How Obama Pulled Off The Heist Of The Century — The Beltway Times

D.C. BELTWAY

Wednesday 63°42°F
THE POPULIST CONSERVATIVE NEWSPAPER

It appears that Obama’s attempt at leading a shadow-like coup was just foiled and made nationally known. Unfortunately, that couldn’t be further from the truth. What actually happened is that this was merely the extension of the government’s executive-judicial overreach under the Obama administration. We can blame Obama all we want (and we definitely should), but we must also realize that he is a pawn. Currently, Obama is untouchable – he’s the Democrats’ token black president. Any backlash will be seen as racist, and undermine the very justice one seeks to achieve. But his methods were always legal. This is not intended to be a defense of the man, but should serve as a warning that what he did was enshrined in law. To successfully tackle the corruption in Washington we must systematically root out the source.

By now, it should be clear that in the aftermath of the financial collapse, Barack Obama opted for an elaborate financial regulatory scheme for the bank bailouts and subsequent TARP settlements instead of jailing the CEOs responsible. However, his actions in utilizing Obamacare weren’t necessarily to conduct a “net worth sweep” in claiming Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae solely as a means of funding his failing healthcare initiative and it wasn’t using a healthcare plan as a vehicle to contribute to his slush fund, as his critics charge.

Obamacare was the slush fund, designed to coerce America’s poorest population into indentured servitude, again.

The narrative thus far is that Obama was creating an illegal slush fund to financially promote liberal activist organizations like The National Council of La Raza ($1.5 million), The National Urban League ($1.1 million), The National Community Reinvestment Coalition ($750,000), Planned Parenthood (Iowa, Montana, and New Hampshire collectively receiving $655.000), and the Catholic Church ($90 million).

“This scandal comes courtesy of the Justice Department, engaged in a scheme to undermine Congress’ spending authority by independently transferring dollars to President Obama’s political allies. It works like this: The Justice Department prosecutes cases against supposed corporate bad actors. Those companies agree to settlements that include financial penalties. The Justice Department mandates that at least some of that penalty money be paid in the form of donations to nonprofits that supposedly aid consumers and bolster neighborhoods.”

That’s not the ground-breaking connection here nor is it true – it’s too partisan and convenient in wrapping up everything nicely to blame the DOJ. It’s that this is the iteration that snagged a pawn. Obamacare was too public to ignore.

If You Like Your Obamacare, Then You Can Keep Your Obamacare

Obamacare was always more than a healthcare plan. It was a means of ensuring yet another implosion of the middle class and a means of destroying private insurance industry by delaying premium increases to price out the competitors. This time, instead of people losing their homes, they would be granted two options – vote Democrat and have Medicare healthcare coverage, or vote Republican and survive uninsured. It is a round-a-bout Death Panel of sorts. Unlike the Conservative conspiracy meme that doctors would be overseeing such matters, it would be completely regulated by Obama’s administration and overseen by the states.

For example, the 1993 Medicaid “claw provisions” allowed for asset forfeiture on behalf of the states to recover costs from the deceased if they’d relied on “long term care”. This could result in tax liens on estates, which ensured that the inheritors would be faced with a “government shakedown” of sorts. While Medicaid was created in the 1980s, and the “claw provision” under Bill Clinton, Obamacare’s amendment in 2014 did not repeal such state asset forfeiture. The Obamacare amendment of 2014, in fact, extended the Medicaid eligibility program even further with an expansion of eligibility and federal funding for the former.

Had the widespread eligibility increase gone through, it would have extended coverage to all non-elderly individual with family incomes below 133% of the federal poverty level. Thankfully, due to NFIB v Sebelius, this expansion provision was deemed “coercive,” and many Republican-backed states refused to approve the amendment. Had Hillary Clinton won, she would have ensured that the expansion became mandatory.

Even further, Obamacare was rolled out to hide his administration’s complicit behavior in the Wall Street bank bailouts and subsequent TARP fund settlements, as well as serve as the second iteration of such complicity. This is why his announcement website was shoddy – it was released ahead of schedule, thanks to Congress requesting it in order track the transfer of funds available through the Prevention and Public Health Fund (PPHF). There was much confusion surrounding its deployment because the orders weren’t supposed to be given yet.

An overlooked fact is that it all began when Obama tried to float Obamacare legally, creating the navigators program (of which he planned $54 million). He then upped the funding of the navigators program to $67 million, with the extra $13 million coming from the PPHF – a Fund established under Section 4002 of the Affordable Care Act of 2010 that initially had #12.5 billion donated to it.

“Since ObamaCare was first debated in the House in 2009, Republicans have tried to block federal funds from flowing to Planned Parenthood, which is one of the nation’s primary abortion providers. With these grants, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius seemed to be saying to Republicans, “in your face,” as one GOP leadership aide put it.”

What is a “navigator”? According to healthcare.gov, it’s “an individual or organization that’s trained and able to help consumers, small businesses, and their employees as they look for health coverage options through the marketplace. This includes completing eligibility and enrollment forms. These individuals and organizations are required to be unbiased. Their services are free to consumers.

A second Wall Street collapse was all but inevitable; stymied in Healthcare budget roll outs. The insurance underwriters and the banks would continue to see profits in their detached, yet still related, industries with no one but a previous administration to blame. The goal was, with the two policies intertwined, that there’d be no separation at the state or federal level in terms of fund disbursement. Citizens too poor to choose their own healthcare would sign up in what was essentially a Ponzi scheme.

Indeed, states handle the rollout logistics of Medicaid and Medicare. The Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (handled by the states) drafted a Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) on the availability of up to $54 million in cooperative agreements to fund navigators in federally-facilitated or state partnership marketplaces. The money instead funded left-wing activist groups by diverting funds from those who actually could have used the funds for healthcare plan options.

These were essentially executive orders on whom to fund, with the protection of plausible deniability against the federal government since the states would be determining the logistics.

Thus, the U.S. government decided to grant the illusion of healthcare choices while only budgeting for the assurance of their healthcare plan (a huge conflict of interest, even by their own rules, 45 C.F.R. § 155.210(b)not to mention a violation of RICO laws). And this went all the way through the individual state departments, which comprised (legally) with the enforcement of Obamacare, RMBS settlements with the banks, TARP rollouts, and the Wall Street financial collapse. Keep in mind this was before the landmark Supreme Court case, Citizens United v. FEC. Could it be that Citizens United was the legislative attempt to legitimize what had already been occurring behind closed doors between the U.S. government and the Wall Street banks?

If You Like Your TARP Funds, Then You Can Keep Your TARP Funds

By donating to liberal causes (their greatest consumer revenue base), the banks were essentially funding activist groups comprised of the very people with heavy non-dischargable student loans that would rely on the bank to provide a lenient interest rate while simultaneously ensuring conscription into Selective Service. Ideological money laundering in and of itself, the money was always going to be coming right back into the pockets of the corporations, full circle. It was the cost of doing business for the financial institutions and ensured another means of making money without being as public pre-2008, while maintaining a population of military-eligible warm bodies. Instead of homeowners being pressured to buy mortgages they couldn’t afford, students were being pressured to enroll in liberal subjects in schools that they couldn’t (normally) pay tuition for due to activist group representation, and conversely, being drafted into Selective Service should another war (with Russia?) break out. We’ve seen this all before.

Obama gutted Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (by reforming the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, by placing them in conservatorship), stealing infinite profits from their shareholders because they were quasi-government sponsored enterprises, and arguably the only two governmental oversight committees left for Wall Street). The ratings agencies (S&P, Fitch, Moodys) had already been vilified and broken up, and the tactic of quasi-oversight had already been applied in that avenue, meaning that the last remaining obstacle were the GSEs. This is why he didn’t also takeover Ginnie Mae, as the Government National Mortgage Association is already owned wholly by the U.S. government, and had definitely partaken in the wholesale mortgage fraud leading up to the overall collapse.

In sacking Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, Obama also gained the benefit of having nothing backing mortgage-backed securities (MSBs), which happen to underwrite a majority of home mortgages in the U.S., and the de-classification of future funds as government receipts. Mixing this with taxpayer revenue means there’s no way to track the money other than by what is reported in the mainstream news. Additionally, since MSBs are being propped up to be reinvested (now called a “mortgage bond whale”) which recirculates money back into the economy, leaving GSEs with no liquid recapitalization. This means that they’ll simply come to a standstill if the slightest downturn occurs. Especially since the Federal Reserve is sitting on a $4.3 Trillion “ticking time bomb”, and the Obama administration has been flooding the GSEs with funds they already own as a means of propping up a “healthy” conservatorship (also known as indirect monetization of debt). This fiduciary deception will lead to another bailout, as nothing will be propping up the housing bubble and mortgages. The end goal was to set a precedent in placing more publicly-traded companies in a conservatorship. The national debt exploded under Obama because the economy ran wild when he removed the checks and balances designed to curb it. This is also why Rand Paul complained about the replacement bill being “Obamacare lite.”  It’s hard to fully divest from something embedded within a majority of federal and state institutions; from the court house to the senate, to the American people and the state-level subsidiaries that were designed to help them.

Before Obamacare, the bundling of mortgage-backed securities were the primary means of channeling funds from the pockets of Americans (a hold-over from before the financial collapse) to the very corporations that were demonized in the media. Before Obamacare and his slush fund, the funneling mechanism for these funds was the Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Working Group (RMBS), which is a collaborative effort by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Department of Justice (including many United States Attorneys’ Offices), and numerous state Attorney General’s offices. The aim of the RMBS was to procure “evidence of false or misleading statements, deception, or other misconduct by market participants (such as loan originators, sponsors, underwriters, trustees, and others) in the creation, packaging, and sale of mortgage-backed securities.”

For this specific reason, there was Democratic obstructionism against Dr. Ben Carson at the helm of the Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD). In the years following the bailout, HUD was instrumental in rooting out the corruption of the banks because predatory lending policies would target African-Americans and Hispanics living in poverty by charging huge fees, high interest rates, and ultimately forcing them into a cycle of never-ending debt payments. Regarding the RMBS Task Force, HUD was primarily invested in determining the complicities of the Federal Housing Administration regarding underwriting policies. The banks were ensuring that the FHA would approve loans for otherwise ineligible home buyers, so HUD lost millions in revenue.

The massive default that arose from homeowners not being able to pay their annual dues resulted in a widespread divestment of funds, which triggered the explosion of the housing bubble and the onset of the financial collapse. Many lost their homes to foreclosure thanks to the collusion between the U.S. government, the Federal Housing Administration, the banking system, the Federal Reserve, the ratings agencies, and the oversight regulators. Even HUD was complicit by essentially investigating itself as federal funds flowed through their coffers as well. Indeed, in setting aside money for consumer relief, money was funneled into Community Development Financial Institutions, which circumvented Congress’ 2015 decision to cut $43 million in federal funds routed to these groups through the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Obamacare was not kept afloat by settlement slush funds. The settlement slush funds were decided upon by the corporations, the government, and the judiciary system, in order to fund Obamacare, which acted as a fund in its own right. It purposefully flaunted the funding of any group that the U.S. Congress decided needed to be curbed. This wasn’t just an attack on the U.S. Congress, but a complete attack on Constitutional laws.

Even more clandestine, the funding of liberal activist groups enabled the Obama Administration to have the support they needed in funding their environmental crusades.

Such sue and settle rulemaking is responsible for many of EPA’s most controversial and economically significant regulations that have plagued the business community for the past few years. Included are regulations on power plants, refineries, mining operations, cement plants, chemical manufacturers, and a host of other industries. One of the most successful sue and settle strategies they cited “… has been on an issue few in Washington or around the nation are paying attention to: regional haze requirements under the Clean Air Act.”

Wielding a malleable army of shills, the U.S. Government (and its subsidiaries, like the EPA) was able to use that rhetoric to affect the change they wanted by completely bypassing US Congress (or the right to representation of roughly half the American population). It was a perpetual propaganda machine.

If You Like Your Senators, Then You Can Keep Your Senators

Attorney General Lisa Madigan, of Chicago, (and the first Attorney General with the help of the DOJ to sue a national bank for fair-lending violations) settled with Morgan Stanley in a $22.5 million dollar settlement. This was supposedly for the RMBS deployment that led to the 2008 financial collapse that was meant for her state’s pension funds, which are currently in debt. Her track record (which includes a stint in working for the RMBS Working Group under Eric Holder) has been one of “standing up for the little guy.” Her father also took on numerous financial institutions for the behavior that led to the collapse. She’s been involved in soliciting settlements with JP Morgan, Chase & Co., for $100 million (earmarked for the pension systems), with Citigroup for $44 million (earmarked for pension plans and $40 million earmarked “consumer relief” plans), and Bank of America-Merrill Lynch for $300 million, with $200 million additionally being earmarked for the pension plans and $100 million in consumer relief. Partnering with the DOJ, she also reached a $175 million settlement with Wells Fargo over discriminatory and predatory lending practices against African-American and Hispanic homeowners. She also won a $8.7 billion dollar settlement against Countrywide over fair-lending violations.

In fact, she was a lead negotiator in the overall $2.5 billion mortgage settlement (Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citibank and Ally Bank, formerly GMAC), which apparently generated $2.4 billion in direct relief for Illinois home buyers. Indeed, the Morgan Stanley $22.5 million dollars was to be earmarked for the Teachers Retirement System of the State of Illinois, the State Universities Retirement System of Illinois, and the Illinois State Board of Investment, which oversees the State Employees’ Retirement System, General Assembly Retirement System and Judges’ Retirement System.

She even sued the ratings agencies S&P for $52.5 million over their abusive ratings on risky financial investments in their quest for profits and partook in an initial $275 million settlement with Volkswagen, but is planning to sue them again. Her latest outing is (as the first state Attorney) to sue Sallie Mae , which handles the $1 trillion dollar predatory student loan industry.

“Just as the housing crisis has trapped millions of borrowers in mortgages that are underwater, student debt could very well prevent millions of Americans from fully participating in the economy or ever achieving financial security,” Madigan testified to Congress in 2014. “The warning signs are there, just like they were there before the housing crisis and Congress needs to act before it is too late.”

Madigan seems to be a shoe-in for a female presidency and has been touted as “Hillary’s replacement”.

With hundreds of millions of settlement dollars, why did she freeze payment to state workers, without a budget in place? And why has she been obstructing state progress for 18 months?

A prolonged budget impass means there is no budget. There was none and there still hasn’t been one for 18 months. She has also eased out of her career of rooting out corruption by initially accusing her predecessor of being soft of corruption while she targeted Rod Blagojevich, who was eventually sent to prison for attempting to sell Obama’s Senate seat.

Her opposition, Illinois GOP Chairman Tim Schneider, is maintaining Madigan not only violated her oath of office, but also conspired with her father to block a budget compromise. She hasn’t offered much of a reply in her op-ed, but appears to be hoping to delay it as much as possible.

“It’s clear that Mike and Lisa Madigan are working together to protect the status quo and prevent reform by creating a crisis,” Schneider charged. “She’s working for the speaker, not the people.”

According to Bruce Rauner, Illinois Governor and Schneider ally, Madigan was intervening in a simmering dispute in determining whether state workers should be paid if a budget isn’t in place. In delaying the budget compromises, Madigan is ensuring that state workers (on her end) will not get paid, which is seemingly an act of retaliation against a proposed grand budget deal that is pending in the Senate.

How were those hundreds of millions of dollars earmarked for the Illinois pension plans and overall state budget spent so recklessly? How did the funds dry up so quickly, given her status in office since 2003?

If You Like Your Wall Street, Then You Can Keep Your Wall Street

None of this would have been possible if it weren’t for the grand collusion between the multinational corporations in enticing the U.S. government into ensuring that their America, not the citizens’, came to fruition.

That’s the real story here; the entrenched judicial executive overreach in settlement cases pertaining to multinational corporations, with settlements orchestrated and agreed upon by all sides.

Eric Holder, who established the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force under former President Obama and remained in his position until 2015, mentioned “When we find evidence of criminal wrongdoing, we bring criminal prosecutions.  When we don’t, we endeavor to use other tools available to us – such as civil sanctions – to seek justice.” Hilarious.

Few prolific businessmen were jailed. Instead, tons of civil sanctions were rolled out, which means, in hindsight, the committee itself was nothing more than a means of activating and manipulating the slush fund in its entirety. This task force was nothing more than the means of a funneling system enabling former President Obama to operate his slush fund. In conjunction with the Justice Department, the RMBS Working Group reached multibillion-dollar settlements with essentially every major bank in America. The true motivation as a task force was proven in the words of Eric Holder, when he mentioned, “This working group brings together a variety of federal, state, and local partners – including HUD, the FBI, IRS, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, and Federal Housing Finance Agency Office of Inspector General.” The corruption was multi-level and widespread throughout the entire government.

The victims in this widespread judicial abuse consisted of Goldman Sachs ($5.1 Billion), Morgan Stanley ($3.2 Billion), Citigroup ($7 Billion), J.P Morgan Chase ($13 Billion), and Bank of America ($16.65 Billion). The funds were supposed to be placed into a consumer relief package, to help the homeowners who’d lost everything in the collapse. Obviously, that didn’t occur. They ended up financing liberal activist groups. Why? Because, according to the Washington Examiner, “direct consumer relief, such as forgiving delinquent loans, earns the banks at best only $1 of credit for each dollar it spends.

While the Justice Department maintains that this maneuver isn’t a loophole, it’s perfectly legal because it’s steeped in the terms and conditions for their settlement in the first place. This means the financial institutions weren’t forced to choose options via verdict incentives. They were creating the options and acting like victims. It was reported as if the companies themselves were stuck in a bind and chose the lesser of two evils, but from the top down the companies themselves were secretly relieved to have an ally within the opposition.

Other forms of consumer relief packages (in other industry lawsuits) could be in dealership relief, environmental relief, etc. The idea was that, no matter what the instrument is called, money is officially earmarked to help the populace, whereas in reality, the fund would be channeled through various government entities (money laundering) until it made its way into the purse of the Obama Administration (Ponzi schemes). It is a massive circumvention of federal law (RICO) by declaring that all revenue obtained by the government must go to the Treasury and cannot be redirected to third parties.

The Banks themselves were pleased with the outcomes due to the means in which they could lessen their settlement costs. For example, Bank of America was able to eliminate a multi-billion dollar fine for mortgage fraud simply by donating to approved activist groups. Their donation cleaned $194 million dollars from the $16.6 Billion fine, so the bank only had to spend $84 million to make it happen.

This means that the establishment was playing both sides of the situation the entire time. The grand idea was to allow the mainstream media to stay silent on the notion of an Obama slush fund that cemented the fact that it was always an Obama Administration scandal, which was tied to no one conspirator. Indeed, Lankford (R-OK), has introduced the Stop Settlement Slush Fund Act of 2017 while House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), submitted similar legislation in the House. “Congress must permanently end the abuses Obama’s Justice Department exploited to use settlements to funnel money to their liberal friends,” Goodlatte said in a statement.

It’ll be interesting to see whether ongoing settlement amounts are appealed on the basis of this slush fund discovery, or if payments will be delayed and mistrials incurred.  Multinational corporations might express mock outrage at the idea of an Obama slush fund, but they have all made hefty contributions.

If You Like Your Judiciary-Executive Overreach, Then You Can Keep Your Judiciary-Executive Overreach

These actions might even be seen as a kickback scheme by the State Department in retaliation for the financial collapse, which cost America its reputation in the white-collar world (and bankrupted Greece). But not only banks were affected.

Make no mistake, these lawsuits were filed to address violations stemming from the 2008 financial crisis and most of the violations involved Countrywide (which former Attorney General Eric Holder stated was the largest fair lending settlement in history), and Merrill Lynch, which Bank of America bought during the crisis with the government’s encouragement.

However, the DOJ also used these slush fund tactics against virtually every big-name company that could afford to lose billions in settlements. This isn’t to imply that those companies were innocent in their affairs because they weren’t. The approach taken to exude justice was even more ham-fisted and sleazy than their stereotypes make them out to be.

This is literal pay-to-play. Other settlements with non-banking companies include GlaxoSmithKline ($3 Billion), BP’s Gulf of Mexico oil spill (which the Obama Administration intervened in$18.7 Billion), the ExxonValdez disaster ($509 million), Rx Fen-Phen ($21.1 Billion – ongoing), GM’s ignition-switch defect ($900 million), Toyota’s sudden-acceleration litigation ($1.2 Billion), the historic multi-state tobacco legislation settlements ($206 Billion), Pfizer ($894 million), Merk’s ($4.85 Billion), and Volkswagen ($20 Billion).

All of which entailed earmarked funds for consumer relief. Even if the practice of relief funds was legitimate, a dime will never see those the fund was intended for because of how the case was handled. The case is still ongoing, however, in light of recent events and the discovery of the slush fund. Volkswagon could argue for mistrial if they feel the verdict is unfair.

It is illegal to shop for a judge to buy a verdict, but that’s exactly what Volkswagen did.

If You Like Your Judge, Then You Can Keep Your Judge

Initially, in the settlement case, working for Volkswagon’s counsel were law firms Sullivan & Cromwell LLP and Herzfeld & Rubin PC. The DOJ representatives were Joshua Van Eaton, Peter A. Caplan, and Bethany Engel (alongside Meetu Kaul from the EPA). The mediation (tasked with helping both sides negotiate more effectively) was helmed (at the assistance of Judge Breyer) by the former F.B.I. director and longtime lawyer, Robert S. Mueller III.

The DOJ representatives were selected by the DOJ and the company counsel was selected by Volkswagen. Judge Breyer selected Robert Mueller.

As Judge Breyer said: “His role will be to use his considerable experience and judgment to facilitate settlement discussions among the various parties in these complex matters…His government and private practice experience makes him uniquely qualified to work with and earn the trust of the parties…” Judge Breyer said he has known the onetime San Francisco U.S. attorney for more than 40 years and is confident “there are few, if any, people with more integrity, good judgment, and relevant experience than Mr. Mueller.”

Not surprisingly, upon hearing of the decision and the judge’s praise for the mediator, several of the firms representing the plaintiffs submitted letters to the Volkswagen docket also praising the decision.

The opposition counsel (working for the shareholders and for the disenfranchised customers) was led in a plaintiff steering committee by Elizabeth Cabraser (of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, and significant Democratic-leaning Obama campaign donator). Judge Breyer was confident that “Ms. Cabraser will effectively represent and guide the plaintiffs toward a resolution that is in their best interests.”

A steering committee is “a group of lawyers representing a party, usually the plaintiffs, who collectively meet, assign work, and make strategic decisions in complex litigation. Often Lead Counsel oversees or heads this committee.” Frank objected that plaintiffs’ lawyers engage in collusion when they endorse one another to judges who pick lead counsel.

It’s the biggest open secret in the legal field, because Cabraser wasn’t appointed for the task per se, she “fought” 100 lawyers for the opportunity (50 of whom wanted to chair the plaintiff steering committee). It wasn’t really a fight. It was a show for the cameras, as Judge Breyer had asked lawyers bidding for leadership appointments to tell him about their legal endorsements from other firms. In typical multidistrict litigations (MDLs), back-scratching and log-rolling among plaintiffs’ firms is a given, so a lot of lead applicants successfully amassed endorsements from their colleagues. Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer created a handy chart of candidates that included a column denoting how many other firms backed their bids. Veteran MDL player Elizabeth Cabraser of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein led the pack with 67 supporters. Partners from Baron & Budd and Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy also informed Judge Breyer of backing from more than 60 other firms.

Interestingly, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP exclusively handles class action law suits, and they primarily seek out MDLs. The law firm’s lawyers are considered “experts in complex civil litigation.” They sought class action litigation against Nuverra Environmental Solutions, Inc.,  S.A.C. Capital Advisors, LP and its affiliates, the BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill, the GM ignition-switch defect, and the Toyota sudden-acceleration litigation. Cabraser herself has also been a lead lawyer in other landmark cases including the multi-state tobacco litigation, the Exxon Valdez disaster and Fen-Phen.

Thus, it was precisely because the Volkswagen case was being decided as an MDL that Mr. Mueller was even appointed as mediator to the case! Indeed, a multi-district panel of judges assigned the Volkswagen case to Judge Breyer, particularly for his “familiarity with the nuances of complex, multi-district litigation.” Another way of reading this is he was assigned the case because few laypeople would understand what he was presiding over, and all the lawyers could get in on the take. He then stacked the deck with his own people, like Elizabeth Cabraser and Robert Mueller.

Judge Charles R Breyer (a Bill Clinton appointee) was clearly biased toward the final selection, and should have recused himself. Portrayed as a hardliner by the New York Times, and considered “fair, pragmatic, and creative” by Californian lawyers, he was incredibly friendly towards the plaintiff steering committee’s eventual choice of Elizabeth Cabraser:

In a clear violation of showing bias towards a legal party, “Breyer greeted Cabraser by name as she walked up to the podium and didn’t stop her when she went over the allowed time.”

Eventually, however, in October, the complex infrastructure of the buyback program would be decided as administered by class counsel and VW, the class filing said, not by the government. While this seems fair, it’s actually a round-a-bout means of the Department of Justice receiving plausible deniability in divesting funds.

Whether the buyback program in the settlement verdict is officially administered by the U.S. government or the company, the same underwriters ensured the same outcome. This means that the outcome is irrelevant and that judicial institutions, multi-national companies, and the U.S. government have all been working together for over a decade to undermine the very judiciary process they claim to uphold.

Like the Obama slush fund narrative, the Volkswagen Settlement is being played as a partisan issue:

Senators Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, both Democrats and members of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, pressed authorities for further action. “We continue to call on the Department of Justice to vigorously pursue its criminal investigation,” they said in a joint statement. “All the facts point to criminal culpability, and officials should be held accountable as appropriate.”

However, this is a nice enough narrative if it weren’t for the case of missing one completely legal and often executed instrument of law – MDLs, which is how most of these intra-state settlement cases are handled. In fact, Judge Breyer’s cases usually ended in settlement like the verdicts for Pfizer over two painkillers and major airlines accused of conspiring to price-fix.

“In many very large multi-district litigations, plaintiffs’ lawyers agreed to separate negotiation of their fees from negotiation of the class recovery. Ted Frank, of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said the separation is an economic myth. VW knew going into negotiations with the class and the U.S. government what it was willing to pay to resolve claims, including legal fees, so the company surely subtracted anticipated lawyers’ fees from what it would pay class members.”

So how do MDLs work?

If You Like Your Legal System, Then You Can Keep Your Legal System

MDLs are an option of legal proceedings designed to lower the docket volume in the federal courts. MDLs differ from a Class Action Lawsuit, in that the former is the bundling of several separate cases into the docket of a single court whereas the latter is the bundling of those several separate cases into one verdict. Both are used when dealing with mass torts that would seem unwieldy on their own in the courts. They are not the same.

The idea is that if there are multiple related cases filed in multiple jurisdictions, it’s best to bundle the cases into an MDL. An analogy would be bonds/securities, with each individual lawsuit representing a mortgage-backed loan bundled into the bond/security, or MDL. This ensures the same weakening of the lawsuits wrapped up in these class action lawsuits, like a bond/security being sold to an investor when everyone wants one. What follows next is too much supply, too little demand, and a financial collapse of bonds that were grounded in their obscurity.

The benefits are supposed to be a decrease in time (on the judge’s behalf) and litigation costs (on the corporation’s and their lawyers’ behalf). However, as we’ve seen previously, it’s all a racket propped up by the federal government and designed to separate the American people from their money. Indeed, the Federal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1407, permits the temporary transfer of federal civil lawsuits to one or more district courts for pretrial consolidation or coordination.

Given that lawsuits must involve one or more “common questions of fact”, there is a financial benefit to the corporations in halting the answering of any injustices until they’re forced into court. At that point, since the number of cases will have risen immensely, lawyers (and their specialized firms) can argue for an MDL and be sure to get it. Backed by other lawyers/law firms, any sense of justice is an illusion, as MDL motions can be filed in advance should there be a credible notion that an MDL will result anyways. This allows the corporations to essentially shop around for certain judges. Indeed, if the courts decide that it would save time and energy, an MDL can be forced upon the corporations and their impending lawsuits, if “the convenience of parties and witnesses and will promote the just and efficient conduct of such actions.”

In summary, settlements are being brought by the Department of Justice (on the advice of the lesser agencies, like the EPA and the FDA), pursuing multinational companies (many of which are perfectly happy to “suffer” the cost of doing business), and ensuring verdicts by shopping around for specific judges who will then bring on a specialized team of what is essentially a team of false-flaggers in the aims of bringing about the perfect verdict. This is seemingly horrific for the company and beneficial for the public (even though the result is always subversively proportionate). It is a never-ending cycle of incompetence.

In Conclusion

It’s not about Obama’s slush fund, it’s about the multi-level treachery, municipal, state, and federal, committed by those pretending to serve the public interest in order to pad their own coffers and achieve re-election. While Russia’s oligarchs helm companies invested in their national industries of fertilizer, oil, natural gas, etc, our oligarchs helm law firms, bank branches, and hospital boards. The Obama Administration, and every politician, lawyer, judge, and Wall Street executive who partook in this systemic blood-letting of American finances had a fiduciary responsibility to its citizens, which they blatantly side stepped at every turn. They knowingly put those below the poverty line at risk and contributed significantly to the aftermath of the financial crisis.  It is extremely likely, given Hillary Clinton’s semi-approval of the Affordable Care Act and secretive Wall Street bank speeches, that there was an intention to continue wreak more havoc with a Clinton Presidency. The losses caused by this irresponsible behavior deeply affected not only governmental institutions but also the disabled. One can only hope that the entirety of the Obama Administration has learned the difference between risk and deceit.