image_alt_text

Gaelan Brown's blog

Movement for Monetary Sovereignty and Public Banking in Vermont

Thu, 02/23/2012 - 1:09pm

The Bank of North Dakota holds the state general fund as deposits, meaning the bank and lend money into existence using the general fund as the reserves. This allows the state to self-finance public capital projects without borrowing money at high interest from Wall St bond markets. This also means North Dakota's community banks have the state bank backing them up and guaranteeing their loans, which results in low-cost accesssible credit to North Dakota's small business and agriculture economy. This is win-win-win, for everyone, including the community banks, and is a central reason that North Dakota has the strongest economy in the US. 

Vermont Commons and the Vermont Monetary Policy Group have been working on the issues of financial soveriegnty and state-level monetary policy to make Vermont more independent from the Wall St casino. 

Join us on March 3 from noon to 4 at Fletcher Free Library in Burlington, to rally public support for pending legislature in Vermont that would establish a plan for a Vermont State Bank! Fiscally conservative North Dakota can do, so can we. 

For more info on currency and monetary reform in Vermont, see www.CurrencyCommonsVt.org, an effort that is allied with Vermont Commons. 

 

Corporations are not people. Neither are robots.

Wed, 02/08/2012 - 12:01pm

People are ensured inalienable or “God given” rights such as freedom of speech, freedom from unwarranted search and the right to bear arms in our society because those rights are established in the Constitution of the United States.

Corporations existed back when the Constitution was written, yet the word corporation is not mentioned even once in the document. Robots aren’t mentioned either. Can there be any way to interpret the founders’ intent as being supportive of the idea that corporations (or robots) have inalienable human rights?

You don’t have to be a Constitutional scholar to see that the answer is clearly no. It doesn’t matter if you are conservative or liberal; this is just common sense folks. This is an issue where Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders agree, and one that should unite all Vermonters.

Abolishing corporate personhood is really about restoring Constitutional rule of law, where “we the people” are in control of our state, local and federal government. Today it’s pretty obvious that corporations and special interest groups have undue influence of our government institutions, especially at the federal level. This is a fundamental cause of all the corruption and bureaucratic bungling (oppressive regulation) we see in our government on a daily basis.

Corporate personhood means, among other things, that under the 14th amendment all “persons” (including corporations) must have “equal protection” under the law. This means that no federal/state or local laws can make special provisions or regulations for or against a certain corporation or category of corporation.

Many people think this is all about campaign finance because the issue got so much attention around the 2010 Citizens United (CU) Supreme Court decision. But corporate personhood is actually much bigger than that, and while CU re-affirmed that corporations are persons under the law, the case was about defining the limits of corporate speech, not corporate personhood.

Should a corporation, union or nonprofit have a right to unlimited free speech? Maybe, if that purpose (communication, political or otherwise) is specified in their charter. (Again, the corporate charter defines the rights/privileges/responsibilities of the corporation, by law, and state legislators determine what can be included in every corporate charter.)

What about the right to bear arms? (Can a paper-entity actually carry a rifle? That would be quite a feat of origami.)

What if a town decides they want to ban big box stores or pornography stores? Today these kind of local laws would be struck down as “unconstitutional” because of the 14th amendment and corporate personhood. Our hands are tied to govern ourselves because of corporate personhood.

The rights, privileges and responsibilities of a corporation, including limited liability for the shareholders for any crimes committed by the corporation, have always been specified by an act of a state legislature through the charter document of that corporation. Corporations, associations and unions would still have all of these rights and privileges even if they didn’t have constitutional human rights.

If you’re conservative, you should be appalled that our Constitution has been perverted by the activist judges who over the years have decided that corporations and unions should have the same “God given” rights as humans. God has never created a corporation or a union; only an act of a state legislature can create a corporation. (You don’t really think that our state governments are agents of God, do you?)

If you hate the fact that small local businesses have to jump through the same Act 250 hoops as a multi-national mega-corporation does, you should be against corporate personhood. Corporate personhood forces local and state laws to treat all corporations equally, even though we all know there’s a big difference between a locally owned small business and a foreign-owned mega-corp. That forces the small local companies to deal with regulations intended for mega-corps.

If you think it’s a good idea to for government to be “of the people, by the people, and for the people,” you should be against corporate personhood. Seeing corporations as people utterly perverts the entire idea of Democratic-Republican principles where PEOPLE govern THEMSELVES through elected representatives. If corporations are people, maybe the Walt Disney should run for president.

If you think elected legislators should make our laws instead of unaccountable activist judges, you should be against corporate personhood.

So how do we restore “we the people” and constitutional rule of law? At this point, abolishing corporate personhood can only be done by a constitutional amendment, which requires that three-quarters of the states pass the resolution after both houses of Congress pass it. The Constitution has been amended many times, and corporate personhood is as important of an issue as any of the previously passed amendments. If we could outlaw and then legalize alcohol through constitutional amendments, we can abolish corporate personhood.

All four of the towns in the Mad River Valley and approximately 40 other towns will vote on Town Meeting Day resolutions asking the state and federal government to make this amendment. This is where the process starts, and Vermont is poised to lead the nation on this issue.

Obama's Justice Dept Head Eric Holder: Puppet of Wall Street

Tue, 01/24/2012 - 10:27am
Topics>

How do we FREE VERMONT from this madness? Where is rule of law?

Insight: Top Justice officials connected to mortgage banks by Scot J. Paltrow

(Reuters) - U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Lanny Breuer, head of the Justice Department's criminal division, were partners for years at a Washington law firm that represented a Who's Who of big banks and other companies at the center of alleged foreclosure fraud, a Reuters inquiry shows.

The firm, Covington & Burling, is one of Washington's biggest white shoe law firms. Law professors and other federal ethics experts said that federal conflict of interest rules required Holder and Breuer to recuse themselves from any Justice Department decisions relating to law firm clients they personally had done work for.

Both the Justice Department and Covington declined to say if either official had personally worked on matters for the big mortgage industry clients. Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said Holder and Breuer had complied fully with conflict of interest regulations, but she declined to say if they had recused themselves from any matters related to the former clients.

Reuters reported in December that under Holder and Breuer, the Justice Department hasn't brought any criminal cases against big banks or other companies involved in mortgage servicing, even though copious evidence has surfaced of apparent criminal violations in foreclosure cases.

The evidence, including records from federal and state courts and local clerks' offices around the country, shows widespread forgery, perjury, obstruction of justice, and illegal foreclosures on the homes of thousands of active-duty military personnel.

In recent weeks the Justice Department has come under renewed pressure from members of Congress, state and local officials and homeowners' lawyers to open a wide-ranging criminal investigation of mortgage servicers, the biggest of which have been Covington clients. So far Justice officials haven't responded publicly to any of the requests.

While Holder and Breuer were partners at Covington, the firm's clients included the four largest U.S. banks - Bank of America, Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase and Wells Fargo & Co - as well as at least one other bank that is among the 10 largest mortgage servicers.

DEFENDER OF FREDDIE

Servicers perform routine mortgage maintenance tasks, including filing foreclosures, on behalf of mortgage owners, usually groups of investors who bought mortgage-backed securities.

Covington represented Freddie Mac, one of the nation's biggest issuers of mortgage backed securities, in enforcement investigations by federal financial regulators.

A particular concern by those pressing for an investigation is Covington's involvement with Virginia-based MERS Corp, which runs a vast computerized registry of mortgages. Little known before the mortgage crisis hit, MERS, which stands for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, has been at the center of complaints about false or erroneous mortgage documents.

Court records show that Covington, in the late 1990s, provided legal opinion letters needed to create MERS on behalf of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase and several other large banks. It was meant to speed up registration and transfers of mortgages. By 2010, MERS claimed to own about half of all mortgages in the U.S. -- roughly 60 million loans.

But evidence in numerous state and federal court cases around the country has shown that MERS authorized thousands of bank employees to sign their names as MERS officials. The banks allegedly drew up fake mortgage assignments, making it appear falsely that they had standing to file foreclosures, and then had their own employees sign the documents as MERS "vice presidents" or "assistant secretaries."

Covington in 2004 also wrote a crucial opinion letter commissioned by MERS, providing legal justification for its electronic registry. MERS spokeswoman Karmela Lejarde declined to comment on Covington legal work done for MERS.

It isn't known to what extent if any Covington has continued to represent the banks and other mortgage firms since Holder and Breuer left. Covington declined to respond to questions from Reuters. A Covington spokeswoman said the firm had no comment.

Several lawyers for homeowners have said that even if Holder and Breuer haven't violated any ethics rules, their ties to Covington create an impression of bias toward the firms' clients, especially in the absence of any prosecutions by the Justice Department.

O. Max Gardner III, a lawyer who trains other attorneys to represent homeowners in bankruptcy court foreclosure actions, said he attributes the Justice Department's reluctance to prosecute the banks or their executives to the Obama White House's view that it might harm the economy.

But he said that the background of Holder and Breuer at Covington -- and their failure to act on foreclosure fraud or publicly recuse themselves -- "doesn't pass the smell test."

Federal ethics regulations generally require new government officials to recuse themselves for one year from involvement in matters involving clients they personally had represented at their former law firms.

President Obama imposed additional restrictions on appointees that essentially extended the ban to two years. For Holder, that ban would have expired in February 2011, and in April for Breuer. Rules also require officials to avoid creating the appearance of a conflict.

Schmaler, the Justice Department spokeswoman, said in an e-mail that "The Attorney General and Assistant Attorney General Breuer have conformed with all financial, legal and ethical obligations under law as well as additional ethical standards set by the Obama Administration."

She said they "routinely consult" the department's ethics officials for guidance. Without offering specifics, Schmaler said they "have recused themselves from matters as required by the law."

Senior government officials often move to big Washington law firms, and lawyers from those firms often move into government posts. But records show that in recent years the traffic between the Justice Department and Covington & Burling has been particularly heavy. In 2010, Holder's deputy chief of staff, John Garland, returned to Covington, as did Steven Fagell, who was Breuer's deputy chief of staff in the criminal division.

The firm has on its web site a page listing its attorneys who are former federal government officials. Covington lists 22 from the Justice Department, and 12 from U.S. Attorneys offices, the Justice Department's local federal prosecutors' offices around the country.

As Reuters reported in 2011, public records show large numbers of mortgage promissory notes with apparently forged endorsements that were submitted as evidence to courts.

There also is evidence of almost routine manufacturing of false mortgage assignments, documents that transfer ownership of mortgages between banks or to groups of investors. In foreclosure actions in courts mortgage assignments are required to show that a bank has the legal right to foreclose.

In an interview in late 2011, Raymond Brescia, a visiting professor at Yale Law School who has written about foreclosure practices said, "I think it's difficult to find a fraud of this size on the U.S. court system in U.S. history."

Holder has resisted calls for a criminal investigation since October 2010, when evidence of widespread "robo-signing" first surfaced. That involved mortgage servicer employees falsely signing and swearing to massive numbers of affidavits and other foreclosure documents that they had never read or checked for accuracy.

Recent calls for a wide-ranging criminal investigation of the mortgage servicing industry have come from members of Congress, including Senator Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., state officials, and county clerks. In recent months clerks from around the country have examined mortgage and foreclosure records filed with them and reported finding high percentages of apparently fraudulent documents.

On Wednesday, John O'Brien Jr., register of deeds in Salem, Mass., announced that he had sent 31,897 allegedly fraudulent foreclosure-related documents to Holder. O'Brien said he asked for a criminal investigation of servicers and their law firms that had filed the documents because they "show a pattern of fraud," forgery and false notarizations.

(Reporting By Scot J. Paltrow, editing by Blake Morrison)

Montpelier City Planner Considers State Bank and Vermont Currency

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 10:34am

Gwen Hallsmith is Director of Planning/Development for the City of Montpelier and has earned international acclaim for her work on monetary issues. She's leading a citizen-businessperson committee that I am part of (along with people like Ben Cohen of Ben/Jerrys and Jeffrey Hollander of 7th Generation) that is working with VT Legislators on creating state-level monetary policy which will insulate VT from Wall St corruption. This movement includes exploring a State-owned bank like the highly successful Bank of North Dakota and also includes the conception of an alternative VT currency that could be legitimized by allowing the currency to beused to pay VT taxes.

Economic lifeboats are being built as the Titanic US financial empire sinks in front of our eyes. Stay on the Titanic if you think it's unsinkable!

Age of Energy Descent Brings Centralist vs Decentralist Paradigm into Focus

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 3:20pm

Here's where the left/right political lines evaporate into meaninglessness, and we are forced to realize that there are only two political options: Local control and self-government, or central-state-government control and fascism. Centralist or decentralist. Those are the only real political paradigms we have. Everything else is a fictional choice.

99% of Democrats and Republicans are Centralists who want to eliminate all of our rights to self-government and control everything from distant corporatist bureaucracies. 

Many sustainability activists and progressives like Richard Heinberg and Mike Ruppert have realized that decentralization is the only path to sustainability and justice. Many Libertarians like Ron Paul have been advocating for decentralization for years, while Ron's huge recent increase in populist support indicates that many Americans have finally woken up to this understanding. 

Where do you stand? With your community? Or with corporate-controlled bureaucrats?

As Gas Drilling Spreads, Towns Stand Ground Over Control

As energy companies move to drill in densely populated areas from Pennsylvania to Texas, battles are breaking out over who will have the final say in managing the shale gas boom.

The fight, which pits towns and cities against energy companies and states eager for growth, has raised a fundamental question about the role of local government: How much authority should communities have over the use of their land?

The battle is playing out in Pennsylvania as the Republican-controlled legislature considers bills that would in their current form sharply limit a community’s right to control where gas companies can operate on private property. Critics say the final bill could vastly weaken local zoning powers and give industry the upper hand in exchange for a new tax, which municipalities badly need.

The legislation has struck a nerve in a state where land control has long been considered quintessentially local.

“I’m a conservative Republican, and this goes against all my principles,” said Brian Coppola, the chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Robinson Township, in Washington County west of Pittsburgh. The pending legislation, he said, “is an enormous land grab on the part of the industry. He added, “Our property rights are being trampled.”

Mr. Coppola noted a hillside in town that began to crack and slide under the weight of a new shale gas processing plant, which he contends was built without a permit. The town’s zoning powers allowed him, through a court, to compel the company to follow town regulations and allow town inspectors access to the site. The site was eventually stabilized. Losing those powers would leave local officials out of the equation, he said, even though they are responsible for protecting the health and safety of their citizens.

“I’m an unpaid, part-time elected official, and it’s been a nightmare,” he said. “The state is not capable of monitoring even the most basic parts of this industry.”

Local governments argue that drilling is an industrial activity, just like that of a gas station or a cement factory, that should be subject to zoning. Dozens of towns, cities and counties across the country have enacted rules on drilling noise, lighting and the distance from homes and, in some cases, outright bans. In New York State alone, there have been at least 70 such actions.

Companies say the rush to regulate has produced an overly burdensome set of demands that is denting their potential when the economy desperately needs a lift.

“It’s like having to get a different driver’s license in every town,” said Matt Pitzarella, a spokesman for Range Resources, a Texas drilling company that is active here.

The flurry of local rules comes as the federal government inches forward on a national study of hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, the process used to extract previously inaccessible natural gas from shale deep underground.

The study is expected to shape the future of the industry, but progress has been slow. In the meantime, courts have become the next frontier.

In New York in September, a Denver exploration company sued Dryden, a town near Ithaca, over a drilling ban. In Colorado, Gunnison County, which contains a ski resort, is fighting a drilling company’s court challenge to its zoning. In Texas, a restrictive gas drilling ordinance adopted by an affluent suburb of Dallas called Flower Mound has drawn several lawsuits charging that it amounts to an unconstitutional seizure of mineral rights.

Jordan Yeager, a Pennsylvania lawyer who represents municipalities, said litigation brought by gas companies had a chilling effect, discouraging towns and cities from enacting regulations because they cannot afford to defend them in court.

Supporters of the Pennsylvania legislation argue that it would hold the industry to higher, more uniform environmental standards in addition to charging them fees.

“We substantially raised the bar of what we expect from natural gas operators,” said Representative Matthew Baker, a Republican who helped shape the legislation.

Emily A. Collins, a professor of environmental and oil and gas law at the University of Pittsburgh, said parts of the legislation would help the environment — for example, expanding the distance in which a driller could be presumed responsible for replacing a tainted water supply. 

She said the legislation seemed to anticipate litigation, calling for special judges to be added to the state Commonwealth Court, presumably to handle new flows of cases against local governments.

Companies have been ramping up shale gas drilling operations during the past decade in states like Texas and Colorado, and during the past several years in Pennsylvania, where the giant Marcellus Shale formation has set off a frenzy of activity.

The industry, however, has bumped up against affluent homeowners concerned about possible health effects and their property values. The median household income in Flower Mound, for example, is more than double the national median.

“It used to be that gas development happened ‘out there,’ ” said Gwen Lachelt, the director of the Oil and Gas Accountability Project for Earthworks, a national organization based in Colorado. “Now you see it in urban areas.”

That was the case in South Fayette, a bedroom community of rolling hills and upscale developments in Allegheny County for professionals from Pittsburgh. In August, Range Resources lodged a formal complaint against a zoning ordinance that established distances that drilling pads had to be kept from buildings in residential areas, charging that it went further than state law allows. On Nov. 9, the town rejected that complaint, raising the stakes.

“I spent a lot of money and invested heavily in my home,” said Keith McDonough, a resident who is an executive at a clothing company. “I don’t want to see it go up in smoke on a fracking site.”

Mr. McDonough, who described himself as a die-hard Republican, said he was finding himself doing things he had never done before, like knocking on doors and circulating petitions.

William Sray, a farmer who has signed a lease with a gas company, argued that by delaying drilling, opponents were denying his right to fulfill his contract and collect royalties. “Everybody has property rights, but they’re not respecting mine,” he said.

Mr. Pitzarella, of Range Resources, said that only a small minority of towns in Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale area — about 80 of approximately 1,800 — had, or were developing, regulations and that most of them were affluent. A strong set of state standards that people agree on would protect all communities, he said.

“It’s about having predictable and enforceable regulation that works for everyone,” he said.

But local regulation of oil and gas development is very strong in Texas, Professor Collins said, and has not seemed to hamper the industry’s growth. Fort Worth, for example, issues its own permits for drilling, something that states typically do.

Mr. Coppola argued that the most immediate risk in Pennsylvania was the possibility that companies, which are not required to share infrastructure like pipelines and compressor stations, could erect multiple sets, driving away developers and affluent residents and reducing the tax base.

Mr. McDonough was hopeful. He said towns would not make the same mistake they did with the coal industry. A river in town still runs orange, even though the industry is long gone.

“We’re at a turning point,” he said. “If this is not done with common sense, we will have lost an entire way of life.”

Ex-CIA Agent Tells All: Federal Reform is Impossible. Vt Independence Shown as a Solution

Thu, 12/15/2011 - 8:15am

Lifeboat Vermont gets an important spotlight. With the US Constitution formally nullified by NDAA, and $29 Trillion in FED bank-bailouts revealed, how much worse does it have to get before VT takes back our God-given inalienable right to self-government?

Civil Libertarian David Cobb Explains How We Lost Constitutional Government

Thu, 12/08/2011 - 9:06am

Libertarians, constitutional activists and Progressives UNITE! "The (supreme) Court stole our Constitution!" This is a fundamental issue that bridges the political spectrum. THE root cause of what eliminated constitutional rule of law is corporate personhood. This is the cause of the issues that Tea Party activists and OWS activists are mobilized around. Corporate-corrupt big government where corporations have inalienable human rights is beyond a perversion of constitutional law; it's outright fascism. 

David Cobb of www.MovetoAmend.og explains it all in plain English, in this 10 minute video:

My take: When the effort to amend the Constitution to restore WE THE PEOPLE as sovereigns fails in DC, it will be even more clear that Vermont's only options for constitutional liberty, justice  and sustainability are: nullification of federal law, and ultimately, secession.

The 2nd video is a repost of the interview I did with David after this event. 

Something's Gotta Give, Where OWS, Tea Party and Collapse Meet

Wed, 11/30/2011 - 2:06pm

 

By Mike Krauss of the Public Banking Institute as posted in PhillyBurbs (images added by me)

The American people have been asleep. That’s over.corporatism

The people are wakening and engaging in an expanding discussion about the present circumstances and future prospects of our nation.

The discussion began with the tea party patriots. But their protest at the injustice of the Wall Street bail out was turned to a focus on health care and taxes, as the money of the Republican right moved in to occupy the tea party.

The same way the money of the Democratic left hopes to occupy Occupy.

It’s all about money and power.

Americans are wakening to the reality that as wealth in America has been concentrated in the hands of the few, so too has political power.

Led by the Wall Street cartel, that power is used to preserve, protect, defend and — above all — increase the wealth of the 1 percent at the expense of the 99 percent of the American people.

Something’s gonna give.

As it does, it is essential to understand the actions of government that brought the nation to this moment, so that the barricades to equality of opportunity and upward economic mobility can be torn down and the path forward cleared of the debris.

Creation of the so called “Federal” Reserve gave control of the nation’s public money and credit to a private banking cartel, which conferred on itself what it wanted — immense wealth and power.

The birth of the banksters.

While wages for most Americans were kept flat, taxes on the rising income of the wealthiest and their capital gains have been steadily reduced, further concentrating wealth and power.

Wages were attacked by a combination of “free” trade, which opened American markets to the goods produced in low wage paying countries and no taxes on the profits of American companies abroad, which made it even more profitable to export American jobs. Unchecked immigration of the unskilled swelled the supply of labor far above demand to further depress wages.

Private credit, which Wall Street controls and sells, was substituted for rising wages and Congress over-rode state laws and allowed banks and finance companies to gouge Americans with unconscionable interest rates.

The rich got richer and the poor got poorer.

Congress allowed America’s banks to combine and the hard assets of the American people were concentrated in the “too-big-to-fail banks,” and then Congress allowed the combination of the investment and retail operations of the banks, providing speculators access to those assets, which they gambled away.

The middle class was devastated.

Congress allowed the regulatory agencies tasked to police the financial markets to be gutted and staffed with Wall Street and corporate front men. No cops on the beat. Fraud and abuse ran rampant.

Nobody did anything about it. Justice was subverted.

Congress turned the lobbying and campaign finance laws into a system of legalized bribes. The political parties became brand names to be bought and sold, stripped of any real power to shape public policy or advance candidates accountable to their members, and the Congress was put up for sale.

Not satisfied to enrich only corporate America and miss out on the good times, members of Congress now enrich themselves by trading on private information acquired in the course of their public duties.

Finally, in a breathtaking example of intellectual sophistry, the Supreme Court “piled on” the already downed American people, turned common sense on its head and decided that corporations that exist only in the law that the people create, are no longer subordinate to the people, but in fact have the same rights as people.

This is a crisis of justice and democracy.

Wall Street career men and acolytes of the central banking bureaucracy now dominate governments in Europe as they dominated the Clinton, Bush and now Obama administrations.

They are there to enforce “austerity measures” which subsidize and protect the banks that constructed the current crisis — in which they made hundreds of billions — and continue the transfer of wealth to the wealthy.

It is the same fate to which many present leaders of both political parties want to deliver the American people, targeting Social Security and Medicare as the drivers of the national debt, while sidestepping completely the drain of war, a grotesquely over fed and under-taxed oligarchy, corporate welfare — and the cost of the Wall Street monopoly on credit.

The Federal Reserve’s website lists interest paid on the U.S. federal debt for the last 24 years — $8.2 trillion, much of that “earned” by Wall Street by borrowing from the Fed at almost no interest, and lending back to the Treasury at higher interest. And now we’re learning the full extent of Wall Street’s colossal failure and the Fed’s bail out, kept secret even from the Congress.

But the American people are stirring, beginning to sort out how we got where we are, and how we get back to what we want our nation to be. Occupy and others have emerged to deliver the message the governing elite do not want delivered to the American people: it’s all about money and power, and the Wall Street led 1 percent now have a despotic monopoly on both.

How do we recover a just society with opportunity for all? While the candidates for president debate anything else, that is the question the American people are forming.

Mike Krauss, formerly of Levittown, is a director of the Public Banking Institute and chairman of The Pennsylvania Project, www.papublicbankproject.org. Email mike@mikekrausscomments.com

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - Gaelan Brown's blog