News They Lose

Are New Vaccines Laced With Birth-Control Drugs?

THE IMF CATAPULTS FROM SHUNNED AGENCY TO GLOBAL CENTRAL BANK


Project Censored’s Latest Top

25 Censored Stories

Thimerosal, organic mercury, swine flu and you.

Thimerosal is nearly 50% mercury. Now, there is mercury and then there is mercury. Organic mercury – that contained in Thimerosal – is more dangerous than inorganic mercury, as it tends to hang around in the body longer. How dangerous is it?

According to one report, “In 1977, a Russian study found that adults exposed to ethylmercury, the form of mercury in thimerosal, suffered brain damage years later. Studies on thimerosal poisoning also describe tubular necrosis and nervous system injury, including obtundation, coma and death.”

DHS Uses Fed Cash to Deploy Military LRADs in U S Cities!

The LRAD devices used against protesters and the residents of Pittsburgh last month were a beta test for things to come. As reported by the Washington Times on October 1, the Department of Homeland Security is doling out federal money to get police departments around the country stocked up on the LRAD weapons. With the help of Homeland Security grants, police departments nationwide looking to subdue unruly crowds and political protesters are purchasing a high-tech device originally used by the military to repel battlefield insurgents and Somali pirates with piercing noise capable of damaging hearing, write Jerry Seper and Chuck Neubauer.

U.S. Pharmaceutical Factories Dumping Huge Quantities of Drugs Into Public Sewers, Rivers and Waterways

In one study, conducted by scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), researchers tested the water entering two water treatment plants down the sewer line of several pharmaceutical factories, as well as at other plants not receiving sewage from drug plants. Researchers discovered drugs at “much higher detection frequencies and concentrations” at the plants receiving effluent from pharmaceutical factories. Drugs detected included opiates, a barbiturate and a tranquilizer.

Big Brother continues to spy on American public

There are efforts to make the government accountable to the people once again. A bill is targeting a 2008 law — Obama voted for it — which gave immunity from prosecution to telecommunications companies that participated in President Bush’s warrantless surveillance program.

As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama said he would take a close look at the law.

But when we see statements from the administration like Weich’s, we recognize the kind of thinking that got this abuse-codifying law repeatedly reauthorized in the past.

It is with bitter disappointment that we realize President Obama is happy with that status quo. Those of us who voted for him, after all, bought into his message of “change.

Vaccine Skepticism Grows in US

As the United States awaits the arrival of the H1N1 vaccine next week, growing skepticism over the overall safety and importance of vaccinations of all types is worrying health officials

Is the 6-month Stock Market Rally About to End?.

– by Bob Chapman – 2009-10-01
Advertisements

Chilling vision of police at the G20 Pittsburg

LANDMARK DECISION PROMISES MASSIVE RELIEF FOR HOMEOWNERS AND TROUBLE FOR BANKS

Ellen Brown, September 19th, 2009
http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/mers.php

A landmark ruling in a recent Kansas Supreme Court case may have given millions of distressed homeowners the legal wedge they need to avoid foreclosure. In Landmark National Bank v. Kesler, 2009 Kan. LEXIS 834, the Kansas Supreme Court held that a nominee company called MERS has no right or standing to bring an action for foreclosure. MERS is an acronym for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, a private company that registers mortgages electronically and tracks changes in ownership. The significance of the holding is that if MERS has no standing to foreclose, then nobody has standing to foreclose – on 60 million mortgages. That is the number of American mortgages currently reported to be held by MERS. Over half of all new U.S. residential mortgage loans are registered with MERS and recorded in its name. Holdings of the Kansas Supreme Court are not binding on the rest of the country, but they are dicta of which other courts take note; and the reasoning behind the decision is sound.

Eliminating the “Straw Man” Shielding Lenders and Investors from Liability

The development of “electronic” mortgages managed by MERS went hand in hand with the “securitization” of mortgage loans – chopping them into pieces and selling them off to investors. In the heyday of mortgage securitizations, before investors got wise to their risks, lenders would slice up loans, bundle them into “financial products” called “collateralized debt obligations” (CDOs), ostensibly insure them against default by wrapping them in derivatives called “credit default swaps,” and sell them to pension funds, municipal funds, foreign investment funds, and so forth. There were many secured parties, and the pieces kept changing hands; but MERS supposedly kept track of all these changes electronically. MERS would register and record mortgage loans in its name, and it would bring foreclosure actions in its name. MERS not only facilitated the rapid turnover of mortgages and mortgage-backed securities, but it has served as a sort of “corporate shield” that protects investors from claims by borrowers concerning predatory lending practices. California attorney Timothy McCandless describes the problem like this:

“[MERS] has reduced transparency in the mortgage market in two ways. First, consumers and their counsel can no longer turn to the public recording systems to learn the identity of the holder of their note. Today, county recording systems are increasingly full of one meaningless name, MERS, repeated over and over again. But more importantly, all across the country, MERS now brings foreclosure proceedings in its own name – even though it is not the financial party in interest. This is problematic because MERS is not prepared for or equipped to provide responses to consumers’ discovery requests with respect to predatory lending claims and defenses. In effect, the securitization conduit attempts to use a faceless and seemingly innocent proxy with no knowledge of predatory origination or servicing behavior to do the dirty work of seizing the consumer’s home. . . . So imposing is this opaque corporate wall, that in a “vast” number of foreclosures, MERS actually succeeds in foreclosing without producing the original note – the legal sine qua non of foreclosure – much less documentation that could support predatory lending defenses.”

The real parties in interest concealed behind MERS have been made so faceless, however, that there is now no party with standing to foreclose. The Kansas Supreme Court stated that MERS’ relationship “is more akin to that of a straw man than to a party possessing all the rights given a buyer.” The court opined:

“By statute, assignment of the mortgage carries with it the assignment of the debt. . . . Indeed, in the event that a mortgage loan somehow separates interests of the note and the deed of trust, with the deed of trust lying with some independent entity, the mortgage may become unenforceable. The practical effect of splitting the deed of trust from the promissory note is to make it impossible for the holder of the note to foreclose, unless the holder of the deed of trust is the agent of the holder of the note. Without the agency relationship, the person holding only the note lacks the power to foreclose in the event of default. The person holding only the deed of trust will never experience default because only the holder of the note is entitled to payment of the underlying obligation. The mortgage loan becomes ineffectual when the note holder did not also hold the deed of trust.” [Citations omitted; emphasis added.]

MERS as straw man lacks standing to foreclose, but so does original lender, although it was a signatory to the deal. The lender lacks standing because title had to pass to the secured parties for the arrangement to legally qualify as a “security.” The lender has been paid in full and has no further legal interest in the claim. Only the securities holders have skin in the game; but they have no standing to foreclose, because they were not signatories to the original agreement. They cannot satisfy the basic requirement of contract law that a plaintiff suing on a written contract must produce a signed contract proving he is entitled to relief.

The Potential Impact of 60 Million Fatally Flawed Mortgages

The banks arranging these mortgage-backed securities have typically served as trustees for the investors. When the trustees could not present timely written proof of ownership entitling them to foreclose, they would in the past file “lost-note affidavits” with the court; and judges usually let these foreclosures proceed without objection. But in October 2007, an intrepid federal judge in Cleveland put a halt to the practice. U.S. District Court Judge Christopher Boyko ruled that Deutsche Bank had not filed the proper paperwork to establish its right to foreclose on fourteen homes it was suing to repossess as trustee. Judges in many other states then came out with similar rulings.

Following the Boyko decision, in December 2007 attorney Sean Olender suggested in an article in The San Francisco Chronicle that the real reason for the bailout schemes being proposed by then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson was not to keep strapped borrowers in their homes so much as to stave off a spate of lawsuits against the banks. Olender wrote:

“The sole goal of the [bailout schemes] is to prevent owners of mortgage-backed securities, many of them foreigners, from suing U.S. banks and forcing them to buy back worthless mortgage securities at face value – right now almost 10 times their market worth. The ticking time bomb in the U.S. banking system is not resetting subprime mortgage rates. The real problem is the contractual ability of investors in mortgage bonds to require banks to buy back the loans at face value if there was fraud in the origination process.

“. . . The catastrophic consequences of bond investors forcing originators to buy back loans at face value are beyond the current media discussion. The loans at issue dwarf the capital available at the largest U.S. banks combined, and investor lawsuits would raise stunning liability sufficient to cause even the largest U.S. banks to fail, resulting in massive taxpayer-funded bailouts of Fannie and Freddie, and even FDIC . . . .

“What would be prudent and logical is for the banks that sold this toxic waste to buy it back and for a lot of people to go to prison. If they knew about the fraud, they should have to buy the bonds back.”

Needless to say, however, the banks did not buy back their toxic waste, and no bank officials went to jail. As Olender predicted, in the fall of 2008, massive taxpayer-funded bailouts of Fannie and Freddie were pushed through by Henry Paulson, whose former firm Goldman Sachs was an active player in creating CDOs when he was at its helm as CEO. Paulson also hastily engineered the $85 billion bailout of insurer American International Group (AIG), a major counterparty to Goldmans’ massive holdings of CDOs. The insolvency of AIG was a huge crisis for Goldman, a principal beneficiary of the AIG bailout.

In a December 2007 New York Times article titled “The Long and Short of It at Goldman Sachs,” Ben Stein wrote:

“For decades now, . . . I have been receiving letters [warning] me about the dangers of a secret government running the world . . . . [T]he closest I have recently seen to such a world-running body would have to be a certain large investment bank, whose alums are routinely Treasury secretaries, high advisers to presidents, and occasionally a governor or United States senator.”

The pirates seem to have captured the ship, and until now there has been no one to stop them. But 60 million mortgages with fatal defects in title could give aggrieved homeowners and securities holders the crowbar they need to exert some serious leverage on Congress – serious enough perhaps even to pry the legislature loose from the powerful banking lobbies that now hold it in thrall.

Ellen Brown developed her research skills as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los Angeles. In Web of Debt, her latest book, she turns those skills to an analysis of the Federal Reserve and “the money trust.” She shows how this private cartel has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves, and how we the people can get it back. Her earlier books focused on the pharmaceutical cartel that gets its power from “the money trust.” Her eleven books include Forbidden Medicine, Nature’s Pharmacy (co-authored with Dr. Lynne Walker), and The Key to Ultimate Health (co-authored with Dr. Richard Hansen). Her websites are www.webofdebt.com and www.ellenbrown.com.

Why High Frequency Program Trading Smells

Why High Frequency Program Trading Smells

Who does not want the American dream?

Get a decent job, save a few bucks, make some reasonable investments, and try to get ahead. As part of that process, there is a premise that our government officials and market regulators will keep the playing field level.

Why are an increasing number of investors in our country questioning the integrity of our markets? The perception that the playing field is not necessarily level.

Is the field level? Is that perception actually a reality?

I commend Joe Saluzzi of Themis Trading for exposing a few weeks back the questionable integrity of  ’high frequency program trading.’  The nature of the trading involved in these high frequency programs is consistent with my feeling that the equity markets are following technical analysis to a much greater extent than fundamental valuations.

I commend Joe and his colleagues at Themis again today for highlighting an example of the effect of high frequency program trading on their ability to execute equity transactions on their customers’ behalf. From the Themis website today, Real Life HFT Hijinks Example:

I am trading a small cap stock for a customer today (I leave out the ticker for anonymity purposes). It has traded 4,300 shares so far today. I have 75,000 shares to buy.

The scenario: 100 shares offered at $11.16, and 400 shares offered at $11.17. I place an order to buy 1,000 shares at 11.17.  You would think that I should get at least 500 shares executed (100 at $11.16 and 400 at $11.17). Sigh. I get none. As soon as I hit enter, those offers vanish. No trades on tape even. The HFT players offering the stock have convinced the market centers (ECN’s, Exchanges,  and ATS’s) to cater to them and “show” them my order before they have to execute, thereby giving them the split-second option to back away from their offers without honoring them.

Market makers have to honor their quotes, and even have to do so a certain percentage of the time. The HFT’s have to honor NOTHING. In fact, they can back away and even run ahead of your orders!  So much for their liquidity. Again the real danger is that fund managers assume that the markets can handle their 250,000 share small cap position, and that they can exit with a predictable minimal trade cost.

God, I hope we don’t retest.

There is nothing level about that field. This high frequency program trading is done with the blessing of the exchanges and the SEC.

It smells.

I welcome any market participants involved in high frequency program trading to make the case for the defense. Since Joe Saluzzi truly brought this issue out into the open earlier this month, I have yet to see any case, let alone a reasonable one, made in defense of this activity.

Thus, with overall liquidity in the marketplace less than what it may appear, investors should factor that into their overall risk assessment when making investment decisions in the equity and commodity markets.

Challenge your brokers and financial planners on this topic. I’d love to hear their responses. Please share this post with them. Please share their thoughts on this topic, if they are even aware of it.

I think we will all learn who is truly looking out for investors’ interests as we navigate the economic landscape.

Goldman Sachs has taken control of the Federal Government

Rolling Stone journalist exposes how Goldman Sachs has taken control of the federal government. This is one of the most informative 15 minutes you will ever experience.