So, the Supreme Court says that Wal Mart was alright to have shut down one of their Quebec locations in 2005 right as the store was trying to unionize.

A Wal-Mart, in case you didn't know what one looked like...

Good on ‘em. I would have been all for the power of unions…..100 years ago.

Now I’ve never worked for Wal-Mart, so I couldn’t say,  but as to my knowledge the corporate philosophy is to treat the employees well above par. So why would they want to unionize?

The bigger question is, why should Wal-Mart stand for it? Call me crazy, but hey, the Supreme Court agrees with me.

And for the record, if anyone’s wondering where my hostility towards unions comes from, I happen to be a York strike survivor. Let’s just say I’m not joining anything CUPE as long as I can avoid it.

It was really heartwarming when winter set in and they were still outside

            For the past year or so, the District of Columbia’s city council has been engaged in a tug-of-war between factions as it has attempted to conduct the people’s business: first, it was a meddlesome Congress that tried to supersede all local direction of the city’s gun-control policy.  Then, an ongoing proxy battle with an arrogant mayor resulted in clashes related to education, recreation, and contracting policy.  Now, the Archdiocese of Washington is threatening to withdraw from its Catholic Charities partnership with the city—in which the Church provides social services to some 68,000 homeless and poor residents—if the council proceeds with its plan to legalize same-sex marriage next month.

            There are plenty of freedom-of-conscience provisions built into the bill: the Church would not be required to marry same-sex couples or allow them access to non-public spaces of their property.  They would, however, be required to follow non-discriminatory guidelines for entities receiving government money—e.g. extending health insurance to and facilitating adoptions for gay couples.  Since Catholic Charities would not, out of moral reservation, be able to meet those requirements, it would thus not be eligible to do business with the city.

            Reactions have been mixed: some council members say that the Church is not indispensible to the city and should not dictate its policy.  Other people are sure that more concessions could be made to satisfy Church tenets without subjecting gays to wholesale prejudice.  Still others have argued that the measure should be put on the ballot, as has been the case in dozens of states.  Mostly, this argument has come from gay marriage foes, confident that a law will be rejected if submitted to voters (a board of elections and ethics has twice denied a ballot initiative or referendum to go forward). 

            One recent opinion article in The Washington Post presented an alternative version of that argument: a gay man in D.C. who writes, “I yearn, too, to be married someday, but at what cost? To force same-sex marriage into law through the caprice of judges, the sympathies of a majority of various legislatures or even the fiat of a president can be viewed as a kind of tyranny.”  While it’s common for parties who are on the losing side of policy fights to rail against “activist” judges and legislators that don’t respect the “will of the people,” it is strange to see that sentiment from someone who is benefitting greatly from those two sources of legal redress.

            There are two main points to be made about this controversy: one, is that not all opinions are equal.  I can, at a basic level, understand why the Catholic church would deny religious services to gay couples: for the reason that spiritual beliefs cannot be legislated out of existence, nor are they something that the believer can choose to have.  To have faith or not is hardly a free and simple choice for most believers—although the same can be true about being homosexual.  (And yes, I realize that the religious community is not monolithic—there are undoubtedly Catholics who would gladly marry two homosexuals.)  However, governmental protection to practice one’s beliefs does not mean that discrimination is legal.  To say that the Church’s views on sexuality should be given equal consideration as should views on sexuality from a scientific, cultural, or human rights perspective is erroneous.

            Secondly, the will of the people is a fickle protector of civil rights.  Even though it is our duty to resist governmental encroachment on our liberties, the legislatures and the courts were never intended to be a reflection of popular opinion.  As dysfunctional as our Congress appears at times, the elected men and women always have to take a view of what the greater good to society is when they cast their vote, which sometimes entails offending their constituents.  The courts, to an even greater degree, do not merely affirm and clarify policy that the legislature has passed, but they sometimes must overturn it when it violates the Constitution.

            People (conservatives in particular) abhor the notion that one unelected judge can alter the course of history by deciding which laws are appropriate or inappropriate by the principles of our society.  Take these words of an ambivalent Supreme Court justice in the early 1950s: “how is it that the Constitution this morning forbids what for three-quarters of a century it has tolerated or approved?”  The case he was reviewing was Brown v. Board of Education.  The man was Robert Jackson, a liberal who was having doubts about overturning segregation laws (even though a decade earlier he was in the minority of justices who voted to uphold the rights of Japanese-American citizens who had been placed in internment camps).

         In the end, of course, he voted to end segregation.  But for him and others like him who have spurned the popular will to uphold the Constitution, I would hope that the people who are elected or appointed to run the government are chosen not just for their knowledge of policy, but for their ability to listen to all sides and create laws that demonstrate the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

Enrique sent me this beautiful cover from Chile, thank you! It was posted in Valparaíso on November 7, 2009.

The six stamps on the left are of the set “Typical Chilean Characters”, which was issued on February 25, 2008. The right stamp was issued on November 5, 2003, and commemorates the 180th anniversary of the supreme court.

Yesterday for the first time the handing down of a Supreme Court judgement was a major news event.  The outcome of OFT -v- Abbey National & ors was eagerly awaited.  Many bank customers had hoped for some good news and some cash back from their banks – always handy just before Christmas.  Sadly, the Supreme Court appears to have played Scrooge or the Grinch, and in today’s press the Court is given a rough ride for seeming to side with the banks.  This is slightly unfair, but as Bill Gates is often quoted as saying, “Life is not fair.  Get used to it.”

Fairness was not, as many reports wrongly assume, the central issue for the Supreme Court.  They did not rule that the banks’ charging mechanisms for unauthorised overdrafts were fair.  Instead, the Supreme Court decided that the banks charges for unauthorised overdrafts  (and other bank charges at issue) were part of the banks’ price and remuneration for providing retail banking services.  On that analysis, given that Regulation 6(2)(b) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (the “Unfair Terms Regulations”) states that the assessment of the fairness of a term in a contract “shall not relate . . .to the adequacy of the price or remuneration, as against the goods or services supplied in exchange”, it was clear that the Office of Fair Trading did not have jurisdiction to assess whether the banks’ unauthorised overdraft charges are fair using its powers under the Unfair Terms Regulations.

So how did this case reach the Supreme Court?  A crude summary suggests that at High Court the overdraft charges were considerd not to be “in exchange” for any service, so fell outside the scope of Regulation 6(2)(b).  In the Court of Appeal, the charges were considered to be part of an overall package of services provided by the banks, but were considered to be ”incidental or ancillary” and not part of the “core or essential bargain” between the banks and their customers.  As “incidental or ancillary”, the charges were ruled not to be within the scope of Regualtion 6(2)(b). This meant that the OFT had power to assess the fairness of the charges.  Clearly, the banks thought otherwise and have been vindicated in their appeal to the highest court.

So is this the end of the battle for repayment of unauthorised overdraft charges?  As the Supreme Court were at pains to make clear, they were only called upon to make a ruling upon a narrow point of law.  It remains open for the OFT to consider if the terms governing the banks’ overdraft charges are unfair ”if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, [they cause] a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer” (Regulation 5(1)), as in almost all cases consumers accept banks’ standard terms and do not negotiate their retail banking services agreements.

Banks win in overdraft charges case

With the recent ruling on excessive bank charges on overdraft fees by the Supreme Court in favour of the banks there has been increased speculation that the law has been wilfully misinterpreted so that further financial issues for the banks can be avoided. It has been widely acknowledged that should the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) have won the case against the banks this would have resulted in a loss of £2.6 billion annual income to the banks. It seems to me that both the Supreme Court and the banks in the UK forget we, the taxpaying public, now part own the banks.

I suppose in the current economic crisis that is still gripping the UK, the ruling probably should not come as that much of a surprise to us. Unfortunately it is relatively easy to understand why they ruled in favour of the banks. However, this does not mean that they were right.

Consumers and small businesses alike have every right to be appalled by the outcome of this case, made worse by the pompous arrogance displayed in the British Bankers’ Association (I can think of a better name for them!) comments that the charges were an important part of current account services and the amounts were “not assessable for fairness”. They went on to say:

“We recognise this issue has been of real concern to a large number of our customers and we are pleased that this decision now brings clarity for all parties.”

However, considering the banks make a third of their retail revenues from unarranged overdraft fees that are not only difficult to understand, are not transparent in any way and are not subject to consumer control how much clarity this case has actually brought is debatable really! All it’s really done is highlighted that these were all issues to begin with.

It is also worth considering that the cost to the bank of unauthorised overdraft fees is as little as £2.50 and yet they feel the need to charge a flat rate of anything up to £35.00 a time! In reaction to the outcome of this case the Liberal Democrat Leader, Nick Clegg, stated:

“Regardless of the legal position, it simply isn’t right that someone on a low income should pay £25 or more to their bank just because they’re overdrawn by a pound or two.”

Unfortunately, as well as consumers, it is also apparent that many Small businesses are likely to continue to be affected by the unfair, excessive charges made by the banks when an account goes over the agreed overdraft limit.

The question has to remain – if the UK’s small businesses are seen as the “backbone” of our economy and require more money pumped into them why are banks consistently throwing up restrictions such as unfair overdraft charges, limited access to funding as well as the exorbitant annual percentage rates (APR) on commercial loans?!

The good news is that there are other legal avenues for the OFT to go down should they wish to pursue a case against the banks. We will just have to wait and see if they choose to or not. In the meantime the Government have stated that they will continue to work with the banks to work out charges that are fair to everyone. As a warning shot, Sarah McCarthy Fry, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, stated they would take further action against the banks if necessary.

Video coverage:

Related links:

Shock overdraft charges ruling in favour of banks

Image by Chris Sharp

Technorati verification: 2S3N5TU7DF5A

I’m not sure exactly when it happened that the British public decided that Bankers were agents of the devil, but it certainly seems to be the case judging by headlines this week. Well, maybe the press is on to something…

And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

Revelations 13: 16-17 (King James Version)

A sad day today: in the case of The Office of Fair Trading versus The Minions of Satan (aka the High Street Banks) a decision was found in favour of the banks, ending several years of legal uncertainty. Well, for now…

Aleister Crowley, who declared himself the Great Beast. I'd prefer to have a cup of tea with him than sign a credit agreement with a high street bank any day!

Of course I do not literally think the British High Street Banks are the Beast prophesied in the final book of the Bible ; do they look like a lamb while speaking like a dragon? Um, well, now you mention it… That they are anti-christ seems quite clear: I mean usury (the lending of money at interest) is a mortal sin anyway isn’t it? So I like the term  “minions of Satan”, and encourage people to treat them just as you would if Old Nick appeared and asked you to sign a paper in exchange for a pile of  hot gold – if you must sign, sign in blood. This usually gets you chucked out of the bank before proceedings get nasty. Trust me, I know.

CJ applies for an overdraft facility.

Better you get chucked out or an ambulance or the police called than you lose your soul by dealing with the Devil.

What profiteth a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose his own soul?

Luke 9: 23

Yes I’m joking – I’m just mightily sore at this decision, and yet I can’t argue with the legal logic. It was the correct legal decision – but there are wider issues at stake…

The Reverse Robin Hood

So what is the Reverse Robin Hood? Something I found in the Anne Summers Guide to Improbably Acrobatic Acts? Not quite!It’s actually a memorable line from the Supreme Court ruling today

though Mr Sumption QC (for the banks) vigorously disputed Lord Mance’s suggestion that his clients were engaged in a sort of “reverse Robin Hood
exercise”

The phrase amused me, and lies at the heart of the controversy.

Banks exist to make their shareholders a profit. This is actually the responsibility of any publicly floated company, and therefore one can not blame banks for trying to make profits, no matter how many billion that may be. What is actually at stake here is not if bank fees are appropriate – I think it entirely appropriate I pay for the service provided; the question is how that payment should be taken.

At the moment we have ‘free banking’ in the UK – well 80% of people do.  The remaining 20%, the villains, in fact subsidize the free banking by paying these charges, which make up 30% of the revenues gained by the banks from their Current Accounts.

The villains who go overdrawn without proper authorisation pay many times the actual cost incurred to the banks by their indiscretion – and as a result, the 80% of good folks pay nothing. Fair enough?

Except — those 20% are the poorest members of society on the whole. People with enough money to live rarely go in to these unauthorised overdrafts simply for fun. OK a few do, because they have failed to watch their spending, or because a £25 fee is no big deal to them, so they would rather pay it than delay gratification. Unfortunately, for those who are actually in the bread line, an emergency like sickness means one often has to make the decision between going over and paying £25 fee to get the seven pounds fifty  for a prescription charge, or  not getting the pills. And trust me I know -I have a drawer full of prescriptions I have never collected.  A job interview? Same problem. I have lost all my savings I had amassed and bunt through my disposable income and had to borrow heavily just to get to an interview for a position I really wanted – the train fare alone was two weeks income for me. And I did not get the job, again…

Now to be fair, much of this is NOT a problem if you are on the dole, Income Support or similar. I know it’s hard, but I honestly miss the luxury of knowing I would get my bi-weekly giro. And free prescriptions! Unfortunately the only  state benefit I receive does not give on exemption from that or Council Tax for example, and a helluva lot of other people are in the same boat. It’s really mainly a problem for the working poor – those who actually do work, but are on low incomes. No amount of financial planning or savings can protect you against some of life’s disasters when you have £17.50 a week after rent & council tax to live off, and these people make up that villainous 20%.

And they pay everyone’s bank costs, covering the 80% who actually are never going to need to worry about having to go suddenly overdrawn. Hence “reverse Robin Hood” – not a sex position, but actually the way UK banking works - “robbing from the poor to pay for the rich”

The Sheriff of Nottingham ponders the size of his bonus as he prepares another Credit Card launch - so much easier than the olde methods of oppression!

This was NOT the issue at stake in the court case. In fact the Court Ruling goes some way to making clear that in fact the ruling was on the appropriateness of the tool used by the Office of Fair Trading to pursue the demonic horde – er sorry, I mean High Street banks – and that the tool in question, an EU directive, was incorrect. The OFT has gone off to lick it’s wounds, and I expect an announcement shortly – there are still plenty of legal options if they have the will to continue the fight. There is actually a FAR more dangerous legal threat to the banks lurking in the wings, but I shall ignore that for now as it has nothing to do with bank charges.

My Situation

I have just been hit for £100 by my bank for bank charges – puzzling, given that I have only one direct debit or other agreement, no standing orders, only one payment goes out – my phone bill – which I had funds to cover and have not gone over my agreed overdraft as far as I can see – until the charges came in last month, pushing me over.  Now i have been charged for being in debt cos I could not clear the last charge before this month.  That charge was equal to 10 days disposable income for me – the new charges represent six weeks disposable income. I am now locked in what will rapidly become a spiral of charges, which will eventually result in my ending up with a huge debt to my bank – all from one £25 charge, the cause of which I am still not aware of.

I have written to my bank, and had some correspondence – and was interested by what was said. I noted that I had signed up for a current account on the understanding that I could not actually go overdrawn, and that my solo card prevented me spending money I did not have. I was informed that in fact I can now go overdrawn, the contracts T&C’s* having been subject to change, and that they as a bank can in fact not stop me doing this, and can not allow me to put some block on my account so I can’t spend what I don’t have. I can NOT have a limit by which I can not go outside my overdraft. I asked why, and my understanding is this “service” is provided by a third party company. I need to look in to this, as it could have quite serious ramifications in terms of the legality of my original contract, subsequent variation,and Data Protection regarding sharing of my personal data with subsidiary or affiliated groups.

The End of Free Banking?

And here is the big bogeyman – the fear that like America, most of Europe, in fact most of the World we might have to pay a small charge for our banking.  The righteous 80% are positively frothing when you suggest that actually everyone paying the ACTUAL cost of their banking services would not really be unreasonable, rather than the poorest subsidizing everyone else.   The fact such an arrangement would be in agreement with principles of natural justice does not seem to bother them – they are terrified the bank might take their money.  Yet to the poorest the current arrangement is crippling, little more than loansharking. Why do I say this?

As you may have gathered I resent paying bank charges beyond my usual debit interest and the odd small fee, like the £9 which I used to be charged when I actually signed up to my contract if I did something dumb. That is today £25.  So when I needed money last month  (and I have just been scraping around to get change off the floor to buy a loo roll  – I get my money on Saturday) I decided that I would be a good responsible citizen, and extend my overdraft by fifty quid. It’s £200. I did not think £250 would break them. I had not been overdrawn beyond my limit in three years. I have no CCJ’s against me, and a small but regular income. So applied online for a one month £50 extension.

And they said it would cost me £25 for arranging the overdraft. Er what? It costs me £25 to go “informally overdrawn” – and £25 if I do it properly too? SO I phoned up, they confirmed the charge, and refused to extend my overdraft anyway. I ended up borrowing off friends, who ar every long suffering but realise my situation. Thanks to everyone who has helped so often!

Now the bank’s defence on their practices is that if you make an arrangement with them you will not incur the charges. I tried to make an arrangement – and the charges were still there? No less – exactly the same fee. So if i actually went overdrawn illegitimately, or legitimately, it would cost sthe same. And what is worse, they refused me anyway. So the bank has clearly decided I’m a bad credit risk – yet when I put my card in to try and get my last fiver out, it asked me if I wanted to pay £25 for the privilege of an “informal overdraft arrangement”.

I declined, and added another prescription to my collection.

So if Free Banking is threatened, I won’t cry too much. I’ll still pay, but you can be certain that te 80% will make sure that they are not ripped off, as they have the voices and power, and I don’t think it will happen anyway. Why? People are getting used to shopping around for the best bank account deals. They are realising that when a bank changes the rates or charges, they can move their money elsewhere. Credit Cards (which I don’t have) taught people the esoteric joys of balance tranfers. We are not like our parents who stayed with the bank down the road for life. Competition would reduce bank charges immediately once they are moved from those who can’;t afford them to those who can.

Furthermore, the government is the biggest stake holder in many of the High Street banks now. The bail out, what was it £62 billion or whatever, saved the economy. From my reading Gordon Brown actually did save the world, well at least the global economy while the Americans dillied and dallied. Good on him! I’m no fan of New Labour, but it was a beautiful bit of political intervention.  So maybe the political will exists to actually stop this nonsense, and stop the increasing gap between rich and poor in our society?

There is something pathetic about an administration legislating to end Child Poverty, yet not looking at the causes of that poverty, of which ruinous bank charges on the parents of said kids must come high in the causes. The government controls the banks – and can promise free banking on the banks they are major stakeholders in.

And the banks: the banks can stop this now. All they have to do is cap unauthorised spending – stop people taking money they have not got out of the cash machine, and charge what it actually costs to bounce a direct debit or whatever, not some exorbitant fee.  Sure people would suffer, as I do, because they can’t lay their hands on cash at the end of the month – but if you put them in a cycle of bank charges like this they will soon have no money by the middle, then the start of the month. So stop selling debt to third party companies banks, and make your limits stick. And get rid of the ludicrous charge on AGREED overdrafts.

Yes, profits might fall a little. Yes shareholders in the banks might get slightly lower dividends. But how many bank shareholders actually have kids in poverty? And aren’t we all shareholders when we pay tax since the bail out? Are we not entitled to join the party?

I fought the Beast – and the Beast won – for now. Yet it will not continue forever…

cj x

* and before anyone says – bet you did not read the Terms and Conditions carefully – oh, how wrong you are! I actually read them and understood them fully, and in fact far better in light of the relevant legislation than my bank appears to have.  I wonder why they do not hire solicitors to read their own T&C’s, rather than apparently just copy them from each other and earlier agreements? One day very soon this could cost them so much that a lot of banks might go under…  I find it incredible that many Banks seem unaware of the statutory requirements of the Consumer Credit Acts…

Millions of customers who hoped to win back their monies in “unfair” bank overdraft charges were dealt a “kick in the teeth” after the supreme court ruled in favour of the banks.

This ruling will disappoint millions of customers who had their claims against the banks frozen more than two years ago. This means that these customers will be unable to reclaim their bank charges.

The Supreme Court’s president said that bank customers agreed to pay overdraft charges as part of the the price of having a current account.

So what happens now?
 * If you have already reclaimed money then it will have no effect.
 * Complaints on hold will remain this way until the City watchdog Financial Services Authority lifts a waiver that has put them on ice.
 * It seems highly unlikely that you will now be able to reclaim any money.
 * The City watchdog FSA and the OFT will now work together to come up with a fair charging structure for banks.
 * But this will only make charges on charges going forward and not help those with money owing.

This is a major win for the banks, however we will continue to hassle the banks over mis-sold PPI and as our success and triumphs continue, we will fly the flag for justice and integrity.

Mouths appear to have dropped open everywhere at the decision of the law lords on bank charges. Certainly it is difficult to understand on what basis the decision was made.First let us be clear what they – appear, anyway – to have said. This is only that the Office of Fair Trading does not have legal power to investigate value for money.

What they have NOT said is whether the charges were, or were not, value for money. Nor whether the charges were fair or unfair.

Indeed, their decision is correctly being described as a technicality. In other words, no matter what the case itself is about, the manner of conducting either the case, or the matters contributing to the case, were incorrect on procedural grounds. At least their opinion is that it is incorrect in that way.

I am not a law lord; evident as it may already be to you, I want it to be clear!

But I have great difficulty in seeing how the Office of Fair Trading is not empowered to investigate value for money. This has been at the heart of trading rules and laws for as long as recorded history.

From the standards for weights and money itself, to the arcane details of contract, value for money has been at the heart of legislative process. How can fairness be expressed without reference to value for money?

I am not even sure this is in keeping with the new Lending Code!

My advice is to move your accounts away from the big banks. Many of the building societies have much more reasonable approaches. And the Co-op Bank may be another good repository for your current account. Certainly you are going to have to spend time and though reading the terms and conditions.

Perhaps we should look to a funny little comment by a correspondent on TV tonight. This was to the effect that the cost to the banks would be billions of pounds, and that was concerning the highest ranks of government.

Perhaps once again we are seeing the unreasoned triumph of the banks over the people. Welcome to the new feudalism.

A very saddened  Joseph Harris – Debt Control Man

Author: Control Your Debt Crisis on Your Own Terms

http:www.controlyourdebtcrisis.co.uk

Congratulations to the America people.  You have successfully elected the one person that can, and will, completely destroy the Constitution.  Thanks to electing Obama, we are losing all our freedoms one by one.  The government now controls our energy usage thanks to Cap and Trade.  The government now controls our thoughts and the expression of those thoughts thanks to the Hate Crimes legislation.  The government will soon control our choice of doctors, medical procedures, and general lifestyles thanks to the health reform bill.

 Is this the change that you wanted America?  For all the faults that George Bush had, he wasn’t intentionally trying to destroy the foundation of this nation.  Obama is doing this on purpose.  Having grown up surrounded by communists he was doomed to at least lean in that direction.  So it is no surprise that with every situation that comes up, he looks to his communistic philosophies for the answer.  In every case, he is wrong.  Communism does not work.  Just look at the fall of the Soviet Union and the horrible conditions in Cuba as examples of how bad communism can turn out.  Even China has started to implement more capitalistic solutions to problems because the old communistic approach doesn’t work.

 I read an article this past week about a “Constitutional Congress” meeting in Illinois.  This meeting had a lot of people with a large range of differing philosophies, but one major goal.  They want to preserve the original intent of our founding fathers.  They want to resurrect the Constitution.  They drafted a document that restricts the federal government from stealing our freedoms.  Especially our freedom of speech, religion, and gun ownership.  The document also calls the Patriot Act unconstitutional along with all these energy initiatives and the health care reform.  I agree with most of what they came up with but I don’t understand how it can make a difference.  Unless the American people start demanding that their representatives actually represent them in Washington, congress will just keep doing what they have been doing this past year.  How can we actually implement and ratify the document that was produced?

 The only solutions to our issues are voting out the current representatives or impeaching them.  I think we need to start impeachment proceedings.  Maybe if one or two get impeached, the rest will finally start to pay attention.  I would prefer to vote them out of office, but that would mean putting up with a lot of them for another couple of years. 

 The only other possibility is the Supreme Court.  If our current justices would actually do their job, none of these pieces of legislation would make it into law.  Since every single one of these bills undermines something in the constitution, the Supreme Court needs to strike them down and declare them unconstitutional.  But they have made it abundantly clear that they do not want to hear anymore cases related to our first amendment rights.  They recently chose not to hear a case concerning a valedictorian’s right to mention God in their commencement speech.  By refusing this case, they allowed a blatant violation of an individual’s right to free speech.  This is inexcusable.

 Our country is in a world of hurt right now and unless we act soon to take our country back from these communists, we will lose our country for good.  Come on people wake up and fight for this country and the constitution.

Article II, Sec. 1, cl. 5 of the US Constitution
“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the
United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,
shall be eligible to the Office of President. . .”

From the 20th Amendment to the US Constitution.
“or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify,
then the Vice President elect shall act as President until
a President shall have qualified;”

According to the US Constitution, the supreme law of the
land, Barack Obama is not President of the United States.
No Chief Justice administering the oath of office,
No  oath sworn by a “president elect” makes one president.
There are 3 mandatory requirements to achieve a legal inauguration.

• A qualified president elect.
• Sufficient votes by the Electoral College.
• Certification and count of Electoral College votes by
  Congress

I am sick and tired of good, hard working Americans being insulted, being ignored, being attacked for questioning the eligibility of Barack Obama. People that are supposed to look after our best interest and the best interest of this country, are taking their cues from political agendas, lazily accepting status quo or being bought. This includes the Mainstream Media, State Election officials, US Congressmen, judges of all ranks and certainly the Obama camp of left wing socialists. Even the best of those in the media, such as Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck have either stayed away from this constitutional crisis issue or joined in belittling “birthers.”

Many of us are guessing why those on Fox are not covering this issue. The consensus, I believe, is that Fox Management has said no to covering this issue. Even if the people doing research for Fox were restrained or bought off, O’Reilly, Hannity and Beck are not stupid enough to not get it.

So, therefore, The Citizen Wells blog is going to do two things.

1. Each day, a fact sheet, truths and facts that are self evident about Obama’s eligibility including interviews with Sarah Obama, Barack’s Kenyan grandmother, facts about Obama’s birth and reports from media in the US and Africa. This will serve as an Internet Billboard and will be posted everyday until either someone in the MSM accurately reports on this or action is taken by a judge or elected official.

2. I am issuing a challange to Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and others in the media to step up and do their jobs. I will answer any questions they may have, debate them and I challenge them to dispute the facts.

To my knowledge, the only person in the MSM who has covered Obama’s eligibilty issue to any extent is Lou Dobbs and he did this on CNN of all places. Mr. Dobbs consistently stated his no brainer question again recently on the O’Reilly show on Fox. Lou Dobbs on CNN earlier referred to the COLB presented by the Obama camp as a piece of paper referring to another piece of paper. He then simply stated why doesn’t Obama present an authentic birth certificate. We applaud you Mr. Dobbs. This is such a common sense basic question to ask yet few in the media have asked it.

The eligibilty issues surrounding Barack Obama have been extensively covered on this blog and many other sites. To not cover this on the mainstream media is certainly unprofessional, un American and I believe criminal.

I am challenging those in the media to do their jobs, to serve their customers, their fellow Americans and cover this crisis. You are being out scooped and many of you are going down the tubes fast. That is no surprise. I am also challenging those on Fox, the only TV network to seriously question Obama and his agenda. O’Reilly, Hannity and Beck, if you do not cover this story, it will eventually rise to the surface and you will be lumped together with the masses of biased, leftist, talking heads that pretend to do journalism and reporting.

I am personally challenging you. Anyone have the guts and integrity to take me and the American people on?

Wells

Just in from Charles Kerchner, lead plaintiff in the Kerchner V Obama & Congress lawsuit, November 25, 2009.

“25 Nov 2009 -  For Immediate Release

There is activity in the Kerchner v Obama & Congress lawsuit. The U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia PA has issued a Briefing Notice schedule for the Kerchner v Obama & Congress case.

U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals Briefing Notice Issued for Kerchner v Obama & Congress Lawsuit:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/11/kerchner-v-obama-congress-3rd-circuit.html

Brief due dates for the Appeal are now set for 4 Jan 2010. We look forward to moving ahead with this very important constitutional case along the legal pathway to the ultimate decision maker for this historic and precedence setting lawsuit, the U.S. Supreme Court. They will determine the answer to the pressing legal question of what is a “natural born Citizen” of the USA per Article II constitutional standards and did Obama and the U.S. Congress violate the Constitution and statutory laws and my constitutional rights during the 2008 election cycle. And, the Supreme Court will also be asked to refer their legal definition to Congress to determine if Obama meets that legal ruled definition. I say Obama does not meet the founders and framers intent for the Article II eligibility clause. I say Obama is a deceiver and a usurper.

In the interim in addition to our internet efforts, we are running educational advertorials in print media to inform the general public of the issues.  See an example attached.  More examples can be seen at: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/advertorials.htm

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
We need your help and support.
See: http://www.protectourliberty.org/

“

The 5 Thugs in Black Sheets conservative majority of the Xtreme Court gets their wish -

Essentially by stong-arming a lower court judge.

Now, this may indeed be fair – but I have to figure, if I’m a New Haven Firefighter…

I’m not going into a burning building without color checking who has got my back for a while.

Born in the Bronx to recently transplanted Puerto Rican parents, Sonia Sotomayor grew up in a housing project and, as the most recent addition to the bench of the Supreme Court, encompasses the true American dream.  So, who better to throw the first pitch of the 2009 Yankees season (in the new Yankees stadium in the Bronx, no less)? Could this have been a premonition that the Yankees would win the World Series this year?

But, the most pressing point about Hon. Sonia Sotomayor is how she will rule in upcoming Supreme Court cases.  With any judicial appointee the question becomes how will this person affect the “balance of the court,” i.e. will he/she tend to have liberal or conservative leanings?  Will he/she be an activist judge who assumes the role of shaping legal policy or will he/she apply the law evenhandedly regardless of politics?

To answer this question we have to look at Sotomayor’s own politics and experiences as well as the Justice whom Sotomayor replaced, in this case Justice Souter.  Certainly Sotomayor’s race and socioeconomic background have played a pivotal role in forming how she applies the law and what kinds of cases she is sympathetic to.  However, she also worked as a prosecutor in New York for five years and, while not overzealous, she nonetheless may have a more staunch view on criminal cases.  As for Justice Souter, he typically sided with the pack of more liberal leaning Justices on the Court, but he did not sit on the far- reaching liberal end of the spectrum (Justice Ginsburg, for example, has berated the Court when they have made particularly conservative opinions).  For example, in his last opinion, Ricci v. DeStefano, Souter joined a dissent that agreed with minority firefighters that they were being discriminated against by their employer.  So, my guess is that Sotomayor will rule more liberally on social issues, more conservatively on criminal ones and, in replacing Souter, the overall balance of the court will not likely shift much, but may become stauncher on criminal procedure cases.  But it will also be interesting to see how, as the first Latina/o appointee, Sotomayor’s personal and professional nuances will influence the overall dynamic of the bench.

Currently, the Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments for a criminal case out of Florida where the issue is whether a juvenile can be sentenced to life in prison for a non-homicide crime.  The defendant is African American and was thirteen at the time of the crime — defense is arguing that there was racism at the trial and that the defendant is innocent.  I am anxious to see how Sotomayor and the rest of the court come out on this case and the many others on the 2009/2010 docket, including cases addressing the death penalty, animal cruelty and gun control.

Posted by: Jenni

Yesterday I discussed how at Restoration Weekend David Horowitz performed his own version of  Paul Revere’s Midnight Ride – summoning every American who believes that our country is heading over the cliff  to do whatever he or she can to help us reverse course now.  And I mentioned the suggestion for mobilizing a teaparty protest against the trial of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and his band of co-terrorists in New York and to bring a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of key parts of Obamacare as soon as it is enacted.

And there is far more that we can do, including  taking the offensive against Muslim activists like CAIR and their ACLU supporters who sue public schools not bending over backwards to pay special homage to Islam and to accommodate Islamic law.   We can go beyond the ‘establishment of religion’ argument for challenging the schools, which has not worked so far when Muslims’ rights are concerned.   We should base the challenge also on the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the First Amendment right of free speech, which includes the right not to be coerced into saying something you do not believe in.

For example,  seventh-graders at a San Francisco-area school (no surprise)were  required to “become Muslims” for two full weeks as part of California’s world history curriculum.   This included professing as “true” the Muslim belief that “The Holy Quran is God’s word,” reciting the Muslim profession of faith — “Allah is the only true God and Muhammad is his messenger.”

Just imagine what would happen if a public school told Muslim students to become Jews for two weeks and recite “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one.”  That school would not be standing after the first day.

Yet the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California dismissed a case brought by outraged parents against such a blatant exception for Islam to the Supreme Court decisions that have kept religion out of the public schools for decades.   The appeals court concluded that the activities did not constitute “overt religious activities that raise Establishment Clause concerns.”   The Supreme Court refused to take an appeal from the 9^th Circuit decision.

The same loony 9th Circuit upheld a public school superintendent’s decision to ban a student group’s performance of an instrumental version of Ave Maria at their public high school’s graduation ceremony because it could be seen as endorsing religion.

The next time a public school decides to have its students participate in Islamic rituals, it should be sued by non-Muslims for violating the free speech rights of students who are pressured into speaking words in opposition to their beliefs.   If a student cannot be forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance as the Supreme Court has ruled, a student should not be subjected to circumstances in which he or she feels intimidated into reciting Islamic prayers or participating in other rituals.  Moreover, unless the school conducts similar programs in the Jewish, Christian and other faiths’ beliefs, the non-Muslim students should claim that they are being discriminated against in violation of their equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.    

And, while we are at it, it is time to take the gloves off with organizations like the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and George Soros’ network of multiple, inter-locking organzations.  We should bring them to court for violating their tax-exempt status. 

The case should be relatively simple.  Just follow the money.   These organizations spend their money directly, or funnel money to other organizations that spend a substantial amount of it, on spreading “propaganda” which, under Section 501 of the U.S.  Code, should disqualify those organizations for tax exempt status.   Their main activity is to spread, or support organizations that spread, propaganda to influence legislation and otherwise manipulate our legal system in ways that hurt the security of this country.

We can stop the Islamists and the radical Left if we have the courage of Paul Revere to take action now:

In the hour of darkness and peril and need,
The people will waken and listen to hear
The hurrying hoof-beats of that steed
And the midnight message of Paul Revere.

Millions of bank customers hoping to get their unauthorised overdraft charges refunded were disappointed today.

The UK Supreme Court, who decided on the matter of fairness of unauthorised overdraft charges by banks announced that the proceedings were fair.

Thus, the highest court overturned earlier court rulings and put an end to the Office of Fair Trading’s (OFT) investigations into the fairness of these charges.

Stefanie Linhardt has more:

* Sad: Republicans have successfully convinced their followers that climate change isn’t real.

* Nate Silver: How Bad Could Obama Screw Up and Still Beat Sarah Palin?

* Ezra Klein on fixing the filibuster and SCOTUSblog on fixing the Court.

* Blueprints for nerds. Via Kottke.

* New Jersey in the news! This one seems a bit too much, even for Jersey.

* From Dan’s Facebook feed: Behind the scenes of Curb Your Enthusiasm: Jason teaches Larry how to be George.

* And, from Tim, Muppet Bohemian Rhapsody.

First of all, I would like to join my fellow blogger Chris Yogerst in thanking David Horowitz, Michael Finch, and everyone else at the Freedom Center for providing us one of the most stimulating conferences that I have ever attended in my life.

What I got out of the Restoration Weekend – in addition to meeting fascinating people, paying tribute to our military and and listening to provocative speeches from Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, Ann Coulter and many others –  was a call to action. Horowitz performed his own version of  Paul Revere’s Midnight Ride – summoning every American who believes that our country is heading over the cliff  to do whatever he or she can to help us reverse course now!

Several speakers, including Bachmann, made the point that the Democratic leadership is hellbent on passing their reckless agenda, even if it means giving up their power temporarily in 2010 and 2012. They are of the view that once programs like Obamacare and cap-and-trade are passed, the country will be so radically altered that it will only be a matter of time before they return to power with permanent majorities. And just in case there is any doubt, they will make sure to re-fund ACORN’s fraudulent vote-stealing programs and a universal voting registration program that will be sure to bring millions of illegal immigrants and convicted felons to the voting booths without challenge.

Representative Bachmann has taken up Horowitz’s call to lead the tea party movement in a protest of the insane trial in federal civil court of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and his band of co-terrorists. Ms. Bachmann asked the audience members to give her their cards so that a contact list can be compiled of potential protesters. Of course, I obliged. I live in New York and was a block from Ground Zero on 9/11. I intend to protest the propaganda circus that Eric Holder is bringing to town, along with hopefully many thousands of other outraged Americans.

This is but one of many fronts in the ongoing war against the Left to take back our country.

The Democrats’ health insurance monstrosity moved forward in the Senate  during what is being aptly referred to as a Saturday Night Massacre. We heard from Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina by phone the morning after (the massacre unexpectedly took him back to Washington D.C. to vote.) He reported on plans ahead to stop the bill from leaving the Senate floor. It will be an uphill battle, to be sure.

But even if the filibuster-proof majority in the Senate holds together and the bill advances to become law against the wishes of the majority of the American people, the war is not over. In the spirit of Restoration Weekend’s call for action, it must be challenged in court on the day it is enacted.

The mandate for every individual to purchase health insurance at levels dictated by the government can be overturned as an unconstitutional overreach of Congressional power. With a center-right Supreme Court that resists encroachments on individual and states rights, there is a real chance that this provision can be invalidated. It is the first time that Congress has ever required all of us to purchase something -  i.e., to engage in commerce even if we choose not to – simply because we are alive and breathing. That is not regulating interstate commerce.  It is forcing individuals to engage in commerce or face penalties and possible jail time simply because they are alive. Even the income tax required the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution in order for it to be lawfully imposed.

If this provision can be overturned, the Obamacare ponzi scheme may well fall apart like a house of cards.

Stay tuned tomorrow for some ideas to stop some other Leftist assaults on our freedoms, such as accommodation of Islam in our public schools.

As of yesterday, our highest judicial authority, the Supreme Court, has issued notice to Chattisgarh Government, Central Government and CBI based on pleas of Operation Greenhunt victims. (WP no. 103/09).

Mickey Maos happened to be there in the courtroom and reports the full proceedings of the event faithfully.

The Operation Greenhunt victims, the plaintiffs are hereonwards labelled as just adivasis, as it is clear to everyone that we don’t need names for them. A general label of adivasis is enough representation, or as the middle class calls them, the tribals. They have been pleading to the courts for years now, and the pending list of cases has become so long that it has become impossible for the courts to ignore it any longer. Since the judges can no longer take vacations with such backlogs, finally the hearing was held yesterday. 

The defendants were: on behalf of Chhattisgarh government, Mr. Raman Singh who was in full RSS attire. Incidentally he also wore a stethoscope to prove he is a doctor and not a quack. Readers may remember he was instrumental in putting Dr. Binayak Sen behind bars to revive his own flagging practice. He later admitted to this truth when local reporters made him smoke high quality hashish at a fake Sadhu party in Raipur.

On behalf of the CBI, joint director, Mr. Ashwani Kumar appeard in court. In fact, he’s been reported to be doing the rounds of the courts very regularly these days. Of late he has been in the news for giving shady mining companies a clean chit, prompting several people to ask, “who will bell the cat”? He was seen with a scarf on his head, trying to conceal his identity. However before being mistaken for a Palestine supporter, he had to come clean.

On behalf of the Central government, Mr. Palaniappan Chidambaram, who in his present alter-ego serves as the Home Minister. He was fifteen minutes late, and apologized to the court saying he had to attend a Vedanta board meeting. Mr. C said that there are no corporate interests in Chhattisgarh and therefore no question of displacing the adivasis, or violence against them. He said that this corporate business is a pure media invention, just like Operation Green Hunt, and not a single paper exists in his ministry with those words. However, he refused to talk about Vedanta.

The adivasis given a chance to talk, but were completely ignored, since no one in the court could understand their weird adivasis language.

After the plaintiffs and defendants had their say in court, there was a brief silence and the media couldn’t make head or tail from the expressionless faces of the SC judges. Eventually, they asked lawyers from both sides to come to the chambers for a private chat. As usual, Mickey Maos, somehow managed to eavesdrop in to their conversation. This is how it went:

Judges: “Gentlemen, we have heard both sides of the story, well, one side at least. The other side, it will take at least a month before we can find a good translator to decipher what the hell these adivasis are saying. Why can’t they learn English anyway? However, after due consideration, we have come to the conclusion that nothing makes sense. We are really concerned about how many cases are piling up before the court these days because of all these maoist fellows. Are they from China? How did they get in to India without a passport? Anyway, we don’t think that making us work without our winter vacations is fair at all. No one thinks of us poor judges” 

Defendants Lawyer: “Your Honour, we’re sorry to bother you at an inopportune time like this. These adivasis don’t understand these things. Plus to make matters complicated, they don’t understand a word of what we’re saying. Its not really our fault.”

Plaintiffs Lawyer: “There have been grave injustices committed your Honour. If this spate of affairs continue, each and every adivasi in the 700 displaced villages have promised to file individual Public Interest Litigations! Please your Honour, the SC must save the moment!”

Judges: WHAT? Hmmm..we can forget about holidays for the next five years, much less this year, if THAT happens. No, no, this can’t be allowed to happen. (Turning to the plaintiff, loudly) – “This is a travesty of justice, and we the judges of Supreme Court have decided that we will issue notice to all of you guys in the government. Please get back to us as quickly as possible with your justification to whatever these tribals have alleged. But not too soon mind you, come back after Christmas, or better still, after New Years. Now get out, both of you”

Some of the general public who happened to be in the courtroom were heard to make the following comments

“Terrorism needs to be stopped right now. As citizens of India, we have had enough. Why doesn’t the government do something about it? Did you see the telly last night? Those poor tribals, living in such poverty. At least some companies want to come and develop the place, so they can stop picking cherries for a living and get some real jobs. Our country is going to the dogs”