Google+ Followers

Saturday, 30 June 2012

Obamacare at the US Supreme Court - Obama Wins the Battle, Roberts Wins the War

Justice Roberts.

Chief Justice John Roberts 

The chief justice’s canny move to uphold the Affordable Care Act (more commonly known as 'Obamacare'), while gutting the Commerce Clause.

There were two battles being fought in the Supreme Court over the Affordable Care Act. Chief Justice John Roberts—and Justice Anthony Kennedy—delivered victory to the right in the one that mattered.
Yes, Roberts voted to uphold the individual mandate, joining the court's 'liberal' wing to give President Obama a 5-4 victory on his signature piece of legislation. Right-wing partisans are crying treason; left-wing partisans saw their predictions of a bitter, party-line defeat undone.
But the health care law was, ultimately, a pretext. This was a test case for the long-standing—but previously fringe—campaign to rewrite Congress' regulatory powers under the Commerce Clause.
This is why the challenge to the ACA, and its progress through the courts, came as a surprise to Democrats and to mainstream constitutional scholars: Three years ago, there was no serious doubt that Congress had the power to impose the individual mandate.
A Bloomberg story last week nicely captured the stakes: "Obama Health Law Seen Valid, Scholars Expect Rejection":
The U.S. Supreme Court should uphold a law requiring most Americans to have health insurance if the justices follow legal precedent, according to 19 of 21 constitutional law professors who ventured an opinion on the most-anticipated ruling in years.
Only eight of them predicted the court would do so.
The scholars expected to see the court gut existing Commerce Clause precedent and overturn the individual mandate in a partisan decision: Five Republican-appointed justices voting to rewrite doctrine and reject Obamacare; four Democratic-appointed justices dissenting.
Roberts was smarter than that. By ruling that the individual mandate was permissible as a tax, he joined the Democratic appointees to uphold the law—while joining the Republican wing to gut the Commerce Clause (and push back against the necessary-and-proper clause as well). Here's the Chief Justice's opinion (italics in original):
Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.”
The business about "new and potentially vast" authority is a fig leaf. This is a substantial rollback of Congress' regulatory powers, and the chief justice knows it. It is what Roberts has been pursuing ever since he signed up with the Federalist Society. In 2005, Sen. Barack Obama spoke in opposition to Roberts' nomination, saying he did not trust his political philosophy on tough questions such as "whether the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce." Today, Roberts did what Obama predicted he would do.
Roberts' genius was in pushing this health care decision through without attaching it to the coattails of an ugly, narrow partisan victory. Obama wins on policy, this time. And Roberts rewrites Congress' power to regulate, opening the door for countless future challenges. In the long term, supporters of curtailing the federal government should be glad to have made that trade.

But the decision raises a further question as to the legality of the 'tax'. According to the Constitution any proposal for a new tax must be lodged with Congress. Obama realising that the Republican dominated Congress would not pass the legislation proposed it in the Senate. Together with the inability of the federal government to force this on individual States.

Friday, 29 June 2012

Usury, 1290, the Muslim faith, debt and war

The United Kingdom and the Channel Islands both make the majority of their money through the practise of Usury, far more than any other nation in the world. Total debt (public and private) in the UK is some 1000% of GDP, by far the highest in the world.

There has been much discussion recently as to the 'morality' of taxation but if we are concerned with 'moral' right then perhaps it is time to review the moral basis for the primary source of all that taxation.

Usury, the charging of interest on money loaned (or as it is latterly defined 'the charging of interest at extortionate rates') has an interesting history, as expressed in this extract from the Catholic Dictionary,
Plato (Laws, v. 742) and Aristotle (Politics, I, x, xi) considered interest as contrary to the nature of things; Aristophanes expressed his disapproval of it, in the "Clouds" (1283 sqq.); Cato condemned it (see Cicero, "De officiis, II, xxv), comparing it to homicide, as also did Seneca (De beneficiis, VII, x) and Plutarch in his treatise against incurring debts. 
Aristotle disapproved of the money trader's profit; and the ruinous rates at which money was lent explain his severity. On the other hand, the Roman and Greek laws while considering the mutuum, or loan for consumption, as a contract gratuitous in principle, allowed a clause, stipulating for the payment of interest, to be added to the bond. The Law of theTwelve Tables allowed only unciarium fenus, probably one-twelfth of the capital, or 8.33 per cent. A plebiscitum, lex Ganucia, 412 a.u.c. went so far as to forbid all interest whatever, but, at a later period, the Roman law allowed interest at 1 per cent monthly, or 12 per cent per annum. Justinian laid down as a general rule that this maximum should be reduced by half (L. 26, I, c. De usuris, IV, 32).
Chaldea allowed interest on loans (cf. Law of Hammurabi, 48 sqq.). No absolute prohibition can be found in the Old Testament; Exodus 22:25, and Deuteronomy 23:19-20, however forbid the taking of interest by one Jew from another.
It is by no means a coincidence that the major banking families are in the main, Jewish, the trade was considered a shameful one which no good Christian would take part in. So it was left to the Jews to operate the trade. The Jews have of course suffered as a result, starting in 1290 when England became the first country to expel the Jews, in this case without first allowing them to recover the monies lent out or to sell the assets which had been secured against the loans including many of the major estates of the realm. The expulsion which lasted until 1656 when Cromwell re-interpreted the edict as applying only to Jews living in England in 1290 and welcomed many of the Jews who were fleeing the Spanish Inquisition.

One religion still bans outright the practise of Usury and that is Islam. Looking to the chart above you can see that the only regions left in the world not drowning in debt are the continent of Africa and the Middle East and India and this is perhaps due as much to the Muslim religion as it is to the presence of oil. After all the United States and Russia both have natural resources in great abundance but still require debt to service their economies and/or win elections.

By 1970 the United States had mired itself in debt fighting the pointless and undeclared war in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. It had to renege on the Bretton-Woods accord which fixed the price of gold at $35 per troy ounce. Since the world came off that gold standard debt has spiralled out of control and today grows exponentially.

One has to wonder if the reason that the United States is invading the Middle East is that thanks to the prohibition of usury they cannot simply appropriate through debt, the lands, resources and gold of the Muslim nations as the Jews did to the English by 1290 and the Americans have done to the world since 1970, are these wars fought for oil or are they fought to institute the Western financial system against the religion of the people.

The worst place to be when the global financial system collapses is going to be the British Isles and probably the worst place in the British Isles to be is the Channel Islands.

Liberty means responsibility, most men dread it.

Germany has the second largest gold reserve
in the world, but they could become a whole
lot bigger if Italy, Spain, Portugal or
France default on new loans 
“If you put the government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there'd be a shortage of sand.” ― Milton Friedman

The breaking news over night was that a new agreement had been reached between Germany and the rest of the European Union. Germany has apparently shifted position and will no longer demand austerity in return for keeping the other nations afloat. Angela Merkel did not take part in the press conference.

There is clearly something we are not being told and I suspect that once the details emerge we will see that these loans (which will be made directly to banks and not to countries) are secured on whatever assets it is worth stripping from these countries - gold, natural resources, the share capital of the banks themselves.

As we have been reporting for some time this is the end game for Germany, it will probably lose some money but what it will end up with everything worth having and then be able to remove itself from a Euro which will sink as soon as Germany's intention to leave is publicly announced.

The nations of Southern Europe including Ireland and now France too are just not prepared to take responsibility for themselves but like any concerned parent Germany will at some point have to push them from the nest if they will not fly free on their own. Liberty means responsibility and that is why some people just do not want it.

More to follow but as new details are released look to see exactly what is securing these new loans and realise that it is a foregone conclusion that the PIIGS nations and France will default on them, at least this time Germany will get something for its money.

France and Italy both have sizable
gold reserves too 
“Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch."  ― Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

Germany is one of the main holders of Gold but following World War II a large amount of it was split between the US, the UK and France and carted off, now the Germans are getting nervous about it.

Speigel reported recently
Germany has gold reserves of just under 3,400 tons, the second-largest reserves in the world after the United States. Much of that is in the safekeeping of central banks outside Germany, especially in the US Federal Reserve in New York. One would think that with such a valuable stash, worth around €133 billion ($170 billion), the German government would want to keep a close eye on its whereabouts. But now a bizarre dispute has broken out between different German institutions over how closely the reserves should be checked.

Germany's federal audit office, the Bundesrechnungshof, which monitors the German government's financial management, is unhappy with how Germany's central bank, the Bundesbank, keeps tabs on its gold. According to media reports, the auditors are dissatisfied with the fact that gold reserves in Frankfurt are more closely monitored than those held abroad.

In Germany, spot checks are carried out to make sure that the gold bars are in the right place. But for the German gold that is stored on the Bundesbank's behalf by the US Federal Reserve in New York, the Bank of England in London and the Banque de France in France, the German central bank relies on the assurances of its foreign counterparts that the gold is where it should be. The three foreign central banks give the Bundesbank annual statements confirming the size of the reserves, but the Germans do not usually carry out physical inspections of the bars.
Germany's gold reserves could soon be growing.

Thursday, 28 June 2012

Are the banksters beyond the reach of the Law?

It happens when you interfere with the Free Market 
Well the three year investigation into market manipulation within the City of London has been concluded for the first of the big banks, Barclays.

The investigations are continuing at the other banks but Barclays was the bank which co-operated most fully with the investigation.

The British Bankers Association is 'shocked' according to their press release

"The British Bankers’ Association is shocked by yesterday’s report about LIBOR. The banks which contribute to the LIBOR rate must meet the necessary obligations to their regulators. The BBA has proactively co-operated with the authorities at every stage and will continue to work with the regulatory investigations into LIBOR, submitting information and making staff available for interview.

"The current LIBOR review, with which our authorities are fully engaged, has been underway since March this year and is considering all aspects including the setting process. As part of this review we will now be asking the authorities to consider in what manner the LIBOR setting mechanism should be regulated in the future."
Well they must be the only ones who are, the world is well aware that there has been wholesale manipulation of all major markets for many years.

Al Jazeera has compiled the best coverage of the event

There will of course be no prosecution against these fraudsters.

Unfortunately greater regulation only serves as a barrier to entry to the market, enshrining the monopoly of the world banks and so calls for ever more regulation perversely serve only the existing multi-nationals. No wonder the British Bankers Association favours it.

Banking has two distinct streams, normal retail banking (that is keeping our money in accounts, making and receiving payments, lending for mortgages and business loans all of which serve the economu) and trading - also known as gambling with your money which serves no one but the banksters.

The big banks make bets against each other on 'derivative products' also known as debts. When they make bad bets they lose money and when they make good bets they win money. Of course we all know that they have all lost money, that is why our governments have had to give them more so that they can go on losing it and of course taking huge salaries and bonuses at the same time. Banks aren't really interested in normal banking operations.

The free market states that when businesses fail, they die but for some reason the governments of the world have been overkeen to interfere to try to prevent this, as with any five year old if there is no negative consequence to negative behaviour they will never learn.

Max Keiser on how to get the banks back on course

75% increase in finance industry profits, that is suspicious

Banks have run off the cliff,
but have not yet looked down 
In his latest musing the Gold Jackass, Jim Willie, continues the theme that has dominated his economic analysis for years now but the end is finally upon us, the events which he and many others have been accurately predicting are all coming to pass and we cruise towards the end of Welfarism.
"Many are the events, signals, and telltale clues of a real live actual systemic failure in progress. Until the last several months, such banter was dismissed by the soldiers in the financial arena. But lately, they cannot dismiss the onslaught of evidence, a veritable plethora of ugly symptoms of conditions gone terribly wrong and solutions at best gone awry and at worst never intended in the first place. 
My theory has been steady from the TARP Fund scandal and the Too Big To Fail mantra of deceit. The plan all along since the breakdown began in September 2008 has been to preserve power, to maintain intact the insolvent banks an operational crew of zombies, to aid the financial sector bound in Wall Street, to pay benign neglect to Main Street and businesses (expect for symbols like General Motors), to expand the propaganda of a fictional recovery, and to maintain the endless wars. 
The wars serve two purposes, to enable significant fraud from overcharged services, and to hold open the gateways for sizeable money laundering flows into the Wall Street banks, those hollow structures that closely resemble a coke addict with dark teeth, wretched bones, wasted organs, lost attention, and a listless gait.
The Greek showcase is coming to a neighborhood near you in Western Europe and Great Britain, soon to feature debuts across North America. No, the United States is not immune from the horrors of ruin since its marquee billboards read Zero Percent. It only means the wrecking ball works from the inside out, serving as the central needle in the Black Hole.
An outline of the End Game can be written."
His full analysis can be found here or via the link under principal sources to the left. As usual to summarise his advice... BUY GOLD AS SOON AS YOU CAN.

Between the decision of Chile to join the list of nations not to trade in US dollars, the decision of China to recast gold into 1kg bars rather than the 100kg bars used for London delivery, the procrastination of Greece and the recent announcement of Slovenia that rather than cut spending they are going to seek a bailout a sign that European Nations are beginning to hold Germany to ransom, the end of the Western Financial System is accelerating towards it end.

I thought it might be interesting to review the propaganda currently being put out by the Jersey government so I (and I hate to admit this) stopped off at today (27th July).

The lead story is that the UK has basically started making noises that they are going to not be so favourable to Jersey, Sir Pip complaining that the newspaper had misreported him, something which every critic of the government of Jersey has been complaining about from the JEP as long as I can remember. Ian Gorst has not stood up firmly enough to defend the finance industry and Trevor Pitman calling for a fair system of tax in Jersey, I agree with him here, no tax whatsoever would be fair.

Under the business section though I found more interesting stories, firstly the now monthly 'property prices are on the way up' and 'finance industry profits soaring' yes, people of Jersey, we have never had it so good, or so the propaganda would have you believe.

Interestingly enough if profits in the finance industry are £1.1 billion, an increase of 75%, fantastic, then that suggests something dark and sinister. Things do not spike like that unless there is a reason. I can hazard a guess as to where all the bailout money is washing ashore, perhaps it is no wonder that everyone is starting to look towards us.

Wednesday, 27 June 2012

Social Security is a fraud, but Christmas was just a bad bet

Ian Christmas (not an Advocate) 
The prosecution of Jersey's magistrate-designate continues as the JEP reported

Magistrate-designate Ian Christmas is one of four defendants accused of fraud worth almost £1.5m. When the Royal Court trial begins, it will be almost four years since Mr Christmas’ office in the Magistrate’s Court was searched by police investigating fraud.
At the time, he was on the brink of being named Magistrate, and succeeding Ian Le Marquand, who is now a Senator and Home Affairs Minister. Although Mr Christmas has been working since his arrest, he has been on restricted duties and has not been sitting in court. It is understood, however, that he has still been drawing his full £110,000 to £115,000 salary. 
Mr Christmas and his co-accused – John Lewis, Russell Foot and James Cameron – face between them a total of 27 counts with a combined alleged fraud of almost £1.5m. 
As is usual with these cases the prosecution has tried to paint a picture of a man who wanted to live a 'life of luxury', somewhat lessened by the realisation that his life of 'luxury' was to be funded by a mere £1.5 million. It seems likely to me (albeit not having heard any of the case) that much of this was to arise from his own personal investment in the scheme of £60,000 as well as his commission on finding other investors.

Just putting your money in a bank is a 'risk', if the bank goes then you will lose your money, no reasonable person can possibly believe that there is any investment which is 100% safe, other than physical gold you hold in your hands of course, and even then you may see a short term loss in terms of paper money.

Just because the Magistrate-designate considered it a good investment, does not mean that it was and indeed it proved not to be, but to make it a fraud requires that he deliberately misled the investors, somewhat more difficult to prove.

On the other hand a perpetual fraud is being committed by the Social Security department, they are taking 'investments' with menaces (the threat of imprisonment and/or 'fines') and making promises that they know they cannot fulfil, this fraud is allowed to continue because, well, I don't know why.

Ultimately Ian Christmas is not an Advocate and so is not truly one of the ordained and just as Tomes was not allowed to be Bailiff maybe it was felt that the role of Magistrate required an Advocate.

We have recently even seen an Advocate jailed... what is the world coming to? The drive to somehow show that the Jersey Finance Industry is 'well-regulated' by securing a few high profile convictions it would seem is now set higher than the demands of Natural Justice.

Tuesday, 26 June 2012

Ask Not What Germany Can Do For You, Ask How Many Government Workers You Can Fire

Image from Spiegel based on calculations with ING bank 
Well the Euro crisis has ramped up again and set the touch paper to the price of gold and silver, the Spanish have indicated that they will require a further 547 billion Euros between now and 2015 to recapitalise their banks. Cyprus has also sought aid from the European Union and the Greek Finance Minister has resigned just days after being appointed. In fact it has been a rather interesting EU summit.
Merkel's unequivocal comment on her nation's unwillingness to 'share' burdens and slap the proverbial cheek of Monsieur Hollande, Italy's banking union looking for more 'aid', Spain actually asking for their bailout, Greece 'avoiding' reality, and Cyprus pulling the 'China rescue plan' last ditch retort to market angst;
I have been reporting the impeccable analysis from the Gold Jackass, that Germany is planning on leaving the Euro to the socialist nations of the South and forging its own path with its Northern European neighbours and now others are picking up on this.

I think Greece leaving the euro zone or being pushed out is now a real expectation and this is what is necessary to strengthen the rest of the euro zone because the way the financial markets work they can actually push a country like Italy into default - see this is what the weakness of the euro as it is currently structured because a developed country has no reason to default because it can always print money. By printing money it can devalue the currency and people can lose money by buying debt but there is no danger of default, but the fact that the individual members don't now control the right to print money - they have given that right over to the central bank you see, and that has created this situation with a European country that could actually default and that is the risk that the financial markets price into the market and that is why say ten-year bonds yield 6% whereas British 10-year bonds yield only 1.25%. That difference is due to the fact that these countries have abandoned the, surrendered their right to print their own money and they can be pushed into default by speculation in the financial markets.George Soros in an interview with Bloomberg

So there we have it. As I have previously written the United Kingdom is in the midst of a massive round of quantative easing £5 billion per month for the next 20 months. Well lets look at how £100 billion pounds compares to the current amount of currency in circulation. At the end of 2011 there was a total of just over £50 billion pounds in circulation. What has been proposed it effectively taking every pound and making it worth the same as 35 pence today  over the course of the next two years. In my lifetime (and I was born just after the end of the gold standard in 1971) the value of £1.00 has fallen by around 94% with this latest round of printing the pound should fall to around 2% of its 1971 value. This is what the Greek, Italian and Spanish government can no longer do. They, like every government everywhere is unwilling to cut spending (in absolute terms), its hard because the voters love 'free stuff' even but have not quite worked out yet that there is no such thing as 'free stuff', even if you can't see it you are paying for it somehow and most likely through the stealthiest tax of all, inflation.

Courtesy of
At the same time the price of gold which was fixed at $35 per ounce between 1945 and 1971 has moved in a similar manner despite wholesale attempts to discredit gold by the central banks, governments and media. The people know that ultimately only gold and silver are money and that a gold backed currency is the only thing that can replace the paper promises we currently trade in. As more money continues there is only one direction for the price of gold and that is up... not because gold becomes more valuable, but because money becomes less valuable.

Monday, 25 June 2012

On Appeals

An appeal against a decision by a Court basically involves explaining to a higher Court what prevented the lower Court from reaching a fair verdict.

It is neither

  • A second opinion
  • or a re-trial
Generally appeals will be upheld for one or more of the following reasons
  • There was a procedural error by the Judge
  • There was insufficient evidence adduced before the Court for the Judge to reach the verdict they reached
  • A key piece of evidence has since been discovered which calls into question the original verdict
  • The directions given to the jury were erroneous
In effect either the Appellant must show that the Judge made an error or that sufficient new evidence has come to light which casts into doubt the original decision.

There are three possible outcomes; appeal dismissed, appeal upheld and case dismissed or appeal upheld and a re-trial ordered.

On appealing a parking fine it is exceptionally unlikely that there will be any new evidence that can be 'adduced' to the Court  or that directions to the jury were erroneous, simply because it is exceptionally unlikely that there will be a jury. For the higher Court to uphold such an appeal basically it has to decide that the judge failed to ensure that the demands of justice were met, in other words that the judge made a mistake.

My appeal commenced at 10:00am. By 10:15am I was back at work the Royal Court having decided that the relief magistrate, not only, did not have sufficient evidence adduced before him to reach his verdict, but also that in not allowing me to conduct a defence the judge had caused a grave procedural error to occur.

It was a fairly simple matter, I arrived allowed the Law Officer to make their statement that 'as the prosecution had failed to present to the Court the documents showing that I was the registered keeper of the vehicle, the magistrate should not have reached the verdict he did and thus the Attorney General would not be resisting my appeal'. The Deputy Bailiff however was unsatisfied with this and proceeded to criticise Advocate Falle's decision not to allow me to offer evidence and stated that this was a far more serious concern of the Royal Court.

In effect the Attorney General had found the most favourable grounds on which to allow the appeal, whilst at the same time hoping that the huge errors that had been made in the case would not be bought up, but the Deputy Bailiff was aware of this and called the Law Officers on this.

Having been asked whether I wished to seek an order to Costs, an application which I chose not to make, we left the Court. What I did get was 'the manual' on how the Court operates in regard to road traffic offences and as they say, knowledge is power.

I shall now be moving on to challenging some truly shocking decisions made by Civil Servants within the 
Department of Health regarding two severely less-abled people by way of Representation to the Royal Court.

Saturday, 23 June 2012

Freeman on the Land: the Underlying Truth - Part One

I'm going to start this post (which will be a series of posts) with a disclaimer - the following is based on my personal experience in the jurisdiction of Jersey and may not be applicable to other jurisdictions particularly those which are not common law jurisdictions. This is not legal advice which in any case would only be relevant if given with regard to the specific circumstances of the situation which gave rise to your need for advice, but it is my understanding of what the law actually means and I hope it is applicable generally.

Jersey does follow the demands of justice to a great extent, but just as you are not beyond using the system to your advantage, neither are they and they have a lot more practise than you do, so let's start to balance the scales a little. If the Courts were completely corrupt then it would not matter what you said, you would be guilty anyway.

Myth One - I am not a person, I am a flesh and blood man

This is one of those strange phrases which appears quite frequently over the internet, now I have never heard one of the freeman 'gurus' use it and I expect that it is something that has been planted to create confusion in the minds of people who are using the internet to research. It is so nearly correct, but if you ever stated it in a Court of Law then they would simply look at you blankly, they will not tell you that you are wrong but they will await a fuller explanation to make sure you know what you are saying.

There is a truth beneath it though and that is Persona est homo cum statu quodam consideratus which roughly translates as a person is a man with reference to a particular status.

Every statute is of limited applicability in that it will only apply under specific conditions, for example road traffic statutes will only apply to you when you are either driving in a vehicle, a passenger in a vehicle or in very limited circumstances a pedestrian on a road. Thus when you are none of those things, when that is not your status, you are not a person within the terms of that statute.

This means that the statute cannot be applied to you, nor can any powers granted to the authorities under that statute be used against you. Thus the first task of the authorities is to establish your status, which you are under no compulsion to assist with.

Its Applicability to Parking Tickets in Jersey - an example

Parking tickets are generally issued to cars which have no occupant, no record is taken of whom was the 'driver'* who parked the car and no record is taken of whom was the 'driver'* who subsequently removed the car. Thus often at the time of the offence as recorded on the ticket there was no 'driver'* as to hold that particular status you must be 'in effective control of the speed and direction of the vehicle' (*there are many different legal definitions of 'driver' and which one applies varies according to usage, however under the Road Traffic Statutes, this is the one which applies).

The Court assumes that the 'driver' is the 'registered keeper', however this does not remove the responsibility of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a particular man was the driver and therefore is a person as defined in the statute and is thus subject to the statute and thus liable to pay the penalty set forth. However, you have the right to remain silent except under oath.

The effect on the pre-trial process

Did you ever wonder why the parking tickets are worded the way they are and why the authorities cannot summons you to the Magistrate's Court, (although they can issue a document which looks like a summons), the reason is that they have not yet established you as the driver and you therefore are not yet a 'person' and thus the statute does not apply to you. Any powers granted to the authorities to compel you to attend are thus also not yet available to them.

Elements of Proof

Any case against you will require a number of elements of proof, this is whether criminal or civil. The first element of proof in any case must be that you hold the status described in the law or that you are the person named in the pleading. If this cannot be proven then the case will fall before the first hurdle.

The prosecution must indeed prove that you are a person, but unless you understand what that actually means you will merely be displaying your ignorance of the law if you use Myth One.

Friday, 22 June 2012

Give me Liberty, give me Responsibility, I am an adult not a child

I was invited to speak to the Commission yesterday  
I must admit that it was with more than a little surprise that the electoral commission invited me to give evidence to them directly, not that I am assuming that I will have much influence over them, but to prejudice the outcome by not taking part in the process is nothing short of self-defeating.

I compiled a more complete submission than the one previously reported on this blog, extending to some five thousand words, admittedly largely taken from existing posts on this blog focusing on the principle of Subsidiarity.

Unsurprisingly this idea and the extensions of the principle were taken seemingly seriously; the principle holds that any decision should be taken by the lowest competent authority and is a principle which applies to Law, to Liberal Constitutions and large organisations and was in fact developed by the Pope as a principal of organisation for the Church and Christian Society.

Nick Le Cornu, graciously gave up his time to sit through the process and I am sure will be commenting soon but my turn came after a break during which the commission held private discussions, whether this is a good or bad sign, I cannot tell.

Looking through the submissions which have been made, I would comment solely that mine is one of the few which tries to provide some academic or ideological basis for its conclusions whilst the majority I would contend are varying opinions on the same theme.

We shall have to await the conclusions of the Commission however I'm going to repeat the proposals I put forward -

  • That the principal of Subsidiarity be used as the guiding principle of any Constitutional change.
  • That wherever possible individuals be allowed to retain the right to make decisions for themselves
  • That responsibility for more policy areas be returned to the Parish Assembly, that any such change would necessitate that Constables devote more of their time to the Parish and that Constables should no longer therefore retain their place in the States.
  • That the States solely hold responsibility for those areas which cannot reasonably be returned to the Parishes and that their membership be elected by a number of single member constituencies of approximately 2,500 electors per constituency.
In this way the role of the JEP in elections is severely limited, the accountability of each member is maximised and there can be a diverse range of ideas present in the Chamber rather than the current situation where we have a small number of Socialists, and a large number of Authoritarians, maybe one or two from the economic right, but no Libertarians.

Taking the meaningless decisions such as where a bus stop is to be situated out of the hands of the States will also ensure that such meaningless issues have no effect on elections to the States, but will remain local issues for the local parishes to deal with exclusively.

I am grateful to Cyril Vibert for his comments 'Personal freedom goes hand in hand with taking personal responsibility' which I did indeed extrapolate on at the Commission observing that,
When someone shows that they are not capable of taking personal responsibility, society's response is to take away their freedom but also all their responsibilities - society imprisons them. In requesting more personal freedom for myself I also realise that I am requesting personal responsibility, government is not capable of looking after all the people from cradle to grave, there is no more money to do it with in any case, it is time for individuals to take back some of the responsibility for themselves and with it a greater degree of personal freedom.
I would rather be free to choose my own way and suffer or enjoy the consequences of my own actions as well as anything that life might throw at me, rather than risk become more and more like a prisoner who has no responsibility and no freedom, that is not life.

Thursday, 21 June 2012

The economic future of the US, Germany, the EU and Jersey

The US Treasury Black Hole
Sucking in all available Capital 
A failed paper currency, a fiat currency with no intrinsic value, cannot be replaced with another paper currency. Gold backed currencies are now inevitable.

The pre-eminence of the US dollar is currently enshrined within the SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) system but as a result of the aggression of the United States relaince on this system for the settlement of international trades is fading. Iraq was the first nation to accept settlement for oil in euros rather that in dollars, perhaps a reason for the successive invasions. But now other countries are breaking ranks and beginning to accept settlements in other currencies; Russia, China, Japan, Iran all of them are moving away from the US dollar as the means of payment.

You may have heard yesterday that there would be no QE3 but that Operation Twist would be extended. Well there are a couple of issues, firstly Quantative Easing has never ceased. It is simply not possible to go on endlessly spending more money that you do not have without printing more; whether it is the US, the UK, Switzerland, Japan or another nation someone, somewhere is printing ever more money and that money is being sucked into US Treasuries which is having a black hole like effect on all available capital.

Secondly what exactly is Operation Twist? It is the purchase of short dated treasuries and the sale of longer term treasuries, quite literally 'kicking the can down the road', the trouble is that eventually you reach the end of the road and the end of the map and 'thar be dragons' with their piles of gold. With interest on 30 year bonds closing in fast on 2% and interest on ten year bonds closing in on 1% and with the US already paying $450 billion a year in interest there really is no way that these interests rates can rise without bankrupting the nation.

Interestingly there is a way that the Banksters can profit from this. The US federal reserve is a private company owned by the major banking families, it could simply declare itself bankrupt. If bankruptcy is declared then what will happen to all those federal reserve notes, more commonly called dollars? Well they become irredeemable, although more than likely some provision will be made to ensure that the dollars held by foreign nations are reedemable.

Interestingly it is within the lifetime of some Germans that exactly the same thing happened in their country, an economy based on war inflated out of all proportion and the currency essentially became worthless, with the price of a single egg rising to 4 Billion Reichmarks by the end of the second world war, inflation in Hungary at one point actually hit 12.49 million percent, it is therefore not unsurprising that the Germans (and more particularly the Austrian School of Economics) have a slightly different view of economics to the more familiar Keynesian model, and one that has proven to be more accurate.

The Soviet Union too had its own collapse as a result of over-centralisation and excessive regulation, this is within most living memories, so it is surprising that the European Union has sought in the period since to emulate the mistakes of the Soviet Union, but it is not surprising that repeating the same mistakes has led to the same conclusion.

Russia has a vast wealth of natural resources, Germany has the management and technological skills and China (an economy which is being ever LESS regulated and allowing ever MORE personal freedom) is a vast untapped market with the inherited capabilities of all the Hong Kong entrepreneurs.

It would seem likely that these nations would be ready to rescue the world system with new gold backed currencies, but only once the western system finally fails. They will not want to be blamed for the collapse, and rightly so, it is not their fault. But they are quietly moving all the gold from the western banks and Germany is quietly collecting all the gold from the Southern European nations in preparation for what is to come.

So where did the PIIGS nations (including France) go wrong? In 1999 when the Euro floated these countries enjoyed 3% rates on their borrowing, rather than use this to improve their economic standing they went on a massive spending spree - yes they over paid their civil servants and gave out over generous benefits to bribe the electors to vote for them but for example in Greece military spending was ramped up, for no particular reason. A large proportion of this increased spending flowed  back to Germany.

Nigel Farage '20% of the funds for the Spanish Bailout Will Come from Italy
who will lend to Spain at 3%, but this money will be borrowed from the market at 7%' 

In Jersey we have acted like a PIIGS nation, our civil servants are vastly over-paid, our government is vastly over-spending on services that we never really needed and still don't. Spending in 2005 broke £500 million for the first time, in 2011 it was up to £735 million and can anyone tell me what the extra £235 million pays for?

What do we have now that we did not have in 2005 except for massive immigration and a corresponding increase in the number of benefit recipients? This is the mindless and nonsensical pursuit of GDP growth at all costs, because someone, somewhere set a target that could not be met by any other means.

Sunday, 17 June 2012

Fool Brittania - Deuxième Partie

Monetary Easing
'Rob from the People to give to the Banks' 
Russian Today reports
"The Bank of England and the UK Treasury have revealed plans for a £100 billion support program in order to stimulate British banking to provide cheaper loans during the time of recession. 
British Chancellor George Osborne explained the emergency plan, called “funding for lending” scheme, requires the Bank of England to provide cut rate lending to banks in order for them to pass on the lower interest rates to customers.
Osborne pointed out the scheme was developed in order to avoid a possible credit crunch and higher interest rates in Britain, as the banks are reluctant to lend at the time of economic uncertainty. The plan could secure an £80bln in loans to businesses and households within weeks, according to the Chancellor. 
He also warned that British economy should rely on tight fiscal policy and active monetary policy in supporting its economy, while “things could get worse before they get better” in the eurozone with a probable Greek exit.
Meanwhile the Bank of England Governor Sir Mervyn King raised hopes on a new round of quantitative easing, saying that “the case for a further monetary easing is growing”. On Friday the Bank of England starts pouring £5bln a month into British banking to boost its liquidity."
 There is something of a lie hidden within this article, firstly where exactly is this £100 billion coming from? Is it from some previously unexplored vault beneath Westminister? A kind philanthropist who took pity on the poor nation of Britain? A white knight riding to Cameron's rescue?

I suspect it is from the printing press... Just a few weeks ago their Bosses in the White House were saying that England will need to put money into the "system" to simulate growth and naturally the servant has obeyed it's master.

This is 'monetary easing'. Why then does the Bank of England Governor proceed to state that  “the case for a further monetary easing is growing” whilst the Chancellor states that monetary easing will continue at a rate of £5 billion per month for the next twenty months? Confused, you will be.

                       Apr     Mar     Feb     Jan     Dec     Nov     Oct
Country               2012    2012*   2012*   2012*   2011*   2011    2011
                     ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------

China, Mainland      1145.5  1144.0  1155.2  1166.2  1151.9  1254.5  1256.0
Japan                1066.1  1076.3  1085.4  1082.8  1058.0  1066.8  1006.9   
United Kingdom        154.2   121.9   116.1   114.1   111.7   124.9   106.8

The above chart courtesy of the US Treasury shows that whilst China has cut it's holding of US treasuries by some $100 billion, the slack has been taken up by Japan and the United Kingdom. Of course the US has issued a total of $250 billion of new debt in this period.

If the total assets in the world can be expressed as having a value equal to the total supply of money in the world and the total supply of money in the world increases by 10% then the value of the world's total assets when expressed in monetary terms increases by 10%, but clearly the actual value of assets never changes and the value of money decreases.

This is inflation. It is happening before your very eyes, the government is not hiding it but proclaiming it.

What does it mean for you?

The value of your salary, savings and pensions is decreasing. Every time your house does not go up 10% in value, you are losing some of your wealth.

The UK government has decided that it is more important that the banks do not have to recognise their bankruptcy than you be allowed to retain whatever value you currently hold. The banks appreciate your sacrifice!

Saturday, 16 June 2012

The Revolution Continues

Courtesy of
It has been a most interesting Republican Nomination Battle and whilst there are still those who want to believe that the dream can become reality at the National Convention in Tampa the focus of the Campaign for Liberty has moved on to ensuring that certain candidates are elected to Congress and the Senate and that some influence is exerted on the policies of  Mitt Romney at the forthcoming campaign.

But with approximately 10% to 20% support across the United States including many registered Democrats and Independents being drawn to the Liberty message these are votes which the Republican Party need to hold onto if they hope to win. With Ron Paul attracting over 50% of the votes of the under 30 age group and amongst Hispanics, the very groups which the Republican Party requires to win the election.

In fact the person who polls best is Ron Paul, he alone would beat Obama in an election but he can only get the support of 17% of Republicans.

For many Libertarians there is no choice in the forthcoming election - the train is headed towards a bridge that's down, whether it travels at 100 mph (Obama) or 85 mph (Romney) the train is still going to crash.

I have been honoured this week with a mention in the comments on Jon Haworth's blog. To answer the question, I am not of the useless left-right spectrum, nor am I particularly concerned with who exactly sits in the States of Jersey in fact I think that I am usually amongst the few and the proud who vote for the candidates who don't get elected, but then I make an informed choice.

I am keen to spread the Libertarian message in Jersey, I believe it is necessary that the entire Western world moves away from the failed Keynsian system of debt and government dependency that is finally approaching its inevitable end.

Libertarianism is both the latest political ideology to emerge and is at the same time one of the oldest, Classical Liberalism. It combines right wing economic freedoms and left wing personal freedoms and as such is opposed to the intervention of the State upon the freedom and liberty of the individual. I have always believed this to be the case but now I have found a politician who is of a like mind, Dr Ron Paul.

Far more important that being President of the United States, he has spread the message of Liberty and the message has spread like wild fire throughout the Western World, with the younger generation (those of us under 60 who will not get a pension) waking up and realising that our parents have left us with all their debts to pay.

When you are ready to begin your education I would recommend that you Google Ron Paul and listen to his speeches on You Tube; he is that most rare of creatures, an honest politician.

Ron Paul on exponential debt growth

Friday, 15 June 2012

The ECB, Greece's vulture fund?

Interestingly this week the Greeks received a $4.2 billion bailout from the European Financial Stability Fund (EFSF) and promptly used the money to purchase Greek bonds purchased by the European Central Bank (ECB) last year.

The Greek Government, no longer a sovereign nation but under the control of the European Banking Troika, paid back the bonds at their full face value, giving the European Central Bank (who had originally purchased the bonds at a 20 to 30% discount) a profit of some 480 million Euros.

So let's examine that transaction closely...

The Greek people have accepted another $4.2 billion of debt obligations which will require further 'austerity' to pay for and the money has not been used for anything but to pay off other debts which has allowed the lender (the ECB) to recognise a profit, which will not be used for anything but to award themselves huge sums for the administration of the scheme to rob the Greek people.

You may recall that all other lenders were forced to accept a loss on those same bonds... so why did the ECB not have to?

The Greek people go to the polls on the 17th June and have another chance to vote for the only possible resolution to their woes... a full default on all outstanding debt and a declaration of bankruptcy.

Look at how the system has been working in Spain... the ECB has been lending to banks at 1% interest and these banks have in turn been lending the money to Spain at 6% interest, but they have been lending the money to Spain who have been using the money to shore up the banks, who are bankrupt.

At that rate the debt simply cannot do anything but increase... Spain too is in the same Sovereign Debt death spiral. The next countries to fall will be Slovenia and Italy.

So what is the ultimate purpose for Germany? The aim is to remove all the Gold from the other nations of the European Union, the Gold which is the collateral on these EFSF loans to these nations... not only that but to take control of all the income generating assets (such as solar power generation in Greece).

At the end of the day it all comes down to GOLD.

What does it mean for US in Jersey?

Well we have no debt, it is true. We do however have a vastly over inflated civil service which spends £600 million per year and relies on £300 million per year in income from these bankrupt banks.

In this regard we are very similar to the United Kingdom (which is the relatively unregulated offshore centre for the US financial system), the problem that will ultimately kill the United Kingdom is not just the high level of Sovereign Debt (which in truth is worse than most of these struggling Euro countries but as they have their own currency it doesn't matter so much) but the level of private debt which is 450% of the total GDP of the United Kingdom.

In Jersey no figures are produced to show the level of Private Debt, but given that we have been in a continuous housing bubble for the past thirty years and given that we could borrow seven or eight times our earnings for mortgages and that most people have maxed out credit cards, car loans etc. I would be surprised if the level of Private Debt in Jersey did not exceed that of the United Kingdom.

What that means is that if the government tries to squeeze the people of Jersey to make up for any reduction in income from the finance industry then there is no more blood to be drawn and people will be en desastre in no time.

The thinking is that the UK will be hardest hit, well that is only because most people do not consider Jersey.

Thursday, 14 June 2012

Fiddling while Rome burns

Persona est homo cum statu quodam consideratus but what rights and duties arise from the status of Minister and how does it affect the proposition of Senator Ferguson of Censure against Senator Ozouf. I am specifically concerned with the following statement.

"Members will have heard the Minister for Treasury and Resources claiming that it is his job to challenge Officers and also to achieve best value for the States."

Well this is not quite true, it is the duty of the Minister, having taken regard of any advice provided by his civil servants, to make decisions regarding policy. He must of course always be mindful that he is a representative of the public and their wishes. Finally it is not to achieve the best value for the States of Jersey but for the taxpayer.

However, Senator Fergusson continues

"We have no problem with this."

Therein lies the problems at the heart of the States of Jersey. Neither the Minister himself, nor his colleagues are aware of the duties and rights which arise from the position of Minister.

You can follow the rest of the proposition and comments from Senator Ozouf, Senator Fergusson and Deputy Le Herrissier at the Team Voice blog.

But let us get to the real nitty-gritty of the problem underlying the symptom of a motion of censure against Senator Ozouf, the question of whether the Civil Service or the Minister should make the decisions.

Property Holdings and WEB have done very little to serve the community, they have spent a lot of money, gone forwards and backwards, doodled, dawdled and delayed whilst being paid exorbitant wages. They are both failing to provide either value or service. Senator Ozouf tried to make changes.

Not the changes I would like to see - which is to make them a private company leasing the properties from the States of Jersey and operating on their own profitability without government financial backing and indeed to make payments in regard of the leases on the properties, but to streamline the departments.

The ridiculous thing is that the States of Jersey have made it virtually impossible for an employer to remove an employee who is not performing at an acceptable level (i.e. earning his keep), this is stymieing job creation in the private sector and is now making it difficult for Ministers to achieve anything once in a position to do so.

The truth is that the Waterfront was supposed to herald a new era for Jersey as a world financial centre, just at the time when the global financial system began its death spiral, the Waterfront will never achieve the vision set out for it now and WEB is just a continuing drain on public resources, one which thanks to their own legislation the States of Jersey cannot free themselves from.

Senator Ozouf has come up against the hidden power that lurks within the States of Jersey, the immovable, irredeemable Civil Service and there are some in the States who are taking the opportunity to exact their vengeance for past slights.

Senator Fergusson finishes

"Misleading the States and the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel when stating that in order to meet £65 million savings a culture change would be required to achieve the necessary organisational changes, even though the Chief Executive made it known that it was not possible to carry out an office strategy at the same time as the Comprehensive Spending Review"

Herein we find the ultimate truth, Senator Fergusson does not say that the Chief Executive 'advised' he simply 'made it known'. A Civil Servant does not make decisions, he merely advises. The servant has become the master.

It seems ludicrous to me to suggest that it was not possible to examine two separate contingencies at the same time, what I suspect is that the Chief Executive was playing for time in order to avoid any cut to his budget or staff which viewers of Yes, Minister will recognise as a time honoured civil service ploy to prevent a minister from making a decision they do not agree with.

I would suggest to both Senator Fergusson and Senator Ozouf that we the people who you are supposedly represent, want above all else to see precisely what the Civil Service do not want - a reduction in the amount spent by, the diminishing of the responsibilities of, and a reduction in the number of people employed by, the Civil Service in Jersey.

These are the departments I would start with - the JFSC, Jersey Finance, JCRA, WEB and Social Security.

The members of the States of Jersey need to put aside this fighting and get on with the serious business of repealing statutes and putting Civil Servants out of what is loosely termed 'work', if they want the States of Jersey to survive what awaits us after this year's US presidential elections. The sooner we start, the better.

Tuesday, 12 June 2012

Preparations for the Appeal

My appeal will finally be heard on the 25th June at 10:00 am, with Cyril Vibert's to be heard at 2:30 p.m. on the same day.

This is the basis of my case, with of course a few cards up one's sleeve to play at the pertinent moment.

This is a matter of public record

Dear Advocate O'Donnell,

I have found that Persona est homo cum statu quodam consideratus which I believe means that a man is a person with reference to a certain status, in virtue of which certain rights belong to a man and certain duties are imposed upon him.

So far I can find that I have certain 'unalienable' or un-lienable rights which means that these are granted by God and no lien may be placed upon them by any man nor can any duties arise from them other than those given by God (i.e. not to kill, not to steal etc., but I'm pretty certain God never said be careful where you park your car), the States of Jersey are compelled to follow this as a result of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 1.

Looking at the Crown - Alfred the Great decreed that there should be one law which would apply equally to all and that any man might bring his case before the King, clearly since these statutes do not fall into that category as for example I cannot bring a case before the King (or the Royal Court in his place) about someone parking in an unloading bay. Therefore my 'status' as a British Citizen, should indeed that be my status, would not compel me to follow Jersey statutes.

Therefore I surmise that there must be a further status which you are seeking to apply to me of which I am not aware. If there is such a status it is not one which I have entered into knowingly or willingly and therefore is unenforceable in a Court of Law.

As far as I am aware as a human being I have a 'common law' right to travel and if whilst travelling I am simultaneously operating a vehicle this does not make me a 'driver' as I am not 'employed' at the time, nor does it afford me any other status than those described above.

Further examination of Black Law Dictionary suggests that an 'individual who is not the incumbent of an office' is a private person. The European Convention on Human Rights Article 8 further states that it is not sufficient that a private person has acted in a manner which is in breach of statute it must also show that any penalty "is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others." I would suggest to you that the actions of the authorities in this matter are none of the above and therefore the actions of the States of Jersey in this matter are both unlawful and not compliant with the demands of the European Convention on Human Rights.

I would also point out that following a series of Human Rights abuses perpetrated against me by Officers of the States of Jersey I declared myself independent from their authority in 2008, whilst remaining a British Citizen, as is my right under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, specifically the Right to Self Determination.

Just assuming that you are attempting to ascribe an erroneous status to me (which I suspect is that of 'driver').

I would point out that you have no evidence to suggest that Mr. Pearce was the driver of the vehicle and whilst it may be the case that the Court will initially make the assumption that the registered keeper of the vehicle is the driver, there is evidence to the contrary as presented to the Magistrate and therefore this assumption cannot be made in this case as a result of the evidence to the contrary. Indeed as the only evidence before the Court is that Mr. Pearce was not the driver, as the 'Crown' have not chosen to present any evidence in this regard, I believe the case should be immediately and summarily dismissed.

Secondly there is no evidence whatsoever that anyone was acting in the person of Mr. Pearce (whatever rights and duties he holds) at the time of the alleged offence and thus there can be no certainty that the right person has been charged. Indeed there is evidence to the contrary that the sole authorised representative was acting as a different person at the time and therefore Mr. Pearce cannot have been the driver.

Thirdly, the person who parked the car is not necessarily the person responsible for the infraction since the offence is exceeding a time limit, were there a driver, the identity of the driver may have changed between one person parking the car and the person who failed to remove it at the appointed time.

Further I operate under the assumption that this is an appeal from an administrative hearing and would be grateful if you would correct me as is your duty under Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights. I therefore challenge your assertion that you are my administrator and I am your trustee, I am a trustee of God alone and unless you have the written authority of God I am bound only by my conscience as a God fearing man.

I shall compile this into a bundle in time for Court but I wished you to have every opportunity to research and answer these points and I am aware that there is less than two weeks until the hearing.

Of course if you believe that further discussion would best serve the Court as is your Duty as a member of the Law Society then should you feel minded to correct any erroneous observations that I have made, as I am not a man of Learning, I am always willing to discuss the matter further and seek a resolution which will save the Court's time.

The Man commonly known as Darius Pearce