A fugitive people within a nation is tyranny.

Posts tagged ‘economy’

How America’s Child Support System Failed To Keep Up With The Times

clinton-child-support-celebration
When the U.S. child support collection system was set up in 1975 under President Gerald Ford — a child of divorce whose father failed to pay court-ordered child support — the country, and the typical family, looked very different from today.

And as the nation’s social, economic and demographic landscape has shifted, the system has struggled to keep up. Cynthia Osborne, director of the Child and Family Research Partnership and associate professor at the University of Texas at Austin’s LBJ School of Public Affairs, explains how these changes have outpaced the decades-old system — and left the country with more than $113 billion in unpaid child support.

Walk us through what the child support collection system looked like in 1975. What issues was it designed to address? What did the typical family look like?

It was officially launched in 1975, which is when the government established Section IV-D of the Social Security Act. No-fault divorce had recently been passed, and there was a rapid increase in divorce.

In 1975, this system would try to ensure that after a divorce, we would try to replicate what the household looked like prior to the divorce with regards to the children’s well-being. So the father would continue to provide income to the child, and the mother normally would get the child following a divorce in terms of physical custody, and she would use the resources from the father.

The whole system was set up in a way to try to bring back what the nuclear family looked like prior to a divorce, and nearly everyone who entered into the child support system was a product of divorce. There were very few nonmarital births at that time.

During that time period, divorce was one of the single greatest predictors that a woman, especially a woman with children, would fall into poverty. The research indicated that fathers typically gained financially following a divorce, even though they were ordered to pay child support, and mothers typically lost financially, they had both the children and reduced income. And so the child support system was hoping to try to offset some of that.

The 1970s and ’80s saw profound social, economic and demographic changes. What sort of shifts were occurring, and how did they affect child support?

There was this huge increase in divorce, and a beginning rise in nonmarital childbearing that was nearly nonexistent in the early 1970s — then becoming, by the mid-1980s, up into the 20 percent of all children.

Those were big changes that were occurring in the family, and simultaneously there were gains and losses in the labor market. There were more and more women who were starting to enter into the labor market during both the 1970s and ’80s. And the question about what women’s role was, vis-a-vis caring for their child and working and so forth, was starting to be really front and center in the discussion of women’s place within the family and the economy.

Still, though, the majority of women, when they became mothers, were the primary caretakers and not the primary breadwinners. The single mothers also were not very likely to work. So married moms were staying at home to take care of the kid. Single moms were on welfare, and our welfare rolls were expanding quite rapidly.

The 1980s [also] saw a huge boom in the return to college education, and this is especially true for men. And those who got this education— with higher skills and higher-wage jobs — were starting to really pull away from men who had lower levels of education or moderate levels of education. And men at the very bottom, who had no high school education especially, were starting to lose in real terms of their value of earnings. And that’s really a trend that’s continued until today.

And when we think about who those men are partnered with, often they’re partnered with the same women who are more and more likely to be dependent on welfare rolls — during this time there was a huge increase in welfare rolls — and also mostly among less educated women.

So you now had a growing number of women who were either divorced or not married who were seeking public assistance, and a growing number of less educated men who had very few prospects in the labor market, and declining prospects at that.

It really can’t be overstated how important in the whole welfare reform debate [it] was that one of the fastest entrants into the labor market were women with children under the ages of 5. And it became harder and harder to justify that we should have a system that would support one group of women to stay at home with their children while this other group of women was choosing to enter into the labor market.

And all this set the stage for welfare reform?

Yes, with that kind of backdrop — with two earners becoming necessary, women making this conscious decision to enter into the labor market and the general dismay about the existing welfare reforms system — we started really to think seriously about how we should do this differently, and what should we expect of moms and so forth, and I think that’s why the work requirements became so steep in the welfare reform debate.

And with child support, by the mid-1990s when all of these reforms were being put into place, nonmarital childbearing had risen from being something that was not very pervasive to nearly one-third of all births, 25 to 28 percent. Now, it’s at 41 to 42 percent.

What were the hallmarks of the 1996 welfare reform?

Welfare reform really did punctuate this idea that fathers should be responsible for providing for their children, that the state will do it in limited circumstances, but that we want the fathers to be the ones who are responsible for this. And there was a very strong notion at that point that men who weren’t paying for their child support were not involved in their children’s lives, were just deadbeat and avoiding the system.

The Personal Responsibility Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) made it so that the guidelines had to be more specific, and that the states had to enforce them more carefully. It changed what the performance measures were for states — basically, if you set an order, you have to collect on it and there could be penalties if you didn’t. And it really punctuated the idea that child support is a direct link with welfare, that there really isn’t a way for a mom who’s going to go on public assistance to avoid seeking child support.

In 1994 our rolls on welfare were some of the largest that they had been; they had really ballooned up to the point where upwards of 7 percent of kids were on welfare rolls. There was no end in sight because of the increase in nonmarital childbearing and who was now coming into the system was a different family type than what the system was initially set up to accommodate. And that, I think, remains one of the biggest challenges of our system.

And so the initial system was set up to replicate the nuclear family of dad as breadwinner, mom as homemaker, and now you have families in which mom and dad may have never lived together. They may have lived together when the child was born for a short period of time. They may or may not have shared resources. The father may have been contributing or not contributing.

And that gets us to the massive amount of unpaid child support — $113 billion and counting.

Right. Each state does it differently, but Texas will determine what a noncustodial parent’s income is. If he says zero, well, there isn’t zero child support, there will often be a presumption that he should be working full time, full year at at least minimum wage. So the judge will often set what’s called a minimum wage order, and it’s about $215 a month in Texas, which is about 20 percent of your net income of that. So here is a father who is now going to owe $215 a month plus about $50 a month in medical support. And he did not disclose that he had any income at the time that he established those awards.

It could be even worse, it could be — and this happens very often — that that man comes in, but his child is 2 years old. And now, either he’s been evading for two years, or he didn’t know he had this child, or they were together for almost all that time, but now they’ve separated. There could be lots of different reasons, but the child’s now 2 years old. The judge could order at that time that not only does he owe $200 each month moving forward, but he owes $200 a month for those two years …

Even if they were together but not married?

That’s right. And so this back child support is something that’s very real. A lot of the men start off in this hole that they just simply cannot dig themselves out of. For some of these guys, having a $5,000 arrears payment, it would be like a middle income person having a $50,000 debt that they’re just supposed to somehow work their way out of. It feels almost impossible.

What about the people who argue that this just doesn’t make sense?

I think it is actually not a simple answer. We do need to feel like men are being held accountable for their children, or noncustodial parents are supporting their children in some way. I do think that it’s reasonable for people to say somehow men have to demonstrate that they are going to provide for their children. Even if it is $200 a month and even if they don’t have a job, we are going to hold them accountable.

That just ignores, though, the fact that we can say that, but that doesn’t mean that they’re going to be able to pay it. We often know that if they’re not able to pay their child support formally, that they’re less likely to be able to contribute informally. They’re going to stay away from the child; they’re going to be less involved.

So although it makes sense on some level that we want to find a way to hold these dads accountable, in fact, what we’re doing is making it less likely that he’s going to be engaged in his child’s life by providing informally or being involved in other sorts of ways, and it’s going to cause difficulties in the co-parenting relationship between the mom and the father.

And for those reasons, there are proposals by the Obama administration — and other folks have been advocating this for quite a while — that say, let’s set what we call right-sized orders, that we actually take into account what he actually has the ability to pay when we establish these child support orders, and that we’re hoping that if he pays $25 a month now, that we can modify that order later when he gets more income and he’ll pay a little more and so forth.

This applies also to fathers who are incarcerated. We have a huge number of fathers who are incarcerated at some point in their child’s life. But it has not been a material reason to alter your child support award amount. So that’s another change proposed by the Obama administration, that if you are incarcerated, that we modify the child support order in some way to reflect that you cannot earn an income during that time.

In Texas, the average arrears payment that a father owes who’s been incarcerated coming out of prison is $8,000. When he comes out with high levels of arrears, he’s less likely to enter into the formal labor market and have his wages immediately garnished, so it just sends him back to the underground economy and the chances of recidivism and incarceration are really high.

Ultimately, then, what’s the purpose of child support system?

The states’ incentives really are to set amounts that can be collected on that make it look like they are reaching collection goals. But the performance measures at the federal level are based on the proportion that you collect based on the proportion that’s established.

So the states could benefit if they move to this more right-sized orders approach. But we have to be careful that that big dollar amount out there of what we’re collecting doesn’t become the driving force of how to maintain our child support enforcement system.

To be perfectly honest, I think if I could be queen for the day, in today’s families, I would change the presumption that there is an equal division of time and an equal division of responsibility for providing for that child. That’s not going to work for every family. Some of them have never been contributing, some have both been contributing but at disproportionate amounts.

But if we started with the 50-50 presumption, then the judge could work with the families to say, well, how do we get to some form of equality that works for you guys?

If we really started with this presumption that we’re going to jointly care for our children, even though the parents are not married to each other, and then let’s work out a system that seems fair in both the amount of time that we’re spending and the amount of resources that we’re spending, that it costs to raise this particular child, it’s a lot more work on the part of the state to figure out what that is, but it just feels like that would be more fair.

For our low-income guys who can’t afford anything, the moms are having to work, why don’t they provide the child care? We’re not ready to go that way with our families, but our families have changed so much, we need a system that starts to keep up with them some way.

from NPR

Father’s Day – Money Is The Measure, Not Freedom

by J. Greene

dad-and-sonMen have been honestly caring for their children from the beginnings of civilization. Some have not, including mothers. It has always been that way. We don’t live in a perfect world. Enter the modern state in all its’ wisdom, where all people are expected to tolerate a state-controlled legalized extortion racket because children are the future – but mostly for benefit of the state. The state even routinely combs through bank records in the eternal vanity of finding a few stray bucks from those that dare to evade child support collection. It’s an old game whose influence has steadily increased since the free love movement, when rancorous feminists began burning their bras and politicians saw the political cache they could achieve through social manipulation. As a result, the real role of fatherhood and the definition of a family has been continually cheapened.

stress single motherIn the corporation known as the United States, the system routinely oppresses fathers, while offering poverty support to single and divorced mothers (and some fathers). They have also been oppressing the taxpayer as well, hoping and pretending to bring in more than they spend, even as they send state corporations double their child support collections. Only the light-headed politicians of the United States would think to do such a thing. Of course, these are the same men and women that fund operations as the “policeman of world” while playing “Uncle Sugar” to the world. They even continue to send China a regular stipend because of its’ poverty, while running a burgeoning deficit that the children of the future are expected to pay. This is obviously unsustainable, despite the fact that they indirectly operate the printing presses that prop up the reserve currency of the world. In fact, this is the only reason that the lawmakers that rule “Uncle Sugar” can continue to operate as they have. The nation as it stands is living on borrowed time.

Since money is the measure in the propaganda that is cast about, you’ll find that fatherhood is measured the same way. This is no surprise in a nation mesmerized by the illusion of wealth. Social scientists at Johns Hopkins have decided that low income fathers purchase a relationship with their children.

baby money“They want their kids to look down at their feet and say, ‘My dad cares about me because he bought me these shoes,’” says a co-author of the study in a press statement. “We need to respect what these guys are doing, linking love and provision in a way that’s meaningful to the child. The child support system weakens the child/father bond by separating the act of love from the act of providing.”

Yet, the child support system plugs along mercilessly despite a nation of earners that has not truly recovered from the economic debacle that eclipsed in 2008. Untold millions have been crushed, merely grist for the mill of poor governance. Republicans claim that we must find a way to be fiscally responsible, while supporting the current child support system that imprisons the nation. This is a lie pressed to ignorant people. They simply support the status quo with the illusion of conservative values. Their buddies are merely more “progressive.” Meanwhile, the men that give their blind consent can choose to pretend they are purchasing the adoration of their children, as these social scientists say, or they can realize the truth.

mom-stressThe family is only a family as long as the family unit is together. Once breached by rejection, separation and divorce, a family is not a family at all – especially outside of a committed relationship. That a single mother and her child is a real family is also debatable. The “wise men” of the nation have simply continued to revise the definition of the family to suit their needs. That is the deeper reality that the state would have you ignore to your continued peril. It benefits them for you to believe as you do.

It has been posited that the “Founding Fathers” would turn over in their graves if they were able to know about the ongoing debt slavery and legalized human trafficking that is the United States. I think not. These men were fully aware of the hypocrisy that “America” was built on. The governance of the nation has profited from the slavery and oppression of others from the very beginning with little apology, or admission of error. The lawgivers have even reconfigured the corporation to enslave for personal advantage. Robber barons everywhere continue the public plunder under the pretense of propriety and a kind face when it suits them. Your consent is your ignorance. Even governance is just another corporation. They seduce “the people” with infrastructure and social trinkets. The propaganda machine has continued to eject that notion that the nation is a democracy, the “land of the free.” Who the “free” truly are is for you to decide.

overthrow

The Birth Certificate Scam

ABSTRACT. Long form, short form, birth pledge, estate, cestui que trust, birth bond, BC bond, Treasury account, SSN, SS bond, DTC…

This article explains the series of transactions that comprise the birth scam whereby governments convert the birth of a child into a financial asset to underwrite the public debt and the issuance of substance-shy currency. Dubbed by the author the Uniform Securitization Scheme or USS, this universal pattern of “legalization,” registration, certification, securitization and general deposit is revealed to be a blueprint for virtually every event of our lives involving government, from simple purchases to the most complex banking, economic and Court transactions, in particular the metamorphosis of loan applications into salable securities. The article suggests that a comprehensive understanding of the birth schematic will provide the reader with a new plateau to address the complications when constitutors of the government face enticements to become its subjects. The author states that the article is offered to elevate discussion to a new plateau and assist concerned people in explaining their positions to friends and relatives.

THE UNIFORM SECURITIZATION SCHEME

INTRODUCTION.

mob-rule-child-support-governmentThere was a time when the joyous event of childbirth was recorded in the family Bible to signify the child’s status as a member of the family’s posterity with implied rights of an heir. To this day, the family Bible remains a lawful record that is recognized in the “legal” system. In 1933, when most privately-held gold was confiscated by the Federal Reserve System under Executive Order 6102 and obligations payable in gold were outlawed under H.J.R. 192 (Public Law 73-10), the substance-backed economy was replaced by a financial system based upon credit (IOU’s) which is currently failing under the weight of it’s own nature. What is that nature?

Like “Seinfeld,” very simply, nothing. Empty promises to pay backed by fraudulent presumptions of informed consent. It’s an economy where the books always add up to zero, where the very nature of bookkeeping had to be altered to disguise the void (double-entry bookkeeping), where the notion of a single entry to explain your purchase of a pack of gum was apparently inadequate to hide the theft of your money, where every asset is also entered as an offsetting liability, where the law itself had to be replaced by commercial hypocrisy, where the sum total of all activity in every government licensed institution, bank, Court and corporation
equals zero each and every day, where transactions which once involved the exchange of goods and services of equal value now involve the exchange of “securities” of equal “value” (nothing) as the term “value” is defined in inferior statutory “law.”

Like “Seinfeld,” the world suffers not so much an economy, as a comedy of errors. Perhaps more correctly, a comedy of frauds wherein the concept of “value” is established by words on the page instead of the perceived value of goods, services and labor at hand; where up is down, black is white, and timeless immorality is perfectly “legal.”

It is a well established fact that the United States is defined as a corporation in Section 3002 of the Judiciary Code. Meaning that the United States judiciary operates under the global presumption that the United States is a corporation, notwithstanding periodic attempts by learned attorneys-at-law to treat this fact casually.

What is a corporation? In essence: nothing. A construction of words on pieces of paper. A contrivance without a soul, sentience or conscience. The question becomes, How does an unconscious paper corporation operating in an economy without substance control the population of living people under the original public trust charter? The answer is self-evident. Organized commercial fraud which applies ancient edifices of commercial sleight-of-hand such as legal fictions, certification, registration and securitization to achieve outcomes which would otherwise be impossible (and certainly repugnant to the Founders). Translation: the machines harness the people’s commercial energy through a Matrix of scripted distractions and diversions wherein fraud, falsehood and fallacy supplant the law until amnesia has become endemic. That system is known as the “legal” system, a profit-inspired veneer for THE universal system of voodoo accounting explained in this article: the Uniform Securitization Scheme which runs invisibly as the operational schematic that underlies all public events be it the birth of a baby, the issuance of currency, economic “bailouts,” a court case, a purchase, a loan, a mortgage or a real estate transaction. Without your awareness, virtually every event of your life which involves a public institution has been covertly superimposed on the underlying Uniform Securitization Scheme (“USS”) revealed in this article, so that the actual events are invisible.

The USS is the EXACT SAME PROCESS used by banks to PLEDGE your credit card and loan applications as the surety for certificates and notes issued by their subsidiaries and sold to investors. Patriot mythology has held that these loan applications are actually securities. As will be revealed, in this instance the legend is true. The evidence is contained in every Rule 424(b)(5) prospectus filed by every bank with the SEC. A Bank of America flowchart published in a 2010 SEC prospectus is included in Appendix B to graphically demonstrate the universality of the USS. This chilling roadmap to the Uniform Securitization Scam may be helpful to review as you read about the pledges, certification, re-deposit and various techniques that comprise the USS.

To understand the Uniform Securities Scheme is to understand the commercial world around you, and the banks, government agencies and Courts that seek to control your life. The author has no objection if a copy of this article is sent to every JUDGE TRUST on the Federal and State benches, and every political prisoner in America.

__________________
I.
THE UNIFORM SECURITIZATION SCAM

chronic-stressThe fuel behind the United States Federal corporation, the underlying premise behind every transaction in which you have participated, is the presumption that your labor has been voluntarily pledged to pay the debts of the United States (the public debt). Is this presumption factual or the wild concoction of misguided conspiracy theorists? Is it even remotely possible that the Founders’ descendants are captured as sureties for the escapades of their public officials?

The answer will soon be clear. It will be found by exploring a series of legal maneuvers known as “legalization,” registration, certification, securitization and general deposit which comprise the essence of the Uniform Securitization Scheme (“USS”). That same scheme is used at every stage of the Matrix, from the construction of the birth account to the reverse mortgage you sign on your death bed. To understand the birth certificate scam, is to understand loans, mortgages, purchases, deeds and all the other mirror-image substitutions for good old fashioned truth.

II
THE PLEDGE OF FUTURE PERFORMANCE; SECURITY FUTURES

shaken baby syndromeAlmost immediately, the blessed event of the delivery of an infant is marred by using its right foot to make an impression on a hospital birth record (HBR). The HBR provides public testimony of the baby’s “birth” on the continent and status as an “owner” of the United States.

Contrary to popular opinion, ownership is not control. In the “legal” system, ownership is defined as a pledge to act as surety for the debts incurred by the property. In the case of the United States, that doctrine is enshrined in Article VI of the Constitution which says:

“All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.”

In other words, the act of registering the child with the United States Federal corporation through a government-licensed hospital comprises THE OWNER’S PLEDGE OF FUTURE LABOR, the “full faith and credit” that underwrites all U.S. currency and public debt under the ancient doctrine that ownership equals liability. After all, who else but the owners would be motivated to pay the bills?

For the sake of skeptical friends and family, here are the sound bites: Who else but the people of the United States stand behind U.S. currency? Does the issuance of a U.S. hospital birth record signify one’s responsibility to pay taxes and underwrite the public debt?

III
OPENING AN ACCOUNT

kangaroo courtThe HBR is delivered to the incorporated County for the purpose of transmitting the infant’s pledge into the “legal” system. What happens when you transfer property? What must you do when you make a purchase on the internet? What’s the first step in creating a commercial relationship with your doctor, bank and phone company? They open an account in your name.

As with any asset, the incorporate County as the receiving institution must open an account and log it in. The County Registrar opens an account in the County’s books. As you will discover, the sole purpose of every account that has ever been opened in your name is to leverage (issue) future securities. You are unaware of this because you are unaware of the definition of securities.

Opening an account is a boilerplate event in the Uniform Securitization Scam when any bank, Court, corporation or government institution seeks to assess the owner with a portion of the public debt and tap into your Estate to pay the assessment.

IV
REDUCING STATUS TO A NUMBER

As with any account, the County birth account is assigned a number, typically in the format: 123-45-654321. The first number group identifies the corporate State, the second group identifies the year of delivery, and the third group identifies the transaction. This birth identification number will follow the infant throughout his life. The implications are well documented in Scripture.

“And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel (1 Chronicles 21:1).”

You may wish to read about the consequences of that event to the people of Israel. When we participate in a census for purposes other than to glorify the Lord, we can expect to be condemned.

V
RECORDING A GENERAL DEPOSIT; RELINQUISHING TITLE

violation of due process and civil rightsThe registrar then records the HBR in the account as a general deposit, meaning the State takes title to the funds (your future labor/commercial energy) the same way a bank takes title to your deposits when you use the bank’s endorsement stamp to print “PAY TO THE ORDER OF ACME BANK” on the back of a check before depositing it in “your” account. Haven’t you ever wondered why checks are made payable to the bank instead of to your account? The PAY TO THE ORDER OF notation is not just a material alteration under the Uniform Commercial Code.

It creates a brand new security wherein the bank takes your funds for its own purposes and disguises the acquisition by issuing credits to your account. This one act is the mechanism by which the State steals the infant’s Divine right to her own labor and converts it into a numbered account to act as surety for it’s portion of the public debt owed to the banking cartels under the Constitution. The United States now holds the pledge of the minor child’s future labor deposited “voluntarily” by the child’s mother as the foundation for all the future securities it will attempt to issue in your name.

The HBR is then placed into a vault at City Hall or the County Seat or a subsidiary such as Vital Records. Those who are skeptical might wish to examine their own birth certificates alongside a stock or bond certificate and read the definition of securities in Section 78c of Title 15 of United States Code (subparagraph (a)(10)). The internet provides immediate access.

VI
LEGALIZATION OF YOUR PUBLIC ESTATE

mind controlYour estate here on earth consists of your inheritance from the Creator: your body, the air you breath, your possessions, the fruits of your labor. However, as with your name, churches, money, law and courts of record, U.S. Inc. intends to create a fictional mirror-image counterpart of your estate in the public venue. This process is known as “legalization.”

Depositing your presumed security future pledge into a public account for the creation of securities “legalizes” your labor into a public estate (“Estate”), a vast account which holds the pledge of your future labor (an IOU) to act as surety for your portion of the public debt.

Every time your straw man is “charged,” the government is seeking to tap into your Estate to pay the assessment. Your Estate is merely a trust which has been designated as insurance to underwrite the public debt and create profits and proceeds for public officials who seek to convert you from a member of the posterity they are sworn to serve into a subject that exists to provide them with commercial energy and position.

VII
CERTIFICATION

baby moneyThe Registrar certifies the deposit of the pledge by issuing a Certificate of Live Birth or Certificate of Birth (so-called long form) which identifies the child, the parents, the date of birth and the date of certification. This one act legalizes the pledge by converting the presumption of pledged labor into a security. Section 8-102(a)(4) of the Uniform Commercial Code defines a “Certificated Security” as “a security that is represented by a certificate.” By issuing the Certificate, the Registrar is confessing
that the hospital birth record is a certificated security, and the County is the depository institution which has taken title to the “funds.”

Certification is the same process used by banks to launder your credit application into an “asset”to be sold to investors. The BOA flowchart in Appendix B provides a graphic confession of thecertification scam. Notice that the BA Master Credit Card Trust II is the certificating subsidiary that certificates your credit card application. What is a credit card application? A pledge. It’s your pledge (security future) to pay the line-of credit that the bank “creates” when they approve your credit card application.

Regarding general deposit and certification, the County and Bank of America are birds of a feather. Both seek to interpret your signature as a pledge of future performance, a security future. The act of certificating the hospital birth record legalizes the infant’s pledge as a security future “asset” for posting as tangible funds in various public accounts as you will see. This is the scheme by which the obligation to perform is transferred from public officials who are sworn to act as
trustees of the public trust, to the hapless “legal” Citizen “strawman” created (as you will see later) to act as a substitute trustee through the process of “legalizing” the infant’s pledge into the public venue.

VIII
REDEPOSIT

unconstitutional law must goThe Secretary of the Treasury is notified of the pledge presumably by the transmission of a certified copy of the pledge certificate or electronic record of the County deposit, thereby beginning the Uniform Securitization Scam (create an account, make a general deposit, certificate the “asset,” issue derivative securities as if they’re tax exempt original issues) once again.

The Secretary’ delegates open an account identified by the previously assigned birth certificate number for the sole purpose of leveraging (issuing) securities against your Estate. The infant’s pledge represented by the Certificate of Live Birth is deposited, again generally, providing the “funds” against which future securities will be issued.

THIS IS HOW THE CORPORATION TAPS INTO THE ESTATE TO UNDERWRITE EVERY SECURITY THAT IT ISSUES, every indictment, citation, bill, bond, charging instrument, complaint, summons, arrest warrant, promissory note, assessment and mortgage.

THIS IS WHY THE GURUS HAVE TOLD YOU EVERYTHING IS PREPAID. Under the
UCC, the term “for value” is defined as a pre-paid account. The birth account at Treasury is the prepaid account against which all such assessments, and your setoffs and acceptances “for value” will be drawn. The pre-payment is the long form Certificate of Live Birth representing the security future pledge of future labor.

This is the account that supplies the funds when you mark a bill “charge the same toJOHN HENRY DOE 123-45-6789.”

This is the elusive “Treasury account” prosecutors love to ridicule when prosecuting a patriot. For many patriots, this may be the first time you have understood what you’ve been writing in your acceptances. Without this understanding, how could you possibly hope to enforce them? The potential damage to themselves and the technology when thousands of people issue acceptances without adequate understanding of the processes and cheer each other on in internet groups is self-evident.

IX
CREATION OF A TRUST

When property is transferred, a trust relationship is created. The recipient has an obligation to perform in some fashion such as processing an instrument, protecting the property or delivering a bill. The recipient is therefore a trustee. Section 401 of the Uniform Trust Code confirms that a trust is created upon transfer of property.
SECTION 401. METHODS OF CREATING TRUST.

A trust may be created by:

(1) transfer of property to another person as trustee…

As with any conveyance of property, the deposit of the pledge creates a trust in which the recipient has a trustee obligation to process the instrument. This is the so-called Birth Certificate
trust. It is not the result of some bureaucrat recording a trust, but the natural consequence of a transfer. The birth trust is identified by the original birth number assigned by the County registrar. As you will see, this number represents a variety of accounts, trusts, securities and certificates all derived from the original pledge.

X
RE-ISSUE OF SECONDARY SECURITIES; THE BIRTH BOND

The first security issued from the Treasury account is the birth bond which the United States uses to underwrite its currency. Like the pledge, the birth bond is a certificated book-entry security future, a bet against your future performance, which is re-presented (noticed) into the public by a certificate: the short form Birth Certificate. Like any bond, the birth bond is nothing more than evidence of debt; evidence that the Estate (your labor) is the surety for the infant’s portion of the public debt.

As you may suspect, the purpose of the birth bond is to leverage more securities using the USS template described in this article. The profiteering begins when the birth bond is traded dollar for dollar for money issued by the Federal Reserve, permitting Treasury to place the money into circulation under the premise that it is backed by the people’s “full faith and credit.” The bond is transmitted by the Fed to The Depository Trust Company where it is placed into “safe keeping” for the purpose of re-issuing a vast array of derivative securities, each one written against the pledge and designed to elicit your consent for profiteering.

XI
REGISTRATION

hillary-clintonOne of the most seemingly benign cogs in the Uniform Securitization Scam, registration, is the process by which a creditor registers a security interest against the owner. Registration is a pernicious method used to take control of “legalized” property by a genuine or presumed secured party under protection of the “legal” franchise and it’s incorporated judiciary. Here are some excerpts from the twelve paragraph operational arrangements published by The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) to govern DTC Direct and Indirect Participants:

“The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”), New York, NY, will act as securities depository for the securities (the “Securities”). The Securities will be issued as fully-registered securities registered in the name of Cede & Co. (DTC’s partnership nominee) or such other name as may be requested by an authorized representative of DTC.”

“Purchases of Securities under the DTC system must be made by or through Direct Participants, which will receive a credit for the Securities on DTC’s records. The ownership interest of each actual purchaser of each Security (“Beneficial Owner”) is in turn to be recorded on the Direct and Indirect Participants’ records. Beneficial Owners will not receive written confirmation from DTC of their purchase.”

There it is in black and white. The birth bond is “registered” to the benefit of DTC. DTC will not even mention the “Beneficial Owner”—the beneficiary—in its records. By combining the terms “beneficiary” (the sole party with the right to enjoy the fruits of the security) with “owner” (the party that’s liable for all of the debts and injuries caused by the security), you have been reduced to the lowest common denominator: an owner. Forget the adjective “Beneficial,” you don’t matter at all. Your only right is to order the sale of the security to the next hapless owner. If this is hard to accept, ask yourself who suffers when the value of a stock certificate registered to DTC suddenly falls. The owner. Who pays the margin? The owner. Who sells at a loss? The owner. Who makes a profit on the sale by having locked in its position as holder of the security?

The Depository Trust Company.

Conversely, as stated by DTC, the Direct Participant (the financial institution that made the deposit, in this case, the Fed) will be credited with the value of the security. This means that DTC will post the birth bond on its books as a credit to the Direct Participant, not you, allowing the Direct Participant to enjoy the increase in net worth, to borrow against the value, to post between 3 and 10 percent of the bond’s value to the Direct Participant’s reserves thereby allowing the Direct Participant to lend out at least nine times the value of the securities using YOUR pledge as the source of credit.

So while your Estate pays all of the bills assessed against the straw man, the Fed enjoys the value of your pledge. IT IS THROUGH THE BOOK-ENTRIES DESCRIBED IN THIS ARTICLE, IN PARTICULAR THE POSTING OF VALUE IN THE RESERVE ACCOUNTS OF FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS, THAT THE PUBLIC TAPS INTO YOUR ESTATE WITHOUT YOUR KNOWLEDGE. In other words, if a Court wishes to assess your Estate, it deposits the indictment security into an account opened in the name of your straw man, and charges the Estate by issuing an arrest warrant security to bring you in for the purpose of consenting to the assessment.

Meanwhile, it is trading against the reserve posting by issuing and trading a Case bond issued from the same account.

XII
RE-ISSUE OF SECONDARY SECURITIES; THE SOCIAL SECURITY BOND

The next security issued by Treasury against the pledge is the master Social Security bond. The purpose of the bond is to create a trust (upon redeposit) which will be used as a vessel to transmit public debt, entice the Estate to act publicly as surety for your portion of the public debt, and transmit funds to the English Crown trust.

XIII
OPENING AN ACCOUNT; SOCIAL SECURITY

Following the Uniform Securitization Scam blueprint, Treasury authorizes the opening of an account to receive the Social Security bond for the customary purpose of leveraging securities.

XIV
REDUCING STATUS TO A NUMBER; SSN

Unlike the birth account maintained by the County and the Secretary of the Treasury, the SS account is assigned a new name and number: JOHN HENRY DOE, SSN 123-45-6789 for the purpose of identifying various derivative bonds to be issued from the account against your Estate (your pledge).

XV
RECORDING A GENERAL DEPOSIT; RELINQUISHING TITLE TO THE SS BOND

As previously described regarding the birth bond, the master Social Security bond is deposited generally into the SS account.

XVI
CREATING A TRUST; SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST

As with any transfer of property, the deposit of the SS bond creates a trust relationship. Over the years, the SS trust, JOHN HENRY SMITH ID # 123-45-6789, has become notorious. But the purpose of the trust is worth repeating: The SS trust will be used as a vessel to transmit public debt, entice the Estate to act publicly as
surety for your portion of the public debt, and transmit funds to the English Crown trust.

The SS trust is a manifestation of debt. It is debt, and nothing more. Internalizing that understanding is helpful to returning control from public officials to the rightful beneficiary that issued the pledge. The trust directives (the terms of the trust) are all the rules and regulations compiled in United States Code and the Code of Federal Regulations. And guess who is obligated to obey them?…

XVII
PRESUMPTIONS

kidsThe Social Security trust is the vehicle used by public officials to plunder the Estate. Upon deposit of the Social Security bond, the Department of the Treasury through the Internal Revenue Service is the trustee of record. But the government bank would rather be the beneficiary. In order to presume that the United States is the beneficiary, Treasury presumes that the straw man account is also a trustee of the SS trust with the obligation to perform all of the trustee’s duties under the public trust. After you accept offers to operate as the trustee on three occasions, the presumption is fulfilled. From then on, the straw man will be treated as a vehicle for transmitting public debt assessments to the Estate by “charging” the straw man for the liability

The stranglehold of the Uniform Securitization Scheme on our lives is BROKEN when we reverse the process and use the SS trust to transmit funds from the Estate to the assessing party upon our express authorization. The name of this process is “setoff.”
__________________
THE UNIFORM IN UNIFORM

dad-slavery-2Every public transaction mimics the Uniform Securitization Scam. During the $700B bailout of 2008, Treasury issued $700B in bonds, the Fed issued $700B of U.S. money, the bonds were exchanged for the funds and then deposited with DTC following the USS model.

When a prosecutor lodges an indictment with a Court, the Court opens an account, the indictment or information is deposited generally, and an arrest warrant is issued against the indictment which is presumed to be backed by the pledge as manifested in the Estate.

When an attorney lodges a complaint with a Court, the Court opens an account, the complaint is deposited generally, and a summons is issued against the indictment which is presumed to be backed by the pledge as manifested in the Estate.

When you make a withdrawal from at a bank, the bank endorses your draft “PAY TO THE ORDER OF” thereby creating a new security which it posts in its books and exchanges for Federal Reserve Notes, securities of equivalent value.

When you issue a mortgage (promissory) note, the bank opens an account, deposits the note generally thereby taking title to the funds, posts it as an asset and offsetting liability at the full value of the note to the bank (which includes the value of all future interest), and issues a bank check to the seller in the lower face value of the note (uneven exchange), thereby leaving a balance owed to the maker which usually goes unclaimed. the purchase of groceries is also a well-disguised exchange of securities, Federal Reserve Notes, a bank draft or a credit card invoice (security futures) for a cash receipt. In the present economic system of credit swaps, the theft of the groceries without providing equal value is ignored. “It’s the securities, stupid.”

All of these transactions are examples of how the USS manifests in our lives.

CHARGING

To “charge” is to draw funds. How does the public levy the Estate to pay an assessment? The answer is right in front of our face. They charge the strawman account 123-45-6789. Might we follow the same approach if we intend to draw the funds for an acceptance from the Estate?: CHARGE THE SAME TO John Henry Smith ID # 123-45-654321 (birth name and # as they appear on the long form Certif. of Birth) or CHARGE THE SAME TO JOHN HENRY SMITH 123-45-6789 (the SS trust as used by the public customarily to transmit debt to the Estate) The latter form more closely mimics the customary business practices of public institutions.

Notice, a patriot favorite, the “exemption number:” 123456789, is not mentioned. It is strongly suggested that the reader does NOT consider this an invitation to start issuing acceptances. The contents of this article is merely scratching the surface regarding such transactions.

EXEMPTION NUMBER
When the redemption movement began in the last millennium, our knowledge was considerably less. While we believed that a private account must appear on the books to receive the funds and property that had been confiscated in 1933, the identity of that account was elusive. The exemption number was a convention to represent that account in our paperwork. We now understand that the birth number is universally applied to all accounts, trusts, securities and certificates associated with the infant’s pledge of our one true commodity, our future labor.

So it appears that the value of the Exemption ID Number has lapsed.

CREDITING

Regarding our setoffs, to “credit” is to apply the funds where desired. If we wish to credit the straw man, we might say: CREDIT THE SAME TO JOHN HENRY SMITH 123-45-6789

If we wish to credit a vendor’s account, we might say: CREDIT THE SAME TO ACCOUNT # 123456

We might say: CREDIT THE SAME TO JOHN HENRY SMITH 123-45-6789 FOR FURTHER CREDIT TO ACCOUNT # 123456

Or we might say none of that.

CHARGING AND CREDITING

To specify an entire transaction, we might say:
CHARGE THE SAME TO John Henry Smith ID # 123-45-654321
CREDIT THE SAME TO JOHN HENRY SMITH 123-45-6789
CHARGE THE SAME TO JOHN HENRY SMITH 123-45-6789”
CREDIT THE SAME TO ACCOUNT # 123456

A creditor might also choose to use none of those statements and simply rely upon our acceptance in the manner of a standard banker’s acceptance. It all depends on the circumstances and one’s understanding of the accounting.

AGAIN, READERS ARE CAUTIONED AGAINST UNDERTAKING BRAIN SURGERY WITHOUT A COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING OF PROCESS, ENFORCEMENT AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR ACTIONS. DO YOU REALLY WISH TO BECOME ANOTHER STATISTIC WHO LOST THE FAMILY HOME, HAD HER WAGES GARNISHED, OR WOUND UP IN FEDERAL PRISON FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS?

Now you can see the tyranny that all men are under.

“Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” – Matthew 5:10

But enduring it is not enough.

overthrow

The American Expatriot Primer

indigent in AmericaA growing number of Americans are frustrated with the way in which their economy has been managed and are becoming increasingly concerned about future measures the government may take to keep its coffers full.

A question that is arising with increasing frequency is: does expatraition offer a viable protection to those concerned about a more financially-intrusive US system?

The answer is ‘yes’, it does offer a completely legal solution for ending your obligation to pay US income, capital gains, and gift taxes on your worldwide income. But it is certainly not for everyone and should only be pursued after lengthy and diligent consideration.

And before you begin dreaming of a tax-free future, you should realize that the United States imposes taxes on a broader basis than any other country. The United States is one of two countries, and is the only major country, that imposes significant income, capital gains, gift, and estate taxes on its non-resident citizens.

In virtually all other countries, individuals end their liability to pay income tax after a sustained period of non-residence, generally one year or longer. But to legally and permanently end U.S. tax liability on their worldwide income, U.S. citizens must also give up their U.S. citizenship and passport. This process is called “expatriation.”

Yes, it’s a radical step. However, if you’re a U.S. citizen, you can make nearly all of the preparations for a possible future expatriation without permanently leaving the United States. This is a four-step process:

Phase 1. Relocate your assets from the United States to other jurisdictions, preferably where the assets won’t be taxed.
Phase 2. Identify foreign countries where you would consider living,
Phase 3. Obtain a suitable second passport
Phase 4. Expatriate – give up your U.S. citizenship and passport

Once you’ve accomplished the first three phases, summarized here in Part I of this report, the final step – expatriation – is much easier than if you’re starting from scratch. Part II of this report describes the expatriation process.

Are you a good candidate for expatriation? You are, if:

You are comfortable living outside the United States, or are already doing so-
Your spouse and children are comfortable living outside the United States, or are already doing so; and
You have already or are capable of shifting the majority of your income and assets outside the United States.

Phase 1: Relocate Your Assets Outside the United States

decisions about wealth and lifestyleWith a few exceptions, the IRC imposes taxes on both U.S. source income and foreign source income of U.S. citizens. Non-resident, non-U.S. citizens (also known as “non-resident aliens”) pay tax only on U.S. source income, although some U.S. sources of income (e.g., most capital gains) are tax-free.

To prepare for this more favorable tax treatment in anticipation of expatriation, begin moving liquid assets outside the United States to more tax-friendly jurisdictions. Begin selling assets that can’t be relocated (e.g., real estate) so that you may reinvest the proceeds overseas.

Invest only in countries and investments with which you are comfortable. If you are accustomed to buying and selling U.S. securities, consider using offshore bank or brokerage accounts to target non-U.S. securities. If you are an experienced real estate investor, investigate real estate purchases outside the United States. Keep in mind that a targeted investment or real estate purchase may also qualify you for legal residence in some countries (Phase 2) or even a second passport (Phase 3). If you have substantial domestic investments in precious metals, consider moving the metals offshore.

The vast majority of foreign banks and brokerages now refuse to accept new U.S. citizen clients, especially U.S. citizens resident in the United States. However, banks and brokerages in a handful of countries still accept new U.S. citizen and resident clients and allow them to purchase non-U.S. securities. A few banks in Austria, the Bahamas, Hong Kong, Liechtenstein, Singapore, and Switzerland are suitable for this purpose. The minimum deposits in these banks start at $100,000. Minimum deposits in offshore brokerages start around $5,000. Fees are much higher for banking services and securities trading than in the United States.

Both the accounts you hold offshore and the income derived from them must be reported to U.S. authorities. The penalties for failing to make these disclosures are draconian. Consult with an expert familiar with the tax and reporting rules for international investments when you file your annual tax return.

Offshore real estate is a non-reportable asset for U.S. investors if owned individually or jointly with your spouse or other individuals. Income or gain from foreign real estate investment is reportable and taxable. Countries offering first-world infrastructure and where real estate is relatively affordable include Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Panama, Spain, and Uruguay.

Numerous potential “land mines” exist in offshore real estate investments. Among them are the lack of a multiple listing service in many countries, difficulty in establishing good title, and legal provisions giving squatters the right to live on your property. Retain a knowledgeable real estate attorney in the country in which you purchase real estate to avoid problems.

You may transport precious metals you own in the United States to another country and store the metals in a safety deposit box, bank vault, or private vault. One option for doing so is to use a secure shipping service. Make certain the service not only promises secure transport but also assists with completing non-U.S. customs and tax declarations. Another option to transport precious metals out of the United States is a like-kind exchange under Sec. 1031 of the IRC. If you move the metals yourself, the best option can be to hire an import agent in the country to which you’re taking them to handle the import formalities. You will generally post a bond through the agent covering taxes due (if any) plus the agent’s fee.

Phase 2: Identify Foreign Countries Where You Would Consider Living

big life decisionsOnce you give up U.S. citizenship and passport, you no longer have the right to live in the United States. You may generally make brief visits, but in most cases, you won’t be able to stay more than approximately four months annually without becoming subject to U.S. tax on your worldwide income based on the IRC’s “deemed residence” rules discussed in Part II of this report. Finding another country to live in is therefore an essential part of any expatriation exit strategy.

Even if you have no plan currently to leave the United States permanently, finding a country that you may wish to relocate to in the future is a prudent safeguard. If economic or political conditions deteriorate in the United States and reach your personal breaking point, having legal residence in a suitable offshore jurisdiction provides a valuable “insurance policy.”

If you merely want the right to live in another country in the form of a residence permit, but don’t necessary want to be physically resident there, a number of countries can accommodate your needs. These include Belize, Costa Rica, Malta, Mexico, the Dutch Caribbean territories, and Panama. In most cases, you can qualify for residence (although not the right to work in the country) by either making an investment or demonstrating a minimum guaranteed pension payment. Residence rights may be purchased in some countries by making an investment of $80,000 or more in real estate or other assets. A guaranteed pension payment of $1,000 or more may also qualify you for residence. In other countries, you may need to qualify on a points system. Some countries have multiple programs to consider.

Phase 3: Obtain a Suitable Second Passport

To end your responsibility to comply with U.S. tax and reporting obligations, you must give up your U.S. citizenship and passport. Without a second nationality in place and passport in hand, however, giving up your U.S. passport would render you a “stateless person.” Avoid this status, as it makes it difficult or impossible to legally live or travel internationally.

A second passport also conveys numerous other benefits:

It gives you the right to reside in the country that issued the passport, and possibly other countries. For instance, a passport from a member of the European Union conveys the right to live and work in any other EU country.
It gives you a way to travel internationally if your primary passport is lost or stolen, or if the issuing government confiscates or refuses to renew it.
It provides you with the opportunity to travel to countries blacklisted by the government that issued your primary passport. For U.S. citizens, this includes countries such as Cuba, North Korea, etc.
It avoids disclosing your primary nationality, should you ever need to keep that a secret. This can be useful if you’re ever confronted by militants who oppose the government that issued your primary passport.

You may qualify for a second citizenship and passport by ancestry, marriage, religion, or extended residence in another country. If not, a handful of countries offer “instant” citizenship in return for an investment or contribution. The Commonwealth of Dominica and the Federation of St. Kitts & Nevis are the only countries with an official, legally mandated, economic citizenship. (Note: Dominica and the Dominican Republic are different countries.)

Dominica is the least expensive option. The nationality law of Dominica authorizes the government to waive the normal requirement of seven years of legal residence to acquire citizenship in exchange for a cash contribution. Total costs including all fees for a single applicant come to about $105,000. Add $25,000 for your spouse and up to two children under 18. The Dominican passport holders can travel without a visa, or obtain a visa upon entry, to nearly 90 countries and territories.

The Federation of St. Kitts & Nevis offers two options to obtain economic citizenship. One option is to make a direct contribution to a charitable foundation set up to support displaced sugar workers: the Sugar Industry Diversification Foundation (SIDF). Total costs including all fees for a single applicant under this option come to about $285,000 or $335,000 for an applicant with up to three dependents.

The second option is to purchase “qualifying property” with a minimum investment of $400,000. Fees and closing costs add a minimum of $100,000. Total costs for a single applicant come to at least $500,000 and close to $600,000 for a family of four. The St. Kitts & Nevis passport provides visa-free entry, or visa upon entry, to more than 120 countries, including nearly all of the 27 member countries of the European Union.

In all cases, applicants must pass a strict vetting process that includes a comprehensive criminal background check.

Bogus second citizenship offerings abound. In recent years, I have received offers to purchase passports from Costa Rica, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, Ireland, and Lithuania, among other countries. Some of these offers are outright scams. Others involve illegally purchased or stolen documents. Even if you succeed in obtaining a passport on this basis, it may be revoked at any time and you could be subject to arrest and/or deportation.

Conclusion

Once you’ve completed Phases 1, 2, and 3 of your four-step plan to disconnect from the United States, you’re ready for Phase 4: expatriation. While you may never take the final step of giving up your U.S. citizenship and passport, taking the preparations summarized so far at least gives you that option.

Mark Nestmann is a journalist with more than 20 years of investigative experience and is a charter member of The Sovereign Society’s Council of Experts. He has authored over a dozen books and many additional reports on wealth preservation, privacy and offshore investing. Mark serves as president of his own international consulting firm, The Nestmann Group, Ltd. The Nestmann Group provides international wealth preservation services for high-net worth individuals. Mark is an Associate Member of the American Bar Association (member of subcommittee on Foreign Activities of U.S. Taxpayers, Committee on Taxation) and member of the Society of Professional Journalists. In 2005, he was awarded a Masters of Laws (LL.M) degree in international tax law at the Vienna (Austria) University of Economics and Business Administration.

Copyright © 2012 Chris Martenson

Government Exploitation: Dads Are Dead Broke

by Aaron Mueller

violation of due process and civil rightsTom Watson doesn’t like the term “deadbeat” to describe parents who are behind on child support. He prefers “dead-broke.”

Watson, director of the Berrien County Friend of the Court, said Berrien County has been struggling with collections of child support cases with arrearages. In fiscal year 2011, the county could only collect at least one payment on 56 percent of those cases, Watson told county commissioners Thursday.

Economic toll

Watson blames much of the problem on unemployment and the lagging economy, although he admits there are some who intentionally dodge making payments. Improving that statistic would mean more money for Friend of the Court (FOC). County FOCs receive funding from the state via the federal government based on performance in five areas.

One of those factors is arrearage collection. In order to qualify for 100 percent of available funding, counties must collect payments on 80 percent of cases with arrearages. Berrien County is lagging behind.

“This is an area we really need to target and do a better job,” Watson said. The FOC has tried a variety of programs to encourage payment, including booting vehicles and seizing property of offenders. So far there have been six vehicles booted — a number Watson wants to see increase — and 15 seized items auctioned.

“We are thinking about what button can we push for individuals who have not obeyed a court order? We need to remind them they have a child,” he said. On the positive side, the Berrien County FOC has a high “efficiency ratio,” which measures the number of dollars collected in child support for each dollar of program expense. Berrien’s efficiency ratio is $8.85, in comparison to the state average of $6.18.

“We collect a lot of money with less staff,” Watson said of his 37-employee team.

Increasing case load

Statewide the number of child support cases is on the rise. The number of cases has increased from 934,000 in 2008 to 1.2 million in 2011, a 9.2 percent increase. Watson again says he believes the economy is partially to blame with financial problems leading to marital stress and divorce. In 2011 the office also rated higher than the state average in collecting child support by court order and establishing paternity in cases.

 

 

Blackmail &Narcissism: The Bad Economy & Steamy Affairs

by E.J. Manning

the mirror of narcissismYou might think that the divorce rate would spike during a recession but in fact, it’s been pretty consistent around 50% for the past five years. During good times and tough times strained marriages crack. Some try to hold on until they just can’t hold on any longer. For many, bad economies are good times for the cheating business and other freaky stuff unsatisfied narcissists do to survive. In psychology, narcissistic personality disorder is classed as a mental illness characterized by a lack of empathy, a willingness to exploit others and an inflated sense of self-importance. “Narcissism” is a widely-used term for a range of selfish behaviors, and so it is.

The number of divorces briefly dropped from 35 to 40 percent for about six months during the recession as some lovers tried to hang on, but then shot up to 60 to 65 percent for the next six months as they caved under the weight of the added financial stress that came with the recession. Since the spring of 2010, as the economy has shown signs of recovery and then faltered again, that number has remained consistent at around 50%. Apparently, millions have come to understand that the plight of the economy is the new normal, and their new form of behavior is a symptom of that.

The home used to be a couple’s biggest asset. That is no longer the case in the new economy. More Americans are losing their homes, either in foreclosure or in selling short. Property settlements is what has changed. With new bank rules in America, six to 18 months is the norm for a bank to foreclose on a property when that process used to take place within six months.  Some couples are getting creative. One spouse stays in the home through the foreclosure process without a mortgage payment. That way, the other partner has more money for spousal and child support, what can amount to little less than blackmail.

“Nesting” is another option for dysfunctional families. The family manages to keep the house as the kids live there full time. Divorced parents take turns living there based on when it’s their turn with the kids. They might stay with friends during times when the custody changes, moving into a shared apartment or a hotel room. They aren’t doing it for the kids, the are doing it with the hope of creating value or sustaining their asset. Of course, for the devious, blackmail is a common ploy to get what you think you want one way or the other.

In early 2009, about four months into the official economic meltdown, evidence has increased to show that affairs online are the new normal for narcissists. Online dating has exploded in Michigan, Arizona and Nevada, states where the housing market has been hit hardest by the economic meltdown. The excuse is that they want to feel better about themselves. Online dating services are in growth mode. Who wants to pay $40k for divorce when you can pay $49 for an affair with a most certain result, reasons the narcissist. It’s pay as you play, and with the right service, there is no evidence to blackmail the narcissist. The likes of Tiger Woods living in the same way simply encourages the narcissist to agree that “everyone” has affairs.

What does this have to do with family or the interest of the children, except that kids aren’t living on the streets? Absolutely nothing, except to lower family life in America, the land of the free and home of the brave, to a new low… based wholly on money and self-centered behavior, while pretending to do it for the kids. Arguably, the entire nation is victim to a state-sanctioned behavioral disorder.

Creative Commons License
Blackmail & Narcissism: The Bad Economy & Steamy Affairs by E.J. Manning is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://bradleyamendment.wordpress.com.

Tag Cloud