The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights announced the investigation this week
Florida State under investigation for its handling of Jameis Winston rape allegations
The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights announced the investigation this week
At Not Just The News, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Not Just The News and how it is used.
Log Files
Like many other Web sites, Not Just The News makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.
Cookies and Web Beacons
Not Just The News does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.
DoubleClick DART Cookie
These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Not Just The News send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.
Not Just The News has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.
You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Not Just The News"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.
If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., right, followed by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I. leave a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, April 2, 2014, where they talked about the Supreme Court decision in the McCutcheon vs. FEC case, in which the Court struck down limits in federal law on the aggregate campaign contributions individual donors may make to candidates, political parties, and political action committees. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., right, followed by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I. leave a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, April 2, 2014, where they talked about the Supreme Court decision in the McCutcheon vs. FEC case, in which the Court struck down limits in federal law on the aggregate campaign contributions individual donors may make to candidates, political parties, and political action committees. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)
WASHINGTON (AP) â” The Supreme Court ruling Wednesday erasing a long-standing limit on campaign donations will allow a small number of very wealthy donors to give even more than is currently the case, according to students of the complex campaign finance system, and could strengthen the establishment in both parties.
While Republicans cheered the ruling on philosophical grounds and Democrats criticized it, there was a general agreement that the decision itself was unlikely to benefit one party over another.
“This is not a decision that advantages one party over the other. It advantages wealthy people over everybody else,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.
On a 5-4 ruling, the court struck down a limitation on the amount any donor may give to candidates, committees and political action committees combined.
Only 646 out of millions of donors in the election cycle of 2011-2012 gave the now-defunct legal maximum, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. For the current election cycle, the limit is $ 123,200, broken down as $ 48,600 to all candidates combined and $ 74,600 to all party committees and political action committees in total.
The ruling will “mean there will be much greater emphasis by the campaigns and the parties on those donors with the biggest checkbooks who can make those very large contributions,” said Bob Biersack, who works for the CRP and is a 30-year veteran of the Federal Election Commission.
“Whether that’s good or bad depends on your perspective on how this whole system should work, but it absolutely means that the small number of people who can give at those levels” will be asked to give more, he added.
The ruling leaves unchanged a parallel system in which individuals donate unlimited amounts, sometimes undisclosed, to certain outside groups. Biersack said the same small group of 646 donors gave a total of about $ 93.4 million in the last campaign. Their largesse will still be avidly sought, as Republican presidential hopefuls recently demonstrated by travelling to Las Vegas to meet with casino magnate and conservative donor Sheldon Adelson.
In the realm of limited donations, Cleta Mitchell, an election lawyer for Republicans, said the court’s ruling means that various party committees and candidates no longer will have to vie for money from the same contributors. The law permits a donor to contribute $ 5,200 for the primary and general election combined to any candidate, and if they did so, could donate only to nine office-seekers before reaching the $ 48,600 limit to all federal office-seekers.
Similarly, while Republicans and Democrats in Washington each maintain a national party committee, a Senate campaign committee and a House campaign committee, a donor could give the maximum allowable amount to only two of the three without violating the overall limitation the court discarded.
Now, Mitchell said, “the donors get to choose obviously, but the committees don’t have to feel like they’re pinching another party’s donors.”
In all, she described the ruling as “a positive for the parties.”
The court’s ruling also means that donors will be able to give $ 10,000 a year to as many state party committees as they want, so-called joint committees, in which a lawmaker can now solicit funds simultaneously for their own campaign, their own political action committee, their party and for an unlimited number of other candidates without donors exceeding the old limits.
Biersack cited House Speaker John Boehner’s fundraising efforts as an example, said he would now be able to use a joint fundraising committee for hundreds of Republican House candidates simultaneously, greatly expanding their ability to receive funds.
In theory, this ability could once more allow parties and their leaders to assert more discipline over rank-and-file lawmakers, who have become increasingly beholden to outside groups in recent years.
Ryan Call, chairman of the Colorado Republican Party and a campaign finance attorney, said the court’s ruling will be a boon to state parties, which he said have been neglected previously because donors hit the overall spending limit before they could distribute funds lower on the political food chain. “We have lots of optimism that this new decision would enable people who want to support us to do so,” he said.
Under the court’s ruling, a donor could donate the maximum $ 10,000 a year to each of their party’s 50 state committees, or a total of $ 1 million â” and still donate to candidates as well as national party committees and political action committees.
Matt Canter, a spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, called the ruling a “win for national party committees” and said it will “greatly enhance our ability to raise resources to support our voter contact and field program … in states across the country.” He referred to a new field project to boost turnout in certain states with key Senate races this year.
While there was general agreement about the short-term impact of the ruling, there was a strong divergence of opinion on the wisdom of the court’s conservative majority. The case was the latest in which the justices found that many limits on contributions violate the givers’ constitutional free-speech rights.
Republicans who backed the suit challenging the overall limits cheered the ruling.
Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who filed a brief in support of the challenge, said the court “has once again reminded Congress that Americans have a constitutional First Amendment right to speak and associate with political candidates and parties of their choice.”
He added that court’s ruling makes it clear that it is the “right of the individual, and not the prerogative of Congress, to determine how many candidates and parties to support.”
Democrats said the ruling must be viewed in the context of earlier ones that they said strengthened the power of the wealthy.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., a former state attorney general, criticized the court’s majority in unusually sharp terms, saying the majority seems interested in “aligning political power in this country with political wealthy.”
Schumer said a Senate committee he chairs would hold hearings on the issue.
___
Associated Press writers Philip Elliott and Kenneth Thomas in Washington and Nicholas Riccardi in Denver contributed to this report.
WASHINGTON Thu Mar 27, 2014 12:18pm EDT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday approved legislation to temporarily avert looming pay cuts for doctors under the government’s Medicare health insurance program for older Americans and the disabled.
The measure was approved in a voice vote.
This photo taken Feb. 20, 2014 showsWashington state Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler speaking to seniors at an annual lobby day for the group in Olympia, Wash. Cancer patients relieved that they can get insurance coverage because of the new health care law may be disappointed to learn that some of the nationâ™s best cancer hospitals are off limits. Only four of 19 nationally recognized comprehensive cancer centers that responded to an Associated Press survey said patients have access through all the insurance companies in their stateâ™s exchange, or primary market. (AP Photo/Elaine Thompson)
This photo taken Feb. 20, 2014 showsWashington state Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler speaking to seniors at an annual lobby day for the group in Olympia, Wash. Cancer patients relieved that they can get insurance coverage because of the new health care law may be disappointed to learn that some of the nationâ™s best cancer hospitals are off limits. Only four of 19 nationally recognized comprehensive cancer centers that responded to an Associated Press survey said patients have access through all the insurance companies in their stateâ™s exchange, or primary market. (AP Photo/Elaine Thompson)
WASHINGTON (AP) â” Some of America’s best cancer hospitals are off-limits to many of the people now signing up for coverage under the nation’s new health care program.
Doctors and administrators say they’re concerned. So are some state insurance regulators.
An Associated Press survey found examples coast to coast. Seattle Cancer Care Alliance is excluded by five out of eight insurers in Washington’s insurance exchange. MD Anderson Cancer Center says it’s in less than half of the plans in the Houston area. Memorial Sloan-Kettering is included by two of nine insurers in New York City and has out-of-network agreements with two more.
In all, only four of 19 nationally recognized comprehensive cancer centers that responded to AP’s survey said patients have access through all the insurance companies in their states’ exchanges.
Not too long ago insurance companies would have been vying to offer access to renowned cancer centers, said Dan Mendelson, CEO of the market research firm Avalere Health. Now the focus is on costs.
“This is a marked deterioration of access to the premier cancer centers for people who are signing up for these plans,” Mendelson said.
Those patients may not be able get the most advanced treatment, including clinical trials of new medications.
And there’s another problem: it’s not easy for consumers shopping online in the new insurance markets to tell if top-level institutions are included in a plan. That takes additional digging by the people applying.
“The challenges of this are going to become evident … as cancer cases start to arrive,” said Norman Hubbard, executive vice president of Seattle Cancer Care Alliance.
Before President Barack Obama’s health care law, a cancer diagnosis could make you uninsurable. Now, insurers can’t turn away people with health problems or charge them more. Lifetime dollar limits on policies, once a financial trap-door for cancer patients, are also banned.
The new obstacles are more subtle.
To keep premiums low, insurers have designed narrow networks of hospitals and doctors. The government-subsidized private plans on the exchanges typically offer less choice than Medicare or employer plans.
By not including a top cancer center an insurer can cut costs. It may also shield itself from risk, delivering an implicit message to cancer survivors or people with a strong family history of the disease that they should look elsewhere.
For now, the issue seems to be limited to the new insurance exchanges. But it could become a concern for Americans with job-based coverage, too, if employers turn to narrow networks.
The AP surveyed 23 institutions around the country that are part of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Two additional institutions that joined this week were not included in the survey.
Cancer network members are leading hospitals that combine the latest clinical research and knowledge with a multidisciplinary approach to patient care. They say that patients in their care have better-than-average survival rates. The unique role of cancer centers is recognized under Medicare. Several are exempt from its hospital payment system, instituted to control costs.
AP asked the centers how many insurance companies in their state’s exchange included them as a network provider.
Of the 19 that responded, four reported access through all insurers: the Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, Duke Cancer Institute in Durham, N.C., and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center in Nashville. One caveat: Some insurers did not include these cancer centers on certain low-cost plans.
Two centers had special circumstances. The best known is St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis. Treatment there is free as long as children have a referral.
For the remaining 13, the gaps were evident.
In Buffalo, N.Y., Roswell Park Cancer Institute is included by five of seven insurers in its region. But statewide, the picture is much different: Roswell Park is not included by 11 of 16 insurers. Dr. Willie Underwood, associate professor of surgical oncology at the teaching hospital, says that’s a problem.
“Overall, when you look at the Affordable Care Act, it improves access to cancer care,” said Underwood. “When it comes down to the exchanges, there are some concerns that we have. That is not being critical, that is being intelligent. There are some things we should talk about … before they start becoming a problem.”
Melanie Lapidus, vice president for managed care at Barnes-Jewish Hospital in St. Louis, home to Siteman Cancer Center, said she doesn’t think patients realize the exchanges offer a more restrictive kind of private insurance.
Lapidus cited Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, which includes Siteman in many of its plans outside the Missouri exchange, but none within the exchange.
“We have had many people say to us, ‘I picked Anthem because you guys are always in their products, and I assumed you would be in their exchange products’,” Lapidus said. “It’s still hard to tell who is in network and who is not.”
In a statement, Anthem said its network was based on research involving thousands of consumers and businesses. “What we learned was that people are willing to make trade-offs in order to have access to affordable health care,” the company said. “Our provider networks reflect this.”
Huntsman Cancer Institute in Salt Lake City is included by five of six Utah insurers, but Mark Zenger, who manages the center’s negotiations with insurance companies, said he’s concerned about getting left out by Humana, a major carrier.
“We are worried about the potential to have these Humana exchange members seek treatment and have no other option,” said Zenger.
Humana spokesman Tom Noland said patients can have access to Huntsman for complex procedures, on a case-by-case basis.
Some state insurance regulators see a problem.
“I want insurers to be able to innovate and come up with new product designs,” said Mike Kreidler, insurance commissioner for Washington state. “At the same time, there is a requirement for regulators like myself to be vigilant to make sure there aren’t unreasonable compromises.”
The Obama administration says it has notified insurers that their networks will get closer scrutiny for next year in the 36 states served by the federal exchange. Cancer care will be a priority, it says.
___
AP writers Sheila Burke in Nashville, Tenn., Kim Chandler in Montgomery, Ala., Emery Dalesio in Raleigh, N.C., Jeff Karoub in Detroit, Brady McCombs in Salt Lake City, Christine Scalora in Lincoln, Neb., and Christopher Weber in Los Angeles contributed.
by Hasib Danish Alikozai, VOA Afghan Svc. March 14, 2014
U.S. and NATO military commanders in Afghanistan are reportedly developing plans to deploy a NATO military force in Afghanistan this year designed to assume a training mission in 2015, but small and nimble enough to be withdrawn if the Afghan government does not sign a Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) that lays out conditions for NATO’s continued security presence in the country.
President Hamid Karzai has refused to sign the BSA even though it has popular support and was approved by a traditional grand council or Loya Jirga. The U.S. has warned if the BSA is not signed it will proceed with the so-called “Zero Option” and pull all U.S. forces from the country by the end of the year.
Karzai has said he objects to BSA provisions that allow night raids by NATO forces and also any U.S. initiatives to negotiate with the Taliban. He has also said his successor should sign the agreement because it will be up to him to deal with the consequences.
A warning from Obama
U.S. officials say they do not expect the BSA to be signed until after presidential elections in April, but President Obama recently warned Karzai in a phone call the longer the wait the less effective a BSA will be. “We will leave open the possibility of concluding a BSA with Afghanistan later this year. However, the longer we go without a BSA, the more challenging it will be to plan and execute any U.S mission,” Obama said in his phone call with Karzai, adding that “Furthermore, the longer we go without a BSA, the more likely it will be that any post-2014 U.S. mission will be smaller in scale and ambition.”
Jason Campbell, of the U.S based Rand Corporation says it is Afghans who are most affected by the uncertainty over the BSA. “Quite frankly from my position the people who are suffering the most from the delay in signing of the BSA are Afghans because by not knowing the level of dedicated support that the international community would provide beyond this year, you have lingering doubts and that affects the confidence of the Afghan people,” said Campbell.
Lisa Curtis, a south Asian expert at the Washington-based Heritage Foundation believes that the U.S is losing patience with the Afghan war. “I think the U.S is really losing patience and that was indicated by Obama’s phone call to Karzai which was essentially a warning that the longer the Afghan government delays in signing the BSA, the likely that the smaller the number of U.S forces after 2014 will be,” said Curtis.
Zero option is on the table
Following Obama’s phone call with Karzai, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said that the Pentagon has begun planning for a complete withdrawal by the end of 2014. The “Zero Option” is one option that U.S officials will consider amongst other options in regards to a post 2014 mission in Afghanistan.
Sayed Tayeb Jawad, a former Afghan ambassador to the U.S. says the zero option should not be taken lightly.
“This is an option; this is an option that has some serious backers in the U.S including the U.S Vice President Joe Biden. If the bilateral security agreement is not signed, and there are more and more debates within the U.S administration about different options we would probably see that the argument of those who are in favor of the zero option will gain more momentum,” he said.
But Ahmad Idrees Rahmani, an Afghan political analyst says Karzai does not believe in the possibility of the zero option. “He assumes that based on his 12 years’ experience in the palace the U.S is not going to abandon Afghanistan and go away no matter what. He thinks because zero option does not exist, he could force the U.S to agree to his demands,” said Rahmani.
Runoff election could complicate timetable
The very likely possibility of holding a runoff election if a clear winner does not emerge from the April 5th presidential vote could further complicate prospects for the BSA. If a clear winner emerges the BSA could be signed within weeks. But Lisa Curtis says if there is no clear winner the White House could push for a much smaller eventual force for Afghanistan.
“So if there is no winner right away. We probably have to wait a couple of more months to see who the new government would be. So If I had to look at the crystal ball and see how this plays out, It will take time and give the White House the reason to maintain a small footprint in Afghanistan.” And that is something Curtis says the White House might prefer for the long term. “So I think the problem here is that Karzai’s refusal to sign the BSA actually fuels into Obama’s personal goals which are to leave Afghanistan as soon as possible,” she said.
NEWSLETTER |
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
Big surprise, eh? No one took this seriously before it took place, and no one will take it seriously after the votes are counted. No one, that is, except for the occupying power in Crimea that forced the referendum in the first place. Russia and its new puppet regional government on the peninsula are reported record turnout and a 93% vote for annexation to its former sovereign, while the US and West denounced the entire exercise as just a pretense for a land grab:
Supporters of Crimea’s attempt to secede from Ukraine and join Russia have flocked to vote in a referendum denounced by Kiev and Western powers.
Polls closed at 18:00 GMT and officials hailed a “record” turnout. Preliminary results were expected within hours.
A vast majority of voters interviewed by journalists backed secession. Many opponents boycotted the vote.
The White House has officially rejected the results and the referendum itself, saying it occurred under duress:
The White House says Sunday’s referendum on secession is contrary to Ukraine’s constitution.
The U.S. says the world won’t recognize the results of a vote held under what it says are “threats of violence and intimidation from a Russian military intervention that violates international law.”
A written statement from the White House calls Russia’s actions in Ukraine “dangerous and destabilizing.”
The U.S. is urging other nations to “take concrete steps to impose costs” against Russia.
Secession was expected to be approved overwhelmingly.
John McCain uses a better word than referendum, one which I have used purposefully all along:
“Look, it is a bogus thing. We used to call it plebiscite in the days of Hitler and Stalin. It is a done deal,” he said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
McCain and the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine have a running bet on how lopsided the vote will be. McCain thinks the referendum will be approved with 70 percent of the vote. …
“The United States of America, first of all, has to have a fundamental re-assessment of our relationship with Vladimir Putin. No more reset buttons, no more tell Vladimir I’ll be more flexible,” he said.
He’s right, but it’s too late for that now. Putin has already taken his measure of the West. Expect the annexation to happen immediately — and then wait for the inevitable repeat in eastern Ukraine, too.
At Not Just The News, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Not Just The News and how it is used.
Log Files
Like many other Web sites, Not Just The News makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.
Cookies and Web Beacons
Not Just The News does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.
DoubleClick DART Cookie
These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Not Just The News send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.
Not Just The News has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.
You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Not Just The News"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.
If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.
At The Daily News Source, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by The Daily News Source and how it is used.
Log Files
Like many other Web sites, The Daily News Source makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.
Cookies and Web Beacons
The Daily News Source does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.
DoubleClick DART Cookie
These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on The Daily News Source send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.
The Daily News Source has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.
You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. The Daily News Source"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.
If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.
Obama “does not have war powers to kill an American . . . There are two clauses in the Constitution that specifically protect Americans,” Napolitano, a former New Jersey Superior Court judge, told “Fox & Friends.”
Napolitano said it was “defined as treason” if an American was waging war on the U.S. Under that circumstance, he said American citizens were guaranteed a jury trial and could not be convicted “unless there were two witnesses to the same overt act.”
Officials admitted Monday a U.S. citizen was suspected of actively planning to attack Americans overseas. Officials within the Obama administration stated they had been debating whether to kill him under a new drone strike policy.
The new drone policy stipulates targeted killings must be in an ongoing military conflict, the target must have taken up arms against the U.S., there must be no possibility of arresting the suspect, and the decision must be made by senior political leaders.
Napolitano said the drone policy was written by the president and, therefore, was not U.S. law. He said only the Constitution allowed Congress to write laws.
“Only the Congress can enact a law, especially a law giving the president authority to kill an American,” Napolitano said. “The president’s efforts to bypass the Constitution . . . in foreign affairs is just as unconstitutional as its efforts to bypass the Constitution in domestic affairs.”
The law allowed an American suspected of terrorism against the U.S. to be kidnapped, arrested, or put on trial, Napolitano said. However, to target a drone strike on an individual suspected of terrorism was “an insufficient basis to execute him without a trial.”
Napolitano argued that even if Congress authorized the action against the American suspect, “it would still be against the constitutional protections that he’s afforded.”
Related Stories:
© 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Suspicious Death of JPMorgan Vice President, Gabriel Magee, Under Investigation in London
http://wallstreetonparade.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/JPMorgans-European-Headquarters-at-25-Bank-Street-in-the-Canary-Wharf-Section-of-London.jpg
(Left) JPMorgan’s European Headquarters at 25 Bank Street, in the Canary Wharf Section of London
London Police have confirmed that an official investigation is underway into the death of a 39-year old JPMorgan Vice President whose body was found on the 9th floor rooftop of a JPMorgan building in Canary Wharf two weeks ago.
The news reports at the time of the incident of Gabriel (Gabe) Magee’s “non suspicious” death by “suicide” resulting from his reported leap from the 33rd level rooftop of JPMorgan’s European headquarters building in London have turned out to be every bit as reliable as CEO Jamie Dimon’s initial response to press reports on the London Whale trading scandal in 2012 as a “tempest in a teapot.”
An intense investigation is now underway into the details of exactly how Magee died and why his death was so quickly labeled “non suspicious.” An upcoming Coroner’s inquest will reveal the details of that investigation.
It’s becoming clear that when JPMorgan tells us “nothing to see here, move along,” that’s the precise time we need to bring in the blood hounds and law enforcement with the guts to get past this global behemoth’s army of lawyers who have a penchant for taking over investigations and producing their own milquetoast reports of what happened.
Jamie Dimon’s so-called “tempest in a teapot” in the London Whale matter morphed into $ 6.2 billion in bank depositor losses, $ 1 billion in fines to JPMorgan, 300 pages of scandalous details by the U.S. Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations that called into question JPMorgan’s risk controls and the integrity of upper management, and, finally, resulted in criminal charges against two of the men involved. The criminal cases have yet to go to trial.
According to numerous sources close to the investigation of Gabriel Magee’s death, almost nothing thus far reported about his death has been accurate. This appears to stem from an initial poorly worded press release issued by the Metropolitan Police in London which may have been a result of bad communications between it and JPMorgan or something more deliberate on someone’s part.
The Metropolitan Police have provided me with their original press release. It reads:
“Police were called at approximately 08.02 hrs on Tuesday 28 January to reports of a man having fallen from a building at 25 Bank Street, E14 and landing on a ninth floor roof. London Ambulance Service and London Air Ambulance attended. The man was pronounced dead at the scene a short while later. The deceased is believed to be aged 39. We believe we know the identity of the deceased but await formal identification. Next of kin have been informed. No arrests have been made and the death is being treated as non-suspicious.”
That press release resulted in CNBC running with this headline: “Death Plunge at JP Morgan Tower Not Suspicious, Police Say.” Dozens of other media followed with similar reporting.
The Independent newspaper in London flatly stated that Magee “died after falling from the roof.” The London Evening Standard tweeted: “Bankers watch JP Morgan IT exec fall to his death from roof of London HQ,” which linked to their article which declared in its opening sentence that “A man plunged to his death from a Canary Wharf tower in front of thousands of horrified commuters today.”
At this moment in time, police have yet to produce a single witness who saw Magee jump from the rooftop of this building, let alone “thousands of horrified commuters.” (Exactly why would thousands of horrified commuters be standing in front of 25 Bank Street at 8:02 a.m. with their necks tilted up toward the roof? Magee did not land on the sidewalk; his body was found on a rooftop 9 floors above street level.) Both the Independent and London Evening Standard newspapers are majority owned by Alexander Lebedev, a Russian and former KGB agent.
No one in the media seemed to notice that Iain Dey, Deputy Business Editor of the Sunday Times in London, flatly disputed the notion that a plunge from the rooftop had been observed by anyone when he reported that: “Gabriel Magee’s body lay for several hours before it was found at 8am last Tuesday.”
The only facts in this case which are currently reliable are that fellow workers looking from their windows in the building noticed a body lying on the 9th level rooftop, which juts out from the main 33-story building, at around 8:02 a.m. on Tuesday, January 28, and called the police. There is no concrete proof at this moment in time that Magee fell, jumped or was ever on the 33-story rooftop, which is a highly secured area of the building unobtainable by employees other than top security and maintenance personnel. According to design documents that have been publicly filed, the rooftop functions as a highly sophisticated cooling plant with large, bulky machinery taking up the majority of the space on the side of the building from which Magee would have had to jump in order to land on the 9th level rooftop.
No solid evidence exists currently to suggest that the death was a suicide. In fact, there is a strong piece of evidence pointing in the opposite direction. Magee had emailed his girlfriend, Veronica, on the evening of January 27 to say that he was about to leave the office and would see her shortly. She received no further emails from him, suggesting that whatever happened to Magee happened shortly thereafter, not the next morning. According to multiple sources, Magee’s girlfriend reported his disappearance on the evening of January 27. The Metropolitan Police would provide me with no details on that investigation.
The JPMorgan building at 25 Bank Street is located in the borough of Tower Hamlets. According to drawings and plans submitted by JPMorgan to the borough after it purchased the building for £495 million in 2010, the 9th floor roof is accessible “via the stair from level 8 within the existing Level 9 plant enclosure…” In other words, it would be just as reasonable to entertain the possibility that Magee suffered his physical injuries inside the building and his body was placed on the 9th level rooftop via an internal staircase access sometime during the night of January 27.
The LinkedIn profile that Magee set up for himself online indicates that he was involved with “Technical architecture oversight for planning, development, and operation of systems for fixed income securities and interest rate derivatives.” As a key part of the computer technology group in London, Magee may have been involved in providing subpoenaed material for the London Whale investigation and the myriad other investigations that JPMorgan has been sanctioned and fined for over the last year. There are two serious open investigations into foreign exchange rigging and potential manipulation of commodities markets.
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) lists the man known as the London Whale, Bruno Iksil, who is cooperating with criminal prosecutors, and the two traders who have been criminally charged with hiding hundreds of millions of dollars in losses, Javier Martin-Artajo and Julien Grout, as having the same JPMorgan address, 25 Bank Street, as did Gabriel Magee.
Documents produced by the U.S. Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, however, show a 2012 address for JPMorgan’s Chief Investment Office in London, supposedly where the London Whale trades were originating, as 100 Wood Street, 6th Floor, London. If the London Whale traders were located at an address other than the European Headquarters for JPMorgan, it could have been to evade detection by regulators that the firm was using bank deposits in the United States, that carried FDIC insurance, to place high risk gambles in London in the derivatives market.
The Senate’s 300-page report noted that key traders involved in the London Whale matter, including Iksil, Martin-Artajo, and Grout, refused to submit to interviews by the Senate investigators. The Senate report notes that “their refusal to provide information to the Subcommittee meant that this Report had to be prepared without their direct input. The Subcommittee relied instead on their internal emails, recorded telephone conversations and instant messages, internal memoranda and presentations, and interview summaries prepared by the bank’s internal investigation, to reconstruct what happened.”
If Magee became aware that incriminating emails, instant messages, or video teleconferences were not turned over in their entirety to Senate investigators or Justice Department prosecutors, that might be reason enough for his untimely death. Yes, this is speculation. But it is along the lines that smart thinking investigators need to intensely explore to bring peace of mind and answers to Gabriel Magee’s loved ones and coworkers.
Related Article:
A Rash of Deaths and a Missing Reporter — With Ties to Wall Street Investigations
MARK LEVIN: Here’s Obama today before a cabinet meeting. Some of you have heard this, some have not. Everybody needs to hear it. Go:
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: One of the things that I’ll be emphasizing in this meeting is the fact that we are not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to ensure Americans are provided with the help that they need. I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone. And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward.
LEVIN: He’s just announced that he is going to assume lawmaking powers, he’s just announced that he is going to assume lawmaking powers. He does not recognize the majority in the House of Representatives. I don’t know how much more clearly he can say. You know what this is folks? This is a gradual quiet coup, that’s what is taking place. Its gradual, it’s quiet in the sense that it’s nonviolent, but it’s a coup. Cut two, Mr. Producer, go.
OBAMA: One of the things I’m going to be talking to my cabinet about is how do we use all the tools available to us, not just legislation in order to advance a mission that I think unifies all Americans.
LEVIN: Stop. This is the common parlance of the dictator. Assuming that he represents all Americans, that he’s a unifying figure, that we just need to concentrate more power in his hands. He will decide what laws are good what laws are bad. He will use executive orders to pass laws that Congress won’t pass, and he will ignore laws he doesn’t like. And he’ll rewrite laws that he wants to rewrite like Obamacare and so forth. This is the mindset and the language that dictators have. He assumes to speak for everybody. He is above politics, he is God’s gift. He was put on Earth to do just this.
And yet when you go back to the Constitution, oh, written by slaveowners — men with wooden teeth. They say the officer they say the opposite, they say this is tyranny. I say you are witnessing a gradual yet quiet coup, you just heard what he said.
At Those Damn Liars, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Those Damn Liars and how it is used.
Log Files
Like many other Web sites, Those Damn Liars makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.
Cookies and Web Beacons
Those Damn Liars does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.
DoubleClick DART Cookie
These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Those Damn Liars send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.
Those Damn Liars has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.
You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Those Damn Liars"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.
If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.
At Not Just The News, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Not Just The News and how it is used.
Log Files
Like many other Web sites, Not Just The News makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.
Cookies and Web Beacons
Not Just The News does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.
DoubleClick DART Cookie
These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Not Just The News send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.
Not Just The News has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.
You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Not Just The News"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.
If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.
(FEDERALJACK) Journalist Glenn Greenwald, who’s been channeling revelations from NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, lashed out at the mainstream media for turning a blind eye to the governments’ violations. He made a key-note speech at a hackers conference in Germany.
At A Political Statement, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by A Political Statement and how it is used.
Log Files
Like many other Web sites, A Political Statement makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.
Cookies and Web Beacons
A Political Statement does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.
DoubleClick DART Cookie
These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on A Political Statement send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.
A Political Statement has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.
You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. A Political Statement"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.
If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.
Let’s be clear: meeting under the mistletoe isn’t the place for a bonk and a bit of how’s-yer-father. Usually, that stolen moment is only enough for an quick embrace and some pre-code, Hollywood stuff—one foot on the floor at all times, please. Tree-trimming may get you plugged in but if your family is stringing cranberries by the creche, you’ll want to keep things clean.
You may, however, find yourself at a party with a parasitic shrub hanging overhead and no one in sight but that hottie you’ve been eyeing up since you arrived. Here are some things to avoid as you satisfy your holiday cravings:
Eating Your Lover’s Face
I once made out with a guy who opened his mouth so wide that I feared for my hairstyle. He could have fit a navel orange, a Christmas cracker and a yule log in there. He was a handsome guy. His proportions were right and he smelled vaguely delicious but his mouth had come from another planet. The plant of terrifying mouths.
I went to Skepticon 5 expecting a group of heretics that would get a kick out of my inversed reading of Milton’s Paradise Lost, which claims that Satan is the hero of the story (which was actually the mainstream reading before it became the “mistaken reading”, and is now coming into vogue again by top Milton scholars).
I was surprised to find that Satan makes atheists uncomfortable. Atheists already have a huge image/perception problem, with the religious proclamations that people can’t be good without God and that therefore all atheists are “evil.” Christians already think of atheists as nearly synonymous with Satanists; hence atheists have an uncomfortable relationship with Satanists and don’t want to be associated with the Devil.
Even more so than the term “Atheist”, “Satanist” has an immediately powerful negative connotations. And on the one hand, I definitely think that those people who wish to create a secular political and social force big enough to stand up to religious groups that are trying to make their faith-based beliefs govern the private lives of the rest of us, need to think about how they are perceived because it does impact the message being shared.
But there is still a very good reason to rescue Satan from his eternal cell of automatic-guilt; punished for a crime he was created to commit, as essential to the Christian plan of salvation as Jesus himself, and stereotyped into a boogey-man of evil and terror in order to frighten people into the arms of God.
Why should we give Satan a second chance, a new trial?
Why should we listen to his voice at all?
Because the term Satan is a wall, a barrier, a defense.
Religious people used to use the words “God” or “Holy” or “Divine” to sanctify their beliefs and values, and those terms were unquestionable. Why? can be answered by “Because God said so.” Humanists, atheists and skeptics have trampled this apparent barrier, forging through the taboo protecting sacred topics from inquiry and doubt, and demanding answers through rational discourse. As a result, Christians and the religious have lost one of their most precious defenses – the appeal to the tautology that God and Holy and Divine are automatically synonymous with the term Good – and inviolable, because “Good” is a universally positive statement that no one can disagree with or question.
But the flip side of this same theme is that of Evil, represented by Satan. Christians will call atheists “Satanists”, and atheists have to struggle to prove that they are not evil, they are not Satanists, that in fact they have positive moral values. But strangely, the literary figure of Satan has always represented some of the same values that humanists and atheists champion – like freedom, equality, the right to choice, to representative politics, the right to bear arms and rebel.
Trying to distance itself from Satan, who is actually an ally and forerunner to the movement, a powerful influence on the development of the very values humanists proclaim, is a failed project and appears disingenuous. Atheists are already quick to judge God and remove his protective labels of “Good” by identifying and criticizing the depravity of his actions recorded in the Bible and other literature – why shouldn’t they take the obvious and natural next step of taking a deep and penetrating look at the devil and questioning the common social assumptions concerning his actions? Shouldn’t the religious identification of Satan with evil values automatically lead atheists to question its validity and predict that Satan – as the polar opposite of the God they deny – represents the values that they hold dear?
Instead, atheists and Christians alike continue to condemn Satan as evil and allow the traditional stereotype that he is a liar, untrustworthy, sinful, etc. to stand. But if our society agrees universally that Satan represents negative values, isn’t it all-too-easy for everyone to continue making the counter association between God and Good values? Somehow Satan, God’s nemesis and opposite, has been completely cut off from the moral discussion concerning belief in God, and while God’s virtuousness and existence is being challenged, Satan’s deviousness is not.