Category Archives: Law

April 13, 2022 · 19:55

Inclination of letters

We tend to act in certain ways. I am no exception (as you are about to find out). Yet, before we have a go at the BBC and another go at the ICIJ, lets take another look at how Microsoft has FAILED its audience. Now, this is not out in the open and I do not really reveal what has happened, but I am making a jab at it as it will set fortunes to Adobe and this is for their eyes only. So, there I was watching several presentations in the last 24 hours (from several sources) and something occurred to me, it was the third time when I heard something. My mind started to race and suddenly I wondered why Microsoft had left all this in the open, unsolved, unattended for a DECADE. It was so out in the open that I was wondering what on earth they were doing. Yes, their 365 solution is all about making sure their customers pay, and that I fine, but to leave gaps in their office solution out in the open for over a decade, how stupid is that. Yet, no fears. Adobe will fill up that hole nicely with their adjusted suite of programs which will start a new age in corporate needs and Microsoft will be looked at with the look of ‘How could you have been this stupid to such a degree?’ Yet I will not care, I will be giggling in a corner. Watching the wannabe’s seek jobs and seek solutions. 

So now we get to the main event. It is the BBC article ‘Hidden wealth of one of Putin’s ‘inner circle’ revealed’ (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-61028866). There is so much wrong here, I almost do not know where to start, so the beginning it is. 

We see from the start “They reveal how a Swiss tattoo artist was falsely named as owner of a company that transferred over $300m (£230m) to firms linked to Suleiman Kerimov. They also show how $700m of transactions – and the secret ownership of luxury properties – went undetected. The investigation exposes failures of the banking system and the obstacles impeding Western sanctions.” It sounds nice, it really does. But lets take a closer look, shall we? 

“Transactions worth $700m linked to Suleiman Kerimov and his closest business associates were reported as suspicious by banks between 2010 and 2015” So was anything done? Were ACTUAL crimes committed? ‘Suspicious’ is merely a word that shows no side towards legality. Then we get “Swiss accountant Alexander Studhalter posed as owner of properties actually owned by Mr Kerimov” So were laws broken? Was anything illegal done? The BBC shows itself to be as big a loser as the ICIJ shown it is. And when we get “Mr Kerimov was the secret owner of properties on the French Riviera and in London, including the most expensive terraced property ever sold in the UK” we see again the small setting ‘If he was a real secret owner, how did they find out?’ But the larger stage is whether LAWS were broken. The BBC does not really inform us of this, do they? They merely illuminate how useless journalists have become. Who is Suleiman Kerimov? I actually do not care. He is not part of my life, I never expect that to happen. But the BBC, the player claiming to be so trustworthy, where are they? Where is the list of broken laws? Where is the EVIDENCE showing us that laws were broken in Switzerland, the UK, and France? We can grasp at the Oligarch foundation all we want, but if we are a nation of laws we need to be shown the laws that were optionally (and allegedly) transgressed upon. So when we are finally given “Experts say Western countries have a lot of work to do because, for years, they have taken a lax approach to the fight against dirty money and failed to hold banks to account.” We see a clear path to something I have been stating for DECADES. Internationally tax laws need to be overhauled and politicians were lax, politicians were all about inaction and now we see the BS tap turned open all whilst we are not given the real deal. What laws were transgressed upon? I reckon that the answer will be none. I cannot tell because I am not a lawyer, I am not a tax lawyer and I am not an attorney. I have my Master of Intellectual property and when (or if) Amazon (or Google) buys my IP, my ship will arrive and I can retire nicely. Yet in this I have questions and the BBC answers none of them, so when we are finally given “In 2020, Swiru Holding accepted its involvement in evading the tax and was fined €1.4m and made to pay another €10.3m to settle the case. Mr Kerimov’s lawyer put out a statement saying that the French courts had “officially dismissed the allegations made by the former Nice Prosecutor against Suleiman Kerimov of having carried out money-laundering operations.”” We basically see a fine less then €12,000,000 for avoiding a taxable amount of €127,000,000 so as it seems crime pays and that is the part we do get to see. So when we are given how $700m of transactions were seemingly ‘undetected’ were laws broken? We are shown the transgression of 20% which was dealt with, but we have no information on the large amount and whether laws were broken. How come? We are given “The transaction was just one in a series of wire transfers carried out from 2010 to 2015 totalling $700m reported to US authorities as suspicious”, yet there is a large gap between ‘suspicious’ and ‘criminal’ and neither the ICIJ or the BBC give us anything on that, merely the alleged indignation. So is the BBC as useless as the ICIJ is showing itself to be? That is my question and I feel that this is not on James Oliver, Nassos Stylianou or Steve Swann. I believe that it is Francesca Mary Unsworth, chief editor of BBC News that needs to come forward and do some explaining on what should be seen as reporting and what should be seen as trivial filtering of news. 

I will let you decide what is what, but I reckon that the entire ICIJ mess needs a long hard look by a few people in all kinds of business walks.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

March 19, 2022 · 14:10

57 seconds until the next sucker

Yes, I have heralded Meta as the next setting that will bring them billions. That is if they do not screw it up beforehand and the BBC gives us two examples. The first (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-60789802) was given to us last night with the byline ‘Australia sues Facebook over scam ads impersonating celebrities’. In that article we see “The tech giant had engaged in “false, misleading or deceptive conduct” by knowingly hosting the ads for bogus cryptocurrencies, a regulator said. The US company could face financial and other penalties.

Meta is yet to comment but has previously said it is committed to keeping scammers off its platforms.” We are also given “The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) says the ads in question used Facebook’s algorithms to target susceptible users and featured bogus quotes by Australian celebrities.” All elements of deceptive conduct, all because Meta does not properly vet the people advertising, and this is on Meta. There is no excuse, there is no “We need this advertisement to be completed today” that is merely evidence that the advertising party did not properly time manage their project. I have seen decades of stupidity that way, decades of people on the phone “I am on route, I will be there in 5 minutes” all whilst we know that it takes well over 15 minutes to get there. No time management, no proper project management and decades of excuses sees the wrong people enabling stupidity. And now Meta will feel the brung of that impact. And that was merely example one.

In example 2 (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-60348334) we are given ‘‘Dangerous’ tanning products promoted by influencers’ influencers are a different story, it will still hurt Meta, but there will also be a larger station for Google. Influencers will need to feel the brunt of choices. I am not talking about people like Georgia Love (see yesterday’s article for that) but people that use their influencer status to promote “It is illegal in the UK to sell nasal sprays or injectables made with “melanotan-2”, an artificial hormone that can accelerate tanning.” Here these influencers need to learn the lesson of not doing their homework. I say that all their video’s are at that point set to zero counter, they lose all their revenue and their channel is removed. Now this is a harder setting. We see “It is illegal in the UK”, so if this influencer is American? We get it and I do not know whether this is illegal in the US, Canada, or the EU. But influencers are so driven to numbers, they do not check where they are watched. There should be an impact, but fairness remains part of this. Yet, when we see “BBC News has spoken to 20 people who have experienced complications, including lesions, fungal infections and abscesses.” Is it truly about fairness? Lives were put in danger and the influencers do not have a really good excuse. I reckon that influencers need to abstain of any product that could impact the health of another, but how to recognise that? There is a dangerous stage, so to stop it in it track now before there is a full 5G network seems essential. Personally I believe that there is no social media source that gives proper investment opportunities. An actual opportunity is for a chosen few, not social media. Social media is for blanket media solutions, get in as many as you can, as quickly as you can. As such I feel a little less for the person with “a consumer who lost more than A$650,000 (£360,000; $480,000) due to one of these scams being falsely advertised as an investment opportunity on Facebook.” Someone who does that does that is too stupid for words. Vetting goes both ways and any investor vets the sources they have and Facebook (Meta) is not a source, neither is Twitter and neither is YouTube. All three could open the door to a direct location that is optionally a good investment, but the chances of that are slim, very slim. Consider the people falling for the Facebook apartment? Someone has a rare option for an apartment in location X where finding a place is hard. Now consider that this person has friends, would you not offer it to your friends first? Would you prefer that a personal friend has a nice new place instead of a person you do not know? That is the stage and it applies to investments a much as it would apply to housing. When dealing with strangers it is in that same setting, direct and to the point. Why? Because I want to make money too, you have got to give a little to get some. So when I offer the options to Randy Lennox and Gary Slaight it is not a shakedown, but it is because they can see the solution that could drive them forward and they can see the benefit of a $50M investment that could bring them in excess of $600,000,000. It is a simple execution of math. This solution could just as easily apply to Amazon, Google a little less so. These people will not now, not ever get such offers, such real offers from Facebook, Meta, Twitter or YouTube. That is how life is and anyone trying to sell you the goods there is fooling you. 

But that is the stage Meta faces, a stage that is drowning in deceptive conduct and there is seemingly no proper vetting in place. There are laws and when the Australian ACCC makes its case Meta could face massive fines and once the first one is there all the others will come calling. The influencers are a different issue, connected to some extent, but there we see that influencers need to be stopped and removing their channel and setting their count to zero will do the trick. When they lose that much money once of twice over these people vanish, a simple equation. It does not sound fair, I get that. But these influencers decided to endanger people and there lies the rub, whether that danger exists in nations where these materials are legal, that becomes a different setting, and I will be happy to admit that I see no easy workable solution here, it starts with Meta. That much is a given at present.

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

March 1, 2022 · 13:11

Doubt favouring speculation

This is what we have at times, we see the news, we do not completely trust the news but we see what we see and we think we are being deceived. This is not at the front of our minds, but it is definitely in the back of our minds. I a not different, I tend to check several sources, but in the end, this is not always possible. So the BBC gives us (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60525591) ‘IPCC report warns of ‘irreversible’ impacts of global warming’ you would think this was serious enough, and you could (not would) be wrong. You see, we see “the authors of a new report say that there is still a brief window of time to avoid the very worst”, is there? We are also given “there’s hope that if the rise in temperatures is kept below 1.5C, it would reduce projected losses”, now for the bad news. You see on the 11th of February the BBC also gave us “The number of trees cut down in the Brazilian Amazon in January far exceeded deforestation for the same month last year, according to government satellite data. The area destroyed was five times larger than 2021, the highest January total since records began in 2015”, as some might say it, that weasel Jair Bolsonaro was so eager to be seen ‘positive’ at the COP26, yet we also get (from the HRW.org), ““The Bolsonaro government now wants the world to think it is committed to saving the rainforest,” said Maria Laura Canineu, Brazil director at Human Rights Watch. “But these commitments cannot be taken seriously given its disastrous record and failure to present credible plans for making urgently needed progress in fighting deforestation.”” The Brazilian government (those connected) are eager to fill their pockets before some deforestation commitment will more and more likely be delayed by 3-5 years. So matters will go from ‘worst case’ to ‘worse then worst case’ soon thereafter and most reports seemingly do not take that into account, so when I see “a brief window of time”, I wider what window they are talking about, we are being buried alive and governments are letting this happen. Although, my sense of humour tells me that Vladimir Putin could save is here. If he presses the nuclear button, we will see a global population drop of 60%-85%, at which point the problem is solved. There is no deforestation required when no one needs wood and what forests are left will be enough to give oxygen to the 15%-40% remaining. You think I am kidding? You thought that America would intervene? They did less then that, as I personally see it they are more likely filling their credit cards as we are given “the Biden administration recently announced the creation of a taskforce that will take aim at their lucrative assets, including yachts and mansions”, the media does not give us the list of where those ‘registered’ assets will go. I doubt that 100% will go to the Ukraine. Yet I am diverting. You see, the article also gives us “Coral reefs are being bleached and dying from rising temperatures, while many trees are succumbing to drought” which is inaccurate, in Australia, the delicate balance was disrupted for some time through pollution and overfishing, all whilst the lame reactions to overfishing and the Australian super weak legal responses is making that happen again and again. Then we get the angering quote from the UN ““I’ve seen many scientific reports in my time, but nothing like this,” – UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres”, you see if he never seen anything like this, then the United Nations have a much larger problems, because environmentalists have been saying issues in this direction for a decade, so someone (or a collection of grapes) at the UN is not doing their job, most likely they are given a too specific brief and waste year after year (with a high income) on that brief and whose fault is that?

So far the only truth at the COP26 was given by Greta Thunberg with the accurate setting of “just more bla bla bla” And when I wrote about it, I already predicted it (well not Putin pushing the button). And in the end, did anyone pause at “since records began in 2015”? Perhaps I was asleep, but was the environment, pollution and deforestation not a larger stage for well over 25 years? We could of course go for the extreme solution and just get rid of 95% of the population, it solves employment issues, agism, population, housing issues, deforestation, overfishing issues, and carbon footprints. If a person is not there, they have a carbon footprint of zero. You see, the worst could be just around the corner and you won’t see it until you wonder why you are glowing in the dark. Nuclear winter will clean up the rest, that is now becoming an actual possibility.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

February 24, 2022 · 03:27

Red flags

We all have them, we all see them, it is what comes next that matters. For me it was a visit to the introduction of a cyber course. There were so many red flags it was weird. The first flags came two days before the presentation, two emails to set the stage, one with the option to delay payment to six months after the course was done, the first sales pitch. Now there is nothing wrong with sales pitches, but here it seems misplaced, cyber space os pedantic to say the least. So I went to that presentation, even though there were already red flags going up. Then there was the event. To be honest, it wasn’t all their fault. There were IT issues and IT couldn’t figure out what was wrong. This happens, the moment sucks, but that is part of the game. 

Then there was the space, 2 attendants, the rest via zoom.  I was one of the two, no drinks, not even water. If it is a sales pitch, you want people relaxed, so how does a thirsty presentation go? They had bought water for themselves. Then there were no handouts, in case of a training you want people have the information, hand outs are a great option for them to have the slides and make notes. The presentation was not updated and was still saying November 2021, remember I stated pedantic? Then the presentation, so much mention of “You do not need to be from IT” and then all the examples of people who were from another education, there were good parts, but so much a sales-pitch. The number of red flags were passed and I left. 

So was I wrong?
There is no indication that they weren’t what they said they were, they were in a decent place, they did this with a well known University, so this was all on the up and up, but the hairs on my neck were up, it was about revenue, it was about sales and the approach was wrong. You see the article (at https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-60387324) gives some of the goods. It was titled ‘the con that tricked dozens into working for a fake design agency’, the BBC gave it two days ago and there we have the problem. The BBC gave us “those who had turned on their cameras didn’t know was that some of the others in the meeting weren’t real people. Yes, they were listed as participants. Some even had active email accounts and LinkedIn profiles. But their names were made up and their headshots belonged to other people.” The enforcing of a sales pitch. As such we see “the real employees had been “jobfished”. The BBC has spent a year investigating what happened.” You still think that being pedantic is something else than a virtue? Yes, we get “the job represented more than just a pay cheque – but a UK visa too. If they passed their six-month probation period, and met their sales targets, their contracts said Madbird would sponsor them to move to the UK” and there is the real pitch, exploitative slavery, hiding behind a piece of shit hiding behind “I have put 16 hours every single day for months and done the best that I could to make this work. I should’ve known better and for that I’m truly sorry.” No he isn’t and I feel that people like that should get one bullet through the back of their heads. We get “By February 2021, not a single client contract had been signed. None of the Madbird staff had been paid a penny”, we are given “Some recruits ended up leaving after a few weeks, but many stayed. Many had been there for almost six months – forced to take out credit cards and borrow money from family to keep on top of bills” that should have been a big red flag but in this world of pandemics, too many feel the pinch of desperation, but an agency that cannot pay you? That is an agency that has no real clients, no revenue and no real future at that point. We are given “a photo showing an open issue of GQ magazine, with Ali Ayad modelling a blazer in a full-page ad for Spanish fashion brand Massimo Dutti. “Hustle in silence, let your success make the noise,” read the caption.” As well as “a post claiming he had modelled for Massimo Dutti in British GQ which received 4,000 ‘likes’”, “Ali Ayad has over 90,000 followers on his Instagram – in his bio he describes himself as an “influencer”” as well as the stolen identities, I personally see a clear case for targeted killing. You see this world is changing and if State players can do the games they play, going after created leaks on Credit Suisse, hack and spell the goods through Pandora Papers, I can make a clear case that some of these exploitative nut-jobs are in the market for targeted killing. It is time that we clean the streets on both sides of the isle but not merely on red flags, that does not constitute evidence and for the Cyber setting I might be wrong, it is more than a gut feeling, it is more then small pressure point, it is more than a sales-pitch (which was never invalid) and the half dozen red flags I do not mention here is because they are personal, they are based on the corporate and university world I have faced over decades, and based on what THEIR bosses see as proper etiquette. The red flags does not mean wrong, it means that the pedantic levels I have seen in the cyber world does not constitute evidence, it does not and I know that. The BBC shows a different version, a version that it takes a year to get to a piece of shit like that. So when we see “We contacted all 42 brands Madbird had listed as former clients – including Nike, Tate, and Toni & Guy. None of those that responded had ever worked with Madbird.” We also see that this is becoming a much larger problem. And I have over 50 people for my case, some who lost thousands. I feel decently certain that the image he used is optionally not him, the stage of “Whilst Madbird and Ayad have seemingly vanished”, as I personally see it, the NSA/GCHQ better get fucking active, if players like this can play their tax the rich approach, they can also hunt down people like Ali Ayad and prove that they are serious about stopping certain crimes. The 50 people have rights and their rights were trampled upon. It was not mischief, it wasn’t some prank and it was not to do “the best that I could to make this work” it was exploitation, it was mislabeled slavery and it needs to stop. We cannot blame some of the social media on how people like this do what they do, but we can execute them. I prefer long term prison but so far Ali Ayad has vanished, and making him run in fear is better than him walking away to restart the scam somewhere else.

That is how I see it but here too is the problem. I am the problem on the relying of red flags, the setting of expectation regarding a pedantic setting, I get that, but between the two events is a borderline, I am not certain where it is, or where it should be, but that border needs to be created, governments have sat on their asses for too long and the wrong people are left with the bill of scammers, that is not completely on social media and more on governments, but that is merely how I see it and I admit, I could be wrong.

1 Comment

Filed under Law, Media

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

February 17, 2022 · 00:29

Ka-pow pow pow pow

This is a dark piece, it is not about an idea, it is not about IP and it is not about some lame excuse called justice. This all started when I saw a CBC article named ‘4 Alberta border protesters charged with conspiring to murder RCMP officers’ (at https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/coutts-protest-charges-laid-court-appearance-bail-1.6352482). There are a few parts here, but in the first, I need to say upfront that I have nothing against the RCMP, I think that the organisation is part of the best that Canada has to offer, and that I wish them no ill will.

That being said, at least 7 of these weapons enables me to decimate a group of RCMP, there disregard for regular safety and the fact that they had at least two weapons per person gives me the feeling that these people are wannabe’s, a group of nut-jobs relying on liquid courage. The article gives us a dozen men, a dozen pussies I reckon and the fact that they face charges of conspiracy to commit murder, mischief (of all things) and possession of a weapon and all that at a blockade gives pause to who is talking to these people, this is not a blockade, this is optionally an attempt at armed insurrection against the RCMP. My first thought was “Can’t we just feed them to the bears?” I know, not the thing a law abiding citizen does, but mischief? Really? 

Then we get to the ‘young roommates’ part. It does not make sense, roommate of what? University? Expel them! A dorm? Expel them! And the blockade/ Well, it seems to be dispersing, but it has me worried. You see, a blockade has two functions. In the first to be a blockade, but it is also a decent distraction of letting people nearby cross the borders whilst the eyes are on the blockade. A trialled and tested method for a long time. So for the dozen or so arrested, their plight is merely beginning, whilst their barrister, or appointed barrister is gunning for mischief, I seeing some of these weapons see an armed militia trying to get a foot in the door and I would take mischief of the table and set them up for attempted murder. The difference between murder and manslaughter is intent and in that setting the ammo box with ammo, the additional magazines and  the armour implies and would be evidence of intent. So I say give these people a pickaxe so that they can spend their lives chiselling the tunnel in Banff National Park for the road between Calgary and Kamloops (who claimed I had no sense of humour?) Between the insanity in the UK, Netherlands, France, US, Australia, New Zealand and a few other places it is time to change the tune too many have been playing and treat these symptoms like any other bully. Let that bully do hard labour, all whilst that bully knows it is a waste of time and it will last a lifetime. Let’s sober the population up a bit. And all that firepower for the RCMP? Screw that notion, we have all seen a year of that BS and I say enough is enough.

Whose with me?

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , ,

February 13, 2022 · 16:41

When the well dries

This is a setting many businesses know. They want to get back to work and they are unable to. The well has dried up, the people after sitting (forced) at home, being with family suddenly start remembering what is important. There is of course the other issue of issues like discrimination, ageism and a few more isms. Suddenly these places cannot find the people and they cannot approach the people they turned down 2-3 times. The well has a bottom and that bottom is in sight. For those seeking jobs the meadow clears up, the more stupid people with their anti vaccine issues, the more will be dead and that means jobs and cheaper houses. A blessing on all houses so to speak. In the UK yesterday 167 jobs opened up (speculation as I do not know the age groups) and in the US up to 873 jobs opened up, the meadow looks like a decent place in the sunshine. So between the UK with up to 159K lost workers and the US with up to 942K lost workers the pickings for some are rather slim. So when I initially saw ‘Raytheon says it is a ‘target’ of a DOJ probe into industry hiring practices’, I wondered what was up. Raytheon is no  WallMart so their sea of choices was never very big to begin with and the people have a much larger need to stay at home. It was “Raytheon had received a subpoena in late 2019 focused on alleged hiring restrictions between Pratt & Whitney, a subsidiary of Raytheon, and some of its suppliers of outsourced engineering services. It also included requests regarding Collins Aerospace”, as well as “A former Pratt & Whitney employee and some other employees of outsourced engineering suppliers were charged in December for restricting the hiring and recruiting of engineers and skilled labourers in a way that violated antitrust laws.” I get it, there are certain rules in place and they must be adhered to, yet this is almost ludicrous. You see Pratt & Whitney is a subsidiary of Raytheon. It seems out of focus and out of touch. We see more detente between Vladimir Putin and Joe Biden in these heated times. It feel like (a personal speculation) that someone at Pratt & Whitney would like their sibling organisation to be valued a little longer. It feels highly political and that is a weird stage for Raytheon to be in. Now I get it, there are laws and I am a creature of laws, so there is a setting I can appreciate, especially when it is between two of the three (Google, Amazon, Apple), to see the DOJ go batty on Raytheon and its sibling seems counter productive on a few levels, and more in these hard to find people times. 

Oh, and due to shoddy programming on the side of Reuters, the link has not been added here today. The stage is not properly set (for both Raytheon and Reuters), I am not sure what to think, and wherever I look Raytheon comes out as the employer to be with in many places and many sources. So there is a real drive to get to Raytheon. The question becomes ‘How does Pratt & Whitney fare?’ Well checking that, it seems that these people are in a similar setting as Raytheon is. As a sibling of Raytheon it makes sense. So I go back to the DOJ need, why is this on their table in the first place and when setting the stage to ‘former Pratt & Whitney employee’, I wonder what his/her beef is, more important when the ratings are that good, why would anyone want to leave Pratt & Whitney? I am not making an accusation, I am asking and the fact that the Reuters article was lacking on several sides, optionally hoping that the name Raytheon would call the reader in (which in my case it did), there are all kinds of questions. Yet I hope that the DOJ realises that 942K people left to job pond (in a coffin), the need to look beyond the law seems essential in this case. And that is just the US, whatever they have in Australia will have its own numbers and consider that Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, and Thales are fishing in the same pond, the issue is a dangerous one and it merely helps their opponents. 

This can be seen in mere minutes, so the DOJ issue whilst based on a perfectly clear legal balance (one Reuters never presented), is still a dangerous place and when siblings push them into that limelight, I merely wonder what is going on. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Military

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

February 1, 2022 · 16:07

That first step

We have all heard it, the first step is admitting you have a problem. There is of course debate on WHAT the problem is. I am not any different. I hate stupidity, hypocorism and bot to mention short sighted issues. One of these issues is ‘Tax the rich’, we see all these stupid people screaming ‘tax the rich’ whilst the system is set, there is a tax system, there are tax laws and instead of all screaming to adjust the tax system we see the empty gesture to tax the rich, the rich do not care, they adhere to tax laws, so these laws will PROTECT them. Another issue was seen in ‘Greed and Law helping each other’, I wrote it on July 9th 2021 (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/07/09/greed-and-law-helping-each-other/). There I set out the short sighted setting of the Oxycontin setting. I wrote “Yes, there are culprits in this story. You see some sources give us that in 1996 316,000 prescriptions were dispensed, it grew to an impressive amount topping over 14 million prescriptions with an estimated value of $3,000,000,000. The issue we see everyone painting over is ‘prescriptions dispensed’, this is not something that a person can get, it needs a doctor and it needs a pharmacist.” You see there are laws and rules, and they were massively broken by doctors and pharmacists. So when do they go to court? 

It is Reuters who give us today (at https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/sacklers-near-deal-contribute-more-opioid-settlement-purdue-pharma-bankruptcy-2022-01-31/) the story of ‘Sacklers near deal to increase opioid settlement in Purdue bankruptcy’, I personally do not believe that members of the Sackler family who own Purdue Pharma LP were completely innocent, yet that is not the setting is it? SOMEONE handed a paper to dispense Oxycontin, a pharmacist handed over the drugs. Yet nearly all of them banked the money and did not ring the alarm bell (some really did that) and those who cashed in on 14,000,000 prescriptions? Why are they not in court? Members of the Sackler family cannot hand over prescriptions, they cannot dispense drugs to people, they can merely distribute to pharmacies. So I do not believe that they are completely innocent, but to go after them and not after the doctors and pharmacies is (as I personally see) immoral. 

Yes, I know that in Torts you go after the money.

So in that setting: “Jeff Bezos, I do believe you owe me $50,000,000 post taxation, pay up please!”

But is any of that fair? You might say that fair has nothing to do with it and it is not incorrect but it is wrong. So when Reuters gives us “An agreement involving members of the Sackler family and several state attorneys general could potentially end a legal challenge that has prevented Purdue from exiting bankruptcy, and clear the way for a plan aimed at helping to abate the opioid crisis” my personal thoughts are wondering how many of these state attorney generals went after the doctors and the pharmacies? Justice handed in August 2021 a verdict, ‘Doctor Sentenced To More Than 15 Years In Prison For Conspiring To Distribute Thousands Of Oxycodone Pills Illegally’, there is no way in hell that only ONE doctor did that, so how many are serving 15 years? 

It is U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss who gives us “Dr. Emmanuel Lambrakis wrote medically unnecessary prescriptions for thousands of oxycodone pills – an addictive and potentially fatal opiate.  Instead of abiding by his oath to ‘do no harm,’ Lambrakis pumped deadly drugs into the community.  Lambrakis put his own greed before his duties as a medical professional, and for that he will now spend a lengthy term in federal prison.” And as stated before, there is no way that there was merely one doctor guilty of that, in addition, there are truckloads of pharmacies that require the same amount of attention and that too is not being done to the degree it had to be done, it is my personal opinion that some state attorneys general’s were lazy and decided to go after the money, go for the easy conviction. Yes, the Sackler family benefitted, but who prescribed? Who handed them over? I see close to nothing on that. It is a simple tax the rich approach to a failing in law and a failing to observe the law and there are clearly a vast amount of doctors and pharmacies more guilty than any of the Sackler family. But we do not get to see that, do we?

As I see it, it started with that first step and the law has a problem, it cannot properly dispense justice to the wrongdoers. It merely went to the richest person and found them guilty. So what happens when it becomes about something more problematic? What happens when someone figures out that any Ponzi scheme can be done online handing the mess to Apple or perhaps Epic systems? So what happens when the hackers find the weakness in something like Nvidia’s GeForce Now service? What happens when 300,000,000 people lose $10-$35 and Epic goes ‘Not my Problem’, and Nvidia goes ‘We know nothing’? Who will end up with that bill of $3,000,000,000-$9,000,000,000 because the people will demand payment and as I see it the Justice departments will be globally clueless on how to proceed. The nice part here is that the court setting makes Apple automatically innocent, they had to open up the system and the people will merely lose their money. 

How a spindled world wide web we weave.

Leave a comment

Filed under Gaming, IT, Law, Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

January 13, 2022 · 17:22

Greed, Consumerism and safety?

There is a dangerous stance, a stance not on the safety of people, but on the revenue that they represent and there is every chance that this level of greed driven consumerism is at the core of a lot worse to come. 

Part 1
Part one is seen in the article (at https://www.reuters.com/world/china/us-criticizes-china-canceling-some-flights-over-covid-19-cases-2022-01-12/) called ‘U.S. criticises China over canceled flights’. There we see ““China’s actions are inconsistent with its obligations under the U.S.-China Air Transport Agreement. We are engaging with the (Chinese government) on this and we retain the right to take regulatory measures as appropriate,” a U.S. Transportation Department (USDOT) spokesperson said.” OK, we can accept that, but in that setting can that spokesperson please show us the paragraphs that deal with issues like pandemics? The greed driven will see and focus on ‘obligations’, but what of the safety of the people? The Chinese government is obliged to look after the safety of people, so where is that part? I am not taking a side whether one or the other is right and which party is wrong. Yet when I see “identify a path forward that minimises impact to travellers” I wonder who they are working for. In December, Bloomberg gave us ‘Omicron May Double Risk of Getting Infected on Planes, IATA Says’, I heard from a friend who went on vacation that the return flight was filled with people coughing and yes, two days later he had covid too. When will people learn that IF YOU ARE SICK YOU STAY AT HOME? And more important those who get sick on vacation are all about ‘safely getting home’ dangers be damned. And that is the core problem with air travel. So I cannot fault China for its position, I understand the greed driven side for getting people to travel, yet it seems to me that the greed driven do not care as long as they see the revenue, infections be damned. Those stating that they take all precautions are delusional, there will never be a safe route in this.

Part 2
The second part is given to us by SBS. There we see (at https://www.sbs.com.au/news/another-53-people-have-died-from-covid-19-as-nsw-posts-record-92-264-new-cases/4809f03d-d922-4c30-bfe8-6c1251568bfa) that ‘Another 53 people have died from COVID-19 as NSW posts record 92,264 new cases’, the issue is that when we see it next to the UK (120,000 cases) all whilst the population of the UK is 300% larger, we see that things do not add up, in that same setting the US with 829,000 cases are a larger setting. The us has around 500% of the population of the UK, yet they have a lot more infections. Now this is not the proper way to vet numbers, but there should be some linearity and these numbers are all over the place. So in this India with 247,500 cases all whilst they have 4 times the population of the US does not make sense. The numbers do not add up, I get it there could be a dozen elements influencing other facts, but the numbers are wrong, and I personally believe that India has a much larger problem, so when we consider that is it really wrong for China to act the way it does? 

The entire setting of flight have to continue in an era where we live in a pandemic, someone needs to wake up. The entire need to travel all whilst a lot of issues can be resolved virtually gets to be on the centre stage. In addition to that view we see “China has all but shut its borders to travellers, cutting total international flights to just 200 a week, or 2% of pre-pandemic levels”, is it right, it is wrong? It seems to me that it is to stop a wave of infections that have close to free rule in any nation that did not lock its borders. Last November the NY Times reported “At least 13 people who arrived in the Netherlands on two flights from South Africa on Friday were infected with the Omicron variant of the coronavirus, and more cases will most likely be found, Dutch health officials said on Sunday.” We saw South Africa protesting that it was a mild issue, now we have over 3 million new cases EVERY DAY, so how is that mild? How is the drastic shortage of hospital beds a mild consideration?

Is this what happens when greed shakes hands with consumerism? I do not know, but from where I sit, the view regarding the safety of people is close to totally ignored. There is every chance that those who closed their borders stand a much better chance. That is unless you open borders for tennis players who later admit “that he released a statement with new admissions, including the fact that he sat for an interview and maskless photoshoot knowing he had Covid without disclosing his status”, so a person who knew he had covid went knowingly and willingly maskless. And China is the one that is painted as the attacked party? I reckon that our laws and our regulations are blatantly failing in these pandemic stages, I will let you ponder on why that is and before you blame China for anything, wonder why no spokesperson raised issues on pandemic obligations that should be out there. I wonder how consumerism won that side of the battle. And before you think it will be easy peasy, consider what optionally might come AFTER Omicron and when that part is less mild, what will the consequences be? 

I do not know, but more important, the scientists that should know do not know either, it is new turf for them. So when we listen to obligations and consumerism lets also wonder how safe these obligations were in the first place, especially as yesterday gave us an additional 3,201,862 new cases. I will accept that most will be mild, but 1% might not be and that means that globally for 6-8 days 32,018 new beds need to be secured for the yesterdays cases alone. So what about tomorrow and the day after that? How many beds are left then? I do not know, do you?

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,

December 10, 2021 · 00:15

The reality of non-sense

This was the setting we see in the BBC, it is not on the BBC, they are innocent. Yet the article ‘You apply for a job – only for it to go to an internal candidate. Were you wasting your time all along?’ Should make plenty of people angry, especially if they are over 45. We get to see “Sometimes the requirement exists for immigration purposes, to ensure that a foreign resident is only hired for a job that a local can’t fill. For instance, in Australia, companies generally need to have an open recruitment process, even if they already know the overseas worker they want to hire”, this sounds nice, especially the “companies generally need to have an open recruitment process”, yet the age discrimination in Australia makes that statement a wash. A friend once told me “Australia is great for the young”, I didn’t get it until it was much too late. The phrase actually needs to say “Australia is great for the young, the rest can fuck off”, a setting I have seen rolling out for close to a decade and it is not just the small places, the big players like Google and Apple are every bit as guilty. If you do per level an age comparison these two (optionally several large tech as well) will have numbers that will not make sense, they will look skewed, too skewed. 

So when we are given “all too many job seekers have shared stories of applying for a job, seeing that an internal hire was made and suspecting – or being told – the company’s intention was to hire that current employee all along”, the non ageing affect is seemingly overlooked. So when you consider the story (at https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20211206-can-you-ever-beat-an-internal-candidate-for-a-job) be aware that a few elements are left outside the door, for Australia age discrimination is a real deal and there are plenty of examples out there.

The Australian Human Rights Commission reported this year on several key findings. 

  1. Ageism exists in Australia
  2. Ageism affects Australians across the adult lifespan.

I am merely mentioning two as that should be enough, the report that you can download (at https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/age-discrimination/publications/whats-age-got-do-it-2021) gives a lot more. We see the article that makes all kinds of references, but ageism is left out of the consideration. There is not one mention on it, and when you see the article on ‘were you wasting your time all along?’ That same thing can be said for anyone applying for jobs when they are over 50, they are seemingly disregarded in every walk of life, even now when we see the massive shortages, the aged worker seemingly does not stand a chance. 

Forbes even came with ‘10 Steps To Proactively Address The Problem’ (at https://www.forbes.com/sites/sheilacallaham/2021/11/29/workplace-ageism-requires-leadership-action-10-steps-to-proactively-address-the-problem/) There we see “10 Ways Leaders Can Take Action Now”, yet the reality is that these so called leaders will have to listen to superiors too, and they will hand out some policy notice that they are working on it. 

In all the reality of non-sense is that there is no sense, it is about sales and populism and when that segment is depending on the young, the old will have to sit in a corner to wait until they die. Harsh but that is how it seemingly is at present.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Politics

December 3, 2021 · 22:03

It is difficult

One one hand, thee was a reason to be joyful. There was another article by Stephanie Kirchgaessner, so let the bashing begin. On the other hand, this is actually a good article. It is also an important article. And there is a stage where we need to consider what is and what could be. The article ‘Rights groups urge EU to ban NSO over clients’ use of Pegasus spyware’ (at https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/dec/03/rights-groups-urge-eu-to-ban-nso-over-clients-use-of-pegasus-spyware). This is interesting in two ways. We see no such ban on Remington, Fabrique national, Glock and a few other firms. And I would like to add that the NSA has done worse, much worse, so why is it now onto the NSO because their clients are skating on the edge of what some people might seem as ‘unacceptable’?

We see “Letter signed by 86 organisations asks for sanctions against Israeli firm, alleging governments used its software to abuse rights”, we see it, but do we realise what is going on? We are holding the publisher of a law book accountable for criminals using those books to stay out of prison. And it is not mere criminals using the books, it is governments using the books. 

This is a slippery slope and as Stephanie Kirchgaessner illuminates this, we are left with questions. I personally want to see a list of these 86 organisations. I am not saying that the Guardian is lying, I am stating that the NSO and us have a right to see these accusers. Yes, we see Access Now, Amnesty International and the Digital Rights Foundation. But where are the others? We also see “the EU’s sanctions regime gave it the power to target entities that were responsible for “violations or abuses that are of serious concern as regards to the objectives of the common foreign and security policy, including violations or abuses of freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, or of freedom of opinion and expression””, it is here that the problem starts. We see “freedom of opinion and expression”, but who allows for that? Who allows for ‘peaceful assembly’? Consider the US and their ‘Black Lives Matter’ setting. We see “Some states have recently increased the severity of criminal penalties for protesters along political lines”, so where is your freedom of expression and opinion now? 

There is an issue, there is and in this Stephanie is right, but is there any kind of stage where the NSO can be held responsible for the actions of their clients? What do you think will happen when the NSO sells what they have to China and/or Russia? Do you think these 86 organisations will have anything to say then? 

And there is a larger stage, the stage everyone is silent about, the stage we all know but no one is willing to look there. We are so willing to blame the NSO group, but no one is wondering why Apple and Google didn’t have better protection? We can understand that there are always, but they do not seem to work and for some reason, Apple and Google have a massive problem. So when we consider Forbes ‘Apple Starts Sending NSO Hack Warnings To iPhone Users’, why was this not done earlier, and more important why was the problem not fixed 5 years ago? Apple is playing the cautious game, leaving the NSO group out of the debate with “State-sponsored attackers are very well-funded and sophisticated, and their attacks evolve over time. Detecting such attacks relies on threat intelligence signals that are often imperfect and incomplete. It’s possible that some Apple threat notifications may be false alarms, or that some attacks are not detected. We are unable to provide information about what causes us to issue threat notifications, as that may help state-sponsored attackers adapt their behaviour to evade detection in the future.” So why are new phones not more secure? Why are cyber locks a problem? Because Apple (Google too) caters to people who need automation to get better and more revenue and that crosses with the needs of some players who need access. 

In all this, the simplest solution was that no one gets access to your mobile, and it is not a new concept. The Blackberry started that idea and was quickly pushed out of the market (they were not the cheapest either). I saw this come up a few times when I was considering the evolution of a console (name xxxxxxxx redacted) , but the premise is larger and it is all linked to the simple setting that Facebook opened a door and EVERYONE wants to get through. In this case the NSO group saw that as a great idea to collect information and they are not alone, let that be clear, they might be the most visible player, but they are not the only player, but the article does not give that part, do they? You see there were a few nations on the list (that everyone ignores) and they are not NSO group clients, but they have certain abilities, so they are a client of someone and these 86 organisations are about to give that one player (with no scruples) the entire market.

Did you consider that?

Moreover, the accusations from some against the NSO group are still absent of evidence. Several newspapers gave light that the list of 10,000 was bogus and it was from 2017. In addition, I found the financial link missing, 10,000 hacks implied that the NSO group had received in excess of $600,000,000 and they have not. Some give us specifically worded accusations. Like the Citizens Lab giving us that 36 phones might (emphasis on might) have been transgressed upon, 36 out of 76, and we seemingly delete the word ‘might’ with our minds, but I did not. I am not opposing the Citizens Lab, but 36 might out of a debatable list of 10,000 is a long stretch and so far none of the media have given us any clear evidence, but these 86 organisations see there limelight moment, so they are all crying foul (or is that fowl). 

I for one want to see the media become responsible and hand over a dashboard of alleged victims. 10,000 numbers, that would be a massive list, but a dashboard stating how many are government, how many are journalists (which was in one article no more than 180, I think) making that a mere 1.8%. How many infections per nation? The list goes on and the media over all these months presented ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. But now we see “Letter signed by 86 organisations asks for sanctions against Israeli firm”, all whilst no clear evidence has been presented EVER. This is ab out something else and it has nothing to do with the NSO group, it has everything to do with a group of journalists who have become obsolete and as we see event after even (like that running Joke called the ICIJ), how much evidence have we see on their so called 11.9 million leaked documents with 2.9 terabytes of data, and zero (none) dashboard giving a summary, even with all that time and 600 journalists no one had time to give us a run down, that is how pathetic the media has become. Oh and they promised not to investigate the source, interesting is it not?

All flaming for digital revenue and presenting close to nothing, flames and way too little  substance. So when we ask these media players for clarity, their most likely answer will be ‘It is difficult’

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , ,