The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Corruption]
2017-11-15 13:25 by Karl Denninger
in Corruption , 4682 references
[Comments enabled]  

Jesus, it's that obvious and CNN ran this crap?

People need to go to ****ing prison for this.  NOW.

Yes, including Gloria Allred.  The yearbook is an obvious forgery and she peddled it on national television; that needs to be good for disbarment and prosecution.

The original tweet from CNN can still be looked at.  We'll see how long it is before they try to take it down.  (Update: It appears one of Getty's photographers shot the original photo; it's been linked in the comments, and I checked it.  It's pretty-clearly the image CNN used and it was also clearly shot in color as it includes portions of the people holding it in the picture....)

I took the image on the right side of their tweet, brought it into Photoshop and increased the size.

I will swear under oath that I did nothing to tamper with the color or tone and in fact did nothing other than increasing its zoom level to 400% because it would be impossible to tamper with the image at said greatly enhanced zoom level without causing visible artifacts in the background and periphery of the letters.  There is also a gradient in the paper caused by a B&W photo being in part of the area where the signature is, which again will cause visible artifacts if I were to try to tamper with it.  In other words I did this to add irrefutable proof that I did not in any way tamper with the image itself.  I also saved the extract from the tweet as a "PNG" which is lossless from my desktop to yours; no compression so there are no artifacts added in my process either; whatever CNN put forward, that's what I (and you) have.

Those are clearly different inks for everything after the first name.

Was the original signature Roy or was it Ray?

Whatever it was, someone added "Moore DA", the date and "Olde Hickory House" in a different ink color.

By the way, the claimant says that Moore knew she had a boyfriend "and offered to give her a ride home" when he assaulted her.  Was the boyfriend's name RAY?

This must be criminally investigated right ****ing now as attempted federal election tampering.  Jeff Sessions, you claim to be "for the rule of law", let's see a search warrant for that yearbook to perform forensic testing of the ink, and if the latter part of the "signature" is not 40 years old indictments must issue right now for everyone involved in this crap or you are a lying, sniveling sack of ****.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2017-11-13 13:31 by Karl Denninger
in Corruption , 412 references
[Comments enabled]  

Why shouldn't people commit robbery, identity theft, even murder?

Go on, tell me why.  It's wrong, right?  It's also illegal, but the bottom line is that we're a "law-abiding nation", right?


Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigration through stepped-up arrests and border enforcement has shaken the U.S. agricultural sector, where as many as 7 in 10 farm workers are undocumented, according to the American Farm Bureau Federation.

The largest trade group in the United States for farmers admits that 70% of the employees in the sector are illegal invaders and have no right to be in the United States.

This in turn means that one of two things is true for each and every one of them:

  • Their employer is paying no employment taxes because there is no Social Security number being reported at all, and thus you're being directly screwed, as are the employees.  You are being screwed because these people consume government services (whether "soft" or otherwise, that is, the simple enjoyment of things like a water and sewer system, roads, etc) but they pay no taxes to support same, so you are paying for the government systems that support their presence.  Further, if hurt "on the job" you pay for it since they have neither money or workman's comp insurance since they're not being reported as "employed."


  • They are using someone else's identity (e.g. SSN) and as a result the person who's identity was stolen is directly harmed both by the potential impact to their credit and if there is some sort of problem (e.g. they get hurt, etc) that winds up associated with the other person's identity which they are then forced to sort out at their own expense.

Every one of these "businesses" (farms) is a scam outfit and is breaking the law.

Every single one, and some of them are big, publicly-traded firms too (e.g. Tyson.)

The law is being flouted openly, intentionally and with malice aforethought.  Nobody is going to jail and nobody is showing up at those farms and processing houses, arresting both the employee and employer who knowingly and intentionally hired an illegal invader.

And that's just for starters.

Stop trying to argue that I should work hard, pay my taxes and "support society" through my actions while literally the entire food supply chain in the United States, say much less the fuel supply chain is comprised of both employers and employees who stick their middle finger up in the air every single day toward the law and screw all American citizens by doing so.

**** you Mr. President, Mr. Attorney General and the entire rest of the federal "law enforcement" community.  Oh, and **** you to Tyson's CEO, who is on CNBC right now.  May an asteroid land on all of your heads.  You have a major trade group here in the United States which announces that 70% of the employees in the field are illegally here and both they and their employers are intentionally breaking the law and you do exactly NOTHING about it -- except screw American citizens.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2017-11-12 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Corruption , 721 references
[Comments enabled]  

Note the talk-talk in this article:

The Uber app for iOS has been given a unique privilege on the operating system which allows the app to spy on the iPhone’s screen, a researcher has discovered. ZDNet reports that the Uber app can read the screen buffer in iOS, allowing it to view and potentially record anything on your iPhone’s screen without your knowledge.

The security implications are outrageous.  While passwords usually aren't displayed (sort of), usernames almost always are, and if you "unmask" a password it is as well.

Never mind that the application mix the user chooses to use, their contacts, email addresses, calendar entries -- all of this and more is visible if you can get at the screen (like, for instance, the picture or video you're shooting at any given time!)

Uber, of course, says it's "not connected to anything else" in their current codebase.

That's not the issue.

The issue is this: Uber didn't hack this into their app, Apple let them have it on a "privileged" basis and neither firm told you or got your consent.

Exactly who owns that device in your pocket?  Your viewpoint is that it's you, right?

Well, Apple thinks otherwise.  And so does Uber.  Both arrogated to Uber, without permission, the ability (whether used or not) to spy on everything that shows up on your screen.

This ought be a felony and everyone in both firms involved should be in the dock right now.

You know it won't happen..... and it's just another example of how you, dear American, allow firms to screw you blind and probably would consent to a camera in your bedroom -- or aimed at your glass-walled shower!

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2017-11-10 11:17 by Karl Denninger
in Corruption , 1768 references
[Comments enabled]  


Unless you live under a rock you know that Roy Moore, who is the Republican candidate to replace Jeff Session's Senate seat out of Alabama, has been accused of some extraordinarily-salacious and in one case illegal act.

There's a problem -- the alleged act(s) occurred nearly forty years ago and yet not one allegation of same has occurred until now.

I won't get into the actionability of the claim in the first place since with one exception all the so-called accusers were 16 or older and thus of the age of consent at the time.  Further, there has been no allegation of force or improper influence being used, and Moore was unmarried.  In other words unlike the "star allegations" we're not talking about harassment, rape, (statutory) abuse of underage individuals or even adulteryalthough it still smells like dead fish if the allegations are true.

Now add to this that Judge Moore is not some random dude that just decided to run for Senate.  He has a decades long history of being extraordinarily controversial and a public political figure, including being elected as a judge twice in Alabama with the second time after being ousted for refusing to remove the Ten Commandments from a court.

There were plenty of reasons for anyone who had a legitimate beef with his sexual proclivities, and plenty of opportunity with the capacity to do him real political damage, to act before now.  Yet I'm aware of exactly zero in the way of "rumblings", say much less allegations, on this point until a few days ago.

That's enough to call the question about a political hit (that is, a lie) standing alone.

But it's not standing alone.

There are now allegations that The Washington Post attempted to pay women to come forward and make allegations of this sort.

The claim is being made that not only did this happen it has been turned over to the DA.  There are further allegations as to motive and intentional bias, and that this isn't a case of "first impression" either.

Even better, the calls apparently were recorded, so the claim is that there's hard evidence that the attempted bribe happened.

If this turns out to be true given the political affiliation and direct links to both Jeff Bezos and both his and the alleged "reporters" links to the DNC then this certainly appears to amount to federal election tampering, bribery as an inducement to engage in an unlawful act and Racketeering.

If this proves up then not only should the Washington Post be criminally indicted and shut down so should Amazon and Jeff Bezos as well since this sure looks to me like a case where the Racketeering law applies and I remind you that bribery is one of the predicate offenses on which Racketeering can be charged.  Racketeering can be and should be charged against anyone who was involved in, funded benefited from or stood to benefit from the product of said predicate conduct or pattern of activity.


Update 11/11: For those who have severe problems with reading comprehension (it seems there's a bunch), let's try this again.

If there is proof that Moore is guilty of soliciting a 14 year old (for "dates" or anything else) who he either knew or had reason to know was 14 at the time then he has no business in Congress or anywhere else.  But the evidence does not support that.  Let's go through it.

There is one actionable allegation from a person with credibility problems.  The other allegations are that an adult asked other persons of the legal of consent to go on date(s), in fact asked their parents even though not legally required to do so for consent and received same, that the other party consented to said date(s) as well and the worst "behavior" exhibited during such dates were some number of...... kisses.

I repeat: I have yet to read any allegation of force, coercion, abuse of an unequal power relationship, sexual harassment, unwanted touching, attempted sex whether consensual or not (of any sort, such as with Herr Clinton and his stinky cigarsand unlike so-called "men" today the so-called accused asked the parents of the young women if it was ok to date their daughter before doing so.

Now if you have an issue with him being 30ish at the time, well, then you do.  I get that, but such is neither illegal or immoral.  I remind you that the age of sexual consent in Alabama was (and is) 16, and the age of consent to drink in Alabama at the time was 19.  Therefore, if 16, 17, 18, or 19 then she was a "teen", but perfectly legal and, if whoever "she" was was 19 then it was legal for her to drink too.

Despite this even the accusers admit that said "terrible cad" not only asked for his dates' parents blessing (which he had no requirement to do) and received it, and despite alleged consensual alcohol consumption (by a legal adult) his "horrible conduct" included such things as playing a guitar and singing, with the worst of said "conduct" being a kiss, probably of the "goodnight" variety.

If you are going to hang a man politically who by admission of his accusers is more honorable than 99.9% of the men in the nation today, who I remind you believe there is no requirement in honor or otherwise to ask a young woman's parents if it is ok to date their daughter say much less **** her brains out and then the worst conduct you can accuse him of is a goodnight kiss you're certifiably insane.

If you're a RepubliTURD who castigates Moore for this "conduct" perhaps it's because you like to bugger little boys or diddle your interns and staff -- and thus are offended that he actually believes that he should seek the consent of the parents of those who is attracted to before asking them out.

May I remind you that this is the very same Congress that exempted itself in 1995 from sexual harassment law and put in place special protections for itself if any of its members were accused of same including forcing the taxpayers to pay any settlements that were ultimately required if said accusers ultimately proved their cases and even in that instance the identity of the guilty party was withheld from the public.

I know exactly why the media and Congress is up in arms over this: They're incensed that all they can "find" to "support" a bare allegation is evidence of chivalrous behavior that has been nearly-extinct since the 1960s despite a diligent search for someone to back up said scurrilous allegation -- including possibly the use of bribery to obtain intentional false claims!

Never mind John "I'm a ****head" McCain who is one of the douchenozzles that has gone after Judge Moore.  How old is John McCain and how old is his wife?  She was 17 years younger when she met him and, I remind you, he ditched his wife at the time who had stayed loyal to him while he was a POW despite her being grievously injured in an accident.

When John got a "better and 17 year younger offer" he took it, damned his vows to Hell, and whether his "new" choice was a matter of "love" or simple unbridled ambition since she was rich we will never know, will we?

What did People (the magazine) have to say about this?

"What’s a little lie when love is involved?"

You see the truth is that it simply scares Congress and the media to death that someone believes in God, traditional courtship and marriage (which I remind you involves the man asking the woman's parents if it is ok to date their daughter and, if the dates go somewhere, he then comes back and asks the Dad if it's ok to marry her too) and what's worse this "alleged" horny, horrible dirty man didn't even attempt anything more than to sing some songs, spend some time and share a kiss at the end of the night with women who were legally entitled at the time to date whoever they wanted, whenever they wanted and to engage in any sexual conduct that they wanted.

Yeah.  That's the "outrage".

Show me a credible allegation of attempting to "waylay" an underage girl (under the age of consent) and I'm interested.  Where are they?  Decades of controversy around this guy and political enemies shooting at him through two removals from the bench and this is what is "surfaced" 40 years later? The Washington Post goes after trying to "corroborate" a wildly-spun and singular tale including possibly bribing people and they still can't get what they're looking for?

The "best" argument they come up with are Hillary campaign workers who today are hell-bent political opponents and despite all that these "other accusers" effectively exonerate Moore and debunk the original allegation by stating that they were of the age of consent, he sought their parents permission to date them AND that this "dirty old man" never desired to exchange anything beyond a kiss!


View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2017-11-06 08:40 by Karl Denninger
in Corruption , 362 references
[Comments enabled]  

Folks, it is unlawful to act to monopolize or otherwise restrain trade.  So says 15 USC Chapter 1.  It has been illegal for 100 years.

Acting with the motive of putting other people out of business by destroying their customer base without a profit motive for yourself is, quite-obviously, an attempt to monopolize or restrain trade.  It is unlawful.

Cross-subsidization for this purpose within a company is, I maintain, illegal.  It has been illegal for 100 years.  Go read the law for yourself; you need only attempt to monopolize or restrain trade to commit a felony.

But now comes this:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Inc (AMZN.O) is cutting prices of products from third-party sellers on its website, moving beyond its more typical method of discounts on items it sells directly.

This is the taking of an intentional loss on someone else's product you distribute; you are basically bribing someone to sell a product on your platform for the specific purpose of taking market share from someone else with no capacity to profit from the transaction since you are now subsidizing the purchase DIRECTLY.

Not only is this very-arguably illegal under 15 USC Chapter 1 it also is the very definition of Nexus since you are not a mere "listing site" as Amazon has claimed and thus we now have both civil and criminal sales-tax evasion with regards to so-called "third party" sellers as well.

I remind you that Amazon's original scheme was to have various "independent" LLCs (which never made any money and were all effective captive entities) own their distribution centers and other infrastructure in a given state and thus Amazon claimed they didn't have "Nexus" for sales taxes.  I came up with that idea in the 1990s when running MCSNet and was told by my corporate counsel that if I tried it I'd probably go to prison, as it was a very-transparent act of tax evasion (not avoidance) and I should expect spinney-colored lighting on top of vehicles to show up at my office full of not-so-nice men bearing handcuffs, never mind the high probability of ruinous fines being imposed.

Well, Amazon did the same thing and nobody went to jail, yet they clearly knew they'd lose in court since they stopped state-by-state when challenged instead of fighting it out through legal proceedings.  Well guess what -- if it was illegal and Jeff Bezos knew it (it sure looks that way to me -- in other words my corporate counsel was right) then where were the damned handcuffs for Jeff Bezos and the rest of the board and why were they "allowed" to simply "start collecting" one at a time instead of hammering them for both civil and criminal liability for their knowingly-illegal and intentional past conduct?

But did they start charging and collecting sales tax for so-called "third-party" sellers at the same time?  No, the insult did not stop with their own products despite taking the money and in fact, now as we see, they're also indirectly setting prices.  If that doesn't establish direct involvement in the transaction and thus Nexus....... 

This, my friends, is why I will not set up a company in this environment, I will not engage in entrepreneurial activity, and I will not urge others to do so.  You are expected to follow the law under threat of both fines and imprisonment but the "big guys" who you have to take on will not and when they do not, destroying your business through their conduct which they know is civilly or even criminally illegal they will not be punished.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
Our Nation DESERVES To Fail

Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.


The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.