Here is an example of another energy company using a SLAPP suit (from today’s HuffPo):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/29/kentucky-miner-sued-discrimination_n_2568701.html

There are a ton of academics, primarily economists and business school types that serve as expert witnesses. Check out the rosters of firms like Berkeley Research Group, Charles River Associates, and Lexecon/Compass/FTI. Find out if your favorite professor is for sale. For an “expert” the typical rate the academics charge is over $500/hour. For the biggest “experts”, usually the chairs of major departments, they bill around $1,000 per hour.

With high legal and expert fees coupled with limitations on damages due to “tort reform”, the ability to right an injustice in court is near impossible. And try fighting a merger of two corporations like Exxon-Mobil and chevronTexaco. Who is going to pay the million dollars it takes to have a credible opposition? Cuz the government sure as hell is not doing it!

The RSC is an ad hoc committee of the House. The members of congress who support the committee pay for it by giving up a staff position of half of a staff position to fund its operations. The staff writes position papers that members of congress can quote and cite for their constituents. The RSC also holds briefings for members with some of the biggest conservative players of the day.

All position papers are fully vetted by its shoestring staff. In this case, it would have passed the internal review before touching a nerve of one or more member of congress — one who is more in favor of a dollar today instead of supporting the vision of shared prosperity the founding fathers outlined in the constitution. This smells more like a smackdown of the RSC by its political members rather than a “poor” job at reviewing the “logic and reasonableness” of the study’s conclusions.

“Every child has a right to a mother and father.”

So how can he justify war?

Blame Canada! There not even a real county anyway!

– Sheila Broflovski

The 12th Century is alive and well in San Francisco, at least in the dungeons.

I agree with you. I don’t give money, but I think I am in the directory. I sent an email to Ryan’s mom on the Change.org exchange with my offer. Thanks Pam for bringing this issue to our attention.

This makes me sick. Scouting was one of the few places in society where a boy could mix independent but guided learning with non-parental supervised activities. It was an important rite of passage for me and many of my friends.

Back in the 70s, there were a number of boys scouts who later realized or became strong enough to announce that they were gay. Usually it happened after high school or once scouting no longer provided the excitement they wanted or after they were singled out and bullied.

Being a young male is often synonymous with being a self-centered jerk. It is a messy and unpleasant part of growing up and coming of age. As the father of a 12 year old daughter, I can attest that evolution has not changed this pattern of male development very much. But even back then, we were taught by our leaders that there were lines that we were not allowed to cross under any circumstances. We were taught to respect other races and not to discriminate and we knew that there would be consequences if we engaged in such activities. We were taught not to endanger others — whether it be on the rifle range or rolling boulders down the hill on camp outs. We were even taught not to bully or pick on someone if they were different.

I thought these rules were absolute. Youth are impressionable. They will listen and learn — especially by example. This is a colossal failure of leadership. Yes, I know the BSA has kicked out scout leaders who were gay (which I think is short sighted and hypocritical). But they always said that they would not exclude a boy who was gay. I thought they were serious. The logic that the BSA gave after the first supreme court decision was that punishing a boy could scar him for life. They obviously have “etch-a-sketched” their position.

When I was 14, a 45 year old scout leader who didn’t like me told me he was going to everything in his power to keep me from getting my eagle scout, even though I had fulfilled all but a couple or requirements. I was devastated. I felt like I was punched in the gut and could not breathe. I know first hand how cruel it is for anyone to destroy a kid’s hope and dreams. Just before I turned 18, I finished the last requirement and earned the Eagle rank. I still think that my scout leader was a massive jerk, and that his actions still have bitter repercussions in my psyche.

Boy Scouts teaches young boys and men to leave a child, a campground, a community, the world a better place than they found it. Ryan Andersen’s Scout Masters, the leaders at the local council, and the national leaders (including their national apologist Deron Smith) are not fit to be leaders in the world the boy scouts claim to be preparing today’s youth to lead.

If Ryan Andersen would show me that he has fulfilled all his requirements for the rank of Eagle Scout, I would gladly confer to him my Eagle Scout medal.

Hey Bank of America, we proved we can cover your back!

MERS has had some setbacks. While not covered in the news sources (or FDL), there was a very important mortgage case decided by the Washington State Supreme Court last month that says MERS does not have the authority to foreclose on a property in Washington. http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=862061MAJ

The court decided that if MERS does file a foreclosure, it may (decided on a case by case basis) be in violation of the Consumer Protection Act.

One funny thing, on page 25 of the decision, the court noted that MERS failed to identify any of its principals, but noted that in another case MERS had over 20,000 vice presidents signing documents…

Quick offer of $260,000? This sounds like the military in Afghanistan or Yemen after a drone attack gone bad where hush money is spread around quickly.

Busted. At least you called me sweetie!

(BTW, I have been using both names since about 2006, one on FDL and one on HuffPo. Also, I wrote the post first for FDL so I should get some type of bonus points for coming here first. I guess you go to HuffPo first? ;)

Eastwood was a shrewed choice. There are a lot of old timers that still vote. My father is in his 80s, and he watched Clint Eastwood westerns when I was a kid. Clint’s roll was to let old people know that they are not forgotten and that their corny, relatively senile stories will be accepted if not embraced by the party. The pundits like to talk about how the speakers were African-American, Hispanic-American, Asian-American, and so on. Even if that diversity is not evident in the Tampa convention. Clint Eastwood brought the oldsters (who vote based upon their memories of times gone by — or fabricated in the movies) to the Republican Big Tent. He was accepted by the crowd and not mocked. Unlike all those young turks and radicals who are making fun of him — and are most likely voting for Obama.

And we wonder why Obama is in trouble politically?!! This guy had a mandate, a real problem to solve, and the opportunity. But sadly, he picks people like Geithner, Sumners, and Emmanuel to “solve” our nations problems. Even with the Libor matter, where the gun is not only smoking but we have video of the massacre, the backers of the democratic and republican parties will still go free and live very well.

I think I understand now: During 2000 and 2001, the United States had a HUGE financial scandal involving . . . false reporting of financial statements. It involved Enron, Tyco, WorldCom, Adelphia, and a slew of others. The venerable firm Andersen took the fall. In 2002, Congress was so concerned about corporate lying that they passed Sarbanes-Oxley.

Now Bain was ‘private’ and not subject to all of Sarbanes-Oxley regulations, but it is helpful to remember how seriously Congress and the public took the issue of corporate honesty. So for Romney to dismiss the signing of such documents as being a minor issue, it was not ‘minor’ at the time he was signing them. On the contrary, it was the most serious legal issue a corporate officer was expected to perform — and was personally liable for the outcome.

Anyone seriously investigating Romney’s signatures should investigate this angle.

Hey, we all get our mortgages reduced to 4%????!!! And the banks are still borrowing from the government at 0.000000001%? And homeowners will have billions to spend to help get us out of the recession?

What is wrong with this picture? Banks will have to write off tons of future revenues because 4% loans give them less money than 7%, 12% or 15% mortgages. So banks will become insolvent again. They will need billions to offset those losses, which will just happen to be somewhat more than what the homeowners are ‘saving’ by having a 4% mortgage rate. How will the government pay for this new bailout? Maybe Obama can eliminate the home-interest tax deduction. I mean liberals have been calling for cutting subsidies….

….and if that money is given to a red-white-and-blue bank, it is a rescue not a subsidy.

OT: MERS foreclosure process DEAD in NY state

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/kaboom-ny-appellate-division-bank-ny-v-silverberg-mers-does-not-have-right-foreclose-mortgag