California freefall: Home prices down 26% in February
Signs of distress are piling up in the California housing market, where prices are falling at three times the national rate of decline.
--Statewide, median sales prices fell by a stunning 26% from year-ago levels in February, with home prices dropping at a rate of nearly $3,000 a week, the California Association of Realtors reports. Further, the CAR says the Fed's interest rate-cutting campaign "will have little near-term direct effect on the housing market."
--In the San Fernando Valley, losing a home to foreclosure is now almost as common for families as buying a home. The L.A. Daily News: "During January and February, there were 1,084 foreclosures and 1,335 sales of houses and condos in Valley communities from Glendale to Calabasas, according to the San Fernando Valley Economic Research Center at California State University, Northridge."
"It's bad. It's really bad," market analyst Nima Nattagh told the Daily News.
The California Association of Realtors reports median prices fell 27.2% from year-ago levels in the hard-hit Inland Empire east of Los Angeles, 30.9% in Sacramento, and 39.1% in Santa Barbara County.
On a percentage basis, the California price meltdown is more than three times as severe as the national decline of 8.2% in median prices reported this week by the National Association of Realtors. On an absolute basis, the California meltdown is even more severe: Nationally, prices fell over the past year at a rate of $338 per week; in California, prices fell at a rate of $2,788 per week.
According to the CAR, "The median sales price of an existing, single-family detached home in California during February 2008 was $409,240, a 26.2 percent decrease from the revised $554,280 median for February 2007." The February 2008 median price fell 4.8 percent compared with January’s revised $429,790 median price.
"The Federal Reserve Bank’s recent action to reduce the federal funds rate will have little near-term direct effect on the housing market," said CAR Vice President and Chief Economist Leslie Appleton-Young. "However, Fed rate cuts should result in more favorable real estate finance rates as we move through the year."
Median home sales prices sometimes exaggerate swings in market activity. A year ago, median home sales prices in California continued to show price gains, even though the market downturn had begun. At the time, the collapse of sub-prime lending had the effect of freezing the lower end of the market. With fewer sales of less expensive homes, the market was dominated by sales at higher price points, and median sales prices showed gains.
The opposite appears to be happening now, as lower-priced foreclosed homes come onto the market, increasing sales at lower price points, while the market for more expensive homes has slowed dramatically.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Monday, March 24, 2008
investor-related condominium sales in Canada
“The real estate company estimates that 50% of all sales activity in downtown Vancouver can be linked to investors while the figure for downtown Toronto attributable to new sales is approximately 60% to 85%.”
Friday, March 21, 2008
A Bankrupt Superpower
Published: March 19, 2008 Author: Paul Craig Roberts
In his famous book, The Collapse of British Power (1972), Correlli Barnett reports that in the opening days of World War II Great Britain only had enough gold and foreign exchange to finance war expenditures for a few months. The British turned to the Americans to finance their ability to wage war. Barnett writes that this dependency signaled the end of British power.
From their inception, America's 21st century wars against Afghanistan and Iraq have been red ink wars financed by foreigners, principally the Chinese and Japanese, who purchase the US Treasury bonds that the US government issues to finance its red ink budgets.
The Bush administration forecasts a $410 billion federal budget deficit for this year, an indication that, as the US saving rate is approximately zero, the US is not only dependent on foreigners to finance its wars but also dependent on foreigners to finance part of the US government's domestic expenditures. Foreign borrowing is paying US government salaries--perhaps that of the President himself--or funding the expenditures of the various cabinet departments. Financially, the US is not an independent country.
The Bush administration's $410 billion deficit forecast is based on the unrealistic assumption of 2.7% GDP growth in 2008, whereas in actual fact the US economy has fallen into a recession that could be severe. There will be no 2.7% growth, and the actual deficit will be substantially larger than $410 billion.
Just as the government's budget is in disarray, so is the US dollar which continues to decline in value in relation to other currencies. The dollar is under pressure not only from budget deficits, but also from very large trade deficits and from inflation expectations resulting from the Federal Reserve's effort to stabilize the very troubled financial system with large injections of liquidity.
A troubled currency and financial system and large budget and trade deficits do not present an attractive face to creditors. Yet Washington in its hubris seems to believe that the US can forever rely on the Chinese, Japanese and Saudis to finance America's life beyond its means. Imagine the shock when the day arrives that a US Treasury auction of new debt instruments is not fully subscribed.
The US has squandered $500 billion dollars on a war that serves no American purpose. Moreover, the $500 billion is only the out-of-pocket costs. It does not include the replacement cost of the destroyed equipment, the future costs of care for veterans, the cost of the interests on the loans that have financed the war, or the lost US GDP from diverting scarce resources to war. Experts who are not part of the government's spin machine estimate the cost of the Iraq war to be as much as $3 trillion.
The Republican candidate for President said he would be content to continue the war for 100 years. With what resources? When America's creditors consider our behavior they see total fiscal irresponsibility. They see a deluded country that acts as if it is a privilege for foreigners to lend to it, and a deluded country that believes that foreigners will continue to accumulate US debt until the end of time.
The fact of the matter is that the US is bankrupt. David M. Walker, Comptroller General of the US and head of the Government Accountability Office, in his December 17, 2007, report to the US Congress on the financial statements of the US government noted that "the federal government did not maintain effective internal control over financial reporting (including safeguarding assets) and compliance with significant laws and regulations as of September 30, 2007." In everyday language, the US government cannot pass an audit. AD
Moreover, the GAO report pointed out that the accrued liabilities of the federal government "totaled approximately $53 trillion as of September 30, 2007." No funds have been set aside against this mind boggling liability.
Just so the reader understands, $53 trillion is $53,000 billion.
Frustrated by speaking to deaf ears, Walker recently resigned as head of the Government Accountability Office.
As of March 17, 2008, one Swiss franc is worth more than $1 dollar. In 1970, the exchange rate was 4.2 Swiss francs to the dollar. In 1970, $1 purchased 360 Japanese yen. Today $1 dollar purchases less than 100 yen.
If you were a creditor, would you want to hold debt in a currency that has such a poor record against the currency of a small island country that was nuked and defeated in WW II, or against a small landlocked European country that clings to its independence and is not a member of the EU?
Would you want to hold the debt of a country whose imports exceed its industrial production? According to the latest US statistics as reported in the February 28 issue of Manufacturing and Technology News, in 2007 imports were 14 percent of US GDP and US manufacturing comprised 12% of US GDP. A country whose imports exceed its industrial production cannot close its trade deficit by exporting more.
The dollar has even collapsed in value against the euro, the currency of a make-believe country that does not exist: the European Union. France, Germany, Italy, England and the other members of the EU still exist as sovereign nations. England even retains its own currency. Yet the euro hits new highs daily against the dollar.
Noam Chomsky recently wrote that America thinks that it owns the world. That is definitely the view of the neoconized Bush administration. But the fact of the matter is that the US owes the world. The US "superpower" cannot even finance its own domestic operations, much less its gratuitous wars except via the kindness of foreigners to lend it money that cannot be repaid.
The US will never repay the loans. The American economy has been devastated by offshoring, by foreign competition, and by the importation of foreigners on work visas, while it holds to a free trade ideology that benefits corporate fat cats and shareholders at the expense of American labor. The dollar is failing in its role as reserve currency and will soon be abandoned.
When the dollar ceases to be the reserve currency, the US will no longer be able to pay its bills by borrowing more from foreigners.
I sometimes wonder if the bankrupt "superpower" will be able to scrape together the resources to bring home the troops stationed in its hundreds of bases overseas, or whether they will just be abandoned.
In his famous book, The Collapse of British Power (1972), Correlli Barnett reports that in the opening days of World War II Great Britain only had enough gold and foreign exchange to finance war expenditures for a few months. The British turned to the Americans to finance their ability to wage war. Barnett writes that this dependency signaled the end of British power.
From their inception, America's 21st century wars against Afghanistan and Iraq have been red ink wars financed by foreigners, principally the Chinese and Japanese, who purchase the US Treasury bonds that the US government issues to finance its red ink budgets.
The Bush administration forecasts a $410 billion federal budget deficit for this year, an indication that, as the US saving rate is approximately zero, the US is not only dependent on foreigners to finance its wars but also dependent on foreigners to finance part of the US government's domestic expenditures. Foreign borrowing is paying US government salaries--perhaps that of the President himself--or funding the expenditures of the various cabinet departments. Financially, the US is not an independent country.
The Bush administration's $410 billion deficit forecast is based on the unrealistic assumption of 2.7% GDP growth in 2008, whereas in actual fact the US economy has fallen into a recession that could be severe. There will be no 2.7% growth, and the actual deficit will be substantially larger than $410 billion.
Just as the government's budget is in disarray, so is the US dollar which continues to decline in value in relation to other currencies. The dollar is under pressure not only from budget deficits, but also from very large trade deficits and from inflation expectations resulting from the Federal Reserve's effort to stabilize the very troubled financial system with large injections of liquidity.
A troubled currency and financial system and large budget and trade deficits do not present an attractive face to creditors. Yet Washington in its hubris seems to believe that the US can forever rely on the Chinese, Japanese and Saudis to finance America's life beyond its means. Imagine the shock when the day arrives that a US Treasury auction of new debt instruments is not fully subscribed.
The US has squandered $500 billion dollars on a war that serves no American purpose. Moreover, the $500 billion is only the out-of-pocket costs. It does not include the replacement cost of the destroyed equipment, the future costs of care for veterans, the cost of the interests on the loans that have financed the war, or the lost US GDP from diverting scarce resources to war. Experts who are not part of the government's spin machine estimate the cost of the Iraq war to be as much as $3 trillion.
The Republican candidate for President said he would be content to continue the war for 100 years. With what resources? When America's creditors consider our behavior they see total fiscal irresponsibility. They see a deluded country that acts as if it is a privilege for foreigners to lend to it, and a deluded country that believes that foreigners will continue to accumulate US debt until the end of time.
The fact of the matter is that the US is bankrupt. David M. Walker, Comptroller General of the US and head of the Government Accountability Office, in his December 17, 2007, report to the US Congress on the financial statements of the US government noted that "the federal government did not maintain effective internal control over financial reporting (including safeguarding assets) and compliance with significant laws and regulations as of September 30, 2007." In everyday language, the US government cannot pass an audit. AD
Moreover, the GAO report pointed out that the accrued liabilities of the federal government "totaled approximately $53 trillion as of September 30, 2007." No funds have been set aside against this mind boggling liability.
Just so the reader understands, $53 trillion is $53,000 billion.
Frustrated by speaking to deaf ears, Walker recently resigned as head of the Government Accountability Office.
As of March 17, 2008, one Swiss franc is worth more than $1 dollar. In 1970, the exchange rate was 4.2 Swiss francs to the dollar. In 1970, $1 purchased 360 Japanese yen. Today $1 dollar purchases less than 100 yen.
If you were a creditor, would you want to hold debt in a currency that has such a poor record against the currency of a small island country that was nuked and defeated in WW II, or against a small landlocked European country that clings to its independence and is not a member of the EU?
Would you want to hold the debt of a country whose imports exceed its industrial production? According to the latest US statistics as reported in the February 28 issue of Manufacturing and Technology News, in 2007 imports were 14 percent of US GDP and US manufacturing comprised 12% of US GDP. A country whose imports exceed its industrial production cannot close its trade deficit by exporting more.
The dollar has even collapsed in value against the euro, the currency of a make-believe country that does not exist: the European Union. France, Germany, Italy, England and the other members of the EU still exist as sovereign nations. England even retains its own currency. Yet the euro hits new highs daily against the dollar.
Noam Chomsky recently wrote that America thinks that it owns the world. That is definitely the view of the neoconized Bush administration. But the fact of the matter is that the US owes the world. The US "superpower" cannot even finance its own domestic operations, much less its gratuitous wars except via the kindness of foreigners to lend it money that cannot be repaid.
The US will never repay the loans. The American economy has been devastated by offshoring, by foreign competition, and by the importation of foreigners on work visas, while it holds to a free trade ideology that benefits corporate fat cats and shareholders at the expense of American labor. The dollar is failing in its role as reserve currency and will soon be abandoned.
When the dollar ceases to be the reserve currency, the US will no longer be able to pay its bills by borrowing more from foreigners.
I sometimes wonder if the bankrupt "superpower" will be able to scrape together the resources to bring home the troops stationed in its hundreds of bases overseas, or whether they will just be abandoned.
Traders at top investment bank 'covered up losses to protect their bonuses in £1.4 bn scam'
Traders at top investment bank 'covered up losses to protect their bonuses in £1.4 bn scam'
By SAM FLEMING - Last updated at 00:24am on 21st March 2008
Canary Warf based Credit Suisse discovered a £1.4 billion scam by traders trying to protect their bonuses
A top investment bank said yesterday that some of its traders had tried to protect their massive bonuses with a £1.4billion scam.
Credit Suisse was forced to admit it will pay the price for the traders' ruthless scheming by sinking into the red.
All the traders involved - some of them based in London - have been fired or suspended.
Shares in the bank, which is based in Zurich, tumbled 7.5 per cent yesterday.
Credit Suisse admitted it had discovered intentional "pricing errors" by a small number of traders involved in complex investments linked to the mortgage market.
The latest revelations sent more shockwaves around stock markets still reeling from the collapse of Wall Street banking giant Bear Stearns over the weekend.
In London the FTSE 100 Index fell 50.4 points to 5495.2 as investors digested the latest round of grim news. The seemingly relentless series of financial scandals are badly damaging the reputation of the banking sector.
Worryingly, many banks appear to have only a slender grasp of the activities of their trading floors, sparking fears that there are more financial timebombs waiting to go off.
The news is also a fresh blow to the reputation Switzerland's conservative and secretive banking sector, which has long been seen as one of the safest places for the wealthy to stash their money.
Credit Suisse said yesterday it will slash £1.4billion from the valuation of its assets following its investigation.
It has refused to name the individuals responsible. But the team involved was reportedly led until recently by Kareem Serageldin, a managing director who left the bank last month.
Brady Dougan, chief executive of Credit Suisse, said the bank was taking a number of steps to bring its traders under control.
And he insisted the firm's finances were robust.
Mr Dougan said: "This incident is unacceptable and it does not represent the high standard of Credit Suisse.
"Our overall control framework remains sound. We are taking strong action to move forward.
"Credit Suisse continues to be well positioned through the challenging and volatile markets that have existed since the middle of 2007."
But in a further sign of the crisis afflicting the industry, it emerged that Citigroup is planning a new round of job cuts.
Around 2,000 investment banking and trading positions will be slashed at the world's largest financial firm, most of them in New York and London.
This comes on top of 4,200 job cuts announced in January.
By SAM FLEMING - Last updated at 00:24am on 21st March 2008
Canary Warf based Credit Suisse discovered a £1.4 billion scam by traders trying to protect their bonuses
A top investment bank said yesterday that some of its traders had tried to protect their massive bonuses with a £1.4billion scam.
Credit Suisse was forced to admit it will pay the price for the traders' ruthless scheming by sinking into the red.
All the traders involved - some of them based in London - have been fired or suspended.
Shares in the bank, which is based in Zurich, tumbled 7.5 per cent yesterday.
Credit Suisse admitted it had discovered intentional "pricing errors" by a small number of traders involved in complex investments linked to the mortgage market.
The latest revelations sent more shockwaves around stock markets still reeling from the collapse of Wall Street banking giant Bear Stearns over the weekend.
In London the FTSE 100 Index fell 50.4 points to 5495.2 as investors digested the latest round of grim news. The seemingly relentless series of financial scandals are badly damaging the reputation of the banking sector.
Worryingly, many banks appear to have only a slender grasp of the activities of their trading floors, sparking fears that there are more financial timebombs waiting to go off.
The news is also a fresh blow to the reputation Switzerland's conservative and secretive banking sector, which has long been seen as one of the safest places for the wealthy to stash their money.
Credit Suisse said yesterday it will slash £1.4billion from the valuation of its assets following its investigation.
It has refused to name the individuals responsible. But the team involved was reportedly led until recently by Kareem Serageldin, a managing director who left the bank last month.
Brady Dougan, chief executive of Credit Suisse, said the bank was taking a number of steps to bring its traders under control.
And he insisted the firm's finances were robust.
Mr Dougan said: "This incident is unacceptable and it does not represent the high standard of Credit Suisse.
"Our overall control framework remains sound. We are taking strong action to move forward.
"Credit Suisse continues to be well positioned through the challenging and volatile markets that have existed since the middle of 2007."
But in a further sign of the crisis afflicting the industry, it emerged that Citigroup is planning a new round of job cuts.
Around 2,000 investment banking and trading positions will be slashed at the world's largest financial firm, most of them in New York and London.
This comes on top of 4,200 job cuts announced in January.
US economist calls financial crisis worst since 1930s
19 Mar, 2008, 1659 hrs IST, IANS
WELLINGTON: The current financial crisis is the worst the world has seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s and the US Federal Reserve move to cut interest rates will not make much difference, the Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz said on Wednesday.
"It will have some impact - it will do a little bit to stem the blood - but it's not addressing the fundamental problems underlying the collapse of the financial sector," Joseph said.
Stiglitz, who won the Nobel Prize in economics in 2001, is a former chief of the World Bank and chaired former US president Bill Clinton's council of economic advisers. He is in New Zealand on a lecture tour.
He said the Federal Reserve's move to cut its funds rate by three-quarters of a percentage point was "just trying to ease the economy down rather than try to address the underlying problems."
Stiglitz said the main problem was the fact that an estimated 2 million Americans were going to lose their homes because they could not repay mortgages which exceed the value of their property as house prices fell dramatically.
"As people walk away from their mortgages there will be more and more defaults - that undermines the whole financial system," he said.
Stiglitz said the Bush administration was bailing out banks, but accused it of refusing to do anything to help poor people stay in their homes which would stabilise the housing market.
"It's very easy to do something about it," he said, suggesting the administration could give assistance to write down mortgages to about 90 per cent of the value of a house which would enable people to stay in their properties.
However, the Bush administration has unveiled plans designed to help homeowners in danger of losing their homes by allowing holders of sub-prime mortgages to borrowers with poor credit to more easily apply for refinancing. The government will also send out tax rebate cheques in May.
Stiglitz said it was ironic that former Federal Reserve head Alan Greenspan had said it was the world's worst economic problem in the last 50 years, adding, "He is the source of much of the problem."
He said mismanagement by the Federal Reserve over the last seven years was one of the major factors underlying the current problem.
"They had the regulatory authority to prevent some of these bad practices that we are now paying for and he chose not to do it."
Stiglitz said the reason related in part to the war in Iraq and the very negative effect on the economy.
"They didn't want Americans to know exactly how bad the war was for the economy so they flooded it with liquidity, they looked the other way with regulations and they deliberately, I think, postponed the problem into the future and now we're paying the price."
WELLINGTON: The current financial crisis is the worst the world has seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s and the US Federal Reserve move to cut interest rates will not make much difference, the Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz said on Wednesday.
"It will have some impact - it will do a little bit to stem the blood - but it's not addressing the fundamental problems underlying the collapse of the financial sector," Joseph said.
Stiglitz, who won the Nobel Prize in economics in 2001, is a former chief of the World Bank and chaired former US president Bill Clinton's council of economic advisers. He is in New Zealand on a lecture tour.
He said the Federal Reserve's move to cut its funds rate by three-quarters of a percentage point was "just trying to ease the economy down rather than try to address the underlying problems."
Stiglitz said the main problem was the fact that an estimated 2 million Americans were going to lose their homes because they could not repay mortgages which exceed the value of their property as house prices fell dramatically.
"As people walk away from their mortgages there will be more and more defaults - that undermines the whole financial system," he said.
Stiglitz said the Bush administration was bailing out banks, but accused it of refusing to do anything to help poor people stay in their homes which would stabilise the housing market.
"It's very easy to do something about it," he said, suggesting the administration could give assistance to write down mortgages to about 90 per cent of the value of a house which would enable people to stay in their properties.
However, the Bush administration has unveiled plans designed to help homeowners in danger of losing their homes by allowing holders of sub-prime mortgages to borrowers with poor credit to more easily apply for refinancing. The government will also send out tax rebate cheques in May.
Stiglitz said it was ironic that former Federal Reserve head Alan Greenspan had said it was the world's worst economic problem in the last 50 years, adding, "He is the source of much of the problem."
He said mismanagement by the Federal Reserve over the last seven years was one of the major factors underlying the current problem.
"They had the regulatory authority to prevent some of these bad practices that we are now paying for and he chose not to do it."
Stiglitz said the reason related in part to the war in Iraq and the very negative effect on the economy.
"They didn't want Americans to know exactly how bad the war was for the economy so they flooded it with liquidity, they looked the other way with regulations and they deliberately, I think, postponed the problem into the future and now we're paying the price."
Investment Houses Borrow Billions From Fed's Emergency Lending Program
Investment Firms Tap Fed for Billions
Thursday March 20, 5:03 pm ET
By Jeannine Aversa, AP Economics Writer
Investment Houses Borrow Billions From Fed's Emergency Lending Program
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Big Wall Street investment companies are taking advantage of the Federal Reserve's unprecedented offer to secure emergency loans, the central bank reported Thursday.
The lending is part of a major effort by the Fed to help a financial system in danger of freezing.
Those large firms averaged $13.4 billion in daily borrowing over the past week from the new lending facility. The report does not identify the borrowers.
The Fed, in a bold move Sunday, agreed for the first time to let big investment houses get emergency loans directly from the central bank. This mechanism, similar to one available for commercial banks for years, got under way Monday and will continue for at least six months. It was the broadest use of the Fed's lending authority since the 1930s.
Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers and Morgan Stanley said Wednesday they had begun to test the new lending mechanism.
On Wednesday alone, lending reached $28.8 billion, according to the Fed report.
The Fed created a way for financially strapped investment firms to have regular access to a source of short-term cash. This lending facility is seen as similar to the Fed's "discount window" for banks. Commercial banks and investment companies pay 2.5 percent in interest for overnight loans from the Fed.
Investment houses can put up a range of collateral, including investment-grade mortgage backed securities.
The Fed, in another rare move last Friday, agreed to let JP Morgan Chase secure emergency financing from the central bank to rescue the venerable Wall Street firm Bear Stearns from collapse. Two days later, the Fed back a deal for JP Morgan to take over Bear Stearns.
Thursday's report offered insight on how much credit was extended to Bear Stearns via JP Morgan through the transaction the Fed approved last Friday. Average daily borrowing came to $5.5 billion for the week ending Wednesday.
Separately, the Fed said it will make $75 billion of Treasury securities available to big investment firms next week. Investment houses can bid on a slice of the securities at a Fed auction next Thursday; a second is set for April 3.
The Fed will allow investment firms to borrow up to $200 billion in safe Treasury securities by using some of their more risky investments as collateral.
By allowing this, the Fed is hoping to take pressure off financial companies and make them more inclined to lend to people and businesses.
The housing collapse and credit crunch have led to record-high home foreclosures and forced financial companies to rack up multibillion losses in complex mortgage investments that turned sour.
In the past day and weeks, the Fed has taken extraordinary moves aimed at making sure that problems in credit and financial markets do not sink the economy.
Thursday March 20, 5:03 pm ET
By Jeannine Aversa, AP Economics Writer
Investment Houses Borrow Billions From Fed's Emergency Lending Program
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Big Wall Street investment companies are taking advantage of the Federal Reserve's unprecedented offer to secure emergency loans, the central bank reported Thursday.
The lending is part of a major effort by the Fed to help a financial system in danger of freezing.
Those large firms averaged $13.4 billion in daily borrowing over the past week from the new lending facility. The report does not identify the borrowers.
The Fed, in a bold move Sunday, agreed for the first time to let big investment houses get emergency loans directly from the central bank. This mechanism, similar to one available for commercial banks for years, got under way Monday and will continue for at least six months. It was the broadest use of the Fed's lending authority since the 1930s.
Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers and Morgan Stanley said Wednesday they had begun to test the new lending mechanism.
On Wednesday alone, lending reached $28.8 billion, according to the Fed report.
The Fed created a way for financially strapped investment firms to have regular access to a source of short-term cash. This lending facility is seen as similar to the Fed's "discount window" for banks. Commercial banks and investment companies pay 2.5 percent in interest for overnight loans from the Fed.
Investment houses can put up a range of collateral, including investment-grade mortgage backed securities.
The Fed, in another rare move last Friday, agreed to let JP Morgan Chase secure emergency financing from the central bank to rescue the venerable Wall Street firm Bear Stearns from collapse. Two days later, the Fed back a deal for JP Morgan to take over Bear Stearns.
Thursday's report offered insight on how much credit was extended to Bear Stearns via JP Morgan through the transaction the Fed approved last Friday. Average daily borrowing came to $5.5 billion for the week ending Wednesday.
Separately, the Fed said it will make $75 billion of Treasury securities available to big investment firms next week. Investment houses can bid on a slice of the securities at a Fed auction next Thursday; a second is set for April 3.
The Fed will allow investment firms to borrow up to $200 billion in safe Treasury securities by using some of their more risky investments as collateral.
By allowing this, the Fed is hoping to take pressure off financial companies and make them more inclined to lend to people and businesses.
The housing collapse and credit crunch have led to record-high home foreclosures and forced financial companies to rack up multibillion losses in complex mortgage investments that turned sour.
In the past day and weeks, the Fed has taken extraordinary moves aimed at making sure that problems in credit and financial markets do not sink the economy.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Lord Rothschild Backs John McCain.
From Elmer Lane
3-17-8
Under the headline "Lord Rothschild Backs John McCain"
The Washington Post(March 15, 2008) informs us that "Sen. John McCain plans at least one campaign event on his week-long congressional trip to Europe and the Middle East: a March 20 fundraiser in London. An invitation sent out by the campaign says the luncheon will be held at Spencer House, St. James's Place, 'by kind permission of Lord Rothschild OM GBE and the Hon Nathaniel Rothschild.' Tickets to the invitation-only event cost $1,000 to $2,300. Attire is listed as "lounge suits.
How innocent is that?
"The time to buy is when blood is running in the streets." This remark was made by an earlier Nathan Rothschild, the one who reduced the Bank of Englands gold reserves by 100,000 pounds by cahsing hundreds of small notes, almost sinking that institution because the bank would not cash his one of his larger notes. You will note that as blood has been running in Wall Street Goldman Sachs has been investing billions in its hedge funds, paying off %16 percent in just one month, "contrarian-like-a-fox" profitably buying up selected assets as share prices tumble. But the Rothschilds are also playing this game with their hedge funds. Are they placing bets which McCain will turn into sure things? Consider what is behind that question:
"Nathaniel Philip Rothschild (b. 1971), British investor, co-chairman of Atticus Capital. More than 200 years after Mayer Amschel Rothschild founded the family dynasty that offered discreet counsel and investment wisdom to kings, queens, emperors and industrial titans, his 35-year-old direct descendant, Nathaniel, has emerged as a kingmaker in his own right and an investor who some say may become the richest Rothschild of them all. In five short years, the man in line to be the fifth Baron Rothschild became close to becoming a billionaire through a web of private equity investments in Ukraine, Eastern Europe and most significant, his partnership stake in Atticus Capital, the fast-growing $14 billion hedge fund. Rothschild began his career in 1994 at Lazard Brothers Asset Management in London, before joining Gleacher Partners, the New York-based mergers and acquisitions (M&A) advisory firm founded by Eric Gleacher, former head of M&A at Morgan Stanley and Lehman Brothers. Rothschild is partner and co-chairman of Atticus Capital LLC, an international investment management firm established in 1995, that has offices in New York and London. Mr. Rothschild is also a director of RIT Capital Partners plc, and a director of The Rothschild Foundation. Rothschild is a member of the Belfer Center's International Council at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government and the International Advisory Council of the Brookings Institution. He is also a member of the International Advisory Board of the Barrick Gold Corporation. Mr. Rothschild was nominated as a "Young Global Leader" by the World Economic Forum in 2005. Among the top money makers of the world almost all of the money coming from earnings of his investment in Atticus Capital hedge fund. He is partner and co-chairman of Atticus. In addition to his responsibilities at Atticus, Rothschild is director of RIT Capital Partners, his father's publicly traded U.K. investment trust. He is also director of JNR Ltd. -- the initials stand for Jacob and Nathaniel Rothschild -- a merchant banking boutique that specializes in emerging markets. Like his forebears, Nathaniel Rothschild prefers that his influence remain unseen. Mr. Rothschild is a principal adviser to Oleg Deripaska, one of the richest oligarchs in Russia and the owner of the aluminum giant Rusal, which recently merged with two other companies to create the world's largest aluminum company. Mr. Rothschild received no public credit despite having played a crucial role in getting the deal done.
"Lord Jacob Rothschild, OM GBE was born Nathaniel Charles Jacob Rothschild, the fourth Baron Rothschild. The 78 year old merchant banker is President of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research, an organization dedicated to cooperation in research, analysis and policy planning on issues affecting Jewish life worldwide. He is head of the English branch of the Rothschild family and chairman of RIT Capital Partners plc. Lord Rothschild is a member of the board of trustees of the Open Russia Foundation and serves as chairman of Yad Hanadiv, the Rothschild foundation which built and handed over to the State of Israel the buildings for both the Knesset and the Supreme Court. He is also Chairman of Rothschild Investment Trust (now RIT Capital Partners plc), an investment trust listed on the London Stock Exchange. He is a shareholder in Rothschild Continuation Holdings, the Swiss-based holding company for the Rothschild interests which has positions in many of the family businesses, including the bank N M Rothschild & Sons. From his headquarters in St James's Place in London, Jacob Rothschild has cultivated an influential set of clients, business associates and friends who have extended his interests far beyond the normal scope of a banker. He maintains strong personal and business links with Henry Kissinger. His country estate has been a regular venue for visiting heads of state including Bill Clinton. He hosted the European Economic Round Table conference in 2002, attended by such figures as James Wolfensohn, former president of the World Bank, Nicky Oppenheimer, Warren Buffett and Arnold Schwarzenegger.
"Forbes magazine poses lower ranking billionaires like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett as the richest men in the World. Retired management consultant Gaylon Ross Sr, author of Who's Who of the Global Elite, has been tipped from a private source that the combined wealth of the Rockefeller family in 1998 was approx (US) $11 trillion and the Rothschilds (U.S.) $100 trillion. A recent article in the London Financial Times indicates why it is impossible to gain an accurate estimate of the wealth of the trillionaire bankers. Discussing the sale of Evelyn Rothschild's stake in Rothschild Continuation Holdings, it states: ...[this] requires agreement on the valuation of privately held assets whose value has never been tested in a public market. Most of these assets are held in a complex network of tax-efficient structures around the World. The power of the Rothschild family was evidenced on 24 Sept 2002 when a helicopter touched down on the lawn of Waddedson Manor, their ancestral home in Buckinghamshire, England. Out of the helicopter strode Warren Buffet, - touted as the second richest man in the World but really a lower ranking player- and Arnold Schwarzenegger (the gropinator), at that time a candidate for the Governorship of California. Also in attendance at this two day meeting of the World's most powerful businessmen and financiers hosted by Jacob Rothschild were James Wolfensohn, president of the World Bank and Nicky Oppenheimer, chairman of De Beers. Arnold went on to secure the governorship of one of the biggest economies on the planet a year later. That he was initiated into the ruling class in the Rothschilds' English country manor suggests that the centre of gravity of the three hundred trillion dollar cartel is in the U.K. and Europe not the U.S. "
"United Kingdom banker N M Rothschild & Sons Ltd. is one of the last remaining of the great family-controlled banking dynasties established in the 19th century. Dwarfed by its larger, public rivals, Rothschild nonetheless remains a mythical name in the banking world. N M Rothschild provides banking and treasury financing services, treasury metals, and resource banking, including a central position in the world bullion markets, investment banking services (together with its joint-venture partnership with ABN AMRO), and risk management services. Since the 1990s, N M Rothschild has been taking steps to consolidate the operations of the various and far-flung Rothschild financial operations, most of which operate as subsidiaries under the Rothschild family-controlled Rothschild Continuation Holdings AG, established in Switzerland in the early part of the 20th century to protect the family's ownership of its banking empire. N M Rothschild has also been working in close cooperation with the--independent--Paris branch of Rothschild banking interests, Rothschild & Cie, led by David de Rothschild, who also functions as deputy chairman of N M Rothschild and is the heir-apparent to chairman and long-time leader Evelyn de Rothschild.
"N M Rothschild found plenty of work in the great wave of British privatization that swept the country during the late 1980s. The company was involved in a number of the country's most ambitious privatization programs, including the £5.6 billion privatization of British Gas in 1986, the exit of the British government from British Petroleum in 1987, and the privatization of the United Kingdom's water and sewage industry in 1989. At the same time, N M Rothschild, while remaining true to its family-owned and independent status, nonetheless made moves to establish itself as a globally operating entity capable of competing with the financial industry's heavyweights. As such N M Rothschild bolstered its international presence, consolidating its United States operations under the single Rothschild Inc. entity, based in New York, in 1981 and establishing separate Canadian operations with its Rothschild Canada Inc. subsidiary. The firm also opened offices in Germany and Italy at the end of the decade. During the 1990s, N M Rothschild began making stronger moves to draw together the various elements of the Rothschilds' empire. One of the last of these was the highly successful Paris-based banking arm, Rothschild & Cie., which retained its independent status. This business, led by David de Rothschild, had been created in the mid-1980s as France's banking industry shrugged off the ill-fated nationalization of the country's commercial banking system under the Socialist government in the early 1980s. The former Banque de Rothschild had been nationalized in 1982. Two years later, Baron Guy de Rothschild and son David took the compensation they had received--about 80 million--and started a new investment banking firm, Paris-Orleans Finance. It was not until 1986, however, that the French Rothschilds were granted a new banking license and the right to restore the family's name to their bank, as the French banking industry once again became privatized.
David de Rothschild quickly took the lead in rebuilding Rothschild & Cie, transforming it into a new French financial powerhouse and one of the driving forces behind many of the country's largest business deals through the next decade. When Evelyn de Rothschild began to look toward consolidating the family's banking interests, he tapped David de Rothschild to become N M Rothschild's deputy chairman in 1992, establishing his younger cousin as his heir apparent. That position was reinforced in 1996, when N M Rothschild engaged in a restructuring of its global operations, reorganizing its businesses around five main product lines: resource banking and treasury operations; investment banking; asset management; development capital; and private banking and trust management services. At the same time the Rothschild operations set up a group investment banking committee charged with coordinating the global financial business of the Rothschild empire. David de Rothschild was named as head of the new committee. Also in that year, N M Rothschild established a joint venture with Dutch bank ABN AMRO to compete for contracts in the world's equity markets. By 1999, that venture--ABN AMRO Rothschild--was completing deals worth more than $125 billion per year.
In the late 1990s, N M Rothschild client-intensive approach paid off as the group became an important player in the booming European market for mergers and acquisitions.
The firm took part in such important deals as the launch of EADS, the European aerospace group created from the merger of France's Aerospatiale, Spain's CASA, and Germany's DASA. N M Rothschild was also an advisor on the massive restructuring of Deutsche Telekom, valued at more than $15 billion; the firm also backed England's National Grid Group in its $8.9 billion takeover of Niagara Mohawk Holdings in the United States, while playing a supporting role in the takeover of Mannesmann by Vodaphone, worth more than $200 billion.
"As the company celebrated more than 200 years of operations at the heart of the world's financial markets, N M Rothschild continued to explore new frontiers. In 1999 the company announced its plans to extend the ABN AMRO Rothschild joint venture to cover the lucrative market for initial public offerings in the United States.
"N M Rothschild found plenty of work in the great wave of British privatization that swept the country during the late 1980s. The company was involved in a number of the country's most ambitious privatization programs, including the £5.6 billion privatization of British Gas in 1986, the exit of the British government from British Petroleum in 1987, and the privatization of the United Kingdom's water and sewage industry in 1989. At the same time, N M Rothschild, while remaining true to its family-owned and independent status, nonetheless made moves to establish itself as a globally operating entity capable of competing with the financial industry's heavyweights. As such N M Rothschild bolstered its international presence, consolidating its United States operations under the single Rothschild Inc. entity, based in New York, in 1981 and establishing separate Canadian operations with its Rothschild Canada Inc. subsidiary. The firm also opened offices in Germany and Italy at the end of the decade.
"During the 1990s, N M Rothschild began making stronger moves to draw together the various elements of the Rothschilds' empire. One of the last of these was the highly successful Paris-based banking arm, Rothschild & Cie., which retained its independent status. This business, led by David de Rothschild, had been created in the mid-1980s as France's banking industry shrugged off the ill-fated nationalization of the country's commercial banking system under the Socialist government in the early 1980s. The former Banque de Rothschild had been nationalized in 1982. Two years later, Baron Guy de Rothschild and son David took the compensation they had received--about 80 million--and started a new investment banking firm, Paris-Orleans Finance. It was not until 1986, however, that the French Rothschilds were granted a new banking license and the right to restore the family's name to their bank, as the French banking industry once again became privatized.
"David de Rothschild quickly took the lead in rebuilding Rothschild & Cie, transforming it into a new French financial powerhouse and one of the driving forces behind many of the country's largest business deals through the next decade. When Evelyn de Rothschild began to look toward consolidating the family's banking interests, he tapped David de Rothschild to become N M Rothschild's deputy chairman in 1992, establishing his younger cousin as his heir apparent. That position was reinforced in 1996, when N M Rothschild engaged in a restructuring of its global operations, reorganizing its businesses around five main product lines: resource banking and treasury operations; investment banking; asset management; development capital; and private banking and trust management services. At the same time the Rothschild operations set up a group investment banking committee charged with coordinating the global financial business of the Rothschild empire. David de Rothschild was named as head of the new committee. Also in that year, N M Rothschild established a joint venture with Dutch bank ABN AMRO to compete for contracts in the world's equity markets. By 1999, that venture--ABN AMRO Rothschild--was completing deals worth more than $125 billion per year. In the late 1990s, N M Rothschild client-intensive approach paid off as the group became an important player in the booming European market for mergers and acquisitions. The firm took part in such important deals as the launch of EADS, the European aerospace group created from the merger of France's Aerospatiale, Spain's CASA, and Germany's DASA. N M Rothschild was also an advisor on the massive restructuring of Deutsche Telekom, valued at more than $15 billion; the firm also backed England's National Grid Group in its $8.9 billion takeover of Niagara Mohawk Holdings in the United States, while playing a supporting role in the takeover of Mannesmann by Vodaphone, worth more than $200 billion. As the company celebrated more than 200 years of operations at the heart of the world's financial markets, N M Rothschild continued to explore new frontiers. In 1999 the company announced its plans to extend the ABN AMRO Rothschild joint venture to cover the lucrative market for initial public offerings in the United States.
3-17-8
Under the headline "Lord Rothschild Backs John McCain"
The Washington Post(March 15, 2008) informs us that "Sen. John McCain plans at least one campaign event on his week-long congressional trip to Europe and the Middle East: a March 20 fundraiser in London. An invitation sent out by the campaign says the luncheon will be held at Spencer House, St. James's Place, 'by kind permission of Lord Rothschild OM GBE and the Hon Nathaniel Rothschild.' Tickets to the invitation-only event cost $1,000 to $2,300. Attire is listed as "lounge suits.
How innocent is that?
"The time to buy is when blood is running in the streets." This remark was made by an earlier Nathan Rothschild, the one who reduced the Bank of Englands gold reserves by 100,000 pounds by cahsing hundreds of small notes, almost sinking that institution because the bank would not cash his one of his larger notes. You will note that as blood has been running in Wall Street Goldman Sachs has been investing billions in its hedge funds, paying off %16 percent in just one month, "contrarian-like-a-fox" profitably buying up selected assets as share prices tumble. But the Rothschilds are also playing this game with their hedge funds. Are they placing bets which McCain will turn into sure things? Consider what is behind that question:
"Nathaniel Philip Rothschild (b. 1971), British investor, co-chairman of Atticus Capital. More than 200 years after Mayer Amschel Rothschild founded the family dynasty that offered discreet counsel and investment wisdom to kings, queens, emperors and industrial titans, his 35-year-old direct descendant, Nathaniel, has emerged as a kingmaker in his own right and an investor who some say may become the richest Rothschild of them all. In five short years, the man in line to be the fifth Baron Rothschild became close to becoming a billionaire through a web of private equity investments in Ukraine, Eastern Europe and most significant, his partnership stake in Atticus Capital, the fast-growing $14 billion hedge fund. Rothschild began his career in 1994 at Lazard Brothers Asset Management in London, before joining Gleacher Partners, the New York-based mergers and acquisitions (M&A) advisory firm founded by Eric Gleacher, former head of M&A at Morgan Stanley and Lehman Brothers. Rothschild is partner and co-chairman of Atticus Capital LLC, an international investment management firm established in 1995, that has offices in New York and London. Mr. Rothschild is also a director of RIT Capital Partners plc, and a director of The Rothschild Foundation. Rothschild is a member of the Belfer Center's International Council at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government and the International Advisory Council of the Brookings Institution. He is also a member of the International Advisory Board of the Barrick Gold Corporation. Mr. Rothschild was nominated as a "Young Global Leader" by the World Economic Forum in 2005. Among the top money makers of the world almost all of the money coming from earnings of his investment in Atticus Capital hedge fund. He is partner and co-chairman of Atticus. In addition to his responsibilities at Atticus, Rothschild is director of RIT Capital Partners, his father's publicly traded U.K. investment trust. He is also director of JNR Ltd. -- the initials stand for Jacob and Nathaniel Rothschild -- a merchant banking boutique that specializes in emerging markets. Like his forebears, Nathaniel Rothschild prefers that his influence remain unseen. Mr. Rothschild is a principal adviser to Oleg Deripaska, one of the richest oligarchs in Russia and the owner of the aluminum giant Rusal, which recently merged with two other companies to create the world's largest aluminum company. Mr. Rothschild received no public credit despite having played a crucial role in getting the deal done.
"Lord Jacob Rothschild, OM GBE was born Nathaniel Charles Jacob Rothschild, the fourth Baron Rothschild. The 78 year old merchant banker is President of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research, an organization dedicated to cooperation in research, analysis and policy planning on issues affecting Jewish life worldwide. He is head of the English branch of the Rothschild family and chairman of RIT Capital Partners plc. Lord Rothschild is a member of the board of trustees of the Open Russia Foundation and serves as chairman of Yad Hanadiv, the Rothschild foundation which built and handed over to the State of Israel the buildings for both the Knesset and the Supreme Court. He is also Chairman of Rothschild Investment Trust (now RIT Capital Partners plc), an investment trust listed on the London Stock Exchange. He is a shareholder in Rothschild Continuation Holdings, the Swiss-based holding company for the Rothschild interests which has positions in many of the family businesses, including the bank N M Rothschild & Sons. From his headquarters in St James's Place in London, Jacob Rothschild has cultivated an influential set of clients, business associates and friends who have extended his interests far beyond the normal scope of a banker. He maintains strong personal and business links with Henry Kissinger. His country estate has been a regular venue for visiting heads of state including Bill Clinton. He hosted the European Economic Round Table conference in 2002, attended by such figures as James Wolfensohn, former president of the World Bank, Nicky Oppenheimer, Warren Buffett and Arnold Schwarzenegger.
"Forbes magazine poses lower ranking billionaires like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett as the richest men in the World. Retired management consultant Gaylon Ross Sr, author of Who's Who of the Global Elite, has been tipped from a private source that the combined wealth of the Rockefeller family in 1998 was approx (US) $11 trillion and the Rothschilds (U.S.) $100 trillion. A recent article in the London Financial Times indicates why it is impossible to gain an accurate estimate of the wealth of the trillionaire bankers. Discussing the sale of Evelyn Rothschild's stake in Rothschild Continuation Holdings, it states: ...[this] requires agreement on the valuation of privately held assets whose value has never been tested in a public market. Most of these assets are held in a complex network of tax-efficient structures around the World. The power of the Rothschild family was evidenced on 24 Sept 2002 when a helicopter touched down on the lawn of Waddedson Manor, their ancestral home in Buckinghamshire, England. Out of the helicopter strode Warren Buffet, - touted as the second richest man in the World but really a lower ranking player- and Arnold Schwarzenegger (the gropinator), at that time a candidate for the Governorship of California. Also in attendance at this two day meeting of the World's most powerful businessmen and financiers hosted by Jacob Rothschild were James Wolfensohn, president of the World Bank and Nicky Oppenheimer, chairman of De Beers. Arnold went on to secure the governorship of one of the biggest economies on the planet a year later. That he was initiated into the ruling class in the Rothschilds' English country manor suggests that the centre of gravity of the three hundred trillion dollar cartel is in the U.K. and Europe not the U.S. "
"United Kingdom banker N M Rothschild & Sons Ltd. is one of the last remaining of the great family-controlled banking dynasties established in the 19th century. Dwarfed by its larger, public rivals, Rothschild nonetheless remains a mythical name in the banking world. N M Rothschild provides banking and treasury financing services, treasury metals, and resource banking, including a central position in the world bullion markets, investment banking services (together with its joint-venture partnership with ABN AMRO), and risk management services. Since the 1990s, N M Rothschild has been taking steps to consolidate the operations of the various and far-flung Rothschild financial operations, most of which operate as subsidiaries under the Rothschild family-controlled Rothschild Continuation Holdings AG, established in Switzerland in the early part of the 20th century to protect the family's ownership of its banking empire. N M Rothschild has also been working in close cooperation with the--independent--Paris branch of Rothschild banking interests, Rothschild & Cie, led by David de Rothschild, who also functions as deputy chairman of N M Rothschild and is the heir-apparent to chairman and long-time leader Evelyn de Rothschild.
"N M Rothschild found plenty of work in the great wave of British privatization that swept the country during the late 1980s. The company was involved in a number of the country's most ambitious privatization programs, including the £5.6 billion privatization of British Gas in 1986, the exit of the British government from British Petroleum in 1987, and the privatization of the United Kingdom's water and sewage industry in 1989. At the same time, N M Rothschild, while remaining true to its family-owned and independent status, nonetheless made moves to establish itself as a globally operating entity capable of competing with the financial industry's heavyweights. As such N M Rothschild bolstered its international presence, consolidating its United States operations under the single Rothschild Inc. entity, based in New York, in 1981 and establishing separate Canadian operations with its Rothschild Canada Inc. subsidiary. The firm also opened offices in Germany and Italy at the end of the decade. During the 1990s, N M Rothschild began making stronger moves to draw together the various elements of the Rothschilds' empire. One of the last of these was the highly successful Paris-based banking arm, Rothschild & Cie., which retained its independent status. This business, led by David de Rothschild, had been created in the mid-1980s as France's banking industry shrugged off the ill-fated nationalization of the country's commercial banking system under the Socialist government in the early 1980s. The former Banque de Rothschild had been nationalized in 1982. Two years later, Baron Guy de Rothschild and son David took the compensation they had received--about 80 million--and started a new investment banking firm, Paris-Orleans Finance. It was not until 1986, however, that the French Rothschilds were granted a new banking license and the right to restore the family's name to their bank, as the French banking industry once again became privatized.
David de Rothschild quickly took the lead in rebuilding Rothschild & Cie, transforming it into a new French financial powerhouse and one of the driving forces behind many of the country's largest business deals through the next decade. When Evelyn de Rothschild began to look toward consolidating the family's banking interests, he tapped David de Rothschild to become N M Rothschild's deputy chairman in 1992, establishing his younger cousin as his heir apparent. That position was reinforced in 1996, when N M Rothschild engaged in a restructuring of its global operations, reorganizing its businesses around five main product lines: resource banking and treasury operations; investment banking; asset management; development capital; and private banking and trust management services. At the same time the Rothschild operations set up a group investment banking committee charged with coordinating the global financial business of the Rothschild empire. David de Rothschild was named as head of the new committee. Also in that year, N M Rothschild established a joint venture with Dutch bank ABN AMRO to compete for contracts in the world's equity markets. By 1999, that venture--ABN AMRO Rothschild--was completing deals worth more than $125 billion per year.
In the late 1990s, N M Rothschild client-intensive approach paid off as the group became an important player in the booming European market for mergers and acquisitions.
The firm took part in such important deals as the launch of EADS, the European aerospace group created from the merger of France's Aerospatiale, Spain's CASA, and Germany's DASA. N M Rothschild was also an advisor on the massive restructuring of Deutsche Telekom, valued at more than $15 billion; the firm also backed England's National Grid Group in its $8.9 billion takeover of Niagara Mohawk Holdings in the United States, while playing a supporting role in the takeover of Mannesmann by Vodaphone, worth more than $200 billion.
"As the company celebrated more than 200 years of operations at the heart of the world's financial markets, N M Rothschild continued to explore new frontiers. In 1999 the company announced its plans to extend the ABN AMRO Rothschild joint venture to cover the lucrative market for initial public offerings in the United States.
"N M Rothschild found plenty of work in the great wave of British privatization that swept the country during the late 1980s. The company was involved in a number of the country's most ambitious privatization programs, including the £5.6 billion privatization of British Gas in 1986, the exit of the British government from British Petroleum in 1987, and the privatization of the United Kingdom's water and sewage industry in 1989. At the same time, N M Rothschild, while remaining true to its family-owned and independent status, nonetheless made moves to establish itself as a globally operating entity capable of competing with the financial industry's heavyweights. As such N M Rothschild bolstered its international presence, consolidating its United States operations under the single Rothschild Inc. entity, based in New York, in 1981 and establishing separate Canadian operations with its Rothschild Canada Inc. subsidiary. The firm also opened offices in Germany and Italy at the end of the decade.
"During the 1990s, N M Rothschild began making stronger moves to draw together the various elements of the Rothschilds' empire. One of the last of these was the highly successful Paris-based banking arm, Rothschild & Cie., which retained its independent status. This business, led by David de Rothschild, had been created in the mid-1980s as France's banking industry shrugged off the ill-fated nationalization of the country's commercial banking system under the Socialist government in the early 1980s. The former Banque de Rothschild had been nationalized in 1982. Two years later, Baron Guy de Rothschild and son David took the compensation they had received--about 80 million--and started a new investment banking firm, Paris-Orleans Finance. It was not until 1986, however, that the French Rothschilds were granted a new banking license and the right to restore the family's name to their bank, as the French banking industry once again became privatized.
"David de Rothschild quickly took the lead in rebuilding Rothschild & Cie, transforming it into a new French financial powerhouse and one of the driving forces behind many of the country's largest business deals through the next decade. When Evelyn de Rothschild began to look toward consolidating the family's banking interests, he tapped David de Rothschild to become N M Rothschild's deputy chairman in 1992, establishing his younger cousin as his heir apparent. That position was reinforced in 1996, when N M Rothschild engaged in a restructuring of its global operations, reorganizing its businesses around five main product lines: resource banking and treasury operations; investment banking; asset management; development capital; and private banking and trust management services. At the same time the Rothschild operations set up a group investment banking committee charged with coordinating the global financial business of the Rothschild empire. David de Rothschild was named as head of the new committee. Also in that year, N M Rothschild established a joint venture with Dutch bank ABN AMRO to compete for contracts in the world's equity markets. By 1999, that venture--ABN AMRO Rothschild--was completing deals worth more than $125 billion per year. In the late 1990s, N M Rothschild client-intensive approach paid off as the group became an important player in the booming European market for mergers and acquisitions. The firm took part in such important deals as the launch of EADS, the European aerospace group created from the merger of France's Aerospatiale, Spain's CASA, and Germany's DASA. N M Rothschild was also an advisor on the massive restructuring of Deutsche Telekom, valued at more than $15 billion; the firm also backed England's National Grid Group in its $8.9 billion takeover of Niagara Mohawk Holdings in the United States, while playing a supporting role in the takeover of Mannesmann by Vodaphone, worth more than $200 billion. As the company celebrated more than 200 years of operations at the heart of the world's financial markets, N M Rothschild continued to explore new frontiers. In 1999 the company announced its plans to extend the ABN AMRO Rothschild joint venture to cover the lucrative market for initial public offerings in the United States.
Friday, March 14, 2008
The Norwegian Banks' Guarantee Fund
The Norwegian Banks' Guarantee Fund
All banks with head office in Norway, and subsidiaries of foreign banks shall according to the law be members of The Norwegian Banks’ Guarantee Fund.
2 million NOK
The Guarantee Fund is an important element of the security net within the banking sector. The main task of the Norwegian Banks’ Guarantee Fund is to cover deposits in member banks. The law states that deposits in a bank are absolutely guaranteed up to a total amount of 2 million NOK.
As of 1. july 2004 the Commercial Banks' Guarantee Fund and the Savings Banks Guarantee Fund were merged into one fund, the Norwegian Banks' Guarantee Fund.
The Act on guarantee Fund and The Statutes, approved by the Minister of Finance lays down the rules of The Commercial Banks’ Guarantee Fund. The amendment to the law are not yet available in English.
The General Meeting is the highest authority of the Guarantee fund. Managing director of the fund is Arne Hyttnes, head of the The Norwegian Savings Banks Association.
Sparebankenes Hus
Manager, Secretary to the board,
Asset Management and Department for Analysis:
Universitetsgt. 8
Postboks 6805, St. Olavsplass
0130 Oslo
Tlf. 22 11 00 75
Fax 22 11 07 69
Web Editor: Ann Håkonsen
All banks with head office in Norway, and subsidiaries of foreign banks shall according to the law be members of The Norwegian Banks’ Guarantee Fund.
2 million NOK
The Guarantee Fund is an important element of the security net within the banking sector. The main task of the Norwegian Banks’ Guarantee Fund is to cover deposits in member banks. The law states that deposits in a bank are absolutely guaranteed up to a total amount of 2 million NOK.
As of 1. july 2004 the Commercial Banks' Guarantee Fund and the Savings Banks Guarantee Fund were merged into one fund, the Norwegian Banks' Guarantee Fund.
The Act on guarantee Fund and The Statutes, approved by the Minister of Finance lays down the rules of The Commercial Banks’ Guarantee Fund. The amendment to the law are not yet available in English.
The General Meeting is the highest authority of the Guarantee fund. Managing director of the fund is Arne Hyttnes, head of the The Norwegian Savings Banks Association.
Sparebankenes Hus
Manager, Secretary to the board,
Asset Management and Department for Analysis:
Universitetsgt. 8
Postboks 6805, St. Olavsplass
0130 Oslo
Tlf. 22 11 00 75
Fax 22 11 07 69
Web Editor: Ann Håkonsen
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Jim Rogers - Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke should resign and the Fed should be abolished as a way to boost the falling dollar
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke should resign and the Fed should be abolished as a way to boost the falling dollar and speed up the recovery of the U.S. economy, investor Jim Rogers, CEO of Rogers Holdings, told CNBC Europe Wednesday.
Asked what he would do if he were in Bernanke's shoes, Rogers, who slammed the Fed for pouring liquidity in the system and accepting mortgage-backed securities as guarantees, said: "I would abolish the Federal Reserve and I would resign."
If this happened, "we don't have anybody printing money, we don't have inflation in the land, we don't have a collapsing U.S. dollar," he told "Squawk Box Europe."
The Federal Reserve announced on Wednesday a rescue package that it would put around $200 billion into banks and investment houses and allow them to put up risky home-loan packages as collateral.
Wall Street responded to the news with the biggest rally of the year, but Rogers reminisced of the 1970s, when the Fed printed money to avert a recession, boosting inflation and then forcing interest rates to more than 20 percent to keep a lid on price rises.
"No country in the world has ever succeeded by debasing its currency," he said. "That's what this man is trying to do. He's trying to debase the currency as a way to revive America. It has never worked in the long term or the medium term."
'Socialism for the Rich'
The Fed's move to accept risky collateral is not part of the central bank's business, he added.
"What is Bernanke going to do? Get in his helicopter and fly around the world and collect rents? That's absurd," Rogers said.
A recession may be a good way to clean up the economy, while trying to prevent one may cost more and actually worsen the recession, Rogers said. Also, investment banks should be allowed to fail.
"Listen, investment banks have been going bankrupt since the beginning of time. If people make mistakes -- if you bail out every investment bank that gets in trouble, that's not capitalism, that's socialism for the rich," he said.
The weakest financial institution is Fannie Mae, in Rogers' opinion, "but all of them have problems."
He said he had a short position on all investment banks and is buying agricultural commodities such as cotton, wheat, coffee and sugar and was also buying the Chinese yuan and the Japanese yen.
"Buy agriculture. Agriculture is one of the few places where you're going to make a fortune in the next years," Rogers said.
Asked what he would do if he were in Bernanke's shoes, Rogers, who slammed the Fed for pouring liquidity in the system and accepting mortgage-backed securities as guarantees, said: "I would abolish the Federal Reserve and I would resign."
If this happened, "we don't have anybody printing money, we don't have inflation in the land, we don't have a collapsing U.S. dollar," he told "Squawk Box Europe."
The Federal Reserve announced on Wednesday a rescue package that it would put around $200 billion into banks and investment houses and allow them to put up risky home-loan packages as collateral.
Wall Street responded to the news with the biggest rally of the year, but Rogers reminisced of the 1970s, when the Fed printed money to avert a recession, boosting inflation and then forcing interest rates to more than 20 percent to keep a lid on price rises.
"No country in the world has ever succeeded by debasing its currency," he said. "That's what this man is trying to do. He's trying to debase the currency as a way to revive America. It has never worked in the long term or the medium term."
'Socialism for the Rich'
The Fed's move to accept risky collateral is not part of the central bank's business, he added.
"What is Bernanke going to do? Get in his helicopter and fly around the world and collect rents? That's absurd," Rogers said.
A recession may be a good way to clean up the economy, while trying to prevent one may cost more and actually worsen the recession, Rogers said. Also, investment banks should be allowed to fail.
"Listen, investment banks have been going bankrupt since the beginning of time. If people make mistakes -- if you bail out every investment bank that gets in trouble, that's not capitalism, that's socialism for the rich," he said.
The weakest financial institution is Fannie Mae, in Rogers' opinion, "but all of them have problems."
He said he had a short position on all investment banks and is buying agricultural commodities such as cotton, wheat, coffee and sugar and was also buying the Chinese yuan and the Japanese yen.
"Buy agriculture. Agriculture is one of the few places where you're going to make a fortune in the next years," Rogers said.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
America: Lying Politicians, Gullible Voters and the Long Slide Ahead
By Dave Lindorff
Well, fellow Americans, we are finally going to get our just rewards.
That “Almighty Dollar” you used to hear about is heading straight towards the scrap heap of junk currencies (think Ruble, Rupee, Lira, Escudo).
Several decades of foolishly voting for charlatan politicians, who assured us we could rule the world as we saw fit with a military whose costs were greater than the rest of the world’s armies combined, and who assured us we didn’t need to pay for our wars and our military might because we could just borrow money to keep the government running, have finally run us up against a wall. Nobody wants to hold those dollar debts anymore.
Would you?
The same is true with the policy of globalization which those same charlatans have sold us, claiming that allowing our industrial base to pick up and move to Asia or Latin America would be a cost-free way of keeping inflation in check by providing us with all our manufactured crap on the cheap. Forget about lost jobs, they told us. You’ll all end up retraining and becoming lawyers and accountants and MBAs scooping up the good new jobs. Forget about a trade deficit, too, they told us. The US, with its brilliant educated workforce, will be providing the world with intellectual products, from our peerless movies and video games to our wonderful high-tech and medical inventions.
Now we see that those promises were a joke too. Indian and Chinese scientists and engineers are proving to be just as smart as our own. And as our bankrupted communities, their tax revenues withering with the collapse of the real estate bubble, and our financially strapped states, their tax revenues battered by rising unemployment and falling incomes, slash funding for public education and for colleges.
The jobs are gone, the schools are overcrowded holding pens, the public has run itself into massive debt trying to maintain a semblance of old living standards, the bridges are falling down, the roads are filling with potholes and cracks, fully one percent of the population (mostly people unable to find jobs) is in jail, and the troops are mired off in Iraq and Afghanistan, where they’re blowing through $12 billion a month just trying to stay alive and to stave off defeat.
Meanwhile, here at home, we’re watching the price of gas drift upwards towards $4/gallon, as producing countries from Iran to Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia in between, look at their crude stockpiles and think, “Do I want to get paid in greenbacks for this stuff?”
Increasingly, they’re thinking, “No. What do they take us for? Chumps? We want Euros.”
Over in China, the folks who make everything we use, from car and plane parts to the toys our kids play with and the food we eat, they’re thinking the same thing.
When they all eventually decide they’ve had it with the dollar, it will really start to plummet, and no amount of interest rate hiking by the Federal Reserve will be able to make it look attractive enough to hold onto.
But wait, the Fed can’t raise interest anyhow! It has to lower interest rates, because the US economy is sinking into a recession. That’s why the Fed has already lowered interest rates to 3 percent.
You may not have noticed, because the banks haven’t followed suit by lowering mortgage rates and consumer credit rates. They can’t do that, because they have so many loans going bust they need to keep sucking profits out of the remaining borrowers who so far can still meet their monthly payments.
The politicians who lured us into this disaster are now talking about how they will fix everything, but it’s all smoke and mirrors. John McCain may say the US will be stationing troops in Iraq for 100 years, but how’s he planning to pay for that? Hillary Clinton may say she wants to bring jobs back to Ohio, but who’s going to hire Ohio's workers? (Incentally, the phone Hillary picks up in her infamous "hot-line phone" ad was made in China, and the child in the ad, itself lifted from stock footage taken years ago, was of a girl, now 17, who is today an Obama activist.) Barack Obama may say he’s going to ensure that Americans can continue to maintain their lifestyles and afford the things they need, but how does he plan to keep incomes—and the currency itself—afloat?
The only way to salvage the US economy is for us American voters to admit that we’ve been buying a lie, and that these candidates vying to replace the Liar-in-Chief, and the candidates running for the Congress, are lying to us still.
We need to acknowledge that the US is not exceptional, and that it has to be part of the community of nations. We can no longer rule a “new world order” as “the sole surviving superpower.” That way lies the fate of the Roman Empire.
We need to bring the troops home—not just from Iraq and Afghanistan, but from all 800 of the places we have them stationed around the globe. We need to make reefs of our aircraft battle groups, and new forests of our many, many airfields and military bases.
We need to put the hundreds of thousands of men and women who unproductively march around in ugly desert uniforms to productive work as teachers, scientists, technicians, builders, healthcare workers and reforestation workers.
We need to take the trillion dollars a year we annually blow on the military and start putting it into our education system, our health system, our retirement system and, most critically, into R&D on ways to save the planet from climate disaster.
There is probably still time to pull the US out of a permanent dive into third-class nationhood, but not much. Especially if the idiots currently at the wheel are allowed to make things worse by attacking Iran.
We can start by demanding that the current candidates for President and Congress stop their lies. None of them can bring about any “change” in America, or rescue the country from its growing crisis, without slashing our absurd military budget, and without ending the con game called “globalization” that is hollowing out the economy.
If we don’t demand that kind of honesty of our political class, we have only ourselves to blame for the wreckage that will ensue.
If you want to see what it’s going to look like if we continue down our present path, take a trip to Rome and walk through the ruins of the Forum. Those structures went from gleaming marble to piles of bricks in a matter of decades, during which Rome went from the capital of a pan-European empire to a fetid swamp (much like a post-collapse Washington would be). But a word of warning. If you go to Rome, bring a sleeping bag and a lunch pail. Your dollar will not get you a hotel room or pay for lunch at even a run-of-the-mill eatery these days, so plan on camping and eating from the grocery store while there.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
driver's licence reciprocal agreement with Ontario
Ontario has reciprocal driver's licence agreements with Austria, Belgium, France, Great Britain, Germany, Japan, Korea, and Switzerland.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
A vast array of pharmaceuticals — including antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers and sex hormones- have been found in the US drinking water
A vast array of pharmaceuticals — including antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers and sex hormones — have been found in the drinking water supplies of at least 41 million Americans, an Associated Press investigation shows.
Saturday, March 8, 2008
US Fed releases $200bn as credit crisis hits new depths
Siobhan Kennedy
From The Times
March 8, 2008
The global credit crisis plunged to new depths yesterday as persistent fears over the collapse of a large financial institution caused funding markets to dry up and forced the US Federal Reserve to make available up to $200 billion (£99.3 billion) of emergency financing.
The Fed said that a “rapid deterioration” in the credit markets in recent days had prompted it to begin a series of fresh cash injections in an effort to shore up the balance sheets of America’s stricken banks. Unemployment also shot up in the US last month, adding to the gloom. US stocks tumbled, dragging the Dow Jones industrial average down 138.40 points to 11.902.00. Treasury prices jumped and the dollar fell to record lows.
Bankers said that the moves underscored the deepening severity of the crisis, which was triggered last June by the collapse of the American sub-prime mortgage market and has got progressively worse since. One senior banker in London said: “This is the beginning of the real credit crisis and it’s not going to end without a major casualty.”
Sources said that the present crisis was triggered by cash-strapped banks starting to get tough with their hedge fund clients by making margin calls on loans and drastically raising interest rate payments overnight. The move has pushed the funds into the panic-selling of assets, mostly AAA-rated US mortgage securities, and several are thought to be on the brink of collapse. One of them, Carlyle Capital Corporation (CCC), said yesterday that overnight it had received “substantial additional margin calls” linked to its souring investments in US mortgages.
Thornburg, the US mortgage lender, exacerbated investor jitters when it said that it did not have enough cash to meet $610 million of margin calls. Last week Peloton, a London hedge fund, collapsed after it became unable to meet the banks’ demands.
Bankers said that the problem was related to a perceived increased risk surrounding the AAA-rated prime mortgages and to the consequences of dangerous overleveraging of the funds themselves. In the case of Carlyle, its CCC fund had leveraged its assets by $30 for every $1 of its own cash.
“The whole industry was created by cheap debt,” the banking source said. “It was really all just an illusion.”
Underlining the Fed’s desperate attempts to calm markets, for the first time it said that it would accept mortgage-backed assets as collateral from the banks for fresh loans. As the fear spread, the perceived risk of owning US corporate bonds - measured by the widening of credit spreads – also rose to its highest level.
Friedman, Billings, Ramsey, the US analyst firm, said that the US financial industry would need $1 trillion of permanent capital to maintain current pricing of mortgage assets. However, it added that the industry would not be able to obtain that amount.
Shares of Carlyle’s CCC fund were suspended in Amsterdam yesterday as it disclosed that it had received more default notices from its lenders and that some of those lenders had been forced to sell CCC’s mortgage assets in an effort to recover their loans. The dire forecast came only 24 hours after CCC said that it had been issued with $37 million of margin calls from lenders, having satisfied $60 million of calls only the week before.
Sean Egan, of the Egan-Jones Ratings Company, said: “When financial history is written, the Carlyle liquidation will go down as one of the single most major events. Carlyle has built an image as one of the smartest investors around, and to see one of its funds fall apart shows there is a fundamental problem with the market.”
House Joint Resolution 192, 73d Congress, Sess. I, Ch. 48, June 5, 1933 (Public Law No. 10 )
On June 5, 1933, Congress passed HJR-192. House Joint Resolution 192 was passed to suspend the gold standard and abrogate the gold clause in the national constitution. Since then no one in America has been able to lawfully pay a debt. This resolution declared:
". . . Whereas the holding or dealing in gold affect the PUBLIC INTEREST, [STATE-Corporate Interest] and are therefore subject to proper regulation and restriction: and whereas the existing emergency has disclosed that provisions of obligations which purport to give the obligee a RIGHT TO REQUIRE PAYMENT in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency . . . ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE DECLARED POLICY OF CONGRESS IN THE PAYMENT OF DEBTS . . . PAYMENT in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in an amount in money of the united States measured thereby, IS DECLARED TO BE AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY: . . . AND . . . EVERY OBLIGATION, HERETOFORE OR HEREAFTER INCURRED, SHALL BE DISCHARGED upon payment, dollar for dollar, in any coin or currency which, at the time of payment, is legal tender for public and private debts . . ."
"All coins and currencies of the United States (including Federal Reserve Notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and national banking associations) heretofore, or hereafter, coined or issued, SHALL BE LEGAL TENDER for all debts, public and private, public charges, taxes, duties, and dues, . . . " - House Joint Resolution 192, 73d Congress, Sess. I, Ch. 48, June 5, 1933 (Public Law No. 10 ).
Note: "payment of debt" is now against Congressional and "public policy" and henceforth, "Every obligation . . . Shall be discharged."
As a result of HJR-192, and from that day forward (June 5, 1933), no one in this nation has been able to lawfully pay a debt or lawfully own anything. The only thing one can do, is tender in transfer of debts, with the debt being perpetual. The suspension of the gold standard, and prohibition against paying debts, removed the substance for our common law to operate on, and created a void as far as the law is concerned. This substance was replaced with a "PUBLIC NATIONAL CREDIT SYSTEM" where debt is "LEGAL TENDER" money.
The Federal Reserve calls it "monetized debt."
HJR-192 was implemented immediately. The day after President Roosevelt signed the resolution, the treasury offered the public new government securities, minus the traditional "payable in gold" clause.
The Judiciary branch of government has the power to correct this fraud upon the people.
Yet, On May 23, 1933, Congressman, Louis T. McFadden, brought formal charges against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank system, the Comptroller of the Currency and the Secretary of the United States Treasury for criminal acts.
The petition for Articles of Impeachment was, thereafter, referred to the Judiciary Committee, and has yet to be acted upon.
". . . Whereas the holding or dealing in gold affect the PUBLIC INTEREST, [STATE-Corporate Interest] and are therefore subject to proper regulation and restriction: and whereas the existing emergency has disclosed that provisions of obligations which purport to give the obligee a RIGHT TO REQUIRE PAYMENT in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency . . . ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE DECLARED POLICY OF CONGRESS IN THE PAYMENT OF DEBTS . . . PAYMENT in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in an amount in money of the united States measured thereby, IS DECLARED TO BE AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY: . . . AND . . . EVERY OBLIGATION, HERETOFORE OR HEREAFTER INCURRED, SHALL BE DISCHARGED upon payment, dollar for dollar, in any coin or currency which, at the time of payment, is legal tender for public and private debts . . ."
"All coins and currencies of the United States (including Federal Reserve Notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and national banking associations) heretofore, or hereafter, coined or issued, SHALL BE LEGAL TENDER for all debts, public and private, public charges, taxes, duties, and dues, . . . " - House Joint Resolution 192, 73d Congress, Sess. I, Ch. 48, June 5, 1933 (Public Law No. 10 ).
Note: "payment of debt" is now against Congressional and "public policy" and henceforth, "Every obligation . . . Shall be discharged."
As a result of HJR-192, and from that day forward (June 5, 1933), no one in this nation has been able to lawfully pay a debt or lawfully own anything. The only thing one can do, is tender in transfer of debts, with the debt being perpetual. The suspension of the gold standard, and prohibition against paying debts, removed the substance for our common law to operate on, and created a void as far as the law is concerned. This substance was replaced with a "PUBLIC NATIONAL CREDIT SYSTEM" where debt is "LEGAL TENDER" money.
The Federal Reserve calls it "monetized debt."
HJR-192 was implemented immediately. The day after President Roosevelt signed the resolution, the treasury offered the public new government securities, minus the traditional "payable in gold" clause.
The Judiciary branch of government has the power to correct this fraud upon the people.
Yet, On May 23, 1933, Congressman, Louis T. McFadden, brought formal charges against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank system, the Comptroller of the Currency and the Secretary of the United States Treasury for criminal acts.
The petition for Articles of Impeachment was, thereafter, referred to the Judiciary Committee, and has yet to be acted upon.
Friday, March 7, 2008
U.S. INC. GOES TO GENEVA 1930's
From 1928 -1932 there were five years of Geneva conventions. The nations of the world met in Geneva Switzerland for 5 continuous years in order to set up what would be the policy of all the participating countries. During the year of 1930 the U.S., Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal etc. all declared bankruptcy. If you try to look up the 1930 minutes, you will not find them because they don't publish this particular volume. If you try to find the 1930 volume which contains the minutes of what happened, you will probably not find it. This volume has been pulled out of circulation or is hidden in the library and is very hard to find. This volume contains the evidence of the bankruptcy.
Going into 1932, they stopped meeting in Geneva. In 1932 Franklin Roosevelt came into power as President of the United States. Roosevelt's job was to put into place and administer the bankruptcy that had been declared two years earlier. The corporate government needed a key Supreme Court decision. The corporate United States government had to have a legal case on the books to set the stage for recognizing, implementing and supporting the bankruptcy. Now. this doesn't mean the bankruptcy wasn't implemented before 1938 with the Erie vs. Thompkins decision. The bankruptcy started in 1930-1931. The bankruptcy definitely started when Roosevelt came into office. He was sworn in during the month of January 1933. He started right away in the bankruptcy with what is known as 'The Banking Holiday," and proceeded in pulling the gold coin out of circulation. That was the beginning of the corporate United States Public Policy for bankruptcy.. Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111 & Executive Order 6260 "Trading With The Enemy Act."
ROOSEVELT STACKS SUPREME COURT
It is a known historical fact that during 1933 and 1937 - 1938, there was a big fight between Roosevelt and the Supreme Court Justices. Roosevelt tried to stack the Supreme court with a bunch of his pals. Roosevelt tried to enlarge the number of justices and he tried to change the slant of the justices. The corporate United States had to have one Supreme Court case which would support their bankruptcy problem.
THE CORPORATE UNITED STATES GOES BANKRUPT
A bankruptcy case was needed on the books to legitimize the fact that the corporate U.S. had already declared bankruptcy! This bankruptcy was effectuated by compact that the corporate several states had with the corporate government (Corporate Capitol of the several corporate states). This compact tied the corporate several states to corporate Washington D.C, (the headquarters of the corporation called "The United States").
Since the United States Corporation, having established its headquarters within the District of Columbia, declared itself to be in the state of bankruptcy, it automatically declared bankruptcy for all its subsidiaries who were effectively connected corporate members (who happened to be the corporate state governments of the Union). The corporate state governments didn't have to vote on the bankruptcy. The bankruptcy automatically became effective by reason of the Compact/Agreement between each of the corporate state governments and THE MOTHER CORPORATION. (Note: the liberty of using the term "Mother Corporation" to communicate the interconnected power of the corporate Federal government relative to her associated corporate States has been taken.
It is Historical knowledge that the original Union States created the Federal Government, however, for all practical purposes, the Federal government has taken control of her "Creators", the States.) She has become a beast out of control for power. She has for her trade names the following: "United States", "U.S.", "U.S.A.", "United States of America", Washington D.C., District of Columbia, Feds. and Federal Government. She has her own U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Parks, Post Office etc. etc. etc. Because she is claiming to be bankrupt, she freely gives her land, her personnel, and the money she steals from the Americans via the IRS. and her state corporations, to the United Nations and the International Bankers as payment for her debt. The UN and the International Bankers use this money and services for various world wide projects, including war.
...
THE U.S. INC. DECLARES BANKRUPTCY
The corporate U.S. then, is the head corporate member, who met at Geneva to decide for all its corporate body members. The corporate representatives of the corporate several states were in attendance. If the states had their own power to declare bankruptcy regardless of whether Washington D.C. declared bankruptcy or not, then the several states would have been represented at Geneva. The several states of America were not represented. Consequently, whatever Washington D.C. agreed to at Geneva was passed on automatically, via compact to the several corporate states as a group, association, corporation or as a club member; they all agreed and declared bankruptcy as one government corporate group in 1930. The several states only needed a representative at Geneva by way of the U.S. in Washington D.C. The delegates of the corporate United States attended the meetings and spoke for the several corporate states as well as for the Federal Corporate Government. And, presto, BANKRUPTCY was declared for all!
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Jurisdiction (USA)
Jurisdiction
The Constitution of the united States mentions three areas of jurisdiction in which the Courts may operate:
Common Law
Common Law is based on God's Law: Anytime someone is charged under the Common Law, there must be a damaged party. You are free under the Common Law to do anything you please, as long as you do not infringe on the life, liberty or property of someone else. You have a right to make a fool of yourself provided you do not infringe on the life, liberty or property of someone else. The Common Law does not allow for any government action which prevents a man from making a fool of himself. For instance, when you cross over state lines in most states, you will see a sign which says, BUCKLE YOUR SEAT BELTS -- IT'S THE LAW. This cannot be Common Law, because who would you injure if you did not buckle up? Nobody. This would be compelled performance. But Common Law cannot compel performance. Any violation of Common Law is a CRIMINAL ACT, and is punishable.
Equity Law
Equity Law is law which compels performance. It compels you to perform to the exact letter of any contract that you are under. So, if you have compelled performance, there must be a contract somewhere, and you are being compelled to perform under the obligation of the contract. Now this can only be a civil action -- not criminal. In Equity Jurisdiction, you cannot be tried criminally, but you can be compelled to perform to the letter of the contract. If you then refuse to perform as directed by the Court , you can be charged with the contempt of Court , this is a criminal action. Are our seat belt laws Equity laws? No. They are not, because you cannot be penalized or punished for not keeping to the letter of the contract. [This has of course changed since the publishing of the article, so read on....]
Admiralty/Maritime Law
This is civil jurisdiction of Compelled Performance which also has Criminal Penalties for not adhering to the letter of the contract, but this only applies to International Contracts. Now we can see what jurisdiction the seat belt laws (and all traffic laws, building codes, ordinances, tax codes, etc) are under. Whenever there is a penalty for failure to perform (such as willful failure to file) that is Admiralty/Maritime Law and there must be a valid international contract in force.
However, the Courts don't want to admit that they are operating under Admiralty/Maritime [hereafter noted by A/M] Jurisdiction, so they took the international law or Law Merchant and adopted it into our codes. This is what the Supreme Court decided in the Erie Railroad case -- that the decisions will be based on commercial law or business law and that it will have criminal penalties associated with it. Since they were instructed not to call it A/M Jurisdiction, they call it Statutory Jurisdiction.
[My note: I looked for Statutory Jurisdiction in the 4th edition of Black's. It's not there, so looked up Statute and under the definition is this paragraph: This word is used to designate the written law in contradistinction to the unwritten law. Foster v. Brown, 199 Ga. 444, 34 S.E.2d, 530 535 See Common Law. Unwritten law is common law, contradistinction you can look up, but it means as opposed to, opposite to. Also I looked up Common Law (with my new understanding) and it's quite enlightening!]
Courts of Contract
You may ask how we got into this situation where we can be charged with failure to wear set belts and be fined for it. Isn't the judge sworn to up hold the Constitution? Yes, he is. But you must understand that the Constitution in Art. I, Sect. 10, gives us the unlimited right to contract as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else. Contracts are enforceable, and the Constitution gives two jurisdictions where contracts can be enforced, Equity or Admiralty. But we find them being enforced in Statutory Jurisdiction. This is the embarrassing part for the Courts, but we can use this to box the judges into a corner in their own Courts. We will cover this more later.
Contracts must be voluntary
Under the Common Law, every contract must be entered into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally by both parties or it is void and unenforceable. These are characteristics of a Common Law contract. There is another characteristic - it must be based on substance. For example, contracts used to read, For one dollar and other valuable considerations, I will paint your house, etc. That was a valid contract -- the dollar was a genuine silver dollar. Now suppose you wrote a contract that said, For one Federal Reserve Note and other considerations, I will paint your house.. And suppose for example, I painted your house the wrong color. Could you go into a Common Law Court and get justice? NO, you could not. You see a Federal Reserve Note is a colorable dollar, as it has no substance, and in a Common Law jurisdiction, that contract would be unenforceable.
Colorable Money-Colorable Courts
The word colorable means something that appears to be genuine, but is not. Maybe it looks like a dollar, and maybe it spends like a dollar, but it if is not redeemable for lawful money (silver or gold) it is colorable. If a Federal Reserve Note is used in a contract, then the contract becomes a colorable contract. And colorable contracts must be enforced under a colorable jurisdiction. So by creating Federal Reserve Notes, the government had to create a jurisdiction to cover the kinds of contracts that use them. We now have what is called Statutory Jurisdiction, which is not a genuine Admiralty jurisdiction. It is a colorable Admiralty Jurisdiction the judges are enforcing because we are using colorable money. Colorable Admiralty is now known as Statutory Jurisdiction. Let's see how we got under this Statutory Jurisdiction.
Uniform Commercial Code
The government set up a colorable law system to fit the colorable currency. It used to be called the Law Merchant or the Law of Redeemable Instruments, because it dealt with paper which was redeemable in something of substance. But once Federal Reserve Notes had become unredeemable, there had to be a system of law which was completely colorable from start to finish. This system of law was codified as the Uniform Commercial Code, and has been adopted in every state. This is colorable law, and it is used in all the Courts.
I explained one of the keys earlier, which is that the country is bankrupt and we have no rights. If the master says Jump! then the slave had better jump, because the master has the right to cut his head off. As slaves we have no rights. But the creditors/masters had to cover that up, so they created a system of law called the Uniform Commercial Code. This colorable jurisdiction under the Uniform Commercial Code is the next key to understanding what has happened.
Contract or agreement
One difference between Common Law and the Uniform Commercial Code is that in Common Law, contracts must be entered into: (1) knowingly, (2) voluntarily, and (3) intentionally. Under the Uniform Commercial Code this is not so. First of all, contracts are necessary. Under this new law, agreements can be binding, and if you only exercise the benefits of an agreement it is presumed or implied that you intend to meet the obligations associated with those benefits. If you accept a benefit offered by government, then you are obligated to follow, to the letter, each and every statute involved with that benefit. The method has been to get everybody exercising a benefit and they don't even have to tell the people what the benefit is. Some people think it's the driver's license, the marriage license, or the birth certificate, etc. I believe it's none of these.
Compelled Benefit
I believe the benefit being used is that we have been given the privilege of DISCHARGING DEBT [my emphasis...] with limited liability, instead of paying debt. When we pay a debt, we give substance for substance. If I buy a quart of milk with a silver dollar, that dollar bought the milk, and the milk bought the dollar -- substance for substance. But if I use a Federal Reserve Note to buy the milk, I have not PAID for it.[my emphasis...] There is no substance in the FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE. It is worthless paper given in exchange for something of substantive value. Congress offers us this benefit: Debt money, created by the federal United States, can be spent all over the continental united States, it will be legal tender for all debts, public and private, and the limited liability is that you cannot be sued for not paying your debts. So now they have said, "We're going to help you out, and you can just discharge your debts instead of paying your debts." When we use this colorable money to discharge our debts, we cannot use Common Law Court. We can only use colorable Court. We are completely under the jurisdiction of the Uniform Commercial Code -- We are using non-redeemable negotiable instruments and we are discharging debt rather than paying the debt.
Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1906)
"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights."
"Without Prejudice" - UCC 1-207.
Your protection from any Compulsory Arbitration contractual clause...
Your remedy for a contract fraudulently passed off on you...
"Without Prejudice"
UCC 1-207
The Uniform Commercial Code recognizes that it is possible for a person to get beaten by the opposition.
That it is possible for a person to be commercially coerced into signing a contract that he would not sign if he had true free agency.
The UCC provides that if you sign a contract under such adverse conditions, and if you do so "without prejudice" or "under protest," then you preserve all your rights and can get even (i.e. sue to recover those rights) later.
------------------------------
Uniform Commercial Code, Section 1-207, says as follows:
"Performance or Acceptance Under Reservation of Rights
"A party who with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as 'without prejudice,' 'under protest' or the like are sufficient."
------------------------------
If it is necessary to assert your rights in court, when the point is raised, here is a suggested testimony to offer when explaining what you meant when you claimed "without prejudice":
"It indicates I have exercised the remedy provided for me in the Uniform Commercial Code by which I might reserve the common law right not to be compelled to perform under any contract that I have not entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally. And furthermore, that notifies all administrative agencies of government that I do not accept the liability associated with the compelled benefits of any unrevealed commercial agreement."
-------------------
The Uniform Commercial Code is admiralty law which has come on shore. The "without prejudice" clause is the window which enables one to assert his 7th Amendment guarantee of access to the common law.
Some people are putting the words, "without prejudice" on everything they sign, above the signature. E.g. they are putting it on applications for driver's license, tax returns, voter registration, bank checks--everything.
Your remedy for a contract fraudulently passed off on you...
"Without Prejudice"
UCC 1-207
The Uniform Commercial Code recognizes that it is possible for a person to get beaten by the opposition.
That it is possible for a person to be commercially coerced into signing a contract that he would not sign if he had true free agency.
The UCC provides that if you sign a contract under such adverse conditions, and if you do so "without prejudice" or "under protest," then you preserve all your rights and can get even (i.e. sue to recover those rights) later.
------------------------------
Uniform Commercial Code, Section 1-207, says as follows:
"Performance or Acceptance Under Reservation of Rights
"A party who with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as 'without prejudice,' 'under protest' or the like are sufficient."
------------------------------
If it is necessary to assert your rights in court, when the point is raised, here is a suggested testimony to offer when explaining what you meant when you claimed "without prejudice":
"It indicates I have exercised the remedy provided for me in the Uniform Commercial Code by which I might reserve the common law right not to be compelled to perform under any contract that I have not entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally. And furthermore, that notifies all administrative agencies of government that I do not accept the liability associated with the compelled benefits of any unrevealed commercial agreement."
-------------------
The Uniform Commercial Code is admiralty law which has come on shore. The "without prejudice" clause is the window which enables one to assert his 7th Amendment guarantee of access to the common law.
Some people are putting the words, "without prejudice" on everything they sign, above the signature. E.g. they are putting it on applications for driver's license, tax returns, voter registration, bank checks--everything.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
email from 'Think Free Be Free' , re : peace officers
"
This is an email from 'Think Free Be Free'"
Message:
TO: Cnst Tupper and Sarah (AKA 'Peppermint Patty' and 'Marcie') North Vancouver RCMP Detachment
CC: All Peace Officers in British Columbia,
CC: TWIMC
Hello and good day! I am Robert-Arthur: Menard, a non-consenting and ungoverned Freeman-on-the-Land. I am the Director of the Elizabeth Anne Elaine Society and the Director of ThinkFREE.ca We work together as organizations dedicated to creating a freer and more just society, where authority is gained without deception and exercised with restraint, understanding, accountability and compassion. We employ only lawful tools specifically but not limited to seminars, printed publications, advocacy, public activism and lawful claims. Recognizing the importance of peace, we employ words designed to create a greater abundance of that commodity for us all.
This does not mean we shy from our duty of speaking truth to power, only that we will try to do so in a manner that serves human dignity. Allow me to share a little about me. I love God, the child Elizabeth, this Country and the Law. I will not be abandoning any of them, nor will I be breaking my existing Oaths to them. I recognize and embrace a duty of compassion to my fellow man and a duty of respect to office holders. I do not harm without provocation and I will not accept subjugation or any form of governance without my consent. I follow My Soul and will not accept that some stranger using words alien to me can craft laws completely devoid of love, compassion and truth and claim they are law over me. They are deceivers, and I do not accept them or their words.
It is a mixed pleasure for me to be able to start this correspondence with appreciation for the way the officers I met exercised their authority. Although not perfect, they were at least moderately professional, somewhat courteous and by acting with some compassion, earned a little of my respect and gave me something precious. Their actions gave me hope and allows me to believe that the coming shift can in fact be a positive one, where change results not in destruction but positive growth. By responding with such professionalism, courtesy and restraint in the face of the frustration that I seem to naturally create merely by being me, these officers brought to your detachment, force and other officer holders some much needed public esteem, and for that I am thankful and appreciative.
However, on the day I was pulled over by two female officers, whom I call 'Peppermint Patty and Marcie', only because one looked just like Peppermint Patty and the other deferred to the Peppermint Patty looking one, I saw a complete lack of understanding concerning the source, nature and limits of authority, as they exited Equity to affect that which existed only at Law. It is akin to a security guard at a private party who leaves the party to cross the road, attack people in the park and kidnapping them, drags them into the house party and attempts to punish them for what they did outside the party, because doing so inside the party would be against the rules. This is what happens when those entrusted with security fail to acknowledge the limits of their authority, which in order to be lawful, must always exist.
I am not a person in the legal entity known as The Province of British Columbia and yet was treated like one by Peppermint Patty and Marcie even though no one saw evidence of an equity relationship between myself and that fiction. They saw no ID or anything else issued to me by that legal entity. They saw a human being in the geographical area known as British Columbia and then assumed I was also a 'person' in 'The Province of British Columbia.” The first is a geographical area; the second is a legal fiction, and people simply can't exist within it without doing so through an association with a fictional person. They did not know this and therefore are guilty of gross negligence which I am sure you must know is equal to FRAUD. Additionally, one gave me an order in a common law jurisdiction which I accepted under protest and duress. Perhaps you do not know what the legal significance of operating under protest is, but ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it and by ordering me, they became liable for a bill. Orders generate bills. Ask any waitress, lawyer or judge. They now owe me and I do intend to see payment. The reason they owe me is because I have a fee schedule filed as well as notices and claims allowing me to make these claims. Their principal was aware of this and if they failed to inform their underlings, that is not my fault. The reason I will see payment secured is because I am bound by My Faith to do so, although I am also bound to give you a great big fat out. We will discuss that later in this missive.
I claim you owe me $2000 per hour or portion thereof for anything I do as a result of an order accepted and fulfilled under protest. If you do not know what the commercial and legal significance of operating under protest is, I suggest you see a lawyer. Trust me on this though, you owe me $8000. Because you were marginally professional and courteous, I will immediately halve that. You now owe me $4000. Also, the RCMP as a whole owe me the same amount, for I am claiming punitive and exemplary damages. I will be collecting from them as well, and if necessary will do so completely lawfully by eventually seizing and auctioning off one of their vehicles. I believe it is not theft if you have a default judgement allowing you to seize and sell in order to recover on a lawful debt.
Perhaps you are wondering how I will do any of these things, as I am sure you are thinking “The courts won't allow that; they are on our side.” Here is where you really need some education. I will be if necessary convening a court and using a Notary Public to conduct the first part concerning the exchange of affidavits and establishment of facts. You will have to respond by way of a sworn affidavit submitted to the Notary Public holding court. If you fail a default judgement will be secured and collection proceedings initiated. If you do respond, you will have to do so under your full commercial liability and under oath. If you are found saying untrue things or expressing falsehoods under oath, you risk facing criminal charges of gross negligence and abduction under the colour of law. If you don't think I can do such a thing with a Notary, you need to read Section 18 of the Notary Act. They are the joker of the deck and can do anything, you, a judge or a sheriff can do. They are all powerful when they choose to serve justice. They are the lawful witnesses to process and standards. Notary Publics ROCK.
As you said when you were giving me a copy of a bill of exchange which you refused to present properly, breaking the law has consequences. However what you did not realize at the time you spoke is that it is you will meet the consequences, as it is you who broke the law, and I will be proving that to a very high degree. I will promise to attempt to do so mindful of your professionalism and with regard to the courtesy to which I was treated.
I am aware that you must have felt I was breaking the law and that you were responding lawfully to my perceived transgressions of the law. You feel you have colour of right, but this colour of right is due only to you failing to perform due diligence. Your perception must change. However what you then pointed to was an Act or statute, and they simply do not have to force of law over those who do not consent. You can evidence their consent by seeing government issued ID. If you don't see that however, how do you know I do consent? Will you bring your gun to bear and use that to generate consent and then claim you were acting lawfully?
At no point in time did I identify myself as a person in The Province of British Columbia; you claimed that and continued to do so even though you never saw evidence thereof and i told you I was a Freeman-on-the-Land. Did you find ID? Did you find ANYTHING issued to me by them resulting from an act of application on my part? No you did not. So what makes you think I am a person in the Province of British Columbia if not your own gross negligence? What exactly did I do that would make you think that the Motor Vehicle Act is my law? What evidence do you have I consented to such a thing? You have nothing and yet still you felt comfortable and justified in bringing an implied threat of violence against a Freeman-on-the-Land and claimed the right and power to do so under statutorily granted authority. You saw no breach of the peace nor were you informed of one; you stopped me merely to enforce a statute even though the statute you sought to enforce does not enjoy the force of law over me.
And you wanted to lecture me about 'consequences'?
Peppermint Patty, let us examine your beliefs and then using logic, reason and the law, my very mighty pen will destroy all those false assumptions. Before I do so, I would like to again commend you on your level of professionalism, restraint and compassion and I hope you realize my goal is to increase your understanding without attacking any of the good attributes you have already demonstrated as possessing.
1.You assumed Acts are laws.
2.You assumed all automobiles are motor vehicles and subject to the Motor Vehicle Act.
3.You assumed all people in British Columbia are also persons in the Province of British Columbia.
4.You assumed you could give orders and not be personally liable for a bill.
1 - An Act is not a law; it is a statute and defined as a legislated rule of society which has been given the force of law. A society is defined as a number of people joined by mutual consent to deliberate, determine and act for a common goal. See the mutual consent part? If you have no evidence that I am a consenting member of a legally nameable society, why are you attempting to enforce statutes against me like they are my law?
2 - As for your mistaken belief that all automobiles are also motor vehicles, the facts of the matter are, if you read the Motor Vehicle Act carefully you will see that although they do define a motor vehicle, it simply is not a full and complete definition, and if you assume it is, you will not know the truth. Is it a full and complete definition? Is 'accident' fully and completely defined, because if not, then either none are or some are and some aren't and there is a mechanism in place for determining such things. I see no such mechanism. Plus when I look to Section 3.1 I see that the owner must apply for an receive insurance and registration and you likely interpret this as an obligation on me and empowering to you.
However, the word must is not always an imperative and can be used to describe situations which if voluntarily fulfilled will grant authority. If I say you must come to my party through the front door' does that create an obligation to attend or merely describe the conditions which if voluntarily fulfilled will grant me power over you, as you will be in my party? The word apply legally means to beg, and since no one is ever obliged to beg, no one is ever obliged to apply. Unregistered automobiles are not motor vehicles and thus not subject to the Motor Vehicle Act. You will likely not like that truth, as it negatively affects your ability to claim and exercise authority and like all people, you do not wish to interpret anything in a manner that dis-empowers you; it is against human nature.
3 – Although I will agree that generally speaking a person is a human being, when it comes to the law that is not the case, as the law uses legalese and as it is a complex and professional jargon. When you see the word person in a statute, it is referring to a legal subject or substance of which the rights and duties are attributes and which exists in an association with our bodies, provided we consent to it. See the thing is, The Province of British Columbia is not a geographical area, but a man-made legal fiction, and just as a human being cannot exist within a novel or other work of fiction, but characters representing human can, so too is the case here. As I human being I exist in British Columbia. IF I choose to be governed and regulated, ordered and controlled, then I will agree to having a person upon which you can act and which will effect my body as long as I maintain a free association with it. If however I disassociate from it, you can no longer claim to be acting on a 'person' in 'The Province of British Columbia'.
4 – You gave me an order, and you accepted my performance of service under protest and duress. Perhaps you have been giving such orders for so long and have achieved such compliance through intimidation that you are unfamiliar with the truth. Anyone in a common law jurisdiction who gives an order for performance is immediately liable for a bill. This goes for judges, police and government agents. You can't escape the law and the law says that bills follow orders and orders generate bills. If anyone else goes to a restaurant, places and order and receives service are they not then liable for a bill? Do you claim the right to go to a restaurant, place an order and not be liable for a bill? If not, under what function of law can you place an order on someone outside a restaurant and not still be liable for the bill your order generates? So you know, this process has been tried and tested in New Zealand, another common law jurisdiction, and payment was secured form the Judge for his order. If a Judge in a common law jurisdiction recognizes that orders from anyone to anyone generates a lawful bill, why can't you? You owe me for services rendered under protest and duress and upon a previously filed and served fee schedule.
Let us discuss your big fat out. All I want to see is you promise to serve the Law before you serve the courts or the government, and realize that your fundamental duty is in fact to do so. All you have to do is realize that a Claim of Right served and not disputed does in fact create lawful excuse to disobey court orders and disregard statutes, orders, regulations and bylaws. People who lawfully create and walk that path should not be hindered, harmed or hampered in any way, and if you do hinder, harm or hamper, the Law allows us remedy and we may bring it to bear against you. I sincerely hope we do not have to do so, and I see that all I have to do is get you to agree to serve the Law first and the courts and governments second, and you will been seen as heroes of this Nation, for holding them both to the Law and fulfilling your most fundamental duty of office. It is the people in power who are the most tempted and who can do the most harm, and as such they must bear the greatest watching.
I need you to agree that the courts and government are in fact merely man made organizations manned by men and women who are in fact burdened with basic human frailties. Agree that the Criminal Code does in fact allow for lawful excuse to disregard both courts and legislatures and their bureaucratic offshoots if we act upon a properly filed claim of right. Once we do so, stand ready and firm to refuse to enforce any statute or court order against those who have lawfully created lawful excuse. If you do so, there is no chance of a police state developing in Canada, as you will be good and proper peace officers, serving the Law first, and not the people who sit in higher offices at the expense of justice.
The future police force will not be about tougher, more intimidating and forceful cops, as you will not be dealing with those type of people. It will be about more intelligent, informed and compassionate peace officers, as you will be dealing with people who refuse to be subservient; they will present bills for accepting orders; they will question the meaning of every word; and they will ultimately hold you accountable. This is what is coming and I will tell you how I know. I am working my ass off to achieve it. And, when sacrificing ass, I tend to make my efforts count.
I tried to have caused to be published in The Gazette a Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right, or as it is called in the Criminal Code of Canada, lawful excuse. As they refuse to print it, I shall be serving you that claim and your officers personally. And on camera. Unless someone in your organization is willing to claim otherwise, the rights I claimed are law and anyone attempting to enforce court orders or statutes against me without making claim first is committing an unprovoked assault and liable for damages and may be defended against.
There is another reason this is coming. We are Canadian. And pay VERY close attention to this part: WE OUT NUMBER YOU VERY BADLY. And as peaceful and well mannered as we can be, wake our ire and you will pay very dearly. We are not sheep; we are peaceful, patient and perhaps slumbering guards dogs, and it will be your greatest woe if we wake to you shearing our freedoms and rights, stealing our wealth or harming our families and country. You will be made to pay. When I say you will pay, I do mean very dearly indeed.
I did not like my sanity being questioned unprofessionally by someone who has no training in the health field and has demonstrated their own brand of questionable beliefs and sanity. Let us ask some very difficult questions, ok? Let us ask: Who is crazier?
Is it those who apply for permission to engage in completely lawful activities without ever even reading the Act under which they are applying?
Is it you for thinking I or any other adult can be governed without consent or for thinking that in a common law jurisdiction ANYONE can give an order to another while wearing a gun and implying the use of force without having to pay a bill? Is it you for thinking a body of words which you do not even understand nor authored grants you unlimited power over me even though to you those words are not understood?
Or is it me, a man with a rather high IQ, who has read and de-constructed these Acts and realized that without my consent they are not law?
I think I am in fact the sanest one of the group, and the one with the gun, pointing to words they do not understand to claim the power a gun provides over the unarmed, are the most dangerous and could easily and may even likely be, psychotic. Psychopaths want power without understanding or accountability. Do you understand section 126 and 127 of the Criminal Code? How about Section 337 and Section 39? Those are just some of the sections we can use to control YOU. If you don't understand those Sections, how can you possibly claim to serve the law?
There is coming a large and fundamental change in the relationship between the government and the people, and you will be playing a major role. Like all heroes in any great story, you will face a very difficult decision, and you will be expected to carry the consequences of your decision without moaning or bitching. If you make the wrong decision, you will be seen as the villains in this story, and dealt with as such.
You will serve the courts and the government or you will serve the law. I know you want to do all three, but unfortunately you will have to choose. I do not envy you your position, as you will have to choose who or what you will serve. Will you serve the government and the courts even when those people abandon law and are nothing more than frauds? Or will you serve the law, and hold the courts and the government accountable to it? (More accurately you will be holding the people who we trusted with the courts and the government accountable to the law) What will you do when the people of Canada wake to their fraud and start revoking consent to be represented and governed? Will you hold the people who are employed by the courts and the government accountable to the law, or will you claim law is whatever the fraudsters say it is, because they are the 'government' and the 'courts'? Who will you serve? Who is first? Is it the courts? The government? Or the Law?
I don't blame you alone; I realize that the lawyers have crafted such an incredibly ambiguous and convoluted set of words that it is very hard to determine what our rights and duties are. You people do your best to do your jobs as you see it, and yet what you see is a great big deception, thanks mostly to the lawyers who craft very deceptive rules using a language that only looks like English, but isn't really. The lawyers like this, as it generates conflict and that is where they make their money; by generating and continuing conflict. However, you do walk around with a gun, point to those words and use them to claim authority over your fellow man and you are willing to threaten violence to secure that power over them. Your willingness to blindly accept those words as law over everyone is actually evidence not of your desire to serve, but your desire to command, order and compel without accountability or responsibility. You like your power, eh?
So will you serve the Law when you are called to do so, even if it means your power and authority to command, compel and order is greatly diminished by doing so? Will you accept the role of humble hero? Or will you, like the Nazis of Germany, claim that your authority IS the Law and that all you need to determine the law and your level of authority are your guns?
Who do you serve? We need to know. If you say you serve the Law, we do not need to create and empower a brand new police force specifically equipped and trained to deal with peace officers who fail to serve the Law, which is what you will be doing by attempting to hold any Freeman-on-the-Land to a statutory obligation or order of the court.
There is a new crop of children coming and they are simply ungovernable without good reason. They are driving their parents nuts now and when they get to 18 years of age, they will simply laugh at anyone who tries to claim words they did not author or agree to are their law. The next generation is as different from this generation as we were from our parents. There is a very big shift coming, and you people can fight to contain it, which will result in your destruction, or be wise enough to work with it.
I know an 8 year old child, who will simply refuse any directives from her parents unless they can explain to her the justice of it. She has no fear and refuses to go against her spirit. There are millions of these children out there and you people will be dealing with them. Raised by people who have very good reason to not trust the courts or the government, this next batch of citizens will be holding you supposedly public servants to task.
Especially if I have any say in the matter.
When the next generation reaches maturity, they will know how to create lawful excuse by way of a claim of right published properly and will be completely free of the deception we have laboured under. That is my lawful and honourable goal.
In reviewing the ticket you gave me, I noticed that you put on there a certain number and claimed that I was associated with that number. As I did not show you any document with that number on it, nor did I associate myself with in in anyway, nor did I authorize you to do so, it is clear to me you committed a fraud. Under what authority did you associate me with a number which expired over 5 years ago? You were not acting as my agent, you had no authority to do so, and you did put false information on an official document. That is another crime you committed, either knowingly and willingly, or out of ignorance and negligence. A gross level of negligence.
You committed a fraud and as such you are a criminal. Do you agree, or are you one of those people who thinks that because you are a cop, you are the law and thus can do no wrong?
Here are some questions for you. I will be making a claim against you, swearing out an Affidvit and presenting you through a Notary with my bill. If you fail to respond or fail to respond by way of a sworn Affidavit, a default judgement will be secured allowing me to collect upon my bill. Breaking the law has consequences for you too, you know. And the fact is on the day you stopped me, it is you who broke the law Peppermint Patty, not I.
1.When did I either associate or empower you to associate me with a Drivers License number?
2.When did I claim to know my date of birth? If I did not claim it, then why did you put information on a commercial instrument when the only information you could have possibly used was all hearsay?
3.What would cause you to believe that all automobiles are motor vehicles if not your own gross negligence when Section 3.1 of the Motor Vehicle Act clearly states that an owner must apply for registration and insurance before you can consider it a motor vehicle?
4.When diod I identify myself as a 'person' in 'The Province of British Columbia'?
5.Do you distinguish between British Columbia the geographical area and The Province of British Columbia the legal entity?
6.If you do not distinguish how can you lawfully do your job without being grossly negligent?
7.Why is the fact that I accepted your orders under protest and duress recorded on my electronic recording device but not in your notes when you promised to ensure that you would do your duty and record said protest?
8.How is that not evidence of gross negligence, professional misconduct and fraud?
9.Do you distinguish between statute and Law and if not how can you do your job without being grossly negligent?
10.Are you aware that failure to record my protest and the fact that I was accepting orders under duress is obstruction of justice?
11.Do you acknowledge that Section 39 of the Criminal Code of Canada allows anyone to use whatever level of force is required to keep our property if it held under a claim of right even against someone who (because of their own gross negligence and lack of diligence) feels they have the legal right to that property? Are you aware this means that if you try taking someones unregistered automobile with your hand on your gun, and that automobile is held under a claim of right, that you can be lawfully shot and killed?
12.Do you acknowledge that Sections 126 and 127 allow for us to completely disregard court orders and statutes, bylaws and regulations if we have lawful excuse to do so, and that according to Section 39 a claim of right is a lawful excuse?
13.Do you accept that if someone like you, by this I mean armed and ignorant, attempts to enforce court orders or statutes or bylaws against someone who has lawful excuse or claim of right then you are committing an unprovoked assault?
14.Do you acknowledge that the people of Canada have the right to defend themselves against any unprovoked assaults, even if those doing the assaulting believe they have the legal right to do so?
15.Are you aware the people of Canada do in fact have the rtight to carry firearms if they do so under a claim of right?
16.Do you acknowledge that the people of Canada who have secured the right to carry a sidearm by way of a claim of right have the right to use that sidearm to defend themselves against unprovoked assaults, especially those initiated by people who are criminally negligent of the limits of their authority?
17.Are you aware that attempting to enforce a statute against a Freeman-on-the-Land is an unprovoked assault?
18.Do you acknowledge that attempting to associate me with an expired drivers licence number without my consent is an act of fraud and a perversion of justice?
19.Are you aware that under Section 18 of the Notary Act any Notary Public can convene a proper court for the determination of facts prior to the application of the Law?
20.Are you aware that they do have the power to create default judgements which the Sheriffs and their Deputies must accept as lawful under Section 6 of the Sheriffs Act?
21.Are you aware I am convenening just such a court, and therein you will either submit Affidavits which will highlight your fraud and ignorance, or you will do nothing and I will secure by default a court order empowering me or my agents or the Bailiff to seize and sell ANY RCMP VEHICLE in North Vancouver? You do realize the RCMP is a legally nameable and thus suable entity do you not?
22.Are you aware that the Violation Ticket you endorsed is in fact and by definition a bill of exchange?
23.Are you aware that by refusing to give me the original you committed fraud, as it was never properly presented and I am not a legal fiction?
24.Can you explain how a human being, a living breathing flesh and blood man can exist within the legal fiction known as The Province of British Columbia, or do you acknowledge your inability to do so is evidence of your own ignorance and gross negligence?
25.Are you aware gross negligence is equal to fraud?
26.Are you aware that Canada is a common law jurisdiction where the only form of government is a representative one and that representation requires mutual consent?
27.Do you acknowledge that people who deny consent to be represented cannot be lawfully governed, regulated or have statutes applied to them?
28.Are you aware that the peoples right to revoke consent is the greatest tool ever devised to peacefully ensure complete government accountability and compliance with the law?
29.Do you agree the only people who would not accept that we have a right to say no to their rules and governance must be motivated not by justice or law but by desire for control and power and thus are likely the least suitable to have power?
30.Are you aware that it is unlawful to exit Equity in order to latch onto and drag into Equity that which previously existed only at Law? Are you aware that is what you did when you pulled me over?
31.Are you aware that statutes are not laws but are in fact 'Acts' and they only enjoy the force of law with our consent?
32.Are you aware I have already constructively revoked consent and that by your actions you activated my fee schedule, which has also been previously served?
33.Do you agree that by acting with such a high level of gross negligence and ignorance you have brought the RCMP and the administration of justice into disrepute and created liability upon your principals?
34.Do you agree that the people of British Columbia have a right to justice and that when the people entrusted with providing us with that become so tainted by ignorance and corruption we have the right to create a new police force specifically designed not to enforce statutes against the populace, but to enforce the Law against presently existing peace officers?
35.Do you agree that you gave me an order and that in this common law jurisdiction you are now liable for a bill? If not can you explain the function of law which would allow you in this common law jurisdiction where equality is paramount to give an order, not be liable for a bill, and not offend the concept of equality?
36.If you are incapable of answering the above question do you agree you committed a fraud?
So to sum up. I feel I am owed by certain officers and your organization in general. I will foregoe making any demand for payment, recognizing these are difficult and changing times provided you publicly acknowledge by way of a widely published Notice, that you will serve the Law first and hold those in office and sitting in court accountable to it. It is really not mush to ask, and if you do so, you will be seen as heroes of this country. If you refuse to do so, you quickly become quite useless and dangerous to us. Our words gave you your power, our words can take it away.
Will you as peace officers in this common law jurisdiction serve the Law first and foremost and above all else?
1.You will be getting a bill. If you do not pay it I will take lawful measures to collect.
2.The RCMP will be getting a bill. If they do not pay I will take lawful steps to collect.
3.All my property including the 1991 Nissan is held by me under a claim of right as per Section 39 of the Criminal Code and thus I may use force to stop even people like you from taking my property.
4.You now know that attempting to seize my property or enforce statutes or court orders against me is an unprovoked assault.
5.You now know I have every right in the world to defend myself from unprovoked assaults even those committed by ignorant and negligent peace officers.
6.You now know this is not a threat or a challenge or an invitation to violence merely a statement that I have the right to use violence if you try to take my property.
7.You now know that because I have that right, there is no way for you to claim the same right, as to do so would run directly counter to the law, its very purpose and reason for existence, which is peace. Two cannot claim the right to use violence to protect property as that would guarantee conflict. The inclusion of one must exclude the other, and I have the right to use violence to stop you from taking my property thus you do not.
8.You now know I do not consent to governance and I do not exist as a person in The Province of British Columbia and thus I have activated the defences available to us all in Section 126 and 127 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
9.You now know that unless you can answer the questions I posed you are not suitable to be a peace officer in a common law jurisdiction, as you are too ignorant of the law and too attached to your authority, so attached you do not care about its limits, nature or source.
10.You know that a claim to create a new police force empowered only to arrest people like yourself is in the works, and when that day comes, you can and will be held accountable for your acts of negligence and fraud.
11.You know that a violation ticket matches the definition of a bill of exchange and that by not presenting the original you are completely and solely liable for that bill.
12.You know that failure to distinguish between statutes and law is in fact grossly negligent and that said level of negligence is equal to fraud.
13.You know I think you look just like Peppermint Patty.
There will be other things you will be learning, but I don't want your little head to explode!
This Notice will be published and widely distributed. I do so in the interest of justice and out of love for my country. Not the corporation that has hijacked it or the people who operate without liability through that corporation, but the people of the country who have been so badly deceived and who are held in place subject to that deception by people like yourself, who claim authority to enforce the law without ever even really learning to distinguish between law and statute. And you wonder why we look at you with distrust and apprehension? It is not that we don't like the law; it is that you have abandoned it out of your own fear and lust for power.
Accept that we actually have the right to refuse to be governed and that we have the power to disobey court orders and statutes if we do so properly and you will be serving the law. Fail to do so and we will all know that you are not peace officers at all. You are merely people wearing the uniforms of peace officers and you have hijacked our country. I have seen movies where bank robbers dress like security guards. I think that may be the case here. You wear the uniform, but you do not serve the law at all, you act like mindless unthinking automatons who merely accept blindly the orders of those who are above you and think that because you are accepting orders you must be acting lawfully. You fail to accept that the people above you are bound by the law also, and you allow them to subjugate and enslave us with deception, and you claim you are peace officers even though your actions clearly result in conflict and profit for the lawyers.
I am including a copy of my challenge which I have extended to all peace officers. As some of the things I wish to debate are highlighted by your actions, I think you will be homesteading in the land of dishonour if you do not personally accept my challenge. You wish to make claims against me, why don't you grow a pair and stand publicly to defend your beliefs? Why doesn't one of your principals? There is only one reason: YOU ALL KNOW YOU ARE WRONG AND INVOLVED IN UNLAWFUL DECEPTION AND FRAUD.
Or you are afraid to be proved wrong, which means there must be a part of your mind that has some doubt. Are you scared of the Law? Are you scared to debate it with me? Are you scared to make your claims anywhere except the presently existing apparently hijacked courts? You really do not want to take a close look at the source, nature or limits of your authority do you, because if you did you know you would find you have far less than you have been claiming and you have been actively engaged in fraud.
Well, I have much to do in order to lay a foundation allowing us to lawfully create our new police force so we can bring many big men with big guns to bear against people like you. As this process will involve making public claims, I will be sure to serve you a copy of it and allow you an opportunity to dispute the rights claimed within.
I am sorry that this is what must apparently happen, but the law provides us remedy when people like you commit fraud or are otherwise grossly negligent, and you people do not seem inclined to serve the law first and your political masters second. Sorry, but with your ignorance and arrogance you have made this a necessity.
Sincerely and without malice aforethought, ill will, vexation or frivolity,
Robert-Arthur: Menard
Freeman-on-the-Land
All Rights Reserved, Exercised at Will and Fully Defended by the Grace of God All Property including my body held under a claim of right as per Section 39 of the Criminal Code.
Lawful Excuse Established as per Sections 126 and 127 of the Criminal Code of Canada The Elizabeth Anne Elaine Society Justice is Truth in Action
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)