ALERT: Head of US Government Legal System Spills the Beans…About Silver Manipulation

Attorney General Eric Holder just testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that the investigation into Silver Market Manipulation could not be prosecuted (or made public) because it would have too adverse of an effect on the Global Economic System…or something to that effect!

Eric Holder Admits Some Banks Are Just Too Big To Prosecute
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/eric-holder-banks-too-big_n_2821741.html

“I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them,” Mr. Holder told lawmakers. Prosecutors, he said, must confront the problem that “if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world
economy. And I think that is a function of the fact that some of these institutions have become too large.”

“Mr. Holder, however defended his agency.  Federal prosecutors, he said, have been “as aggressive as they could be, brought cases where we think we could have brought them,” he said.”

“After the hearing, the panel’s top Republican, Sen.  Chuck Grassley of Iowa, issued a statement calling Mr. Holder’s remarks “stunning.” Mr. Holder ” recognized that in effect, the big banks and their senior executives have a get-out-of-jail-free card,” he said.”

NOTHING is by accident anymore and the huge increase in anti-bankster rhetoric and visibility lately is no exception. The facts surrounding the Silver Manipulation investigation are so blatant and so damaging to JP Morgan there is no other Road for the regulators to travel! That is WHY the case still hasn’t been dropped after 4 years. (Remember the head fake published in the Financial Times last August that charges were being dropped? Well, they never were! F-U…FT you criminal conspirators!)

 
For the ten thousandth time I’ll say it again…
 
The CFTC WILL bring the hammer down on the Silver Manipulators and Silver WILL finally be released from it’s shackles.

This is the will of “We The People” and we will NEVER give up until JUSTICE is served.

This is where this Road ENDS for the Bad Guys.

Bix Weir
www.RoadtoRoota.com

ALERT: BART CHILTON…”I’m Back!”!

Talk about stoking the fire under the London Bankster’s “arses”!

Statement of Commissioner Bart Chilton Before the International Roundtable on Financial Benchmarks, Washington, DC

February 26, 2013

I’m pleased we are discussing the critically important topic of benchmarks.  We’ve witnessed blatant and brazen monkeying with the marks.  The LIBOR (London Interbank Offered Rate), for instance, impacts virtually anything consumers purchase on credit from a car to a home mortgage to a student loan.  When marks are manipulated, it affects us all.

I’ve heard many suggest that lots of banks were submitting false rates, so therefore it was acceptable.  That is, in no way, cool or copacetic. It violates the law and can hurt consumers and customers around the globe.  Rather, the idea that pervasive manipulation, or attempted manipulation, is so widespread should make us all query the veracity of the other key marks.  What about energy, swaps, the gold and silver fixes in London and the whole litany of “bors?”  Why would they be any different in the minds of those that may have sought to push or pull rates?  For me, this means every single mark needs to be reviewed, and potentially investigated.

Finally, these benchmarks need to be based upon real, transparent trades, and not in the control of any individual or entity which may have a profit motive. That means government; quasi-government or an appropriate not-for-profit entity should oversee the circumstances surrounding how marks are established.

I hope today’s discussion moves us in a direction that restores credibility and confidence to the marks and markets.

Last Updated: February 26, 2013

 
I’m sure that Bart is relieved that he doesn’t have to PRETEND to be a weak,non-entity anymore. The game is back on!
 
Go Bart!
 
Go GATA!
 
Go SILVER BUGS!
 
May the Road you choose be the Right Road.
 
Bix Weir
 
 

Britain’s colonial shame: Slave-owners given huge payouts after abolition

Britain’s colonial shame: Slave-owners given huge payouts after abolition

Posted: 25 Feb 2013 01:33 PM PST


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britains-colonial-shame-slaveowners-given-huge-payouts-after-abolition-8508358.html

Britain’s colonial shame: Slave-owners given huge payouts after abolition
David Cameron’s ancestors were among the wealthy families who received generous reparation payments that would be worth millions of pounds in today’s money
SANCHEZ MANNING   SUNDAY 24 FEBRUARY 2013

The true scale of Britain’s involvement in the slave trade has been laid bare in documents revealing how the country’s wealthiest families received the modern equivalent of billions of pounds in compensation after slavery was abolished.

The previously unseen records show exactly who received what in payouts from the Government when slave ownership was abolished by Britain – much to the potential embarrassment of their descendants. Dr Nick Draper from University College London, who has studied the compensation papers, says as many as one-fifth of wealthy Victorian Britons derived all or part of their fortunes from the slave economy.

As a result, there are now wealthy families all around the UK still indirectly enjoying the proceeds of slavery where it has been passed on to them. Dr Draper said: “There was a feeding frenzy around the compensation.” A John Austin, for instance, owned 415 slaves, and got compensation of £20,511, a sum worth nearly £17m today. And there were many who received far more.

Academics from UCL, led by Dr Draper, spent three years drawing together 46,000 records of compensation given to British slave-owners into an internet database to be launched for public use on Wednesday. But he emphasised that the claims set to be unveiled were not just from rich families but included many “very ordinary men and women” and covered the entire spectrum of society.

Dr Draper added that the database’s findings may have implications for the “reparations debate”. Barbados is currently leading the way in calling for reparations from former colonial powers for the injustices suffered by slaves and their families.


Among those revealed to have benefited from slavery are ancestors of the Prime Minister, David Cameron, former minister Douglas Hogg, authors Graham Greene and George Orwell, poet Elizabeth Barrett Browning, and the new chairman of the Arts Council, Peter Bazalgette. Other prominent names which feature in the records include scions of one of the nation’s oldest banking families, the Barings, and the second Earl of Harewood, Henry Lascelles, an ancestor of the Queen’s cousin. Some families used the money to invest in the railways and other aspects of the industrial revolution; others bought or maintained their country houses, and some used the money for philanthropy. George Orwell’s great-grandfather, Charles Blair, received £4,442, equal to £3m today, for the 218 slaves he owned.

The British government paid out £20m to compensate some 3,000 families that owned slaves for the loss of their “property” when slave-ownership was abolished in Britain’s colonies in 1833. This figure represented a staggering 40 per cent of the Treasury’s annual spending budget and, in today’s terms, calculated as wage values, equates to around £16.5bn.

A total of £10m went to slave-owning families in the Caribbean and Africa, while the other half went to absentee owners living in Britain. The biggest single payout went to James Blair (no relation to Orwell), an MP who had homes in Marylebone, central London, and Scotland. He was awarded £83,530, the equivalent of £65m today, for 1,598 slaves he owned on the plantation he had inherited in British Guyana.

But this amount was dwarfed by the amount paid to John Gladstone, the father of 19th-century prime minister William Gladstone. He received £106,769 (modern equivalent £83m) for the 2,508 slaves he owned across nine plantations. His son, who served as prime minister four times during his 60-year career, was heavily involved in his father’s claim.

Mr Cameron, too, is revealed to have slave owners in his family background on his father’s side. The compensation records show that General Sir James Duff, an army officer and MP for Banffshire in Scotland during the late 1700s, was Mr Cameron’s first cousin six times removed. Sir James, who was the son of one of Mr Cameron’s great-grand-uncle’s, the second Earl of Fife, was awarded £4,101, equal to more than £3m today, to compensate him for the 202 slaves he forfeited on the Grange Sugar Estate in Jamaica.

Another illustrious political family that it appears still carries the name of a major slave owner is the Hogg dynasty, which includes the former cabinet minister Douglas Hogg. They are the descendants of Charles McGarel, a merchant who made a fortune from slave ownership. Between 1835 and 1837 he received £129,464, about £101m in today’s terms, for the 2,489 slaves he owned. McGarel later went on to bring his younger brother-in-law Quintin Hogg into his hugely successful sugar firm, which still used indentured labour on plantations in British Guyana established under slavery. And it was Quintin’s descendants that continued to keep the family name in the limelight, with both his son, Douglas McGarel Hogg, and his grandson, Quintin McGarel Hogg, becoming Lord Chancellor.

Dr Draper said: “Seeing the names of the slave-owners repeated in 20th‑century family naming practices is a very stark reminder about where those families saw their origins being from. In this case I’m thinking about the Hogg family. To have two Lord Chancellors in Britain in the 20th century bearing the name of a slave-owner from British Guiana, who went penniless to British Guyana, came back a very wealthy man and contributed to the formation of this political dynasty, which incorporated his name into their children in recognition – it seems to me to be an illuminating story and a potent example.”

Mr Hogg refused to comment yesterday, saying he “didn’t know anything about it”. Mr Cameron declined to comment after a request was made to the No 10 press office.

Another demonstration of the extent to which slavery links stretch into modern Britain is Evelyn Bazalgette, the uncle of one of the giants of Victorian engineering, Sir Joseph Bazalgette and ancestor of Arts Council boss Sir Peter Bazalgette. He was paid £7,352 (£5.7m in today’s money) for 420 slaves from two estates in Jamaica. Sir Peter said yesterday: “It had always been rumoured that his father had some interests in the Caribbean and I suspect Evelyn inherited that. So I heard rumours but this confirms it, and guess it’s the sort of thing wealthy people on the make did in the 1800s. He could have put his money elsewhere but regrettably he put it in the Caribbean.”

The TV chef Ainsley Harriott, who had slave-owners in his family on his grandfather’s side, said yesterday he was shocked by the amount paid out by the government to the slave-owners. “You would think the government would have given at least some money to the freed slaves who need to find homes and start new lives,” he said. “It seems a bit barbaric. It’s like the rich protecting the rich.”

The database is available from Wednesday at: ucl.ac.uk/lbs.

Cruel trade

Slavery on an industrial scale was a major source of the wealth of the British empire, being the exploitation upon which the West Indies sugar trade and cotton crop in North America was based. Those who made money from it were not only the slave-owners, but also the investors in those who transported Africans to enslavement. In the century to 1810, British ships carried about three million to a life of forced labour.

Campaigning against slavery began in the late 18th century as revulsion against the trade spread. This led, first, to the abolition of the trade in slaves, which came into law in 1808, and then, some 26 years later, to the Act of Parliament that would emancipate slaves. This legislation made provision for the staggering levels of compensation for slave-owners, but gave the former slaves not a penny in reparation.

More than that, it said that only children under six would be immediately free; the rest being regarded as “apprentices” who would, in exchange for free board and lodging, have to work for their “owners” 40 and a half hours for nothing until 1840. Several large disturbances meant that the deadline was brought forward and so, in 1838, 700,000 slaves in the West Indies, 40,000 in South Africa and 20,000 in Mauritius were finally liberated.

David Randall

Nathan Rothschild Loses Libel Suit

Nathan Rothschild Loses Libel Suit

Posted: 25 Feb 2013 01:28 PM PST

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rothschild-loses-libel-case-and-reveals-secret-world-of-money-and-politics-6720015.html

Rothschild loses libel case, and reveals secret world of money and politics
Thanks to billionaire’s legal battle, we now know a lot more about how the super-rich work
TOM PECK    SATURDAY 11 FEBRUARY 2012

With his long limbs and delicate gait, Lord Mandelson could no doubt manage a quite convincing turn in Thunderbirds.

He’d find Jeff Tracy most convivial: a billionaire astronaut with his own Pacific island, and now, it seems, he even has his own camera-shy friend to pull the strings.

According to the High Court, Nathaniel Rothschild, scion of the banking dynasty and friend of seemingly everyone in the spheres of finance, business and politics, is indeed “puppet master” to the Baron of Hartlepool and Foy.

The banker and Bullingdon boy has lost his libel case against the Daily Mail, which he sued for “substantial damages” over its account of his and Mr Mandelson’s extraordinary trip to Russia in January 2005.

Mr Rothschild claimed he was subjected to “sustained and unjustified” attacks in the May 2010 article, which portrayed him as a “puppet master”, dangling his friend Lord Mandelson in front of the Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska to ease the passage of colossal business deals.

Messrs Rothschild and Mandelson’s Russian trip would certainly have made entertaining viewing, but maybe not for Thunderbirds fans. Nobody needed rescuing, that’s for certain.

It began on Mr Rothschild’s private jet from the World Economic Forum in Davos to Moscow, where they met Mr Deripaska, the aluminium plant manager who became the richest oligarch of them all, and continued on Mr Deripaska’s private jet to his chalet in Siberia, where “to beat jet lag” they were whipped with birch leaves before plunging themselves into icy water – a traditional Siberian banya.


Less salacious, but seemingly more sordid, was an earlier dinner at Cantinetta Antinori, a fashionable Tuscan restaurant in Moscow. Mr Deripaska, the Mail had claimed, was dining with executives from the US aluminium giant Alcoa, negotiating a £250m deal to buy two of Mr Deripaska’s aluminium plants, at which a stumbling block was an EU import tariff on Russian aluminium. Enter Lord Mandelson, then a lowly Mister, but at the time the EU Trade Commissioner. The deal is done, costing several hundred British jobs, and the tariffs come down.

Mr Rothschild claimed the trip was “purely recreational”, and Associated Newspapers had to admit during litigation that it couldn’t be sure that Mr Mandelson had joined Mr Deripaska at dinner or whether aluminium tariffs were discussed, and in fact the deal had been struck before Mr Mandelson and Mr Rothschild arrived in Moscow. But for Mr Justice Tugenhadt, recreation it was not.

“So far as Lord Mandelson was concerned the benefit was the trip and the hospitality itself. So far as Mr Deripaska was concerned it was a relationship with the EU Trade Commissioner,” he said in his ruling. The judge rejected the notion that Mr Rothschild and Mr Mandelson had flown out as friends, not business associates, and said Mr Rothschild’s behaviour had in part been “inappropriate”. “That conduct foreseeably brought Lord Mandelson’s public office and personal integrity into disrepute,” the judge said.

Mr Rothschild’s “different and developing” accounts of the Siberia trip were confusing, he continued, adding that on this subject the banker had not been entirely candid.

Mr Rothschild said he was disappointed with the judgement and intended to appeal. “The truth is, as the Daily Mail has now accepted, that I had nothing whatsoever to do with this deal and that it had in any event been completed before Lord Mandelson and I even arrived in Moscow,” he said in a statement. Disputing the judge’s findings, he added: “Lord Mandelson’s trip to Russia was entirely recreational – as the court has accepted – and Lord Mandelson had obtained clearance for the trip from his office before undertaking it.”

Puppet masters, of course, do not like the limelight, but when one pulls quite as many strings as Mr Rothschild would appear to, things will inevitably go wrong. Indeed, it is not the first time this seemingly unlikely trio has conspired to make the headlines. When Mr Deripaska moored his yacht next to the Rothschild family villa in the summer of 2008, they, along with George Osborne, managed to tie themselves up in an even more spectacular imbroglio.

Either on the yacht or in the villa, Lord Mandelson might have said unkind things about Gordon Brown and Mr Rothschild is alleged to have suggested that Mr Deripaska might be interested in making a donation to the Tories. Via the two politicians it all ended up in the press – the last place their two hosts like seeing themselves.

That leading politicians, bankers and businessmen associate with each other in fashions that blur the boundaries between work and pleasure is a secret too great to be maintained with any success, but it doesn’t make the details, on the rare occasions they actually emerge, any more palatable.

A spokesman for the Daily Mail said: “This case is a reminder, at a time when newspapers are under attack for invading privacy, that the rich and powerful regularly use the law to prevent legitimate scrutiny of their activities. Had the Mail lost this case, it could have incurred costs of more than one million pounds.

“Not many news organisations, however committed they are to free speech, can afford to risk a loss of that magnitude. As Lord Justice Leveson’s inquiry considers the balance between privacy and freedom of expression, the chilling effect on free speech that court cases like this one exert needs to be borne in mind.”