Inquiring minds might want to ask why the Oracle Of Omaha was so triggered by a question from Peter Flaherty that he had this investor arrested at a Berkshire Hathaway shareholder meeting. I’m sure that sorted affair had nothing to do with the conglomerate seeking to expand its monopoly control over America’s infrastructure. That would be silly, given that Warren Buffett is a philanthropist. Who is most recognized by fellow members of the Inclusive Capitalist Society for providing free train rides to the hordes of migrants in Mexico that the UN claims are fleeing the impacts of global climate change?

According to the complaint filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission against Berkshire Hathaway, Peter Flaherty, the National Legal and Policy Center chairman, had been arrested for criminal trespass. This occurred after he brought up Buffett’s financial support for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which is considered a severe crime in certain financial circles. Any dialog on the late Jeffery Epstein could lead to questions about the governance models utilized by other business associates at the Clinton Global Initiative, UNOPS, and China’s Road and Belt Initiative.

This brought into question the ancient governance model utilized by one of the largest multinational corporations on the planet. Which is the same business model first developed by Buffett over fifty years ago and allegedly guided by his long-time business mentor, Charlie Munger. This duo made the big bucks for many decades. Unfortunately, Charlie Munger recently passed away in December, just before his 100th birthday in January of 2024.

Leaving Buffett as the big brain behind one of the most progressive business brands in the marketplace. The ninety-three-year-old Buffett wasn’t interested in adopting new manageability ideas unless they were provided by young financial wizards like Jeffery Epstein. Who is also no longer advising corporate leaders since his untimely death in a federal prison back in 2019.

That raises more concerns about Peter Flaherty’s sudden arrest for criminal trespass at a Berkshire Hathaway shareholder meeting seven months earlier. Peter Flaherty had come to that meeting to speak in support of a resolution in which he was the sponsor for Proposal #8. The proposal would have required Berkshire Hathaway to have two different people hold the jobs of CEO and the chairman of the board. Warren Buffett has held both key positions for well over five decades.

Whereas Flaherty has reportedly been involved in shareholder activism for 19 years, this was the only time he had been arrested for attempting to make a perfectly reasonable pitch for a proposal within a three-minute time-frame. It was his first time having his microphone cut off when making his case to fellow shareholders.

The essence of Proposal #8 involved separating those duties to protect the value of shareholders’ investments. The risk to “Reputational Value” can not be dismissed without proper consideration. We are talking about having a known expert in his chosen field arrested for simply doing his job. That activity was designed to place a chilling effect on corporate oversight. Understanding that this large multinational corporation is a significant player in the insurance industry is essential. If government agencies and fellow prominent industrialists are your primary customers in a marketplace, investors have a right to consider the past financial relationships of top managers and board members. When those issues involve conflict of interest laws, insider trading, and NGOs, the laws can get a little fuzzy if billions of dollars are at stake.

When an entirely new genre of industry is growing around Reputational Insurance, you probably wouldn’t want new investors thinking your corporation was receiving its business advice from Jeffery Epstein or Bill Gates. By now, you’ve probably noticed that political insiders are rarely concerned about being sued for their actions. At the same time, a legal double standard can be enforced against all outsiders for any minor offense. These elites make up their own marketplaces that can create the appearance of success by simply accessing our tax dollars.

That fiasco in Omaha goes directly to the heart of arguments on issues concerning insurance protections, not just governance models. That police action certainly wasn’t about protecting the rights of Berkshire Hathaway shareholders. It was about openly suppressing the rule of law to advance an agenda. Investors weren’t supposed to be concerned with the products being sold; they were instructed to believe that business managers would continue to deliver the green. Don’t ask any questions about how the money is being made through various partnerships with governments worldwide.

When Peter Flaherty had his microphone cut off during his presentation and was arrested in front of thousands of Berkshire shareholders, it was to make a clear statement. The spectacle of being hauled away by the police is a classic case of abuse under “color of law” that was conducted to humiliate a citizen engaged in normal business activities. The goal was to silence a critic from speaking about the governance model of a very powerful local multinational corporation.

The almost instantaneous silencing of Mr. Flaherty at the very mention of Epstein obviously struck a nerve with the public that transcends political ideology, underscoring the widely held belief that the rich and powerful play by a different set of rules than ordinary citizens,” says the SEC complaint filed by NLPC counsel Paul Kamenar. Peter Flaherty paid a bond of $2,500 and was released after about three hours. Prosecutors dropped the criminal charge, but the actual damages from that corrupt action will be felt for many years to come.

The reputational damage here is owned exclusively by the City of Omaha. The actions of the Omaha Police Dept placed the burden of shame on their public employees, which will take many years to forget. As the average citizen will always wonder, who do those cops serve and protect? Other business organizations may want to think twice about holding an event in a city where participants can be arrested for violating laws that are arbitrarily enforced by police at the behest of local political leaders. That is known as a lose, lose, lose business scenario, in which only lawyers benefit.

Some city and regional leaders will always find a way to justify these types of actions, and it may be because they can use taxpayer revenues to purchase a Crisis Management insurance policy. Or simply increase their Reputational Insurance policy coverage and have highly paid insurance lawyers help them mitigate their total loss of public esteem. It never repairs the negative image created but does shift the cost of addressing an easily preventable problem that should never occur.

If taxpayers are forced to pay for these types of Reputational policies for bureaucrats, we can expect public officials to operate in permanent crisis mode until the end. To most government officials playing the part of savvy entrepreneurs, it is when they run out of other people’s money to spend on their opulent lifestyles.

To have critics arrested for questioning a governance model isn’t an effective strategy for building private investor confidence. It would, however, add a natural boost of confidence for the bureaucratic leaders at civil organizations like the Global Covenant of Mayors For Climate and Energy. Which every independent voter should recognize as the true champs of the global Green New Deal!