FSK's Guide to Reality: January 2011

Monday, January 31, 2011

Are FRE/FNM Being Used For A Stealth Bank Bailout?

Freddie Mac (FRE) and Fannie Mae (FNM) get special perks that no other business has. When FRE/FNM borrow to buy mortgage bonds or mortgages, their debt is backed by the Federal government.

This is a huge State subsidy. FRE/FNM can borrow at the Treasury term rate. Other big banks can borrow at the overnight Fed Funds Rate, but not the Treasury term rate. This gives FRE/FNM an advantage over every other bank, when speculating on mortgages.

Even if I could organize an efficient mortgage financing business, I could not compete with FRE/FNM. They get to borrow more cheaply than I would. They have an unfair competitive advantage.

Due to the housing market crash, FRE/FNM were insolvent. They receive huge State subsidies. However, due to the crash, they didn't have the cashflow to pay off bondholders.

The Federal government had implicitly guaranteed the debt of FRE/FNM. That implicit guarantee became explicit. The Federal government gave FRE/FNM bailout money.

Now, FRE/FNM can be used as a backdoor bailout of other banks. Allegedly, this backdoor bailout was used by BAC and others. Suppose BAC has mortgage bonds with a "book value" of $1B but a fair market value of $100M. Those bonds are sold to FRE/FNM for $1B. BAC received a stealth bailout of $900M.

FRE/FNM are already insolvent. The loss of $900M is buried on their books. FRE/FNM get $900M more bailout money from the Federal government.

FRE/FNM are already insolvent. A bigger loss makes no difference. FRE/FNM can do stealth bank bailouts. They buy mortgage bonds for more than they're worth. The Federal government is stuck with the loss.

To be accurate, *ALL* of the debt of FRE/FNM should be counted as part of the "national debt". The Federal government is guaranteeing it. Unfortunately, that isn't the way State accounting works.

A pro-State troll says "FRE/FNM are beneficial. People get mortgages more cheaply." The fallacy is that you get a lower interest rate, but the price of a house is higher. Plus, the FRE/FNM middlement get a cut, paying themselves salaries and bonuses. Overall, it's a net loss.

The profits of FRE and FNM aren't free. Everyone else pays the cost via inflation.

If FRE/FNM were cut with no replacement, housing prices would drop further. However, that isn't a reason to let FRE/FNM executives keep stealing.

Can you imagine the argument "Robert Kahre and Sholom Rubashkin should not have been imprisoned because their wife and children were stuck." However, State thugs say "We have to keep the FRE/FNM scam going. Otherwise, the housing market would collapse." There are two moralities, one for State insiders and one for everyone else.

If they wanted to, State thugs could shut down FRE/FNM. They could pay off all the bondholders, honoring their guarantee. They could then keep the mortgage bonds to maturity, or sell them. State thugs won't shut down FRE/FNM, because it's a huge pork opportunity. State insiders pick their friends to get high-paying executive jobs at FRE/FNM. It's pure corruption capitalism when FRE/FNM spend money lobbying.

FRE/FNM are being used as a stealth bank bailout. They are buying mortgage bonds for more than the fair market value. Then, the Federal government is stuck with the loss, because the Federal government guarantees the bonds of FRE and FNM.

FRE and FNM are abominations. They only exist due to State subsidies.

Sunday, January 30, 2011

Keith Olbermann And MSNBC

Keith Olbermann was fired from MSNBC. Allegedly, he got into fights with his bosses, regarding the content of his show.

Keith Olbermann is a high-ranking State comedian. He's a high-ranking slave. He's still a slave.

Keith Olbermann is a "house slave". (It's better to write "house slave" than "house n*****".) His primary job is to keep the other slaves in line. If the "house slave" gets too uppity, then he's demoted. Some other slave gets the opportunity to boss around the other slaves.

State "journalist" is a high-paying low-skill job. MSNBC could fire Keith Olbermann, hire someone else as a replacement, and keep most of their ratings.

Keith Olbermann does not own the means of production. After getting fired by MSNBC, there are only a handful of other corporations that may hire him. If they conspire to censor/blacklist Keith Olbermann, then he is SOL.

The mainstream media is a "captured regulator". The mainstream media owners are unelected. They wield more influence than most politicians.

Suppose I wanted to start my own TV news channel. Comcast would refuse to carry my channel, because it would be competing with MSNBC. It's a closed market. Only insiders may start new mainstream media channels.

I can self-publish on the Internet and bypass State censorship. However, you won't get as much of an audience self-publishing on the Internet as you would with a State mainstream media contract. You won't make as much money on the Internet compared with a State media contract.

I'm disturbed by how often this happens. A mainstream media "journalist" says the wrong thing. They are fired. They don't find a new job. It's a clear pattern.

I don't know what the issue was. Keith Olbermann is still a pro-State troll. However, his personal beliefs don't match Comcast's censorship agenda. Therefore he was fired.

The media spin is "Keith Olbermann wasn't obeying orders. We had to fire him to 'send a message'." The message is "Obey orders or you're fired. Even if you're a famous journalist, you're still an employee and a slave."

Most "journalists" are really slaves. They are employees and not owners. Their slave-masters veto the content they are allowed to air. Every State "journalist" knows that if he says the wrong thing, then he will be fired. He would be blacklisted and his career would be over.

There is a strong culture of self-censorship in the State media. People who deviate aren't sent to death camps. That would be too obviously evil. Instead, they are fired and their career is ruined. The "free market" takes care of State censorship. The problem is that the mainstream media is a fake free market, and not a really free market.

Why don't people like Keith Olbermann and Conan O'Brien start their own TV channel? The State makes that illegal. A handful of insiders control all the State media. For all practical purposes, those insiders *ARE* the government. They have the power to promote or censor an idea. Of course, if any media owner misbehaves, then the banksters will push down their stock via naked short selling and arrange for a leveraged buyout. A new figurehead would be installed as owner, if a current media owner disobeys orders.

This pattern is very disturbing. A State "journalist" refuses to obey orders. He is fired. All "journalists", no matter how prominent, are employees and slaves.

Why shouldn't Keith Olbermann have the freedom to say whatever he wants on his own show? He's just an employee. He's just a slave. If he deviates from the censorship agenda, then an example must be made of him.

Saturday, January 29, 2011

Are You A Consumer Or Producer?

There are many offensive State fnord phrases. I find the term "consumer" very offensive.

When I hear "consumer", I think of a giant mouth devouring everything. It's degrading, when State comedians refer to people as "consumers".

I'd much rather be a producer than a consumer. There can't be any consumption without production.

State morality is inverted. The ideal person racks up debt. The ideal person consumes more than he produces. The productive worker is an exploited loser.

Politicians say "We're looking out for consumers." Who's looking out for the producers? According to State propaganda, a small business owner is a greedy person who wants to cheat his customers. Therefore, we need to restrain/cripple them with regulations. This favors insiders at large corporations. The cost of regulation compliance is usually fixed. Regulations are a regressive tax.

The CEOs of most large corporations are evil. They lobby the State for favors. The regulations that hurt "evil small business owners" favor "greedy CEOs and State insiders".

Another offensive term is "taxpayer". When I hear the term "taxpayer", I think of someone getting mugged and pickpocketed. The opposite of "taxpayer" is "tax-eater". A tax-eater is someone who receives more State subsidies than the value of the taxes he pays.

Politicians are obviously tax-eaters. Most insiders are tax-eaters. Suppose a CEO earns $50M and pays $25M in taxes. It's more accurate to say "He stole $25M." than "He's a swell guy who paid $25 in taxes." Besides, most CEOs and insiders use trusts and tricks to dodge taxes.

Consider a lawyer. Lawyers only earn huge salaries due to the State. The State licensing cartel restricts the supply of lawyers. The State legal system is set up so that you need a lawyer for everything. Lawyers are tax-eaters, even lawyers not explicitly employed by the State.

I'm offended by many State fnord words. "Consumer" and "taxpayer" are offensive. Those words subtly reinforce pro-State brainwashing. "Consumer" and "taxpayer" remind everyone that they're slaves.

Friday, January 28, 2011

Wearing A Hat In A Courtroom

This story is amusing. Pete Eyre was in a courtroom. (Why was he in court? That wasn't clear from the articles I read. I wouldn't voluntarily go to court, unless there was a specific person I was trying to help.) He refused to take off his hat. He was jailed for "contempt of court".

There's a lot more to protesting the State than escalating minor disputes. It isn't a competition to see "What stupid thing can I get arrested for?" You don't intentionally start a fight with a bully over a minor issue.

If every slave refused to back down for every minor transgression, then the State would collapse. If only a handful of people do it, State thugs will eagerly imprison you.

State thugs *CAN* murder everyone. (Soviet Union, China) In their minds, they aren't evil, so they wouldn't try it. Besides, what kind of milk farmer would murder all his cows?

State thugs can't imprison everyone. Someone has to work and pay taxes/tribute. However, State thugs *CAN* imprison 2% of the population. They already do this.

It would be very easy for State thugs to round up the 10,000 most articulate "market anarchist" writers, and imprison all of them. There probably aren't even 10,000 people.

State thugs wouldn't even need a trial. They could just die in an "accident".

That's a good question. Why haven't State thugs done that? Are they incompetent? Is "market anarchism" lost in the noise of all other stuff? Any government insider smart enough to understand agorism is probably also smart enough to realize that the current system is doomed. Agorism may be the best way to survive the collapse without too many people dying.

There are two conflicting sides to this issue. First, there's "WTF? Contempt of court for refusing to take off your hat?" Second, there's "Don't you have better things to do, than get arrested/kidnapped for something minor?"

Look at it from the point of view of the judge/bailiff. He had two choices:

Let him leave his hat on.
Violence.

It's an easy decision. If slaves can disrespect the "Don't wear a hat!" rule, then they'll start questioning all other sorts of stuff.

Also, Pete Eyre probably had confrontational body language (although I wasn't there). The State thug's instincts kicked in. "He's disrespecting my authority!" Pete Eyre was arrested/kidnapped for his body language, in addition to the refusal to remove his hat. Refusing to remove a hat is the "official" reason. The real reason was the hostile body language.

A courtroom is a church for the State. In Christian church, the rule is "Remove your hat to show respect for God." In State church, the rule is "Remove your hat to show respect for the State."

There are many little fnords in a State court. They are little reminders that God=State, priest=judge.

Reviewing the similarities:

You must remove your hat.
The benches in a courtroom look like pews in a church.
The priest wears black. The judge wears black.
A church displays a cross, the symbol of God. A courtroom displays a flag, the symbol of the State.
The altar is on a raised platform. The judge sits on an elevated seat.
The "judge's bench area" is treated like a holy place. Only "altar boys" (lawyers) may approach.
You must believe, without proof, that God exists. You must accept, without proof, that all the State's laws and rules are beneficial.
In church, you stand up and sit down when the priest orders you to. In court, you stand up and sit down when the judge orders you to.
If you disobey God, you are punished. If you disobey the judge or State, you are punished.
A priest interprets the Bible. A judge interprets State law.

"Take off your hat in court!" is important. It reinforces the "God=State, priest=judge" fnord.

From the point of view of the bailiff/judge, every rule must be strictly enforced. If the slaves start disrespecting stupid rules, they'll start disrespecting important ones.

In fact, the stupid rules are a type of trap. A stupid slave will start disobeying the stupid rules before disobeying the important ones. This makes it easy for State thugs to identify troublemakers.

One of the rules of State court is "The judge can make up whatever rules he wants. He can jail you for 'contempt of court' indefinitely for whatever reason." If you disobey, violence is the preferred solution. I'm sure the bailiff enjoyed arresting Pete Eyre. His colleagues are congratulating him for his excellent work. In New Hampshire and Keene, State thugs are eager to arrest/kidnap the "Free State" and "Free Keene" crowd.

Yes, State thugs overreacted by arresting/kidnapping Pete Eyre. However, according to their own rules, they had no choice. You should resist the State. You should pick your battles wisely. State thugs have virtually unlimited resources, especially when it comes to silencing disobedient slaves.

Doesn't Pete Eyre have better things to do than waste time in jail for something trivial? He isn't costing State thugs a dime. They'll let some murderer go free, just to keep a jail cell available for a political prisoner. (However, if *EVERYONE* acted that way, State thugs couldn't jail everyone. It's a type of equilibrium, when almost everyone goes along with the State without resisting. State thugs can then spend lots of resources silencing dissenters. From the State thug's point of view, the cost of jailing political prisoners is a "cost of doing business" for the State extortion racket.)

The "freedom movement" isn't a competition to see who can get arrested/kidnapped for the stupidest reason.

Right now, only a tiny minority understand how the State is one big scam. State thugs have superior resources and numbers, compared to people who know the truth. It's a waste of time and energy, to get kidnapped/arrested for something trivial.

Thursday, January 27, 2011

Federal Reserve "Negative Liabilities"

The Federal Reserve announced a new accounting trick. It's called "negative liabilities".

When "monetizing" Treasury debt, the Federal Reserve makes a guaranteed riskless profit. The Federal Reserve cannot go broke, if they do nothing but purchase Treasury debt.

Recently, the Federal Reserve has been purchasing mortgage bonds from banks. This is a stealth backdoor bailout. The Federal Reserve pays more than the bond is actually worth.

Suppose the Federal Reserve pays $1B for a bond that's worth $0. Now, the Federal Reserve has a loss of $1B. If enough such losses accumulated, the Federal Reserve could have negative equity.

The Federal Reserve makes a profit when "monetizing the debt". The Federal Reserve uses this profit to pay its own operating expenses. The Federal Reserve does not need money appropriated by Congress. Any surplus profit is returned to the Treasury.

A pro-State troll says "The Federal Reserve returns surplus profit to the Treasury! That proves they aren't evil!" The "surplus profit" is negligible compared to the total amount stolen via inflation. The value of the Federal Reserve is not this profit. The value is the cartel power to fix interest rates. The value is the ability to print money and give it freely/cheaply to your bankster buddies.

The Federal Reserve bought mortgage bonds for an above-market price. Now, the Federal Reserve has losses. If these losses are big enough, the Federal Reserve could theoretically be bankrupted.

The "negative liabilities" trick rescues the Federal Reserve from insolvency. Suppose the Federal Reserve has a loss of $100B. The Federal Reserve enters a "negative liability" of $100B in its account with the Treasury. The Federal Reserve will use that $100B negative liability to offset future Treasury interest rebates.

Suppose that there is a "negative liability" of $100B. The Federal Reserve makes $50B surplus profit "monetizing the debt". Instead of paying $50B to the Treasury, the "negative liability" is reduced from $100B to $50B.

The Federal Reserve incurred a loss when bailing out banks. The Federal Reserve purchased bonds for more than they're worth. Now, via the "negative liabilities" trick, that loss is passed on to the Federal government.

Government is not subject to the same accounting rules as slaves. If I tried to write myself a check for $10M, it would bounce and/or I'd be prosecuted for fraud.

There is no limit to how big the "negative liability" can be. The Federal Reserve could have a "negative liability" of $100T, and keep operating as if nothing bad happened. After briefly googling, I could not find a reference for how big the "negative liability" actually was.

The Federal Reserve unilaterally changed its accounting rules! The law was not changed. The Federal Reserve decided to introduce a new accounting gimmick. That shows how the Federal Reserve is sovereign, and not Congress or the President.

Where did the "negative liability" loss go? It was used to bail out the banksters. That money was stolen via inflation.

The Federal Reserve introduced the "negative liabilities" accounting trick to hide losses. The Federal Reserve lost money, via a stealth backdoor bank bailout. The Federal Reserve purchased mortgage bonds for more than they were worth. Via "negative liabilities", that loss is passed on to the Federal government.

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

American Idol And Auto-Tune

My sister wanted to watch American Idol. I watched the first hour. It was the first episode for the "audition round". I was able to notice the use of Auto-Tune!

Many shows are designed for people with the parasitic personality type. Some examples are "American Idol", "Dancing With The Stars", "The Apprentice", "The Office", and "The Weakest Link".

For example, "The Weakest Link" promotes mediocrity. If you're clearly a strong player, then the others vote you out so they don't have to face you in the final.

Now that I've mostly cracked my pro-State brainwashing, I notice things I didn't see before. For example, I can notice plastic surgery. Plastic surgery looks ugly and unnatural. Conan O'Brien had a lot of plastic surgery.

Because I've mostly cracked my pro-State brainwashing, I was able to notice the use of Auto-Tune.

When the goal was "this contestant advances", then Auto-Tune was used. When the goal was "ridicule this contestant", then Auto-Tune was not used. It was incredibly offensive.

Due to Auto-Tune, a singer's appearance is all that matters. Their singing ability is irrelevant. The State model for a celebrity is "anorexic with plastic surgery", and breast implants for women.

A good natural singer would be somewhat overweight. (think Pavarotti). The use of Auto-Tune means that people with the "right" appearance can be promoted. Your actual singing ability is irrelevant.

The judges would ridicule someone who had the "wrong" appearance. That's very offensive. The judges may have been told who should advance. The judges probably were able to figure out on their own, who had the "wrong" appearance.

My sister totally fell for the pro-State brainwashing. She instinctively knew these were "bad" singers, because Auto-Tune wasn't on.

With Auto-Tune, most singers sound the same. The "bad" singers sounded more natural to me, because Auto-Tune wasn't on. I thought the natural sound was better than the Auto-Tuned sound!

That explains one thing that always bothered me. "Why do lousy singers audition for American Idol?" The answer is that they aren't really lousy singers. The show's producers don't use Auto-Tune, when they want to ridicule someone. The audience is pro-State brainwashed to believe "Auto-Tune is off. Therefore, this is a lousy singer."

If the show altered someone's voice to ridicule them, then that would subject them to a libel lawsuit. However, the show alters the voice of people they want to look good. For people they want to ridicule, they show their natural voice. On a technicality, that isn't libel. However, audiences are conditioned to believe "Auto-Tune implies good singer." and "No Auto-Tune implies lousy singer."

It's also offensive to see the attitude "This is some lucky contestant's only chance to become a superstar." American Idol promotes pro-State groveling. "In order to become a celebrity, you need the approval of State gatekeepers/judges." Another lie is "You only get one big chance!" If you're really talented, you get multiple chances.

The Internet changes the equation. You can self-publish on the Internet and earn a decent living. You can bypass the State gatekeepers. You still need a State mainstream media contract to become a multi-millionaire. You can earn a decent living self-publishing on the Internet. If you're an unknown artist, your goal is not "make millions of dollars". Your goal is "make income comparable to a regular wage slave job".

Most of the money spent on record purchases goes to State middlemen. If you self-publish and offer free downloads, you only need 10,000 donations of $10 for it to be a career. Plus, you could sell live performances.

American Idol's producers have publicly denied using Auto-Tune. (Of course, they may use another program with a different name and similar features. Then, they technically didn't lie.) This article says that some American Idol employees privately admitted to using Auto-Tune.

I don't have to rely on third party reports. I could tell they were using Auto-Tune. It is offensive to use Auto-Tune to enhance favored contestants, while ridiculing non-favored contestants.

Even if a performance is "live", it may be Auto-Tune enhanced.

Auto-Tune is bad. A good good musician will intentionally vary pitch and rhythm. Auto-Tune takes that away. (There also is an "Auto-Rhythm", that fixes the beat.)

Unfortunately, American Idol is immune from liability for their fraud. Do the improperly-ridiculed contestants have a valid fraud claim? They wasted time and energy auditioning. On the other hand, there's no libel in a really free market. The correct solution is that people should refuse to watch garbage.

Since I've mostly cracked my pro-State brainwashing, I have higher awareness. I was able to notice the use of Auto-Tune on "American Idol". They used Auto-Tune to enhance favored contestants. They didn't use Auto-Tune for contestants they wanted to ridicule. Audiences are pro-State brainwashed to believe "Auto-Tune is off. Therefore, this is a lousy singer."

One theme of State brainwashing is "Appearance matters more than ability." With Auto-Tune, a singer's appearance matters more than ability. Via Auto-Tune, ability is irrelevant. However, I was able to notice the use of Auto-Tune. The contrast between Auto-Tuned and non-Auto-Tuned singers was obvious.

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Julian Heicklen Indicted For Jury Tampering

Julian Heicklen is an old activist. He hands out FIJA "jury nullification" pamphlets in front of courthouses. He and others were arrested multiple times. Recently, he was indicted for "jury tampering".

It's amusing to hear State thugs talking to Julian Heicklen. Julian complained that he kept getting unfairly arrested. State thugs said that Julian Heicklen should take the hint and stop handing out FIJA pamphlets in front of courthouses. It's Julian's fault, that he was unfairly arrested.

That shows a "Stop hitting yourself!" aspect of State bully logic. As another example, statists say "Richard Simkanin and Robert Kahre intentionally wrecked their lives, when they chose the path of tax resistance." That's misleading. State thugs wrecked their lives. State thugs are eager to silence dissent.

Via the "Asche Conformity Experiment", the first dissenter has a huge value to the rest of society. When you see a dissenter, that makes you question your false beliefs. Therefore, State thugs are *VERY EAGER* to silence the first dissenter. According to corrupt State law, most "crimes" are things that shouldn't be illegal. "Victimless crimes" and "white collar crime" criminalize many innocent-seeming activities. I wonder what percentage of prosecutions, are cases where "jury nullification" would be appropriate?

"Blame the victim!" is a bizarre aspect of pro-State troll logic. If you disobey unjust law X, and are kidnapped/arrested, the victim is blamed and not the State thugs.

Some people say "HAHAHA!! This will be a funny trial. The only evidence against Julian Heicklen is FIJA pamphlets! It'll be easy to get a 'jury nullification' acquittal!"

Actually, that's not necessarily true. I read the indictment and the relevant law.

Whoever attempts to influence the action or decision of any grand or petit juror of any court of the United States upon any issue or matter pending before such juror, or before the jury of which he is a member, or pertaining to his duties, by writing or sending to him any written communication, in relation to such issue or matter, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the communication of a request to appear before the grand jury.

Julian Heicklen is charged with a misdemeanor, and not a felony. The key phrase is "not more than six months". For a felony, you get a jury trial. For misdemeanors, there is no right to a jury trial. It's a bench trial with a judge.

In a bench trial with a judge, of course Julian Heicklen is going to lose. His legal arguments are irrelevant. The judge will rule against him, and Julian is SOL when the judge makes a pro-State troll ruling.

At sentencing, the judge may say "I sentence you to time served. I also issue a permanent injunction, barring you from handing out FIJA pamphlets in front of courthouses." This is very clever!

If a judge gives an illegal order, it's invalid. However, that isn't what State thugs think!

Suppose Julian Heicklen persists and keeps handing out FIJA pamphlets. State thugs kidnap him again. Now, he doesn't get a new trial. It's "contempt of court". For "contempt of court", you can be jailed indefinitely without a trial!

This is a commonly-used State legal loophole. The State doesn't actually have the authority to forbid you from doing X, but a judge issues an injunction forbidding you from doing X. Now, when you disobey, you don't get a trial. It's "contempt of court", and you can be jailed indefinitely.

It's very ironic that the formal charge is "jury tampering". The *WHOLE POINT* of "jury selection" is jury tampering. Via the jury selection process, the judge and prosecutor pack the jury with pro-State trolls.

Handing out FIJA pamphlets is a way to counteract State jury selection bias. It is very offensive, that State thugs hate jury nullification so much. It's an important check and balance against abuse of State power.

It is obviously illegal and unconstitutional to arrest/kidnap someone for handing out FIJA pamphlets in front of a courthouse. Unfortunately, State thugs don't think that way. State thugs have a monopoly for interpreting and enforcing the Constitution. The slaves are SOL if State thugs claim too much power.

"Jury nullification" is a uniquely American freedom. In most/all other countries, prosecutors can appeal a "not guilty" jury verdict. Due to the "double jeopardy" clause in the Bill of Rights, a "not guilty" jury verdict cannot be overturned, even if the jurors nullified. If a jury says "not guilty", there's nothing the judge can do about it, even if he thinks the defendant is guilty.

However, there are other dirty tricks prosecutors can use, in addition to biased jury selection. The most common one is "a separate trial in state and Federal court for the same action". This gives prosecutors two tries. Also, charges may be split among multiple trials.

Another dirty trick is "Prosecutors use their search warrant power to grab all your personal and business records. Then, they find additional crimes to charge you with."

There are problems with Julian Heicklen's indictment, in addition to "WTF? You can't kidnap someone for handing out FIJA pamphlets!"

In order for the "jury tampering" charge to stick, prosecutors should have to prove that Julian Heicklen was trying to influence the outcome of a specific trial. Julian Heicklen was merely trying to raise overall awareness of jury nullification. He also probably wanted to make State thugs look bad, when they arrest someone for a stupid reason.

Prosecutors should have to prove that a juror read Julian Heicklen's pamphlet, got selected for the jury, and the pamphlet influenced their vote. Prosecutors should also have to prove that Julian Heicklen was trying to affect a specific trial.

It should be legal to hand out FIJA pamphlets, even if there's a specific defendant you want to help. A large group of vocal supporters could influence jurors.

Personally, I'd hand out FIJA pamphlets in front of a courthouse only if there was a specific person I was trying to help. In front of a courthouse, you're fighting State thugs on their turf.

If your goal is merely to raise awareness, you'll reach more people in Times Square, than in front of a courthouse. There's also less personal risk.

Another interesting point is "How close do you have to be to the courthouse?" Can you hand out FIJA pamphlets 1 block away? 2 blocks away? At nearby subway stations? If necessary, State thugs will kidnap all who challenge their authority.

Julian Heicklen announced that he isn't going to appear in court to answer the warrant. Is another person, "bile", doing the same thing? I disapprove of that. The State's authority isn't legitimate, but I wouldn't want the inconvenience of being jailed without bail. The lost salary isn't worth it.

Also, "refusing to respond to an arrest warrant" is a separate, much more serious crime. The prosecutor can argue "Julian Heicklen ignored his court date!" without mentioning "jury nullification" at all. Again, that might be "contempt of court" and not qualify for a jury trial.

There is one advantage of being an older freedom activist. If you're 35, a 20 year jail term is stealing a huge chunk of your life. If you're 70, there's much less to lose. However, State thugs are already stealing a huge chunk of my life via taxes.

Julian Heicklen's relatives seem to be trying to have him declared "mentally incompetent" and imprisoned in an old age home. Based on my experience, being involuntarily hospitalized is extremely unpleasant.

This is amusing. Julian Heicklein *WON'T* get the opportunity to show his FIJA pamphlets to a jury. He will get a bench trial and not a jury trial! If he persists handing out FIJA pamphlets, then the judge may jail him indefinitely for "contempt of court", without a jury trial.

As Julian Heicklen and George Donnelly demonstrated, there is no "freedom of press" or "freedom of speech". You don't have the right to hand out "jury nullification" pamphlets in front of a courthouse.

Monday, January 24, 2011

Congress' Oath Of Office

Jon Stewart was ridiculing the Congressmen who missed their "oath of office". However, I was very disturbed when I heard the actual oath.

The Constitution specifies the exact oath of office for the President. For Congressmen and other Federal employees, the Constitution specifies the oath but not the exact text.

These two pages have a good summary.

The original oath of office for Congressmen was pretty simple:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.

After the US Civil War, it was extended to:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

I found this extremely disturbing. I was offendeded by "defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic".

I know that the Constitution isn't a valid contract. The Constitution is a massive fraud. State thugs have a monopoly for interpreting and enforcing the Constitution. The slaves are SOL when State thugs claim too much power.

Does that mean I'm an "enemy of the Constitution"? As part of their oath of office, do Congressmen swear that I'm their enemy?

"The Constitution" is an abstract fictional idea. I can't be an "enemy of the Constitution" any more than I can be an "enemy of Santa Claus". A more accurate statement is "My enemies are people who use violence (or threat of violence) to steal from me."

If government is a voluntary contract, then do people have the right to get rid of it and replace it with something better? According to Congress' oath of office, the answer is "no". The main issue of the Civil War was that people don't have the right to renounce support for the Constitution.

The above oath is the same oath that soldiers take. Does that mean that "Congressman" is a military job and not a legislative job?

The oath that judges take is the above oath PLUS:

I, XXX XXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as XXX under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.

A judge *ALSO* declares war on "enemies of the Constitution". If you're a tax protester/resister, than the judge is obligated by his oath to rule against you, because tax protesters and some political protesters are "enemies of the Constitution".

Some people say "FSK, if you want to change things, why don't you run for Congress? Why don't you support less dishonest politicians?" First, I'd have no chance of actually getting elected. Second, I couldn't take an "oath to support the Constitution" in good faith, because I know it isn't a valid contract. Of course, most Congressmen violate their oath, but in their own minds they didn't.

Finally, as an honest politician, I'd only be making slightly more than I get paid now as a wage slave software engineer. It wouldn't be worth the hassle. A dishonest politician gets paid his salary *PLUS* whatever State resources he can steal. It would be much better if each Congressmen directly wrote himself a check for $100M and otherwise behaved honestly. Instead, much more is stolen indirectly via pork projects and lobbyist-written laws.

A Congressman's actual salary is illusion. The real value is all the State resources he can steal. This means that dishonest politicians squeeze out honest politicians. A dishonest politician's effective salary is much higher than that of an honest politician. In effect, the State "bids" for dishonest politicians, because they get paid more and have more incentive to seek political office.

It was offensive to see Congress' "oath of office". Every Federal government employee takes that oath. Am I an "enemy of the Constitution", because I know it's a fraud? Does every Federal government employee, as part of his "oath of office", declare that he's my enemy?

Sunday, January 23, 2011

Lawyers Defending Guilty Clients

It's interesting to read criminal defense lawyer blogs. A criminal defense lawyer is simultaneously a shill for the State and an advocate for individual freedom.

A lawyer is an advocate for individual freedom, because he's trying to keep his client out of jail. A lawyer is a shill for the State, because he will only make "State-approved" arguments when defending his client. For example, in a tax evasion criminal trial, a State-licensed lawyer won't be allowed to argue "It's economic terrorism, when a nonviolent offender is jailed for refusing to pay taxes."

Criminal defense lawyer bloggers had an interesting debate. The topic was "Should you defend a client, if you believe he is guilty?"

Some lawyers say "I should exercise discretion, regarding who I defend. If I refuse to defend him, there's plenty of other lawyers he can hire." This is probably what my attitude would be, if I were a lawyer.

However, a lawyer employed as a public defender has no such luxury. They are usually overworked and underpaid. If the hapless defendant is lucky, he'll get a decent plea bargain.

On the other side of the debate, some lawyers say "Everyone is entitled to a defense, even guilty people. (Besides, as long as the client's check clears, I'll take it.)"

Many clients expect their lawyer to pull a "Johnnie Cochran". That leads to unrealistic expectations.

Suppose a lawyer believes his client is guilty. No matter how good an actor he is, that's going to affect his attitude. His body language will say "My client is guilty!" and that will affect the jury.

For example, suppose I was arrested/kidnapped for tax evasion or treason. Suppose I hired a lawyer. My lawyer might pretend to defend me, while really thinking "This schmuck FSK deserved what he got, for challenging the State." If my lawyer really believed that, it would affect his attitude and the jury's attitude.

If you believe your client is guilty, and he's convicted, you won't feel bad. After all, he was guilty! If you believe your client is innocent, and he's convicted, then you screwed up and you're a professional failure. If you defend people you think are guilty, that's a low-stress paycheck.

Lawyers are willing to defend a client they believe are guilty, in exchange for a paycheck. They rationalize it with "Everyone is entitled to a lawyer." However, that leads to "justice" instead of justice. The lawyer is just going through the motions, without really meaning it. No matter how good an actor the lawyer is, that affects jurors' attitudes.

If I become a more successful freedom advocate, I'm more likely to become the victim of State violence. What would I do? I'd probably choose to represent myself. I'll try to avoid that. Once State thugs choose to pursue you, you're SOL, even if acquitted. For example, I wouldn't be reimbursed for time spent in jail and time spent defending myself. Via "asset forfeiture" laws, State thugs would seize my property and I probably wouldn't be able to recover it.

It was interesting to read defense lawyers debating "Should you defend a client you believe is guilty?" This is a defect of an adversarial "justice" system. Each side should use dirty tricks to get what they want. Prosecutors are allowed to withhold evidence that proves the defendant is innocent.

If a lawyer defends a client he believes is guilty, that leads to "justice" instead of justice. The lawyer is going through the motions, without really meaning it. The lawyer's body language will affect the jury and judge, even if nobody consciously notices. "Everybody is entitled to a lawyer!" degenerates into "Everybody is entitled to the farce of a defense."

Saturday, January 22, 2011

Social Security Cashflow

State comedians talk about the "Social Security Trust Fund" as if it were something tangible. There's nothing there. It's just a stack of paper IOUs. There are no real assets.

Social Security is a huge cash cow for the State. For nearly every year of Social Security's existence, "Social Security taxes collected" exceeded "benefits paid plus expenses". Like all Ponzi scams, Social Security was tremendously profitable initially.

In 2010, for the first time, "Social Security payouts" exceeded "taxes collected". The "Social Security crisis" is not deferred to the future, when the "trust fund" is exhausted. The crisis is in the present, because State thugs are no longer profiting from the Social Security Ponzi scam. There will be increasing inflation as the "trust fund" is paid out.

Suppose government bureaucrats printed $1T of money and stored it in a warehouse. Would there be inflation? No. If they spent that $1T, then there would be $1T inflation.

Suppose the government collects $1T in taxes and stores that $1T in a warehouse. What would happen? There would be $1T of deflation.

The US government has debts in its own money. The US government's Social Security trust fund is denominated in its own money. A budget deficit is inflationary, with inflation equal to the amount of deficit. A budget surplus is deflationary, with deflation equal to the surplus.

The Social Security Trust Fund is deflationary. It allows inflation to occur elsewhere, without people noticing. As the Social Security Trust Fund is spent, this will cause inflation.

If any private insurance business operated like Social Security, they would be shut down for fraud.

Social Security payments are a tax. There is no contract between taxpayer and State. At any time, Social Security benefits could be reduced. A benefit cut via inflation is guaranteed.

The "Social Security Crisis" is not 10+ years in the future, when the "trust fund" is exhausted. The crisis is right now, because payouts exceed revenue. Social Security is no longer a cash cow for State parasites.

The bank bailout law was "bipartisan". Most voters opposed it, but politicians from both parties voted for it anyway. They said "Nyah! Nyah! We're smarter than you! It's an emergency! If you don't like it, that's too bad! I'm the master and you're the slave!"

Similarly, suppose politicians from both parties supported slashing Social Security and Medicare. Elderly voters would be SOL, even if they were willing to vote as a bloc to keep it.

Why are Social Security and Medicare politically untouchable? It isn't because politicians fear reprisal from elderly voters. It isn't because they feel obligated to keep their promise. It isn't because they care what happens to elderly people.

Social Security and Medicare are a huge cash cow for the State. That's the reason they're politically untouchable. If elderly voters got robbed, then current workers would say "WTF? Why am I paying these huge Social Security taxes? If my parents got robbed, I'm certainly getting nothing."

Politicians get to appoint their friends/donors to high-paying jobs administering Social Security. There are Social Security offices in every state, so there's plenty of pork to distribute!

I did an interesting calculation. I calculated my personal Social Security taxes paid. I calculated my parents' benefit. The Social Security taxes I have paid are more than my parents' benefit! If I cut out the middleman of the State, I could directly pay for my parents' retirement, and have money left over!

If I didn't have to pay a crushing tax burden, I could more easily save for my own retirement. Without a crushing tax burden, I could easily save salary to raise seed capital for a new business. I estimate that the State steals my savings via inflation almost as fast as I accrue new savings!

Social Security is a tax. It is not a contract with government bureaucrats, where they promise future payouts. They can change the benefit anytime, either outright or via inflation. A default is statistically guaranteed.

Social Security and Medicare are a huge cash cow for the State. Like all Ponzi scams, it will have an ugly end. A default is guaranteed. It might be a gradual default via 20-30% inflation, or an outright default.

Social Security and Medicare are treated as sacred. Current workers would refuse to pay, if current retirees got cheated. The Federal government probably isn't going to exist 20 years from now. Current workers 50 and younger will probably never get anything. The inflation-adjusted return of a Social Security "investment" is really lousy.

Social Security isn't an investment. It's a tax that you must pay or people with guns will come to kidnap and torture you.

Friday, January 21, 2011

Debt Ceiling Increase

The "national debt ceiling" will be raised soon. This is causing a lot of debate.

Of course Congress is going to raise the debt ceiling. What else do you expect them to do? Do you expect them to permanently shut down the Federal government and free all their slaves?

Due to the Compound Interest Paradox, an ever-growing national debt is necessary to keep the monetary scam going. The rules of the monetary system force an exponentially-growing national debt, lest the monetary system collapse in hyperdeflation during a severe recession/depression.

There's a contradiction in laws Congress passes. They pass law X, which requires/authorizes deficit spending at a certain rate. They pass law Y, which caps the debt limit. Those two laws are mutually contradictory. (There is some slight uncertainty, due to expected future tax receipts, but that's merely rounding noise in budget projections.)

The "national debt limit" law is a historic anomaly. At one time, Congress passed a separate law approving each Treasury debt auction. Then, they changed the law. Now, Congress sets a debt limit, but the Treasury Secretary may exercise discretion regarding each individual bond auction.

The Treasury Secretary may decide how much 1-year, 5-year, 30-year, etc. to auction, without approval from Congress for each auction. The "debt limit" law caps the total debt, but leaves discretion regarding each bond auction.

The "debt limit" law merely is a formality, creating an illusion of fiscal responsibility. Congress can increase the limit at any time.

Congress *MUST* keep raising the debt limit, due to the Compound Interest Paradox.

Due to the rules of the monetary system, the national debt must increase at an exponential rate. However, the rate of increase is increasing! I copied this debt table from Wikipedia.

Year	Debt ($B)	% Chg
2000	5628.70
2001	5769.90	2.51%
2002	6198.40	7.43%
2003	6760.00	9.06%
2004	7354.70	8.80%
2005	7905.30	7.49%
2006	8451.40	6.91%
2007	8950.70	5.91%
2008	9985.80	11.56%
2009	12311.40	23.29%
2010	14025.20	13.92%

Notice how the rate of national debt increase is increasing! That's an indication of coming hyperinflation.

State thugs have two conflicting goals. They want to steal as much as they can. They don't want to steal so much that the whole scam collapses. As the end of the State draws near, the short-term goal of "Steal as much as I can!" starts to outweigh "Prevent the whole scam from collapsing!"

The "national debt" is merely an accounting fiction. The "national debt" cannot be repaid, unless the rules of the monetary system are changed. The cost of the "national debt" is not deferred to the future. There is immediate inflation, as the Federal government purchases real goods and services via deficit spending.

"Interest payments on the national debt" is a huge tramsfer of wealth to the banksters. The banksters borrow from the Federal Reserve at 0%-0.25%, lend to the government at 1%-4%, and profit from the spread times huge leverage.

Of course Congress will raise the "national debt limit". Their only other choice is to give up, go home, and free their slaves. This dispute arises from a logical contradiction in the law. One law requires a certain spending rate. Other laws cap the national debt. Politicians will keep this contradiction, because is gives them an excuse to compromise and trade favors. Congressmen won't wreck their gravy train, by permanently shutting down the Federal government.

Thursday, January 20, 2011

Gold Outperformed The S&P 500, 1997-2010

I'm making this post every year. I compare gold to the S&P 500.

I only compare to the S&P 500, because it's the most widely-cited measure of the stock market. If I used the Dow or NASDAQ, the results would be similar.

Once again, Gold crushed the S&P 500 in 2010. The S&P 500 had a gain of 14.42%, including reinvested dividends. Gold gained 23.81%, for a difference of 9.38%.

Over a period of several years, gold is outperforming the S&P 500 by nearly 1% per month!

Here are my results:

Year	S&P 500	Gold	Gold/VFINX	Cum Dif	Ann Cum Diff
2011	115.82	1388.50	$11.99	9.38%	9.38%
2010	101.22	1121.50	$11.08	14.00%	6.77%
2009	80	874.50	$10.93	72.81%	20.00%
2008	127.04	846.75	$6.67	120.95%	21.92%
2007	120.54	639.75	$5.31	150.86%	20.20%
2006	104.23	530.00	$5.08	195.78%	19.81%
2005	99.48	444.74	$4.47	209.97%	17.54%
2004	89.84	409.72	$4.56	216.44%	15.49%
2003	69.91	363.38	$5.20	319.36%	17.27%
2002	89.83	309.73	$3.45	398.87%	17.44%
2001	102.12	271.04	$2.65	394.32%	15.64%
2000	112.28	279.11	$2.49	353.48%	13.43%
1999	92.73	290.25	$3.13	320.31%	11.68%
1998	72.1	288.70	$4.00	269.79%	9.79%
1997	54.14	287.05	$5.30	113.42%	5.18%
1996	44.06	369.00	$8.37	-2.47%	-0.16%
1995	32.06	387.00	$12.07	-3.18%	-0.19%

I use usagold.com as my source for the price of gold. I take the value on the first trading day of January.

I use Yahoo finance as my source for the S&P 500. I use VFINX. I use the "adjusted close" column, so I'm including reinvested dividends. So, for 2011, it's the adjusted close on December 31, 2010.

"Cum diff" is the cumulative difference. "Ann cum diff" is the annualized difference. Since January 1, 2000, gold has outperformed the S&P 500 by nearly 1% per month!

You have to go all the way back to 1995, to find a time when a buy-and-hold S&P 500 investment would have outperformed a buy-and-hold gold investment.

On the Communism Channel, they ridicule gold at every opportunity. If there were a hedge fund with the same 15 year track record as gold, the fund manager would be on TV every day bragging about how super-awesome he was.

Here's the same information in chart form.

This one is in log scale. When viewing financial charts, log scale is more correct.

Pro-State trolls say "Gold has storage costs. Gold is useless. With stocks, you get a dividend." Yes, stocks do pay a dividend. The fallacy is that with a corporation, you're paying for all the waste and theft. The CEO acts like the owner, even though he isn't really the owner. Via the Principal-Agent problem, the CEO lines his pockets at the expense of shareholders.

A corporation has earnings. The cost of the waste and fraud and theft is greater than the value of the earnings.

A pro-State troll says "A clever person can outperform the S&P 500 index, by making good picks." Can you really outperform by 1% per month?

I was very disappointed, when I realized that the stock market is one big scam. It was like discovering Santa Claus doesn't exist.

It certainly is possible that the stock market will outperform gold for the next year or two. Over a period of 5+ years, I'm pretty sure gold will come out ahead.

There's a lot of State propaganda regarding gold. State comedians denigrate it at every opportunity. There are many regulations and taxes that make it difficult to own physical gold.

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Will The State Steal Your IRA Or 401(k)?

In Europe, some private pension plans were nationalized. This helped plug holes in the government's budget.

Governments are exempt from the accounting rules that apply to individuals. State thugs can seize the pension assets, spend the money immediately, and promise to pay benefits out of future tax receipts.

That's stealing. However, State thugs may do whatever they want.

In the USA, IRA and 401(k) plans are a tempting target. There were proposals for the State to seize IRA and 401(k) accounts.

The Social Security tax does not create a contract between taxpayer and government. At any time, benefits may be cut, directly or via inflation. You must pay the tax, or State thugs will kidnap and torture you. There is no promise of future benefits. The pretense of benefits must be maintained, lest the slaves object and revolt and refuse to pay.

Similarly, an IRA or 401(k) does not represent a contract with the State. At any time, the tax rules may be changed. That shows the fallacy of investing in a State-licensed retirement plan. When you consider that the US government and financial system won't exist 20 years from now, an IRA seems like a stupid investment.

My IRA is invested in State paper. In a sense, the State already has my investment. My IRA doesn't contain any tangible assets. I'm not owed tangible goods and services until I spend my IRA savings.

Here's the "steal everyone's IRA proposal". Right now, the IRA is a bank account specifically for you. People withdraw from their IRA every year, and their heirs keep any money leftover when they die. For example, if your life expectancy is 15 years, then you must withdraw 1/15 of your IRA that year. If you die before you withdraw all the money, your heirs get it. The IRA is a savings account from which you withdraw like an annuity.

The proposal is "Force everyone who retires to buy an annuity from the State, rather than withdrawing from their IRA." Insurance corporations will administer the annuity, making a nice pork profit.

An annuity is a contract that pays an equal amount every month, until you die. The fallacy is that an annuity contains direct and hidden fees. The price of an annuity depends on:

mortality rate assumption
fees/loads
interest rate assumption

Of these, (3) is by far the biggest cost. An insurance corporation invests the annuity in "risk-free" bonds, i.e. Treasury bonds. The interest rate is 2%-4%. You could do much better on your own in an IRA, either in stocks or in GLD/SLV.

The forced annuity purchase would be a huge ripoff. A pro-State troll says "You're buying the annuity at the fair market price. It's reasonable." The fallacy is that an annuity contract contains fees. The hidden fees are greater than the explicit fees. The biggest hidden fee is that an annuity pays an implied interest rate of only 3% or less, compared to what you would earn in the stock market or gold or silver.

An annuity is a ripoff, because the implied interest rate of the annuity is much less than inflation.

The forced annuity conversion would be a huge windfall for the State. They would make a killing on the annuity fees, especially the interest charges.

The forced annuity conversion allows the State to steal your IRA or 401(k), while pretending they didn't actually steal it.

I don't see this proposal going anywhere. Financial advisers already make a fortune off IRAs. Clueless people invest in funds with a load of 1%/year or more. However, stealing a couple percent of your savings per year isn't enough. State thugs want all of it!

There's a very good chance that the State won't exists 20 years from now. Given that, it seems foolish for me to have an IRA. Really, I should cash it out, pay the tax penalty, and buy gold/silver. However, where can I safely store the metal?

I'm not absolutely sure that the State will collapse in 20 years. I'll keep my State paper investments as a hedge.

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Richard Simkanin, Political Prisoner

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Mikhail Khodorkovsky":

http://newhampshirefreepress.com/node/680

It seems the US legal system is corrupt.

If you don't succeed try, try again.

Mr Simkanin was NOT indicted by two grand juries over not withholding tax for his employees.

So the legal thugs PREVENTED HIM FROM APPEARING IN front of a third grand jury.

Nice trick!

He was bailed and then a clown overturned his bail.

I'd been planning to do a more detailed post on Richard Simkanin.

"It seems the US legal system is corrupt." is an understatement. A more accurate statement is "It's one huge farce." In a trial involving income taxes, a slave will *NEVER* get a fair trial. There's the obvious conflict of interest. The prosecutor and judge both work for the State. The judge is dependent on income taxes for his own salary and influence. A State judge *WILL NOT* be impartial in a trial involving taxes.

Richard Simkanin recently died in prison. He was jailed as a political prisoner. He was protesting the IRS. He refused to withhold taxes from his employees' salary. He refused to report the transaction to the IRS.

He took out a full-page ad in USA Today, proclaiming the IRS was illegal/immoral. He was refusing to participate in the scam. Naturally, State thugs kidnapped and tortured him, to set an example.

State thugs say "Richard Simkanin was convicted! That proves he was wrong!" No, that just proves how unfair the State "justice" system is.

Originally, State thugs tried indicting Richard Simkanin in front of an open grand jury. Most defendants decline to testify in front of the grand jury. Richard Simkanin decided to testify. He explained why the IRS was immoral and unconstitutional. The grand jury did not indict.

Two grand juries declined to indict Richard Simkanin, after he testified. Then, prosecutors held a "secret grand jury". Richard Simkanin was not invited to testify. He was indicted. Initially, a magistrate judge offered him bail, but the prosecutor appealed and the regular judge held him without bail. He was convicted in a sham trial.

This illustrates two defects in the State legal system.

First, if a grand jury declines to indict, the prosecutor gets a mulligan. Since you were never indicted, the prosecutor is free to try again with another grand jury. Due to a technicality, this doesn't violate "double jeopardy".

Second, secret grand juries are a severe abuse of State power. As Richard Simkanin noticed, sometimes the best place to fight false criminal charges is in front of a grand jury. If you convince the grand jury to not indict, then you save the expense and stress of a long drawn-out trial. You also avoid being held without bail pending trial. You also avoid the risk that the judge and prosecutor will rig the jury, ensuring a conviction.

Secret grand juries have other Police State powers. They can subpoena. All your friends and business partners may be forced to testify. Due to secrecy rules, they may not be allowed to tell you about it. Property may be seized. Via "asset forfeiture" rules, the victim has the burden of proof, when trying to recover his property.

Grand juries are supped to protect people from wrongful prosecution. Secret grand juries are a tool that prosecutors use to harass people. In a secret grand jury, the prosecutor can easily convince the jury. The grand jury will usually rubberstamp and subpoena request or indictment request.

The grand jury thinks "If I wrongly indict, he will be acquitted at trial." The criminal jury thinks "He must be guilty. Otherwise, the grand jury would not have indicted. Besides, if I wrongly convict, it will be reversed on appeal." In this manner, State evil occurs and nobody is individually responsible. Everybody assumes "If other people do their job right, it won't matter if I make a mistake." What happens when nobody does their job right? The "checks and balances" aren't working. The "checks and balances" enable each person to dodge responsibility, thinking a mistake will be corrected by someone else.

Notice the cleverness of the State "justice" system. The grand juror thinks "It's OK if I make a mistake and indict. If I'm wrong, he'll be acquitted at trial." The trial juror thinks "Of course he's guilty. Otherwise, the grand jury would not have indicted him." Nobody is responsible.

However, Richard Simkanin's arguments didn't work in the jury trial. I don't know the details. The judge may have prevented Simkanin from explaining his viewpoint. Via biased "jury selection", the jury may have been packed with pro-State trolls.

Did Richard Simkanin hire a lawyer, or did he represent himself? I didn't see any details. If he hired a lawyer, his lawyer may have censored Simkanin's argument. Simkanin's lawyers may have focused on Simkanin's mental state "mens rea", rather than "The IRS is immoral!".

This page had some interesting bits. Simkanin's first jury trial resulted in a hung jury, voting 11-1 favoring acquittal. The prosecutors and judge used every dirty trick available to secure conviction. They adopted "Jury Security" measures, to prevent "jury nullification" pamphleters from affecting the jury. Instead of reporting to the courthouse, prospective jurors reported to an undisclosed location in secret. Some of the records filed in the case are "sealed" and not publicly available.

Why were State thugs so eager to convict Simkanin? Every slave who disobeys must be punished! Even if Simkanin were acquitted, it isn't a precedent that could be cited in other cases.

Most slaves go along with the State. State thugs can afford to spend a lot of resources silencing anyone who deviates.

I think I could explain my viewpoint to 12 jurors, even with prosecutor selection bias. However, it's hard to actually do. Even if you are acquitted, there's a huge cost associated with a criminal trial. If prosecutors really wanted to kidnap and torture me, they could question 200+ jurors and pick the worst pro-State trolls. If I'm in jail and tortured for months pending trial, that would affect my ability to represent myself in court. Political criminals are sometimes not allowed to shave or cut their hair or dress well, so that jurors will have the appropriate attitude. If I'm taken to the trial in shackles and an orange prison jumpsuit, that would affect the jurors' perception of me.

Richard Simkanin made some tactical mistakes. A good agorist should not repeat them.

Earlier last year, Richard Simkanin was let out on parole. He said that his parole officer's authority was not legitimate, and refused to report. That is foolish. I understand the viewpoint, but it's a poor tactical decision. Once State thugs decide to target you, you are pretty much SOL. Richard Simkanin should have gone along with the parole restrictions, but went around giving speeches on how evil the State is.

For example, Larken Rose is out of prison, after being jailed as a political prisoner. However, he is younger than Richard Simkanin and wasn't in jail as long. He's managed to avoid being re-arrested. He seems to be a serious anarchist now.

Richard Simkanin's business was incorporated. That was a mistake. If you're incorporate your business, you're voluntarily registering it with the State taxation system. A real agorist should not have an incorporated business. A real agorist should not use the State banking system for his profits.

Richard Simkanin had hired accountants and lawyers, before he decided to stop paying IRS extortion money. They advised him to not do it. State-licensed accountants and lawyers have an obligation to report you to the State, if they believe you are going to commit a crime! If you're planning to work as an agorist, *DON'T* consult with a State-licensed lawyer or accountant. Do your own taxes, and report any income State thugs already know about.

During his criminal trial, his former accountants and lawyers testified *AGAINST* Simkanin. They said that they advised him to be a good slave.

Also, Simkanin had some relatives employed in his business. They quit, when he stopped IRS withholding and reporting. His relatives also testified against him, in his trial. Sometimes, I wonder if my biggest risk as a working agorist, comes from my parents and relatives. They would be the first ones to rat me out to the State.

Richard Simkanin used the State banking system. That is a mistake. Banks have an obligation to report all transactions to the IRS. For all practical purposes, a State-licensed bank works for the State and IRS. Also, it is very easy for State thugs to seize money from a State-licensed bank.

If you're serious about working as an agorist, *DON'T USE THE STATE BANKING SYSTEM AT ALL*. For this reason, an agorist banking system is needed. It would have to be heavily trust-bases, like the hawala system.

Richard Simkanin died in jail as a political prisoner. Most high-profile critics of the IRS wind up in jail. A pro-State troll says "That proves their arguments are wrong!" That merely illustrates the corruption of the State "justice" system. If you have a dispute regarding State taxes, that dispute is decided in a State court, with a State-employed judge, a State-employed prosecutor, and State-employed police. A slave isn't going to get a fair trial regarding taxes, in a biased State court.

Richard Simkanin risked his life and business what what he knew was right, and he lost. I haven't taken any risks besides blogging (so far). Richard Simkanin made many tactical mistakes. An agorist should not use a State-licensed accountant or lawyer. An agorist should not use the State banking system. An agorist should deal in cash as much as possible, preferably using gold or silver. An agorist should make sure his partners won't rat him out to the State, although it would be hard to refuse a cooperation agreement and plea bargain. There also is a risk that your friends and relatives will later testify against you, if pressured by the State. I can imagine my mother testifying in court "FSK has these crazy anti-government ideas! I don't know what to do about him! He belongs in jail!"

Richard Simkanin died in jail as a political prisoner. I appreciate his viewpoint, but his tactics were wrong. Working as an agorist isn't easy, because terrorists are eager to kindap and torture you for questioning them.

Most slaves think "Only 'backwards' countries like China have political prisoners. That doesn't happen in the USA." That is false. The mainstream media doesn't normally cover the people wrongfully imprisoned in the USA.

Monday, January 17, 2011

Contingency-Fee Criminal Lawyers

I was browsing lawyer BAR association ethic rules. I came across an interesting bit. Lawyers are barred from accepting contingency-fee arrangements in criminal trials!

In a contingency-fee arrangement, a lawyer only gets paid if he wins.

Contingency-fee arrangements are common in civil trials. The lawyer is paid a percentage of any money collected, receiving nothing if he loses.

In some areas, State thugs encourage frivolous lawsuits. For patents, copyrights, and "civil rights" lawsuits, a prevailing plaintiff lawyer receives attorney fees, in addition to monetary damages. This encourages a lawsuit in cases where actual damages are small. This provides the lawsuit victim/defendant an incentive to settle. A victorious defendant does not recover legal fees as easily as a victorious plaintiff.

Suppose I were frivolously charged with a crime. By lawyer ethics standards, I'm barred from signing a contract with my lawyer that says he gets paid only if I'm acquitted. It's a frivolous charge. Why should I pay if my lawyer does a lousy job and I'm convicted?

The State bars criminal defense lawyers from accepting contingency-fee arrangements. The lawyer's interest is *COMPLETELY DIVORCED* from his client's interest. The lawyer's goal is to maximize hours billed. It makes no difference if his client is convicted or acquitted. In fact, the lawyer gets to bill more if the client is convicted. The lawyer gets to argue sentencing and maybe appeals.

Lawyers work for the State first and the client second. A criminal defense lawyer isn't going to sacrifice his career to keep someone out of jail. In many ways, a criminal defense lawyer is an assistant prosecutor. If the judge insists, the defense lawyer will not introduce favorable evidence or make certain arguments.

For one example, a defendant was charged for violating Federal marijuana laws while operating a "medical marijuana" store, legal according to state law. The lawyer was barred from mentioning "It was a medical marijuana store!" during the trial. Jurors said they would have acquitted if they were told that. In effect, the defense lawyer sold out his client to the State. An honest lawyer would have refused to self-censor when defending his client. However, the lawyer was not willing to risk his career, to keep his defendant out of jail. In that trial, the lawyer was effectively an assistant prosecutor.

For another example, a criminal defense lawyer who mentioned "jury nullification" would be held in contempt of court. He would lose his law license, his career, and the $200k+ invested in law school. Criminal defense lawyers help provide the illusion of legitimacy to State "justice".

If accused of a crime, I'd try to represent myself. However, it's a tough decision. If I'm imprisoned and tortured for months before the trial, that would adversely affect my ability to explain effectively. The State "justice" system is biased against pro se defendants.

However, when a pro se defendant says "Your authority isn't legitimate! This trial is a sham!", that has an effect on the judge and prosecutor. No matter how pro-State brainwashed you are, it's unsettling to see someone pointing out how it's all a scam. Some judges brag about their ability to handle "tough" trials, where the victim is a nonviolent offender who questions the legitimacy of the prosecution.

You don't get picked to be a Federal judge, unless you're pretty thoroughly brainwashed as a pro-State troll. What percentage of "crimes" are really victimless nonviolent crimes? I suspect it's a large percentage, but I haven't seen any statistics.

I was surprised to notice that criminal defense lawyers are barred from making contingency-fee arrangements. The State thinks of everything! By banning contingency-fee arrangements, the interests of the lawyer are completely divorced from the interests of the client.

A lawyer is required to act for the State first, and himself second. The client is a distant third. The lawyer will try to defend the client, but without compromising the State or his future career. This makes a lawyer useless in politically-motivated trials, where the defendant's main argument is "This law is immoral!"

Sunday, January 16, 2011

"Best of FSK" - December 2010 - Summary 2010

According to Google Analytics, I had 4743 Absolute Unique Visitors in December, down from 6321 in November and 7717 in October. Surprisingly, that was my best AdBrite month with $9.08, and an eCPM of $0.97.

According to Google Analytics, my most popular posts in December, by Absolute Unique Pageviews were:

Just counting posts published in December, the most popular were:

For all of 2010, my most popular posts were:

Who's the Richest Man in the World? (2,916)
Did the USA Declare Bankruptcy? (2,689)
The Hunt Brothers' Silver Corner (2,642)
Worldwide Hyperinflation Race (2,232)
Ruby on Rails Sucks! (2,052)
The Federal Reserve Caused the Great Depression (2,032)
The Compound Interest Paradox (1,752)
Real GDP is Decreasing, 1990-2008 (1,243)
Premium Text Messaging Fraud - 91097 and 654654 (1,174)
The Gold Lease Rate is Negative! (1,117)
BMI/ASCAP/SESAC Legal Extortion Scam (916)
Real GDP is Decreasing, 1990-2007 (896)
Verizon LG enV Touch, Bitpim, and Open Source (875)
Satanic Death Hospitals (873)
The Gold and Silver Taxation Scam (799)
Calculating Vega and other Greeks in Black-Scholes (787)
The Communist Manifesto's Successful Implementation in the USA (756)
The Pat Tillman Conspiracy Theory (717)
The Five Levels of the Economy (690)
The Monetizing the Debt Scam (679)
Agorist Philosophy Overview (597)
The Black-Scholes Formula is Wrong! - Part 1/12 - Overview and Background (584)
The Fluoride Conspiracy Theory (578)
StackOverflow Sucks! (513)
Real GDP Is Crashing, 2000-2009 (500)
Are College Athletes Exploited? (499)
The Nymphomaniac Pattern (482)
Turd in the Punchbowl! (480)
Gold and Silver Buyer's Guide (459)
Your Strawman Corporation (446)
Water Powered Cars and Zero Point Energy (418)
The Compound Interest Paradox - a Simpler Explanation (413)
The Liberty Dollar Scam Continues! (374)
How Well Does GLD Track Gold? (368)
Is It Worth Hoarding Nickels? (364)
The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (361)
Athletes vs. Doctors, Which is Overpaid? (360)
Car Insurance vs. Health Insurance (360)
The Federal Reserve and Income Tax Conspiracy Theory (357)
Real GDP Growth Has Been Negligible Since 1990 (354)
The Tally Stick Monetary System (344)
Incentive Stock Options and Startups (335)
Idiot Manager Tactics (321)
Are the GLD and SLV ETFs a Fraud? (308)
The Strawman Fallacy (306)
Easily Import Excel and CSV Files Into Blogger! (301)
Nazi Social Contract (300)
The Black-Scholes Formula is Wrong! - Part 3/12 - Formula Derivation (290)
Is Prostitution a Crime? (290)
Do Aliens Exist? (279)
The Social Credit Monetary System (276)
Lotus Notes Sucks! (276)
The Black-Scholes Formula is Wrong! - Part 2/12 - Axioms (265)
Ticketmaster Monopoly (258)
The Discounted Cashflow Paradox (aka The St. Petersburg Paradox) (251)
Repo 105 (251)
How Much did the AIG Bailout Cost You? (250)
The Compound Interest Paradox Revisited - Edward Flaherty is a Troll (244)
Discharging a Debt vs. Paying a Debt (244)
Quantitative Easing 2 (244)
Righthaven vs. Charles Johnson (RadGeek) (240)
Is Gold/Money a Better Investment than Stocks? (238)
Does Michael J. Fox Have Tardive Dyskinesia? (236)
The Black-Scholes Formula is Wrong! - Part 8/12 - The Kelly Criterion (235)
Why Chatroulette Failed (228)
The Transistor, UFO, and WMD Conspiracy Theory (225)
Is Miley Cyrus' Vanity Fair Photo Child Pornography? (224)
Gold Outperformed the S&P 500, 1997-2008 (220)
Gold and Silver Price Manipulation (215)
The Liberty Dollar Scam (213)
The Black-Scholes Formula is Wrong! - Part 6/12 - The Contradiction (211)
The Black-Scholes Formula is Wrong! - Part 12/12 - Summary (209)
Federal Reserve Work Permission Points (205)
A Commodity Price Volatility Calculation (204)
The Black-Scholes Formula is Wrong! - Part 4/12 - The Put/Call Parity Formula (203)
The Black-Scholes Formula is Wrong! - Part 5/12 - The Volatility Smile (202)
The End of the Euro? (201)
The Black-Scholes Formula is Wrong! - Part 9/12 - How FSK Trades Options (200)
The Gold Lease Rate is Negative Again! (199)
How Can you Debate a Fool? (194)
The "Low Unemployment Causes Inflation" Fallacy (193)
Android, iPhone, and Maemo (191)
The Velocity of Money (188)
Sholom Rubashkin, Political Prisoner (183)
Corporate Death Penalty (177)
Criticisms of Stefan Molyneux (176)
Standing Up for a Judge (175)
Who Murdered Benjamin Franklin's Grandson? (175)
The CPI is Biased (172)
Stefan Molyneux is a Murderer! (169)
Why is the Unemployment Rate so High? (168)
Reader Mail #73 (166)
The Voting Scam (164)
Robert Kahre vs. Terrorism (164)
The Closed Shop Scam (160)
Synthetic CDOs and Goldman Sachs (159)
Mika Brzezinski (157)
Money Supply Statistics Explained (155)
NYSE Specialists Became DMMs (154)
The Black-Scholes Formula is Wrong! - Part 10/12 - Only Fools and Hedge Funds Write Covered Calls (152)
The Defect of Intrade (149)
Warren Buffet and the Discounted Cashflow Paradox (147)
The Compound Interest Paradox Revisited - Examples (142)
Google Disabled my AdSense Account! (142)
LeBron James and the NBA CBA (141)
Did the Banksters Kill James Garfield? (139)
The Amero Subterfuge (135)
My Brain is Sore! (135)
Has Humanity Split Into Two Sub-Species? (134)
False Opposites (132)
Is Pro Se Defense a Good Idea? (130)
Birth Certificates, Social Security Cards, and Adhesion Contracts (129)
Is Kohl's Headed for Bankruptcy? (129)
Got a Virus - Antivir Solution Pro (127)
What are Fnords? (126)
Robert Kahre Wins Nobel Peace Prize (126)
Deepwater Horizon (125)
What Happens When Someone Hoards Money? (124)
Ron Paul Doublecross Prediction (121)
Can You Pass a Turing Test? (121)
Time Warner Cable and Lousy Software (118)
The National Debt - Who is the Creditor? (114)
Death Note and Code Geass Fnords (113)
Greece and Goldman Sachs (113)
The Food Safety Modernization Act (113)
Gold/Silver Ratio (113)

Here is my list of most popular posts in 2010, only counting posts published in 2010.

Worldwide Hyperinflation Race (2,232)
Premium Text Messaging Fraud - 91097 and 654654 (1,174)
BMI/ASCAP/SESAC Legal Extortion Scam (916)
Verizon LG enV Touch, Bitpim, and Open Source (875)
Real GDP Is Crashing, 2000-2009 (500)
Turd in the Punchbowl! (480)
Is It Worth Hoarding Nickels? (364)
The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (361)
Incentive Stock Options and Startups (335)
Nazi Social Contract (300)
Lotus Notes Sucks! (276)
Ticketmaster Monopoly (258)
Repo 105 (251)
Quantitative Easing 2 (244)
Righthaven vs. Charles Johnson (RadGeek) (240)
Why Chatroulette Failed (228)
The End of the Euro? (201)
How Can you Debate a Fool? (194)
Android, iPhone, and Maemo (191)
Sholom Rubashkin, Political Prisoner (183)
Corporate Death Penalty (177)
Standing Up for a Judge (175)
Who Murdered Benjamin Franklin's Grandson? (175)
Synthetic CDOs and Goldman Sachs (159)
Mika Brzezinski (157)
NYSE Specialists Became DMMs (154)
LeBron James and the NBA CBA (141)
Did the Banksters Kill James Garfield? (139)
Got a Virus - Antivir Solution Pro (127)
Robert Kahre Wins Nobel Peace Prize (126)
Deepwater Horizon (125)
What Happens When Someone Hoards Money? (124)
Can You Pass a Turing Test? (121)
Time Warner Cable and Lousy Software (118)
Greece and Goldman Sachs (113)
The Food Safety Modernization Act (113)
Gold/Silver Ratio (113)
Toyota Recall (107)
1099 Reporting and Healthcare Reform (103)
Gold Bubble? (102)
The DDT Conspiracy Theory (101)
The Daily Show Ridicules Anarchists (100)
Joe Stack (97)
Undercover Boss (97)
Paying an Underwater Mortgage (97)
Charles Rangel - Reprimand, Censure, or Wristslap (96)
David Axelrod, State Psychopath (95)
Agorist Grilled Cheese Seller In NYC (95)

I also updated the "Best Of FSK" list in the left sidebar.

This Blog Has Moved!