Posts Tagged ‘federal’
Sunday, March 14th, 2010
Kevin Drawbaugh and Rachelle Younglai
Reuters
Sun, 14 Mar 2010 21:26 EDT
The Federal Reserve would win sweeping new powers over nonbank financial firms and keep much of its authority over banks, under revised legislation to be unveiled on Monday by the chief architect of financial reform in the Senate.
In a remarkable recovery by the U.S. central bank after a steep drop in its political popularity, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd was poised to release a bill that leans heavily on the Fed, sources said on Sunday.
Not only would a new government watchdog for financial consumers be housed within the Fed, but it would also retain much of its present authority over large bank holding companies and gain new authority over selected nonbank financial firms.
Dodd’s bill would give the Fed authority to supervise bank holding companies with more than $50 billion in assets, down from an earlier threshold of $100 billion, sources said.
The bill may also preserve the Fed’s power over state-chartered banks with less than $50 billion in assets that are already in the Federal Reserve system, a source said. An earlier proposal had called for transferring responsibility for supervising such banks to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.
That would put hundred of banks under the Fed’s purview, including such giants as Bank of America and Citigroup, as well as branches of foreign banks, a source said.
The bill from Dodd, a Democrat, would also empower the central bank to supervise nonbank firms designated as "systemically important" by a council of regulators. Before it became the poster-child for bailouts, former insurance giant American International Group (AIG) would have fit into that category, for instance.
Revamping how the financial system is supervised is one of the Obama administration’s top priorities. Since the worst financial crisis in decades tipped the U.S. economy into a deep recession and sent shock waves across world markets, the United States and the European Union have been pursuing reforms.
The White House unveiled a sweeping package of proposals in mid-2009. The House of Representatives approved most of them in December in a massive piece of legislation that passed without a single Republican vote of support.
But with lobbyists for banks and Wall Street working hard to block or weaken reforms, the Senate has yet to act. With congressional elections approaching in November, Dodd is under intense pressure to push a bill through his committee and onto the Senate floor before political campaigns take center stage.
Turnaround by Dodd on Fed
Dodd sharply criticized the Fed last year for regulatory failures. In an early draft of his own reform plan, he proposed stripping the central bank of bank supervision and consumer protection duties, leaving it focused almost exclusively on its role as a monetary policy center.
But Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, other Fed insiders and some banking interests have pushed back hard in recent months to shield the institution, and it appears to have worked.
At the same time that he is proposing new powers for the Fed, Dodd is also considering changes to how regional Federal Reserve bank directors are chosen, a source said.
He also plans to put President Barack Obama’s proposed financial consumer watchdog in the Fed. To win support among Democrats for the idea, he will give the watchdog considerable power and autonomy, sources said.
Dodd wants the banking committee to work on his new bill before April, but Republicans have already told him they want sufficient time to consider the legislation.
Dodd’s bill will attempt to put an end to a market perception that some financial firms are too big to fail after the government used billions of dollars in taxpayer funds to rescue firms such as AIG. There is agreement that a fund of about $50 billion should be created to help pay for the cost of unwinding large troubled firms.
Dodd is also expected to give market regulators the authority to regulate the $450 trillion over-the-counter derivatives market with some narrow exemptions.
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/204729-Private-owned-Federal-Reserve-gets-new-oversight-powers-under-Dodd-bill
Tags: america, American International Group, authority, Bank, Bill, Chairman Ben Bernanke, Chairman Christopher Dodd, Christopher Dodd, Citigroup, committee, Fed, federal, Federal Deposit Insurance, Federal Reserve System, government watchdog, Insurance Giant, Kevin Drawbaugh, Legislation, nonbank, political popularity, Rachelle Younglai, reserve, senate, Senate Banking Committee, Shock Waves, U.S., United States, wall street Posted in The soon to be former USA, finance, nation | No Comments »
Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg
Sunday, March 14th, 2010
By KROTOS
march / 14 / 2010
The recent news that Lehman Brothers used Off book asset transfer Fraud to cripple the economy is absurd. I was born at night but it wasn’t last night. Maybe it contributed to it but I have a feeling there’s alot more fraud that NEEDS to be uncovered before the REAL picture emerges. For example……….we know that the American banking system operates it’s loan procedures in a Fraudulent manner by LOAN CREATION UPON SIGNATORY ACCEPTANCE instead of an actual loan. And that the NOTE that the new homeowner just created is then RE-CONVEYED back to the bank creating then FRAUD in the INDUCEMENT. This process is actually similar to the off book accounting methods used by Lehman brothers. Now we have a RE-CONVEYANCE from ownership to Non-Ownership with the signing of the same documents. Then we have the banks splitting the note from the deed creating more Fraud and making it fall under the RICO act by committing said fraud over state lines perhaps many times over. Now……….how do you think the banks began operating this way? All of them following the same principles and procedures. These banks are probably member banks to the Federal Reserve. If this is so then they are FDIC insured. An FDIC insured bank IS a member bank to the Federal Reserve. That means they follow the policies of the Federal Reserve bank. The Federal Reserve is a Private bank. It was created by JP Morgan, Jacob Shiff (funded by the Rothschilds and also partnered with Leo Lehmann by the company named Kuhn and Loeb), The Warburg Brothers. Interesting to note the connections here let’s take a look.
The Schiff family traced their lineage back to the fourteenth century and even claimed that King Solomon was an ancestor. Jacob Schiff was born in 1847 in Frankfurt, Germany. His father, Moses Schiff, a rabbi, was a successful stockbroker on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange. In 1865 he came to America and in 1867 formed his own brokerage firm with Henry Budge and Leo Lehmann. After it failed, he went back to Germany and became manager of the Deutsche Bank in Hamburg where he met Moritz Warburg (1838-1910) and Abraham Kuhn, who had retired after helping to establish the firm of Kuhn and Loeb in New York.
Kuhn and Loeb were German Jews who had come to the United States in the late 1840’s and pooled their resources during the 1850’s to start a store in Lafayette, Indiana to serve settlers who were on their way to the West. They set up similar stores in Cincinnati and St. Louis. Later, they added pawnbroking and money lending to their business pursuits. In 1867, they established themselves as a well-known banking firm.
In 1873, at the age of 26, Jacob Schiff with the financial backing of the Rothschilds bought into the Kuhn and Loeb partnership in New York City. He became a full partner in 1875. He became a millionaire by financing railroads, developing a proficiency at railroad management that enabled him to enter into a partnership with Edward Henry Harriman to create the greatest single railroad fortune in the world. He married Solomon Loeb’s oldest daughter, Theresa, and eventually bought out Kuhn’s interest. For all intents and purposes he was the sole owner of what was now known as Kuhn, Loeb and Company. Sen. Robert L. Owen of Oklahoma indicated that Kuhn, Loeb and Company was a representative of the Rothschilds in the United States .
John Pierpont Morgan (1837-1913)
In 1636, Miles, John, and James Morgan landed in Massachusetts, leaving their father, William, to carry on the family business of harness-making in England. Joseph Morgan (J. P. Morgan’s grandfather) [was] successful in real estate and business, supported the Bank of the United States. Junius Spencer Morgan (J. P. Morgan’s father) was a partner in the Boston banking firm of J. M. Beebe, Morgan, and Co. and became a partner in London’s George Peabody and Co., taking it over when Peabody died, becoming J. S. Morgan and Co.
John Pierpont Morgan, or as he was better known, J. P. Morgan, was born on April 17, 1837. He became his father’s representative in New York in 1860. In 1862, he had his own firm, known as J. Pierpont Morgan and Co.. In 1863, he liquidated, and became a partner with Charles H. Dabney (who represented George Peabody and Co.), and established a firm known as Dabney, Morgan and Co. He later teamed up with Anthony J. Drexel (son of the founder of the most influential banking house in Philadelphia), in a firm known as Drexel, Morgan and Co. Morgan also became a partner in Drexel and Co. in Philadelphia.
In 1869, Morgan and Drexel met with the Rothschilds in London, and through the Northern Securities Corporation began consolidating the Rothschild’s power and influence in the United States. Morgan continued the partnership that began when his father acted as a joint agent for the Rothschilds and the U.S. Government.
During the Civil War, J.P. Morgan had sold the Union Army defective carbine rifles, and it was this government money that helped build his Guaranty Trust Co. of New York. In 1880, he began financing and reorganizing the railroads. After his father died in 1890 and Drexel died in 1893, the Temporary National Economic Committee (TNEC) revealed that J. P. Morgan held only a 9.1% interest in his own firm. George Whitney owned 1.9%, and Henry P. Davison held 1.2%. However, the Charles W. Steele Estate held 36.6%, and Thomas W. Lamont (whose son, Corliss, was an active communist) had 34.2%. Researchers believe that the Illuminati controlled the company through these shares. Further investigation is needed to substantiate this.
In 1901, J.P. Morgan bought out Andrew Carnegie’s vast steel operation for $500,000,000 to merge the largest steel companies into one big company known as the United States Steel Corporation in which, for a time, the Rockefellers were major stockholders.
The Warburg Brothers
Paul Moritz Warburg (1868-1932) and his brother Felix (1871-1937) came to the United States from Frankfurt in 1902, buying into the partnership of Kuhn, Loeb and Co. with the financial backing of the Rothschilds. They had been trained at the family banking house, M.M. Warburg and Co. (run by their father Moritz M. Warburg (1838-1910), a Rothschild-allied bank in Frankfurt, Hamburg, and Amsterdam, which had been founded in 1798 by their great-grandfather. Paul (said to be worth over $2.5 million when he died) married Nina Loeb, the daughter of Solomon Loeb (the younger sister of Schiff’s wife); while Felix, in March, 1895, married Frieda Schiff, the daughter of Jacob Schiff.
Their brother Max Warburg (1867-1946), a major financier of the Russian Revolution (who in his capacity as Chief of Intelligence in Germany ’s Secret Service, helped Lenin cross Germany into Russia in a sealed train and later [helped] Hitler), ran the Hamburg bank until 1938 when the Nazis took over. The Nazis, who didn’t want the Jews running the banks, changed its name to Brinckmann, Wirtz and Co. After World War II, a cousin, Eric Warburg, returned to head it and in 1970 its name was changed to M. M. Warburg, Brinckmann, Wirtz and Co.
Siegmund Warburg, Eric’s brother, established the banking firm of S.G. Warburg and Co. in London, and by 1956 had taken over the Seligman Brothers Bank.
The Warburgs are another good example of how the Illuminati controls both sides of a war. While Paul Warburg’s firm of Kuhn, Loeb and Co. (who had five representatives in the U.S. Treasury Department) was in charge of Liberty Loans which helped finance World War I for the United States, his brother Max financed Germany through M.M. Warburg and Co.
Paul and Felix were men with a mission sent here by the Rothschilds to lobby for the passing of a central banking law in Congress. Colonel Ely Garrison (the financial advisor to Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson) wrote in his book Roosevelt, Wilson, and the Federal Reserve Act:
All these players had 1 thing in common………..Rothschild influence and money. So fast forward to 2010. We have JP Morgan claiming that Lehman Brothers defaulted on a 50 billion dollar loan. Lehman claims the loan was actually a sale. We know that JP Morgan is one of the Owners of the Federal Reserve through it’s network of corporations. So is it too far fetched to state that JP Morgan has a hand in making fiscal policy for the Federal Reserves banking practices? Not at all since it’s a private bank it’s policies are also private. So if your a member bank that’s FDIC insured what’s your policy and who sets it? Let’s look at the Federal Reserve act and see…………
Federal Reserve Act December 23, 1913
An Act To provide for the establishment of Federal reserve banks, to furrish an elastic currency, to afford means of rediscounting commercial paper, to establish a more effective supervision of banking in the United States, and for other purposes.
SEC. 2. As soon as practicable, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Agriculture and the Comptroller of the Currency, acting as "The Reserve Bank Organization Committee," shall designate not less than eight nor more than twelve cities to be known as Federal reserve cities, and shall divide the continental United States, excluding Alaska, into districts, each district to contain only one of such Federal reserve cities…. Provided, That the districts shall be apportioned with due regard to the convenience and customary course of business and shall not necessarily be coterminous with any State or States…. Such districts shall be known as Federal reserve districts and may be designated by number….
Said organization committee . ., shall supervise the organization in each of the cities designated of a Federal reserve bank, which shall include in its title the name of the city in which it is situated, as " Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago."
Under regulations to be prescribed by the organization committee, every national banking association in the United States is hereby required, and every eligible bank in the United States and every trust company within the District of Columbia, is hereby authorized to signify in writing, within sixty days after the passage of this Act, its acceptance of the terms and provisions hereof. When the organization committee shall have designated the cities in which Federal reserve banks are to be organized, and fixed the geographical limits of the Federal reserve districts, every national banking association within that district shall be required within thirty days after notice from the organization committee, to subscribe to the capital stock of such Federal reserve bank in a sum equal to six per centum of the paid-up capital stock and surplus of such bank….
Any national bank failing to signify its acceptance of the terms of this Act within the sixty days aforesaid, shall cease to act as a reserve agent, upon thirty days’ notice, to be given within the discretion of the said organization committee or of the Federal Reserve Board.
Should any national banking association in the United States now organized fail within one year after the passage of this Act to become a member bank or fail to comply with any of the provisions of this Act applicable thereto, all of the rights, privileges, and franchises of such association granted to it under the national-bank Act, or under the provision of this Act, shall be thereby forfeited….
No individual, copartnership, or corporation other than a member bank of its district shall be permitted to subscribe for or to hold at any time more than $20,000 par value of stock in any Federal reserve bank. Such stock shall be known as public stock and may be transferred on the books of the Federal reserve bank by the chairman of the board of directors of such bank….
SEC. 3. Each Federal reserve bank shall establish branch banks within the Federal reserve district in which it is located
and may do so in the district of any Federal reserve bank which may have been suspended.
* * * * * * * *
SEC. 5. The capital stock of each Federal reserve bank shall be divided into shares of $IOO each….
* * * * * * * *
SEC. 7. After all necessary expenses of a Federal reserve bank have been paid or provided for, the stockholders shall be entitled to receive an annual dividend of six per centum on the paid-in capital stock, which dividend shall be cumulative. After the aforesaid dividend claims have been fully met, all the net earnings shall be paid to the United States as a franchise tax, except that one-half of such net earnings shall be paid into a surplus fund until it shall amount to forty per centum of the paid-in capital stock of such bank.
The net earnings derived by the United States from Federal reserve banks shall, in the discretion of the Secretary, be used to supplement the gold reserve held against outstanding United States notes, or shall be applied to the reduction of the outstanding bonded indebtedness of the United States under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury….
* * * * * * * *
SEC. 9. Any bank incorporated by special law of any State, or organized under the general laws of any State or of the United States, may make application to the reserve bank organization committee, pending organization, and thereafter to the Federal Reserve Board for the right to subscribe to the stock of the Federal reserve bank organized or to be organized within the Federal reserve district where the applicant is located….
SEC. IO. A Federal Reserve Board is hereby created which shall consist of seven members, including the Secretary of the Treasury and the Comptroller of the Currency, who shall be members ex of ficio, and five members appointed by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. In selecting the five appointive members of the Federal Reserve Board, not more than one of whom shall be selected from any one Federal reserve district, the President shall have due regard to a fair representation of the different commercial, industrial and geographical divisions of the country. The five
members of the Federal Reserve Board appointed by the President and confirmed as aforesaid shall devote their entire time to the business of the Federal Reserve Board….
The members of said board, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Assistant Secretaries of the Treasury, and the Comptroller of the Currency shall be ineligible during the time they are in office and for two years thereafter to hold any office, position, or employment in any member bank. Of the five members thus appointed by the President at least two shall be persons experienced in banking or finance. One shall be designated by the President to serve for two, one for four, one for six, one for eight, and one for ten years, and thereafter each member so appointed shall serve for a term of ten years unless sooner removed for cause by the President. Of the five persons thus appointed, one shall be designated by the President as governor and one as vice governor of the Federal Reserve Board. The governor of the Federal Reserve Board, subject to its supervision, shall be the active executive officer….
SEC. II. The Federal Reserve Board shall be authorized and empowered:
(a) To examine at its discretion the accounts, books and affairs of each Federal reserve bank and of each member bank and to require such statements and reports as it may deem necessary. The said board shall publish once each week a statement showing the condition of each Federal reserve bank and a consolidated statement for all Federal reserve banks. .
(b) To permit, or, on the affirmative vote of at least five members of the Reserve Board to require Federal reserve banks to rediscount the discounted paper of other Federal reserve banks at rates of interest to be fixed by the Federal Reserve Board.
(c) To suspend for a period not exceeding thirty days, and from time to time to renew such suspension for periods not exceeding fifteen days, any reserve requirement specified in this Act….
(e) To add to the number of cities classified as reserve and central reserve cities under existing law in which national banking associations are subject to the reserve requirements set forth in section twenty of this Act; or to reclassify existing
reserve and central reserve cities or to terminate their designation as such….
(j) To exercise general supervision over said Federal reserve banks.
(k) To grant by special permit to national banks applying therefor, when not in contravention of State or local law, the right to act as trustee, executor, administrator, or registrar of stocks and bonds under such rules and regulations as the said board may prescribe….
SEC. I2. There is hereby created a Federal Advisory Council, which shall consist of as many members as there are Federal reserve districts. Each Federal reserve bank by its board of directors shall annually select from its own Federal reserve district one member of said council…. The meetings of said advisory council shall be held at Washington . . . at least four times each year, and oftener if called by the Federal Reserve Board….
The Federal Advisory Council shall have power, by itself or through its officers, (1) to confer directly with the Federal Reserve Board on general business conditions; (2) to make oral or written representations concerning matters within the jurisdiction of said board; (3) to call for information and to make recommendations in regard to discount rates, rediscount business, note issues, reserve conditions in the various districts, the purchase and sale of gold or securities by reserve banks, open-market operations by said banks, and the general affairs of the reserve banking system.
SEC. I3. Any Federal reserve bank may receive from any of its member banks, and from the United States, deposits of current funds in lawful money, national-bank notes, Federal reserve notes, or checks and drafts upon solvent member banks, payable upon presentation; or, solely for exchange purposes, may receive from other Federal reserve banks deposits of current funds in lawful money, national-bank notes, or checks and drafts upon solvent member or other Federal reserve banks, payable upon presentation.
Upon the indorsement of any of its member banks, with a waiver of demand, notice and protest by such bank, any Federal reserve bank may discount notes, drafts, and bills of exchange
arising out of actual commercial transactions; that is, notes, drafts, and bills of exchange issued or drawn for agricultural, industrial, or commercial purposes, or the proceeds of which have been used, or are to be used, for such purposes, the Federal Reserve Board to have the right to determine or define the character of the paper thus eligible for discount, within the meaning of this Act….
Any Federal reserve bank may discount acceptances which are based on the importation or exportation of goods and which have a maturity at time of discount of not more than three months, and indorsed by at least one member bank. The amount of acceptances so discounted shall at no time exceed one-half the paid-up capital stock and surplus of the bank for which the rediscounts are made.
The aggregate of such notes and bills bearing the signature or indorsement of any one person, company, firm, or corporation rediscounted for any one bank shall at no time exceed ten per centum of the unimpaired capital and surplus of said bank; but this restriction shall not apply to the discount of bills of exchange drawn in good faith against actually existing values.. ..
SEC. I4. Any Federal reserve bank may, under rules and regulations prescribed by the Federal Reserve Board, purchase and sell in the open market, at home or abroad, either from or to domestic or foreign banks, firms, corporations, or individuals, cable transfers and bankers’ acceptances and bills of exchange of the kinds and maturities by this Act made eligible for rediscount, with or without the indorsement of a member bank.
Every Federal reserve bank shall have
power:
(a) To deal in gold coin and bullion at home or abroad, to make loans thereon, exchange Federal reserve notes for gold, gold coin, or gold certificates, and to contract for loans of gold coin or bullion, giving therefor, when necessary, acceptable security, including the hypothecation of United States bonds or other securities which Federal reserve banks are authorized to hold;
(b) To buy and sell, at home or abroad, bonds and notes of the United States, and bills, notes, revenue bonds, and warrants with a maturity from date of purchase of not exceeding six months, issued in anticipation of the collection of taxes or in
anticipation of the receipt of assured revenues by any State, county, district, political subdivision, or municipality in the
continental United States, including irrigation, drainage and reclamation districts….
(c) To purchase from member banks and to sell, with or without its indorsement, bills of exchange arising out of commercial transactions, as hereinbefore defined;
(d) To establish from time to time, subject to review and determination of the Federal Reserve Board, rates of discount to be charged by the Federal reserve bank for each class of paper, which shall be fixed with a view of accommodating commerce and business;
(e) To establish accounts with other Federal reserve banks for exchange purposes and, with the consent of the Federal Reserve Board, to open and maintain banking accounts in foreign countries, appoint correspondents, and establish agencies in such countries wheresoever it may deem best for the purpose of purchasing, selling, and collecting bills of exchange, and to buy and sell with or without its indorsement, through such correspondents or agencies, bills of exchange arising out of actual commercial transactions which have not more than ninety days to run and which bear the signature of two or more responsible parties.
SEC. 15. The moneys held in the general fund of the Treasury, except the five per centum fund for the redemption of outstanding national-bank notes and the funds provided in this Act for the redemption of Federal reserve notes may, upon the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, be deposited in Federal reserve banks, which banks, when required by the Secretary of the Treasury, shall act as fiscal agents of the United States; and the revenues of the Government or any part thereof may be deposited in such banks, and disbursements may be made by checks drawn against such deposits.
No public funds of the Philippine Islands, or of the postal savings, or any Government funds, shall be deposited in the continental United States in any bank not belonging to the system established by this Act. .
SEC. I6. Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Federal Reserve Board for the purpose of making advances
to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are hereby authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues They shall be redeemed in gold on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington . . ., or in gold or lawful money at any Federal reserve bank.
Any Federal reserve bank may make application to the local Federal reserve agent for such amount of the Federal reserve notes hereinbefore provided for as it may require. Such application shall be accompanied with a tender to the local Federal reserve agent of collateral in amount equal to the sum of the Federal reserve notes thus applied for and issued pursuant to such application. The collateral security thus offered shall be notes and bills, accepted for rediscount under the provisions of section thirteen of this Act….
Every Federal reserve bank shall maintain reserves in gold or lawful money of not less than thirty-five per centum against its deposits and reserves in gold of not less than forty per centum against its Federal reserve notes in actual circulation, and not offset by gold or lawful money deposited with the Federal reserve agent….
SEC. 24. Any national banking association not situated in a central reserve city may make loans secured by improved and unencumbered farm land, situated within its Federal reserve district, but no such loan shall be made for a longer time than five years, nor for an amount exceeding fifty per centum of the actual value of the property offered as security….
The Federal Reserve Board shall have power from time to time to add to the list of cities in which national banks shall not be permitted to make loans secured upon real estate in the manner described in this section.
SEC. 25. Any national banking association possessing a capital and surplus of $I,OOO,OOO or more may file application with the Federal Reserve Board . . . for the purpose of securing authority to establish branches in foreign countries or depend
encies of the United States for the furtherance of the foreign commerce of the United States, and to act, if required to do so, as fiscal agents of the United States…. The Federal Reserve Board shall have power to approve or to reject such application if, in its judgment, the amount of capital proposed to be set aside for the conduct of foreign business is inadequate, or if for other reasons the granting of such application is deemed inexpedient… .
Approved, December 23, l9I3,
Let’s break down this Act. It says in……….
SEC. II. The Federal Reserve Board shall be authorized and empowered:
(a) To examine at its discretion the accounts, books and affairs of each Federal reserve bank and of each member bank and to require such statements and reports as it may deem necessary. The said board shall publish once each week a statement showing the condition of each Federal reserve bank and a consolidated statement for all Federal reserve banks.
This means that all member banks get Audited by the Federal Reserve. The extent of the Audit is unknown but now you have complicity if the Federal Reserve is Auditing the Banks and approving their practices. So what do we have?
1. Member banks following Central bank procedures
2. Central banks Auditing member bank procedures…………………..Hmmm. This becomes quite compelling does it not? It would appear we have a link to the source of the fraud. At the very least complicity.
Let’s look at Title 12 481. The Comptroller of the Currency, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, shall appoint examiners who shall examine every national bank as often as the Comptroller of the Currency shall deem necessary. The examiner making the examination of any national bank shall have power to make a thorough examination of all the affairs of the bank and in doing so he shall have power to administer oaths and to examine any of the officers and agents thereof under oath and shall make a full and detailed report of the condition of said bank to the Comptroller of the Currency.
Hmm. It’s the Comptrollers job to do the Audit? So the Comptroller is responsible? How long has there been a Comptroller? It was founded in 1921 by Congress as a Legislative Branch. Wait…….Did I just say Legislative? That would mean it falls under the Constitution no? Nope nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. Funny. So from 1913 to 1921 who was handling the Audits? I hope someone will do the homework on it.
What about banks not in central banking territory? SEC. 24. Any national banking association not situated in a central reserve city may make loans secured by improved and unencumbered farm land, situated within its Federal reserve district, but no such loan shall be made for a longer time than five years, nor for an amount exceeding fifty per centum of the actual value of the property offered as security….
The Federal Reserve Board shall have power from time to time to add to the list of cities in which national banks shall not be permitted to make loans secured upon real estate in the manner described in this section.
Umm Did I read that right? (looks again). Yep. In order to make loans these Banks had to Have FARMLAND as a security. Now why FARMLAND? Why not just land and why just land in the first place? Does a Federal Reserve bank need Farmland as security to issue loans? For what purpose? Was FARMLAND the only acceptable collateral? Why? This smacks of conspiracy. Read it again. IMPROVED UNENCUMBERED FARMLAND. Granted that most land at that time in Rural ares was Farmland but not all of it was. You had grazing land, and just Land with no improvements. Apparently that was unacceptable as collateral. Why? These banks were issuing paper at zero cost to them. Then pretending to loan it without ever doing so just making a ledger entry. Then requiring FARMLAND as collateral. Sure some loans were in paper form but rarely and it stopped altogether later on. You can take out a loan now but you will not leave with the money.
It could have been Improved Unencumbered land right? Nope. There was an agenda here. Ok so the story here is that Lehmann brothers borrowed 50 Billion from JP Morgan and cooked their books. Yet these guys appear to be in cahoots. It’s massive multi-levels of fraud. If I were you I wouldn’t believe a word these criminals say. This is just my take on things you can believe whatever you like………………..Peace!!!
The Ruthless Truth blog
Tags: accounting methods, Bank, Board, brokerage firm, district, federal, Federal Reserve Bank, frankfurt stock exchange, fraud in the inducement, IO, Jacob Schiff, krotos, Lehman Brothers, loan procedures, member banks, President. Of, reserve, sec, secretary, Stock, Time, treasury, United States, Washington Posted in research | No Comments »
Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg
Sunday, March 14th, 2010
By Giordano Bruno
Neithercorp Press – 03/10/2010
Herbert West: Re-Animator
Winter is slowly melting away here in the U.S., and Spring will soon be upon us. Wall Street is currently flush with delight at the year long run of the stock market (driven by fiat bailouts), which at first glance appears to be doing quite well, though international incidences such as those in Dubai and Greece have revealed how shaky the market actually is in the face of any unhealthy news. In the meantime, the dollar, recently on the edge of detrimental value loss, has made a semi-miraculous recovery in the span of a few months, especially as the Euro suffers. Official employment numbers, despite the continuous loss of jobs monthly, have somehow fallen and are for the moment stabilized. Is it time for America to dust off the old credit cards and return to the wild and rollicking carefree spending days of pre-2007? Perhaps not…
While the mainstream media puts on the recovery song and dance, the fundamental problems of the collapse remain the same, and in some cases are growing ever more precarious. Subsections of the public, unaware of the real issues at hand, are holding a misguided jubilee in the tranquil eye of a hurricane, wrongly assuming that the storm has passed.
The world is breathing a hasty sigh of relief at the beginning of 2010, but what are the facts behind the current “peaceful” economic moment? In this article, we will examine whether or not the good news is legitimate, or, if are we being lulled into a false sense of security…
Job Market Statistics Manipulated
At the beginning of the year, official unemployment stood at around 10%. This number of course does not include those people who are off unemployment benefits and still have not found jobs, or those people who are underemployed. The Labor Department then announced their intention to revise their “birth/death ratio” method of calculating job loss, which would supposedly add a whopping 800,000 lost jobs to their books that were hidden before:
http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/04/news/economy/jobs_outlook/
Directly after this news was released, markets braced for a substantial increase in the unemployment percentage. Yet, by some act of magic, the unemployment percentage fell to 9.7%!
http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/jobs_picture_20100205/
How is this possible? Well, those of us who were hoping for greater Labor Department transparency (including myself) should have known better. With the Labor Department, two-plus-two NEVER equals four…
As the EPI article above indicates, while the government has reportedly changed their dubious “birth/death ratio” method, they also at the same time changed their “home survey” method. This survey is meant to give the Labor Department an overall view of unemployment percentages, but now the government has sharply reduced the number of households they actually survey, making the results more volatile and easier to manipulate. This why even though nearly a million jobless people were added to the unemployment rolls, the government was still able to report a drop in unemployment percentages. Sound like a dirty trick? Yes, it is…
According to the EPI’s estimates, which are probably still conservative, over 11 million jobs would need to be created in order to bring employment rates to pre-2007 levels. This is called the “jobs gap.” To fill the jobs gap by 2013 (which is about the time frame that the government has suggested it would take for a full recovery) the U.S. would need to generate over 400,000 jobs a month for the next three years! As I think most of you can see, this is not going to happen. Last month according to official numbers the U.S. lost another 36,000 jobs. Jobs are not being created, and will not be created anywhere near the 400,000 a month mark required for a three year recovery.
Also not often reported is the span of weeks at which those who are unemployed have to wait until they find another job. This “lag time” in-between jobs has grown markedly higher in recent months as the chart below shows:
In January of this year alone, 6.3 million people (over half of those unemployed) had been without a job for more than 6 months. This is an astonishing number, and it shows just how out of touch MSM reports of recovery are. Anyone who has been unemployed for more than just one month knows how tense and uncertain such a situation makes life. Imagine the misery of a 6 month hiatus from steady work, not able to fully support ones self and not knowing when you’ll be able to again. The Labor Department, nor the media, seems to take the factor of ‘duration’ into account when considering whether employment is actually in recovery. Nor do they take into account the fact that most of the jobs lost over the past two years were high paying and specialized, while most of the scant few jobs created have been low paying service sector positions.
What is most frightening about this information is that it reveals deliberate mishandling of statistics. Instead of being more open about unemployment numbers, the government is moving to hide them further. But why would they escalate secrecy on the economy?
The Day The Dollar Died
Last week, Li Ruogu, chairman of Export-Import Bank of China, a lender tasked with supporting the country’s foreign investments, stated that China would continue to support the dollar and that reports of a break from U.S. treasuries were “absolute nonsense.” Investors in treasuries this week seemed to take the comment as a good sign that the dollar’s place as world reserve currency is assured. However, one might ask why it was suddenly so important for China to comfort treasury markets?
Interestingly, statements of China’s “affection” for the dollar have come right after their central bank decided to dump $34 billion in U.S. treasuries. Along with other nations, the U.S. suffered the worst one month treasury dump on record so far at $53 billion:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Foreigners-cut-Treasury-apf-1402391707.html?x=0
This follows a treasury dump last year by China of $25 billion, after which we predicted that such dumps would occur more frequently and in larger amounts. Apparently, we were right:
http://neithercorp.us/npress/?p=105
http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90780/91421/6734461.html
Initially, it was reported after their latest dumping of U.S. bonds that China had lost its position as the number one investor in U.S. debt, placing Japan in the top spot. Strangely, only days later this report was rescinded after the Treasury released a statement claiming that China did indeed dump $34 billion in bonds, but, they were still the number one investor in T-bills:
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/afp/20100217/tbs-us-economy-finance-bonds-china-japan-ec2362a.html
How is this possible? According to the Treasury, they “forgot” to include Chinese treasury holdings in third markets such as Hong Kong and Britain. This is very strange. Who holds these extra bonds and what are they doing sitting in foreign venues? Is it not convenient that these bonds appeared from thin air just as news of China’s treasury dump was hitting the bond market? And now we suddenly have a Chinese finance official attempting to reassure the world that China still wants T-bonds while at the same time they are trying to get rid of them? If this behavior seems confusing it is because this is what occurs when governments lie big; no matter how good they are at it, they can’t make the facts add up.
If one examines Treasury Auctions month-to-month, they would find that “Primary Buyers” of treasuries (who have to buy treasuries when no one else is buying) now dominate auction sales. Indirect buyers, who cannot be tracked, also make up a large portion of competitive bids on treasury bonds. It is suspected that most of these indirect buys are made by the Federal Reserve itself in order to prop up the dollar. The article below explains the process succinctly:
http://community.nasdaq.com/News/2010-02/Something-Very-Strange-Is-Happening-With-Treasuries.aspx
The bottom line is that foreign governments are NOT buying treasuries at volumes necessary to keep the U.S. afloat amidst its ever climbing national debt, and in some cases, they are now trying to quietly and gradually dump what they have so as to not arouse immediate suspicion from the markets. In fact, the Treasury and the Federal Reserve seem to be helping them do this!
The dollar is, in effect, dead, but disinformation and market manipulation, mainly by the private Federal Reserve, is being used to reanimate it for appearances. The result is the conjuring of a kind of “zombie currency,” a Weekend at Bernie’s currency that the Fed props up with strings and pulleys to fool everyone at the party.
The most obvious question here is, why go through so much trouble to keep the dollar around at all?
World Government And The SDR
Since the “Great Recession” began, economic forums and conferences such as the G20, and the annual World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland have spoken of little else except the formation of a centralized world economy and the establishment of a legal body that has the power to run it. At the Davos “workshops,” economists and others present ideas for world governance as if they were the originators of the concept. It may not be surprising to most of us that there is rarely if ever anyone who participates in the WEF meetings that supports the restoration of national sovereignty. In fact, nearly all the participants seem to assume that a world government is the solution to all our ills. It is also important that like the G20, government officials from all over the world attend, including those from the U.S., and that very often the policies developed at these forums end up in legislation and mass media here at home. Meaning, the laws and propaganda supporting forced globalization and world government are fine tuned at the meetings and then brought to America for mass consumption. Below are a couple video examples of Davos workshops:
It is important to recognize what exactly is being presented in these two videos because they reveal much about our current economic circumstances. The goal of the G20 and the WEF, as they have stated on numerous occasions, is to dissolve national sovereignty. If they had their way, America as we know it would not exist, along with the Constitutional framework that is meant to protect our liberties. To achieve this end, a carefully engineered breakdown of the U.S. dollar is being enacted.
As we have shown, U.S. treasuries auctions have tanked and those long term treasuries already held by foreign nations are being slowly cast off. So far, the Federal Reserve has propped up the dollar by purchasing T-bonds in the place of foreign banks who no longer want them. By continually monetizing this debt, the Fed will inflate an incredible bubble in the treasury market. When will this bubble burst? The key lay in the rules governing Special Drawing Rights.
Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) are securities much like treasury bonds. Their value is determined by a basket of international currencies including the Dollar, the Euro, the Yen, and the Pound Sterling. The IMF claims that SDRs are not technically considered currency, but SDRs serve nearly all the functions of a currency except that they are not available to the general public (yet). It walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, but the IMF would rather not call it a duck. In the end, the SDR is a world reserve currency, and its purpose is to topple the dollar.
Not long after the economic meltdown began, the IMF announced that they would begin the unlimited printing of SDRs. In 2009, within the span of a few months, SDR circulation went from $21 billion, to nearly $204 billion, and this is only the amount they have admitted to:
http://www.imf.org/external/np/fin/tad/extsdr1.aspx
Governments across the world have purchased SDRs, while at the same time dropping U.S. treasuries. China in particular has shown sharp interest in the SDR as a replacement for the U.S. dollar:
http://www.chinaeconomicreview.com/dailybriefing/2009_09_03/China_buys__50_billion_in_first-ever_IMF_bonds.html
It may be prudent to mention that China’s heightened dumping of U.S. treasuries began right around the time that the IMF began mass printing SDRs. And, even more disconcerting, the U.S. Treasury also quintupled its supply of SDRs in August of 2009:
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/US%20INTL%20RESERVES.jpg
Being that the U.S. dollar is supposedly the undisputed world reserve currency, why would the U.S. Treasury have any need to buy SDRs at all? Would this not be redundant? Unless, the Treasury knows that the dollar will not remain the world reserve currency for much longer….
Now we get to the tricky part…
The IMF has instituted new rules governing the SDR and those countries who trade it (called “member countries”). Drafting the “Fourth Amendment” governing SDR allocation, the IMF now requires member nations to retain a “special allocation” of the currency much higher than previous allocations. Countries who keep their SDR supply above the required level receive interest payment on their excess. Countries that fall below the required level have to PAY interest on the shortfall. That is to say, if the U.S. were to allow its SDR reserves to fall below the level demanded by the IMF, we would be punished monetarily. Also, under current rules, the interest rates of the currencies that make up the SDR help to determine the interest rates of the SDR.
The IMF claims it only acts as an “intermediary” between countries wishing to trade in SDRs, but since the IMF is the creator and printer of SDR’s, this would ultimately make them the controller of the SDR market, not some outside intermediary.
Participation in the SDR market for now is voluntary. However, what we are witnessing here is the subtle positioning of the SDR as the only alternative in the event that the U.S. dollar fails, and once again, China is the key.
China’s Slow Dollar Dive
The argument is constantly made by mainstream economists that China could never drop its large supply of U.S. T-bills because if they tried, the dollar would collapse, virtually erasing the value of their dollar holdings. The suggestion that “they are as dependent on us as we are on them” is rampant in the MSM, but, if we throw in the wild card factor of the SDR, this all changes.
If the Chinese central bank along with certain others amass enough SDRs over an extended period of time while gradually selling off their T-bonds, the SDR’s could act as a cushion to prevent foreign central banks from losing a large portion of their wealth while the dollar sinks. In fact, in the event that the Federal Reserve raises interest rates on the dollar (perhaps in response to the heightened risk of a mass treasury dump) those holding SDR’s actually benefit, because the interest they receive on their SDR reserves will also go up:
http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/faq/sdrallocfaqs.htm
This would not absorb all of China’s losses in the event of a dollar collapse, but it would be a very effective stop gap, and ample incentive for them to continue dumping treasuries. I believe that this is the exact reason why the dollar and the Dow have been held up by the Federal Reserve for so long. They cannot allow a major dollar depreciation until the SDR is established on the world market as a ready substitute.
A good sign that this process might accelerate would be in the event that China de-pegs the Yuan from the Dollar and allows it to appreciate in value. This would signal that China is moving away from the traditional export arrangement with the U.S. Talks of a Yuan appreciation are already hitting the MSM:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/7386391/China-ready-to-end-dollar-peg.html
Investors in the U.S. will foolishly cheer a rise in the value of the Yuan, thinking that this will increase American exports to China. In reality, China will be preparing to dump the last of its U.S. bonds, and begin exports and imports with the new ASEAN trading bloc:
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=201002280656dowjonesdjonline000247&title=asean-exports-to-grow-7-to-85-in-2010–indonesia-trade-min
This new bloc has the potential to surpass profit margins in U.S. markets, especially in the face of extremely weak consumer activity in America. As the U.S. falters under sovereign debt pressure, China will be in prime standing with a ready supply of SDRs and an organized trading bloc to take up the slack of falling exports to the West.
Shock And Awe
The illusion of U.S. recovery seems to be paramount in the plan for Globalist centralization. Every scam imaginable has been fashioned to lure the public into a sense of false comfort. In my original observations on the economic collapse, I believed that we would likely see a “trigger” event in 2010, which would set off a “rolling breakdown” that would not fully climax for a few years. Now, I am not so sure. After examining the facts behind the implementation of SDRs as well as the potentially explosive situation in the treasury market, I believe that a “shock and awe” scenario is becoming more probable. The behavior of the Fed, along with that of the IMF seems to suggest that they are preparing for a focused collapse, peaking within weeks or months instead of years, and the most certain fall of the dollar.
As I think of it now, the advantages of a sudden financial flash flood are numerous. In a drawn out collapse, the Liberty Movement is given a tremendous time advantage, allowing us to double and redouble our membership while the public opinion of the Federal Reserve and the government in general would deteriorate. In a sudden breakdown, our time will be cut short, and the public will be distracted and fearful, desperate for an organized authority to offer any semblance of “order.” A slow collapse allows for the Liberty Movement to work peacefully within the system to build a third party capable of dethroning the current two party farce. A sudden collapse erases all political activity and opens the door to martial law and illegitimate government. And finally, a fast moving meltdown leaves a much stronger psychological impression; a catastrophic waking nightmare, instead of a slow grinding depression. A world government could never be brought about due to the “monotony” of a long slow economic burnout. Too many factors could present themselves in such an extended period that might interfere with the desired end result. Too many variables to calculate. In an abrupt collapse, the Globalists would need only to gage and influence the amount of fear in the populace to a sufficient boiling point then leap in with their intended solution to the problem; centralized global governance.
I feel that in either method, the Central Bankers will fail to reach their ultimate goal, but the prospect of a direct monetary break with limited warning does make the atmosphere much heavier. One can only prepare as much as possible mentally and emotionally, and keep his eyes wide open…
http://neithercorp.us/npress/
Tags: america, Bernie, Britain, china, continuous loss, currency, Dollar, employment numbers, false sense of security, federal, giordano bruno, government, herbert west, Hong Kong, imf, Japan, Mainstream media, miraculous recovery, ratio method, reserve, SDR, Sdrs, Sterling, Switzerland, tranquil eye, treasury, U S Treasury, U.S., Unemployment Benefits, world, Yen Posted in The soon to be former USA, finance, nation, world | No Comments »
Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg
Saturday, March 13th, 2010
Tags: Afghanistan, america, April, basic economics, Ben, Bernanke, Carry, china, congress, Congressman Questions, Credit Default Swaps, crisis, debt, Debt Crisis, Economist, economy, federal, Federal Reserve Bank, federal reserve bank of dallas, financial services committee, Free Market Capitalism, General Petraeus, Harry Dent, Mainstream media, market, nobel prize, Our Way, Pallet, Quot, Tim Professor, U.S., wall street Posted in research | No Comments »
Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg
Thursday, March 11th, 2010
Are we a Republic? Democaracy? Oligarchy?
Wed, 2010-03-10 21:44 — KROTOS
On may 14 1787 Ordinary people who were elected by the people in their respective states, attended a meeting in Philadelphia that would become the single most important event in the emerging nations history. To date the importance of the moment is buried in a shroud of mystery, (at least to my mind considering the lack of information dealing with the contractual basis of the Documents). It is my intention within the confines of this Blog, to ILLUMINATE the darkness that has cloaked this momentous occasion. We are well informed as to the deliberations that took place with regard to representation from the states to the Federal Government as well as HOW much Authority (and subsequently) power, would be allowed by the people to the CENTRAL Government. Many Famous quotes were born out of this struggle for a balance of power that was difficult to obtain with agents for the English crown as well as Jesuits from the Vatican, actively seeking adherence to the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta stood as the English’s Contract with the Holy Roman Church allowing all property held by the English or their chattel, to fall under papal Rule. The Church then felt strongly that the emerging American nation should rightly belong contractually by implication, to the Vatican. However the Americans won the war against the English and in so doing, they obtained their remedy from Obligation to the Contract. Now being free from Contractual Obligation, the American Nation sought to create their own Contract that would stand as their standard and Principle from which all other contracts would derive.
The date of 1787 then finds this young contractually unencumbered nation in the midst of deliberation that would produce several documents that have far reaching implications. Let’s examine first the Constitution. The drafting of the Constitution created a NEW CONTRACT. This contract was approved by the people and signed by all those who intended to bring into being this central Government. The Constitution is by all accounts a FEDERAL CHARTER. It places limitations on the scope and size of this Governmental entity being brought to life. The Federal charter mandated that it would (as well as all treaties UNDER it) be the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. Now let’s examine something for a moment. We have a contract do we not? In contract LAW the creator of the contract becomes what? The holder in due course. So quite Literally the creators became the Holder in Due course. In order for them to fulfill the elements of a contract these important issues had to be met.
1. Meeting of the minds (mutual consent)
2. offer and acceptance
3. Mutual consideration
4. Performance or delivery
5. Good faith
6. No violation of LAW
Whether or not the elements of a contract were met, have been debated. Lets take a look. An examination of the Federalist Papers reveals there was certainly a meeting of the minds that took place, this fact is non-debatable. Moreover there was mutual consent by those present as well as the Ratification by the states as Prima Facie evidence to this fact. There certainly was an offer and the Ratification was acceptance. Mutual consideration existed as the elements were present namely certainty of expressed contract, mutual assent, language construction and mutual understanding, consideration, and finalization by signature. The debated issue comes at consideration. Was there proper consideration? Let’s take a look.
Consideration is the exchange of value between the contract participants. We must first identify the parties. The Parties present were citizens of the SEVERAL STATES. Yes that’s right the federal government did not exist and so had no say in the contract. The peoples identities were ON the state. So the parties identified in the contract were the States. The people belonging to the BODY POLITIC making the state gave the state it’s ability to contract by standing as BENEFICIARY of all things contracted by said state. So what was the consideration? The states gave up as Value some of each of their autonomy, money, citizens for service, and an amount of legal jurisdiction among the leading elements.
So this Contract was a contract BETWEEN the STATES for the creation of a central Government. So who was the HOLDER IN DUE COURSE? The states. By what Authority? The people. Who are then the beneficiaries? The people. The people control the states who then in turn control the central Government. That was the Contract.
Additional documents were drafted as well. Namely: The Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. What exactly was the purpose of these Documents when the contract was the Constitution? Let’s take a look at the Declaration of Independence. This document is the most unique in the group. Why would I say this? Because in the history of the world no other peoples ever gave ‘Constructive Notice of Intent’ to their emerging Government. Yes, the Declaration of Independence is actually ‘Constructive Notice of Intent’ by the PEOPLE themselves aside from state representation. This becomes the central document then OF THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE BY THE PEOPLE. Why was the notice CONSTRUCTIVE? Because the Government did not yet exist as an entity. This document becomes vitally important in view of the inevitability of Government turning oppressive. Let’s look at some quotes from the framers with this in mind……..
History, in general, only informs us what bad government is.
- Thomas Jefferson
"Our properties within our own territories [should not] be taxed or regulated by any power on earth but our own."
-Thomas Jefferson
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
- Benjamin Franklin
If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare… they may appoint teachers in every state… The powers of Congress would subvert the very foundation, the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America.
- James Madison
But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.
John Adams, letter to Abigail Adams, July 17, 1775
Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it.
John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776
At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Monsieur A. Coray, Oct 31, 1823
The information the founding fathers had with regard to the evils of Government motivated their every thoughts and actions toward a better way. In trying to offset that imbalance they settled on the Constructive Notice. This notice gave the Central Government warning that if certain conditions were met with regard to loss of Liberty and oppression, that the people reserved the right to either abolish or alter this entity to suit their perception of Liberty. It did not say REPUBLICAN form of Government as the Constitution said, no, far greater and of vastly more importance is the muteness of this Governmental form. The Constructive notice serves as an Intent reserved by the people to create for themselves in the future a system of Government that would prevail against the encroachment against Liberty all governments eventually digress to. Granted that the majority of the Notice dealt with their current struggle with Britain, there is enough additional language of intent that the message becomes clear. It’s important to note that the Declaration was written and adopted in 1776 and the Revolutionary war began in 1775. That would constitute a contract negotiation with the colonies giving their Constructive notice of Intent as a counter offer to the British contract. This fact makes the Document legally viable and Prima facie evidence of Authority of the people to do as the document suggests.
The last but certainly not the least important document becomes the Bill of Rights. As a support for both the Contract and Constructive notice this Document, again by the people for the people, shows the Authority BEHIND the initial contract. We know that the INTENT of the LAWMAKER is the LAW. We also have seen that the Constitution is the SUPREME LAW of the land. So then the Constructive notice then becomes a LAWFUL document. The Bill of RIGHTS becomes the table of Authorities in support of both documents. Within the documents only PEOPLE have rights. But what we have today is not what we brought into existence in 1776 and 1787. The height from which we have fallen from grace is no laughing matter nor is it to be considered minor in any regard. In my next dissertation i will enumerate the history of out demise.
Are we a Republic? Democaracy? Oligarchy? | Coffee Party
Tags: american nation, Bill, Central Government, consideration, constitution, contract, contractual basis, contractual obligation, Course, English, famous quotes, federal, Holder, holy roman church, krotos, Law, magna carta, momentous occasion, nation, nations history, papal rule, Philadelphia, state, Vatican Posted in research | No Comments »
Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg
|
|
