"WSJ: Due Process No Longer Required In The United States"
"WSJ: Due Process No Longer Required In The United States"
by Karl Denninger
"Thank God it's on the "opinion" page..... but since this isn't attributed to an actual person, this is now the official opinion of The Wall Street Journal. Talk about a financial scandal. A consumer borrows money to buy a house, doesn't make the mortgage payments, and then loses the house in foreclosure—only to learn that the wrong guy at the bank signed the foreclosure paperwork. Can you imagine? The affidavit was supposed to be signed by the nameless, faceless employee in the back office who reviewed the file, not the other nameless, faceless employee who sits in the front. The result is the same, but politicians understand the pain that results when the anonymous paper pusher who kicks you out of your home is not the anonymous paper pusher who is supposed to kick you out of your home. Welcome to Washington's financial crisis of the week.
Once again we have the corporate-owned "mainstream media" trying to obfuscate and deflect. The issue is not about which paper-pusher signed documents. The issue is whether the origination and securitization of this paper in the first instance was fraudulent, and whether we now we have a Watergate-style coverup of what a gang of brigands did to steal literal trillions of dollars! THAT is the question before us today.
"We're not aware of a single case so far of a substantive error."
Now that's a lie. How about the woman who spent a half-hour in her bathtub calling 911 because bank contractors broke into her home while she was there to change the locks and attempt to lock her out - forced entry into an occupied dwelling - when they did not possess a foreclosure judgment. Oh yeah, she's late on her payments. But that doesn't give the bank the right to steal the property. They're supposed to go get a judgment first. That's called due process of law and I think I read that in The Bill of Rights somewhere. But in the land of The Wall Street Journal, due process of law is meaningless.
Here's the problem: If it's good enough for the banks and The Journal, it's good enough for the people at large. How about if the people were to decide as a nation that due process of law didn't matter any more in the general case? What if the people were to decide that The Wall Street Journal's editorial board - or the thousands of bank executives, board members and others - were guilty of capital crimes - without a trial? Since it now appears to be the position of this nation that due process of law is irrelevant, the people would no longer need an indictment, they would no longer need to produce evidence and prove up their case in front of a judge (and/or jury), and they would no longer need to actually obtain a judgment. As a consequence the people could just skip all that formality stuff that doesn't matter any more and can carry out sentences and execute judgments too exactly as the banks have been doing!
This is what The Wall Street Journal is advocating in their editorial. It is what many in the "mainstream media" are advocating. It is what The Government is currently advocating by their refusal to indict and prosecute those who are wantonly violating civil rights through these due process violations - intentional acts which the actors know do not comport with black-letter requirements under the law. And it is what The Banking Industry is both advocating and doing literally on a daily basis. Oh sure, today that advocacy benefits them. They're using it to "expedite" what they believe is right - and to get what they want. But here's the problem - once you take that position and start putting it forward as "the new set of rules" those rules apply to everyone whether you want them to or not!
Has anyone considered that if we no longer have a rule of law and we no longer have due process that there are 330,000,000 Americans who just became empowered, under the very standards put forward by The Journal's Editorial Board, The Banks and our Government, to issue their own declaratory judgments and carry out their own sentences?
That's not a road this nation would be wise to embark upon, as it is a one-way road straight to Hell and I want no part of it. Indeed, the reason I have been and keep pounding the table asking "where are the damn cops?" is because I know where this road leads, and I also know that while "the powers that be" think they can play this game without getting caught in their own trap, history says otherwise, and history also says that knowing exactly where the critical point is beyond which the people will simply say "fuggit!" is impossible to determine until it's too late.
I bet The Journal didn't think about that before they penned that editorial, but they damn well better, and fast, because the road that was set forth as proper and just is one where the only investment that will make sense is BBQ Sauce and Briquettes - by the semi-truck load."
Once again we have the corporate-owned "mainstream media" trying to obfuscate and deflect. The issue is not about which paper-pusher signed documents. The issue is whether the origination and securitization of this paper in the first instance was fraudulent, and whether we now we have a Watergate-style coverup of what a gang of brigands did to steal literal trillions of dollars! THAT is the question before us today.
"We're not aware of a single case so far of a substantive error."
Now that's a lie. How about the woman who spent a half-hour in her bathtub calling 911 because bank contractors broke into her home while she was there to change the locks and attempt to lock her out - forced entry into an occupied dwelling - when they did not possess a foreclosure judgment. Oh yeah, she's late on her payments. But that doesn't give the bank the right to steal the property. They're supposed to go get a judgment first. That's called due process of law and I think I read that in The Bill of Rights somewhere. But in the land of The Wall Street Journal, due process of law is meaningless.
Here's the problem: If it's good enough for the banks and The Journal, it's good enough for the people at large. How about if the people were to decide as a nation that due process of law didn't matter any more in the general case? What if the people were to decide that The Wall Street Journal's editorial board - or the thousands of bank executives, board members and others - were guilty of capital crimes - without a trial? Since it now appears to be the position of this nation that due process of law is irrelevant, the people would no longer need an indictment, they would no longer need to produce evidence and prove up their case in front of a judge (and/or jury), and they would no longer need to actually obtain a judgment. As a consequence the people could just skip all that formality stuff that doesn't matter any more and can carry out sentences and execute judgments too exactly as the banks have been doing!
This is what The Wall Street Journal is advocating in their editorial. It is what many in the "mainstream media" are advocating. It is what The Government is currently advocating by their refusal to indict and prosecute those who are wantonly violating civil rights through these due process violations - intentional acts which the actors know do not comport with black-letter requirements under the law. And it is what The Banking Industry is both advocating and doing literally on a daily basis. Oh sure, today that advocacy benefits them. They're using it to "expedite" what they believe is right - and to get what they want. But here's the problem - once you take that position and start putting it forward as "the new set of rules" those rules apply to everyone whether you want them to or not!
Has anyone considered that if we no longer have a rule of law and we no longer have due process that there are 330,000,000 Americans who just became empowered, under the very standards put forward by The Journal's Editorial Board, The Banks and our Government, to issue their own declaratory judgments and carry out their own sentences?
That's not a road this nation would be wise to embark upon, as it is a one-way road straight to Hell and I want no part of it. Indeed, the reason I have been and keep pounding the table asking "where are the damn cops?" is because I know where this road leads, and I also know that while "the powers that be" think they can play this game without getting caught in their own trap, history says otherwise, and history also says that knowing exactly where the critical point is beyond which the people will simply say "fuggit!" is impossible to determine until it's too late.
I bet The Journal didn't think about that before they penned that editorial, but they damn well better, and fast, because the road that was set forth as proper and just is one where the only investment that will make sense is BBQ Sauce and Briquettes - by the semi-truck load."
0 Response to ""WSJ: Due Process No Longer Required In The United States""
Post a Comment