The American Ruling Class

[rickoff]

the amount collected through the municipal courts seems to be inversely proportional to the wealth of the municipality. For example, the City of Pine Lawn is 96 percent black, and “its per capita income a measly $13,000. In 2013 the city collected more than $1.7 million in fines and court fees.” Conversely, “the affluent west-county suburb of Chesterfield, with a population of 47,000 (about fifteen times bigger than Pine Lawn) and a per capita income of $50,000, collected just $1.2 million from municipal fines, according to statistics compiled by the state.

Some interesting numbers here. Per capita income, however, can be rather misleading. For example, if the average family of four living in Pine Lawn actually figured their per capita income at $13,000 then that family would be making $52,000 per year, which surely isn't "measly." I doubt that poor families in Pine Lawn or elsewhere are making anywhere near that much. Since 60% of blacks are on welfare, the average black family in Pine Lawn probably brings in substantially less than $52,000 annually, or else welfare recipients are living high on the hog. Your figures say that 96% of Pine Lawn's residents are black, but does this then indicate that the 4% who are white are earning a huge amount of income and thus driving up the average per capita figure? Or are the 4% of whites simply poor whites who can't afford to move elsewhere? That would seem more logical, since wealthy whites could afford to live wherever they wanted and would probably not choose Pine Lawn as their home. Who then, are the wealthy ones that are boosting the per capita income in Pine Lawn? Are they black slumlords, drug dealers, pimps, and gangstas? I don't suppose there are any numbers available for such trends, but it would be interesting if there were.

[ethan]

Criminal? Maybe maybe not.
The store employees didn't call the police.
We didn't see the entire video so for all we know he paid for the cigars and the scuffle was because he didn't have ID.

I guess he didn't punch the cop in his face and reach for his gun either?
The store wouldn't have Sold him cigars then asked for his ID later...He was stealing them.

I hate thieves, and I wont shed a tear seeing them get shot. That's what they deserve.

[aljhoa]

EBOLAVIRUS - PATHOGEN SAFETY DATA SHEET

Map Of Ebola Quarantine Stations:

Ebola drug likely saved American patients - CNN.com

The treatment for ebola - The new root of truth.

Al

[rickoff]

Rick,

We all know that all of these municipalities and even federal government departments are all registered LLCs. My thoughts are if these are all in fact nothing but registered LLCs which are limited liability corporations then why do they have any authority to police or govern?

They don't. They are only masquerading as federal and state government.

further whats to prevent someone like you or me from registering a LLC and then trying to do the same thing in terms of either naming it Federal _____ and making it look official or to have some sort of authority to police? We all know the Federal Reserve Bank is actually a privately held LLC or business and not a Federal Agency or Government run, so why cant you or I register something like "Federal Revenue Resources" and then do a bank or something along those lines? Besides being charged with some crime for "impersonating" some government agency or its agents I think there is really a double standard

There would be no point in us trying to register a corporation, because all corporations are controlled by the United Nations (which is actually an independent city-state, and thus a foreign entity) dba the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which owns the Federal Reserve (dba The United States of America, Inc.), and which operates as the "UNITED STATES, INC."

Both the Federal Reserve and the IMF are considered Trust Management Organizations (TMO's) which have the duty to carry on the business operations for the united States of America, the true government identified in the original Constitution. I know it is hard for people to understand how these corporate fraudsters gained control over the business affairs of our nation, but it boils down to the fact that they gained control by corporate takeover, which is a legal tactic. They were able to do this because the District of Columbia was chartered as a corporation in 1871, not long after the bankruptcy of The United States (Company) in 1863 as a result of war debts. The bankruptcy of 1933, per executive order of FDR, resulted in the bankster creditors of the United States of America, Inc (World Bank, IBRD, and Federal Reserve) to take over the failed United States of America corporation, and the IMF now claims to represent all these creditors plus the living Americans who were actually the priority creditors. The IMF then named the Secretary of the Treasury (of Puerto Rico) to act as the US Bankruptcy Trustee. Pretty slick, huh? The IMF has been busy ever since running up trillions of dollars of debt against the credit of its own brand of manufactured-out-of-thin-air "sureties," which are Puerto Rican ESTATE trusts operated under the legal fiction NAMES of living Americans in the form "JOHN QUINCY ADAMS," with the intention of having Barry declare bankruptcy just like FDR declared bankruptcy. That, of course, would leave all the hapless Americans of "similar name" to pay off the trumped up debts of the UNITED STATES, INC (IMF) while the IMF seeks legal bankruptcy protection for itself in return.

It has been reported that Puerto Rico's government corporations recently filed for a "debt restructuring" in early August, which is about the same as a bankruptcy, and that opens a new Pandora's Box. I'll write about that later, while giving you a chance to digest the above information first.

[5150]

And Americans sit by and take it up their collective ass' and one day when the bill comes in for their own ignorance it's going to be hard to swallow.

The US government is the biggest criminal ponzi scam in the entire world history!

[rickoff]

The US government is the biggest criminal ponzi scam in the entire world history!

No. It is only those who pose as our "government," while only having the ultimate goal of confiscating America's total wealth for themselves, who are running the biggest Ponzi scam ever. The IMF is not our government. Through their corporate takeover of the District of Columbia corporation, they now hold the contract for providing business and financial services for the government. They have used this as a basis for defrauding the People, rather than serving the People's interests as was originally intended.

As a provider of government "services," they are only in this to promote their own wealth, at the expense of the American People. They set the agenda for the corporate US congress, which is always to add new agencies and social programs that drive up administrative costs and thus their profits. Their profits don't come from Federal Reserve notes, of course, since those notes are worthless. Their true profits, or wealth, is gained from defaults such as business loan and mortgage defaults, wherein they gain real items of actual value in exchange for having invested or risked nothing at all.

Their end game, of course, is to reach the point where the cost of providing their "services" can no longer be sustained, at which time they will claim that all ESTATE trust accounts which they hold in the legal fiction NAMES of all Americans have, upon default, become their property. This is absurd, of course, but when challenged they will take their case to their corporate US federal courts and produce documents showing that their bankster cartel, in exchange for continuing to fund government services after the 1933 bankruptcy, was pledged the total resources of the United States of America and its inhabitants as collateral. They will also state that the 14th amendment clearly says that the debt shall never be questioned. Of course the 14th amendment only appears in the corporate US constitution, not our Constitution. But the court, being their fully owned court, will of course rule in their favor. At that point, the savings, checking, and retirement accounts of all the People will be closed, forfeited, and transferred to the banksters.

Without a means of paying for anything without the Federal Reserve's "legal tender" debt notes, the economy would immediately collapse and Americans would quickly become penniless. All government "services" would cease, and the hordes of penniless and homeless People would then do whatever they felt they had to do to eat and survive - beg, borrow, steal, and kill. Violent rioting and looting would commence everywhere, and this would allow the corporate US agencies (such as DHS and DOJ), and all corporate federal and state policing entities, to bring in and use their military grade vehicles, weapons, and SWAT team tactics to "quell the disturbances" and "restore peace." Those Americans who are not killed in these initial skirmishes would either be hunted down and killed if they remain defiant, or would be rounded up and taken to FEMA detainment camps if they submit. As unbelievable as this scenario may seem to most people, everything is already in place to carry out this end game agenda, and the fraudsters realize that time is of the essence in assuring the outcome which they have planned. They will do whatever they feel is necessary to advance the final stages - create a horrendous biological plague (such as by Ebola), for example, that would decimate the population, thus making their final plans much easier to carry out.

Fortunately, there are forces at work that aim to counter and halt the fraudsters' end game, and hold them responsible for the full extent of the fraud they have perpetrated against the American People. There is currently a lot of talk on the Internet as to what these actions involve. While a great deal of it may simply be disinformation distributed for the purpose of quelling public fear and thus causing people to wait things out, rather than taking positive action, some of it may also be quite real. I'll be talking about some of these things in the coming days to keep you informed of what's out there. Time will prove out what is real or not, but meanwhile it behooves us to read, research, and determine what is believable, and what we should do as individuals.

[rickoff]

Bad News/Good news!

As I mentioned in an earlier post, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (A&E 9/11) had planned to display a large billboard directly across the street from the New York Times during the month of September. Unfortunately, the plan fell through, although A&E 9/11 has been successful in obtaining an even better showcase for their display using the 45 foot digital video screen at Times Square in Manhattan!

The following news flash comes from Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth:

We have some good news and some bad news to share about our 13th Anniversary ReThink911 billboard, but don't worry! We think the good news far outweighs the bad.

The bad news — unfortunately, we cannot go forward with the billboard directly in front of the New York Times Building. The group currently occupying it has a year-long contract. While they had agreed with the billboard company to take a break for the month of September so that we could have the space, the agreement allowed them to change their mind until the last minute, and unfortunately they exercised that option.


The good news — (and we think it's really good!) – is that we found an even more stunning billboard just one block away at the corner of 42nd Street and 8th Avenue. Not only does this billboard draw maximum attention by facing in two directions while towering over one of the busiest intersections in Manhattan; but it’s also digital, which allows us to show practically life-size video footage of WTC 7’s symmetrical destruction. And that’s exactly what we plan to do!

For 15 seconds out of every two minutes, people walking by will see WTC 7’s free-fall descent — the vast majority of them for the first time — on two massive 45’ by 45’ screens. Altogether, we’ll reach 100,000 people each day, amounting to 3 million viewings from September 8th to October 5th! The message will be simple and powerful, encouraging viewers to trust their instincts about WTC 7’s smooth, symmetrical downward motion — and follow up at ReThink911.org

[dutchdivco]

Rick

You posted
" At this point, officer Wilson had every right to shout a warning to halt and freeze, and to fire a warning shot, and when the young men kept running to disobey the order to freeze, Wilson had the right to take aim at them and shoot to disable either or both from escaping."

Except in TEXAS, LEO's do NOT have the right, authority or legal basis to shoot a fleeing suspect. The old "Stop or I'll shoot' is a fiction of Hollywood. So long as the suspect is not threatening the lives of citisens, or ofe officer, if the suspect flees, you CHASE them.
And, NO police agency trains or authorises their officers to shoot to woundor disable. The assumption is if an officer is firing his gun, it is to save his life or that of a bystander, and he is to shoot to kill.

As I said, the exception is in Texas, where by statute officers ARE authorised to shoot fleeing suspects; go figure!

I'm not saying office haven't DONE it, just that its not legal, policy or training.

Maybe you were just posting what you thought the officer SHOULD be able to do, but it does not comport with reality,...except in Texas, which is a totally 'unreal' place.

As to what happened, I doubt we'll ever get the truth, now. But, I suspect its similar to the shooting that happened a week or so later. 'Unarmed' teen went into a convenience store, took food (a donut, I believe), refused to pay for it, and when policew confronted him, brandished a knife and refused to relinquish it. So, they shot and killed him.

You don't need a 'weapon' to be a threat. People say "Oh, they shouldn't shoot an unarmed person, just wrestle them to the ground; well, look what happened when the police did just that; the officer is being charged with murder for using a 'choke hold'.

"What part of 'put your hands behind your back, your under arrest" don't these people understand? Once under arrest, your entitled to the full resources of the system, including a court pointed attourney. And, even if you lose in court, and do time, isn't that preferable to being DEAD? Or maybe these youngsters who think its a good idea to fight with the cops just don't place much value on their own lives,...in which case, WHY should we???Jim

[rickoff]

You posted
" At this point, officer Wilson had every right to shout a warning to halt and freeze, and to fire a warning shot, and when the young men kept running to disobey the order to freeze, Wilson had the right to take aim at them and shoot to disable either or both from escaping."

Except in TEXAS, LEO's do NOT have the right, authority or legal basis to shoot a fleeing suspect. The old "Stop or I'll shoot' is a fiction of Hollywood. So long as the suspect is not threatening the lives of citizens, or of thee officer, if the suspect flees, you CHASE them.

I'll take your word for it, Jim, but does that still apply when the suspects have already assaulted the police officer by punching him in the face and attempting to take his gun? I'd say the punk was lucky not to be shot before he even started running.

As to what happened, I doubt we'll ever get the truth, now. But, I suspect its similar to the shooting that happened a week or so later. 'Unarmed' teen went into a convenience store, took food (a donut, I believe), refused to pay for it, and when police confronted him, brandished a knife and refused to relinquish it. So, they shot and killed him.

Yes, I saw the video of that. They told him more than once to drop the knife, but instead he kept it in his hand (obviously prepared to use it) and then proceeded to move closer to where the police were standing, while inviting the officers to "kill me." A classic case of "asking for it" and then being assured of getting what was asked for, which should not have been a surprise to anyone.

You don't need a 'weapon' to be a threat. People say "Oh, they shouldn't shoot an unarmed person, just wrestle them to the ground; well, look what happened when the police did just that; the officer is being charged with murder for using a 'choke hold'.

"What part of 'put your hands behind your back, your under arrest" don't these people understand? Once under arrest, your entitled to the full resources of the system, including a court appointed attorney. And, even if you lose in court, and do time, isn't that preferable to being DEAD? Or maybe these youngsters who think its a good idea to fight with the cops just don't place much value on their own lives,...in which case, WHY should we???Jim

Well said, Jim, and ditto for my sentiments.

[aljhoa]

Lice Use Home

"In early-stage desensitization, we see a regression to ape-like responses of adrenaline and aggression,
in which the violence becomes thrilling instead of horrifying," Alland said. "But this is not what we're finding in our research.
Instead we're finding a lot of late-stage desensitization, with Americans, unlike apes, exhibiting no emotional reactions at all."

"Far from a nation of bloodthirsty beasts," Alland said, "I foresee the America of the future as a society of emotionless,
robotic drones incapable of empathic response. The bad news is, these drones will regularly go haywire and
blow each other away with automatic weapons. But, on the positive side, nobody will really mind all that much when they do."
Brutality-Desensitization Process Nearly Complete

Al

[dutchdivco]

Al and Rick;

Yeah, Al,...they are called 'Zombies' for a reason!

Rick; "I'll take your word for it, Jim, but does that still apply when the suspects have already assaulted the police officer by punching him in the face and attempting to take his gun? I'd say the punk was lucky not to be shot before he even started running."

On punching in the face, at least, YES, it DOES still apply, at least as far as legally and Dept. policy; basically, if the suspect punches you, you punch them back.

The trying to take your gun gets a little trickier; IF (for instance) you both have your hand on the gun, and the suspect is trying to turn the gun towards you and fire it, and your ble to do the same to him, justified. You were 'in fear of your life', and shooting the suspect was the only way to keep him from shooting you.

IF, however, this kid punched the officer, TRIED unsuccessfully to take his weapon, then stepped several feet away from the patrol car and was standing there with his arms raised, the officer had no right, (but also no reason!) to shot him; the officer had no reason to feel the kid was an emminent threat.

IF we are to believe it was murder, or an 'unjustified' shooting, thats pretty much what we have to believe; I'm skeptical that thats what happened. i.e. that the officer GOT control of his weapon, and so the kid stepped away from the car, then the officer got out of his car and shot the kid. Perhaps something in the middle; the officer got out, told the kid to put his hands up, and the kid said "F*CK you, I'm going to KILL you, Pig!" and reached, or APPEARED to reach for his back pocket, and the offcer shot.

Basically, we're all, including those who rioted, going with entirely too little information; the Grand jury will hear testimony from eye witnesses, as well a from the officer. But WE haven't heard any of that.

And it COULD even boil down to perception; how close were the 'eye witnesses; could they HEAR what was being said, and WHERE were they; could they SEE the suspects right hand/arm, for instance, of were they on the suspects left? Did they see the WHOLE incident, or only look when the bullets started flying? Could they see what was going on IN the squad car?
We may never know, for sure. Jim

[dutchdivco]

By the way, Rick

I think its obvious, I'm only stating what the LAW and Dept. policy say, I personally agree with your sentiments.
MANY people say "Why don't officers just 'shoot to wound'. when the 'suspect' is unarmed, or only armed with a knife?

As often happens, it comes down to LIARS,..er LAWYERs, ad liability.

If the Dept. is subsequently sued, for a 'wrongful death', they calculate how much the suspect would have earned in his life.

But, if he is paralised for life, and requires 24 hour nursing, etc. the cost is much higher. And either cost is going to play heavily in any judgement.

Hence police departments train their officers to shoot to kill, NEVER to shoot to disable, or wound. Beanbag rounds, Tasers are ATTEMPTS to come up with non-lethal alternatives, but as we have seen, are problematic.

As always, it comes down to economics.Jim

[rickoff]

In the last paragraph of my post #5391 I remarked, "Fortunately, there are forces at work that aim to counter and halt the fraudsters' end game, and hold them responsible for the full extent of the fraud they have perpetrated against the American People. There is currently a lot of talk on the Internet as to what these actions involve. While a great deal of it may simply be disinformation distributed for the purpose of quelling public fear and thus causing people to wait things out, rather than taking positive action, some of it may also be quite real. I'll be talking about some of these things in the coming days to keep you informed of what's out there. Time will prove out what is real or not, but meanwhile it behooves us to read, research, and determine what is believable, and what we should do as individuals."

I thought that today would be a good time to bring up one such action which has received a lot of attention, as it has been stated that the event will take place just two days from today. The same event was stated, by its followers, as being imminent several times in past years, and it never materialized. I wrote about this 5 years ago in post #196 of this thread. Well, NESARA is back again, this time with an announcement proclaiming the following:
NESARA TO BE OFFICIALLY ANNOUNCED WORLDWIDE ON 9/9/14. DISBURSEMENTS TO THE PEOPLE WILL START SEVERAL DAYS AFTER THE ANNOUNCEMENT.

The "disbursements" sounds pretty good, though I wonder what "several days" means to convey. A list of 19 "changes" in the way that things will be done is included, and you can find these at multiple locations on the Internet by typing NESARA announcement into any search engine. While much of the stated "changes" would be welcome ones if true, there are also some stated changes that really make no sense. I pointed these out in post #196. I have always considered NESARA to be a hoax, and believe that nothing that was announced will occur September 9th. Many other folks, evidently, believe that there really is something to the NESARA story, and will probably still believe that after September 9th comes and goes. Each time that nothing happens, there is always an explanation offered to believers, and I expect there will be more of the same this time around.

[rickoff]

Now here's something big that definitely is real. Yesterday the corporation US Senate voted to amend the First Amendment. The Yea-Nay vote was 79 to 18, which of course indicates that this was a bipartisan vote. All of the Democrat senators present at the vote voted Yea, with several Republican senators joining in. This effort to amend the First Amendment - the right to Free Speech - is effectively an attempt at repealing the First Amendment, which is part of our Bill of Rights, and never before has Congress sought to amend any part of the Bill of Rights. As the dissenting minority, who voted Nay, pointed out in their opposition statement:

"MINORITY VIEWS FROM SENATORS GRASSLEY, HATCH, SESSIONS, GRAHAM, CORNYN, LEE, CRUZ AND FLAKE

Our Constitution, as Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, was `intended to endure for ages to come . . .' 1
[Footnote] In its history, no provision of its Bill of Rights has ever been amended. We consider S.J. Res. 19 to be a dagger at the heart of the Bill of Rights, and we oppose it to a degree commensurate with its dangers.
[Footnote 1: McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 415 (1819).]
We start with First Principles. The Declaration of Independence states that everyone is endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights that governments are created to protect. Those preexisting rights include the right to liberty.
The Constitution was adopted to secure the blessings of liberty to Americans. Americans rejected the view that the structural limits on government power contained in the original Constitution would adequately protect the liberties they had fought a revolution to preserve. So they insisted on the adoption of a Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights protects individual rights regardless of whether the government or a majority approves of their use. The First Amendment in the Bill of Rights protects the freedom of speech. That freedom is basic to self-government. Other parts of the Constitution foster equality or justice or representative government. But the Bill of Rights is only about individual freedom.
Liberals who were once great champions of freedom of speech have retreated from protecting it. Their new thinking mirrors Justice Breyer, who wrote in the McCutcheon case that free political speech is about advancing `the public's interest in preserving a democratic order in which collective speech matters.' 2
[Footnote] That is no misreading of the dissent of four Justices, as the majority report weakly argues, but a direct quotation in context. It is the core conception of the dissent's view of campaign spending. To be sure, individual rights often advance socially desirable goals. But our constitutional rights do not depend on whether unelected judges believe they advance democracy as they conceive it. Our constitutional rights are individual, not `collective.' It is individual speech, alone or in association with others, that matters. Never in 225 years has any Supreme Court opinion described our rights as `collective.' They come from God and not from the government or the public."

Of course the constitution which this corporation US senate wants to amend is not our Constitution, and they have no authority other than as corporate officers. If these were actual Senators of our Republic then they would be committing an act of treason just for proposing such an "amendment." As it is, though, these corporate officers can vote to change their constitution any way they want. The problem with that, of course, is that the vast majority of the public believes that the corporation US constitution is the real Constitution, and of course the reason for that belief is that we Americans have been programmed and indoctrinated to believe it from the earliest years of our lives.


I see it as doubtful that the corporation US house of representatives will approve the measure, fearing public backlash. Then again, as with most all other legislation proposed by the corporation US congress, this bill has been deceptively crafted to appeal to the public by stating, within the bill's text, that the purpose is "To advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all..." While that sounds like a good thing at first glance, the true intent is to protect entrenched incumbents from being displaced, and to give the corporation congress the authority to legislate, and the power to control, what individuals may or may not do when exercising their influence over the electoral process.

[rickoff]

At the end of my previous post #5389 I mentioned:

"It has been reported that Puerto Rico's government corporations recently filed for a 'debt restructuring' in early August, which is about the same as a bankruptcy, and that opens a new Pandora's Box."

Regarding the report, there are reasons why this would be huge if in fact it is true, and there does appear to be good reasons for believing that what had been reported may be factual. To begin with, an article appearing in Reuters news back in March of this year stated that Puerto Rico was about to seek buyers for $3 billion in general obligation bonds, and further stated that, "the deal documents included a long list of risks to the bonds, including a restructuring of the commonwealth's entire debt portfolio that would resemble filing for bankruptcy. The territory cannot file for bankruptcy under U.S. law, but on Wednesday it announced it had hired a restructuring expert as its financial adviser." The Reuters article went on to further state that, "Puerto Rico is considered the riskiest debt issuer in the $3.7 trillion U.S. municipal bond market. All three major rating agencies recently cut its credit score to junk, citing low liquidity and persistent economic troubles. The territory has roughly $70 billion in outstanding debt and has endured nearly eight years of recession.The downgrades kicked a hornet's nest for the territory, triggering the termination of some interest-rate swaps and the posting of some collateral. The proceeds will go toward paying off internal loans, refunding some variable-rate bonds, cover termination fees for some interest-rate swaps, repay sales tax bonds and pay interest." [note my text bolding - Rickoff]



Even worse than what was stated in the Reuters article is the fact, as reported in a CNBC online article that, "the new bond issue is to repay maturing debt—only $100 million is "new money." With this new bond issue, Puerto Rico will hit its debt limit allowed under its constitution."

So, in other words, the Puerto Rican government issued $3 billion of junk bonds as new debt just to enable them to pay $2.9 billion to holders of then currently maturing municipal bonds, which left just $100 million in borrowed Federal Reserve notes to serve as a reserve for other Puerto Rican government expenses. How long could that small reserve last before the Puerto Rican legislature would have to begin defaulting on the next wave of maturing bond debt payments? And with Puerto Rico's future looking so grim, how could they possibly find any institutional buyers that would risk even the minimum $100,000 purchase amount required by the bond offering?

The answer to the last question is that no institution would risk such sums, or more, unless offered some very good collateral which they would then own if Puerto Rico defaulted. Note that the Reuters article mentioned collateral which had already been posted (see my bolded text therein). Naturally, we here can easily see through this bankster scam. It has largely been the bankster institutions who have purchased the Puerto Rican government bonds in the past, and likely only the banksters who would have purchased the March bond offering. Quite a scam, huh? Let's look at the facts:
1.The banksters give the Puerto Rican government $3billion in worthless Federal Reserve debt notes in the form of a ledger transaction.
2. Nearly 97% of the borrowed amount is immediately set aside and used to service already accumulated government debts, and most of these debts are owed to the same banksters who are purchasing the new debt bonds.
3. The banksters are actually acquiring the new bonds for well under the publicly advertised price, for the reason that Moody's has declared them to be "junk bonds." And though the price is reduced significantly, the face value of the bonds (the amount which Puerto Rico must pay interest on twice a year at a 10% rate, and fully repay upon maturity) is still the full amount.
4. Even though the banksters would lose nothing when Puerto Rico defaults, since they gave Puerto Rico nothing of substantive value to begin with, they will demand that the Puerto Rican government forfeit collateral which the government used to secure the bond deal. That collateral will have been in the form of assets which do have a definite and real value, such as real estate and natural resources. Furthermore, any bank which lends funds to a high risk debtor will require that the amount of collateral far outweighs the risk if the debtor defaults. The required collateral in this situation might be 2 to 1, for example, meaning that $6 billion in real assets must be laid on the line by the Puerto Rican government to secure $3 billion in worthless FRN backed bond purchases.

Of the final 2 bits of news which confirms that Puerto Rico now actually has gone into a 'debt restructuring' (aka bankruptcy) agreement, this one appeared in a June 28th article in Barron's financial news, which states:

Legislation was passed to provide a mechanism to restructure the debts of Puerto Rico's so-called public corporations.

Note the wording, "so-called public corporations." As is the case here, all of the government entities in Puerto Rico are actually corporations, and they are private corporations - not publicly owned ones as the Puerto Rican people have been led to believe.

And lastly, the following tidbit appeared online July 31st in the official Corporation US House of Representatives website for Puerto Rican representative and "Resident Commissioner" Pedro Pierluisi:

Pierluisi Introduces Bill to Include Puerto Rico in Chapter 9 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code

Okay, you might say, the situation in Puerto Rico certainly is grim, it looks like they definitely are going to default while seeking bankruptcy protection, and the banksters have obviously succeeded in confiscating the entire wealth and resources of that island territory and its inhabitants, but how does this affect us? Well first of all, it serves as a blatant example that the very same scam is being perpetrated upon the People of all 50 States by these same banksters. Secondly, it should cause us to wonder what "collateral" is actually being offered up.


Would we be erring in assuming that the Secretary of State of Puerto Rico, who has been appointed as the administrator of the Puerto Rican Estate Trusts that were set up in the capitalized NAMES of all living American Nationals, might just use these trust accounts as collateral? I don't think so. If Puerto Rico is allowed to go bankrupt, the trusts would likely be “subsumed” into the bankruptcy as assets of Puerto Rico, exactly as they were improperly entangled in the bankruptcy proceedings of the United States of America, Inc. in 1933. If the American People don't wake up and put an end to this scam, they will wake up one day in the not too distant future to find that their rights to everything in their personal estates (bank accounts, retirement accounts, real estate, etc., has suddenly vanished. Thomas Jefferson warned about this in his 1802 letter to Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin, saying, "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."