Some of Julian Assange's most prominent supporters stand to lose up to £240,000 in bail money, provided to secure the WikiLeaks founder's freedom when he first faced extradition proceedings.
A leading criminal lawyer said that following Assange's decision to seek asylum in the Ecuadorean embassy in London and breach the terms of his bail, they would have to persuade the courts why they should not forfeit their money and prove they had done all they could to prevent him breaking the court order.
A group of celebrities and activists, including the socialite Jemima Khan, film director Ken Loach and publisher Felix Dennis, posted cash security of £200,000 to Westminster magistrates court with a further £40,000 as promised sureties when Assange was freed in December 2010.
"The people who have posted the money would have to go to court and plead their case as to why they shouldn't lose their money," said Oliver Lewis, partner at solicitors Powell Spencer and Partners. "There would have to be a pretty good reason why the money shouldn't be forfeited. Usually the court says 'thank you very much, you have lost your money'. You have to show that you have been vigilant and put every effort in to stop it happening."
Vaughan Smith, the founder of the Frontline Club for journalists, hosted Assange at his Norfolk home for over a year and stands to lose £20,000.
"It is not clear to me whether I have a liability but either way I am concerned," he said. "I do believe Julian genuinely feels he will be sent to America – and of course I think the money is important because it relates to the welfare of my wife and children, but they don't feel they are at risk of being sent to America.
"I remain a supporter and it is important we recognise he is a western dissident. There are a lot of people who believe the work he did at WikiLeaks was in the public interest."
Khan confirmed on Twitter that she had also posted bail money for Assange. "I had expected him to face the allegations," she said. "I am as surprised as anyone by this."
Tracy Worcester, the model and actress turned environmental campaigner, confirmed that she had put up a surety for Assange but said she had not yet been able to speak to his legal team about the latest developments and declined to comment further.
The human rights activist Bianca Jagger denied reports that she had contributed to the bail money, tweeting: "I would like to set the record straight. I didn't post bail for Julian Assange."
A spokeswoman for the courts service said it was normal for breaches of bail to be considered at the court that set the bail conditions in the first place, in this case Westminster magistrates court.
"What happens to the money will be decided by a judge if and when he is brought back before the court," she said. "It depends on what the police say about what they think a person has done and what should follow on from that."
Strangled by tight money - Chicago Tribune
Remember the guy who ran for governor of New York as the candidate of the Rent Is Too Damn High Party? We need a new one, called the Money Is Too Damn Tight Party. It would get my vote.
But the vote it needs belongs to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, and he isn't giving it. On Wednesday, the Fed indicated it would stick to its current course, declining to embark on another "quantitative easing" that would inject a lot more money into the economy.
He and many other people have awful memories of high inflation from the late 1970s and early 1980s. No one wants to repeat that experience. But inflation-phobes resemble someone stranded in the desert without water who spends his time frantically searching for a life preserver.
- Bio | E-mail | Blog | Recent columns
Plenty of people, including several Republicans who ran for president, think money is too loose. But what would the world look like if the opposite were true?
Commodity prices would fall. Unemployment would be painfully high. People would be reluctant to buy houses for fear they would lose value. Economic growth would stall.
Sound familiar? Those signs are a tipoff to our real economic problem: too few dollars in circulation.
The U.S. economy is not experiencing actual deflation. But a person who has a cold doesn't take great comfort in not having pneumonia. Right now, the economy is showing signs of a malady that looks like deflation's close relative.
Inflation occurs when there is too much money chasing too few goods. Deflation occurs when there is not enough money. For years, inflation alarmists have been forecasting runaway prices as a result of the Fed's efforts to expand the money supply. But prices have remained stable, with the Consumer Price Index down last month and up just 1.7 percent in the past year.
Don't believe the official numbers? The Billion Prices Project at MIT says lately, inflation is actually lower than the government estimates.
By now, it should be obvious that the problem is not that the Fed has injected too much money into the economy but too little. The price of gold — which jumps at the slightest whiff of inflation — has plunged from more than $1,900 an ounce last year to less than $1,630.
The commodity price index is down 7 percent from a year ago. Home sales have been tepid despite mortgage rates lower than anyone could ever have dreamed.
When lenders anticipate debasement of the currency, they demand higher interest rates to compensate for the risk. But currently, five-year Treasury bills are paying 0.71 percent, and 20-year bonds offer only 2.33 percent. In the mid-90s, a period of low inflation, those rates ranged well north of 5 percent.
Inflation hawks have been predicting a severe outbreak for years. But David Henderson, an economist at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and the Naval Postgraduate School, has been skeptical enough to put his money where his mouth is.
In December 2009, he publicly bet economist Robert Murphy of the Pacific Research Institute $500 that by January 2013, there would not be a single point at which the CPI would be up 10 percent or more from a year before. So far, it hasn't been, and it shows no sign it will.
Another economist who thinks inflation is the least of our worries is Scott Sumner of Bentley University in Massachusetts. He says the increase in the money supply has not unleashed inflation because the demand for dollars has risen as well.
When banks or individuals hold on to cash, he notes, the effect is the same as if the Fed were shrinking the money supply. By refusing to spend or invest, they stifle economic activity.
That effect is apparent in the slowing of the economy, which was not exactly galloping to start with. Job growth is on a glacial pace. Three years after the recession officially ended, we have 5 million fewer jobs than we had before it began.
The Fed's past quantitative easing programs have helped, but they haven't been big enough or lasted long enough. Sumner argues that the central bank should commit to sticking with the tactic as long as it takes to get growth back to a healthy pace — backing off only if there are signs that inflation is likely to rise significantly.
Could inflation make a comeback? Sure. So could the Soviet Union. But until it does, we should deal with dangers that are not imaginary.
Steve Chapman is a member of the Tribune's editorial board and blogs at chicagotribune.com/chapman.
Twitter @SteveChapman13
Stratton Finance Turns to Network Performance Experts SevOne to Monitor Its Mission Critical Network - msnbc.com
WILMINGTON, DE — SevOne, the leader in IT performance management, today announced it has been successfully deployed by Stratton Finance, one of Australia's leading finance and insurance brokers, where it was selected as the supplier of choice for infrastructure performance monitoring capabilities and capacity planning.
"With a dramatically increasing number of network devices to monitor and manage, only SevOne provides me with truly real-time reports on my network's health," stated Damien Emmerson, System Administrator, Stratton Finance. "This is critical because I need to know that I have an emerging network problem before it occurs, not after the fact. While other solutions claim the ability to scale to accommodate the dramatic increase in devices on the network, only SevOne is able to actually deliver on that promise."
Following an evaluation of a few performance management tools, the organization identified SevOne to help ensure real-time data access so that it can actually see what requirements are needed and better plan for future infrastructure needs as well. As a financial services firm, the company needs to always know that it has ample access to network and system resources, and the SevOne solution meets this need with the highest levels of performance, scalability, and interoperability.
"We are pleased that Stratton has selected SevOne to improve the way in which it is conducting business," stated Bill Conners, Senior Vice President of Worldwide Sales for SevOne. "One item that has proven to be valuable for the company is response time in terms of being able to diagnose network issues. The company is now able to predict problems before they occur. We look forward to helping Stratton achieve success as it continues its network monitoring efforts."
About Stratton Finance
Stratton Finance is one of Australia's leading finance brokers, providing car finance, equipment finance, property finance, boat finance, insurance broking and more. Established in 1998, Stratton has grown into a national business with tens of thousands of happy customers all over Australia. Stratton Finance has achieved impressive growth over the past 14 years, cementing a competitive advantage in the industry with a focus on technology. As a result Stratton is the leading provider of finance and insurance solutions in Australia.
About SevOne
SevOne, Inc. delivers the industry's fastest, most scalable, and comprehensive real-time network monitoring, troubleshooting and performance reporting solution. SevOne created a proprietary, next-generation distributed technology, called the SevOne Cluster™, that combines the cutting edge principles behind peer-to-peer sharing and big data clusters to scale smoothly so that millions of network elements, across all monitoring technologies, can be monitored and provide a single view to the user. Hundreds of customers, including the top cable companies in North America, wireless network and managed service providers, and top financial services institutions rely on SevOne. Visit www.sevone.com.
© Marketwire 2012
Sopranos star 'was friend of real-life mobster who tried to extort money from Joe Pesci's cousin' - Daily Mail
By Lyle Brennan and James Nye
|
A star of hit TV series The Sopranos made a dramatic appearance in the trial of a real-life mob boss today - as a court saw a gangster accused of trying to recover a loan for the actor.
Federico Castelucci, who played a feared hitman in the hit HBO series, allegedly lent $50,000 to a restauranteur - Joe Pesci's cousin - and struggled to get the money back.
A recording played in a New York courtroom today appears to shows Mafia boss Andrew 'Mush' Russo ordering one of his lieutenants to 'recover' the money.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Liz Geddes for the prosecution says Russo can be heard talking about how his friend, Castelluccio had invested thousands in Gino Pesci's New Jersey Italian bistro, and orders one of his 'captains' to demand the money back from Mr Pesci.
Courtroom drama: Federico Castelluccio, left, played Furio Giunta on The Sopranos and allegedly loaned $50,000 to Gino Pesci to open a restaurant in New Brunswick. Mob boss Andrew 'Mush' Russo is accused of ordering one of his associates to demands the money back
The New York Post reports Russo says: 'Joe Pesci’s cousin. He [cheated] some kid... took $70,000. When they went, when they went to grab him, [he said] "I blew it, I don’t have it'.
'This kid, you know the kid, Federico Castelluccio?... The kid who played Furio on the Sopranos.'
The mafioso does not appear to give his man specific instructions on how he should get the money back, but federal agents believe it would be through means of extortion.
'I'll get you all the information,' Russo is heard to promise.
However, court papers show Russo's lawyer, George Galgano insisted the conversation was merely an innocent discussion between film fans.
He contends that his client had been talking about the role played by Joe Pesci - his alleged target's famous cousin - in the hit children's Christmas movie Home Alone, starring Macaulay Culkin and directed by John Hughes.
Arguing in court papers that Russo never intended to extort any money from Gino Pesci, Mr Galgano wrote, 'This never happened'.
Sticking to their claim the Russo was only discussing Joe Pesci's role in 'Home Alone', Mr Galgano wrote that Russo also mentioned a script that Gino Pesci is supposed to have borrowed money for.
Edie Falco (left) and Federico Castelluccio (right) appearing as Carmel Soprano and Furio Giunta respectively on the hit HBO show
Countering the prosecutions version of events, Mr Gargano seems to suggest in the court documents that Russo had been misinformed, and that there was no script, no dispute and no money owed to Mr Castelluccio.
Regardless of Russo's claims it was enough for Judge Kiyo Matsumoto to reject a bail request by Russo, who is due to go on trial for racketeering, saying: 'The evidence in this case is strong.'
The origin of the case against Colombo street boss Russo stems from Castelluccio investing $50,000 in 2002 in Gino Pesci's Attilio Pasta Kitchen, based in New Brunswick.
Folding two years later, Gino Pesci acknowledged that his relationship with Castelluccio fell apart.
Andrew 'Mush' Russo's defence claimed that he was talking about Joe Pesci (pictured right) and his appearance in the hit 1990 film 'Home Alone' which Joe Pesci starred in
'Federico is an incredible artist, but he’s not a businessman. Maybe that’s why he took it harder than the rest,' said Pesci to the New York Post.
However, a bone of contention opened up between the two when Pesci went on a spending spree after the closure, while Castelluccio felt that his investment should have been returned claims the New York Post.
It is known that Castelluccio and Russo are friends and in 2011 the actor showed up at Russo's bail hearing in Brooklyn.
Ray Liotta (left), Robert de Niro (second left), Paul Sorvino and Joe Pesci (right) starred in the 1990 film 'Goodfellas' about organised crime in the 1960's and 1970's
At the time of a an October 2011 article in the New York Post investigating his friendship with Russo, Castelluccio issued a statement.
'Gino Pesci has never owed me any money, and therefore, it is hard to imagine why anyone would even think about asking him for anything on my behalf.
'It never happened. And anyone who claims that it did happen is simply not telling the truth.'
Both the Sopranos star and Gino Pesci deny any knowledge of an extortion plot.
As well as the charge relating to Mr Pesci, Russo is accused of extorting medical expenses from the rival Gambino crime family, after one of their number allegedly stabbed a Colombo family mobster.
Video doesn’t prove that Hargrove said “give me my money” - NBC Sports
APMaybe it really wasn’t Anthony Hargrove’s voice saying, “Give me my money.”
The video/audio of a comment supposedly made by the former Saints defensive end during the third quarter of the 2009 NFC title game provides further proof of Drew Brees‘ point (even if it wasn’t articulated the best way possible) that the media has more power than anyone realizes.
The NFL, however, fully realizes.
And the NFL used the power of the media to make millions believe on Monday that Saints defensive Anthony Hargrove said, ‘Bobby, give me my money’ after being told by assistant head coach Joe Vitt that Vikings quarterback Brett Favre may have suffered a broken leg in the 2009 NFC title game.
The seed was planted and fertilized when a dozen members of the media covering Monday’s appeal hearing received an invitation to witness an encore performance of former prosecutor Mary Jo White’s summary of evidence. The relevant excerpt from the transcript of the media session contains White’s explanation, comments from NFL Security chief Jeff Miller, comments from NFL spokesman Greg Aiello, and two of the members of the media — Peter King and Jim Varney.
White initially explained that the video contains Hargrove’s “voice and picture.” After the video was shown once to the members of the media, Aiello suggested that the media pay attention to Hargrove winking and smiling after hearing that Favre broke his leg. White later claims that Hargrove “smiles and winks and states, ‘Bobby, pay me my money.’”
Varney asks White, “How do you know it’s Hargrove’s voice?”
White, perhaps not recognizing in that moment the ironic link to a very common lawyer joke, says, “Because you can see his lips moving.”
But here’s the problem, and I didn’t notice this the first time I saw the video.
When Hargrove’s lips can be seen moving, his voice can’t be heard.
Only after Hargrove’s face is fully obscured by the head and shoulders of defensive tackle Remi Ayodele are the words “give me my money” audible.
No one has questioned this because the media present at the session was told — and in turn told the rest of us — that Hargrove said, “Bobby, give me my money.” Even Peter King, who seemed curious and a bit skeptical in the transcript, affirmatively stated twice in his article following the media session that Hargrove said what the NFL claims he said.
Watch the video. At most, Hargrove is the one who says “Bobby.” By the time “give me my money” comes out, Hargrove’s mouth and face and head are obscured by Ayodele.
Also, don’t forget that Hargrove didn’t apply the hit that resulted in Favre possibly having a broken leg. Instead, Favre had been hit low by McCray and high by Ayodele. So why would Hargrove be asking for any money at all?
None of this changes the fact that, barring evidence that the phrase was added artificially after the fact (I’m not saying it was . . . yet), someone said “give me my money.” Which supports the conclusion that there was a bounty on Favre.
But I don’t believe the video shown by the league to the media shows that Hargrove said it. And I can’t believe that the NFL presumes conclusively that he said it. And I can’t believe the NFL sold it as fact to the media. And I can’t believe the media swallowed the hook.
And I can’t believe I didn’t pay close enough attention to figure it out before today.
And given Hargrove’s passionate denial that it’s his voice, I believe him.
This serious flaw in the presentation of the evidence necessarily undermines the league’s entire investigation, further reinforcing the importance of asking tough questions about the proof, the process, and all other aspects of the case. Regardless of whether the players are guilty or innocent, the NFL has peddled to the public, via the media, a stream of inconsistencies, mischaracterizations, and embellishments that raise legitimate concerns about the competence and/or the motives of everyone whose fingerprints are on the file.
UPDATE 8:44 p.m. ET: A prior version of this item explained that, when Hargrove’s lips are moving, his words aren’t audible. I’ve studied the video several more times, and it now appears to me that Hargrove is the one who says, “Bobby.” However, by the time “give me my money” is uttered, Hargrove’s face and head and mouth are obscured. Thus, the video doesn’t prove who said it. It could have been Hargrove. It could have been Ayodele. (It would make more sense if the league were claiming it was Ayodele, since he hit Favre high when “Bobby” hit Favre low.) It also could have been someone outside of view of the camera, talking about something completely unrelated to Favre’s apparently injury.
Jury convicts Ind. financier in $200M fraud scheme - The Guardian
KEN KUSMER
Associated Press= INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — An Indianapolis businessman accused of looting an Ohio-based finance company after buying it and bilking about 5,000 mostly elderly investors out of more than $200 million was convicted Wednesday on all counts.
A federal jury found Tim Durham guilty of securities fraud, conspiracy and 10 counts of wire fraud. His business partners, James F. Cochran and accountant Rick D. Snow, also were convicted of conspiracy and securities fraud, and some wire fraud counts. When sentenced, the men could face decades in prison.
Durham's defense attorney had argued that the men simply made bad business decisions in the midst of the bewildering economic crisis of 2008. But prosecutors alleged that Durham and his partners pillaged Fair Finance to enrich themselves and their friends — buying classic cars, houses and casino trips — and to help Durham's other struggling businesses.
The three men were taken out of the courtroom in handcuffs and will be held in jail pending a hearing Monday in U.S. District Court in Indianapolis. Jurors began deliberations Wednesday morning after the judge denied a request from Durham's attorney for a mistrial.
Outside the courthouse, U.S. Attorney Joe Hogsett said the verdicts were "a powerful warning that if you sacrifice truth in the name of greed, if you steal from another's effort to carve out the American dream to enhance your own, you will be caught."
Hogsett said he hoped the jury's decision would bring some measure of justice to "the thousands of hardworking people whose financial wellbeing was destroyed at the hands of these men."
Defense attorneys were allowed to leave the courtroom ahead of reporters, and it wasn't immediately clear whether they or their clients would be making any public statements. Durham's attorney, John Tompkins, didn't return an email or phone message from The Associated Press seeking comment.
Prosecutors claimed that after buying Akron, Ohio-based Fair Finance in 2002, Durham and his partners stripped it of its assets and tapped it to buy luxury items. The men also were accused of funneling funds from Fair Finance to Durham's Indianapolis-based holding company, Obsidian Enterprises, to keep its failing subsidiaries intact.
Prosecutors claimed the men operated an elaborate Ponzi scheme to hide Fair Finance's depleted condition from investors and regulators until the FBI raided Durham's office in November 2009. By then, the consumer finance company founded in 1934 was $200 million in debt.
Tompkins had argued that Durham and the others were caught off-guard by the economic crisis of 2008, and bewildered when regulators placed them under more strict scrutiny and investors made a run on the company.
Tompkins said the evidence didn't support the accusation of fraud because Durham stood to lose money if Fair Finance went under, claiming that Durham had sunk millions of dollars of his own money into Obsidian to keep it afloat.
All three men were found guilty on one count of conspiracy and one count of securities fraud. Each also faced 10 counts of wire fraud; Cochran was convicted on six of those counts and Snow on three.
Each of the wire fraud and securities fraud counts carries up to 20 years in prison, while the conspiracy charge carries up to a five-year prison sentence.
A federal grand jury in Indianapolis indicted Durham, Cochran and Snow in March 2010. The allegations against Durham — a major Indiana Republican Party donor — led several GOP politicians, including Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, to return hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions sought by Fair Finance's bankruptcy trustee.
---
Associated Press reporter Charles Wilson contributed to this report from Indianapolis.
A valuable lesson in pocket money - The Independent
No wonder experts say parents should introduce their children to basic financial matters at an earlier age than ever. "Teaching children the value of money from an early age provides a good foundation for their future spending habits, and sends positive messages about managing finances and living within one's means," explains Simon Walsh, spokesman for Family Lives. "Their observations of how you spend, save, budget and donate to charities can shape early views about money management."
Get them involved in making their own financial decisions too. "My eight-year-old son Henry knows that if he wants something, he must select a few items he no longer wants, photograph them, write a description and put them on eBay," says Rebecca Gunn, 39, who lives in Bedfordshire.
Like many parents, Gunn also uses pocket money to help her son to understand its value. "It stops him walking into a shop wanting everything he sees. It makes him think about what he wants and he enjoys weighing up the pros and cons of things as the week goes on."
Research from Equifax reveals a growing emphasis on encouraging children to "earn" their pocket money through basic chores such as washing up and tidying up. The average amount children receive, according to another survey by Halifax, is £4.57 for 8-11 year-olds and £7.02 for 12-15 year olds. "Each of my two children, aged five and seven, has a special job around the house once a week," says Sarah Brown, a 40-year-old mother from Kent. "It means they realise they need to contribute something to earn money."
A vital component of the pocket money concept, she believes, is that kids discover their own spending power. "This is where, as a parent, you have to get the balance right between parental advice and allowing your child to make their own decisions – and therefore mistakes. It's definitely given my children an understanding, which did not exist a year ago, of how important it is to know how much things cost," says Brown. "Even simple things like checking the price tag on the box to see if it's affordable, is not something you see many kids do. Perhaps most satisfying of all is that my eldest, has opened a bank account and is already beginning to grasp the concept of interest."
When your children hit their teens, consider swapping pocket money for a monthly allowance, but the same principles apply, advises Pritee Chohan, Money for Life Programme volunteer and a branch manager for Halifax. "Sit them down to explain the differences between the savings accounts on offer and help them to budget for that holiday with friends or for driving lessons. By the time they leave home, they should have all the money savvy they need to make a great start in life."
Key finance job goes to careercivil servant - Financial Times
June 20, 2012 7:28 pm
Spain's finance minister insists no bailout needed - CBC
Spain's finance minister insisted again Wednesday that the country's government does not need a full-blown bailout, even as the country's sky-high borrowing costs remained at dangerous levels.
On Tuesday, the interest rate on the government's 12-month treasury bills rose to 5.07 per cent from 2.98 per cent at the last such auction on May 14. The rate on the 18-month bills soared to 5.10 per cent from 3.3 per cent.
By Wednesday, the interest rate, or yield, on the Spanish benchmark 10-year bond fell 22 basis points to 6.78 per cent, below the seven-per-cent level it has been hovering above since Monday. But such high rates are still considered by market-watchers to be unsustainable over the long term rate and eventually forced Greece, Ireland and Portugal to ask for international financial help.
Finance Minister Cristobal Montoro told Parliament, however, that Spain's government won't need the same kind of assistance "because it does not need to be rescued."
After years of insisting its banks were among the healthiest in Europe, Spain did recently acknowledge its financial sector will need a rescue package to protect it from a property boom that went bust in 2008. But investors are now more concerned that the country itself may have to be bailed out and this could seriously test the strength of the entire European Union's finances.
Fears about high public debt
Worries about Spain's ability to repay its debt grew last week when the country agreed to accept a eurozone loan of up to $129 billion to shore up its ailing banks, which are sitting on massive amounts of soured real estate investments.
The big fear is that, as the money will count as a loan and raise Spain's overall debt load, the country's financing costs will suffocate the government as it tries to wade its way through a recession and a 24.4 percent jobless rate.
Because the government is ultimately responsible for repaying the banks' bailout money, the deal has increased fears about the size of public debt. If the government cannot get the bailout money back from the banks, it will be saddled with the losses.
Those losses could prove too much to handle for the government, which is already struggling with a second recession in three years and the highest jobless rate among the 17 countries that use the euro.
Independent audits on the state of Spain's banks are due Thursday and these will help Spain determine how much it needs from the $129-billion lifeline the 17-country eurozone has agreed to set up.
No comments:
Post a Comment