Date: Tuesday, 30-Apr-2013 19:36:10
According to Dr. D.C. Jarvis, author of Folk Medicine, apple cider
taken daily will improve digestion and heal many chronic ailments, such
as depression, fatigue, and arthritis, as well as lower blood pressure and
Read more: Healing Benefits of Apple Cider
Vinegar | eHow.com
STILL spending money on bottled water?
WATCH THIS – www.kangendemo.com
This is very well written, even I could
understand it. I would highly recommend taking a few minutes and reading up on
what your REAL role is, when you deposit money in a bank.
No Bank Deposits will be Spared from Confiscation
I challenge anyone to prove me wrong that confiscation of bank deposits is legalized daylight robbery
Bank depositors in the UK and USA may think that their bank deposits would not
be confiscated as they are insured and no government would dare embark on such
a drastic action to bail out insolvent banks.
Before I explain why confiscation of bank deposits in the UK and US is a
certainty and absolutely legal, I need all readers of this article to do the
Ask your local police, sheriffs, lawyers, judges the following
1) If I place my money with a lawyer as a stake-holder and he uses the money
without my consent, has the lawyer committed a crime?
2) If I store a bushel of wheat or cotton in a warehouse and the owner of the
warehouse sold my wheat/cotton without my consent or authority, has the
warehouse owner committed a crime?
3) If I place monies with my broker (stock or commodity) and the broker uses my
monies for other purposes and or contrary to my instructions, has the broker
committed a crime?
I am confident that the answer to the above questions is a Yes!
However, for the purposes of this article, I would like to first highlight the
situation of the deposit / storage of wheat with a warehouse owner in relation
to the deposit of money / storage with a banker.
First, you will notice that all wheat is the same i.e. the wheat in one
bushel is no different from the wheat in another bushel. Likewise with cotton,
it is indistinguishable. The deposit of a bushel of wheat with the warehouse
owner in law constitutes a bailment. Ownership of the bushel of wheat remains
with you and there is no transfer of ownership at all to the warehouse owner.
And as stated above, if the owner sells the bushel of wheat without your
consent or authority, he has committed a crime as well as having committed a
civil wrong (a tort) of conversion – converting your property to his own use
and he can be sued.
Let me use another analogy. If a cashier in a supermarket removes $100 from the
till on Friday to have a frolic on Saturday, he has committed theft, even
though he may replace the $100 on Monday without the knowledge of the owner /
manager of the supermarket. The $100 the cashier stole on Friday is also
indistinguishable from the $100 he put back in the till on Monday. In both
situations – the wheat in the warehouse and the $100 dollar bill in the till,
which have been unlawfully misappropriated would constitute a crime.
Keep this principle and issue at the back of your mind.
Now we shall proceed with the money that you have deposited with your
I am sure that most of you have little or no knowledge about banking,
specifically fractional reserve banking.
Since you were a little kid, your parents have encouraged you to save some
money to instil in you the good habit of money management.
And when you grew up and got married, you in turn instilled the same discipline
in your children. Your faith in the integrity of the bank is almost absolute.
Your money in the bank would earn an interest income.
And when you want your money back, all you needed to do is to withdraw the
money together with the accumulated interest. Never for a moment did you think
that you had transferred ownership of your money to the bank. Your belief was
grounded in like manner as the owner of the bushel of wheat stored in the
However, this belief is and has always been a lie. You were led to believe this
lie because of savvy advertisements by the banks and government assurances that
your money is safe and is protected by deposit insurance.
But, the insurance does not cover all the monies that you have deposited in the
bank, but to a limited amount e.g. $250,000 in the US by the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Germany €100,000, UK £85,000 etc.
But, unlike the owner of the bushel of wheat who has deposited the wheat with
the warehouse owner, your ownership of the monies that you have deposited with
the bank is transferred to the bank and all you have is the right to demand its
repayment. And, if the bank fails to repay your monies (e.g. $100), your only
remedy is to sue the bank and if the bank is insolvent you get nothing.
You may recover some of your money if your deposit is covered by an insurance
scheme as referred to earlier but in a fixed amount. But, there is a catch
here. Most insurance schemes whether backed by the government or not do not
have sufficient monies to cover all the deposits in the banking system.
So, in the worst case scenario – a systemic collapse, there is no way
for you to get your money back.
In fact, and as illustrated in the Cyprus banking fiasco, the authorities went
to the extent of confiscating your deposits to pay the banks’ creditors. When
that happened, ordinary citizens and financial analysts cried out that such
confiscation was daylight robbery. But, is it?
It will come as a shock to all of you to know that such daylight robbery is
perfectly legal and this has been so for hundreds of years.
Let me explain.
The reason is that unlike the owner of the bushel of wheat whose ownership of the
wheat WAS NEVER TRANSFERRED to the warehouse owner when the same was deposited,
the moment you deposited your money with the bank, the ownership is transferred
to the bank.
Your status is that of A CREDITOR TO THE BANK and the BANK IS IN LAW A DEBTOR to
you. You are deemed to have “lent” your money to the bank for the bank to apply
to its banking business (even to gamble in the biggest casino in the world –
the global derivatives casino).
You have become a creditor, AN UNSECURED CREDITOR. Therefore, by law, in
the insolvency of a bank, you as an unsecured creditor stand last in the queue
of creditors to be paid out of any funds and or assets which the bank has to
pay its creditors. The secured creditors are always first in line to be paid.
It is only after secured creditors have been paid and there are still some
funds left (usually, not much, more often zilch!) that unsecured creditors are
paid and the sums pro-rated among all the unsecured creditors.
This is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
The law has been in existence for hundreds of years and was established in
England by the House of Lords in the case Foley v Hill in 1848.
When a customer deposits money with his banker, the relationship that arises is
one of creditor and debtor, with the banker liable to repay the money deposited
when demanded by the customer. Once money has been paid to the banker, it
belongs to the banker and he is free to use the money for his own purpose.
I will now quote the relevant portion of the judgment of the House of Lords
handed down by Lord Cottenham, the Lord Chancellor. He stated thus:
“Money when paid into a bank, ceases altogether to be the money of the
principal… it is then the money of the banker, who is bound to return an
equivalent by paying a similar sum to that deposited with him when he is asked
The money paid into the banker’s, is money known by the principal to be placed
there for the purpose of being under the control of the banker; it is then the
banker’s money; he is known to deal with it as his own; he makes what profit of
it he can, which profit he retains himself,…
The money placed in the custody of the banker is, to all intent and purposes,
the money of the banker, to do with it as he pleases; he is guilty of no breach
of trust in employing it; he is not answerable TO THE PRINCIPAL IF HE PUTS IT
INTO JEOPARDY, IF HE ENGAGES IN A HAZARDOUS SPECULATION; he is not bound to
keep it or deal with it as the property of the principal, but he is of course
answerable for the amount, because he has contracted, having received that
money, to repay to the principal, when demanded, a sum equivalent to that paid
into his hands.” (quoted in UK Law Essays, Relationship Between A Banker And
Customer,That Of A Creditor/Debtor, emphasis added,)
Holding that the relationship between a banker and his customer was one of
debtor and creditor and not one of trusteeship, Lord Brougham said:
“This trade of a banker is to receive money, and use it as if it were his own,
he becoming debtor to the person who has lent or deposited with him the money
to use as his own, and for which money he is accountable as a debtor. I cannot
at all confound the situation of a banker with that of a trustee, and conclude
that the banker is a debtor with a fiduciary character.”
In plain simple English – bankers cannot be prosecuted for breach of trust,
because it owes no fiduciary duty to the depositor / customer, as he is deemed
to be using his own money to speculate etc. There is absolutely no criminal
The trillion dollar question is, Why has no one in the Justice Department or
other government agencies mentioned this legal principle?
The reason why no one dare speak this legal truth is because there would be a
run on the banks when all the Joe Six-Packs wise up to the fact that their
deposits with the bankers CONSTITUTE IN LAW A LOAN TO THE BANK and the bank can
do whatever it likes even to indulge in hazardous speculation such as gambling
in the global derivative casino.
The Joe Six-Packs always consider the bank the creditor even when he deposits
money in the bank. No depositor ever considers himself as the creditor!
Yes, Eric Holder, the US Attorney-General is right when he said that bankers
cannot be prosecuted for the losses suffered by the bank. This is because a
banker cannot be prosecuted for losing his “own money” as stated by the House
of Lords. This is because when money is deposited with the bank, that money
belongs to the banker.
The reason that if a banker is prosecuted it would collapse the entire banking
system is a big lie.
The US Attorney-General could not and would not state the legal principle
because it would cause a run on the banks when people discover that their
monies are not safe with bankers as they can in law use the monies deposited as
their own even to speculate.
What is worrisome is that your right to be repaid arises only when you demand
Obviously, when you demand payment, the bank must pay you. But, if you demand
payment after the bank has collapsed and is insolvent, it is too late. Your
entitlement to be repaid is that of a lonely unsecured creditor and only if
there are funds left after liquidation to be paid out to all the unsecured
creditors and the remaining funds to be pro-rated. You would be lucky to get ten
cents on the dollar.
So, when the Bank of England, the FED and the BIS issued the guidelines which
became the template for the Cyprus “bail-in” (which was endorsed by the G-20
Cannes Summit in 2011), it was merely a circuitous way of stating the legal
position without arousing the wrath of the people, as they well knew that if
the truth was out, there would be a revolution and blood on the streets. It is
therefore not surprising that the global central bankers came out with this
“The objective of an effective resolution regime is to make feasible the
resolution of financial institutions without severe systemic disruption and
without exposing taxpayers to losses, while protecting vital economic functions
through mechanisms which make it possible for shareholders and unsecured and
uninsured creditors to absorb losses in a manner that respects the hierarchy of
claims in liquidation.”(quoted in FSB Consultative Document: Effective
Resolution of Systemically …)
This is the kind of complex technical jargon used by bankers to confuse the
people, especially depositors and to cover up what I have stated in plain and
simple English in the foregoing paragraphs.
The key words of the BIS guideline are:
“without severe systemic disruptions” (i.e. bank runs),
“while protecting vital economic functions” (i.e. protecting vested interests –
“unsecured creditors” (i.e. your monies, you are the dummy),
“respects the hierarchy of claims in liquidation” (i.e. you are last in the
queue to be paid, after all secured creditors have been paid).
This means all depositors are losers!
Please read this article carefully and spread it far and wide.
You will be doing a favour to all your fellow country men and women and more
importantly, your family and relatives.
24 April 2013
Hundreds of emergency workers from more than
LAX Air Exercise 2013 was described by
The drill is required by the Federal Aviation
Heads up: Emergency-response drill at Boeing
April 29, 2013 at 10:06 am |
With Boeing Field in clear view of parts of
When catastrophic disasters strike, the number
An emergency exercise held at King County
On the day of the exercise, 42 mock patients
Posted on April 30, 2013 at 8:17 AM
SEATAC, Wash. — Firefighters have controlled
An early estimate puts the vehicular damage at
“This is the first time we had a multiple
Cooper says Port of Seattle firefighters
The initial cause of the fire is a mechanical
“the entire Boston Marathon bombing was
(Thanks, T. 🙂
Reader T. sends us:
Boston Bombing Suspects Tsarnaev
A new report by the Government Accountability
Institute finds that JP Morgan has made at least $560,492,596 since 2004
processing the Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) cards of 18 of the 24 states
it has under contract for the food stamp program.
Just how lucrative JP
Morgan’s EBT state contracts are is hard to say, because total national data on
EBT contracts are not reported. But thanks to a combination of public-records
requests and contracts that are available online, here’s what we do know: 18 of
the 24 states JP Morgan handles have been contracted to pay the bank up to
$560,492,596.02 since 2004. Since 2007, Florida has been contracted to pay JP
Morgan $90,351,202.22. Pennsylvania’s seven-year contract totaled
$112,541,823.27. New York’s seven-year contract totaled $126,394,917.
These contracts are
transactional contracts, meaning they are amendable based on changes in program
participation. Each month, the three companies that administer EBT receive a
small fee that can range from $.31 to $2.30 (or higher depending upon the
number of welfare services on an EBT card and state contractual requirements)
for each SNAP recipient.
And the bank has taken
steps to make sure the SNAP program remains a growing source of revenue.
JPMorgan’s political donations to the members of House and Senate agricultural
committees, the ones with legislative responsibility for the program, soared
from just over $82,000 in 2002 to nearly $333,000 as of 2010.
Judicial Watch today
released documents detailing how the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is
working with the Mexican government to promote participation by illegal aliens
in the U.S. food stamp program.
The promotion of the food
stamp program, now known as “SNAP” (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program),
includes a Spanish-language flyer provided to the Mexican Embassy by the USDA with
a statement advising Mexicans in the U.S. that they do not need to declare
their immigration status in order to receive financial assistance.
Emphasized in bold and underlined, the statement reads, “You need not
divulge information regarding your immigration status in seeking this benefit
for your children.”
The documents came in
response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request made to USDA on July
20, 2012. The FOIA request sought: “Any and all records of communication
relating to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to Mexican
Americans, Mexican nationals, and migrant communities, including but not
limited to, communications with the Mexican government.”
The documents obtained by
Judicial Watch show that USDA officials are working closely with their counterparts
at the Mexican Embassy to widely broaden the SNAP program in the Mexican
immigrant community, with no effort to restrict aid to, identify, or apprehend
illegal immigrants who may be on the food stamp rolls.
You can see a copy of the
flyer right here.
So who pays for all of
You do of course.
The Obama administration
is doing all that it can to promote illegal immigration, and big banks
such as JP Morgan just make bigger profits the more illegal immigration that we
see, but it is you and I that end up with the bill. This was put
beautifully in a recent article by Mike
Adams of NaturalNews.com…
Nearly $75 billion of
taxpayer money is spent each year on federal food stamps, and it turns out some
of that is alarmingly being handed out to illegal immigrants — people who
contribute nothing to the federal tax base in America but who seem to be
experts on collecting social welfare benefits of all kinds. If you are
working for a living, you are buying food for illegals who are being
actively recruited by Obama and the democratic party so that they will vote
more democrats into office.
When we reward illegal
immigration, what happens?
That’s right – we are
just going to get even more illegal immigration.
According to WND, we have already started seeing a huge
increase in illegal immigrants coming across the border since Congress began
debating the amnesty bill…
Illegal border crossings
have doubled, and possibly even tripled, since the latest congressional push
began toward comprehensive immigration reform.
In reporting first
published by Townhall.com’s Katie Pavlich, border patrol agents in the
Tucson/Nogales sector claim illegals are coming here in much higher numbers in
just the past few months.
“We’ve seen the number of
illegal aliens double, maybe even triple since amnesty talk started happening,”
an unnamed border agent said to Townhall. The data from Customs and Border
Protection cited in the report shows 504 illegals were detected crossing in that
sector between Feb. 5 and March 1. Only 189 were caught on camera, and just 174
of the 504 were apprehended. Of those spotted on camera, 32 were carrying huge
packs believed to contain drugs and several were heavily armed.
If that bill is passed,
it is being projected that it will bring 33 million more people into this
The pending Senate immigration
bill would bring a minimum of 33 million people into the country during its
first decade of operation, according to an analysis by NumbersUSA, a group that
wants to slow the current immigration rate.
By 2024, the inflow would
include an estimated 9.2 million illegal immigrants, plus 2.5 million illegals
who arrived as children — dubbed ‘Dreamers’ — plus roughly 3.4 million
company-sponsored employees with university degrees, said the unreleased
The majority of the
inflow, or roughly 17 million people, would consist of family members of
illegals, recent immigrants and of company-sponsored workers, according to the
NumbersUSA analysis provided to The Daily Caller.
We have made legal
immigration a complete and total nightmare while leaving the back door
completely wide open at the same time.
We greatly punish those
who are trying to do things legally while at the same time we are greatly
rewarding those that are cheating the system.
What kind of sense does
Shouldn’t we insist that
everyone come in through the front door?
Those that are coming
over our borders illegally know what the score is…
Linda Vickers, who owns a
ranch in Brooks County, which is Ground Zero for the immigration debate, pins
the blame directly on talk of ‘amnesty’ and a ‘path to citizenship’ for people
who entered the U.S. illegally.
She recalls one man being
arrested on her ranch not long ago.
“The Border Patrol agent
was loading one man up, and he told the officer in Spanish, ‘Obama’s gonna let
Border Patrol agents
report that immigrants are crossing the border, and in some cases surrendering
while asking, “Where do I go for my amnesty?”
We are already becoming a
poverty-stricken nation. We simply
can’t afford to feed millions upon millions of illegal immigrants as well.
As I write this, the U.S.
national debt is $16,758,107,082,298.63.
We now have a debt to GDP
ratio of about 105 percent.
In the United States
today, the amount of money that is deposited in our banks is about 9.3 trillion dollars.
If we took every penny of that and used it to pay off the national debt, we
would still owe more than 7 trillion dollars.
We are stealing more than
100 million dollars from future generations of Americans every single hour of
every single day to pay our bills, and yet everyone seems to think that this is
The truth is that what we
are doing is absolutely criminal, and we should all be ashamed.
For much more on our
exploding national debt, please see the following article: “55 Facts About The Debt And U.S. Government Finances That Every
American Voter Should Know“.
In the end, it should be
apparent to everyone that our system is failing. Our government is
corrupt, our big banks are consumed with greed and most average Americans are
so addicted to entertainment that they have absolutely no idea what is going
What would those that
bled and died for this country think about what we have become today?
Dennis and Callaghan Morning Show
Sat, 27 Apr 2013 16:23 CDT
Boston resident Linda called in to the Dennis
The official story states that Tamerlan was
Please note, neither these radio hosts nor
Sun, 28 Apr 2013 12:31 CDT
“I saw men, women and children die during
A little after 10:00 p.m., and a serial killer
He watches his victim get out of a cab and dig
The house next door partially collapses,