How Government Execs Bribe IRS Agents, DOJ attorneys, and Judges with Cash Awards
Wolf
How Government Execs Bribe IRS Agents, DOJ attorneys, and Judges with Cash
Awards
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:12:21 -0500
From: Bob Hurt <b...@bobhurt.com>
Reply-To: lawmen...@googlegroups.com
Yesterday I posted IRS Agents Can Get Cash Awards for making your life a
LIVING HELL (attached), including a delegation order from the Internal
Revenue Manual and 5 USC chapters 45 and 54 to show you that government
employees can issue and receive cash awards for good performance. The
similarity to bribery becomes patently obvious,
particularly in the case of the IRS and DOJ attacking Americans and
destroying their lives by forcing them to pay income taxes, penalties, and
interest they don't owe. Judges, prosecutors, and IRS agents can receive
these cash awards for doing a good job destroying your life.
Today Marcel Benshadler sent me the below article which enumerates many
items in law and regulations that put you at risk through bribes to judges,
prosecutors, and IRS agents. I have attached the PDF version for your
reference.
The article points out that the law contains provisions that allow
government employees to keep these cash awards secret from the inquiring
minds of the People who funded the awards: you and me. You might want to
send these articles to your legislators in
Congress, and order them to remove all such secrecy, and in fact to publish
in the Federal Register all such awards, and require the Government
Accounting Office to publish an annual report of the signatories issuing
such awards, the amount issued, the identity
of the recipient, and the specific reasons for the issuance (the behaviors
and accomplishments that merited the awards).
It has occurred to me that you might not like bribes going to judges, DOJ
attorneys, and IRS agents who make you and millions of other Americans their
victims. For that reason I have mocked up a little letter for you to send
to your federal legislators:
Dear Legislator:
I have discovered in 5 USC chapters 45 and 54, and in the Internal Revenue
Manual section 1 that Government executives can pay SECRET CASH AWARDS to
other government employees not in their chain of command, and even to
ex-employees of the Government. Because of the secrecy and the amount of
the awards, up to $35,000, repeatable to the same employee for "good
performance", I believe these awards do more than retain good workers. I
believe they operate like bribes to encourage Government employees to
violate constitutional rights of the people and break laws in order to
obtain the rewards. I noticed that the law allocates half a billion dollars
a year for these bonuses. I imagine that amount gets fully depleted
annually, to the detriment of tax payers.
Government does not need to reward its employees beyond their normal
paychecks, retirement program, insurance benefits, and the lifetime
employment available to most of them.
You cannot imagine how angry it makes me to think of government bribing its
employees to abuse the People, the proper interpretation of a "job well
done" by taxing and enforcement authorities, including the IRS, FBI, BATFE,
DHS, DEA, CIA, DOJ, and Federal Courts. I want those cash awards (all of
them, regardless of the disguise, including the sham of pay raises and
promotions) to stop immediately.
I imagine you think it wrong to bribe people. So, I expect you to initiate
and/or support legislation to eliminate all such bonuses and cash awards
from the United States Government immediately.
When I go to the polls I make up my mind based on the merits of the
candidate, and then I vote my conscience. I influence a huge number of
voters with my opinions through my social, work, church, and family
connections. If you do not do as I have suggested, I
shall use all my power to see you get voted out of office because I won't
tolerate a legislator who favors government-paid bribes (SECRET CASH AWARDS)
even while bribery constitutes a felony crime if done by anybody else.
MAKE ALL CASH AWARDS FULLY PUBLIC and ELIMINATE GOVERNMENT-PAID CASH AWARDS
NOW.
Sincerely, and I MEAN BUSINESS,
<Your Name>
Contact Congress here:
http://www3.capwiz.com/gunowners/dbq/officials/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Hurt
2460 Persian Drive #70
Clearwater, FL 33763
+1 (727) 669-5511
----------------------------------------------------------------------
THE BEST JUDGES THAT MONEY CAN BRIBE
� 1997 Mark and Tina Terry
There has been much discussion recently in some quarters concerning the
necessity for the federal judiciary to be completely independent of the
government. Certainly this was the intention of the Founding Fathers,
although some of them expressed grave doubts as to whether or not this was
possible. Recently in the Arizona Republic, the paper's editorial staff took
the liberty of quoting United States Supreme Court Justice William
Rehnquist, who stated that Judicial independence is "one of the crown jewels
of our system of government." Rehnquist was also quoted as saying that
judges, while not above criticism, should never be threatened with removal
because of their rulings because "integrity requires independence."
We would agree with Chief Justice Rehnquist that integrity requires
independence. However, we also state that the converse is true that lack of
independence - especially where large sums of money are concerned - can
throw the integrity of the federal judiciary into serious question.
Have you ever wondered why some Federal Judges rule the way they do on
certain issues? Does it often seem as if some members of federal judiciary
utterly dismiss many arguments which plaintiffs bring into court, arguments
based solely on statutes, when these arguments contradict the government's
unsupported assertions? Does it often seem as if some federal judges permit
federal employees to behave in lax, even unlawful, ways without sanctions?
Finally, does it often seem that many members of the federal judiciary,
particularly U. S. District Court Judges, often rule inexplicably and
apparently arbitrarily in favor of the government?
In this article, we shall present a premise, grounded in statute, that the
federal judiciary is not at all as independent as Chief Justice Rehnquist
claims it to be; indeed, we believe that the allegedly "independent" federal
judiciary has the capacity, because of the statutes which we are about to
reveal, to be as corrupt and as influenced by money as is any organized mob.
There can be no independence nor integrity in a system which permits what
essentially appears to be lawful one-sided bribery.
Our fundamental questions is this: How can the federal judiciary be
independent and impartial when the law permits the federal government to
privately award judges up to $25,000 in undisclosed "cash awards", and
further, to privately "erroneously" overpay them up to $10,000, and then to
privately "waive" the overpayments?
Although the preceding statement is incredible, we shall support it with
specific statutory cites. The reader can then draw his own conclusions.
Let us begin with an analogy: Two people, whom we'll call Mr. White and Mr.
Brown, agree to a business arrangement: Mr. White, who produces a certain
kind of widget, agrees to sell 100 of these widgets to Mr. Brown. In the
agreement, Mr. White promises Mr. Brown that the widgets will perform a
certain function. After the sale, Mr. Brown discovers that the widgets do
not perform the requisite function. Mr. Brown angrily tells Mr. White that
the widgets have failed to perform as advertised. He then threatens to sue
Mr. White if he does not make good on the deal. It is clear that the two men
cannot reach an agreement. A lawsuit is imminent. Mr. White then suggests to
Mr. Brown that, instead of going to court, they go to arbitration. Mr. Brown
agrees. But there is one simple thing that Mr. White has neglected to
mention: in the state in which both men live, a statute exists that permits
only Mr. White to offer the arbiter a "cash award", since Mr. White owns the
arbitration company, and furthermore, another statute exists that Mr. White's
arbitration company is the only arbitration company lawfully permitted to do
business in this state. However, still another statute exists that states
that, should Mr. Brown, or anyone other than Mr. White, attempt to offer the
arbiter a cash award i.e. a bribe, he will have committed a felony. Does
this scenario sound fair? Does the arbiter have "independence"? Is the
arbiter encouraged by this set-up to have "integrity"? What are the chances
of the arbiter's making a truly fair ruling, or that Mr. Brown will receive
a "fair trial"?
As ridiculous as the previous scenario sounds, the potential for this same
set-up exists in statute for the Federal Judiciary. We shall attempt to lead
you, the reader, through the maze of federal statutes which, when added
together, provides ample evidence that the strong potential for one-side
bribery exists in statute from the federal government to its employees, U.S.
District Court Judges.
Let us start with Title 5 of the United States Code (USC) -"Government
Organization and Employees" - Part III (Employees), Subpart C (Employee
performance) Chapter 45 (Incentive Awards) Subchapter I(Awards for Superior
Accomplishments) Section 4502. This section of Title 5 reveals that
government employees can receive "cash awards" from their employer of up to
$25,000.00:
"(a) Except as provided by subsection (b) of this section, a cash award
under this subchapter [5 USCS �� 4501 et seq.] may not exceed $10,000.
"(b) When the head of an agency certifies to the Office of Personnel
Management that the suggestion, invention, superior accomplishment, or other
meritorious effort for which the award is proposed is highly exceptional and
unusually outstanding, a cash award in excess of $10,000 but not in excess
of $25,000 may be granted with the approval of the Office.
"(c) A cash award under this subchapter [5 USCS �� 4501 et seq.] is in
addition to the regular pay of the recipient. Acceptance of a cash award
under this subchapter [5 USCS �� 4501 et seq.] constitutes an agreement that
the use by the Government of an idea, method, or device for which the award
is made does not form the basis of a further claim of any nature against the
Government by the employee, his heirs, or assigns.
"(d) A cash award to, and expense for the honorary recognition of, an
employee may be paid from the fund or appropriation available to the
activity primarily benefiting or the various activities benefiting. The head
of the agency concerned determines the amount
to be paid by each activity for an agency award under section 4503 of this
title. The President determines the amount to be paid by each activity for a
Presidential award under section 4504 of this title.
"(e) The Office of Personnel Management may by regulation permit agencies to
grant employees time off from duty, without loss of pay or charge to leave,
as an award in recognition of superior accomplishment or other personal
effort that contributes to the
quality, efficiency, or economy of Government operations."
Obviously the wording of the preceding statute is somewhat difficult to
follow, but careful reading and rereading of it plainly shows that the
government has built into its statutes the payment to its employees of what
are called "cash awards", and has set up the
conditions under which these payments are made. From 5 USC, we now go to 28
USC - known as "Judiciary and Judicial Procedure": Title 28 at Section 602
(Employees) states:
"(a) The Director shall appoint and fix the compensation of necessary
employees of the Administrative Office in accordance with the Administrative
Office of the United States Courts Personnel Act of 1990."
Subsection (a) of 28 USC � 602 seems fairly innocuous. But what exactly is
the "Administrative Office of the United States Courts Personnel Act of
1990? Well, at Section 3 (a) (1) of the Act, is stated that the Act:
"establish(es) procedures for employee evaluations, the granting of periodic
pay adjustments, incentive awards."
So who are these "employees" that may be "granted" "incentive awards" of up
to $25,000.00?
According to 5 USC � 3371 (3), the Administrative Office of the United
States Courts is defined as a "federal agency". 5 USC � 7342 reveals that
the Administrative Office of the United States Courts is the "employing
agency" for certain federal judges.
5 CFR � 870.103 reveals that the Administrative Office of the United States
Courts is the "employing office" for judges of all United States Courts of
Appeals; All United States District Courts; The Court of International
Trade; The Claims Court; and The District Courts in Guam, the Northern
Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands. So the law states that these
specific categories of federal judges can receive "cash awards" of up to
$25,000.00.
But isn't there some law that requires Federal Judges to disclose all of the
money that they receive, and whatever sources from which they receive it?
Actually, there isn't. The Ethics in Government Act (5 USC Appx ��101 et
seq, at � 102, specifically forbids the
disclosure of monies earned from the Federal Government. The Ethics in
Government Act exists ostensibly only to discourage conflicts of interest
between private industry and government employees, between private
individuals and government employees, between
foreign entities and government employees. However, the Ethics in Government
Act ironically fails to protect the general public from any knowledge of
graft, corruption or bribery within the government itself. Furthermore,
personal financial information is exempt from disclosure under the Privacy
Act. Federal judges can thus be paid off completely privately and secretly -
and lawfully - by their employer - the federal government - with a payment
statutorily dubbed in this case an "incentive award", also referred to as a
"cash award." In the case of a private individual, if he or she tried to
offer a federal Judge a secret "incentive award" or a "cash award," it would
called a "bribe." The attempt of a private individual to bribe a judge is
classified by the government as a felony.
But what about the Inspector General, whose job is defined in Title 5 as
being "to conduct and supervise audits and investigations relating to the
programs and operations of establishments" relevant to federal government
employees, and also "to prevent and detect fraud and abuse in such programs
and operations"? Can't he determine whether or not federal Judges are being
paid off with "cash awards" from the government or "bribes" from private
individuals? The Inspector General Act of 1978, (5 USC Appx.)� 8D, reveals
that the Inspector General is "under the authority, direction, and control
of the Secretary of the Treasury with respect to audits or
investigations.concerning.(E) other matters the disclosure of which would
constitute a serious threat to national security. " Section 8D further
states:
"the Secretary of the Treasury may prohibit the Inspector General from
carrying out or completing any audit or investigation, or from issuing any
subpoena (sic), after such Inspector General has decided to initiate, carry
out, or complete such audit or investigation, or to issue such subpoena
(sic), if the Secretary determines that such prohibition is necessary to
prevent the disclosure of any information described under paragraph (1) or
to prevent significant impairment to the national interests of the United
States."
Section 8E reads exactly the same, except for the substitution of the term
"Attorney General" for the term "Secretary of the Treasury." Perhaps it
would be an "impairment to the national interests of the United States" to
permit the Inspector General to audit the federal Judiciary. And remember,
the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury are both appointed to
office by the President, and both have the authority to prevent the audit of
whomever or whatever they choose, including the accounts of federal judges.
Other government agencies are also permitted to award money to federal
judges. The Internal Revenue Service handbook of Delegation Orders 1229-91
reveals that the IRS is permitted to pay "cash monetary awards" to employees
of "other government agencies" -
which term can easily include federal judges.
The preceding cites would seem to provide enough information to support our
contention that federal Judges receive "cash awards" (alias bribes) from
their employer, the "United States." But let us go still further; we have
evidence that there is in place in the statutes yet another form of bribery,
called "erroneous payment" and "waiver." Let us examine portions of the Code
of Federal Regulations. 4 CFR (the regulations relevant to 4 USC -
"Flag and Seal, Seat of Government and the States") � 91.4 states the
following:
"The Director of the Administrative office of the United States Courts may
grant a waiver in whole or in part of a claim of the United States in an
amount aggregating not more than $10,000 arising out of an erroneous payment
of pay.." 4 CFR � 91.5 (a)(2): ". all doubts are to be resolved in favor of
the applicant."(read Judge). 4 CFR � 91.6 (b): "An erroneous payment, the
collection of which is waived pursuant to this subchapter, is deemed valid
payment for all purposes."
Again, not only judges are permitted these overpayments and waivers. 28 CFR
� 0.155 reveals that employees of the Department of Justice, (e.g. FBI
agents and United States Attorneys) are permitted the same waivers. 28 CFR �
0.143 reveals that DOJ employees are eligible for "Incentive Awards." 28 CFR
� 0.11 reveals that DOJ employees are eligible for incentive awards for
".personal effort which contributes to the efficiency, economy or other
improvement of Government operations."
What actions might constitute a contribution "to the efficiency, economy or
other improvement of Government operations"? Well, the seizure and
forfeiture of private property by government agencies certainly adds
millions every year to the government
coffers. Might those responsible for such actions possibly receive
"incentive awards" from the government? The U.S. Attorneys, who have
prosecuted the citizens who have been forced to forfeit their houses in IRS
seizures, have certainly contributed to the "economy" and "efficiency of
Government operations" of the federal government. Federal judges, who have
sanctioned those same seizures, have also certainly contributed to the
"economy" and "efficiency of Government operations."
Both U.S. Attorneys and judges have placed millions of dollars of seized
properties into auctions, the profits of which go straight to the federal
government. Never mind the havoc in personal lives wrought by the seizure
and sale of property by the government; the "Government operations" of this
nature are both "efficient" and "economical," at least as far as the coffers
of the federal government is concerned. And the U.S. Attorneys and the
federal judges are, by law, entitled to cash awards for their contributions
to this "efficiency" and "economy. "Knowing this, it should come as no
surprise that the U.S. Attorneys and federal judges usually have their
offices located in the same building, sometimes on the same hall.
But isn't there some sort of rule that prevents a presiding judge from
hearing a case in which he has an interest in the subject matter of the
case? In fact, there is. 28 USC � 455 (b) (4) reveals that a judge should
disqualify himself if he has a "financial interest"
in the proceeding. However, we must examine what is actually meant by the
term "financial interest." 28 USC � 455(d):
"(4) "financial interest" means ownership of a legal or equitable interest,
however small, or a relationship as director, adviser, or other active
participant in the affairs of a party, except that:
"(i) Ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that holds securities
is not a "financial interest" in such securities unless the judge
participates in the management of the fund;
"(ii) An office in an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or
civic organization is not a "financial interest" in securities held by the
organization;
"(iii) The proprietary interest of a policyholder in a mutual insurance
company, of a depositor in a mutual savings association, or a similar
proprietary interest, is a "financial interest" in the organization only if
the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the
interest;
"(iv) Ownership of government securities is a "financial interest" in the
issuer only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the
value of the securities."
So the "cash awards" statutorily awarded to judges do not technically
constitute a "financial interest" within the meaning of the term defined.
What we are therefore left with is this: we private Citizens must rely
solely upon the integrity of federal judges and others who are eligible for
these substantial - and privately awarded - cash awards. The following list
is that of numerous court cases in which
judges and other employees and agents of the federal government were
convicted of crimes which clearly proved them to be without integrity:
Judges
(a) Slade v. United States, 85 F.2d 786 (10th
Cir. 1936): Judge bribed juror to acquit a defendant; judge convicted of
bribery.
(b) United States v. Manton, 107 F.2d 834 (2nd Cir. 1939): Court of Appeals
judge involved in bribes to influence decisions.
(c) McDonald v. Alabama, 57 Ala. App. 529, 329 So.2d 583 (1975): sex for
leniency.
(d) United States v. Campbell, 684 F.2d 141 (D.C. Cir. 1982): traffic
tickets, judge and gratuity.
(e) United States v. Murphy, 768 F.2d 1518 (7th Cir. 1985): Greylord.
(f) United States v. Hollaway, 778 F.2d 653 (11th Cir. 1985): Two Mobile
state court judges.
(g) United States v. LeFevour, 798 F.2d 977 (7th Cir. 1986): Greylord.
(h) United States v. Claiborne, 765 F.2d 784 (9th Cir. 1985); see Harry's
vindication, State Bar of Nevada v. Claiborne, 756 P.2d 464 (Nev. 1988).
(i) United States v. Nixon, 816 F.2d 1022 (5th Cir. 1987);
habe at 881 F.2d 1305 (5th Cir. 1989): U.S. District Judge convicted of
bribery.
(j) United States v. Conn, 769 F.2d 420 (7th Cir. 1985): Greylord.
(k) United States v. Devine, 787 F.2d 1086 (7th Cir. 1986): Greylord.
(l) United States v. Holzer, 816 F.2d 304 (7th Cir. 1987): Greylord.
(m) United States v. Reynolds, 821 F.2d 427 (7th Cir. 1987): Greylord.
(n) United States v. Glecier, 923 F.2d 496 (7th Cir. 1991): Greylord.
(o) United States v. Hastings, 681 F.2d 706 (11th Cir. 1982): This was
pre-trial appeal, and later Alcee won criminal case. Is now a member of
Congress.
(p) United States v. Kahaner, 317 F.2d 459 (2nd Cir. 1963): State judge and
former AUSAs.
I.R.S. and Other Federal Agents
(a) Smiler v. United States, 24 F.2d 22 (5th Cir. 1928): Bribe.
(b) Delaney v. United States, 199 F.2d 107 (1st Cir. 1952): Bribe.
(c) United States v. Nunan, 236 F.2d 576 (2nd Cir. 1956): Former IRS
Commissioner convicted of tax evasion.
(d) United States v. Umans, 368 F.2d 725 (2nd Cir. 1966): Bribe.
(e) United States v. Barash, 412 F.2d 26 (2nd Cir. 1969): Bribe.
(f) United States v. Polansky, 418 F.2d 444 (2nd Cir. 1969): Bribe.
(g) United States v. Greenberg, 445 F.2d 1158 (2nd Cir. 1971): IRS agent and
bribes.
(h) United States v. Weiser, 428 F.2d 932 (2nd Cir. 1969): IRS agent and
bribes.
(i) United States v. Lipton, 467 F.2d 1161 (2nd Cir. 1972): IRS agent and
bribes.
(j) United States v. Lanci, 669 F.2d 391 (6th Cir. 1982): FBI agent and
bribes.
(k) United States v. Miller, 874 F.2d 1255 (9th Cir. 1989): FBI agent giving
documents to Soviets.
(l) United States v. Gorman, 807 F.2d 1299 (6th Cir. 1986): AUSA convicted
of taking gratuities.
(m) Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 62 S.Ct. 457 (1942): AUSA and
bribes.
(n) Attalallah v. United States, 955 F.2d 776 (1st Cir. 1992): customs
agents killed for $700,000.
(o) United States v. Mangan, 575 F.2d 32 (2nd Cir. 1978): crooked IRS agent.
(p) United States v. Johnson, 398 F.2d 29 (7th Cir. 1968): IRS agent guilty
of defrauding by filing false returns.
(q) United States v. Morales, 11 F.3d 915 (9thCir. 1993): IRS agent and
bribe.
(r) United States v. Provinzano, 50 F.R.D. 361(E.D.Wis. 1970): homosexual
IRS agent indicted.
Prosecutorial misconduct.
(a) United States v. OMNI International Corp., 634F.Supp. 1414 (D.Md. 1986):
Prosecutor Elizabeth Trimble and Special Agents fabricated evidence and a
case was dismissed.
(b) United States v. Burnside, 824 F.Supp. 1215
(N.D. Ill. 1993); United States v. Andrews, 824 F.Supp. 1273
(N.D.Ill. 1993);United States v. Boyd, 833 F.Supp. 1277
(N.D.Ill. 1993); United States v. Griffin, 856 F.Supp. 1293
(N.D. Ill. 1994): El Rukn cases where lots of "gifts" and benefits to
prosecution witnesses caused vacation of convictions. A major scandal.
(c) United States v. Demjanjuk, 518 F.Supp. 1362
(N.D.Ohio 1981), aff'd, 680 F.2d 32 (6th Cir. 1982). Demjanjuk
v. Petrovsky, 776 F.2d 571 (6th Cir. 1985). Demjanjuk v. Meese,
784 F.2d 1114 (D.C.Cir. 1986). Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky, 10 F.3d 338
(6th Cir. 1993): OSI misconduct.
(d) People v. Auld, 815 P.2d 956 (Colo. App. 1991):governmental misconduct
caused dismissal of complaint.
(e) The Inslaw affair: Cases dealing with DoJ theft of Promis software.
i. In re Inslaw, Inc., 76 B.R. 224 (Bkrtcy., D.D.C. 987).
ii. In re Inslaw, Inc., 88 B.R. 484 (Bkrtcy., D.D.C.1987).
iii. United States
v. Inslaw, Inc., 113 B.R. 802 (D.D.C.1989).
iv. Inslaw, Inc. v. Thornburgh, 753 F, .Supp.1D.D.C (1990), rev.,
United States
v. Inslaw, Inc., 932 F.2d 1467 (D.C.Cir. 1991).
v. In re Inslaw, Inc., 885 F.2d 880 (D.C.Cir.1989).
(f) LaRouche: In re Caucus Distributors, Inc., 106 B.R. 890.
None of the bribery charges cited in any of the above cases reflects any
prosecutions or convictions for the ubiquitous "incentive award" or
overpayments which we have revealed, since these "cash awards" are "lawful"
bribes, and therefore can never be
prosecuted as crimes while the statutes permitting them are in force.
We believe that the citizens of these United States of the American Union
can never truly be "free" unless and until the federal judiciary is
completely free from the possibility of
government-sponsored graft and corruption. We believe that Congress needs to
be apprised of the facts in this article, and that it needs to write laws
which permit the Citizens to closely scrutinize the monies which federal
judges receive from their employer, the government, especially in cases in
which the Citizens' property or freedom is at stake. Until this happens, we
believe that we as private Citizens shall be at the disadvantage of the
"awards" which the federal government may bestow undisclosed upon federal
judges - judges who are supposed to be impartial and to insure us all a fair
trial.
Because there is no provision of law for disclosure of financial information
on judges, and because there is no Privacy Act System of Records which
purports to maintain records on financial affairs relevant to federal
judges, we have no proof whatsoever that
any federal judge has ever received any of the incentive awards,
overpayments or waivers described in this article. We have written this
article simply to reveal the evidence published in statute that there exists
an enormous potential for what is, essentially,
government-sanctioned bribery of judges by the federal government itself,
and that there is no way for the public to know whether or not such bribes
are being paid. We believe that not all judges know about this information,
nor would all judges accept such bribes
were they offered.
The authors would like to thank attorney Lowell (Larry) Becraft for
generously sharing with them the numerous court case cites revealing
government corruption contained in this article.