Tag Archives: “All the World’s a stage”

Last Year Michelle Obama, this year “Vote for Slave Movie or your a Racist?”, Next Year….?

Possibility number one, ’12 Years a Slave’ wins Best  Picture. Possibility number two, you’re all racists,” said Oscar host Ellen DeGeneres, returning after seven years, as she ended her opening monologue. Well the Academy’s 6000 voters went with possibility number one. 

http://blogs.indiewire.com/thompsononhollywood/academy-awards-2014-coverage-stay-tuned-for-updates

It was no coincidence that Academy Awards producers Neil Meron and Craig Zadan booked a record ten black presenters, from Tyler Perry and Sidney Poitier to Samuel L. Jackson and Kerry Washington, a welcome change that one day will hopefully not be worthy of note. Will Smith presented Best Picture, while fragile Poitier leaned on Best Director co-presenter Angelina Jolie.

[Sidebar: Is it a coincidence that the admittedly quite lovely Lupita Nyong’o is from Kenya?  Is any of this timing related to Michelle Obama appearing by surprise last year?  Seventy five years ago, the Best Supporting Actress was from England—and Obama hates England….and the memory of that movie and all it stood for (GWTW]

Did Michelle Obama choose her?

What an odd coincidence that she’s from Kenya, Obama’s Paternal Homeland…..

“12 Years a Slave” producer Brad Pitt thanked director Steve McQueen, the first black producer to win the Best Picture award, for bringing the movie together. “Without Brad Pitt this movie would not have been made,” McQueen responded. It did take a village to make this film, which was not supported by a studio, but by a hodgepodge of backers: New Regency, Bill Pohlad, Plan B, and Film Four, before it was picked up by distributor Fox Searchlight, who fought a long and hard awards campaign, stressing the message, “it’s time.” McQueen added, “I dedicate this award to all the people who have endured slavery and the 21 million people who still suffer it today.”

Jared Leto

“I think it’s important, the film deals with our history,” said Pitt backstage, “so that we can understand who we were so we can better understand who we are now, why we’re having the problems we’re having and who we’re going to be. At the end of the day I hope this film remains a gentle reminder that we’re all equal, we want the same dignity and opportunity for ourselves and out family. Another’s freedom is every bit as important as our own. That’s everything.”

[Sidebar:  Ok, Brad, WHO exactly ARE we going to be?  Oh, I get it, you mean we’re all going to be a Nation of Slaves????]

“It’s a mark of development,” said McQueen, “how we see that particular time in history, the background characters are in the foreground, their lives are being recognized, more than they ever have been before. People are ready for this narrative. It was quite painful. They want to embrace their history.”

Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie

“12 Years a Slave” took its first award in the most competitive race of the night outside of Best Picture, supporting actress. “12 Years a Slave” discovery Lupita Nyong’o, a Nigerian Yale Drama School grad, beat out “American Hustle” star Jennifer Lawrence. Nyong’o had celebrated her 31st birthday Saturday, the day she accepted her Indie Spirit award, and won over Academy voters’ hearts not only by playing slave Patsey but by donning one stunning red carpet outfit after another. “It doesn’t escape me that so much joy in my life came from so much pain in someone else’s,” she said accepting her award. “So this is for Patsey. This has been the joy of my life.”

Backstage Nyong’o said, “I’m a little dazed, I can’t believe this in my hands, this is real life, I’m really overwhelmed. I feel that Steve McQueen has really honored a people who really have been unsung for a long time through doing this film. I feel their spirits have been honored.”

“What I have learned,” she continued, “is that I don’t have to be anyone else, that myself is good enough. When I am true to myself I can avail myself of extraordinary things like this that I didn’t think was necessarily possible, but I didn’t cancel it out. You have to allow the impossible to be possible… I am so happy to be holding this golden man.”

Nyong’o credited her parents for giving her a level head, from her famous diplomat father to her pioneer mother.

[Note from Wikipedia: Peter Anyang’ Nyong’o, born 10 October 1945, same birthday as my Undergraduate Advisor E. Wyllys Andrews V, albeit 2 years younger, is a Kenyan politician. He is the Secretary-General of the Orange Democratic Movement and was elected to the National Assembly of Kenya in the December 2007 parliamentary election, representing the Kisumu Rural Constituency.]

At the end of the day it is my deeds that are more important than my fame. I feel like Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.”

Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie

John Ridley, the second black screenwriter to win the adapted screenplay Oscar (“Precious” writer Geoffrey Fletcher was the first), accepted the second Oscar of the night for “12 Years a Slave,” saying, “all the praise goes to Solomon Northup. They were his words.” Solomon Northup’s public domain memoir is now on the bestseller list and the film and the book are being widely added to school curricula around the country. Ridley hoped that the film’s message was not buried in the past.

MATT TAIBBI (Rolling Stones) has written some of the best articles about Banking-Financial Fraud over the past 7 years

Random thought for the day: when there is this much banking fraud going on, and the Trial Courts are barely aware of it, should there be any such thing as “Res Judicata” against any homeowner foreclosed since at least Y2K (the year 2000 A.D.)?   For a Hebrew Bible-based Israeli Jurisprudence argument against finality of litigation, res judicata, or collateral estoppel, see: Reconsidering Res Judicata_ A Comparative Perspective-Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law 2011

Everything Is Rigged: The Biggest Price-Fixing Scandal Ever

The Illuminati were amateurs. The second huge financial scandal of the year reveals the real international conspiracy: There’s no price the big banks can’t fix

Illustration by Victor Juhasz
April 25, 2013 1:00 PM ET

Conspiracy theorists of the world, believers in the hidden hands of the Rothschilds and the Masons and the Illuminati, we skeptics owe you an apology. You were right. The players may be a little different, but your basic premise is correct: The world is a rigged game. We found this out in recent months, when a series of related corruption stories spilled out of the financial sector, suggesting the world’s largest banks may be fixing the prices of, well, just about everything.

You may have heard of the Libor scandal, in which at least three – and perhaps as many as 16 – of the name-brand too-big-to-fail banks have been manipulating global interest rates, in the process messing around with the prices of upward of $500 trillion (that’s trillion, with a “t”) worth of financial instruments. When that sprawling con burst into public view last year, it was easily the biggest financial scandal in history – MIT professor Andrew Lo even said it “dwarfs by orders of magnitude any financial scam in the history of markets.”

That was bad enough, but now Libor may have a twin brother. Word has leaked out that the London-based firm ICAP, the world’s largest broker of interest-rate swaps, is being investigated by American authorities for behavior that sounds eerily reminiscent of the Libor mess. Regulators are looking into whether or not a small group of brokers at ICAP may have worked with up to 15 of the world’s largest banks to manipulate ISDAfix, a benchmark number used around the world to calculate the prices of interest-rate swaps.

Interest-rate swaps are a tool used by big cities, major corporations and sovereign governments to manage their debt, and the scale of their use is almost unimaginably massive. It’s about a $379 trillion market, meaning that any manipulation would affect a pile of assets about 100 times the size of the United States federal budget.

It should surprise no one that among the players implicated in this scheme to fix the prices of interest-rate swaps are the same megabanks – including Barclays, UBS, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and the Royal Bank of Scotland – that serve on the Libor panel that sets global interest rates. In fact, in recent years many of these banks have already paid multimillion-dollar settlements for anti-competitive manipulation of one form or another (in addition to Libor, some were caught up in an anti-competitive scheme, detailed in Rolling Stone last year, to rig municipal-debt service auctions). Though the jumble of financial acronyms sounds like gibberish to the layperson, the fact that there may now be price-fixing scandals involving both Libor and ISDAfix suggests a single, giant mushrooming conspiracy of collusion and price-fixing hovering under the ostensibly competitive veneer of Wall Street culture.

The Scam Wall Street Learned From the Mafia

Why? Because Libor already affects the prices of interest-rate swaps, making this a manipulation-on-manipulation situation. If the allegations prove to be right, that will mean that swap customers have been paying for two different layers of price-fixing corruption. If you can imagine paying 20 bucks for a crappy PB&J because some evil cabal of agribusiness companies colluded to fix the prices of both peanuts and peanut butter, you come close to grasping the lunacy of financial markets where both interest rates and interest-rate swaps are being manipulated at the same time, often by the same banks.

“It’s a double conspiracy,” says an amazed Michael Greenberger, a former director of the trading and markets division at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and now a professor at the University of Maryland. “It’s the height of criminality.”

The bad news didn’t stop with swaps and interest rates. In March, it also came out that two regulators – the CFTC here in the U.S. and the Madrid-based International Organization of Securities Commissions – were spurred by the Libor revelations to investigate the possibility of collusive manipulation of gold and silver prices. “Given the clubby manipulation efforts we saw in Libor benchmarks, I assume other benchmarks – many other benchmarks – are legit areas of inquiry,” CFTC Commissioner Bart Chilton said.

But the biggest shock came out of a federal courtroom at the end of March – though if you follow these matters closely, it may not have been so shocking at all – when a landmark class-action civil lawsuit against the banks for Libor-related offenses was dismissed. In that case, a federal judge accepted the banker-defendants’ incredible argument: If cities and towns and other investors lost money because of Libor manipulation, that was their own fault for ever thinking the banks were competing in the first place.

“A farce,” was one antitrust lawyer’s response to the eyebrow-raising dismissal.

“Incredible,” says Sylvia Sokol, an attorney for Constantine Cannon, a firm that specializes in antitrust cases.

All of these stories collectively pointed to the same thing: These banks, which already possess enormous power just by virtue of their financial holdings – in the United States, the top six banks, many of them the same names you see on the Libor and ISDAfix panels, own assets equivalent to 60 percent of the nation’s GDP – are beginning to realize the awesome possibilities for increased profit and political might that would come with colluding instead of competing. Moreover, it’s increasingly clear that both the criminal justice system and the civil courts may be impotent to stop them, even when they do get caught working together to game the system.

If true, that would leave us living in an era of undisguised, real-world conspiracy, in which the prices of currencies, commodities like gold and silver, even interest rates and the value of money itself, can be and may already have been dictated from above. And those who are doing it can get away with it. Forget the Illuminati – this is the real thing, and it’s no secret. You can stare right at it, anytime you want.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/everything-is-rigged-the-biggest-financial-scandal-yet-20130425#ixzz2W8St7HJM
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

Small Arms Treaty Negotiations July 2-27, 2012 in New York City—Aurora, Colorado Shooting at Major Media Event July 20, 2012?—Suspect Arrested without Resistance—If you REALLY believe this is a coincidence—you are the kind of BRAIN DEAD AMERICAN that Obama LOVES…..

HISTORICAL METAPHORS AND MYTHIC REALITIES—the enactment of truth

Isn’t it just amazing that less the 48 hours after the shooting, the Police in little Aurora, Colorado, already knew that former Medical Student James Holmes (a white-man with a crazy “Andreas Breivik” smile on his photos) bought all his guns legally?  They also knew there was no Islamic terrorism involved, immediately (well, how could there be, Holmes was a white medical student, right?—must be a conservative opposed to Obamacare, that’s obvious….isn’t it?  I’m just making a prediction now…but SO WAS THE OBAMA ADMINSITRATION when it predicted, just last year, right before Andreas Breivik’s attack in Norway, that White Middle Class American Males were going to be the principal terrorists to be profiled, from now on—my, what insight! what perception! what superb planning!) Wow, they weren’t even going to finish the search of his apartment until today, I wonder how they figured it all out so fast?  That’s just amazing police work if you ask me…. BRAVO AURORA, COLORADO!!!!!  Yeah, right….

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/vigil-held-us-massacre-batman-screening-023539143.html

“Police arrested Holmes — who was wearing full body armor and a gas mask, apparently to protect him from effects of his own tear gas — without encountering resistance by his car at the rear of the theater.

Holmes, who reportedly attended the University of Colorado medical school until last month, had no criminal record aside from a citation for speeding in October 2011, according to police.

Witnesses described chaos chillingly similar to that depicted in the Batman films, in which maniacal villains terrorize Gotham City.”

“”In the last 60 days, he purchased four guns at local metro gun shops and through the internet he purchased over 6,000 rounds of ammunition,” the police chief said.

He added: “My understanding is that all the weapons that he possessed he possessed legally, and all the clips that he possessed, he possessed legally, and all the ammunition he possessed, he possessed legally.””

To Anyone who thinks this wasn’t staged—-I would like to offer you a fabulous investment opportunity, in that it happens that I own all right, title, and interest to the Golden Gate Bridge…. but at the present time the costs of maintaining that wonderful American landmark have become prohibitive….

I have no insights into the mind of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Hussein Obama, or Michael Bloomberg, but I am deeply insulted that they think I (and approximately 300,000,000 other Americans, plus the randomly relevant Mexican, Canadian, or European) am stupid enough to fall for this one.

THERE IS A SMALL ARMS TREATY BEING NEGOTIATED AT A CONFERENCE IN NEW YORK CITY RIGHT NOW (“The Arms Trade Treaty is the name of a controversial potential multilateral treaty that would regulate the international trade in conventional weapons. The treaty will be negotiated at a global conference under the auspices of the United Nations from July 2 – 27, 2012 in New York.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_Trade_Treaty, as of 3:07 PM on Saturday July 21, 2012).  It is widely expected that Barack Hussein Obama will sign this ridiculous piece of international police power over trade into effect on the final day of the conference, July 27, 2012.

Two weeks into this Conference a guy starts a shooting spree in a Cinemark-Century 16 Movie Theatre in Aurora, Colorado 20 miles from the site of Columbine High School in the suburbs of deadly Denver, Colorado (subject of Michael Moore’s “Bowling for Columbine” among other things).   He does so at the opening of what was already guaranteed to be a major media event—the opening of Dark Knight Rises—a film which glorifies Superhuman Monarchical Individual Heroism (traditional symbolic metaphor for All-Power, legally immune, Centralized Government)—and then stands at the back door of a theatre waiting to be arrested without resistance?  This is ALMOST as good a joke as the Terrorist Passport that fell from the sky and survived the incineration of Two Jet Aeroplanes and Three Buildings in New York City on 9/11.  The stupidity of the American people, apparently knows no boundaries, as P.T. Barnum so famously said as he built his own private empire (“Nobody ever went broke under-estimating the intelligence of the American people.).

“On Saturday, Obama promised justice to the residents of Aurora, Colorado, saying: “The federal government stands ready to do everything necessary to bring whoever’s responsible for this heinous crime to justice.”

He said the government “will take every step possible” to ensure the safety of all Americans.”

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/vigil-held-us-massacre-batman-screening-023539143.html

Exactly what steps were necessary given that the gunman had already (effectively) turned himself in?  OH, I almost forgot—obviously—OUTLAW ALL GUNS!  How could I omit such an obvious solution????

And did anybody else notice:

Half Mast Flag News

– Fly the American Flag at Half Staff Sunset until July 25, 2012-

A Presidential proclamation has been issued to fly the flag at half staff until July 25, 2012 in Honor of the victims of the Aurora, Colorado shootings.

http://halfstaff.org/

How many brave American soldiers died in around the world, most recently in Iraq and Afghanistan without the Flags being  flown at Half Mast?  Were the Flags Flown at Half Mast after Hurricane Katrina?  Flags are only flown at Half-Mast for Politically-Self Serving Purposes—such as making speeches in favor of gun control in the week that separates the Aurora, Colorado Shooting from the end of the Small Arms Conference in New York City.

The senseless taking of life is deplorable—but as between mass murder and lies, I think that the greater crime is mass deception.  It is a shame that Mr. Holmes, apparently a very good medical student, will never be Dr. Holmes—his smile is so reminiscent of Andreas Breivik, and his role as patsy is so willing and compliant, that I think they must have a new “patsy” school somewhere that trains these guys to take the fall and play their parts to maximum possible effect.  Gone are the days when a Jack Ruby will have to step out of his sleazy bar to shoot the future Oswalds to make sure they don’t flap their lips and tell “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” about staged murder—all the world’s a stage, but the producers and directors are getting good at this after fifty years or more of practice…

It is a shame that so many people who went to a movie that night—as I myself did, far far away from Colorado, I’m happy to say—were shot.

But their families must take comfort—their loved ones deaths were not in vain nor were they senseless.  The triggerman has surrendered, and will either be locked for life inside a certain Maximum Security Mountain Prison in Colorado or else be put to death, but he did not engage on a random shooting rampage. The murders in Aurora were, and I make this prediction with 99% certainty, were planned, like Mount Carmel in Waco, Texas, the Oklahoma City Bombing, and 9/11, in the White House, the White House Situation Room, and the United States Department of State and U.N. Embassy to the United Nations.

WAKE UP AND STAND UP AMERICANS!!!  LET’S START ARRESTING THE REAL CRIMINALS—the ones who stage killings to take away your rights.  Romney and Obama are, of course, of essentially one mind and one position on gun control: fool the people into complacence and then finally disarm them.

Here is the stridently Anti-Constitutional/Anti-Second Amendment Rights Article in Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-20/colorado-shooting-suspect-avoided-gun-reporting-requirement-1-.html):

Colorado Shooting Suspect Avoided Gun Reporting Rule

By Michael C. Bender and Jeff Bliss – Jul 20, 2012 7:34 PM PTThe suspect in the Colorado shooting bought two pistols, a semiautomatic rifle and a shotgun since May, avoiding federal reporting requirements and taking advantage of the state’s failure to pass significant firearms legislation since the Columbine massacre 13 years ago.

The suspect, James Holmes, 24, didn’t purchase the handguns from the same store within five days, which would have triggered a requirement for the seller to notify the U.S. Justice Department, according to a federal official who asked for anonymity and wasn’t authorized to speak publicly. Holmes hadn’t committed any offenses that would have raised an alarm during required background checks, the official said.

Colorado Shooting Suspect Avoided U.S. Gun Reporting Requirement

Julie Adams, left, holds her phone displaying a 2006 Westview High School yearbook picture of Colorado shooting suspect James Holmes in front of the Holmes family house in San Diego on July 20, 2012. Photographer: Gregory Bull/AP Photo

Law Enforcement Search Suspected Shooter's Home

0:50

July 20 (Bloomberg) — Police and firefighters in Aurora, Colorado, search the home of the suspect of a shooting of more than 70 people, killing at least 12. James Holmes, 24, was arrested after the 12:30 a.m. attack at a shopping mall that housed the theater in the Denver suburb, Police Chief Dan Oates said at a press briefing today. (Source: Bloomberg)

The shooting early yesterday killed 12 inside an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater. The incident renewed debate over gun laws, with advocates saying the slayings show the need for tighter controls. Lawmakers haven’t clamped down on firearms after earlier shootings gripped public attention, including one in January 2011 that wounded Gabrielle Giffords, then a Democratic U.S. Representative, in Tucson, Arizona.

“You get this fervor in people when something like this happens,” said Ron Teck, a former Republican state senator from Grand Junction, Colorado. He was a lawmaker when the Columbine High School killings took place. “I would be really surprised if anything actually does happen.”

Deadliest Shooting

The deadliest shooting in the U.S. in recent years occurred on the Virginia Tech campus in 2007, when Seung-Hui Cho took 33 lives, including his own. In the 1999 Columbine attack, two students shot 12 classmates and a teacher in the suburban Denver school before killing themselves.

After Columbine, a measure requiring background checks for purchases at gun shows passed the U.S. Senate and stalled in the House of Representatives. No major gun-control laws passed following the Virginia Tech shooting or after Jared Lee Loughner opened fire last year in a Tucson parking lot, killing six and wounding Giffords.

In Colorado, state lawmakers refused to pass new gun- control measures after Columbine. Voters responded by approving a constitutional amendment that required background checks before firearms could be purchased at a gun show.

A bill that would have eliminated Colorado’s background check system, known as InstaCheck, passed the Republican- controlled Colorado House this year and stalled in the Senate, led by Democrats. The measure was backed by the National Rifle Association, which said the check duplicates federal requirements.

Guns Recovered

After the attack in Aurora, authorities seized a Glock G22 and a Glock G23, both .40 caliber pistols, one Remington 870 Express Tactical 12-gauge shotgun and one Smith & Wesson M&P .223 caliber semiautomatic rifle, the federal official said.

Holmes used the shotgun, rifle and one of the Glocks in the shooting, Aurora Police Chief Daniel Oates told reporters.

Two of the guns were purchased at the Denver store of Bass Pro Shops, said Larry Whiteley, manager of communications for the Springfield, Missouri-based company. The store followed federal requirements and background checks were conducted, Whiteley said in a statement.

In Colorado, there are no specific rules that would prohibit those guns from being owned, saidRobert Brown, the agent in charge of background checks at the state Bureau of Investigation.

Waiting Period

Colorado doesn’t require gun registration and there is no specific waiting period to buy a firearm. Instead, purchases are approved as soon as U.S. authorities clear a list of 10 criteria, such as assuring the buyer isn’t a fugitive or an illegal alien, and the state conducts its own checks, including for restraining orders and juvenile arrests.

Residents can carry concealed weapons in Colorado. Sheriffs approve concealed-carry permits if applicants are at least 21, haven’t committed perjury and complete a gun-training course, among other requirements. The state also recognizes concealed- carry permits from 30 other states.

Colorado residents with a permit can’t carry a firearm in schools, some government buildings and on private property where guns are prohibited by the owner, Brown said.

‘Future Tragedies’

Congress should “prevent future tragedies” and pass stricter gun control laws in response to the movie theater shooting, Dan Gross, head of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said in a statement. The Washington-based group describes itself as the country’s largest pro-gun-control lobby.

The NRA, a membership organization that says it’s widely recognized as a “major political force” and the country’s “foremost defender” of Second Amendment rights, declined to comment on the gun-control debate.

“Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims, their families and the community,” NRA public affairs director Andrew Arulanandam, said by e-mail. “NRA will not have any further comment until all the facts are known.”

The NRA has persuaded state lawmakers to make it easier to buy and carry guns, said Adam Winkler, a University of CaliforniaLos Angeles, law professor who wrote about the subject in his book, “Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms.”

Winkler pointed to states such as Arizona and Wyoming that don’t require permits to carry guns. Florida lawmakers in 2008 forced business owners to let employees and shoppers bring firearms on their property and leave the firearms locked in their cars.

Virginia lawmakers this year repealed a cap on buying more than one handgun per month.

“Tragic incidents like this don’t move gun-control laws,” Winkler said in an interview. “No matter how many people die, gun control reforms go nowhere.”

To contact the reporters on this story: Michael C. Bender in Tallahassee at mbender10@bloomberg.net; Jeff Bliss in Washington at jbliss@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Stephen Merelman at smerelman@bloomberg.net

***********************************************************************

and here is a similar article from UK Yahoo

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/batman-movie-massacre-weapons-bought-legally-031629075.html — the traditional rights of Englishmen have been suppressed for a long time since: “”the 1689 English Bill of Rights explicitly protected a right to keep arms for self-defense, and that by 1765, Blackstone was able to assert that the right to keep and bear arms was “one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen,””  MacDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S.Ct. 3020, 3036 (2010) SCOTUS, citing D.C. v. Heller.

Batman Movie Massacre: Weapons Bought Legally

Sky NewsSky News – 17 hours ago

The man suspected of shooting 12 people dead and wounding 70 during a screening of the new Batman movie in Colorado legally purchased four guns and 6,000 rounds of ammunition in the last 60 days, police have revealed.

More details about the bloody massacre at a cinema in Aurora, near Denver, – and the extent of the weaponry used – were outlined by officials at a news conference.

The gunman, who burst into a midnight screening of the firm and opened fire, was arrested shortly afterwards and has been identified as 24-year-old James Holmes, a loner who recently quit medical school.

Ten people were killed at the scene with another two dying later of their injuries.

Eleven people are still in a critical condition in hospital while only one of the dead has so far been identified .

Aurora police chief Dan Oates said Holmes had bought the four guns in local shops and the 6,000 rounds of ammunition over the internet.

All the weapons were purchased legally, he added.

Describing the rampage itself, he said: “As far as we know it was a pretty rapid pace of fire in that theatre.”

The gunman was wearing a gas mask and a bulletproof vest as he fired shots and hurled a gas canister at the movie-goers.

Holding back tears, an emotional Mr Oates also described the potential danger of booby traps the police face while trying to search the gunman’s flat.

His apartment is filled with trip wires and chemicals, leading to the evacuation of five buildings nearby.

The operation to search the flat would resume in the morning, Mr Oates said.

The police are also due to meet shortly with the victims’ families.

The news conference came after Christopher Nolan, the director of the new Batman film that was being screened at the time of the massacre, called it a “senseless tragedy”, that was “unbearably savage”.

The Oscar-nominated filmmaker cancelled the French premiere of “The Dark Knight Rises” and a media junket in Paris hours after the shootings.

“Speaking on behalf of the cast and crew… I would like to express our profound sorrow at the senseless tragedy that has befallen the entire Aurora community,” he said.

British-American Mr Nolan is director of the Batman trilogy that started with “The Dark Knight” in 2008 and of which “The Dark Knight Rises” is the final instalment.

US President Barack Obama said he was saddened by the “horrific and tragic shooting”.

He cut short campaigning for the November presidential elections to return to the White House, where flags were lowered in mourning.

The Queen sent a message of sympathy to Mr Obama.

The British monarch said: “I was saddened to learn of the tragic loss of life earlier today in Denver, Colorado.

“Prince Philip joins me in extending our heartfelt sympathy to you and the people of America at this time.”

But while the shooting side-tracked the US presidential race neither President Obama nor Republican challenger Mitt Romney addressed the volatile issue of gun control in America.

“There are going to be other days for politics,” Obama said from one key electoral state, Florida. From another one, New Hampshire, Romney said much the same.

Amid their calls for unity and prayer, neither Mr Obama nor Mr Romney said anything of gun control, an issue that has been all but absent from the campaign debate this year.

Both men have shifted with the times, moving away from stances that favoured tougher gun control laws.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a gun control advocate, said: “You know, soothing words are nice, but maybe it’s time that the two people who want to be president of the United States stand up and tell us what they are going to do about it.”

Twenty years ago, polls showed that a substantial majority of Americans – nearly 80% in 1990 – supported stricter limits on guns.

But now Americans appear evenly divided between those who want tougher restrictions and those who want to stick with current laws – which allow easy access to guns in many areas.

**********************************************************************

“We only report the news, we don’t make it up!  That’s the GOVERNMENT’s job” (British Newscaster from 2006 Natalie Portman/Hugo Weaving movie V for Vendetta)

All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players: but on that stage, are courtroom dramas sometimes pre-scripted to produce results and/or social effects? Do these scripts negate due process of law? A Northern California Example.

In the eight years since AAMES Vice-President Deborah S. Gershon in Los Angeles explained to me that AAMES loans could not be modified because they did not belong to AAMES…. strike that, in the 17 years since I first participated in the preparation of an SEC-acceptable registration statement for an MBO (Mortgage Backed Obligation, actually a Mortgage Bundled-Bond, in that case) IPO on Wall Street at Cadwalader, Wickersham, & Taft, I have been almost obsessed with trying to understand and undo the evil caused by securitized mortgages.  It’s a lonely obsession, like so many of my interests: from Wagnerian Opera, Gilbert & Sullivan’s operettas, Tom Lehrer’s and Weird Al Yankovich’s “comic pop-cultural folklore”, to the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European Language, Culture, and Mythology, the calibration of the Maya and Christian calendars by and through archaeological stratigraphy and ceramic seriation, the comparative structural analysis of dual, tripartite, and quadripartite forms of religious and social organization, and then over to the comparative American graveyard organization and iconography of Colonial New England and the South, especially New Orleans, the detailed history of the Oracle at Delphi, the best approximation of Moses’ route through the Sinai Peninsula in Exodus. But of all my interests and obsessions, only securitized mortgages have become not merely a national but a worldwide crisis and obsession as well.   Since my happy days as a young (or at least a much younger) judicial extern clerk for Stephen Reinhardt (Ninth Circuit, Los Angeles) and later a judicial law clerk for Kenneth L. Ryskamp (Southern District of Florida, Miami & West Palm Beach), on the opposite coasts of America, since those days when I believed that Federal judges all worked late hours into the morning with their clerks sifting through pleadings and motions and agonized over the proper disposition of cases, never “pre-judged” anything, and that federal judges in particular were basically among the hardest working and most honorable members of society at large, never mind the much maligned legal profession, I have learned a lot and become very cynical.

Sadly, I have to say that I repeatedly, and with increasing frequency, see evidence that at least some federal judges either manipulate or fix cases, and that the putatively adversarial attorneys may sometimes participate in this process.   I have neither the time nor the energy to review all the cases where I have suspected this, except that I saw the process directly for the first time in September 1997 in Austin, Texas, when I saw Judge James R. Nowlin take charge of a case (ALL sides), primarily for the purpose of attacking and ultimately destroying me (well, actually, my “ordinary” legal career: which by ending that very ordinary phase of my life began the “extraordinary” phase in which I have been living ever since).  But I’ve seen some evidence of staging and restructuring cases many times since, though no one has ever been quite as outrageously blatant about it as Judge James R. Nowlin of the Western District of Texas (that was one for the Guinness Book of World Records), until perhaps right now, September 2010, in the Northern District of California.

A couple of weeks ago, I became aware that a respected an experienced attorney by the name of Michael Pines had filed a truly extraordinary lawsuit against the foreclosure and eviction consequences against the securitization of mortgages, and in particular against one marvelously slimy fellow by the name of Steven D. Silverstein who operates a rather vicious shark tank out of Tustin, Orange County, California.  Michael Pines’ complaint was, frankly, music to my ears: as eloquent as Wagner while as socially apt, “right on the mark” and stinging as the comedies of Gilbert & Sullivan, or the satires of Tom Lehrer and “Weird Al.”  Everything that Michael Pines said was true, or at least reflected MY version of truth and reality to a very reassuring degree: Michael T Pines’ NDCA Complaint for FDCPA-Wrongful Foreclosure 10-02622 Class Action

Finally, a non-disbarred, currently licensed attorney with community respectability, standing had become so thoroughly acquainted with the truth as even to go record as giving CLE Courses to other lawyers on the topic, see e.g.: http://www.free-press-release.com/news-securitization-in-litigation-workshop-6hrs-mcle-michael-t-pines-esq-certified-forensic-loan-auditors-llc- 1268337159.html

Surely a lawyer like this knows at least as much as a pathetic disbarred attorney such as myself would know.  Inception of a major lawsuit, especially a class action, means that you must design your litigation according to a very careful strategy, frame issues to match your defendants, and you must thoroughly research every topic prior to launching litigation.  Above all, before you file your complaint, you must anticipate vigorous and violent opposition—especially if you’re suing other lawyers, but even if you’re “ONLY” suing certain major banks and loan servicing companies in the largest financial industry in the WORLD in a state (California) whose, by itself, would rank right after that of France and just above Italy’s if California were a separate and independent nation, apart from the rest of the US.  Anyone who goes into Federal Court knows that the first thing to expect is the ALMOST inevitable 12(b)(6) Motion.  Few and far between are the cases where anyone just files an “answer” in Federal Court, when Federal judges, even the good ones, LOVE to throw out cases without allowing a jury trial if they possibly can, because all Federal judges are “judged” and rated by their “case statistics” which rewards a LOW case load (which requires less work) than a HIGH case load (conscientious management of which would require MUCH more work).   Congress has built in some VERY perverse incentives for Federal Judges but that is, as they say, a “Political Question” which we need not address here.

SO how can it be that Michael T. Pines, a distinguished lawyer known for speaking on this topic, had not filed (by September 2010) even a single answer to the motions to dismiss his complaint filed in June, 2010?  CAND-ECF-10-02622 Michael T Pines v Silverstein Docket 09-19-2010 Michael T. Pines did the almost unthinkable: he filed and served a major, complex lawsuit in his special field of expertise and advocacy and then, faced with the totally predictable barrage of motions to dismiss and for sanctions, never filed any responses and finally, on September 21, 2010, VOLUNTARILY DISMISSED HIS CASE.  09-21-2010–PINES AND ASSOCIATES—Notice of Voluntary Dismissal.  The Notice provides no explanation whatsoever why Plaintiffs’ Counsel so utterly and completely failed to file any response or contest to the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, but only lamely “advised the court:”

2. Further investigation is occurring and will be helpful.

3. Many new party defendants need to be added.

4. The case may be re-filed in a court where other class actions are pending as this

case is related to other similar actions not only in California, but in Florida,

New York, and Seattle.

5. In an attempt to further conceal their wrongful conduct, with the exception of a

few defendants, no demand for defense was made to insurance carriers and

plaintiffs wish to make sure this occurs.

6. If the case is re-filed in this court, this action will be brought to the attention of

the court so it can be reassigned here if the court desires such.

Steven D. Silverstein’s lawyer Larry Rothman responded  09-27-2010 10-cv-02622-RS Case Status Report in a more mild-mannered and civilized way than I would have thought possible, because Larry Rothman is nothing if not a fairly consistent shark in the tradition of his client (and mentor?) Silverstein—and yet Rothman pounced on 09-22-2010 THE VERY DAY AFTER Michael T. Pines’ Notice of Voluntary Dismissal and demanded that jurisdiction to impose sanctions be retained.  Judge Seeborg of the Northern District could do nothing other than comply with Rothman’s request: 09-27-2010—10-2622 McComas order re pending motions—Rule 11 Sanctions Remain.

This story is clearly not yet “over”—it remains to be seen what Judge Seeborg will do about the motions for sanctions and the administration or implementation of Rothman’s California “anti-Slapp” motion in Federal Court.  (The idea that Silverstein’s use of the California Superior Courts of Limited Jurisdiction [solely to eviscerate the rights and lives of hundreds of thousands of Californians] could be protected against a “Suit to Limit Access to Public Process” [a “SLAPP” is usually conceived of as a harassing lawsuit designed for no purpose except to silence environmentalists or civil rights advocates, or historic or coastal neighborhood preservations—NOT as a vehicle to insulate criminals like Silverstein from very meritorious lawsuits] is beyond preposterous and downright offensive.   I believe and have submitted in two lawsuits of my own that California Anti-SLAPP legislation is the “mother of all First Amendment Constitutional Violations”—even more reprehensible for its vagueness and obviously realized potential for overbreadth than the “Vexatious Litigant” index which I can only imagine Silverstein would like to have me registered on).

It also remains to be seen whether Michael T. Pines actually WILL refile his class action against Silverstein and his cronies and seriously litigate the Complaint once he DOES file it again.

In the meantime, Michael T. Pines has voluntarily dismissed his very fine complaint without even attempting to defend it.  And I have never seen anything this suspicious in my life, except for Judge Nowlin’s conduct towards me in September 1997 [footnote/sidebar: it was a civil case, but Judge Nowlin appointed a very expensive downtown Austin lawyer, a former law clerk of his, to represent the crook I was suing as Defendant, who was proceeding pro se —when I say “crook” I mean Donald Richmond was a forger, an interstate racketeer in real estate before it was even fashionable, and we had the certificate from the North Dakota Secretary of State confirming that he had forged a notary seal—and then he arranged to have me fired as counsel for the Plaintiff by strong-arming my housekeeper into giving outrageously and obviously false testimony against me, and on that occasion expressed his gratitude in open Court, on the record, to her and anyone else who would assist him in procuring evidence leading to my disbarment…..]

I submit that this all looks just a little bit too STAGED to me.   Even if it were true, as Michael T. Pines so weakly claims that:

1. Counsel is working with several agencies including the State Of California to

coordinate proceedings against named defendants and others (and criminal proceedings in other states).

2. Further investigation is occurring and will be helpful.

3. Many new party defendants need to be added.

4. The case may be re-filed in a court where other class actions are pending as this

case is related to other similar actions not only in California, but in Florida,

New York, and Seattle.

These facts SIMPLY do not excuse Michael T. Pines failure even to defend himself for filing the Complaint in any way, shape or form.  (Aside from submitting the Complaint, Pines had submitted a TRO and motion for reconsideration of denial of TRO, and no other substantive papers in the case WHATSOEVER).

And frankly, all of it would be pretty inconclusive and not nearly so suspicious if it were not for the judgment obtained in the California Attorney General’s case against a certain Mitchell Roth in Los Angeles in August of this year.   I wrote a critical letter to the Attorney General immediately after learning of the Mitchell Roth judgment, saying that I did not believe that the Attorney General had acted in the best interests of the people of California in attacking Mitchell Roth’s abortive crusade against non-judicial foreclosures and evictions.  CEL to EDMUND G BROWN CAL AG 08-26-2010.  I feared then and still fear that the end result as far as the public is concerned will be that everyone who pushes the “securitized note” issue, as a defense to wrongful foreclosure and the evictions that follow therefrom will be lumped with “the scammers” and the filers of frivolous lawsuits, such as Roth and, I’m going to predict, Michael T. Pines.  I note in the attorney general’s summary of Roth’s conduct the disturbing sentence: “Roth filed lawsuits on behalf of homeowners, pushing a novel legal argument that a borrower’s loan could be deemed invalid because the mortgages had been sold so many times on Wall Street that the lender could not demonstrate who owned it.” Isn’t THIS suit, by the Attorney General of the State of California, the ultimate “SLAPP” in the face to the movement of which I am apart, the advocacy in which I believe and have fought ever since it effectively cost me my high-paying, high-prestige job at the (they claim) oldest lawfirm in the United States (allegedly traceable back to a law office founded in lower Manhattan near the battery in 1792).

However, even more suspicious and odd, California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown had made precisely the same claim against Mitchell Roth as the demonstrable reasons for the voluntary dismissal of Plaintiffs’ case in the NDCA: “Once the lawsuit was filed, Roth did next to nothing to advance the case and often failed to make required court filings, respond to legal motions, comply with court deadlines or appear at court hearings.”http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/release.php?id=1979

Honestly, it just doesn’t get much more suspiciously coincidental than this: on or about August 12, 2010, the Attorney General enters into a consent judgment with Mitchell Roth preventing Mitchell Roth from “pushing” his novel legal argument that a borrower’s loan could be deemed invalid because the mortgages had been sold so many times on Wall Street that the lender could not demonstrate who owned it”—Mitchell Roth’s alleged “M.O.” was to file lawsuits and then never do anything else about it.

Slightly over a month later, on or about September 21, 2010, Michael T. Pines, supposedly one of the leading advocates AGAINST SECURITIZED MORTGAGES, voluntarily dismisses his very strong complaint against wrongful foreclosures, after having identified the issues correctly, named all the right defendants, after initiating a lawsuit and never filing any other papers or attempting even taking steps towards the serious prosecution of the lawsuit, (i.e. (without ever answering the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss or defending his complaint in any way) .  (Perhaps it is significant that Pines’ Complaint named too many plaintiffs and defendents to be practically combined into a single suit, especially one seeking class certification, where “identity of injury and identity of nature of causation of injury” must be proven, but that’s a quibble about strategy).

Two nearly identical case histories, flawed legal strategies, associated with the same legal issue, both leading to potential legal sanctions or stigmatization of the very meritorious legal issues involved in attacking the securitization of home mortgages as the direct and proximate and therefore legal cause of the present mortgage foreclosure crisis.

The end result of both the stories of Mitchell Roth and Michael T. Pines’ case histories, as of Tuesday, September 28, 2010, is that two “seasoned” lawyers in the State of California who wanted to push that self-same “Novel Argument” about securitization leading to unenforceability of mortgages have both bit the dust without adequately developing or examining the legal theories or factual evidence which could be marshaled in favor and support of either Roth’s Complaint or Pines’ Complaint.  This is going to lead to a lot of “See, I told you so” comments which those trying to dissuade homeowners from fighting foreclosure on this issue will now be able to use.   Litigation on the scale of the Pines’ now voluntarily dismissed complaint or (I assume, without ever having looked at an example) Roth’s Complaint supposedly filed (???) 2,000 times without a single genuine litigation is expensive and difficult, and scares away even many serious people, but that is because it must be fought against all odds against such tough enemies—the international banking & finance industry, its attorneys, and its servicers.

In other words, I charge, without any inside knowledge, that Mitchell Roth’s cases and Michael Pines’ case were both staged, fraudulent situations specifically staged to discredit and destroy the causes which I so passionately support: the abolition of securitized mortgages and the modification of the foreclosure and eviction laws in the state of California and elsewhere, especially in those Western U.S.A. states which tend to slavishly copy California Codes, by inertia and gravity, as physical factors relating to size and proximity, rather than virtue or success of theoretical arguments.

And that, therein, is the biggest problem.  In almost all pro se complaints, the systems-loyal state and federal judges all have an easy time throwing out the desperate homeowners who demand to see the note or ask how their property can be taken from them by a party who appears to have no relationship to them or their original mortgage application and promissory note whatsoever.

The continuing lack of argument and exposition of evidence and theories is perhaps the most devastating consequence of the Mitchell Roth judgment and the Michael T. Pines’ voluntary dismissal (with continued exposure to punitive sanctions under both Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the ABSURD California “Anti-SLAPP” Motion filed by Rothman for Silverstein).

“Due Process” never occurs on stage.  It is true that the language used to describe and explain legal “representation” and thespian performance is sometimes eerily similar:  the lawyer “acts on behalf” of another by “representing him” as accurately as possible in his “presentation” to the Court.   An actor, like an attorney in court, is to be judged on the “quality” or “accuracy” of his representation of both the character and the “original intent” of the author of the movie, the play, the book (before being made into a movie or play), or of the statutory and constitutional provisions underlying the lawsuit brought to be “put on” in Court—under the best of circumstances to a small, non-paying, poorly paid, “captive” audience of 12, and more often, to an even smaller audience of one judge, one or two bailiffs or courtroom deputies, and one-or-two law clerks.

Meaningful argument, substantial dialogue or “Due Process” on stage is impossible, except of course in completely “ad libbed” dramas (where no preset script is to be followed), because all the arguments and outcomes are normally predetermined (“Shear Madness” is a notable exception).

What aggravates so many Americans who get caught up in one or more aspects or elements of the litigation system in this country is how “pre-set” and “pre-determined” the outcome of all proceedings seems to be.  There is no room for open or free argument or debate—there is no “due process” for the free development of ideas or evidence—there are rote formulas and outcomes which in some courts seem totally fixed—the opposite of freedom.

In Florida for several years now I’ve been working intermittently with Dr. Kathy Garcia-Lawson on the question of why every divorce litigation must end in a divorce.   Why are there not multiple, possible outcomes, as unique as the individuals and families involved?  Why can one not question the “pre-fixed” outcome that all divorce proceedings must end in a divorce?   There is no such thing as a “not guilty” verdict.  As Kathy and others have said—every marriage is doomed once it goes to court—there are no pardons and no hung juries, every marriage must die.

Likewise, in California Unlawful Detainer Courts—the outcome is even more fixed.  In divorce court, there is at least some diversity of outcome with regard to who gets the house and who gets the house, the shares of Bristol-Myers-Squibb, the kids, the dog, the parakeet, and all those ancient plates inherited from one spouse’s great aunt who collected Royal Doulton (but whose eyesight was so bad in her old age that every set is hopelessly mismatched in the China cabinet).

In Unlawful Detainer Court, as in California non-judicial foreclosure, there is no diversity of outcome, and Judges have been known to tell defendants out right that only one outcome is possible—the homeowner must lose and be evicted.  Contractual defenses are not allowed.  Defects in property title are not allowed.  Violations of due process and allegations of fraud are not allowed—or if a good humored judge allows these arguments, the Plaintiff still wins, anyhow.

Accordingly, “due process”, has become meaningless in many American Courts: there is a “prix-fixe” menu of “notice and opportunity” whereby you have notice of some dire event—either your marriage is about to be torn apart or your home is about to be sold (and possession delivered) to the Mainland Chinese and/or Saudi Arabian investors who’ve been stalking your neighborhood or both.

“Due process” is ordinarily defined as “meaningful notice and reasonable opportunity to be heard” but even those qualifying words are extravagant compared to what’s really given in most American Courts of limited and/or specialized jurisdiction (i.e. Divorce/Family/Domestic Relations Courts or Courts of Limited Jurisdiction/Municipal Courts/Justice of the Peace Courts specializing in evictions/foreclosures).   The State of Florida is setting up special “foreclosure courts” just to speed the destruction of private property in that state along at a merry pace.

But then there are the real problems—where the Courts are of unlimited jurisdiction, like the Northern District of California—but a “show” is apparently planned and put on to discredit an idea.   A case is made up and then litigated in such a way that one side must lose.  It is exactly like fixing a boxing match or a baseball game so that the “gamblers” and “bookies” will be happy, or make money, or both.

When lawyers participate in the fixing of cases, they betray their clients and themselves, but they also betray the concept of due process and the constitutional meaning of the courts as a part of government.

When judges participate in the fixing of cases, well, it’s just too horrifying for words.

Did any of these happen either in the Mitchell Roth case in Los Angeles or the Michael Pines case in the Northern District of California?   Similar fact patterns, similar outcomes, identical legal-factual subject matter relating to the effect of securitized mortgages.

I think that “due process” should be redefined as meaningful dialogue concerning all facts and issues.  The Judges would be primarily responsible for enforcing the Court as an arena for such discussions.   Last year I was involved in an unfortunate case of ill-repute in Orange County wherein I worked with a lawyer who brought some very controversial claims of great national interest, and that lawyer then intentionally sabotaged her own claims on several levels by rushing the process, and then by ignoring it once she had a chance to get into court.  The judge granted this particular lawyer an extraordinary opportunity to correct some past mistakes, the attorney made more.  The judge then wrote an opinion outlining everything that this attorney needed to do to make her case and claims stronger, and the lawyer called the judge a traitor on the internet.  It was all just tragic and disgusting, because this one particular judge really DOES get that “meaningful dialogue” is at the heart of due process.  “Due process” is simply not satisfied by summary executions where the doomed defendant has a few words to say by way of complaint before his head is lopped off or he is thrown bodily out of his house.

The world goes faster and faster, and it is time to slow some things down.  Legal process, for instance, should NEVER be streamlined.  It should ALWAYS be slow and deliberate and give adequate opportunity for thought, reflection, and debate both on legal theories and evidence.   Above all, there must be no fixed or pre-determined outcomes.

I hope that Michael Pines did not intentionally “throw” his case by failing to answer the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, but I’d say it looks very suspicious.  I hope that there is nothing more than great  and random coincidence between the allegations made (and established by a consent judgment) against Mitchell Roth in Los Angeles and the obvious conduct of Michael Pines’ case in the Northern District of California.

Full and open debate and exposition of evidence is absolutely critical both to resolving important issues facing the country and for the future of the free rights and enforceability of contract and the maintenance of the right to keep and own private property.  In other words, due process, by which I mean “well-developed and meaningful dialogue” (i.e. dialectical reasoning and process) in the evaluation of petitions for redress of grievance concerning impairments of the rights to enforce and maintain obligations of contract, for the benefits of acquiring and maintaining ownership of private property, and the presentation of these arguments to juries, is key to the future of the United States of America, and there is some evidence that such dialectical debate and the adversarial process itself is being regularly subverted in these United States as we teeter on the verge of a major transformation in our country, as one economy, the “capitalist mode of production” gasps for air and tries to survive against creeping socialism and collectivism which deeply threatens our way of life.

In Plato’s Republic, Book VII, men are chained to a wall and never see the sunlight, and they believe that their shadowy reflections in the torchlight is the only reality of life, because they either never knew or have forgotten the sun and how the world looks by day.  We in America are chained in our caves by lack of due process in court, lack of full debate on important aspects of our lives, such as WHERE and HOW we live.  The judicial courts need to be a radiant source of light for all people to see evidence and theories concerning what is right and what is wrong, what is true and what is false, especially in the economy, especially in regard to the essential elements of life, such as food and shelter.