All is fair in LAW - Love Amen War business 2.

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association. We are Satanic and so we believe

Never Ending War Story Evils God vs Good God

One reality God of innumerable connotations for the SMEEK Satanic Material Elite Evil Kleptocrat and the spiritual belief Moses chiseled for the MEEK Mind Entranced Enslaved Katabolism

www.Dedicated13.com
As clear as black and white kaleidoscope

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_god

A war deity is a god or goddess in mythology associated with war, combat or bloodshed. They occur commonly in both monotheistic and polytheistic religions. Unlike most gods and goddesses in polytheistic religions, monotheistic deities have traditionally been portrayed in their mythologies

as commanding war in order to spread their religion.

(The intimate connection between "holy war" and the "one true god" belief of monotheism has been noted by many scholars; including Jonathan Kirsch in his book God Against The Gods: The History of the War Between Monotheism and Polytheism and Joseph Campbell in The Masks of God, Vol. 3: Occidental Mythology.) [1][2]

Moses began

Christian Crusades
Old Money Evolves Nefariously

OMEN http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristocracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy AMEN Pagan God PG Parental Guidance

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=X5L_x6RHE4s Empire of the City Vatican, London, DC AMEN Satanic God

Good God they called it Good Friday

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=X5L_x6RHE4s Empire of the City Vatican, London, DC AMEN Satanic God Popular sovereignty or the sovereignty of the people is

the belief
that the legitimacy of the state is created by the will or consent of its people, who are the source of all political power. It is closely associated to the social contract philosophers, among whom are Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Popular sovereignty expresses a concept and does not necessarily reflect or describe a political reality.[1] It is often contrasted with the concept of parliamentary sovereignty, and with individual sovereignty.

Following link to a Video now removed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4AjR4KWYec&feature=related 2

Pyramid free electric power Nicola Tesla - Not evolved from primitive apes Ark peak evil

The Ark of the Covenant was a source of power. The Pyramids are an observatory.

Moses stole the Ark putting the lights out on Egypt

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THlaMUq6MKU Illuminati exposed by Muammar Gaddafi They put the lights out on Gaddafi http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKWPht3fU-o&feature=related Tesla Race to Zero Point Free Energy

http://www.scribd.com/doc/113233414/How-Do-You-Inform-the-Brainwashed-They-Are-ReptilianMinded-Zombies-Without-Getting-Hurt www.FearFactor13.com

Christian Chiseler Enslaving Tablets http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses The biblical text explains the name Moeh as a derivation of the root mh " to draw", in Exodus 2:10: "[...] she called his name Moses ( :)and she said, Because I drew him ( )out of the water." (KJV).[8] The name is thus suggested to relate to drawing out in a passive sense, "the one who was drawn out". Those who depart from this tradition derive the name from the same root but in an active sense, "he who draws out", in the sense of "saviour, deliverer".[9] The form of the name as recorded in the Masoretic text is indeed the expected form of the Biblical Hebrew active participle. [10] Josephus argued for an Egyptianetymology, and some scholarly suggestions have followed this in deriving the name from Coptic terms mo "water" and `uses "save, deliver", suggesting a meaning "saved from the water".[11] Another suggestion has connected the name with the Egyptian ms, as found in Tuth-mose and Ramesses, meaning "born" or "child".[8][12]

Biblical narrative

Moses rescued from the Nile, 1638, by Nicolas Poussin

In the Hebrew Bible, the narratives of Moses are in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers andDeuteronomy. According to the Book of Exodus, Moses was a son of Amram, a member of the Levite tribe of Israel descended from Jacob, and his wife, Jochebed.[13] Jochebed (also Yocheved) was kin to Amram's father Kehath (Exodus 6:20). Moses had one older (by seven years) sister, Miriam, and one older (by three years) brother, Aaron.[13] According to Genesis 46:11, Amram's father Kehath immigrated to Egypt with 70 of Jacob's household, making Moses part of the second generation of Israelites born during their time in Egypt.[14] In the Exodus account, the birth of Moses occurred at a time when an unnamed Egyptian Pharaoh had commanded that all male Hebrew children born be killed by drowning in the riverNile. Jochebed, the 4

wife of the Levite Amram, bore a son and kept him concealed for three months.[13][15][16] When she could keep him hidden no longer, rather than deliver him to be killed, she set him adrift on the Nile River in a small craft of bulrushes coated in pitch.[15]Moses' sister Miriam observed the progress of the tiny boat until it reached a place where Pharaoh's daughter (Bithiah,[13] Thermuthis [17]) was bathing with her handmaidens. It is said that she spotted the baby in the basket and had her handmaiden fetch it for her. Miriam came forward and asked Pharaoh's daughter if she would like a Hebrew woman to nurse the baby.[13] Thereafter, Jochebed was employed as the child's nurse. He grew up and was brought to Pharaoh's daughter and became her son and a younger brother to the future Pharaoh of Egypt. Moses would not be able to become Pharaoh because he was not the 'blood' son of Bithiah, and he was the youngest.[18][better source needed] Shepherd in Midian After Moses had reached adulthood, he went to see how his brethren were faring.[15] Seeing an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, he killed the Egyptian and buried the body in the sand, supposing that no one who knew about the incident would be disposed to talk about it.[15] The next day, seeing two Hebrews quarreling, he endeavored to separate them, whereupon the Hebrew who was wronging the other taunted Moses for slaying the Egyptian.[19] Moses soon discovered from a higher source that the affair was known, and that Pharaoh was likely to put him to death for it; he therefore made his escape over the Sinai Peninsula.[15] In Midian he stopped at a well, where he protected seven shepherdesses from a band of rude shepherds. The shepherdesses' father Hobab adopted him as his son, gave his daughter Zipporah to him in marriage, and made him the superintendent of his herds.[15][20] [21] There he sojourned forty years, following the occupation of a shepherd, during which time his son Gershom was born.[15][22] One day, Moses led his flock to Mount Horeb (Exodus 3), usually identified with Mount Sinai a mountain that was thought in the Middle Ages to be located on the Sinai Peninsula. While tending the flocks of Jethro at Mount Horeb, he saw a burning bush. The bush was not consumed and when Moses turned aside to look more closely at the marvel, God spoke to him from the bush, revealing his name to Moses.[15] Egypt: the Plagues and the Exodus

Mount Sinai and the Ten Commandments Main article: Ten Commandments According to the Bible, after crossing the Red Sea and leading the Israelites towards the desert, Moses was summoned by God to Mount Sinai, also referred to as Mount Horeb, the same place where Moses had first talked to the Burning Bush, tended the flocks of Jethro his father-in-law, and later produced water by striking the rock with his staff and directed the battle with the Amalekites. Moses stayed on the mountain for 40 days and nights, a period in which he received the Ten Commandments directly from God. Moses then descended from the mountain with intent to deliver the commandments to the people, but upon his arrival he saw that the people were involved in the sin of the Golden Calf. In terrible anger, Moses broke the commandment tablets[30] and ordered his own tribe (the Levites) to go through the camp and kill everyone,

including family and friends,[31]

upon which the Levites killed about 3,000 people.[32] God later commanded Moses to inscribe two other tablets, to replace the ones Moses smashed,[33] so Moses went to the mountain again, for another period of 40 days and nights, and when he returned, the commandments were finally given. In Jewish tradition, Moses is referred to as "The Lawgiver" for this singular achievement of delivering the Ten Commandments.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/113583404/BONZAI-British-Oriented-Nazi-Zionist-Anatomy-Incinerator

www.Romans13Defacto.com

On 4 October 1943, Himmler referred explicitly to the extermination of the Jewish people during a secret SS meeting in the city of Pozna(Posen). The following is a translation of an excerpt from a transcription of an audio recording[77] that exists of the speech: I also want to refer here very frankly to a very difficult matter. We can now very openly talk about this among ourselves, and yet we will never discuss this publicly. Just as we did not hesitate on 30 June 1934, to perform our duty as ordered and put comrades who had failed up against the wall and execute them, we also never spoke about it, nor will we ever speak about it. Let us thank God that we had within us enough self-evident fortitude never to discuss it among us, and we never talked about it. Every one of us was horrified, and yet every one clearly understood that we would do it next time, when the order is given and when it becomes necessary. I am now referring to the evacuation of the Jews, to the extermination of the Jewish People. This is something that is easily said: 'The Jewish People will be exterminated', says every Party member, 'this is very obvious, it is in our program elimination of the Jews, extermination, a small matter.' And then they turn up, the upstanding 80 million Germans, and each one has his decent Jew. They say the others are all swine, but this particular one is a splendid Jew. But none has observed it, endured it. Most of you here know what it means when 100 corpses lie next to each other, when there are 500 or when there are 1,000. To have endured this and at the same time to have remained a decent person with exceptions due to human weaknesses has made us tough, and is a glorious chapter that has not and will not be spoken of. Because we know how difficult it would be for us if we still had Jews as secret saboteurs, agitators and rabble rousers in every city, what with the bombings, with the burden and with the hardships of the war. If the Jews were still part of the German nation, we would most likely arrive now at the state we were at in 1916 and '17 . . . . Heinrich Himmler, 4 October 1943

Truth kills truth saves Save yourself and the world http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3117338213439292490#
In this lecture by Michel Chossudovsky, he blows away the smokescreen put up by the mainstream media, that 9/11 was an attack on America by "Islamic terrorists". Through meticulous research, he has uncovered a military-intelligence ploy behind the September 11 attacks, and the cover-up and complicity of key members of the Bush Administration. According to Chossudovsky, the "war on terrorism" is a complete fabrication based on the illusion that one man, Osama bin Laden, outwitted the $40 billion-a-year American intelligence apparatus. The "war on terrorism" is a war of conquest. Globalisation is the final march to the "New World Order", dominated by Wall Street and the U.S. military-industrial complex. September 11, 2001 provides a justification for waging a war without borders. Washington's agenda consists in extending the frontiers of the American Empire to facilitate complete U.S. corporate control, while installing within America the institutions of the Homeland Security State.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvay28lZiHU Truth Kills

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K9dgqKmJ50&feature Fema Detention Camps Marshall Law http://www.infowars.com/obama-implementing-martial-law-coup/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8lygVXgumY&feature=related Vatican Rome Italy - The Crown Corporate State of London, London England - District of Columbia Washington USA

Removed Replaced
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwnWni9HLEY Empire of the City

Removed Replaced
Although geographically separate, the city-states of London, the Vatican, and the District of Colombia are one interlocking empire called Empire of The City. The flag of Washington's District of Colombia has three red stars, one for each city-state in the three city empire. This Corporate Empire of three city-states controls the world economically through London's innercity, militarily through the District of Colombia, and spiritually through the Vatican. From the mystery religions of ancient Egypt to the Zionist role in 9/11, Ring Of Power unrevises 4000 years of revisionist human history with never -- before -- seen revelations. Ring Of Power puzzles together the pieces of a giant puzzle into one BIG PICTURE documentary series. ABOUT THE PRODUCER: The Producer is an experienced, award winning documentary filmmaker who, as a child, learned that her father was a member of the secretive cult of Freemasonry. She recalls many arguments between her parents over her father's secret meetings and the exclusion of women from the brotherhood. The Masonic ring that her father wore had been passed down from father to son over the generations. When she asked her father about the meaning of the letter "G" and the compass and square on his ring, she got no response. As an adult, she decided to investigate. That investigation grew into four years of intensive research into the identity and history of the diabolical globalists who she calls the "Ring Of Power". Their goal is one World Empire and one world ruler.

Removed Replaced
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=pEydmE57Vew&feature=endscreen Three cities rule the World http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=X5L_x6RHE4s Empire of the City Vatican, London, DC AMEN Satanic God http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lc4FFlTvWEY Empire of the City http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=QH4ZfSECJxg&feature=fvwp Black Popes Power Structure http://www.scribd.com/doc/113233414/How-Do-You-Inform-the-Brainwashed-They-Are-ReptilianMinded-Zombies-Without-Getting-Hurt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humpty_dumpty Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall, Humpty Dumpty had a great fall. All the king's horses and all the king's men Couldn't put Humpty together again.[1] Humpty appears in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass (1872), where he discusses semantics and pragmatics with Alice. I dont know what you mean by glory, Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. Of course you donttill I tell you. I meant theres a nice knock-down argument for you! But glory doesnt mean a nice knock-down argument, Alice objected. When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to meanneither more nor less. The question is, said Alice, whether you can make words mean so many different things. The question is, said Humpty Dumpty, which is to be master thats all. Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. Theyve a temper, some of themparticularly verbs, theyre the proudestadjectives you can do anything with, but not verbshowever, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! Thats what I say![15] This passage was used in Britain by Lord Atkin and in his dissenting judgement in the seminal case Liversidge v. Anderson (1942), where he protested about the distortion of a statute by the majority of the House of Lords.[16] It also became a popular citation in United States legal opinions, appearing in 250 judicial decisions in the Westlaw database as of April 19, 2008, including two Supreme Court cases (TVA v. Hill and Zschernig v. Miller).[17]

10

In his essay Politics and the English Language (1946), Orwell wrote about the importance of honest and clear language and said that

vague writing can be used as a powerful tool of political manipulation.

In Nineteen Eighty-Four he described how the state controlled thought by controlling language, making certain ideas literally unthinkable. The adjective Orwellian refers to the frightening world of Nineteen Eighty-Four, in which the state controls thought and misinformation is widespread. Several words and phrases from Nineteen Eighty-Four have entered popular language. Newspeak is a simplified and obfuscatory language designed to make independent thought impossible. Doublethink means holding two contradictory beliefs simultaneously. Thought Police are those who suppress all dissenting opinion. Prolefeed is homogenised, manufactured superficial literature, film and music, used to control and indoctrinate the populace through docility. Big Brother is a supreme dictator who watches everyone.

11

SMEEKS MEEK

12

Majority rule is often listed as a characteristic of democracy. However, it is also possible for a minority to be oppressed by a "tyranny of the majority" in the absence of governmental or

constitutional protections of individual and/or group rights.

An essential part of an "ideal" representative democracy is competitive elections that are fair both substantively [15] and procedurally.[16] Furthermore, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech, and

freedom of the press

are considered to be essential, so that citizens are adequately informed and able to vote according to their own best interests as they see them.[17][18] It has also been suggested that a basic feature of democracy is the capacity of individuals to participate freely and fully in the life of their society.[19] SMEEK own PPP - Press Political Puppets Existing Constitution administer by PPP proclaiming De jure administering De facto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto De facto (English pronunciation: /di fkto/, /de/,[1] Latin pronunciation: [de fakto]) is a Latin expression that means "concerning fact." In law, it often means "in practice but not necessarily ordained by law" or "in practice or actuality, but not officially established." It is commonly used in contrast to de jure (which means "concerning the law") when referring to matters of law, governance, or technique (such as standards) that are found in the common experience as created or developed without or contrary to a regulation. When discussing a legal situation, de jure designates what the law says, while de facto designates action of what happens in practice. It is analogous and similar to the expressions "for all intents and purposes" or "in fact". The term can also be used in the context of conducting activity as a "matter of course" e.g. copying an individual on an email de facto. Implicit Complicit Explicit ICE Imperialist Capitalist Emperors
Like other financial empires in history, Smith claims the contemporary model forms alliances necessary to develop and control wealth, as peripheral nations remain impoverished providers of cheap resources for the imperial-centers-of-capital.[1] Belloc estimated that, during the British Enclosures, "perhaps half of the whole population was proletarian", while roughly the other "half" owned and controlled the means of production. Now, under modern Capitalism, J.W. Smith claims fewer than 500 people possess more wealth than half of the earths population, as the wealth of 1/2 of 1-percent of the United States population roughly equal that of the lower 90-percent.

13

Popular sovereignty or the sovereignty of the people is the belief that the legitimacy of the state is created by the will or consent of its people, who are the source of all political power. It is closely associated to the social contract philosophers, among whom are Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Popular sovereignty expresses a concept and does not necessarily reflect or describe a political reality.[1]

It is often contrasted with the concept of parliamentary sovereignty, and with individual sovereignty.
Common Law Parliament and Royal Prerogatives www.SapBoat.com Sanity a popular Belief of artificial Truths The first Act of Supremacy was a piece of legislation that granted King Henry VIII of England Royal Supremacy, which means that he was declared the supreme head of the Church of England. It is still the legal authority of the Sovereign of the United Kingdom. Royal Supremacy is specifically used to describe the legal sovereignty of the civil laws over the laws of the Church in England. The Act of Supremacy of November 1534 (26 Hen. 8, c. 1) was an Act of the Parliament of England under King Henry VIII declaring that he was "the only supreme head on earth of the Church in England" and that the English crown shall enjoy "all honours, dignities, preeminences, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities, immunities, profits, and commodities to the said dignity.".[1] By the wording of the Act, it was made clear that Parliament was not granting the King the title (thereby suggesting that they had the right to later withdraw them) but rather it was stated as a recognized fact. In the Act of Supremacy, Henry abandoned Rome completely. He then went on to found a new church called Ecclesia Anglicana. He appointed himself and his successors as the supreme rulers of this new church. Henry had many successors. One in particular, Sir Thomas More, was trapped between conflicting loyalties. He was the king's humble servant more than anything, but he was also a devout Catholic. His personal crisis reached a climax in the spring of 1534. This was the time when the king demanded his subjects to take an oath to obey the Act of Succession, and he was asking more than More could give. More didn't protest; he remained mute. He didn't condemn the oath or anyone who had taken it, but he remained loyal to the crown. He refused to renounce Rome, which was a devastating silence since Henry was taking such an enormous risk. In the end, Henry didn't ever gain the support of his humble servant. More had already opposed Henry's marriage to Anne and refused to attend her coronation. Any further tolerance by Henry would be interpreted as weakness, especially since the former chancellor, garlanded with royal honors was the most influential man in English public life. The king could be merciless or he could forfeit his crown, and for this king that was no choice. More was then charged with treason and imprisoned in the Tower of London. At his trial More finally spoke out. Splitting the Church was a tragic crime, he said; and he could not be an accomplice to it. Nor could he bring himself to believe that, "any temporal man could be the head of spirituality." The hearing was merely a formality because the verdict had already been decided. He was condemned to be hanged, drawn and quartered.[2] Chicken before the Egg or vice versa

One hanging or four?

14

I reckon after that More did not find himself hanging around beside himself any More for decidedly More was no More One cannot remain fully human Loyal to Satanic Crown as devout Roman Satanic Catholic Constitution of the United Kingdom The constitution of the United Kingdom is the set of laws and principles under which the United Kingdom is governed.[1] Unlike many nations, the UK has no single core constitutional document. It is therefore often said that the country has an uncodified, or

de facto constitution.[2]
However, much of the British constitution is embodied in the written form, within statutes, court judgments, and treaties. The constitution has other unwritten sources, including

parliamentary constitutional conventions

and

royal prerogatives.
Since the English Civil War, the bedrock of the British constitution has traditionally been the doctrine of

parliamentary sovereignty,
according to which the statutes passed by Parliament are the UK's supreme and final source of law.[3] It follows that Parliament can change the constitution simply by passing new Acts of Parliament. There is some debate about whether

this principle remains entirely valid today,[4]

in part due to the UK's European Union membership.[5]

www.KONGS13.com Golden Rule Ordained Precedence witnesses CLASP

Common Law as Satanic Precedence| TRADITION When exposed enact new laws appeasing humanity rising continuing De facto tradition APP All Parties Party

Common Law
Common law (also known as case law or precedent), is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive branch action. A "common law system" is a legal system that gives great precedential weight to common law,[1] on the principle that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different occasions.[2] The body of precedent is called 15

"common law" and it binds future decisions. In cases where the parties disagree on what the law is, an idealized common law court looks to past precedential decisions of relevant courts. If a similar dispute has been resolved in the past, the court is bound to follow the reasoning used in the prior decision (this principle is known as stare decisis). If, however, the court finds that the current dispute is fundamentally distinct from all previous cases (called a "matter of first impression"), judges have the authority and duty to make law by creating precedent.[3] Thereafter, the new decision becomes precedent, and will bind future courts. In practice, common law systems are considerably more complicated than the idealized system described above. The decisions of a court are binding only in a particular jurisdiction, and even within a given jurisdiction, some courts have more power than others. For example, in most jurisdictions, decisions by appellate courts are binding on lower courts in the same jurisdiction and on future decisions of the same appellate court, but decisions of lower courts are only non-binding persuasive authority. Interactions between common law, constitutional law, statutory law and regulatory law also give rise to considerable complexity. However stare decisis, the principle that similar cases should be decided according to

consistent principled rules so that they will reach similar results,

lies at the heart of all common law systems. Rich Richer Poor Poorer Common law legal systems are in widespread use, particularly in England where it originated in the Middle Ages,[4] and in nations or regions that trace their legal heritage to England as former colonies of the British Empire, including the United States, Malaysia, Singapore, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, India,[5] Ghana, Cameroon, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Hong Kong, andAustralia.

To United Nations United Nations

The United Nations currently only requires that a sovereign state has an effective and independent government within a defined territory. According to current international law norms, states are only required to have an effective and independent system of government pursuant to a community within a defined territory.[2] For centuries past, the idea that a state could be sovereign was always connected to its

ability to guarantee the best interests of its own citizens.

Thus, if a state could not act in the best interests of its own citizens,

it could not be thought of as a sovereign state.[3]

16

[edit] Age of Enlightenment Hobbes, in Leviathan (1651) introduced an early version of the social contract (or contractarian) theory, arguing that to overcome the quality of life without the cooperation of other human beings, people must join in a "commonwealth" and submit to a "Soveraigne [sic] Power" that is able to compel them to act in the common good. This expediency argument attracted many of the early proponents of sovereignty. Hobbes deduced from the definition of sovereignty that it must be: [citation needed] Absolute: because conditions could only be imposed on a sovereign if there were some outside arbitrator to determine when he had violated them, in which case

"nasty, brutish and short"

the sovereign would not be the final authority.

Indivisible: The sovereign is the only final authority in his territory; he does not share final authority with any other entity. Hobbes held this to be true because otherwise there would be no way of resolving a disagreement between the multiple authorities. Hobbes' hypothesis that the ruler's sovereignty is contracted to him by the people in return for his maintaining their safety, led him to conclude that if the ruler fails to do this, the people are released from their obligation to obey him. Bodin's and Hobbes's theories would decisively shape the concept of sovereignty, which we can find again in the social contract theories, for example, in Rousseau's (17121778) definition of popular sovereignty (with early antecedents in Francisco

Surez's theory of the origin of power),

which in that he considers the people to be the legitimate sovereign.

only differs

Only?
Likewise, it is inalienable Rousseau condemned the distinction between the

origin and the exercise of sovereignty,

a distinction upon which constitutional monarchy or representative democracy are founded. Niccol Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Montesquieu are also key figures in the unfolding of the concept of sovereignty.

Origin De jure exercised De facto

17

www.Kongs13.com [edit]Book burning According to the Records of the Grand Historian, after Qin Shi Huangdi, the first emperor of China, unified China in 221 BC, his chancellor Li Si suggested suppressing the intellectual discourse to unify all thoughts and political opinions. This was justified by accusations that the intelligentsia sang false praise and raised dissent through libel. Beginning in 213 BC, all classic works of the Hundred Schools of Thought except those from Li Si's own school of philosophy known as legalism were subject to book burning. Qin Shi Huangdi burned the other histories out of fear that they undermined his legitimacy, and wrote his own history books. Afterwards, Li Si took his place in this area. Li Si proposed that all histories in the imperial archives except those written by the Qin historians be burned; that the Classic of Poetry, the Classic of History, and works by scholars of different schools be handed in to the local authorities for burning; that anyone discussing these two particular books be executed; that those using ancient examples to satirize contemporary politics be put to death, along with their families; that authorities who failed to report cases that came to their attention were equally guilty; and that those who had not burned the listed books within 30 days of the decree were to be banished to the north as convicts working on building the Great Wall. The only books to be spared in the destruction were books on war, medicine, agriculture and divination.[2] [edit]Burial of the scholars After being deceived by two alchemists while seeking prolonged life, Qin Shi Huangdi ordered more than 460 scholars in the capital to be buried alive in the second year of the proscription, though an account given by Wei lan jiao in the 2nd century added another 700 to the figure. As some of them were also Confucian scholars, Fusu counselled that, with the country newly unified, and enemies still not pacified, such a harsh measure imposed on those who respect Confucius would cause instability. [3] However, he was unable to change his father's mind, and instead was sent to guard the frontier in a de facto exile. The quick fall of the Qin Dynasty was attributed to this proscription. Confucianism was revived in the Han Dynasty that followed, and became the official ideology of the Chinese imperial state. Many of the other schools had disappeared.

18

http://www.scribd.com/doc/105694093/RCMP-Sarge-States-Apparently-I-Thought-Were-ActuallyGoing-to-Investigate-Government-Corruption-as-Per-Complaint www.rcmp13.com www.mcfrauds.com www.cdfji.ca www.m4d.ca Mulroney stole the RCMP from the people Zack no political patsy Zack replaced with political patsy David Brown of RCMP Task Force ordered back to people by December 31 2009 http://www.scribd.com/doc/113882977/Spirit-Intent-Precedence-de-Jure-Constitution-or-Romans-13Gaming-the-System-de-Facto http://www.scribd.com/doc/112431371/Would-a-Government-Appointed-Court-of-CompetentJurisdiction-Independent-Judiciary-Be-Appropriate-to-Protect-Us-From-Appropriating-Governments A conflict of interest (COI) occurs when an individual or organization is involved in multiple interests, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation for an act in another. The presence of a conflict of interest is independent from the execution of impropriety. Therefore, a conflict of interest can be discovered and voluntarily defused before anycorruption occurs. A widely used definition is: A conflict of interest is a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgment or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest.[1] Primary interest refers to the principal goals of the profession or activity, such as the protection of clients, the health of patients, the integrity of research, and the duties of public office. Secondary interest includes not only financial gain but also such motives as the desire for professional advancement and the wish to do favors for family and friends, but conflict of interest rules usually focus on financial relationships because they are relatively more objective, fungible, and quantifiable. The secondary interests are not treated as wrong in themselves, but become objectionable when they are believed to have greater weight than the primary interests. The conflict in a conflict of interest exists whether or not a particular individual is actually influenced by the secondary interest. It exists if the circumstances are reasonably believed (on the basis of past experience and objective evidence) to create a risk that decisions may be unduly influenced by secondary interests. William K. Black insists that "Conflicts of interest matter."[2] In the run up to the Savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and early 1990s, control frauds like Charles Keating were able to get legislators like 19

Speaker of the House Jim Wright, the Keating Five Senators and majorities in both the US House and Senate to suppress investigations of massive criminality until their Ponzi schemes finally collapsed. Only then did citizen pressure and media involvement force political action. Then regulators filed thousands of criminal referrals that translated into over a thousand felony convictions. The current foreclosure and Subprime mortgage crisis is similar to the run up to the S&L crisis with zero criminal referrals and zero prosecutions of key finance executives. Black calls this the de facto decriminalization of elite financial fraud.[3] As with the S&L crisis, the current situation is facilitated by conflicts of interest in the media and the US system of privately funded political campaigns. Contents [hide] 1 Conflicts of interest related to the practice of law 2 Conflicts of interest generally (unrelated to the practice of law) 3 Organizational conflict of interest 4 Relationship to medical research 5 Types of conflicts of interests 6 Examples 6.1 Environmental Hazards and Human Health

6.2 Self-Policing
6.3 Insurance Claims Adjusters 6.4 Purchasing Agents and Sales Personnel 6.5 Governmental Officials 6.6 Finance Industry and Elected Officials 6.7 Finance Industry and economists 6.8 Stockbrokers 6.9 Media 7 Ways to mitigate conflicts of interests 7.1 Removal 7.2 Disclosure 7.3 Recusal 7.4 Third-party evaluations 7.5 Conclusion 8 See also 9 External links 10 Further reading 11 References [edit]Conflicts of interest related to the practice of law Professional responsibility Duties to the client Confidentiality Avoiding conflict of interest Diligence and competence Avoid commingling Avoid self-dealing Effective assistance Avoid fee splitting Withdrawal from representation 20

Duties to the court Disclosure of perjury Disclosure of adverse authority Duties to the profession Limitations on legal advertising Report misconduct Sources of law ABA Model Rules Penalties for misconduct Disbarment Judicial misconduct v t e Judicial disqualification, also referred to as recusal, refers to the act of abstaining from participation in an official action such as a legal proceeding due to a conflict of interest of the presiding court official or administrative officer. Applicable statutes or canons of ethicsmay provide standards for recusal in a given proceeding or matter. Providing that the judge or presiding officer must be free from disabling conflicts of interest makes the fairness of the proceedings less likely to be questioned.[4] In the legal profession, the duty of loyalty owed to a client prohibits an attorney (or a law firm) from representing any other party with interests adverse to those of a current client. The few exceptions to this rule require informed written consent from all affected clients. In some circumstances, a conflict of interest can never be waived by a client. In perhaps the most common example encountered by the general public, the same firm should not represent both parties in a divorce or child custody case. A prohibited or undisclosed representation involving a conflict of interest can subject an attorney to disciplinary hearings, the denial or disgorgement of legal fees, or in some cases (such as the failure to make mandatory disclosure), criminal proceedings. In the United States, a law firm usually cannot represent a client if its interests conflict with those of another client, even if they have separate lawyers within the firm, unless (in some jurisdictions) the lawyer is segregated from the rest of the firm for the duration of the conflict. Law firms often employ software in conjunction with their case management and accounting systems in order to meet their duties to monitor their conflict of interest exposure and to assist in obtaining waivers. [edit]Conflicts of interest generally (unrelated to the practice of law) Sociology

Outline Theory History Positivism Antipositivism 21

Functionalism Conflict theory Middle-range Mathematical Critical theory Socialization Structure and agency Research methods Quantitative Qualitative Historical Computational Ethnographic Network analytic Topics Subfields Cities Class Crime Culture Deviance Demography Education Economy Environment Family Gender Health Industry Internet Knowledge Law Literature Medicine Politics Mobility Race and ethnicity Rationalization Religion Science Secularization Social networks Social psychology Stratification Browse Portal Category tree Lists Journals Sociologists Article index v t e More generally, conflicts of interest can be defined as any situation in which an individual or corporation (either private or governmental) is in a position to exploit a professional or official capacity in some way for their personal or corporate benefit. Depending upon the law or rules related to a particular organization, the existence of a conflict of interest may not, in and of itself, be evidence of wrongdoing. In fact, for many professionals, it is virtually impossible to avoid having conflicts of interest from time to time. A conflict of interest can, however, become a legal matter for example when an individual tries (and/or succeeds in) influencing the outcome of a decision, for personal benefit. A director or executive of a corporation will be subject to legal liability if a conflict of interest breaches his/herDuty of Loyalty. There often is confusion over these two situations. Someone accused of a conflict of interest may deny that a conflict exists because he/she did not act improperly. In fact, a conflict of interest can exist even if there are no improper acts as a result of it. (One way to understand this is to use the term "conflict of roles". A person with two rolesan individual who owns stock and is also a government official, for examplemay experience situations where those two roles conflict. The conflict can be mitigated see belowbut it still exists. In and of itself, having two roles is not illegal, but the differing roles will certainly provide an incentive for improper acts in some circumstances.) As an example, in the sphere of business and control, according to the Institute of Internal Auditors: conflict of interest is a situation in which an internal auditor, who is in a position of trust, has a competing professional or personal interest. Such competing interests can make it difficult to fulfill his or her duties impartially. A conflict of interest exists even if nounethical or improper act results. A 22

conflict of interest can create an appearance of impropriety that can undermine confidence in the internal auditor, the internal audit activity, and the profession. A conflict of interest could impair an individual's ability to perform his or her duties and responsibilities objectively.[5][6] [edit]Organizational conflict of interest An organizational conflict of interest (OCI) may exist in the same way as described above, in the realm of the private sector providing services to the Government, where a corporation provides two types of services to the Government that have conflicting interest or appear objectionable (i.e.: manufacturing parts and then participating on a selection committee comparing parts manufacturers). Corporations may develop simple or complex systems to mitigate the risk or perceived risk of a conflict of interest. These risks are typically evaluated by a governmental office (for example, in a US Government RFP) to determine whether the risks pose a substantial advantage to the private organization over the competition or will decrease the overall competitiveness in the bidding process. [edit]Relationship to medical research http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJBnHqWmsko&feature=related Wikileaks Top secret government conspiracy This Video Contains Facts & Accurate Information on UFOs, USOs, Aliens, Agartha, Vrill etc. Also Note Nibiru Renamed By N.A.S.A. Eris Does exist but is not of any concern as some of the Recent Seismic & Volcanic Events are Being caused by the affects of Orion's Belt, But Do be aware there is strong evidence Cyclone Katrina, Haiti & Yasi are caused by H.A.A.R.P. in a gradual move to a one World Government (NWO) Be aware that your water & foods are contaminated with Fluoride, GMO, aluminium etc to Dumb us down & Depopulate the Planet Many Vaccines contain Mercury & a threat of a Vaccine that causes sterility is now known to exist, & The BP Oil Spill May Kill off 90% of the Planets Marine Life & a Major degree of the population Via Consumption of sea food. The NWO is a Combination of elite Businesses, Rothschild, Builderberg Rockefellers etc for a slave society of the chosen servicers, they plan to stage a false flag attack they will use space crafts to murder us and pretend we are at war with aliens, the reality will be thye are the ones controlling the crafts and we will once again fall for the lies. http://www.youtube.com/user/coeffishant special thanks to coeffishant please sub and rate. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSQwS1Hf0yE Medical Conspiracy http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=sU537f4bnFM&NR=1 Depopulation poisoning us http://www.youtube.com/watch? annotation_id=annotation_153219&feature=iv&src_vid=sU537f4bnFM&v=1MW1jMqBFDY Depopulate to 1 Billion The influence of the pharmaceutical industry on medical research has been a major cause for concern. In 2009 a study found that "a number of academic institutions" do not have clear guidelines for relationships between Institutional Review Boards and industry.[7] [edit]Types of conflicts of interests The following are the most common forms of conflicts of interests: 23

Self-dealing, in which an official who controls an organization causes it to enter into a transaction with the official, or with another organization that benefits the official. The official is on both sides of the "deal." Outside employment, in which the interests of one job contradict another. Family interests, in which a spouse, child, or other close relative is employed (or applies for employment) or where goods or services are purchased from such a relative or a firm controlled by a relative. For this reason, many employment applications ask if one is related to a current employee. If this is the case, the relative could then recuse from any hiring decisions. Abuse of this type of conflict of interest is called nepotism. Gifts from friends who also do business with the person receiving the gifts. (Such gifts may include non-tangible things of value such as transportation and lodging.) Pump and dump, in which a stock broker who owns a security artificially inflates the price by "upgrading" it or spreading rumors, sells the security and adds short position, then "downgrades" the security or spreads negative rumors to push the price down. Other improper acts that are sometimes classified as conflicts of interests are probably better classified elsewhere. Accepting bribes can be classified as corruption; almost everyone in a position of authority, particularly public authority, has the potential for such wrongdoing. Similarly, use of government or corporate property or assets for personal use is fraud, and classifying this as a conflict of interest does not improve the analysis of this problem. Nor should unauthorized distribution of confidential information, in itself, be considered a conflict of interest. For these improper acts, there is no inherent conflict of roles (see above), unless being a (fallible) human being rather than (say) a robot in a position of power or authority is considered to be a conflict. COI is sometimes termed competition of interest rather than "conflict", emphasizing a connotation of natural competition between valid interests rather than violent conflict with its connotation of victimhood and unfair aggression. Nevertheless, denotatively, there is too much overlap between the terms to make any objective differentiation. [edit]Examples [edit]Environmental Hazards and Human Health Baker[8] summarized 176 studies of the potential impact of Bisphenol A on human health as follows: [9] Funding Harm No Harm Industry 0 13 (100%) Independent (e.g., 152 (86%) 11 (14%) government) Lessig [10] noted that this does not mean that the funding source influenced the results. However, it does raise questions about the validity of the industry-funded studies specifically, because the researchers conducting those studies have a conflict of interest; they are subject at minimum to a natural human inclination to please the people who paid for their work. Lessig provided a similar summary of 326 studies of the potential harm from cell phone usage with results that were similar but not as stark.[11] www.mcfrauds.com www.cdfji.ca www.Frank13.com www.m4d.ca www.Frank13.com

24

www.Docket13.com http://www.scribd.com/doc/112431371/Would-a-Government-Appointed-Court-of-CompetentJurisdiction-Independent-Judiciary-Be-Appropriate-to-Protect-Us-From-Appropriating-Governments http://www.scribd.com/doc/113312547/Ministry-Attorney-General-Responsible-for-DoublethinkOversight-of-No-Accused-Counsel-Illegal-Certainty http://www.scribd.com/doc/112776958/Attorney-General-Guardian-of-the-Public-InterestPredetermined-Not-Responsible-for-His-Actions-Under-Section-8 http://www.scribd.com/doc/114245248/Conflict-of-Interest

[edit]Self-Policing
Self-policing of any group is also a conflict of interest. If any organization, such as a corporation or government bureaucracy, is asked to eliminate unethical behavior within their own group, it may be in their interest in the short run to eliminate the appearance of unethical behavior, rather than the behavior itself, by keeping any ethical breaches hidden, instead of exposing and correcting them. An exception occurs when the ethical breach is already known by the public. In that case, it could be in the group's interest to end the ethical problem to which the public has knowledge, but keep remaining breaches hidden. [edit]Insurance Claims Adjusters Insurance companies retain claims adjusters to represent their interest in adjusting claims. It is in the best interest of the insurance companies that the very smallest settlement is reached with its claimants. Based on the adjuster's experience and knowledge of the insurance policy it is very easy for the adjuster to convince an unknowing claimant to settle for less than what they may otherwise be entitled which could be a larger settlement. There is always a very good chance of a conflict of interest to exist when one adjuster tries to represent both sides of a financial transaction such as an insurance claim. This problem is exacerbated when the claimant is told, or believes, the insurance company's claims adjuster is fair and impartial enough to satisfy both theirs and the insurance company's interests. These types of conflicts could be easily be avoided by the use of disclosures. [edit]Purchasing Agents and Sales Personnel A person working as the equipment purchaser for a company may get a bonus proportionate to the amount he's under budget by year end. However, this becomes an incentive for him to purchase inexpensive, substandard equipment. Therefore, this is counter to the interests of those in his company who must actually use the equipment. W. Edwards Deminglisted "purchasing on price alone" as number 4 of his famous 14 points, and he often said things to the effect that "He who purchases on price alone deserves to get rooked." [edit]Governmental Officials Regulating conflict of interest in government is one of the aims of political ethics. Public officials are expected to put service to the public and their constituents ahead of their personal interests. Conflict of interest rules are intended to prevent officials from making decisions in circumstances that could reasonably be perceived as violating this duty of office. Rules in the executive branch tend to be stricter and easier to enforce than in the legislative branch.[12] Two problems make legislative ethics of conflicts difficult and distinctive.[13] First, as James Madison wrote, legislators should share a "communion of interests" with their constituents. Legislators cannot adequately represent the interests of constituents without also representing some of their own. As Senator Robert S. Kerr once said, "I represent the farmers of Oklahoma, although I have large farm interests. I represent the oil business in 25

Oklahoma . . . and I am in the oil business. . . . They don't want to send a man here who has no community of interest with them, because he wouldn't be worth a nickel to them."[14] The problem is to distinguish special interests from the general interests of all constituents. Second, the political interests of legislatures include campaign contributions which they need to get elected, and which are generally not illegal and not the same as a bribe. But under many circumstances they can have the same effect. The problem here is how to keep the secondary interest in raising campaign funds from overwhelming what should be their primary interest: fulfilling the duties of office. Politics in the US is dominated in many ways by political campaign contributions.[4] Candidates are often not considered "credible" unless they have a campaign budget far beyond what could reasonably be raised from citizens of ordinary means. The pernicious impact of this money can be found in many places, most notably in studies of how campaign contributions affect legislative behavior. For example, the price of sugar in the US has been roughly double the international price for over half a century. In the 1980s, this added $3 billion to the annual budget of US consumers, according to Stern,[15] who provided the following summary of one part of how this happens: Contributions from the sugar lobby, 1983 Percent voting in 1985 against gradually reducing sugar 1986 subsidies > $5,000 $2,500 - $5,000 $1,000 - $2,500 $1 $1,000 100% 97% 68% 45%

$0 20% This $3 billion translates into $41 per household per year. This is in essence a tax collected by a nongovernmental agency: It is a cost imposed on consumers by governmental decisions, but never considered in any of the standard data on tax collections. Stern notes that sugar interests contributed $2.6 million to political campaigns, representing well over $1,000 return for each $1 contributed to political campaigns. This, however, does not include the cost of lobbying. Lessig[16] cites six different studies that consider the cost of lobbying with campaign contributions on a variety of issues considered in Washington, DC. These studies produced estimates of the anticipated return on each $1 invested in lobbying and political campaigns that ranged from $6 to $220. Lessig notes that clients who pay tens of millions of dollars to lobbyists typically receive billions. Lessig,[10] insists that this does not mean that any legislator has sold his or her vote. One of several possible explanations Lessig gives for this phenomenon is that the money helped elect candidates more supportive of the issues pushed by the big money spent on lobbying and political campaigns. He notes that if any money perverts democracy, it is the large contributions beyond the budgets of citizens of ordinary means; small contributions from common citizens have long been considered supporting of democracy.[17] When such large sums become virtually essential to a politician's future, it generates a substantive conflict of interest contributing to a fairly well documented distortion on the nation's priorities and policies. Beyond this, governmental officials, whether elected or not, often leave public service to work for companies affected by legislation they helped enact or companies they used to regulate or companies affected by legislation they helped enact. This practice is called the Revolving door. Former legislators and regulators are accused of (a) using inside information for their new employers or (b) compromising laws and regulations in hopes of securing lucrative employment in the private sector.

26

This possibility creates a conflict of interest for all public officials whose future may depend on the Revolving door.

www.M4D.ca
[edit]Finance Industry and Elected Officials Conflicts of interest among elected officials is part of the story behind the increase in the percent of US corporate domestic profits captured by the finance industry depicted in that accompanying figure.

Finance as a Percent of US Domestic Corporate Profit (Finance includes banks, securities and insurance. In 1932-1933, the total US domestic corporate profit was negative. However, the financial sector made a profit in those years, which made its percentage negative, below 0 and off the scale in this plot.) From 1934 through 1985, the finance industry averaged 13.8% of US domestic corporate profit. Between 1986 and 1999, it averaged 23.5%. From 2000 through 2010, it averaged 32.6%. Some of this increase is doubtless due to increased efficiency from banking consolidation and innovations in new financial products that benefit consumers. However, if most consumers had refused to accept financial products they did not understand, e.g., negative amortization loans, the finance industry would not have been as profitable as it has been, and the Late-2000s recession might have been avoided or postponed. Stiglitz[18] noted that the Late-2000s recession was created in part because, "Bankers acted greedily because they had incentives and opportunities to do so". They did this in part by innovating to make consumer financial products like retail banking services and home mortgages as complicated as possible to make it easy for them to charge higher fees. Consumers who shop carefully for financial services typically find better options than the primary offerings of the major banks. However, few consumers think to do that. This explains part of this increase in financial industry profits. However, a major portion of this increase and a driving force behind Late-2000s recession has been the corrosive effect of money in politics, giving legislators and the President of the US a conflict of interest, because if they protect the public, they will offend the finance industry, which contributed $1.7 billion to political campaigns and spent $3.4 billion ($5.1 billion total) on lobbying from 1998 to 2008.[19][20] [21] To be conservative, suppose we attribute only the increase from 23.5% of 1986 through 1999 to the recent 32.6% average to governmental actions subject to conflicts of interest created by the $1.7 billion in campaign contributions. That's 9% of the $3 trillion in profits claimed by the finance industry during that period or $270 billion. This represents a return of over $50 for each $1 invested in political campaigns and lobbying for that industry. (This $270 billion represents almost $1,000 for every many, woman and child in the US.) There is hardly any place outside of politics with such a high return on investment in such a short time. [edit]Finance Industry and economists Economists (unlike other professions such as sociologists) do not formally subscribe to a professional ethical code. Close to 300 economists have signed a letter urging theAmerican Economic 27

Association (the disciplines foremost professional body), to adopt such a code. The signatories include George Akerlof, a Nobel laureate, and Christina Romer, who headed Barack Obamas Council of Economic Advisers.[22] This call for a code of ethics was supported by the public attention the documentary Inside Job (winner of an Academy Award) drew to the consulting relationships of several influential economists.[23] This documentary focused on conflicts that may arise when economists publish results or provide public recommendation on topics that affect industries or companies with which they have financial links. Critics of the profession argue, for example, that it is no coincidence that financial economists, many of whom were engaged as consultants by Wall Street firms, were opposed to regulating the financial sector.[24] In response to criticism that the profession not only failed to predict the 2007-2008 financial crisis but may actually have helped create it, the American Economic Association has adopted new rules in 2012 : economists will have to disclose financial ties and other potential conflicts of interest in papers published in academic journals. Backers argue such disclosures will help restore faith in the profession by increasing transparency which will help in assessing economists' advice.[25] [edit]Stockbrokers A conflict of interest is a manifestation of the moral hazard problem, particularly when a financial institution provides multiple services and the potentially competing interests of those services may lead to a concealment of information or dissemination of misleading information. A conflict of interest exists when a party to a transaction could potentially make a gain from taking actions that are detrimental to the other party in the transaction.[26] There are many types of conflicts of interest such as a pump and dump by stockbrokers. This is when a stockbroker who owns a security artificially inflates the price by upgrading it or spreading rumors, and then sells the security and adds short position. They will then downgrade the security or spread negative rumors to push the price back down. This is an example of stock fraud. It is a conflict of interest because the stockbrokers are concealing and manipulating information to make it misleading for the buyers. The broker may claim to have the inside information about impeding news and will urge buyers to buy the stock quickly. Investors will buy the stock, which creates a high demand and raises the prices. This rise in prices can entice more people to believe the hype and then buy shares as well. The stockbrokers will then sell their shares and stop promoting, the price will drop, and other investors are left holding stock that is worth nothing compared to what they paid for it. The brokers are using their knowledge and position in a way to influence and control others and gain personally, which is morally wrong. One major example of pump and dump would be with Enron, in which executives participated in an elaborate scheme that fooled even the most experienced analysts on Wall Street. Enron falsely reported profits, which inflated stock prices, and covered the real numbers by using questionable accounting practices; 29 executives sold overvalued stock for more than a billion dollars before the company went bankrupt[27] [edit]Media Any media organization has a conflict of interest in discussing anything that may impact its ability to communicate as it wants with its audience. For example, the Wikimedia Foundation has a conflict of interest in discussing the Stop Online Piracy Act or any other legislation or governmental action that could impact its ability to deliver content to its intended audience. The business model of commercial media organizations (i.e., any that accept advertising) is selling behavior change in their audience to advertisers.[28][29][30] However, few in their audience are aware of the conflict of interest between the profit motive and the altruistic desire to serve the public and "give the audience what it wants." 28

Many major advertisers test their ads in various ways to measure the return on investment in advertising. Advertising rates are set as a function of the size and spending habits of the audience as measured by the Nielsen Ratings. Media action expressing this conflict of interest is evident in the reaction of Rupert Murdoch, Chairman of News Corp., owner ofFox, to changes in data collection methodology adopted in 2004 by the Nielsen Company to more accurately measure viewing habits. The results corrected a previous overestimate of the market share of Fox. Murdoch reacted by getting leading politicians to denounce the Nielsen Ratings as racists. Susan Whiting, president and CEO of Nielsen Media Research, responded by quietly sharing Neilsen's data with her leading critics. The criticism disappeared, and Fox paid Nielsen's fees.[31] Murdoch had a conflict of interest between the reality of his market and his finances. Commercial media organization lose money if they provide content that offends either their audience or their advertisers. The substantial media consolidation that occurred since the 1980s has reduced the alternatives available to the audience, thereby making it easier for the ever larger companies in this increasingly oligopolistic industry to hide news and entertainment potentially offensive to advertisers without losing audience. If the media provide too much information on how congress spends its time, a major advertiser could be offended and could reduce their advertising expenditures with the offending media company; indeed, this is one of the ways the market system has determined which companies won and which either went out of business or were purchased by others in this media consolidation. (Advertisers don't like to feed the mouth that bites them, and often don't. Similarly, commercial media organizations are not eager to bite the hand that feeds them.) Advertisers have been known to fund media organizations with editorial policies they find offensive if that media outlet provides access to a sufficiently attractive audience segment they cannot efficiently reach otherwise. Election years are a major boon to commercial broadcasters, because virtually all political advertising is purchased with minimal advance planning, paying therefore the highest rates. The commercial media have a conflict of interest in anything that could make it easier for candidates to get elected with less money.[29] Accompanying this trend in media consolidation has been a substantial reduction in investigative journalism,[29] reflecting this conflict of interest between the business objectives of the commercial media and the public's need to know what government is doing in their name. This change has been tied to substantial changes in law and culture in the US. To cite only one example, researchers have tied this decline in investigative journalism to an increased coverage of the "police blotter".[32] This has further been tied to the fact that the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Beyond this, virtually all commercial media companies own substantial quantities of copyrighted material. This gives them an inherent conflict of interest in any public policy issue affecting copyrights. McChesney noted that the commercial media have lobbied successfully for changes in copyright law that have led "to higher prices and a shrinking of the marketplace of ideas", increasing the power and profits of the large media corporations at public expense. One result of this is that "the people cease to have a means of clarifying social priorities and organizing social reform".[33] A free market has a mechanism for controlling abuses of power by media corporations: If their censorship becomes too egregious, they lose audience, which in turn reduces their advertising rates. However, the effectiveness of this mechanism has been substantially reduced over the past quarter century by "the changes in the concentration and integration of the media."[34] Would the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement have advanced to the point of generating substantial protests without the secrecy behind which that agreement was negotiatedand would the government attempts to sustain that secrecy have been as successful if the commercial media had not been a primary beneficiary and had not had a conflict of interest in suppressing discussion thereof? [edit]Ways to mitigate conflicts of interests [edit]Removal 29

The best way to handle conflicts of interests is to avoid them entirely. For example, someone elected to political office might sell all corporate stocks that they own before taking office, and resign from all corporate boards. Or that person could move their corporate stocks to a special trust, which would be authorized to buy and sell without disclosure to the owner. (This is referred to as a "blind trust".) With such a trust, since the politician does not know in which companies they have investments, there should be no temptation to act to their advantage. [edit]Disclosure Commonly, politicians and high-ranking government officials are required to disclose financial information - assets such as stock, debts such as loans, and/or corporate positions held, typically annually. To protect privacy (to some extent), financial figures are often disclosed in ranges such as "$100,000 to $500,000" and "over $2,000,000". Certain professionals are required either by rules related to their professional organization, or by statute, to disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest. In some instances, the failure to provide full disclosure is a crime. [edit]Recusal Those with a conflict of interest are expected to recuse themselves from (i.e., abstain from) decisions where such a conflict exists. The imperative for recusal varies depending upon the circumstance and profession, either as common sense ethics, codified ethics, or by statute. For example, if the governing board of a government agency is considering hiring a consulting firm for some task, and one firm being considered has, as a partner, a close relative of one of the board's members, then that board member should not vote on which firm is to be selected. In fact, to minimize any conflict, the board member should not participate in any way in the decision, including discussions. Judges are supposed to recuse themselves from cases when personal conflicts of interest may arise. For example, if a judge has participated in a case previously in some other judicial role he/she is not allowed to try that case. Recusal is also expected when one of the lawyers in a case might be a close personal friend, or when the outcome of the case might affect the judge directly, such as whether a car maker is obliged to recall a model that a judge drives. This is required by law under Continental civil law systems and by the Rome Statute, organic law of the International Criminal Court. [edit]Third-party evaluations Consider a situation where the owner of a majority of a publicly held corporation decides to buy out the minority shareholders and take the corporation private. What is a fair price? Obviously it is improper (and, typically, illegal) for the majority owner to simply state a price and then have the (majority-controlled) board of directors approve that price. What is typically done is to hire an independent firm (a third party), well-qualified to evaluate such matters, to calculate a "fair price", which is then voted on by the minority shareholders. Third-party evaluations may also be used as proof that transactions were, in fact, fair ("arm's-length"). For example, a corporation that leases an office building that is owned by theCEO might get an independent evaluation showing what the market rate is for such leases in the locale, to address the conflict of interest that exists between the fiduciary duty of the CEO (to the stockholders, by getting the lowest rent possible) and the personal interest of that CEO (to maximize the income that the CEO gets from owning that office building by getting the highest rent possible). [edit]Conclusion Generally, conflicts of interests should be eliminated. Often, however, the specifics can be controversial. Should therapists, such as psychiatrists, be allowed to have extra-professional relations with patients, or ex-patients? Should a faculty member be allowed to have an extra-professional relationship with a student, and should that depend on whether the student is in a class of, or being advised by, the faculty member? Codes of ethics help to minimize problems with conflicts of interests because they can spell out the extent to which such conflicts should be avoided, and what the parties should do where such conflicts 30

are permitted by a code of ethics (disclosure, recusal, etc.). Thus, professionals cannot claim that they were unaware that their improper behavior was unethical. As importantly, the threat of disciplinary action (for example, a lawyer being disbarred) helps to minimize unacceptable conflicts or improper acts when a conflict is unavoidable. Since codes of ethics cannot cover all situations, some governments have established an office of the ethics commissioner, who can be appointed by the legislature and report to the legislature. [edit]See also Community of interest Crony capitalism Electoral fraud Fiduciary Insider trading Intra-household bargaining Judicial disqualification Jury nullification Lobbying Medical ethics Money loop Moral hazard Perverse incentive Politics Recusal Revolving door (politics) Tax resistance United States Office of Government Ethics Controversies surrounding Silvio Berlusconi [edit]External links Thacker, Paul D. (November 2006). "Environmental journals feel pressure to adopt disclosure rules". Environmental Science & Technology 40 (22): 68736875.doi:10.1021/es062808a. McDonald, Michael. "Ethics and Conflict of Interest". W. Maurice Young Centre for Applied Ethics. Archived from the original on 2007-11-03. [edit]Further reading Black, William K. (2005). The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. ISBN 0-292-72139-0. Davis, Michael; Andrew Stark (2001). Conflict of interest in the professions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-512863-X. Lessig, Lawrence (2011). Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress -- and a Plan to Stop It. Twelve. ISBN 978-0-446-57643-7. Lo, Bernard; Marilyn J. Field (2009). Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice. Washington DC: National Academies Press. ISBN 978-0-309-13188-9. Porter, Roger J.; Thomas E. Malone (1992). Biomedical research: collaboration and conflict of interest. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-4400-2. Thompson, Dennis (1995). Ethics in Congress: From Individual to Institutional Corruption. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press. ISBN 0-8157-8423-6. Thompson, Dennis (1993). "Understanding financial conflicts of interest." New England Journal of Medicine 329 (8): 573-76. [edit]References ^ Lo and Field (2009). The definition originally appeared in Thompson (1993). ^ Black (2005, pp. 253-254) 31

^ Black, William K. (Dec. 28, 2010). "2011 Will Bring More De facto Decriminalization of Elite Financial Fraud". Next New Deal: Blog of the Roosevelt Institute. Black, William K. (20 August 2012). "Black Report: No Criminal Prosecution of Wall St. and Who is the European, Romney or Obama?". The Real News.com. Retrieved Sept. 9, 2012. ^ a b Lessig 2011, pp. 29-32 ^ "1120-Individual Objectivity". Institute of Internal Auditors. Retrieved July 7, 2011. ^ "Policies & Procedures of the Internal Audit Activity". City College of San Francisco. Retrieved July 7, 2011. ^ Policies regarding IRB members' industry relationships often lacking. ^ Baker, Nena (2008). The Body Toxic. North Point Press. p. 142. [cited from Lessig 2011, p. 25 Lay summary]. ^ Fisher's exact test computed using the fisher.test function in R (programming language) returned a significance probability of 2e-13, i.e., there are 200 chances in a million billion of getting a table as extreme as this with the given marginals by chance alone. In other words, it is not credible to claim that the funding source has no impact on the outcome of this many independent studies. ^ a b Lessig 2011 ^ Lessig 2011, pp. 26-28 ^ Painter, Richard (2009), Getting the Government America Deserves: How Ethics Reform Can Make a Difference Oxford University Press 978-0-19-537871-9 ^ Thompson (1995) ^ Kerr, Robert S. "Senator Kerr Talks about Conflict of Interest," US News and World Report, September 3, 1962, p. 86. ^ Stern, Philip M. (1992). Still the Best Congress Money Can Buy. Regnery Gatgeway. pp. 168176. ^ Lessig 2011, pp. 43-52, 117 ^ Lessig 2011, pp. 120-121 ^ Stiglitz, Joseph E. (2010). Freefall: America, Free Markets, and the Shrinking of the World Economy. Norton. pp. 56. ^ Lessig 2011, p. 83 ^ Sachs, Jeffrey D. (2011). The Price of Civilization: Reawakening American Virtue and Prosperity. Random House. ISBN 978-0-679-60502-7. ^ Reinhart, Carmen M.; Rogoff, Kenneth S. (2009). This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-15264-6. ^ Letters from 300 economists to the American Economic Association, 3 January 2011.] ^ Wall Street Journal, Stung by 'Inside Job,' economists pen a code of ethics, 12 October 2011. ^ The Economist, Dismal ethics, An intensifying debate about the case for a professional code of ethics for economists, 6 January 2011. ^ Wall Street Journal, Economists set rules on ethics, 9 January 2012. ^ Mehran, Hamid. or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.943447 "Economics of Conflicts of Interest in Financial Institutions". ^ Wikipedia Contributors. "Conflict of Interest". ^ Herman, Edward S.; Chomsky, Noam (1988). Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. Pantheon. ISBN 0-394-54926-0. Retrieved 2012-02-09. ^ a b c McChesney, Robert W. (2004). The Problem of the Media: U.S. Communication Politics in the 21st Century. Monthly Review Press. ISBN 1-58367-105-6. Retrieved 2012-02-09. ^ McCheney, Robert W. (2008). The Political Economy of the Media: Enduring Issues, Emerging Dilemmas. Monthly Review Press. ISBN 978-1-58367-161-0. ^ Bianco, Anthony; Grover, Ronald (September 20, 2004), "How Nielsen Stood Up to Murdoch", Business Week 32

^ [|Potter, Gary W.]; [|Kappeler, Victor E.], eds. (1998). Constructing Crime: Perspectives on Making News and Social Problems. Waveland Press. ISBN 0-88133-984-9. Retrieved 2012-02-09. ^ McChesney, Robert W. (2008). The Political Economy of the Media: Enduring Issues, Emerging Dilemas. Monthly Review Pr.. pp. 335337. ISBN 978-1-58367-161-0. ^ Lessig, Lawrence (2004). Free Culture. pp. 162ff. ISBN 978-1-59420-006-9. www.Docket13.com 1/30/13

Legal Certainty? Court of Competent Jurisdiction Independent Judiciary?

33

www.Docket13.com 1/30/13 www.p13.co PROLETARIAT 13 CO Political Religious Oust Legitimate Establishment Tacit Accountable Responsible Inherent Assertion Tree Cooperative Ordinance

Evidence is everywhere in everything they do in this thing they call reality 34