Thugs With Badges
Posted by Michelle Moquin on May 26th, 2011
Here’a another example of thugs with badges at it again. This time they killed an innocent man with 60 plus rounds to his body, and then allowed him to bleed to death in his own home, in front of his family.
Jose Guerena Killed: Arizona Cops Shoot Former Marine In Botched Pot Raid
On May 5 at around 9:30 a.m., several teams of Pima County, Ariz., police officers from at least four different police agencies armed with SWAT gear and an armored personnel carrier raided at least four homes as part of what at the time was described as an investigation into alleged marijuana trafficking. One of those homes belonged to 26-year-old Jose Guerena and his wife, Vanessa Guerena. The couple’s 4-year-old son was also in the house at the time. Their 6-year-old son was at school.
As the SWAT team forced its way into his home, Guerena, a former Marine who served two tours of duty in Iraq, armed himself with his AR-15 rifle and told his wife and son to hide in a closet. As the officers entered, Guerena confronted them from the far end of a long, dark hallway. The police opened fire, releasing more than 70 rounds in about 7 seconds, at least 60 of which struck Guerena. He was pronounced dead a little over an hour later.
The Pima County Sheriff’s Department initially claimed (PDF) Guerena fired his weapon at the SWAT team. They now acknowledge that not only did he not fire, the safety on his gun was still activated when he was killed. Guerena had no prior criminal record, and the police found nothing illegal in his home. After ushering out his wife and son, the police refused to allow paramedics to access Guerena for more than hour, leaving the young father to bleed to death, alone, in his own home.
I can now report a number of new details that further call into question the police account of what happened that morning. But first some context:
The Pima County Sheriff’s Office has now changed its story several times over the last few weeks. They have issued a press release (PDF) scolding the media and critics for questioning the legality of the raid, the department’s account of what happened, and the department’s ability to fairly investigate its own officers. They have obtained a court order sealing the search warrants and police affidavits that led to the raids, and they’re now refusing any further comment on the case at all. When I contacted Public Information Officer Jason Ogan with some questions, he replied via email that the department won’t be releasing any more information. On Saturday, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik told Arizona Daily Star columnist Josh Brodesky that he may never release the search warrants and police affidavits. Dupnik rose to national prominence earlier this year after claiming combative political rhetoric contributed to Jared Loughner killing six people and wounding 19 others, including Rep. Gabielle Giffords, last January.
The department’s excuses for keeping all of this information under wraps make little sense. In his May 18 press release (PDF), for example, Ogan wrote, “The investigation that lead to the service of the search warrants on May 5 is a complicated one involving multiple people suspected of very serious crimes. Sometimes, law enforcement agencies must choose between the desire of the public to quickly know details, and the very real threat to innocent lives if those details are released prematurely.” Dupnik used the same line of reasoning with Brodesky. “Those are the real sensitive parts of why we are having difficulty with trying to put information out publicly–because we don’t want somebody getting killed,” Dupnik said.
The problem with that explanation is that the search warrants and affidavits weren’t sealed until four days after the raids were executed, right at about the time the troubling questions about Jose Guerena’s death began to make national headlines. If revealing the details of this investigation — which remember, was initially described by the Sheriff’s Department as a marijuana investigation — could endanger lives, why weren’t the warrants and affidavits sealed from the start? It isn’t difficult to understand why some would suspect a cover-up, or at least an attempt to suppress details until the department can come up with a narrative that mitigates the damage. In any case, it’s awfully audacious for a police agency to scold the media for not trusting them and for “spreading misinformation” just days after revealing they themselves released bad information.
There are other reasons to doubt the excuse that releasing the search warrants would jeopardize public safety. The raids on the other homes carried out that same morning, all part of the same operation, resulted in no arrests and turned up little if any actual contraband. (When police find illegal substances after these raids — especially raids that end badly — they usually quickly release that information.)
Moreover, if this was all about breaking up a dangerous home invasion ring, where are the suspects, and where is the evidence? According to an advocate for the Guerena family I spoke with this week, the police also mistakenly raided another home near Guerena’s the same morning, and have since replaced that home’s front door. Again, the Pima County Sheriff’s Department is refusing comment, so I can’t verify this allegation with them. But police officials have admitted that even the Guerena warrant was only for his residence, not for Jose Guerena personally; his name doesn’t appear anywhere on the warrants. The police also concede they weren’t aware that there was a child in the home at the time of the raid. Given all of this, it seems reasonable to question just how thorough this investigation really was.
I’ve been reporting on the overuse of SWAT teams and military police tactics for about six years now. You begin to see patterns in how police agencies respond to high-profile incidents like this one. One near-universal tactic is to lock down information once the media begins to grow skeptical. Another, often undertaken simultaneously, is to unofficially leak information that’s beneficial to the police department. They’re doing both in Tucson.
Michael Storie, the attorney for the Arizona police union, is apparently handling the smear campaign portion of the strategy. Storie points out on the union’s website that under his watch, no union police officer “has ever been convicted on charges relating to on-duty conduct.” That may be a boastworthy claim when it comes to Storie’s lawyering prowess. But it isn’t exactly a testament to his trustworthiness. (Police critic William Grigg also points out that the boast isn’t entirely true –Storie represented a cop convicted of a sexual assault and kidnapping committed in 2005, despite Storie’s best efforts to blame the victims.)
On Friday, Storie told the Arizona Daily Star that Guerena was “linked” to a “home-invasion crew,” and that police found rifles, handguns, body armor, and a “portion of a law-enforcement uniform” in Guerena’s house. “Everything they think they’re going to find in there, they find,” Storie said. “Put it together, and when you have drug rip-offs that occasionally happen where people disguise themselves as law enforcement officers, it all adds up.”
I asked Chris Scileppi, the attorney representing Guerena’s family, about the “portion of a law enforcement uniform” allegation. “They’re trying to imply that he was dressing up as a police officer to force his way into private homes,” Scileppi says. But when police serve a search warrant they leave behind a receipt what they’ve taken from the residence. According to Scileppi, the only item taken from Gurena’s home that remotely fits that description was a U.S. Border Control cap — which you can buy from any number of retail outlets, including Amazon.com.
About the guns and body armor Scileppi says, “Is it really that difficult to believe that a former Marine living in Arizona would have guns and body armor in his home? Nothing they found in the house is illegal to own in Arizona.” In fact, Storie himself acknowledged in the Daily Star that had the SWAT team entered Guerena’s home peacefully, they wouldn’t have made an arrest.
And when you “put it together,” to borrow his own terminology, Storie’s comments thus far lead to a pretty astonishing conclusion: After violently breaking into Guerena’s home, the police found exactly the evidence they were looking for — yet none of that evidence merited an arrest. Storie is either shamelessly posturing, or he actually believes that the police are justified in violently forcing their way into a private home with their guns drawn, even if they have no expectation that they’ll find any evidence of a crime.
At his press conference last week, Storie also defended the SWAT team’s refusal to allow paramedics to access Guerena for more than hour. “They still don’t know how many shooters are inside, how many guns are inside and they still have to assume that they will be ambushed if they walk in this house,” Storie said.
This is absurd. The entire purpose of using SWAT teams, dynamic entry, and like paramilitary-style police tactics is to subdue dangerous suspects and secure the building within seconds. If it took it took more than hour to secure the Guerenas’ small home, this particular SWAT team was incompetent. By contrast, paramedics were tending to the wounded after the Jared Loughner shootings within 12 minutes, and that was a far more volatile crime scene.
Storie has offered up a number of other questionable allegations and explanations in recent days.
Last week, for example, Storie told the Daily Star that the investigation leading up to the raids was from the start about home invasions and “drug rip-offs” — not just marijuana distribution, as the Sheriff’s Department initially indicated. Storie also says the police vehicles ran their lights and sirens until they were parked in the Guerenas’ driveway, and that a police officer knocked on the door and announced himself for a full 45 seconds before the SWAT team forced its way inside. He emphasized that the raid was “in no way” a “no-knock” operation.
Storie is laying groundwork for the argument that Guerena should have known that the men breaking into his home were police. That he still met them with his rifle meant he was intent on killing them, which of course would justify their rash of gunfire. For good measure, Storie added that just before they opened fire, several officers reported hearing Guerena say, “I’ve got something for you; I’ve gotten something for you guys.”
There are a number of problems here, beginning with the lights, the sirens, and the knocking. If these warrants were, as Storie claims, for suspected dangerous, well-armed members of a home invasion ring, why would they give a violent suspect such ample warning that they’re coming? Whywouldn’t the police have sought and obtained a no-knock warrant? This is precisely the scenario for which no-knock entry is warranted — to apprehend suspected dangerous people who may present an immediate threat to police and the public.
This week I also spoke with Ray Epps, a retired Marine sergeant from Mesa, Arizona and president of the Arizona chapter of Oath Keepers, the controversial organization of police and military personnel who have vowed not to enforce laws they believe are unconstitutional. After hearing about Guerena’s death, Epps drove to Tucson to investigate.
“We spoke with several of the neighbors,” Epps says. “And none of them — none of them — heard any sirens that morning. Every one of them told us they didn’t hear anything, no knocking, no shouting, until the shooting started. They didn’t hear anything until the shooting started.” Scileppi, who is conducting his own investigation, wouldn’t say if he had spoken to neighbors, but did say of the lights and sirens, “What we’ve found contradicts what they’re saying.” Epps added, “What I found disturbing is that none of the neighbors would give us their names. These people are terrified of the police, now. Another thing I found strange, they said the police didn’t evacuate them untilafter the shooting.”
If next-door neighbors didn’t hear the sirens or police announcement at the door, it’s plausible that Guerena, who was sleeping off the graveyard shift he’d worked the night before, didn’t hear them either. Of course, the other possibility here is that the police are lying about the sirens and the announcement.
To buy what Storie is pitching, you would have to believe that Guerena — the father of two young boys, who was working a night job to save money for a new home, who had no criminal record, who served two tours of duty in Iraq and was honorably discharged — knowingly took on a team of armored, well-armed police officers, himself armed only with his rifle, and with his wife and young child still in the home. You’d also have to believe that the battle-tested former Marine forgot to turn off his weapon’s safety before the shooting began.
The alternate explanation — and I think the more plausible one — is that Guerena thought the men breaking into his home were criminals, but held his fire until he was sure. (That’s also the mark of someone well-trained in gun safety, and a stark contrast to the SWAT team, which despite never receiving hostile fire, unleashed a barrage of bullets that penetrated not only Jose Guerena but, according to sources I spoke with, also the walls of neighboring homes.)
If you’re not actually a criminal and you wake up to the sound of armed men breaking into your home, your first thought isn’t likely to be that you’re being visited by the police. There may also have been something else on Guerena’s mind: Last year, two of Vanessa Guerena’s relatives were murdered by armed intruders. The intruders also shot the couple’s children. What Guerena is alleged to have said — “I’ve got something for you; I’ve gotten something for you guys” — sounds damning if you assume he knew the men in his home were police, but there’s nothing in that sentence indicating Guerena knew he was confronting cops. It also sounds like something a former soldier might shout out to intimidate armed intruders. And let’s not forget, the same team of SWAT officers who reported hearing Guerena say those words also reported seeing a muzzle flash from Guerena’s gun, which we now know couldn’t have happened.
Storie also says police found a photo of Jesus Malverde in Guerena’s home. Malverde is an iconic, probably mythical figure often described as the “narco saint”. But as my former Reason magazine colleague Tim Cavanaugh points out, while it’s true that Malverde has been embraced by drug traffickers, he is also revered by the poor, by immigrants, and by people who feel they’ve been wronged. “That Guerena had a picture of Jesus Malverde tells us two things,” Cavanaugh writes. “He had a family to worry about and he shared the belief of most Americans that a supernatural being or beings can influence earthly circumstances.”
When Daily Star columnist Josh Brodesky asked Sheriff Dupnik if Storie’s chats with the press about the details of the Guerena raid were hindering the investigation, Dupnik said, simply, “No.” So while Dupnik’s department is refusing to officially release any information about the raid or surrounding investigation due to “the real threat to innocent lives,” he has no problem with the police union lawyer disclosing details that smear Guerena to the benefit of Dupnik and his department.
Perhaps we will at some point see convincing evidence that Dupnik and Storie are right — that Jose Guerena was in fact a drug dealer and violent criminal who dressed up like a cop to rob rival drug dealers and innocent citizens of Pima County. But at this point, all we have is a dead father and veteran, a violent series of raids that make little sense, and a police agency that over the last three weeks has put out incorrect information, insisted that it would be dangerous to release any further information, and, at the same time, allowed a police representative to release information favorable to the department.
The government of Pima County has killed one of its own citizens. This is the most serious, solemn, and severe action a local government can undertake. It demands complete transparency. The Pima County Sheriff’s Department and other agencies involved in the raid ought to be doing anything and everything to make themselves accountable. Instead, they’ve shown arrogance, defiance, and obstinacy — all wrapped in an appeal to public safety.
**********
Readers: I can not imagine, what his wife must’ve gone through. If the above write doesn’t upset you enough, watch this video. The fact that this man is bleeding to death and these dispatchers are asking her name and other ridiculous questions is just criminal. I am sickened by the treatment that this woman is receiving when she is begging for her husband to be saved, and they are speaking to her like she is dirt.
Be aware, this video is very tough to listen too.
And did you hear this woman say that she had to hold up her baby in front of her to prevent them from shooting her.(!) There is so much wrong, so much discriminations when it comes to this story, I don’t even know where to begin.
Thoughts? Blog me.
Lastly, greed over a great story is surfacing from my “loyal”(?) readers. With all this back and forth about who owns what, that appears on my blog, let me reiterate that all material posted on my blog becomes the sole property of my blog. If you want to reserve any proprietary rights don’t post it to my blog. I will prominently display this caveat on my blog from now on to remind those who may have forgotten this notice.
Gratefully your blog host,
michelle
Aka BABE: We all know what this means by now :)
If you love my blog and my writes, please make a donation via PayPal, credit card, or e-check, please click the “Donate” button below. (Please only donations from those readers within the United States. – International readers please see my “Donate” page)
May 26th, 2011 at 9:18 am
Why isn’t this in the national news? Why did this happen almost 2 weeks ago and are just hearing about it now? Come on folks we need to be pissed about this. How did the cops get the search warrant when they didn’t even know who it was that lived in the house? 4th amendment clearly states,
” The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonab le searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmatio n, and particular ly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
What was the probable cause?
Who made the oath or affirmatio n?
Who signed off on the warrant?
I have family in law enforcemen t and I recognize it’s dangerous but you also have to have good in-tell before you just rush headlong into a situation.
60 rounds really, and an hour to call an ambulance, if your bringing that many officers to bear expecting something might happen then an ambulance should have been a part of the plan.
Spread the news folks this didn’t have to happen and it damn well doesn’t need to happen again, the war on drugs is killing our people. I’m not against the police I just want them to own it when they F-up just like the rest of us.
May 26th, 2011 at 9:29 am
WHAT MAKES A NARCISSIST TICK?
Do you know someone who is narcissistic? Or, perhaps more to the point — do you love someone who is narcissistic? This can be a real challenge.
While narcissists can be fun, witty and outgoing in public, they slowly destroy the relationships with those closest to them.
Never-ending streams of demands for attention — and punishment when that attention is not given — make life an emotional roller coaster for those who love a narcissist.
For these devoted people, the challenge becomes how to maintain their own sense of self in a world where they are required to focus fully on someone else.
WHERE DOES NARCISSISM COME FROM?
While narcissism is hardly unique to our 21st-century lifestyles, there’s much about the way we live today that nurtures this tendency.
Contributing factors include indulgent parenting… technology that allows immediate gratification of every whim… a culture built on fame for its own sake… and, now, social networks that enable people to issue news reports on everything from what they ate for breakfast to their opinion on some celebrity’s marital spat.
On the one hand, a recent survey from Flagler College and Western Kentucky University points to online self-promotional behavior as fuel for a growing legion of narcissists… on the other, the newest version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (the fifth edition, due out in 2013) has eliminated it as an official personality disorder.
Narcissism, it seems, is thriving, and is well on its way to becoming “normal.” I spoke recently with Karyl McBride, PhD, author of the book Will I Ever Be Good Enough?
Healing the Daughters of Narcissistic Mothers (www.NeverGoodEnough.com), who shared her insights into how you can best maintain your well-being if you live with a narcissist.
WHO ARE NARCISSISTS?
Narcissism derives its name from a character in Greek mythology — Narcissus, who was so enchanted with his own reflection in a pool of water that he was unable to stop staring at it.
While narcissists appear strong and confident, the truth is that their bravado is rooted in a deep insecurity and need for reassurance. It is this insecurity that has them seeking constant attention, like an infant who must have attention from his/her mother because he lacks the ability to control his world.
As is true with most aspects of personality, narcissistic behavior exists on a continuum. Intensely narcissistic people become deeply destructive to those around them, and few people find them tolerable to live with.
But, said Dr. McBride, it is possible to live reasonably happily with someone with mild narcissism — as long as you recognize his/her behavior for what it is.
Narcissists are characterized by the following…
Grandiose, exaggerated sense of self-importance and belief that they’re better than others.
Preoccupation with fantasies of power, success or beauty.
Difficulty maintaining healthy relationships.
Need for constant praise and admiration.
A strong sense of entitlement.
Expectation that other people will go along with their ideas and plans.
Inability to recognize the needs and feelings of others.
Tendency to take advantage of people.
Jealousy of others and/or the belief that others are jealous of them.
Fragile self-esteem and extreme sensitivity to criticism.
Making these characteristics even more difficult to live with is the fact that narcissists tend to not have any idea of the impact that they have on those around them.
They won’t understand your complaints, and they won’t change. So you can either choose to leave or must figure out how to make the most of a difficult situation.
Should you choose to stay, it will require time and energy to make it work while — and Dr. McBride emphasizes that this next point is critically important — preserving your own sense of self-worth. To do this, she recommends the following coping mechanisms…
Learn more about the condition. Understanding what makes a narcissist tick and the root of how he/she got that way may help you accept the person’s limitations and modify your own expectations.
Demand respect. Be clear that you will not tolerate disrespectful language such as belittling remarks… constant criticism… controlling behavior… and unreasonable rages.
Any behaviors that veer into physical or emotional abuse are not acceptable — for instance, yelling and name calling, isolation from family and friends, or other possessive or manipulative behavior.
Don’t blame yourself. A narcissist will value or devalue you according to what you’ve done for him lately, putting your own self-esteem at risk, warns Dr. McBride.
If the perception is that you haven’t done enough, the reaction may be to put you down — but don’t accept the blame. Never lose sight of the fact that you are a good person and that the “noise” from the narcissist is simply his distorted point of view, not reality.
Put your well-being first. Don’t lose yourself while tending to the narcissist. Define your own wants and needs and figure out how to get them met. Guard your self-esteem at all times: Be firm and consistent about expressing your wishes and requirements.
Build a support system. Since narcissists lack empathy, they are not going to be able to give you understanding or support. You need to have others in your life who can provide friendship and emotional connection outside of your home.
Realize that you can’t change a narcissist. You can encourage an individual to gain more self-awareness — e.g., see a therapist — but for the most part you need to accept him as is… or move on.
WHEN IT’S TOO MUCH TO TAKE
Sadly, it’s not uncommon for narcissists to eventually behave in ways that are destructive to themselves and the people they purport to love.
Changing one’s personality traits — which is the challenge that faces a narcissist — is a very difficult proposition. If a person has a few narcissistic traits on the continuum, psychotherapy can help by offering him a more realistic self-image. But be forewarned — those with a full-blown narcissistic disorder will not go into therapy. And if you drag them there, they will spend their time discussing how bad you are.
For better or worse, many of us have narcissists in our lives. If you care for a narcissistic person, be true to yourself and try to accept your partner as he is. As a last resort, keep in mind that you can always separate yourself from the situation if it becomes intolerable.
Source(s):
Karyl McBride, PhD, LMFT (licensed marriage and family therapist), Arvada, Colorado. Dr. McBride, a featured blogger for Psychology Today, is author of Will I Ever Be Good Enough? Healing the Daughters of Narcissistic Mothers (Free Press). http://www.NeverGoodEnough.com
May 26th, 2011 at 9:31 am
That 9/11 tape made me cry.
May 26th, 2011 at 9:32 am
Michelle, that is practically an everyday experience for OTWs.
May 26th, 2011 at 9:41 am
Dear Friends,
When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that unlimited, anonymous contributions to political campaigns constituted free speech (in their ethically questionable Citizens United decision), I knew there would be trouble.
Then we all saw the predictable and tragic results of the 2010 election cycle: the Koch brothers bought the Congress (and Governors) they always wanted while most Americans had no idea what was happening.
During the lame duck session, the outgoing Congress failed to pass the DISCLOSE Act by one lousy vote. Then the “bought and sold” politicians started stripping working families of our rights to benefit their benefactors.
We took to the streets. We marched. We sang. We chanted:
“Worker’s rights are under attack! Whatcha gonna do?”
“Stand Up! Fight Back!!”
It made me feel a little better. But it didn’t fix the problem.
I’m excited to tell you how I’m fighting back against this heinous threat to democracy. I hope you will join me as we demand honest and clear disclosures of the funding for political ads.
The California DISCLOSE Act shines a light on the major funders of all political advertisements – and we have the opportunity to pass this game-changing legislation through a vote of the people in 2012.
May 26th, 2011 at 9:44 am
A week ago, the magazine Psychology Today published an article titled “Why Are Black Women Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women?” on its website. Within hours, following widespread outrage and criticism, the post disappeared.
Colleagues and peers of Satoshi Kanazawa, the article’s author, have since analyzed his same data and unanimously (and unsurprisingly) found his conclusions in error.
Yet Psychology Today has remained silent. They have refused to apologize or even explain why they published the article.
Articles like Kanazawa’s are more than offensive or spurious—they’re deeply harmful because they promote racist and sexist stereotypes as science.
That’s why documentary filmmaker Aishah Simmons and academic Alisa Bierria are leading a petition on Change.org to call on Psychology Today to apologize and take transparent steps to prevent the publication of racist and sexist material in the future. Click here to sign Aishah and Alisa’s petition.
Kanazawa’s article never would have survived a thorough and responsible editorial process. In fact, the author himself doesn’t stand up to review.
Kanazawa has a history of pushing discredited research and is particularly notorious for making meritless claims about race and gender. (He is also known as the mind behind the much-mocked book Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters.)
In an attempt to defend previous publications, Kanazawa wrote, “If what I say is wrong (because it is illogical or lacks credible scientific evidence), then it is my problem. If what I say offends you, it is your problem.”
Well, as Khadijah Britton of Scientific American put it, “Satoshi Kanazawa has a problem.” So does Psychology Today.
Prominent women’s rights advocates, including Gloria Steinem and Beverly Guy Sheftall, former President of the National Women’s Studies Association, have already declared their support for the campaign
May 26th, 2011 at 2:21 pm
Hey, Change.org, #6, thanks for reposting this. I posted it already on this blog, comment no. 4 at
http://blog.michellemoquin.com/2011/05/19/stickin-it-to-the-little-guy-once-again/
I don’t think anybody noticed it though because I would have expected more outrage, especially from the OTW women here.
Only Michelle commented on signing the petition.
By the way, my comment no. 4 linked above also contains the link to the actual article that was published in Psychology Today.
Thanks again for re-enforcing everyone to take a look at this issue and the egregious insult to black women everywhere.
May 26th, 2011 at 10:57 pm
Sudan is back on the brink of all-out civil war. The north is on the attack and the south is threatening to retaliate. U.N. officials are already warning that the Sudanese government may be trying to “ethnically cleanse” parts of the north-south border.
Earlier this week, Sudanese Armed Forces bombed and invaded the border town of Abyei, displacing thousands of civilians and putting the entire region at risk for wide-spread violence and destruction.
Not only that, but Sudan is bombing again in Darfur. Some of the largest refugee camps in the world – located in Darfur – have no access to aid, such as food, water and medical supplies.
With less than two months left until the planned independence of oil-rich South Sudan, the situation is at risk of getting much, much worse. And while political battles continue to play out, it is the innocent civilians of Sudan – in both the South and North – who will suffer unspeakable acts of violence
May 26th, 2011 at 11:09 pm
The White is so greedy he will get in bed with anyone for a profit.
====================
The document obtained by pressure group Global Witness shows that nearly three-quarters of Libya’s cash balance of $408m (£252m) was deposited around the world in HSBC bank accounts.
Banks, including US investment bank Goldman Sachs and Italy’s UniCredit, held tens of millions of dollars on behalf of the Libyan Investment Authority, the agency created by the country’s regime to manage the wealth gained from lucrative energy projects.
In total the Libyan fund had assets worth $53.3bn at the end of June last year, of which just under $20bn was held on deposit in a variety of currencies.
About $110m of the fund was invested in a private-equity vehicle managed by RBS, though by the end of the first six months of last year the value of its holding had fallen to $74.4m.
Most striking are Libya’s disastrous attempts to make money from investing in complex structured credit and equity products.
HSBC, Goldman Sachs and RBS declined to comment on their dealings with the Libyan authorities.
HSBC had in recent years moved to build its business in the country and had opened a representative office in Tripoli.
Along with the wealth funds of other oil-rich Middle Eastern and North African country’s, Libya’s was seen as a lucrative target by international investment banks in the years before the financial crisis.
Goldman Sachs had been reputed to have had lucrative dealings with the country.
Share:
May 26th, 2011 at 11:11 pm
Yes, we will Robert and it gets worse.
——————————
Fishermen catch live sharks and hack off their fins. Then they throw the sharks — now unable to swim — back into the ocean, where they inevitably starve, suffocate, or bleed to death.
Why? To provide the key ingredient in shark fin soup, which retails at some restaurants for $30 a bowl. (The dish is a Chinese delicacy traditionally served at weddings and banquets.)
But the brutal practice of finning isn’t just cruel to individual sharks — it’s also threatening the existence of some shark species, and, in turn, disrupting oceanic ecosystems worldwide. More than 70 million sharks are killed through finning every year.
The good news is that the California legislature is considering a bill (AB 376) to ban the sale of shark fins, and a vote could come as early as this week.
Oregon and Hawaii have already passed similar bans, but opponents of AB 376 claim that the bill would infringe on Asian American cultures. The Asian Pacific American Ocean Harmony Alliance disagrees. That’s why they started a petition on Change.org to ask the California legislature to pass AB 376.
There’s an old Chinese idiom — “tian ren he ye” — which translates to “Nature and human beings cooperate as one.” The APA Ocean Harmony Alliance believes that passing AB 376 is the right thing to do to prevent brutal finning of sharks as well as an important way to honor Asian cultures’ high regard for nature.