JUDGES: DUPES OR IN ON IT? THIS QUESTION KEEPS COMING UP…

Posted on October 30, 2014 by eggsistense

Gavel

So a judge took it upon himself to drastically reduce the damages which a jury found should be paid to California homeowner Phillip Linza (Linza v. PHH Mortgage, et al.), according to the Sacramento Bee:

The jury awarded $514,000 in compensatory damages and $15.7million in punitive damages. The judge decided the award was vastly overblown. In a written opinion, Berrier [the judge] said, “There was no evidence that the errors made were intentional or made in reckless disregard of causing emotional distress.”

National Mortgage News gives more details on the judge’s ruling:

The judge did acknowledge that PHH had acted as a “bad party” to the loan modification contract. PHH made “inconsistent demands for payment arguably repudiating the modification contract, threatened [Linza] with foreclosure, refused to return his many calls or to apologize for or correct its errors, refused to enter into a new agreement and even ridiculed his plight.”

Regardless, Judge Berrier said there was no evidence to support claims of negligence or fraud.

“As a general rule, a financial institution owes no duty of care to a borrower when the institution’s involvement in the loan transaction does not exceed the scope of its conventional role as a mere lender of money,” the judge wrote.

PHH is a third-party servicer of the loan, which is owned by investors in a private-label mortgage-backed security trust.

This judge apparently would like to come off as a dupe rather than being in on the fraud.  The quote that appears to confirm that is the one above that “a financial institution owes no duty of care to a borrower” if that institution is “a mere lender of money.”  PHH is clearly not the lender in this case, and surely Judge Berrier is aware of that.

Interestingly, the judge did find that PHH was a “bad party,” but apparently not so bad that they had to part with $16 million, even though it’s widely known that a single mortgage note two times or more of its face value on the secondary market (see “Guest Post: Mortgages Were Pledged To Multiple Buyers At The Same Time”), not to mention bloated servicing fees and/or other trash fees that are tacked on in “default” servicing.

A press release from Linza’s attorneys mentions the judge’s double-talk:

We were perplexed by the judges ruling given the jury’s award of $15.7 million in punitive damages and the judges own $5 million bond to secure the award during the post-trial period. Regardless, this decision must be viewed as a major victory for California homeowners as it empowers homeowners with the knowledge that anyone suffering from modification violations by their servicer can take legal action. No one can argue that $158,000 isnt a significant sum, explained Stephen Foondos, founder and sr. managing attorney of United Law Center, attorneys for the Plaintiff. This courts ruling merely emboldens the nationwide movement toward holding servicers accountable for mistreating its customers in the servicing of their loan. In overturning the jury, the judge ruled that PHH Mortgages conduct and subsequent attempts to foreclose on Mr. Linza were merely, an insensitive breach of contract.

As for Mr. Linza, his case continues. We were not surprised by the courts ruling as it is yet another example of a lower court not being informed on whats really happening in this industry. Every day there is a report of another nonbank mortgage servicer coming under scrutiny by regulators for various abuses against mortgage holders. We intend to get back the millions of dollars the jury unanimously awarded Mr. Linza, on appeal. Given the nature of this decision, Plaintiff now has the opportunity to establish new law and strengthen existing case law relating to homeowner abuse by servicers. We are used to having to win on appeal, added Foondos.

This month, the mortgage servicing industry has increasingly come under fire by regulators due to their alleged inability to properly service their customers. According to Ben Lane of HousingWire.com, Congressmember Elizabeth Warren sent a letter to the U.S. Government Accountability Office on Oct. 20, 2014 requesting a study of the risks posed to consumers by the unprecedented growth in nonbank mortgage servicing. On Oct. 28, 2014, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) released a report on the little amount of compliance happening among nonbank servicers with the CFPBs mortgage servicing rules that took effect in Jan. 2014. Most violations were described as unfairly delaying permanent loan modifications and deceiving consumers about status of permanent loan modifications; two of the biggest issues in the Linza case.

At least the judge didn’t overturn the entire decision of the jury, so that’s a modicum of progress…However, to help answer the question in the headline, i.e. “dupes or in on it,” consider the following.  The judge had to know that there would be an appeal either way–if he let the damages stand or if, as it has now turned out, he didn’t.  So why is he making the homeowner bear the burden and costs of initiating the appeal rather than “bad actor” PHH?  If the judge isn’t a dupe or in on it, why would he do that?  Just something to ponder…

h/t: Shelley Erickson, Stop Foreclosure Fraud

See our other stories on whether or not judges are being duped by banks or somehow in on the fraud of the banks and servicers:

Tag Archives: judges

FORECLOSURE JUDGES: DUPES OR FOLLOWING A SCRIPT?

JUDGES: DUPES OR IN ON IT?– PART 2

JUDGES: DUPES OR IN ON IT?

Posted in Everything Is Rigged, Foreclosure, Foreclosure fraud | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

FAST FOOD SCREWUPS DON’T DESERVE DECENT WAGES, BUT CEO SCREWUPS DO?

Posted on October 26, 2014 by eggsistense

Burger Tirade

The guy in the above video is exactly right and his logic is flawless. Indeed, he’s got a point–people that make tons of money never make mistakes or get lazy. Highly-paid surgeons would never, for example, amputate the wrong limb on a patient. Oil company CEOs never let oil leak into the Gulf of Mexico. That’s another example. And that is why the class of people that work at Carl’s Jr.—who messed up this guys’ order not once but twice (!!!)– should never make a decent wage while doctors and CEOs are totally worth their millions.

“That’s what’s wrong with our country,” according to this guy—the fact that fast food workers might mess up his order means that they shouldn’t make a wage that even comes close to keeping up with inflation.  Brilliant analysis!

Sarcasm off…

Posted in class war, Crap-italism, Everything Is Rigged, Uncategorized, Wages | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

DEAD IS DEAD: SAM HARRIS AND FAUX INTELLECTUAL COVER FOR WAR OF TERROR

Posted on October 24, 2014 by eggsistense

I wanted to like Sam Harris.  The first piece of his I ever read on Truthdig (now almost a decade ago) really resonated with me.  So much so that I went out and bought his book, “The End of Faith.”  I didn’t finish it, because I got disgusted with it   I wrote a blog post about the reasons why I got disgusted with it some 9 years ago:

A few entries ago, I mentioned Sam Harris and his book “The End Of Faith” in a favorable light. That was before I read the book.
For such a gifted writer who is fearless and unrelenting in his puncturing of religious belief, his voracious appetite for received wisdom is unsettling.
In short, he thinks we’re the good guys and the “terrorists” (read Muslims and non-Westerners) are the bad guys. He goes to great lengths to demonstrate this. He writes as though he is not aware of the work of Robert Pape, but he in fact does refer to Pape’s work.
Here’s an example of what I mean about us being good and them being bad:

(p. 141)
Take the bombing of the Al-Shifa pharmaceuticals plant [in Sudan]:according to Chomsky, the atrocity of September 11 pales in comparison with that perpetrated by the Clinton administration in August 1998. But let us now ask some very basic questions that Chomsky seems to have neglected to ask himself: What did the U.S. government think it was doing when it sent cruise missiles into Sudan? Destroying a chemical weapons site used by Al Qaeda.

Harris points out that Chomsky’s justification for this charge is that the bombing of the plant resulted in thousands of deaths in Sudan because pharmaceuticals are hard to come by in Sudan to begin with and then when a plant that makes them gets blown up, Sudan is then even worse off than usual.
Harris then goes on to ask this question:

(Continuing directly) Did the Clinton administration intend to bring about the deaths of thousands of Sudanese children? No. Was our goal to kill as many Sudanese as we could? No.

Intent Or Result
My problem with this line of reasoning is that it doesn’t matter if we didn’t intend to cause the deaths of thousands of people. What matters is that we caused it. In other words, no matter what our intent may have been, the result is the same–thousands of innocent people dead.
It reminds me of a child who causes a lamp to fall off a table, breaking it. The parent scolds the child but the child protests that he didn’t mean to do it. But the parent points out the obvious–the lamp is still broken.
Harris then goes on to say that “asking [the above] questions about Osama bin Laden and the nineteen hijackers puts us in a different moral universe entirely.” And that is the crux of my problem with the Harris book so far–that Harris won’t tolerate violence from Muslims directed at the West because of their beliefs and their intentions. But violence carried out by the West against Muslims is A-OK because of our intentions and our beliefs.
That is to say, in Harris’ mind, the violence of Muslims is always only the result of a religious belief and never the result of a legitimate political grievance buttressed by a religious belief.
For such a learned person, his apparent naivete about geopolitical concerns is disturbing. For instance, he writes disapprovingly of Iraqi reaction to the U.S. occupation of that country, saying that “the idea of an army of infidels occupying Baghdad simply could not be countenanced, no matter what humanitarian purpose it might serve (p. 128).” Again, he attempts to exonerate the U.S. with our supposedly good intentions. But the road to Abu Ghraib is paved with good intentions.

[SNIP]

Just Turned The Page
OK, I read on and was stunned again by Harris’ naivete but don’t have time to write about it. He buys the argument that, as Arundhati Roy says in a passage he quotes, America is a “well-intentioned giant.” Roy uses the term in derogation, Harris uses it as absolution. But what Harris fails to see is that our intentions are “good” to us–but they are bad to others. Harris will not hear of a Muslim’s intentions being “good” because they are often counter to our intentions, and therefore bad, even though from a Muslim perspective they are “good.”
And this is where the “moral equivalence” canard gets shown for the bullshit it is. If anyone’s intentions are “good” but result in deaths of innocents, that is bad. The ends do not justify the means (Scott Ritter asked anyone who believed that to turn in their passports and get out of the country in a session with Seymour Hersh yesterday on C-Span). If you mean to do good, but hurt people in the process of doing “good,” you’ve done bad.
Why is that? Well, because anyone can claim to be well-meaning. You cannot see people’s “good” intentions, but you can see the dead bodies that may well result from them.

OK, that was a rather long excerpt from my old blog.  Yes, I used to be quite the Democrat—no longer.  So Harris is still up to his same old BS, i.e., using the cover of his impressive education and presumed erudition to support the neocons.  And Cenk calls him on it, like for example at approximately the 36 minute mark:

HARRIS:  You’re being too loose with Christianity.  Christianity is not just as violent [as Islam].  Christianity has a history of extraordinary violence…

UYGUR:  By far, historically the most violent religion on the planet…

HARRIS:  Well, that…I don’t know what you’re lumping into the Christian bin there, but that’s debatable.  But let’s just talk about the centuries of…

UYGUR: Muslims didn’t start the two world wars, Muslims didn’t do the Holocaust, Muslims didn’t do the Crusades…

HARRIS:  Those were not because of Christianity—the world wars were not because of Christianity…

UYGUR: I know, that’s “complicated.”  When Christians do it, it’s “complicated,” when Muslims do it, it’s not complicated, it’s because of Islam.

HARRIS: No, no, no…

Dead is dead: war IS terrorism

Zinn-War is terrorism

So again we see, just as in his book, Harris gives one unquestionably violent religion (i.e., Christianity) a pass—presumably because he agrees with the concomitant political motivations and outcomes—while another unquestionably violent religion and its followers (i.e., Islam and Muslims) must be neutralized.  The talk then turns to Hitler being a Christian—which he was—and while Harris doesn’t give Hitler a pass, he does give Christianity a pass.  But not Islam.  Indeed, at around the 49:57 mark, he asks:

HARRIS: Where are the Christian suicide bombers?  Where are the Christians cutting the heads off of Yazidis ?  Where is this death cult behavior among Christians?

Harris’ big mistake is that he apparently thinks that killing hundreds of thousands—possibly millions—of people with conventional weapons and/or new weapons like drones is somehow morally superior to suicide bombing or beheading and doesn’t rise to “death cult behavior.”

News flash: dead is dead.  It’s all wrong—suicide bombing and conventional bombing.  And that is the travesty and tragedy of Harris’ argument—instead of arguing that killing people is wrong, for any reason, he still plays into the neocon argument which essentially states that “when Western whites kill Eastern non-whites with supposedly pure intentions of freedom and democracy as understood by the Western whites, that’s objectively morally correct, but when Eastern non-whites kill Western whites, that’s always objectively morally incorrect, no matter what their reasons may be—self-defense, etc.”  It’s the white man’s burden, but with a sheen of supposedly objective, dispassionate  reasoning.  Except it isn’t—it’s hogwash.

Posted in Middle East | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

THE ABSURDITY OF DEBT AND OF NOT CANCELLING IT

Posted on October 21, 2014 by eggsistense

Divine is forgiving debts meme copy

Salon has been on fire with truth lately, this article on student debt being no exception.  From the article, we find out the following very interesting nugget:

The total national student loan debt is more than $1.2 trillion, the bulk of which – about $1 trillion – is owed by students to the federal government. According to a 2013 study, the average debt held by a graduate in 2012 was almost $30,000. Forty million young Americans are saddled with this burden and 7 million of them have defaulted already.

Let that sink in—students owe $1 trillion to the federal government.  The apparent source of that claim is from this July 2013 speech by Rohit Chopra of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.  Chopra put it like this:

“The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau estimates that outstanding debt is approaching $1.2 trillion as of May 2013. We also estimate that student loans guaranteed or held by the federal government have now crossed the $1 trillion mark.”

Lest you think this is all a bunch of leftist, socialist, deadbeat-loving, get-out-of-debt-free-card hokum, consider that Forbes Magazine—that notorious commie broadsheet—accepts this figure as correct in a 2013 article titled “How The $1.2 Trillion College Debt Crisis Is Crippling Students, Parents, And The Economy.”

The absolute absurdity

Money-creation-unlimited-copy.png

So why is this absurd?  Well, for starters, notice that $1 trillion of this $1.2 trillion is supposedly owed to the federal government.  Understand that the U.S. government does not need that $1 trillion to be paid back.  Why not?  Because the U.S. government can always create more dollars–it does it all the time.

For example, the current national debt of the United States is almost $18 trillion, according to the U.S. National Debt Clock.  Does the fact that the government is $18 trillion in debt mean that all services and activities of the government grind to a halt because the government grind to a halt?  Obviously, it does not.  The government just creates/borrows more.

Again, you must keep in mind that all money is created out of thin air.  Indeed, how can a government that is nearly $18 trillion in debt possibly lend to anyone?  I will allow that the answer to that question requires taking into account a few more complexities than we have space for here, but then again–not really.  Because the answer to that question is still, and always has been, that money is created out of thin air.  This is not controversial in the slightest.  And any argument that “but the taxpayers will be screwed” if this $1.2 trillion isn’t repaid is also absurd.  For one thing, taxpayers are already screwed, and again, taxes are not the source of these loans.  Remember, the money for these “loans” comes from thin air, not from taxes or from any money the government has on hand.

So the U.S. government does not need this $1.2 trillion to be paid back for two reasons:

1) there is no loss to the government because the “money” to finance the student “loans” never existed prior to the money being “lent” to students (remember, how can a government that is perpetually in multi-billions or trillions in debt possibly afford to lend out trillions?) and

2) even if the $1.2 trillion were forgiven and considered to be a loss to the government, no worries because suddenly the government can just create/borrow $1.2 trillion more in as much time as it take to enter the ones and zeroes in a computer.  On that score, let me refer you to the Alan Greenspan quote above…

So why not cancel it?

Fishing Debt Meme copy

Since the above is true, why not just cancel the student debt and set these people free?  Since the government doesn’t really need the money to be paid back, why force people to pay it back and in fact capitalize the interest (i.e., add unpaid interest to the principal) if it isn’t paid back on the proper schedule?  Indeed, wouldn’t it help the economy at large if the money these student borrowers are being made to pay back to the government—who doesn’t even need the money—could instead be spent at small businesses (or large ones) and pumped into the economy that way?  Of course it would.  Remember, no less a defender of “free market” capitalism than Forbes Magazine (whose motto is “The Capitalist Tool”) worries that the incredible level of student debt is “crippling” the economy (see above).

I’m afraid the answer to the question of why we don’t just cancel the student debt is fairly sinister.  This is just my opinion, but look at it like this: what better way to guarantee a workforce that has to have a job—any job, at any wage—in order to pay back a “loan” that can’t be discharged, even in bankruptcy?  How best to have a workforce that will take whatever it can get and not complain too loudly?  Saddle them with debt—a lot of it—that they can’t get out of.  Keep them from striking out on their own and creating competition for the already established industries simply because their debt-to-income ratios will be so out of whack that they can’t possibly borrow money to start their own businesses, and Lord knows they don’t have the money to do so on their own because they just got out of college and owe tens or hundreds of thousands in debt!

The Salon article points out some of the consequences of this system:

“To slap such exorbitant debt on new graduates, especially in this economy, is an aggressive undermining of human rights. And the punishment for not paying, for those who either can’t find work or are courageous enough to pursue their dreams despite their debt, can be severe: ruined credit, wage garnishment (for those lucky enough to have wages), vicious harassment from collectors and enormous fees as collection of the debt is outsourced to private entities. All of this effectively penalizes poverty. With such immense pressure funneling millions of graduates into whatever menial job they can find in order to begin making payments, student loan debt has been compared to a modern form of indentured servitude.”

Without a doubt, the system is indentured servitude.  Does it also rise to the level of involuntary servitude?  If so, that of course would be unconstitutional.  That’s a topic for another time, but certainly worth pondering.  If the absurdity of corporate “personhood” can be wrenched out of the 14th Amendment, then surely it can’t be too much of a stretch to say that being forced to work any job for any amount of money in order to pay thin-air student debts that can’t be discharged is a violation of the 13th Amendment.  Maybe such an argument wouldn’t have been countenanced 20 or 30 years ago, but the times—they have a-changed…what was once absurd is now completely rational.

What you can do

The Salon article also has a bold suggestion for how to deal with the problem:

“Student loans provide an easy avenue for resistance. Not paying them would be like taking back the bailout money the government gave bankers and other financial criminals in 2009. The dollar amounts aren’t far off, and if American tax dollars can be used for a CEO’s bonus they can damn sure be used for education. It happens one way and not the other because the moneyed CEO can influence policy in a way ordinary Americans can’t. The balance of power can be shifted, but only by collective action. Nothing could send a stronger message than 40 million indebted graduates standing together in a boycott of student loan payments.”

Do we have the stones for a boycott of student loan payments?  Because we gotta do something…

Posted in Crap-italism, Debt, Debt Slavery, Everything Is Rigged, Federal Reserve, Feudalism, Financial Terrorism, Redistribution, Rentier, Reverse socialism, Wealth transfer | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

WAKE-UP CALLS: PART ONE—CURES THEY WON’T TELL YOU ABOUT, OR HOW I LEARNED TO DISTRUST THE DOCTOR

Posted on October 20, 2014 by eggsistense

caduceus_medical_logo_symbol

Decided to do a little informal series of autobiographical sketches about how I woke up to certain truths.  It happens differently for everyone, of course, and then some people never wake up, no matter how loud the wake-up call.  And undoubtedly there are still truths to which I haven’t yet awakened.  So this is part one of the series—how I got a wake-up call about the medical establishment (despite the headline, this has nothing to do with Kevin Trudeau!). Seems like a good time to tell this part of the story, what with the Ebola scare and the medical establishment’s response to it.  Or the lack of response to it.  And fortunately, my wake-up call did not involve a life-threatening illness or a misdiagnosis of such an illness or anything like that.  Compared to that scenario, my story may seem somewhat underwhelming.  But it’s my story—the only one I’ve got—so for better or worse, here goes.

How I learned to distrust the doctor

accutane-pills

All my life, I’ve had skin issues.  I had moderate to severe acne as a teenager—bad enough that I was prescribed Accutane.  This was the mid-80s, so Accutane was new, having been approved by the FDA in 1982.  I don’t really recall now if it worked miracles or not, or if I just kind of grew out of the acne, but it’s not important for this article.

I also had urticaria—more commonly known as hives.  I probably would still get hives if I didn’t regularly take antihistamine, which I do because I also have allergies.  Funny story–when I first developed hives, I didn’t know what was happening.  My hands were red and itched like crazy.  Went to an urgent-care place, and the person that saw me was new in the profession.  He had me tested for gonorrhea, even though he could have easily ruled that out based on the questions he asked me.  Of course that test was negative and when the experienced doctor came in to see me, he was able to tell right away that it was hives.

I’m also prone to rashes and peeling, particularly on my fingers.  And to get to the main point of this story, I used to get unsightly flaking skin on my nose fairly often, usually when the weather turned cold.  I always attributed the peeling and flaking to the dryness of the air during the cold months.  But eventually, it started happening even during the spring and summer.  I would usually try to treat this with various moisturizers, which only helped temporarily—like, only for a few hours at best.  So I eventually went to a dermatologist about the condition.

The diagnosis and the prognosis

Desonide

The dermatologist very quickly and correctly diagnosed me with seborrheic dermatitis.  In other words, I more less was having dandruff, but on my face.  He told me that there was no known cause and no known cure—remember that, because that is ultimately how I woke up.  He prescribed a medicated steroid cream, the active ingredient of which was desonide.

The dermatologist told me to follow the directions on the package when using the cream—mainly to avoid using too much–and that he would need to see me again after using it for a while to evaluate if any of the possible side effects were present.  He emphasized—or I remember him emphasizing—the possibility of skin atrophy in the area where the cream would be used.  Other than that, the prognosis was good.  The cream was known to have a good success rate in treating dermatitis.  I was pleased, and went and got the prescription filled.

Success!

Sure enough, the desonide cream worked.  No more flaking!  I was relieved that there was such a simple solution, and I used the cream faithfully, adhering to the directions as closely as I could.  However, I noticed that there was a slight, yet palpable sensation—or lack thereof, somehow—after applying the cream.  There was almost a numbness in the affected area.  I began to worry that maybe the cream was in fact starting to atrophy my skin, or that it eventually would, since I would have to use the cream for the rest of my life.  After all, I was told there was no known cure for the condition.

I returned to the dermatologist for the first visit after using the cream for the prescribed amount of time, and he gave it the thumbs up.  He re-upped my prescription and all was well.  No visible side effects, no adverse reactions, etc.  Again, it was reiterated that there was no known cause and no known cure.  I expressed my concern over the potential for atrophy, but I was told that there was no reason to worry and that if I had any problems, to let him know and we could make arrangements to try something different.

So I used the desonide cream as directed, every day.  The flaking never returned, but I still had the numb-ish sensation after applying the cream that made me a little apprehensive, but not so much so that I stopped using it.  I returned to the dermatologist at least one more time to get another re-up of the prescription and to make sure the cream wasn’t damaging me.  Again, got the thumbs up/all’s well.

Hmmm…

Eventually, my prescription needed to be refilled.  I realized that by this time, I had seen the dermatologist on three different occasions for the same problem.  And of course, I had paid approximately $75 for every visit, then paid whatever the prescription cost (don’t remember the price offhand—I don’t remember it being overly pricey, but still).  I got to thinking, why should I have to go to this guy every three months or whatever it was, pay him his money, and get the prescription?  After all, he himself told me there was no known cause and no known cure.  Why can’t he just refill my prescription whenever I need it done?  Haven’t we already established what needs to be done and what meds I need, and that if there’s a problem, then I can see him again?

So I called his office and asked if they would get the dermatologist to do just that—refill my prescription without a visit to his office.  Oh no, they said, we can’t do that.  You have to come in to see the doctor.  He has to evaluate the way the medicine is affecting you, regardless of the fact that there’s no known cure or cause.  For that, he has to see you.  And what they left unsaid, the most important part—you have to pay him every time you see him for him to treat what he considers to be an incurable condition.  No freebies, but nice try!

So of course, I began to calculate what this was going to cost me every year.  Not an astronomical amount or anything, but enough to be annoying, especially since according to the doctor–there is no known cause and no known cure.  So I decided to turn to the Internet for a solution.   That’s my first step now—Google it—but at the time, I took the doctor’s word for it.  And these were pre-Facebook and pre-YouTube days (or in the days of their infancy)—ancient history.   You know, that hazy period between 9/11 and the birth of “social media.”

Turns out the doctor didn’t tell me a thing or two

Desert Essence Tea Tree Oil

My search turned up a blog post (they had those back in ancient times–of 7-10 years ago) from a woman who described how she overcame facial sebhorreic dermatitis.  I can’t find that specific blog entry now, but I am very thankful I found it then!  It was this woman—not the doctor—who fleshed out the fact that since the dermatitis was basically just dandruff, (but on your face), that dandruff treatments that work for your scalp will also work for your face and recommended the use of coal tar shampoo—a popular name brand of which is Neutrogena T/Gel.  And sure enough, she was exactly right.

As I explain all this now, it seems obvious that I should’ve never trusted the doctor in the first place and that when he made the passing comment of “facial dandruff” I should’ve immediately tried Head and Shoulders on my nose, especially since I was already using it on my scalp!  But that was not how I thought back then.  I hadn’t yet received my wake-up call, so I just sort of took the doctor’s word for it and dutifully handed over my money, because you know, dude is a doctor and he knows what is best—and I don’t.  Of course, on that first visit, I also didn’t realize (and certainly wasn’t told) that I would be expected to return every few months to pay my share of the doctor’s mortgage note on his estate in the gated community.

At any rate,  I used the T/Gel and aloe vera gel (also suggested by the blog post) and never had to get my prescription refilled.  And never had to contribute to the doctor’s bank account again.  And not only did the flaking never come back, but also I didn’t have to worry about skin atrophy.

Admittedly, the T/Gel was not my favorite treatment, mainly because of its rather strong and distinctive odor.  I got lucky again, though, and by chance I ran across some Desert Essence Tea Tree Oil Skin Ointment.  The packaging indicated that it soothed skin irritation and I thought it would be worth a try for my dermatitis.  So I got a jar and started using it.  It also worked like a charm!  I was able to stop using the T/Gel and aloe, and now use the Desert Essence ointment exclusively.  I no longer have flaking and only minor itching sensations if I don’t apply it for a day or two.  And I also don’t have to worry about any side effects (this is not a paid endorsement, by the way, as I receive no financial or other benefit from endorsing this product–I do get a lot of benefit from using the product, though).

So that’s why I don’t trust the doctors

So even though my dermatitis isn’t cured to the point that I can stop using any treatment at all, it is effectively “cured” in the sense that if I put the tea tree oil on at least every couple of days, I have no flaking or itching.  So the doctor was half right, in my book.  There’s no cure in the sense that the condition is completely gone, but there is a cure in the sense that there are multiple, cheap, and prescription-free treatments that completely alleviate symptoms.

The lesson?  For the medical industry, there is no money in cures, especially cures that don’t require prescriptions.  So more likely than not, you won’t ever hear about such actual cures from a licensed physician–I have a feeling that’s why my dermatologist didn’t tell me about T/Gel or tea tree oil.  If you’re cured, who will pay their bills, after all?  We’ve all heard such sentiments before and perhaps even believe it to varying degrees even if we haven’t experienced it ourselves.  That was certainly my attitude before this situation.  Now I’ve gotten my wake-up call, and I know better than to blindly trust doctors and their diagnoses and prescription treatments.  That’s why I am always open to alternative explanations and cures, such as cannabis oil shrinking tumors.

At the beginning of this piece, I downplayed the importance of this story because it didn’t involve a threat to my life.  It just involved a threat to my appearance and self-esteem.  But that’s exactly why it probably shouldn’t be downplayed, now that I think about it.  That indeed, even with regard to minor ailments, there’s still a profit-driven impulse and/or directive to withhold cures or prescription-free, non-patented (and/or non-patentable) treatments that are all but a cure.  The desire for profit maximization in even the “small” conditions like seborrheic dermatitis reveals just how big a problem the business model of the medical-pharmaceutical complex actually is.

Posted in Big Pharma, Everything Is Rigged, Health issues, Wake-up Calls | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

FORECLOSURE JUDGES: DUPES OR FOLLOWING A SCRIPT?

Posted on October 18, 2014 by eggsistense

Script Clip Art FixedA couple of extremely salient points in this article.  First, Garfield notices some apparent scripting among judges in different Florida counties.  And unfortunately, it’s not because they’re quoting the Constitution of the relevant law.  Here’s how Garfield describes what’s happening:

“Going into any courtroom anywhere in the state and you hear the same phrases used by the sitting Judge. It is as though they were all getting scripts from the same source. In fact any experienced lawyer would tell you that where the wording is the same amongst a number of different people on the same subject, that alone is evidence of a common source, whether disclosed or not.”

So apparently it isn’t just the exact same concepts being bandied about by the judges—i.e., homeowners must lose their homes despite any and all evidence as to why they shouldn’t—but also the exact same language is being employed by judges across the state as they discuss these concepts.

Unfortunately, Garfield doesn’t cite any examples of this phenomenon, but it’s the kind of thing that I don’t have a hard time believing anymore.  And you shouldn’t have a hard time believing it anymore, either.  Why?  Everything is rigged.  From LIBOR to ISDAfix to well, basically every market.  By way of example of just how rigged everything is in favor of the banks: just this week a well-known Florida attorney mentioned on Facebook that in a foreclosure trial, the bank admitted the promissory note in the case had been forged, but the judge ruled in favor of the bank anyway.

How does that happen if the judges are truly following the law and not a script that says all homeowners must lose against the banks?  Simply put, it doesn’t.

The second great point Garfield makes about this phenomenon:

“…Judges are under pressure to clear the cases off the calendar and because they have been told the way to do that is to enter rulings and judgments against borrowers.

Judges could just as easily have been told to require that the foreclosing party have everything lined up before they set foot in court.”

In other words, the judges could have simply followed the law and the rules of civil procedure instead of ruling against homeowners as a way of unclogging the courts (which in my view is the most charitable explanation of why the knee-jerk rulings against homeowners happens).  But that’s not how the elites get to steal everything that isn’t nailed down—and also the stuff that is nailed down.  After all, the new feudalism can’t go into full swing if the laws are applied in an even-handed and fair manner.  And by obscuring who owns what—or by making sure the banks own everything, as is apparently the purpose of the “script” Garfield is talking about, we will end up as serfs, as pointed out here:

They let us have our little “Constitution” and our “property rights” and the rest of it.  Or so we thought.  While we weren’t looking, though, they enslaved us in that “freedom.”  There aren’t any debtor’s prisons in America anymore?  Think again–the entire country is a debtor’s prison.

And so the question of “who owns what” is now being decided–in favor of the banks.  They’re going to own it all–through fraud like MERS and horrible court decisions–and we’re going to be the serfs.  Hell, we already are the serfs.  And “who owns what?”  The lords own everything.  The velvet glove is coming off the iron fist.

It’s feudalism.  Everything old is new again.  Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.  And the “government?”  The banks are the government.

So, are the judges dupes or following a script?  I have pursued similar questions before here at LRM, take a read if you’re so inclined:

JUDGES: DUPES OR IN ON IT?

JUDGES: DUPES OR IN ON IT?– PART 2

Posted in Everything Is Rigged, Feudalism, Foreclosure, Foreclosure fraud, Judicial Misconduct, Living Lies | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

EBOLA FEARMONGERING UNJUSTIFIED

Posted on October 15, 2014 by eggsistense

Fear Everything

There have been a number of things I’ve seen online today about the anomalies and the true threat—or lack thereof—of Ebola that I wanted to share.  First, this comment from Infowars’ Paul Joseph Watson:

PJW Ebola FB Screenshot

Indeed, that is amazing.  The two people wearing protective suits Watson is presumably referring to: Nina Pham, the Dallas nurse, and Teresa Romero Ramos, the Spanish nurse.  According to the Washington Post (“Second Ebola case confirmed. Texas health worker wore ‘full’ protective gear” October 12, 2014)”:

[Pham] treated Duncan, the Ebola patient, after his second visit to the emergency room, on Sept. 28, and was “following full CDC precautions,” including wearing a gown, gloves, a mask and a protective face shield.

However, that story has now shifted a bit with the revelation that a second Dallas nurse that also cared for Thomas Eric Duncan, has now been diagnosed with Ebola.  Her name is Amber Vinson, and according to the AP (“Nurses Treated Ebola Patient Thomas Eric Duncan Without Proper Protective Gear, Group Says” October 15, 2014):

DALLAS (AP) — A Liberian Ebola patient was left in an open area of a Dallas emergency room for hours, and nurses treating him worked without proper protective gear and faced constantly changing protocols, according to a statement released by the nation’s largest nurses’ union.

Among those nurses was Nina Pham, 26, who has been hospitalized since Friday after catching Ebola while caring for Thomas Eric Duncan, the first person diagnosed with the virus in the U.S. He died last week.

 

And Duncan’s family that lived with him?  They’re not showing any symptoms, according to this article (“Family that lived with Texas Ebola victim showing no symptoms, mayor says” foxnews.com, October 14, 2014):

The family who shared an apartment with a Liberian man who died of Ebola in Texas is showing no signs of illness, while the dog of a nurse who contracted the deadly virus is healthy and being cared for, Dallas’s mayor said on Tuesday.

Thomas Eric Duncan’s girlfriend, her 13-year-old son and two nephews in their 20s had been living with Duncan before he was admitted to a Dallas hospital on Sept. 28.

“So far no signs of the virus in any of them,” Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings said on CNN. “We check them twice a day, and everybody’s healthy.”

Very curious, yes?  Maybe Ebola isn’t the end of the world after all.  After all, even “Patient Zero’s” family didn’t get it!  With that in mind, consider this comment from “So What” at Zero Hedge:

Let’s put this Ebola outbreak into perspective.

Facts:
1)The populations of Liberia, Guinea, Sierra Leone are respectively 4.3 millions, 11.75 millions, 6.1 millions. Total combined population is roughly: 22.15 millions.

2)In these three countries where most of the Ebola victims have been identified, 8000 have been diagnosed and 4500 have died.

3)The populations of these three countries live in densely populated area, and lack adequate sewage systems in their neighborhood. Their healthcare systems are primitive at best. Their populations are exposed to infected corpses lying in street, infected family members and neighbors.

Analysis:

1)Even so we see a tiny fraction of .036% of the population getting infected and half of that dead over an 11 months outbreak.

2)So even living in these poor country, your chance of dying from Ebola is minuscule in an 11 months period.

3)With superior healthcare system, advanced sewage system in the US and Europe, the rate of infection and death should be even lower.

Ebola doesn’t look so fearsome after facts are examined, is it?

The real threat is the suspension of laws, civil rights, and grabbing of power by scaring the bejesus out of the population. Everyone should be wary of this fear mongering. The real fear should be directed at The Power That Be.

Possible scenarios using Ebola fear mongering:

1)Crash market and bankers steal more money.

2)Escalate Syrian war.

3)Pass laws to clamp down internet.

4)Elect a traitor, globalist puppet into as president of USSA.

Please copy and post this as many times as possible.

 

After all, the conventional wisdom is that American health care is the best in the world.  Certainly it’s leaps and bounds better than the health care system of West Africa.  If that’s true, what are we so worried about?    Rather, what are they trying to make us so worried about.

I agree with Zero Hedge’s “So What”—the best thing to do is to watch the hand the government doesn’t want us to watch, i.e., the hand that is involved in the prestidigitation, not the one holding up the Ebola panic for everyone to see.  But fear shouldn’t be our first option, because fear shuts off the critical mind (which is the whole point, of course):

“Fear is not real. The only place that fear can exist is in our thoughts of the future. It is a product of our imagination, causing us to fear things that do not at present and may not ever exist. That is near insanity. Do not misunderstand me–danger is very real but fear is a choice. We are all telling ourselves a story.”

Posted in Ebola | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

RECLAIMING THE ECONOMIC VALUES OF THE “NEW WORLD”

Posted on October 13, 2014 by eggsistense

640px-Arowak_woman_by_John_Gabriel_StedmanAh, Columbus Day—the birthday, nay, the Christmas of colonialism in the Americas.  And like Christmas, almost nothing about it is factual, i.e., Jesus wasn’t born on December 25th, there is no Santa Claus—in the same way, Columbus didn’t discover anything, he wasn’t some genius that defied the flat-earth myth of his day, etc.  The facts are that Columbus and his ilk were genocidal, rapacious plunderers who deserve a national holiday about as much as Adolf Hitler or Genghis Khan.  Which is to say, they don’t deserve one at all.

But Columbus is traditionally credited with discovering “The New World.”  Of course it wasn’t any such thing—it had been there all along, as had its inhabitants.  But it was new—to the Europeans–in the sense that the natives were untouched by the “civilized” concepts of private property, finance, money, profit above all else, gold being used as money, and so on.  Indeed, we can turn to Columbus’ journal to show this:

“…[the natives] are so naive and so free with their possessions that no one who has not witnessed them would believe it. When you ask for something they have, they never say no. To the contrary, they offer to share with anyone….“

And de las Casas further illuminates the non-capitalist attitude of the New World’s inhabitants:

“…[the natives] put no value on gold and other precious things. They lack all manner of commerce, neither buying nor selling, and rely exclusively on their natural environment for maintenance. They are extremely generous with their possessions and by the same token covet the possessions of their friends and expect the same degree of liberality.”

What this means for us today

Unfortunately, there is no longer any “New World” to run off to, to make a new start in, to steal from.  That’s bad news for everybody—those of us who just want to live our lives and watch our children grow up, as well as those of us who still harbor Columbian lust for money and power beyond the dreams of avarice.  In the last century or so, that latter group has made their fortunes off of the Columbian model using debt slavery and financial genocide as opposed to the old-fashioned versions of those terrible things.  Indeed, since there’s no new property to travel to, “discover,” and kick people out of, they just do it with the same property over and over—hence the fraudclosure model.  Hedge funds, derivatives, and bailouts are the modern-day Niña, Pinta, and Santa Maria.

But what if we reclaimed the New World values that Columbus and de las Casas told us about?  What if we were “free with our possessions” and “put no value on gold and other precious things” (the fact that the natives put no value on gold pretty much puts the lie to the modern claim that “gold is money”—no, gold is gold)?  What if we changed our society and began to “lack all manner of commerce, neither buying nor selling, and rely exclusively on [our] natural environment for maintenance?”  Would we not be better off?  Hasn’t this Columbian, Old World, mercantilist, colonial model proven itself to be a disaster for everyone but the Columbuses of the world?

Of course it has.  It’s past time to return to pre-Columbian economic ideas, which as it turns out, were not at all “naïve” as Columbus described them.  They were—and are—sustainable and the easiest way out of our current economic meltdown.  Indeed, everything old—i.e., the “New World”—should be new again.

Posted in Crap-italism, Debt Slavery, Everything Is Rigged, Feudalism, Foreclosure fraud, history, Immigration, racism | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

THE END OF CHEAP LABOR AND CHEAP CREDIT—WHAT NEXT?

Posted on October 10, 2014 by eggsistense

Money creation unlimited copy

So I agree with the overall premise of this David Stockman article: cheap labor in the East allowed cheap credit to proliferate in the West:

“It was the two-decades-long flow of quasi-slave labor into the export factories of east China that enabled the major global central banks to go on a money printing rampage like the world has never before seen. The latter was conducted with apparent impunity because during that same period the induction of several hundred million peasants into the world’s factory system caused worldwide prices of consumer goods to fall, even as the money printers were enabling an orgy of credit-fueled spending by American and European households.”

In other words, Eastern sweatshops produced Western air-conditioned megamalls.  Our comfort and convenience is predicated on their misery and endless toil.  And Stockman convincingly argues that this arrangement is going to be ending sooner rather than later:

“So unless Mars is inhabited after all, the last two decades constituted a unique and non-replicable confluence. Accordingly, having used up its reservoir of cheap pre-industrial labor, the world economy is about ready to enter a wholly different era—-one when the massive central bank balance sheet expansion of recent years functions to crush global corporate profits, not just DM factory labor.

Folks, this is how Greenspan, Bernanke, Shirakawa, Trichet, King, Draghi and all the other central bank magicians did it. While they spent years breast-beating about their success in quelling inflation and generating enormous financial wealth effects, while intermittently fretting about “deflation”, their red hot printing presses were generating an altogether more insidious impact deeper down the economic strata.

In the developed world, they fueled household credit binges that were unprecedented. But owing to the vast mobilization of ultra-cheap labor in China and elsewhere in the EM, this credit fueled demand for sneakers, sweaters, furniture, fabrics, flat-screen TVs, computers, tablets, smartphones and the rest of the i-Gadgets did not drive up domestic prices; it was diverted to the booming export factories of east China, Bangladesh etc.”

So what do we do about this?

Stockman pretty accurately describes the problem, but doesn’t offer much in the way of solutions.  He notes that “the households of Europe and America have reached ‘peak debt’” and that “the day of reckoning has arrived” as a result.  The article ends ominously:

“…the world’s central banks have painted themselves into a corner and that the global economic and financial game of the last two decades is about to change. Big time.”

The commenters on the article, however, seem to conclude that the answer to the problem Stockman identified is relatively easy: find more cheap labor in Africa and/or South Asian countries, and/or hope that this means that jobs will come back to America.  In other words, keep the system going, prop it up, continue to require people to perform labor for chits created by their overlords so the rentier class can keep their yachts maintained.

This is the conventional wisdom, the mind control—that no matter what, you and I have to “work for a living.”  Never mind that automation is rapidly replacing human workers (i.e., “Robots will replace fast food workers,” CNNMoney, Sept. 4, 2014) and that there are more people than there are jobs available (“Three times more people looking than jobs open,” Tampa Bay Times, January 10, 2014):

“Our economy still has three people looking for every job (opening).”

Gene Sperling, director of the National Economic Council, Jan. 5 on CNN’s State of the Union

Obviously, these and other factors have all contributed to the recent record low in the labor force participation rate (“Record 92,269,000 Not in Labor Force; Participation Rate Matches 36-Year Low”, CNS News, September 5, 2014):

“A record 92,269,000 Americans 16 and older did not participate in the labor force in August, as the labor force participation rate matched a 36-year low of 62.8 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The labor force participation rate has been as low as 62.8 percent in six of the last twelve months, but prior to last October had not fallen that low since 1978.”

In other words, the jobs are going or gone, and aren’t coming back.  However, people still need to eat and to have shelter.  How to square this circle?  The conventional wisdom as stated above—that we all must “have a job” and “work for a living”—fails us at this point.

Stop keeping score

Since the conventional wisdom fails, an unconventional solution is needed.  I propose that we end the monetary system as we have known it up until now.  What is money, after all, but an arbitrary scoring system created and run by those with a vested interest in rigging that scoring system in their favor?  Why do we allow people to literally live or die based on how many “points” they have “scored” in the rigged game in which the few have pitted the many against each other?

The answer is not to find more busy work for people to do in order to award them more “points”…I mean, a paycheck.  The answer is to stop keeping score.  End this game, because life is not just another Sunday afternoon sporting event.  Not to get too David Icke here, but shit, people–we are not competing with each other, we are each other.  Even if you don’t believe in the infinite consciousness and what that implies about all of us, maybe the scientific fact that humans are 99.9% identical at the DNA level might convince you of that (“DNA survey finds all humans are 99.9pc the same”, The Telegraph, December 20, 2002).  It seems that all that “I am he as you are he as you are me / And we are all together” string-of-consciousness, acid-trip raving is not too far off the mark.  I am the Walrus, and so are you!

And what takes the current monetary system’s place?  The Air Standard, of course, as I have proposed many times in these pages.  It’s the answer to Stockman’s problem.  Here’s a summary:

Anything can be, and has been, money

It is beyond dispute that money can be–and has been–anything: gold, paper, shells, sticks, salt, binary code, cigarettes, fabric, etc., etc.  So it stands to reason that money can (and arguably ought to) be the following:  a check written by a buyer for any amount requested by a seller and drawn on a fictional, non-existent account.   In other words, self-issued currency.  And everyone would have this same check-writing power.  The only problem with this scenario?  No more poverty, no more control of the masses, no more larceny, no more want, no more war, no more prostitution, no more slavery, no more debt.  Oh wait, those aren’t problems at all–unless you’re one of the few people benefiting from the present system of rapaciously fraudulent currency.

How is modern currency “fraudulent?”

To get right to the point, modern currency is fraudulent for the following reason:  all modern currency is actually created by the participants in a currency system but it is legally treated as though it is created by, and therefore owed to, banks.  That’s it in a nutshell.  That’s the entire problem.

Let me try to explain what I mean as clearly as possible.  The Federal Reserve itself tells us that “banks actually create money when they lend it.”  The emphasis in that little nugget is on the role of the bank in the money-creation process, but that emphasis is completely misplaced.  That’s because what is implied in that statement is that for a bank to “create money,” someone first has to come to the bank and ask to be lent money.  In other words, a bank is powerless to “create money” unless a “borrower” comes along.

Now, how does the all-important “borrower” get money from the bank?  The borrower writes a check for the amount requested, signs his name, and presents it to the bank.  This check (which is one form of a “note”) is called a “promissory note” in modern parlance (and, to be sure, in less-than-modern parlance), but in reality, the “borrower” is self-issuing the currency he needs, yet he is being forced by law to treat his self-issued currency as though it were issued by the bank (and then having to “pay back” the bank with interest)!  In fact, when you think about it, the ramifications of this completely typical scenario are absolutely insane: the bank doesn’t have the money to lend the borrower until the borrower–who also “doesn’t have the money”–writes the check (i.e., the “promissory note”) to the bank to create the money, which is then called a “loan” from the bank to the borrower.

So who needs the bank?

The obvious question then, is, why is a bank necessary given this state of affairs?  Short answer: the bank is completely unnecessary, because the bank only deals in credit–as opposed to tangible assets or commodities–and credit can easily be created between individuals via self-issued currency.  And that kind of person-to-person credit creation and destruction is no less than the only hope of salvation for humanity.  Because if every person can create money equally and without restriction (which already happens as discussed previously, it’s just not acknowledged to be the case and is instead treated as though money is created by banks), there can be no advantage gained by holding someone hostage over a debt of money or by trying to take someone’s money–there’d be no point to such behavior.

Posted in Crap-italism, Debt Slavery, Everything Is Rigged, Feudalism, fiat currency, Financialization, freedom, Rent-seeking, Rentier, self-issued currency, Wage slavery, Wealth transfer | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

DEBT JUBILEE: THE AFTERMATH

Posted on September 29, 2014 by eggsistense

Divine is forgiving debts meme copy

Let’s say that tomorrow, out of the blue, there was a complete debt jubilee.  Meaning, if you went to bed tonight with $100K in student loans and $3K left until your car is paid off, and a mortgage you’re 20 years from paying off, you wake up in the morning and suddenly none of that is true—you owe no money to anyone.  Neither does anyone else.  All debt has been written off, expunged, wiped away, cancelled.

Does society collapse?  Or does it enter a new era of hopefulness?

I’m certain that it would be the second of those, but let’s go down this rabbit hole a little further to see how the aftermath of a total debt jubilee would play out…

Aftermath for banks

The effect of debt jubilee on banks is what the powers that be care most about, of course.  In fact, the whole bailout of 2008 was in essence a jubilee for the banks because we were told that without such a bank jubilee, the financial system would completely collapse, taking all of modern civilization along with it.  Unfortunately, we never got to find out if that would be true or not.

But the main reason that people would be concerned about a complete debt jubilee for banks is because of the completely bogus idea that banks would lose money if all debt were to be forgiven.  This is completely untrue, as has been discussed many times at this blog, for example, at the following links.

BANK SAYS: IF YOU BELIEVE BANKS LEND DEPOSITS, YOU ARE WRONG

THE SOLUTION: SINCE THE MONEY ISN’T REAL, THE DEBT ISN’T EITHER

DOES MONEY EXIST?

Long story short: every bank loan made since at least the early 1970s has been created out of thin air by the act of a natural or corporate person asking to be lent money.  The upshot of that fact is this: if someone doesn’t pay back money that was never actually lent them in the first place(because it was created out of thin air), how does that hurt the “lender?”  In other words, since banks “lent” fake money at no risk to themselves, there can be no injury to said banks if the fake money and fake debt is repudiated.

So as far as banks are concerned, a jubilee is harmless—they lose nothing because they lent nothing.

Aftermath for everyone else

Everyone else, of course, is helped immensely by a jubilee.  Suddenly, people have money to spend!  They don’t have to pay back the fake “loans” that were nothing but intentional albatrosses placed around their necks.  They can take that vacation, buy that car, computer, house, business, etc.

Business would boom.  People would be, in short, free.

And that’s what “they” don’t want—people being free.  Robert Reich explains it very well in this short video:

Reich Video

So they’re not gonna give us a jubilee.  We will have to take it, and Strike Debt is doing great work in that direction with their Rolling Jubilee.  As they say, it’s life—or debt…

Always remember and never forget: banks don’t lend money they have on hand and therefore take no risk—and consequently deserve no reward.

Posted in Debt Slavery, Everything Is Rigged, fiat currency, freedom | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment