Extortion Is Now A Cornerstone Of The US Justice System

Submitted by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

I’ve been traveling for the past ten days with a group of friends, one of whom is a highly accomplished entrepreneur.

I’ll call him Michael to keep things simple.

Several years ago Michael started an automated domain business that used special software to buy domains, find the most likely buyer, and then sell them.

As a simple example, Michael’s custom software would buy, say, XYZ.com.

Then it would scan online domain records to determine the most likely buyer of that domain… perhaps the owner of XYZ.net.

His software would then send that person an email offering them XYZ.com at a pre-determined price.

If the prospective buyer accepted, he or she could click on a link in the email and purchase XYZ.com.

The beauty of Michael’s business was that it was almost 100% automated; his software was able to do just about everything without the need for human involvement.

Michael’s business was a huge success, and his software sold countless domains over the years.

But he told me the most incredible story a few days ago.

Recently someone brought legal action against him, claiming to have been victimized by a phishing attack that originated from one of Michael’s domains.

(Phishing is a scam where hackers build an official-looking website to bait you into providing personal data like a Social Security Number or bank account password.)

It’s true, Michael did own the domain… for about 30 minutes… in 2009.

After that Michael sold the domain to someone else, after which it was resold again and again until, finally, in 2015, the then-owner of the domain used it to engage in phishing attacks.

So Michael was being blamed for a phishing attack that occurred six years after he sold a domain that he had only owned for about 30 minutes.

Any rational person would step back and say “OK, Michael couldn’t have possibly been the hacker. Maybe instead we should find out who owned the domain at the time of the actual attack.”

Michael contacted the claimant’s legal team, showed them his proof, and tried to reason with them. But the lawyers wouldn’t budge.

Attorneys know that they can bring a lawsuit against anybody for any reason, even when it is completely baseless and without grounds.

They also know that, for most people, the prospect of being sued is terrifying… not to mention incredibly expensive.

Even if they haven’t done anything wrong, most people will settle and make the problem go away rather than risk a prolonged and uncertain court battle.

The judicial process is so draining and time consuming that even if you win, you still lose.

Those lawyers took one look at Michael and saw a successful person who could afford to settle, so they went after him.

It’s basically blackmail… but it has sadly become a cornerstone of the phony justice system in the Land of the Free.

It’s also a reflection of modern social values. Success used to be admired. Now it’s viewed with suspicion and derision.

After all, in the words of the President of the United States, “you didn’t build that…”

Success also puts a target on your back– lawsuits, taxes, etc.

The more successful you become, the more the system tries to take it away from you. These are entirely the wrong incentives if you want a prosperous society.

By the way, this is not a risk that only affects the super wealthy.

Never forget that if you pay any tax at all, you’re already richer than 50% of your fellow countrymen.

Or if you have a net worth that’s above zero, you’re already wealthier than your government.

Sure, it’s possible that you may go your entire life without any legal trouble. And if so, congratulations.

But it’s dangerous to dismiss such an obvious risk, especially if you live in the most frivolously litigious country that’s ever existed in the history of the world.

If you ever do run into legal trouble, by then it will be too late to do something about it.

Any court in your country can put liens on your assets, garnish your wages, and even levy your bank account.

Why take the risk?

A good asset protection strategy is like putting ‘the club’ on your steering wheel.

There’s nothing that’s going to discourage a truly determined thief… but most of the time when they see how protected you are, they’ll just move on to an easier target.

For example, it’s possible to establish trusts and LLCs in certain jurisdictions (both foreign and domestic) whose laws make it very difficult for frivolous creditors to steal what you’ve worked so hard to build.

Ambulance-chasing attorneys know that it’s too costly and difficult to go after assets held in those types of structures, so, like a common thief, they’ll typically just move on to an easier target.

In addition to being a deterrent, a good asset protection strategy also reduces the impact in case that common thief actually does try to steal from you.

Holding some assets in a protected structure or location ensures that, even if a court seizes everything within its jurisdiction to satisfy a judgment against you, you’ll still have a rainy day fund set aside.

This is why people often buy a home in Florida, for example, which has laws ensuring that your primary dwelling cannot be seized.

There are countless attorneys who charge obscene amounts of money to structure a complex asset protection plan.

But most people don’t need to spend a dime.

In reality you can derive tremendous benefit from simple ideas that have minimal carrying costs– like keeping a rainy day fund in physical cash or gold, both of which can be held anonymously and privately.

It definitely makes sense to explore the options. After all, there’s very little downside in making it more difficult for frivolous claimants to steal from you.

Do you have a Plan B?

via http://ift.tt/2eVQa18 Tyler Durden

Facebook Reports 1.8 Billion Monthly Users, Stock Flat Despite Beating Across The Board

What a difference a quarter makes: 3 months after Facebook soared when it smashed Q2 EPS and revenue, moments ago the world’s biggest social network beat on the top and bottom line and the stock first dipped, then rebounded back to unchanged.

Here are the key results, all of which beat:

  • Q3 EPS of $1.09, beat est 97c (range 89c-$1.04)
  • Q3 revenue of $7.01BN, beat est of $6.92BN, up 56% Y/Y
  • Q3 Daily active users (DAUs) of 1.18 billion, higher than the est 1.16 billion and up 17% from 1.13 billion q/q
  • Q3 Monthly active users (MAUs) of 1.79 billion, higher than the est 1.76b and up 16% from 1.71 billion q/q
  • Q3 Mobile MAUs: 1.574 billion, up from 1.314 billion Y/Y
  • The ratio of DAU/MAU was 65.9%, vs 66.1% a quarter ago.

The only metric on which Facebook demonstrated some weakness was mobile ad revenue which grew at 84% in Q3, vs an estimate of 85%.

So while adjusted EPS of $1.09 was 12% above what analysts had predicted for Q3, it pales when compared with the previous three quarters, when EPS exceeded estimates by 18%, 23% and 17% respectively. Facebook’s average earnings beat is 16%.

As BBG notes, one spot of worry for Facebook is the average revenue (ARPU) it makes from each user rose a bit less than the prior quarter. ARPU in the third quarter was $4.01 worldwide, up 35% year-over-year. The ARPU growth rate in the second quarter was 38%

Zuckerberg was laconic: “We had another good quarter,” said Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook founder and CEO. “We’re making progress putting video first across our apps and executing our 10 year technology roadmap.”

Here is the quarter breakdown in charts:

DAU:

MAU:

Mobile MAUs:

 

Revenue

ARPU:

Income from operations

 

And Net Income:

 

And while the company’s earnings were a comfortable beat, perhaps because the beat wasn’t big enough, the stock initially dipped in the after hours, then moved back up to unchanged.

via http://ift.tt/2fdLtOC Tyler Durden

FitBit Crashes 31% To Record Lows After Missing Revenues, Slashing Guidance

Fitbit share are in freefall – crashing to single-digits after hours, down over 31% to record lows, after missing on revenues and slashing guidance.

FIT missed revenues:

  • *FITBIT 3Q REV. $503.8M, EST. $508.7M

and slashed Q4 expectations…

  • *FITBIT SEES 4Q ADJ EPS 14C TO 18C, EST. 75C
  • *FITBIT SEES 4Q REV. $725M TO $750M, EST. $981.3M

Leaving the shares in utter freefall…

 

So given the above – here is what the CEO said…

“I am pleased to see positive reception for our new products launched in the third quarter. We are attracting new customers while our existing ones are upgrading their devices, underscoring the strength of the Fitbit brand and growing relevancy of wearables as part of consumers’ everyday lives,” said James Park, Fitbit co-founder and CEO.

 

“We continue to grow and are profitable, however not at the pace previously expected. We are focused on improving the utility of our products and integrating more deeply into the healthcare ecosystem and believe we can leverage our brand and community to unlock new avenues and adjacencies of growth.”

Cognitive dissonance?

via http://ift.tt/2fwsUZD Tyler Durden

Watch Obama Mildly Throw the Palest of Shade at Comey’s Clinton Letter!

Watch this brief clip of an interview with President Barack Obama from NowThisNews and decide for yourself if he’s, as a Daily Beast headline suggests, “smacking down” FBI Director James Comey for his letter to members of Congress that his agency was investigating newly discovered emails connected to Hillary Clinton’s private email servers:

Granted, Obama is not one to allow anger or frustration to creep into his pedantic tone except in very particularly calculated cases (being upset over mass shootings, for example). Even so, his response here seems relatively mild and doesn’t really justify the Daily Beast’s “Look who is destroying somebody else!” headlines. I wouldn’t even describe him as “sharply” criticizing Comey as The New York Times does.

It’s clear Obama doesn’t agree with the decision but that’s about it. He says about the timing of Comey’s letter, “There is a norm that when we are investigating, we don’t operate on innuendo. We don’t operate on incomplete information. We don’t operate on leaks.”

Yeah, I would love Politifact to go through eight years of either The Washington Post or The New York Times (or both) and count the number of unnamed sources from somewhere within the Department of Justice who have talked about an investigation or case (here’s one that took me about 30 seconds to find via Google).

And, of course, the further irony here is that Comey’s letter makes it clear he has no plans to “operate” on innuendo, incomplete information, or leaks. “Leaks” is a particularly odd choice because this whole part of the scandal is because Comey went public about the state of the investigation, probably because of the administration’s problems with containing leaks.

This brief clip of the interview also ends oddly, with Obama saying, “When this was investigated thoroughly the last time, the conclusion of the FBI, the conclusion of the Justice Department, the conclusion of repeated congressional investigations, was that she had made some mistakes, but that there wasn’t a thing there that was prosecutable.”

Er … yes … but … the entire point of Comey’s letter is to let Congress know that after all those investigations and those conclusions, they discovered additional information that may end up being relevant. One does not have to agree or disagree with the investigation’s conclusion to understand precisely why they now have to take a second look.

I do think there is a genuine, honest concern about the FBI in general talking publicly about the state of investigations. But the transparency here is pretty much justified by exactly how relentlessly political the entire fight has become. And Clinton didn’t just make a mistake on how she handled her emails. Her responses have been misleading every step of the way. I really don’t think Comey had the option of keeping his mouth shut that there would have to be additional investigations.

I am absolutely no fan of Comey’s, whatsoever. He is completely dismissive (and insulting, even) in regards to the needs of citizens to protect their data from both governments and private hackers. But this is a mess entirely of Clinton’s making, not Comey’s, not the GOP cashing in on it politically, and not the media pursuing page views off it (don’t judge me!).

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2f210QS
via IFTTT

Obama Criticizes FBI for ‘Innuendo,’ Gawker Settles With Hulk Hogan, World Series Ends Tonight in Cleveland: P.M. Links

  • President Obama criticized the FBI for operating on “innuendo” in a reference to the agency’s Hillary Clinton investigations.
  • Gawker settled with Hulk Hogan for $31 million.
  • A former police chief in New York was sentenced to less than 4 years in prison for beating a handcuffed man who stole from him and trying to cover the incident up.
  • The sexual assault victim of Brock Turner was named Glamour‘s woman of the year.
  • Microsoft launches a service to compete with Slack.
  • Game 7 of the World Series will be played in Cleveland tonight.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2f22dI7
via IFTTT

Fed Fails To Save Stocks From Worst Losing Streak In 5 Years

Stocks (4mo lows) and HY Bonds (3mo lows) down 7 days in a row… the longest losing streak since Nov 2011

 

"Fleshwound"...

 

Post-Fed, gold and bonds were sold and oil bid which dragged stocks up a smidge…

 

On the day, Trannies held on to green but all stocks ended with an ugly close with Small Caps notably weak again (highest beta to credit) – Dow closed below 18,000 and S&P below 2100…

Notice The Fed bounce failed…

 

VIX held above 19 and S&P ended below 2100…

 

As a reminder, stocks remain green for the year but are falling fast… (Small Caps down almost 10% from the year's highs)

 

Treasury yields ended the day marginally lower (long-end better than short-end)…

 

The USD Index fell for the 3rd day of the last 4 to one month lows…

 

Although it did rally after the Fed…

 

With Swissy and Yen strength dominant but all losing ground during the US day session to the USD

 

But it was Mexican Peso vol that exploded…

 

Silver remains the week's biggest gainer (and oil the loser)…

 

WTI Crude briefly traded with a $44 handle before bouncing on the The Fed…

 

Erasing all the Algiers OPEC "deal" hope gains…

 

Gold (back above $1300) and Silver spiked back to October plunge levels (remember that was the China Golden Week annual plunge)…

 

via http://ift.tt/2fFfNV8 Tyler Durden

Eagles’ Josh Huff Latest NFL Player with Marijuana Problem

Philadelphia Eagles wide receiver Josh Huff was reportedly pulled over while speeding across the Walt Whitman Bridge into New Jersey, with police citing him for possession of a small amount of marijuana (under 50 grams) and unlawful possession of a handgun and hollow-point bullets. He was issued two warrants for the weapons offenses and a criminal summons for the marijuana, and received traffic tickets.

Despite calls in local sports media for Huff to be benched or even cut, Eagles coach Doug Pedersen expects Huff to play in this weekend’s game. Huff’s alleged speeding (and tinted windows) are traffic offenses. While the marijuana and gun charges are more serious, they are no more inherently violent or harmful to others than the traffic charges. Hollow-point bullets are even legal in Pennsylvania and many other states, but New Jersey has specific laws prohibiting the bullets and it appears authorities claim Huff was already in New Jersey when he was pulled over. That didn’t stop one local columnist who called for Huff to be cut from treating hollow point bullets like a war crime. They were “bullets banned for use in warfare by most major powers,” Marcus Hayes wrote breathlessly at Philly.com, and Huff should be cut for acting like a “dumbass.” Hollow point bullets can also be described as among the most popular bullets in the U.S. for law enforcement and civilians. Even the Social Security Administration orders hundreds of thousands of them.

While legal attitudes about marijuana are shifting toward acceptance, when it comes to the National Football League, Huff may be in more trouble for the possession of marijuana than anything else. While marijuana has been mostly decriminalized in Philadelphia, where the Eagles play, and legalized in a number of jurisdictions where the NFL plays, the NFL has the toughest rules against marijuana of any of the major American sports leagues, as Tom Junod noted in ESPN Magazine in a profile on Eugene Monroe, a former NFL player who has become a medical marijuana advocate. Monroe was actually the first active NFL player to speak out against the NFL’s restrictive marijuana rules but retired shortly after, citing health concerns. Among them was Monroe’s concern about the effect of painkillers, often prescribed by NFL doctors for the various injuries sustained by players as well as recovery from surgeries.

Given how much more strenuous and physically demanding and damaging football can be than, say, the NHL (where only a third of players are tested for marijuana every year), the NFL should have been on the cutting edge of marijuana reform advocacy and research into medical marijuana. Instead, it took players like Monroe, who has funded research into medical marijuana, for the NFL to even look at the possibility of marijuana as a pain management tool. A growing number of NFL veterans, including two-time Super Bowl champion Jim McMahon, have been pushing for the NFL to allow players to explore marijuana for medical and other reasons.

Watch Reason TV’s “The NFL Should Let Players Use Marijuana”:

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2e35OJ0
via IFTTT

Unexpected Chart Of The Day: USA Default Risk Tumbles As Trump Gains

While every establishment politician and mainstream media pundit has proclaimed the end of the world as we know it if Donald Trump were to win next week, it appears – perhaps throwing off the narrative of exactly who is the “most dangerous” candidate – that the risk of the US Dollar has dropped along with Trump’s resurgence

 

Chart: Bloomberg

Of course, there is plenty of noise and illiquidity in that sovereign CDS contract as it combines default and devaluation risk of the US Dollar, but it appears the risk premium associated with buying protection on the USA has fallen notably as Donald Trump gains on Hillary Clinton.

via http://ift.tt/2f1Stxy Tyler Durden

Citi Explains What Time Traders Can Go Home On Election Night

It’s all about Florida, North Carolina and Ohio.

For traders hoping to capitalize on volatility next Tuesday as the election results come trickling in, it may all be over by early evening, at least if Trump loses.

That is the calculation of Citi’s Steven Englander, who determined that if Trump loses either Florida or North Carolina or Ohio “the math doesn’t work and it tells us that the shift to Trump was not as pronounced as feared.”

Those states, marked in yellow in the table below, close at 7:00 or 7:30 ET. As Citi adds, even if Trump loses by a little in one of these states, it becomes almost impossible for him to win. It would take a tidal wave in a couple of states that look firmly Democrat.

Citi helpfully adds that “the odds that he loses, say a Florida or North Carolina, but wins a Pennsylvania do not seem high” at which point “vol collapses, MXN rallies and we go home early.”

On the other hand, if Trump wins all these states then he still has to win a Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Colorado or New Mexico (shown in brown).

What happens then? Citi explains:

  • Many of these close later and the odds are the outcomes will be tighter.
  • Virginia also possible but less likely than some of the others.
  • Asset markets will be very sensitive to news
  • Market still not really pricing in substantial risk of Trump win, so we could see huge volatility both in MXN and in asset classes that so far have moved modestly on poll shifts.
  • So we go home very late.

As a reminder, it took shocked markets a few hours to swing from a “priced-in” Remain victory, to the realization that Brexit was a winner, at which point S&P futures were briefly locked limit down, prompting an emergency announcement by the Bank of England and ECB that this aggression against the wealth effect would not stand, before everything returned largely to normal.

Here are Englander’s parting words:

FWIW – the RCP electoral vote no-toss-up  is now 273 for Clinton to 265 for Trump http://ift.tt/2ayCl4F . Probably overstates Trump odds, but map makes it clear both that trend is shifting, but that he still  has to win at least one state that so far looks firmly Democrat.

Perhaps, the take home message here is that Wall Street is still firmly convinced that Hillary Clinton will be the next president.

via http://ift.tt/2eeFLJS Tyler Durden

Should Libertarians Vote For Trump? Nick Gillespie vs. Walter Block

Reason’s Nick Gillespie and libertarian economist Walter Block had a raucous debate in New York City last night over whether libertarians should vote for Donald Trump. It was hosted by the SoHo Forum and moderated by Gene Epstein, who’s the economics and book review editor at Barron’s (and also happens to be my father). Audience members voted their positions at the outset and conclusion of the debate, and Block, who was arguing in favor of Trump, prevailed by convincing more audience members to come over to his side.

The debate turned nasty almost immediately, with Block refusing to shake Nick’s hand, referring to him as “Dr. Gillespie,” and at one point calling him “vile” and a “nasty man.” Block attributes his hostility to a blog post Nick wrote about a 2014 New York Times article, in which Block was quoted as saying that slavery was “not so bad.” After the article appeared, Block filed a lawsuit against the Times for misrepresenting his views. Nick’s post, which was critical of the Times article for a different reason, included a block quote from the piece with one of the sentences about Block.

At another point in the debate, Block criticized Reason’s brand of libertarianism (jump to about 55:30):

What these scoundrels do, and I include Dr. Gillespie here, is try to hijack libertarianism away from the “thin” libertarianism by adding all sorts of other irelevancies. Like, say, mixed marriages. Somehow mixed marriages are libertarian because in addition to the non-aggression principle, you can’t look down on other races, you can’t be hateful. That’s got nothing to do with libertarianism. Now these guys are left-wing “thick” libertarians, but there are right-wing “thick” libertarians too.

Listen to the debate here, or better yet subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

For more on the monthly debates hosted by the SoHo Forum, visit the website. Next month’s features Richard Epstein of NYU Law vs. Cato’s Chris Preble on foreign policy.

Don’t miss a single Reason podcast or video! Subscribe, rate, and review!

Follow us at Soundcloud.

Subscribe to our video channel at iTunes.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2eoFEz3
via IFTTT