ACT K AGREEMENT COILERS TARIFF Kleptocracy Attorney General Recluse Elitist Establishment Mandatory Edict Neglect Tacit Conflict

of Interest Legislated Eminence Recused Self-evident Tortfeaser Accountably Responsible Imminent Fiduciary Finale Kleptocracy Facts must have root 2 take root God Coherency "Catch 22" must have semblance 2 catch doG chase tail http://www.scribd.com/doc/112431371/Would-a-Government-Appointed-Court-of-CompetentJurisdiction-Independent-Judiciary-Be-Appropriate-to-Protect-Us-From-Appropriating-Governments

www.McFrauds.com
http://www.scribd.com/doc/105694093/RCMP-Sarge-States-Apparently-I-Thought-Were-ActuallyGoing-to-Investigate-Government-Corruption-as-Per-Complaint The role has been referred to as

"judicial-like"
and as the

"guardian of the public interest".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Act,_1982 The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a bill of rights. The Charter is intended to protect certain political and civil rights of people in Canada

****from****
the policies and actions of all levels of government. OJ Obstruct Justice The Attorney General does not, however, direct or cause charges to be laid. While the Attorney General and the Attorney General's agents may provide legal advice to the police, the ultimate decision whether or not to lay charges is for the police. Once the charge is laid

the decision
as to whether the prosecution should proceed, and in what manner, is for the Attorney General and the Crown Attorney.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest A conflict of interest (COI) occurs when an individual or organization is involved in multiple interests, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation for an act in the other. The presence of a conflict of interest is independent from the execution of impropriety.

Therefore, a conflict of interest can be discovered and voluntarily defused before any corruption occurs.
A widely used definition is: A conflict of interest is a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgment or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest.[1] Primary interest refers to the principal goals of the profession or activity, such as the protection of clients, the health of patients, the integrity of research, and the duties of public office. Secondary interest includes not only financial gain but also such motives as the desire for professional advancement and the wish to do favors for family and friends, but conflict of interest rules usually focus on financial relationships because they are relatively more objective, fungible, and quantifiable. The secondary interests are not treated as wrong in themselves, but become objectionable when they are believed to have greater weight than the primary interests. The conflict in a conflict of interest exists whether or not a particular individual is actually influenced by the secondary interest. It exists if the circumstances are reasonably believed (on the basis of past experience and objective evidence) to create a risk that decisions may be unduly influenced by secondary interests. William K. Black insists that "Conflicts of interest matter."[2] In the run up to the Savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and early 1990s, control frauds like Charles Keating were able to get legislators like Speaker of the House Jim Wright, the Keating Five Senators and majorities in both the US House and Senate to suppress investigations of massive criminality until their Ponzi schemes finally collapses. Only then did citizen pressure and media involvement force political action. Then regulators filed thousands of criminal referrals that translated into over a thousand felony convictions. The current foreclosure and Subprime mortgage crisis is similar to the run up to the S&L crisis with zero criminal referrals and zero prosecutions of key finance executives. Black calls this the de

facto decriminalization of elite financial fraud.[3]

As with the S&L crisis, the current situation is facilitated by conflicts of interest in the media and the US system of privately funded political campaigns. Contents [hide] 1 Conflicts of interest related to the practice of law 2 Conflicts of interest generally (unrelated to the practice of law) 3 Organizational conflict of interest 4 Relationship to medical research 5 Types of conflicts of interests 6 Examples 2

6.1 Environmental Hazards and Human Health 6.2 Self-Policing 6.3 Insurance Claims Adjusters 6.4 Purchasing Agents and Sales Personnel 6.5 Governmental Officials 6.6 Finance Industry and Elected Officials 6.7 Finance Industry and economists 6.8 Media 7 Ways to mitigate conflicts of interests 7.1 Removal 7.2 Disclosure 7.3 Recusal 7.4 Third-party evaluations 8 See also 9 External links 10 Further reading 11 References [edit]Conflicts of interest related to the practice of law Professional responsibility Duties to the client Confidentiality Avoiding conflict of interest Diligence and competence Avoid commingling Avoid self-dealing Effective assistance Avoid fee splitting Withdrawal from representation Duties to the court Disclosure of perjury Disclosure of adverse authority Duties to the profession Limitations on legal advertising Report misconduct Sources of law ABA Model Rules Penalties for misconduct Disbarment Judicial misconduct v t e

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

Outline Theory History Positivism Antipositivism Functionalism Conflict theory Middle-range Mathematical Critical theory Socialization Structure and agency Research methods Quantitative Qualitative Historical Computational Ethnographic Network analytic 4

Topics Subfields Cities Class Crime Culture Deviance Demography Education Economy Environment Family Gender Health Industry Internet Knowledge Law Literature Medicine Politics Mobility Race and ethnicity Rationalization Religion Science Secularization Social networks Social psychology Stratification More generally, conflicts of interest can be defined as any situation in which an individual or corporation (either private or governmental) is in a position to exploit a professional or official capacity in some way for their personal or corporate benefit. Depending upon the law or rules related to a particular organization, the existence of a conflict of interest may not, in and of itself, be evidence of wrongdoing. In fact, for many professionals, it is virtually impossible to avoid having conflicts of interest from time to time. A conflict of interest can, however, become a legal matter for example when an individual tries (and/or succeeds in) influencing the outcome of a decision, for personal benefit. A director or executive of a corporation will be subject to legal liability if a conflict of interest breaches his/her Duty of Loyalty. There often is confusion over these two situations. Someone accused of a conflict of interest may deny that a conflict exists because he/she did not act improperly. In fact, a conflict of interest can exist even if there are no improper acts as a result of it. (One way to understand this is to use the term "conflict of roles". A person with two rolesan individual who owns stock and is also a government official, for examplemay experience situations where those two roles conflict. The conflict can be mitigated see belowbut it still exists. In and of itself, having two roles is not illegal, but the differing roles will certainly provide an incentive for improper acts in some circumstances.) As an example, in the sphere of business and control, according to the Institute of Internal Auditors: conflict of interest is a situation in which an internal auditor, who is in a position of trust, has a competing professional or personal interest. Such competing interests can make it difficult to fulfill his or her duties impartially. A conflict of interest exists even if no unethical or improper act results. A conflict of interest can create an appearance of impropriety that can undermine confidence in the internal auditor, the internal audit activity, and the profession. A conflict of interest could impair an individual's ability to perform his or her duties and responsibilities objectively.[5][6] [edit]Organizational conflict of interest An organizational conflict of interest (OCI) may exist in the same way as described above, in the realm of the private sector providing services to the Government, where a corporation provides two types of services to the Government that have conflicting interest or appear objectionable (i.e.: manufacturing parts and then participating on a selection committee comparing parts manufacturers). Corporations may develop simple or complex systems to mitigate the risk or perceived risk of a conflict of interest. These risks are typically evaluated by a governmental office (for example, in a US Government RFP) to determine whether the risks pose a substantial advantage to the private organization over the competition or will decrease the overall competitiveness in the bidding process. 5

[edit]Relationship to medical research The influence of the pharmaceutical industry on medical research has been a major cause for concern. In 2009 a study found that "a number of academic institutions" do not have clear guidelines for relationships between Institutional Review Boards and industry.[7] [edit]Types of conflicts of interests The following are the most common forms of conflicts of interests: Self-dealing, in which an official who controls an organization causes it to enter into a transaction with the official, or with another organization that benefits the official. The official is on both sides of the "deal." Outside employment, in which the interests of one job contradict another. Family interests, in which a spouse, child, or other close relative is employed (or applies for employment) or where goods or services are purchased from such a relative or a firm controlled by a relative. For this reason, many employment applications ask if one is related to a current employee. If this is the case, the relative could then recuse from any hiring decisions. Abuse of this type of conflict of interest is called nepotism. Gifts from friends who also do business with the person receiving the gifts. (Such gifts may include non-tangible things of value such as transportation and lodging.) Pump and dump, in which a stock broker who owns a security artificially inflates the price by "upgrading" it or spreading rumors, sells the security and adds short position, then "downgrades" the security or spreads negative rumors to push the price down. Other improper acts that are sometimes classified as conflicts of interests are probably better classified elsewhere. Accepting bribes can be classified as corruption; almost everyone in a position of authority, particularly public authority, has the potential for such wrongdoing. Similarly, use of government or corporate property or assets for personal use is fraud, and classifying this as a conflict of interest does not improve the analysis of this problem. Nor should unauthorized distribution of confidential information, in itself, be considered a conflict of interest. For these improper acts, there is no inherent conflict of roles (see above), unless being a (fallible) human being rather than (say) a robot in a position of power or authority is considered to be a conflict. COI is sometimes termed competition of interest rather than "conflict", emphasizing a connotation of natural competition between valid interests rather than violent conflict with its connotation of victimhood and unfair aggression. Nevertheless, denotatively, there is too much overlap between the terms to make any objective differentiation. [edit]Examples [edit]Environmental Hazards and Human Health Baker[8] summarized 176 studies of the potential impact of Bisphenol A on human health as follows: [9] Funding Harm No Harm Industry Independent (e.g., government) 0 13 (100%)

152 (86%) 11 (14%)

Lessig [10] noted that this does not mean that the funding source influenced the results. However, it does raise questions about the validity of the industry-funded studies specifically, because the researchers conducting those studies have a conflict of interest; they are subject at minimum to a natural human inclination to please the people who paid for their work. Lessig provided a similar summary of 326 studies of the potential harm from cell phone usage with results that were similar but not as stark.[11]

[edit]Self-Policing Self-policing of any group is also a conflict of interest. If any organization, such as a corporation or government bureaucracy, is asked to eliminate unethical behavior within their own group, it may be in their interest in the short run to eliminate the appearance of unethical behavior, rather than the behavior itself, by keeping any ethical breaches hidden, instead of exposing and correcting them. An exception occurs when the ethical breach is already known by the public. In that case, it could be in the group's interest to end the ethical problem to which the public has knowledge, but keep remaining breaches hidden. [edit]Insurance Claims Adjusters Insurance companies retain claims adjusters to represent their interest in adjusting claims. It is in the best interest of the insurance companies that the very smallest settlement is reached with its claimants. Based on the adjuster's experience and knowledge of the insurance policy it is very easy for the adjuster to convince an unknowing claimant to settle for less than what they may otherwise be entitled which could be a larger settlement. There is always a very good chance of a conflict of interest to exist when one adjuster tries to represent both sides of a financial transaction such as an insurance claim. This problem is exacerbated when the claimant is told, or believes, the insurance company's claims adjuster is fair and impartial enough to satisfy both theirs and the insurance company's interests. These types of conflicts could be easily be avoided by the use of disclosures. [edit]Purchasing Agents and Sales Personnel A person working as the equipment purchaser for a company may get a bonus proportionate to the amount he's under budget by year end. However, this becomes an incentive for him to purchase inexpensive, substandard equipment. Therefore, this is counter to the interests of those in his company who must actually use the equipment. W. Edwards Deming listed "purchasing on price alone" as number 4 of his famous 14 points, and he often said things to the effect that "He who purchases on price alone deserves to get rooked." [edit]Governmental Officials Regulating conflict of interest in government is one of the aims of political ethics. Public officials are expected to put service to the public and their constituents ahead of their personal interests. Conflict of interest rules are intended to prevent officials from making decisions in circumstances that could reasonably be perceived as violating this duty of office. Rules in the executive branch tend to be stricter and easier to enforce than in the legislative branch.[12] Two problems make legislative ethics of conflicts difficult and distinctive.[13] First, as James Madison wrote, legislators should share a "communion of interests" with their constituents. Legislators cannot adequately represent the interests of constituents without also representing some of their own. As Senator Robert S. Kerr once said, "I represent the farmers of Oklahoma, although I have large farm interests. I represent the oil business in 7

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

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

www.RCMP.cc Mulroney a Prime Example This practice is called the Revolving door. Former legislators and regulators are accused of (a) using inside information for their new employers or (b) compromising laws and regulations in hopes of securing lucrative employment in the private sector. This possibility creates a conflict of interest for all public officials whose future may depend on the Revolving door. [edit]Finance Industry and Elected Officials Conflicts of interest among elected officials is part of the story behind the increase in the percent of US corporate domestic profits captured by the finance industry depicted in that accompanying figure. Finance as a Percent of US Domestic Corporate Profit (Finance includes banks, securities and insurance. In 1932-1933, the total US domestic corporate profit was negative. However, the financial sector made a profit in those years, which made its percentage negative, below 0 and off the scale in this plot.) industry averaged 13.8% of US domestic corporate profit. 23.5%. From 2000 through 2010, it averaged 32.6%. Some increased efficiency from banking consolidation and that benefit consumers. However, if most consumers had they did not understand, e.g., negative amortization loans, been as profitable as it has been, and the Late-2000s postponed. Stiglitz [18] noted that the Late-2000s recession acted greedily because they had incentives and opportunities innovating to make consumer financial products like retail as complicated as possible to make it easy for them to shop carefully for financial services typically find better the major banks. However, few consumers think to do that. financial industry profits. However, a major portion of this increase and a driving been the corrosive effect of money in politics, giving a conflict of interest, because if they protect the public, they which contributed $1.7 billion to political campaigns and on lobbying from 1998 to 2008.[19][20] [21] To be conservative, suppose we attribute only the increase the recent 32.6% average to governmental actions subject to $1.7 billion in campaign contributions. That's 9% of the $3 finance industry during that period or $270 billion. This each $1 invested in political campaigns and lobbying for From 1934 through 1985, the finance Between 1986 and 1999, it averaged of this increase is doubtless due to innovations in new financial products refused to accept financial products the finance industry would not have recession might have been avoided or was created in part because, "Bankers to do so". They did this in part by banking services and home mortgages charge higher fees. Consumers who options than the primary offerings of This explains part of this increase in force behind Late-2000s recession has legislators and the President of the US will offend the finance industry, spent $3.4 billion ($5.1 billion total) from 23.5% of 1986 through 1999 to conflicts of interest created by the trillion in profits claimed by the represents a return of over $50 for that industry. (This $270 billion 9

represents almost $1,000 for every many, woman and child in the US.) There is hardly any place outside of politics with such a high return on investment in such a short time. [edit]Finance Industry and economists Economists (unlike other professions such as sociologists) do not formally subscribe to a professional ethical code. Close to 300 economists have signed a letter urging theAmerican Economic Association (the disciplines foremost professional body), to adopt such a code. The signatories include George Akerlof, a Nobel laureate, and Christina Romer, who headed Barack Obamas Council of Economic Advisers.[22] This call for a code of ethics was supported by the public attention the documentary Inside Job (winner of an Academy Award) drew to the consulting relationships of several influential economists.[23] This documentary focused on conflicts that may arise when economists publish results or provide public recommendation on topics that affect industries or companies with which they have financial links. Critics of the profession argue, for example, that it is no coincidence that financial economists, many of whom were engaged as consultants by Wall Street firms, were opposed to regulating the financial sector.[24] In response to criticism that the profession not only failed to predict the 2007-2008 financial crisis but may actually have helped create it, the American Economic Association has adopted new rules in 2012 : economists will have to disclose financial ties and other potential conflicts of interest in papers published in academic journals. Backers argue such disclosures will help restore faith in the profession by increasing transparency which will help in assessing economists' advice.[25] [edit]Media Any media organization has a conflict of interest in discussing anything that may impact its ability to communicate as it wants with its audience. For example, the Wikimedia Foundation has a conflict of interest in discussing the Stop Online Piracy Act or any other legislation or governmental action that could impact its ability to deliver content to its intended audience. The business model of commercial media organizations (i.e., any that accept advertising) is selling behavior change in their audience to advertisers.[26][27][28] However, few in their audience are aware of the conflict of interest between the profit motive and the altruistic desire to serve the public and "give the audience what it wants." Many major advertisers test their ads in various ways to measure the return on investment in advertising. Advertising rates are set as a function of the size and spending habits of the audience as measured by the Nielsen Ratings. Media action expressing this conflict of interest is evident in the reaction of Rupert Murdoch, Chairman of News Corp., owner of Fox, to changes in data collection methodology adopted in 2004 by the Nielsen Company to more accurately measure viewing habits. The results corrected a previous overestimate of the market share of Fox. Murdoch reacted by getting leading politicians to denounce the Nielsen Ratings as racists. Susan Whiting, president and CEO of Nielsen Media Research, responded by quietly sharing Neilsen's data with her leading critics. The criticism disappeared, and Fox paid Nielsen's fees.[29] Murdoch had a conflict of interest between the reality of his market and his finances. Commercial media organization lose money if they provide content that offends either their audience or their advertisers. The substantial media consolidation that occurred since the 1980s has reduced the alternatives available to the audience, thereby making it easier for the ever larger companies in this increasingly oligopolistic industry to hide news and entertainment potentially offensive to advertisers without losing audience. If the media provide too much information on how congress spends its time, a major advertiser could be offended and could reduce their advertising expenditures with the offending 10

media company; indeed, this is one of the ways the market system has determined which companies won and which either went out of business or were purchased by others in this media consolidation. (Advertisers don't like to feed the mouth that bites them, and often don't. Similarly, commercial media organizations are not eager to bite the hand that feeds them.) Advertisers have been known to fund media organizations with editorial policies they find offensive if that media outlet provides access to a sufficiently attractive audience segment they cannot efficiently reach otherwise. Election years are a major boon to commercial broadcasters, because virtually all political advertising is purchased with minimal advance planning, paying therefore the highest rates. The commercial media have a conflict of interest in anything that could make it easier for candidates to get elected with less money.[27] Accompanying this trend in media consolidation has been a substantial reduction in investigative journalism,[27] reflecting this conflict of interest between the business objectives of the commercial media and the public's need to know what government is doing in their name. This change has been tied to substantial changes in law and culture in the US. To cite only one example, researchers have tied this decline in investigative journalism to an increased coverage of the "police blotter".[30] This has further been tied to the fact that the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Beyond this, virtually all commercial media companies own substantial quantities of copyrighted material. This gives them an inherent conflict of interest in any public policy issue affecting copyrights. McChesney noted that the commercial media have lobbied successfully for changes in copyright law that have led "to higher prices and a shrinking of the marketplace of ideas", increasing the power and profits of the large media corporations at public expense. One result of this is that "the people cease to have a means of clarifying social priorities and organizing social reform".[31] A free market has a mechanism for controlling abuses of power by media corporations: If their censorship becomes too egregious, they lose audience, which in turn reduces their advertising rates. However, the effectiveness of this mechanism has been substantially reduced over the past quarter century by "the changes in the concentration and integration of the media."[32] Would the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement have advanced to the point of generating substantial protests without the secrecy behind which that agreement was negotiatedand would the government attempts to sustain that secrecy have been as successful if the commercial media had not been a primary beneficiary and had not had a conflict of interest in suppressing discussion thereof? [edit]Ways to mitigate conflicts of interests [edit]Removal The best way to handle conflicts of interests is to avoid them entirely. For example, someone elected to political office might sell all corporate stocks that they own before taking office, and resign from all corporate boards. Or that person could move their corporate stocks to a special trust, which would be authorized to buy and sell without disclosure to the owner. (This is referred to as a "blind trust".) With such a trust, since the politician does not know in which companies they have investments, there should be no temptation to act to their advantage. [edit]Disclosure Commonly, politicians and high-ranking government officials are required to disclose financial information - assets such as stock, debts such as loans, and/or corporate positions held, typically annually. To protect privacy (to some extent), financial figures are often disclosed in ranges such as "$100,000 to $500,000" and "over $2,000,000". 11

Certain professionals are required either by rules related to their professional organization, or by statute, to disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest. In some instances, the failure to provide full disclosure is a crime. [edit] Those with a conflict of interest are expected to recuse themselves from (i.e., abstain from) decisions where such a conflict exists. The imperative for recusal varies depending upon the circumstance and profession, either as common sense ethics, codified ethics, or by statute. For example, if the governing board of a government agency is considering hiring a consulting firm for some task, and one firm being considered has, as a partner, a close relative of one of the board's members, then that board member should not vote on which firm is to be selected. In fact, to minimize any conflict, the board member should not participate in any way in the decision, including discussions. Judges are supposed to recuse themselves from cases when personal conflicts of interest may arise. For example, if a judge has participated in a case previously in some other judicial role he/she is not allowed to try that case. Recusal is also expected when one of the lawyers in a case might be a close personal friend, or when the outcome of the case might affect the judge directly, such as whether a car maker is obliged to recall a model that a judge drives. This is required by law under Continental civil law systems and by theRome Statute, organic law of the International Criminal Court. [edit]Third-party evaluations Consider a situation where the owner of a majority of a publicly held corporation decides to buy out the minority shareholders and take the corporation private. What is a fair price? Obviously it is improper (and, typically, illegal) for the majority owner to simply state a price and then have the (majority-controlled) board of directors approve that price. What is typically done is to hire an independent firm (a third party), well-qualified to evaluate such matters, to calculate a "fair price", which is then voted on by the minority shareholders. Third-party evaluations may also be used as proof that transactions were, in fact, fair ("arm's-length"). For example, a corporation that leases an office building that is owned by the CEO might get an independent evaluation showing what the market rate is for such leases in the locale, to address the conflict of interest that exists between the fiduciary duty of the CEO (to the stockholders, by getting the lowest rent possible) and the personal interest of that CEO (to maximize the income that the CEO gets from owning that office building by getting the highest rent possible). conclusion Generally, forbid conflicts of interests. Often, however, the specifics can be controversial. Should therapists, such as psychiatrists, be allowed to have extra-professional relations with patients, or ex-patients? Should a faculty member be allowed to have an extra-professional relationship with a student, and should that depend on whether the student is in a class of, or being advised by, the faculty member? Codes of ethics help to minimize problems with conflicts of interests because they can spell out the extent to which such conflicts should be avoided, and what the parties should do where such conflicts are permitted by a code of ethics (disclosure, recusal, etc.). Thus, professionals cannot claim that they were unaware that their improper behavior was unethical. As importantly, the threat of disciplinary action (for example, a lawyer being disbarred) helps to minimize unacceptable conflicts or improper acts when a conflict is unavoidable. 12

Recusal

As codes of ethics cannot cover all situations, some governments have established an office of the ethics commissioner. Ethics commissioner should be appointed by the legislature and should report to the legislature. [edit]See also Community of interest Crony capitalism Electoral fraud Fiduciary Insider trading Intra-household bargaining Judicial disqualification Jury nullification Lobbying Medical ethics Money loop Moral hazard Perverse incentive Politics Recusal Revolving door (politics) Tax resistance United States Office of Government Ethics Controversies surrounding Silvio Berlusconi [edit]External links Thacker, Paul D. (November 2006). "Environmental journals feel pressure to adopt disclosure rules". Environmental Science & Technology 40 (22): 68736875.doi:10.1021/es062808a. McDonald, Michael. "Ethics and Conflict of Interest". W. Maurice Young Centre for Applied Ethics. Archived from the original on 2007-11-03. [edit]Further reading Black, William K. (2005). The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. ISBN 0-292-72139-0. Davis, Michael; Andrew Stark (2001). Conflict of interest in the professions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-512863-X. Lessig, Lawrence (2011). Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress -- and a Plan to Stop It. Twelve. ISBN 978-0-446-57643-7. Lo, Bernard; Marilyn J. Field (2009). Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice. Washington DC: National Academies Press. ISBN 978-0-309-13188-9. Porter, Roger J.; Thomas E. Malone (1992). Biomedical research: collaboration and conflict of interest. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-4400-2. Thompson, Dennis (1995). Ethics in Congress: From Individual to Institutional Corruption. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press. ISBN 0-8157-8423-6. Thompson, Dennis (1993). "Understanding financial conflicts of interest." New England Journal of Medicine 329 (8): 573-76. [edit]References ^ Lo and Field (2009). The definition originally appeared in Thompson (1993). ^ Black (2005, pp. 253-254) ^ Black, William K. (Dec. 28, 2010). "2011 Will Bring More De facto Decriminalization of Elite Financial Fraud". Next New Deal: Blog of the Roosevelt Institute. Black, William K. (20 August 13

2012). "Black Report: No Criminal Prosecution of Wall St. and Who is the European, Romney or Obama?". The Real News.com. Retrieved Sept. 9, 2012. ^ a b Lessig 2011, pp. 29-32 ^ "1120-Individual Objectivity". Institute of Internal Auditors. Retrieved July 7, 2011. ^ "Policies & Procedures of the Internal Audit Activity". City College of San Francisco. Retrieved July 7, 2011. ^ Policies regarding IRB members' industry relationships often lacking. ^ Baker, Nena (2008). The Body Toxic. North Point Press. p. 142. [cited from Lessig 2011, p. 25 Lay summary]. ^ Fisher's exact test computed using the fisher.test function in R (programming language) returned a significance probability of 2e-13, i.e., there are 200 chances in a million billion of getting a table as extreme as this with the given marginals by chance alone. In other words, it is not credible to claim that the funding source has no impact on the outcome of this many independent studies. ^ a b Lessig 2011 ^ Lessig 2011, pp. 26-28 ^ Painter, Richard (2009), Getting the Government America Deserves: How Ethics Reform Can Make a Difference Oxford University Press 978-0-19-537871-9 ^ Thompson (1995) ^ Kerr, Robert S. "Senator Kerr Talks about Conflict of Interest," US News and World Report, September 3, 1962, p. 86. ^ Stern, Philip M. (1992). Still the Best Congress Money Can Buy. Regnery Gatgeway. pp. 168176. ^ Lessig 2011, pp. 43-52, 117 ^ Lessig 2011, pp. 120-121 ^ Stiglitz, Joseph E. (2010). Freefall: America, Free Markets, and the Shrinking of the World Economy. Norton. pp. 56. ^ Lessig 2011, p. 83 ^ Sachs, Jeffrey D. (2011). The Price of Civilization: Reawakening American Virtue and Prosperity. Random House. ISBN 978-0-679-60502-7. ^ Reinhart, Carmen M.; Rogoff, Kenneth S. (2009). This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-15264-6. ^ Letters from 300 economists to the American Economic Association, 3 January 2011.] ^ Wall Street Journal, Stung by 'Inside Job,' economists pen a code of ethics, 12 October 2011. ^ The Economist, Dismal ethics, An intensifying debate about the case for a professional code of ethics for economists, 6 January 2011. ^ Wall Street Journal, Economists set rules on ethics, 9 January 2012. ^ Herman, Edward S.; Chomsky, Noam (1988). Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. Pantheon. ISBN 0-394-54926-0. Retrieved 2012-02-09. ^ a b c McChesney, Robert W. (2004). The Problem of the Media: U.S. Communication Politics in the 21st Century. Monthly Review Press. ISBN 1-58367-105-6. Retrieved 2012-02-09. ^ McCheney, Robert W. (2008). The Political Economy of the Media: Enduring Issues, Emerging Dilemmas. Monthly Review Press. ISBN 978-1-58367-161-0. ^ Bianco, Anthony; Grover, Ronald (September 20, 2004), "How Nielsen Stood Up to Murdoch", Business Week ^ [|Potter, Gary W.]; [|Kappeler, Victor E.], eds. (1998). Constructing Crime: Perspectives on Making News and Social Problems. Waveland Press. ISBN 0-88133-984-9. Retrieved 2012-02-09. ^ McChesney, Robert W. (2008). The Political Economy of the Media: Enduring Issues, Emerging Dilemas. Monthly Review Pr.. pp. 335337. ISBN 978-1-58367-161-0. ^ Lessig, Lawrence (2004). Free Culture. pp. 162ff. ISBN 978-1-59420-006-9. Categories: 14

Political corruption Legal ethics A tort, in common law jurisdictions, is a civil wrong.[1] Tort law deals with situations where a person's behaviour has unfairly caused someone else to suffer loss or harm. A tort is not necessarily an illegal act but causes harm. The law allows anyone who is harmed to recover their loss. Tort law is different from criminal law, which deals with situations where a person's actions cause harm to society in general. A claim in tort may be brought by anyone who has suffered loss after suing a civil law suit. Criminal cases tend to be brought by the state, although private prosecutions are possible. Tort law is also differentiated from equity, in which a petitioner complains of a violation of some right. One who commits a tortious act is called a

tortfeasor.
The equivalent of tort in civil law jurisdictions is delict. Tort may be defined as a personal injury; or as "a civil action other than a breach of contract."[2] A person who suffers a tortious injury is entitled to receive compensation for "damages", usually monetary,

from the person or people responsible or liable for those injuries.

(Personal Note ... Not the Tax Payer)

Tort law defines what is a legal injury and, therefore, whether a person may be held liable for an injury they have caused. Legal injuries are not limited to physical injuries. They may also include emotional, economic, or reputational injuries as well as violations of privacy, property, or constitutional rights. Tort cases therefore comprise such varied topics as auto accidents, false imprisonment, defamation, product liability (for defective consumer products), copyright infringement, and environmental pollution (toxic torts), among many others. In much of the common law world, the most prominent tort liability is

negligence

If the injured party can prove that the person believed to have caused the injury acted negligently that is, without taking reasonable care to avoid injuring others tort law will allow compensation. However, tort law also recognizes intentional torts, where a person has intentionally acted in a way that harms another, and "strict liability" or quasi-tort, which allows recovery under certain circumstances without the need to demonstrate negligence.

Kleptocracy, alternatively cleptocracy or kleptarchy, (from Ancient Greek: (thief) and (rule), "rule by thieves") is a form of political and government corruption where the government exists to increase the personal wealth and political power of its officials and the ruling class at the expense of the wider population, often without pretense of honest service. This type of government corruption is often achieved by the embezzlement of state funds. 15

Kleptocracies are generally associated with corrupt forms of authoritarian governments, particularly dictatorships, oligarchies, military juntas, or some other forms of autocratic and nepotist government in which no outside oversight is possible, due to the ability of the kleptocrat(s) to personally control both the supply of public funds and the means of determining their disbursal. Kleptocratic rulers typically treat their country's treasury as though it were their own personal bank account, spending the funds on luxury goods as they see fit. Many kleptocratic rulers also secretly transfer public funds into secret personal numbered bank accounts in foreign countries in order to provide them with continued luxury if/when they are eventually removed from power and forced to flee the country. Kleptocracy is most common in third-world countries where the economy (often as a legacy of colonialism) is dominated by resource extraction. Such incomes constitute a form of economic rent and are therefore easier to siphon off without causing the income itself to decrease (for example, due to capital flight as investors pull out to escape the high taxes levied by the kleptocrats). Bottom Line TKO Tyrannical Kleptocracy Oust Three Strikes

Attorney General there to OJ Obstruct Justice Preventing cases against getting to court The Attorney General does not, however, direct or cause charges to be laid. While the Attorney General and the Attorney General's agents may provide legal advice to the police, the ultimate decision whether or not to lay charges is for the police. Once the charge is laid the decision as to whether the prosecution should proceed, and in what manner, is for the Attorney General and the Crown Attorney. Judge there to say evidence that would hold them in disrepute not admissible as
24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances. (2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Bar to disbar lawyers attempting sanity

http://romans13defacto.com/about8.html Bar to Bar Justice

16

RUNS 13 Responsible Unaccountable Nuances Systemic

Attorney General, guardian of the public interest 13. (1) The Attorney General for Ontario shall serve as the guardian of the public interest in all matters within the scope of this Act or having to do in any way with the practice of law in Ontario or the provision of legal services in Ontario, and for this purpose he or she may at any time require the production of any document or thing pertaining to the affairs of the Society. R.S.O. 1990, c. L.8, s. 13 (1); 1998, c. 21, s. 7 (1); 2006, c. 21, Sched. C, s. 13. Admissions (2) No admission of any person in any document or thing produced under subsection (1) is admissible in evidence against that person in any proceedings other than proceedings under this Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. L.8, s. 13 (2); 1998, c. 21, s. 7 (2). Protection of Minister (3) No person who is or has been the Attorney General for Ontario is subject to any proceedings of the Society or to any penalty imposed under this Act for anything done by him or her while exercising the functions of such office. R.S.O. 1990, c. L.8, s. 13 (3); 1998, c. 21, s. 7 (3). The Crown has a distinct responsibility to the court to present all the credible evidence available.

www.cdfji.ca

www.RCMP.cc

www.McFrauds.com www.tko13.com

17