Sen. Francis Escudero explains his vote

SEN. FRANCIS ESCUDERO: 

EXPLANATION OF 'GUILTY' VOTE

29-May-12, 8:53 PM | by Sen. Francis Escudero

OTHER NATIONAL STORIES

• CA defers confirmation of PH envoy to Syria due to incomplete SALN

• Producers to initiate hog, chicken, vegetable 'market holiday' if smuggling not stopped

• Enrile almost correctly predicted who would vote against and for Corona

• Supplies for kinder kids enough, student-books ratio at 1:1 - DepEd

• Package containing a grenade left at Ombudsman Morales' residence

InterAksyon.com
The online news portal of TV5

It is written… Do not judge lest you be judged, for the measure you measure with will be measured back to you. (Matthew 7:1-2)

While I do not approve of the manner and way which the House of Representatives initiated, proceeded and handled this impeachment, when they filed the complaint for impeachment before the Senate, the House, in the exercise of its wisdom, determined that non-declaration in one's SALN is an impeachable offense.

Ibig sabihin nito, mula ngayon, pwedeng nang tanggalin sa pwesto ang punong mahistrado pati na rin ang pangulo at ikalawang pangulo at iba pang impeachable officers kapag meron silang di dineklara sa kanilang SALN.

Matapos aminin ni Chief Justice Corona na mayroon siyang $2.4M at P80M na hindi niya dineklara sa kanyang SALN, naging simple na lamang po ang kailangan naming pagpasyahan… Ito po ay: HINDI NGA BA ITO KELANGAN IDEKLARA DAHIL SA R.A. 6426 o FCDU LAW?

Kung sasang ayon kami sa posisyong ito ni Chief Justice Corona, dapat namin siyang ipawalang sala at kung hindi naman, ay dapat mag-gawad kami ng hatol laban sa
kanya.

Ikinalulungkot ko na di ko po masasang-ayunan ang posisyong ito ni Chief Justice Corona.

Para sa akin, maliwanag ang mga batas natin at di ito nagbabanggaan.

Ang pinagbabawalan ng FCDU law na mag-release ng impormasyon ukol sa dollar deposits ay ANG MGA BANKO AT DI ANG DEPOSITOR.

Samantala, ang KONSTITUSYON at R.A. 6713, pinag-uutos na ideklara ng lahat ng opisyal ng pamahalaan ang LAHAT NG KANILANG YAMAN AT PAGKAKAUTANG.

Kung ayaw mo ito ideklara, eh di huwag kang tumakbo para sa, o tumanggap ng anumang, pwesto sa pamahalaan. Subalit kung ikaw ay nasa pamahalaan, kelangan mo itong ideklara.

Dahil dito, mabigat man sa aking kalooban, kailangan kong mag-gawad ng hatol laban
kay Chief Justice Corona.

Maging ganoon pa man, nais ko pong batiin muli si Chief Justice Corona dahil, sa kasaysayan ng bansa, siya ang kauna-unahang opisyal ng pamahalaan na nag-execute ng waiver para buksan ang anumang deposito nya sa banko.

Sana siya at ang kasong ito ang magsilbing hudyat ng isang bagong simula sa ating bansa.

Isang bagong simula kung saan di na pwede ang dating gawi! Panahon na para itaas natin ang pamantayan ng mga naninilbihan sa pamahalaan!

At dapat pantay nating ipatupad ito di lamang sa kanya kundi sa ating lahat!

Kahapon, i-sinumite ko sa Senado, pabor sa Ombudsman ang aking waiver upang ilakip sa aking SALN at hinihimok at hinahamon ko ang mga kasamahan ko sa Senado at sa Kongreso na gawin din ito at ipasa natin, sa lalong madaling panahon, ang ini-akda kong Senate Bill 107 na naglalayon na i-require ito sa lahat ng naninilbihan sa pamahalaan.

Tulad ng sinabi ko sa aking pambungad na salita, ano man ang panukat na ginamit natin sa pag-husga, siya ring panukat na dapat nating gamitin sa ating mga sarili.

Ika nga ni Cong. Farinas, kung di natin pinapalusot si Chief Justice Corona, wag din tayong magpa lusot!

Ito'y hinihiling ko para magkaroon ng saysay, kahulugan at positibong kinahinatnan ang
kalbaryong dinaanan ni Chief Justice Corona, ng kanyang pamilya at ng ating bansa bunsod ng impeachment proceeding na ito.

Dalangin ko po na sana agad na magsimula ang paghilum ng pait, sugat at pagkakawatak-
watak ng ating bansa. Sana naman, pagkatapos nito ay tama na!

Let us move on and move forward.

Pag-tuunan na natin ng pansin ang mahahalagang problema sa ating bansa na may kinalaman sa ating ekonomiya at paglagay ng pagkain sa bawat lamesa.

Ano man ang maging hatol ng hukumang ito, I wish you and your family well Mr. Chief
Justice.

Nawa'y gumaling kayo mula sa inyong karamdaman at patnubayan nawa kayo, at tayong
lahat, ng Diyos.

HAGUE TRIES TO HALT SHELL 'MURDER' CASE

HAGUE TRIES TO HALT 

SHELL 'MURDER' CASE

May 29th, 2012

by John Donovan.

"The allegations are grave: rape, systematic and 

widespread torture, extrajudicial killings."

THE SUNDAY TIMES:HAGUE TRIES TO HALT SHELL 'MURDER' CASE

27 May 2012

WILLIAM HAGUE has been accused of hypocrisy after the government intervened on the side of Shell, Britain's biggest company, over court claims the oil giant was complicit in torture and murder.

The foreign secretary is facing pressure from human rights groups over Britain's role in a case in America's highest court being brought by the families of 12 people from Nigeria's Ogoniland community.

The case puts Britain in conflict with President Barack Obama's administration, which argues the families should be allowed to sue Shell over claims their relatives were tortured and killed by Nigerian troops in the Niger delta in the 1990s.

Evidence released in 2009 is alleged to show that Shell paidthe Nigerian military to stop peaceful protests against pollution and helped police plan "scorched earth" raids on villages. The company said: "We vigorously deny all allegations of wrongdoing."

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) is now trying to have Supreme Court judges strike out the case.

Lawyers acting for Hague argued that the American courts should have no role in hearing cases against British corporations for alleged crimes committed outside America.

In a letter to Hague last week, Shami Chakrabarti, director of the human rights group Liberty, said the FCO's move "runs dangerously counter to the stated aims of your department and its professed commitment to … human rights".

She added: "The allegations are grave: rape, systematic and widespread torture, extrajudicial killings."

The FCO said it was not taking sides on the allegations against Shell. A spokesman said it "strongly defends human rights".

SOURCE (Subscription Required)

COMMENT BY JOHN DONOVAN

Salient to note that William Hague is a former employee of Shell UK. He is now trying to help his former employer get away with murder.

Posted in: Business Principles, Corporate Governance, GoogleNews, Human Rights,Litigation, Nigeria, Oil, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, The Times, United States.
Tagged: Litigation · Murder · Niger Delta · Ogoniland · Oil · Royal Dutch Shell Plc

← Shell Tackles Gasoline Pump Fraud

Forbes.com: S&P may still cut Shell Group entities →

Senator Francis Escudero Video collection

The TRUTH will set you FREE.

What Does Shell Have in Common With General Ratko Mladic?

What Does Shell Have 

in Common With 

General Ratko Mladic?

May 24th, 2012

by John Donovan.

That does Royal Dutch Shell have in common with General Ratko Mladic, former commander of the Bosnian Serb army? More than you'd think…
First off, they've both appeared in the Hague in the past week. Shell was there Tuesday for its Annual General Meeting with shareholders, and Mladic just days earlier for the opening of his trial before the International Criminal Court.
More importantly, Shell and Mladic are both facing court proceedings for allegations of "aiding and abetting" egregious human rights abuses. Shell is accused of complicity in torture and killings of Nigerian environmentalists in the Kiobel vs. Shell case, which the U.S. Supreme Court will re-hear in the fall, and Mladic is accused of 11 counts of crimes against humanity, including the massacre of more than 7,000 Muslims in Srebrenica.
And finally, they are both what's known as "Non-state actors." Shell, a multinational oil corporation; Mladic, an individual, unaffiliated with any recognized government army or authority.
You won't hear the UK or Dutch government arguing that Mladic should not be prosecuted because he's a non-state actor. Yet that's precisely what these so-called "Shell Governments" have argued already to the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of Shell, which is an Anglo-Dutch company. In an extraordinary interference in another country's court proceedings, the UK and Dutch governments submitted an amicus brief in the Kiobel vs. Shell lawsuit, arguing that Shell — because it is a corporation and not a state actor — is not subject to human rights law.
When UK human rights groups criticized the UK government in a Financial Times piece that ran Tuesday, representatives from the Foreign Office reiterated their position: "We believe that human rights obligations rest with states and not with non-state actors such as corporations. "
Really? It's hard to believe that the UK, Dutch, or any government living in the 21st century can say something like this with a straight face.
Have they not heard of Nuremberg, where corporate executives from IG Farben and other companies were prosecuted for their contributions to Nazi atrocities? We expect all actors — including corporations — to refrain from complicity in human rights abuses and to be held accountable if they fail to do so. That's why those companies were stripped of their assets and dissolved at the end of the war, and why Swiss banks are on the hook for the Nazi gold even today. It's precisely why Unocal could be sued in the U.S. for complicity in slavery, torture and crimes against humanity in Burma; and why Chiquita can be sued for financing paramilitary death squads in Colombia.
Non-state actors like these — and yes, like Shell and Mladic — have always been subject to fundamental human rights laws. The UK government should stop arguing otherwise.
Follow Katie Redford on Twitter: www.twitter.com/KatieRedford86
SOURCE

Posted in: Business Principles, Corporate Governance, Human Rights, Litigation, Oil, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, United States.
Tagged: Huffington Post · Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum · Litigation · Oil · Royal Dutch Shell Plc

← Every employee is an innovator: Royal Dutch Shell CEO

Groups appeal air permit for Shell Arctic drilling

Groups appeal air permit 

for Shell Arctic drilling

May 17th, 2012

by John Donovan.

by Dan Joling / Associated Press: May 16, 2012
ANCHORAGE, Alaska – Environmental and Alaska Native groups on Wednesday appealed an air permit granted by the Environmental Protection Agency to a Shell Oil drilling ship that could be used this summer in the Arctic Ocean off Alaska's northern shore.

The groups claim the Kulluk and support vessels will put harmful pollutants into the skies, adding problems to a region already beset by climate warming, and that the EPA granted the permit without consideration of all national environmental laws and regulations.
"EPA did not analyze whether the Kulluk will comply with all standards, and they relied on modeling tricks to reduce the measured impact." Earthjustice attorney Colin O'Brien said.
The eight groups asked the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to intervene and send the permit back to the EPA for reconsideration.
The appeal was expected. A similar appeal was filed for an air permit granted to a second Shell drilling ship, the Noble Discover er.
The EPA Appeals Board last month rejected review petitions for the Kulluk and earlier had done the same for the Noble Discoverer. Shell Alaska spokesman Curtis Smith repeated that the company expects the permits to stand up to court review.
"The EPA finding of no significant impact to the Arctic air shed and the subsequent validation of that permit by the EAB gives us a great deal of confidence that the permit, like the others we have achieved, will be upheld by the court," Smith said.
Shell plans to use the Noble Discoverer to drill three exploratory wells in the Chukchi Sea off Alaska's northwest coast. The company hopes to use the Kulluk to drill a pair of exploratory wells in the Beaufort Sea off Alaska's north coast.
The presence of two drill ships, according to the company, means that if there's a blowout, a backup vessel would be on hand to drill a relief well.
Drilling in Arctic waters is bitterly opposed by environmental groups and some Ala ska Native groups, who contend oil skimmers and other mechanical cleanup devices will not work in waters that contain ice, from slush to icebergs.
They also fault the government for allowing drilling in a region with some of the harshest weather in the country and without basic infrastructure. Alaska's northern coastlines lack deep-water ports. The nearest permanent Coast Guard facility is in Kodiak, more than 1,000 miles away.
Shell in 2008 spent $2.1 billion on Chukchi leases in a sale that environmental groups contend was illegal because the federal government had not performed required environmental studies.
The appeal Wednesday was filed by Earthjustice on behalf of Alaska Wilderness League, Center for Biological Diversity, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northern Alaska Environmental Center, Pacific Environment, Resisting Environmental Destruction on Indigenous Lands, Sierra Club and The Wilderness Society.
The groups say the Kulluk and support vesse ls will spew carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide and black carbon that will accelerate the loss of snow and sea ice., hurting both a fragile Arctic ecosystem that's home to endangered or threatened whales, polar bears and seals, and Alaska Native coastal communities that rely on the ocean for subsistence life.

Read more: Fairbanks Daily News-Miner – Groups appeal air permit for Shell Arctic drilling

Posted in: Alaska, Arctic, Associated Press, Climate Change, Environment, Oil, Oil Spill, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, United States.
Tagged: Alaska · Arctic Ocean · Beaufort Sea · Chukchi Sea · Climate Change · Oil · Royal Dutch Shell Plc

← Shell has prepared for Greek exit from Eurozone

Shell millions tied to study →

GERMAN TRUCK ARTISTS AT IT AGAIN

From: Alfred Clayton
Date: Fri, May 18, 2012 at 11:26 PM

 

THE GERMAN TRUCK ARTISTS ARE AT IT AGAIN.......

Here are 7 pictures of European trucks whose trailers are

decorated to look like the sides are missing and the products 

they are hauling are painted on the sides and back. The first 

one is of a bottle of beer and looks so real, like it is coming 

out the side of the trailer..

The second is of canvas tote bag.

The third is of Pepsi cases and they are all stacked on the 

ceiling, and the bottom of the trailer is empty.

The fourth is of another truck with the windshield facing the 

back and there has been a driver painted in the driver's seat 

looking back over his shoulder to appear like he is driving 

backwards. (Now this one is just plain scary, even when the 

German reads 'On the wrong way?')

The fifth one is of an aquarium with fish swimming in it.

The sixth one is of a bookshelf with books lined up in it and 

a post-it-note with an advertisement on it, probably for the 

company that sells the books.

The last one is for Pringles-Hot & Spicy. The 'inside' of the

 trailer has the appearance of having been through a fire.

Chinese Proverb:

'When someone shares something of value with you, and 

you benefit from it, you have a moral obligation to share it 

with others

Shell Arctic oil spill sniffer dogs:

 is this a late April Fools joke?

May 15th, 2012

by John Donovan.

Trained sniffer dogs at work…

COMMENT BY A FORMER EMPLOYEE 

OF SHELL OIL COMPANY

John,
I read your latest blog regarding the proposed use of dogs by Shell to sniff-out oil spills in the Arctic.
Surely, someone has got to be acting in jest. Please tell me that Shell and DOI have more effective spill detection technology and a better plan than this. Please tell me that the fate of that very fragile Arctic marine ecosystem is not being abandoned by Federal regulatory agencies and is not being left to 'go to the dogs', so to speak. Please tell me that Shell has something better than this to offer. Please tell me that this is a late April Fools joke and not being seriously considered.
After all, Shell is going to be drilling offshore, as I recall, and that means these cute little furry guys must be housed on a drilling rig. A stinky old oil drilling rig that uses all sorts of various type of hydrocarbons – greases, lubricating oils, diesel fuels, etc. This is a place where most of the humans and their clothing reek of drilling fluids and hydrocarbon based lubricants, etc.
Pray tell, how will these cute little canines sniff out a 'small spill' leaking into the surrounding ocean with all of this ambient aromatic hydrocarbon based air pollution surrounding the drilling rig ???? Seems to me that they have the potential to suffer from 'sensory over-load'.
Maybe Shell will put the pooches in boats and they will motor around the rig sniffing the air upwind of the rig. But then, if they are upwind of the rig they won't be able to pick up odors from a 'small leak' either. Hmmm.
And anything more than a small leak should leave a slick on the surface around the rig that should be visible to the rig hands. So, who needs the dogs ????
If those cute canines are sensing methane and other light hydrocarbon gases, then the contractors probably need to quit feeding chili and beans to the rig hands, etc. Either that or hand out 'Beano' at every meal. They may run the risk of too many false alarms.
If the folks at DOI take this 'plan of action' by Shell seriously then they are either: 1) Grossly incompetent and delusional, or 2) Not taking their job seriously and 'rubber stamping' Shell's proposals, etc., or 3) Acting upon direct instructions from senior level DOI management because a 'political' decision has been made.
This oil field soap opera saga continues. It is becoming ludicrous.
Regards

Posted in: Alaska, Arctic, Environment, Gas, GoogleNews, Oil, Oil Spill, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, United States.
Tagged: Alaska · Arctic Ocean · Beaufort Sea · Chukchi Sea · Gas · Royal Dutch Shell Plc · Shell sniffer dogs

← A Dachshund and Two Border Collies Play Role in Shell's Arctic Drilling Plans

Cove Reports New Indian Ocean Gas Discovery Off Mozambique →

Shell's outrage

Apr 29th, 2012

by John Donovan.

The oil firm must be held to accountfor its failings in Bodo and elsewhere

29 April 2012

Nigeria's tortured relationship with international oil companies operating in the country attained new lows when it was announced recently that Shell Nigeria Plc had substantially underestimated the amount of oil that leaked from an oil spill in Bodo, Rivers State, in 2008.

According to Shell's official estimates, the equivalent of about 1,640 barrels of crude oil were released into creeks surrounding Bodo. However, estimates from Accufacts, an independent oil spill consultancy firm, put the actual figure at between 103,000 and 311,000 barrels of oil, at least 60 times greater than Shell's estimates.

In addition, Shell's assertion that the oil spill began on October 5, 2008 is contested by both the Bodo community and oil-industry regulators, who claim that it actually began on August 28, 2008. Clean-up operations began on November 7, 2008, but were apparently halted by the lack of the community's co-operation, according to Shell. The Bodo community has taken Shell to a London court, where it is seeking damages for the environmental devastation caused by the spill, as well as the company's funding of thorough clean-up.

Coming after decades of accusations that Shell and other oil companies have consistently failed to adopt international best practices in their operations in the Niger Delta, the Bodo case points to a stark failure on the part of the oil companies, oil-industry regulatory agencies and the Nigerian government.

The problems of poorly-executed and badly-regulated oil explorationin Nigeria are only too well-known: environmental devastation so profound that hitherto-flourishing agricultural and fishing communities are turned to virtual wastelands; long-term health problems for inhabitants of oil-producing communities; the rise of poverty, unemployment and despair which eventually combined to produce the militancy that virtually crippled the country's oil export capacity at its height.

It is surprising that, given this sad history, Shell Nigeria would seek to further taint its bad reputation by denying apparently undeniable facts. The company has become notorious for its steadfast refusal to admit wrongdoing, even when all evidence points to the contrary. Its main tactic has been to attribute almost all oil spills at its facilities to the breakage of oil pipes by oil thieves and militants. However, while rampant oil theft in the Niger Delta cannot be denied, it is difficult to believe that it is the only cause: many of Shell's facilities are relatively old and subject to frequent breakdowns.

The very fact that the oil company is such a consistent target of accusations like these clearly shows that it is not approaching its operations in the Niger Delta with the consideration that it displays in many other parts of the world. Part of the blame for this anomaly must go to the Federal Government which is supposed to ensure that its citizens are not victimised by commercial interests.

Through the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), the Federal Government is the majority shareholder in the joint venture operations executed by Shell. It rarely calls its partner to order when environmental crises like that of Bodo erupt. Instead, it provides the company with the security forces to subdue protesters and intimidate activists. The regulatory agencies which are supposed to ensure that relevant policies are fully implemented are allegedly dependent on the oil companies for many of the highly-specialised aspects of their operations, and therefore unable to carry out their duties with the necessary neutrality.

Even Nigeria's justice system is implicated in this lamentable state of affairs. Oil-producing communities have so little confidence that they will get justice in their own country that they are compelled to take offending oil companies to the United Kingdom and the United States. The vaunted amnesty programme does not seem to have achieved as much as its promoters hoped for. Although hundreds of militants have been brought out of the creeks and attacks on the country's oil industry have largely ceased, fundamental issues pertaining to the operations of oil companies are yet to be resolved. The Petroleum Industry Bill, which has long been touted as the panacea to much of the sector's problems, is yet to become law.

Shell and other oil companies operating in Nigeria are able to get away with outrageous acts of corporate malfeasance because of policy and regulatory lapses on the part of their hosts.

Any attempt to remedy this situation must ensure that Nigeria's oil industry is no longer a place where corporate irresponsibility will be tolerated. A new system of reporting must be developed which will compel oil firms to truthfully state the exact circumstances of oil spillages and similar environmental emergencies. The agencies in charge of monitoring and regulating the activities of oil companies must be fully equipped to enable them perform their duties independently of the businesses they are overseeing. Nigeria's crude oil must no longer be a curse to those in whose communities it is extracted.

SOURCE

Posted in: Africa, Business Principles, Corporate Governance, Environment, Human Rights, Litigation, Nigeria, Oil, Oil Spill, Pollution, Royal Dutch Shell Plc.
Tagged: Litigation · Niger Delta · Nigeria · Oil · Royal Dutch Shell Plc

← Alleged IP theft from employee of Shell Geelong Refinery

Evidence File →