04 October 2013

Corrupt Police conceal Church pedophilia

There is NO doubt that one of the more corrupt corporations in Australia is the Australian Police.

The in joke is who is more corrupt ... the NSW police or the Victorian police.

The police 'force' in Australia are registered corporations in the various states, for the purpose of debt collecting for the Australian government.

For example,

  • New South Wales Police has an ABN of 43 408 613 180.
  • Victoria Police has an ABN of  63 446 481 493.

These facts are NOT in the mainstream media in order not to educated the masses, that when they talk to police,  they are INVOLUNTARILY entering a 'contract'.

The corporate media has reported that the catholic church 'attempted to conceal crimes' in New South Wales.

The article goes on further to mention that the Church 'believed it has an understanding with the NSW police in 2003 that allowed them to conceal evidence against pedophile priests'.

Full article:

HE Catholic Church believed it had an understanding with the NSW police in 2003 that allowed them to conceal evidence against pedophile priests. 

A file, accessed through Freedom of Information laws by NSW Greens MP David Shoebridge and obtained by ABC's Lateline, documents the Catholic Church's attempt to co-opt NSW police to strike into the illegal agreement.

"Church authorities shall make available the report of an assessment and any other matter relevant to the accused's account of events only if required to do so by court order," the unsigned draft memorandum read.

Catholic Commission for Employment Relations executive director Michael McDonald wrote to the NSW child protection squad on June 18, 2003 seeking confirmation the memorandum of understanding (MOU) was still in place.

In response, Kim McKay from the child protection squad advised no agreement ever existed.
"The arrangements proposed by the draft MOU appear to be in direct conflict with the explicit legislative requirement of section 316 of the Crime Act," he wrote in August 20, 2003.

It's unclear how long the church had been acting according the draft MOU.

Michael Salmon, who was the Catholic Church's point of contact for police at the time, provided a statement to Lateline confirming the church had operated under the unsigned agreement.

"The church assumed it was operational, we were practicing the provisions of the MOU and dealing with the police under those provisions," he said.

"We had an understanding from police it was approved."

Mr Shoebridge says it's unclear how many cases were dealt with by the church under this assumption.
"It's likely that hundreds, if not more than that, cases were processed through this MOU," he told ABC.

"Processed in a way that didn't protect victims, didn't assist the police in prosecuting for crimes, but protected the good name of the church."

 news.com.au 4 Oct 2013

Building giant Leighton rife with corruption: claims

Corruption and cover-ups in Leighton Holdings' international construction empire were rife and known to top company executives and directors, according to internal company files.

Those in the know included the Australian construction giant's chief executive at the time, Wal King, and his short-term successor David Stewart.

In revelations that will cause international embarrassment for Australia and raise questions about the role of the nation's corporate watchdog, the files expose plans to pay alleged multimillion-dollar kickbacks in Iraq, Indonesia, Malaysia and elsewhere, along with other serious corporate misconduct.

Hundreds of confidential company documents, obtained during a six-month Fairfax Media investigation, also reveal a culture of rewarding corruption or incompetence, and abysmal corporate governance in what looms as the worst recent case of corporate corruption involving a major Australian firm.

Mr King, one of Australia's most highly regarded chief executives and who has reportedly been approached by Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull about taking an NBN Co board seat, was chief executive of Leighton Holdings for 23 years and is a prominent Sydney business community figure.

Leighton is one of Australia's biggest construction companies, with a market value of nearly $7 billion. It has built the Victorian desalination plant, Sydney's ABC studios, and Queensland's Ross River dam.

Among the most explosive of the company files is a memo written on November 23, 2010, by then acting CEO David Stewart. It says Leighton International managing director David Savage had revealed he and Mr King knew of a $42 million kickback to a firm in Monaco nominated by Iraqi officials who gave Leighton a $750 million oil pipeline contract. "I asked did Wal K approve this? And he said yes," the memo says.

Around the same time, a private consulting firm, Concorde Corporation, advised Leighton it was exposed in Asia to allegations of ''conflict of interest, kickbacks, unethical staff appointments and so on''.
Concorde warned that the allegations ''indicate a serious breakdown of probity, governance and ethics within Leighton's Asian operations''.

The allegations coincide with a tumultuous time at Leighton after Mr King, who has been awarded an AO, left the company to be replaced by Mr Stewart, and an international takeover battle between Leighton's major shareholder, the German company Hochtief and a Spanish firm, ACS.

In his time at the top, Mr King transformed Leighton into a global construction powerhouse with $13 billion in revenue.

Confidential legal advice provided to Leighton in late 2010 also warned that executives might be linked to corruption or serious mismanagement and that the company was facing an ''extreme'' risk of damage to its reputation.

But Leighton withheld the Stewart memo, along with other files detailing corruption, from authorities for several months or failed to pass some of them on at all.

Another key factor impeding full exposure of the corporate scandal is the apparent failure of the corporate watchdog, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, to conduct rigorous investigations in the two years since Leighton alerted federal police that it may have breached foreign bribery laws in Iraq.

ASIC has spoken to no witnesses or suspects, despite witnesses telling federal police they had grave concerns about corporate offences in the company.

Key Leighton witnesses and whistleblowers, including former top Leighton executive Stephen Sasse, told Fairfax Media on Wednesday that ASIC and the federal police appeared unable to adequately respond to the breadth of issues engulfing Leighton.

''I would be surprised if the federal police or ASIC have the expertise or technical knowledge to undertake investigations of this nature,'' Mr Sasse said. ''I suspect that the lack of urgency stems from resourcing issues rather than any lack of purpose.''

He declined to answer questions about his stint at Leighton in 2011.

Another source familiar with the Australian Federal Police investigation revealed that AFP agents privately complained about inadequate resources to conduct a proper probe.

ASIC - which failed to respond to inquiries from Fairfax Media - is already under pressure for failing to investigate alleged corporate law breaches linked to the Reserve Bank bribery scandal. ASIC referred questions about Leighton to the federal police, which stressed it was treating the Leighton case as a ''priority''.

''We are working to ensure that all alleged criminal activity is uncovered,'' Commander Ian McCartney said.

In a statement, Leighton Holdings said on Wednesday that it was co-operating with police, had strong anti-corruption policies and that its directors have ''at all times executed their duties with the appropriate care and diligence'' required by law.

Mr Stewart's note says Mr Savage had claimed that Monaco-based firm Unaoil had been paid kickbacks by Leighton via an inflated $87 million contract of which the value of ''real work'' was ''less than half''.

Unaoil is run by an Iranian family that boasts close ties to Iraq's oil minister and Prime Minister. Unaoil was recently named in the British High Court as a company with influence among Middle Eastern and African officials and that was once wired a commission ''disguised as payment for office equipment''.

Mr Savage was given a $2 million bonus when he left the company on March 31, 2011, despite internal concerns about his knowledge of corruption.

Mr Stewart's memo of November 23, 2010, says Mr Savage allegedly suggested an extra $23 million illicit payment to win a further $500 million worth of work in Iraq.

''It is exactly what got the AWB into trouble with their trucking contract at two to three times market rates,'' Mr Stewart recorded himself telling Mr Savage, in reference to the Iraq bribery scandal involving AWB Limited in 2006.

''Wal King is still CEO and if he is OK with it, go for it,'' Mr Stewart's memo says.

The memo was not passed to police until November 2011, a year after Mr Stewart wrote it and only after lawyers working for Leighton accidentally stumbled over it.

When Fairfax Media tried to question Mr Stewart about the bribery allegations this week, he responded: ''I don't know anything about it at all.''

Mr King declined to speak to Fairfax Media. A company source still close to Mr King cast doubt on Mr Savage's claim - as recorded by Mr Stewart - that he had discussed inflating the Iraqi contract with the former chief executive.

But the confidential Leighton files also reveal that Mr King and other top executives were emailed in 2009 by a whistleblower about a ''payoff'' made to a corrupt Leighton employee in connection to a barge-building project in Asia.

They also reveal the whistleblower's corruption concerns were subject to bungled internal investigations, despite spanning ''several countries'', including Indonesia and India, and exposing ''criminal'' conduct, including a ''systemic fraud''.

''It is not difficult to understand the frustration expressed by [the whistleblower] ... that there has been an attempt to cover up these issues,'' a company memo says.

The whistleblower allegations exposed another company middleman, Malaysian-based businessman Pakianathan Sri Kumar, who was allegedly involved in corruption.

Mr Sri Kumar has worked with Leighton in Iraq, Indonesia, India and Tanzania and the whistleblower said he had heard that the businessman received ''a 10 per cent kickback'' on certain projects, ''some of which is passed to Leighton executives''.

Leighton's Indian projects alleged to be tainted by corruption were multimillion-dollar offshore works in the Indian town of Cochin and the district of Jamnagar.

In confidential legal advice provided to Leighton in late 2010, Sydney lawyer Malcolm Davis warned that Leighton executives may be tainted by corruption or serious mismanagement.

''It is perhaps trite to say that 'reputational' risk to LHL [Leighton Holdings] and the greater LH Group is extreme were it ever to become known that LIL [Leighton International] ... engaged in conduct of the kind referred to in the allegations of impropriety.''

Mr Davis said it ''beggars belief'' that a Leighton senior project manager who had engaged in clearly ''criminal conduct'' with Mr Sri Kumar in Indonesia was not sacked.

The manager, Gavin Hodge, allegedly stole $500,000 worth of steel from Leighton to build a barge for Indian company Adani in a black-market racket. Rather than being sacked, Mr Hodge was given a bonus and thanked for his work by a Leighton executive who knew of his alleged corruption, Russell Waugh.

Mr Waugh, who could not be reached, is now a top executive at engineering and property services company UGL.

After Mr Davis' scathing advice, Leighton finally fired Mr Hodge and initiated private legal proceedings against him to recover $500,000 he allegedly stole.

Mr Savage declined to answer questions.

The questions Fairfax Media put to Leighton Holdings

  1. Why did the board of Leighton International, or some or all of its directors, or directors of LHL, approve a multimillion dollar agency payment to a Nominated Sub Contractor chosen by Iraqi authorities in relation to the Iraqi pipeline contract won in 2010? Did the board or senior company officials ever consider the prospect that part of this payment could be used to bribe Iraqi officials?
  2. What due diligence was done by the LIL and Leighton Holdings boards' on the use of Nominated Sub-Contractors in Iraq and/or other locations?
  3. Why did the CEO of LHL release a statement in Feb 2012 that the company had voluntarily notified the AFP of the Iraq issues when they had in fact been recorded by the company in 2011?
  4. Why did the company not immediately notify authorities when these and other corruption related matters, including Alan Fenwick's whistle-blowing, became known to senior company officers in 2010 and 2009?
  5. Current Leighton Holdings chairman Bob Humphris was part of the LIL board when large and suspicious payments were made to subcontractors in Iraq and when corruption issues occurred on other LIL projects. What steps did Mr Humphris take to act with care, diligence and in the best interests of the company, in respect of these issues?
  6. Did Mr Humphris and his fellow directors on the LIL board closely examine 'green sheets' on major projects, including the Iraq Oil project, and, if so, what was the reaction to the agency fees detailed in these sheets? If green sheets weren't closely examined, why not?
  7. Why did LHL not ensure appropriate investigations and action were taken when Alan Fenwick first aired his corruption concerns?
  8. Why did the company consider it appropriate that senior executive Russell Waugh be placed in charge of investigations into the conduct of his employee Gavin Hodge, given Mr Waugh's obvious conflict of interest in the matter?
  9. What due diligence did the board of LIL or the board of LHL do before approving payments and consultancy agreements to contractor LYE?
  10. What services has LYE provided the company and why was LYE allowed to continue his association with Leighton after it was known that he may be involved in corrupt behavior?
  11. What is the company's response to allegations that bribes or corruption have been apparent in projects in India, Tanzania, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Middle East?
  12. Why was Unaoil engaged by Leighton International?
  13. In India, is the LIL or Leighton Holdings board aware of the arrest of the head of its joint venture partner, Oriental Structural Engineers, by India's anti-corruption agency for allegedly bribing government officials to win highway construction contracts in 2010?
  14. In Malaysia, the deputy chairman of Leighton Malaysia, Tan Sri Hari Narayan was until recently the on the board of the Malaysian Government's National Highway Authority, an entity involved in road building contracts won by Leighton. Does this present Leighton with a conflict of interest problem, as well as a possible breach of Australian laws preventing payments or benefits to foreign officials in order to obtain a business advantage?
  15. In 2008 Leighton Offshore agreed to provide training and possible employment to students at a Malaysian TAFE owned by a political party that is part of the country's ruling coalition and chaired by a politician (Samy Vellu) who in his ministerial capacity had since 1987 awarded contracts to Leighton. Has the board of LIL or Leighton Holdings ever sought legal advice on this Malaysian TAFE agreement to see how it complies with Australia's foreign bribery laws? If so, what did the advice say?
  16. Have the boards of either LIL or Leighton Holdings passed on all evidence of possible bribery offences or breaches of corporations act duties to ASIC?
  17. In what capacity has LIL engaged Oceanking?
  18. Did LHL give permission for Mr David Savage to start a new EPC venture while he was working at LHL?
  19. Given the unresolved and serious issues facing LHL, why should shareholders have faith in the company's ability to ensure good corporate governance?

The awswers

TO: Nick McKenzie and Richard Baker, by email
DATE: 2 October 2013
In 2011, Leighton Holdings voluntarily reported to the Australian Federal Police (AFP) a possible breach of its Code of Ethics as soon as it became aware of a possible breach although it did not have sufficient evidence to conclude that a breach had occurred. To facilitate the collection of evidence, Leighton kept the  information confidential until, with the AFP¡¦s approval, an announcement could be made in February 2012 having concluded with the benefit of legal advice that this would not breach its continuous disclosure obligations.
Following the discovery of the possible breach of its Code of Ethics, Leighton conducted an internal review of the projects involved. The internal review identified instances of failures to meet governance standards in the proper documentation of contractual arrangements. A consequence was the dismissal of a senior executive in July 2012.
Leighton continues to cooperate with the AFP while the AFP undertakes its investigation. As this is subject to Federal Police investigation, Leighton does not intend to make any further comment.
There have been a number of internal investigations relating to the construction of a barge on Batam Island culminating in Leighton taking court action against a former employee for alleged breaches of contractual and fiduciary duties. As the case is currently before the court, Leighton is restricted from making further comment.
The Directors of Leighton¡¦s subsidiary companies and of Leighton Holdings are aware of their responsibilities and have at all times executed their duties with the appropriate care and diligence, and in the best interests of each relevant company.
Corporate governance Over recent years, Leighton Holdings has continued to strengthen and improve its corporate governance and risk management processes including:
  • Introducing a comprehensive Code of Business Conduct which sets out the behaviours that Leighton employees must adhere to, regardless of where they operate. The Code includes disciplinary action if breaches of the Code occur
  • Further enhancing its risk management capability to better measure, manage and control risk. Tender risk controls have been improved, including an update to the criteria for determining levels of risk in tenders
  • Establishing a ¡¥5 gate¡¦ tender review and approval process, with separate approvals required to: pursue a prospect; prepare and submit a non-binding proposal; prepare a tender; submit a tender; and execute a contract. This process culminates in projects of a certain size and risk profile requiring the approval of the recently established Tender Review and Risk Committee of the Board
  • Taking additional steps to enhance its independent internal audit function and assurance program
  • Establishing itself as a Strategic Management Company to ensure the appropriate span of control across the business and substantially refreshing its management team
These changes have strengthened the Group and brought a new governance rigour to the benefit of shareholders.
The Company is focused on ensuring that its values are consistently applied across the Leighton Group and any deviation from those values will not be tolerated.

theage.com.au 3 Oct 2013

Another company riddled with corruption / fraud, with no doubt that that authorities will do litle or nothing about it.

The so called quote: " Deeply concerned" may also refer to the fact that they are concerned that they have been caught out!

Google accused of illegally wiretapping Gmail accounts

Wiretapping is typically the stuff of spy dramas and shady criminal escapades. But now, one of the world's biggest web companies, Google, must defend itself against accusations that it is illegally wiretapping in the course of its everyday business - gathering data about internet users and showing them related ads.

The accusations, made over several years in various lawsuits that have been merged into two separate cases, ask whether Google went too far in collecting user data in Gmail and Street View, its mapping project. Two US federal judges have ruled, over Google's protests, that both cases can move forward.

The wiretapping rulings are the latest example of judges and regulators prodding Google over privacy violations. The company is on the defensive, struggling to convince overseers and its users that it protects consumer data, while arguing that the law is stuck in the past and has failed to keep up with new technologies.

"It's been a bad month for Google," said Alan Butler, a lawyer at the Electronic Privacy Information Centre. "What's at stake is a core digital privacy issue for consumers right now, which is the extent to which their digital communications are protected from use by third parties." For the most part, Google has managed to avoid major privacy penalties. The Gmail case could have broad effects, though, because nearly half a billion people worldwide use the service, and because if it is, as expected, certified as a class action, the fines could be enormous. At the same time, the case could have long-term consequences for all email services - including those from Yahoo and Microsoft - and for the issue of how confidential is our online data.

"This ruling has the potential to really reshape the entire email industry," said Eric Goldman, director of the High Tech Law Institute at Santa Clara University School of Law.

The Gmail case involves Google's practice of automatically scanning email messages and showing ads based on the contents of the emails. The plaintiffs include voluntary Gmail users, people who have to use Gmail as part of an educational institution and non-Gmail users whose messages were received by a Gmail user. They say the scanning of the messages violates US state and federal anti-wiretapping laws.

The case revives a short-lived uproar over Gmail ads when Google introduced them in 2004. Microsoft has recently tried to call attention to the practice as part of its Scroogled campaign, including a video that shows a so-called Gmail man reading people's email. Google has continued to show new types of ads in Gmail, including ads that look like emails.

"Google uses Gmail as its own secret data-mining machine, which intercepts, warehouses and uses, without consent, the private thoughts and ideas of millions of unsuspecting Americans who transmit email messages through Gmail," lawyers for the plaintiffs argued July 11, opposing Google's motion to dismiss the case. On Thursday, Judge Lucy H. Koh of US District Court denied Google's motion in a 43-page order that fought the company at almost every turn.

Koh is highly respected in Silicon Valley, with a reputation for being fearless. During the Apple-Samsung patent trial, she made headlines for asking an Apple lawyer if he was "smoking crack".
In this case, she came down hard on Google.

In the June 13 motion to dismiss the suit, Google said the plaintiffs were trying to "criminalise ordinary business practices". It argued that the scanning of Gmail messages was automated, with no human review, and was no different from the processes it uses to detect spam or viruses, offer inbox searching or filter messages into folders. It said users had consented to it by agreeing to Google's terms of service and privacy policy.

In a section of the motion that was widely noted, Google also argued that non-Gmail users had no expectation of privacy when corresponding with Gmail users.

"Just as a sender of a letter to a business colleague cannot be surprised that the recipient's assistant opens the letter, people who use web-based email today cannot be surprised if their communications are processed by the recipient's" email provider, the lawyers wrote.

Federal wiretap law exempts interception of communication if it is necessary in a service provider's "ordinary course of business", which Google said included scanning email. That argument did not fly with Koh.

"In fact, Google's alleged interception of email content is primarily used to create user profiles and to provide targeted advertising - neither of which is related to the transmission of emails," she wrote in last week's ruling.

Koh also dismissed Google's argument that Gmail users consented to the interception and that non-Gmail users who communicated with Gmail users also knew that their messages could be read.

"Accepting Google's theory of implied consent - that by merely sending emails to or receiving emails from a Gmail user, a non-Gmail user has consented to Google's interception of such emails for any purposes - would eviscerate the rule against interception," she wrote. A Google spokeswoman, Leslie Miller, and a lawyer for the company, Michael G. Rhodes of the law firm Cooley, declined to comment on the case beyond a company statement. "We're disappointed in this decision and are considering our options," it said. "Automated scanning lets us provide Gmail users with security and spam protection, as well as great features like Priority Inbox."

Lawyers for the plaintiffs, Sean F. Rommel of Wyly Rommel and F. Jerome Tapley of Cory Watson, did not respond to requests for comment.

Also last week, Google asked the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to reconsider a September 10 ruling that a separate wiretapping lawsuit could proceed. That one involves Google Street View vehicles that secretly collected personal information from unencrypted home computer networks. The federal anti-wiretapping law at the heart of both cases is part of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, a 1986 law that has been under fire for years for not taking into account modern-day technology like email.

"It's not surprising we're seeing courts struggle with applying the ECPA," Goldman of Santa Clara said. "It's a poorly drafted statute that has aged very poorly."

smh.com.au 2 Oct 2013

Another WIN for the corporate criminals where the masses are powerless to do anything about it.

03 October 2013

Tech website Delimiter uses Pozible to raise funds for FOI request on NBN

And you thought fibre-to-the-home was fast. 
Australians are so keen for information on the National Broadband Network (NBN) that they've helped pay an expensive Freedom of Information (FOI) request for ministerial briefings in just five hours.

Delimiter editor Renai LeMay on Wednesday used funding site Pozible to raise $2072 for the briefing "blue book'' that was provided to new Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull last month.

The site has since achieved above its target, with 122 supporters pledging a total of $2262 as of 10pm AEST on Wednesday night.

Mr LeMay has promised contributors he'll publish the 545-page document on his technology website when he receives it.

However, it's highly unlikely users will get the full briefing afforded to Mr Turnbull, with the Department of Communications estimating that 97.55 hours of decision-making time will go into judging what portions of the blue book will be released.

Mr LeMay also warned contributors in his funding request that the Department of Communications had given him a preliminary warning that a "significant proportion'' of the briefings won't be made available.

The internet push for the ministerial briefings comes less than one month after an online petition urging the Coalition to reconsider its plans to create a fibre-to-the-node (FTTN) network in place of Labor's existing fibre-to-the-home (FTTH) approach garnered 263,000 online signatures.

Labor's FTTH network connects every home and business with optical fibre cables, which provides download speeds up to 1000 megabits a second (Mbps), upload speeds of 400Mbps and aimed to be completed by 2021.

The coalition campaigned for a FTTN policy, which will rely on existing copper lines, and provide most homes with download speeds of 50Mbps and upload speeds of 5Mbps by 2019.

 news.com.au 2 Oct 2013

It is concerning to the general populous how fraudulent the NBN Co. can really be, so much so that whatever documents will be obtained will definitely NOT disclose the real level of corruption.

Government deals are setup literally to the financial detriment of the masses in unprecedented numbers.

01 October 2013

Reserve Bank of Australia and ASIC Corruption

The Reserve Bank of Australia is meant to maintain stability in the nation's financial sector. It is supposed to be above reproach in its behaviour. But is it?

  Why did bank-appointed officials and employees break sanctions in Iraq and cosy up to Saddam Hussein through a "front man"? Why did a former Deputy Governor and other directors hand-picked by the Reserve Bank to safeguard its subsidiary companies from corruption, end up — over a decade — overseeing some of the most corruption-prone business practices possible? Why did they allow millions of dollars to be wired to third parties in foreign countries, including an arms dealer, in order to win banknote contracts in deals police now allege involved bribery and corruption?

Next week on Four Corners two whistleblowers-turned star police witnesses from RBA companies, Note Printing Australia and Securency, reveal for the first time how they discovered bribes were allegedly being paid... and how the most senior figures in Australia's worst corporate corruption scandal got away with allegedly egregious governance failures.

"That someone can get away with it so blatantly, a board, and a chairman... you know it, it's not right." Whistleblower

For the past four years the Governor of the Reserve Bank, Glenn Stevens, has maintained that neither he nor officials knew about the alleged payments before 2009. We find out exactly who knew what and when.

Until now the Federal Police and the corporate watchdog, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), have been unwilling to investigate board members of the Reserve Bank companies, despite evidence that some of them allegedly failed in their duties, allowing corruption to flourish.

"This is the worst corruption scandal in our history, not because of the amount of money that's been involved, but because the most respected institutions of our country have failed to discharge their responsibilities to the public." Dr David Chaikin, University of Sydney Business School

COVER UP, reported by Nick McKenzie in a joint Four Corners /Fairfax Media investigation and presented by Kerry O'Brien, goes to air on Monday 30th September at 8.30pm on ABC1. It is replayed on Tuesday 1st October at 11.35pm. It can also be seen on ABC News 24 on Saturday at 8.00pm, ABC iview and at abc.net.au/4corners.

abc.net.au 30 Sep 2013

Source:  http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2013/09/30/3857148.htm

ASIC is also one of the more corrupt corporations in Australia that works covertly for the benefit of corporate entities.

In the financial industry this cover-up has been know since its inception, as it was approved by senior politicians which have not yet been named, nor it is doubtful if they ever will be named.

The current 'notes' that Australians use as currency are fraudulent, of which the 'top end' is fully ware of.

Another monumental fraud from the hands that feed us.

30 September 2013

US Government on brink of shutdown

WITH the US Government teetering on the brink of partial shutdown, congressional Republicans vowed to keep using an otherwise routine federal funding Bill to try to attack the President's health care law. 

Congress was closed for the day after a post-midnight vote in the GOP-run House to delay by a year key parts of the new health care law and repeal a tax on medical devices, in exchange for avoiding a shutdown.

The Senate was to convene this afternoon (US time), just hours before the shutdown deadline, and Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat-Nevada., had already promised that majority Democrats would kill the House's latest volley.

Since the last government shutdown 17 years ago, temporary funding Bills known as continuing resolutions have been non-controversial, with neither party willing to chance a shutdown to achieve legislative goals it couldn't otherwise win. But with health insurance exchanges set to open tomorrow, tea-party Republicans are willing to take the risk in their drive to kill the health care law.

Action in Washington was limited mainly to the Sunday talk shows and a barrage of press releases as Democrats and Republicans rehearsed arguments for blaming each other if the government in fact closes its doors at midnight today.

"You're going to shut down the government if you can't prevent millions of Americans from getting affordable care," Representative Chris Van Hollen, Democart-Maryland said.

"The House has twice now voted to keep the government open. And if we have a shutdown, it will only be because when the Senate comes back, Harry Reid says, 'I refuse even to talk,"' said Senator Ted Cruz, Republican-Texas, who led a 21-hour broadside against allowing the temporary funding Bill to advance if stripped clean of a Tea Party-backed provision to derail Obamacare. The effort ultimately failed.

The battle started with a House vote to pass the short-term funding Bill with a provision that would have eliminated the federal dollars needed to put President Barack Obama's health care overhaul into place. The Senate voted along party lines to strip that out and lobbed the measure back to the House.

The latest House measure, passed early yesterday by a near party-line vote of 231-192, sent back to the Senate two key changes: a one-year delay of key provisions of the health insurance law and repeal of a new tax on medical devices that partially funds it, steps that still go too far for The White House and its Democratic allies on Capitol Hill.

Senate rules often make it difficult to act quickly, but the chamber can act on the House's latest proposals by simply calling them up and killing them.

Eyes were turning to the House for its next move. One of its top leaders vowed the House would not simply give in to Democrats' demands to pass the Senate's "clean" funding Bill.

"The House will get back together in enough time, send another provision not to shut the Government down, but to fund it, and it will have a few other options in there for the Senate to look at again," said the No. 3 House Republican leader, Representative Kevin McCarthy of California. "We are not shutting the Government down."

He suggested that House Republicans would try blocking a mandate that individuals buy health insurance or face a tax penalty, saying there might be some Democratic support in the Senate for that.
On the other hand, Democrats said the GOP's bravado might fade as the deadline to avert a shutdown neared.

Asked whether he could vote for a "clean" temporary funding Bill, Representative Raul Labrador, Republican-Idaho, said he could not. But he said: "I think there's enough people in the Republican Party who are willing to do that. And I think that's what you're going to see."

A leading Senate GOP moderate called on her fellow Republicans to back down.

"I disagree with the strategy of linking Obamacare with the continuing functioning of government — a strategy that cannot possibly work," said Senator Susan Collins, Republican-Maine.

Mr McCarthy would not say what changes Republicans might make. He appeared to suggest that a very short-term measure might pass at the last minute, but GOP aides said that was unlikely.

And rumours on Saturday night that GOP leaders might include a provision to deny lawmakers and staff aides their employer health care contributions from the Government had cooled by yesterday afternoon.

Lawmakers and congressional aides are required to purchase health insurance on the Affordable Care Act exchanges, but the administration has taken steps to make sure they continue to receive their 72 per cent employer contribution.

Republicans argued that Senator Reid should have convened the Senate yesterday  to act on the measure.

"If the Senate stalls until Monday afternoon instead of working today, it would be an act of breathtaking arrogance by the Senate Democratic leadership," said House Speaker John Boehner, Republican-Ohio. "They will be deliberately bringing the nation to the brink of a government shutdown."

In the event lawmakers blow the deadline, about 800,000 workers would be forced off the job without pay.

Some critical services such as patrolling the borders, inspecting meat and controlling air traffic would continue. Social Security benefits would be sent, and the Medicare and Medicaid health care programs for the elderly and poor would continue to pay doctors and hospitals.

The Senate was not scheduled to meet until mid-afternoon today, 10 hours before a shutdown would begin, and even some Republicans said privately they feared that Senator Reid held the advantage in the fast-approaching end game.

Republicans argued that they had already made compromises; for instance, their latest measure would leave intact most parts of the health care law that have taken effect, including requiring insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions and to let families' plans cover children up to age 26. They also would allow insurers to deny contraception coverage based on religious or moral objections.

Tea Party lawmakers in the House — egged on by Senator Cruz — forced GOP leaders to abandon an earlier plan to deliver a "clean" stopgap spending Bill to the Senate and move the fight to another must-do measure looming in mid-October: a Bill to increase the Government's borrowing cap to avert a market-rattling, first default on US obligations.

heraldsun.com.au 30 Sep 2013 @ 15:28

Ground breaking news by the corporate media about one of the world's largest scams, that being the Corporation not the country known as the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Inc.).

It is doubtful if ever the true extent of the fraud will be reported and the TRUTH exposed.

In a summary the people of the United States are in debt to the banking elite (a company known as the Federal Reserve Bank), a debt that is printed at face value which the people cannot repay.