ACCforum: Corporate Crimefighters Newsletters - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 5 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Corporate Crimefighters Newsletters UNUM,ACC, Fraud, Corporate crime.

#21 User is offline   Juscallin1 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 15-November 03

Posted 16 April 2004 - 05:53 AM


#22 User is offline   Easyrider 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 111
  • Joined: 16-September 03

Posted 16 April 2004 - 09:08 AM

Targets have to be set and then the case managers and branches have to meet those targets to get their extra money. Its a big incentive to the ACC branch workers to kick off as many as possible in any manner possible. And at the end of the day even if they break the law, what happens, their bosses just get up and tell lies. Even with all that has been published has their been a enquirey. Still election year coming up, time we all did a little more to spread the word.

#23 User is offline   jocko 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 988
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 16 April 2004 - 10:18 AM

We all can see that ACC is operating illegally. The procedures are exactly the same. Your point about the EXIT targets is absolute proof Roamy. Those fraud convictions in the states are like the hounds of hell coming for ACC. By the time our new Supreme court is set up we will be ready. If you go back to earlier posts they describe how UNUM shifted funds from one account to another to make the books look good. The names of the accounts are different of course, unum being america. But if you study you can see how ACC is doing the same thing here.
It has become such a culture of lies. Unbelievable that a Government could be party to this. New Zealand will carry the shame for years to come. At least the American justice system is doing something about it. I presume everyone knows what the actuarials, stock,tail, long term liabilities actually are
The actuarial is, for ACC, Your yearly earnings related compensation multiplied by the number of years left until you are 65. i.e Jim is 45 yrs of age. His ERC is $25,000 per year multiplied by 20 years til age 65....25,000 x 20 = $500,000. The actuarial for Jim, or his long term liability to ACC is $500,000.
For fraudsters the mathematics are easy. How many lying assessors can you buy for half a million dollars and how many Jims will they get rid of?
I do not have the EXIT rates of these assessors in my possession. But I and a witness have seen them. They were shown to us by Nigel Philpott at a vocational assessment. These "independent" assessors have an EXIT rate in favour of ACC of 98%. Independent? they are "Approved" by ACC under legislation and thereby protected by the Corporation and they are paid in full for their services by ACC

#24 User is offline   jocko 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 988
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 16 April 2004 - 12:57 PM

Hey this is great I have raised communication with these folks. This will be an interesting sharing of information ( I got your letter this time ;') I'll publish it in our own newsletter.
I'm not surprised. Corporate criminality seems to be the same all over.
It's like they all go to the same evil school.

Jim Mooney, the CyberVigilante, webmaster of:

Restore American Greatness - Give Texas Back to Mexico!

[email protected] for details.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jock Devine [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 3:52 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Unum and ACC New Zealand

Hi I am a New Zealander. I don't know if anyone from our group has
contacted you folk yet. I tried a while ago but did not receive a reply.
We are experiencing the same type of treatment as you people get from
UNUM. We believe that our insurer, The Accident Compensation Corporation
of New Zealand has imported UNUMs case or claims management system. The
methods of operation you experience are exactly the same here. The
problem is our insurer is owned by the Government and they are denying
there is a problem. ACC had $750,000 in shares in the year 2000. We
believe they done this to gain access to UNUMs operating procedures.

Our internet support group started 2 years ago and the case we
are building against ACC is undeniable. It appears your evil monster has
spread its tenatacles across the globe. We are fully expecting this to
be a major election issue in this country next year. Most of our members
are familiar with your site and your work inspires us over here. Our
internet site is. www.accforum .org

From across the world we send you support from people who are
sharing their experience strength and hope with you. It is great, after
watching you from afar, to see such good results appearing in your
justice system. The media is recognising at last what you have been
saying for years. Keep up the excellent work. I hope the unions and
workers across America recognise the work you are doing for them. On
accforum I am jocko. R.T. Devine. 40 Herd St., Dunollie. New Zealand. It
would be great to hear from you folk, cheers jocko

#25 User is offline   jocko 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 988
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 16 April 2004 - 01:08 PM

How do you like that Gary,Helen and Ruth. Now you are going to be exposed in America. I wonder what the International Assocation of Insurance Regulators will think when they gain access to this site through Corporate Crimefighters.

#26 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 16 April 2004 - 01:49 PM

Here's a question:

Known ACC favoured exit specialists like dr w turner from christchurch are paid by the ACC to exit policy holders, How long does ACC take to pay their fees?

put that in perspective where onus of proof is put on the injured and disabled to find thousands of dollars to gain access to qualified professionals who will accurately and honestly identify their injuries, and as policy holders have experienced, the other arm of the Government scheme, WINZ, is also very reluctant to assist,
a quote provided by a claimant who was told this from a current WINZ Case Manager -

" It Wouldn't Look good if i were to give you the tools to fight another Government Department"

That says a lot.

#27 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 16 April 2004 - 02:11 PM

The reemoval of the right to sue,

Could someone please post the actual section of legislation that has the wording of the removal of the right to sue,

question: If the Accident Insurance Company has not kept its contract
to the policy holders by denying legitimate injury claims to be accepted, then have we still lost the right to sue?

#28 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1740
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 16 April 2004 - 09:17 PM

IDB, the only place that I have seen the removable of the right to sue is in the title of te Act 1972
[An Act to make proisin for safety and the prevention of accidents; for the rehabilitation and compensation of persons who suffer personal injury by acciden in respect of which they have cover under this Act; for the compensation og certain dependants of those persons where death results from injury; and for the abolition as far as practicable of actions for damages arising directly or indirectly out of personal injury by accident and death resulting therefrom and certain other Actions.

there is something in the 2001 Act but can only sue for things that are not covered by ACC


#29 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 16 April 2004 - 09:52 PM


there is something in the 2001 Act but can only sue for things that are not covered by ACC

Ok good stuff, so what then is the legal standing when ACC delay deny and decline
personal Injury and Gradual process claims and it takes years to get cover(if youre lucky) can one sue for the loss incurred by the disabled in the time they were not accepted or covered by the no fault no sue system when it places the ACC policy holder in the legal medical process of proving you do have an injury and resulting disability?

#30 User is offline   Tomcat 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2158
  • Joined: 14-September 03

Posted 17 April 2004 - 10:25 AM

response email from "unumsurvivorsunite"... to invite to join us...

Hi. Our mission is to provide support, information,and empowerment for claimants wrongfully treated by UnumProvident and other disability insurers. We are so glad you found us and will be in touch with you soon.
By joining together we become strong.
Dr. Joan Hangarer, D.C., M.S.

Tomcat :ph34r:

#31 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 17 April 2004 - 03:26 PM

Posted Image

Corporate corruption seen as threat to America's financial markets


WASHINGTON - Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, yesterday called upon corporations to work harder than ever before to restore public trust following a series of scandals that have rocked the US.

If trust was not somehow recovered, he predicted, there would be serious consequences.

"Recent allegations on Wall Street of breaches of trust or even legality, if true, could begin to undermine the very basis on which the world's greatest financial markets thrive," he said in a speech delivered by satellite to a financial conference at Sea Island, Georgia. "Corporate scandals of recent years have clearly shown that the plethora of laws of the past century have not eliminated the less savoury side of human behaviour."

Mr Greenspan said Americans had lost sight of the need for trust in their business dealings because of a false sense of security and a belief that laws and government agencies would protect them in their financial dealings. He said the market itself would now push businesses to strive harder to show honesty and integrity in their dealings with customers.

Though he did not mention any companies specifically, the Fed chairman's comments came after a welter of major cases involving alleged corporate corruption by former executives of such companies as WorldCom, Enron and Tyco.

Mr Greenspan, a Republican with a long dislike of imposing too much government regulation on the operation of financial markets, said it may be that certain rules governing such markets need to be updated. But he warned against a complete overall of legislation.

"Rewriting rules that have served us well is fraught with the possibility of collateral damage," he said.

He warned that if businesses did not make an effort, distrust by investors could seriously harm the functioning of America's financial markets. Those guilty of corruption needed to be "expeditiously punished".

"After the revelations of corporate malfeasance, the market punished the stock prices of those corporations whose behaviours had cast doubt on the reliability of their reputations," he added. "I hope and anticipate that trust and integrity again will be amply rewarded in the marketplace as they were in earlier generations."

The Independant, UK Newspaper.

#32 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1740
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 17 April 2004 - 06:09 PM

If ACC deny and delay the entitlements claiming that you are not covered then who do you sue? Your Employer for disregard for your health and safety. The ACC because its a no fault system and have not accepted the claim. Honestly I realy don't know the answer as there are so many verables.

if the ACC has denied the claim then its a materin taking it to the court and explaining that the claim is covered by the Act and that there is so many dollars outstanding, the amount that is needd for social and vocational rehabilitation. you would also need to cover medical Costs and would have to look into the future to cover the cost that would ocurr there

A bit loss Doppelganger

#33 User is offline   jocko 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 988
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 17 April 2004 - 08:22 PM

Suing would be a lengthy and very costly process. What we want is legislation without loopholes and backdoors for ACC to deny its entitlement obligations. And the people responsible for the current fraudulent debacle to be brought to account. I am prepared to call what has happened to me an accident. IF, I am to be paid the maximum lump sum of $100,000 to compensate me for loss of enjoyment of life!!

#34 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 18 April 2004 - 10:43 AM

seems my writing is poor, and not got across my thoughts clearly enough. ight try it again later. regarding suing, the woodhouse report i think, had something in it about the increasing litigation in workers compensation and the acc scheme would. by a no=fault system reduce litigatin, i am p[robably wrong on this..., but acc is litigous and difficult every step of the way.

my opinion, 100,000 limit is set wy too low to be realistic in todays terms, CEO's get golden handshakes a lot higher than 100,000, and 100,000 doesnt really go far enough
to help live with a life-long disability caused at work and denied acc cover for years.

#35 User is offline   Tomcat 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2158
  • Joined: 14-September 03

Posted 18 April 2004 - 11:58 AM

ACC took away our right to sue. It was also supposed to reduce
"Litigation". But "statictics" show very clearly, that this has increased many fold. Due, solely to ACC's "Dirty Tactics". In the name of "GREED".
Those I. P.'s lucky enough to get cover from ACC, still have to fight for their true entitlements, at almost every turn. And in fact in a majority of cases, ACC cause "further injury", with their corrupt lowlife tactics.
The legislation must be changed... and all the "Back Doors and loop Holes" closed off, so that we all get a fair deal FOR OUR MONEY.

Am I asking or expecting the impossible ?????. NO. Not if the above is achieved. There are still many "GOOD PEOPLE" out there who would do the job right.

The Law of Karma says; " What You put out in this life will at the end of it all return 10 fold". The bible says "As ye Sow , shall ye reap".
Believe it or not. It is so easy to admit your mistakes, blunders and transgressions, and do what ever to correct them, and gain the "Brownie points", to counter the "garbage". Unfortunately "the Rat Pack" continue in their
"Hypocritical/Corrupt Ways" oblivious to this "fact of life".
I hope that, "They", when they read this, are "not to far gone" that they are not able to absorb this message.

TC... :D

#36 User is offline   jocko 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 988
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 18 April 2004 - 07:32 PM

What amazes me is the case managers are the one that actually carry out the dirty work and take all the threats and even murder in their stride without asking questions? If any of them were to open their eyes and reflect on the fact that their employer has coerced and manipulated them in to some pretty foul actions. They would have a very strong case for retribution. That people blindly go about doing what they are doing shows the grave dangers associated with using Psycological profiling tools in staff recruitment. Having clone like staff who will ignore any wrong doing is a breeding ground for corruption. ACC proves that.

#37 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 18 April 2004 - 07:36 PM

An Ex Acc Case Manager has said that their decision making was
not all theirs, a lot was based on the advice of the Branch Medical Advisors.

Are there ACC Branch Medical Advisors who have had complaints successfully laid against them for medical misadventure in the Mid 1990's?

#38 User is offline   accvictim 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 04-November 03

Posted 22 April 2004 - 12:30 AM

Don`t worry all you great folk on this site, the way It feels to me is that the world is coming to an end soon, taking that corrupt ACC with it. good riddence to the lot.

Attached File(s)


#39 User is offline   jocko 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 988
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 22 April 2004 - 09:23 AM

The world is coming to an end for Gary Wilson and his mates at shamrock house ACCvictim! Ruths world doesn't look like a place to spend your holidays either!
IDB a local doctor was branch advisor here but he has turned against them since, it is rumoured.

#40 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 30 April 2004 - 09:30 PM

Current issue online: http://archives.zine...5758/16704.html

CORPORATE CRIMEFIGHTERS OF AMERICA -- Thursday, April 29, 2004, 2004


And doesn't have a lot of strength to file appeals, although it might not do much good with another pro-insurer appellate judge like Micheal Ponsor. (See "Trips for Judges" on our site for info on the corruption of the appellate judiciary with indirect bribes by corporate America.) She still can't find a lawyer. I will be posting her compendium of all the errors Ponsor made, which were many. He basically ignored all the medical evidence from experts and instead just relied on hearsay from Unum. This is no surprise. Most appellate judges are idiots or corrupt. That's why a fair ruling by an honest jury of twelve intelligent men and women isn't likely to last once an appellate "justice" gets hold of it. Of course, you only hear about the "big jury award" from our worthless and misleading media.
They never follow up on the usual appellate denial.

One vast error, in my view, was that the judge relied on CDC publications about CFS. Apparently Judge Ponsor was in bed sleeping when Congress censured the CDC for illegally withholding funding from CFS research in order to please its cohorts in the insurance industry. Therefor CDC opinions on CFS are Very suspect. (The CDC is heavily influenced by Unum Provident. The fix was in.)

Yet, even if this moronic judge went by the CDC, which tends to weaken a CFS case but Not invalidate it, he Still ruled wrongly.



I am being attacked, just in the last two weeks, by Enormous amounts of spam. It's like every junk mailer in America has found my email addy. Unfortunately, I can't just use a spam filter to divert mail from unknown senders to a junkbox. Since I get mail from new victims or from people interested in the CD, I really have to review all mail. I've also found those filters are very flawed and lose good mail, too. Outlook doesn't have a programming interface but when I get the time I'll migrate to Linux and write my own filters.

Right now, though, I have to at least look at the incoming mail. I've gotten to where I can tell by the title what to delete, but I may make an error now and then and kill a letter that is actually a letter. (It helps if you make the subject of your email something obvious regarding the content, which is usually about insurance or Unum or Allstate.)



I need a california lawyer in sandiego to help me with Kemper and Gallagher Bassett who have alligned themselves with Unum I have several people in cal and other places who are dying slowly from denials of treatment and no benefits. They are ready for class action, but we need a lawyer I have a collapsed cervical spine and am told that further degeneration and or injury may not be survivable I have lost at least a million dollars in the last 7 years of torture. Can some one help us with this action that you know?

Micheal Gregory Caress

[email protected]

Webmaster's comments: From another communication I know that Unum has gotten Mike really distraught to a serious point, so if anyone out there has help, ideas or a contact, write him at the address above. If it's good general advice, also CC me for the newsletter.



From: bingosandy0
[email protected]


my sister has been put through hell and back by unum. she has worked her whole life,and always held executive positions. i am her sister sandy,trying to help her,sue this company. we are canadians,but the claim, was filed in the usa,July 2002. we just found out this week ,the case is closed. my sister and i have both been diagnosed with polymyalgia rhumatica,by difnt,drs at diff,times. we also have fibromyalgia,and chronic fatigue syndrome. we also have osteoarthritis,in the knees ,back ,and neck. where we differ,i have hepatitis b chronic,and she suffers with agoraphobia,chronic depression,and severe panick disorder. unum,has passed her to at least 6 agents,withheld benifits for 6 months,etc.etc. they could not tell me what a syndrome was.

////their drs claim,polymyalgia lasts 35 days,is not genetic,and is under control with 5 mg,of prednisone daily

////my sisyer is chronically ill and suffers untold pain and depression. we want to sue them, as i know my sister has a strong case. they have done nothing but add,undue stress,holding any chance of therapy working for her. her psychiatrist even phoned and faxed,and offered to talk to their doctors.

/////no dice

////i would appreciate any help or guidance,on your part to help my sister have peace of mind.


/////sandy goddard.

Webmaster's comments: Same as above. Send help, advice, contacts to her email if you have them. Copy me if it's generally applicable. For those of you who are healthy I want to point out that many people with chronic ailments don't use the shift key and drop spaces, simply because normal typing is painful and tiring. So they cut corners. I threw in some spaces and some paragraph breaks where the //// were, which is actually a rather clever way to do that and avoid using your thumb for the space key.

The reason I always say to write the person in trouble is many people write me, expecting me to forward. Except by then I've gotten ten thousand other emails and it's often a bit hard to find the original poster out of the mess, especially if an email address or name isn't included, but just some body comment - which happens often believe it or not.



Changes at Unum? Not for the better either.................

An Editorial

Unum is now claiming since Harold Chandler was fired, the Unum process has significantly changed. First of all, CEO's have very little to do with the claims process and replacing a CEO would not affect the claims process at any location. The replacemment of Harold Chandler was intended to help stabilize the stock price which at the time was $5.00 per share. If Unum really wanted to put a stake in the ground and advertise that their claims process has changed, then they would need to replace Ralph Mohney and Tim Arnold, the two perpetrators of the current claim system.

Informants inside Chattanooga tell me that there has in fact been changes, but not necessarily positive ones. Tim Arnold himself now goes into the blocks of claims to review them. More micromanagement not less??? Reviewing claims by Directors, and now Tim Arnold himself, has always been indicative of "massive denial hunts" by management. One has to ask themselves with the same two "good ol'boys" from the South in charge whether Unum is serious about changing the claims process. They say the claims process has changed, but what they mean is even more micromanagement, which is NOT a good thing. Tighter control on the claims decisions allows management more opportunity to make "business decisions" and close more claims. Or, perhaps the company is in dire need of "financial results."

In any case, to assert the claims process at Unum Provident has changed while still having the same leadership of Ralph Mohney and Tim Arnold is blowing smoke over an even more dangerous and unfair claims review process.



Maria Cantwell
United States Senator

I would like to know why corporations enjoy all time profits while the
working American enjoys less then they did in the 80's? What has really been
given to them that is a plus? There are many employees who have been injured on
the job, and with more harassment of all sorts. Benefits and pensions have hit an
all time low since the 60's. Now the EEOC states that employers do not have to
give retirees their earned medical benefits at age 65. Most of the American
people have suffered injuries and many takeaways in the last 2 decades. What
is the legislation in Washington doing about that or has the American Dream
been nothing but a con game to pilfer and funnel money to corporate type
interests for their own interest.

Webmaster's comments: It really is true that corporate profits soared yet the middle class works harder and harder and does worse and worse. What is amazing is the corporate types don't grasp that when they kill the hard-working and productive middle class they kill their customers and kill the golden goose. Unbridled corporate power always ends up destroying itself through shortsightedness and greed, just as they did in 1929 or, in a more current example, Enron - which spread so much money around Washington that everyone looked the other way as they pilfered the till.

Of course, insurers love the new overtime regulations. Which makes me KNOW that, despite the usual Administration lies and spin, they must be really bad for employees.

Basically, the new regs mean that anyone who makes much over the poverty line doesn't have to get overtime if the employer determines they are in a responsible position. Well, of course employers will determine Everyone is in a responsible position. This will allow them to pile even more work on the few people who are left, at less cost, as they fire half their staff and ship much of their other work overseas. Eventually they will destroy the entire middle class. But hey, no one ever accused Washington or Wall St. of having foresight.



Per the following article, insurance companies are going to defend (what
they believe is) their right to force their employees to work overtime with
no compensation.

(From the Insurance Journal)

AIA Praises New Labor Regulations
April 21, 2004

The American Insurance Association has issued a bulletin supporting The
U.S. Labor Department's update of overtime regulations. The AIA said it
expects the new rules "will help end needless litigation, as well as reduce
conflict and confusion amongst employers and employees."

"These revisions are long overdue, and the changes will allow for a more
sensible, clearer application of the Fair Labor Standards Act," stated AIA
counsel Ken Stoller."

He indicated that the "white-collar" regulations in the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) have not been substantially updated since 1954, even
though the workplace has changed drastically since then.

"Old, outdated rules hurt both employers and employees," Stoller stressed.
"Trying to figure out whether an employee with independence and leadership
responsibilities is an 'exempt' executive, for example, has led to
unnecessary litigation and sometimes conflicting judicial rulings. We
commend the Labor Department and the Bush Administration for bringing
clarity to a confusing situation."



I'm referring to insurers, of course ;')

If Insurers treated 3rd party claimants with dignity and fairness (rather than intentionally low-balling them and forcing them to sue the insured as well as the insurance company) then third party bad faith laws would not be needed or required. As it is, insurance companies offer very low settlements to the honest but injured party, then snubs their nose at the injured claimant when the offer is not nearly enough then challenges the innocent claimant to sue if they want more money to settle their claim. This causes more aggravation as well as financial harm to the injured party who only wants what they are legally owed. The insurance companies already know that the injured party is now hurting for money due to the accident and is betting that the claimant will be forced to accept the ridiculously
low offer *(they are betting the claimant will most likely want to get the gut wrenching experience of dealing with the insurance company behind them) thereby saving the insurance company thousands of dollars. The following article bears this out:
N.M. Supreme Court Ruling Hurts Auto Ins. Policyholders, AIA Says
April 19, 2004

A New Mexico Supreme Court ruling last week to allow third party bad faith suits against insurers in auto liability cases will likely result in higher costs for policyholders, the American Insurance Association (AIA) said.

Webmaster's comments: The rest of the article is a pile of lies and whining by insurers, along with the usual appeal to corrupt legislators to make a law exempting them from the law. The wealthiest and most corrupt and most powerful industry in America is soooooo picked on. They always claim Anything that costs them will be passed on to policyholders, yet when they are cut special breaks by crooked pols so that they save money, they never pass on the savings. State after state passed "no fault" thinking it would save on car insurance, yet it never did. Unless legislators tie a "favor" for the industry to a hard contract to reduce rates, they never get reduced.

There is a reason why everyone hates and distrusts insurance companies. Yet people are so blind that although they hold this attitude in General, they have the foolish idea their Own insurer won't cheat them. That out of the thousands of corrupt companies, most of them very big and "trusted" names, they have picked an honest one.



That's what I was when I heard John Negroponte would be named ambassador to Iraq. Negroponte is one of the worst human right violators on the planet - maybe not on par with Adolf Eichmann, but cut from the same cloth. During his sojourn in South America he presided over institutional murder, torture, oppression, regional genocide and the massive theft of land from peasants, in concert with death squads and governmental terrorists. Much of the land went to big corporations and oil companies, of course. Then he covered his murder and complicity up.

Naming him ambassasor to Iraq is throwing gasoline on a fire, since nearly everyone in world Except the American public knows his record. As usual, our own media is keeping us in the dark, just as they do about the thoroughly corrupt insurance industry or the almost totally corrupt appellate judiciary. (See "trips for judges" on our site.) If decent people knew what a monster this man was they would shudder that he had any position in government, but of course they don't know. But then, most of the stuff I mentioned a Year ago about Iraq is now Finally being mentioned by the press, too little too late. What is wrong with the American media? Don't they use the Internet? They're a total disgrace and should all turn in their journalism degrees.

And that is the problem, which I keep repeating. Being a free people isn't enough. You need a free and truthful media, and ours is not. Increasingly all the media does is flack for government or corporations and keep unpleasant truths from us. I've mentioned some of those unpleasant truths from time to time, about a year before the media does (several years in the case of the corrupt insurance industry or judiciary), but right now the truthfulness of our press ranks somewhere under Bulgaria according to one international poll.

Socrates was right; evil comes from ignorance. If we are not told the truth, we cannot act rightly - and since we do not act rightly, this explains why much of the world hates a nation they once admired. Almost all of it can be laid at the feet of a sleeping and increasingly lying "press" that shames the name of Journalism.

Of course, the corruptions and stupidity of our corpagovernment is exemplified even further by this article. After making Iraq a debacle it didn't need to be, they are going to cut back services to wounded troops:

From a Tri-City Herald opinion: "As the older veterans go gray after their service to their country and the young ones come home from Iraq and Afghanistan, some bloodied, some sick, the Veterans Affairs bureaucracy in Washington, D.C., pushes ahead with its mad determination to cut medical services... Almost 3,500 American servicemen and women have been wounded in Iraq since the beginning of hostilities. The fatality count earlier this week stood at 686 for the same period. In just the past two weeks, 80 American service personnel were killed and 560 wounded. Does this seem like the time to be shutting veterans' hospitals? Of course not...But with the national debt climbing and staggering budget deficits, this is where the most severe cuts are being made: Closing hospitals for those who gave
and are giving so much for their country."

Webmaster's comment:

The massive hypocrisy in this is that I am now seeing political ads by the Administration bemoaning the fact that their opposition wanted to cut money for the troops when they have been stealthily doing just that for the last year or more. I see this crap about our troops not getting enough body armor or armored Humvees. Guess who Does get first class body armor and armored Humvees? The paid mercenaries and thugs who work for Halliburton. But then Halliburton is all about oil and so is this war.

They're also cutting nutritional support for low-income for pregnant women and medical care for children - stuff like that. Only the tax cut for billionaires is not being cut. Let's have a sense of priorities, after all. Those poor, suffereing billionaires need all the help the government can give them. Then, I recall a news report that 60% of the biggest corporations paid no tax at all during the boom years, while the IRS was going after people who were barely above the poverty level - wrecking small businesses as they allowed the largest and most corrupt ones, like Unum, to flourish in this nation while paying nada for the privilege of being here.



Corporate Front Group Claims States' Efforts to Restrict Outsourcing is 'Unconstitutional'

This press release is designed to sound as if a horde of legal analysts, acting in the best interests of state governments, are warning against legislation to restrict outsourcing. But look more closely. The group, the National Foundation for American Policy is yet another corporate front group whose sole aim is to promote the exploitation of cheap labor under the guise of "free market" principles. Look even more closely and you will see that the three top "advisors" to NFAP are Stuart Anderson, who formerly worked with Spencer Abraham and was a director at the Cato Institute; Jagdish Bhagwati, a media propagandist born and raised in India (home of most outsourced labor), and Cesar Conda , who served as Vice President Dick Cheney's principal adviser on domestic and economic policy issues. 'Nuff
said! See

Webmaster's comments: For years I've been warning people to be Very careful what they endorse or the "citizen's" groups they join or whose info they pass on. So many of them are total frauds - corporate masks. That's especially true of all those petitions you sign. If you read them carefully they often do the opposite of what you think they will. Unless you know about an actual petition that is for something you believe in, avoid signing "good sounding" petitions. You may very well be signing something against your interests and your principles. One good test is to ask the petitioner about the petition. If it's a Real citizens' group the petitioner knows something about it and may even speak passionately. If it's a corporate front group they've hired some part time housewives to stand there,
and the petitioner, on questioning, won't be able to explain a lot beyond the buzz words they've been given. They'll be especially vague on what Group is supporting the petition. And by "group" I don't mean they just say, "Oh, Americans for Fair Business" and you let it go. What in hell does that mean? "Americans for Fair Business" could be an outpost for Osama bin Laden for all you know.



19,600 BCE -
The earliest clear peak in geological and ice core records indicating
a cycle of geological stresses, and vulcanism and global climate
changes with a period of approx. 3600 years. The N & S ice cores
show significant differences.

Cf. also, 16,000 BCE, 12,400 BCE, 8,800 BCE, 5,200 BCE, 1,600 BCE.
If you are counting, that means possible repeat performance somewhere
around 2000 CE. Possible, is an asteroid or cometary cycle with
significance in impacts; possible also is simply a geological
period of some other sort.

From Bill Hammel


[email protected] writes:

Schwarzenegger Wins Workers' Comp Reform

His WORKER COMP reform is to continue to deny and delay. Now he has the
legislative stamp of approval. No regulation on insurers. The small business
community lost and they're the ones who pay full premium. The self insured will get
all the money as they have been thanks to Ex-Governor Pete (the mean) Wilson
who is top staff to Arnold.

SCIF is responsible to no one and they will keep
from having to pay benefits as they have in the past and no one has the
authority to hold them accountable along with their partner Kaiser-KPMG who will
continue to get all the medical and will help with the further demise of the health
for injured workers as they have done on other patients. No enforcement what
OTHER INSURER AND HMO. The crooks get to keep stealing and beating. Since there is no regulation who will they blame next on for increased rates?

The only regulation that was enacted was turning the screw tighter and
deeper in the injured workers back.

Dina Padilla
President of Voices-Ca. Chapter
7564 Watson Way
Citrus Hgts. Ca-95610

Webmaster's comments: Why is it every time I hear about "reform" in government, it usually means some corporate-inspired plan to screw the citizens? Or am I just becoming cynical?





This is an excellent article that answers a lot of questions about who actually holds power in America and why they really do what they do. I seldom broadcast articles but this seemed worth it. It takes a great linguist to see through the web of lies put out by the government and both parties, and the fog of propaganda that the corporate media then lays over the lies, making them even harder to discern. If you have an argument with it, write Chomsky, not me ;')

If you believe that the media is lying and the government is lying and the legislatures and courts are corrupt and democracy has been perverted by corporate power, as I do and as Chomsky does, you may see the truth in it, even if you disagree with some particulars.

Jim Mooney, webmaster

An interview with Noam Chomsky
by Hawzheen O. Kareem and Noam Chomsky
Komal Newspaper
January 02, 2004

- As an opponent to USA policies, which political wing do you belong to?

If you mean Democrat or Republican, the answer is: Neither. It has often been pointed out by political scientists that the US is basically a one-party state -- the business party. with two factions, Democrats and Republicans. Most of the population seems to agree. A very high percentage, sometimes passing 80%, believe that the government serves "the few and the special interests," not "the people."

In the contested 2000 election, about 75% regarded it as mostly a farce having nothing to do with them, a game played by rich contributors, party bosses, and the public relations industry, which trained candidates to say mostly meaningless things that might pick up some votes. This was BEFORE the actual election, with the accusations of fraud and selection of Bush with a minority of the popular vote. I tend to agree with the majority of the population on these matters, and believe there is a significant task ahead to create a more democratic culture, in which elections are far more meaningful and there is also meaningful ongoing political participation by the general population.

More serious political scientists in the mainstream describe the US not as a "democracy" but as a "polyarchy": a system of elite decision and periodic public ratification. There is surely much truth to the conclusion of the leading American social philosopher of the 20th century, John Dewey, whose main work was on democracy, that until there is democratic control of the primary economic institutions, politics will be "the shadow cast on society by big business."

- What are the goals of the American existence in the Iraq and Middle East?

The primary goal, uncontroversially, is to control the immense energy reserves of the Persian Gulf region, Iraq included. That has been a prime concern of the Western industrial powers since the time when Iraq was created by the British, to ensure that Iraqi oil reserves would be in British hands and the newly-created state of Iraq would be barred from free access to the Gulf. At that time the US was not a leading actor in world affairs. But after World War II, the US was by far the dominant world power, and control of Middle East energy reserves became a leading foreign policy goal, as it had been for its predecessors. In the 1940s, US planners recognized that (in their words) Gulf energy resources are "a stupendous source of strategic power" and "one of the greatest material prizes in world
history." Naturally, they intended to control it -- though for many years they did not make much use of it themselves, and in the future, according to US intelligence, the US itself will rely on more stable Atlantic Basin resources (West Africa and the Western hemisphere).

Nevertheless, it remains a very high priority to control the Gulf resources, which are expected to provide 2/3 of world energy needs for some time to come. Quite apart from yielding "profits beyond the dreams of avarice," as one leading history of the oil industry puts the matter, the region still remains "a stupendous source of strategic power," a lever of world control. Control over Gulf energy reserves provides "veto power" over the actions of rivals, as the leading planner George Kennan pointed out half a century ago.

Europe and Asia understand very well, and have long been seeking independent access to energy resources. Much of the jockeying for power in the Middle East and Central Asia has to do with these issues. The populations of the region are regarded as incidental, as long as they are passive and obedient. Few know this as well as the Kurds, at least if they remember their own history.

US planners surely intend to establish a client state in Iraq, with democratic forms if that is possible, if only for propaganda purposes. But Iraq is to be what the British, when they ran the region, called an "Arab facade," with British power in the background if the country seeks too much independence. That is a familiar part of the history of the region for the past century.

It is also the way the US has run its own domains in the Western hemisphere for a century. There is no indication whatsoever of any miraculous change. The US occupying forces have imposed on Iraq an economic program that no sovereign country would ever accept: it virtually guarantees that the Iraqi economy will be taken over by Western (mostly US) multinational corporations and banks. It is a policy that has been disastrous for the countries on which it has been imposed; in fact, such policies are a prime reason for the current sharp difference between today's wealthy countries and their former colonies.

There is, of course, always a domestic sector that enriches itself by collaborating in running the "facade." So far, the oil industry has been excluded from foreign takeover, because that would be too blatant. But it is likely to follow, when attention turns elsewhere. Furthermore, Washington has already announced that it intends to impose a "status of forces agreement" that will grant the US the right to maintain military forces in Iraq and, crucially, military bases, the first stable US military bases right at the heart of the world's major energy reserves.

- As an expert in American history and policy is it suitable for Kurds to put their hope and trust completely in American project in Iraq?

You know better than I the famous Kurdish saying about putting trust in anyone. It holds for others as well, but Kurds familiar with their own history need no reminders of how they were sold out by the US in 1975, left to be massacred by the US client state in Iran, and how the people who are now in charge in Washington fully supported Saddam Hussein right through his worst atrocities and long after the war with Iran was over, for reasons that the Bush I administration declared quite openly: its responsibility to support US exporters, though they added the usual rhetoric about how supporting their friend Saddam would contribute to human rights and "stability."

These same people -- now back in power in Washington -- also supported Saddam when he crushed the 1991 uprising that might have overthrown the tyrant, and again explained why. One can read in the New York Times that the "best of all worlds" for the US would be an "iron-fisted military junta" that would rule Iraq just the way Saddam did, and that Saddam offers more hope for Iraq's "stability" than those who seek to overthrow him. They now pretend to be outraged by the mass graves in the South and the Halabja atrocities, but that is pure and transparent fraud, as we can see by looking at how they acted when the atrocities occurred.

Of course they knew all about them, but did not care. And with all the later pretense about the Halabja massacre, how much medical aid have they provided for the victims over the past decade? Furthermore, this has nothing particular to do with the United States. That is, unfortunately, the standard way in which power systems operate, secure in the knowledge that the intellectual classes at home will construct a suitable cover of high ideals. That has even been true of the worst mass murderers: Hitler, the Japanese fascists, and for that matter Saddam Hussein.

For the weak to put their trust in systems of power is simply to ask for catastrophe. They may choose to cooperate with powerful states, but if so, they should do so without illusions. And again, no one knows this better than the Kurds, not just those in Iraq but in Turkey and elsewhere.

- USA did not find mass destruction weapons in Iraq and it is now talking about realizing democracy in the Middle East, will this project be successful, and will that democracy be a real one? Having failed to discover weapons of mass destruction, Washington shifted its propaganda to "establishing democracy." That flatly refutes their earlier claim that the "only question" was whether Saddam would disarm. But with a sufficiently obedient intellectual class, and loyal media, the farce can proceed untroubled. To evaluate the new propaganda claim, a rational person would ask how those who know proclaim their "yearning for democracy" have in fact acted, and act today, when their interests are at stake.

I will not run through the record, but those who are interested in evaluating these claims should certainly do so. They will discover that "democracy" is tolerated, but only when it is a "top-down form of democracy" in which elites who collaborate with US business and state interests retain control -- I happen to be quoting from one of the leading authorities on Latin American democracy, who writes as an insider, having served in the "democracy enhancement" programs of the Reagan administration, which devastated Central America, and left a trail of horror in the Middle East and southern Africa as well. Furthermore, the same policies are pursued today, without the slightest change. Is the US bringing democracy to Uzbekistan? Or to Equatorial Guinea, also ruled by a monster comparable to Saddam
Hussein, but warmly welcomed by the Bush White House because he sits on a very large pool of oil.

Take Paul Wolfowitz, described by the propaganda system as the leading "visionary" seeking democracy, whose "heart bleeds" for the suffering of poor Muslims. Presumably that explains why he was one of the leading apologists for General Suharto of Indonesia, one of the great mass murderers and torturers of the modern era, and continued to praise him well into 1997, just before he was overthrown by an internal revolt. It is all too easy to continue.

For the rich and powerful, illusions about themselves are satisfying and convenient. Many find it quite pleasant to lavish praise on themselves, a major role of intellectuals, throughout history. For the weak and defenseless, faith in illusions is not a wise course -- as the victims of centuries of imperial practice should certainly understand.

- Is the current war of the USA to protect its national security legitimate? How do you consider USA national security? US national security is threatened only by terror and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) -- which, sooner or later, are likely to be combined, perhaps with horrifying consequences. US and other intelligence agencies, and independent foreign policy analysts, predicted that the invasion of Iraq would lead to an increase in terror and proliferation of WMD, and their predictions have already been verified. The reasons are obvious.

The world dominant power announced its intention to attack anyone it wishes, without credible pretext or international authorization, in the National Security Strategy of September 2002. It then moved at once to undertake an "exemplary action" to demonstrate to the world that it means exactly what it said, invading an important country that it knew of course to be virtually defenseless.

Watching this, potential targets do not say: "thank you, please cut my throat." Rather, they turn to means of deterrence, and sometimes revenge. No one can compete in military force with the US, which spends about as much as the rest of the world combined. But the weak do have weapons: namely, terror and WMD. That is the reason for the near-universal predictions on the part of experts that terror and WMD would be stimulated by the declaration of the National Security Strategy, and by the Iraq invasion.

The Bush administration understands this as well as intelligence agencies and independent analysts. They do not prefer to harm US national security and subject the population to severe threats. It is simply not a high priority for them, as compared with others: dominating the world, and pursuing a radical reactionary domestic program aimed at dismantling the progressive legislation of the past century that was designed to protect the general population from the ravages of market systems.

They also want a very powerful state: as soon as they took office, they increased government expenditures (relative to the economy) to the highest level since the first time they held power, 20 years earlier, in the Reagan administration. But the powerful state they want to nourish is to serve the interests of the rich and privileged, not the general population. And the international and domestic goals, in their eyes, are far more important than security, or even survival. There is nothing novel about that. Again, those who know some history will recognize that political leaders quite often choose the risk of catastrophe in pursuit of power, domination, and wealth.

- To what extent does the USA seek international legitimacy and agreements?

For a long time the US has shown disdain for the Security Council, the World Court, and international law and institutions generally. That is not in the least controversial. But this administration is so extreme in its contempt for international law and institutions that it has even been subjected to unprecedented condemnation by the foreign policy elite. Furthermore, it is all so open and brazen that there is really no need to discuss the topic.

- Were the UN and other international organizations successful in protecting their independence?

Obviously not. The Bush administration informed the UN a year ago that it could be "relevant" by following US orders, or it could be a debating society (as Colin Powell put it). That continued, and continues today, not just in the case of Iraq. Keeping only to the Middle East, the US has continued its practice of the past 30 years of protecting its client state of Israel by vetoing Security Council resolutions and blocking General Assembly resolutions, and of course by providing military aid and economic support for its client state to continue its programs of integrating the valuable parts of the West Bank within Israel.

That is one of the reasons why the US has been far in the lead in vetoing Security Council resolutions (UK second, no one else even close), since the 1960s, when the UN was beginning to be somewhat independent of US domination as a result of decolonization and the recovery of the industrial powers from the war. It is not of course the only reason. The US also vetoes Security Council resolutions on a host of other issues, including even a call for all states to observe international law -- not mentioning the US, though everyone understood to whom it was directed.

- You considered USA as a leader of the terrorists, why? and to what extent could it protect human values?

I have not called the US "a leader of the terrorists," but I have documented in detail the long and horrendous record of US terrorist acts and crucial support for the terrorism of its clients. In reviewing this record, I use the official US government definition of the term "terrorism." But few are willing to use the official definitions, because this is the consequence that follows at once.

If you are not convinced, look at the ample documentation -- including the history of the Kurds, running right to the present, though the crucial US support for state terror against the Kurds was primarily in Turkey in the 1990s, when Turkey became the leading recipient of US military aid (aside from Israel and Egypt) as it was driving millions of Kurds from the devastated countryside, killing tens of thousands, and carrying out every imaginable kind of barbarism, some of the worst crimes of the terrible 1990s, right near you.

I have personally seen some of the results, in the miserable slums of Istanbul to which refugees were driven, in the city walls of Diyarbakir where they attempt to survive, and elsewhere. But surely you must know all of that, right next door. And that is only a very small part of the story, and omits the direct implementation of terrorist atrocities. About that there is a long and ugly record.

In fact, the US is alone in having been condemned by the World Court for what amounts to international terrorism, in its attack against Nicaragua. The Court ordered the Reagan administration -- those now in power again in Washington -- to terminate its terrorist war against Nicaragua. Of course the administration disregarded the Court order, at once escalating the terrorist war, and vetoing Security Council resolutions supporting the Court judgment. The US is not alone in these practices, by any means. Rather generally, such practices run roughly in parallel with the power to commit the crimes. Again, that is familiar to the victims over the centuries, or at least should be.

Can systems of power protect human values?

Certainly they can, and sometimes they do, the US included. This happens when protecting human values serves power interests, or when an aroused citizenry demands it. Both of those factors were responsible for US protection of Iraqi Kurds in the 1990s, while at the same time the US was providing the decisive military and diplomatic support for the atrocious repression of the Kurds across the border -- though the population of the US was and remains unaware of these crimes; the massive evidence was suppressed by the media and the intellectual classes, as is commonly the case.

- In some of your works you said that there is no hope of a better future since USA power is progressing, why are you a pessimistic man? Does that mean that the American model will not be successful?

I never say that. Rather, the opposite. There is great hope for a better future, and to create it should be a primary commitment for people in the US, the West generally, and the rest of the world. And there are very hopeful signs, which I constantly stress.

As for the "American model," it depends what you mean. The people of the United States have many wonderful achievements to their credit: protection of freedom of speech, for example, is unique in the world, to my knowledge, and many other rights have been won. These have not been gifts from above, but the result of dedicated popular struggle. If that is the model you have in mind, I hope it will be more successful, in the US and elsewhere.

If by the "American model" you mean what is proclaimed in the Bush National Security Strategy and implemented in practice, or the neoliberal economic model that is designed to transfer control of most of the world to transnational corporations linked to one another and to a few powerful states -- what the international business press calls "the de facto world government" -- then I certainly hope it will not be successful, as should we all.

- To what extent is media and propaganda successful in making American citizens follow the policies of their government? Could the opponents of that policy reach their voice to others?

It varies. Take, for example, the invasion of Iraq. The invasion was virtually announced in September 2002, along with the National Security Strategy. That was followed by a massive government/media propaganda campaign that quickly drove large parts of US opinion completely off the international spectrum.

A majority came to believe that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to the US, that he was responsible for the crimes of September 11 2001 and was planning new atrocities in cooperation with Al Qaeda, etc. Those beliefs were closely correlated with support for the invasion, not surprisingly. They were known at once to be completely false, but it did not matter: lies proclaimed loudly and incessantly become a Higher Truth.

Nevertheless, the propaganda campaign was only partially successful. Protest against the invasion reached levels beyond anything in the history of Europe or the United States. When the US attacked South Vietnam in 1962 -- as it did, uncontroversially -- there was no protest at all. Protest did not begin to reach a serious level for 4-5 years; by then South Vietnam, the main target of the US attack, had been virtually destroyed, and the aggression had spread to most of Indochina. For the first time in the history of the West, there was enormous protest against the invasion of Iraq even before the war was officially declared. That is only one of many examples of how power systems have lost control of good parts of the population. The worldwide global justice movements, which are also unprecedented,
are another striking example. And there are many more.

- Some criticize you as the most militant American among those who are opponents to Israel, some say that you, as a Jew, hate yourself. How does it come about that you criticize Israel in such manner?

The charges are interesting. Those who know the Bible know their origins. The charges trace back to King Ahab, who was the epitome of evil in the Bible. King Ahab condemned the Prophet Elijah as a hater of Israel. The flatterers at King Ahab's court agreed. Elijah was a "self-hating Jew," to borrow the terminology of the contemporary flatterers at the court, because he was criticizing the policies of the King and calling for justice and respect for human rights. Similar charges were familiar in the old Soviet Union: dissidents were condemned for hating Russia. And there are other examples in military dictatorships and totalitarian states. Such criticisms reflect deeply held totalitarian values.

For a dedicated totalitarian, ruling powers are to be identified with the people, the culture, and the society. Israel is King Ahab Russia is the Kremlin. For totalitarians, criticism of state policy is criticism of the country and its people. For those who have any concern for democracy and freedom, such charges are merely farcical. If an Italian critic of Berlusconi were condemned as "anti-Italian," or as a "self-hating Italian," it would elicit ridicule in Rome or Milan, though it was possible in the days of Mussolini's Fascism. It is particularly interesting when such attitudes are expressed in free societies, as in the case of those you are quoting.

In fact, I do not particularly criticize Israel, but I do strongly criticize the crucial role of the US -- my country, after all -- in supporting barbaric crimes of its client state, and barring a peaceful political settlement along the lines that have been supported by virtually the entire world since the 1970s. For the totalitarian mentality, this is "hating Israel," or "hating the United States." King Ahab and the flatterers at his court, the Kremlin and its commissars, and others who call for abject submission to power will doubtless agree. Those who treasure freedom, justice, and human rights will follow a different path, as throughout history.


Please support our cause if you feel this is important work. It is not easy to expose a multibillion dollar industry or help its victims with little resources. Send donations or subscription payment to:

James Mooney
PMB # 106
4495-304 Roosevelt Blvd
Jacksonville, FL 32210-3381

OR Via Paypal at: https://[email protected]

Jim Mooney, webmaster:

UNUM'S SECRET "DESTROYED" CLAIMS MANUALS NOW AVAILABLE - Email [email protected] for details.


"Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day." Theodore Roosevelt, April 19, 1906


See what America's Reading!

Corporate Crimefighters of America was delivered to you by Zinester.

Archived Issues:

Share this topic:

  • 5 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users