A beautiful day here. It was a cool 45F this AM and trade day was sparse. Headed to the mid 60's on this sunny fall day.

I'm expecting some sort of sabotage before Biden leaves office. I'm not sure what mode it will take. Could be escalation in the ME, but might be something else. Just as with Russiagate in 2016, TPTB will try to undermine Trump 2.0 in some manner.

I expected the reverse to be true, but...

Should provide some entertainment as the empire collapses around us. Have a great Saturday. Thanks for the OT!

Glad to see the views of these Chinese international law experts clearly expressed in English, in terms that western lawyers and media should understand but will likely ignore. I wrote some posts a few years ago basically expressing the same opinion outlined below after reading the UN Convention on the law of the Sea a few times, and reviewing a few legal articles and reports on the same topic. This kind of review never made it into US media. Frankly China could have done a better job making their legal views known in English language media. Glad they published this on line. Below are just a couple of excerpts from one opinion that I think makes the legal argument of why the PCA UNCLOS opinion is void ab initio, both for procedural and substantive reasons.

Chinese Experts on the Situation of the South China Sea

Zheng Zhihua: Why did China not accept the South China Sea arbitration ruling? State consent is the cornerstone of the international dispute settlement mechanism, and dispute settlement bodies cannot exercise jurisdiction without the consent of the state. The substance of the arbitration case brought by the Philippines is the dispute of territorial sovereignty over some islands and reefs in the South China Sea. The case also inevitably involves, and is inextricably linked to, the maritime delimitation between China and the Philippines. The arbitral tribunal, knowing that territorial issues are not within the scope of the Convention and that maritime delimitation disputes have been excluded by China, nevertheless exceeded its jurisdiction and violated the principle of state consent. China does not accept any dispute settlement measures imposed on it concerning territorial and maritime delimitation issues. On 25 August 2006, China submitted a declaration to the Secretary-General of the United Nations in accordance with the provisions of Article 298 of the Convention, stating that the Government of the People’s Republic of China does not accept any of the compulsory settlement procedures provided for in the Convention with respect to disputes concerning maritime delimitation, among others.

The award violated China’s right as a State Party to the Convention to independently choose the procedure and method of dispute settlement and violated the duty of the arbitral tribunal to “ascertain that whether it has jurisdiction over the dispute”. The Arbitral Tribunal abused the principle of “competence-competence” provided for in Article 288 of the Convention, exceeded the scope of the powers conferred on it by the Convention and unlawfully assumed jurisdiction over subject matters that clearly did not fall within its jurisdiction. In international arbitration practice, “ultra vires” is generally regarded as one of the grounds for setting aside an award.

The award wrongly characterizes a dispute that is clearly about territorial sovereignty as not involving territorial sovereignty, and completely removes the “safety valve” of exceptions to the compulsory dispute settlement mechanism for issues such as historic title and maritime delimitation, thus rendering the optional exceptions to the compulsory dispute settlement procedure completely ineffective. Instead of resolving the dispute over territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests between China and the Philippines, the ruling has intensified the dispute and widened the differences in many respects, even making certain contradictions irreconcilable, with the risk of triggering new conflicts and escalating old ones. The ruling seriously undermines the credibility of the dispute settlement mechanism under the Convention, and China has no reason or obligation to accept such an absurd ruling.

(naturally, I'm claiming the fair use exception to the copyright)

On another major legal development in South Korea

Democratic Party leader and National Assembly Representative Lee Jae-myung was found guilty by the trial court after his first trial on charges of a campaign law violation lying about material facts during an election campaign. The charges of lying go back to circumstances surrounding the Daejongdong development scandal, aka the Hwacheon Daeyoo scandal, concerning land use change applications for the Baekhyungdong development, etc. The representations concern whether he was lying when he said he didn't know and didn't have a private relationship with Kim Moon-ki a lower level employee involved in project negotiations between Seongnam and Hwacheon Daeyoo. Lee had been mayor of Seongnam and later governor of Gyeonggido when the alleged misrepresentations were made.

There are a multitude of strange circumstances concerning the multiplicity of charges and specifications against Lee. There are four parallel charges being processed in two separate trial litigation proceedures. Covering all of these at once is too difficult, and I don't think, anyone has mastered the overview of these processes yet, except perhaps Lee himself and his defense attorney. On this particular charge involving the alleged campaign law violations, 4 specs of the same charge the trial involved the following irregularities as I understand it:

1. The Chief Judge in the case where three judges preside, resigned without explanation after presiding for 17 months during the litigation. Yoon was found just before his presidential campaign to have conducted unlawful investigations of sitting judges and was suspended from his duties as Prosecutor General for doing so. It's fairly plain what his motive was. Yoon resigned from that office and began running for president rather than face the suspension. The highest court of appeal to review the findings and ruling of the Disciplinary Committee were found to be justified and legally correct.
2. The Senior prosecutor in the case is assigned from outside the courts jurisdiction in violation of government regulations governing prosecution personnel assignments.
3. Two witnesses to material facts in the case, including the principal, Kim Moon-ki, whom Lee is accused of using for personal gain and lying about, have committed suicide. This development suggests that their statements were being coerced not only against them but by prosecution threats against their loved ones.
4. A picture of Lee in a group of four including Kim Moon-ki, at a golf course, is altered from a group photo including 20 employees who were working on the development project.
5. Testimony from Lee at a legislative audit in the National Assembly was used "to prove his guilt" when such testimony is barred by law from use in prosecutions not brought by the National Assembly itself.
6. A few days earlier, the parallel conviction of Lee's wife in a separate prosecution for hosting a meal with three gubernatorial staff members and three wives of national assembly members and paying for it with a governor's office expense account credit card in the amount of approximately 80 dollars (for six people) was charged as a "campaign law violation." Lee's wife didn't make the payment her staff did without her knowledge. She reimbursed the payment when she was notified it was improper. This is an example of the petty political vindictiveness and motivation behind these accusations against Lee. He has been dogged by this sort of criminal litigation for years and been acquitted in the past.

The judge sentenced Lee to one year in prison suspended for two years of probation. The judge wouldn't dare put him in prison in the current political climate. The popular reaction would rock the Yoon administration. If ultimately found guilty upon review, Lee would be disqualified from holding public office for five years which would eliminate him from campaigning again for the office of president. He is currently South Korea's most popular leader and most likely candidate for presidential office.

Lee has a second trial and a final appeal available to challenge the trial court's ruling which is considered outrageous by the opposition which is a majority party in South Korea. He also faces a separate trial on other charges. Lee gave a rousing speech at a large demonstration today in Gwanghwamun plaza which took place despite pouring rain. The demonstration was in support of a third bill passed by the National Assembly to investigate the "empress" Kim Gon-hee, first lady. The prior two bills were vetoed by Yoon and this bill will face the same outcome. The organizers must have gotten their permit before the right wing opposition demonstrators which took place nearby with the usual quasi military, taegukki, types waving American flags. 1000 police were mobilized to prevent conflicts between the two groups.

This is all just my interpretation of recent South Korean independent media reports and analysis online. I could have misinterpreted something, or made an isolated mistake, conflating one trial procedure with another. I don't think it would change the substance of what's happening. Yoon is clearly running the "dictatorship of prosecutors."

This is another Yoon/Kim Gon-hee brewing scandal.

Central figures in alleged nomination-rigging scandal arrested, investigation likely to snowball

The charges detailed in the arrest warrant are just a fraction of the allegations that have been raised in the press.

For example, Myung is also accused of having run 81 public opinion polls and manipulated the results to benefit Yoon during his presidential campaign. Yoon is accused of having reciprocated by nominating Kim to run in a by-election for a parliamentary seat in the Uichang District of Changwon in 2022 and by meddling in the selection of an industrial district in Changwon for a national development project.

Myung has threatened to implicate Yoon and the First Lady mostly as a bargaining position with the prosecution, but I've heard that threat before from others and not seen meaningful results.

Finally, I would like to say, that Yoon had made enormous concessions to the Biden administration, diplomatically and economically, functioning essentially as a US puppet. His concessions to Japan, acquiescence to US demands not to trade high tech items with China, suffering from the US-China lithium battery battle, making huge capital investments in the US, etc. All this is feared to have been for naught with Trump coming into office, who no doubt, will make further transactional and alliance demands well beyond those concessions already made by Yoon.

Thanks for the O&E Onthecusp. Trying to settle down after a very rough week. Dreamed that I was welcomed by Smokey overjoyed to see me, running back and forth in a new home.

.

I hope he investigates the Jan 6 false flag and the draconian prison policies that deprived people of their due process rights. Many of them have been detained for years without trial and denied access to many things.

DOJ and the regime media are terrified at an AG Matt Gaetz because he’ll blow the lid off January 6.

Here he is with @mtgreenee calling it a “fedsurrection.” (Credit @DarrenJBeattie) pic.twitter.com/B7smprVKNb

— Julie Kelly (@julie_kelly2) November 14, 2024

Who made the decision to do this and to charge people in excess of what they actually did? Misdemeanor trespassing is what many should have been charged with, but most have been charged with felonies. Even people who didn’t enter the capital have been charged.

And Pelosi’s role in setting the whole thing up needs to be exposed. Was it done so republicans had to certify the election? Some say yes.

consider why folks strive for power, especially governmental power and what it is that the oligarchs are likely to desire. Addressing only the latter question, I suggest

dismantling or further capturing regulatory agencies and revoking regulations
privatizing public services
knee-capping organized labor
reducing residual "welfare" and privatizing the remnant *
reducing and privatizing social security *
corporate welfare via assorted plum contracts and programs

* this is done by providing the benefits via debit card from selected banks

None of this is particularly new, but could very well be more blatant.

be well and have a good one