for, Hines intended to follow through with his threat to put Annie in jail.  At one point in the conversation Mr. Bradley can be heard asking,

“What if there isn’t any information?… I would have to commit perjury to say that.”

The formal audit released to the public after several complaints about these kinds of abuses, explains that obtaining cooperation or even false confessions under the threat of jail time is a “Division Tactic” where investigators attempt “to coerce cooperation by intimidating and threatening that the person would be arrested.”

At one point in the recordings it is revealed that in an earlier conversation with Hines, prior to her company even being repaid, Mrs. Hendry was uncomfortable with Mr. Hines agenda, insisting;

“We don’t care about the money.  Let’s just rip up the promissory note.”

Even though Annie was not involved, even though her neighbor apparently did not want to complain against the Bradleys, and even though Race Holdings, LLC did in fact repay the full amount of the loan in question as per the written agreement, Michael Hines had another objective and it required that the case proceed against Annie.

According to Hines, he could charge Annie with a crime based solely on one conversation she had with her neighbor in church one Sunday.  Evidently, during a short stretch of time in mid-2007 when her husband’s business had fallen behind on monthly payments Mrs. Hendry approached Annie looking for re-assurance that the debt would be paid. In defense of her husband, Annie reportedly replied, “My husband is an honest man, and he will repay this debt no matter what.”

Annie Bradley, targeted by Michael Hines

That statement, innocently made by a spouse, in a Sunday church meeting, according to Hines, “constitutes an inappropriate statement or omission of material facts, and therefore constitutes fraud.”

The Bradleys are confused as to how Annie’s statement could be considered fraudulent, especially since her husband later did exactly as she had suggested, ensuring that his business repaid the very high interest loan, plus all interest and fees, as agreed.  The Hendrys profited, according to FCD calculations, in excess of $10,000 in six months and received a full recovery of principal prior to the note’s maturity.

Answering the question of how such a situation could be construed as fraud, Utah Securities regulator A. Gary Bowen provided a rather lengthy but insightful explanation.  He explains:

“People do not understand the nuance of securities regulation.  Most attorneys do not…we can go after these people and we have been just overwhelmed by the filings, you get into my office I’ve got them practically stacked up to the ceiling and I’m not making this up and I’ve got them stacked all over the floor so we’re pursuing them…

“I’m going to recommend you look at section 61-1-1 which is entitled ‘Fraud Unlawful’ and you’re going to discover a definition of fraud that your average attorney is going to be totally clueless about…the nuance that the average attorney doesn’t get, whose competent in real estate, competent in corporate or business law, competent in contract law, is the mere omission of a material fact… do you know what the implication of fraud is, criminal prosecution, time in jail!”

Mr. Bowen who according to his own representations has been charged with advising Utah citizens and business owners about how to avoid breaking the law for more than ten years, later admits that its impossible to pin down what might be construed as “fraud” if the government wants to press charges.  He continues,

“If you look at our definitions section, I’ve been working for this for years and read it a number of times but it really sunk into me here this summer when I was reading it and talking to someone like you, you go in and read the definition actually under 61-1-13 of fraud, and its one of those things that you say, well, what does that mean? The answer is, I don’t know.”

With a definition like this, its no wonder that Utah has become known by some as the “fraud capitals” of the West.  Mr. Bowen’s advise boils down to a simple axiom.  If the government thinks it is fraud, its fraud.

Even experienced attorneys, according to Mr. Bowen, can’t understand what the enlightened public servants in the Department of Commerce might allege.  Or, in short, all Utahans should be very careful when discussing their spouse’s integrity in church on Sunday.

As 2008 rolled around, the Bradleys lived with the daily uncertainty and fear of being charged with fraud as a result of Mr. Hines strategy.  It didn’t seem to matter that both parties agreed the loan had been satisfied and that Annie Bradley had nothing to do with it, other than being married to the business owner.

At one point Randy reveals that the stress became unbearable.

“I came close to considering saying whatever Mr. Hines wanted me to say if it meant it would keep my wife out of jail.  I decided against it, but I couldn’t trust Hines anyway if he was willing to build another case based upon a lie.”

Resigned. Former Director Wayne Klein

But this past February things started to look brighter from the Bradley’s perspective, when Utah Securities Director Wayne Klein was forced to resign because of scrutiny being placed on the Securities Division for its alleged abuses.  The Bradleys along with many small business owners in Utah hoped a new Director would be more just in his oversight of the Division and more effective at reigning in employees like Hines.

Lying, by “any person” during a proceeding under Sate Securities Laws is a 3rd degree felony.  While Randy decided against going along with the enticements of Hines, Audit Manager Tim Osterstock’s performance audit of the Division clearly documents that the Division had been engaging in deceptive practices, evidently believing that government employees are exempt from the requirements of the law.

“The division has, at times, violated the terms of its settlement agreements.  In one case, the division agreed to not publicize the action or commence further administrative actions and then violated both terms of the agreement.  The person accused told us he felt compelled to plead guilty to a lesser criminal charge rather than place his business in jeopardy defending a greater charge.  The division agreed to not seek additional charges but nevertheless pursued an administrative action.  The respondent then signed the settlement agreement after the division agreed to not publicize it.  However, the day the settlement was signed, the division publicized the information on its web page and also published the information in its newsletter the following month.”

The audit also revealed that the Division made false allegations against innocent businessmen as part of its coercive tactics, obtained false confessions and false settlements by threatening citizens with arrest and jail time, and that the State of Utah had been violating its own legal settlements with impunity while Department employees escaped criminal investigation for such activity that clearly violates State law.

With this information now public, the Bradleys anxiously waited for the government to take action to reform the Department.  They also continued to correspond regularly through their attorney with the Division of Securities and specifically with Securities Division attorney Scott Davis who works for the Utah Attorney General’s office.

Mr. Davis corresponded multiple times with the Bradleys about resolving the civil concerns raised by the Division, but never informed the Bradleys that they were in eminent danger of being arrested or criminally charged.  Things seemed to be looking better for the Bradleys, and they were hopeful they could soon put this troubling ordeal behind them.

Then, out of the blue, new rumors began circulating of the Bradley’s pending arrest.  The rumors came from the most unusual of places.  For some unexplainable reason in early August of this year, Mr. Hines called Ron Hendry and explained that the Bradleys were being charged criminally and would soon be arrested.

“I didn’t know what to make of it,” said Randy about the phone call from Hines to Hendry.  Mr. Hendry subsequently began sharing the information with other Bradley neighbors including their religious leaders.

Although the Hendrys had profited handsomely from their transaction with Race Holdings, Mr. Hines, in very questionable legal territory, evidently had some reason for giving them a “heads up.” As it turns out, Hines had told the Hendreys that they were witnesses, as victims, in the now criminal case against both Randy and Annie.

Hines, according to Ron Hendry, had been in contact with them seven our eight times throughout the months of June and July.  During this same time, the Bradleys unsuspectingly continued to hope things were getting closer to being resolved.

When Randy received a surprise phone call from his local Bishop asking about his pending arrest, he wasn’t sure if Ron Hendry was just spreading gossip, or if the strange collaboration between he and Hines were actually fact.  So, through their attorney the Bradleys went straight to the government.  They contacted Scott Davis of the Utah Attorney General’s office.  Randy explains,

“I thought we were working things out.  Through our attorney we were in regular communication with the State.  They are the ones who postponed our last meeting.  Through our attorney we contacted the Attorney General’s office and Scott Davis, the man we were told was the attorney for the Division and he acted surprised and claimed he knew nothing about any criminal charges.  He acted completely embarrassed and didn’t seem to know what Michael Hines was up to.”

Huntsman Appointee, Executive Director of the Utah Department of Commerce, Francine Giani

Seeking to defend herself and her Department, once the audit was released, Francine Giani publicly insisted that her Department had taken all necessary corrective action.   However, one of the major indictments in the audit was that Giani’s staff was repeatedly in violation of Utah State law related to how the State’s lawyers from the Attorney General’s office were being ignored as the Division pursued its own agenda.  The audit reads in part,

“[S]taff from the AG’s office are assigned to represent the  division.  Securities law states “The attorney general shall advise and represent the division and its staff in all matters, administrative or judicial, requiring legal counsel or services in the exercise or defense of the division’s power or the performance of its duties” (Utah Code 61-1-21.5).  There have been conflicts with both how the former director utilized the attorneys representing the division and the level of authority the attorneys should have in defining division activities.  In some cases, it appears the former director assumed the role of the attorney.”

Despite the Attorney General’s office claiming that they knew nothing about criminal charges or arrest warrants, to the shock of Annie, Randy, and their attorney, such warrants were indeed issued.  Randy was arrested on August 29, 2008.

After Randy’s arrest he worried that his wife would be next.  Through their Attorney, the Bradleys made an agreement with prosecutors that with Randy voluntarily returning from his job in Montana, surrendering to the Utah County Sheriff’s office, and providing the required $10,000 bail, the warrant for Annie’s arrest would be withdrawn.  A few short days later however, local and federal agents were surrounding the Bradley’s home and in almost no time, Annie was in jail.

“I told them that we had already taken care of things,” says Randy.

“I begged them not to take her.  I explained that the prosecutor had agreed to release the warrant for Annie’s arrest since I cooperated and posted $10,000 bail.  The Deputy told me that he believed me, but since I had nothing to prove it, there was nothing he could do.  I wasn’t angry at the Sheriff’s office, they were professional and doing what they were supposed to do.  But, who is going to stop Michael Hines from ruining people’s lives while he does whatever he wants?  That is what makes me so angry.  He doesn’t care about my wife, my kids, or our family.”

Annie and Her Two Daughters

So, how and why was Annie arrested so dramatically this past Tuesday night, even after the prosecutors had agreed to release the warrent for her arrest? Why didn’t the government follow the usual procedure when dealing with reputable citizens, not charged with violent crime, having no past criminal history, and just deliver a “Summons to Appear?”  Evidently, that wouldn’t work for Mr. Hines strategy.

Annie Bradley was arrested because Randy and Annie had the courage to resist Mr. Hines for almost a year.  That, evidently, is just not acceptable to the State of Utah, Department of Commerce.

It’s not just the Bradleys who have had to make this tough choice.  The pattern of unjust enforcement by the Division of Securities is revealed unmistakingly in the formal audit results, but Ms. Giani and her boss Utah Governor Jon Huntsman Jr., have neglected to address the gravity of the situation.  Certainly, Ms. Giani and the new Securities Director Keith Woodwell have failed to reign in Hines and others engaged in the abusive practices.

The actual truth related to Annie Bradley’s arrest might have never come to light except that a number of individuals, attorneys, businessmen and even Department of Commerce employees have grown weary of this unchecked abuse and have begun using audio recording’s to try and help document this behavior.

The recordings obtained by FCD are a collection from multiple sources, and cover a multitude of cases. These recordings, and hopefully others yet to be provided to FCD by interested citizens, are beginning to serve as a powerful tool to provide critical insight and political leverage to address this rogue government agency reeling from criticisms, rife with internal conflict and desperate to cover-up its own current and past misdeeds.

Nevertheless, some bureaucrats can’t seem to understand how persecuting small businessmen in Utah (and their wives) is the same as persecuting normal families.  Some government officials can’t seem to understand how unjust it is to have a government agency justify their supposed administration of justice with lies, cover-ups, excessive force, coercion and deceit.

Annie Bradley’s arrest is one more revelation in a series of events alerting Utahan’s to the very real consequences of a corrupt government agency, the conduct of malicious bureaucrats and an incompetent government appointee—Francine Giani—who seems more worried about the appearance of “protecting investors” than she is about following Utah’s laws and protecting all Utah citizen’s civil rights.

The Bradleys have now had to come up with $20,000 cash bail so that they could continue remain free to take care of their family while continuing their fight against a corrupt government investigation.  This amount pales in comparison to the mounting legal costs they’re incurring in a legal circus that could last many more months if not years.

But, instead of heaping added difficulty on their heads, the State of Utah should be issuing the Bradleys a sincere apology as part of its first step to clean up the seriously damaged reputation of the Utah Government.  We should all be grateful for families like the Bradley’s that stand up to corruption, that work constantly to provide a good life for their children, that conduct an honest business, and do all they can–even if they’re late on payments—to always pay their personal and business debts as agreed.

“This has probably been the most difficult emotional thing that has ever happened in our lives, but we’re going make it through,” says Randy, soberly.  “Annie has said that if this is what it takes so that someone will finally put a stop to people like Michael Hines, its okay, I’m okay with it.”

In the face of America’s current economic difficulties it seems like the Executive Branch of Utah’s government has somehow forgotten the virtue of families like the Bradleys and the responsibility to protect all Utah citizens equally.  It is, after all, small businessmen and women, along with their families, who regularly take risks and assume responsibilities that creates more jobs, deliver more services, and add more value to our community than any government appointee and her bureaucrats.

Despite Mrs. Giani’s public assurances, there is an obvious problem in the Utah Department of Commerce.  Evidently this problem extends all the way to the head of the Executive Branch into the office of Governor Jon Huntsman.

Despite calls by numerous state legislators for the removal of Ms. Giani and several of her remaining staff; and despite the multitude of problems revealed in the recent performance audit of her Department; and finally despite even the personal appeals made directly to him from Utah’s own Attorney General for her firing, Governor Jon Huntsman (who is the only elective oversight provided by State law over Francine Giani) seems to share the philosophy of Giani and Hines, namely, that innocent people being wrongly accused is simply a price Utahans should get used to paying if they expect the government to do its job.

That’s an interesting theory of government.  No matter how nice, pleasant or polite Governor Jon Huntsman, Jr. comes across — there is no mistaking that he was not elected to simply look good in office.  Hard decisions sometimes have to be made, and in this case, when dealing with the Department of Commerce, the direct action that needs to be taken just isn’t that hard to discern.

Tyranny, at any level, only works for so long.  What is happening in the Utah Department of Commerce is wickedness; there is no way to skirt around the issue.  A full audit of all divisions within her stewardship will reveal even more succinctly that it is time for leadership in the Governor’s office, in the legislature, and in the judiciary in dealing with abuses like the Giani’s absurd, forceful, and dramatic arrest of Annie Bradley.

This problem will come to a head and the unjust, and in some cases criminal, activity of government bureaucrats along with the startling incompetence of executive management in the Department of Commerce will ultimately cost some politicians and employees their jobs.  Someone with courage will ultimately step forward to address and correct the very serious problems.

In the mean time however, the dirty politics and renegade operations of the Utah Department of Commerce will ensure that more Utah families like the Bradleys will be trying to explain to their small children why mommy or daddy was dragged away in handcuffs, in the middle of the night.

It just doesn’t seem like America.

The Bradleys

Teens Arrested for Political Chalk – Really.

Bob Unruh, WorldNetDaily

DENVER – Two teenagers who had been given city permission to write their messages protesting Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Obama’s support for abortion on public sidewalks during the Democratic National Convention this week were shoved to the sidewalk, cuffed and arrested for doing just that. The two are part of the Survivors organization, a Christian, pro-life activism group dedicated to educating and activating high school and college age individuals.  >>> Read Full Article

An Ear for An Ear?

TAYLORSVILLE, UT | 13 August 2008 | The Fairness Doctrine, under the Media Ownership Reform Act, a bill that would force broadcasters to give equal air time to opposing sides of issues, has made the rounds in Congress lately. After being brought up by Democrats for consideration a few months ago, it was countered by the Republican sponsored Broadcaster’s Freedom Act, a bill that would ban the Fairness Doctrine from ever being passed. In childish response, House Speaker Pelosi then vowed that the Broadcaster’s Freedom Act would never come to the floor for a vote. At a virtual stalemate, both bills have been tabled as Congress has broken for their summer vacation. There has been talk that the Fairness Doctrine could be brought back to light after the inauguration of a new president.In covering the ongoing banter, both the liberal and conservative wings of the media have focused almost exclusively on how they perceive the doctrine affecting their rights to free speech. Liberals feel that talk radio and other venues have been unfairly overrun by right wing nuts and that their side of the story isn’t being heard. Conservatives feel that regulated free speech is a horrific contradiction of terms that can never work. And, while free speech is important enough to have been the front-runner amendment in the Bill of Rights, focusing on it alone will cause us to miss the bigger picture—the fact that freedom itself is at stake in this debate.

Key Points

• The Declaration of Independence and Constitution are the greatest and most significant examples of proper use of free speech. After seeing that their cries for change had fallen on deaf ears, the Founders set forth a system of checks and balances that would allow for grievances to be effectively addressed.
• Regulation of free speech is a removal of those checks and balances. If one cannot address his views of a problem without fear of sanction, he has no avenue in which to protect his freedoms.
• While the Fairness Doctrine doesn’t provide direct sanctions against speech, it takes steps in that direction by limiting the amount that can be said. Effectively slicing broadcast time in half, it forces stations to cap the discussion from either side of any issue. Failure to provide equal airtime to either side (or to find someone willing to fill the necessary time slots for both sides) would result in sanctions.
• Plato said, “Where no contradiction is evident, there is no cause for reflection.” Opposing views are needed in the debate process to help us refine our views of truth and error.
  However, forcing the public to listen to views that are unprincipled or flat-out wrong will cause gradual acceptance of these ideas. Sales trainings often teach that repeated exposure to a concept will eventually break down objections and build familiarity and acceptance. This is also a tactic of the socialist agenda.
• Continued exposure to diametrically opposed ideas will lead to schizophrenic confusion and inaction (if the public are dumb enough to not turn off the radio when needed). Liberals foster this sense of helplessness in order to create a need for and dependence on government solutions, which is also a tactic of the socialists.
• In the free market system intended by the Founders, there is no need for a doctrine to mandate fairness. People are free to share their opinions and the system will sort out good from evil, truth from concoction. Dollars follow value and market will see that voices that are meant to be heard are heard.

Conclusion

Because a free market system will see that truth is brought to the forefront, one must question the motives of anyone who seeks to regulate or eliminate that system. If elected officials are doing what they believe is right, they will feel no need to regulate what is said about their actions. As they often have no idea what is right or do things that they know to be wrong, they fear people’s opinions and shy away from criticism.

It has been said that no single drop feels that it is responsible for the flood. But, regulated speech is always one of the first drops to hit the masses as the floodgates of socialism are opened. Viewing the Fairness Doctrine as either fair or harmless shows a wanton disregard for the principles that maintain and guard our freedoms. To see such a doctrine being considered in a free country is ludicrous. To see that it is being pushed by liberal minds who have often considered themselves the defenders of free speech is infuriating.

Action Items

1. Read the First Amendment to the Constitution.
2. Post here as to what you believe the Founders intended with this amendment and how Americans have mistranslated that intent.
3. Consider contacting your Congressman to express your concern about the loss of freedom that the Fairness Doctrine would lead to.
4. Support freedom in talk radio—listen to FreeCapitalist Radio live or via podcast, or check your local listings for a chanel in your area.

MRFC Principles: (7, 9, 11, 12)

Source

“Fairness Doctrine Vote Not In The Cards”, FMQB.com, Aug 1, 2008.

(Matthew Pilling is a member of the FreeCapitalist movement known as the Canadian Capitalist. Despite his time in the Great White North, Matthew loves America and all that it stands for. He lives with his wife and two children in Taylorsville and works in finance.)

Why the Pickens Plan Won’t Work

HIGHLAND, UT | 23 July 2008| One of the hottest topics in the marketplace of ideas is America’s growing concern with energy. Many say that oil production peaked in 2005 and will soon dry up. Others say that petroleum based internal combustion engines, though not very efficient, are here to stay. Many are looking for alternative sources of oil, such as shale or from algae while others argue that these sources are not feasible for the country’s needs. And there is the ubiquitous clamoring that our current “dependence” upon foreign oil is draining our coffers dry. One of the latest to come on the scene for the current crisis of alternative solutions, is a man named T. Boone Pickens.

With a name like T. Boone Pickens: if you picture a Texas oil tycoon millionaire philanthropist, you would be correct. Though his plan is new, Pickens is not new to the energy industry. The son of an oil producer and a degree in geology, no doubt to aid him in understanding where oil, natural gas and other energy sources may be found in the earth, Pickens was the founder of Mesa Petroleum, which grew to become “one of the largest and most well known independent exploration and production companies in the United States” under his stewardship. Simply put, Pickens’ background and experience definitely qualifies him to be listened to regarding an alternative plan.

His plan is to use one of the world’s greatest wind resources to generate enough electricity to power other energy plants and to provide a portion of America’s electricity needs, thus relieving the need to operate these plants with oil, so the oil demand in the country would drop and more oil could also be used to produce fuel for our vehicles. The Plan also provides for alternative sources of automobile fuel, such as natural gas and ultimately electricity. The plan appears quite legitimate, in and of itself. But it contains a serious flaw that will prove it ultimate failure, and perhaps the failure of our great nation.

Principles govern in the affairs of man. A plan that violates those principles may prove quite successful in the short-term, but will ultimately spell the doom of all those involved. In this regard, Pickens doesn’t really appear to violate principle in the plan itself: wind, natural gas, and other sources of energy are as viable as any other on earth. And left up to a good capitalist, say, another Henry Ford or Steve Jobs, these alternatives could definitely become the next hysteria in transportation. The major flaws of the Pickens Plan is the implementation.

Pickens has been in Washington D.C.all this week, lobbying elected officials and testifying before committees, looking for “permission” to carry forth his plan. This corporatist approach to solving this nation’s challenges violates the Principles of Prosperity and will ultimately end in ruins.

Key Points

• Those who seek the protection of government believe government provides prosperity. Those who understand where true prosperity comes from will then gain the faith necessary to act appropriately. Pickens reveals his faith in government rather than God:

It can all be accomplished with private investment but needs government support by clearing the way for action, which means help on providing the transmission right of way, the appropriate renewals of the renewable energy tax credits, among other things.

• In reality, the plan, any plan, only needs one thing from government: to get itself out of the way and allow informed citizens to voluntarily create the solutions the country seeks.
• Faith is the opposite of fear. again, a thorough understanding of God as the true source of prosperity puts the course in perspective and creates a level of certainty. This builds faith which aids an individual to action. Pickens wants to have the government force its citizens to follow his plan. He lacks the faith that people will see this for themselves. If an intended market does not recognize its self-interest in a given market item, the only way to get that intended market to buy into it is by force. The better solution for Pickens would be to create the project more locally and have it prove its legitimacy and allow it to catch on in the rest of the country. To his credit, he is currently building the largest wind farm in the world which will have the productive capability of four coal-fire plants. Perhaps, however, he feels this is too slow.
• By attaching stewardship (the responsibility of failure) to the collective body, the Pickens Plan creates a fissure in agency. No one will act responsibly enough to ensure success. This allows an escape hatch to exist in case of failure. And when it crashes, too many otherwise responsible parties will echo Atlas Shrugs’, “It’s not my fault.” This gets people off the hook but it does not create a formula for success.

Conclusion

The intended implementation process of the Pickens Plan is the product of a collective attitude within the American society that says business success can only happen with government’s blessing. This is the result of decades of fascist and other socialist influence over not just government’s psyche, but that of the general population as well. Thus, the truth of the FreeCapitalist statement: Everyone is trained, taught, and educated in the scarcity paradigm. That psyche is the flame that has fueled our society from the Great Depression right down to the next big bail out and the next government-enforced great idea. On paper, the Pickens Plan looks really good, but these violations of principle will spell the ultimate doom. The Founders created a country in which rugged individualism and social strength, based upon the universal principles of prosperity, would move this country forward in success. Anything short of that, anything that replaces faith with fear, is at best a counterfeit and will not work.

Action Items

1. Review the Pickens Plan for yourself and decide whether the energy portion of the plan is something you could support.
2. Communicate with your Congressman your position regarding any government involvement in this Plan.
3. If you have an idea you’ve contemplated bringing to market, study Principle 1 (God is the author of prosperity) and Principle 2 (Faith begins with self-interest) until you have built enough faith in yourself and in others to bring your idea to market according to principle.

MRFC Principles:  1  (1, 2, 3, 11, 12, 13)

Sources

The Man with the Plan,PickensPlan.com.

The Plan,PickensPlan.com.

T. Boone Pickens’ energy plan gets play in Washington, Dallas Business Journal, July 23, 2008.

C. Rick Koerber, A Call for Revolution,The FreeCapitalist Project Primer, p. 19.

A River Runs through It

TAYLORSVILLE, UT | 23 JULY 2008 | Since 1982, Utah streams have been open to public passage and recreation, even when those streams passed through private land. But, eight years ago, an angler was cited for trespassing on private land when he left his raft to wander the river bed. On Friday, because of a court case stemming from that incident, the Utah Supreme Court ruled to allow the public to “walk on the beds of all streams and rivers, no matter who owns the land beneath them.”While the ruling shows extreme disregard for basic property ownership rights, the reaction to the ruling by the general public shows even greater lack of concern for principles. Ed Kent, chair of the Utah Anglers Coalition said, “This is going to open corridors of extremely productive waters to anglers that have only been accessible to individuals who gained permission from friends to fish private land.” Upon hearing the ruling, the plaintiff in the case, Kevin Conatser, was ecstatic. “Right on! Sweet! How great! Fishermen are going to love me!”

Somehow, a general lack of understanding of principles has led both the government and the people to the mistaken belief that the public can have ownership in a nation that embraces freedom. The court should know and act better. But, until the people become intimately familiar with and committed to basic, foundational principles, what the court says or does is irrelevant.

Key Points

• Anytime the government steps in to own anything in the name of the public, freedom is inherently lost.
• Private groups may own land and set specific rules for its use, but that is a voluntary act of the individuals involved in the group.
• When government tries to do the same, they are stepping beyond their bounds.
• Government control of private property is at the very heart of all socialist agendas.
• Ezra Taft Benson said conversations on “these questions seem to be based, not upon any solid principle, but upon the popularity of the specific government program in question. Seldom are men willing to oppose a popular program if they, themselves, wish to be popular.”
• It could be added that seldom are men willing to oppose a popular program if they perceive a personal benefit in the program. That mentality never considers the potential infringement on others’ benefits or rights.
• Lack of understanding has also led the government and the people to believe that rights (and principles) are created by man, rather than God. “Rights” become an offshoot of personal desires and opinions. Without universal guiding standards, anything can become a “right” if enough people stand behind it. And, as man creates his own rights, there are bound to be conflicts of interest and unintended consequences.
• This case pits one man’s perceived right (use of ‘public’ resources) against another man’s God-given right (pursuit of happiness through property ownership). And, while the government is supposedly founded for the protection of our God-given rights, the public is willing to wield government force for any cause that affects them personally. How would this fisherman feel if people wanted to use his land without his permission?
• Conatser says “Now we can float down that river without being worried about getting shot by that farmer.” Those who believe that government force can or will stifle personal agency are mistaken. The law, in and of itself, has no power to control or engineer individual actions. It can reactively punish actions, but it will never prevent any action, unless it is coupled with extreme use of unwarranted force. Hiding behind the new law seems to make Conatser more cavalier and may likely be what does get him shot.

Conclusion

This is just wrong. This opens up privately owned lands to abuse and damage. Defense attorney in this case, Ronald Russell says, “Even streams as small as a trickle will be fair game for people who want to fish or wade…[they can] walk up and down it as long as (they) like…If I had a stream in my backyard, I’d be concerned.”

Of greater concern than the wrongness of the decision, this story shows how disconnected people are from principles. People are overly anxious to use the power of the government to push their personal agendas. This opens up the foundation of freedom to abuse and damage. In a giddy frenzy, anglers are planning trips to other people’s land, less because of good fishing, and more because of a desire to “stick it” to the landowners that have stood in their way in the past. (See the comments posted in response to the article in the Salt Lake Tribune—link below.)

So, if you happen to own land where there is good fishing, a nice watering hole, or any other feature of interest connected to a river or stream, you might consider opening up a lemonade stand to invite your new visitors and guests. Just be sure to get the proper permits for it before you do.

Action Items

1. Have a frank discussion with someone whose land will be affected by this or a similar ruling. Discuss with them what could be done to limit the effects of this law or to overturn it.
2. Consider what your own thoughts and feelings would be if your private property was forcefully opened up to public use.
3. Do you support laws based on how they will benefit you, rather than basing your decision on principle?
4. Each of us has stewardships where we can force other’s actions or guide them to make the right choices. Consider whether you tend to use force or persuasion (example—When your children argue over a toy, do you force them to share, or do you help them work something out that they can both agree to?)
5. Read or re-read Benson’s “Proper Role of Government” (link below)

MRFC Principles: 13 (3, 11, 12)

Sources

Stephen Hunt and Brett Prettyman, “Utah Supreme Court: Use of public waterways includes streambeds – even on private land,” The Salt Lake Tribune, July 18, 2008.

Ezra Taft Benson, “Proper Role of Government,” 1968

Next Page »