Washburn's World

Milwaukee – Life in the Constitution-Free Zone

2009-05-02T22:49:00.009-05:00

The Department of Homeland Security (sic) claims that the US Federal Constitution does not apply to any person or property within 100 miles of an international border. For most reading this blog, that is you and your home.

As this map shows, this Constitution-free zone includes all of Milwaukee county and most of eastern Wisconsin. Many of my, it-is-not-fascism-when-our-side-does-it, colleagues in the cheddar-sphere cheered as George Bush shredded the Constitution with decrees such as this 100-mile Constitution-free zone. This is because they mistakenly thought such power would only be used on illegal immigrants and "terrorists". This belief is/was in spite of the fact that George Bush and the sponsor of this abomination, Wisconsin's own Jim Sensenbrenner, expressly included American citizens in the definition of "Terrorist".

This video by Pastor Steve Anderson of Faithful Word Baptist Church of Tempe, AZ is a peek into the future of Milwaukee. The unusual thing about the Pastor Anderson encounter is the Department of Homeland Security(sic) abused a citizen who refused to act like a serf and, judging by the Faithful Word website and blog, the errors were compounded by the fact that they abused an internet-savvy pastor who clearly has not been given a spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.

As is the case with most bullies when they are caught pounding kids on the playground, the Department of Homeland Security(sic) has issued the official statement: "I didn't do it. Nobody saw me do it. You can't prove anything." But, the part of this story yet to unfold are the video tapes from dozens of points of view which the Department of Homeland Security(sic) made of the incident. If the few current youTube videos are causing such public outrage, I am keen to see what will be the effect when dozens of "official" videos are released.

We reap what we sow. And the JBERBs have made clear, Pastor Anderson is the first of many Americans to be beaten and tasered for demanding the Constitution be treated as if it were the supreme law of the land. The Constitution is not Terrorism even if the jack boots say it's terrorism.

For 8 years people applauded as George Bush and Jim Sensenbrenner shredded the Constitution, yet now, those same people are aghast that the resulting confetti will not protect them as Obama implements and advances the Bush Doctrine against the American people.

dum spiro pugno ⇒ dum spiramus pugnamus

Fort Detrick losing Samples

2009-04-30T10:17:00.006-05:00

One of the things I like to watch for is news about Fort Detrick. This is because Fort Detrick is the source of the lethal pathogen used in the only known bio-terrorist attack within the US; The October, 2001 Anthrax attacks on:

Two political opponents of George Bush,
A newspaper photo journalist critical of Bush's drunken daughter, Jenna, and
The unfortunate postal workers who were the delivery vehicle(s)

In two articles, here and here, it is noted that Fort Detrick has lost many samples of its various viruses and bacteria; both weaponized and not. Now to be fair, the lab may not have lost the samples, but just may have an inventory control system such that quartermaster at Fort Detrick cannot either

locate the samples within Fort Detrick, or
cannot determine when, where, or to whom the samples were transferred from Fort Detrick

I honestly don't know which scares me more; that the lab lost samples or has inventory control so poor that samples only "appear" missing.

To truly add to my pessimism is the fact that the Wall Street Journal opined that the current, scary strain of swine flu is synthesized from 4 different strains affecting 3 different species (Human, swine, and avian) from 3 continents (North America, Europe, Asia). The hysteria over the swine flu is just that: hysteria whipped up by pompous power grabbers looking for a chance to prove their usefulness via "appropriate responses". Also the initial report of the recombinant nature of the flu strain appears in error and may only be two comingled strains of pig flu which have, without warning or precedent, broken out first among humans instead of swine.

Also the US government turned over the current strain of swine flu, designated H1N1, to a Boston lab, Replikins Ltd sometime before April 8, 2008.

So what we have are dots which probably done even form a plane let alone a line.

A laboratory with a history of providing/losing lethal pathogens to person or persons unknown who in turn release those pathogens on US citizens.
A facility which admits doing research on the many strains of influenza virus
Including the 1918 strain which Dr. Taubenberger, of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (located at Fort Detrick), ordered dug up from the Alaskan permafrost.
A strain of the influenza virus identified last April as the one most likely to cause a pandemic, and
This year that same swine flu virus emerges for the first time in the human population without first having emerged in the swine population.

It is unlikely these dots are as connected as the listing above would indicate, but it would be prudent to ask questions such as:

When did Fort Detrick first receive the H1N1 strain of the influenza virus?
Are all the samples of N1H1 virus at Fort Detrick properly secured and accounted for?

As always with Fort Detrick, there are far more questions than answers.

In Memorium - John Gideon

2009-04-29T01:21:00.004-05:00

I was stuck with the news that one of my friends, John Gideon, had died today. Well, yesterday, since it has taken me until after midnight to compose my thoughts on the passing of this great man.

John Gideon was the co-founder of VotersUnite.org, the editor of the Daily Voting News, and a tireless advocate for justice and election integrity. You can read more of his work in this eulogy at the BradBlog.com.

But, John is and was more than his work.

I have a limited number of friends and I count myself blessed to be able to claim John Gideon as one of them. I only physically met John Gideon once when we attended the National Summit to Save Our Elections in October of 2005. Over the past 3-1/2 years we often worked together via email and telephone. In that time, we became friends.

I have benefited greatly from his sage advice, his affectation for technical incompetence, his stiff-necked inspiration, but mostly from his good humor.

More than once he reminded me that Liberty in general and election integrity in particular is a day to day swim against a sometimes stiff current. His humor and optimism combined with his diligence and persistence is/was an inspiration to me an others.

My world, our world, is smaller and poorer place for his absence. I will remember and cherish our friendship until the day I am called home.

Good bye, My Friend. Truly, may you now rest in peace where the yoke is easy and the burdens are light.

The Stasi In the USA

2009-04-16T20:22:00.015-05:00

I reported earlier on the official government designation of terrorist to all who think the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land and is primarily power-limiting document rather than a power-granting document.

As would be expected, the imperial follow-up after such classification is to spy on said ~~dissenter(s)~~ terrorist(s) Enter the Homeland Security Department called the Extremism and Radicalization Branch and its official plan for said spying. This is the administrative creation of the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. (See here: for the six representatives who took their oath to support the Constitution seriously. (Not surprisingly, Jim SenselessBrenner was not among them. Surprisingly, neither was Ron Paul).

This means that for the first time in American history, the federal government has a full-time intelligence organ devoted exclusively to scrutinizing the political opinions and affiliations of U.S. citizens. Well, the first time the domestic spying was public.

If you think I am exaggerating, I will let the J-BERB's speak for themselves:

DHS/I&A will be working with its state and local partners over the next several months to ascertain with greater regional specificity the rise in rightwing extremist activity in the United States, with a particular emphasis on the political, economic, and social factors that drive rightwing extremist radicalization

Oh, by the way, this DHS-ERB document is not to be shared with the public, media, or Congress and is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The relevant quotes are [emphasis mine]:

LAW ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION NOTICE: This product contains Law Enforcement Sensitive (LES) information. No portion of the LES information should be released to the media, the general public, or over non-secure Internet servers. Release of this information could adversely affect or jeopardize investigative activities.

and

Warning: This document is UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (U//FOUO). It contains information that may be exempt from public release under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). It is to be controlled, stored, handled, transmitted, distributed, and disposed of in accordance with DHS policy relating to FOUO information and is NOT to be released to the public, the media, or other personnel who do not have a valid need-to-know without prior approval of an authorized DHS official. State and local homeland security officials may share this document with authorized security personnel without further approval from DHS.

Someone is facing a year in jail for disclosing this document. Here is the relevant quote from §214 (f) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002

... shall be fined under title 18 of the United States Code, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, and shall be removed from office or employment.

Thank goodness there are still some peace officers scattered among the legions of police and law enforcement officers in the country.

The continued domestic spying on citzens in general and dissidents in particular, is just further implementation of the Ten Steps to Closing Down a Free Society by Naomi Wolfe from her 2007 book, The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot. Those ten steps are:

Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy.
Create secret prisons where torture takes place.
Develop a thug caste or paramilitary force not answerable to citizens.
Set up an internal surveillance system.
Harass citizens' groups.
Engage in arbitrary detention and release.
Target key individuals.
Control the press.
Treat all political dissidents as traitors.
Suspend the rule of law.

The DHS-ERB is the American version of the Stasi (Stasi 2.0 if you will) for the post-republican, imperial Bush-Obama regime.

My prediction is the ERB and their minions, the J-BERB's (Jack Boots at the Extremism and Radicalization Branch), will exceed the reach, scope, and terror of the East German Stasi and will do so with the thunderous applause of Law and Order conservatives and ACORN radicals.

h/t to Pro Libertate

P.S.
If you have not heard of Naomi Wolf, then I recommend the following videos:

Banksters at "Work"

2009-04-16T14:09:00.011-05:00

Goldman-Sachs Posted a 1.8 billion profit for the first quarter of 2009. The funny thing about that is that Goldman-Sachs had $1.3 billion in write-downs for December, 2008. How do you lose 1.3 billion in a single month (December, 2008) and still make 1.8 billion over three months (December, January, February)?

Simple, you ignore the losses from December and report on the 3 months (January, February, and March 2009) for which you had profits. Here is the report from the New York Times and a similar report from The DOW Jones Report.

How this legal scam works is simple. The 2008 Fiscal Year 2008 for Goldman-Sachs Fiscal ran from December 2007 to November 2008. Goldman-Sachs changed its fiscal years to now coincide with the calendar year. Because of the change the fiscal year 2009 for Goldman-Sachs will runs from January 2009 through December 2009. Notice December 2008 is in neither fiscal year. This makes December 2008 a "stub month" and is not reported within either fiscal year. Most likely the results for December 2008 will appear in a footnote of the consolidated finacial reports.

In simpler terms:

Move all your losses to a single month; December 2008
Change the definition of your fiscal year to so no fiscal year includes the month with all the losses.
Vacuum up billions of bailout money through the bankster money conduit known as AIG via (arguably fraudulent) credit default swap (CDS) contracts.
Report that you "beat your numbers in a spectacular way" and offer to sell more than $5 billion of stock to the unsuspecting public.

While the stubbing of December is legal, the Emperor of the Treasury can do ANYTHING he wants to Goldman-Sachs because of the Orwellianly named, Emergency Economic Recovery and Stabilization Act. And any action taken by the Emperor of the Treasury is beyond legal review by any court but the US Supreme Court. See section 119.

Good thing the US Treasury department is full of ex-Goldman-Sachs Boyz (eGSB'z). So rest assured, there will be no heavy handed investigation of Goldman-Sachs cooking their books, ripping off US taxpayer via the Government laundering money through AIG, and no firing of executives at Goldman-Sachs by Obama, the Blessed.

H/T to George Washington's Blog

Big Brother Watches us so, we We Watch Him Back

2009-04-05T00:13:00.016-05:00

Update Below
One of the songs I love is Wake Up! (It's 1984) by Oingo Boingo. The title of this post is from the lyrics of this song.

Most technology is morally neutral and can be used for good and evil; often time simultaneously. It is a technological arms race between those of us who use technology to expand Liberty those who use technology to expand Government. Because as one waxes the other wanes. The exercise of your G-d given rights is a zero sum game; either Govenment is powerless to prevent your expression or it CAN limit your expression.

Here is a small battle on the Liberty-Government front where technology was used for Liberty.
If I get the the full 25 minutes of audio I will post it.
Here is link to the full audio. As expected the TSA goons have trouble handle free men instead of serfs. I especially like the threat "I'll help you understand". Didn't Rodney King also get such instructional help?

His "game" was to not cower like a serf. His "game" was to not answer a question without his attorney present. His "game" was to ask the appropriate questions; "Am I legally required to answer that question?" and "Am I free to go?". His "game" was assuming the Constituion of the United States survived its encounter with George W Bush.

Clearly, this guy is one of those Consitutional terrorists MIAC warned the ST. Louis TSA about, because Silence in the Face of Official Questioning is protected by the fifth amendment of the Constitution.

In case you need to know why that is important read the story of Sir Thomas Moore.

But the practical reasons are stated in this video by defense attorney, James Duane.
The advice is simple (and in the first 30 seconds): "NEVER speak to the POLICE without an attorney." In case you think only defense attorneys believe this, here is the same advice from a police detective with 25 years of experience.
Officer Bruch's advice is the same : "NEVER speak to the POLICE without an attorney."

We recently had a case where an honest, law-abiding citizen was doing what Shirley Abrahamson ordered him to do if he wanted to exercise the G-d given right protected under Article I section 25. In Philip Cole v Wisconsin, Shirley Abrahamson, ruled that Wisconsin is an unfettered open carry state. It was a good thing he too recorded his conversation with the police. I speculate that recording and the threat of it being played in open court helped with the dismissal of the case.

Honest citizen needs to record there interactions with the police if possible. Wisconsin is a single party recording state and having your own recording is really useful when there is a "glitch" with the dashboard cam and/or the body mike.

Tape the Police when you can because it may keep you out of jail, but mostly because you still can.

It's Official - I am a terrorist

2009-03-16T10:51:00.009-05:00

The Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC), a military "fusion" center similar to the one in Texas and the one in Wisconsin. Check for the fusion center near you.

If you have never heard of fusion centers you are not alone. I only learned about the fusion centers this weekend. But in our defense, they are a secretive bunch. Even though the third annual conference of National fusion centeres was held this week in Kansas City, the website for the Wisconsin fusion center is a secret and a Google search for "Missouri Information Analysis Center" not bring up the URL to the Missouri Information Analysis Center? Could it be, because the MIAC robot.txt file prevents archiving of the site by all known search engines?

According to the official report from MIAC you are a terrorist if you:

You display or use the Gadsden Rattlesnake Flag/Symbol.✔
You have watched the movies zeitgeist or America: Freedom to Fascism.
You support a repeal of the 16th Amendment - the Income Tax. ✔ (and the 17th as well)
You supported the candidacy of Representative Ron Paul (R-TX). ✔
You are a member of a Committees of Safety.
You oppose mandatory citizen service for those aged 18 to 24 per Rahm Emanuel’s proposal. ✔
You oppose the Security and Prosperity Partnership (aka the North American Union) being out of the jurisdiction of Congressional oversight. ✔
You support the abolition of the FEDERAL RESERVE private central bank and favor a return to Constitutional money. ✔
You oppose any further restrictions on the inherent right to bear arms. ✔
You oppose any bailout bills for failing banks and/or private companies.✔
You are literate enough in in Greek history to know that "Molan Labe" does not mean "over my dead body".✔
Play paint ball with either true paint ball guns or Airsoft guns.✔
Think injecting tumor-inducing RFID chips into humans and animals is a bad idea.✔

Lest you think this is some new insanity from the the 9-11 changes everything buffoons here is a similar brochure on identifying terrorists issue to Arizona state troopers from the FBI.

It is official. I am a terrorist.

In addition to the above I have proudly done the following:

Opposed the immoral act of taking from the productive and giving to the foolish regardless of the name used: TARP, Stimulus, TARP II, AIG, etc.
Referred to and appealed to the US Federal Constitution as if it were the supreme law of the land.
Insisted that government officials get search warrants or permission in order to search my property
Called "asset forfeiture" an immoral, but legal plundering of sovereign citizens.
Called Presidents Bush the Elder, Clinton, Bush the Younger, and Obama tyrants.
Supported the nomination of Ron Paul as the presidential candidate for Republican party. Boy, I am so glad we choose that "electable" John McCain instead.
Vowed to NEVER forego my duty to confront my accusers by appearing via television in any judicial proceeding.

And since I am now a terrorist all the provisions of the PATRIOT ACT, the Military Commission Act, John Werner Defense Authorization act, can be brought to bear on me and those who are similarly classified as terrorist.

I am heartened that may weak-kneed conservatives such as Limbaugh, Hannity, and Belling are now starting to see some of the danger of a "Unitary Executive" now that Obama is that unitary executive. But, they suffered from the same intellectual error that Democrats and progressive are currently exhibiting: "It's not tyranny if our side does it." And yes, these fusion centers are tyranny and another usurpation of power because one of the stated goals of the miltary fusion centers is The regulation of noncriminal conduct. [emphasis mine].

The problem, as always, is not whose hands are on the Sword of Government, but how long, indiscriminate, and poorly sheathed is the Sword of Government. Since someone is going to eventually wield it against you it is best that the Sword of Government be short, discriminating, and difficult to un-sheath.

More on Interim Approval of Voting Systems

2009-03-06T11:06:00.004-06:00

I received the response from the Government Accountability Board regarding to my inquiry into the legality of interim approval of voting systems.

The summary is:

Approval from the Government Accountability Board is not needed for each change to a voting system fielded in the State of Wisconsin.
Changes to fielded voting systems need new approval from the Government Accountability Board only if the staff believes the changes are
significant enough to warrant a recommendation that the Government Accountability Boar require the manufacturer to submit a new application for appr5oval of the entire voting system containing all modifications

I agree that this approach

balances the interests of conducting accessible elections with requiring re-approval of entire voting systems as a result of minor modifications

I stand by my earlier statement that interim approval is without legal foundation and, in the case of ES&S, there is no way to know if the staff is correct in their assessment of significant because the engineering change order is a trade secret.

I also agree with the staff of the GAB

that the voting system approval process prescribed by statute and code did not contemplate the ongoing updates, engineering change orders and other modifications that incidentally affect the previously approved voting system

This is because the whole central, but false, premise of the voting system approval process is electronic voting systems are stable, well-engineered, well-tested, high-reliability systems which are fit for use in the mission-critical area of election administration.

All evidence from the last ten years (especially that not bought by the manufacturers) shows that no electronic voting system on the market from any vender is stable, well-engineered, well-tested, reliable, or fit for use.

This is the rock and the hard place in which the Government Accountability Board and its staff finds itself in. The approval process assumes electronic voting systems are stable, well-engineered, well-tested, reliable, and fit for use in administering election. The reality is that no electronic system currently on the market (or likely to be on the market in the next 10 years) is stable, well-engineered, well-tested, reliable, or fit for use.

What is the staff and the Board to do, but stretch the statutes and administrative code to the breaking point? The only alternative is to administer elections without electronic voting equipment. Neither clerks nor the public, which demands numbers by the ten o'clock news, will tolerate elections without electronic administration and tabulation.

A Rock, A Hard Place, and Interim Certification

2009-03-04T13:56:00.006-06:00

The state of Wisconsin elections are between a rock and a hard place. Because much of the administration of an election relies on unstable, poorly tested, and unreliable equipment, on February 17, 2009 many election jurisdictions had some tough choices. If your jurisdiction uses an Automark ballot marker as your accessibility device, you were told by ES&S on January 21, 2009 that your ES&S equipment is no longer covered by the maintenance agreement with ES&S. If your jurisdiction uses Premier(aka Diebold) equipment, then you were told that you have to upgrade your SSL certificate before the February 17, 2009 election or you would not be able to upload election results via modem or from a TSx touch screen DRE.

The squeeze from the vendors on the local municipalities and the Government Accountability Board (GAB) is clear: accede to our demands or we will make your election life difficult.

Wisconsin has its own, state-level accessibility requirement. So, even though February 17, 2009 was not a federal election, the local municipalities are required under state law to have working Automarks and TSx touch screen DRE, unless an exemption is granted by the GAB or its staff.

In an extra-legal attempt to help the municipalities navigate between Scylla and Charybdis, the Staff on their own authority granted "interim approval" to the updated systems from ES&S and Premier. To better understand this situation I filed an open records request with the GAB on these "interim approvals" and what was being approved.

The results are here and here, and they raise several serious issues.

Two voting systems have been granted "interim approval".
There is no public documentation of what changes were approved for the Automarks. The engineering change order (ECO) granted interim approval is a trade secret. So again, when it comes to election administration the truth is a trade secret. The GAB staff claims the ECO is a de minimus change. Maybe it is. There is no way though for the public to confirm or deny that assessment. The approved changes are a trade secret.
the ES&S ECO was presented to the staff of the GAB in July 22, 2008.
The threating January 21, 2009 letter from ES&S to municipal and county clerks was not limited to Automarks. The ES&S letter cited here was obtained from Taylor County Wisconsin, which has no Automarks. Taylor county has iVotronics, m100's and m150's from ES&S, but no AutoMarks. The GAB claims the July 22, 2008 engineering change order (ECO) is limited from ES&S is limited to Automarks. Perhaps what Attorney Falk meant was the interim approval of the ES&S ECO was limited to Automarks. But since the ECO is a trade secret, there is is no way to tell what the scope of the ES&S ECO actually is.
The response from the GAB on January 22, 2009 indicates that they believe the withdrawl of services by ES&S to be a possible breach of the maintenace agreement. Here is the relavent quote from the GAB January 22, 2009 letter:
The G.A.B. encourgages election officials to contact their attorney regarding contract responsibilities and obligations. From our review, it appears that only a second routine maintenance vist in a 12 month period is subject to teh 90% per unit maintenance fee and only emergency remedial maintenance services are subject to the 150% per unit maintenance fee. Your costs and rights will depend on the language of your contract with ES&S and the frequency of maintenance services.

The vendor control of election administration is a big problem, but what did the GAB and the clerks expect? When you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. This is how voting equipment vendors have behaved for three decades. As troubling as this control and near extortion by the vendors is, I find the "interim approval" more troubling. It is Class I felony to use unapproved voting equipment in an election, and the staff of the Government Accountability Board has no legal authority to grant or deny approval of voting equipment. There has been ample time to bring the ES&S ECO before the GAB and get approval the legal way. There have been five GAB meetings since the ECO request was presented to the GAB staff; August, October, November, and December, of 2008 and again on January 15, 2009.

During the January 15, 2009 meeting of the Government Accountability Board, the Board approved delegating some of its authority to Kevin Kennedy and Shane Falk. It is item L on page 58 of the meeting agenda. Approving voting equipment was not on the agenda. Nor did the GAB vote to delegate such authority.

In fact the Wisconsin legislature has expressly limited the powers the Government Accountability Board CAN delegate to its staff. Specifically, WI States 5.05(1)(e) reads [emphasis and reformatting mine]:

Delegate to its legal counsel the authority to
intervene in a civil action or proceeding under sub.(9),
issue an order under s. 5.06,
exempt a polling place from accessibility requirements under s. 5.25(4)(a),
exempt a municipality from the requirement to use voting machines or an electronic voting system under s. 5.40 (5m),
approve an electronic data recording system for maintaining poll lists under s. 6.79, or
authorize nonappointment of an individual who is nominated to serve as an election official under s. 7.30 (4) (e),
subject to such limitations as the board deems appropriate.

The approval, interim or otherwise, is not a power the GAB can delegate even if it voted to do so. Interim approval is without legal foundation. I have three times asked the staff counsel of the Governmental Accountability Board, Shane Falk, to provide me with the legal citations which he believes allow for the staff to provide "interim approval" to voting equipment. He has refused to provide an answer even after having had more than a week to provide it.

In summary, to help relieve the pressure voting equipment vendors were putting on municipal and county clerks, the staff of the GAB decided the best choice was to break the law, exceed its authority, and grant "interim approval" to the offending equipment. On option which was within the law to do (if the Board had delegated such authority to the Staff) was to exempt polling locations from the state requirements to provide Automarks if those Automarks were broken. Admittedly, a poor option, but it has the virtue of being legal.

But, given the corner that the vendors back them and clerks into, what was the staff supposed to do but break the law?

The Anthrax Case Will Not Go Away

2009-03-04T00:06:00.005-06:00

Much as the FBI would like the Amerithrax case to go away, it won't.

I think the reason it won't go away is because the FBI does not want to find the person or persons who killed 5 Americans and injured 17 others with a bio-weapon manufactured by the US military. Too many awkward questions.

Last August, I pointed out, the official FBI story, The Dead Guy Did It, has some serious holes in it.

It turns there is one more hole. The anthrax spores Bruce Ivins had access to do not match the weaponized anthrax spores used to kill Americans in October 2001.

My one complaint about the article is the last paragraph:

Ivins, 62, a bio-defense researcher who spent years searching for a better anthrax vaccine, overdosed on Tylenol and Codeine last year after learning that the FBI was preparing to indict him on murder charges.

First, there was no autopsy done when Bruce Ivins died. It is a leap of faith to claim the cause of death was an overdose of any kind let alone by an overdose of a prescription-only drug. Second, as everyone touched by suicide knows, there are only guesses as to why a person commits suicide. In defense, of the Raw Story, the story of Ivins-committed-suicide-to-avoid-indictment is the official FBI story and they are merely quoting the official story.

In spite of this latest obstacle (no murder weapon), the FBI is sticking to its official story: The Dead Guy Did It. Quoting the article:

The results don't necessarily exonerate Ivins.

The mailed spores could have been removed from the flask and grown under different conditions, resulting in varying chemical contents, Jason Bannan, a microbiologist and forensic examiner at the FBI's Chemical Biological Sciences Unit in Quantico, Virginia, told Kwok.

"It doesn't surprise me that it would be different," said Bannan.

There you have it. Even though the murder suspect, The Dead Guy, had no access to the murder weapon, the official fable is unchanged; The Dead Guy Did It. You would think the murder weapon not matching would make it a lead pipe cinch that Ivins is not the guy. But, if you thought like that, i.e. rationally, then you wouldn't be an FBI Amerithrax investigator.

The still untold story is:

How were US manufactured bio-weapons released on members of Congress and the unfortunate postal workers who delivered that deadly mail? Just how does that happen?

Until the FBI wants to ask some uncomfortable questions and follow the evidence wherever it my lead, we will never know.

In the meantime, the FBI wants you to just go back to sleep with the lullaby:

The Dead Guy Did It.
The Dead Guy Did It.
The Dead Guy Did It.
The Dead Guy Did It.
    .
    .
    .
ZZZZ

Over the Cliff Even Without the "Stimulus"

2009-01-28T19:38:00.013-06:00

In other posts (here, here, and here) I have compared the stampeding of American's to transfer control over to the central government to stampeding bison over a buffalo jump.

I think I was too kind. I do not believe we will fare as well as the jumping buffalo.

Here is a posting of the expansion of the money supply:
Federal Reserve Money Chart

Here is a set of graphs of the M1 money supply. Even if you believe the St. Louis Federal reserve branch is fudging the number, the M1 numbers show a very bad trend.

If the graphs don't scare you try this 4 minute history of the Federal reserve.
These numbers are all from before the “stimulus” bill, TARP II, and the second round of Auto bailout money. All signs point to the fact the Federal Reserve is sending the US dollar the way of the Zimbabwe Dollar, the Weimar Reichsmark, the French Assignat, and the US Continental.

The solution is simple, but hard to do: END THE FED

The first step to ending the fed is to recognize it for the fraud that it is. Remove your consent and reverence for the Federal Reserve. The FED has no reserves and is no more federal than Federal Express.

Nothing undercuts the pompous voice of illegitimate authority like laughter, ridicule and a trip to the house of pain.

In order to provide laughter and ridicule, I present this work-inappropriate video: F**K the Fed. Enjoy.

Secure Socket Layer is Compromised

2008-12-30T19:41:00.014-06:00

My posting here has been sparse.

Part of the reason for that is I have been working on a submission to the NIST SHA-3 Competition. My algorithm, WaMM, has the ignoble honor of being the first weak sister to go down in the hash algorithm cage match. To monitor the details of the competition I recommend the SHA-3 Zoo.

This theoretical world of cryptographic hashes has real-world applications. One of those real world applications is the transport layer security (TLS) or secure socket layer (SSL) (aka TLS/SSL). The preceding sentence is best described as the little lock icon you see when you are doing your online banking.

Here is a screen shot

from the web site of Guaranty Banking. I am not picking on Guaranty; the SSL is used by Wells Fargo and Bank of America as well. Here is an excerpt from the BoA Security Guaranty

Whenever personal information is requested or displayed on our Web site we use encryption technology, such as Secure Socket Layer (SSL), to prevent unauthorized access to data

The TLS/SSL is your assurance from your bank, online store, or government that your private information can be safely broadcast across the internet. The value of that guarantee took a serious hit on December 30, 2008.

At the 25th Annual Chaos Communications the team led by Alexander Sotirov has published this paper announcing the creation of a rouge Certification Authority Certificate (CA Certificate).

Anyone with a rogue CA certificate can impersonate any website which uses certification authorities (CA's) for SSL connection; Think eBay, BoA, and www.Widgetsonline.com

The paper has two excellent pictures. The first is how the SSL uses the CA certificate under normal conditions. The second picture is how the rouge CA certificate can be used to attack the SSL connection.

What this means to Wells Fargo and Bank of America is that it is now possible for someone other than them to create a website which can impersonate the Wells Fargo or Bank of America website. With the rogue CA certificate the impersonation goes so far as to present a bogus CA certificate which the TSL/SSL on your web browser cannot distinguish from the legitimate Wells Fargo or BoA certificate.

What this means to you is that if you previous placed blind trust in the little lock icon, then stop that. The lock used in the icon now has a master key which can open the lock in many commercial settings.

The rogue certificate takes advantage of the poisoned message attack by exploiting the know hash collision problem in the MD5 hash algorithm.

For years people have been recommending the MD5 hash be dropped from the CA certificate specification and that all MD5-based certificates be revoked. The response has been the usual two.

That vulnerability is completely theoretical.

It would be too expensive to upgrade a working system because of a theoretical problem.

These responses were given even after Peter Selinger published in 2006 this demonstration of the danger posed by MD5 hash collisions.

As you can see this was problem two years in the making. Now VeriSign, BoA, and most online retailers will need to get new certificates which use the stronger SHA-1 hash instead of the broken MD5 hash. Here is a survey of the CA certificates used on several popular sites. Any of the sites listed with MD5 should now be considered broken.

But, this raises a larger epistemology question.

How do you know who uses what combination of encryption and hashing?
How do you know what you know in order to decide if trust is warranted?

What would be nice is if the browsers provided mouse over text when the mouse hovers over the lock icon. The mouse over text should provide three data: Encryption Algorithm, Hash algorithm, Public Key bit length. From the survey above, the mouse over text for www.microsoft.com would be: (AES128)(SHA)(1024).

People would then know to shun any site where:

the encryption algorithm is not AES160, AES192, AES224, or AES256.
The hash algorithm is not SHA or better.
The public key bit length is less than 2048

The problem with the TLS/SSL protocol is the usual one for cryptography; implementation. By "simplifying" the user interface to a simple picture of a lock, the browser robs the user of the information needed to make an informed decision about whether to trust the SSL security of a website.

My modest proposal would help by providing three simple data upon which a customer can decide a complicated trust issue. The current model is the usual bureaucratic one; trust us because some Authority vouches for us. My small suggestion is more in keeping with the PGP model: What evidence do you need in order to trust us? Here it is...

The difference is transparency and who makes the ultimate decision to extend or withhold trust:

An opaque system where trust is decided by an unknown Authority, or
a more transparent system where trust is given or withheld by the individual

TARP has Coerced Participation

2008-10-15T10:50:00.007-05:00

As I have stated here, here, here, here, here, and here, the bailout, now known as TARP, is not about money, mortgages, or market stabilization it is about power.

One of the dangers I mentioned BEFORE this became law is that participation in TARP prevents any court review even if the participation is not voluntary.

Yesterday, on the Glen Beck show, the ex-director of the St. Louis Federal Reserve admitted that forced confiscation of assets is the power exercised under TARP.

See for yourself.

The naiveté of the Mr. Poole is stunning. At the end of the segment he mentions that one of the 9 banks refusing to participate in the hostile takeover should take the matter to court. The courts will save the day.

Clearly, Mr. Poole has not read the TARP legislation and Section 119 in particular. Section 119 (a)(3) reads

No action or claims may be brought against the Secretary by any person that divests its assets with respect to its participation in a program under this Act, except as provided in paragraph (1), other than as expressly provided in a written contract with the Secretary.

The effect of section 119 is that anyone accepting or, more importantly, forced to exchange assets for money on such terms as the Secretary determines has no standing in court to bring suit. No Standing equals No judicial Review.

If a bank were to pursue Mr. Poole's recommendation and go to court here is what will happen:

In Federal district court, he Emperor of the Treasury will file a motion for summary dismissal based on section 119
Regardless of the ruling on the motion to dismiss, the bank will file a motion for injunctive relief to block the Emperor of the Treasury from confiscating the bank's assets or confiscating ownership in the bank. Section 119 also prevents such the district judge from issuing such an injunction.
Regardless of the ruling by the federal district judge on both motions (the motion to dismiss and the motion for injunctive relief), both rulings will be appealed to Federal circuit court
Regardless of the how the appellate judge rules on the two matters, again, both matters will be appealed to US Supreme Court
If the SCOTUS grants the writ of certiorari, then and only then will the matter finally be before a court not bound by the Congressional portion of the establishment clause in Article III section 1.
Even then the US Supreme Court may rule in favor of Power instead of Justice as the court did in both Kelo v New London and Gonzales V. Raich.

The American justice system(sic) has an uneven record of rendering Justice.

During all of this time, the bank will have its arm caught in the gear works of the American federal court system. Regardless of whether the injunctive relief is granted or denied (Treasury is denied the confiscation or not), the damage to the business interests of the bank while caught in the gear works will be substantial.

The proper expletive for the bank is TANJ

What the Federal Government CAN Do

2008-10-02T11:58:00.004-05:00

I stated in an earlier post there is little the federal government can do except get out of the way, enforce contracts, and prosecute fraud.

In that spirit here is my suggestions for unfreezing the credit markets

Suspend the withholding and collection of income taxes for 300 days. This is only 650 Billion (649,645,995,893 @ 2,165,486,653/day * 300 days) dollars not confiscated by the treasury and leaves the treasury with 1.7 trillion in revenues from other taxes. I know it is less than 700 billion, but if the Treasury Department can pull 700 billion out of its ass, I can pull 300 days out of mine. I selected 300 because it is a round number which creates a bailout figure of about 700 billion at current tax collection rates.Source: Heritage Foundation with income tax receipts comprising 30.8% of gross tax revenues.
If you are going to loot the treasury at least give the money to the people who earned it. [principle employed: Get out of the way]
Repeal taxes on interest earned. [principle employed: Encourage saving (increase supply of credit capital) by getting out of the way]
Repeal taxes on dividends paid to shareholders. [principle employed: Encourage corporate and shareholder savings (increase supply of credit capital) by getting out of the way]
Repeal deductions for interested paid. [principle employed: Discourage borrowing (decrease demand on credit capital) by getting out of the way]
Amend RICO so as to include GSE's such as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mea [principle employed: prosecute fraud]
Do not permit re-writing mortgage terms by the Emperor of the Treasury. (see section 109(c) of the Paulson plan). [principle employed: enforce contracts]

I guarantee the business and individual savings rate of America will go up under this plan. With an increased pool of saved capital looking for returns, the capital markets will thaw.

The reason why this plan will not be adopted is that it does not create an Emperor of the Treasury which is the core, non-negotiable part of the Paulson/Bernanke/Bush plan.

The "bailout" proposed by the Paulson/Bernanke/Bush team is not about money or a mortgage such as the plan above is. The Paulson/Bernanke/Bush plan is about power. The design goal for the Puulson Plan is the stated goal of dictatorship.

The Paulson Plan: Take 3

2008-10-01T15:39:00.003-05:00

The plan by the Bush/Paulson/Bernanke team to create the post: Emperor of the Treasury, is now up to 451 pages. The Paulson Plan: Take 1 was 3 pages; Six if you count the 3-page battle plan. Then Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan wrote the 110-page Paulson Plan: Take 2.

As I predicted earlier this morning, the current Senate bill, Paulson Plan: Take 3, has the three, core, non-negotiable points:

The Secretary of the Treasury can acquire anything even Microsoft with no check or balance on this power by any authority except the limits of his whimsy.
The Secretary of the Treasury gets to set the "price" with "such terms and conditions as determined by the Secretary".
No Judicial review or very limited Judicial review

The Secretary of the Treasury can acquire anything

Section 3(9)(B) reads:
- The term "troubled assets" means any other financial instrument that the Secretary, after consultation with the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, determines the purchase of which is necessary to promote financial market stability, but only upon transmittal of such determination, in writing, to the appropriate committees of Congress.
Section 101 (c)(5) reads:
- The Secretary is authorized to take such actions as the Secretary deems necessary to carry out the authorities in this Act, including, without limitation ... Issuing such regulations and other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to define terms or carry out the authorities or purposes of this Act.
- Terms such as "troubled asset" and "financial institution".

The Secretary of the Treasury gets to set the price

section 101 (a)(1) reads:
- The Secretary is authorized to establish the Troubled Asset Relief Program (or "TARP") to purchase, and to make and fund commitments to purchase, troubled assets from any financial institution, on such terms and conditions as are determined by the Secretary, and in accordance with this Act and the policies and procedures developed and published by the Secretary.

Limited, if any, Judicial Review

Section 119 (a)(2)(A) reads:
- No injunction or other form of equitable relief shall be issued against the Secretary for actions pursuant to section 101, 102, 106, and 109, other than to remedy a violation of the Constitution.
Section 119 (a)(3) reads
- No action or claims may be brought against the Secretary by any person that divests its assets with respect to its participation in a program under this Act, except as provided in paragraph (1), other than as expressly provided in a written contract with the Secretary.
- Even if that participation was not consensual.
- Since the Secretary gets to define such terms as participation. The is Section 8 of the Paulson Plan: Take 1, but with more words. The effect is that anyone accepting or, more importantly, forced to exchange assets for money on such terms as the Secretary determines has no standing in court to bring suit. No Standing equals No judicial Review

As I have stated here, here, here, here, here, and here, this bill is not about money, mortgages, or market stabilization. It is about power; naked, unfettered power. It is about creating a financial dictator in the aftermath of an economic 9/11 event. It is about herding and driving American Taxpayers over an economic buffalo jump

A Second Drive for the Buffalo Jump

2008-10-01T01:26:00.004-05:00

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." H.L. Menken

As predicted, they’re back!! This time the Senate proposal is much better, but we have to trust them on that because the proposed Senate legislation is on double secret probation.

From the International Herald Tribune

The senators issued no details of their proposal and said none would be available until Wednesday.

I guess the Bush/Paulson/Benanke team doesn't want us plebes reading the bill ahead of time and making truthful points in opposition by citing actual provisions of the proposed ~~bail out~~ rescue legislation. Keeping the legislation secret is a reasonable gambit because it's gotta work better than the truth.

According to Bloomberg, the Plunge Protection Team changed the incoming calls to the Congress from opposition to support:

After a week-long torrent of calls and e-mails from angry voters opposing the rescue package, the tide turned after markets plunged on Sept. 29 in response to the House vote.

"Over $1 trillion worth of market value was wiped off the books by the stock market drop," said Senator Robert Bennett, a Utah Republican. "It is ordinary people looking at ordinary pensions, with their ordinary Main Street kind of 401(k) plans, who lost that $1 trillion. And they lost it in a matter of minutes."

Interesting the Plunge Protection Team did not work to prevent that plunge. But, then as I noted earlier, perhaps the PPT achieved its mission for September 29, 2008. Perhaps the shock doctrine will work tomorrow now that some of the American Herd has been channeled down the driving lanes in a full gallop toward the buffalo jump.

I predict the three key elements of the original Paulson plan for creating the post of Emperor of the Treasury still exists in the Senate version. These three points are non-negotiable to the Paulson/Bush/Bernanke team. This is not about money. It is about power. So the three elements in the final bill will be:

The Secretary of the Treasury can acquire anything; Mortgage related or not; Troubled or not; US headquartered or not. Either the legislation will do this explicitly or grant the Secretary the power, without limitation, to define terms.
The Secretary of the Treasury can set the price at "such terms and conditions as are determined by the Secretary"
No judicial review or very limited judicial review

With those provisions intact the rest of the Senate bill is probably irrelevant. The post of Emperor of the Treasury will have been created and it will be time to "consecrate the bond of obedience and assume the position".

Plunge Protection Team = Plunge Provocation Team?

2008-09-30T13:57:00.000-05:00

The President's Working Group on Financial Markets is colloquially know as the Plunge Protection Team (PPT). If one believes the PPT has the power to artificially prop up the DJIA by systematically buying Dow stocks, one must concede the PPT has the power to artificially depress the DJIA by systematically selling Dow stocks or by executing put options.

My complaints (here, here, and here) with the bailout plan have centered on the power aspects; specifically the creation of an Emperor of the Treasury.

Given the power of the PPT, I find the comments of President Bush ominous.

In his comments from the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House, Bush pointed to Monday's drop in the Dow Jones industrials.
"The dramatic drop in the stock market that we saw yesterday will have a direct impact on retirement accounts, pension funds and personal savings of millions of our citizens," he said. "And if our nation continues on this course, the economic damage will be painful and lasting."

This manipulation: Give us your Liberty or we will take your Prosperity, as noted by Congressman McCotter during the debate on the bailout bill, is a recurring threat.

Circumstances change, but principles endure. Because of this Andrew Jackson's words from 1832 endure and are as true today as they were then. When politically-connected, rapacious bankers (i.e. banksters) demand "Give us a handout or else." the power and privilege demanded are the same.

Under such circumstances the bank comes forward and asks a renewal of its [The Second National Bank of the US] charter for a term of fifteen years upon conditions which not only operate as a gratuity to the stockholders of many millions of dollars, but will sanction any abuses and legalize any encroachments.

The power demanded under the Paulson/Bush plan is a gratuity to the politically-connected which would sanction any abuse and legalize any encroachment.

It is good it went down yesterday. Unfortunately it will be back because they only need to win once.

Doing Nothing is Not an Option

2008-09-30T11:18:00.002-05:00

Yesterday, Congressman Steny Hoyer said, ""Doing nothing is not an option". The unspoken assumption is that all human action is action by government. This is untrue. Government action is only miniscule sliver of the human actions currently in motion due to the faltering US economy.

Tens of millions, perhaps billions, of people are taking action today. Some are buying books in order to better understand this situation. Some are watching the news. Some are reading this blog. Some are buying stocks on the dead cat bounce. Some are husbanding cash in anticipation of future needs such as payroll. I am sure some are taking the advice of Dr. Doom and moving out of dollar denominated assets. Schiff was unequivocal in part two of this interveiew on Australian Television. (Part One). Some are taking the action of observing the situation and orienting themselves to it as part of their own personal OODA loops.

I agree with Congressman Hoyer, "doing nothing is not an option". Millions and billions of actions need to be taken in order to unwind the mal-investments caused by 15 years of US government manipulation in the credit and housing markets.

I disagree with Congressman Hoyer. Doing nothing is an option; for the US Government. Beyond getting out of the way, enforcing contracts, and prosecuting fraud, there is nothing useful the government can do. If Ken Lay can go to jail for cooking the Enron books, then so can Franklin Raines and Daniel Mudd.

The primary and fatal conceit of Secretary Paulson, Chairman Bernanke, and Congressman Hoyer is that their brains can hold enough information regarding the trillions of daily human interactions of a market that they can then select the optimal action.

There is a lot of action going on to right this economic ship. The problem for Paulson, Bernanke, Hoyer and their bankster pals is that very little of that action is government action. Without government action banksters are unlikely to make it to the life boats as the economic ship lists right over them while righting itself through billions of individual, human action in the highly regulated US market and in the much more regulated world markets. (Contrary to propaganda the US is not a free market, but a less regulated market)

The US government doing nothing allows honest bankers to thrive while the politically-connected banksters to wither. Through bankruptcy and acquisition bankster assets are turned over to the prudent and productive members of Wall Street and Main Street. Even though this will cut down on campaign contributions to Congressman Hoyer and temporarily slow or contract economic growth, I think allowing those who have been prudent and productive in the past to prosper in the present is a good. Let the multitudes take the myriad individual actions needed.

Ultimately, I trust a drug-addled woman living in a her mortgaged, double wide trailer in Rhinelander, Wisconsin to handle money more responsibly and to predict the future better than I trust Paulson, Bernanke, and their political allies at Wall Street mega-banks to handle money and predict the consequences of their decisions. Her self-interested actions (or inactions) and the self-interested actions of tens of millions of others, will hit on correct solutions. Legislation will not.

Monday Music: TINA is NOT in Charge.

2008-09-29T10:52:00.002-05:00

The mantra for today regarding the Bankster Subsidy Act is that TINA is in charge and TINA is a bitch driving the American Herd toward Account-Smashed-In Taxpayer Jump. The good news about TINA (There is No Alternative) is that it is a lie. In the Land of the Free, there is Freedom of Choice.

Dont be tricked by what you see. You got two ways to go.

As always, I acknowledge Monday Music (tm) is Nick Schweitzer Production.

The Banskster Bailout: Still All of Microsoft for a Buck

2008-09-28T22:02:00.012-05:00

Last week I warned that the proposed legislation was so broad, sweeping, and dangerous that it allows the Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, to confiscate All of Microsoft for a Buck

After week of frenetic activity which has lengthened the proposed legislation from 3 pages to 110 pages, Congress now has the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 before it. The result is longer, wordier, and supposedly better than the original 3-page proposal, but the new version still allows Secretary Paulson to confiscate all of Microsoft for a buck.

The key elements I noted which are needed to confiscate all of Microsoft for a buck were:

Define mortgage asset to include Microsoft
Set the "price" to one dollar
prevent judicial review of the confiscation.

All of these elements remain in the newer, "better" version of the bailout.

Define mortgage-asset to include Microsoft
The definitions in Section 3 of the new proposal drop the term "mortgage asset" and substitutes the term "troubled asset". Section 3(6)(B) defines a "Troubled asset" as:

The term "troubled assets" means any other financial instrument that the Secretary, after consultation with the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, determines the purchase of which is necessary to promote financial market stability, but only upon transmittal of such determination, in writing, to the appropriate committees of Congress.

As I stated last week, consultation is not the same as approval. But if the definition of "trouble asset" is not broad enough for the Secretary, then Secretary Paulson can re-define "Troubled Asset" to be whatever he wants it to mean under Sec. 101(c)5. Sec. 101(c)5 is the same as paragraph 2(b)(5) of the original proposal and reads:

The Secretary is authorized to take such actions as the Secretary deems necessary to carry out the authorities in this Act, including, without limitation, issuing such regulations and other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to define terms or carry out the authorities or purposes of this Act.

"Troubled Asset" is what every the Secretary wants to purchase/confiscate.

Set the price to one dollar
SEC. 101(a)(1) of the newer version has more words than paragraph 2(a) from the original proposal, but it still lets the Secretary of the Treasury to arbitrarily set the "price" of a "troubled asset". SEC. 101(a)(1) reads:

The Secretary is authorized to establish a troubled asset relief program (or "TARP") to purchase, and to make and fund commitments to purchase, troubled assets from any financial institution, on such terms and conditions as are determined by the Secretary, and in accordance with this Act and the policies and procedures developed and published by the Secretary.

Prevent Judicial review
Section 8 of the original proposal stated there would be no judicial review. Here the newer proposed legislation looks better, but this is largely illusionary. Section 119 is entitled: Judicial Review and Related Matters. In true Orwellian fashion though, Section 119 is nothing but a laundry list of limitations on judicial review. Sec 119(1) states the standard of judicial review is Title 5 chapter 7 which seems to allow very broad judicial review. Section Sec 119(2)(A) though guts most forms of judicial relief and reads:

No injunction or other form of equitable relief shall be issued against the Secretary for actions pursuant to section 101, 102, 106, and 109, other than to remedy a violation of the Constitution.

The limitation on Judicial review with the most perverse possibilities though is Sec 119(3)which reads:

No action or claims may be brought against the Secretary by any person that divests its assets with respect to its participation in a program under this Act, except as provided in paragraph (1), other than as expressly provided in a written contract with the Secretary.

If the divestment is not consensual as in my hypothetical confiscation of Microsoft, the victim (Microsoft) cannot bring suit unless the Secretary allows the review.
But even if a court happens to review the Secretary's actions, it can offer limited relief and can declare the transaction NULL and void only AFTER the confiscation has occurred. By then the damage is done and hard to impossible to repair.

Legislative Oversight
The rest of the 110 pages supposedly put in place strict legislative oversight. As this article points out, this is true, but worthless. The newer proposed legislation requires the Treasury Secretary and his Wall Street agents report their activities to two oversight boards. Again, I must cynically point out that report to is not the same as seek the approval of. There is no limitation on what Secretary Paulson and his hired cronies can DOonly that they prepare reports on what they have already DONE. Congress can huff and puff, but has abdicated the ability dismantle the house Secretary Paulson is scheming to build.

The numbers of the congress critters in this area are

Sensenbrenner: (202) 225-5101
Kohl: (202) 224-5653
Feingold: (202) 224-5323

Call today and stop this naked power grab which enables the transfer wealth from us, US citizens, to politically-connected Wall Street Banksters.

Buying Microsoft for One Dollar

2008-09-23T10:49:00.004-05:00

Under the proposed bailout legislation, the US Treasury or agents thereof could acquire Microsoft for one US dollar and there is no legal recourse for Microsoft or its shareholders.

Here is the text of proposed legislation and here is what the Treasury Department claims the legislation will allow it to do.

The relevant sections of the proposed legislation (all emphasis are mine) are:

Paragraph 2(b)(5) which reads:
The Secretary is authorized to take such actions as the Secretary deems necessary to carry out the authorities in this Act, including, without limitation [to issue] such regulations and other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to define terms or carry out the authorities of this Act.
Paragraph 2(a) which reads:
The Secretary is authorized to purchase, and to make and fund commitments to purchase, on such terms and conditions as determined by the Secretary, mortgage-related assets from any financial institution having its headquarters in the United States.
Section 8 which reads:
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
Paragraph 12(1) which reads:
For purposes of this section, The term "mortgage-related assets" means residential or commercial mortgages and any securities, obligations, or other instruments that are based on or related to such mortgages, that in each case was originated or issued on or before September 17, 2008.

Here is how Paulson "buys" Microsoft for one dollar.

Invoke paragraph 2(b)(5) to define term "mortgage-related asset" to include Microsoft stock.
Invoke paragraph 2(a) and acquire all outstanding Microsoft stock in exchange for one federal reserve note because these are the "terms and conditions as determined by the Secretary".
Invoke Section 8 when Microsoft shareholders sue over the theft of their property.

I chose Microsoft because it is the corporation with the least connection to mortgages I could think of. But, my hypothetical "purchase" of Microsoft above is not prohibited under the proposed legislation. Moreover, the Treasury department is already telling Congress that my interpretation of paragraph 2(b)(5), paragraph 2(a), section 8 and section 12 of the proposed statute is the official interpretation of the Treasury Department.

Here are excerpts from the Treasury Department's OWN statement of what powers the Congress will grant to the Treasury Secretary under the proposed legislation [again emphasis mine].

From the paragraph entitled: Scale and Timing of Asset Purchases
The purchases are intended to be residential and commercial mortgage-related assets, which may include mortgage-backed securities and whole loans. The Secretary will have the discretion, in consultation with the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, to purchase other assets, as deemed necessary to effectively stabilize financial markets.
From the paragraph entitled: Asset and Institutional Eligibility for the Program
To qualify for the program, assets must have been originated or issued on or before September 17, 2008. Participating financial institutions must have significant operations in the U.S., unless the Secretary makes a determination, in consultation with the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, that broader eligibility is necessary to effectively stabilize financial markets.

The Treasury Department is telling Congress right now that under its official interpretation of the effects of the proposed bailout, that the Secretary of the Treasury, under paragraph 2(b)(5), has the discretion to alter the definition of "mortgage-related asset" so as to include any financial asset from any institution headquartered in the US or not mortgage related or not, as long as the Secretary "deems it necessary to effectively stabilize financial markets".

I would also cynically note that "consultation with the Chairman of the Federal Reserve" is not the same as "with the approval of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve". Under the proposed statute and the Treasury's proposed regulations, Chairman Bernanke can object all he wants, but as long as he was consulted, Secretary Paulson can do what he wants with any financial asset domestic or foreign. If the Chairman of the Fed could prevent anything, then that would constitute a "review by an administrative agency" and such review is strictly prohibited by Section 8 of the proposed legislation.

The Secretary Treasury is boldy asserting that under the proposed "bailout" legislation that he can "buy" any asset foreign or domestic at what every "price" he dictates and the victims of his "purchases" can pound sand.

Al Capone made similar "purchases" on similar terms back in the 30's.

The telephone numbers for the office of Jim Sensenbrenner are:
(262) 784-1111 (Brookfield office)
(800) 242-1119. (Toll-free to Brookfield office)
(202) 225-5101 (DC Office)

Call today. Call tomorrow. Call until this proposal to rape the American public is defeated.

Music for Bailout Monday

2008-09-22T09:44:00.005-05:00

On the proposed nationalization of 1/20th of the US economy and the proposed creation of the post: Emperor of the Treasury, I thought these blasts from the past were particularly appropriate as my submission for Monday music.
I acknowledge I am shamelessly plagiarizing Nick's Monday Music feature.

Too Big To Fail In Texas

2008-09-22T07:06:00.005-05:00

Last Thursday Libertarian Presidential Candidate, Bob Barr, one one and lost one in his effort to have Texas Election Law enforced uniformly to all candidates. He lost his effort to prevent defective ballots from being shipped to military and overseas voters. The defective ballots began shipping last Saturday, September 20, 2008. He won in that the Texas Supreme Court did not throw out the motion for summary dismissal filed by the Texas Attorney General. Motions from the Texas Secretary of State, the Republican Party of Texas, and the Democratic Party of Texas in the case are due today

In his his petition for mandamus Bob Barr points out that such uniformity is required by the US supreme court under Bush v. Gore.

As I stated before the Texas courts will not render justice, enforce the law, and remove the Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin tickets from the ballots. On this Bailout Monday, it is important to remember that the Republican and Democratic parties are too big to fail.

So the question for me is how will the Texas Supreme Court ignore the law and give the R&D party a pass on obeying the law. My bet is laches. I predict the ruling of the Texas Supreme Court will be to dismiss the petition for a writ of mandamus on the grounds that the Barr campaign is guilty of laches.

The court will rule that because

the Barr Campaign waited a week to get the evidence from the Texas Secretary of State (August 26, to September 4, 2008)
Spent a week trying to convince the Texas SoS to obey the law( September 4, 2008 to September 11, 2008)
Spent a week to find a Texas attorney, research Texas Election Law, to file the motion (September 11, 2008 to September 16, 2008)

, the Barr campaign is guilty of laches; the campaign did not assert its rights in court soon enough.

In spite of the fact that

You cannot assert a tort until actual harm accrues (Barr was not harmed until the Texas SoS illegally certified the Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin tickets on September 3, 2008)
You cannot bring suit in court until all administrative remedies have been exhausted.
You must use a lawyer admitted to the Texas bar in order to file a motion in a Texas Court

, the ruling will be that the Barr Campaign needed to file its motion for a writ of mandamus earlier and than September 16, 2008. The filing will be ruled as untimely and be dismissed.

This will not be Justice, but it my bet this will be the ruling of the Court.

McCain A Write-In Candidate in Texas?

2008-09-17T16:27:00.018-05:00

In a word: No.

Even though both the McCain and Obama campaigns failed to meet the legal requirements of the Texas election code, the Secretary of State of Texas ignored the clear language of the law and certified both as having a place on the ballot.

The ballot status of the Mcain/Palin and Obama/Biden tickets is now part of a lawsuit in Texas. The Texas Courts will NOT render justice in this case. Instead the court will allow the defective certification of the McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden tickets to remain on the ballot.

What happened is simple. Neither the Republican Party of Texas nor the democratic party of Texas filed nomination papers by the end of day, Tuesday, August 26, 2008. Texas election statute 192.031(2)(A) requires that:

before 5 p.m. of the 70th day before presidential election day, the party's state chair signs and delivers to the secretary of state a written certification of the names of the party's nominees for president and vice-president

This requirement is to allow the Texas Secretary of State and the 254 county clerks of Texas have time to prepare and mail ballots out to overseas and military voters by September 20, 2008. This deadline is now in peril because the Texas SoS failed to obey the law.

Here is the documentation submitted to the Texas Secretary of State by the two, politically connected parties. As you can see the names and addresses of the presidential electors were submitted on time, but the four names (presidential and vice presidential names from the Republican and Democratic parties) were not submitted on time. The closest of the four names to meeting this hard statutory deadline was when the Republican party submitted on August 25, 2008, the name of the un-nominated John McCain and an unsub. The first problem is McCain was not the party nominee by then and the second problem is Sarah Palin was not even proposed as the VP nominee until August 29, 2008.

Here is the letter objecting to this failure to obey the law from the politically unconnected Libertarian Party. The LP, BTW, followed the rules and held its convention in May specifically in order to meet filing and ballot access deadlines such as this one in Texas and other, more draconian ballot access laws in other states. The politically unconnected Green Party had its national convention in June in order to meet such filing and ballot access deadlines. The politically unconnected Constitution Party had its national convention in April in order to meet such filing and ballot access deadlines.

What have the Texas Supreme court said on missing important, statutory filing deadlines? It has said that that if the defects are minor (e.g. missing place numbers) the candidate can cure, but if the deadline is important it must be enforced even if this bounces the candidate from the ballot. The tendency is to allow cures provided the legislative scheme for elections and the election schedule is not contravened.

The 2006 case cited by the Barr campaign is In Re Francis which reads [emphasis mine]:

Finally, we emphasize several limitations on today’s holding. First, it concerns only facial defects that are apparent from the four corners of a candidate’s filings; it does not reach forgery, fraud, or other non-accidental defects discoverable only by independent investigation. Second, it concerns only early filings that allow time for corrections after the state chair’s review; no additional time will be available for candidates who file at the last minute so that review cannot be completed before the filing deadline. Third, it does not allow political parties or candidates to ignore statutory deadlines; it allows candidates only the time that the Election Code was designed to give them. Fourth, it concerns only defective filings that have erroneously been approved; it does not change what the Election Code says party chairs should and must reject. Finally, it does not absolve candidates of the need for diligence and responsibility in their filings; party chairs must only notify them of defects, not do their work for them.

The dissent in In Re Francis is even blunter. Deadlines are deadlines for a reason and must be enforced lest the whole election be disrupted. The dissent reads [emphasis mine]:

Election contests often raise competing interests: courts must favor candidate eligibility and access to the ballot, strictly enforce the Legislature’s intent as expressed in the plain words of a statute, and attempt to honor both principles to reach a just and reasonable result as required by the Code Construction Act. Mandatory requirements in the Election Code can work harsh consequences that may result in applicants not being placed on the ballot; yet the plain language of the Election Code, frequently couched in terms of "must" and "shall," instructs that candidates include all of the listed elements in their applications and petitions.

It is a fortuitous thing for the McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden tickets that the American government is no longer a lawful, republic but is a post-republican empire where the whims of men and not the dictates of Law rule. All that matters is political connection and political power. Neither McCain/Palin nor the Obama/Biden will be removed from the ballot. The political might of the Republican and Democratic parties are sufficiently strong that not even clear language of the Law will stand in their way. But watch out you Libs, Greenies, and Consties out there. For you the statutes WILL be used to club you and keep you off the ballot. If this was not the case, then substantive ideas and substantive issues might leak into the campaign, be discussed, and cause voter confusion.

Can't have that!!

For the 2 wings of the ruling duopoly, discussing divergent points of view on the substantive issues of the day is more dangerous than destroying the Rule of Law in Texas.

Hail, Victory!

Election Observation Limited

2008-09-12T06:22:00.004-05:00

As I predicted the new GAB rules on election observation do limit the ability of citizens in Wisconsin to monitor their election.

Tuesday, September 9, 2008 I went to observe the local board canvass of my home voting district, District #1 of the Village of Germantown.

Standing about four feet from the scanner and about 30 feet from the table with poll books I took this picture with my camera at full zoom.

When I took the picture above, I was threatened with arrest by this rather nice police officer.

After asking why I would be arrested I discovered the county clerk has instituted a new observation rule in which the clerk states that every election worker has a six foot bubble around them and any member of the public who violates the bubble will be arrested. The village clerk informed me of this and showed me the email she had received from the county clerk. Based on legal authority of a printed email from the county clerk, the police officer informed me that he would arrest me if I persisted in violating the bubble rule. I protested that the bubble rule was bogus and was a misstatement of GAB rule 4.01. Unfortunately I did not think to have a copy of the rule on me, but knowing the bubble rule was bogus, I proceeded to take this picture.
.

At this point I was given the clear ultimatum by the village clerk: back away and abide by the bubble rule or be put under arrest. I spent about 10 to 20 seconds deciding if arrest was prudent. I had other things to observe that evening. Eventually discretion, prudence, or cowardice won and I moved off.

Later I saw this

Thinking that something worth observing might be happening I moved closer to observe. I was again threatened with arrest even though I had clearly stopped more than six feet away.

The rest of the evening was spent in the Washington County courthouse observing the tallying and aggregation of votes on the central GEMS server.

Here is a picture of an assistant clerk working on the GEMS server in the area set up for the public observation.

Yes, there is someone at the desk back there. Yes, this was what is considered to be open for public observation.

I have stated for years that only bad software is delayed by good testing. The same principle holds for elections:

Only poor procedures are hindered by vigilant observation.