aid4families $145M est. loss due to ABCP double standard

OH WOW!!! OVER 2000 REAL VICTIMS AND NO ARREST!!

This week aid4families returns to court and across the country parties in the $32Billion debacle return as well. Aid4families will be facing the crown and rcmp who need to build a fraud case to justify the indictment. The crown, rcmp, nor regulators will be attending the Asset backed commercial paper(abcp) hearing on whether investors will be able to sue for fraud at their own expense. In the past several days the major banks reported continued red ink due to their involvement in the u.s. subprime crisis for the second quarter.

Since last fall people who trusted the major banks and their divisions have been betrayed by a justice system paralyzed by hypocritical corruption. Aid4families which had no canadian clients and was not part of a customer uproar fell victim to regulatory malice. Meanwhile the same system failed hundreds of canadian citizens who were being bullied into a lopsided deal. One that requires them to exchange their 30-60 day notes into 3200 day notes after being delayed from their money for nearly a year already. In addition the main sticking point was in order to get this rape in the exithole, they would have to agree to not seek damages for being swindled.

Note to self--add purdy crawford to speed dial. Regulators and enforcement agencies refuse to even read about it in the paper, so they don't have to justify their inaction. One would assume that standard procedure was to raid the offices of scotia bank and toronto dominion headquarters, arrest the executives and issue consumer alerts not to deal with the major banks in canada. Well that's what happened to us(so I'm just saying ;). When you have a country with no banking system and allow the financial industry to dictate the rules, then you're bound to get the people shafted.

We have non-client detractors and I gleefully ignore them since I've spent thousands of words explaining the financial crisis. Anyone still calling aid4families a scam has no credibility when they fail to condemn real criminality.
Also in the news is the need for an additional pension plan because the CPP is a leaky titanic. Canadian regulators rushed to push aid4families from the market so people could be sold this abcp garbage with the trusted institutions. 10 months and 32billion later, I'm asking "hows dat workin' for ya" like Dr. Phil. What I suggest is that these investors sue regulators and enforcement agencies for their concerted inaction. Regulators for their blind endorsement, along with rating agencies which have been the biggest parasites in the global crisis. Regulators and ratings have played a crucial role in the fraud of legitimate banking and safe investments.

The final crooks I would like to throw under the bus before I go. Freddie Mac the governments mortgage program(u.s.), like so many of these $#^^@ is giving advice on how to avoid fraud!!! This agency deceived investors by misreporting their income by 43% and had been doing so for years. Then paid $410Million to settle a class action. The punishment, pay a fine and keep doing what you are doing. So that's how it goes organizations with victims and complaints get carte blanche and maybe spend some of their ill gotten gains as hush money without admitting fault. While decent programs are chased away to limit choices for the public. It's been a few years and we still don't have anyone that can explain why we are a scam. All we can say for sure is that no one with their morals or principles on a sliding scale can be taken seriously. Not regulators, enforcement, nerds in their parents basements or anyone else that is too cowardice to assist true suffering victims of real crimes.

Regulatory capture: The hands that tighten the banks noose

Everyone can sense that we are at a critical juncture in history. It is not often that the foundations of society are available to be greatly influenced. Generally, that is an acceptance of the status quo with only minor adjustments. In these times only the most vigilant rally to perfect the system, everyone else is resigned and are not inclined get involved. Elections, conflicts and now the economy are on the tongues of even the most passive as devastation engulfs the entire globe. At the apex is a perfect storm of policy, governance, greed and corruption. Politics of fear to feed the greed in a conflict for a commodity and to enrich arms manufacturers. It cannot be overstated that the sheer cohesion of powers combined against humanity is a massive foe. What is the fate of a disparate global public against powerful combined interest of global corruption?

Right now we are facing the expansion of a commodity bubble. To find relief from the problem, you need to first find the source. The damned speculators--people getting rich on the bet oil will go up and constantly driving it up to enrich themselves. Banks and governments say that they are powerless against these gamblers, thriving at the publics expense.
When you scratch beneath the surface you will find that most market speculation is dominated by the banks, industry and government. It actually makes sense, since government and industry would be the vested party's in any market.
Yet they offer us this faceless whipping boy called speculator. Government has blown oil prices on everything from production to storage. It lets the oil giants strong arm smaller governments into selfish deals then profit when the people retaliate by destroying a refinery or pipeline. This exercise in absurdity is the case from the Nigerian delta to Iraq. Then there's Venezuela an Iran, two large oil producers being constantly antagonized with western governments working in collusion with oil giants to guide policy, these countries are living on the cash of their oil while flatlining the u.s. currency. Chavez is winning his battle with Exxon and the attempt to starve Iran into regime change has the American people starving to change with a president who has the lowest approval rating ever. The public had no say in the central bank bailouts but white house resident bush doesn't want the taxpayers to spend billions rewarding speculators. There's that word again so to be clear let's define speculator in this instance(markets) a speculator is an investor who will never take delivery of the commodity. This is to say that brokers on the exchanges who purchase wheat, oil, sugar etc never expect a truck to arrive at their homes to deliver 50 tons corn.
In the mortgage market these securities where bought and sold by people who had no idea where the homes where or who bought them, they only looked to profit from the payments made. Those people have been spared the worst case by taxpayer backed interventions into the markets, though they are the only true speculators(along with the banks and brokerages who packaged and sold it). The so-called speculators that governments are refusing to assist are people who may have purchased a second home hoping to rent it out for extra income. Some chose a home that they considered a bargain and planned to invest in it to sell it at market prices. MOST examples leave you with people involved with the individual sell and purchase of a property. Refusing them the same deal as the ACTUAL speculators and pointing at them having to give up on a property is criminal.
So here we are, time to talk tough. With no serious review the fed has been able to put the taxpayers on the hook for hundreds of billions. The oil giants like the banks laugh off government grandstanding. What government can reign in Citibank, shell and haliburton at the same time? Regulators have a job that is born in conflict, to advance the industry against global competition while guarding the public trust. It's stupid on the face of it, how can you be vigilant in restraining someone that you are obligated to advance? In an ideal world a strong national banking industry would be best for the public. What has happened in practical terms is that banks are protected from the public and are sacrificed for the greater banking "good". Every step of the way, agents for the public discuss changes with the banks to get cooperation and what always comes out of it is a threat from the banking industry. The threat always gets the headline to strike fear into the public. Currently and new regulations would force banks to tighten credit and call loans AND raise fees and... Basically they're going to rob the public and all regulators can do is agree to HOW. Every time the grandstanding fades from the headlines and in the backrooms the deal is the same. Generally they will be able to come together to blame a faceless entity and make firm regulations to block competition with something like wealth based licensing or cash minimums. This protects the public from new entrants who become the problem and further erodes the power of the public.
The laws that come out of these conspiracies against the public all look the same. The wording is some catchall like fraud or licensing that allows regulators grand sweeping power to rid the markets of new competitors. Scammers, spammers and crooks are paraded out to look effective, while the big culprits benefit twice, once from being overlooked and the second by getting rid of competition without spending a dime. When you go to government sites and read what to look for when it comes to fraud, there isn't a bank on earth that could escape the definition but they can escape enforcement. They bury terms in contracts, change conditions among other things and use the law to their advantage. When you signed the documents, the disclosure was there, in legalese, in small print on the 8th page you signed. They send you a letter to inform you of a rate change, now that you are well in debt, the law requires them to give you 30days notice to pay them $20k in cash so that your balance isn't calculated at the new tripled interest rate. If a new competitor employed these tactics every media organization, court and enforcement agency would tar them with fraud without a hint of irony.

Every year it gets harder to bring a case against a major financial institution, while fees and deceptions bring in larger profits. Bankers associations are huge campaign donors and are a strong lobby. Regulators and politicians come out of the industry and people from the industry are chosen to be regulators. Two countries in north America ruled by one brokerage. Goldman Sachs alumni Mark Carney (bank of Canada) and Henry Paulson (treasury sec. USA), they should find cooperation with each other and the industry. What's better is neither is a regulator, they simply set the tone for regulators and act as industry surrogates. Incest between industry and government is nothing new. Top executives are always considered the experts and receive government posts with industry endorsement as an inside man. Very few politicians don't see public service as a stepping stone to lofty positions in industry they expect to peddle their knowledge and relationships to the highest bidder.

What can be done. Yes, media, government, activist, public and academia have all taken turns decrying the woes of the common man against greedy industrial interest. Fortunately I am not a professional belly-acher but a visionary pioneer. While others picketed, petitioned, plead, and published I imposed aid4families. In that spirit, here are a few changes that may help. Pick one: government service or industry but not both. With no incentive of cushy jobs after they leave office some politicians may actually focus on their job. Of course people still have to eat so a set time limit should suffice if a person chooses to leave public service. This is a very specific example, whereas the things that generally make it tempting are stripped away. If you serve on the banking committee then you would be barred for no less than 5 years from holding any board or position with interaction with regulators or government. You could be a branch manager or in accounting or IT at the bank where you can comply with regulations but not influence them. If you come from industry, you may not serve on a body that regulates your primary industry. The spirit of these proposals is the important element, the details can be hammered out. Create a jury duty for important government regulations. A basic trial can be held in court in the evening where the pros and cons are argued. The concerns and finding by the jury would be addressed at a public hearing for approval by the government. Finally, like all things, enforce the laws on the books biased enforcement have caused this carte blanche with the industry and banks act as co-regulators, holding funds, reporting competitors etc. The government wouldn't invite drug dealers to draft drug dealing policy, they simply draft consequences and enforce them. The government has to become more than just the PR department for industry interest groups. The government is not there to force the public to yield to industry greed, the role of government is to make sure that industry works for the public. We need to not just fear STATE RUN INDUSTRY but an INDUSTRY RUN STATE!


These reports about industry are from the imf, sec and media, I know how you like it when they tell you.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2006/wp0634.pdf



http://www.nypost.com/seven/10312007/business/sec_eyes_goldman_sachs_good_fo.htm

http://www.deepcapture.com/category/3-regulatory-capture-the-sec/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Securities_Litigation_Reform_Act

While investors writhe in pain the sipc stalks aid4families

Investor calls to the SIPC probably aren't returned because they are busy stalking us. ( actual visit )

Have you no shame?!?!? I couldn't take time to write yesterday due to court were the crown was a no-show for the second time in 5 months. Though the crown was attempting to avoid another setback we did receive a visit from the sipc. Now the inbreds in their parents basement, media and corrupt government and industry hacks would like you to believe that we're the problem. Why would an agency that should be burning the midnite oil making investors whole from taking part in the greatest economic sham in generations be pestering us? I would hope that it's not to intimidate us. That hasn't worked, everyone whoever said anything bad about the organization has been taken to the woodshed and there hasn't been a peep on the internet in 6 months. Like the man says "accounts of my demise...". I don't know while I'm fighting government, industry and media organizations to a standstill, why a half-baked shell group like the sipc would expect to have an effect that they couldn't.


The sipc like the cipf here in canada should be broke by now, since their low cash balance can't cover the fraudulent losses investors are suffering right now. It has been one year since the amf issued the now infamous and ill advised cease and desist order. Now the rcmp and crown are unhappy after being goaded into this wild goose chase. It's all boiled down to an endless tally of actionable damages that end with a lot of zeroes. How did this happen? Well every pimpled geek and industry hatchett man decided to try and bury the organization, AGAINST THE INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE WHO WERE ACTUALLY PARTICIPATING IN THE PROGRAM!!!! Unfortunately they picked the worst year to cheerlead the corrupt banking industry. It looks totally different a year later to try and call us a scam while the world economy burns and the government and industry get into a finger pointing match. I didn't tell people that there was a such thing as investor's insurance so they wouldn't go broke like they are. I didn't tell them that there money sits safely at the bank ungambled. I didn't tell people that banks and brokerages would always be liquid and wouldn't have to search for cash and bail outs. I didn't give risky assets high credit ratings. I didn't spend the past year lying about the health of the economy or banks. The media hasn't printed a thing the rcmp or crown has said since the first week in november because we told them to get the facts straight. The media believes the opposite of what your mother taught you, they believe if you can't say anything bad...then don't say anything at all--so the silence has been defeafening across the entire internet. See, people can say what they want but I'm telling them in plain language that they are lying and daring them to prove anything they say. People hiding behind avatars, profiles and agencies can say what they want but don't let your ego goad you into a situation where you have to put up or shut up. There was a line around the block of people wanting to talk the talk, now running like roaches with the lights on when it's time to walk the walk.

Back to the sipc. I'm not picking on them there's plenty of blame to go around in this sham of a shell industry that has brought the economy to it's knee's. The sipc didn't destroy the american economy alone. They provided the guise of security that helped lure unsuspecting investors into the trap. But hey, who is going to arrest them? No one hates deceit, fraud, or theft in any sincere way, now do they? Just when they think they can say it about us, if you switch the word aid4families to bank of montreal, bank of america or jpmorgan they quickly avert their eyes afraid to offend their betters. So you're no advocate, you're a coward. If you weren't you would want to save the public against ALL enemies. The sipc had the nerve to write to our hosting company a few months ago and demand they remove our website(you can see how well that worked out). They tried to make it seem as though our conviction was absolute rather than absurd and like they were some industry regulator(which they aren't). I informed the hosting company that it was not my job to write what the sipc likes and it would not be wise for them to remove the site. Let the sipc go the LEGAL route, not the mobster route. The legal route has worked for them the same way it has for everyone else--a dead end. Then I contacted the d.c. attorney general and made a complaint. I haven't heard back yet about how the AG is raiding the sipc's offices and hauling them off to jail yet. I guess there are those of us who dictate the law and those of us who are simply subject to it.

The post telegraph.co.uk didn't want you to see because it is being run by a few fake bloggers who target blogs outside of their clique.

It's going to be better in the good old days!!

Reason 4.5 A world safe for democracy and hitler


As an indicted person with the government attempting to go all hiroshima on your divine rights, you get to review what protections you actually have in society.

Yes, divine rights, in the u.s. they say "endowed by the creator (and or darwinism)with inalienable". This is a long-winded way to say that the government will be on a unrelenting mission to steal your freedom on behalf of various interest to allow others to run amok(my explanation is actually more long-winded:). Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist in the united states: it says but wait... EXCEPT AS PUNISHMENT FOR A CRIME. This means, wait for it.............SLAVERY IS STILL LEGAL! That's a beautiful loophole, that has been used to banish more people(and per capita)to bondage than any other nation rich enough to not have to. Hitler would have brought peace(eventually)no tyrant in history has wanted endless fighting, they just want to win first. Once you're in total submission you are free to live in peace but as a defeated group it probably won't feel very peaceful.

The jews weren't rounded up, they were actually asked quite politely to leave. They were offered relocation and received fabricated letters from loved ones saying "come on in, the waters fine". Hitler distributed propaganda reminding blacks and africans that they were fighting for their own oppressors. His mistakes were of course, fighting in africa, russia in winter and immediately declaring war on the usa while it was still reluctant to fight him. So when you mix your actual rights with only minor differences in the outcome of world war two, then you will notice that liberty is much more fragile than one might expect. There were no nazi's just people dispatching their military to remake the world in their own image (and WE defeated fascism?). The german public whipped into a frenzy of encroaching danger and humiliation at the hands of their enemy decided the only way to be free was to dominate. This of course led to greater humiliation and submission to it's rivals. That 1 watt bulb is starting to flicker in your head.

If fascism and slavery are alive and kicking, then what freedom do you ACTUALLY have? Actually is the important part because it means that you can't wake up and find it gone tomorrow? Of course this is canada, not germany or the USA, so everyone is free? Canada doesn't offer any protections. In fairness the canadians have only had say for about 25yrs (1982). So they haven't wanted to write down too many things before they secure their own place in canadian society. The constitution and laws are a mix-matched quilt of french and british with a few new things tacked on to look independent. Since most canadians were around in 1982 (and 1882, get it? because the canadian population is old)canada is like an adult child who has moved away from it's british parent. The country still takes pride in england, with the queen on the money and everywhere else(courts, supermarkets, strip clubs). The U.S. is of course the brother who left home at 15. The american bill of rights is a laundry list of rights to own guns and shoot anyone who tries to take them. It took another 70+ years and a bloody war to partially refine slavery and then another 60 to get to women suffrage. Guns = amendment 2, paid slavery amendment 14 and oh yeah women amendment 19. The canadian system like the american one does say you kinda have even more rights even though they aren't enumerated but in practice it's hard to enforce the ones that are. The differences come from history, where america fought a bloody war and wrote the bill of rights as a F-you, the canadians kind of slid into freedom.
Are wars always labeled noble quest? Generally, the american revolution was about taxes, so it actually could have been worked out and a lot of people didn't appreciate the anti-english rants. The civil war was about labor, half of the north didn't want a freed black population coming to compete for jobs, the same area was flooded again as european immigrants came by the boat loads 70 years later. Again the issues remain contempary, immigrant labor, wage stagnation, working conditions, worker rights, taxation, and slave workers keeping production cost low. Your freedoms are endowed by the creator and are inalienable, they are not to be doled out by any society. Societies controlled by the interest of the day, will constantly look to abridge, circumvent and downright steal your rights.

Since I am in my prime (old and young at the same time: with the body of a god and just enough grey to look...distinquished )it means I am still young enough to speak and act with moral imperatives and still not old enough to think that things can't change for the better. I am too old to lash-out through crime or violence from frustation but young enough to not take no for an answer. With mandela free, a Mlk holiday and the end of the cold war, my generation may have believed that there was no more fights for freedom and justice, we would be wrong. the oft cited poem sheds some light: "First they came"
In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;

And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;

And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;

And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

This poem credited to a reformed nazi, reminds us that the prisons can be full since it's those people in the city and let's build them around the world and skip due process, since neither type profile me. I didn't get my shiny pantsuit or flying car because I didn't know about contracts and production means as a child would stiffle innovation. People have nostalgia for the past always remembering a simpler time, while we keep hope for the future to lift the burdens and yokes that cripple the present. So the truth remains: It's going to be better in the good old days.

when you miss me check out my new topical UK blog at
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/aid4families

If U had a million dollars...U would be broke!!!

REASON: 3.5 ...and your mother dresses you funny.


When I started aid4families.com the first page added to the site was a brief summary of why the program was started called save your life. The title was, you're going to be broke. The point was not to make people feel bad or scare them into the program but to remind them to take an objective look at their situation. Paper millionaires are excluded from the millionaires club and most people don't qualify for that. There are towns where small homes or condos go for more than that. The people residing in them rarely qualify as millionaires, although some technical paper measure may allow them to impress their high school classmates. What any first year broker can often show these people is how their net worth is either much lower or negative. One for sure way, is living well beyond their means. This is a fact for most people (despite the hypocritical cries about sub-prime borrowers). To be a 21st century millionaire in a western hypocrisy, it is estimated that it takes between 21 to 700 million dollars to match a millionaire in 1900. With the worlds worst savings rate and wages devastated by cannibalistic inflation, there was no way the average person was going to survive retirement. What was needed for joe six-pack and susie secretary was what every politician, financier and captain of industry enjoys...A big fat bowl of passive income.

Yes, you would never know it from all the whining about income taxes and capital gains taxes beating leukemia for media and political attention. Most people couldn't get their mind around receiving more money than they earn or having money come from no effort on their part. How quaint the bottom 98% must seem to politicians who make more after they leave office or to brokers and CEOs' who make more in bonuses than pay. The primary taboo that I broke was bringing the unwashed masses to the party. The major arguments are: 1. When I made everyone rich, no one would be rich and 2. The rest of you slugs are too lazy to work if you have money(you have to be starved to be productive). For this they use the lottery example, how rare it is for some inbred like yourself to keep their job after winning and then it is usually wasted doing what the bottom 98% does, which is spend it. The problem with that argument is, the people who get rich setting up these lottery schemes are the ones telling you that you won't have to work anymore, this is the same society that demands you spend every dollar you get and then some and finally, working for no or low wages when you come into a huge sum is stupid. Another issue is that the opposite of what I am doing is the current situation. Whereas I risked everyone having money, we are now in a situation where no one has money. No savings and mountains of debt, even the banks and government(despite tone of accountability).

So if you don't have a million dollars, you're going to be on the side of the road with a sign. It's true! It's a setup no savings, huge debt, no retirement until you earn huge medical expenses AND THEY'RE cutting all the social spending, so us rich folk don't have to help your fat pasty butt. As a broker calling accredited investors, I NEVER talked to a millionaire that didn't have a job. Especially since I was calling them at work. This means that wealth is no deterrent to work(poverty maybe) but not greed. The poor made rich don't always know the game, some athletes and entertainers buy mansions for careers that last maybe 5 years in their twenties. They then turn into tabloid fodder. So why do people who swear by incentive based pay for themselves( and still get huge bonuses for running the company and the economy in the toilet) have so much disdain for the prospect of the bottom 98% making it? Cluck if I know, what I don't like is societies telling you that you chose your situation, while keeping 9 of 10 choices off the table. If people CHOOSE to be poor then they have the right to CHOOSE to be rich. Yet, the stampede to stop you bottom feeders from taking the elevator to the penthouse is incredible. I unlike most of you didn't need aid4families to become a millionaire but instead of creating another rich firm enriching rich people, I went and started a private safety net. Now, I can't stand near windows and have hired a royal food taster, nobody assassinates like banks :)