Harry:
Thank you for the opportunity to be on your e-mail list. I appreciate your generosity and hard work.
I am writing to ask you to unsubscribe me from your list. I value your research reports. However, it would be hypocritical of me to accept them.
I believe in death penalties for private corporations and partnerships. My vote for one of the first to be executed is Goldman Sachs.
You and your colleagues have helped to build and manage a machinery that has committed treason and genocide on a breathtaking scale. The history of Goldman Sachs over the last two decades is living proof that it is possible to kill with a financial system and a pen.
The fact that you don’t understand what you and your colleagues are doing is breathtaking. It raises more than a few questions about whether you understand what is really behind the flow of funds you track and publish.
The question before us is who will pay the price of the mess that you and your colleagues have had such a significant hand in creating:
Who will lose their business and who will keep it?
Who will lose their job and who will keep it?
Who will lose their home and who will keep it?
Who will lose their reputation and who will not?
Who will lose their family and who will not?
Who will lose their health and who will not?
Who will lose their future and who will not?
Who will lose their life and who will not?
Who will lose their freedom and who will not?
My plan for bailing out the country would include asserting common law offsets against the assets of the NY Fed member banks and all of their partners and employees who benefited up to an amount sufficient to repay $4 trillion missing from the US government, to fund losses caused by the manipulation of the precious metals markets and to fund claims of fraudulent inducement and fraud on mortgages and mortgage securities. To fund the offsets, I would propose to seize the offshore and onshore assets of those who created the mortgage bubble and derivatives mess in the first place.
Frankly, I see no reason why millions of poor people around the world should pay a global tax through the dollar and US treasury and agency securities for which the American people are liable, so you and your colleagues can continue to live in comfort and luxury without concern that you will be held accountable to the same standards of enforcement applied to the people who live in the communities wrecked by the mortgage, money laundering and financial fraud that made you and your clients so powerful.
It seems to me if anyone should lose their business, jobs and home, it is you and your colleagues.
Sincerely Yours,
Catherine Austin Fitts
Great Job Cathy
Catherine,
Deepest compliments on your exemplary performance in the arena of morality, courage and intelligemce. The communicative power of the internet is the unanticipated adversary of the perpetrators of this world-wide ponzi scheme of unlimited debt-money that central banks create with their diabolically hidden subterfuge of fractional reserve banking. We must defend our right to the world wide web at all costs in waging this battle. At the core of their financial empire is, I believe, a financier banking elite of world shaking power. Only the deepest misery will inspire the people to win back their lost freedom. Much blood could be shed.
It is essential to awaken the populace to the desperate reality in which they find themselves and to understand the falsity of the establishment’s proposed solutions. Once informed, only by finding the courage to act will the possibility of recovering all that has been lost be realized. I would de-emphasize an orientation to punish and bring to justice those who have acted criminally against their fellow men, bringing us to this catastrophic crisis. This would only make the struggle more difficult. This on-going crime started with cental banking in England about 300 years ago, so that it is pointless to personally punish a few for the previous crimes of their many predecessors. What is essential is that we win back our freedom and natural rights as delineated in our American Constitution. This would be a monumental achievment and would fully satisfy me.
The battle cry: Inform, Unite and Act! And after victory, our motto: Eternal Vigilance.
All best and good health,
Peter
Catherine,
I want you to know that ability for country to move beyond this financial facism that we are allowing to take place must stop. The Federal Reserve must be removed at once! The problem is that the member private banks make will destroy this economy before they allow that to happen. I truly believe if you revoke the charter of the FED you will solve many issues!
Thanks again for your great work!
I love it when you are on Coast to Coast!
You are a class ACT!!!!!!
common law offset is “lock and load” and get our pound of flesh. they trash the constitution and mock any law and pay no mind to truth or facts. no way to shame them or beat them only way is to off them
Murray:
The Department of Justice to the position that the common law right of offset could be asserted by the government against Hamilton Securities Group, a Delaware Corporation, to withhold payables against a common law claim regarding theoretical opportunity cost on a distressed asset auction.
See: http://www.dunwalke.com/gideon
The NY Fed serves as depository for the US government. Hence, the question would be – could the same theory of law apply equally to a depository as a contractor and then to the agent banks serving the depository.
I believe the concept should be the same. So the conversion to corporation would mean that you could not necessarily go after the partners, but you could go after the corporation.
Hence, it makes sense that the government is buying the corporations. That is the ultimate protection for the folks who now hold all the profits. They get another round of cash and all the liability resides with the government and the remaining shareholders.
That leaves the citizens to find ways of asserting common law rights of offset against the government.
County tax escrows, anyone?
Catherine,
I like your approach here, especially with regards, to the assets of the principals of these corporations.
However, none of them are partnerships anymore, so the limited liability to any “partner” granted due to incorporation, shields all their assets save for the direct stake in the company. Thus, Paulson is out of danger, as he divested himself of his GS holdings (and at the right time & price, and WITHOUT a dime of capital gains to boot — which saved him $5 million).
That is why all the Wall Street partnerships went “public”, and changed their legal status.
I do not think that any common law right would supercede the current legal status of these former partners’ private assets.
You and some other posters point out something very interesting though, and that is the actual legal status legal fiction, of being legal persons, thus having natural persons’ rights, including Bill of Rights protection.
That is where you should focus your commentary, as there is ample evidence that the whole notion of corporations as being capable of legal personhood is unconstitutional and was never envisaged or desired by the founding fathers. All Supreme Court case law deciding this issue leads back to one decision which said nothing on this point in the “holding”. It is only found in that decision’s non-binding syllabus, slipped in by the reporter of the case, and never corrected since.
If we would return to the constitutional intent, and extinguish corporations’ legal right as persons, many of our problems would be solved. Of course this will never happen in the present climate, as too many on the court have something at stake. The left would loose the unions’ legal status, and the right the corporations’ legal status.
But just think of what this would mean to campaing finance or advertising regulations: no more commercial free speech, no more commercial right to donate to PAC’s, perhaps not even anymore PACs themselves, and of course no more limited liability to the crooks in the CEO suite.
Paul:
You are clearly right. Goldman is not the ultimate decision maker. Who’s in charge and where does evil come from? These are the questions that we most want answers to, but no one knows for sure.
Two of my favorites on this topic are Jon Rappoport and Linda Minor. Start with Jon’s audio seminar, Mind Control, Mind Freedom.
Best,
Catherine
Again, Catherine, pardon me for being thick here, but I only understand PART of the motivation.
I get the greed of the people running Goldman Sachs and the other agencies, governmental and NGO.
But that is just taking their piece of the con.
WHO is running and really getting the biggest slice of the stolen pie and WHAT do they really want? How many trillions can you accumulate before it is just another accounting entry.
I’m not getting that part.
Be patient with my slow learning.
PR
Dear Catherine,
Thank you. It quite refreshing, in this country, to hear some truth.
Catherine,
Light Worker that you are, you continue to bring Truth to the world and I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for your honesty, compassion, sense of humor, and desire to help us to spread the word.
Valerie
You are calling everyone out to be accountable for their actions and their beliefs. I appreciate that in the sense not that the nature of people will change. It won’t. Given the opportunity, people steal. That’s what happened and will keep happening. That’s why I prefer to deal at the point of opportunity: how easy do enough people make it for a few to steal vast sums and how harshly can the law and punishment discourage them. A lot of this comes back to us. I believe that poor, middle, and rich households could stop buying 90% of the plastic imported trickery made by people who only have the job because they can be treated as inhuman and far out of sight, then corporations would shift.
This spiral has led to huge margins as real quality has disappeared, only showing up at the price of luxury when it does. We’ve redefined basic quality as luxury simply by limited access to it. In Manhattan, people pay 2mm for a Pre-fab 1br apt.
The corporate men are not immoral men – worse, they’re amoral men who will conform to the available flow of money, however we supply or constrict it. …salad at at a fast food restaurant is unfortunately the extent of our dollar lobbying. I hope your local bank idea catches. I’m looking now. Thanks.
“More dangerous than standing armies” We were warned but did not heed our Fathers. Some how, some way, We must regain our sovereignty. Start with Cathrine in the Treasury!
Richard:
The NY Fed as depository for the US government is responsible for federal government bank accounts. According to US reports, US government agencies have over $4 trillion of undocumentable adjustments. Those are transactions that can not be proved to be authorized by the Congress, pursuant to the constitution. If you follow the common law rights of offset asserted in the Hamilton Securities case (see http://www.dunwalke.com/gideon), I would argue that the NY Fed banks are responsible for effecting unauthorized transactions. In theory, we do not have to prove where the money went or have the detail. We can assert our right to to that amount and proceed with offsets.
Such offsets could take the form of extinguishing outstanding debts, even taxes due. So you don’t get cash back from the parties involved. You simply extinguish what you owe.
If you combined such offsets with local tax escrows and local currencies, a lot could shift.
I think even your optimistic self Catherine, will be surprised when we indeed attract the hard working intelligent people back into the real world economy. There’s only one reason they are where they’re at right now and that’s because they think “this is all that there is”. I have seen many, many miracles of awakening this last year that have blown my mind. Since I have been following you I have often wondered how the tipping point was going to be triggered and finally “financial realism” and awareness would go viral. It’s happening and accelerating. Way to go Catherine!! Your hard work will help a lot of people either directly or indirectly. You are a champion and I am grateful to know your work!
Catherine,
Thank you for your example.
Best wishes to you always during these “interesting” times.
-Daniel Molina
I thought I was the only radical extremist nutcase who believed that, since our legal system provides the rights of human beings to corporations, it should provide also for their execution for extreme misdeeds.
I would visualize capital punishment for a corporation to include, apart from criminal trials for the individual humans who directed and managed it:
Confiscation and sale of its assets, with no single buyer permitted to acquire more than 5% of them, and
Lifetime prohibition against two or more members of its management ever again working for the same employer.
What provisions would you like to see?
Catherine,
I came across an article written by Susan Trimbath. I’m having a little trouble understanding this particular line. Is she saying the bonds were “counterfeited” or is she referring to CDS that were sold on the bonds?
“CMOs were supposed to produce more money available for lending to homeowners than would otherwise have been the case. Instead it produced more paper, more heavily leveraged and less secure. Securitized mortgages were misused to the extent that $45 trillion in bonds were issued on $5 trillion in assets; it’s as if someone bought insurance for 9 times the value of the house.”
http://www.newgeography.com/content/00305-financial-innovation-wall-street%E2%80%99s-false-utopia
I would appreciate your analysis of this… You had mentioned that there were fewer assets than bonds sold at HUD. I know that there is naked shorting in the securities market, and this just sounds like the same fraud.
Also, I’m not clear how you discovered the fraud at HUD. You said that you visited places on the roles that had no buildings. I understood that there was more insurance sold on bonds than asset recorded?
Mary
Thank you Catherine. Are you beginning to see the fullscale of the fraud created by the Global Elite? The virtual sell out of the Former United States of America. And now it’s all the resonsibility is all ours, to continue to expose them, bring them to Justice, and restore this once proud and great nation while we still can. Our children and our very own futures depend on it. Wake up America, Wake up!!!
The truth shall set us all free…
Expose the Fraud
My dear Ms Fitts: You go girl…I have only one legal point concerning your continuous desire to recoup “the $4 trilion missing from the US government” ( I assume the Defense Dept. budget ). And that is: How would you deliver as discovery the accounting books of the Pentagon to corroberate the numbers? Furhermore, how would you also include the names of the actual banks to which the moneys were transfered? I am in complete favor of the recoupment of the vast ceo and executive officers abundant bonuses and pay to repay this admitted loss. Love your work. I’m falling asleep listening to you on coast to coast ( 2 am EST ), as I wake at 5 am…. be well and stay well, Richard
Re: common law right of offset. A right at “common law” is one that comes about through court precedent rather than a statute. Many, if not most, common law rights came into being before we had statutes, i.e., from England. Sometimes common law rights exist side-by-side with similar, or even the same, constitutional or statutory rights that are in “code” form. An attorney would argue in court for the common law right either when there is no statute or when the statute is more limited than the broader common law right.
A right of offset is just the right of one who holds the property of another (e.g., a bank) to seize that property to satisfy a debt or liability incurred by the owner of the property. So, for example, the IRS has the right to set off your tax refund against taxes otherwise due and unpaid. Similarly, if you have a savings account at a bank as well as a credit card with the same bank and you don’t pay the amount due on your credit card, the bank can apply (or “set off”) the amount in your savings account against the debt. Catherine is applying this concept in the case of member banks of the NY Fed on the theory that because the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is the depository for the US government, its members are responsible, or liable, for the “lost” $4 trillion of government money. As I understand her statement, she is suggesting that the federal government should seize, by means of an accounting offset, funds owed to the member banks by the US Government as a reimbursement to the American people for their loss. In that case, the banks whose money was seized would then have to sue the government and prove that they did not owe that money to the government in order to recover the amounts seized.
Catherine,
Beautifully said.
I hope some day you can do a blog post
or commentary on Flashpoints on Goldman’s sordid history.
Best,
James
I got a very calm, intelligent response. Very Goldman Sachs. A reminder of how incredible this world could be if we could attract all the hard, working intelligent people back into the real economy.
I should point out that Goldman would not be #1 on my list. The competition for that honor would be between JP Morgan Chase and AIG. Looks like Morgan has already nailed AIG when they pulled the liquidity on Lehman.
It is like watching a civil war break out among the crocodiles.
Excellent points you made. Need explanation for ‘common law offsets’ in the following: My plan for bailing out the country would include asserting common law offsets against the assets of the NY Fed member banks and all of their partners and employees who benefited up to an amount sufficient to repay $4 trillion missing…
Rather than the death penalty could we not turn the entire financial industry to work only for the US treasury, with the alternative penalty of life sentence in gulags for cheating? Russia got away with it. And after all, by now we all should be disabused of the notion that we are still a democracy. A criminocracy, perhaps? Thanks, Jan C
GREAT LETTER to them Catherine!!!Myself,a past successful real estate agent in the 90’s,(who ALWAYS dealt honestly,and “above the table”),I often wondered,(being from a blue collar background before becomming an agent),how much income it takes to be finally be comfortable.My lifestyle didn’t change,although my income did,(went from 40k to 150k a year),so I lived comfortably,(i.e.= no typical money worries).However,my collegues never seemed to make enough!!!I soon learned why!They always overspent themselves,and thus would make “shady” deals,with no concern as to who they hurt in the process.My point is that it seems to me that once you reach an income level well beyond what you really need to be comfortable,it becomes just “bragging rights” at the country club!!!!The “shoe seems to fit” the execs of these bailouts!!!Keep up the good work!!!I enjoy listening to you on Coast to Coast,and getting the “real” story!!!!
I wish that more people would choose morals over money. That would have avoided this whole “crisis”
This is the reason why I have been hooked to Catherine and this website since I discovered it a few weeks ago. Catherine is synonym of integrity, honesty, experience and knowledge. Reading this website and many other excellent ones have helped me understand the economic situation of Puerto Rico, why I have remained in poverty and the general inability of puertorricans to find a stable job.
Well written, I agree with you completely. Catherine, you have a finely-honed moral sense! I put an excert of this on my blog; everyone should read it.
Catherine-
Thank you, once again, for your succinct analysis of the part Goldman Sachs has played, and continues to play, in destroying our sovereign country. I’m posting your e-mail comment on every listserv of which I’m a member.
As you mentioned 6 months or more ago, Eliot Spitzer was about to blow the whistle on AIG–with whom Goldman was the largest trading partner, as you have outlined–and clean house there, so it is no surprise that he was caught in flagrante delicto, and pushed out of the way. He’s back in NYC at his father’s real estate firm and lying low–no doubt because he’s probably being threatened to stay out of the way or risk imprisonment.
It would be interesting to hear what he has to say about your take on Goldman and how to enforce the Common Law Assets provisions.
Elizabeth Elliott, DC
Wow, I wonder if you will get a response! You are our hero 🙂