The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewEric Striker Archive
Corrupt Supreme Court Gives Green Light to Corporations to Steal from Pensioners
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The conservative majority on the Supreme Court may betray America on cultural issues, but it does equally as impressive legal back flips to protect corporations who want to steal their worker’s pensions.

In Thole v. U.S. Bank, Judge Kavanaugh led a 5-4 ruling stating that the retirees suing their employers for enriching themselves by mismanaging their pension fund did not have standing for legal action due to the fact that they were still receiving money.

According to Kavanaugh, et al, stakeholders in a pension plan do not have a right to sue for fiduciary misconduct until their pension plan finally goes bankrupt. This is the equivalent of having someone steal and then gamble half the money you stored away for years– after taking excessive fees for themselves — and being unable to obtain legal redress because you still have enough leftover to pay your bills in the short term.

The ruling ignores and even neutralizes the rights of workers under existing laws like the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), which is meant to curtail the irresponsible management and corrupt self-dealing by capital.

The case of U.S. Bank is egregious. From 2007 to 2010, the bank’s executives had their own subsidiary, FAF Affiliates, take a healthy and over funded pension plan and unilaterally decided to invest it all in the stock market rather than diversify it towards areas of stable growth. Over this three year period, $748 million dollars of the retiree’s money was lost to the Wall Street casino. The executives and speculators in question all compensated themselves with handsome fees for this blunder.

in his majority opinion, Kavanaugh made a painstaking effort to avoid addressing this gross misconduct. The plaintiffs, two retirees, demanded U.S. Bank — whose CEO Andrew Cecere gave himself a 40% salary increase last month — return the money to the pension plan. Kavanaugh threw the case out, arguing that individual pensioners have no say in how their pension plan is being handled until it is insolvent and they no longer are receiving their check.

Somehow the rules for managing pensions are different than those governing private trusts in the eyes of conservative jurors. This will provide huge leeway for corporate America.

Setting The Stage For Unlimited Pension Theft

The legal precedent set in Thole v. U.S. Bank will provide ample room for Kavanaugh and co to protect defendants in a much higher profile case on the docket, Mayberry v. KKR.

In Mayberry v. KKR, retired firefighters and police officers are suing Wall Street hedge funds on behalf of their public pension plan and Kentucky taxpayers for lying to pension mangers about returns on exotic financial instruments that caused $1.5 billion dollars to vanish out of the $12.1 billion Kentucky Retirement System fund.

After convincing them to go along with the plan, Blackstone and KKR began charging outrageous fees once they were on the hook. Thanks in part to these raiders, the pension plan is now insolvent.

Wall Street Jew defendants Henry Kravis of KKR and Blackstone’s Stephen Schwarzman are both big GOP donors. To understand how much clout they have in the Republican Party, Donald Trump sought to nominate Kravis for Treasury Secretary, a position he declined to take. Schwarzman is personally advising Trump on his “Re-open America” program.

The fact that Kravis and Schwarzman are so deeply borrowed into the Republican Party machine puts pressure on Kavanaugh and the other conservative jurists to figure out rule against the law and the people of Kentucky in favor of New York Jew criminals.

Luckily for Kavanaugh he lives in a plutocracy. He now has a legal precedent set by his own pen to reference, and potentially dismiss the case.

(Republished from National Justice by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 20 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. anonymous[400] • Disclaimer says:

    These so-called conservatives are just capitalist money-grabbers with no values besides that of acquiring more money. That’s all they’re about and are really not conservative as most people understand it. The re-open program will probably ensure that they’ll be able to grab a lot of the assets of the bankrupted small businesses for a fraction of its value, a huge transfer of wealth scheme. Billions routinely ‘disappear’ as part of these bad investments yet what really happens to it all? Do they just vanish? In whose pockets do they come to settle in?

    • Agree: Iva
  2. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:

    Would this be the same “Kav” that so many Buchanan and Sailer readers were stridently supporting when he was nominated by President Trump? The man who earned his first robe on the Swampville Circuit helping push through the Patriot Act during the Cheney Administration?

    Don’t be fooled by the puppet show’s confirmation hearings and stirring dissents in those 5-4 and 6-3 cases. The Court’s job is to decree domestic social policies to protect the invertebrate Congress from controversial votes, as each forebears the Executive’s warfaring and imperialism outside the nation. In cases like the one discussed here, institutions almost always prevail over people.

    Republican nominees are part of this Establishment system, and often cast the deciding vote, e.g.,

    Kennedy –> impose a national redefinition of marriage
    Roberts –> save Obamacare for Big Sickness
    Gorsuch –> amend the Civil Rights Act

    None of this will change until people stop rationalizing voting Team Red to keep enough “Conservative” penumbralators on the bench.

    • Agree: kerdasi amaq, Katrinka
    • Replies: @schnellandine
  3. MarkinLA says:

    This whole concept of “standing” is seriously F-up up. There is no definition that can be argued about at least. It is just some convenient dodge the court can use if it doesn’t want to hear the case. Obviously, these pensioners are being hurt. Funds have to calculate their future ability to pay all the time and know well in advance if they are capable of meeting these obligations. The minute they can’t is when somebody should step in, not when the checks stop coming.

    What do you expect from the most worthless and useless people in the country? This is no different than California’s Prop 8 regarding gay marriage. When the State of California refused to continue to defend the case in court, the people who spent a lot of time and money to get it passed were allowed to take over the case by the California Supreme Court. You would have thought that would have conferred standing on them as the case went all the way up to SCOTUS. The 9th Circuit never brought up standing, yet somehow SCOTUS finds that as a reason to throw the case out. People who spent millions of dollars and tens of thousands of man hours promoting their proposition suffered no loss therefore had no standing.

  4. According to Kavanaugh, et al, stakeholders in a pension plan do not have a right to sue for fiduciary misconduct until their pension plan finally goes bankrupt. This is the equivalent of having someone steal and then gamble half the money you stored away for years– after taking excessive fees for themselves — and being unable to obtain legal redress because you still have enough leftover to pay your bills in the short term.

    No it is not that equivalent. What you are suggesting should be case law is the equivalent of a wife suing her husband because maybe some day he might her.

    The pensioners retain their rights to sue. The defendants can have their assets–ill-gotten or not–seized in a law suit that they lose.

    The justices were correct: you have to wait until the deed is done to sue someone about it.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    , @Exile
    , @anonymous
  5. @anonymous

    Republican nominees are part of this Establishment system, and often cast the deciding vote, e.g.,

    Agree with your comment, but the ‘deciding vote’ view has never set easy with me. The logic appears to be that someone went against expectations, rendering the move pivotal/deciding.

    I detect a more insidious personal defect at the heart of it: fame whoring, the ultimate prototype of which may be Missile-misfire McCain throwing an Emperor’s thumb for cameras and fools. And below even that defect is the apparent sickness afflicting so many ‘conservatives’, by which they desire more than justice the approbation of leftist swine.

    Beyond, as with sport, it isn’t the last point cast that decided the outcome, but each single point. Though not a fan of blackcentric sports, viewed a bunch of Kobe Bryant vids after he died. Not being familiar at all with him, was shocked by his defensive intensity, no matter when in the game or where on the court. He cared about each point, each opportunity to wreck the other side. In other words, his approach to his job shamed the work ethic of most ‘conservative’ frauds.

  6. Exile says:

    This is disgusting. I’ve seen dozens of good pension-fraud cases get choked out by ERISA and its progeny and this is more of the same bullshit.

    Yet another example of the Talmudry that has replaced the Anglo-Saxon concept of the spirit of the law. These laws were ostensibly intended to protect American workers from pension abuses and fraud like this, but they’ve been constructed and construed to provide protections and tactics for the fraudsters themselves.

    And once again the “originalists” and “strict constructionists” that the (((Federalist Society))) offers our puppet Presidents for selection are more than happy to disregard any and all of their alleged principles to ensure that some corporate persons are more equal than working persons in our exceptional egalitarian wonderland.

  7. R.C. says:

    This is so illogical as to be indefensible. This shows how much even the USSC has been coopted and corrupted by the Federal system refusal to either civilly or criminally prosecute thefts made on behave of the USA’s big market controllers. Evil.
    R.C.

  8. This obviously flies in the face of Pension Regulatory bodies and legal precedence.
    I was a pension trustee for 15 years. I went to more than a dozen IFEBP conventions. Feduciary responsibility, and the newest lawsuits against plans were always discussed in sessions. Virtually every lawsuit was related to plans still functioning. Plans have liability insurance for trustees (board members) in case of lawsuits.
    It looks like George Carlin was right after all

  9. MarkinLA says:
    @restless94110

    By then it is too late – the money is gone and will never come back. What about that don’t you understand?

    • Replies: @restless94110
  10. Bro43rd says:

    It seems this isn’t a left/right issue but a banks vs people issue. And no surprise, the banks win again. The system is purposely set up that way. It’s an oligarchic corporatocracy that allows the illusion that the people have a say in it.
    Starve the beast, grow your own or get local. Repair & reuse, stop the spending. And by all means, don’t trust the banks or big gov with your $ or savings/retirement. There’s power in our purses that’s not in the voting booth.

    • Replies: @Cycling Goddess
  11. ANZ says:

    It’s becoming clear that no government branch or agency will save you. We tax slaves have taxation without representation. We are being squeezed hard between the oligarchs on one side and the gibs-me-dats on the other sucking away our lifeblood and trying their damndest to erase us. This cannot end well for anyone.

    • Agree: Katrinka
  12. Remember when trump signed something over turning fiduciary duty of stock brokers n their firms towards their clients?

    I trade by my self now. Thank God for Robin Hood app. Thank God it forced other e trade platforms to follow it.

    Fuck them all. Trump and the supreme court.

  13. @Bro43rd

    Simple question — who owns the banks? Let’s do a deep dive on that.

  14. Exile says:
    @restless94110

    MarkinLA points out the obvious flaw here – how many claims for financial fraud do not arise until there are so many victims and so little loot left in the hands of fraudsters that restitution cannot be made? If it happens at all, it’s pennies on the dollar lost.

    The idea that the law cannot act until the deed is done has its place – “thoughtcrime” or “pre-crime” is not a just concept – but the Enlightenment and libertarian thinkers take this too far. Rand’s disdain for “preemptive regulation” is an example.

    Not only is it just to preempt and proscribe entire categories of high-risk conduct – like selling mortgage backed securities regardless of whether they’ve tanked yet – it’s often the only way to prevent massive theft and waste. Some things are too dangerous to be left unregulated. The classic example is “Libertarian Airlines.”

    The 2008 bailout shenanigans show how dangerous and foolish it was to trust banksters based on the idea that “they have reputations to protect – they won’t steal because they can’t afford to look bad.” Read Neil Barofsky’s “Bailout” for examples. He was SIG-TARP under both W and Obama and warned about this – to no avail – time and time again.

    Those of us who actually work in civil law rather than merely philosophizing about it have seen the consequences of libertarian principles – and they are not just or sane.

    Libertarian ideas like “no preemptive regulation” are almost always based in idealism with no regard for how they will function in the real world or their real life consequences for actual people and society.

    • Replies: @restless94110
  15. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:
    @restless94110

    Two people have refuted your comment.

    Shouldn’t you either defend or concede? Or are you just letting the article slide off the homepage?

    • Replies: @restless94110
  16. @MarkinLA

    Um, what I don’t understand about that is that you have to wait until something is done to sue. How many times or ways do you need to hear it? It doesn’t matter what they did with the money.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    , @MarkinLA
  17. @Exile

    Pointing out a bunch of examples where people “got away” with something is a bankrupt argument. Unless the people went to their secret room in the starship and were transferred to another universe, those people are still on Earth.

    They can face justiice only after they do something that they can be charged or sued for.

    No one went “too far” by adhering to this basic concept of justice. No exceptions. Anything else is thoughtcrime whether you call it that or not.

  18. @anonymous

    Neither 2 refuted anything. I rarely read comments to my comments. But here I am, weeks later taking a bit of time to respond. So, there ya go. Happy now?

  19. MarkinLA says:
    @restless94110

    Something did happen. The fund can no longer meet it’s future obligations according to accepted accounting standards. Previously, it could, so something must have changed. Either, conditions beyond anybody’s control caused it or somebody mismanaged the money. The time to make corrections is now or take legal action to recover money.

    Monaco, Las Vegas, or that Russian prostitute isn’t giving the money the fund manager took and blew on them back.

  20. MarkinLA says:
    @restless94110

    If we followed your ridiculous thinking, any insolvent bank that was being threatened by an FDIC takeover should be able to sue to prevent it until a depositor who came to get some of his money was denied. By that time the losses and cost to the FDIC would be enormous.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Eric Striker Comments via RSS