Last week the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) heard oral arguments on a case that has been getting much press due to the unique circumstances surrounding the controversy.
Several questions come to mind: What would happen to the average citizen who lied on his/her mortgage application like this? Why would anyone in their right mind, who knew that she were caught lying on said application, and that she were employed by such an "upstanding" agency, stubbornly refuse to leave her position? And why would her immediate boss (Powell) arrogantly refuse to fire her?
...ur on the right track, and there's a deeper issue involved... i googled "someone misstates their property to gain favorable mortgage loan is this a crime" (i omitted question mark)...here's part of the answer... AI Overview "
Yes, intentionally misstating property details to gain a favorable mortgage loan is a serious crime known as mortgage fraud. Whether it involves inflating the property's value, falsely claiming it as a primary residence (occupancy fraud), or omitting crucial information, such actions are illegal and can lead to severe legal consequences.
Here is a breakdown of why this is a crime and the potential consequences:
Why It Is a Crime
Definition of Fraud: Mortgage fraud is the intentional misrepresentation or omission of information that a lender relies on to fund or insure a loan.
Types of Property Misrepresentation:
Occupancy Fraud: Claiming you will live in a property as your primary residence to get better interest rates, when you actually plan to rent it out.
Appraisal Fraud: Artificially inflating the value of a property to secure a larger loan.
Property Flipping: Purchasing a property and immediately reselling it at an artificially inflated price.
Intent Matters: While honest, minor mistakes on an application can usually be corrected, intentionally providing false information to secure better terms is considered criminal...."... being removed 'for cause" also affects one's unemployment benefits, see... What do Employment-At-will and For-Cause Mean? - Kantrowitz, Goldhamer, Graifman, Perlmutter & Carballo, P.C. https://share.google/Fq2IbHU5MnvNYayOa ... "For cause’ means you did something to cause your own demise. You were insubordinate, you didn’t show up to work, there was some sort of misconduct. And where this is critical, is in the unemployment benefits context. Because if you’re fired for cause, then you are precluded from getting unemployment benefits."... 🙏➕🙏...
The present case before the Court is at best a farce. The real issue is the Constitutionality of the Federal Reserve. The Constitution granted to Congress the power to coin and regulate the value of money. The writers of the Constitution understood the importance of money. It is the grease that keeps the machinery of everyday life running smoothly. Thus the writers placed that power into the branch of government most directly representing We the People. Congress abdicated its power to the Fed. Since its inception the Fed has been an abject failure. A person only needs to compare the price of a loaf bread at the Fed’s beginning to the price of a loaf of bread today to see how badly the Fed has failed in regulating the value of our money. With its almost unlimited power to create money out of thin air the Fed and its underling banking system has created a system of ever increasing inflation and indebtedness for the general populace to the enrichment of the bankers. If the Supreme Court justices read and understood our Constitution they would end this unconstitutional, fraudulent fractional banking system and return the power to coin and regulate the value of money back to Congress.
The Fed must end, we must end the British control over our country. The Supremes have failed us so many times, they disgust me as do the Congress and Senate. I look for the Brunson Case to come forward.
Ahh yes, the Brunson Case … If i remember correctly before the 2020 election legislators in some of the so-called “swing” states made appeal to their state courts because unelected state officials had usurped the power of the legislature to determine how presidential electors are chosen within the state. The United States Constitution grants that power solely to the respective state legislatures. No state court would hear the merits of the case before or after the election. After the 2020 election several states appealed to the United States Supreme Court arguing voters in their state and throughout the country in essence had their votes and the overall will of We the People nullified by the shenanigans in those “swing”states. The majority of the Supreme Court justices violated their oath of office to support the Constitution by failing to uphold Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 2. I doubt the Supreme Court will rule in accordance with the Constitution. I base my opinion on its history of failing to look to the Constitution, instead relying on the misinterpretation of the Preamble clause “to promote the general welfare,” expediency, and too often past precedents. Previous rulings made contrary to the Constitution should never be a basis of continuation of error. Such is the situation we find ourselves in and why the bickering over the Fed is a farce. (The Preamble states the objective, the reason for the Constitution. The writers promoted the “general welfare” by greatly limiting the powers granted to the federal government. That is how the blessings of liberty are secured. The phrase has been turned on its head and we are in a fight to keep our liberties. The Covid vaccine mandate debacle is a glaring example).
No, but if we could educate enough voters and clean up the fraud in the elections we may have a chance of turning things back to our Constitutional principles. It does appear hopeless, but it’s our only hope.
A-men... and He continually disappoints. Nothing will come of it. Even the Pres lacks standing/jurisdiction in the criminal corporate courts. This case will help grease immunity for the Kings (the squid chairmen not puppet presidents.) Don't look here - look over there. This case sets the precedent - the foundation is set - for the Central Bank to take the country/states down - the confiscation economy... knowledge is power.
....hadn't heard of Lisa De Crook...oh sorry, paperwork mistake, Lisa D Cook!... Federal Reserve Act - Wikipedia https://share.google/WZjtZPVZeALJ3FD4S ... 🙏➕🙏...recalls to mind the quaint and endearing phrase cooking the books...
Great essay Bobbie but at the end of the day this is a red herring. The truth is the Federal Reserve is a scam. It's a grifting racket and has been bleeding Americans dry since 1913. The case should be, Can the president abolish the Federal Reserve? I believe he can. It should be abolished and the power returned to the secretary of the treasury. Only the Federal government should have the power to print money. Not a private cabal of grifting bankers, who charge us compound interest. If the treasury printed the currency we'd be paiyng zero interest. JFK in the last months of his presidency started issuing silver dollar notes separate from the Fed and we know what eventually happened. What we need is a US Labor dollar printed by the treasury on a one for one basis. No inflation you print only what you need. The more you work the more you get no inflation no printing money for special interests projects. Only what's absolutely needed nothing more.
At the same time you could abolish the IRS. Both Federal and state. Replace it with a 1/2 % sales tax on Federal state and local levels, paid on all transactions including Wall Street. This would create an avalache of revenue into the government and no capital gains or inheritance taxes. You keep all you earn.
We are among the highest taxed people in the world and get literally nothing for it. I find it interesting that in the Russian Federation, the former preeminant Communist state the current tax code is a flat 13% across the board, no capital gains or inheritance taxes. There is a VAT tax but on big luxury items only like cars, boats private jets. How many of us are buying planes, boats, or $250,000 cars? Russians get a better tax deal than we do. It's the greatest gag reel of the Twenty-Worst Century. I'd be pleased to hear your thoughts.
With the constitution in the trash bin and rule of law disintegrating every day, the DC Cesspool is free to do whatever they want to keep the deception going and that is that "things are going to be fine"...they are not.
The government needs low, low interest rates to service the ever rising deficit. Forcing the markets will eventually speed up the demise of the entire financial system. At best, we have 7-8 years before the entire system blows up.
...Emerson' s elaboration in his essay 'Compensation' is a clincher, i googled "Emerson cause and effect" and here is part of answer... "
Ralph Waldo Emerson viewed the Law of Cause and Effect as a fundamental, inescapable universal law, often describing it as the "law of laws". He emphasized that every action, thought, and, "seed" produces a corresponding effect or "fruit," asserting that strong individuals believe in this accountability rather than luck or chance.
Key Aspects of Emerson's Cause and Effect
"Law of Laws": Emerson viewed this principle as the ultimate, inescapable rule governing the universe.
Accountability vs. Luck: Emerson famously stated, "Shallow men believe in luck or in circumstance. Strong men believe in cause and effect".
The Inseparable Nature: He noted that means and ends, and causes and effects, cannot be separated because the effect already blooms in the cause.
Compensation: Closely tied to his essay "Compensation," he believed that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, ensuring a natural balance in life."... 🙏➕🙏...
... the way the world is goin and the constant erosion of reality we may as well have some fun with this, ...so i googled "Cause and effect, is there cause with no effect"... answer AI Overview
Cause and effect constitute a fundamental, interconnected relationship where a prior, sufficient event (cause) produces a resulting outcome (effect). Generally, a cause cannot exist without producing an effect, nor can an effect exist without a cause. While some, like David Hume, argue for "constant conjunction," mainstream philosophy dictates that for every effect, there must be a necessary, prior, and sufficient cause.
Key considerations regarding cause without effect:
Conceptual Logic: By definition, if a "cause" does not produce an effect, it is often considered an insufficient or non-cause rather than a cause without an effect.
Scientific Perspective: In classical science, every action requires a reaction. However, in quantum mechanics, certain phenomena like atomic decay are sometimes interpreted as effects occurring without a preceding, identifiable cause.
Common Cause: In complex situations, what appears to be a cause-and-effect relationship may actually be two independent effects resulting from a single, unseen, "common cause".
Therefore, while in theoretical or quantum scenarios, events might seem to happen without a conventional, preceding cause, the general rule in classical physics and logic is that a cause without an effect is not a cause at all."...personally, i like the" common cause"... with 'two independent effects'... resulting from a single unseen 'common cause"... anyone seen the film' Idiocracy' (2006), well, this answer ought to had made it into it's script!... 🙏➕🙏...
Several questions come to mind: What would happen to the average citizen who lied on his/her mortgage application like this? Why would anyone in their right mind, who knew that she were caught lying on said application, and that she were employed by such an "upstanding" agency, stubbornly refuse to leave her position? And why would her immediate boss (Powell) arrogantly refuse to fire her?
...ur on the right track, and there's a deeper issue involved... i googled "someone misstates their property to gain favorable mortgage loan is this a crime" (i omitted question mark)...here's part of the answer... AI Overview "
Yes, intentionally misstating property details to gain a favorable mortgage loan is a serious crime known as mortgage fraud. Whether it involves inflating the property's value, falsely claiming it as a primary residence (occupancy fraud), or omitting crucial information, such actions are illegal and can lead to severe legal consequences.
Here is a breakdown of why this is a crime and the potential consequences:
Why It Is a Crime
Definition of Fraud: Mortgage fraud is the intentional misrepresentation or omission of information that a lender relies on to fund or insure a loan.
Types of Property Misrepresentation:
Occupancy Fraud: Claiming you will live in a property as your primary residence to get better interest rates, when you actually plan to rent it out.
Appraisal Fraud: Artificially inflating the value of a property to secure a larger loan.
Property Flipping: Purchasing a property and immediately reselling it at an artificially inflated price.
Intent Matters: While honest, minor mistakes on an application can usually be corrected, intentionally providing false information to secure better terms is considered criminal...."... being removed 'for cause" also affects one's unemployment benefits, see... What do Employment-At-will and For-Cause Mean? - Kantrowitz, Goldhamer, Graifman, Perlmutter & Carballo, P.C. https://share.google/Fq2IbHU5MnvNYayOa ... "For cause’ means you did something to cause your own demise. You were insubordinate, you didn’t show up to work, there was some sort of misconduct. And where this is critical, is in the unemployment benefits context. Because if you’re fired for cause, then you are precluded from getting unemployment benefits."... 🙏➕🙏...
The present case before the Court is at best a farce. The real issue is the Constitutionality of the Federal Reserve. The Constitution granted to Congress the power to coin and regulate the value of money. The writers of the Constitution understood the importance of money. It is the grease that keeps the machinery of everyday life running smoothly. Thus the writers placed that power into the branch of government most directly representing We the People. Congress abdicated its power to the Fed. Since its inception the Fed has been an abject failure. A person only needs to compare the price of a loaf bread at the Fed’s beginning to the price of a loaf of bread today to see how badly the Fed has failed in regulating the value of our money. With its almost unlimited power to create money out of thin air the Fed and its underling banking system has created a system of ever increasing inflation and indebtedness for the general populace to the enrichment of the bankers. If the Supreme Court justices read and understood our Constitution they would end this unconstitutional, fraudulent fractional banking system and return the power to coin and regulate the value of money back to Congress.
The Fed must end, we must end the British control over our country. The Supremes have failed us so many times, they disgust me as do the Congress and Senate. I look for the Brunson Case to come forward.
Ahh yes, the Brunson Case … If i remember correctly before the 2020 election legislators in some of the so-called “swing” states made appeal to their state courts because unelected state officials had usurped the power of the legislature to determine how presidential electors are chosen within the state. The United States Constitution grants that power solely to the respective state legislatures. No state court would hear the merits of the case before or after the election. After the 2020 election several states appealed to the United States Supreme Court arguing voters in their state and throughout the country in essence had their votes and the overall will of We the People nullified by the shenanigans in those “swing”states. The majority of the Supreme Court justices violated their oath of office to support the Constitution by failing to uphold Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 2. I doubt the Supreme Court will rule in accordance with the Constitution. I base my opinion on its history of failing to look to the Constitution, instead relying on the misinterpretation of the Preamble clause “to promote the general welfare,” expediency, and too often past precedents. Previous rulings made contrary to the Constitution should never be a basis of continuation of error. Such is the situation we find ourselves in and why the bickering over the Fed is a farce. (The Preamble states the objective, the reason for the Constitution. The writers promoted the “general welfare” by greatly limiting the powers granted to the federal government. That is how the blessings of liberty are secured. The phrase has been turned on its head and we are in a fight to keep our liberties. The Covid vaccine mandate debacle is a glaring example).
Yes, well said. I do get frustrated, and I doubt they will bring the Brunson Case forward, but it gives me a sense of satisfaction just to mention it.
...a serious farce, agreed, is Idiocracy 2006 satire writing it's script into 'reality?!' ... 🙏➕🙏...
And you would trust Congress with this power?
No, but if we could educate enough voters and clean up the fraud in the elections we may have a chance of turning things back to our Constitutional principles. It does appear hopeless, but it’s our only hope.
Amen, and amen.
The President has the power to appoint and to disappoint. Them's the facts yer honor.
A-men... and He continually disappoints. Nothing will come of it. Even the Pres lacks standing/jurisdiction in the criminal corporate courts. This case will help grease immunity for the Kings (the squid chairmen not puppet presidents.) Don't look here - look over there. This case sets the precedent - the foundation is set - for the Central Bank to take the country/states down - the confiscation economy... knowledge is power.
....hadn't heard of Lisa De Crook...oh sorry, paperwork mistake, Lisa D Cook!... Federal Reserve Act - Wikipedia https://share.google/WZjtZPVZeALJ3FD4S ... 🙏➕🙏...recalls to mind the quaint and endearing phrase cooking the books...
Great essay Bobbie but at the end of the day this is a red herring. The truth is the Federal Reserve is a scam. It's a grifting racket and has been bleeding Americans dry since 1913. The case should be, Can the president abolish the Federal Reserve? I believe he can. It should be abolished and the power returned to the secretary of the treasury. Only the Federal government should have the power to print money. Not a private cabal of grifting bankers, who charge us compound interest. If the treasury printed the currency we'd be paiyng zero interest. JFK in the last months of his presidency started issuing silver dollar notes separate from the Fed and we know what eventually happened. What we need is a US Labor dollar printed by the treasury on a one for one basis. No inflation you print only what you need. The more you work the more you get no inflation no printing money for special interests projects. Only what's absolutely needed nothing more.
At the same time you could abolish the IRS. Both Federal and state. Replace it with a 1/2 % sales tax on Federal state and local levels, paid on all transactions including Wall Street. This would create an avalache of revenue into the government and no capital gains or inheritance taxes. You keep all you earn.
We are among the highest taxed people in the world and get literally nothing for it. I find it interesting that in the Russian Federation, the former preeminant Communist state the current tax code is a flat 13% across the board, no capital gains or inheritance taxes. There is a VAT tax but on big luxury items only like cars, boats private jets. How many of us are buying planes, boats, or $250,000 cars? Russians get a better tax deal than we do. It's the greatest gag reel of the Twenty-Worst Century. I'd be pleased to hear your thoughts.
With the constitution in the trash bin and rule of law disintegrating every day, the DC Cesspool is free to do whatever they want to keep the deception going and that is that "things are going to be fine"...they are not.
The government needs low, low interest rates to service the ever rising deficit. Forcing the markets will eventually speed up the demise of the entire financial system. At best, we have 7-8 years before the entire system blows up.
.....and the Transnational gangsters win control of this nation
Excellent analysis! Thank you.
...Emerson' s elaboration in his essay 'Compensation' is a clincher, i googled "Emerson cause and effect" and here is part of answer... "
Ralph Waldo Emerson viewed the Law of Cause and Effect as a fundamental, inescapable universal law, often describing it as the "law of laws". He emphasized that every action, thought, and, "seed" produces a corresponding effect or "fruit," asserting that strong individuals believe in this accountability rather than luck or chance.
Key Aspects of Emerson's Cause and Effect
"Law of Laws": Emerson viewed this principle as the ultimate, inescapable rule governing the universe.
Accountability vs. Luck: Emerson famously stated, "Shallow men believe in luck or in circumstance. Strong men believe in cause and effect".
The Inseparable Nature: He noted that means and ends, and causes and effects, cannot be separated because the effect already blooms in the cause.
Compensation: Closely tied to his essay "Compensation," he believed that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, ensuring a natural balance in life."... 🙏➕🙏...
It is becoming glaringly apparent that SCOTUS is as compromised as the congress. I suspect the same entity owns them all.
And it ain't us!
... the way the world is goin and the constant erosion of reality we may as well have some fun with this, ...so i googled "Cause and effect, is there cause with no effect"... answer AI Overview
Cause and effect constitute a fundamental, interconnected relationship where a prior, sufficient event (cause) produces a resulting outcome (effect). Generally, a cause cannot exist without producing an effect, nor can an effect exist without a cause. While some, like David Hume, argue for "constant conjunction," mainstream philosophy dictates that for every effect, there must be a necessary, prior, and sufficient cause.
Key considerations regarding cause without effect:
Conceptual Logic: By definition, if a "cause" does not produce an effect, it is often considered an insufficient or non-cause rather than a cause without an effect.
Scientific Perspective: In classical science, every action requires a reaction. However, in quantum mechanics, certain phenomena like atomic decay are sometimes interpreted as effects occurring without a preceding, identifiable cause.
Common Cause: In complex situations, what appears to be a cause-and-effect relationship may actually be two independent effects resulting from a single, unseen, "common cause".
Therefore, while in theoretical or quantum scenarios, events might seem to happen without a conventional, preceding cause, the general rule in classical physics and logic is that a cause without an effect is not a cause at all."...personally, i like the" common cause"... with 'two independent effects'... resulting from a single unseen 'common cause"... anyone seen the film' Idiocracy' (2006), well, this answer ought to had made it into it's script!... 🙏➕🙏...