RSS

Tag Archives: fraud

Florida Voters Sue for Recount

Hmmmmm…Things are heating up!

Image result for election recount

Florida voters file lawsuit demanding official recount

Everything may not be golden for President-elect Donald Trump in the Sunshine State. A group of Florida voters filed a lawsuit Monday demanding a statewide hand recount of the ballots, noting a “deluge” of voting problems, including alleged hackings on electronic voting machines and polling places illegally turning away people from voting.

Trump won Florida with 4.6 million votes statewide, securing 112,000 votes more than former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – a margin much larger than when former Vice President Al Gore lost in Florida to former President George W. Bush in 2000 by 537 votes. The defendants listed in the lawsuit include Trump, Gov. Rick Scott and the state’s 29 Republican presidential electors.

The president-elect and the rest of the defendants could simply ignore the lawsuit, or fail to respond before the national deadline to to settle disputes over election results. In that most likely case, the Electoral College will vote on Dec. 19 and Trump will assume office Jan. 20.

But the plaintiffs, who say Clinton was the actual victor in Florida, are calling on officials to probe the election results and determine whether Trump’s win was, in fact, due to a variety of statewide issues. The lawsuit is just the latest call for an investigation into the integrity of the 2016 presidential election, in which an unprecedented level of foreign interference played a major role.

Hillary Clinton conceded to President-elect Donald Trump in New York, Nov. 9, 2016, calling for a peaceful transition of power. Photo: Reuters

Meanwhile, recount efforts spearheaded by former Green Party candidate Jill Stein are continuing in Michigan, which began a statewide recount Monday. Stein has said the chances of any state recounts reversing the election results is highly unlikely. Instead, she wants to bring attention to the security of the nation’s voting process and other problems reportedly experienced in each election cycle. Stein also sought recounts in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

“Our effort to recount votes in those states is not intended to help Hillary Clinton,” Stein wrote on her fundraising site for the recount, which received nearly $7.2 million by Tuesday. “These recounts are part of an election integrity movement to attempt to shine a light on just how untrustworthy the U.S. election system is.”

The three plaintiffs aren’t the first to call for a recount in Florida. Roque “Rocky” de la Fuente, a 2016 Reform Party candidate in the presidential election, vowed to pursue recounts in Nevada and Florida, citing election fraud and manipulation of electronic voter machines and ballots. Whether Trump decides to back any of these new recount efforts ahead of the approaching deadline, however, remains unknown and unlikely.

“[Trump’s] mentioned he wants to fix the rigged system,” Clint Curtis, the lawyer representing the three Florida voters, told Tallahassee Democrat’s Jeff Burlew. “This will give the opportunity to do that. If it were a normal politician, I’d say our chances are very slim. But it’s not a normal politician — it’s Donald Trump.”

 
1 Comment

Posted by on December 6, 2016 in Second American Revolution

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Trump Pays Up $25 Million …To Stay Out of Jail for Fraud

This is the first of a long line of lawsuits against Trump for his illegitimate scams…

 
 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Finally A Few are “Getting It” Relevant to the Election Hack

This election was hacked. Votes were moved or erased in about 4 states to produce an Trump electoral win.  What is interesting here is the anticipated Hispanic tidal wave turned into a trickle. All those new registrations failed to produce matching votes.

Image result for vote machine hacking

Something stinks when exit polls and official counts don’t match

Media exit polls in last Tuesday’s election suggested Democrats were going to win the White House and the Senate, yet the reported vote counts brought a GOP landslide. While theories abound about what happened, election integrity activists say the exit poll descrepancy underscores the need for a far more transparent and accountable process. AlterNet’s Steven Rosenfeld interviewed Jonathan Simon, a longtime exit poll sleuth and author of Code Red: Computerized Election Theft and the New American Century. Simon explains why exit polls are a critical clue in the breakdown of the voting process.

Steven Rosenfeld: Let’s start by telling people about your involvement with election integrity and tracking exit polls.

Jonathan Simon: I’ve been working in this field which we call election forensics for about 15 years, since the 2000 election. Certainly things kicked in with the 2004 election and the exit polls there. I was actually the person who downloaded the exit polls that were left up on the CNN website which then made it possible to compare the unadjusted exit polls—and we can explain that in a bit—but comparing the exit polls with the vote counts and show through all those disparities that there was reason to suspect possibly manipulation of the vote counts.

It has deep roots and basically looking at every election since has found varying, but at the same time, fairly pervasive patterns of what we call the “red shift” and where the exit polls are to the west of the vote counts. We track that, we record it and we attempt to analyze it and get some sort of handle on what has caused it as a phenomenon. Then we look at all sorts of forensic data, accumulative vote share, tables and hand counts where we can find them. I’ve always been particularly conscientious about trying to take whatever baseline we’re using and validate that baseline, so that if we have an exit poll for instance, we try to make sure something that has been skewed by over-sampling one party or over-sampling people of color or something to that effect and validate it by that.

We try as carefully as we can. I’ve been doing this pretty steadily now for the last 15 years along with some of my colleagues, and I would be the first to acknowledge that there is a lot of smoke there and there’s a lot of probative value to this work, but that bringing it forth as ironclad proof is very problematic. So we’re stuck at a place where I pivoted to is looking at the risk involved in having a computerized, privatized, unobservable vote counting system and just taking on faith that that system is not being manipulated when there is such a obvious vulnerability (on which the experts strongly agree) of the system to malfeasance and manipulation. That is where I’ve tended to go, is to look at that risk rather than screaming fraud from the rooftops and claiming proof.Image result for vote machine hacking

SR: Let’s go through this piece by piece, because it’s a lot for people to really understand. You get the raw state-by-state exit polls that are commissioned by a big consortium of national media organizations. What did you find this year, that happened this week? What do you see in the raw data?

JS: Of course, we don’t get the raw data. The raw data would be… we have three definitions here. There’s raw data, which is the actual questionnaires and the simple numerical toning up of answers on the questionnaire. That is never publicly released. It’s if you want to characterize it as such, it’s what’s inside the sausage of exit polls, and we are not privileged to see that. I’ve had one opportunity in my life through an inside source to actually look at some of the raw data, but that’s a very rare thing. It’s not generally accessible to the public. Many of us have clamored for the public release of that raw data, certainly in the aftermath of the 2004 election and have been denied it.

Then there is the weighted exit poll data and that’s what the exit pollsters put out as soon as the polls close. This has been demographically weighted to their best approximation of what the electorate looked like and it is very valuable information. That’s what I was able to download in 2004 and that’s what I was able to download in many of the elections since, and that’s what I was able to download this Tuesday.Image result for vote machine hacking

How Local Machines Can be Hacked.

Then you have adjusted exit polls and what happens is they take the vote counts as they come in and they use the term as the art of “forcing,” they force the exit polls to [be] congruent with that vote count data so that by the end of the night or by the next morning when you have your final vote counts and final exit polls the exit polls and the vote counts will match, but that’s only because in essence they’ve been forced to match the vote counts.

SRI’m looking at the New York Times website right now, at its election 2016 exit polls interactive. What are the totals then that I’m seeing?

JS: I’m not looking at the New York Times. I’ve pulled these off of CNN and I’m also looking at MSNBC. Because the firm that does this, Edison, contracts with the consortium of major networks and then has some lesser clients such as the New York Times. When I say lessor, they’re still very major clients, they just don’t have the prime membership that these five networks and the AP have, but all these major clients get the same feed of weighted exit poll data.

What you’re probably looking at now would be adjusted exit polls and they’re very close to, if not congruent with the vote counts. But if you had looked up Tuesday night, for instance, if a poll closed at 7pm Eastern Time and you had gone online to a network site at 7:01pm Eastern Time, what you would have seen at that point was a weighted poll that had not yet been adjusted to match the vote counts. They would tell you the number of respondents. They’d give you all the cross tabs, by which I mean broken down by gender, age, income, party affiliation, usually 30 to 40, sometimes 50 questions … Pretty detailed stuff that indicated how each subgroup of the polled population had answered these various questions.

Some of those questions are demographic questions: What is your race? What is your income level? What party do you identify with? Who did you vote for in the last election? etc., etc. … Then there are the current choice questions. Who did you just vote for this evening and/or this afternoon? Those are all presented in sort of a scroll fashion. You can pull that up on all these websites.Image result for vote machine hacking

However, they will change over time as the vote counts come in. That’s why we screen-capture these initial public postings, because that contains the purest information in terms of not relying on the vote counts and if we’re approaching this with a certain amount of suspicion of the vote counts we’re trying to verify or validate the vote counts we want exit polls that are independent as possible from the actual vote count data, which then becomes blended in as the evening goes on from the time the polls close until whenever the final vote counts are available. That vote count data becomes blended in with the exit poll algorithm and gradually pulls the exit polls in congruence with the vote counts, at which point they’re used for academic analysis of demographics, but they’re not anymore used for validating the vote counts.

SR: Tell me again what the ‘red shift’ is and how you saw this shift again this year.

JS: The red shift is a term that I coined back in 2004 after the Bush-Kerry election, because the familiar term the “red shift” when we mean astronomy, that’s what brought it to my mind. But the reason it’s called the red shift is that it was very directional in that election where you saw vote counts coming out more in favor of Bush, more in favor of Republican candidates. Since Republican by that time had been designated red as in red states and blue states, that’s how it got the moniker the red shift.

What we found from that point forward is that it’s almost a singularity, very rare, that we find any significant blue shift anywhere. When we look at exit polls and vote counts, what we’re almost always seeing are vote counts that come out more in favor of the Republican candidate than the exit polls and in the case of intraparty nomination battles, more in favor of the candidate that is, I guess you’d have to say, to the right of their opponent.

For instance, in the 2016 primaries, a massive shift of exit polls state after state after state, in favor of Hillary Clinton. The vote counts were more in favor of Clinton than the exit polls, which were more in favor of Bernie Sanders. We saw a very consistent pattern of that.

Image result for vote machine hacking

Some systems use credit card derived “data cards”. Easily rewritten to any vote total you want. Don’t even mention the laptop here…

In this past Tuesday, again we saw a very consistent pattern of exit polls that were more in favor of Hillary Clinton, more in favor of Democratic senatorial candidates and then vote counts were shifted from the exit polls to the right towards Donald Trump, towards the Republican senate candidates. Those are the figures that I pulled down and did a very basic analysis of. You have a column of numbers of state by state showing the degree of that shift and we’ll eventually do that for the national vote for the House of Representatives as well.

SR: When you see this discrepancy, without being overly simplistic, the question becomes, why is it there and what caused it? You’ve been through this four or five times and not even counting the midterm elections. What do you think is really going on when you see this general one-way shifting? Does it mean the polling is wrong? Does it mean the voting machinery is being tampered with? Does it mean both? How do you explain or understand this?

JS: What it means to me is that neither system is self validating. Neither system can be trusted. If you look at accounting, you do double entry accounting. I’m not an accountant so my terminology may be off, but you basically audit by checking one column of numbers against another column of numbers. If they disagree, you know something is wrong somewhere. There is some arithmetical mistake, some failure of entry, possibly fraud … you don’t know. You just know that if two things that are pretty much supposed to agree had disagreed, there’s a problem somewhere. I can rule out mathematically and scientifically, by this time, errors due to random chance. Errors due to random chance, sampling errors, what we call margin of error issues, would not be expressing themselves so consistently in one direction. They’d be going in both directions and they’d be much smaller.

If you take a mathematical sample of a whole … if you take a blood draw in a person and you look at 1,000 or so blood cells as represented in of all their millions of blood cells, that’s guaranteed to be a random sample. It’s not like all the bad blood cells hide out in a single vein or something. From that, you get a very clear and crisp mathematical margin of error and it tells you how likely you are to be within X number of percent about what the truth is about the entire target that you’re looking at of the blood of the whole body. That’s how you can make a diagnosis based on a pinprick.

Image result for vote machine hacking

Russian cyber-spies hacked Democratic databases, Democratic emails, and Voter rolls prior to the election. And there is proof that the data was sent to the Trump campaign. Putin suddenly found morals to not hack the elections? NYET!

In exit polling it’s not that simple. In exit polling you have sampling that is not purely mathematically random. First of all, it’s done in clusters because it would be an impractical matter to catch people all over the state randomly coming out at the polls. You’d have to have a person at each precinct, etc. We’re not even talking about early voting and absentee voting. Let’s just leave that out of the equation and assume everybody votes on election day. You’d still have to go to thousands of precincts. It would be prohibitively expensive. What they do instead, and I was a pollster for a couple of years quite long ago, but the methods haven’t changed that much, you basically cluster sample. You pick 20 or 30 precincts that are representative politically and demographically of the whole state and those are the precincts in which you do all your interviews.

That adds mathematically about a 30 percent increase to the margin of error, to the inaccuracy if you want to call that of the poll. It’s certainly a tolerable change or loss of accuracy that can be factored in mathematically, but the real problems come up in exit polling with selection bias, response bias, the possibility of people lying to the pollster, etc. These are the things that have been seized on by those who have debunked the exit polls and said they’re worthless. They’re not worthless and at the same time they’re not best evidence. Best evidence would be the voter marked paper ballots. Best evidence would be the memory cards in the computers and what program is actually determining how these votes are counted, what the code is on those memory cards.

Exit polls are indirect. They’re statistical evidence and they have flaws that are difficult to quantify. When you see pervasive patterns where it is substantial well beyond the margin of error repeatedly in the same direction, in particular when you’ve been able to independently validate the demographics of the exit poll sample. This is the work that I did. It’s in my book, Code Red: Computerized Election Theft in the New American Century.

SR: So this is a persuasive and recurring pattern and not just in this week’s vote?

JS: In the 2016 primary, we compared the performance of the exit polls in the Republican primaries with the performance of the exit poll in the Democratic primaries. There was a glaring difference. I call these “second order comparatives.” Second order comparatives are very important because you’re essentially validating your baseline by doing that. If you’re conscientious about election forensics, that’s the work that you try to do. Does it add up to ironclad proof? No, but it’s a very consistent pattern that is absolutely probative enough that it says, Okay, we want to now take a look at the other system and how the votes are being counted. When you look at that other system and how the votes are being counted, your hair stands on end because it’s so vulnerable to not just outsider hacking, but to insider manipulation as well.

There are certainly a lot of anecdotal instances of this. For instance, just in this particular election, they bought machines in Ohio that had a feature in them that was basically capable of self auditing. It was a security feature. The Republican secretary of state of Ohio allowed the counties to switch off that feature. You have to ask why. You bought it and it had that feature. They said, Well, it would create chaos. You look at things like that and say hmm. You scratch your head and say, what is going on here? What may be happening in that darkness of cyberspace that the exit polls are giving us a pretty good hint about, but the vote counting system itself completely conceals?

SR: Let’s talk about what you found this week. I’m looking at your 2016 presidential chart. I’m looking at North Carolina for example, where it says the exit poll margin was 2.1% ahead for Clinton, but the final vote count showed Trump with a 3.8% lead. You have similar 4.4% Clinton lead in Pennsylvania but then losing by 1.2% to Trump, a 5.6% shift. You have Florida where she was ahead in exit polls by 1.3% and ends up losing by 1.3%, a 2.6% shift.

Is there any reason you can point to as to why you are seeing that in so many different states?

JS: First of all, let me preface it that what they’ve done since 2004 is exit poll fewer and fewer states. I think there were about 30 states exit polled this time, 20 states were left out because they were considered to be locks, non-competitive. What that does for a forensic standpoint is that it cuts our baseline… It’s as if they had a certain limited amount of resources, and they decided to really plow it into getting larger sample sizes in states that they knew were going to be competitive and possibly controversial.

North Carolina was one of those. I believe it had the largest sample size in the country. It was almost 4,000 voters were sampled and the usual sample size in these state exit polls is somewhere between 1,500 and 2,000 if they expect it to be competitive. That was basically a double sampling that reduces the mathematical margin of error, but it also improves in a less quantifiable way the accuracy of the poll. That 5.9% red shift from Clinton to Trump is way outside the margin of error for that poll and therefore very unlikely to occur by chance. What might have made it happen? People could’ve been lying to the exit pollster. The exit pollster could’ve been all young urban college kids and the Trump voters might have been reluctant to comply with their requests. There might have been refusals from Trump voters.

Now Edison usually tries to get these things right and one of the ways they try to get it right is through some expensive training and they try to get a fairly represented sample of polling interviewers. The polls by the way are confidential. They’re not verbal interviews. You’re just handed a clipboard with a poll on it. It’s not as intimate as some people would believe. There’s less of an incentive to lie because it’s basically confidential. You fold your polling sheet up and you put it in the box or you hand it back to the interviewer to put it into a grab bag. There’s no name on it. There is nothing that associates you with it. The incentive to lie isn’t particularly high. We’ve always dealt with the—is there a reluctant [George W.] Bush responder going on here, is there a shy Trump voter? We don’t know. These are possibilities, but we’ve seen the same kind of exit poll pattern in intraparty contests, we’ve seen it year after year, we’ve seen it at the Senate races, at the House exit poll. It transcends an individual race like this where there was so much intensity.

If you want to sleep well at night, which I also prefer to denial, and you want to say to yourself, Yeah, it must have been people just lying to the exit pollsters and I’m not going to worry about it, that’s fine. What you’re missing at that point is the fact that if you challenge me to say, How do you know these exit polls are valid? I would turn right around and challenge you and say, How do you know the vote counts are valid?

The fact is, and this is cold hard fact, neither of us can prove our case. That is the problem. We have an unobservable system that cannot answer the challenge that it might be subject to manipulation. It can’t demonstrate that it is not rigged. Exit polls are just a tool that we use to look at it and say, Well folks, there might be something to dig deeper into here. The problem is virtually never is anyone allowed to dig deeper. We have optical scanner equipment all over this country right now that have the voter marked ballots that drop through the optical-scan reader device and sit in their cabinet below. Those voter marked ballots need to be saved 22 months in theory, although they’ve been destroyed early, in fact, in many cases, especially if when there was an investigation going on in Ohio.

You have these voter marked ballots that would have probably not been destroyed within two days of the election and they’re there. They theoretically could be exhumed and examined. You could go machine by machine, you could look at them in public and you could compare them with machine counts, then you could reconcile those machine counts with the central tabulator. County counts, and state counts … You could say, Yes, this was a valid election or no, this was not a valid election. We had a problem. Might have been fraud, might have been a glitch, we don’t know. The fact is, nobody has access to those ballots. They are corporate property. They are off limits to public inspection. It might as well, in the 99.9% of cases, be a paperless touchscreen that has no record whatsoever.

The fact is, we are denied, when I saw we, the candidates, the public, very often election administrators, by the rules of their states, are denied access to the actual hard evidence we call it, that would allow a determination of whether the election has been accurately counted or perhaps has been illegitimately counted and manipulated. As a matter of fact, in quite a few states and usually under Republican control, but the Democrats have not been tremendously cooperative about this either. The trend has been for ballots to be removed from public record status so that they are no longer susceptible to four-year requests and similar public information requests, Freedom of Information Act requests. They are getting less transparent, not more so….Read the Rest Here…

InfoWorld – “Every independently audited voting computer has been shown to contain numerous, basic, easy-to-exploit vulnerabilities. A fresh report from the Institute for Critical Infrastructure Technology puts it succinctly: “Voter machines, technically, are so riddled with vulnerabilities that even an upstart script kiddie could wreak havoc.” In 2012, white hat hacker Roger Johnston explained to Popular Sciencehow a voting computer’s votes could be changed for less than $10 worth of RadioShack hardware.”

Here is a Tutorial on how to hack a particular manufacturer’s machine. ALL of the electronic voting machines are vulnerable. All of the scanners are vulnerable. The database which draws up the votes at the national level is vulnerable.

 

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Evidence Mounting the Election Was Hacked

You would think the US system for counting the vote is very secure…

It isn’t.

There are a number of places the system can be hacked – both directly as well as electronically.

Image result for vote fixing

The system which rolls up the national vote totals is called GEM. It has been around pretty much for 20 years. It is rather clunky, not connected to the Internet or outside world. Cases of vote rigging have happened in the past.

The State systems which draw up data from the individual polling locations are a different matter. The electronic systems can gather heir data in a number of different ways, whether by flash drive of information directly collected from the voting machines, machine data over a private network, or machine data over the Internet.

Those electronic machines provide no audit data. In other words there is no way to tell if the information contained in the machines has been tampered with.

Image result for Russian ruble

Putin’s Bitch supposedly won

The systems vary greatly on security. How secure – we don’t know. Principally because there hasn’t been a concerted effort by professional level hackers to take down the system since the vote which awarded Bush II the 2000 Election successfully.

My belief the system was hacked is based on 4 things –

  1. The differential between the pre-vote polling and exit polls and the counted vote.
  2. The rather interesting shift in several states in favor of Trump as the vote counting neared the end.
  3. The involvement of Russian Government hackers in supporting the Trump Regime, initially by supplying information, hacking Democrat databases, hacking Democrat email accounts, and feeding Wikileaks false information…And as so, there is no reason to believe suddenly the developed a respect for the American voting system.
  4. Trump’s noted lack of ground game. He knew, regardless of how the real vote turned out he would win and therefore didn’t feel the need to press.
  5. The fact that there hasn’t been an audit of the numbers.
  6. Hillary is now projected to win, when the rest of the votes are counted, the vote by over 2 million votes (400,000 currently and counting).

Trump supposedly won in actuality by only 107,000 votes in three states. You can read how that worked here.

That just so happens to be in the range of what could be done by a hack of the GEM System without raising major flags.

Now…The FBI would normally pursue this. Except, as we also know the FBI is in Trump’s pocket.

The election was fixed.

Image result for vote fixing

.

 

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on November 14, 2016 in Second American Revolution

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Bad ‘Bidness’ — Trump Screwed Contractors…They Screwed Him Right Back

Back when I owned a government contracting business (Yes, I confess, I was a “Beltway Bandit”), there were a couple of Government agencies around town who were known to be particularly difficult to work for. Either stiffing contractors by exceedingly long payment cycles stretching payment for services often out over 90, 120, and even 180 days, changing project requirements in midstream and then being unwilling to pay the additional costs. And one particular agency whose contracting officers were known to be particularly hostile and difficult to work with. In any business your first priority (besides income) is to pay the people working for you….On time. That means if you contract for a 30 day payment cycle from your client, and you pay your employees weekly, you are out 4 weeks of salaries and expenses before you see the first dime roll in the door. Stretch that out 180 days, and if you have ten people making $50k a year…

That is $250,000 you have to come up with. Which is a hell of a lot of money for a small business.

Now, there are companies which will loan you money against invoices. You have invoiced Client X for $100,000, and they haven’t paid yet, you can borrow $100,000 to cover salaries until thy do. The problem being, you just lost, 3, 5, 8, 10% of what you borrowed as interest – subtracted directly from your bottom line. So let’s say your profit on $100,000 was planned to be $10,000 (Only the big Bandits get to mark up their margins to 30/35% in the Government contracting business, the small contractors are typically held to under 10%)…

You just paid $10,000 to borrow the money – meaning you made nothing. That profit is what allows your business to grow…And hire more people.

So what the businesses started doing is jacking the bids for work, and raising the rates to cover their anticipated losses. What should have been a $500,0000 contract became a $650,000 contract.

Congress finally stepped in and fixed that payment cycle in the mid 90’s, because the irresponsible and sometimes despicable actions of some government employees were driving small businesses out of business. And no, you can’t take them to court. You can’t sue the government unless they agree to be sued, and often such lawsuit is conducted in a special Kangaroo Court which massively favors the government, even when it’s employees have committed fraud.

In Civil Courts in the US, the outcome is determined by which party has the most money. A tool used by scumbags like Donald Trump against small businesses constantly.

Image result for judicial corruption

The ‘Trump Tax’: How Atlantic City businesses bilked Trump out of millions after he’d stiffed them

Has Donald Trump really refused to pay workers? Absolutely.

I grew up in Atlantic City, son of an Atlantic City firefighter. Like many firefighters, my dad had a side job working construction. When I was old enough, I apprenticed with a few of his friends so I could learn some trade skills over summer break. While neither of us personally did a job for Trump (and I was too young to have worked on them personally), we knew plenty of people who did. People on a job site talk, especially about horror stories with former projects. In all the stories I heard about work at Trump’s casinos, I don’t think I know a single person who received payment in full from Donald Trump without going to court.

The way a Trump project went in the early days of his AC properties was basically this:

The project started out with a tough, competitive bidding war. This was pretty common for casino projects prior to Trump, and everyone competed to be the cheapest and give a fair price. The contractor selected would then negotiate some specific terms. Typically Trump would try to reduce the price a bit more, and push as much of the payment as possible to the end of the contract. In itself, it’s not that unusual. It gives the client leverage when it comes to completing the project on time and at quality. But it puts the contractor in a bad position, as they have to cover payroll and often some materials out of pocket until the final payment comes through.

The job would then proceed. Complaints about delays due to Trump micromanaging things were common. He’d suddenly change suppliers or decide he didn’t like the carpet or drapes or chandeliers after they’d already been installed. So the project would run long and be over budget.

Eventually you’d finish and send off that final invoice. At this point, you’re stretched pretty thin. Your payroll and supply costs were higher than expected and all that cost has been out of pocket, so even with the final lump sum you’re doing a little better than breaking even. You pick up the check and it’s for exactly half what he owes you. You obviously ask for the rest and he makes up some reason for knocking off half what he owes (sometimes those delays he caused) and says if you want the rest you’ll have to sue him for it, but that he’s got a very good legal team and it’ll cost more than he owes you just to get it. You know you could win the suit, but financially you can’t afford a long drawn out legal battle.

Plenty of people have taken him to court. And he stalls. That’s his whole strategy. Just wait until you can’t afford to keep the case up. If you can hold out, you know you’ll win, but by then you’re in bad shape and may default on loans or lose your business. And it’s not just you, it’s the guys on your crew. You owe them their paychecks. You can’t just screw them because Trump screwed you. So most people just took what he was willing to give.

Eventually we got smart. We instituted the Trump Tax. Contractors started padding out their bids by quite a bit, so that even if you didn’t get that final payment you’d at least break even. Trump still thought he was being clever and making those “great deals” he’s always talking about, but in truth he was now getting hosed and losing more money over his dishonesty than he ever saved. Every once in a while someone would break ranks and give Trump a fair price. They’d lose their shirt on the job and learn a lesson.

In the long run, it would have been better for everyone involved if Trump had just played it straight. But he couldn’t help himself. And the people of Atlantic City paid the lion’s share of the price.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on October 16, 2016 in Chumph Butt Kicking

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

“Hiawatha” Goes to War

The reason Republicans despise Elizabeth Warren (and thus the “Hiawatha” jab) is she is effective at demanding accountability for the biggest thieves, liars, and crooks in the country. Wll Street, and heads of the major banks.

Here – she lights a fire under Wells Fargo President Stumph for crooked dealing, and profiteering.

I hope like hell for a change, the DOJ prosecutes and sends this sucker to jail where he belongs. Folks are getting real tired of this “special justice” for “special people.” crap.

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on September 20, 2016 in American Greed

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

More Massive Corruption at Wells Fargo Bank

I have said here that Wells Fargo is the most corrupt bank in America. They paid $1.2 billion a few years ago, then the largest fine ever levied on a financial institution for their part in the Mortgage scams leading up to the Great Depression of 2009. IN 2013 the Bank was forced to pay $203 million in restitution and penalties for fake overdraft fees in Gutierrez vs. Wells Fargo. In 2012, the Justice Department ( Justice Dept. vs.Wells Fargo) the court reached a verdict based on Discrimination against African-American and Hispanic borrowers who were steered into high-cost, subprime mortgages. $175 million to be paid to the victims – 34,000 black and Hispanic Mortgage holders.

Here they are again paying a record fine for screwing the customers again…

Supposedly the company has terminated 5,300 employees as part of an internal review. How much you want to bet not a single one of them is one of the crooks at the top?

Image result for wells fargo

Wells Fargo making a get away after a robbery…

 

Wells Fargo Fined $185 Million Over Creation Of Fake Accounts For Bonuses

Wells Fargo Bank has been ordered to pay $185 million in fines and penalties to settle what the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau calls “the widespread illegal practice of secretly opening unauthorized deposit and credit card accounts.”

Thousands of Wells Fargo employees opened the accounts in secret so they would get bonuses for hitting their sales targets, according to investigators. More than 2 million deposit and credit card accounts may have been created without customer authorization.

The bank must pay $100 million to the CFPB — the largest fine ever levied by the federal consumer watchdog. It also will pay $50 million to the City and County of Los Angeles, along with a $35 million penalty to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

It’s also on the hook to pay full restitution to all victims of the scheme.

“Because of the severity of these violations, Wells Fargo is paying the largest penalty the CFPB has ever imposed,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “Today’s action should serve notice to the entire industry that financial incentive programs, if not monitored carefully, carry serious risks that can have serious legal consequences.”

The CFPB’s consent order says the bank has already terminated 5,300 employees as part of an internal review.

Wells Fargo said in a statement that it has fired managers and employees “who acted counter to our values” in carrying out the schemes. It also refunded $2.6 million in fees it collected from customers. The bank said that “accounts refunded represented a fraction of one percent of the accounts reviewed, and refunds averaged $25.”

In addition, the Sioux Falls, S.D.-based bank says it is taking steps to keep this type of scheme from occurring again, noting that it will now send a customer an email confirmation shortly after a deposit account is opened.

“This is a major victory for consumers,” said Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer, whose office sued Wells Fargo in 2015 after a Los Angeles Times investigation into the fake accounts. “Consumers must be able to trust their banks. They should never be taken advantage of by their banks.”

Feuer’s office says that after the suit was filed, the city attorney received “more than 1,000 phone calls and emails from customers and current and former Wells Fargo employees across the nation about the issues raised in the litigation.”

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on September 8, 2016 in American Greed

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

 
%d bloggers like this: