How Rich Are the Super Rich?
Sunday, September 25, 2011
The Unequal tax burden on the Public
The Mother Jones article shows some great graphics explaining the inequality of the TAX-Code in America.
How Rich Are the Super Rich?
How Rich Are the Super Rich?
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Greenwood store on trial for opening his business
Cal’s Market trial postponed (Mt Dem)
Vincent Cal of Greenwood appeared in court before Judge James Wagoner on Friday, Sept. 16, to continue his ongoing fight with El Dorado County to keep Cal’s Market from being shut down. He previously was in court before Judge Thomas A. Smith on Sept. 2, when he was arraigned and released by Judge Smith on his own recognizance. On Sept. 2, Cal also was ordered to complete the booking process at the El Dorado County Sheriff’s Office by the end of that business day.
At last week’s hearing, Cal’s attorney requested that his trial, set for Sept 20, be postponed to a later date to await the outcome of a Board of Supervisors meeting. Cal is trying to have his case put on the agenda so that the board can possibly waive his rezoning fees or reduce them.
The 70-year-old man has requested a trial by jury. He is being prosecuted for allegedly operating a business without a license.
Before adjourning last Friday, the prosecuting attorney requested that Judge Wagoner shut down Cal’s Market until after trial.
“I will refrain from shutting you down for now, but no more prepared foods or I will have no choice in shutting you down if you do not adhere to this court’s ruling,” Judge Wagoner said to Cal.
Wagoner rescheduled Cal’s trial for Oct. 17 at 10 a.m. at the courthouse on Main Street in Placerville.
El Dorado judge James Wagoner admonished
Sac Bee article (I cut and pasted it because sometime the Bee takes them off line.)
Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/09/14/3908503/el-dorado-judge-james-wagoner.html#ixzz1Yd9apJBr
El Dorado judge James Wagoner admonished by judicial commission
Published: Wednesday, Sep. 14, 2011 - 12:00 am
| Page 3B
El Dorado Superior Court Judge James R. Wagoner has been
publicly admonished by the California Commission on Judicial
Performance.
The admonishment is the lowest of three levels of public discipline administered by the commission. It carries no further sanctions and cannot be appealed, said Victoria B. Henley, director-chief counsel for the commission.
The commission's investigation showed that Wagoner, currently assistant presiding judge in El Dorado County, acted outside his authority in having Penny Arnold jailed on July 16, 2010.
According to the commission, Wagoner left his second-floor courtroom in the Main Street Courthouse in Placerville after hearing that Arnold was using a cellphone to take photos on the first floor.
He recessed his court and went to the first floor with two bailiffs and ordered Arnold to report to his courtroom for a hearing on her conduct.
He warned her she would be held in contempt if she did not comply and had the bailiffs arrest her.
Arnold was held in a jury room and then transported to jail.
Wagoner later found her guilty of direct contempt and sentenced her to five days in jail, with credit for one day and a stay of the other four.
"The commission found that the judge's order to Ms. Arnold to immediately report to his courtroom for a hearing was not a valid order on which a contempt charge could be based," according to a release from Henley, "and that the judge was without jurisdiction over Ms. Arnold, and further, that the judge gave the appearance of having assumed a law enforcement role in violation of the Code of Judicial Ethics."
It also found that Wagoner acted improperly in four other respects:
• Remanding Arnold without a hearing.
• Adjudicating the matter as direct contempt.
• Imposing unlawful conditions in her sentence.
• Failing to issue an order with facts supporting the contempt finding.
In deciding to issue a public admonishment – more severe than two levels of nonpublic confidential discipline – the commission noted a 2009 confidential advisory issued to Wagoner for abusing his authority. The advisory is the lowest disciplinary level.
Wagoner was elected in 2002.
The admonishment is the lowest of three levels of public discipline administered by the commission. It carries no further sanctions and cannot be appealed, said Victoria B. Henley, director-chief counsel for the commission.
The commission's investigation showed that Wagoner, currently assistant presiding judge in El Dorado County, acted outside his authority in having Penny Arnold jailed on July 16, 2010.
According to the commission, Wagoner left his second-floor courtroom in the Main Street Courthouse in Placerville after hearing that Arnold was using a cellphone to take photos on the first floor.
He recessed his court and went to the first floor with two bailiffs and ordered Arnold to report to his courtroom for a hearing on her conduct.
He warned her she would be held in contempt if she did not comply and had the bailiffs arrest her.
Arnold was held in a jury room and then transported to jail.
Wagoner later found her guilty of direct contempt and sentenced her to five days in jail, with credit for one day and a stay of the other four.
"The commission found that the judge's order to Ms. Arnold to immediately report to his courtroom for a hearing was not a valid order on which a contempt charge could be based," according to a release from Henley, "and that the judge was without jurisdiction over Ms. Arnold, and further, that the judge gave the appearance of having assumed a law enforcement role in violation of the Code of Judicial Ethics."
It also found that Wagoner acted improperly in four other respects:
• Remanding Arnold without a hearing.
• Adjudicating the matter as direct contempt.
• Imposing unlawful conditions in her sentence.
• Failing to issue an order with facts supporting the contempt finding.
In deciding to issue a public admonishment – more severe than two levels of nonpublic confidential discipline – the commission noted a 2009 confidential advisory issued to Wagoner for abusing his authority. The advisory is the lowest disciplinary level.
Wagoner was elected in 2002.
Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/09/14/3908503/el-dorado-judge-james-wagoner.html#ixzz1Yd9apJBr
Thursday, September 8, 2011
When are the Republicans going to wise up?
2002 California gubernatorial election:
-- Gray Davis ran for re-election after the 2001 rolling black outs which were caused by GREED
Primary in March 2002. Gray Davis faced no major competitor in the primary and won the nomination. Simon defeated former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan in the Republican primary
-- Riordan was the middle of the road but non-republicans couldn't vote for him
-- Simon was part of the crazy right.
Simon lost by 5% where Riordan would have beat Davis.
When are these clowns going to wake up and be human? Now we have Perry who says that 1/4th of his state does NOT have Health Care because the Federal Govt did something. He never said what that something was. It makes no sense...but he doesn't have to.... He's the flashy object the GOP is swimming after right now.
Now we have Huntsman -- the only sane candidate -- but he's going down because only the Crazy-hard liners will vote in the primary -- no outsiders.
Not all Republicans are idiots...but Idots are running the ship...
-- Gray Davis ran for re-election after the 2001 rolling black outs which were caused by GREED
Primary in March 2002. Gray Davis faced no major competitor in the primary and won the nomination. Simon defeated former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan in the Republican primary
-- Riordan was the middle of the road but non-republicans couldn't vote for him
-- Simon was part of the crazy right.
Simon lost by 5% where Riordan would have beat Davis.
When are these clowns going to wake up and be human? Now we have Perry who says that 1/4th of his state does NOT have Health Care because the Federal Govt did something. He never said what that something was. It makes no sense...but he doesn't have to.... He's the flashy object the GOP is swimming after right now.
Now we have Huntsman -- the only sane candidate -- but he's going down because only the Crazy-hard liners will vote in the primary -- no outsiders.
Not all Republicans are idiots...but Idots are running the ship...
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Timeline Of A Right-Wing Media Smear: Hoffa's Call To Vote Became “ A Call For Violence“
How can FOX Cable NEWS get away with slamming people with edited tapes? How can this be legal?
Timeline Of A Right-Wing Media Smear: Hoffa's Call To Vote Became “ A Call For Violence“
Timeline Of A Right-Wing Media Smear: Hoffa's Call To Vote Became “ A Call For Violence“
Sunday, September 4, 2011
65% of Small Business Owners say the problem is JOBS!
When did you hear the word "jobs" pass the lips of a TeaPot person?
This article on "regulations and taxes aren't killing jobs" reports on this.
When did you hear the word "jobs" pass the lips of a TeaPot person?
This article on "regulations and taxes aren't killing jobs" reports on this.
Friday, September 2, 2011
Antitrust = Fair "Competition" Law
The Antitrust law started way back in Roman Times. They set laws in place to protect the grain traffic. People were fined if they stopped or interfered with grain traffic.
Antitrust laws were put in place to keep the market place open to anyone -- and -- free to sell their product. --> Open competition. So if you were a small mom and pop oil company, you could sell your oil along with Standard Oil.
People who say they are Against Government Regulation are saying:
-- They are OK with REPRESSION of the free market caused by CARTELS.
-- They are OK to COLLUSION among business communities to prevent any one else competing.
I found this graft interesting. It is the economist's depiction of deadweight loss (inefficiency) to efficiency that monopolies cause.
There comes a point when monopolies create a loss of people buying their products due to "Lack of competition."
When you have a favorite brand of ice cream say "X" ice cream, you tend to buy only that brand, but you do buy others occasionally.
Another ice cream business, say "R" ice cream, wants "X's" customers to buy "R" ice cream. Instead of making a better product, they buy out the competition, X.
Does R make ice cream like X? No, that's too expensive and they have to cut costs because it cost so much to buy up all X's stock so the company's board would sell the company -- and then "R" had to pay for "X's" company after that. So now you are left with only R's ice cream that had to cut quality to cut costs.
How is that creating open competition? It didn't. It wasn't meant to. That is Reducing the Market. Now we are left with lousy ice cream, so we just stop buying it.
After all, if you worked at the "X" ice cream factory, you've lost your job and can't afford to buy any ice cream.
Antitrust laws were put in place to keep the market place open to anyone -- and -- free to sell their product. --> Open competition. So if you were a small mom and pop oil company, you could sell your oil along with Standard Oil.
People who say they are Against Government Regulation are saying:
-- They are OK with REPRESSION of the free market caused by CARTELS.
-- They are OK to COLLUSION among business communities to prevent any one else competing.
I found this graft interesting. It is the economist's depiction of deadweight loss (inefficiency) to efficiency that monopolies cause.
There comes a point when monopolies create a loss of people buying their products due to "Lack of competition."
When you have a favorite brand of ice cream say "X" ice cream, you tend to buy only that brand, but you do buy others occasionally.
Another ice cream business, say "R" ice cream, wants "X's" customers to buy "R" ice cream. Instead of making a better product, they buy out the competition, X.
Does R make ice cream like X? No, that's too expensive and they have to cut costs because it cost so much to buy up all X's stock so the company's board would sell the company -- and then "R" had to pay for "X's" company after that. So now you are left with only R's ice cream that had to cut quality to cut costs.
How is that creating open competition? It didn't. It wasn't meant to. That is Reducing the Market. Now we are left with lousy ice cream, so we just stop buying it.
After all, if you worked at the "X" ice cream factory, you've lost your job and can't afford to buy any ice cream.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)