I am reading Matt Taibbi’s book The Divide: American Injustice in the Age of the Wealth Gap. It makes some hard hitting points about changes in our nation’s law enforcement system and policing agencies resulting from the Obama administration’s determination that some banking institutions are too big to fail and therefore too big to police. I think Taibbi accurately makes the point that the acceptance of criminal or quasi-criminal behavior by banks has freed up policing agencies to watch over the rest of us, i.e. the 99%, more. And they are. In the book’s introduction Taibbi identifies three aspects of 21st century America. They are: Poverty goes up. Crime goes down. Prison population doubles.
I hate the empire, but love my country… There truly is a difference in the empire the United States of America has become and those individual states which came together to create a republic. I have watched as my beloved country has been turned into an unholy empire by those who seek wealth and power at any cost. The empire supports the whims of the 1%; utilizes the greedy to secure its power; and both watch as people are taken from their homes and left in the streets. I read the other day that Supreme Court Justice Scalia stated that the rich should revolt if taxes become too high. If that statement is true, then the rest of us should have already revolted. The empire should be informed our homes are off limits. We should wring the money and blood out of the empire by massive civil disobedience or whatever else is necessary to regain the dream of our founders.
By Scott E. Stafne People sometimes ask why Stafne Trumbull, LLC publishes so many of our legal writings on behalf of our clients. We do so because we believe truth is bright and becomes clearer the more it is seen. The clearer the truth, the more difficult it is to obfuscate. Justice is a type of historical “truth,” which can be best evaluated when it is observed. Stafne Trumbull, LLC publishes the arguments of all parties provided to the courts and the decisions of the courts, so that people can evaluate them. In doing so we invite the public to consider the reasoning of the judges deciding those issues based on the facts and arguments. We do this so the public can evaluate the “administration of justice” and the judge’s analysis of the issues.