The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives

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.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2019-08-18 11:20 by Karl Denninger
in Corruption , 137 references
[Comments enabled]  

This is exactly what's wrong with so-called "criminal justice" today.

District Attorney Larry Krasner said when he initially told Hill he could be facing 25 years in prison, Hill tried to negotiate and "said 20" — to which Krasner agreed.

“We need to be clear here: This was bulls--- from the beginning,” Krasner told The Philadelphia Inquirer, describing the agreement as "phony baloney."

Krasner said Hill requested the agreement in writing — which the district attorney claimed he started, but never finished. He said the suspect's lawyer was in on the mock agreement.


So we have several things going on here, all of them catastrophically bad.

1. The defendant's lawyer violated several canons of law, including intentionally lying to the client.

2. The DA lied as well.

I get it -- that was a crap situation and the goal was to get the suspect out of the place in one piece, never mind all the other people trapped inside, both cops and other suspects in the drug bust, along with anyone in the immediate vicinity.

But -- the example now set and admitted to in public, which is a catastrophic piece of stupidity, is that all future suspects can not believe either the words of the head of the just-us department there (the DA) or their own lawyers.

This means that if one is in such a situation the only logical thing for said suspect to do is shoot and kill everyone you can and accept that you're already dead because whatever you're told is a lie.

Remember the basic foundation principle here folks: All after the first all the rest of the murders are free.

This is always true and can never be otherwise.  Anyone with an IQ larger than their shoe size can figure this out.

Situations like the recent one in Philadelphia are some of the worst of "corner cases" around.  There are no good answers.  But we can make a bad situation much, much worse by destroying any vestigial element of credibility within the legal system both among prosecutors as proffered to suspects but even worse, between a suspect and their attorney.

The real issue in this instance which nobody will take responsibility for nor will the people of Philadelphia enforce said responsibility by whatever means are necessary are the utterly ridiculous number of nolle prosecuti charges -- that is, the intentional refusal to prosecute -- that this individual had in his record including many for felony crimes against other people.  The suspect would have been out in public as he would have been in prison and thus none of this would have happened.  Rather than admitting responsibility for his intentional act in this regard, screwing those victims, Larry lied and worse, entered into a conspiracy with the suspect's attorney to lie to said person as a means of covering up his own intentional, criminal malfeasance.

This action is going to get plenty of government employees killed, including police officers and there's nothing that can be done about it now.  Further, the people of the city, I'll bet, still won't hold this jackass accountable -- not now and not when the cops start taking fire on sight.  Instead we'll hear more whining about guns, never mind that all that will remain between you as a common citizen and death is now, from this day forward, a gun.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2019-08-18 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Corruption , 154 references
[Comments enabled]  

Why am I not surprised?

Dayton police said the gunman had cocaine, Xanax and alcohol among other substances in his system at the time of the mass shooting before police fatally shot him. Montgomery County Coroner Kent Harshbarger said that authorities also found a bag of cocaine on Connor Betts, 24.

Xanax is not an SSRI; it's a benzodiazeprine.

It is a drug of abuse especially in persons who are using or abusing other drugs.

While this class of drug is not associated specifically with the rage-monster risk that exists with SSRIs there remains a live issue when it comes to prescribing a drug like this (if indeed it was a prescription drug, and he wasn't abusing it on a "recreational" basis) to someone who his friend, who got busted for having a bong on his kitchen table along with a gun when the FBI came calling, said they had used drugs, including hard drugs, daily over an extended period of time.

What appears quite clear is that this guy was severely mentally compromised.  The problem is that the "Red Flag" screamfest won't do a damn thing, because if this guy can get (and did get, as he had with him) cocaine he can certainly get a gun on the black market as well.

As I've repeatedly pointed out the only real answer to these issues is that if you're too dangerous to be allowed to have a firearm you're too dangerous to be free on the street.  But we refuse to go down that road, which is the only just road to travel in this case, because (1) you must respect due process of law, and (2) when the authorities get this one wrong, and let someone out who they shouldn't, where the public should build a gallows and who they should hang from it is obvious.

Simply put the authorities refuse to take responsibility, just as happened in Philadelphia where the man accused of shooting six cops through his ceiling (who apparently were trying to execute a drug bust) had multiple serious felonies on his arrest record that were entered nole prosequi (in other words, they dropped the charges.)

Now this can happen, sometimes for good cause.  But a repeated record of this sort of thing when it comes to violent felonies is another matter.  There's simply no argument for that; this isn't a drug matter where the only persons involved were consenting adults.  Violent felonies have a victim.

Of course now the US "Attorney" has weighed in:

The alleged shooter last night, Maurice Hill, is a previously convicted felon with a long rap sheet.  We have plenty of criminal laws in this City – but what we don’t have is robust enforcement by the District Attorney.  Instead, among other things, we have diversionary programs for gun offenses, the routine downgrading of charges for violent crime, and entire sections of the criminal code that are ignored. 

Oh you mean like 15 USC Chapter 1, which is a federal (not state) law and which you, **********, have refused to issue one single indictment under against one medical or drug provider in your jurisdiction despite virtually every one violating that law and screwing the population in your district out of tens if not hundreds of billions a year?

Heh, he's outraged I tell you outraged -- that one felon got to commit a lot of felonies and didn't get busted.  That's nice.  The hospital where all those cops went?  I bet it commits 100+ felonies under 15 USC Chapter 1 a day and unlike drug possession, which has only a self-victim (that is, it's voluntary and it's the person with the drugs) these felonies have unwilling victims -- the people generally who get individually and collectively screwed.  How many of those have been prosecuted?  One dude with a gun, lots of crimes, bad.  One building full of dudes with a bunch of drugs, scalpels and other implements committing more crimes a day than this jackwad committed his entire life, robbing everyone in America to the tune of $25 a day, every single day, or roughly $10,000 a year per citizen and it's all good because it's just "the little guy" -- not the "boys in blue" -- who get ****ed!

But back to the central point here -- mass-shootings.

If you want to actually make a dent in these sorts of events you have to hold the authorities accountable when they fail to do their job.  Further, the only means to stop someone dangerous from committing mass-murder is to lock them up.  If you can demonstrate within the boundaries of due process that such danger exists at a level sufficient to remove someone's freedom then do exactly that -- whether it's involuntary commitment due to mental defect or imprisonment due to violent felony.

All other so-called "remedies" will do exactly nothing when it comes to violent jackwads and will make the people less safe since the criminal -- or criminally-insane -- does not care what the law says, while those who are not criminals are denied the fundamental human right to self-defense.

That's unacceptable and will not be allowed to stand.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2019-08-17 06:34 by Karl Denninger
in Interviews , 69 references
[Comments enabled]  

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

It's quite clear by now folks....

The bank informed Mr. Einaudi that it was closing all 13 of the checking accounts it provided his roofing company, CRV Construction, for a reason it called “confidential.” The letter said the accounts would be closed on June 27, and he would be mailed a check for the balance in his accounts.

Mr. Einaudi went to his branch and collected the money, so he did not have to wait for a check to arrive in the mail. But the accounts did not close on the preset date.

For weeks after the date the bank said the accounts would be closed, it kept some of them active. Payments to his insurer, to Google for online advertising and to a provider of project management software were paid out of the empty accounts in July. Each time, the bank charged Mr. Einaudi a $35 overdraft fee.

They closed the accounts.  Proof of this is that they handed him a check for the balance.

Note that Wells originated the closure.  He didn't ask for it, they did it unsolicited.

But they didn't actually close them -- they kept processing payments out of them and banged him for overdraft fees.

This is fraud.

It is a crime.

Yet our government, despite myriad such abuses by this individual company, has failed to bring one criminal charge.

Not one.

Then there's this Twitter thread documenting the fisting that drug firms give Americans.

It is illegal to monopolize, restrain trade or fix prices.  It was made illegal more than 100 years ago.  It is not just civilly illegal (that is, fines) either -- it is a criminal felony carrying 10 years in prison for each person involved.  That's approximately what you'd get for dealing narcotics, possessing a firearm as a felon or having an illegal machine gun.

It's a serious crime.  Go read the law yourself.

And, it's one that despite the pharmaceutical and insurance businesses claiming they were immune from same the Supreme Court said they were not and that these laws applied decades ago (Group Life & Health .v. Royal Drug, 1979.)

Have there been any prosecutions and prison sentences for drug company executives since?



These are just two of more examples than I can count with the only common thread between them being that if you're a large corporation (and in many cases an elected or appointed official -- witness Eric Holder w/Fast-n-Furious) you can do whatever the hell you want, law be damned.  If you're an individual of ordinary means and stature you follow all the laws or go to prison.

So it's quite clear to this ordinary citizen that only one of two things will stop the repeated, daily financial rape of the American people.

1. The government starts enforcing the law against these firms -- including especially large firms.  Not with fines but with prison time and revoked federal business charters, such as in the case of banks.  This is not a suggestion -- it is in fact a requirement of every President who, among other things, promises to faithfully enforce the laws of the United States.  Not just against "little people", against everyone including large corporations and big company executives.


2. The people, having determined that the government will not enforce the law, decide to do so on their own by whatever means are necessary and available to them and further take whatever actions are necessary to prevent the government from stopping such enforcement, up to and including telling said government to screw goats in all respects.

It's the people's choice folks.  #1 is of course the correct choice that remains peaceful and lawful but if the government will not do so despite its clear obligation then the only way it is going to stop is when we, the people, determine that it will stop and that if we cannot obtain recourse through the government enforcing the law we will do it ourselves whether the government likes it or not -- and if the government tries to stop the people from doing so we will stop the government much as the Colonists did the British.

The only other alternative is to consent to the continued financial fisting that these firms apply to us each and every day.

What will it be folks?

Have you decided it's sex, that is, you consent -- in which case y'all need to shut the **** up on Twatter, in the media and everywhere else -- or is it in fact******and are you've had enough of it?

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2019-08-16 13:17 by Karl Denninger
in Foreign Policy , 107 references
[Comments enabled]  

"I'd like a visa, as a member of Congress, to come visit Israel."

"You have taken positions aligned with the BDS movement as a politician.  This, under our political system, are valid grounds to deny you a visa."

"My grand-mum is ill; can I have a visa to come visit her?"

"Sure.  However, be fairly warned -- political activity of any sort on a visa issued for tourism or family matters is explicitly unlawful.  This is not uncommon in the world; Mexico, and indeed, most nations, also forbids any political activity by persons who claim they are entering the nation for other-than-political reasons."

"Never mind."

"Ah, you were lying about your grand-mum being the motivation to come here.  Under any rational system of laws a lie told with the intent to obtain entry through fraudulent pretense is a permanent bar to entry.  You may now not even enter our nation as cremains."

PS: This is not about BDS or, for that matter, anything related to it or any other specific policy matter.  Israel has and does do many things I disagree with.  That's irrelevant.  This is about sovereignty and nothing else.  Israel is a sovereign nation.  It has the absolute right to set the conditions under which people may cross its borders.  So does the United States, incidentally.  The only persons with a right to enter a nation are that nation's citizens; everyone else may ask but it's a privilege you are requesting, not a right.  If you travel internationally you respect this; you're a guest, you have no right to be there, and if you do something offensive whether before or during the time you're there -- as that nation sees it -- you should expect to be expelled immediately and/or potentially barred from ever entering again.  That's the beginning and end of the discussion.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)