Thursday, November 13, 2008
Gold Prices
This Superfund analyst, Johann Santer predicts inflation and $1,500 - $2,000 gold in the medium run, $1,000 gold in three months.
Steve Forbes: Fed, Bush Administration Responsible for Current Financial Problems
Steve Forbes takes a page out of Mitchell Langbert's blog. He blames the Bush administration and the Fed for the current financial problems.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Obama Birth Certificate: Donofrio v. Wells: Supreme Court Clerk Danny Bickell Is Confused
Pamela Geller (h/t Bob Robbins and Larwyn) blogs about another law suit concerning Barack Obama's birth certificate. As well, Miri Green sent me a link to Leo C. Donofrio's website. Geller quotes a press release:
>"On October 27, 2008, plaintiff-appellant, Leo Donofrio, a retired attorney acting Pro Se, sued Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, demanding the Secretary execute her statutory and Constitutional duties to police the security of ballots in New Jersey from fraudulent candidates ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States due to their not being "natural born citizens" as enumerated in Article 1, Section 2, of the US Constitution."
Donofrio's case follows through the letter writing I did earlier this year. The Supreme Court's "Stay Clerk" (I wonder if they also have a "Go Clerk"), Dan Bickell, seems to contradict himself and be giving Donofrio the run around. First, Bickell told Donofrio that the stay was refused, then, upon learning that the public was aware of his (Bickell's) actions, Bickell reversed himself. Is the Supreme Court being run by thugs?
It is undoubtedly true that the election boards and secretaries of state do not police the election process. Candidates may be committing identity fraud, may not be legitimately eligible to run and may be criminals under assumed identities, and the elections boards do not know, do not want to know, and do not care. The level of elections administration in this country is dismal. The same is true of the Federal Elections Commission, which should be abolished. Sadly, though, Danny Bickell and the Supreme Court that he seems to represent is indifferent to maladministration of elections in the United States, preferring to stick its nose into questions about the morality of the death penalty based on elitist moralism picked up in dogmatic, ideological classwork the justices learned in pissant-left-wing first year law classes.
In other words, the Supreme Court seems to be interested in using state violence to enforce third rate, left-wing philosophy but it doesn't seem interested in enforcing the law.
The press release that Pamela Geller quotes concludes:
"While Mr. Berg, who has made a valiant effort, does not have legal standing, I do have a right of review by the US Supreme Court since New Jersey recognizes my standing and also because I have exhausted all of my state court options and there is nowhere else for me to go for justice."
On his website Donofrio indicates that he is now appealing the New Jersey Court's decision in his case. On his website, Mr. Donofrio accuses the Supreme Court clerk of dissembling:
"True to his form , but not to his word, US Supreme Court, Stay Clerk, Danny Bickell, has not updated the Docket to reflect that my case has come directly from a New Jersey Supreme Court order denying emergency relief."
He argues:
"Mr. Bickell now claims a specious semantical falsehood to deny me review in the US Supreme Court. This time he alleges that the chain of succession from the NJ Supreme Court to the US Supreme Court was broken by my applying for a "Stay" instead of "injunctive relief" when he knows damn well that a stay is injunctive relief."
He adds:
"I am outraged and disgusted by Bickell's cavalier piracy of my rights, of your rights, of our rights. And my passion for the law has never been greater than it is right now. I believe in law and order and that all stands must be made under the color of law."
After several citizens called the Supreme Court to complain about Bickell's behavior, Bickell reversed himself. Several hours after Donofrio's call to arms, he wrote:
"Leo C. Donofrio was just contacted by Mr. Danny Bickell, Stay Clerk of the United States Supreme Court as a direct result of Mr. Bickell receiving phone calls from the public...
"1. He says he is now in the process of correcting the Docket to reflect that my case is before the US Supreme Court from a direct ruling of the NJ Supreme Court wherein a Constitutional issue had been raised.
"2. Mr. Bickell informed me today that after he decided, improperly, not to pass on my Emergency Stay Application to Justice Souter on Nov. 3rd, that he did not owe me any special notification...Speaking to Mr. Bickell a few minutes ago, I asked him what happened to my letter informing me of the first disposition back on Monday Nov. 3rd when he decided not to pass the Stay Application on to Justice Souter. To this he replied, "That wasn't a disposition so I didn't have to give you any notice." Incredible. He disposed of my case illegally and then said that since it wasn't a proper disposition I wasn't entitled to notice thereof, and certainly not by "appropriately speedy means". Sabotage...
...Mr Bickell has also informed me that my renewed Application for an Emergency Stay will certainly be submitted to Justice Clarence Thomas on the day it is received. His word isn't worth much to me so I still need to keep trying to make the public aware of my case so that the other Justices might hear about it before the renewed Emergency Stay Application arrives.
Donofrio concludes:
THE BEST THING YOU CAN DO TO HELP THIS CASE GET BEFORE JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS IS TO WRITE TO HIM AND THE OTHER JUSTICES:
The Honorable Associate Justice Clarence Thomas
United States Supreme Court
One First Street, N.E.,
Washington, D.C. 20543.
--------------------------------
Please include the docket # 08A407, and the URL to this blog
http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/
>SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES - CLERK'S OFFICE CONTINUES SABOTAGE OF NJ CITIZEN STAY APPLICATION FOR 08 ELECTION - YOUR HELP IS REQUESTED
>Dear Citizens of the United States of America,
>I need your help and the US needs your help.
>My case, LEO C. DONOFRIO v. NINA MITCHELL WELLS, SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY - US Supreme Court Docket # 08A407 - continues to be subjected to misconduct by the US Supreme Court Clerk's office, particularly by Mr. Danny Bickell, the Stay Clerk.
>For a full review of the Judicial treachery in this case, please review the entire UNORTHODOX PROCEDURAL HISTORY of the case...
>It has come to my attention today that the US Supreme Court's Stay Clerk, Mr. Danny Bickell, has continued to list this case incorrectly thereby preventing it from ever crossing the desk of Justice Clarence Thomas.
>The Docket of the case fails to mention that the case went directly from the Appellate Division in New Jersey to the New Jersey Supreme Court which is the nexus that allows the case to be properly before the US Supreme Court. The Clerk's office appears to be doing everything possible to see that this case never gets to the desk of Justice Clarence Thomas or any of the other Supreme Court Justices.
>I have an order handed down from the New Jersey Supreme Court which makes reference to the Appellate Division case as well, but the US Supreme Court Clerk's office refuses to acknowledge the NJ Supreme Court's review and it is that review which allows my case to go before the US Supreme Court...
>This is unprecedented in that the Clerk's office at the SCOTUS appears to be injecting politics into the handling of paperwork properly before it. It will be a terrible blow to the separation of powers if Supreme Court review can be stopped by Clerks imposing their own political views on litigants who have properly followed legal procedure.
>Justice Clarence Thomas and the rest of the Supreme Court must receive direct mail letters (not e mail) bringing this case Docket # and the URL of my blog to their attention. You may write to Justice Thomas at the following address:
>The Honorable Associate Justice Clarence Thomas
United States Supreme Court
One First Street, N.E.,
Washington, D.C. 20543.
--------------------------------
>Please include the docket # 08A407, and the URL to this blog
http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/
If you write to Chief Justice Roberts, please make sure the envelope is addressed to
THE HONORABLE JOHN G. ROBERTS, CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES
Thank you,
Leo C. Donofrio
>"On October 27, 2008, plaintiff-appellant, Leo Donofrio, a retired attorney acting Pro Se, sued Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, demanding the Secretary execute her statutory and Constitutional duties to police the security of ballots in New Jersey from fraudulent candidates ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States due to their not being "natural born citizens" as enumerated in Article 1, Section 2, of the US Constitution."
Donofrio's case follows through the letter writing I did earlier this year. The Supreme Court's "Stay Clerk" (I wonder if they also have a "Go Clerk"), Dan Bickell, seems to contradict himself and be giving Donofrio the run around. First, Bickell told Donofrio that the stay was refused, then, upon learning that the public was aware of his (Bickell's) actions, Bickell reversed himself. Is the Supreme Court being run by thugs?
It is undoubtedly true that the election boards and secretaries of state do not police the election process. Candidates may be committing identity fraud, may not be legitimately eligible to run and may be criminals under assumed identities, and the elections boards do not know, do not want to know, and do not care. The level of elections administration in this country is dismal. The same is true of the Federal Elections Commission, which should be abolished. Sadly, though, Danny Bickell and the Supreme Court that he seems to represent is indifferent to maladministration of elections in the United States, preferring to stick its nose into questions about the morality of the death penalty based on elitist moralism picked up in dogmatic, ideological classwork the justices learned in pissant-left-wing first year law classes.
In other words, the Supreme Court seems to be interested in using state violence to enforce third rate, left-wing philosophy but it doesn't seem interested in enforcing the law.
The press release that Pamela Geller quotes concludes:
"While Mr. Berg, who has made a valiant effort, does not have legal standing, I do have a right of review by the US Supreme Court since New Jersey recognizes my standing and also because I have exhausted all of my state court options and there is nowhere else for me to go for justice."
On his website Donofrio indicates that he is now appealing the New Jersey Court's decision in his case. On his website, Mr. Donofrio accuses the Supreme Court clerk of dissembling:
"True to his form , but not to his word, US Supreme Court, Stay Clerk, Danny Bickell, has not updated the Docket to reflect that my case has come directly from a New Jersey Supreme Court order denying emergency relief."
He argues:
"Mr. Bickell now claims a specious semantical falsehood to deny me review in the US Supreme Court. This time he alleges that the chain of succession from the NJ Supreme Court to the US Supreme Court was broken by my applying for a "Stay" instead of "injunctive relief" when he knows damn well that a stay is injunctive relief."
He adds:
"I am outraged and disgusted by Bickell's cavalier piracy of my rights, of your rights, of our rights. And my passion for the law has never been greater than it is right now. I believe in law and order and that all stands must be made under the color of law."
After several citizens called the Supreme Court to complain about Bickell's behavior, Bickell reversed himself. Several hours after Donofrio's call to arms, he wrote:
"Leo C. Donofrio was just contacted by Mr. Danny Bickell, Stay Clerk of the United States Supreme Court as a direct result of Mr. Bickell receiving phone calls from the public...
"1. He says he is now in the process of correcting the Docket to reflect that my case is before the US Supreme Court from a direct ruling of the NJ Supreme Court wherein a Constitutional issue had been raised.
"2. Mr. Bickell informed me today that after he decided, improperly, not to pass on my Emergency Stay Application to Justice Souter on Nov. 3rd, that he did not owe me any special notification...Speaking to Mr. Bickell a few minutes ago, I asked him what happened to my letter informing me of the first disposition back on Monday Nov. 3rd when he decided not to pass the Stay Application on to Justice Souter. To this he replied, "That wasn't a disposition so I didn't have to give you any notice." Incredible. He disposed of my case illegally and then said that since it wasn't a proper disposition I wasn't entitled to notice thereof, and certainly not by "appropriately speedy means". Sabotage...
...Mr Bickell has also informed me that my renewed Application for an Emergency Stay will certainly be submitted to Justice Clarence Thomas on the day it is received. His word isn't worth much to me so I still need to keep trying to make the public aware of my case so that the other Justices might hear about it before the renewed Emergency Stay Application arrives.
Donofrio concludes:
THE BEST THING YOU CAN DO TO HELP THIS CASE GET BEFORE JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS IS TO WRITE TO HIM AND THE OTHER JUSTICES:
The Honorable Associate Justice Clarence Thomas
United States Supreme Court
One First Street, N.E.,
Washington, D.C. 20543.
--------------------------------
Please include the docket # 08A407, and the URL to this blog
http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/
>SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES - CLERK'S OFFICE CONTINUES SABOTAGE OF NJ CITIZEN STAY APPLICATION FOR 08 ELECTION - YOUR HELP IS REQUESTED
>Dear Citizens of the United States of America,
>I need your help and the US needs your help.
>My case, LEO C. DONOFRIO v. NINA MITCHELL WELLS, SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY - US Supreme Court Docket # 08A407 - continues to be subjected to misconduct by the US Supreme Court Clerk's office, particularly by Mr. Danny Bickell, the Stay Clerk.
>For a full review of the Judicial treachery in this case, please review the entire UNORTHODOX PROCEDURAL HISTORY of the case...
>It has come to my attention today that the US Supreme Court's Stay Clerk, Mr. Danny Bickell, has continued to list this case incorrectly thereby preventing it from ever crossing the desk of Justice Clarence Thomas.
>The Docket of the case fails to mention that the case went directly from the Appellate Division in New Jersey to the New Jersey Supreme Court which is the nexus that allows the case to be properly before the US Supreme Court. The Clerk's office appears to be doing everything possible to see that this case never gets to the desk of Justice Clarence Thomas or any of the other Supreme Court Justices.
>I have an order handed down from the New Jersey Supreme Court which makes reference to the Appellate Division case as well, but the US Supreme Court Clerk's office refuses to acknowledge the NJ Supreme Court's review and it is that review which allows my case to go before the US Supreme Court...
>This is unprecedented in that the Clerk's office at the SCOTUS appears to be injecting politics into the handling of paperwork properly before it. It will be a terrible blow to the separation of powers if Supreme Court review can be stopped by Clerks imposing their own political views on litigants who have properly followed legal procedure.
>Justice Clarence Thomas and the rest of the Supreme Court must receive direct mail letters (not e mail) bringing this case Docket # and the URL of my blog to their attention. You may write to Justice Thomas at the following address:
>The Honorable Associate Justice Clarence Thomas
United States Supreme Court
One First Street, N.E.,
Washington, D.C. 20543.
--------------------------------
>Please include the docket # 08A407, and the URL to this blog
http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/
If you write to Chief Justice Roberts, please make sure the envelope is addressed to
THE HONORABLE JOHN G. ROBERTS, CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES
Thank you,
Leo C. Donofrio
Banking Is Not Necessary
Today's banking system is based on a principle that did not exist until the 17th century. The notion of fractional reserve banking is that bankers lend out more money than they actually have on deposit because they can predict with some accuracy how much money depositors will reclaim each day. Currently, the supply of money is about double the cash and reserves on deposit in banks, so half the money supply is due to bankers' lending money that does not really exist anywhere.
Academics vigorously argue in favor of fractional reserve banking. They claim to be in favor of the poor and of economic development, but a little common sense tells you that enabling bankers to double the money supply chiefly benefits bankers. Moreover, bankers do not lend to the poor, they lend to the rich and to the middle class, and to government's favored recipients. Hence, the traditional tendency is that fractional reserve banking is most beneficial to the wealthy.
Bankers refuse to lend to entrepreneurs. This is a well known phenomenon to anyone interested in starting a business. Bankers view lending to innovative start ups as too "risky". On the other hand, they are eager to lend to sub-prime mortgage borrowers, Bunker Hunt when he was eager to corner the silver market, Long Term Capital Management when it claimed to have "hedged" all bets based on crackpot theories of modern finance professors, and to sellers of credit default swaps that the bankers did not understand, but what the hell, they're less risky than investing in A/C electricity or a cure for cancer.
The main problems of capitalism have related to the fraud in which bankers engage in lending money. Economically illiterate historians and historically illiterate economists both make the argument that without fractional reserve banking there would have been no progress. But they cannot point to examples of progress that depended on fractional reserve banking. Nikola Tesla depended not on banking but on venture capital from JP Morgan to work on energy transmission and earlier inventions. Milton Hershey depended not on banking but on friends and family to build his candy empire. Do most entrepreneurs today depend on bank loans to finance new business concepts, or on private investment capital that they save themselves, from friends and family or from private "angels" who do not benefit from the fractional reserve system?
Where do bank loans go? They go to the least risky investments: real estate and to finance lumbering, incompetently managed large firms.
Now, let us think for a moment who pays for fractional reserve banking. When a bank lends a dollar it does not have, it collects interest on that dollar. But it has increased the money supply. By increasing the money supply, it reduces the value of everyone else's dollars. So anyone who holds dollars, workers and savers, subsidize the bank. As the value of everyone's dollars is reduced, the borrower repays the loan in cheaper dollars. So the banker is subsidized and the borrower is subsidized, but the thrifty and poor who do not borrow pay.
Now who are the chief borrowers? Large corporations are the most indebted. Hedge funds, investment banks and large real estate investors are the chief borrowers. It is true that the middle class has also borrowed. The group that borrows least is the poor.
Inventors who are trying to build a new business based on an invention cannot borrow because banks will not lend to them. So money is transferred from innovators to borrowers. From inventors to real estate developers.
Banking is not necessary for progress. Innovation has not depended on banking. It has depended on private capital. Rather, banking stalls innovation. Thus, as the Federal Reserve Bank's power to create money has increased, and Wall Street and the banking system has flourished over the past 35 years, innovation has been limited to a few industries that stock brokers favor. Real estate and stock investment has soared. And American workers' real wages have declined.
Fractional reserve banking is not necessary to American progress. It is a form of income redistribution from the innovative to the opportunistic.
Academics vigorously argue in favor of fractional reserve banking. They claim to be in favor of the poor and of economic development, but a little common sense tells you that enabling bankers to double the money supply chiefly benefits bankers. Moreover, bankers do not lend to the poor, they lend to the rich and to the middle class, and to government's favored recipients. Hence, the traditional tendency is that fractional reserve banking is most beneficial to the wealthy.
Bankers refuse to lend to entrepreneurs. This is a well known phenomenon to anyone interested in starting a business. Bankers view lending to innovative start ups as too "risky". On the other hand, they are eager to lend to sub-prime mortgage borrowers, Bunker Hunt when he was eager to corner the silver market, Long Term Capital Management when it claimed to have "hedged" all bets based on crackpot theories of modern finance professors, and to sellers of credit default swaps that the bankers did not understand, but what the hell, they're less risky than investing in A/C electricity or a cure for cancer.
The main problems of capitalism have related to the fraud in which bankers engage in lending money. Economically illiterate historians and historically illiterate economists both make the argument that without fractional reserve banking there would have been no progress. But they cannot point to examples of progress that depended on fractional reserve banking. Nikola Tesla depended not on banking but on venture capital from JP Morgan to work on energy transmission and earlier inventions. Milton Hershey depended not on banking but on friends and family to build his candy empire. Do most entrepreneurs today depend on bank loans to finance new business concepts, or on private investment capital that they save themselves, from friends and family or from private "angels" who do not benefit from the fractional reserve system?
Where do bank loans go? They go to the least risky investments: real estate and to finance lumbering, incompetently managed large firms.
Now, let us think for a moment who pays for fractional reserve banking. When a bank lends a dollar it does not have, it collects interest on that dollar. But it has increased the money supply. By increasing the money supply, it reduces the value of everyone else's dollars. So anyone who holds dollars, workers and savers, subsidize the bank. As the value of everyone's dollars is reduced, the borrower repays the loan in cheaper dollars. So the banker is subsidized and the borrower is subsidized, but the thrifty and poor who do not borrow pay.
Now who are the chief borrowers? Large corporations are the most indebted. Hedge funds, investment banks and large real estate investors are the chief borrowers. It is true that the middle class has also borrowed. The group that borrows least is the poor.
Inventors who are trying to build a new business based on an invention cannot borrow because banks will not lend to them. So money is transferred from innovators to borrowers. From inventors to real estate developers.
Banking is not necessary for progress. Innovation has not depended on banking. It has depended on private capital. Rather, banking stalls innovation. Thus, as the Federal Reserve Bank's power to create money has increased, and Wall Street and the banking system has flourished over the past 35 years, innovation has been limited to a few industries that stock brokers favor. Real estate and stock investment has soared. And American workers' real wages have declined.
Fractional reserve banking is not necessary to American progress. It is a form of income redistribution from the innovative to the opportunistic.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
