Posted on 06/16/2010 10:54:35 AM PDT by jazusamo
Nice Rosie jab. He’s not siezing their assets, they agreed to put it into an independent account.
So those fishermen and shrimpers shouldn’t have our government on their side? I know BP says they care about the “small” people but I’m not 100 percent sold on their competence.
and WHAT is that threat?
I’d like to know so that I may use it to get MY way someday.
Nothing makes SENSE anymore!
>> Isn’t this an issue for the COURTS?
Is thug-power a function of the Constitution and judicial system?
No.
The states are “victims”. They do not OWN the seabottom where that well is located. The US Federal Government owns that land.
Most American would find it abhorrent to live with a paternalistic dictator “looking after their interests”
why did BP “agree” to set up an escrow that is over 20 times more than their liability UNDER LAW? Is it a de facto “seizure” of assets due to threats from obama?
and that “independent account”? Is being administered by the radical liberal obama called his “pay czar”, the one who wants government to set pay and wages for US private citizens. A real independent, right.
Some are suggesting blackmail by obama’s Chicago thugs, but you are OK with this as long as the little guys get some of the loot
AGAIN- this discussion is not about WHO PAYS- it is about Constitutional limits on govt power over private individuals and businesses last fall they came for GM, last spring they came for your health insurance, today they came for BP, tomorrow they come for you
Just wait for cap’n tax my friend, those shrimpers and fishermen who think they work for themselves and have obama at their back will find out they have to buy carbon credits from that paternalistic dictator's globalist buddies for the right to fish
It turns out I have a bit more experience than the average person (and probably a lot more than your average lawyer, or even your Washington insider lawyer in this little chunk of things, but not much more).
Let's say you got cheated by the Post Office (you mailed 50 million advertising brochures and were charged 2 cents more per copy than you think you owed.
You appeal that through channels and everybody tells you "No, no, no, no. I'm not going to rehab" and you are just out of luck.
Eventually you appeal to me (way back when) and the boss is out that day and I write you a final answer that says "No, no, no" and also says "Final Agency Decision".
That means you get to go to court ~ administrative due process (in the federal agency called the USPS) would be completed at that point.
The "procedures" for providing administrative due process are different than those you will find in the court, so maybe you'll be lucky and find a judge who feels sorry for you. He won't understand the problem, but he'll empathize ~ compared to me!
So, lots of luck.
Everybody who feels they got ripped off by USPS thinks they should be able to go to court immediately, but the law provides that you need to exhaust all the procedures available in that agency, or any other, for addressing your concern FIRST. Congress has passed laws requiring every agency to establish reasonable appeals processes to address conflicts in the administration of regulations by that agency.
What you have here with the BP oil blowout is very simple. BP paid a lease fee for the right to drill for oil. They had hoped to be pumping oil by now and paying royalties for the oil, in addition to that lease fee.
They have a CONTRACT in the form of a LEASE and the dispute between the government and BP takes place within the framework established by the lease. If there is something wrong with the lease, that can be worked out by the courts at their leisure later on, but for now both parties are stuck with the lease.
Unfortunately the government failed to build walls around that leasehold so the spilled oil is spreading out over other folk's property. Viewed objectively the government is spreading oil on other properties it owns, lessees' property, private property with a right of peaceful passage (fishing boats, etc.), and now state owned land, and beach front property ~ some owned by states, some owned by the federales.
The desire of the property owners in the vicinity is that the government DO SOMETHING.
BP, acting as the government's agent in the context of the lease agreement is doing stuff, and spending money, and also agreeing to pay the damages of others injured as a consequence of the oil leaks.
For a variety of reasons the United States government is caught in the middle ~ well, heck fire folks, they are the landlord! It is as much the responsibility of the landlord to call the fire department as it is the guy who burned the beans up on the 10th floor!
The landlord has now eliminated the obligation of BP to do anything beyond 20 billion bucks. At the same time the landlord is doing nothing to prevent further oil damage to the more removed neighbors.
Your rage should be directed at the government, and then at BP.
I got to hear Sen. Bachman speak at the Republican Convention. Clear-minded, clear speaking, and she has more, ummm, backbone, than anyone else who spoke. She tells it like it is.
actually the 20 billion fund demanded of BP is NOT a cap, as per obama’s announcement today
and also the obamites milked another $100 million from BP for a “foundation” to suppport ALL the deepwater oil rig workers unemployed - by obama’s “6 month” shutdown. clever eh - payola for the unions
obama and the democrats will milk BP until it folds.
I think you're right.
I would say wrong!
Here's an idea; instead of the knee-week money-grabber FBI/CIA "wall-builder," BP would have been wise to chose and retained Dr. Orly Taitz!!
She might have staved off the usurper's intimidation and saved BP's coffer $20 billion and could have brought up Soetoro's NBC status, hmmmm!!!
It is a PR nightmare, that's why. Obummer knows this and used it for the extortion of BP Oil. The only legal route BP should have taken was through the court system, but we are no longer a nation of laws. BP Oil is acting this way and agreeing to these things as a matter of Public Relations and when the court orders do start coming in it will appear that BP was "acting in good faith." The fact that they agreed to turn over the actual funds to a non-legitimate and illegal arbitrator will be their downfall. When the funds don't get to where they need to go...it won't be BP's fault.
Agree, do you follow world history or do you watch Glenn Beck on FOX???
Please see here:
Is Obama’s BP Shakedown an Impeachable Offense?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/is_obamas_bp_shakedown_an_impe.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.