The April 15th Pledge

January 20, 2017

The Honorable Steven Mnuchin
Secretary of the Treasury
United States of America

Dear Mr. Secretary;

I am writing to inform you that effective April 15, 2017, I intend to cease paying Federal Income Taxes. I will pay no further taxes until President Donald J. Trump complies with Article 1, Section 9 — the ‘Emoluments Clause' — of the United States Constitution.

President Trump’s vague pledges to abide by the Constitution in this regard, as every president before him has done, do not satisfy the spirit, the intent, or the letter of the said clause.

I intend to withhold my tax payments until such time as an independent committee finds unequivocally that President Trump has rid himself of conflicts and complied with the Emoluments Clause, and the United States Congress has certified this finding.

Very Respectfully,

/s/

Richard V Badalamente
Citizen, United States of America

Déjà vu all over again

The Patriot Act was an Act of the U.S. Congress that was signed into law
by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001

I wrote a letter to the editor 10 years ago (wow, time flies!) upon learning of concerns expressed by the American Library Association over the threat of the FBI and other government agents obtaining access to the library records of its patrons without their knowledge. The issue didn't receive the attention it deserved then, but now that anyone who emails, tweets, 'chats', posts, pins, phones, or farts is having their 'meta data' collected by the NSA, people are starting to perk up.

To the Editor, Tri-City Herald, September 2003

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances (First Amendment, U.S. Constitution)

In an unusual preface to a speech to the American Restaurant Association conference Monday, September 15th, 2003, Attorney General John Ashcroft suggested that librarians had been deluded by “baseless hysteria” because of the concern they’ve voiced over Section 215 of the “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism“ Act, otherwise known as the “Patriot Act.”

Earlier (September 11, 2003), the Tri-City Herald published an Op Ed piece by James McDevitt, the U.S. attorney for Eastern Washington, in which Mr. McDevitt argues that “Section 215 of the Act has received much misplaced criticism.” He goes on to say, “library records are not the focus of Section 215” and “the word ‘library’ is not found in Section 215.” He repeatedly urges us to look at the facts, and states, “even the media should be mindful of this requirement.” Mr. McDevitt’s claim is that “critics have tried to create a false choice between civil liberties and national security.”

I take issue with Mr. McDevitt on three counts. First, to say that library records are not the focus, or that the word “library” is not found in Section 215 is disingenuous. You won’t find the word “bank,” or “bookstore,” or “college” in Section 215, but they are all, nevertheless, subject to the Act, just as are libraries and a whole host of other institutions. Under Section 215, government agents involved in an authorized investigation may obtain court orders "requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities." Under the Act, a United States Person can be investigated in part on the basis of activities protected under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Furthermore, the law states, "No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the FBI has sought or obtained tangible things under this section." In other words, those served with an order to produce “tangible things,” for example, a list of the books John Doe checked out of a library, are gagged, and John is kept in the dark about the invasion of his privacy.

Second, critics of the Act are quite knowledgeable of the facts concerning the Patriot Act. One need only type “patriot act” into their Google search engine to find a plethora of learned analyses of the Act and its implications. The American Library Association provides a detailed explanation of their concerns on their web page (http://www.ala.org/). Because of their mission, and because they are cognizant of the facts, libraries are especially concerned about the freedom of their patrons to read books, to view videos, to access internet web pages, or to gain information and insights from any of the many resources they make available to us, and to do this in privacy.

Third, to claim, as Mr. Ashcroft did recently, that librarians are hysterical about the Act doesn’t just demonstrate a lack of diplomacy, it demonstrates a troubling willingness to pass over history. This same lack of historical perspective colors Mr. McDivett’s argument that critics have tried to create a false choice between civil liberties and national security.

Some 50 years ago Senator Joseph McCarthy made a mockery of civil liberties. In addition to the many excesses for which [I hope] he is well known, 30,000 books in the Overseas Library Program were identified by what his researchers labeled as "communists, pro-communists, former communists and anti anti-communists." After the publication of this list, these books were removed from library shelves.

In the 1960s, the FBI instituted the “Library Awareness Program” to recruit librarians to report on the research behavior of “suspicious people” -- at that time patrons from Soviet Block countries. This program was carried on in secret for over twenty years before a New York Times article exposed it 16 years ago last Thursday (New York Times, Sept 18, 1987).

Just over 25 years ago, the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities concluded in its final report (April 1976): “Domestic intelligence activity has threatened and undermined the Constitutional rights of Americans to free speech, association and privacy. It has done so primarily because the Constitutional system for checking abuse of power has not been applied.”

The Committee’s report points out something that every American should be very aware of, “A tension between order and liberty is inevitable in any society.”

There will always be choices to make between ensuring our security and protecting our rights. Anyone that has endured the long lines, luggage searches, and body scans at our nation’s airports certainly has come to appreciate this. The trick is to find the right balance between preservation of our civil liberties and protection of our national security. This is never an easy task. It is made more difficult today when we feel viscerally the menace from those who would do us harm. Thus it is all the more important that we remain vigilant; that we be willing to pay that price for the liberty we cherish.

I support our nation’s fight against terrorism both philosophically and in deed. I respect and admire the efforts of our military, our law enforcement community, and our intelligence community in carrying on this fight – it will be a long, hard fight. I also respect the right of every citizen of this great nation to question the laws and actions of its government and to retain a healthy skepticism when told that freedoms must be sacrificed on the altar of national security.

Shining City Upon a Hill

If we are to be a shining city upon a hill, it will be because of our ceaseless pursuit of the constitutional ideal of human dignity.  For the political and legal ideals that form the foundation of much that is best in American institutions – ideals jealously preserved and guarded throughout our history – still form the vital force in creative political thought and activity within the nation today.  As we adapt our institutions to the ever-changing conditions of national and international life, those ideals of human dignity – liberty and justice for all individuals – will continue to inspire and guide us because they are entrenched in our Constitution.  The Constitution with its Bill of Rights thus has a bright future, as well as a glorious past, for its spirit is inherent in the aspirations of our people.

___________________________________________

William J. Brennan, Jr. (1906-1997), Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
This is the concluding paragraph of article originally delivered as a speech at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. on October 12, 1985.

Every American Should Occupy the Hell Out of Wall Street!

Listen. The bastards screwed us. I'm not kidding. It's a disgrace. They are not just unethical -- we expect that by now, don't we? They are crooks. If you don't understand that these bankers and brokers are crooks, you haven't been doing your due diligence -- shame on you. Furthermore, if you believe that the various government and private regulatory agencies charged with oversight and enforcement of our financial institutions are actually doing their job, unimpeded by the influence of revolving doors or money, then I have a bridge to sell you.

Look, corporate capitalism is, on the whole, amoral. Corporations and their CEOs aren't in business to "... form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, or promote the general welfare," especially not to promote the general welfare (consider tobacco companies). Corporations are in business to make a profit. As long as they do this more or less honestly, good for them. I mean, caveat emptor, to some extent, right?

But when corporations (which, despite what five members of the Supreme Court tell us, are not people) and their executive officers (who are people) lie, cheat, and steal, we object, don't we? I do. All those people in the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement do (and good for them).

Every American should occupy the hell out of Wall Street any way we can. I've written about Goldman Sachs' approach to the idea of an "honest broker" elsewhere, so I'll go on to describe a personal experience with my former broker. I closed my Merrill Lynch account, and I wrote a rather lengthy letter to Merrill's regional director of "wealth management" and detailed the many and varied egregious Merrill activities that led me to my decision. Here's my letter.

March 6, 2009

James P. Hughes

Managing Director, Greater Northwest

1201 Pacific Ave.

Wells Fargo Plaza

Tacoma, WA 98402

SUBJECT: CLIENT SATISFACTION SURVEY

Dear Mr. Hughes;

In your letter of November 12, 2008, your requested that I complete subject survey. Forgive me for taking so long to respond. Developments in Merrill Lynch’s fortunes and conditions in global markets as a whole demanded my attention. Merrill Lynch has been in the news a lot, and the news hasn’t been good.

Today’s news on your firm is that one Merrill trader, Alexis Stenfors, apparently gambled away more than $120 million in the currency markets. Others seemingly lost hundreds of millions on tricky credit derivatives. And it has come to light that Merrill Lynch hemorrhaged $13.8 billion during the final three months of 2008 alone.

Bank of America's shareholders did not learn of the gaping hole until after they approved the merger of the two companies on December 5, 2008. Nor was the extent of the loss fully known when Merrill paid out $3.6 billion in bonuses, which were based on estimates of the firm's performance as of December 8, 2008. Thomas Montag, who headed up Merrill's markets operations, was alone paid a bonus of $39M. When the problems at Merrill became clear, Bank of America was forced to seek a second, multibillion-dollar rescue from Washington. 

Before he was forced to resign in January of this year, ex Merrill CEO John Thain, brought in to right the Merrill ship, spent over $1.2M to redecorate his office, while it was coming to light that the firm had actually lost some $27 billion in 2008. Thain accelerated approximately $4B in bonus payments to employees at Merrill just prior to the close of the deal with Bank of America.

Merrill’s true loses appear to have been concealed from Bank of America. BoA, subject to its own lack of due diligence, lowered its dividend after buying Merrill, its stock subsequently dropped from 45 to 5, and Moody’s lowered BoA’s rating. After the BoA takeover, Peter Krause left Merrill and received a $25M “golden parachute” after just 3 months with the company.

In late 2007, Merrill’s CEO, Stanley O’Neal, who was largely responsible for “reinventing” Merrill to be the aggressive, high risk-taking company it became, was forced to resign after the firm suffered its biggest loss in its history (up to that time). O’Neal left with a $160M severance package.

Because I was concerned by what I was reading recently about Merrill Lynch, I did some background research on the firm and found many other examples of Merrill’s lack of values-based leadership. For example:

In January 2007, Merrill Lynch analyst Stanislav Shpigelman was sentenced to 37 months in jail for his part in an insider-trading scheme, following on the heels of ML broker Peter Bacanovic in another, highly publicized insider-trading scandal involving Martha Stewart.

In 2002, the New York State Attorney General’s Office accused Merrill Lynch, and its analyst, Henry Blodget of regularly issuing false or misleading recommendations about Internet-based stocks in an effort to increase the firm’s underwriting business. Merrill Lynch settled the allegations with a $100 million fine.

One of your firm’s most egregious actions was in aiding the massive Enron fraud by creating the false appearance of profits and cash flow. For example, Merrill Lynch purchased Nigerian barges from Enron on the last day of 1999 only because Enron secretly promised to buy the barges back within six months, guaranteeing Merrill Lynch a profit of more than 20%. As a result of this fraud, Merrill Lynch ultimately paid $80 million to settle with the SEC.

In an eerie preview of today, Merrill Lynch lost $377M trading mortgage-backed securities as far back as 1986, helping bankrupt Orange County, California, which sued Merrill.

Merrill Lynch has been fined by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, and charged by the SEC with overcharging its mutual fund clients.

Mr. Hughes, the positive feelings I have for my financial advisor are, I’m afraid, overwhelmed by the negative feelings I’ve developed for Merrill Lynch. That’s why, after having had a relationship with Merrill Lynch for over 25 years, I am leaving your firm, and why I am not completing the subject client survey.

Sincerely,

and etc., etc.

Does it surprise you to learn that I never heard back from Mr. Hughes? No? My you are cynical.

Letter to President Obama -- Subject: Torture

MSU College of Law: Catherine M. Grosso and Sister Dianna Ortiz,a torture survivor, Issue Letter to President Obama Regarding Torture, LANSING, Mich.

To President Obama regarding torture, from MSU College of Law Professor Catherine M. Grosso and Sister Dianna Ortiz,

The Obama administration has declared that the Geneva conventions apply to the war on terror, that torture is illegal, and that the military commissions violate our basic tenants of fair process. In the euphoria over succeeding in these areas that recently required such vigilance, we must not lose track of the scope and depth of the damage caused by the violations.

When it comes to torture, the greatest risk alights on ordinary people all over the world who come face to face with an interrogator. U.S. policy chipped away at the very notion of an international ban on torture. U.S. rhetoric eroded the belief that civilized nations do not torture. U.S. practice undermined the nascent restraint that might have existed in some interrogation cells in some corners of the world.

We must focus today on how to restore the global understanding that only outlaws, thugs, and renegades torture. The immediate risk is that a "forward looking" administration will shy from the task at hand. It is important to fix the offensive laws. Likewise, an investigation is important. The truth is powerful and we must be ready to hear, to own, and to document the grave breaches of human dignity that have been perpetrated in the name of the war on terror. But repaired laws and an investigation cannot remedy the harm that has been done to customary international law and, more importantly, to the safety of detainees all over the world.

The United States, as a member of the world community, must say loudly and clearly that this discourse was wrong and that those who advanced it stood outside of our laws and our values. We must work to ensure certain prosecutions are squarely on the table as a possible response to the findings of any investigation.

Enough is known by now to suggest that senior officials violated U.S. law. The only question now is whether the president will do what under law, he is required to do. We, as a modern democracy, show that people have transgressed our laws by prosecuting them in court. Our Constitution and our criminal laws require that we do nothing less. Our history holds the stories of similar violations by senior administrators and the ensuing prosecutions.

An independent criminal investigation is how we get from accusations to evidence. It is time to start this investigation, and to follow the evidence honestly and in good faith. Does the Obama administration believe in one law for all citizens or are the powerful exempt from that principle?